Patient & Survivor Care

The next frontier in cancer detection could be the humble urine test.

Emerging science suggests that the body’s “liquid gold” could be particularly useful for liquid biopsies, offering a convenient, pain-free, and cost-effective way to spot otherwise hard-to-detect cancers.

“The search for cancer biomarkers that can be detected in urine could provide an enormous step forward to decrease cancer patient mortality,” said Kenneth R. Shroyer, MD, PhD, a pathologist at Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, New York, who studies cancer biomarkers.

Physicians have long known that urine can reveal a lot about our health — that’s why urinalysis has been part of medicine for 6000 years. Urine tests can detect diabetes, pregnancy, drug use, and urinary or kidney conditions.

But other conditions leave clues in urine, too, and cancer may be one of the most promising. “Urine testing could detect biomarkers of early-stage cancers, not only from local but also distant sites,” Dr. Shroyer said. It could also help flag recurrence in cancer survivors who have undergone treatment.

Granted, cancer biomarkers in urine are not nearly as widely studied as those in the blood, Dr. Shroyer noted. But a new wave of urine tests suggests research is gaining pace.

“The recent availability of high-throughput screening technologies has enabled researchers to investigate cancer from a top-down, comprehensive approach,” said Pak Kin Wong, PhD, professor of mechanical engineering, biomedical engineering, and surgery at The Pennsylvania State University. “We are starting to understand the rich information that can be obtained from urine.”

Urine is mostly water (about 95%) and urea, a metabolic byproduct that imparts that signature yellow color (about 2%). The other 3% is a mix of waste products, minerals, and other compounds the kidneys removed from the blood. Even in trace amounts, these substances say a lot.

Among them are “exfoliated cancer cells, cell-free DNA, hormones, and the urine microbiota — the collection of microbes in our urinary tract system,” Dr. Wong said.

“It is highly promising to be one of the major biological fluids used for screening, diagnosis, prognosis, and monitoring treatment efficiency in the era of precision medicine,” Dr. Wong said.

How Urine Testing Could Reveal Cancer

Still, as exciting as the prospect is, there’s a lot to consider in the hunt for cancer biomarkers in urine. These biomarkers must be able to pass through the renal nephrons (filtering units), remain stable in urine, and have high-level sensitivity, Dr. Shroyer said. They should also have high specificity for cancer vs benign conditions and be expressed at early stages, before the primary tumor has spread.

“At this stage, few circulating biomarkers have been found that are both sensitive and specific for early-stage disease,” said Dr. Shroyer.

But there are a few promising examples under investigation in humans:

Prostate cancer. Researchers at the University of Michigan have developed a urine test that detects high-grade prostate cancer more accurately than existing tests, including PHI, SelectMDx, 4Kscore, EPI, MPS, and IsoPSA.

The MyProstateScore 2.0 (MPS2) test, which looks for 18 genes associated with high-grade tumors, could reduce unnecessary biopsies in men with elevated prostate-specific antigen levels, according to a paper published in JAMA Oncology.

It makes sense. The prostate gland secretes fluid that becomes part of the semen, traces of which enter urine. After a digital rectal exam, even more prostate fluid enters the urine. If a patient has prostate cancer, genetic material from the cancer cells will infiltrate the urine.

In the MPS2 test, researchers used polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing in urine. “The technology used for COVID PCR is essentially the same as the PCR used to detect transcripts associated with high-grade prostate cancer in urine,” said study author Arul Chinnaiyan, MD, PhD, director of the Michigan Center for Translational Pathology at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. “In the case of the MPS2 test, we are doing PCR on 18 genes simultaneously on urine samples.”

A statistical model uses levels of that genetic material to predict the risk for high-grade disease, helping doctors decide what to do next. At 95% sensitivity, the MPS2 model could eliminate 35%-45% of unnecessary biopsies, compared with 15%-30% for the other tests, and reduce repeat biopsies by 46%-51%, compared with 9%-21% for the other tests.

Head and neck cancer. In a paper published in JCI Insight, researchers described a test that finds ultra-short fragments of DNA in urine to enable early detection of head and neck cancers caused by human papillomavirus.

“Our data show that a relatively small volume of urine (30-60 mL) gives overall detection results comparable to a tube of blood,” said study author Muneesh Tewari, MD, PhD, professor of hematology and oncology at the University of Michigan .

A larger volume of urine could potentially “make cancer detection even more sensitive than blood,” Dr. Tewari said, “allowing cancers to be detected at the earliest stages when they are more curable.”

The team used a technique called droplet digital PCR to detect DNA fragments that are “ultra-short” (less than 50 base pairs long) and usually missed by conventional PCR testing. This transrenal cell-free tumor DNA, which travels from the tumor into the bloodstream, is broken down small enough to pass through the kidneys and into the urine. But the fragments are still long enough to carry information about the tumor’s genetic signature.

This test could spot cancer before a tumor grows big enough — about a centimeter wide and carrying a billion cells — to spot on a CT scan or other imaging test. “When we are instead detecting fragments of DNA released from a tumor,” said Dr. Tewari, “our testing methods are very sensitive and can detect DNA in urine that came from just 5-10 cells in a tumor that died and released their DNA into the blood, which then made its way into the urine.”

Pancreatic cancer. Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma is one of the deadliest cancers, largely because it is diagnosed so late. A urine panel now in clinical trials could help doctors diagnose the cancer before it has spread so more people can have the tumor surgically removed, improving prognosis.

Using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay test, a common lab method that detects antibodies and other proteins, the team measured expression levels for three genes (LYVE1, REG1B, and TFF1) in urine samples collected from people up to 5 years before they were diagnosed with pancreatic cancer. The researchers combined this result with patients’ urinary creatinine levels, a common component of existing urinalysis, and their age to develop a risk score.

This score performed similarly to an existing blood test, CA19-9, in predicting patients’ risk for pancreatic cancer up to 1 year before diagnosis. When combined with CA19-9, the urinary panel helped spot cancer up to 2 years before diagnosis.

According to a paper in the International Journal of Cancer, “the urine panel and affiliated PancRISK are currently being validated in a prospective clinical study (UroPanc).” If all goes well, they could be implemented in clinical practice in a few years as a “noninvasive stratification tool” to identify patients for further testing, speeding up diagnosis, and saving lives.

Limitations and Promises

Each cancer type is different, and more research is needed to map out which substances in urine predict which cancers and to develop tests for mass adoption. “There are medical and technological hurdles to the large-scale implementation of urine analysis for complex diseases such as cancer,” said Dr. Wong.

One possibility: Scientists and clinicians could collaborate and use artificial intelligence techniques to combine urine test results with other data.

“It is likely that future diagnostics may combine urine with other biological samples such as feces and saliva, among others,” said Dr. Wong. “This is especially true when novel data science and machine learning techniques can integrate comprehensive data from patients that span genetic, proteomic, metabolic, microbiomic, and even behavioral data to evaluate a patient’s condition.”

One thing that excites Dr. Tewari about urine-based cancer testing: “We think it could be especially impactful for patients living in rural areas or other areas with less access to healthcare services,” he said.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The next frontier in cancer detection could be the humble urine test.

Emerging science suggests that the body’s “liquid gold” could be particularly useful for liquid biopsies, offering a convenient, pain-free, and cost-effective way to spot otherwise hard-to-detect cancers.

“The search for cancer biomarkers that can be detected in urine could provide an enormous step forward to decrease cancer patient mortality,” said Kenneth R. Shroyer, MD, PhD, a pathologist at Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, New York, who studies cancer biomarkers.

Physicians have long known that urine can reveal a lot about our health — that’s why urinalysis has been part of medicine for 6000 years. Urine tests can detect diabetes, pregnancy, drug use, and urinary or kidney conditions.

But other conditions leave clues in urine, too, and cancer may be one of the most promising. “Urine testing could detect biomarkers of early-stage cancers, not only from local but also distant sites,” Dr. Shroyer said. It could also help flag recurrence in cancer survivors who have undergone treatment.

Granted, cancer biomarkers in urine are not nearly as widely studied as those in the blood, Dr. Shroyer noted. But a new wave of urine tests suggests research is gaining pace.

“The recent availability of high-throughput screening technologies has enabled researchers to investigate cancer from a top-down, comprehensive approach,” said Pak Kin Wong, PhD, professor of mechanical engineering, biomedical engineering, and surgery at The Pennsylvania State University. “We are starting to understand the rich information that can be obtained from urine.”

Urine is mostly water (about 95%) and urea, a metabolic byproduct that imparts that signature yellow color (about 2%). The other 3% is a mix of waste products, minerals, and other compounds the kidneys removed from the blood. Even in trace amounts, these substances say a lot.

Among them are “exfoliated cancer cells, cell-free DNA, hormones, and the urine microbiota — the collection of microbes in our urinary tract system,” Dr. Wong said.

“It is highly promising to be one of the major biological fluids used for screening, diagnosis, prognosis, and monitoring treatment efficiency in the era of precision medicine,” Dr. Wong said.

How Urine Testing Could Reveal Cancer

Still, as exciting as the prospect is, there’s a lot to consider in the hunt for cancer biomarkers in urine. These biomarkers must be able to pass through the renal nephrons (filtering units), remain stable in urine, and have high-level sensitivity, Dr. Shroyer said. They should also have high specificity for cancer vs benign conditions and be expressed at early stages, before the primary tumor has spread.

“At this stage, few circulating biomarkers have been found that are both sensitive and specific for early-stage disease,” said Dr. Shroyer.

But there are a few promising examples under investigation in humans:

Prostate cancer. Researchers at the University of Michigan have developed a urine test that detects high-grade prostate cancer more accurately than existing tests, including PHI, SelectMDx, 4Kscore, EPI, MPS, and IsoPSA.

The MyProstateScore 2.0 (MPS2) test, which looks for 18 genes associated with high-grade tumors, could reduce unnecessary biopsies in men with elevated prostate-specific antigen levels, according to a paper published in JAMA Oncology.

It makes sense. The prostate gland secretes fluid that becomes part of the semen, traces of which enter urine. After a digital rectal exam, even more prostate fluid enters the urine. If a patient has prostate cancer, genetic material from the cancer cells will infiltrate the urine.

In the MPS2 test, researchers used polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing in urine. “The technology used for COVID PCR is essentially the same as the PCR used to detect transcripts associated with high-grade prostate cancer in urine,” said study author Arul Chinnaiyan, MD, PhD, director of the Michigan Center for Translational Pathology at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. “In the case of the MPS2 test, we are doing PCR on 18 genes simultaneously on urine samples.”

A statistical model uses levels of that genetic material to predict the risk for high-grade disease, helping doctors decide what to do next. At 95% sensitivity, the MPS2 model could eliminate 35%-45% of unnecessary biopsies, compared with 15%-30% for the other tests, and reduce repeat biopsies by 46%-51%, compared with 9%-21% for the other tests.

Head and neck cancer. In a paper published in JCI Insight, researchers described a test that finds ultra-short fragments of DNA in urine to enable early detection of head and neck cancers caused by human papillomavirus.

“Our data show that a relatively small volume of urine (30-60 mL) gives overall detection results comparable to a tube of blood,” said study author Muneesh Tewari, MD, PhD, professor of hematology and oncology at the University of Michigan .

A larger volume of urine could potentially “make cancer detection even more sensitive than blood,” Dr. Tewari said, “allowing cancers to be detected at the earliest stages when they are more curable.”

The team used a technique called droplet digital PCR to detect DNA fragments that are “ultra-short” (less than 50 base pairs long) and usually missed by conventional PCR testing. This transrenal cell-free tumor DNA, which travels from the tumor into the bloodstream, is broken down small enough to pass through the kidneys and into the urine. But the fragments are still long enough to carry information about the tumor’s genetic signature.

This test could spot cancer before a tumor grows big enough — about a centimeter wide and carrying a billion cells — to spot on a CT scan or other imaging test. “When we are instead detecting fragments of DNA released from a tumor,” said Dr. Tewari, “our testing methods are very sensitive and can detect DNA in urine that came from just 5-10 cells in a tumor that died and released their DNA into the blood, which then made its way into the urine.”

Pancreatic cancer. Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma is one of the deadliest cancers, largely because it is diagnosed so late. A urine panel now in clinical trials could help doctors diagnose the cancer before it has spread so more people can have the tumor surgically removed, improving prognosis.

Using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay test, a common lab method that detects antibodies and other proteins, the team measured expression levels for three genes (LYVE1, REG1B, and TFF1) in urine samples collected from people up to 5 years before they were diagnosed with pancreatic cancer. The researchers combined this result with patients’ urinary creatinine levels, a common component of existing urinalysis, and their age to develop a risk score.

This score performed similarly to an existing blood test, CA19-9, in predicting patients’ risk for pancreatic cancer up to 1 year before diagnosis. When combined with CA19-9, the urinary panel helped spot cancer up to 2 years before diagnosis.

According to a paper in the International Journal of Cancer, “the urine panel and affiliated PancRISK are currently being validated in a prospective clinical study (UroPanc).” If all goes well, they could be implemented in clinical practice in a few years as a “noninvasive stratification tool” to identify patients for further testing, speeding up diagnosis, and saving lives.

Limitations and Promises

Each cancer type is different, and more research is needed to map out which substances in urine predict which cancers and to develop tests for mass adoption. “There are medical and technological hurdles to the large-scale implementation of urine analysis for complex diseases such as cancer,” said Dr. Wong.

One possibility: Scientists and clinicians could collaborate and use artificial intelligence techniques to combine urine test results with other data.

“It is likely that future diagnostics may combine urine with other biological samples such as feces and saliva, among others,” said Dr. Wong. “This is especially true when novel data science and machine learning techniques can integrate comprehensive data from patients that span genetic, proteomic, metabolic, microbiomic, and even behavioral data to evaluate a patient’s condition.”

One thing that excites Dr. Tewari about urine-based cancer testing: “We think it could be especially impactful for patients living in rural areas or other areas with less access to healthcare services,” he said.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The next frontier in cancer detection could be the humble urine test.

Emerging science suggests that the body’s “liquid gold” could be particularly useful for liquid biopsies, offering a convenient, pain-free, and cost-effective way to spot otherwise hard-to-detect cancers.

“The search for cancer biomarkers that can be detected in urine could provide an enormous step forward to decrease cancer patient mortality,” said Kenneth R. Shroyer, MD, PhD, a pathologist at Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, New York, who studies cancer biomarkers.

Physicians have long known that urine can reveal a lot about our health — that’s why urinalysis has been part of medicine for 6000 years. Urine tests can detect diabetes, pregnancy, drug use, and urinary or kidney conditions.

But other conditions leave clues in urine, too, and cancer may be one of the most promising. “Urine testing could detect biomarkers of early-stage cancers, not only from local but also distant sites,” Dr. Shroyer said. It could also help flag recurrence in cancer survivors who have undergone treatment.

Granted, cancer biomarkers in urine are not nearly as widely studied as those in the blood, Dr. Shroyer noted. But a new wave of urine tests suggests research is gaining pace.

“The recent availability of high-throughput screening technologies has enabled researchers to investigate cancer from a top-down, comprehensive approach,” said Pak Kin Wong, PhD, professor of mechanical engineering, biomedical engineering, and surgery at The Pennsylvania State University. “We are starting to understand the rich information that can be obtained from urine.”

Urine is mostly water (about 95%) and urea, a metabolic byproduct that imparts that signature yellow color (about 2%). The other 3% is a mix of waste products, minerals, and other compounds the kidneys removed from the blood. Even in trace amounts, these substances say a lot.

Among them are “exfoliated cancer cells, cell-free DNA, hormones, and the urine microbiota — the collection of microbes in our urinary tract system,” Dr. Wong said.

“It is highly promising to be one of the major biological fluids used for screening, diagnosis, prognosis, and monitoring treatment efficiency in the era of precision medicine,” Dr. Wong said.

How Urine Testing Could Reveal Cancer

Still, as exciting as the prospect is, there’s a lot to consider in the hunt for cancer biomarkers in urine. These biomarkers must be able to pass through the renal nephrons (filtering units), remain stable in urine, and have high-level sensitivity, Dr. Shroyer said. They should also have high specificity for cancer vs benign conditions and be expressed at early stages, before the primary tumor has spread.

“At this stage, few circulating biomarkers have been found that are both sensitive and specific for early-stage disease,” said Dr. Shroyer.

But there are a few promising examples under investigation in humans:

Prostate cancer. Researchers at the University of Michigan have developed a urine test that detects high-grade prostate cancer more accurately than existing tests, including PHI, SelectMDx, 4Kscore, EPI, MPS, and IsoPSA.

The MyProstateScore 2.0 (MPS2) test, which looks for 18 genes associated with high-grade tumors, could reduce unnecessary biopsies in men with elevated prostate-specific antigen levels, according to a paper published in JAMA Oncology.

It makes sense. The prostate gland secretes fluid that becomes part of the semen, traces of which enter urine. After a digital rectal exam, even more prostate fluid enters the urine. If a patient has prostate cancer, genetic material from the cancer cells will infiltrate the urine.

In the MPS2 test, researchers used polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing in urine. “The technology used for COVID PCR is essentially the same as the PCR used to detect transcripts associated with high-grade prostate cancer in urine,” said study author Arul Chinnaiyan, MD, PhD, director of the Michigan Center for Translational Pathology at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. “In the case of the MPS2 test, we are doing PCR on 18 genes simultaneously on urine samples.”

A statistical model uses levels of that genetic material to predict the risk for high-grade disease, helping doctors decide what to do next. At 95% sensitivity, the MPS2 model could eliminate 35%-45% of unnecessary biopsies, compared with 15%-30% for the other tests, and reduce repeat biopsies by 46%-51%, compared with 9%-21% for the other tests.

Head and neck cancer. In a paper published in JCI Insight, researchers described a test that finds ultra-short fragments of DNA in urine to enable early detection of head and neck cancers caused by human papillomavirus.

“Our data show that a relatively small volume of urine (30-60 mL) gives overall detection results comparable to a tube of blood,” said study author Muneesh Tewari, MD, PhD, professor of hematology and oncology at the University of Michigan .

A larger volume of urine could potentially “make cancer detection even more sensitive than blood,” Dr. Tewari said, “allowing cancers to be detected at the earliest stages when they are more curable.”

The team used a technique called droplet digital PCR to detect DNA fragments that are “ultra-short” (less than 50 base pairs long) and usually missed by conventional PCR testing. This transrenal cell-free tumor DNA, which travels from the tumor into the bloodstream, is broken down small enough to pass through the kidneys and into the urine. But the fragments are still long enough to carry information about the tumor’s genetic signature.

This test could spot cancer before a tumor grows big enough — about a centimeter wide and carrying a billion cells — to spot on a CT scan or other imaging test. “When we are instead detecting fragments of DNA released from a tumor,” said Dr. Tewari, “our testing methods are very sensitive and can detect DNA in urine that came from just 5-10 cells in a tumor that died and released their DNA into the blood, which then made its way into the urine.”

Pancreatic cancer. Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma is one of the deadliest cancers, largely because it is diagnosed so late. A urine panel now in clinical trials could help doctors diagnose the cancer before it has spread so more people can have the tumor surgically removed, improving prognosis.

Using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay test, a common lab method that detects antibodies and other proteins, the team measured expression levels for three genes (LYVE1, REG1B, and TFF1) in urine samples collected from people up to 5 years before they were diagnosed with pancreatic cancer. The researchers combined this result with patients’ urinary creatinine levels, a common component of existing urinalysis, and their age to develop a risk score.

This score performed similarly to an existing blood test, CA19-9, in predicting patients’ risk for pancreatic cancer up to 1 year before diagnosis. When combined with CA19-9, the urinary panel helped spot cancer up to 2 years before diagnosis.

According to a paper in the International Journal of Cancer, “the urine panel and affiliated PancRISK are currently being validated in a prospective clinical study (UroPanc).” If all goes well, they could be implemented in clinical practice in a few years as a “noninvasive stratification tool” to identify patients for further testing, speeding up diagnosis, and saving lives.

Limitations and Promises

Each cancer type is different, and more research is needed to map out which substances in urine predict which cancers and to develop tests for mass adoption. “There are medical and technological hurdles to the large-scale implementation of urine analysis for complex diseases such as cancer,” said Dr. Wong.

One possibility: Scientists and clinicians could collaborate and use artificial intelligence techniques to combine urine test results with other data.

“It is likely that future diagnostics may combine urine with other biological samples such as feces and saliva, among others,” said Dr. Wong. “This is especially true when novel data science and machine learning techniques can integrate comprehensive data from patients that span genetic, proteomic, metabolic, microbiomic, and even behavioral data to evaluate a patient’s condition.”

One thing that excites Dr. Tewari about urine-based cancer testing: “We think it could be especially impactful for patients living in rural areas or other areas with less access to healthcare services,” he said.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Breast cancer mortality was significantly lower among patients who used statins than in those who did not use these cholesterol-lowering drugs, a new study finds.

Previous research examining the association between cholesterol and breast cancer metabolism suggests that cholesterol-lowering medications such as statins may improve outcomes in breast cancer patients, Sixten Harborg, a medical student and PhD student at Aarhus University, Denmark, said in a presentation at the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Breast Cancer annual congress.

In addition, cardiovascular-related death is the second most common cause of death for breast cancer survivors, and given the survival rates in early breast cancer, there is a demand for cardioprotective initiatives and maintenance of cardioprotective drugs after diagnosis, he said in an interview.
 

What Is Known About Statins and Breast Cancer?

Statins are the most common drugs used to lower cholesterol and may deprive tumor cells of the cholesterol needed for cell membrane synthesis, Mr. Harborg said in his presentation.

Data from a randomized trial published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology in 2017 showed significantly improved disease-free survival, breast cancer–free interval, and distant recurrence–free interval in early stage breast cancer patients randomized to cholesterol-lowering medication vs. those who did not receive cholesterol-lowering medication.

The 2017 study prompted the creation of the MASTER study, a randomized, multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial comparing standard adjuvant therapy plus placebo to standard adjuvant therapy plus atorvastatin in patients with early breast cancer (NCT04601116), Mr. Harborg said. The MASTER trial is currently recruiting patients in Denmark.
 

How Was the Current Study Designed?

To provide preliminary analysis, Mr. Harborg and colleagues used an emulation trial design based on electronic health care data from 110,160 females with a diagnosis of stage I, II, or III breast cancer who were part of the Danish Breast Cancer Group, a national clinical registry in Denmark, between 2000 and 2020.

