User login
Cognitive decline risk in adult childhood cancer survivors
Among more than 2,300 adult survivors of childhood cancer and their siblings, who served as controls, new-onset memory impairment emerged more often in survivors decades later.
The increased risk was associated with the cancer treatment that was provided as well as modifiable health behaviors and chronic health conditions.
Even 35 years after being diagnosed, cancer survivors who never received chemotherapies or radiation therapies known to damage the brain reported far greater memory impairment than did their siblings, first author Nicholas Phillips, MD, told this news organization.
What the findings suggest is that “we need to educate oncologists and primary care providers on the risks our survivors face long after completion of therapy,” said Dr. Phillips, of the epidemiology and cancer control department at St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital, Memphis, Tenn.
The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.
Cancer survivors face an elevated risk for severe neurocognitive effects that can emerge 5-10 years following their diagnosis and treatment. However, it’s unclear whether new-onset neurocognitive problems can still develop a decade or more following diagnosis.
Over a long-term follow-up, Dr. Phillips and colleagues explored this question in 2,375 adult survivors of childhood cancer from the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study and 232 of their siblings.
Among the cancer cohort, 1,316 patients were survivors of acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL), 488 were survivors of central nervous system (CNS) tumors, and 571 had survived Hodgkin lymphoma.
The researchers determined the prevalence of new-onset neurocognitive impairment between baseline (23 years after diagnosis) and follow-up (35 years after diagnosis). New-onset neurocognitive impairment – present at follow-up but not at baseline – was defined as having a score in the worst 10% of the sibling cohort.
A higher proportion of survivors had new-onset memory impairment at follow-up compared with siblings. Specifically, about 8% of siblings had new-onset memory trouble, compared with 14% of ALL survivors treated with chemotherapy only, 26% of ALL survivors treated with cranial radiation, 35% of CNS tumor survivors, and 17% of Hodgkin lymphoma survivors.
New-onset memory impairment was associated with cranial radiation among CNS tumor survivors (relative risk [RR], 1.97) and alkylator chemotherapy at or above 8,000 mg/m2 among survivors of ALL who were treated without cranial radiation (RR, 2.80). The authors also found that smoking, low educational attainment, and low physical activity were associated with an elevated risk for new-onset memory impairment.
Dr. Phillips noted that current guidelines emphasize the importance of short-term monitoring of a survivor’s neurocognitive status on the basis of that person’s chemotherapy and radiation exposures.
However, “our study suggests that all survivors, regardless of their therapy, should be screened regularly for new-onset neurocognitive problems. And this screening should be done regularly for decades after diagnosis,” he said in an interview.
Dr. Phillips also noted the importance of communicating lifestyle modifications, such as not smoking and maintaining an active lifestyle.
“We need to start early and use the power of repetition when communicating with our survivors and their families,” Dr. Phillips said. “When our families and survivors hear the word ‘exercise,’ they think of gym memberships, lifting weights, and running on treadmills. But what we really want our survivors to do is stay active.”
What this means is engaging for about 2.5 hours a week in a range of activities, such as ballet, basketball, volleyball, bicycling, or swimming.
“And if our kids want to quit after 3 months, let them know that this is okay. They just need to replace that activity with another activity,” said Dr. Phillips. “We want them to find a fun hobby that they will enjoy that will keep them active.”
The study was supported by the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Phillips has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Among more than 2,300 adult survivors of childhood cancer and their siblings, who served as controls, new-onset memory impairment emerged more often in survivors decades later.
The increased risk was associated with the cancer treatment that was provided as well as modifiable health behaviors and chronic health conditions.
Even 35 years after being diagnosed, cancer survivors who never received chemotherapies or radiation therapies known to damage the brain reported far greater memory impairment than did their siblings, first author Nicholas Phillips, MD, told this news organization.
What the findings suggest is that “we need to educate oncologists and primary care providers on the risks our survivors face long after completion of therapy,” said Dr. Phillips, of the epidemiology and cancer control department at St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital, Memphis, Tenn.
The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.
Cancer survivors face an elevated risk for severe neurocognitive effects that can emerge 5-10 years following their diagnosis and treatment. However, it’s unclear whether new-onset neurocognitive problems can still develop a decade or more following diagnosis.
Over a long-term follow-up, Dr. Phillips and colleagues explored this question in 2,375 adult survivors of childhood cancer from the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study and 232 of their siblings.
Among the cancer cohort, 1,316 patients were survivors of acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL), 488 were survivors of central nervous system (CNS) tumors, and 571 had survived Hodgkin lymphoma.
The researchers determined the prevalence of new-onset neurocognitive impairment between baseline (23 years after diagnosis) and follow-up (35 years after diagnosis). New-onset neurocognitive impairment – present at follow-up but not at baseline – was defined as having a score in the worst 10% of the sibling cohort.
A higher proportion of survivors had new-onset memory impairment at follow-up compared with siblings. Specifically, about 8% of siblings had new-onset memory trouble, compared with 14% of ALL survivors treated with chemotherapy only, 26% of ALL survivors treated with cranial radiation, 35% of CNS tumor survivors, and 17% of Hodgkin lymphoma survivors.
New-onset memory impairment was associated with cranial radiation among CNS tumor survivors (relative risk [RR], 1.97) and alkylator chemotherapy at or above 8,000 mg/m2 among survivors of ALL who were treated without cranial radiation (RR, 2.80). The authors also found that smoking, low educational attainment, and low physical activity were associated with an elevated risk for new-onset memory impairment.
Dr. Phillips noted that current guidelines emphasize the importance of short-term monitoring of a survivor’s neurocognitive status on the basis of that person’s chemotherapy and radiation exposures.
However, “our study suggests that all survivors, regardless of their therapy, should be screened regularly for new-onset neurocognitive problems. And this screening should be done regularly for decades after diagnosis,” he said in an interview.
Dr. Phillips also noted the importance of communicating lifestyle modifications, such as not smoking and maintaining an active lifestyle.
“We need to start early and use the power of repetition when communicating with our survivors and their families,” Dr. Phillips said. “When our families and survivors hear the word ‘exercise,’ they think of gym memberships, lifting weights, and running on treadmills. But what we really want our survivors to do is stay active.”
What this means is engaging for about 2.5 hours a week in a range of activities, such as ballet, basketball, volleyball, bicycling, or swimming.
“And if our kids want to quit after 3 months, let them know that this is okay. They just need to replace that activity with another activity,” said Dr. Phillips. “We want them to find a fun hobby that they will enjoy that will keep them active.”
The study was supported by the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Phillips has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Among more than 2,300 adult survivors of childhood cancer and their siblings, who served as controls, new-onset memory impairment emerged more often in survivors decades later.
The increased risk was associated with the cancer treatment that was provided as well as modifiable health behaviors and chronic health conditions.
Even 35 years after being diagnosed, cancer survivors who never received chemotherapies or radiation therapies known to damage the brain reported far greater memory impairment than did their siblings, first author Nicholas Phillips, MD, told this news organization.
What the findings suggest is that “we need to educate oncologists and primary care providers on the risks our survivors face long after completion of therapy,” said Dr. Phillips, of the epidemiology and cancer control department at St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital, Memphis, Tenn.
The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.
Cancer survivors face an elevated risk for severe neurocognitive effects that can emerge 5-10 years following their diagnosis and treatment. However, it’s unclear whether new-onset neurocognitive problems can still develop a decade or more following diagnosis.
Over a long-term follow-up, Dr. Phillips and colleagues explored this question in 2,375 adult survivors of childhood cancer from the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study and 232 of their siblings.
Among the cancer cohort, 1,316 patients were survivors of acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL), 488 were survivors of central nervous system (CNS) tumors, and 571 had survived Hodgkin lymphoma.
The researchers determined the prevalence of new-onset neurocognitive impairment between baseline (23 years after diagnosis) and follow-up (35 years after diagnosis). New-onset neurocognitive impairment – present at follow-up but not at baseline – was defined as having a score in the worst 10% of the sibling cohort.
A higher proportion of survivors had new-onset memory impairment at follow-up compared with siblings. Specifically, about 8% of siblings had new-onset memory trouble, compared with 14% of ALL survivors treated with chemotherapy only, 26% of ALL survivors treated with cranial radiation, 35% of CNS tumor survivors, and 17% of Hodgkin lymphoma survivors.
New-onset memory impairment was associated with cranial radiation among CNS tumor survivors (relative risk [RR], 1.97) and alkylator chemotherapy at or above 8,000 mg/m2 among survivors of ALL who were treated without cranial radiation (RR, 2.80). The authors also found that smoking, low educational attainment, and low physical activity were associated with an elevated risk for new-onset memory impairment.
Dr. Phillips noted that current guidelines emphasize the importance of short-term monitoring of a survivor’s neurocognitive status on the basis of that person’s chemotherapy and radiation exposures.
However, “our study suggests that all survivors, regardless of their therapy, should be screened regularly for new-onset neurocognitive problems. And this screening should be done regularly for decades after diagnosis,” he said in an interview.
Dr. Phillips also noted the importance of communicating lifestyle modifications, such as not smoking and maintaining an active lifestyle.
“We need to start early and use the power of repetition when communicating with our survivors and their families,” Dr. Phillips said. “When our families and survivors hear the word ‘exercise,’ they think of gym memberships, lifting weights, and running on treadmills. But what we really want our survivors to do is stay active.”
What this means is engaging for about 2.5 hours a week in a range of activities, such as ballet, basketball, volleyball, bicycling, or swimming.
“And if our kids want to quit after 3 months, let them know that this is okay. They just need to replace that activity with another activity,” said Dr. Phillips. “We want them to find a fun hobby that they will enjoy that will keep them active.”
The study was supported by the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Phillips has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM JAMA NETWORK OPEN
ER+/HER2– breast cancer: Is first or second line CDK4/6 inhibitor therapy better?
That was the conclusion of the phase 3 SONIA study, which was presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.
The benefit from first line therapy is not maintained and almost completely disappears when patients in the control arm cross over to receive CDK4/6 inhibition in second line,” said Gabe Sonke, MD, PhD, during his presentation at the meeting.
CDK4/6 inhibitors have shown benefit in both the first-and second-line setting, according to Dr. Sonke, who is a medical oncologist at the Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam. He added that most guidelines suggest use of CDK4/6 inhibitors in the first line, but there hasn’t been a direct comparison between use in the first and second line.
“Many patients do very well on endocrine therapy alone [in the first line]. Combination treatment leads to a higher risk of the emergence of resistant patterns such as ESR1 mutations, and CDK4/6 inhibitors also come with added costs and toxicities. Given the absence of comparative data between first line and second line, we designed the SONIA trial,” said Dr. Sonke.
Study methods and results
The researchers recruited 1,050 pre- and postmenopausal women who were randomized to a nonsteroidal AI in the first line followed by second-line CDK4/6i plus the estrogen receptor antagonist fulvestrant, or a nonsteroidal AI plus a CDK4/6i in the first line and fulvestrant in the second line. The most commonly used CDK4/6i was palbociclib at 91%, followed by ribociclib at 8%, and abemaciclib at 1%.
After a median follow-up of 37.3 months, the median duration of CDK4/6i exposure was 24.6 months in the first-line CDK4/6i group and 8.1 months in the second-line CDK4/6i group.
The median PFS during first-line therapy was 24.7 months in the first-line CDK4/6i group and 16.1 months in the second-line CDK4/6i group (hazard ratio, 0.59; P < .0001), which was consistent with the results seen in CDK4/6i pivotal trials in the first-line setting, according to Dr. Sonke. However, PFS after two lines of therapy was not significantly different between the groups (31.0 months vs. 26.8 months, respectively; HR, 0.87; P =.10).
The safety profile was similar to what had been seen in previous trials with respect to adverse events like bone marrow and liver function abnormalities and fatigue, but there were 42% more grade 3 or higher adverse events in the first-line CDK4/6i group than in the second-line CDK4/6i group. Dr. Sonke estimated that the increase in costs related to adverse events amounted to about $200,000 per patient receiving CDK4/6i as first line.
There were no significant differences between the two groups in quality of life measurement.
Subgroup analyses of patient categories including prior adjuvant or neoadjuvant chemotherapy or endocrine therapy, de novo metastatic disease, visceral disease, bone-only disease, and treatment with palbociclib or ribociclib showed no difference in outcome for first- versus second-line CDK4/6i treatment.
Are CDK4/6i costs and side effects worth it?
The findings challenge the need for using CDK4/6 inhibitors as first-line treatment in this population, according to Dr. Sonke, who also raised the following related questions.
“If you were a patient, would you consider a treatment that offers no improvement in quality of life and does not improve overall survival? As a doctor or nurse, would you recommend such a treatment to your patient that nearly doubles the incidence of side effects? And if you were responsible for covering the costs of this treatment, whether as an individual or health care insurance, would you consider it worth $200,000?”
For many patients, particularly in the first line setting where resistance mechanisms are less prevalent, endocrine therapy alone remains an excellent option,” said Dr. Sonke during his presentation.
During the discussion portion of the session, Daniel Stover, MD, who is an associate professor of translational therapeutics at Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbus, pointed out that the lack of differences in the subanalyses leaves little guidance for physicians.
“We really have a limited signal on who can delay CDK4/6 inhibitors. I think one of the most important outcomes of this study is the focus on the patient, as there were substantially fewer adverse events and of course we need to think about financial toxicity as well,” he said. “I think one of the things that is perhaps most exciting to think about is who are the very good risk patients who can delay CDK4/6 inhibitor [therapy]? I think for the majority of patients, endocrine therapy plus CDK4/6 inhibitor is still the appropriate treatment, but I would argue we need additional biomarkers, be it RNA-based biomarkers, novel PET imaging, or perhaps [circulating tumor] DNA dynamics.”
Do cost savings and reduced side effects outweigh first-line PFS benefit?
During the question-and-answer session, William Sikov, MD, spoke up from the audience in support of Dr. Sonke’s conclusions.
“Clearly there are still patients who benefit from that approach, but I think that we have reached an inflection point: I posit that the question has now changed. [We should not ask] why a certain patient should not receive a CDK4/6 inhibitor, but why a certain patient should receive a CDK4/6 inhibitor in the first-line setting,” said Dr. Sikov, who is professor of medicine at Brown University, Providence, R.I.
Dr. Sonke agreed that first-line CDK4/6i is appropriate for some patients, and later echoed the need for biomarkers, but he said that researchers have so far had little luck in identifying any.
“Of course, it’s a shared decision-making between the patient and a doctor, but I think the baseline would be for all of us to consider first line single-agent endocrine therapy,” he said.
Session comoderator Michael Danso, MD, praised the trial but questioned whether the strategy would be adopted in places like the United States, where cost savings is not a major emphasis.
“Progression-free survival is so significant in the first line setting that I can’t imagine that many oncologists in the U.S. will adopt this approach. The other thing is that this was [almost] all palbociclib, so the question remains, would having a different cyclin dependent kinase inhibitor result in the same results? I think the jury’s still out,” said Dr. Danso, who is the research director at Virginia Oncology Associates, Norfolk.
The study was funded by the Dutch government and Dutch Health Insurers. Dr. Sonke has consulted for or advised Biovica, Novartis, and Seagen. He has received research support through his institution from Agendia, AstraZeneca/Merck, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Roche, and Seagen. Dr. Sikov has been a speaker for Lilly. Dr. Danso has received honoraria from Amgen and has consulted or advised Immunomedics, Novartis, Pfizer, and Seagen.
That was the conclusion of the phase 3 SONIA study, which was presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.
The benefit from first line therapy is not maintained and almost completely disappears when patients in the control arm cross over to receive CDK4/6 inhibition in second line,” said Gabe Sonke, MD, PhD, during his presentation at the meeting.
CDK4/6 inhibitors have shown benefit in both the first-and second-line setting, according to Dr. Sonke, who is a medical oncologist at the Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam. He added that most guidelines suggest use of CDK4/6 inhibitors in the first line, but there hasn’t been a direct comparison between use in the first and second line.
“Many patients do very well on endocrine therapy alone [in the first line]. Combination treatment leads to a higher risk of the emergence of resistant patterns such as ESR1 mutations, and CDK4/6 inhibitors also come with added costs and toxicities. Given the absence of comparative data between first line and second line, we designed the SONIA trial,” said Dr. Sonke.
Study methods and results
The researchers recruited 1,050 pre- and postmenopausal women who were randomized to a nonsteroidal AI in the first line followed by second-line CDK4/6i plus the estrogen receptor antagonist fulvestrant, or a nonsteroidal AI plus a CDK4/6i in the first line and fulvestrant in the second line. The most commonly used CDK4/6i was palbociclib at 91%, followed by ribociclib at 8%, and abemaciclib at 1%.
After a median follow-up of 37.3 months, the median duration of CDK4/6i exposure was 24.6 months in the first-line CDK4/6i group and 8.1 months in the second-line CDK4/6i group.
The median PFS during first-line therapy was 24.7 months in the first-line CDK4/6i group and 16.1 months in the second-line CDK4/6i group (hazard ratio, 0.59; P < .0001), which was consistent with the results seen in CDK4/6i pivotal trials in the first-line setting, according to Dr. Sonke. However, PFS after two lines of therapy was not significantly different between the groups (31.0 months vs. 26.8 months, respectively; HR, 0.87; P =.10).
The safety profile was similar to what had been seen in previous trials with respect to adverse events like bone marrow and liver function abnormalities and fatigue, but there were 42% more grade 3 or higher adverse events in the first-line CDK4/6i group than in the second-line CDK4/6i group. Dr. Sonke estimated that the increase in costs related to adverse events amounted to about $200,000 per patient receiving CDK4/6i as first line.
There were no significant differences between the two groups in quality of life measurement.
Subgroup analyses of patient categories including prior adjuvant or neoadjuvant chemotherapy or endocrine therapy, de novo metastatic disease, visceral disease, bone-only disease, and treatment with palbociclib or ribociclib showed no difference in outcome for first- versus second-line CDK4/6i treatment.
Are CDK4/6i costs and side effects worth it?
The findings challenge the need for using CDK4/6 inhibitors as first-line treatment in this population, according to Dr. Sonke, who also raised the following related questions.
“If you were a patient, would you consider a treatment that offers no improvement in quality of life and does not improve overall survival? As a doctor or nurse, would you recommend such a treatment to your patient that nearly doubles the incidence of side effects? And if you were responsible for covering the costs of this treatment, whether as an individual or health care insurance, would you consider it worth $200,000?”
For many patients, particularly in the first line setting where resistance mechanisms are less prevalent, endocrine therapy alone remains an excellent option,” said Dr. Sonke during his presentation.
During the discussion portion of the session, Daniel Stover, MD, who is an associate professor of translational therapeutics at Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbus, pointed out that the lack of differences in the subanalyses leaves little guidance for physicians.
“We really have a limited signal on who can delay CDK4/6 inhibitors. I think one of the most important outcomes of this study is the focus on the patient, as there were substantially fewer adverse events and of course we need to think about financial toxicity as well,” he said. “I think one of the things that is perhaps most exciting to think about is who are the very good risk patients who can delay CDK4/6 inhibitor [therapy]? I think for the majority of patients, endocrine therapy plus CDK4/6 inhibitor is still the appropriate treatment, but I would argue we need additional biomarkers, be it RNA-based biomarkers, novel PET imaging, or perhaps [circulating tumor] DNA dynamics.”
Do cost savings and reduced side effects outweigh first-line PFS benefit?
During the question-and-answer session, William Sikov, MD, spoke up from the audience in support of Dr. Sonke’s conclusions.
“Clearly there are still patients who benefit from that approach, but I think that we have reached an inflection point: I posit that the question has now changed. [We should not ask] why a certain patient should not receive a CDK4/6 inhibitor, but why a certain patient should receive a CDK4/6 inhibitor in the first-line setting,” said Dr. Sikov, who is professor of medicine at Brown University, Providence, R.I.
Dr. Sonke agreed that first-line CDK4/6i is appropriate for some patients, and later echoed the need for biomarkers, but he said that researchers have so far had little luck in identifying any.
“Of course, it’s a shared decision-making between the patient and a doctor, but I think the baseline would be for all of us to consider first line single-agent endocrine therapy,” he said.
Session comoderator Michael Danso, MD, praised the trial but questioned whether the strategy would be adopted in places like the United States, where cost savings is not a major emphasis.
“Progression-free survival is so significant in the first line setting that I can’t imagine that many oncologists in the U.S. will adopt this approach. The other thing is that this was [almost] all palbociclib, so the question remains, would having a different cyclin dependent kinase inhibitor result in the same results? I think the jury’s still out,” said Dr. Danso, who is the research director at Virginia Oncology Associates, Norfolk.
The study was funded by the Dutch government and Dutch Health Insurers. Dr. Sonke has consulted for or advised Biovica, Novartis, and Seagen. He has received research support through his institution from Agendia, AstraZeneca/Merck, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Roche, and Seagen. Dr. Sikov has been a speaker for Lilly. Dr. Danso has received honoraria from Amgen and has consulted or advised Immunomedics, Novartis, Pfizer, and Seagen.
That was the conclusion of the phase 3 SONIA study, which was presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.
The benefit from first line therapy is not maintained and almost completely disappears when patients in the control arm cross over to receive CDK4/6 inhibition in second line,” said Gabe Sonke, MD, PhD, during his presentation at the meeting.
CDK4/6 inhibitors have shown benefit in both the first-and second-line setting, according to Dr. Sonke, who is a medical oncologist at the Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam. He added that most guidelines suggest use of CDK4/6 inhibitors in the first line, but there hasn’t been a direct comparison between use in the first and second line.
“Many patients do very well on endocrine therapy alone [in the first line]. Combination treatment leads to a higher risk of the emergence of resistant patterns such as ESR1 mutations, and CDK4/6 inhibitors also come with added costs and toxicities. Given the absence of comparative data between first line and second line, we designed the SONIA trial,” said Dr. Sonke.
Study methods and results
The researchers recruited 1,050 pre- and postmenopausal women who were randomized to a nonsteroidal AI in the first line followed by second-line CDK4/6i plus the estrogen receptor antagonist fulvestrant, or a nonsteroidal AI plus a CDK4/6i in the first line and fulvestrant in the second line. The most commonly used CDK4/6i was palbociclib at 91%, followed by ribociclib at 8%, and abemaciclib at 1%.
After a median follow-up of 37.3 months, the median duration of CDK4/6i exposure was 24.6 months in the first-line CDK4/6i group and 8.1 months in the second-line CDK4/6i group.
The median PFS during first-line therapy was 24.7 months in the first-line CDK4/6i group and 16.1 months in the second-line CDK4/6i group (hazard ratio, 0.59; P < .0001), which was consistent with the results seen in CDK4/6i pivotal trials in the first-line setting, according to Dr. Sonke. However, PFS after two lines of therapy was not significantly different between the groups (31.0 months vs. 26.8 months, respectively; HR, 0.87; P =.10).
The safety profile was similar to what had been seen in previous trials with respect to adverse events like bone marrow and liver function abnormalities and fatigue, but there were 42% more grade 3 or higher adverse events in the first-line CDK4/6i group than in the second-line CDK4/6i group. Dr. Sonke estimated that the increase in costs related to adverse events amounted to about $200,000 per patient receiving CDK4/6i as first line.
There were no significant differences between the two groups in quality of life measurement.
Subgroup analyses of patient categories including prior adjuvant or neoadjuvant chemotherapy or endocrine therapy, de novo metastatic disease, visceral disease, bone-only disease, and treatment with palbociclib or ribociclib showed no difference in outcome for first- versus second-line CDK4/6i treatment.
Are CDK4/6i costs and side effects worth it?
The findings challenge the need for using CDK4/6 inhibitors as first-line treatment in this population, according to Dr. Sonke, who also raised the following related questions.
“If you were a patient, would you consider a treatment that offers no improvement in quality of life and does not improve overall survival? As a doctor or nurse, would you recommend such a treatment to your patient that nearly doubles the incidence of side effects? And if you were responsible for covering the costs of this treatment, whether as an individual or health care insurance, would you consider it worth $200,000?”
For many patients, particularly in the first line setting where resistance mechanisms are less prevalent, endocrine therapy alone remains an excellent option,” said Dr. Sonke during his presentation.
During the discussion portion of the session, Daniel Stover, MD, who is an associate professor of translational therapeutics at Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbus, pointed out that the lack of differences in the subanalyses leaves little guidance for physicians.
“We really have a limited signal on who can delay CDK4/6 inhibitors. I think one of the most important outcomes of this study is the focus on the patient, as there were substantially fewer adverse events and of course we need to think about financial toxicity as well,” he said. “I think one of the things that is perhaps most exciting to think about is who are the very good risk patients who can delay CDK4/6 inhibitor [therapy]? I think for the majority of patients, endocrine therapy plus CDK4/6 inhibitor is still the appropriate treatment, but I would argue we need additional biomarkers, be it RNA-based biomarkers, novel PET imaging, or perhaps [circulating tumor] DNA dynamics.”
Do cost savings and reduced side effects outweigh first-line PFS benefit?
During the question-and-answer session, William Sikov, MD, spoke up from the audience in support of Dr. Sonke’s conclusions.
“Clearly there are still patients who benefit from that approach, but I think that we have reached an inflection point: I posit that the question has now changed. [We should not ask] why a certain patient should not receive a CDK4/6 inhibitor, but why a certain patient should receive a CDK4/6 inhibitor in the first-line setting,” said Dr. Sikov, who is professor of medicine at Brown University, Providence, R.I.
Dr. Sonke agreed that first-line CDK4/6i is appropriate for some patients, and later echoed the need for biomarkers, but he said that researchers have so far had little luck in identifying any.
“Of course, it’s a shared decision-making between the patient and a doctor, but I think the baseline would be for all of us to consider first line single-agent endocrine therapy,” he said.
Session comoderator Michael Danso, MD, praised the trial but questioned whether the strategy would be adopted in places like the United States, where cost savings is not a major emphasis.
“Progression-free survival is so significant in the first line setting that I can’t imagine that many oncologists in the U.S. will adopt this approach. The other thing is that this was [almost] all palbociclib, so the question remains, would having a different cyclin dependent kinase inhibitor result in the same results? I think the jury’s still out,” said Dr. Danso, who is the research director at Virginia Oncology Associates, Norfolk.
The study was funded by the Dutch government and Dutch Health Insurers. Dr. Sonke has consulted for or advised Biovica, Novartis, and Seagen. He has received research support through his institution from Agendia, AstraZeneca/Merck, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Roche, and Seagen. Dr. Sikov has been a speaker for Lilly. Dr. Danso has received honoraria from Amgen and has consulted or advised Immunomedics, Novartis, Pfizer, and Seagen.
AT ASCO 2023
Ovarian cancer: Sequencing strategy identifies biomarker that could guide treatment
Previous research has identified homologous recombination DNA repair deficiency (HRD) as a biomarker for sensitivity to poly( ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors (PARPi) and platinum-based therapies in patients with ovarian and breast cancers, wrote Niklas Krumm, MD, of the University of Washington, Seattle, and colleagues.
Currently, direct genetic testing is the most widely used method to identify mutations in HRD-associated genes, but not all genes underlying HDD have been identified, therefore current HRD assays that don’t rely on gene-specific information have been considered more diagnostically useful, the researchers noted. Two genetic tests are approved by the Food and Drug Administration, which are the FoundationFocus CDX BRCA and myChoice CDx, the researchers wrote. The Foundation Focus CDX BRCA was approved in 2016, and myChoice CDx was approved in 2019.
“However, transparent, well-defined methods and criteria for diagnosing HRD by genomic scarring that are practical for smaller, academic, or private laboratories have not yet been established or widely implemented,” they said.
In the paper published in JCO Precision Oncology, the researchers said they developed a molecular testing strategy involving the use of common, polymorphic single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs).
They used a panel of approximately 3,000 SNPs distributed across the genome to create a loss of heterozygosity (LOH) score that could identify HRD.
To determine the ability of LOH to diagnose HRD in ovarian cancers, the researchers examined 99 ovarian neoplasm–normal pairs using the LOH method, and compared results with patient mutational genotypes and HRD predictors. LOH scores of 11% or higher showed greater than 86% sensitivity for identifying tumors with HRD-causing mutations in an independent validation set, and a sensitivity of 90.9% across training and validation sets.
When LOH scores were compared to a validated genome-wide mutational signature assay (HRDetect) the sensitivity and specificity of an LOH score of 11% or higher were estimated at 96.7% and 50%, respectively, for determining HRD-positive tumors.
However, the researchers found poor concordance (statistically insignificant correlation) using their LOH capture design to diagnose HRD based on mutational signatures only from targeted regions. “We conclude that mutational signatures inferred from our diagnostic tumor panel are unable to accurately ascertain HRD status, likely because the absolute number of somatic variants that it is able to identify is insufficient,” they said.
LOH scores were not significantly correlated with treatment outcomes, which suggests that LOH score can be used to infer HRD status, rather than serving as a direct predictor of patient response to primary platinum therapy, the researchers said. The average LOH score was higher in patients whose cancers responded to platinum therapy than in those with no treatment response (17% vs. 15%) but this difference was not significant.
Study limitations
The research was limited by several factors, including the validation only for high-grade non–clear cell ovarian carcinomas, and LOH scores likely vary across cancer types, therefore more studies will be needed to optimize the strategy for different cancers, the researchers noted. Other potential limitations include the high level of tumor cellularity needed (30%), which will eliminate some specimens, they said.
Finally, the poor predictive value of LOH itself for treatment outcomes suggests a limitation of the HRD biomarker in this respect, the researchers concluded.
Potential advantages of using LOH method
However, the potential advantages of the LOH method include the minimal sequence reads and the ability to integrate the LOH into current targeted gene capture workflows, the researchers wrote, and the LOH score appears to be a reliable predictor of HRD positivity.
“Although we have found that the regions targeted by our assay are insufficient to identify HRD-associated mutational signatures, future refinements to this approach could integrate minimal additional sequencing targets designed to robustly identify such signatures in concert with LOH events,” they concluded.
Study shares the details of detection methodology
“Tumors with HRD are sensitive to certain cancer chemotherapeutic agents [PARP inhibitors],” said Dr. Krumm, in an interview. “Until recently, HR-deficient tumors were primarily identified via inactivating BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations, but now it is understood that an entire repair pathway can be affected and can result in HRD. Therefore, we sought to implement an NGS-based approach that could detect the ‘HRD phenotype’ in the DNA of tumors,” he said.
The approach developed by Dr. Krumm and colleagues and presented in the current study “is not the first in the field, as some commercial tests have similar approaches,” he said. However, the current study is important, “because it openly publishes the methodology and detailed results of our validation work in bringing HRD detection online in our clinical lab,” he said.
“One of the advantages of a genome-wide approach is that we can identify HR-deficient tumors, even when BRCA1 and BRCA2 do not have any detectable loss-of-function mutations,” said Dr. Krumm. “HRD detection is a relatively young test in the field of next-generation sequencing (NGS)–based cancer diagnostics. One of the challenges currently is the lack of large, standardized reference data sets or reference materials that can be used to compare tests and methodology in a clinical setting. We hope that by publishing our methods, more data sets can be generated and published,” he said.
Some specific challenges to using the test clinically today include the need for a paired tumor plus blood sample, and the need for a relatively high fraction of tumor content in the sample, Dr. Krumm noted.
“This test is currently being used in a clinical setting at the University of Washington, as it is a laboratory-developed test (LDT) and part of our clinically validated NGS platform,” said Dr. Krumm. “This test highlights how LDTs can advance clinical testing capabilities and improve the care of our patients and illustrates the UW Medicine position that LDTs are a necessary and important part of the clinical care. That said, we anticipate that additional validation studies, including long-term clinical effectiveness and outcome studies, will be required to bring HRD testing into a commercial platform that undergoes FDA review,” he explained.
The study was supported by the Brotman Baty Institute for Precision Medicine, the National Institutes of Health, and the Department of Defense, Ovarian Cancer Research Program Clinical Development Award. Dr. Krumm disclosed stock and ownership interests in Reference Genomics.
Previous research has identified homologous recombination DNA repair deficiency (HRD) as a biomarker for sensitivity to poly( ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors (PARPi) and platinum-based therapies in patients with ovarian and breast cancers, wrote Niklas Krumm, MD, of the University of Washington, Seattle, and colleagues.
Currently, direct genetic testing is the most widely used method to identify mutations in HRD-associated genes, but not all genes underlying HDD have been identified, therefore current HRD assays that don’t rely on gene-specific information have been considered more diagnostically useful, the researchers noted. Two genetic tests are approved by the Food and Drug Administration, which are the FoundationFocus CDX BRCA and myChoice CDx, the researchers wrote. The Foundation Focus CDX BRCA was approved in 2016, and myChoice CDx was approved in 2019.
“However, transparent, well-defined methods and criteria for diagnosing HRD by genomic scarring that are practical for smaller, academic, or private laboratories have not yet been established or widely implemented,” they said.