As defined in the European Journal of Epidemiology in 2017, target trial emulation involves application of randomized trial designs to observational data with the goal of improving the quality of observational epidemiology when a comparator trial is not yet available.

The researchers created a cohort of patients based on electronic health care data to simulate a target trial of the use of atorvastatin after breast cancer diagnosis. Patients were randomized to one of two treatment strategies: starting to use statins within 36 months of diagnosis, or not using statins. The primary outcome was death from breast cancer. The follow-up for the MASTER study starts with inclusion and ends with death, emigration from Denmark, end of clinical follow-up, or 10 years of follow-up (whichever comes first); the follow-up was the same in the current study.

The researchers calculated hazard ratios (HR) of breast cancer mortality in statin users vs. non–statin users and used a technique known as inverse-probability of censoring-weighting (IPCW) to estimate the effects of statin use based on prognostic factors.
 

What Did the Results Show?

The results favored statin use for improved survival in early breast cancer patients, Mr. Harborg said. Overall, the hazard ratio for breast cancer mortality was 0.96 in statin users compared with non–statin users, and was similar in both a Cox regression analysis (HR 0.81), and in a 10-year landmark analysis (HR 0.86).

The difference in mortality between statin and non–statin users was even stronger in patients who were receiving adjuvant chemotherapy (HR 0.94, 0.64, and 0.76 on the IPCW, Cox, and landmark analyses, respectively).

The results were in line with previous reports of statins’ effect on breast cancer survival, Mr. Harborg said in an interview.

“We believe the results encourage the continuous effort of the currently enrolling MASTER trial,” he said.

The results also suggest that deprescribing statins at the time of breast cancer diagnosis is not recommended, and that statin treatment can safely be prescribed to breast cancer patients with increased cardiovascular disease risk and/or dyslipidemia, Mr. Harborg said in the interview.
 

What Is the Takeaway Message for Clinical Practice?

“The clinical takeaway from our study is that statin use is associated with reduced risk of dying from breast cancer, but that it is not possible to determine the true effect of statins on breast cancer survival without a randomized, placebo-controlled trial,” Mr. Harborg told this publication. “Statins are inexpensive and well-tolerated drugs and may have a beneficial effect in terms of survival for breast cancer patients. However, with the current level of evidence [because the MASTER study is ongoing], we still cannot recommend that oncologists prescribe statins to prevent mortality from breast cancer,” he said.

What Are the Next Steps for Research?

The findings were limited by the study design, and real-world data are needed, Dr. Harborg said. Other limitations include the presence of residual bias, and the use of data based on prescription codes, but these were not considered to have an effect on the main conclusion of the study, Mr. Harborg said in the interview.

However, the results suggest that the addition of statins may improve outcomes for early breast cancer patients, especially when used with chemotherapy, and support the value of the ongoing MASTER study, he concluded.

Ultimately, the MASTER study will provide a more definitive answer to the question of whether statins should be added to the adjuvant treatment regimen of breast cancer to improve breast cancer outcomes, he said.
 

What Do Clinicians Think of the Study?

The current study is timely and highlights the need for phase 3 trials to examine the potential of statin use for breast cancer outcomes, Malinda T. West, MD, a medical oncologist and breast oncologist at the University of Wisconsin Carbone Cancer Center, Madison, said in an interview.

Questions for future research include whether statins can be used in combination with adjuvant abemaciclib if indicated, or how to best sequence these agents, said Dr. West, who was not involved in the study. Other questions raised by the current study include whether other cholesterol-lowering agents have a potential adjuvant benefit in reducing breast cancer recurrent and/or mortality, and whether the addition of statins would benefit subgroups such as HER2+ and triple negative breast cancer, she said.

“I was not surprised to see another study reporting benefit with statins and reduced risk of breast cancer recurrence and/or mortality, but I think the larger question is defining the subgroups who benefit the most, and identifying predictors for benefit or resistance,” Dr. West said in an interview.

Previous studies have shown that cholesterol elevation, specifically LDL levels, can be linked to increased tumor growth in breast cancer, so the lower mortality risk associated with lipid-lowering therapies in the current study was consistent, Peyton L. Reves, MD, a hematology/oncology fellow, also at the University of Wisconsin, said in an interview. In practice, data from the current study and previous research could be especially useful for patients with elevated LDL levels, said Dr. Reves, who was not involved in the study.

“These results could impact clinical practice in many ways, including leading to routine cholesterol monitoring in breast cancer patients on adjuvant therapy as well as the addition of lipid-lowering therapy with statins in these patients,” Dr. Reves said.

The findings showing particular benefit for patients on adjuvant chemotherapy highlight the need for more research on this specific population and the effect of statins on overall breast cancer mortality, to explore the extent to which the results of the current study were driven by the benefit seen in patients receiving adjuvant chemotherapy, Dr. Reves said.

The study was supported by Director Michael Hermann Nielsen’s Memorial Grant, Manufacturer Einar Willumsen’s Memorial Grant, Astrid Thaysen’s Grant for Medical Basic Research, Eva and Henry Fraenkel’s Memorial Fund, and the Novo Nordisk Foundation.

The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. West and Dr. Reves had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Breast cancer mortality was significantly lower among patients who used statins than in those who did not use these cholesterol-lowering drugs, a new study finds.

Previous research examining the association between cholesterol and breast cancer metabolism suggests that cholesterol-lowering medications such as statins may improve outcomes in breast cancer patients, Sixten Harborg, a medical student and PhD student at Aarhus University, Denmark, said in a presentation at the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Breast Cancer annual congress.

In addition, cardiovascular-related death is the second most common cause of death for breast cancer survivors, and given the survival rates in early breast cancer, there is a demand for cardioprotective initiatives and maintenance of cardioprotective drugs after diagnosis, he said in an interview.
 

What Is Known About Statins and Breast Cancer?

Statins are the most common drugs used to lower cholesterol and may deprive tumor cells of the cholesterol needed for cell membrane synthesis, Mr. Harborg said in his presentation.

Data from a randomized trial published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology in 2017 showed significantly improved disease-free survival, breast cancer–free interval, and distant recurrence–free interval in early stage breast cancer patients randomized to cholesterol-lowering medication vs. those who did not receive cholesterol-lowering medication.

The 2017 study prompted the creation of the MASTER study, a randomized, multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial comparing standard adjuvant therapy plus placebo to standard adjuvant therapy plus atorvastatin in patients with early breast cancer (NCT04601116), Mr. Harborg said. The MASTER trial is currently recruiting patients in Denmark.
 

How Was the Current Study Designed?

To provide preliminary analysis, Mr. Harborg and colleagues used an emulation trial design based on electronic health care data from 110,160 females with a diagnosis of stage I, II, or III breast cancer who were part of the Danish Breast Cancer Group, a national clinical registry in Denmark, between 2000 and 2020.

As defined in the European Journal of Epidemiology in 2017, target trial emulation involves application of randomized trial designs to observational data with the goal of improving the quality of observational epidemiology when a comparator trial is not yet available.

The researchers created a cohort of patients based on electronic health care data to simulate a target trial of the use of atorvastatin after breast cancer diagnosis. Patients were randomized to one of two treatment strategies: starting to use statins within 36 months of diagnosis, or not using statins. The primary outcome was death from breast cancer. The follow-up for the MASTER study starts with inclusion and ends with death, emigration from Denmark, end of clinical follow-up, or 10 years of follow-up (whichever comes first); the follow-up was the same in the current study.

The researchers calculated hazard ratios (HR) of breast cancer mortality in statin users vs. non–statin users and used a technique known as inverse-probability of censoring-weighting (IPCW) to estimate the effects of statin use based on prognostic factors.
 

What Did the Results Show?

The results favored statin use for improved survival in early breast cancer patients, Mr. Harborg said. Overall, the hazard ratio for breast cancer mortality was 0.96 in statin users compared with non–statin users, and was similar in both a Cox regression analysis (HR 0.81), and in a 10-year landmark analysis (HR 0.86).

The difference in mortality between statin and non–statin users was even stronger in patients who were receiving adjuvant chemotherapy (HR 0.94, 0.64, and 0.76 on the IPCW, Cox, and landmark analyses, respectively).

The results were in line with previous reports of statins’ effect on breast cancer survival, Mr. Harborg said in an interview.

“We believe the results encourage the continuous effort of the currently enrolling MASTER trial,” he said.

The results also suggest that deprescribing statins at the time of breast cancer diagnosis is not recommended, and that statin treatment can safely be prescribed to breast cancer patients with increased cardiovascular disease risk and/or dyslipidemia, Mr. Harborg said in the interview.
 

What Is the Takeaway Message for Clinical Practice?

“The clinical takeaway from our study is that statin use is associated with reduced risk of dying from breast cancer, but that it is not possible to determine the true effect of statins on breast cancer survival without a randomized, placebo-controlled trial,” Mr. Harborg told this publication. “Statins are inexpensive and well-tolerated drugs and may have a beneficial effect in terms of survival for breast cancer patients. However, with the current level of evidence [because the MASTER study is ongoing], we still cannot recommend that oncologists prescribe statins to prevent mortality from breast cancer,” he said.

What Are the Next Steps for Research?

The findings were limited by the study design, and real-world data are needed, Dr. Harborg said. Other limitations include the presence of residual bias, and the use of data based on prescription codes, but these were not considered to have an effect on the main conclusion of the study, Mr. Harborg said in the interview.

However, the results suggest that the addition of statins may improve outcomes for early breast cancer patients, especially when used with chemotherapy, and support the value of the ongoing MASTER study, he concluded.

Ultimately, the MASTER study will provide a more definitive answer to the question of whether statins should be added to the adjuvant treatment regimen of breast cancer to improve breast cancer outcomes, he said.
 

What Do Clinicians Think of the Study?

The current study is timely and highlights the need for phase 3 trials to examine the potential of statin use for breast cancer outcomes, Malinda T. West, MD, a medical oncologist and breast oncologist at the University of Wisconsin Carbone Cancer Center, Madison, said in an interview.

Questions for future research include whether statins can be used in combination with adjuvant abemaciclib if indicated, or how to best sequence these agents, said Dr. West, who was not involved in the study. Other questions raised by the current study include whether other cholesterol-lowering agents have a potential adjuvant benefit in reducing breast cancer recurrent and/or mortality, and whether the addition of statins would benefit subgroups such as HER2+ and triple negative breast cancer, she said.

“I was not surprised to see another study reporting benefit with statins and reduced risk of breast cancer recurrence and/or mortality, but I think the larger question is defining the subgroups who benefit the most, and identifying predictors for benefit or resistance,” Dr. West said in an interview.

Previous studies have shown that cholesterol elevation, specifically LDL levels, can be linked to increased tumor growth in breast cancer, so the lower mortality risk associated with lipid-lowering therapies in the current study was consistent, Peyton L. Reves, MD, a hematology/oncology fellow, also at the University of Wisconsin, said in an interview. In practice, data from the current study and previous research could be especially useful for patients with elevated LDL levels, said Dr. Reves, who was not involved in the study.

“These results could impact clinical practice in many ways, including leading to routine cholesterol monitoring in breast cancer patients on adjuvant therapy as well as the addition of lipid-lowering therapy with statins in these patients,” Dr. Reves said.

The findings showing particular benefit for patients on adjuvant chemotherapy highlight the need for more research on this specific population and the effect of statins on overall breast cancer mortality, to explore the extent to which the results of the current study were driven by the benefit seen in patients receiving adjuvant chemotherapy, Dr. Reves said.

The study was supported by Director Michael Hermann Nielsen’s Memorial Grant, Manufacturer Einar Willumsen’s Memorial Grant, Astrid Thaysen’s Grant for Medical Basic Research, Eva and Henry Fraenkel’s Memorial Fund, and the Novo Nordisk Foundation.

The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. West and Dr. Reves had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Breast cancer mortality was significantly lower among patients who used statins than in those who did not use these cholesterol-lowering drugs, a new study finds.

Previous research examining the association between cholesterol and breast cancer metabolism suggests that cholesterol-lowering medications such as statins may improve outcomes in breast cancer patients, Sixten Harborg, a medical student and PhD student at Aarhus University, Denmark, said in a presentation at the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Breast Cancer annual congress.

In addition, cardiovascular-related death is the second most common cause of death for breast cancer survivors, and given the survival rates in early breast cancer, there is a demand for cardioprotective initiatives and maintenance of cardioprotective drugs after diagnosis, he said in an interview.
 

What Is Known About Statins and Breast Cancer?

Statins are the most common drugs used to lower cholesterol and may deprive tumor cells of the cholesterol needed for cell membrane synthesis, Mr. Harborg said in his presentation.

Data from a randomized trial published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology in 2017 showed significantly improved disease-free survival, breast cancer–free interval, and distant recurrence–free interval in early stage breast cancer patients randomized to cholesterol-lowering medication vs. those who did not receive cholesterol-lowering medication.

The 2017 study prompted the creation of the MASTER study, a randomized, multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial comparing standard adjuvant therapy plus placebo to standard adjuvant therapy plus atorvastatin in patients with early breast cancer (NCT04601116), Mr. Harborg said. The MASTER trial is currently recruiting patients in Denmark.
 

How Was the Current Study Designed?

To provide preliminary analysis, Mr. Harborg and colleagues used an emulation trial design based on electronic health care data from 110,160 females with a diagnosis of stage I, II, or III breast cancer who were part of the Danish Breast Cancer Group, a national clinical registry in Denmark, between 2000 and 2020.

As defined in the European Journal of Epidemiology in 2017, target trial emulation involves application of randomized trial designs to observational data with the goal of improving the quality of observational epidemiology when a comparator trial is not yet available.

The researchers created a cohort of patients based on electronic health care data to simulate a target trial of the use of atorvastatin after breast cancer diagnosis. Patients were randomized to one of two treatment strategies: starting to use statins within 36 months of diagnosis, or not using statins. The primary outcome was death from breast cancer. The follow-up for the MASTER study starts with inclusion and ends with death, emigration from Denmark, end of clinical follow-up, or 10 years of follow-up (whichever comes first); the follow-up was the same in the current study.

The researchers calculated hazard ratios (HR) of breast cancer mortality in statin users vs. non–statin users and used a technique known as inverse-probability of censoring-weighting (IPCW) to estimate the effects of statin use based on prognostic factors.
 

What Did the Results Show?

The results favored statin use for improved survival in early breast cancer patients, Mr. Harborg said. Overall, the hazard ratio for breast cancer mortality was 0.96 in statin users compared with non–statin users, and was similar in both a Cox regression analysis (HR 0.81), and in a 10-year landmark analysis (HR 0.86).

The difference in mortality between statin and non–statin users was even stronger in patients who were receiving adjuvant chemotherapy (HR 0.94, 0.64, and 0.76 on the IPCW, Cox, and landmark analyses, respectively).

The results were in line with previous reports of statins’ effect on breast cancer survival, Mr. Harborg said in an interview.

“We believe the results encourage the continuous effort of the currently enrolling MASTER trial,” he said.

The results also suggest that deprescribing statins at the time of breast cancer diagnosis is not recommended, and that statin treatment can safely be prescribed to breast cancer patients with increased cardiovascular disease risk and/or dyslipidemia, Mr. Harborg said in the interview.
 

What Is the Takeaway Message for Clinical Practice?

“The clinical takeaway from our study is that statin use is associated with reduced risk of dying from breast cancer, but that it is not possible to determine the true effect of statins on breast cancer survival without a randomized, placebo-controlled trial,” Mr. Harborg told this publication. “Statins are inexpensive and well-tolerated drugs and may have a beneficial effect in terms of survival for breast cancer patients. However, with the current level of evidence [because the MASTER study is ongoing], we still cannot recommend that oncologists prescribe statins to prevent mortality from breast cancer,” he said.

What Are the Next Steps for Research?

The findings were limited by the study design, and real-world data are needed, Dr. Harborg said. Other limitations include the presence of residual bias, and the use of data based on prescription codes, but these were not considered to have an effect on the main conclusion of the study, Mr. Harborg said in the interview.

However, the results suggest that the addition of statins may improve outcomes for early breast cancer patients, especially when used with chemotherapy, and support the value of the ongoing MASTER study, he concluded.

Ultimately, the MASTER study will provide a more definitive answer to the question of whether statins should be added to the adjuvant treatment regimen of breast cancer to improve breast cancer outcomes, he said.
 

What Do Clinicians Think of the Study?

The current study is timely and highlights the need for phase 3 trials to examine the potential of statin use for breast cancer outcomes, Malinda T. West, MD, a medical oncologist and breast oncologist at the University of Wisconsin Carbone Cancer Center, Madison, said in an interview.

Questions for future research include whether statins can be used in combination with adjuvant abemaciclib if indicated, or how to best sequence these agents, said Dr. West, who was not involved in the study. Other questions raised by the current study include whether other cholesterol-lowering agents have a potential adjuvant benefit in reducing breast cancer recurrent and/or mortality, and whether the addition of statins would benefit subgroups such as HER2+ and triple negative breast cancer, she said.

“I was not surprised to see another study reporting benefit with statins and reduced risk of breast cancer recurrence and/or mortality, but I think the larger question is defining the subgroups who benefit the most, and identifying predictors for benefit or resistance,” Dr. West said in an interview.

Previous studies have shown that cholesterol elevation, specifically LDL levels, can be linked to increased tumor growth in breast cancer, so the lower mortality risk associated with lipid-lowering therapies in the current study was consistent, Peyton L. Reves, MD, a hematology/oncology fellow, also at the University of Wisconsin, said in an interview. In practice, data from the current study and previous research could be especially useful for patients with elevated LDL levels, said Dr. Reves, who was not involved in the study.

“These results could impact clinical practice in many ways, including leading to routine cholesterol monitoring in breast cancer patients on adjuvant therapy as well as the addition of lipid-lowering therapy with statins in these patients,” Dr. Reves said.

The findings showing particular benefit for patients on adjuvant chemotherapy highlight the need for more research on this specific population and the effect of statins on overall breast cancer mortality, to explore the extent to which the results of the current study were driven by the benefit seen in patients receiving adjuvant chemotherapy, Dr. Reves said.

The study was supported by Director Michael Hermann Nielsen’s Memorial Grant, Manufacturer Einar Willumsen’s Memorial Grant, Astrid Thaysen’s Grant for Medical Basic Research, Eva and Henry Fraenkel’s Memorial Fund, and the Novo Nordisk Foundation.

The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. West and Dr. Reves had no financial conflicts to disclose.

The combination of atezolizumab plus sacituzumab govitecan as first-line treatment showed encouraging anti-tumor activity in previously untreated patients with triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC), in an ongoing phase 1b/2 trial.

MORPHEUS-pan BC (NCT03424005) is evaluating multiple treatment combinations in patients with locally advanced or metastatic TNBC.

The trial’s interim clinical data was presented at the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Breast Cancer annual congress.
 

Rationale for Combining Antibody-Drug Conjugates with Immunotherapy

Peter Schmid, MD, PhD, professor at the Centre for Experimental Cancer Medicine in London, England, presented interim findings from one study arm of MORPHEUS-pan BC at the meeting. The arm consisted of patients with TNBC who were treated with a combination of atezolizumab, a PD-L1 inhibitor, and sacituzumab govitecan, an antibody-drug conjugate targeting the Trop-2 protein commonly expressed in TNBC.

TNBC is one of the most challenging subtypes of breast cancer to treat because of its aggressive characteristics and innate resistance to hormonal therapy and HER2-targeted treatments. However, the recent approval of immunotherapy for TNBC has provided renewed hope for patients, according to Dr. Schmid.

Atezolizumab, in combination with nab-paclitaxel, has already been approved as a first-line treatment for PD-L1–positive, unresectable locally advanced or metastatic TNBC; however, not all patients respond to this combination treatment. Sacituzumab govitecan is approved for second-line and subsequent-line treatment of metastatic TNBC.

“Cancer immunotherapy in combination with chemotherapy has transformed the TNBC treatment landscape, but new combinations are needed to further improve survival outcomes,” Dr. Schmid said during his presentation. “We hoped that combining immunotherapy with an antibody-drug conjugate would not only improve safety but also increase efficacy through enhanced immune activation.”
 

Study Design

The MORPHEUS-pan BC trial enrolled patients with previously untreated, PD-L1–positive, inoperable, locally advanced or metastatic TNBC. Patients were randomized to receive experimental treatment consisting of atezolizumab plus the antibody-drug conjugate sacituzumab govitecan. Patients in the second arm received a control regimen of atezolizumab plus nab-paclitaxel chemotherapy.

“The control regimen is part of the current standard of care for patients with PD-L1–positive TNBC,” Dr. Schmid explained in his presentation. As of the data cut-off, 11 patients were enrolled in the control arm and 31 in the atezolizumab plus sacituzumab govitecan arm.

During the discussion session after his talk, Dr. Schmid commented on the use of PD-L1 expression to select patients for enrollment, acknowledging that PD-L1 is not the best biomarker.

“Its expression is very dynamic and can change rapidly,” he said. He added, however, that it is currently the most suitable biomarker for patient selection for treatment with anti–PD-1/PD-L1 agents.

Sara M. Tolaney, MD, MPH, added that, because patients were selected based on PD-L1 expression, it is unclear whether this combination therapy would show anti-tumor activity in patients with PD-L1–negative tumors. Dr. Tolaney, a medical oncologist at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute who was not involved in the study, served as a discussant, providing her expert opinion on the findings presented by Dr. Schmid.
 

Promising Anti-tumor Activity

The combination of atezolizumab and sacituzumab govitecan demonstrated promising anti-tumor activity as initial treatment for this patient population. The interim analysis at 18 weeks showed an objective response rate of 76.7% (95% CI, 57.7-90.1; n = 23, including five complete responses) in the atezolizumab plus sacituzumab govitecan arm, versus 66.7% (95% CI, 29.9-92.5; n = 6, all of which were partial responses) in the control arm.

“The 66% response rate in the control arm aligns with what we see in historical data from patients treated with immunotherapy plus chemotherapy,” noted Dr. Schmid during his talk.

The clinical benefit rate, which includes complete and partial responses as well as stable disease, was also encouraging at 83.3% (95% CI, 65.3-94.4) with the dual immunotherapy regimen versus 66.7% (95% CI, 29.9-92.5) with standard therapy.