In the paper published in JCO Precision Oncology, the researchers said they developed a molecular testing strategy involving the use of common, polymorphic single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs).
They used a panel of approximately 3,000 SNPs distributed across the genome to create a loss of heterozygosity (LOH) score that could identify HRD.
To determine the ability of LOH to diagnose HRD in ovarian cancers, the researchers examined 99 ovarian neoplasm–normal pairs using the LOH method, and compared results with patient mutational genotypes and HRD predictors. LOH scores of 11% or higher showed greater than 86% sensitivity for identifying tumors with HRD-causing mutations in an independent validation set, and a sensitivity of 90.9% across training and validation sets.
When LOH scores were compared to a validated genome-wide mutational signature assay (HRDetect) the sensitivity and specificity of an LOH score of 11% or higher were estimated at 96.7% and 50%, respectively, for determining HRD-positive tumors.
However, the researchers found poor concordance (statistically insignificant correlation) using their LOH capture design to diagnose HRD based on mutational signatures only from targeted regions. “We conclude that mutational signatures inferred from our diagnostic tumor panel are unable to accurately ascertain HRD status, likely because the absolute number of somatic variants that it is able to identify is insufficient,” they said.
LOH scores were not significantly correlated with treatment outcomes, which suggests that LOH score can be used to infer HRD status, rather than serving as a direct predictor of patient response to primary platinum therapy, the researchers said. The average LOH score was higher in patients whose cancers responded to platinum therapy than in those with no treatment response (17% vs. 15%) but this difference was not significant.
Study limitations
The research was limited by several factors, including the validation only for high-grade non–clear cell ovarian carcinomas, and LOH scores likely vary across cancer types, therefore more studies will be needed to optimize the strategy for different cancers, the researchers noted. Other potential limitations include the high level of tumor cellularity needed (30%), which will eliminate some specimens, they said.
Finally, the poor predictive value of LOH itself for treatment outcomes suggests a limitation of the HRD biomarker in this respect, the researchers concluded.
Potential advantages of using LOH method
However, the potential advantages of the LOH method include the minimal sequence reads and the ability to integrate the LOH into current targeted gene capture workflows, the researchers wrote, and the LOH score appears to be a reliable predictor of HRD positivity.
“Although we have found that the regions targeted by our assay are insufficient to identify HRD-associated mutational signatures, future refinements to this approach could integrate minimal additional sequencing targets designed to robustly identify such signatures in concert with LOH events,” they concluded.
Study shares the details of detection methodology
“Tumors with HRD are sensitive to certain cancer chemotherapeutic agents [PARP inhibitors],” said Dr. Krumm, in an interview. “Until recently, HR-deficient tumors were primarily identified via inactivating BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations, but now it is understood that an entire repair pathway can be affected and can result in HRD. Therefore, we sought to implement an NGS-based approach that could detect the ‘HRD phenotype’ in the DNA of tumors,” he said.
The approach developed by Dr. Krumm and colleagues and presented in the current study “is not the first in the field, as some commercial tests have similar approaches,” he said. However, the current study is important, “because it openly publishes the methodology and detailed results of our validation work in bringing HRD detection online in our clinical lab,” he said.
“One of the advantages of a genome-wide approach is that we can identify HR-deficient tumors, even when BRCA1 and BRCA2 do not have any detectable loss-of-function mutations,” said Dr. Krumm. “HRD detection is a relatively young test in the field of next-generation sequencing (NGS)–based cancer diagnostics. One of the challenges currently is the lack of large, standardized reference data sets or reference materials that can be used to compare tests and methodology in a clinical setting. We hope that by publishing our methods, more data sets can be generated and published,” he said.
Some specific challenges to using the test clinically today include the need for a paired tumor plus blood sample, and the need for a relatively high fraction of tumor content in the sample, Dr. Krumm noted.
“This test is currently being used in a clinical setting at the University of Washington, as it is a laboratory-developed test (LDT) and part of our clinically validated NGS platform,” said Dr. Krumm. “This test highlights how LDTs can advance clinical testing capabilities and improve the care of our patients and illustrates the UW Medicine position that LDTs are a necessary and important part of the clinical care. That said, we anticipate that additional validation studies, including long-term clinical effectiveness and outcome studies, will be required to bring HRD testing into a commercial platform that undergoes FDA review,” he explained.
The study was supported by the Brotman Baty Institute for Precision Medicine, the National Institutes of Health, and the Department of Defense, Ovarian Cancer Research Program Clinical Development Award. Dr. Krumm disclosed stock and ownership interests in Reference Genomics.
Previous research has identified homologous recombination DNA repair deficiency (HRD) as a biomarker for sensitivity to poly( ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors (PARPi) and platinum-based therapies in patients with ovarian and breast cancers, wrote Niklas Krumm, MD, of the University of Washington, Seattle, and colleagues.
Currently, direct genetic testing is the most widely used method to identify mutations in HRD-associated genes, but not all genes underlying HDD have been identified, therefore current HRD assays that don’t rely on gene-specific information have been considered more diagnostically useful, the researchers noted. Two genetic tests are approved by the Food and Drug Administration, which are the FoundationFocus CDX BRCA and myChoice CDx, the researchers wrote. The Foundation Focus CDX BRCA was approved in 2016, and myChoice CDx was approved in 2019.
“However, transparent, well-defined methods and criteria for diagnosing HRD by genomic scarring that are practical for smaller, academic, or private laboratories have not yet been established or widely implemented,” they said.
In the paper published in JCO Precision Oncology, the researchers said they developed a molecular testing strategy involving the use of common, polymorphic single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs).
They used a panel of approximately 3,000 SNPs distributed across the genome to create a loss of heterozygosity (LOH) score that could identify HRD.
To determine the ability of LOH to diagnose HRD in ovarian cancers, the researchers examined 99 ovarian neoplasm–normal pairs using the LOH method, and compared results with patient mutational genotypes and HRD predictors. LOH scores of 11% or higher showed greater than 86% sensitivity for identifying tumors with HRD-causing mutations in an independent validation set, and a sensitivity of 90.9% across training and validation sets.
When LOH scores were compared to a validated genome-wide mutational signature assay (HRDetect) the sensitivity and specificity of an LOH score of 11% or higher were estimated at 96.7% and 50%, respectively, for determining HRD-positive tumors.
However, the researchers found poor concordance (statistically insignificant correlation) using their LOH capture design to diagnose HRD based on mutational signatures only from targeted regions. “We conclude that mutational signatures inferred from our diagnostic tumor panel are unable to accurately ascertain HRD status, likely because the absolute number of somatic variants that it is able to identify is insufficient,” they said.
LOH scores were not significantly correlated with treatment outcomes, which suggests that LOH score can be used to infer HRD status, rather than serving as a direct predictor of patient response to primary platinum therapy, the researchers said. The average LOH score was higher in patients whose cancers responded to platinum therapy than in those with no treatment response (17% vs. 15%) but this difference was not significant.
Study limitations
The research was limited by several factors, including the validation only for high-grade non–clear cell ovarian carcinomas, and LOH scores likely vary across cancer types, therefore more studies will be needed to optimize the strategy for different cancers, the researchers noted. Other potential limitations include the high level of tumor cellularity needed (30%), which will eliminate some specimens, they said.
Finally, the poor predictive value of LOH itself for treatment outcomes suggests a limitation of the HRD biomarker in this respect, the researchers concluded.
Potential advantages of using LOH method
However, the potential advantages of the LOH method include the minimal sequence reads and the ability to integrate the LOH into current targeted gene capture workflows, the researchers wrote, and the LOH score appears to be a reliable predictor of HRD positivity.
“Although we have found that the regions targeted by our assay are insufficient to identify HRD-associated mutational signatures, future refinements to this approach could integrate minimal additional sequencing targets designed to robustly identify such signatures in concert with LOH events,” they concluded.
Study shares the details of detection methodology
“Tumors with HRD are sensitive to certain cancer chemotherapeutic agents [PARP inhibitors],” said Dr. Krumm, in an interview. “Until recently, HR-deficient tumors were primarily identified via inactivating BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations, but now it is understood that an entire repair pathway can be affected and can result in HRD. Therefore, we sought to implement an NGS-based approach that could detect the ‘HRD phenotype’ in the DNA of tumors,” he said.
The approach developed by Dr. Krumm and colleagues and presented in the current study “is not the first in the field, as some commercial tests have similar approaches,” he said. However, the current study is important, “because it openly publishes the methodology and detailed results of our validation work in bringing HRD detection online in our clinical lab,” he said.
“One of the advantages of a genome-wide approach is that we can identify HR-deficient tumors, even when BRCA1 and BRCA2 do not have any detectable loss-of-function mutations,” said Dr. Krumm. “HRD detection is a relatively young test in the field of next-generation sequencing (NGS)–based cancer diagnostics. One of the challenges currently is the lack of large, standardized reference data sets or reference materials that can be used to compare tests and methodology in a clinical setting. We hope that by publishing our methods, more data sets can be generated and published,” he said.
Some specific challenges to using the test clinically today include the need for a paired tumor plus blood sample, and the need for a relatively high fraction of tumor content in the sample, Dr. Krumm noted.
“This test is currently being used in a clinical setting at the University of Washington, as it is a laboratory-developed test (LDT) and part of our clinically validated NGS platform,” said Dr. Krumm. “This test highlights how LDTs can advance clinical testing capabilities and improve the care of our patients and illustrates the UW Medicine position that LDTs are a necessary and important part of the clinical care. That said, we anticipate that additional validation studies, including long-term clinical effectiveness and outcome studies, will be required to bring HRD testing into a commercial platform that undergoes FDA review,” he explained.
The study was supported by the Brotman Baty Institute for Precision Medicine, the National Institutes of Health, and the Department of Defense, Ovarian Cancer Research Program Clinical Development Award. Dr. Krumm disclosed stock and ownership interests in Reference Genomics.
FROM JCO PRECISION ONCOLOGY
Metronomic chemotherapy performs well in second-line head and neck cancer
The study was conducted in India in a population that had not previously been treated with immunotherapy, but the results are likely applicable even when patients have been exposed to these agents, according to Rushabh Kothari, MD, DM, who presented the study (Abstract LBA6004), at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO).
Although immunotherapy is considered the first-line therapy for the disease, it is often unavailable in low- and middle-income countries: In India, about 3% of head and neck cancer patients receive it, Dr. Kothari said during his presentation.
The study offered improved outcomes and greater tolerability in this population, according to Dr. Kothari. “Metronome chemotherapy led to an improvement [in both OS and PFS] of around 2 months compared to physician’s choice of treatment in this difficult-to-treat population, and metronomic chemotherapy had multiple advantages [over other chemotherapies]. It is an oral treatment, there is an ease of administration, and it is very cost effective. It also lowers adverse events as we saw in the data,” said Dr. Kothari, a medical oncologist at Narayana Multispeciality Hospital in India, in an interview.
The improvement is meaningful given the dire circumstances these patients find themselves in, according to Dr. Kothari: “When you see a second-line relapsed metastatic head and neck cancer, their overall survival is dismal: It is less than 7 months with most of the available agents,” he said in the interview.
Metronomic chemotherapy is continuous, low-dose chemotherapy that includes an anti-angiogenic effect, according to Dr. Kothari. In the current study, the researchers employed a triple metronomic chemotherapy (TMC) that included methotrexate (9 mg/m2 weekly), erlotinib (150 mg daily), and celecoxib (200 mg twice daily), which was compared to any of eight single-agent physician choice agents, all of which were consistent with National Comprehensive Care Network (NCCN) guidelines (NCCN-PC group).
Study methods and results
The study included 55 patients in the TMC arm and 59 in the NCCN-PC arm. Currently, 13 patients in the TMC arm and 6 in the NCCN-PC are still being treated.
More than 94.5% of the TMC arm and 91.5% of the NCCN-PC arm had previously received platinum-based therapy, and 49.1% and 47.5%, respectively, had received taxane.
The median OS was 181 days in the TMC group, versus 123 days in the NCCN-PC group (hazard ratio, 0.5076; 95% confidence interval, 0.325-0.792). The median PFS was 120 days and 70 days, respectively (HR, 0.4941; 95% CI, 0.312-0.738).
Adverse events were less frequent in TMC, including anemia (grade 3-5, 3.7% versus 14.8%; P = .038), neutropenia (0% versus 13.0%; P =.006), thrombocytopenia (0% versus 9.3%; P = .028), serum glutamic-oxaloacetic transaminase/serum glutamic-pyruvic transaminase (SGOT/SGPT) rise (0% versus 9.3%; P = .028), creatinine rise (0% versus 9.3%; P = .028), and diarrhea (1.9% versus 13.0%; P = .006).
“When you give lower doses continuously, the compliance is very good. When tolerance is good and compliance is good, that is the ideal regimen, which patients want,” said Dr. Kothari in the interview.
Dr. Kothari pointed out that the study included primarily patients with oral cavity cancers, including 89.1% of the TMC group and 83.1% of the NCCN-PC group. Oropharyngeal cancers are more common in high-income countries, but his own clinical experience suggests that the combination also performs well in that group, he said.
During a discussion part of the session, Ezra Cohen, MD, said that when pembrolizumab was moved from second-line to first-line therapy, it left an unmet need in second-line recurrent or metastatic disease.
He welcomed the new results.
“[The study shows] a much better toxicity profile with the triple metronomic therapy. In other words, we can deliver these reagents at the doses prescribed, with a toxicity profile I would say that is not only manageable, but that is in fact favorable. In addition to that, in a limited size phase III study, we see an improvement in the primary endpoint here of overall survival. So in a patient population that may not necessarily have access to anti-PD1 antibodies, we can offer a lower cost triple regimen that does appear to improve survival over standard regimens,” said Dr. Cohen, who is chief medical officer of Tempus.
Dr. Kothari has received honoraria from Alkem Laboratories, AstraZeneca, Bard Peripheral Vascular, Bristol Myers Squibb Foundation, Celon Pharma, Cipla, Emcure, Fresenius Kabi, Glenmark, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and Zydus Pharmaceuticals. He has consulted for or advised MSD. He has received research funding through his institution from Axis Clinicals, Lambda Therapeutic Research, Reliance Life Sciences, and Zydus Pharmaceuticals.
Dr. Cohen is an employee of Tempus and has held leadership positions at Akamis Bio, Kinnate Biopharma, Kura Oncology, and Pangaea Biotech. He has stock or other ownership interests in Kinnate Biopharma and Primmune Therapeutics. He has consulted for or advised Adagene, Astellas Pharma, Cidara, Eisai, Genmab, Gilboa Therapeutics, ITeos Therapeutics, Lilly, Merck, MSD, Nectin Tx, Novartis, Nykode Therapeutics, Pangea, PCI Biotech, Replimune, Roche, SOTERIA Precision Medicine, and Viracta Therapeutics.
The study was conducted in India in a population that had not previously been treated with immunotherapy, but the results are likely applicable even when patients have been exposed to these agents, according to Rushabh Kothari, MD, DM, who presented the study (Abstract LBA6004), at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO).
Although immunotherapy is considered the first-line therapy for the disease, it is often unavailable in low- and middle-income countries: In India, about 3% of head and neck cancer patients receive it, Dr. Kothari said during his presentation.
The study offered improved outcomes and greater tolerability in this population, according to Dr. Kothari. “Metronome chemotherapy led to an improvement [in both OS and PFS] of around 2 months compared to physician’s choice of treatment in this difficult-to-treat population, and metronomic chemotherapy had multiple advantages [over other chemotherapies]. It is an oral treatment, there is an ease of administration, and it is very cost effective. It also lowers adverse events as we saw in the data,” said Dr. Kothari, a medical oncologist at Narayana Multispeciality Hospital in India, in an interview.
The improvement is meaningful given the dire circumstances these patients find themselves in, according to Dr. Kothari: “When you see a second-line relapsed metastatic head and neck cancer, their overall survival is dismal: It is less than 7 months with most of the available agents,” he said in the interview.
Metronomic chemotherapy is continuous, low-dose chemotherapy that includes an anti-angiogenic effect, according to Dr. Kothari. In the current study, the researchers employed a triple metronomic chemotherapy (TMC) that included methotrexate (9 mg/m2 weekly), erlotinib (150 mg daily), and celecoxib (200 mg twice daily), which was compared to any of eight single-agent physician choice agents, all of which were consistent with National Comprehensive Care Network (NCCN) guidelines (NCCN-PC group).