Commenting on the potential mechanisms of the synergistic effect of this combination therapy, Dr. Tolaney said, “In addition to delivering chemotherapy payloads to cancer cells, antibody-drug conjugates can lead to dendritic cell activation, T-cell activation, and immune cell infiltration.”

She added that antibody-drug conjugates can cause Fc activation in NK cells, thereby enhancing antibody-dependent cytotoxicity.
 

Encouraging survival trends

Interim survival data showed trends favoring atezolizumab plus sacituzumab govitecan over the control arm of atezolizumab plus nab-paclitaxel chemotherapy. The median progression-free survival (PFS) was 12.2 months (95% CI, 7.4-not estimable) in the immunotherapy combination group versus 5.9 months (95% CI, 4.1-8.7) in the control group, yielding a hazard ratio of 0.29 (95% CI, 0.11-0.70). The overall survival data are still immature.

During the discussion session, Dr. Schmid cautioned that, although the benefit of this combination therapy in terms of PFS seems promising, the validity of the hazard ratio is limited because of the small cohort size. He added, “The survival data is still immature, and longer follow-up is needed.”

These encouraging response and PFS rates need to be confirmed in larger studies of this immunotherapy combination as a potential new first-line standard for PD-L1–positive TNBC, according to Dr. Schmid.
 

Relationship between biomarker expression and response

The MORPHEUS-pan BC trial enrolled only patients with PD-L1–positive tumors at baseline, defined as PD-L1 expression in at least 1% of immune cells infiltrating the tumor. Tumors at baseline were also tested for Trop-2 expression, CD8 immune phenotype, and stromal tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs).

“We wanted to get an idea of whether these biomarkers are associated with treatment response,” Dr. Schmid explained during his talk.

Although the benefit of sacituzumab govitecan treatment was observed across all Trop-2 expression levels, preliminary analyses suggest that high Trop-2 expression, CD8 immune phenotype, and stromal TILs may be associated with response to atezolizumab plus sacituzumab govitecan. However, Dr. Schmid noted that validation of these associations in larger cohorts is required.
 

Safety of combination treatment

The side effect profile of atezolizumab plus sacituzumab govitecan appeared consistent with that expected from the two individual drugs, with no new toxicity signals.

All patients in both treatment arms experienced at least one adverse event; however, there were no fatal adverse events. Grade 3-4 adverse events were more common in the experimental arm (70.0%) than in the control arm (44.4%), while serious adverse events were more common in the control group (44.4% versus 23.3%). Immune-related adverse events were considerably more common in the atezolizumab plus sacituzumab govitecan group than in the control group (80.0% versus 55.6%).

The most common adverse events in patients treated with atezolizumab plus sacituzumab govitecan were nausea, alopecia, diarrhea, and neutropenia. Dr. Schmid emphasized in his presentation that this toxicity profile was dominated by adverse events that are common in patients treated with chemotherapy.

“These safety data are significant as they suggest that the combination therapy does not introduce additional risks beyond those already associated with each drug,” he added.
 

Looking Ahead

Dr. Tolaney highlighted that the cohort size of this study was small and the follow-up time was insufficient to draw conclusions about survival outcomes. Larger studies with long-term follow-up are needed to confirm the efficacy of first-line atezolizumab plus sacituzumab govitecan, she said.

“While this was a small study, the response data is very intriguing, with 17% of patients experiencing complete responses. The PFS data are also impressive, and there seems to be an interesting trend towards better response in patients with high Trop-2 expression and those with high levels of stromal TILs,” she added.

Dr. Tolaney also noted that the response rates and PFS data presented are similar to those of one of the treatment arms in the BEGONIA trial (NCT03742102), which investigated different combinations of immunotherapy in patients with metastatic TNBC. Like MORPHEUS-pan BC (NCT03424005), this study evaluated the efficacy of a different antibody-drug conjugate with chemotherapy. Patients in the study arm of the BEGONIA trial she was referring to received durvalumab (an anti-PD-L1 agent) and datopotamab deruxtecan (an antibody-drug conjugate).

Dr. Schmid said that biomarker analyses are ongoing to assess whether there is a correlation between Trop-2 expression levels and the benefits of sacituzumab govitecan. Studies are also needed to determine whether this combination can improve pathologic complete response rates in early-stage TNBC.

Dr. Tolaney echoed the importance of evaluating the efficacy of antibody-drug conjugates plus immune checkpoint inhibitors in different settings, including patients with PD-L1–negative or immunologically cold tumors and those with early-stage disease. “Ultimately, we want this combination treatment to move forward to early-stage TNBC to see if we could cure more patients,” she said, during the discussion.

Dr. Schmid reported financial relationships with Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Gilead, Roche, Merck, MSD, BI, Seagen, Amgen, Bayer, Eisai, Celgene, Lilly, and Puma (consulting or advisory roles); Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Gilead, Roche, Merck, MSD, BI, Seagen, Amgen, Bayer, Eisai, Celgene, Lilly, and Puma (honoraria); and AstraZeneca, Genentech, Roche, Oncogenex, Novartis, Astellas, and Medivation (research funding). Dr. Tolaney reported financial relationships with Novartis, Pfizer, Merck, Eli Lilly, AstraZeneca, Genentech/Roche, Eisai, Sanofi, Bristol Myers Squibb, Seattle Genetics, CytomX Therapeutics, Daiichi Sankyo, Gilead, Ellipses Pharma, 4D Pharma, OncoSec Medical Inc., Beyond Spring Pharmaceuticals, OncXerna, Zymeworks, Zentalis, Blueprint Medicines, Reveal Genomics, ARC Therapeutics, Infinity Therapeutics, Myovant, Zetagen, Umoja Biopharma, Menarini/Stemline, Aadi Biopharma, Bayer, and Jazz Pharmaceuticals (consulting or advisory roles); Genentech/Roche, Merck, Exelixis, Pfizer, Lilly, Novartis, Nanostring, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eisai, AstraZeneca, Gilead, Cyclacel, Sanofi, and Seattle Genetics (research funding).

The combination of atezolizumab plus sacituzumab govitecan as first-line treatment showed encouraging anti-tumor activity in previously untreated patients with triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC), in an ongoing phase 1b/2 trial.

MORPHEUS-pan BC (NCT03424005) is evaluating multiple treatment combinations in patients with locally advanced or metastatic TNBC.

The trial’s interim clinical data was presented at the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Breast Cancer annual congress.
 

Rationale for Combining Antibody-Drug Conjugates with Immunotherapy

Peter Schmid, MD, PhD, professor at the Centre for Experimental Cancer Medicine in London, England, presented interim findings from one study arm of MORPHEUS-pan BC at the meeting. The arm consisted of patients with TNBC who were treated with a combination of atezolizumab, a PD-L1 inhibitor, and sacituzumab govitecan, an antibody-drug conjugate targeting the Trop-2 protein commonly expressed in TNBC.

TNBC is one of the most challenging subtypes of breast cancer to treat because of its aggressive characteristics and innate resistance to hormonal therapy and HER2-targeted treatments. However, the recent approval of immunotherapy for TNBC has provided renewed hope for patients, according to Dr. Schmid.

Atezolizumab, in combination with nab-paclitaxel, has already been approved as a first-line treatment for PD-L1–positive, unresectable locally advanced or metastatic TNBC; however, not all patients respond to this combination treatment. Sacituzumab govitecan is approved for second-line and subsequent-line treatment of metastatic TNBC.

“Cancer immunotherapy in combination with chemotherapy has transformed the TNBC treatment landscape, but new combinations are needed to further improve survival outcomes,” Dr. Schmid said during his presentation. “We hoped that combining immunotherapy with an antibody-drug conjugate would not only improve safety but also increase efficacy through enhanced immune activation.”
 

Study Design

The MORPHEUS-pan BC trial enrolled patients with previously untreated, PD-L1–positive, inoperable, locally advanced or metastatic TNBC. Patients were randomized to receive experimental treatment consisting of atezolizumab plus the antibody-drug conjugate sacituzumab govitecan. Patients in the second arm received a control regimen of atezolizumab plus nab-paclitaxel chemotherapy.

“The control regimen is part of the current standard of care for patients with PD-L1–positive TNBC,” Dr. Schmid explained in his presentation. As of the data cut-off, 11 patients were enrolled in the control arm and 31 in the atezolizumab plus sacituzumab govitecan arm.

During the discussion session after his talk, Dr. Schmid commented on the use of PD-L1 expression to select patients for enrollment, acknowledging that PD-L1 is not the best biomarker.

“Its expression is very dynamic and can change rapidly,” he said. He added, however, that it is currently the most suitable biomarker for patient selection for treatment with anti–PD-1/PD-L1 agents.

Sara M. Tolaney, MD, MPH, added that, because patients were selected based on PD-L1 expression, it is unclear whether this combination therapy would show anti-tumor activity in patients with PD-L1–negative tumors. Dr. Tolaney, a medical oncologist at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute who was not involved in the study, served as a discussant, providing her expert opinion on the findings presented by Dr. Schmid.
 

Promising Anti-tumor Activity

The combination of atezolizumab and sacituzumab govitecan demonstrated promising anti-tumor activity as initial treatment for this patient population. The interim analysis at 18 weeks showed an objective response rate of 76.7% (95% CI, 57.7-90.1; n = 23, including five complete responses) in the atezolizumab plus sacituzumab govitecan arm, versus 66.7% (95% CI, 29.9-92.5; n = 6, all of which were partial responses) in the control arm.

“The 66% response rate in the control arm aligns with what we see in historical data from patients treated with immunotherapy plus chemotherapy,” noted Dr. Schmid during his talk.

The clinical benefit rate, which includes complete and partial responses as well as stable disease, was also encouraging at 83.3% (95% CI, 65.3-94.4) with the dual immunotherapy regimen versus 66.7% (95% CI, 29.9-92.5) with standard therapy.

Commenting on the potential mechanisms of the synergistic effect of this combination therapy, Dr. Tolaney said, “In addition to delivering chemotherapy payloads to cancer cells, antibody-drug conjugates can lead to dendritic cell activation, T-cell activation, and immune cell infiltration.”

She added that antibody-drug conjugates can cause Fc activation in NK cells, thereby enhancing antibody-dependent cytotoxicity.
 

Encouraging survival trends

Interim survival data showed trends favoring atezolizumab plus sacituzumab govitecan over the control arm of atezolizumab plus nab-paclitaxel chemotherapy. The median progression-free survival (PFS) was 12.2 months (95% CI, 7.4-not estimable) in the immunotherapy combination group versus 5.9 months (95% CI, 4.1-8.7) in the control group, yielding a hazard ratio of 0.29 (95% CI, 0.11-0.70). The overall survival data are still immature.

During the discussion session, Dr. Schmid cautioned that, although the benefit of this combination therapy in terms of PFS seems promising, the validity of the hazard ratio is limited because of the small cohort size. He added, “The survival data is still immature, and longer follow-up is needed.”

These encouraging response and PFS rates need to be confirmed in larger studies of this immunotherapy combination as a potential new first-line standard for PD-L1–positive TNBC, according to Dr. Schmid.
 

Relationship between biomarker expression and response

The MORPHEUS-pan BC trial enrolled only patients with PD-L1–positive tumors at baseline, defined as PD-L1 expression in at least 1% of immune cells infiltrating the tumor. Tumors at baseline were also tested for Trop-2 expression, CD8 immune phenotype, and stromal tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs).

“We wanted to get an idea of whether these biomarkers are associated with treatment response,” Dr. Schmid explained during his talk.

Although the benefit of sacituzumab govitecan treatment was observed across all Trop-2 expression levels, preliminary analyses suggest that high Trop-2 expression, CD8 immune phenotype, and stromal TILs may be associated with response to atezolizumab plus sacituzumab govitecan. However, Dr. Schmid noted that validation of these associations in larger cohorts is required.
 

Safety of combination treatment

The side effect profile of atezolizumab plus sacituzumab govitecan appeared consistent with that expected from the two individual drugs, with no new toxicity signals.

All patients in both treatment arms experienced at least one adverse event; however, there were no fatal adverse events. Grade 3-4 adverse events were more common in the experimental arm (70.0%) than in the control arm (44.4%), while serious adverse events were more common in the control group (44.4% versus 23.3%). Immune-related adverse events were considerably more common in the atezolizumab plus sacituzumab govitecan group than in the control group (80.0% versus 55.6%).

The most common adverse events in patients treated with atezolizumab plus sacituzumab govitecan were nausea, alopecia, diarrhea, and neutropenia. Dr. Schmid emphasized in his presentation that this toxicity profile was dominated by adverse events that are common in patients treated with chemotherapy.

“These safety data are significant as they suggest that the combination therapy does not introduce additional risks beyond those already associated with each drug,” he added.
 

Looking Ahead

Dr. Tolaney highlighted that the cohort size of this study was small and the follow-up time was insufficient to draw conclusions about survival outcomes. Larger studies with long-term follow-up are needed to confirm the efficacy of first-line atezolizumab plus sacituzumab govitecan, she said.

“While this was a small study, the response data is very intriguing, with 17% of patients experiencing complete responses. The PFS data are also impressive, and there seems to be an interesting trend towards better response in patients with high Trop-2 expression and those with high levels of stromal TILs,” she added.

Dr. Tolaney also noted that the response rates and PFS data presented are similar to those of one of the treatment arms in the BEGONIA trial (NCT03742102), which investigated different combinations of immunotherapy in patients with metastatic TNBC. Like MORPHEUS-pan BC (NCT03424005), this study evaluated the efficacy of a different antibody-drug conjugate with chemotherapy. Patients in the study arm of the BEGONIA trial she was referring to received durvalumab (an anti-PD-L1 agent) and datopotamab deruxtecan (an antibody-drug conjugate).

Dr. Schmid said that biomarker analyses are ongoing to assess whether there is a correlation between Trop-2 expression levels and the benefits of sacituzumab govitecan. Studies are also needed to determine whether this combination can improve pathologic complete response rates in early-stage TNBC.

Dr. Tolaney echoed the importance of evaluating the efficacy of antibody-drug conjugates plus immune checkpoint inhibitors in different settings, including patients with PD-L1–negative or immunologically cold tumors and those with early-stage disease. “Ultimately, we want this combination treatment to move forward to early-stage TNBC to see if we could cure more patients,” she said, during the discussion.

Dr. Schmid reported financial relationships with Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Gilead, Roche, Merck, MSD, BI, Seagen, Amgen, Bayer, Eisai, Celgene, Lilly, and Puma (consulting or advisory roles); Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Gilead, Roche, Merck, MSD, BI, Seagen, Amgen, Bayer, Eisai, Celgene, Lilly, and Puma (honoraria); and AstraZeneca, Genentech, Roche, Oncogenex, Novartis, Astellas, and Medivation (research funding). Dr. Tolaney reported financial relationships with Novartis, Pfizer, Merck, Eli Lilly, AstraZeneca, Genentech/Roche, Eisai, Sanofi, Bristol Myers Squibb, Seattle Genetics, CytomX Therapeutics, Daiichi Sankyo, Gilead, Ellipses Pharma, 4D Pharma, OncoSec Medical Inc., Beyond Spring Pharmaceuticals, OncXerna, Zymeworks, Zentalis, Blueprint Medicines, Reveal Genomics, ARC Therapeutics, Infinity Therapeutics, Myovant, Zetagen, Umoja Biopharma, Menarini/Stemline, Aadi Biopharma, Bayer, and Jazz Pharmaceuticals (consulting or advisory roles); Genentech/Roche, Merck, Exelixis, Pfizer, Lilly, Novartis, Nanostring, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eisai, AstraZeneca, Gilead, Cyclacel, Sanofi, and Seattle Genetics (research funding).

The combination of atezolizumab plus sacituzumab govitecan as first-line treatment showed encouraging anti-tumor activity in previously untreated patients with triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC), in an ongoing phase 1b/2 trial.

MORPHEUS-pan BC (NCT03424005) is evaluating multiple treatment combinations in patients with locally advanced or metastatic TNBC.

The trial’s interim clinical data was presented at the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Breast Cancer annual congress.
 

Rationale for Combining Antibody-Drug Conjugates with Immunotherapy

Peter Schmid, MD, PhD, professor at the Centre for Experimental Cancer Medicine in London, England, presented interim findings from one study arm of MORPHEUS-pan BC at the meeting. The arm consisted of patients with TNBC who were treated with a combination of atezolizumab, a PD-L1 inhibitor, and sacituzumab govitecan, an antibody-drug conjugate targeting the Trop-2 protein commonly expressed in TNBC.

TNBC is one of the most challenging subtypes of breast cancer to treat because of its aggressive characteristics and innate resistance to hormonal therapy and HER2-targeted treatments. However, the recent approval of immunotherapy for TNBC has provided renewed hope for patients, according to Dr. Schmid.

Atezolizumab, in combination with nab-paclitaxel, has already been approved as a first-line treatment for PD-L1–positive, unresectable locally advanced or metastatic TNBC; however, not all patients respond to this combination treatment. Sacituzumab govitecan is approved for second-line and subsequent-line treatment of metastatic TNBC.

“Cancer immunotherapy in combination with chemotherapy has transformed the TNBC treatment landscape, but new combinations are needed to further improve survival outcomes,” Dr. Schmid said during his presentation. “We hoped that combining immunotherapy with an antibody-drug conjugate would not only improve safety but also increase efficacy through enhanced immune activation.”
 

Study Design

The MORPHEUS-pan BC trial enrolled patients with previously untreated, PD-L1–positive, inoperable, locally advanced or metastatic TNBC. Patients were randomized to receive experimental treatment consisting of atezolizumab plus the antibody-drug conjugate sacituzumab govitecan. Patients in the second arm received a control regimen of atezolizumab plus nab-paclitaxel chemotherapy.

“The control regimen is part of the current standard of care for patients with PD-L1–positive TNBC,” Dr. Schmid explained in his presentation. As of the data cut-off, 11 patients were enrolled in the control arm and 31 in the atezolizumab plus sacituzumab govitecan arm.

During the discussion session after his talk, Dr. Schmid commented on the use of PD-L1 expression to select patients for enrollment, acknowledging that PD-L1 is not the best biomarker.

“Its expression is very dynamic and can change rapidly,” he said. He added, however, that it is currently the most suitable biomarker for patient selection for treatment with anti–PD-1/PD-L1 agents.

Sara M. Tolaney, MD, MPH, added that, because patients were selected based on PD-L1 expression, it is unclear whether this combination therapy would show anti-tumor activity in patients with PD-L1–negative tumors. Dr. Tolaney, a medical oncologist at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute who was not involved in the study, served as a discussant, providing her expert opinion on the findings presented by Dr. Schmid.
 

Promising Anti-tumor Activity

The combination of atezolizumab and sacituzumab govitecan demonstrated promising anti-tumor activity as initial treatment for this patient population. The interim analysis at 18 weeks showed an objective response rate of 76.7% (95% CI, 57.7-90.1; n = 23, including five complete responses) in the atezolizumab plus sacituzumab govitecan arm, versus 66.7% (95% CI, 29.9-92.5; n = 6, all of which were partial responses) in the control arm.

“The 66% response rate in the control arm aligns with what we see in historical data from patients treated with immunotherapy plus chemotherapy,” noted Dr. Schmid during his talk.

The clinical benefit rate, which includes complete and partial responses as well as stable disease, was also encouraging at 83.3% (95% CI, 65.3-94.4) with the dual immunotherapy regimen versus 66.7% (95% CI, 29.9-92.5) with standard therapy.

Commenting on the potential mechanisms of the synergistic effect of this combination therapy, Dr. Tolaney said, “In addition to delivering chemotherapy payloads to cancer cells, antibody-drug conjugates can lead to dendritic cell activation, T-cell activation, and immune cell infiltration.”

She added that antibody-drug conjugates can cause Fc activation in NK cells, thereby enhancing antibody-dependent cytotoxicity.
 

Encouraging survival trends

Interim survival data showed trends favoring atezolizumab plus sacituzumab govitecan over the control arm of atezolizumab plus nab-paclitaxel chemotherapy. The median progression-free survival (PFS) was 12.2 months (95% CI, 7.4-not estimable) in the immunotherapy combination group versus 5.9 months (95% CI, 4.1-8.7) in the control group, yielding a hazard ratio of 0.29 (95% CI, 0.11-0.70). The overall survival data are still immature.

During the discussion session, Dr. Schmid cautioned that, although the benefit of this combination therapy in terms of PFS seems promising, the validity of the hazard ratio is limited because of the small cohort size. He added, “The survival data is still immature, and longer follow-up is needed.”

These encouraging response and PFS rates need to be confirmed in larger studies of this immunotherapy combination as a potential new first-line standard for PD-L1–positive TNBC, according to Dr. Schmid.
 

Relationship between biomarker expression and response

The MORPHEUS-pan BC trial enrolled only patients with PD-L1–positive tumors at baseline, defined as PD-L1 expression in at least 1% of immune cells infiltrating the tumor. Tumors at baseline were also tested for Trop-2 expression, CD8 immune phenotype, and stromal tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs).

“We wanted to get an idea of whether these biomarkers are associated with treatment response,” Dr. Schmid explained during his talk.

Although the benefit of sacituzumab govitecan treatment was observed across all Trop-2 expression levels, preliminary analyses suggest that high Trop-2 expression, CD8 immune phenotype, and stromal TILs may be associated with response to atezolizumab plus sacituzumab govitecan. However, Dr. Schmid noted that validation of these associations in larger cohorts is required.
 

Safety of combination treatment

The side effect profile of atezolizumab plus sacituzumab govitecan appeared consistent with that expected from the two individual drugs, with no new toxicity signals.

All patients in both treatment arms experienced at least one adverse event; however, there were no fatal adverse events. Grade 3-4 adverse events were more common in the experimental arm (70.0%) than in the control arm (44.4%), while serious adverse events were more common in the control group (44.4% versus 23.3%). Immune-related adverse events were considerably more common in the atezolizumab plus sacituzumab govitecan group than in the control group (80.0% versus 55.6%).

The most common adverse events in patients treated with atezolizumab plus sacituzumab govitecan were nausea, alopecia, diarrhea, and neutropenia. Dr. Schmid emphasized in his presentation that this toxicity profile was dominated by adverse events that are common in patients treated with chemotherapy.

“These safety data are significant as they suggest that the combination therapy does not introduce additional risks beyond those already associated with each drug,” he added.
 