Study methods and results
The study included 55 patients in the TMC arm and 59 in the NCCN-PC arm. Currently, 13 patients in the TMC arm and 6 in the NCCN-PC are still being treated.
More than 94.5% of the TMC arm and 91.5% of the NCCN-PC arm had previously received platinum-based therapy, and 49.1% and 47.5%, respectively, had received taxane.
The median OS was 181 days in the TMC group, versus 123 days in the NCCN-PC group (hazard ratio, 0.5076; 95% confidence interval, 0.325-0.792). The median PFS was 120 days and 70 days, respectively (HR, 0.4941; 95% CI, 0.312-0.738).
Adverse events were less frequent in TMC, including anemia (grade 3-5, 3.7% versus 14.8%; P = .038), neutropenia (0% versus 13.0%; P =.006), thrombocytopenia (0% versus 9.3%; P = .028), serum glutamic-oxaloacetic transaminase/serum glutamic-pyruvic transaminase (SGOT/SGPT) rise (0% versus 9.3%; P = .028), creatinine rise (0% versus 9.3%; P = .028), and diarrhea (1.9% versus 13.0%; P = .006).
“When you give lower doses continuously, the compliance is very good. When tolerance is good and compliance is good, that is the ideal regimen, which patients want,” said Dr. Kothari in the interview.
Dr. Kothari pointed out that the study included primarily patients with oral cavity cancers, including 89.1% of the TMC group and 83.1% of the NCCN-PC group. Oropharyngeal cancers are more common in high-income countries, but his own clinical experience suggests that the combination also performs well in that group, he said.
During a discussion part of the session, Ezra Cohen, MD, said that when pembrolizumab was moved from second-line to first-line therapy, it left an unmet need in second-line recurrent or metastatic disease.
He welcomed the new results.
“[The study shows] a much better toxicity profile with the triple metronomic therapy. In other words, we can deliver these reagents at the doses prescribed, with a toxicity profile I would say that is not only manageable, but that is in fact favorable. In addition to that, in a limited size phase III study, we see an improvement in the primary endpoint here of overall survival. So in a patient population that may not necessarily have access to anti-PD1 antibodies, we can offer a lower cost triple regimen that does appear to improve survival over standard regimens,” said Dr. Cohen, who is chief medical officer of Tempus.
Dr. Kothari has received honoraria from Alkem Laboratories, AstraZeneca, Bard Peripheral Vascular, Bristol Myers Squibb Foundation, Celon Pharma, Cipla, Emcure, Fresenius Kabi, Glenmark, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and Zydus Pharmaceuticals. He has consulted for or advised MSD. He has received research funding through his institution from Axis Clinicals, Lambda Therapeutic Research, Reliance Life Sciences, and Zydus Pharmaceuticals.
Dr. Cohen is an employee of Tempus and has held leadership positions at Akamis Bio, Kinnate Biopharma, Kura Oncology, and Pangaea Biotech. He has stock or other ownership interests in Kinnate Biopharma and Primmune Therapeutics. He has consulted for or advised Adagene, Astellas Pharma, Cidara, Eisai, Genmab, Gilboa Therapeutics, ITeos Therapeutics, Lilly, Merck, MSD, Nectin Tx, Novartis, Nykode Therapeutics, Pangea, PCI Biotech, Replimune, Roche, SOTERIA Precision Medicine, and Viracta Therapeutics.
The study was conducted in India in a population that had not previously been treated with immunotherapy, but the results are likely applicable even when patients have been exposed to these agents, according to Rushabh Kothari, MD, DM, who presented the study (Abstract LBA6004), at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO).
Although immunotherapy is considered the first-line therapy for the disease, it is often unavailable in low- and middle-income countries: In India, about 3% of head and neck cancer patients receive it, Dr. Kothari said during his presentation.
The study offered improved outcomes and greater tolerability in this population, according to Dr. Kothari. “Metronome chemotherapy led to an improvement [in both OS and PFS] of around 2 months compared to physician’s choice of treatment in this difficult-to-treat population, and metronomic chemotherapy had multiple advantages [over other chemotherapies]. It is an oral treatment, there is an ease of administration, and it is very cost effective. It also lowers adverse events as we saw in the data,” said Dr. Kothari, a medical oncologist at Narayana Multispeciality Hospital in India, in an interview.
The improvement is meaningful given the dire circumstances these patients find themselves in, according to Dr. Kothari: “When you see a second-line relapsed metastatic head and neck cancer, their overall survival is dismal: It is less than 7 months with most of the available agents,” he said in the interview.
Metronomic chemotherapy is continuous, low-dose chemotherapy that includes an anti-angiogenic effect, according to Dr. Kothari. In the current study, the researchers employed a triple metronomic chemotherapy (TMC) that included methotrexate (9 mg/m2 weekly), erlotinib (150 mg daily), and celecoxib (200 mg twice daily), which was compared to any of eight single-agent physician choice agents, all of which were consistent with National Comprehensive Care Network (NCCN) guidelines (NCCN-PC group).
Study methods and results
The study included 55 patients in the TMC arm and 59 in the NCCN-PC arm. Currently, 13 patients in the TMC arm and 6 in the NCCN-PC are still being treated.
More than 94.5% of the TMC arm and 91.5% of the NCCN-PC arm had previously received platinum-based therapy, and 49.1% and 47.5%, respectively, had received taxane.
The median OS was 181 days in the TMC group, versus 123 days in the NCCN-PC group (hazard ratio, 0.5076; 95% confidence interval, 0.325-0.792). The median PFS was 120 days and 70 days, respectively (HR, 0.4941; 95% CI, 0.312-0.738).
Adverse events were less frequent in TMC, including anemia (grade 3-5, 3.7% versus 14.8%; P = .038), neutropenia (0% versus 13.0%; P =.006), thrombocytopenia (0% versus 9.3%; P = .028), serum glutamic-oxaloacetic transaminase/serum glutamic-pyruvic transaminase (SGOT/SGPT) rise (0% versus 9.3%; P = .028), creatinine rise (0% versus 9.3%; P = .028), and diarrhea (1.9% versus 13.0%; P = .006).
“When you give lower doses continuously, the compliance is very good. When tolerance is good and compliance is good, that is the ideal regimen, which patients want,” said Dr. Kothari in the interview.
Dr. Kothari pointed out that the study included primarily patients with oral cavity cancers, including 89.1% of the TMC group and 83.1% of the NCCN-PC group. Oropharyngeal cancers are more common in high-income countries, but his own clinical experience suggests that the combination also performs well in that group, he said.
During a discussion part of the session, Ezra Cohen, MD, said that when pembrolizumab was moved from second-line to first-line therapy, it left an unmet need in second-line recurrent or metastatic disease.
He welcomed the new results.
“[The study shows] a much better toxicity profile with the triple metronomic therapy. In other words, we can deliver these reagents at the doses prescribed, with a toxicity profile I would say that is not only manageable, but that is in fact favorable. In addition to that, in a limited size phase III study, we see an improvement in the primary endpoint here of overall survival. So in a patient population that may not necessarily have access to anti-PD1 antibodies, we can offer a lower cost triple regimen that does appear to improve survival over standard regimens,” said Dr. Cohen, who is chief medical officer of Tempus.
Dr. Kothari has received honoraria from Alkem Laboratories, AstraZeneca, Bard Peripheral Vascular, Bristol Myers Squibb Foundation, Celon Pharma, Cipla, Emcure, Fresenius Kabi, Glenmark, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and Zydus Pharmaceuticals. He has consulted for or advised MSD. He has received research funding through his institution from Axis Clinicals, Lambda Therapeutic Research, Reliance Life Sciences, and Zydus Pharmaceuticals.
Dr. Cohen is an employee of Tempus and has held leadership positions at Akamis Bio, Kinnate Biopharma, Kura Oncology, and Pangaea Biotech. He has stock or other ownership interests in Kinnate Biopharma and Primmune Therapeutics. He has consulted for or advised Adagene, Astellas Pharma, Cidara, Eisai, Genmab, Gilboa Therapeutics, ITeos Therapeutics, Lilly, Merck, MSD, Nectin Tx, Novartis, Nykode Therapeutics, Pangea, PCI Biotech, Replimune, Roche, SOTERIA Precision Medicine, and Viracta Therapeutics.
AT ASCO 2023
Antibody-drug conjugate changes standard of care for platinum-resistant ovarian cancer
The conclusion of this study marks the first time that a novel therapy has demonstrated an overall survival (OS) improvement in any phase 3 trial in this population, according to lead investigator Kathleen Moore, MD.
“We believe these data are practice changing and position mirvetuximab [soravtansine] as the new standard of care for patients with folate receptor–alpha positive, platinum-resistant ovarian cancer,” said Dr. Moore during a presentation of the study at a special session of the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology devoted solely to the MIRASOL study.
New standard of care
Following Dr. Moore’s presentation, Roisin Eilish O’Cearbhaill, MD, served as a discussant, and she confirmed the trial’s importance.
“It has firmly established the role of mirvetuximab [soravtansine] in folate receptor–alpha high-expression, platinum-resistant ovarian cancer,” said Dr. O’Cearbhaill, who is Research director of the gynecologic medical oncology service and clinical director of the solid tumor, cellular therapy service at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York.
Mirvetuximab soravtansine received accelerated FDA approval in November based on the results of the single-arm SORAYA trial, which demonstrated a progression-free survival (PFS) benefit in platinum-resistant patients who had been previously treated with one to three treatment regimens, at least one of which having included bevacizumab.
The new study compared MIRV with physician choice chemotherapy and found both a PFS and OS benefit in the MIRV arm. The results garnered significant enthusiasm from the audience, and others reacted positively as well.
“The results that she presented are just astounding, with a significant improvement in both progression-free and overall survival. I think certainly the overall survival needs to be highlighted here, because this is a patient population that’s notoriously difficult to treat,” said Ana Valente, MD, a gynecologic oncologist at the Ochsner Health System in New Orleans. Dr. Valente, who did not attend the presentation but was asked to comment on the study, is also a member of the Society of Gynecological Oncologist communications committee.
Unlike SORAYA, MIRASOL was open to patients who had not received bevacizumab, and Dr. Moore and colleagues found similar survival benefits in patients who had not received bevacizumab as in those who had, said Dr. Moore, who is the associate director of clinical research at Stephenson Cancer Center and director of the Oklahoma TSET Phase 1 Program, both in Oklahoma City. This opens the possibility of using MIRV instead of bevacizumab combined with chemotherapy in platinum-resistant patients.
“I think this data really shows you can move right to mirvetuximab [soravtansine] and feel pretty solid about the decision in a biomarker selected [population],” Dr. Moore said, during an interview.
Not just for high expression levels
MIRASOL was restricted to patients with high levels of expression of folate receptor–alpha, which is MIRV’s target on the surface of tumor cells. High expression is defined as at least 75% of viable tumor cells exhibiting a minimum of 2+ level membrane staining intensity by immunohistochemistry. That represents about 35% of patients, according to Dr. Moore, but she said that the drug also shows promise in patients with medium levels of folate receptor–alpha expression.
“I think it’s just going to be now starting to get those label extension studies launched to branch it out. Then you account for 60% of your population which [have] medium to high [expression levels], and that’s really where you see benefit,” said Dr. Moore. Medium expression levels of folate receptor–alpha are defined as 50% to greater than 75% of tumor cells with 2+ level membrane staining intensity.
She also noted that the FORWARD II trial combining mirvetuximab soravtansine with bevacizumab in platinum-resistant ovarian cancer is showing good results.
“We have really beautiful data [from FORWARD II]. If I have a medium expresser, I’m using the doublet [of MIRV and bevacizumab], and it works,” said Dr. Moore, while also pointing out that this remains an off-label use.
It’s possible that the drug could be extended even to low expression levels, defined as 25% to less than 50% of tumor cells with 2+ level membrane staining intensity. “[We are] currently working on that strategy with already available data,” said Dr. Moore.
She speculated that the improved OS may be attributed to the reduced toxicity of MIRV, compared with chemotherapy agents, which leaves patients feeling better and more able to pursue other treatments, which in turn may increase survival odds.
Dr. O’Cearbhaill touted the benefits of ADCs and their ability to target powerful cytotoxic agents while limiting side effects, and she is looking forward to more new therapies on the horizon.
“There are four [ADCs] in late stages of development [for platinum-resistant ovarian cancer], so hopefully there will be other ones coming online as well,” Dr. O’Cearbhaill said in an interview. “Then we’ll have to figure out how to sequence them, which drug will be best in class. Will we be just giving one or will be giving ADC followed by ADC?”
Study methods and results
The study enrolled 453 patients and randomized them to treatment with MIRV or investigator’s choice of chemotherapy, which could be paclitaxel, pegylated liposomal doxorubicin, or topotecan. The MIRV dose was 6 mg/kg adjusted ideal body weight every 3 weeks. The median age was 62 in the chemotherapy arm and 63 years in the MIRV arm. About 63% of the chemotherapy arm had prior bevacizumab exposure, as did 61% of the MIRV arm.
Median PFS was 5.62 months in the MIRV arm and 3.98 months in the chemotherapy arm (hazard ratio, 0.65; P less than .0001). The overall response rate was 42% in the MIRV arm and 16% in the chemotherapy arm (P < .0001).
The safety outcomes also favored MIRV: 42% experienced grade 3 or higher treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) versus 54% in the chemotherapy group. Severe adverse events were also lower in MIRV, 24% versus 33%. Just 9% of patients in the MIRV discontinued because of TEAEs, compared with 16% in the chemotherapy arm.
MIRV was associated with blurred vision (41%), keratopathy (32%), and dry eye (28%), but these issues were generally manageable through collaboration with optometrists or ophthalmologists.
Dr. Moore and Dr. O’Cearbhaill reported receiving honoraria, research funding, and travel expenses from numerous pharmaceutical companies. Dr. O’Cearbhaill has consulted for or advised Aptitude Health, Bayer, Carina Biotech, Fresenius Kabi, GlaxoSmithKline, GOG Foundation, Immunogen, R-Pharm, Regeneron, and Seagen.
The conclusion of this study marks the first time that a novel therapy has demonstrated an overall survival (OS) improvement in any phase 3 trial in this population, according to lead investigator Kathleen Moore, MD.
“We believe these data are practice changing and position mirvetuximab [soravtansine] as the new standard of care for patients with folate receptor–alpha positive, platinum-resistant ovarian cancer,” said Dr. Moore during a presentation of the study at a special session of the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology devoted solely to the MIRASOL study.
New standard of care
Following Dr. Moore’s presentation, Roisin Eilish O’Cearbhaill, MD, served as a discussant, and she confirmed the trial’s importance.
“It has firmly established the role of mirvetuximab [soravtansine] in folate receptor–alpha high-expression, platinum-resistant ovarian cancer,” said Dr. O’Cearbhaill, who is Research director of the gynecologic medical oncology service and clinical director of the solid tumor, cellular therapy service at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York.
Mirvetuximab soravtansine received accelerated FDA approval in November based on the results of the single-arm SORAYA trial, which demonstrated a progression-free survival (PFS) benefit in platinum-resistant patients who had been previously treated with one to three treatment regimens, at least one of which having included bevacizumab.
The new study compared MIRV with physician choice chemotherapy and found both a PFS and OS benefit in the MIRV arm. The results garnered significant enthusiasm from the audience, and others reacted positively as well.
“The results that she presented are just astounding, with a significant improvement in both progression-free and overall survival. I think certainly the overall survival needs to be highlighted here, because this is a patient population that’s notoriously difficult to treat,” said Ana Valente, MD, a gynecologic oncologist at the Ochsner Health System in New Orleans. Dr. Valente, who did not attend the presentation but was asked to comment on the study, is also a member of the Society of Gynecological Oncologist communications committee.
Unlike SORAYA, MIRASOL was open to patients who had not received bevacizumab, and Dr. Moore and colleagues found similar survival benefits in patients who had not received bevacizumab as in those who had, said Dr. Moore, who is the associate director of clinical research at Stephenson Cancer Center and director of the Oklahoma TSET Phase 1 Program, both in Oklahoma City. This opens the possibility of using MIRV instead of bevacizumab combined with chemotherapy in platinum-resistant patients.
“I think this data really shows you can move right to mirvetuximab [soravtansine] and feel pretty solid about the decision in a biomarker selected [population],” Dr. Moore said, during an interview.
Not just for high expression levels
MIRASOL was restricted to patients with high levels of expression of folate receptor–alpha, which is MIRV’s target on the surface of tumor cells. High expression is defined as at least 75% of viable tumor cells exhibiting a minimum of 2+ level membrane staining intensity by immunohistochemistry. That represents about 35% of patients, according to Dr. Moore, but she said that the drug also shows promise in patients with medium levels of folate receptor–alpha expression.