Looking Ahead

Dr. Tolaney highlighted that the cohort size of this study was small and the follow-up time was insufficient to draw conclusions about survival outcomes. Larger studies with long-term follow-up are needed to confirm the efficacy of first-line atezolizumab plus sacituzumab govitecan, she said.

“While this was a small study, the response data is very intriguing, with 17% of patients experiencing complete responses. The PFS data are also impressive, and there seems to be an interesting trend towards better response in patients with high Trop-2 expression and those with high levels of stromal TILs,” she added.

Dr. Tolaney also noted that the response rates and PFS data presented are similar to those of one of the treatment arms in the BEGONIA trial (NCT03742102), which investigated different combinations of immunotherapy in patients with metastatic TNBC. Like MORPHEUS-pan BC (NCT03424005), this study evaluated the efficacy of a different antibody-drug conjugate with chemotherapy. Patients in the study arm of the BEGONIA trial she was referring to received durvalumab (an anti-PD-L1 agent) and datopotamab deruxtecan (an antibody-drug conjugate).

Dr. Schmid said that biomarker analyses are ongoing to assess whether there is a correlation between Trop-2 expression levels and the benefits of sacituzumab govitecan. Studies are also needed to determine whether this combination can improve pathologic complete response rates in early-stage TNBC.

Dr. Tolaney echoed the importance of evaluating the efficacy of antibody-drug conjugates plus immune checkpoint inhibitors in different settings, including patients with PD-L1–negative or immunologically cold tumors and those with early-stage disease. “Ultimately, we want this combination treatment to move forward to early-stage TNBC to see if we could cure more patients,” she said, during the discussion.

Dr. Schmid reported financial relationships with Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Gilead, Roche, Merck, MSD, BI, Seagen, Amgen, Bayer, Eisai, Celgene, Lilly, and Puma (consulting or advisory roles); Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Gilead, Roche, Merck, MSD, BI, Seagen, Amgen, Bayer, Eisai, Celgene, Lilly, and Puma (honoraria); and AstraZeneca, Genentech, Roche, Oncogenex, Novartis, Astellas, and Medivation (research funding). Dr. Tolaney reported financial relationships with Novartis, Pfizer, Merck, Eli Lilly, AstraZeneca, Genentech/Roche, Eisai, Sanofi, Bristol Myers Squibb, Seattle Genetics, CytomX Therapeutics, Daiichi Sankyo, Gilead, Ellipses Pharma, 4D Pharma, OncoSec Medical Inc., Beyond Spring Pharmaceuticals, OncXerna, Zymeworks, Zentalis, Blueprint Medicines, Reveal Genomics, ARC Therapeutics, Infinity Therapeutics, Myovant, Zetagen, Umoja Biopharma, Menarini/Stemline, Aadi Biopharma, Bayer, and Jazz Pharmaceuticals (consulting or advisory roles); Genentech/Roche, Merck, Exelixis, Pfizer, Lilly, Novartis, Nanostring, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eisai, AstraZeneca, Gilead, Cyclacel, Sanofi, and Seattle Genetics (research funding).

For breast cancer survivors harboring BRCA1/2 gene mutations, the prospect of future pregnancy often raises concerns because of limited data on the safety of assisted reproductive techniques (ART) in this population. However, results from a large international study presented at the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Breast Cancer annual congress provide reassuring evidence that ART, such as in vitro fertilization, can be safely used by BRCA1/2 mutation carriers previously treated for breast cancer.

“Our primary aim was to evaluate the safety profile of ART in this high-risk population by comparing maternal and fetal outcomes between those who conceived spontaneously versus those using ART,” explained Matteo Lambertini, MD, PhD, during his talk at the conference. “We found no statistically significant differences in pregnancy complications or fetal abnormalities.” Dr. Lambertini is an associate professor and medical oncologist at the University of Genova and IRCCS Policlinico San Martino Hospital, Genova, Italy.
 

Unmet Fertility Needs for Women With Breast Cancer

With the rising rates of early-onset breast cancer and improved survival outcomes with new therapies, the number of long-term breast cancer survivors is increasing. Fertility preservation and future reproductive choices are important considerations for young patients with breast cancer, especially for high-risk patients carrying pathogenic BRCA1/2 mutations. During his talk, Dr. Lambertini explained that defects in DNA damage repair due to BRCA1/2 mutations, in addition to chemotherapy after breast cancer diagnosis, can lead to premature menopause.

According to Dr. Lambertini, physicians face challenges in counseling these patients regarding the potential risks and benefits of pursuing pregnancy after cancer treatment because of the limited evidence available on the safety of ART in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers.

“Clinicians have to counsel BRCA carriers based on very limited data about the safety of pursuing pregnancy with ART after a breast cancer diagnosis,” he said during his presentation.
 

Study Design and Patient Population

The retrospective cohort study pooled data from 78 centers worldwide to explore ART outcomes in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers. The analysis included 4732 women diagnosed with stage I-III breast cancer at age 40 years or younger, all harboring a pathogenic BRCA1 or BRCA2 variant.

Among these high-risk patients, 543 became pregnant after completing cancer treatment; of these, 436 conceived naturally and 107 used ART. In the ART group, 45.5% underwent oocyte or embryo cryopreservation at breast cancer diagnosis, 33.3% underwent ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization after cancer treatment, and 21.2% underwent embryo transfer following oocyte donation.

Dr. Janice Tsang, MD, a clinical oncology specialist and assistant professor at the University of Hong Kong who was not involved in this study, highlighted that this is the largest study focusing on ART safety in young patients with BRCA1/2 mutations. “With over 500 BRCA1/2 mutation carriers studied across nearly 80 sites, the cohort analysis had sufficient statistical power and global representation to detect potential safety signals with ART utilization, unlike prior smaller studies,” she said. Dr. Tsang, a clinical oncology specialist and assistant professor at the University of Hong Kong who was not involved in this study, served as a discussant, providing her expert opinion on the findings presented by Dr. Lambertini.
 

No Increased Risks for Pregnancy and Fetal Outcomes

Although women using ART had slightly higher miscarriage rates (11.3% versus 8.8%) and lower rates of induced abortion (0.9% versus 8.3%) than women with spontaneous conceptions, the analysis revealed no statistically significant differences in the frequency of pregnancy complications, delivery complications, or congenital abnormalities between those who received ART and those who conceived naturally.

Dr. Lambertini explained that variations in baseline characteristics, such as age, may have contributed to differences in miscarriage rates.

“Patients in the ART group tended to be older at the time of conception, with a median age of 37.1 years, compared with 34.3 years in the spontaneous pregnancy group,” he said, during his presentation. Women in the ART group also more frequently had hormone receptor–positive breast cancer (43.4% versus 30.8%) and longer median time from diagnosis to conception (4.2 versus 3.3 years).
 

No Adverse Effects on Breast Cancer Prognosis

At a median follow-up of 5.2 years from conception, there was no detrimental effect of ART on disease-free survival for carriers of pathogenic BRCA1/2 variants who were treated for breast cancer. The ART group showed 13 (13.1%) recurrence events, compared with 118 (27.1%) recurrences in the spontaneous pregnancy group (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.38-1.33; P = .147).

“The risk of cancer recurrence was comparable between those using and not using ART to become pregnant after their breast cancer diagnosis and treatment, and the small number of recurrence events in the ART group mostly involved locoregional recurrences,” Dr. Lambertini noted during his talk.

Moreover, breast cancer–specific survival and overall survival appeared to be similar between the two groups, although the small number of deaths precluded the conduction of formal analysis.

“These survival data suggest that utilizing ART does not appear to negatively impact the prognosis or course of the underlying breast cancer,” Dr. Lambertini said during the discussion.
 

Clinical Implications and Future Work

According to Dr. Lambertini, these results are incredibly valuable for clinicians counseling young breast cancer survivors with pathogenic BRCA1/2 mutations who wish to have biological children.

“Given the interest of patients in having their own family and for some of them in avoiding the transmission of the BRCA1/2 pathogenic variants, our results are critical in improving the oncofertility counseling of young women with breast cancer,” said Dr. Lambertini during his presentation. “We can reassure patients that pursuing ART does not appear to worsen their cancer prognosis or compromise pregnancy outcomes compared to spontaneous conceptions.”

During her discussion session, Dr. Tsang echoed the clinical implications of these findings, emphasizing that, by incorporating this evidence into clinical practice, healthcare providers can better support patients in making informed choices regarding fertility preservation and family planning after cancer treatment.

“Though this study is [retrospective] with a relatively small number, these real-world findings make a major contribution to our limited evidence base on ART safety for cancer survivors carrying BRCA1/2 mutations,” she said.

She cautioned, however, that there remain several unanswered questions and uncertainties. “We need prospective data with a larger sample size to confirm the safety of ART in this population, as well as studies to assess whether different types of ART have different safety profiles.”

Dr. Lambertini concluded his talk by saying, “While waiting for prospective studies to confirm our results, fertility preservation at diagnosis of early breast cancer should be offered to all women interested in future fertility, including BRCA carriers.”

Dr. Lambertini reported financial relationships with Roche, AstraZeneca, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Exact Sciences, MSD, Seagen, Gilead, Pierre Fabre, and Menarini (consulting or advisory roles); Takeda, Roche, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Sandoz, Ipsen, Libbs, Knight, Dalichi Sankyo, Gilead, Menarini (honoraria); Gilead, Daiichi Sankyo, and Roche (travel support); and Gilead (research funding to the institution). Dr. Tsang reported financial relationships with AstraZeneca, Amgen, Daichi Sankyo, Eisai, Gilead, Lilly, Lucence, Novartis, Pfizer, and Veracyte (honoraria); De Novo (consulting or advisory roles); and Pfizer (grant panel reviewer).

For breast cancer survivors harboring BRCA1/2 gene mutations, the prospect of future pregnancy often raises concerns because of limited data on the safety of assisted reproductive techniques (ART) in this population. However, results from a large international study presented at the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Breast Cancer annual congress provide reassuring evidence that ART, such as in vitro fertilization, can be safely used by BRCA1/2 mutation carriers previously treated for breast cancer.

“Our primary aim was to evaluate the safety profile of ART in this high-risk population by comparing maternal and fetal outcomes between those who conceived spontaneously versus those using ART,” explained Matteo Lambertini, MD, PhD, during his talk at the conference. “We found no statistically significant differences in pregnancy complications or fetal abnormalities.” Dr. Lambertini is an associate professor and medical oncologist at the University of Genova and IRCCS Policlinico San Martino Hospital, Genova, Italy.
 

Unmet Fertility Needs for Women With Breast Cancer

With the rising rates of early-onset breast cancer and improved survival outcomes with new therapies, the number of long-term breast cancer survivors is increasing. Fertility preservation and future reproductive choices are important considerations for young patients with breast cancer, especially for high-risk patients carrying pathogenic BRCA1/2 mutations. During his talk, Dr. Lambertini explained that defects in DNA damage repair due to BRCA1/2 mutations, in addition to chemotherapy after breast cancer diagnosis, can lead to premature menopause.

According to Dr. Lambertini, physicians face challenges in counseling these patients regarding the potential risks and benefits of pursuing pregnancy after cancer treatment because of the limited evidence available on the safety of ART in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers.

“Clinicians have to counsel BRCA carriers based on very limited data about the safety of pursuing pregnancy with ART after a breast cancer diagnosis,” he said during his presentation.
 

Study Design and Patient Population

The retrospective cohort study pooled data from 78 centers worldwide to explore ART outcomes in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers. The analysis included 4732 women diagnosed with stage I-III breast cancer at age 40 years or younger, all harboring a pathogenic BRCA1 or BRCA2 variant.

Among these high-risk patients, 543 became pregnant after completing cancer treatment; of these, 436 conceived naturally and 107 used ART. In the ART group, 45.5% underwent oocyte or embryo cryopreservation at breast cancer diagnosis, 33.3% underwent ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization after cancer treatment, and 21.2% underwent embryo transfer following oocyte donation.

Dr. Janice Tsang, MD, a clinical oncology specialist and assistant professor at the University of Hong Kong who was not involved in this study, highlighted that this is the largest study focusing on ART safety in young patients with BRCA1/2 mutations. “With over 500 BRCA1/2 mutation carriers studied across nearly 80 sites, the cohort analysis had sufficient statistical power and global representation to detect potential safety signals with ART utilization, unlike prior smaller studies,” she said. Dr. Tsang, a clinical oncology specialist and assistant professor at the University of Hong Kong who was not involved in this study, served as a discussant, providing her expert opinion on the findings presented by Dr. Lambertini.
 

No Increased Risks for Pregnancy and Fetal Outcomes

Although women using ART had slightly higher miscarriage rates (11.3% versus 8.8%) and lower rates of induced abortion (0.9% versus 8.3%) than women with spontaneous conceptions, the analysis revealed no statistically significant differences in the frequency of pregnancy complications, delivery complications, or congenital abnormalities between those who received ART and those who conceived naturally.

Dr. Lambertini explained that variations in baseline characteristics, such as age, may have contributed to differences in miscarriage rates.

“Patients in the ART group tended to be older at the time of conception, with a median age of 37.1 years, compared with 34.3 years in the spontaneous pregnancy group,” he said, during his presentation. Women in the ART group also more frequently had hormone receptor–positive breast cancer (43.4% versus 30.8%) and longer median time from diagnosis to conception (4.2 versus 3.3 years).
 

No Adverse Effects on Breast Cancer Prognosis

At a median follow-up of 5.2 years from conception, there was no detrimental effect of ART on disease-free survival for carriers of pathogenic BRCA1/2 variants who were treated for breast cancer. The ART group showed 13 (13.1%) recurrence events, compared with 118 (27.1%) recurrences in the spontaneous pregnancy group (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.38-1.33; P = .147).

“The risk of cancer recurrence was comparable between those using and not using ART to become pregnant after their breast cancer diagnosis and treatment, and the small number of recurrence events in the ART group mostly involved locoregional recurrences,” Dr. Lambertini noted during his talk.

Moreover, breast cancer–specific survival and overall survival appeared to be similar between the two groups, although the small number of deaths precluded the conduction of formal analysis.

“These survival data suggest that utilizing ART does not appear to negatively impact the prognosis or course of the underlying breast cancer,” Dr. Lambertini said during the discussion.
 

Clinical Implications and Future Work

According to Dr. Lambertini, these results are incredibly valuable for clinicians counseling young breast cancer survivors with pathogenic BRCA1/2 mutations who wish to have biological children.

“Given the interest of patients in having their own family and for some of them in avoiding the transmission of the BRCA1/2 pathogenic variants, our results are critical in improving the oncofertility counseling of young women with breast cancer,” said Dr. Lambertini during his presentation. “We can reassure patients that pursuing ART does not appear to worsen their cancer prognosis or compromise pregnancy outcomes compared to spontaneous conceptions.”

During her discussion session, Dr. Tsang echoed the clinical implications of these findings, emphasizing that, by incorporating this evidence into clinical practice, healthcare providers can better support patients in making informed choices regarding fertility preservation and family planning after cancer treatment.

“Though this study is [retrospective] with a relatively small number, these real-world findings make a major contribution to our limited evidence base on ART safety for cancer survivors carrying BRCA1/2 mutations,” she said.

She cautioned, however, that there remain several unanswered questions and uncertainties. “We need prospective data with a larger sample size to confirm the safety of ART in this population, as well as studies to assess whether different types of ART have different safety profiles.”

Dr. Lambertini concluded his talk by saying, “While waiting for prospective studies to confirm our results, fertility preservation at diagnosis of early breast cancer should be offered to all women interested in future fertility, including BRCA carriers.”

Dr. Lambertini reported financial relationships with Roche, AstraZeneca, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Exact Sciences, MSD, Seagen, Gilead, Pierre Fabre, and Menarini (consulting or advisory roles); Takeda, Roche, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Sandoz, Ipsen, Libbs, Knight, Dalichi Sankyo, Gilead, Menarini (honoraria); Gilead, Daiichi Sankyo, and Roche (travel support); and Gilead (research funding to the institution). Dr. Tsang reported financial relationships with AstraZeneca, Amgen, Daichi Sankyo, Eisai, Gilead, Lilly, Lucence, Novartis, Pfizer, and Veracyte (honoraria); De Novo (consulting or advisory roles); and Pfizer (grant panel reviewer).

For breast cancer survivors harboring BRCA1/2 gene mutations, the prospect of future pregnancy often raises concerns because of limited data on the safety of assisted reproductive techniques (ART) in this population. However, results from a large international study presented at the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Breast Cancer annual congress provide reassuring evidence that ART, such as in vitro fertilization, can be safely used by BRCA1/2 mutation carriers previously treated for breast cancer.

“Our primary aim was to evaluate the safety profile of ART in this high-risk population by comparing maternal and fetal outcomes between those who conceived spontaneously versus those using ART,” explained Matteo Lambertini, MD, PhD, during his talk at the conference. “We found no statistically significant differences in pregnancy complications or fetal abnormalities.” Dr. Lambertini is an associate professor and medical oncologist at the University of Genova and IRCCS Policlinico San Martino Hospital, Genova, Italy.
 

Unmet Fertility Needs for Women With Breast Cancer

With the rising rates of early-onset breast cancer and improved survival outcomes with new therapies, the number of long-term breast cancer survivors is increasing. Fertility preservation and future reproductive choices are important considerations for young patients with breast cancer, especially for high-risk patients carrying pathogenic BRCA1/2 mutations. During his talk, Dr. Lambertini explained that defects in DNA damage repair due to BRCA1/2 mutations, in addition to chemotherapy after breast cancer diagnosis, can lead to premature menopause.

According to Dr. Lambertini, physicians face challenges in counseling these patients regarding the potential risks and benefits of pursuing pregnancy after cancer treatment because of the limited evidence available on the safety of ART in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers.

“Clinicians have to counsel BRCA carriers based on very limited data about the safety of pursuing pregnancy with ART after a breast cancer diagnosis,” he said during his presentation.
 

Study Design and Patient Population

The retrospective cohort study pooled data from 78 centers worldwide to explore ART outcomes in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers. The analysis included 4732 women diagnosed with stage I-III breast cancer at age 40 years or younger, all harboring a pathogenic BRCA1 or BRCA2 variant.

Among these high-risk patients, 543 became pregnant after completing cancer treatment; of these, 436 conceived naturally and 107 used ART. In the ART group, 45.5% underwent oocyte or embryo cryopreservation at breast cancer diagnosis, 33.3% underwent ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization after cancer treatment, and 21.2% underwent embryo transfer following oocyte donation.

Dr. Janice Tsang, MD, a clinical oncology specialist and assistant professor at the University of Hong Kong who was not involved in this study, highlighted that this is the largest study focusing on ART safety in young patients with BRCA1/2 mutations. “With over 500 BRCA1/2 mutation carriers studied across nearly 80 sites, the cohort analysis had sufficient statistical power and global representation to detect potential safety signals with ART utilization, unlike prior smaller studies,” she said. Dr. Tsang, a clinical oncology specialist and assistant professor at the University of Hong Kong who was not involved in this study, served as a discussant, providing her expert opinion on the findings presented by Dr. Lambertini.
 

No Increased Risks for Pregnancy and Fetal Outcomes

Although women using ART had slightly higher miscarriage rates (11.3% versus 8.8%) and lower rates of induced abortion (0.9% versus 8.3%) than women with spontaneous conceptions, the analysis revealed no statistically significant differences in the frequency of pregnancy complications, delivery complications, or congenital abnormalities between those who received ART and those who conceived naturally.

Dr. Lambertini explained that variations in baseline characteristics, such as age, may have contributed to differences in miscarriage rates.

“Patients in the ART group tended to be older at the time of conception, with a median age of 37.1 years, compared with 34.3 years in the spontaneous pregnancy group,” he said, during his presentation. Women in the ART group also more frequently had hormone receptor–positive breast cancer (43.4% versus 30.8%) and longer median time from diagnosis to conception (4.2 versus 3.3 years).
 

No Adverse Effects on Breast Cancer Prognosis

At a median follow-up of 5.2 years from conception, there was no detrimental effect of ART on disease-free survival for carriers of pathogenic BRCA1/2 variants who were treated for breast cancer. The ART group showed 13 (13.1%) recurrence events, compared with 118 (27.1%) recurrences in the spontaneous pregnancy group (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.38-1.33; P = .147).

“The risk of cancer recurrence was comparable between those using and not using ART to become pregnant after their breast cancer diagnosis and treatment, and the small number of recurrence events in the ART group mostly involved locoregional recurrences,” Dr. Lambertini noted during his talk.

Moreover, breast cancer–specific survival and overall survival appeared to be similar between the two groups, although the small number of deaths precluded the conduction of formal analysis.

“These survival data suggest that utilizing ART does not appear to negatively impact the prognosis or course of the underlying breast cancer,” Dr. Lambertini said during the discussion.
 

Clinical Implications and Future Work

According to Dr. Lambertini, these results are incredibly valuable for clinicians counseling young breast cancer survivors with pathogenic BRCA1/2 mutations who wish to have biological children.

“Given the interest of patients in having their own family and for some of them in avoiding the transmission of the BRCA1/2 pathogenic variants, our results are critical in improving the oncofertility counseling of young women with breast cancer,” said Dr. Lambertini during his presentation. “We can reassure patients that pursuing ART does not appear to worsen their cancer prognosis or compromise pregnancy outcomes compared to spontaneous conceptions.”

During her discussion session, Dr. Tsang echoed the clinical implications of these findings, emphasizing that, by incorporating this evidence into clinical practice, healthcare providers can better support patients in making informed choices regarding fertility preservation and family planning after cancer treatment.

“Though this study is [retrospective] with a relatively small number, these real-world findings make a major contribution to our limited evidence base on ART safety for cancer survivors carrying BRCA1/2 mutations,” she said.

She cautioned, however, that there remain several unanswered questions and uncertainties. “We need prospective data with a larger sample size to confirm the safety of ART in this population, as well as studies to assess whether different types of ART have different safety profiles.”

Dr. Lambertini concluded his talk by saying, “While waiting for prospective studies to confirm our results, fertility preservation at diagnosis of early breast cancer should be offered to all women interested in future fertility, including BRCA carriers.”