“I think it’s just going to be now starting to get those label extension studies launched to branch it out. Then you account for 60% of your population which [have] medium to high [expression levels], and that’s really where you see benefit,” said Dr. Moore. Medium expression levels of folate receptor–alpha are defined as 50% to greater than 75% of tumor cells with 2+ level membrane staining intensity.
She also noted that the FORWARD II trial combining mirvetuximab soravtansine with bevacizumab in platinum-resistant ovarian cancer is showing good results.
“We have really beautiful data [from FORWARD II]. If I have a medium expresser, I’m using the doublet [of MIRV and bevacizumab], and it works,” said Dr. Moore, while also pointing out that this remains an off-label use.
It’s possible that the drug could be extended even to low expression levels, defined as 25% to less than 50% of tumor cells with 2+ level membrane staining intensity. “[We are] currently working on that strategy with already available data,” said Dr. Moore.
She speculated that the improved OS may be attributed to the reduced toxicity of MIRV, compared with chemotherapy agents, which leaves patients feeling better and more able to pursue other treatments, which in turn may increase survival odds.
Dr. O’Cearbhaill touted the benefits of ADCs and their ability to target powerful cytotoxic agents while limiting side effects, and she is looking forward to more new therapies on the horizon.
“There are four [ADCs] in late stages of development [for platinum-resistant ovarian cancer], so hopefully there will be other ones coming online as well,” Dr. O’Cearbhaill said in an interview. “Then we’ll have to figure out how to sequence them, which drug will be best in class. Will we be just giving one or will be giving ADC followed by ADC?”
Study methods and results
The study enrolled 453 patients and randomized them to treatment with MIRV or investigator’s choice of chemotherapy, which could be paclitaxel, pegylated liposomal doxorubicin, or topotecan. The MIRV dose was 6 mg/kg adjusted ideal body weight every 3 weeks. The median age was 62 in the chemotherapy arm and 63 years in the MIRV arm. About 63% of the chemotherapy arm had prior bevacizumab exposure, as did 61% of the MIRV arm.
Median PFS was 5.62 months in the MIRV arm and 3.98 months in the chemotherapy arm (hazard ratio, 0.65; P less than .0001). The overall response rate was 42% in the MIRV arm and 16% in the chemotherapy arm (P < .0001).
The safety outcomes also favored MIRV: 42% experienced grade 3 or higher treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) versus 54% in the chemotherapy group. Severe adverse events were also lower in MIRV, 24% versus 33%. Just 9% of patients in the MIRV discontinued because of TEAEs, compared with 16% in the chemotherapy arm.
MIRV was associated with blurred vision (41%), keratopathy (32%), and dry eye (28%), but these issues were generally manageable through collaboration with optometrists or ophthalmologists.
Dr. Moore and Dr. O’Cearbhaill reported receiving honoraria, research funding, and travel expenses from numerous pharmaceutical companies. Dr. O’Cearbhaill has consulted for or advised Aptitude Health, Bayer, Carina Biotech, Fresenius Kabi, GlaxoSmithKline, GOG Foundation, Immunogen, R-Pharm, Regeneron, and Seagen.
The conclusion of this study marks the first time that a novel therapy has demonstrated an overall survival (OS) improvement in any phase 3 trial in this population, according to lead investigator Kathleen Moore, MD.
“We believe these data are practice changing and position mirvetuximab [soravtansine] as the new standard of care for patients with folate receptor–alpha positive, platinum-resistant ovarian cancer,” said Dr. Moore during a presentation of the study at a special session of the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology devoted solely to the MIRASOL study.
New standard of care
Following Dr. Moore’s presentation, Roisin Eilish O’Cearbhaill, MD, served as a discussant, and she confirmed the trial’s importance.
“It has firmly established the role of mirvetuximab [soravtansine] in folate receptor–alpha high-expression, platinum-resistant ovarian cancer,” said Dr. O’Cearbhaill, who is Research director of the gynecologic medical oncology service and clinical director of the solid tumor, cellular therapy service at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York.
Mirvetuximab soravtansine received accelerated FDA approval in November based on the results of the single-arm SORAYA trial, which demonstrated a progression-free survival (PFS) benefit in platinum-resistant patients who had been previously treated with one to three treatment regimens, at least one of which having included bevacizumab.
The new study compared MIRV with physician choice chemotherapy and found both a PFS and OS benefit in the MIRV arm. The results garnered significant enthusiasm from the audience, and others reacted positively as well.
“The results that she presented are just astounding, with a significant improvement in both progression-free and overall survival. I think certainly the overall survival needs to be highlighted here, because this is a patient population that’s notoriously difficult to treat,” said Ana Valente, MD, a gynecologic oncologist at the Ochsner Health System in New Orleans. Dr. Valente, who did not attend the presentation but was asked to comment on the study, is also a member of the Society of Gynecological Oncologist communications committee.
Unlike SORAYA, MIRASOL was open to patients who had not received bevacizumab, and Dr. Moore and colleagues found similar survival benefits in patients who had not received bevacizumab as in those who had, said Dr. Moore, who is the associate director of clinical research at Stephenson Cancer Center and director of the Oklahoma TSET Phase 1 Program, both in Oklahoma City. This opens the possibility of using MIRV instead of bevacizumab combined with chemotherapy in platinum-resistant patients.
“I think this data really shows you can move right to mirvetuximab [soravtansine] and feel pretty solid about the decision in a biomarker selected [population],” Dr. Moore said, during an interview.
Not just for high expression levels
MIRASOL was restricted to patients with high levels of expression of folate receptor–alpha, which is MIRV’s target on the surface of tumor cells. High expression is defined as at least 75% of viable tumor cells exhibiting a minimum of 2+ level membrane staining intensity by immunohistochemistry. That represents about 35% of patients, according to Dr. Moore, but she said that the drug also shows promise in patients with medium levels of folate receptor–alpha expression.
“I think it’s just going to be now starting to get those label extension studies launched to branch it out. Then you account for 60% of your population which [have] medium to high [expression levels], and that’s really where you see benefit,” said Dr. Moore. Medium expression levels of folate receptor–alpha are defined as 50% to greater than 75% of tumor cells with 2+ level membrane staining intensity.
She also noted that the FORWARD II trial combining mirvetuximab soravtansine with bevacizumab in platinum-resistant ovarian cancer is showing good results.
“We have really beautiful data [from FORWARD II]. If I have a medium expresser, I’m using the doublet [of MIRV and bevacizumab], and it works,” said Dr. Moore, while also pointing out that this remains an off-label use.
It’s possible that the drug could be extended even to low expression levels, defined as 25% to less than 50% of tumor cells with 2+ level membrane staining intensity. “[We are] currently working on that strategy with already available data,” said Dr. Moore.
She speculated that the improved OS may be attributed to the reduced toxicity of MIRV, compared with chemotherapy agents, which leaves patients feeling better and more able to pursue other treatments, which in turn may increase survival odds.
Dr. O’Cearbhaill touted the benefits of ADCs and their ability to target powerful cytotoxic agents while limiting side effects, and she is looking forward to more new therapies on the horizon.
“There are four [ADCs] in late stages of development [for platinum-resistant ovarian cancer], so hopefully there will be other ones coming online as well,” Dr. O’Cearbhaill said in an interview. “Then we’ll have to figure out how to sequence them, which drug will be best in class. Will we be just giving one or will be giving ADC followed by ADC?”
Study methods and results
The study enrolled 453 patients and randomized them to treatment with MIRV or investigator’s choice of chemotherapy, which could be paclitaxel, pegylated liposomal doxorubicin, or topotecan. The MIRV dose was 6 mg/kg adjusted ideal body weight every 3 weeks. The median age was 62 in the chemotherapy arm and 63 years in the MIRV arm. About 63% of the chemotherapy arm had prior bevacizumab exposure, as did 61% of the MIRV arm.
Median PFS was 5.62 months in the MIRV arm and 3.98 months in the chemotherapy arm (hazard ratio, 0.65; P less than .0001). The overall response rate was 42% in the MIRV arm and 16% in the chemotherapy arm (P < .0001).
The safety outcomes also favored MIRV: 42% experienced grade 3 or higher treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) versus 54% in the chemotherapy group. Severe adverse events were also lower in MIRV, 24% versus 33%. Just 9% of patients in the MIRV discontinued because of TEAEs, compared with 16% in the chemotherapy arm.
MIRV was associated with blurred vision (41%), keratopathy (32%), and dry eye (28%), but these issues were generally manageable through collaboration with optometrists or ophthalmologists.
Dr. Moore and Dr. O’Cearbhaill reported receiving honoraria, research funding, and travel expenses from numerous pharmaceutical companies. Dr. O’Cearbhaill has consulted for or advised Aptitude Health, Bayer, Carina Biotech, Fresenius Kabi, GlaxoSmithKline, GOG Foundation, Immunogen, R-Pharm, Regeneron, and Seagen.
AT ASCO 2023
Oral drug for brain tumor could change treatment landscape
say researchers reporting new results that could potentially change the treatment landscape.
The investigational drug vorasidenib (Servier) is awaiting approval for use in gliomas bearing mutations in IDH1 and IDH2.
Results from the pivotal phase 3 INDIGO trial show that the drug was associated with a significant delay in time to disease progression when compared with placebo.
The median progression-free survival (PFS) was 27.7 months for patients on vorasidenib, compared with 11.1 months for patients assigned to placebo (hazard ratio for progression or death with vorasidenib of 0.39 (P < .0001).
Vorasidenib was also associated with significantly longer time to the next treatment, and patients generally tolerated the drug well, reported first author Ingo K. Mellinghoff, MD, from Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York.
The results show that “treatment with an oral precision medicine therapy can produce a reduction in the risk of tumor progression by 61%, so that is, we think, a significant sign of efficacy that has potential to change the landscape in this disease,” he commented.
Dr. Mellinghoff spoke at a media briefing prior to presenting the data at a plenary session at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.
The study was published online in the New England Journal of Medicine to coincide with the presentation.
“What you just heard is a trial that was well done and well thought out: to use an oral, targeted, well-tolerated therapy to see if we could delay the use of our standard chemotherapy and radiation,” commented ASCO expert Glenn Lesser, MD, from Wake Forest Baptist Health in Winston-Salem, N.C., the invited discussant at the briefing.
“The results are quite striking and they’re statistically highly significant, and more importantly, they’re clinically very, very significant,” he continued.
“The results of this study really suggest that, in selected patients with IDH-mutant low-grade gliomas, we can potentially delay the use of these toxic chemotherapies and radiation, maybe for years if not many years, and as a result delay the long-term toxicities of those therapies in a group of patients who typically are experiencing long-term survival,” Dr. Lesser added.
Brain-penetrating oral drug
Vorasidenib is an oral inhibitor of the IDH1 and IDH2 enzymes, with the ability to cross the blood-brain barrier. Mutations in IDH1 are found in about 80% of grade 2 gliomas, and IDH2 mutations occur in about 4%.
Adjuvant chemoradiotherapy has become the standard of care for patients with IDH-mutant grade 3 gliomas and patients with IDH-mutant grade 2 tumors who are thought to be a high risk for early progression.
Many patients with IDH-mutant grade 2 gliomas are initially followed with serial MRI scans, with toxic therapies reserved for use after disease progression, Dr. Mellinghoff noted.
Vorasidenib offers the potential for delaying the use of more toxic therapies and the potential to alter the natural history of diffuse glioma while helping patients to maintain a good quality of life, he said.
Study details
The INDIGO trial involved 331 patients with grade 2 gliomas with IDH mutations, who were enrolled across 77 centers in 10 countries in North America, Europe, and the Middle East.
Patients were aged 12-80 years and had residual or recurrent grade 2 IDH1- or IDH2-mutated oligodendroglioma or astrocytoma, with measurable nonenhancing disease and no prior treatment for glioma (with the most recent surgery 1-5 years before randomization). They were eligible for the study if they were not in immediate need of chemotherapy and/or radiation.
After stratification by 1p/19q status and baseline tumor size, they were randomly assigned to receive either vorasidenib 40 mg daily or placebo in 28-day cycles.
At the second planned interim analysis data cutoff in September 2022, at a median follow-up of 14.2 months, 226 (68.3%) of the 331 patients remained on treatment.
The primary endpoint was median PFS by blinded independent central review, which as noted above was 16.6 months longer in those on the drug, compared with placebo.
The time to next therapy was also significantly longer with vorasidenib, with a median not yet reached, compared with 17.4 months for placebo (hazard ratio, 0.26, P < .001).
Adverse events of any grade occurring in more than 20% of those receiving vorasidenib were elevated liver enzymes, fatigue, headache, diarrhea, and nausea. Grade 3 or 4 ALT elevations occurred in 9.6% of patients assigned to vorasidenib, but not in the placebo group.
Vorasidenib received fast-track status from the Food and Drug Administration in March. It is currently being studied in a phase 1 trial in combination with pembrolizumab (Keytruda) in patients with grade 2/3 gliomas, and further exploration of the drug in combination with other agents is being considered.
The study was funded by Servier Pharmaceuticals, manufacturer of vorasidenib. Dr. Mellinghoff disclosed honoraria from Roche, a consulting or advisory role with Agios, Black Diamond Therapeutics, Debiopharm Group, Puma Biotechnology, Voyager Therapeutics, research funding from Amgen, General Electric, Lilly, and travel expenses from Agios, AstraZeneca, Puma Biotechnology, Roche, and Voyager Therapeutics. Dr. Lesser disclosed honoraria from SDP Oncology, consulting/advising for Cancer Expert Now, Agio, IN8bio, and Ono Pharmaceutical.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
say researchers reporting new results that could potentially change the treatment landscape.
The investigational drug vorasidenib (Servier) is awaiting approval for use in gliomas bearing mutations in IDH1 and IDH2.
Results from the pivotal phase 3 INDIGO trial show that the drug was associated with a significant delay in time to disease progression when compared with placebo.
The median progression-free survival (PFS) was 27.7 months for patients on vorasidenib, compared with 11.1 months for patients assigned to placebo (hazard ratio for progression or death with vorasidenib of 0.39 (P < .0001).
Vorasidenib was also associated with significantly longer time to the next treatment, and patients generally tolerated the drug well, reported first author Ingo K. Mellinghoff, MD, from Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York.
The results show that “treatment with an oral precision medicine therapy can produce a reduction in the risk of tumor progression by 61%, so that is, we think, a significant sign of efficacy that has potential to change the landscape in this disease,” he commented.
Dr. Mellinghoff spoke at a media briefing prior to presenting the data at a plenary session at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.
The study was published online in the New England Journal of Medicine to coincide with the presentation.
“What you just heard is a trial that was well done and well thought out: to use an oral, targeted, well-tolerated therapy to see if we could delay the use of our standard chemotherapy and radiation,” commented ASCO expert Glenn Lesser, MD, from Wake Forest Baptist Health in Winston-Salem, N.C., the invited discussant at the briefing.
“The results are quite striking and they’re statistically highly significant, and more importantly, they’re clinically very, very significant,” he continued.
“The results of this study really suggest that, in selected patients with IDH-mutant low-grade gliomas, we can potentially delay the use of these toxic chemotherapies and radiation, maybe for years if not many years, and as a result delay the long-term toxicities of those therapies in a group of patients who typically are experiencing long-term survival,” Dr. Lesser added.
Brain-penetrating oral drug
Vorasidenib is an oral inhibitor of the IDH1 and IDH2 enzymes, with the ability to cross the blood-brain barrier. Mutations in IDH1 are found in about 80% of grade 2 gliomas, and IDH2 mutations occur in about 4%.
Adjuvant chemoradiotherapy has become the standard of care for patients with IDH-mutant grade 3 gliomas and patients with IDH-mutant grade 2 tumors who are thought to be a high risk for early progression.
Many patients with IDH-mutant grade 2 gliomas are initially followed with serial MRI scans, with toxic therapies reserved for use after disease progression, Dr. Mellinghoff noted.
Vorasidenib offers the potential for delaying the use of more toxic therapies and the potential to alter the natural history of diffuse glioma while helping patients to maintain a good quality of life, he said.
Study details
The INDIGO trial involved 331 patients with grade 2 gliomas with IDH mutations, who were enrolled across 77 centers in 10 countries in North America, Europe, and the Middle East.
Patients were aged 12-80 years and had residual or recurrent grade 2 IDH1- or IDH2-mutated oligodendroglioma or astrocytoma, with measurable nonenhancing disease and no prior treatment for glioma (with the most recent surgery 1-5 years before randomization). They were eligible for the study if they were not in immediate need of chemotherapy and/or radiation.
After stratification by 1p/19q status and baseline tumor size, they were randomly assigned to receive either vorasidenib 40 mg daily or placebo in 28-day cycles.
At the second planned interim analysis data cutoff in September 2022, at a median follow-up of 14.2 months, 226 (68.3%) of the 331 patients remained on treatment.
The primary endpoint was median PFS by blinded independent central review, which as noted above was 16.6 months longer in those on the drug, compared with placebo.
The time to next therapy was also significantly longer with vorasidenib, with a median not yet reached, compared with 17.4 months for placebo (hazard ratio, 0.26, P < .001).
Adverse events of any grade occurring in more than 20% of those receiving vorasidenib were elevated liver enzymes, fatigue, headache, diarrhea, and nausea. Grade 3 or 4 ALT elevations occurred in 9.6% of patients assigned to vorasidenib, but not in the placebo group.
Vorasidenib received fast-track status from the Food and Drug Administration in March. It is currently being studied in a phase 1 trial in combination with pembrolizumab (Keytruda) in patients with grade 2/3 gliomas, and further exploration of the drug in combination with other agents is being considered.
The study was funded by Servier Pharmaceuticals, manufacturer of vorasidenib. Dr. Mellinghoff disclosed honoraria from Roche, a consulting or advisory role with Agios, Black Diamond Therapeutics, Debiopharm Group, Puma Biotechnology, Voyager Therapeutics, research funding from Amgen, General Electric, Lilly, and travel expenses from Agios, AstraZeneca, Puma Biotechnology, Roche, and Voyager Therapeutics. Dr. Lesser disclosed honoraria from SDP Oncology, consulting/advising for Cancer Expert Now, Agio, IN8bio, and Ono Pharmaceutical.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
say researchers reporting new results that could potentially change the treatment landscape.
The investigational drug vorasidenib (Servier) is awaiting approval for use in gliomas bearing mutations in IDH1 and IDH2.
Results from the pivotal phase 3 INDIGO trial show that the drug was associated with a significant delay in time to disease progression when compared with placebo.
The median progression-free survival (PFS) was 27.7 months for patients on vorasidenib, compared with 11.1 months for patients assigned to placebo (hazard ratio for progression or death with vorasidenib of 0.39 (P < .0001).
Vorasidenib was also associated with significantly longer time to the next treatment, and patients generally tolerated the drug well, reported first author Ingo K. Mellinghoff, MD, from Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York.
The results show that “treatment with an oral precision medicine therapy can produce a reduction in the risk of tumor progression by 61%, so that is, we think, a significant sign of efficacy that has potential to change the landscape in this disease,” he commented.
Dr. Mellinghoff spoke at a media briefing prior to presenting the data at a plenary session at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.
The study was published online in the New England Journal of Medicine to coincide with the presentation.
“What you just heard is a trial that was well done and well thought out: to use an oral, targeted, well-tolerated therapy to see if we could delay the use of our standard chemotherapy and radiation,” commented ASCO expert Glenn Lesser, MD, from Wake Forest Baptist Health in Winston-Salem, N.C., the invited discussant at the briefing.
“The results are quite striking and they’re statistically highly significant, and more importantly, they’re clinically very, very significant,” he continued.
“The results of this study really suggest that, in selected patients with IDH-mutant low-grade gliomas, we can potentially delay the use of these toxic chemotherapies and radiation, maybe for years if not many years, and as a result delay the long-term toxicities of those therapies in a group of patients who typically are experiencing long-term survival,” Dr. Lesser added.
Brain-penetrating oral drug
Vorasidenib is an oral inhibitor of the IDH1 and IDH2 enzymes, with the ability to cross the blood-brain barrier. Mutations in IDH1 are found in about 80% of grade 2 gliomas, and IDH2 mutations occur in about 4%.
Adjuvant chemoradiotherapy has become the standard of care for patients with IDH-mutant grade 3 gliomas and patients with IDH-mutant grade 2 tumors who are thought to be a high risk for early progression.
Many patients with IDH-mutant grade 2 gliomas are initially followed with serial MRI scans, with toxic therapies reserved for use after disease progression, Dr. Mellinghoff noted.
Vorasidenib offers the potential for delaying the use of more toxic therapies and the potential to alter the natural history of diffuse glioma while helping patients to maintain a good quality of life, he said.
Study details
The INDIGO trial involved 331 patients with grade 2 gliomas with IDH mutations, who were enrolled across 77 centers in 10 countries in North America, Europe, and the Middle East.
Patients were aged 12-80 years and had residual or recurrent grade 2 IDH1- or IDH2-mutated oligodendroglioma or astrocytoma, with measurable nonenhancing disease and no prior treatment for glioma (with the most recent surgery 1-5 years before randomization). They were eligible for the study if they were not in immediate need of chemotherapy and/or radiation.
After stratification by 1p/19q status and baseline tumor size, they were randomly assigned to receive either vorasidenib 40 mg daily or placebo in 28-day cycles.
At the second planned interim analysis data cutoff in September 2022, at a median follow-up of 14.2 months, 226 (68.3%) of the 331 patients remained on treatment.
The primary endpoint was median PFS by blinded independent central review, which as noted above was 16.6 months longer in those on the drug, compared with placebo.
The time to next therapy was also significantly longer with vorasidenib, with a median not yet reached, compared with 17.4 months for placebo (hazard ratio, 0.26, P < .001).
Adverse events of any grade occurring in more than 20% of those receiving vorasidenib were elevated liver enzymes, fatigue, headache, diarrhea, and nausea. Grade 3 or 4 ALT elevations occurred in 9.6% of patients assigned to vorasidenib, but not in the placebo group.
Vorasidenib received fast-track status from the Food and Drug Administration in March. It is currently being studied in a phase 1 trial in combination with pembrolizumab (Keytruda) in patients with grade 2/3 gliomas, and further exploration of the drug in combination with other agents is being considered.
The study was funded by Servier Pharmaceuticals, manufacturer of vorasidenib. Dr. Mellinghoff disclosed honoraria from Roche, a consulting or advisory role with Agios, Black Diamond Therapeutics, Debiopharm Group, Puma Biotechnology, Voyager Therapeutics, research funding from Amgen, General Electric, Lilly, and travel expenses from Agios, AstraZeneca, Puma Biotechnology, Roche, and Voyager Therapeutics. Dr. Lesser disclosed honoraria from SDP Oncology, consulting/advising for Cancer Expert Now, Agio, IN8bio, and Ono Pharmaceutical.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
AT ASCO 2023
Up-front pembro plus chemo boost survival in cervical cancer
This is based on final overall survival results from the phase 3, randomized KEYNOTE-826 study, which showed that adding immunotherapy resulted in a 40% reduction in risk of death, compared with chemotherapy alone, for women with advanced cervical cancers expressing programmed death–ligand 1 (PD-L1).
“At this protocol-specified final analysis of KEYNOTE-826, the addition of immune therapy to chemotherapy with or without the antiangiogenic bevacizumab showed substantial and clinically meaningful improvement in survival,” said lead author Bradley J. Monk, MD, from HonorHealth Research Institute, Phoenix.
He was speaking at a media briefing held prior to the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, where the results were presented.
“The results of this study solidify the addition of pembrolizumab to chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab in people with persistent, recurrent, or metastatic cervical cancer as the frontline standard of care for this disease. Survival significantly improved with this approach, regardless of PD-L1 expression, further supporting its use for all patients in this population,” commented ASCO expert Merry Jennifer Markham, MD, from the University of Florida, Gainesville.
At the briefing, Dr. Monk raised the possibility that adding immunotherapy to the standard of care could offer a chance for cure for some patients with advanced or recurrent cervical cancer.
“Is it possible to cure a widely metastatic cancer, a solid tumor? And I think it probably is,” he said. “There’s a tail to this [survival] curve, and I can’t believe that in my lifetime we as a group, as a team, have sort of figured out – and it’s not enough – that we can actually cure some patients, and if not maybe cure, have them at least live a long time, so it’s exciting.”
Briefing comoderater Julie R. Gralow, MD, chief medical officer and executive vice president of ASCO, agreed that the survival benefit “is exciting to see, and in my long career as a breast medical oncologist, I’m pretty sure we cure some metastatic breast cancer. We definitely had patients who lived out their normal life span and died of something else after decades.
“But the definition of cure, sadly, in these situations is that you die of something else without evidence of disease, so we certainly need to do better here and be better able to use the word ‘cure’ in the metastatic setting,” she added.
Promising start
Since 2014, the standard of care for treating patients with recurrent, persistent, or metastatic cervical cancer has been chemotherapy with a platinum compound, paclitaxel, and bevacizumab, based on the results of the GOG 240 study.
Immunotherapy with PD-1 inhibitors had previously shown efficacy as monotherapy in second- or later-line therapy for women with cervical cancer, but KEYNOTE 826 was the first study to show a benefit to promoting immunotherapy to the front ranks.
In the first interim analysis of the trial, reported at the 2021 annual meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology, after a median follow-up of 22 months, the combination of pembrolizumab and chemotherapy demonstrated significant improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS), compared with chemotherapy plus placebo in a biomarker-selected population, which consisted of patients with a combined positive score (CPS) for PD-L1 of 1 or greater.
Pembrolizumab had no apparent efficacy in patients whose tumors did not have detectable PD-L1, however.
Latest results
Now the investigators are reporting the final analysis, conducted after a median follow-up of 39.1 months. The results are those for all comers (308 randomly assigned to receive pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy, and 309 assigned to receive chemotherapy plus placebo), as well as for the biomarker-selected population (consisting of all patients with PD-L1 CPS of 1 or greater) and for the subpopulation of patients with PD-L1 CPS of 10 or greater.
In the all-comers population, the median OS was 26.4 months for patients who received pembrolizumab, compared with 16.8 months for those who received placebo. The 24-month OS rates were 52.1% and 38.7%, respectively. The difference translated into a hazard ratio for death with pembrolizumab of 0.63 (P < .0001).
In the biomarker-selected population (273 assigned to pembrolizumab and 275 assigned to placebo), the respective median OS was 28.6 months versus 16.6 months, with 24-month OS rates of 53.5% versus 39.4%, which translates into an HR for death with pembrolizumab of 0.60 (P < .0001).
Not surprisingly, the best responses to the addition of the PD-1 inhibitor were seen among patients with a PD-L1 CPS of 10 or greater (158 assigned to pembrolizumab and 159 assigned to placebo). In this subgroup, the median OS was 29.6 months with the immune checkpoint inhibitor added to chemotherapy versus 17.4 months for chemotherapy plus placebo. The respective 24-month OS rates were 54.4% and 42.5%, and the HR for overall survival favoring pembrolizumab was 0.58 (P < .0001).
Median PFS 12-month PFS rates also favored pembrolizumab in both the total patient population and the biomarker-selected groups, with median PFS of approximately 10.4 months with pembrolizumab versus approximately 8.2 months with placebo.
The safety profile was manageable, with adverse events as expected from the safety profiles of the individual drugs in the combined regimen. No new safety signals have been seen since the interim analysis, Dr. Monk said.
Regimen details
Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive pembrolizumab 200 mg or placebo every 3 weeks for up to 35 cycles plus platinum-based chemotherapy, with bevacizumab added at the investigator’s discretion. Approximately two-thirds of patients in each study arm received bevacizumab.
The dual primary endpoints of PFS and OS were each tested sequentially in patients with a PD-L1 CPS of 1 or greater in both the intention-to-treat or “all-comers” population and in patients with a PD-L1 CPS of 10 or greater.
Patient characteristics were generally well balanced between the treatment groups, except that a slightly higher proportion of patients in the pembrolizumab had tumors of squamous cell histology, compared with the placebo group (76.3% vs. 68.3%).
KEYNOTE-826 was funded by Merck. Dr. Monk has received honoraria and has participated in consulting/advising and speaker’s bureau activity with Merck and other companies. Dr. Gralow has had a consulting or advisory role with Genentech and Roche. Dr. Markham has had a consulting/advisory role for GlaxoSmithKline and has received institutional research funding from Merck and other companies.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
This is based on final overall survival results from the phase 3, randomized KEYNOTE-826 study, which showed that adding immunotherapy resulted in a 40% reduction in risk of death, compared with chemotherapy alone, for women with advanced cervical cancers expressing programmed death–ligand 1 (PD-L1).
“At this protocol-specified final analysis of KEYNOTE-826, the addition of immune therapy to chemotherapy with or without the antiangiogenic bevacizumab showed substantial and clinically meaningful improvement in survival,” said lead author Bradley J. Monk, MD, from HonorHealth Research Institute, Phoenix.
He was speaking at a media briefing held prior to the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, where the results were presented.
“The results of this study solidify the addition of pembrolizumab to chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab in people with persistent, recurrent, or metastatic cervical cancer as the frontline standard of care for this disease. Survival significantly improved with this approach, regardless of PD-L1 expression, further supporting its use for all patients in this population,” commented ASCO expert Merry Jennifer Markham, MD, from the University of Florida, Gainesville.
At the briefing, Dr. Monk raised the possibility that adding immunotherapy to the standard of care could offer a chance for cure for some patients with advanced or recurrent cervical cancer.
“Is it possible to cure a widely metastatic cancer, a solid tumor? And I think it probably is,” he said. “There’s a tail to this [survival] curve, and I can’t believe that in my lifetime we as a group, as a team, have sort of figured out – and it’s not enough – that we can actually cure some patients, and if not maybe cure, have them at least live a long time, so it’s exciting.”
Briefing comoderater Julie R. Gralow, MD, chief medical officer and executive vice president of ASCO, agreed that the survival benefit “is exciting to see, and in my long career as a breast medical oncologist, I’m pretty sure we cure some metastatic breast cancer. We definitely had patients who lived out their normal life span and died of something else after decades.
“But the definition of cure, sadly, in these situations is that you die of something else without evidence of disease, so we certainly need to do better here and be better able to use the word ‘cure’ in the metastatic setting,” she added.
Promising start
Since 2014, the standard of care for treating patients with recurrent, persistent, or metastatic cervical cancer has been chemotherapy with a platinum compound, paclitaxel, and bevacizumab, based on the results of the GOG 240 study.
Immunotherapy with PD-1 inhibitors had previously shown efficacy as monotherapy in second- or later-line therapy for women with cervical cancer, but KEYNOTE 826 was the first study to show a benefit to promoting immunotherapy to the front ranks.
In the first interim analysis of the trial, reported at the 2021 annual meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology, after a median follow-up of 22 months, the combination of pembrolizumab and chemotherapy demonstrated significant improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS), compared with chemotherapy plus placebo in a biomarker-selected population, which consisted of patients with a combined positive score (CPS) for PD-L1 of 1 or greater.
Pembrolizumab had no apparent efficacy in patients whose tumors did not have detectable PD-L1, however.
Latest results
Now the investigators are reporting the final analysis, conducted after a median follow-up of 39.1 months. The results are those for all comers (308 randomly assigned to receive pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy, and 309 assigned to receive chemotherapy plus placebo), as well as for the biomarker-selected population (consisting of all patients with PD-L1 CPS of 1 or greater) and for the subpopulation of patients with PD-L1 CPS of 10 or greater.
In the all-comers population, the median OS was 26.4 months for patients who received pembrolizumab, compared with 16.8 months for those who received placebo. The 24-month OS rates were 52.1% and 38.7%, respectively. The difference translated into a hazard ratio for death with pembrolizumab of 0.63 (P < .0001).
In the biomarker-selected population (273 assigned to pembrolizumab and 275 assigned to placebo), the respective median OS was 28.6 months versus 16.6 months, with 24-month OS rates of 53.5% versus 39.4%, which translates into an HR for death with pembrolizumab of 0.60 (P < .0001).
Not surprisingly, the best responses to the addition of the PD-1 inhibitor were seen among patients with a PD-L1 CPS of 10 or greater (158 assigned to pembrolizumab and 159 assigned to placebo). In this subgroup, the median OS was 29.6 months with the immune checkpoint inhibitor added to chemotherapy versus 17.4 months for chemotherapy plus placebo. The respective 24-month OS rates were 54.4% and 42.5%, and the HR for overall survival favoring pembrolizumab was 0.58 (P < .0001).
Median PFS 12-month PFS rates also favored pembrolizumab in both the total patient population and the biomarker-selected groups, with median PFS of approximately 10.4 months with pembrolizumab versus approximately 8.2 months with placebo.