Dr. Lambertini reported financial relationships with Roche, AstraZeneca, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Exact Sciences, MSD, Seagen, Gilead, Pierre Fabre, and Menarini (consulting or advisory roles); Takeda, Roche, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Sandoz, Ipsen, Libbs, Knight, Dalichi Sankyo, Gilead, Menarini (honoraria); Gilead, Daiichi Sankyo, and Roche (travel support); and Gilead (research funding to the institution). Dr. Tsang reported financial relationships with AstraZeneca, Amgen, Daichi Sankyo, Eisai, Gilead, Lilly, Lucence, Novartis, Pfizer, and Veracyte (honoraria); De Novo (consulting or advisory roles); and Pfizer (grant panel reviewer).

Adding atezolizumab to chemotherapy in patients with anti–programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1)–positive triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) who have relapsed within 12 months of their last curative treatment does not improve their survival, results of the IMpassion132 trial show.

Our results “highlight the importance of recognizing TNBC heterogeneity, especially in the first-line setting” said Rebecca A. Dent, MD, MSc, National Cancer Center Singapore and Duke-NUS Medical School, Singapore, who presented the study at the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Breast Cancer annual congress.

“These patients have a dismal prognosis and represent a high unmet need,” she added. 

The current findings follow those from the IMpassion130 trial, which showed that the combination of atezolizumab with nab-paclitaxel chemotherapy offered no survival benefit in previously untreated locally advanced or metastatic TNBC despite a progression-free survival benefit on interim analysis.

Rapidly relapsing TNBC “represents one of most challenging clinical situations” because it is aggressive and “intrinsically resistant to standard therapies,” said Dr. Dent. It is also more common in younger patients with large primary tumors and no BRCA alterations.

“Most importantly, however, is that most trials actually exclude these patients,” she noted, “posing a real challenge for us in clinical practice.”

IMpassion132 enrolled 594 patients with unresectable locally advanced or metastatic TNBC who had experienced disease progression more than 12 months after their last treatment for early TNBC with curative intent.

Patients had received prior anthracycline and taxane therapy for but no prior chemotherapy for advanced disease.

Study participants were randomly assigned to chemotherapy with carboplatin-gemcitabine or capecitabine plus atezolizumab or placebo, with treatment continued until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was overall survival.

Initially, all patients with TNBC who met the study criteria were enrolled in the randomized, phase 3, double-blinded trial; however, the trial was then amended to include only PD-L1–positive patients after the results of IMpassion130 “clearly showed us that the benefits of immune checkpoint inhibition were largely driven by those patients,” Dr. Dent explained.

The 354 patients with PD-L1–positive disease were “young,” she added, with a median age of 48 years. The youngest was 23 years old.

The majority (66%-69%) had a disease-free interval of less than 6 months after treatment with curative intent. Lung and/or liver metastases were present in 60%-62% of patients, and 18% had previously received platinum-based chemotherapy.

After a median follow-up of 9.8 months, overall survival was a median of 12.1 months in the atezolizumab group vs 11.2 months with placebo, at a hazard ratio of 0.93 (P = .59).

A similar result was seen when looking at the modified intention-to-treat population, and when stratifying the patients by prespecified subgroup.

Dr. Dent pointed out that in the placebo group, patients treated with capecitabine had a median overall survival of 12.6 months vs 9.9 months in those given carboplatin-gemcitabine , which she described as “hypothesis generating” because “prior therapy may trigger a variety of resistance mechanisms.”

The disease-free interval also seemed to play a role in the placebo group. Patients who had a disease-free interval of 6 or more months prior to study enrollment had a median overall survival of 12.8 months vs 9.4 months in those with an interval of less than 6 months.

There were no significant differences in progression-free survival or duration of overall response between the atezolizumab and placebo groups.

“In terms of the safety data, clearly we’re getting better at identifying immune checkpoint inhibition toxicities and initiating therapies for these toxicities earlier,” Dr. Dent said, because there were “no new safety signals.”

The rate of treatment-related grade 3 or 4 adverse events was similar between patients given atezolizumab and those assigned to placebo, at 65% vs 62%. Rates of grade 5 events were identical, at 1%.

Commenting on the study, Sara M. Tolaney, MD, MPH, chief, Division of Breast Oncology, Susan F. Smith Center for Women’s Cancers, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, questioned the role for immunotherapy in patients with TNBC who experience early relapse. 

This is not the first trial to fail to show a benefit in this space, she said. Collectively, these results make “me think that these tumors are pretty immunologically cold, making them less likely to benefit from checkpoint inhibition.” 

The patients that do relapse, “have highly treatment refractory disease,” and “we need to think about other novel therapeutic strategies for this population,” she told this news organization.

IMpassion132 nevertheless represents a “unique opportunity to better understand the biology of these rapidly relapsing tumors, and hopefully use this information to develop more novel treatment approaches for this population,” she said.

“That being said, I do think that this is going to become an even more challenging area,” Dr. Tolaney said. “In the modern era, these patients are receiving multi-agent chemotherapy with preoperative checkpoint inhibition, and many then go on to receive additional systemic treatment in the adjuvant setting.”

The study was sponsored by Hoffmann-La Roche.

Dr. Dent declares relationships with AstraZeneca, Roche, Eisai, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, and Pfizer. Dr. Tolaney declares relationships with Novartis, Pfizer, Merck, Lilly, AstraZeneca, Genentech/Roche, Eisai, Sanofi, Bristol Myers Squib, Seattle Genetics, CytomX Therapeutics, Daiichi Sankyo, Gilead, Ellipses Pharma, 4D Pharma, OncoSec Medical Inc, BeyondSpring Pharmaceuticals, OncXerna, Zymeworks, Zentalis, Blueprint Medicines, Reveal Genomics, ARC Therapeutics, Myovant, Zetagen, Umoja Biopharma, Menarini/Stemline, Aadi Biopharma, Bayer, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Exelixis, Novartis, Nanonstring, and Cyclacel.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

Adding atezolizumab to chemotherapy in patients with anti–programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1)–positive triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) who have relapsed within 12 months of their last curative treatment does not improve their survival, results of the IMpassion132 trial show.

Our results “highlight the importance of recognizing TNBC heterogeneity, especially in the first-line setting” said Rebecca A. Dent, MD, MSc, National Cancer Center Singapore and Duke-NUS Medical School, Singapore, who presented the study at the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Breast Cancer annual congress.

“These patients have a dismal prognosis and represent a high unmet need,” she added. 

The current findings follow those from the IMpassion130 trial, which showed that the combination of atezolizumab with nab-paclitaxel chemotherapy offered no survival benefit in previously untreated locally advanced or metastatic TNBC despite a progression-free survival benefit on interim analysis.

Rapidly relapsing TNBC “represents one of most challenging clinical situations” because it is aggressive and “intrinsically resistant to standard therapies,” said Dr. Dent. It is also more common in younger patients with large primary tumors and no BRCA alterations.

“Most importantly, however, is that most trials actually exclude these patients,” she noted, “posing a real challenge for us in clinical practice.”

IMpassion132 enrolled 594 patients with unresectable locally advanced or metastatic TNBC who had experienced disease progression more than 12 months after their last treatment for early TNBC with curative intent.

Patients had received prior anthracycline and taxane therapy for but no prior chemotherapy for advanced disease.

Study participants were randomly assigned to chemotherapy with carboplatin-gemcitabine or capecitabine plus atezolizumab or placebo, with treatment continued until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was overall survival.

Initially, all patients with TNBC who met the study criteria were enrolled in the randomized, phase 3, double-blinded trial; however, the trial was then amended to include only PD-L1–positive patients after the results of IMpassion130 “clearly showed us that the benefits of immune checkpoint inhibition were largely driven by those patients,” Dr. Dent explained.

The 354 patients with PD-L1–positive disease were “young,” she added, with a median age of 48 years. The youngest was 23 years old.

The majority (66%-69%) had a disease-free interval of less than 6 months after treatment with curative intent. Lung and/or liver metastases were present in 60%-62% of patients, and 18% had previously received platinum-based chemotherapy.

After a median follow-up of 9.8 months, overall survival was a median of 12.1 months in the atezolizumab group vs 11.2 months with placebo, at a hazard ratio of 0.93 (P = .59).

A similar result was seen when looking at the modified intention-to-treat population, and when stratifying the patients by prespecified subgroup.

Dr. Dent pointed out that in the placebo group, patients treated with capecitabine had a median overall survival of 12.6 months vs 9.9 months in those given carboplatin-gemcitabine , which she described as “hypothesis generating” because “prior therapy may trigger a variety of resistance mechanisms.”

The disease-free interval also seemed to play a role in the placebo group. Patients who had a disease-free interval of 6 or more months prior to study enrollment had a median overall survival of 12.8 months vs 9.4 months in those with an interval of less than 6 months.

There were no significant differences in progression-free survival or duration of overall response between the atezolizumab and placebo groups.

“In terms of the safety data, clearly we’re getting better at identifying immune checkpoint inhibition toxicities and initiating therapies for these toxicities earlier,” Dr. Dent said, because there were “no new safety signals.”

The rate of treatment-related grade 3 or 4 adverse events was similar between patients given atezolizumab and those assigned to placebo, at 65% vs 62%. Rates of grade 5 events were identical, at 1%.

Commenting on the study, Sara M. Tolaney, MD, MPH, chief, Division of Breast Oncology, Susan F. Smith Center for Women’s Cancers, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, questioned the role for immunotherapy in patients with TNBC who experience early relapse. 

This is not the first trial to fail to show a benefit in this space, she said. Collectively, these results make “me think that these tumors are pretty immunologically cold, making them less likely to benefit from checkpoint inhibition.” 

The patients that do relapse, “have highly treatment refractory disease,” and “we need to think about other novel therapeutic strategies for this population,” she told this news organization.

IMpassion132 nevertheless represents a “unique opportunity to better understand the biology of these rapidly relapsing tumors, and hopefully use this information to develop more novel treatment approaches for this population,” she said.

“That being said, I do think that this is going to become an even more challenging area,” Dr. Tolaney said. “In the modern era, these patients are receiving multi-agent chemotherapy with preoperative checkpoint inhibition, and many then go on to receive additional systemic treatment in the adjuvant setting.”

The study was sponsored by Hoffmann-La Roche.

Dr. Dent declares relationships with AstraZeneca, Roche, Eisai, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, and Pfizer. Dr. Tolaney declares relationships with Novartis, Pfizer, Merck, Lilly, AstraZeneca, Genentech/Roche, Eisai, Sanofi, Bristol Myers Squib, Seattle Genetics, CytomX Therapeutics, Daiichi Sankyo, Gilead, Ellipses Pharma, 4D Pharma, OncoSec Medical Inc, BeyondSpring Pharmaceuticals, OncXerna, Zymeworks, Zentalis, Blueprint Medicines, Reveal Genomics, ARC Therapeutics, Myovant, Zetagen, Umoja Biopharma, Menarini/Stemline, Aadi Biopharma, Bayer, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Exelixis, Novartis, Nanonstring, and Cyclacel.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

Adding atezolizumab to chemotherapy in patients with anti–programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1)–positive triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) who have relapsed within 12 months of their last curative treatment does not improve their survival, results of the IMpassion132 trial show.

Our results “highlight the importance of recognizing TNBC heterogeneity, especially in the first-line setting” said Rebecca A. Dent, MD, MSc, National Cancer Center Singapore and Duke-NUS Medical School, Singapore, who presented the study at the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Breast Cancer annual congress.

“These patients have a dismal prognosis and represent a high unmet need,” she added. 

The current findings follow those from the IMpassion130 trial, which showed that the combination of atezolizumab with nab-paclitaxel chemotherapy offered no survival benefit in previously untreated locally advanced or metastatic TNBC despite a progression-free survival benefit on interim analysis.

Rapidly relapsing TNBC “represents one of most challenging clinical situations” because it is aggressive and “intrinsically resistant to standard therapies,” said Dr. Dent. It is also more common in younger patients with large primary tumors and no BRCA alterations.

“Most importantly, however, is that most trials actually exclude these patients,” she noted, “posing a real challenge for us in clinical practice.”

IMpassion132 enrolled 594 patients with unresectable locally advanced or metastatic TNBC who had experienced disease progression more than 12 months after their last treatment for early TNBC with curative intent.

Patients had received prior anthracycline and taxane therapy for but no prior chemotherapy for advanced disease.

Study participants were randomly assigned to chemotherapy with carboplatin-gemcitabine or capecitabine plus atezolizumab or placebo, with treatment continued until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was overall survival.

Initially, all patients with TNBC who met the study criteria were enrolled in the randomized, phase 3, double-blinded trial; however, the trial was then amended to include only PD-L1–positive patients after the results of IMpassion130 “clearly showed us that the benefits of immune checkpoint inhibition were largely driven by those patients,” Dr. Dent explained.

The 354 patients with PD-L1–positive disease were “young,” she added, with a median age of 48 years. The youngest was 23 years old.

The majority (66%-69%) had a disease-free interval of less than 6 months after treatment with curative intent. Lung and/or liver metastases were present in 60%-62% of patients, and 18% had previously received platinum-based chemotherapy.

After a median follow-up of 9.8 months, overall survival was a median of 12.1 months in the atezolizumab group vs 11.2 months with placebo, at a hazard ratio of 0.93 (P = .59).

A similar result was seen when looking at the modified intention-to-treat population, and when stratifying the patients by prespecified subgroup.

Dr. Dent pointed out that in the placebo group, patients treated with capecitabine had a median overall survival of 12.6 months vs 9.9 months in those given carboplatin-gemcitabine , which she described as “hypothesis generating” because “prior therapy may trigger a variety of resistance mechanisms.”

The disease-free interval also seemed to play a role in the placebo group. Patients who had a disease-free interval of 6 or more months prior to study enrollment had a median overall survival of 12.8 months vs 9.4 months in those with an interval of less than 6 months.

There were no significant differences in progression-free survival or duration of overall response between the atezolizumab and placebo groups.

“In terms of the safety data, clearly we’re getting better at identifying immune checkpoint inhibition toxicities and initiating therapies for these toxicities earlier,” Dr. Dent said, because there were “no new safety signals.”

The rate of treatment-related grade 3 or 4 adverse events was similar between patients given atezolizumab and those assigned to placebo, at 65% vs 62%. Rates of grade 5 events were identical, at 1%.

Commenting on the study, Sara M. Tolaney, MD, MPH, chief, Division of Breast Oncology, Susan F. Smith Center for Women’s Cancers, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, questioned the role for immunotherapy in patients with TNBC who experience early relapse. 

This is not the first trial to fail to show a benefit in this space, she said. Collectively, these results make “me think that these tumors are pretty immunologically cold, making them less likely to benefit from checkpoint inhibition.” 

The patients that do relapse, “have highly treatment refractory disease,” and “we need to think about other novel therapeutic strategies for this population,” she told this news organization.

IMpassion132 nevertheless represents a “unique opportunity to better understand the biology of these rapidly relapsing tumors, and hopefully use this information to develop more novel treatment approaches for this population,” she said.

“That being said, I do think that this is going to become an even more challenging area,” Dr. Tolaney said. “In the modern era, these patients are receiving multi-agent chemotherapy with preoperative checkpoint inhibition, and many then go on to receive additional systemic treatment in the adjuvant setting.”

The study was sponsored by Hoffmann-La Roche.

Dr. Dent declares relationships with AstraZeneca, Roche, Eisai, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, and Pfizer. Dr. Tolaney declares relationships with Novartis, Pfizer, Merck, Lilly, AstraZeneca, Genentech/Roche, Eisai, Sanofi, Bristol Myers Squib, Seattle Genetics, CytomX Therapeutics, Daiichi Sankyo, Gilead, Ellipses Pharma, 4D Pharma, OncoSec Medical Inc, BeyondSpring Pharmaceuticals, OncXerna, Zymeworks, Zentalis, Blueprint Medicines, Reveal Genomics, ARC Therapeutics, Myovant, Zetagen, Umoja Biopharma, Menarini/Stemline, Aadi Biopharma, Bayer, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Exelixis, Novartis, Nanonstring, and Cyclacel.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

Large language models (LLM) such as ChatGPT have shown mixed results in the quality of their responses to consumer questions about cancer.

One recent study found AI chatbots to churn out incomplete, inaccurate, or even nonsensical cancer treatment recommendations, while another found them to generate largely accurate — if technical — responses to the most common cancer questions.

While researchers have seen success with purpose-built chatbots created to address patient concerns about specific cancers, the consensus to date has been that the generalized models like ChatGPT remain works in progress and that physicians should avoid pointing patients to them, for now.

Yet new findings suggest that these chatbots may do better than individual physicians, at least on some measures, when it comes to answering queries about cancer. For research published May 16 in JAMA Oncology (doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2024.0836), David Chen, a medical student at the University of Toronto, and his colleagues, isolated a random sample of 200 questions related to cancer care addressed to doctors on the public online forum Reddit. They then compared responses from oncologists with responses generated by three different AI chatbots. The blinded responses were rated for quality, readability, and empathy by six physicians, including oncologists and palliative and supportive care specialists.

Mr. Chen and colleagues’ research was modeled after a 2023 study that measured the quality of physician responses compared with chatbots for general medicine questions addressed to doctors on Reddit. That study found that the chatbots produced more empathetic-sounding answers, something Mr. Chen’s study also found. The best-performing chatbot in Mr. Chen and colleagues’ study, Claude AI, performed significantly higher than the Reddit physicians on all the domains evaluated: quality, empathy, and readability.
 

Q&A With Author of New Research

Mr. Chen discussed his new study’s implications during an interview with this news organization.

Question: What is novel about this study?

Mr. Chen: We’ve seen many evaluations of chatbots that test for medical accuracy, but this study occurs in the domain of oncology care, where there are unique psychosocial and emotional considerations that are not precisely reflected in a general medicine setting. In effect, this study is putting these chatbots through a harder challenge.



Question: Why would chatbot responses seem more empathetic than those of physicians?

Mr. Chen: With the physician responses that we observed in our sample data set, we saw that there was very high variation of amount of apparent effort [in the physician responses]. Some physicians would put in a lot of time and effort, thinking through their response, and others wouldn’t do so as much. These chatbots don’t face fatigue the way humans do, or burnout. So they’re able to consistently provide responses with less variation in empathy.



Question: Do chatbots just seem empathetic because they are chattier?

Mr. Chen: We did think of verbosity as a potential confounder in this study. So we set a word count limit for the chatbot responses to keep it in the range of the physician responses. That way, verbosity was no longer a significant factor.



Question: How were quality and empathy measured by the reviewers?

Mr. Chen: For our study we used two teams of readers, each team composed of three physicians. In terms of the actual metrics we used, they were pilot metrics. There are no well-defined measurement scales or checklists that we could use to measure empathy. This is an emerging field of research. So we came up by consensus with our own set of ratings, and we feel that this is an area for the research to define a standardized set of guidelines.

Another novel aspect of this study is that we separated out different dimensions of quality and empathy. A quality response didn’t just mean it was medically accurate — quality also had to do with the focus and completeness of the response.

With empathy there are cognitive and emotional dimensions. Cognitive empathy uses critical thinking to understand the person’s emotions and thoughts and then adjusting a response to fit that. A patient may not want the best medically indicated treatment for their condition, because they want to preserve their quality of life. The chatbot may be able to adjust its recommendation with consideration of some of those humanistic elements that the patient is presenting with.

Emotional empathy is more about being supportive of the patient’s emotions by using expressions like ‘I understand where you’re coming from.’ or, ‘I can see how that makes you feel.’



Question: Why would physicians, not patients, be the best evaluators of empathy?

Mr. Chen: We’re actually very interested in evaluating patient ratings of empathy. We are conducting a follow-up study that evaluates patient ratings of empathy to the same set of chatbot and physician responses,to see if there are differences.



Question: Should cancer patients go ahead and consult chatbots?

Mr. Chen: Although we did observe increases in all of the metrics compared with physicians, this is a very specialized evaluation scenario where we’re using these Reddit questions and responses.

Naturally, we would need to do a trial, a head to head randomized comparison of physicians versus chatbots.

This pilot study does highlight the promising potential of these chatbots to suggest responses. But we can’t fully recommend that they should be used as standalone clinical tools without physicians.

This Q&A was edited for clarity.

Large language models (LLM) such as ChatGPT have shown mixed results in the quality of their responses to consumer questions about cancer.

One recent study found AI chatbots to churn out incomplete, inaccurate, or even nonsensical cancer treatment recommendations, while another found them to generate largely accurate — if technical — responses to the most common cancer questions.

While researchers have seen success with purpose-built chatbots created to address patient concerns about specific cancers, the consensus to date has been that the generalized models like ChatGPT remain works in progress and that physicians should avoid pointing patients to them, for now.

Yet new findings suggest that these chatbots may do better than individual physicians, at least on some measures, when it comes to answering queries about cancer. For research published May 16 in JAMA Oncology (doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2024.0836), David Chen, a medical student at the University of Toronto, and his colleagues, isolated a random sample of 200 questions related to cancer care addressed to doctors on the public online forum Reddit. They then compared responses from oncologists with responses generated by three different AI chatbots. The blinded responses were rated for quality, readability, and empathy by six physicians, including oncologists and palliative and supportive care specialists.

Mr. Chen and colleagues’ research was modeled after a 2023 study that measured the quality of physician responses compared with chatbots for general medicine questions addressed to doctors on Reddit. That study found that the chatbots produced more empathetic-sounding answers, something Mr. Chen’s study also found. The best-performing chatbot in Mr. Chen and colleagues’ study, Claude AI, performed significantly higher than the Reddit physicians on all the domains evaluated: quality, empathy, and readability.
 

Q&A With Author of New Research

Mr. Chen discussed his new study’s implications during an interview with this news organization.

Question: What is novel about this study?

Mr. Chen: We’ve seen many evaluations of chatbots that test for medical accuracy, but this study occurs in the domain of oncology care, where there are unique psychosocial and emotional considerations that are not precisely reflected in a general medicine setting. In effect, this study is putting these chatbots through a harder challenge.



Question: Why would chatbot responses seem more empathetic than those of physicians?

Mr. Chen: With the physician responses that we observed in our sample data set, we saw that there was very high variation of amount of apparent effort [in the physician responses]. Some physicians would put in a lot of time and effort, thinking through their response, and others wouldn’t do so as much. These chatbots don’t face fatigue the way humans do, or burnout. So they’re able to consistently provide responses with less variation in empathy.



Question: Do chatbots just seem empathetic because they are chattier?