The safety profile was manageable, with adverse events as expected from the safety profiles of the individual drugs in the combined regimen. No new safety signals have been seen since the interim analysis, Dr. Monk said.
Regimen details
Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive pembrolizumab 200 mg or placebo every 3 weeks for up to 35 cycles plus platinum-based chemotherapy, with bevacizumab added at the investigator’s discretion. Approximately two-thirds of patients in each study arm received bevacizumab.
The dual primary endpoints of PFS and OS were each tested sequentially in patients with a PD-L1 CPS of 1 or greater in both the intention-to-treat or “all-comers” population and in patients with a PD-L1 CPS of 10 or greater.
Patient characteristics were generally well balanced between the treatment groups, except that a slightly higher proportion of patients in the pembrolizumab had tumors of squamous cell histology, compared with the placebo group (76.3% vs. 68.3%).
KEYNOTE-826 was funded by Merck. Dr. Monk has received honoraria and has participated in consulting/advising and speaker’s bureau activity with Merck and other companies. Dr. Gralow has had a consulting or advisory role with Genentech and Roche. Dr. Markham has had a consulting/advisory role for GlaxoSmithKline and has received institutional research funding from Merck and other companies.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
This is based on final overall survival results from the phase 3, randomized KEYNOTE-826 study, which showed that adding immunotherapy resulted in a 40% reduction in risk of death, compared with chemotherapy alone, for women with advanced cervical cancers expressing programmed death–ligand 1 (PD-L1).
“At this protocol-specified final analysis of KEYNOTE-826, the addition of immune therapy to chemotherapy with or without the antiangiogenic bevacizumab showed substantial and clinically meaningful improvement in survival,” said lead author Bradley J. Monk, MD, from HonorHealth Research Institute, Phoenix.
He was speaking at a media briefing held prior to the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, where the results were presented.
“The results of this study solidify the addition of pembrolizumab to chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab in people with persistent, recurrent, or metastatic cervical cancer as the frontline standard of care for this disease. Survival significantly improved with this approach, regardless of PD-L1 expression, further supporting its use for all patients in this population,” commented ASCO expert Merry Jennifer Markham, MD, from the University of Florida, Gainesville.
At the briefing, Dr. Monk raised the possibility that adding immunotherapy to the standard of care could offer a chance for cure for some patients with advanced or recurrent cervical cancer.
“Is it possible to cure a widely metastatic cancer, a solid tumor? And I think it probably is,” he said. “There’s a tail to this [survival] curve, and I can’t believe that in my lifetime we as a group, as a team, have sort of figured out – and it’s not enough – that we can actually cure some patients, and if not maybe cure, have them at least live a long time, so it’s exciting.”
Briefing comoderater Julie R. Gralow, MD, chief medical officer and executive vice president of ASCO, agreed that the survival benefit “is exciting to see, and in my long career as a breast medical oncologist, I’m pretty sure we cure some metastatic breast cancer. We definitely had patients who lived out their normal life span and died of something else after decades.
“But the definition of cure, sadly, in these situations is that you die of something else without evidence of disease, so we certainly need to do better here and be better able to use the word ‘cure’ in the metastatic setting,” she added.
Promising start
Since 2014, the standard of care for treating patients with recurrent, persistent, or metastatic cervical cancer has been chemotherapy with a platinum compound, paclitaxel, and bevacizumab, based on the results of the GOG 240 study.
Immunotherapy with PD-1 inhibitors had previously shown efficacy as monotherapy in second- or later-line therapy for women with cervical cancer, but KEYNOTE 826 was the first study to show a benefit to promoting immunotherapy to the front ranks.
In the first interim analysis of the trial, reported at the 2021 annual meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology, after a median follow-up of 22 months, the combination of pembrolizumab and chemotherapy demonstrated significant improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS), compared with chemotherapy plus placebo in a biomarker-selected population, which consisted of patients with a combined positive score (CPS) for PD-L1 of 1 or greater.
Pembrolizumab had no apparent efficacy in patients whose tumors did not have detectable PD-L1, however.
Latest results
Now the investigators are reporting the final analysis, conducted after a median follow-up of 39.1 months. The results are those for all comers (308 randomly assigned to receive pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy, and 309 assigned to receive chemotherapy plus placebo), as well as for the biomarker-selected population (consisting of all patients with PD-L1 CPS of 1 or greater) and for the subpopulation of patients with PD-L1 CPS of 10 or greater.
In the all-comers population, the median OS was 26.4 months for patients who received pembrolizumab, compared with 16.8 months for those who received placebo. The 24-month OS rates were 52.1% and 38.7%, respectively. The difference translated into a hazard ratio for death with pembrolizumab of 0.63 (P < .0001).
In the biomarker-selected population (273 assigned to pembrolizumab and 275 assigned to placebo), the respective median OS was 28.6 months versus 16.6 months, with 24-month OS rates of 53.5% versus 39.4%, which translates into an HR for death with pembrolizumab of 0.60 (P < .0001).
Not surprisingly, the best responses to the addition of the PD-1 inhibitor were seen among patients with a PD-L1 CPS of 10 or greater (158 assigned to pembrolizumab and 159 assigned to placebo). In this subgroup, the median OS was 29.6 months with the immune checkpoint inhibitor added to chemotherapy versus 17.4 months for chemotherapy plus placebo. The respective 24-month OS rates were 54.4% and 42.5%, and the HR for overall survival favoring pembrolizumab was 0.58 (P < .0001).
Median PFS 12-month PFS rates also favored pembrolizumab in both the total patient population and the biomarker-selected groups, with median PFS of approximately 10.4 months with pembrolizumab versus approximately 8.2 months with placebo.
The safety profile was manageable, with adverse events as expected from the safety profiles of the individual drugs in the combined regimen. No new safety signals have been seen since the interim analysis, Dr. Monk said.
Regimen details
Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive pembrolizumab 200 mg or placebo every 3 weeks for up to 35 cycles plus platinum-based chemotherapy, with bevacizumab added at the investigator’s discretion. Approximately two-thirds of patients in each study arm received bevacizumab.
The dual primary endpoints of PFS and OS were each tested sequentially in patients with a PD-L1 CPS of 1 or greater in both the intention-to-treat or “all-comers” population and in patients with a PD-L1 CPS of 10 or greater.
Patient characteristics were generally well balanced between the treatment groups, except that a slightly higher proportion of patients in the pembrolizumab had tumors of squamous cell histology, compared with the placebo group (76.3% vs. 68.3%).
KEYNOTE-826 was funded by Merck. Dr. Monk has received honoraria and has participated in consulting/advising and speaker’s bureau activity with Merck and other companies. Dr. Gralow has had a consulting or advisory role with Genentech and Roche. Dr. Markham has had a consulting/advisory role for GlaxoSmithKline and has received institutional research funding from Merck and other companies.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM ASCO 2023
Ribociclib forestalls recurrence also in early breast cancer
The new results come from an interim analysis of the phase 3, randomized NATALEE trial, which is comparing maintenance therapy with the (CDK4/6 inhibitor ribociclib plus endocrine therapy with an aromatase inhibitor to endocrine therapy alone.
At a median follow-up of 27.7 months, the 3-year invasive disease–free survival (IDFS) rate was 90.4% for patients who received the combination, compared with 87.1% for patients who received endocrine therapy alone.
This difference translates into a 25% relative reduction in risk for recurrence with the addition of ribociclib, said principal investigator Dennis J. Slamon, MD, PhD, from the UCLA Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center, Los Angeles.
“The NATALEE results, in summary, do support this as a new treatment of choice available to physicians and patients for this broad population of patients with stage II or stage III hormone receptor–positive, HER2-negative disease in early breast cancer,” he said.
Dr. Slamon was speaking at a media briefing held prior to the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, where the results were presented
‘Early but impressive’
“Today, Dr. Slamon has shown us early but impressive data demonstrating a significant reduction in the risk of recurrence as defined by an improvement of invasive disease–free survival for patients with high-risk, node-positive and node-negative hormone receptor–positive, HER2-negative early breast cancer,” commented ASCO expert Rita Nanda, MD, director of the breast oncology program at the University of Chicago.
“We know that a substantial proportion of patients with early-stage hormone receptor–positive breast [cancer] can go on to recur,” Dr. Nanda continued. “These recurrences can be quite delayed, and for our patients with node-negative disease, to this point, we haven’t seen any improvements with the addition of a CDK4/6 inhibitor to endocrine therapy for early-stage breast cancer. Dr Slamon has also shown us that ribociclib in the context of the NATALEE trial is effective, it was well tolerated, and I do expect that these trial results will change practice.”
In a comment, Sylvia Adams, MD, a medical oncologist who specializes in breast cancer at the NYU Langone Perlmutter Cancer Center, New York, said she is comfortable with using a CDK4/6 inhibitor such as ribociclib or abemaciclib (Verzenio) in the adjuvant setting for patients with early, localized breast cancer.
She noted, however, that to date the absolute benefit of the combination over endocrine therapy alone has been modest, at 3.3%, but that the difference may be important to many patients who feel that they need to do everything they can to prevent disease recurrence.
“I’m really looking forward to the quality of life data, because it’s certainly known that any of these CDK4/6 inhibitors may add a bit of fatigue, and while there were no unexpected safety signals [in NATALEE], we know that there are some GI [gastrointestinal] effects with this therapy, as well as joint pain,” she said. “Joint pain is a little tricky, because the patients are also getting aromatase inhibitors, which can cause joint pain.”
In addition, premenopausal women in the study also received goserelin, an ovarian suppressor that triggers menopause, which is also associated with arthralgias, Dr. Adams said.
Dr. Adams and Dr. Nanda both noted that the addition of ribociclib to endocrine therapy increases the treatment burden for patients because it requires a commitment of at least 3 years and more frequent monitoring, especially in the first few months of therapy, compared with endocrine therapy alone.
Study details
The combination of ribociclib and standard of care endocrine therapy was the first to show an improvement in overall survival among women with metastatic HR+/HER2– breast cancer.
To see whether the combination could also benefit patients with early breast cancer, the investigators conducted NATALEE. They enrolled premenopausal and postmenopausal women and also men with HR+/HER2– breast cancer. Cases ranged from stage IIA (with either no nodal involvement with additional risk factors or with one to three involved axillary lymph nodes) to stage IIB-III disease, based on American Joint Committee on Cancer staging.
Patients who had previously received neoadjuvant or adjuvant endocrine therapy were accepted into the trial if the therapy had been started within 1 year of randomization.
The patients were stratified by age, menopausal status, disease stage, prior chemotherapy status, and geographic region. They were randomly assigned to receive either ribociclib 400 mg per day for 3 weeks, then were given 1 week off each cycle for 3 years plus endocrine therapy with either letrozole 2.5 mg/day or anastrozole 1 mg/day for at least 5 years, or to endocrine therapy alone. Men and premenopausal women also received goserelin.
Dr. Slamon noted that the 400-mg dose of ribociclib is lower than the recommended starting dose of 600 mg for metastatic disease. They chose the lower dose to allow longer duration of therapy, with a goal of achieving optimal disease suppression by driving tumor cells into irreversible senescence with less side effects.
A total of 2,549 patients were randomly assigned to receive the combination; 2,552 patients received endocrine therapy alone.
At the data cutoff on Jan. 11, 2023, after the prespecified minimum number of IDFS events had occurred, 189 patients in the ribociclib arm experienced recurrence, compared with 237 patients in the endocrine therapy–only arm.
As noted, 3-year IDFS rates were 90.4% with ribociclib and 87.1% with endocrine therapy alone, which translates to a hazard ratio of 0.748 in favor of the combination (P = .0014).
The benefit of ribociclib was generally consistent across subgroups, including node-negative patients, but there were too few patients in this subgroup for the differences to reach statistical significance, Dr. Slamon said.
Safety
The most commonly reported adverse event in the endocrine therapy–alone arm were joint pain and hot flashes
The most common adverse events with ribociclib included neutropenia and joint pain. Rates of gastrointestinal adverse events and fatigue, typical of CDK4/6 inhibitors, were relatively low in this study.
Dr. Slamon compared the rates of neutropenia with ribociclib in this trial to those in pooled data from the MONALEESA series of trials, in which ribociclib was delivered at a 600-mg dose. Grade 3 or 4 neutropenia occurred in 44% of patients in NATALEE, compared with 60% of patients in the MONALEESA trials.
In the ribociclib arm, 5.2% of patients experienced prolongation of the QT interval, compared with 1.2% of patients in the endocrine therapy–alone arm. No cases of torsades des pointes or problematic rhythm disturbances were observed, Dr. Slamon said.
“As frequently happens when we have these lovely, large, phase 3 registration trials but with some restriction in eligibility, when you get out to real-world practice, we don’t know what will happen in women who are on antiarrhythmics and if they’ll have a higher incidence of the QT elongation; they just weren’t included in the study. So it sounds like we’ll have to be paying attention to that,” commented briefing moderator Julie R. Gralow, MD, FACP, FASCO, chief medical officer and executive vice president of ASCO.
The study was funded by Novartis. Dr. Slamon has a leadership position with 1200 Pharma, Biomarin, and Torl Biotherapeutics, a consulting/advisory role for Novartis, and has received honoraria, research funding, and travel expenses from Novartis and others. Multiple coauthors reported financial relationships with Novartis and others. Dr. Nanda has had consulting/advisory roles with and has received institutional research funding from several companies, not including Novartis. Dr. Adams has participated on an advisory board for Cogent Biosciences and her institution has received research funding from various companies.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The new results come from an interim analysis of the phase 3, randomized NATALEE trial, which is comparing maintenance therapy with the (CDK4/6 inhibitor ribociclib plus endocrine therapy with an aromatase inhibitor to endocrine therapy alone.
At a median follow-up of 27.7 months, the 3-year invasive disease–free survival (IDFS) rate was 90.4% for patients who received the combination, compared with 87.1% for patients who received endocrine therapy alone.
This difference translates into a 25% relative reduction in risk for recurrence with the addition of ribociclib, said principal investigator Dennis J. Slamon, MD, PhD, from the UCLA Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center, Los Angeles.
“The NATALEE results, in summary, do support this as a new treatment of choice available to physicians and patients for this broad population of patients with stage II or stage III hormone receptor–positive, HER2-negative disease in early breast cancer,” he said.
Dr. Slamon was speaking at a media briefing held prior to the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, where the results were presented
‘Early but impressive’
“Today, Dr. Slamon has shown us early but impressive data demonstrating a significant reduction in the risk of recurrence as defined by an improvement of invasive disease–free survival for patients with high-risk, node-positive and node-negative hormone receptor–positive, HER2-negative early breast cancer,” commented ASCO expert Rita Nanda, MD, director of the breast oncology program at the University of Chicago.
“We know that a substantial proportion of patients with early-stage hormone receptor–positive breast [cancer] can go on to recur,” Dr. Nanda continued. “These recurrences can be quite delayed, and for our patients with node-negative disease, to this point, we haven’t seen any improvements with the addition of a CDK4/6 inhibitor to endocrine therapy for early-stage breast cancer. Dr Slamon has also shown us that ribociclib in the context of the NATALEE trial is effective, it was well tolerated, and I do expect that these trial results will change practice.”
In a comment, Sylvia Adams, MD, a medical oncologist who specializes in breast cancer at the NYU Langone Perlmutter Cancer Center, New York, said she is comfortable with using a CDK4/6 inhibitor such as ribociclib or abemaciclib (Verzenio) in the adjuvant setting for patients with early, localized breast cancer.
She noted, however, that to date the absolute benefit of the combination over endocrine therapy alone has been modest, at 3.3%, but that the difference may be important to many patients who feel that they need to do everything they can to prevent disease recurrence.
“I’m really looking forward to the quality of life data, because it’s certainly known that any of these CDK4/6 inhibitors may add a bit of fatigue, and while there were no unexpected safety signals [in NATALEE], we know that there are some GI [gastrointestinal] effects with this therapy, as well as joint pain,” she said. “Joint pain is a little tricky, because the patients are also getting aromatase inhibitors, which can cause joint pain.”
In addition, premenopausal women in the study also received goserelin, an ovarian suppressor that triggers menopause, which is also associated with arthralgias, Dr. Adams said.
Dr. Adams and Dr. Nanda both noted that the addition of ribociclib to endocrine therapy increases the treatment burden for patients because it requires a commitment of at least 3 years and more frequent monitoring, especially in the first few months of therapy, compared with endocrine therapy alone.
Study details
The combination of ribociclib and standard of care endocrine therapy was the first to show an improvement in overall survival among women with metastatic HR+/HER2– breast cancer.