Mr. Chen: We did think of verbosity as a potential confounder in this study. So we set a word count limit for the chatbot responses to keep it in the range of the physician responses. That way, verbosity was no longer a significant factor.



Question: How were quality and empathy measured by the reviewers?

Mr. Chen: For our study we used two teams of readers, each team composed of three physicians. In terms of the actual metrics we used, they were pilot metrics. There are no well-defined measurement scales or checklists that we could use to measure empathy. This is an emerging field of research. So we came up by consensus with our own set of ratings, and we feel that this is an area for the research to define a standardized set of guidelines.

Another novel aspect of this study is that we separated out different dimensions of quality and empathy. A quality response didn’t just mean it was medically accurate — quality also had to do with the focus and completeness of the response.

With empathy there are cognitive and emotional dimensions. Cognitive empathy uses critical thinking to understand the person’s emotions and thoughts and then adjusting a response to fit that. A patient may not want the best medically indicated treatment for their condition, because they want to preserve their quality of life. The chatbot may be able to adjust its recommendation with consideration of some of those humanistic elements that the patient is presenting with.

Emotional empathy is more about being supportive of the patient’s emotions by using expressions like ‘I understand where you’re coming from.’ or, ‘I can see how that makes you feel.’



Question: Why would physicians, not patients, be the best evaluators of empathy?

Mr. Chen: We’re actually very interested in evaluating patient ratings of empathy. We are conducting a follow-up study that evaluates patient ratings of empathy to the same set of chatbot and physician responses,to see if there are differences.



Question: Should cancer patients go ahead and consult chatbots?

Mr. Chen: Although we did observe increases in all of the metrics compared with physicians, this is a very specialized evaluation scenario where we’re using these Reddit questions and responses.

Naturally, we would need to do a trial, a head to head randomized comparison of physicians versus chatbots.

This pilot study does highlight the promising potential of these chatbots to suggest responses. But we can’t fully recommend that they should be used as standalone clinical tools without physicians.

This Q&A was edited for clarity.

Large language models (LLM) such as ChatGPT have shown mixed results in the quality of their responses to consumer questions about cancer.

One recent study found AI chatbots to churn out incomplete, inaccurate, or even nonsensical cancer treatment recommendations, while another found them to generate largely accurate — if technical — responses to the most common cancer questions.

While researchers have seen success with purpose-built chatbots created to address patient concerns about specific cancers, the consensus to date has been that the generalized models like ChatGPT remain works in progress and that physicians should avoid pointing patients to them, for now.

Yet new findings suggest that these chatbots may do better than individual physicians, at least on some measures, when it comes to answering queries about cancer. For research published May 16 in JAMA Oncology (doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2024.0836), David Chen, a medical student at the University of Toronto, and his colleagues, isolated a random sample of 200 questions related to cancer care addressed to doctors on the public online forum Reddit. They then compared responses from oncologists with responses generated by three different AI chatbots. The blinded responses were rated for quality, readability, and empathy by six physicians, including oncologists and palliative and supportive care specialists.

Mr. Chen and colleagues’ research was modeled after a 2023 study that measured the quality of physician responses compared with chatbots for general medicine questions addressed to doctors on Reddit. That study found that the chatbots produced more empathetic-sounding answers, something Mr. Chen’s study also found. The best-performing chatbot in Mr. Chen and colleagues’ study, Claude AI, performed significantly higher than the Reddit physicians on all the domains evaluated: quality, empathy, and readability.
 

Q&A With Author of New Research

Mr. Chen discussed his new study’s implications during an interview with this news organization.

Question: What is novel about this study?

Mr. Chen: We’ve seen many evaluations of chatbots that test for medical accuracy, but this study occurs in the domain of oncology care, where there are unique psychosocial and emotional considerations that are not precisely reflected in a general medicine setting. In effect, this study is putting these chatbots through a harder challenge.



Question: Why would chatbot responses seem more empathetic than those of physicians?

Mr. Chen: With the physician responses that we observed in our sample data set, we saw that there was very high variation of amount of apparent effort [in the physician responses]. Some physicians would put in a lot of time and effort, thinking through their response, and others wouldn’t do so as much. These chatbots don’t face fatigue the way humans do, or burnout. So they’re able to consistently provide responses with less variation in empathy.



Question: Do chatbots just seem empathetic because they are chattier?

Mr. Chen: We did think of verbosity as a potential confounder in this study. So we set a word count limit for the chatbot responses to keep it in the range of the physician responses. That way, verbosity was no longer a significant factor.



Question: How were quality and empathy measured by the reviewers?

Mr. Chen: For our study we used two teams of readers, each team composed of three physicians. In terms of the actual metrics we used, they were pilot metrics. There are no well-defined measurement scales or checklists that we could use to measure empathy. This is an emerging field of research. So we came up by consensus with our own set of ratings, and we feel that this is an area for the research to define a standardized set of guidelines.

Another novel aspect of this study is that we separated out different dimensions of quality and empathy. A quality response didn’t just mean it was medically accurate — quality also had to do with the focus and completeness of the response.

With empathy there are cognitive and emotional dimensions. Cognitive empathy uses critical thinking to understand the person’s emotions and thoughts and then adjusting a response to fit that. A patient may not want the best medically indicated treatment for their condition, because they want to preserve their quality of life. The chatbot may be able to adjust its recommendation with consideration of some of those humanistic elements that the patient is presenting with.

Emotional empathy is more about being supportive of the patient’s emotions by using expressions like ‘I understand where you’re coming from.’ or, ‘I can see how that makes you feel.’



Question: Why would physicians, not patients, be the best evaluators of empathy?

Mr. Chen: We’re actually very interested in evaluating patient ratings of empathy. We are conducting a follow-up study that evaluates patient ratings of empathy to the same set of chatbot and physician responses,to see if there are differences.



Question: Should cancer patients go ahead and consult chatbots?

Mr. Chen: Although we did observe increases in all of the metrics compared with physicians, this is a very specialized evaluation scenario where we’re using these Reddit questions and responses.

Naturally, we would need to do a trial, a head to head randomized comparison of physicians versus chatbots.

This pilot study does highlight the promising potential of these chatbots to suggest responses. But we can’t fully recommend that they should be used as standalone clinical tools without physicians.

This Q&A was edited for clarity.

Only about 3% to 5% of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer have tumors that are positive for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2), and until recently there was no treatment approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for this subset of patients.

That all changed, in January of 2023. At that time, the FDA granted accelerated approval to tucatinib (Tukysa) in combination with trastuzumab for RAS wild-type HER2-positive unresectable or metastatic colorectal cancer that has progressed following fluoropyrimidine-, oxaliplatin-, and irinotecan-based chemotherapy.

The combination was the first FDA-approved treatment for this patient population.

The only other FDA-approved therapy for metastatic HER2-positive CRC is the antibody-drug conjugate trastuzumab deruxtecan (Enhertu). That drug received accelerated approval from the FDA for metastatic HER2-positive CRC for which no other suitable therapeutic option exists, on April 5, 2024. This FDA action represented an expansion of the drug’s earlier approvals for treating several cancer types, including certain patients with unresectable or metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer and adults with locally advanced or metastatic HER2-positive gastric or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma who had received a prior trastuzumab-based regimen.

More than a year after tucatinib-trastuzumab’s approval, the dual HER2 blockade is bringing substantial clinical benefits to a population with few therapeutic options.
 

Drug Combo’s Use With Capecitabine in Breast Cancer

Tucatinib is a potent oral tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) that has been shown to be highly selective for HER2. Prior to approval of the colorectal cancer indication, tucatinib had received FDA approval (in April 2020) in combination with trastuzumab and capecitabine for the treatment of patients with advanced unresectable or metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer, including patients with brain metastases, who had received one or more prior anti-HER2-based regimens in the metastatic setting.

In these patients the combination was associated with significant improvements in both progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival compared with trastuzumab and capecitabine.

Approval for the colorectal cancer indication was based on results of the phase 2 MOUNTAINEER trial, which were published in The Lancet Oncology.
 

Real-World Setting

Clinical experience with the combination in a real-world setting is still limited due to the relatively uncommon RAS wild-type HER2-positive CRC subtype, so most of what’s known about the efficacy and safety of tucatinib plus trastuzumab comes from clinical trials. But oncologists interviewed for this article emphasized that the tucatinib-trastuzumab combination nonetheless represents a major breakthrough.

“The population of RAS wild-type HER2-positive is small in colorectal cancer, but the benefit of this treatment is really remarkable. With this combination therapy there was a 38% response rate, and there was a very respectable duration of response. So the population is small, but the benefit of the treatment is by no means small,” said Afsaneh Barzi, MD, PhD, a medical oncologist specializing in gastrointestinal cancers at City of Hope in Duarte, California.

Another medical oncologist interviewed for this piece, who treats patients with HER2-positive metastatic CRC, said that the performance of tucatinib in the real-world setting is in keeping with the efficacy seen in clinical trials.

“There is a group of patients who have a very good response to HER2 [targeted] therapy. Often these are patients who have higher degrees of HER2 amplification, and they do not have concomitant other mutations that activate the pathway, such as RAS mutations,” said Kanwal PS Raghav, MD, MBBS, from the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston.
 

Why It Works

In an interview, MOUNTAINEER coinvestigator Tanios S. Bekaii-Saab, MD, from the Mayo Clinic Comprehensive Cancer Center in Phoenix, Arizona, explained why dual HER2 blockade with tucatinib and trastuzumab is an important breakthrough for this population.

“HER2 as a target was already well established in breast cancer and in gastric cancer. In colon cancer we had signals [of anti-HER2 efficacy] but these signals were primarily with dual targeted therapy,” he said.

“What’s unique about tucatinib versus neratinib [Nerlynx], lapatinib [Tykerb] and some of the others is that this is a highly selective tyrosine kinase inhibitor, meaning it is potent just against HER2 and has limited activity against other receptors, classically EGFR, which also goes by the name of HER1,” said MOUNTAINEER trial chair John H. Strickler, MD, of Duke Cancer Center in Durham, North Carolina.

“The reason why that’s valuable is that when you inhibit other receptors like HER1 or EGFR, you can cause significant skin rash and other symptoms that can limit tolerability, which limits your ability to give the full dose. With tucatinib you can more completely inhibit HER2 with fewer side effects,” Dr. Strickler said in an interview.

Dr. Raghav noted that the primary adverse events of therapy with tucatinib have been diarrhea and fatigue, and other common side effects include abdominal pain, fever, nausea, rash, and infusion reactions.
 

Barriers to Treatment

Dr. Barzi pointed out that in the day-to-day practice setting there are two potential barriers to treatment with tucatinib and trastuzumab for patients with HER2-positive colorectal cancer, hurdles that they would not encounter if they were enrolled in clinical trials.

The first barrier is the requirement for HER2 testing, either through immunohistochemistry or fluorescence in situ hybridization.

“The adoption of HER2 testing in colorectal cancer lags behind other molecular testing, such as testing for KRAS or BRAF, so the provider needs to be aware that HER2 positivity is a possibility,” she said.

The second and more difficult-to-surmount barrier is imposed by the healthcare system. Although the combination is included in National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines and, therefore, should not be subject to restrictions or denials by insurers, “the challenge is that this is an oral and IV drug combination,” Dr. Barzi said.

While patients in real-world settings receive intravenous drugs such as trastuzumab in treatment centers, the oral drug component, tucatinib, is dispensed by pharmacies, and patients are often required to shell out high copays for such agents.

Dr. Barzi cited as an example the case of one of her patients who was receiving an oral agent — not tucatinib — for treatment of a different type of colorectal cancer.

“He has very good insurance, and after insurance his out-of-pocket cost on a monthly basis to obtain the drug is $275,” she said.
 

What’s Next

In colorectal cancer the combination of tucatinib and trastuzumab is approved only in the metastatic setting, but it is also being explored as a first-line therapy in combination with the mFOLFOX6 regimen (5-Fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin) in the MOUNTAINEER-03 trial, which is currently recruiting.

MOUNTAINEER was sponsored by Seagen and Merck. Dr. Strickler reported support from Seagen for the Lancet Oncology manuscript; institutional grants, consulting fees, and travel support from Seagen, and similar relationships with other companies. Dr. Bekaii-Saab reported institutional research and consulting fees from various companies, including Merck, personal consulting fees from various companies, and independent monitoring board/scientific advisory board activities. Dr. Raghav disclosed honoraria and an advisory/consulting role for Seagen and others. Dr. Barzi reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

Only about 3% to 5% of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer have tumors that are positive for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2), and until recently there was no treatment approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for this subset of patients.

That all changed, in January of 2023. At that time, the FDA granted accelerated approval to tucatinib (Tukysa) in combination with trastuzumab for RAS wild-type HER2-positive unresectable or metastatic colorectal cancer that has progressed following fluoropyrimidine-, oxaliplatin-, and irinotecan-based chemotherapy.

The combination was the first FDA-approved treatment for this patient population.

The only other FDA-approved therapy for metastatic HER2-positive CRC is the antibody-drug conjugate trastuzumab deruxtecan (Enhertu). That drug received accelerated approval from the FDA for metastatic HER2-positive CRC for which no other suitable therapeutic option exists, on April 5, 2024. This FDA action represented an expansion of the drug’s earlier approvals for treating several cancer types, including certain patients with unresectable or metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer and adults with locally advanced or metastatic HER2-positive gastric or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma who had received a prior trastuzumab-based regimen.

More than a year after tucatinib-trastuzumab’s approval, the dual HER2 blockade is bringing substantial clinical benefits to a population with few therapeutic options.
 

Drug Combo’s Use With Capecitabine in Breast Cancer

Tucatinib is a potent oral tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) that has been shown to be highly selective for HER2. Prior to approval of the colorectal cancer indication, tucatinib had received FDA approval (in April 2020) in combination with trastuzumab and capecitabine for the treatment of patients with advanced unresectable or metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer, including patients with brain metastases, who had received one or more prior anti-HER2-based regimens in the metastatic setting.

In these patients the combination was associated with significant improvements in both progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival compared with trastuzumab and capecitabine.

Approval for the colorectal cancer indication was based on results of the phase 2 MOUNTAINEER trial, which were published in The Lancet Oncology.
 

Real-World Setting

Clinical experience with the combination in a real-world setting is still limited due to the relatively uncommon RAS wild-type HER2-positive CRC subtype, so most of what’s known about the efficacy and safety of tucatinib plus trastuzumab comes from clinical trials. But oncologists interviewed for this article emphasized that the tucatinib-trastuzumab combination nonetheless represents a major breakthrough.

“The population of RAS wild-type HER2-positive is small in colorectal cancer, but the benefit of this treatment is really remarkable. With this combination therapy there was a 38% response rate, and there was a very respectable duration of response. So the population is small, but the benefit of the treatment is by no means small,” said Afsaneh Barzi, MD, PhD, a medical oncologist specializing in gastrointestinal cancers at City of Hope in Duarte, California.

Another medical oncologist interviewed for this piece, who treats patients with HER2-positive metastatic CRC, said that the performance of tucatinib in the real-world setting is in keeping with the efficacy seen in clinical trials.

“There is a group of patients who have a very good response to HER2 [targeted] therapy. Often these are patients who have higher degrees of HER2 amplification, and they do not have concomitant other mutations that activate the pathway, such as RAS mutations,” said Kanwal PS Raghav, MD, MBBS, from the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston.
 

Why It Works

In an interview, MOUNTAINEER coinvestigator Tanios S. Bekaii-Saab, MD, from the Mayo Clinic Comprehensive Cancer Center in Phoenix, Arizona, explained why dual HER2 blockade with tucatinib and trastuzumab is an important breakthrough for this population.

“HER2 as a target was already well established in breast cancer and in gastric cancer. In colon cancer we had signals [of anti-HER2 efficacy] but these signals were primarily with dual targeted therapy,” he said.

“What’s unique about tucatinib versus neratinib [Nerlynx], lapatinib [Tykerb] and some of the others is that this is a highly selective tyrosine kinase inhibitor, meaning it is potent just against HER2 and has limited activity against other receptors, classically EGFR, which also goes by the name of HER1,” said MOUNTAINEER trial chair John H. Strickler, MD, of Duke Cancer Center in Durham, North Carolina.

“The reason why that’s valuable is that when you inhibit other receptors like HER1 or EGFR, you can cause significant skin rash and other symptoms that can limit tolerability, which limits your ability to give the full dose. With tucatinib you can more completely inhibit HER2 with fewer side effects,” Dr. Strickler said in an interview.

Dr. Raghav noted that the primary adverse events of therapy with tucatinib have been diarrhea and fatigue, and other common side effects include abdominal pain, fever, nausea, rash, and infusion reactions.
 

Barriers to Treatment

Dr. Barzi pointed out that in the day-to-day practice setting there are two potential barriers to treatment with tucatinib and trastuzumab for patients with HER2-positive colorectal cancer, hurdles that they would not encounter if they were enrolled in clinical trials.

The first barrier is the requirement for HER2 testing, either through immunohistochemistry or fluorescence in situ hybridization.

“The adoption of HER2 testing in colorectal cancer lags behind other molecular testing, such as testing for KRAS or BRAF, so the provider needs to be aware that HER2 positivity is a possibility,” she said.

The second and more difficult-to-surmount barrier is imposed by the healthcare system. Although the combination is included in National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines and, therefore, should not be subject to restrictions or denials by insurers, “the challenge is that this is an oral and IV drug combination,” Dr. Barzi said.

While patients in real-world settings receive intravenous drugs such as trastuzumab in treatment centers, the oral drug component, tucatinib, is dispensed by pharmacies, and patients are often required to shell out high copays for such agents.

Dr. Barzi cited as an example the case of one of her patients who was receiving an oral agent — not tucatinib — for treatment of a different type of colorectal cancer.

“He has very good insurance, and after insurance his out-of-pocket cost on a monthly basis to obtain the drug is $275,” she said.
 

What’s Next

In colorectal cancer the combination of tucatinib and trastuzumab is approved only in the metastatic setting, but it is also being explored as a first-line therapy in combination with the mFOLFOX6 regimen (5-Fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin) in the MOUNTAINEER-03 trial, which is currently recruiting.

MOUNTAINEER was sponsored by Seagen and Merck. Dr. Strickler reported support from Seagen for the Lancet Oncology manuscript; institutional grants, consulting fees, and travel support from Seagen, and similar relationships with other companies. Dr. Bekaii-Saab reported institutional research and consulting fees from various companies, including Merck, personal consulting fees from various companies, and independent monitoring board/scientific advisory board activities. Dr. Raghav disclosed honoraria and an advisory/consulting role for Seagen and others. Dr. Barzi reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

Only about 3% to 5% of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer have tumors that are positive for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2), and until recently there was no treatment approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for this subset of patients.

That all changed, in January of 2023. At that time, the FDA granted accelerated approval to tucatinib (Tukysa) in combination with trastuzumab for RAS wild-type HER2-positive unresectable or metastatic colorectal cancer that has progressed following fluoropyrimidine-, oxaliplatin-, and irinotecan-based chemotherapy.

The combination was the first FDA-approved treatment for this patient population.

The only other FDA-approved therapy for metastatic HER2-positive CRC is the antibody-drug conjugate trastuzumab deruxtecan (Enhertu). That drug received accelerated approval from the FDA for metastatic HER2-positive CRC for which no other suitable therapeutic option exists, on April 5, 2024. This FDA action represented an expansion of the drug’s earlier approvals for treating several cancer types, including certain patients with unresectable or metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer and adults with locally advanced or metastatic HER2-positive gastric or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma who had received a prior trastuzumab-based regimen.

More than a year after tucatinib-trastuzumab’s approval, the dual HER2 blockade is bringing substantial clinical benefits to a population with few therapeutic options.
 

Drug Combo’s Use With Capecitabine in Breast Cancer

Tucatinib is a potent oral tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) that has been shown to be highly selective for HER2. Prior to approval of the colorectal cancer indication, tucatinib had received FDA approval (in April 2020) in combination with trastuzumab and capecitabine for the treatment of patients with advanced unresectable or metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer, including patients with brain metastases, who had received one or more prior anti-HER2-based regimens in the metastatic setting.

In these patients the combination was associated with significant improvements in both progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival compared with trastuzumab and capecitabine.

Approval for the colorectal cancer indication was based on results of the phase 2 MOUNTAINEER trial, which were published in The Lancet Oncology.
 

Real-World Setting

Clinical experience with the combination in a real-world setting is still limited due to the relatively uncommon RAS wild-type HER2-positive CRC subtype, so most of what’s known about the efficacy and safety of tucatinib plus trastuzumab comes from clinical trials. But oncologists interviewed for this article emphasized that the tucatinib-trastuzumab combination nonetheless represents a major breakthrough.

“The population of RAS wild-type HER2-positive is small in colorectal cancer, but the benefit of this treatment is really remarkable. With this combination therapy there was a 38% response rate, and there was a very respectable duration of response. So the population is small, but the benefit of the treatment is by no means small,” said Afsaneh Barzi, MD, PhD, a medical oncologist specializing in gastrointestinal cancers at City of Hope in Duarte, California.

Another medical oncologist interviewed for this piece, who treats patients with HER2-positive metastatic CRC, said that the performance of tucatinib in the real-world setting is in keeping with the efficacy seen in clinical trials.

“There is a group of patients who have a very good response to HER2 [targeted] therapy. Often these are patients who have higher degrees of HER2 amplification, and they do not have concomitant other mutations that activate the pathway, such as RAS mutations,” said Kanwal PS Raghav, MD, MBBS, from the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston.
 

Why It Works

In an interview, MOUNTAINEER coinvestigator Tanios S. Bekaii-Saab, MD, from the Mayo Clinic Comprehensive Cancer Center in Phoenix, Arizona, explained why dual HER2 blockade with tucatinib and trastuzumab is an important breakthrough for this population.

“HER2 as a target was already well established in breast cancer and in gastric cancer. In colon cancer we had signals [of anti-HER2 efficacy] but these signals were primarily with dual targeted therapy,” he said.

“What’s unique about tucatinib versus neratinib [Nerlynx], lapatinib [Tykerb] and some of the others is that this is a highly selective tyrosine kinase inhibitor, meaning it is potent just against HER2 and has limited activity against other receptors, classically EGFR, which also goes by the name of HER1,” said MOUNTAINEER trial chair John H. Strickler, MD, of Duke Cancer Center in Durham, North Carolina.

“The reason why that’s valuable is that when you inhibit other receptors like HER1 or EGFR, you can cause significant skin rash and other symptoms that can limit tolerability, which limits your ability to give the full dose. With tucatinib you can more completely inhibit HER2 with fewer side effects,” Dr. Strickler said in an interview.

Dr. Raghav noted that the primary adverse events of therapy with tucatinib have been diarrhea and fatigue, and other common side effects include abdominal pain, fever, nausea, rash, and infusion reactions.
 

Barriers to Treatment

Dr. Barzi pointed out that in the day-to-day practice setting there are two potential barriers to treatment with tucatinib and trastuzumab for patients with HER2-positive colorectal cancer, hurdles that they would not encounter if they were enrolled in clinical trials.

The first barrier is the requirement for HER2 testing, either through immunohistochemistry or fluorescence in situ hybridization.

“The adoption of HER2 testing in colorectal cancer lags behind other molecular testing, such as testing for KRAS or BRAF, so the provider needs to be aware that HER2 positivity is a possibility,” she said.

The second and more difficult-to-surmount barrier is imposed by the healthcare system. Although the combination is included in National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines and, therefore, should not be subject to restrictions or denials by insurers, “the challenge is that this is an oral and IV drug combination,” Dr. Barzi said.

While patients in real-world settings receive intravenous drugs such as trastuzumab in treatment centers, the oral drug component, tucatinib, is dispensed by pharmacies, and patients are often required to shell out high copays for such agents.

Dr. Barzi cited as an example the case of one of her patients who was receiving an oral agent — not tucatinib — for treatment of a different type of colorectal cancer.

“He has very good insurance, and after insurance his out-of-pocket cost on a monthly basis to obtain the drug is $275,” she said.
 

What’s Next

In colorectal cancer the combination of tucatinib and trastuzumab is approved only in the metastatic setting, but it is also being explored as a first-line therapy in combination with the mFOLFOX6 regimen (5-Fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin) in the MOUNTAINEER-03 trial, which is currently recruiting.

MOUNTAINEER was sponsored by Seagen and Merck. Dr. Strickler reported support from Seagen for the Lancet Oncology manuscript; institutional grants, consulting fees, and travel support from Seagen, and similar relationships with other companies. Dr. Bekaii-Saab reported institutional research and consulting fees from various companies, including Merck, personal consulting fees from various companies, and independent monitoring board/scientific advisory board activities. Dr. Raghav disclosed honoraria and an advisory/consulting role for Seagen and others. Dr. Barzi reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

A relatively high percentage of men in their 70s and 80s, as well those determined to have a limited life expectancy, report receiving prostate cancer screening, despite recommendations against screening for men in those age groups.

In its most recent guidance, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) revised a previous 2012 recommendation against routine screening for prostate cancer to instead endorse individual decision-making for men aged 55 to 69 years (grade C).

In the update guidance, which was published in 2018, the task force still recommended against PSA-based screening for prostate cancer in men 70 years and older (grade D) due to a range of potential risks and harms. Guidelines from the American Urological Association and American Cancer Society have echoed that recommendation, in general agreement that men over the age of 70 or with limited life expectancy show little benefit from the screening.

To take a closer look at how commonly men are being screened for prostate cancer, based not only on their age but their estimated life expectancy, Kevin H. Kensler, ScD, of Weill Cornell Medicine, and colleagues conducted a cross-sectional study using data from the 2020 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS).

“Our findings indicate that many males aged 70 years and older or those with a high risk of death within 10 years undergo prostate cancer screening despite the recommendation against screening in these populations by current guidelines,” the authors wrote in their paper, published in JAMA Network Open. The results underscore that “enhancements to the shared decision-making process are needed to ensure that older males who undergo screening are those who may potentially benefit,” they noted.

For the study, the authors identified 57,397 men aged 60 and older without a history of prostate cancer who reported undergoing a screening PSA test in the prior 2 years.

Using a risk factor system, mortality risk was estimated based on the scales ranging from 5.5 or less to 10.0 or greater, corresponding to the estimated 10-year mortality of less than 30% to 71% or more, respectively.

Of the men, 19.2% were aged 70 to 74 years, 13.0% were aged 75 to 79 years, and 12.3% were aged 80 years or older. The rest were 69 years or younger.

While the estimated 2-year prostate cancer screening rates were 36.3% among those aged 60 to 64 years and 42.8% for those 65 to 69 years, the rates were even higher, at 47.1%, among those aged 70 to 74 years, and similar, at 42.7%, in the 75 to 79 years of age range. Among those aged 80 years and older, 30.4% had been screened.

While the screening frequency was 43.4% among males with the greatest estimated life expectancy, a fair percentage of men, 30.4%, with the lowest life expectancy, indicative of a 71% or greater risk of death within 10 years, received prostate cancer screening.

In fact, among those with lowest life expectancy, the screening rates were greater than 20% in all age groups.
 

Screening in Older Age: Benefit in Reducing Mortality Low

Autopsy research indicates that, in fact, as many as 50% of men do have prostate cancer at age 80; however, many of those tumors are low-risk and unlikely to affect the health of the men.

If detected early, as is the intention of screening, prostate cancer can take years to advance and the likelihood of receiving any mortality benefit from continued screening in older age is low.

Furthermore, screening in older age can have implications, including a higher risk of complications following a false positive prostate biopsy that may not have been necessary in the first place, the authors explained.

“Given the long natural history of prostate cancer and lead time associated with PSA-based screening, these males [aged 70 and older or with a high risk of death within 10 years] have a low likelihood of receiving any mortality benefit from continued screening,” the authors reported.

“Yet they face the potential harms of overdiagnosis, such as complications after prostate biopsy for a false-positive screening and psychological stress associated with a cancer diagnosis.”
 

Guideline Confusion, Habit, Among Reasons for Continued Screening

Among key reasons for the continued screening of men well into old age is the fluctuating history of the guidelines, Dr. Kensler said in an interview.

“There has been considerable variation in prostate cancer screening guidelines over time and across organizations that make screening recommendations, and this has inevitably led to some confusion among clinicians,” he explained.

However, the evidence of a lack of benefit over the age of 70 is strong enough that not performing PSA-based screening among men ages 70 or older is a Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set (HEDIS) measure for quality of care, he noted.

Nevertheless, “I think the trends we found in our analysis reflect that it is difficult for patients and providers to stop providing screening once they have already started it,” Dr. Kensler said.

Another motivator may be an inclination by clinicians to err on the side of caution, he added.

“For clinicians, although they may be aware of the guidelines, they may perhaps fear that they will not have offered screening to one of the older individuals who would have benefited from it even though they recognize that most would not,” Dr. Kensler noted.

Too often, however, such screenings “can lead to a cascade of other events that end up harming the patient without extending their lifespan,” he said.
 

Difficult Discussions

Complicating matters is the task of informing patients that due to their life expectancy, screening is considered to not likely be worthwhile — which may not be an easy discussion.

“For patients, hearing that they are at a stage of life where they may not benefit from screening is an unpleasant message to receive,” Dr. Kensler said.

“Having an in-depth conversation on this topic is also difficult given the many other health topics that clinicians and patients must cover during a visit.”

Ultimately, “these and other factors lead to inertia, where it is easier to stick to the status quo of continuing screening.”

The challenges underscore the need for improvements to the shared decision-making process to make sure that older men who do undergo prostrate screening will benefit, Dr. Kensler argued.

“If the guidelines are going to recommend shared decision-making, we need to provide tools to help patients and clinicians navigate these potentially difficult conversations.
 

Life Expectancy Uncertainties

Commenting on the research in an interview, Kyle Richards, MD, associate professor with the Department of Urology at the University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, in Madison, noted that, “while most urology experts agree that we should not screen for prostate cancer in men with less than 5-10 years life expectancy, the challenge is deciding which patients have a more limited life expectancy.” 

Tools and calculators are available to try to calculate life expectancy, “but they can be cumbersome and difficult to incorporate into clinical practice,” he added.

Indeed, the difficulty in accurately estimating life expectancy is also a limitation of the study, he noted.

“The challenge with a study like this is it is very difficult to accurately estimate life expectancy,” he said. “It is easy to pick a cut point (i.e. age 70) but it is very difficult to calculate one’s life expectancy from survey data alone.” 

Another limitation is that “screening PSA testing implies that the patient is not having any symptoms, and we do not know from this study if any of these men were getting PSA checks due to some urinary symptoms or other issues,” Dr. Richards added.

“So, while the study does raise some concern about screening PSA in older men, the data source makes it quite difficult to home in on this question.”

When it can be estimated, life expectancy can indeed provide a more useful guide in assessing the options if a patient is found to have prostate cancer, Dr. Richards noted.

“If a patient has a 5- to 10-year life expectancy, and they are diagnosed with a clinically significant prostate cancer, they absolutely may still benefit from treatment,” he said.

“If they have a clinically significant prostate cancer that is unrecognized, it could metastasize and cause symptoms or lead to death, as roughly 30,000 men die from prostate cancer each year in the USA.”

However, “if a patient has a limited life expectancy of less than 5 to 10 years, don’t screen for prostate cancer,” he advised. Proper guidance should furthermore be made loud and clear in guideline recommendations.

“I do think the USPSTF and AUA need to be the primary voices educating primary care and patients regarding prostate cancer screening,” Dr. Richards said.

“We need to be smart about whom to screen, when to screen, and how often to screen. And this message needs to be heard by the primary care providers that perform the screening.”

The study was supported by the Sandra and Edward Meyer Cancer Center and a grant from the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health.

Dr. Kensler and Dr. Richards had no disclosures to report.

A relatively high percentage of men in their 70s and 80s, as well those determined to have a limited life expectancy, report receiving prostate cancer screening, despite recommendations against screening for men in those age groups.

In its most recent guidance, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) revised a previous 2012 recommendation against routine screening for prostate cancer to instead endorse individual decision-making for men aged 55 to 69 years (grade C).

In the update guidance, which was published in 2018, the task force still recommended against PSA-based screening for prostate cancer in men 70 years and older (grade D) due to a range of potential risks and harms. Guidelines from the American Urological Association and American Cancer Society have echoed that recommendation, in general agreement that men over the age of 70 or with limited life expectancy show little benefit from the screening.

To take a closer look at how commonly men are being screened for prostate cancer, based not only on their age but their estimated life expectancy, Kevin H. Kensler, ScD, of Weill Cornell Medicine, and colleagues conducted a cross-sectional study using data from the 2020 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS).

“Our findings indicate that many males aged 70 years and older or those with a high risk of death within 10 years undergo prostate cancer screening despite the recommendation against screening in these populations by current guidelines,” the authors wrote in their paper, published in JAMA Network Open. The results underscore that “enhancements to the shared decision-making process are needed to ensure that older males who undergo screening are those who may potentially benefit,” they noted.

For the study, the authors identified 57,397 men aged 60 and older without a history of prostate cancer who reported undergoing a screening PSA test in the prior 2 years.

Using a risk factor system, mortality risk was estimated based on the scales ranging from 5.5 or less to 10.0 or greater, corresponding to the estimated 10-year mortality of less than 30% to 71% or more, respectively.

Of the men, 19.2% were aged 70 to 74 years, 13.0% were aged 75 to 79 years, and 12.3% were aged 80 years or older. The rest were 69 years or younger.

While the estimated 2-year prostate cancer screening rates were 36.3% among those aged 60 to 64 years and 42.8% for those 65 to 69 years, the rates were even higher, at 47.1%, among those aged 70 to 74 years, and similar, at 42.7%, in the 75 to 79 years of age range. Among those aged 80 years and older, 30.4% had been screened.

While the screening frequency was 43.4% among males with the greatest estimated life expectancy, a fair percentage of men, 30.4%, with the lowest life expectancy, indicative of a 71% or greater risk of death within 10 years, received prostate cancer screening.

In fact, among those with lowest life expectancy, the screening rates were greater than 20% in all age groups.
 

Screening in Older Age: Benefit in Reducing Mortality Low

Autopsy research indicates that, in fact, as many as 50% of men do have prostate cancer at age 80; however, many of those tumors are low-risk and unlikely to affect the health of the men.

If detected early, as is the intention of screening, prostate cancer can take years to advance and the likelihood of receiving any mortality benefit from continued screening in older age is low.

Furthermore, screening in older age can have implications, including a higher risk of complications following a false positive prostate biopsy that may not have been necessary in the first place, the authors explained.

“Given the long natural history of prostate cancer and lead time associated with PSA-based screening, these males [aged 70 and older or with a high risk of death within 10 years] have a low likelihood of receiving any mortality benefit from continued screening,” the authors reported.

“Yet they face the potential harms of overdiagnosis, such as complications after prostate biopsy for a false-positive screening and psychological stress associated with a cancer diagnosis.”
 

Guideline Confusion, Habit, Among Reasons for Continued Screening

Among key reasons for the continued screening of men well into old age is the fluctuating history of the guidelines, Dr. Kensler said in an interview.

“There has been considerable variation in prostate cancer screening guidelines over time and across organizations that make screening recommendations, and this has inevitably led to some confusion among clinicians,” he explained.

However, the evidence of a lack of benefit over the age of 70 is strong enough that not performing PSA-based screening among men ages 70 or older is a Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set (HEDIS) measure for quality of care, he noted.

Nevertheless, “I think the trends we found in our analysis reflect that it is difficult for patients and providers to stop providing screening once they have already started it,” Dr. Kensler said.

Another motivator may be an inclination by clinicians to err on the side of caution, he added.

“For clinicians, although they may be aware of the guidelines, they may perhaps fear that they will not have offered screening to one of the older individuals who would have benefited from it even though they recognize that most would not,” Dr. Kensler noted.

Too often, however, such screenings “can lead to a cascade of other events that end up harming the patient without extending their lifespan,” he said.
 

Difficult Discussions

Complicating matters is the task of informing patients that due to their life expectancy, screening is considered to not likely be worthwhile — which may not be an easy discussion.

“For patients, hearing that they are at a stage of life where they may not benefit from screening is an unpleasant message to receive,” Dr. Kensler said.

“Having an in-depth conversation on this topic is also difficult given the many other health topics that clinicians and patients must cover during a visit.”

Ultimately, “these and other factors lead to inertia, where it is easier to stick to the status quo of continuing screening.”

The challenges underscore the need for improvements to the shared decision-making process to make sure that older men who do undergo prostrate screening will benefit, Dr. Kensler argued.

“If the guidelines are going to recommend shared decision-making, we need to provide tools to help patients and clinicians navigate these potentially difficult conversations.
 

Life Expectancy Uncertainties

Commenting on the research in an interview, Kyle Richards, MD, associate professor with the Department of Urology at the University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, in Madison, noted that, “while most urology experts agree that we should not screen for prostate cancer in men with less than 5-10 years life expectancy, the challenge is deciding which patients have a more limited life expectancy.” 

Tools and calculators are available to try to calculate life expectancy, “but they can be cumbersome and difficult to incorporate into clinical practice,” he added.

Indeed, the difficulty in accurately estimating life expectancy is also a limitation of the study, he noted.

“The challenge with a study like this is it is very difficult to accurately estimate life expectancy,” he said. “It is easy to pick a cut point (i.e. age 70) but it is very difficult to calculate one’s life expectancy from survey data alone.” 

Another limitation is that “screening PSA testing implies that the patient is not having any symptoms, and we do not know from this study if any of these men were getting PSA checks due to some urinary symptoms or other issues,” Dr. Richards added.

“So, while the study does raise some concern about screening PSA in older men, the data source makes it quite difficult to home in on this question.”

When it can be estimated, life expectancy can indeed provide a more useful guide in assessing the options if a patient is found to have prostate cancer, Dr. Richards noted.

“If a patient has a 5- to 10-year life expectancy, and they are diagnosed with a clinically significant prostate cancer, they absolutely may still benefit from treatment,” he said.

“If they have a clinically significant prostate cancer that is unrecognized, it could metastasize and cause symptoms or lead to death, as roughly 30,000 men die from prostate cancer each year in the USA.”

However, “if a patient has a limited life expectancy of less than 5 to 10 years, don’t screen for prostate cancer,” he advised. Proper guidance should furthermore be made loud and clear in guideline recommendations.

“I do think the USPSTF and AUA need to be the primary voices educating primary care and patients regarding prostate cancer screening,” Dr. Richards said.

“We need to be smart about whom to screen, when to screen, and how often to screen. And this message needs to be heard by the primary care providers that perform the screening.”

The study was supported by the Sandra and Edward Meyer Cancer Center and a grant from the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health.

Dr. Kensler and Dr. Richards had no disclosures to report.

A relatively high percentage of men in their 70s and 80s, as well those determined to have a limited life expectancy, report receiving prostate cancer screening, despite recommendations against screening for men in those age groups.

In its most recent guidance, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) revised a previous 2012 recommendation against routine screening for prostate cancer to instead endorse individual decision-making for men aged 55 to 69 years (grade C).

In the update guidance, which was published in 2018, the task force still recommended against PSA-based screening for prostate cancer in men 70 years and older (grade D) due to a range of potential risks and harms. Guidelines from the American Urological Association and American Cancer Society have echoed that recommendation, in general agreement that men over the age of 70 or with limited life expectancy show little benefit from the screening.

To take a closer look at how commonly men are being screened for prostate cancer, based not only on their age but their estimated life expectancy, Kevin H. Kensler, ScD, of Weill Cornell Medicine, and colleagues conducted a cross-sectional study using data from the 2020 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS).

“Our findings indicate that many males aged 70 years and older or those with a high risk of death within 10 years undergo prostate cancer screening despite the recommendation against screening in these populations by current guidelines,” the authors wrote in their paper, published in JAMA Network Open. The results underscore that “enhancements to the shared decision-making process are needed to ensure that older males who undergo screening are those who may potentially benefit,” they noted.

For the study, the authors identified 57,397 men aged 60 and older without a history of prostate cancer who reported undergoing a screening PSA test in the prior 2 years.

Using a risk factor system, mortality risk was estimated based on the scales ranging from 5.5 or less to 10.0 or greater, corresponding to the estimated 10-year mortality of less than 30% to 71% or more, respectively.

Of the men, 19.2% were aged 70 to 74 years, 13.0% were aged 75 to 79 years, and 12.3% were aged 80 years or older. The rest were 69 years or younger.

While the estimated 2-year prostate cancer screening rates were 36.3% among those aged 60 to 64 years and 42.8% for those 65 to 69 years, the rates were even higher, at 47.1%, among those aged 70 to 74 years, and similar, at 42.7%, in the 75 to 79 years of age range. Among those aged 80 years and older, 30.4% had been screened.

While the screening frequency was 43.4% among males with the greatest estimated life expectancy, a fair percentage of men, 30.4%, with the lowest life expectancy, indicative of a 71% or greater risk of death within 10 years, received prostate cancer screening.

In fact, among those with lowest life expectancy, the screening rates were greater than 20% in all age groups.
 

Screening in Older Age: Benefit in Reducing Mortality Low

Autopsy research indicates that, in fact, as many as 50% of men do have prostate cancer at age 80; however, many of those tumors are low-risk and unlikely to affect the health of the men.

If detected early, as is the intention of screening, prostate cancer can take years to advance and the likelihood of receiving any mortality benefit from continued screening in older age is low.

Furthermore, screening in older age can have implications, including a higher risk of complications following a false positive prostate biopsy that may not have been necessary in the first place, the authors explained.

“Given the long natural history of prostate cancer and lead time associated with PSA-based screening, these males [aged 70 and older or with a high risk of death within 10 years] have a low likelihood of receiving any mortality benefit from continued screening,” the authors reported.

“Yet they face the potential harms of overdiagnosis, such as complications after prostate biopsy for a false-positive screening and psychological stress associated with a cancer diagnosis.”
 

Guideline Confusion, Habit, Among Reasons for Continued Screening

Among key reasons for the continued screening of men well into old age is the fluctuating history of the guidelines, Dr. Kensler said in an interview.

“There has been considerable variation in prostate cancer screening guidelines over time and across organizations that make screening recommendations, and this has inevitably led to some confusion among clinicians,” he explained.

However, the evidence of a lack of benefit over the age of 70 is strong enough that not performing PSA-based screening among men ages 70 or older is a Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set (HEDIS) measure for quality of care, he noted.

Nevertheless, “I think the trends we found in our analysis reflect that it is difficult for patients and providers to stop providing screening once they have already started it,” Dr. Kensler said.

Another motivator may be an inclination by clinicians to err on the side of caution, he added.

“For clinicians, although they may be aware of the guidelines, they may perhaps fear that they will not have offered screening to one of the older individuals who would have benefited from it even though they recognize that most would not,” Dr. Kensler noted.

Too often, however, such screenings “can lead to a cascade of other events that end up harming the patient without extending their lifespan,” he said.
 

Difficult Discussions

Complicating matters is the task of informing patients that due to their life expectancy, screening is considered to not likely be worthwhile — which may not be an easy discussion.

“For patients, hearing that they are at a stage of life where they may not benefit from screening is an unpleasant message to receive,” Dr. Kensler said.

“Having an in-depth conversation on this topic is also difficult given the many other health topics that clinicians and patients must cover during a visit.”

Ultimately, “these and other factors lead to inertia, where it is easier to stick to the status quo of continuing screening.”

The challenges underscore the need for improvements to the shared decision-making process to make sure that older men who do undergo prostrate screening will benefit, Dr. Kensler argued.

“If the guidelines are going to recommend shared decision-making, we need to provide tools to help patients and clinicians navigate these potentially difficult conversations.
 

Life Expectancy Uncertainties

Commenting on the research in an interview, Kyle Richards, MD, associate professor with the Department of Urology at the University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, in Madison, noted that, “while most urology experts agree that we should not screen for prostate cancer in men with less than 5-10 years life expectancy, the challenge is deciding which patients have a more limited life expectancy.” 

Tools and calculators are available to try to calculate life expectancy, “but they can be cumbersome and difficult to incorporate into clinical practice,” he added.

Indeed, the difficulty in accurately estimating life expectancy is also a limitation of the study, he noted.

“The challenge with a study like this is it is very difficult to accurately estimate life expectancy,” he said. “It is easy to pick a cut point (i.e. age 70) but it is very difficult to calculate one’s life expectancy from survey data alone.” 

Another limitation is that “screening PSA testing implies that the patient is not having any symptoms, and we do not know from this study if any of these men were getting PSA checks due to some urinary symptoms or other issues,” Dr. Richards added.

“So, while the study does raise some concern about screening PSA in older men, the data source makes it quite difficult to home in on this question.”

When it can be estimated, life expectancy can indeed provide a more useful guide in assessing the options if a patient is found to have prostate cancer, Dr. Richards noted.

“If a patient has a 5- to 10-year life expectancy, and they are diagnosed with a clinically significant prostate cancer, they absolutely may still benefit from treatment,” he said.

“If they have a clinically significant prostate cancer that is unrecognized, it could metastasize and cause symptoms or lead to death, as roughly 30,000 men die from prostate cancer each year in the USA.”

However, “if a patient has a limited life expectancy of less than 5 to 10 years, don’t screen for prostate cancer,” he advised. Proper guidance should furthermore be made loud and clear in guideline recommendations.

“I do think the USPSTF and AUA need to be the primary voices educating primary care and patients regarding prostate cancer screening,” Dr. Richards said.

“We need to be smart about whom to screen, when to screen, and how often to screen. And this message needs to be heard by the primary care providers that perform the screening.”

The study was supported by the Sandra and Edward Meyer Cancer Center and a grant from the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health.

Dr. Kensler and Dr. Richards had no disclosures to report.

TOPLINE:

A hypofractionated intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) may be safe and well-tolerated in women with cervical cancer undergoing pelvic irradiation with concurrent chemotherapy following surgical resection, results from the phase 2 POHIM-CCRT trial suggested.

METHODOLOGY:

• To date, no studies have assessed the treatment outcomes and toxic effects of hypofractionated IMRT following radical hysterectomy in patients with cervical cancer undergoing curative radiotherapy.
• The team analyzed outcomes from 79 patients undergoing hypofractionated IMRT for cervical cancer after radical hysterectomy and pelvic lymph node dissection.
• Patients were a median age of 48; 29.5% had stage IB to IIA disease, another 29.5% had stage IIB disease, and 41% had stage III disease. Patients also had at least one of the following criteria following radical hysterectomy and pelvic lymph node dissection: lymph node metastasis (39.7%), parametrial invasion (54.4%), and positive resection margin (5.1%).
• The prescribed dose to the planning target volume was 40 Gy, delivered in 16 fractions to the whole pelvis, with any type of IMRT permitted. Overall, 71 patients also underwent concurrent weekly cisplatin (40 mg/m² of body surface area for three cycles), and eight received fluorouracil (1000 mg/m² on days 1-5) with cisplatin (60 mg/m² for two cycles).
• The primary endpoint was the incidence of acute grade 3 or higher gastrointestinal tract, genitourinary, and hematologic toxic effects during radiotherapy or within 3 months of completing radiotherapy.

TAKEAWAY:

• After radiotherapy, only two patients (2.5%) experienced acute grade 3 or higher toxic effects. One was hospitalized for enterocolitis on the last day of radiotherapy and developed grade 3 anemia 3 months after completing radiotherapy; the other experienced hematologic toxic effects and also developed grade 3 anemia 3 months after completing radiotherapy.
• No patients experienced late grade 3 or higher toxic effects.
• When assessing toxic effects of any grade, acute and late gastrointestinal tract toxicities occurred in 76% and 31.6% of patients, respectively; acute and late genitourinary toxicities, all grade 1, occurred in 19% and 24.1% of patients, respectively; and hematologic toxicities occurred in 29.1% and 6.3% of patients, respectively.
• Overall, at 3 years, 79.3% of patients were disease-free and 98% were alive. After a median follow-up of 43 months, 16 patients (20.3%) experienced disease recurrence, four of whom were salvaged and three of whom died.

IN PRACTICE:

“This nonrandomized controlled trial is the first prospective trial, to our knowledge, to show acceptable acute toxic effects of hypofractionated IMRT for cervical cancer in a postoperative concurrent chemoradiotherapy setting,” the authors said, adding that the rate of grade 3 or higher acute toxic effects of 2.5% reported in this study was “substantially lower than our initial hypothesis of less than 15%.”

However , in an accompanying editorial, Mark E. Bernard, MD, of the University of Kentucky College of Medicine, Lexington, highlighted caveats to the study design and raised two core questions: “Should acute toxic effects be the primary endpoint of a single-group, phase 2 study using hypofractionation with fewer cycles of concurrent chemotherapy? Should the primary endpoint rather have been a cancer control endpoint, such as disease-free survival, overall survival, or local control?”

Still, Dr. Bernard wrote, “This trial does help lay the foundation for future pelvic hypofractionated trials with concurrent chemotherapy, especially for gynecological malignant tumors.”

SOURCE:

The research, led by Won Park, MD, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea, was published in JAMA Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

The trial is a single-arm study, with a short follow-up time. In the editorial, Bernard listed several limitations, including the fact that patients received fewer cycles of concurrent chemotherapy than what’s typically given in this population.

DISCLOSURES:

No funding or relevant financial relationships were declared.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A hypofractionated intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) may be safe and well-tolerated in women with cervical cancer undergoing pelvic irradiation with concurrent chemotherapy following surgical resection, results from the phase 2 POHIM-CCRT trial suggested.

METHODOLOGY:

• To date, no studies have assessed the treatment outcomes and toxic effects of hypofractionated IMRT following radical hysterectomy in patients with cervical cancer undergoing curative radiotherapy.
• The team analyzed outcomes from 79 patients undergoing hypofractionated IMRT for cervical cancer after radical hysterectomy and pelvic lymph node dissection.
• Patients were a median age of 48; 29.5% had stage IB to IIA disease, another 29.5% had stage IIB disease, and 41% had stage III disease. Patients also had at least one of the following criteria following radical hysterectomy and pelvic lymph node dissection: lymph node metastasis (39.7%), parametrial invasion (54.4%), and positive resection margin (5.1%).
• The prescribed dose to the planning target volume was 40 Gy, delivered in 16 fractions to the whole pelvis, with any type of IMRT permitted. Overall, 71 patients also underwent concurrent weekly cisplatin (40 mg/m² of body surface area for three cycles), and eight received fluorouracil (1000 mg/m² on days 1-5) with cisplatin (60 mg/m² for two cycles).
• The primary endpoint was the incidence of acute grade 3 or higher gastrointestinal tract, genitourinary, and hematologic toxic effects during radiotherapy or within 3 months of completing radiotherapy.

TAKEAWAY:

• After radiotherapy, only two patients (2.5%) experienced acute grade 3 or higher toxic effects. One was hospitalized for enterocolitis on the last day of radiotherapy and developed grade 3 anemia 3 months after completing radiotherapy; the other experienced hematologic toxic effects and also developed grade 3 anemia 3 months after completing radiotherapy.
• No patients experienced late grade 3 or higher toxic effects.
• When assessing toxic effects of any grade, acute and late gastrointestinal tract toxicities occurred in 76% and 31.6% of patients, respectively; acute and late genitourinary toxicities, all grade 1, occurred in 19% and 24.1% of patients, respectively; and hematologic toxicities occurred in 29.1% and 6.3% of patients, respectively.
• Overall, at 3 years, 79.3% of patients were disease-free and 98% were alive. After a median follow-up of 43 months, 16 patients (20.3%) experienced disease recurrence, four of whom were salvaged and three of whom died.

IN PRACTICE:

“This nonrandomized controlled trial is the first prospective trial, to our knowledge, to show acceptable acute toxic effects of hypofractionated IMRT for cervical cancer in a postoperative concurrent chemoradiotherapy setting,” the authors said, adding that the rate of grade 3 or higher acute toxic effects of 2.5% reported in this study was “substantially lower than our initial hypothesis of less than 15%.”

However , in an accompanying editorial, Mark E. Bernard, MD, of the University of Kentucky College of Medicine, Lexington, highlighted caveats to the study design and raised two core questions: “Should acute toxic effects be the primary endpoint of a single-group, phase 2 study using hypofractionation with fewer cycles of concurrent chemotherapy? Should the primary endpoint rather have been a cancer control endpoint, such as disease-free survival, overall survival, or local control?”

Still, Dr. Bernard wrote, “This trial does help lay the foundation for future pelvic hypofractionated trials with concurrent chemotherapy, especially for gynecological malignant tumors.”

SOURCE:

The research, led by Won Park, MD, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea, was published in JAMA Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

The trial is a single-arm study, with a short follow-up time. In the editorial, Bernard listed several limitations, including the fact that patients received fewer cycles of concurrent chemotherapy than what’s typically given in this population.

DISCLOSURES:

No funding or relevant financial relationships were declared.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A hypofractionated intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) may be safe and well-tolerated in women with cervical cancer undergoing pelvic irradiation with concurrent chemotherapy following surgical resection, results from the phase 2 POHIM-CCRT trial suggested.

METHODOLOGY:

• To date, no studies have assessed the treatment outcomes and toxic effects of hypofractionated IMRT following radical hysterectomy in patients with cervical cancer undergoing curative radiotherapy.
• The team analyzed outcomes from 79 patients undergoing hypofractionated IMRT for cervical cancer after radical hysterectomy and pelvic lymph node dissection.
• Patients were a median age of 48; 29.5% had stage IB to IIA disease, another 29.5% had stage IIB disease, and 41% had stage III disease. Patients also had at least one of the following criteria following radical hysterectomy and pelvic lymph node dissection: lymph node metastasis (39.7%), parametrial invasion (54.4%), and positive resection margin (5.1%).
• The prescribed dose to the planning target volume was 40 Gy, delivered in 16 fractions to the whole pelvis, with any type of IMRT permitted. Overall, 71 patients also underwent concurrent weekly cisplatin (40 mg/m² of body surface area for three cycles), and eight received fluorouracil (1000 mg/m² on days 1-5) with cisplatin (60 mg/m² for two cycles).
• The primary endpoint was the incidence of acute grade 3 or higher gastrointestinal tract, genitourinary, and hematologic toxic effects during radiotherapy or within 3 months of completing radiotherapy.

TAKEAWAY:

• After radiotherapy, only two patients (2.5%) experienced acute grade 3 or higher toxic effects. One was hospitalized for enterocolitis on the last day of radiotherapy and developed grade 3 anemia 3 months after completing radiotherapy; the other experienced hematologic toxic effects and also developed grade 3 anemia 3 months after completing radiotherapy.
• No patients experienced late grade 3 or higher toxic effects.
• When assessing toxic effects of any grade, acute and late gastrointestinal tract toxicities occurred in 76% and 31.6% of patients, respectively; acute and late genitourinary toxicities, all grade 1, occurred in 19% and 24.1% of patients, respectively; and hematologic toxicities occurred in 29.1% and 6.3% of patients, respectively.
• Overall, at 3 years, 79.3% of patients were disease-free and 98% were alive. After a median follow-up of 43 months, 16 patients (20.3%) experienced disease recurrence, four of whom were salvaged and three of whom died.

IN PRACTICE:

“This nonrandomized controlled trial is the first prospective trial, to our knowledge, to show acceptable acute toxic effects of hypofractionated IMRT for cervical cancer in a postoperative concurrent chemoradiotherapy setting,” the authors said, adding that the rate of grade 3 or higher acute toxic effects of 2.5% reported in this study was “substantially lower than our initial hypothesis of less than 15%.”

However , in an accompanying editorial, Mark E. Bernard, MD, of the University of Kentucky College of Medicine, Lexington, highlighted caveats to the study design and raised two core questions: “Should acute toxic effects be the primary endpoint of a single-group, phase 2 study using hypofractionation with fewer cycles of concurrent chemotherapy? Should the primary endpoint rather have been a cancer control endpoint, such as disease-free survival, overall survival, or local control?”

Still, Dr. Bernard wrote, “This trial does help lay the foundation for future pelvic hypofractionated trials with concurrent chemotherapy, especially for gynecological malignant tumors.”

SOURCE:

The research, led by Won Park, MD, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea, was published in JAMA Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

The trial is a single-arm study, with a short follow-up time. In the editorial, Bernard listed several limitations, including the fact that patients received fewer cycles of concurrent chemotherapy than what’s typically given in this population.

DISCLOSURES:

No funding or relevant financial relationships were declared.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO — Compared with medical oncologists, dermatologists were more likely to correctly classify and grade dermatologic adverse events from cancer therapies, results from a multicenter survey showed.

“New cancer therapies have brought a diversity of treatment-related dermatologic adverse events (dAEs) beyond those experienced with conventional chemotherapy, which has demanded an evolving assessment of toxicities,” researchers led by Nicole R. LeBoeuf, MD, MPH, of the Department of Dermatology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and the Center for Cutaneous Oncology at the Dana-Farber Brigham Cancer Center, Boston, wrote in a poster presented at the American Academy of Dermatology annual meeting.

The authors noted that “Version 5.0 of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE v5.0)” serves as the current, broadly accepted criteria for classification and grading during routine medical care and clinical trials. But despite extensive utilization of CTCAE, there is little data regarding its application.”

To evaluate how CTCAE is being used in clinical practice, they sent a four-case survey of dAEs to 81 dermatologists and 182 medical oncologists at six US-based academic institutions. For three of the cases, respondents were asked to classify and grade morbilliform, psoriasiform, and papulopustular rashes based on a review of photographs and text descriptions. For the fourth case, respondents were asked to grade a dAE using only a clinic note text description. The researchers used chi-square tests in R software to compare survey responses.

Compared with medical oncologists, dermatologists were significantly more likely to provide correct responses in characterizing morbilliform and psoriasiform eruptions. “As low as 12%” of medical oncologists were correct, and “as low as 87%” of dermatologists were correct (P < .001). Similarly, dermatologists were significantly more likely to grade the psoriasiform, papulopustular, and written cases correctly compared with medical oncologists (P < .001 for all associations).

“These cases demonstrated poor concordance of classification and grading between specialties and across medical oncology,” the authors concluded in their poster, noting that 87% of medical oncologists were interested in additional educational tools on dAEs. “With correct classification as low as 12%, medical oncologists may have more difficulty delivering appropriate, toxicity-specific therapy and may consider banal eruptions dangerous.”

Poor concordance of grading among the two groups of clinicians “raises the question of whether CTCAE v5.0 is an appropriate determinant for patient continuation on therapy or in trials,” they added. “As anticancer therapy becomes more complex — with new toxicities from novel agents and combinations — we must ensure we have a grading system that is valid across investigators and does not harm patients by instituting unnecessary treatment stops.”

Future studies, they said, “can explore what interventions beyond involvement of dermatologists improve classification and grading in practice.”

Adam Friedman, MD, professor and chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, who was asked to comment on the study, noted that with the continued expansion and introduction of new targeted and immunotherapies in the oncology space, “you can be sure we will continue to appreciate the importance and value of the field of supportive oncodermatology, as hair, skin, and nails are almost guaranteed collateral damage in this story.

“Ensuring early identification and consistent grading severity is not only important for the plethora of patients who are currently developing the litany of cutaneous adverse events but to evaluate potential mitigation strategies and even push along countermeasures down the FDA approval pathway,” Dr. Friedman said. In this study, the investigators demonstrated that work “is sorely needed, not just in dermatology but even more so for our colleagues across the aisle. A central tenet of supportive oncodermatology must also be education for all stakeholders, and the good news is our oncology partners will welcome it.”

Dr. LeBoeuf disclosed that she is a consultant to and has received honoraria from Bayer, Seattle Genetics, Sanofi, Silverback, Fortress Biotech, and Synox Therapeutics outside the submitted work. No other authors reported having financial disclosures. Dr. Friedman directs the supportive oncodermatology program at GW that received independent funding from La Roche-Posay.
 

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO — Compared with medical oncologists, dermatologists were more likely to correctly classify and grade dermatologic adverse events from cancer therapies, results from a multicenter survey showed.

“New cancer therapies have brought a diversity of treatment-related dermatologic adverse events (dAEs) beyond those experienced with conventional chemotherapy, which has demanded an evolving assessment of toxicities,” researchers led by Nicole R. LeBoeuf, MD, MPH, of the Department of Dermatology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and the Center for Cutaneous Oncology at the Dana-Farber Brigham Cancer Center, Boston, wrote in a poster presented at the American Academy of Dermatology annual meeting.

The authors noted that “Version 5.0 of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE v5.0)” serves as the current, broadly accepted criteria for classification and grading during routine medical care and clinical trials. But despite extensive utilization of CTCAE, there is little data regarding its application.”

To evaluate how CTCAE is being used in clinical practice, they sent a four-case survey of dAEs to 81 dermatologists and 182 medical oncologists at six US-based academic institutions. For three of the cases, respondents were asked to classify and grade morbilliform, psoriasiform, and papulopustular rashes based on a review of photographs and text descriptions. For the fourth case, respondents were asked to grade a dAE using only a clinic note text description. The researchers used chi-square tests in R software to compare survey responses.

Compared with medical oncologists, dermatologists were significantly more likely to provide correct responses in characterizing morbilliform and psoriasiform eruptions. “As low as 12%” of medical oncologists were correct, and “as low as 87%” of dermatologists were correct (P < .001). Similarly, dermatologists were significantly more likely to grade the psoriasiform, papulopustular, and written cases correctly compared with medical oncologists (P < .001 for all associations).

“These cases demonstrated poor concordance of classification and grading between specialties and across medical oncology,” the authors concluded in their poster, noting that 87% of medical oncologists were interested in additional educational tools on dAEs. “With correct classification as low as 12%, medical oncologists may have more difficulty delivering appropriate, toxicity-specific therapy and may consider banal eruptions dangerous.”

Poor concordance of grading among the two groups of clinicians “raises the question of whether CTCAE v5.0 is an appropriate determinant for patient continuation on therapy or in trials,” they added. “As anticancer therapy becomes more complex — with new toxicities from novel agents and combinations — we must ensure we have a grading system that is valid across investigators and does not harm patients by instituting unnecessary treatment stops.”

Future studies, they said, “can explore what interventions beyond involvement of dermatologists improve classification and grading in practice.”

Adam Friedman, MD, professor and chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, who was asked to comment on the study, noted that with the continued expansion and introduction of new targeted and immunotherapies in the oncology space, “you can be sure we will continue to appreciate the importance and value of the field of supportive oncodermatology, as hair, skin, and nails are almost guaranteed collateral damage in this story.

“Ensuring early identification and consistent grading severity is not only important for the plethora of patients who are currently developing the litany of cutaneous adverse events but to evaluate potential mitigation strategies and even push along countermeasures down the FDA approval pathway,” Dr. Friedman said. In this study, the investigators demonstrated that work “is sorely needed, not just in dermatology but even more so for our colleagues across the aisle. A central tenet of supportive oncodermatology must also be education for all stakeholders, and the good news is our oncology partners will welcome it.”

Dr. LeBoeuf disclosed that she is a consultant to and has received honoraria from Bayer, Seattle Genetics, Sanofi, Silverback, Fortress Biotech, and Synox Therapeutics outside the submitted work. No other authors reported having financial disclosures. Dr. Friedman directs the supportive oncodermatology program at GW that received independent funding from La Roche-Posay.
 

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO — Compared with medical oncologists, dermatologists were more likely to correctly classify and grade dermatologic adverse events from cancer therapies, results from a multicenter survey showed.

“New cancer therapies have brought a diversity of treatment-related dermatologic adverse events (dAEs) beyond those experienced with conventional chemotherapy, which has demanded an evolving assessment of toxicities,” researchers led by Nicole R. LeBoeuf, MD, MPH, of the Department of Dermatology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and the Center for Cutaneous Oncology at the Dana-Farber Brigham Cancer Center, Boston, wrote in a poster presented at the American Academy of Dermatology annual meeting.

The authors noted that “Version 5.0 of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE v5.0)” serves as the current, broadly accepted criteria for classification and grading during routine medical care and clinical trials. But despite extensive utilization of CTCAE, there is little data regarding its application.”

To evaluate how CTCAE is being used in clinical practice, they sent a four-case survey of dAEs to 81 dermatologists and 182 medical oncologists at six US-based academic institutions. For three of the cases, respondents were asked to classify and grade morbilliform, psoriasiform, and papulopustular rashes based on a review of photographs and text descriptions. For the fourth case, respondents were asked to grade a dAE using only a clinic note text description. The researchers used chi-square tests in R software to compare survey responses.

Compared with medical oncologists, dermatologists were significantly more likely to provide correct responses in characterizing morbilliform and psoriasiform eruptions. “As low as 12%” of medical oncologists were correct, and “as low as 87%” of dermatologists were correct (P < .001). Similarly, dermatologists were significantly more likely to grade the psoriasiform, papulopustular, and written cases correctly compared with medical oncologists (P < .001 for all associations).

“These cases demonstrated poor concordance of classification and grading between specialties and across medical oncology,” the authors concluded in their poster, noting that 87% of medical oncologists were interested in additional educational tools on dAEs. “With correct classification as low as 12%, medical oncologists may have more difficulty delivering appropriate, toxicity-specific therapy and may consider banal eruptions dangerous.”

Poor concordance of grading among the two groups of clinicians “raises the question of whether CTCAE v5.0 is an appropriate determinant for patient continuation on therapy or in trials,” they added. “As anticancer therapy becomes more complex — with new toxicities from novel agents and combinations — we must ensure we have a grading system that is valid across investigators and does not harm patients by instituting unnecessary treatment stops.”

Future studies, they said, “can explore what interventions beyond involvement of dermatologists improve classification and grading in practice.”

Adam Friedman, MD, professor and chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, who was asked to comment on the study, noted that with the continued expansion and introduction of new targeted and immunotherapies in the oncology space, “you can be sure we will continue to appreciate the importance and value of the field of supportive oncodermatology, as hair, skin, and nails are almost guaranteed collateral damage in this story.

“Ensuring early identification and consistent grading severity is not only important for the plethora of patients who are currently developing the litany of cutaneous adverse events but to evaluate potential mitigation strategies and even push along countermeasures down the FDA approval pathway,” Dr. Friedman said. In this study, the investigators demonstrated that work “is sorely needed, not just in dermatology but even more so for our colleagues across the aisle. A central tenet of supportive oncodermatology must also be education for all stakeholders, and the good news is our oncology partners will welcome it.”

Dr. LeBoeuf disclosed that she is a consultant to and has received honoraria from Bayer, Seattle Genetics, Sanofi, Silverback, Fortress Biotech, and Synox Therapeutics outside the submitted work. No other authors reported having financial disclosures. Dr. Friedman directs the supportive oncodermatology program at GW that received independent funding from La Roche-Posay.
 

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.