To see whether the combination could also benefit patients with early breast cancer, the investigators conducted NATALEE. They enrolled premenopausal and postmenopausal women and also men with HR+/HER2– breast cancer. Cases ranged from stage IIA (with either no nodal involvement with additional risk factors or with one to three involved axillary lymph nodes) to stage IIB-III disease, based on American Joint Committee on Cancer staging.
Patients who had previously received neoadjuvant or adjuvant endocrine therapy were accepted into the trial if the therapy had been started within 1 year of randomization.
The patients were stratified by age, menopausal status, disease stage, prior chemotherapy status, and geographic region. They were randomly assigned to receive either ribociclib 400 mg per day for 3 weeks, then were given 1 week off each cycle for 3 years plus endocrine therapy with either letrozole 2.5 mg/day or anastrozole 1 mg/day for at least 5 years, or to endocrine therapy alone. Men and premenopausal women also received goserelin.
Dr. Slamon noted that the 400-mg dose of ribociclib is lower than the recommended starting dose of 600 mg for metastatic disease. They chose the lower dose to allow longer duration of therapy, with a goal of achieving optimal disease suppression by driving tumor cells into irreversible senescence with less side effects.
A total of 2,549 patients were randomly assigned to receive the combination; 2,552 patients received endocrine therapy alone.
At the data cutoff on Jan. 11, 2023, after the prespecified minimum number of IDFS events had occurred, 189 patients in the ribociclib arm experienced recurrence, compared with 237 patients in the endocrine therapy–only arm.
As noted, 3-year IDFS rates were 90.4% with ribociclib and 87.1% with endocrine therapy alone, which translates to a hazard ratio of 0.748 in favor of the combination (P = .0014).
The benefit of ribociclib was generally consistent across subgroups, including node-negative patients, but there were too few patients in this subgroup for the differences to reach statistical significance, Dr. Slamon said.
Safety
The most commonly reported adverse event in the endocrine therapy–alone arm were joint pain and hot flashes
The most common adverse events with ribociclib included neutropenia and joint pain. Rates of gastrointestinal adverse events and fatigue, typical of CDK4/6 inhibitors, were relatively low in this study.
Dr. Slamon compared the rates of neutropenia with ribociclib in this trial to those in pooled data from the MONALEESA series of trials, in which ribociclib was delivered at a 600-mg dose. Grade 3 or 4 neutropenia occurred in 44% of patients in NATALEE, compared with 60% of patients in the MONALEESA trials.
In the ribociclib arm, 5.2% of patients experienced prolongation of the QT interval, compared with 1.2% of patients in the endocrine therapy–alone arm. No cases of torsades des pointes or problematic rhythm disturbances were observed, Dr. Slamon said.
“As frequently happens when we have these lovely, large, phase 3 registration trials but with some restriction in eligibility, when you get out to real-world practice, we don’t know what will happen in women who are on antiarrhythmics and if they’ll have a higher incidence of the QT elongation; they just weren’t included in the study. So it sounds like we’ll have to be paying attention to that,” commented briefing moderator Julie R. Gralow, MD, FACP, FASCO, chief medical officer and executive vice president of ASCO.
The study was funded by Novartis. Dr. Slamon has a leadership position with 1200 Pharma, Biomarin, and Torl Biotherapeutics, a consulting/advisory role for Novartis, and has received honoraria, research funding, and travel expenses from Novartis and others. Multiple coauthors reported financial relationships with Novartis and others. Dr. Nanda has had consulting/advisory roles with and has received institutional research funding from several companies, not including Novartis. Dr. Adams has participated on an advisory board for Cogent Biosciences and her institution has received research funding from various companies.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The new results come from an interim analysis of the phase 3, randomized NATALEE trial, which is comparing maintenance therapy with the (CDK4/6 inhibitor ribociclib plus endocrine therapy with an aromatase inhibitor to endocrine therapy alone.
At a median follow-up of 27.7 months, the 3-year invasive disease–free survival (IDFS) rate was 90.4% for patients who received the combination, compared with 87.1% for patients who received endocrine therapy alone.
This difference translates into a 25% relative reduction in risk for recurrence with the addition of ribociclib, said principal investigator Dennis J. Slamon, MD, PhD, from the UCLA Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center, Los Angeles.
“The NATALEE results, in summary, do support this as a new treatment of choice available to physicians and patients for this broad population of patients with stage II or stage III hormone receptor–positive, HER2-negative disease in early breast cancer,” he said.
Dr. Slamon was speaking at a media briefing held prior to the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, where the results were presented
‘Early but impressive’
“Today, Dr. Slamon has shown us early but impressive data demonstrating a significant reduction in the risk of recurrence as defined by an improvement of invasive disease–free survival for patients with high-risk, node-positive and node-negative hormone receptor–positive, HER2-negative early breast cancer,” commented ASCO expert Rita Nanda, MD, director of the breast oncology program at the University of Chicago.
“We know that a substantial proportion of patients with early-stage hormone receptor–positive breast [cancer] can go on to recur,” Dr. Nanda continued. “These recurrences can be quite delayed, and for our patients with node-negative disease, to this point, we haven’t seen any improvements with the addition of a CDK4/6 inhibitor to endocrine therapy for early-stage breast cancer. Dr Slamon has also shown us that ribociclib in the context of the NATALEE trial is effective, it was well tolerated, and I do expect that these trial results will change practice.”
In a comment, Sylvia Adams, MD, a medical oncologist who specializes in breast cancer at the NYU Langone Perlmutter Cancer Center, New York, said she is comfortable with using a CDK4/6 inhibitor such as ribociclib or abemaciclib (Verzenio) in the adjuvant setting for patients with early, localized breast cancer.
She noted, however, that to date the absolute benefit of the combination over endocrine therapy alone has been modest, at 3.3%, but that the difference may be important to many patients who feel that they need to do everything they can to prevent disease recurrence.
“I’m really looking forward to the quality of life data, because it’s certainly known that any of these CDK4/6 inhibitors may add a bit of fatigue, and while there were no unexpected safety signals [in NATALEE], we know that there are some GI [gastrointestinal] effects with this therapy, as well as joint pain,” she said. “Joint pain is a little tricky, because the patients are also getting aromatase inhibitors, which can cause joint pain.”
In addition, premenopausal women in the study also received goserelin, an ovarian suppressor that triggers menopause, which is also associated with arthralgias, Dr. Adams said.
Dr. Adams and Dr. Nanda both noted that the addition of ribociclib to endocrine therapy increases the treatment burden for patients because it requires a commitment of at least 3 years and more frequent monitoring, especially in the first few months of therapy, compared with endocrine therapy alone.
Study details
The combination of ribociclib and standard of care endocrine therapy was the first to show an improvement in overall survival among women with metastatic HR+/HER2– breast cancer.
To see whether the combination could also benefit patients with early breast cancer, the investigators conducted NATALEE. They enrolled premenopausal and postmenopausal women and also men with HR+/HER2– breast cancer. Cases ranged from stage IIA (with either no nodal involvement with additional risk factors or with one to three involved axillary lymph nodes) to stage IIB-III disease, based on American Joint Committee on Cancer staging.
Patients who had previously received neoadjuvant or adjuvant endocrine therapy were accepted into the trial if the therapy had been started within 1 year of randomization.
The patients were stratified by age, menopausal status, disease stage, prior chemotherapy status, and geographic region. They were randomly assigned to receive either ribociclib 400 mg per day for 3 weeks, then were given 1 week off each cycle for 3 years plus endocrine therapy with either letrozole 2.5 mg/day or anastrozole 1 mg/day for at least 5 years, or to endocrine therapy alone. Men and premenopausal women also received goserelin.
Dr. Slamon noted that the 400-mg dose of ribociclib is lower than the recommended starting dose of 600 mg for metastatic disease. They chose the lower dose to allow longer duration of therapy, with a goal of achieving optimal disease suppression by driving tumor cells into irreversible senescence with less side effects.
A total of 2,549 patients were randomly assigned to receive the combination; 2,552 patients received endocrine therapy alone.
At the data cutoff on Jan. 11, 2023, after the prespecified minimum number of IDFS events had occurred, 189 patients in the ribociclib arm experienced recurrence, compared with 237 patients in the endocrine therapy–only arm.
As noted, 3-year IDFS rates were 90.4% with ribociclib and 87.1% with endocrine therapy alone, which translates to a hazard ratio of 0.748 in favor of the combination (P = .0014).
The benefit of ribociclib was generally consistent across subgroups, including node-negative patients, but there were too few patients in this subgroup for the differences to reach statistical significance, Dr. Slamon said.
Safety
The most commonly reported adverse event in the endocrine therapy–alone arm were joint pain and hot flashes
The most common adverse events with ribociclib included neutropenia and joint pain. Rates of gastrointestinal adverse events and fatigue, typical of CDK4/6 inhibitors, were relatively low in this study.
Dr. Slamon compared the rates of neutropenia with ribociclib in this trial to those in pooled data from the MONALEESA series of trials, in which ribociclib was delivered at a 600-mg dose. Grade 3 or 4 neutropenia occurred in 44% of patients in NATALEE, compared with 60% of patients in the MONALEESA trials.
In the ribociclib arm, 5.2% of patients experienced prolongation of the QT interval, compared with 1.2% of patients in the endocrine therapy–alone arm. No cases of torsades des pointes or problematic rhythm disturbances were observed, Dr. Slamon said.
“As frequently happens when we have these lovely, large, phase 3 registration trials but with some restriction in eligibility, when you get out to real-world practice, we don’t know what will happen in women who are on antiarrhythmics and if they’ll have a higher incidence of the QT elongation; they just weren’t included in the study. So it sounds like we’ll have to be paying attention to that,” commented briefing moderator Julie R. Gralow, MD, FACP, FASCO, chief medical officer and executive vice president of ASCO.
The study was funded by Novartis. Dr. Slamon has a leadership position with 1200 Pharma, Biomarin, and Torl Biotherapeutics, a consulting/advisory role for Novartis, and has received honoraria, research funding, and travel expenses from Novartis and others. Multiple coauthors reported financial relationships with Novartis and others. Dr. Nanda has had consulting/advisory roles with and has received institutional research funding from several companies, not including Novartis. Dr. Adams has participated on an advisory board for Cogent Biosciences and her institution has received research funding from various companies.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM ASCO 2023
‘Huge step forward’ in advanced ovarian cancer
The results come from the DUO-O trial, in which the poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor olaparib (Lynparza) and immunotherapy with the anti–PD-L1 antibody durvalumab (Imfinzi) were added on to standard of care with paclitaxel/carboplatin chemotherapy and bevacizumab (Avastin) in patients with newly diagnosed,non–BRCA-mutated advanced ovarian cancer.
A preplanned interim analysis revealed that the addition of durvalumab and olaparib was associated with a 37% improvement of PFS, compared with the standard of care of chemotherapy plus bevacizumab alone.
This improvement increased to 51% in patients who had tumors positive for homologous recombination deficiency (HRD), which indicates the inability to effectively repair double-stranded DNA breaks, a defect that is present in approximately 70% of ovarian cancers.
Coprincipal investigator Carol Aghajanian, MD, chief of the gynecologic medical oncology service at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, described the benefit seen with the novel combination therapy as both “statistically significant and clinically meaningful.”
She was speaking at a press briefing held ahead of the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, where the results were presented.
Commenting for ASCO, Merry Jennifer Markham, MD, professor of medicine and chief of the division of hematology and oncology at University of Florida Health, Gainesville, said the results represents a “huge step forward.”
She added the rate of progress it represents may not be “quick enough for our patients with advanced ovarian cancer but every little integral improvement that we can find in studies that are important, like this one, really means so much to that individual patient in that exam room.”
Dr. Markham underlined that around 80% of women with epithelial ovarian cancer are diagnosed at an advanced stage. “They know what they are facing,” she said. “The vast majority” of them will have a recurrence “at some point.”
“So while progression-free survival may not necessarily mean their overall survival, there will be hope it does. And I’m very excited to see where this study heads in that direction.” Dr. Markham added that PFS is “very important to our patients,” and the study does represent progress. “We are chipping away at improving outcomes for advanced ovarian cancer.”
Moreover, “women are often disappointed when their tumor doesn’t have a BRCA mutation because they know that that may limit some of their treatment options,” and so the current study suggests that there are “options for all-comers” and “there is still hope.”
Access to treatment and testing
When asked whether there could be any access issues for patients clinically eligible for the novel combination, Dr. Aghajanian said that all of the drugs have been approved by the Food and Drug Administration for indications that cover this usage.
They are also covered by medical insurance and, for those patients with financial toxicity, “there is access to co-pay assistance programs and the like.”
She said that patients can then “be counseled on their expected benefit,” based on their BRCA and HRD testing.
Dr. Markham, on the other hand, said she is “a little less optimistic” about access, explaining that she practices in the southern United States, and “our populations [and] insurance coverages are a bit different.”
She noted that, at her institution, a “fair number of patients are underinsured,” and they “ran into a lot of issues with people not being able to afford their copays,” which can be “prohibitive.”
“A large portion of my counseling has been and will continue to be around the benefit, but also the financial toxicity, that that individual patient may experience and the need for copay assistance programs or other support mechanisms,” Markham said.
Dr. Aghajanian added that “financial toxicity and the access issue comes even prior to the treatment, in getting those BRCA1/2 tests and the HRD testing done, so patients have the information they need to make informed decisions.”
“We do have disparities with genetic testing and genomic testing that need to be solved,” she said.
Study details
Previous studies, including SOLO1 and PAOLA-1, have shown that maintenance therapy with olaparib and bevacizumab improves outcomes in the first-line treatment of advanced ovarian cancer.
“However, there still remains unmet need, especially in some patient subgroups without a BRCA mutation,” Dr. Aghajanian said.
While the addition of immunotherapy to standard of care has yet to show a clinical benefit in this setting in phase 3 trials, the phase 2 MEDIOLA study indicated that the combination of durvalumab, bevacizumab, and olaparib was active in nongermline, BRCA-mutated, platinum-sensitive relapsed cancer.
The phase 3 DUO-O study therefore set out to determine whether this combination would be beneficial as a maintenance therapy in 1130 patients with newly diagnosed stage III or IV high-grade ovarian cancer without a tumor BRCA1/2 mutation.
Patients were required to have had no prior systemic therapy for ovarian cancer, and be naive to both PARP inhibition and immunotherapy. They also had to have completed up-front primary debulking surgery, or be scheduled to undergo the procedure.
After an initial cycle of paclitaxel/carboplatin chemotherapy, the patients were randomly assigned to one of three regimens:
- Standard of care treatment, comprising chemotherapy plus bevacizumab and durvalumab-placebo, followed by maintenance therapy with bevacizumab, durvalumab-placebo, and olaparib-placebo (arm 1)
- Chemotherapy plus bevacizumab and durvalumab, followed by maintenance therapy with bevacizumab, durvalumab, and olaparib-placebo (arm 2)
- Chemotherapy plus bevacizumab and durvalumab, followed by maintenance therapy with bevacizumab, durvalumab, and olaparib (arm 3)
In the maintenance phase, bevacizumab was to be given for a total of 15 months, while durvalumab and olaparib, or their equivalent placebos, were prescribed for 24 months. Treatment was continued until disease progression, study completion, or another discontinuation criteria was met.
Dr. Aghajanian presented results from a preplanned interim analysis, with a date cutoff of Dec. 5, 2022.
Among HRD-positive patients, those in arm 3 had a significantly longer PFS than those in arm 1, at a median of 37.3 months versus 23 months, or a hazard ratio of 0.49 (P < .0001).
In the intention-to-treat analysis, arm 3 was also associated with a significant improvement in median PFS over arm 1, at 24.2 months versus 19.3 months, or an HR of 0.63 (P < .0001), indicating that the trial met both of its primary endpoints.
While there was a numerical difference in median PFS between arm 2 and arm 1, at a median of 20.6 months versus 19.3 months, this was not significant. This means that relative contribution of adding durvalumab alone is not clear, Dr. Aghajanian commented, and said that this comparison “will be reassessed at the time of the final PFS analysis.”
She added that a “PFS effect was observed across all subgroups for the arm 3 versus arm 1 comparison,” including in the HRD-negative subgroup, at a median of 20.9 months versus 17.4 months, or an HR of 0.68.
The safety and tolerability of the regimens were generally consistent with what is known for the individual agents, she commented.
Serious adverse events were reported in 34%, 43%, and 39% of patients in arms 1, 2, and 3, respectively.
The most common grade 3 or higher adverse events were neutropenia (in 26% of arm 1 patients, 28% of those in arm 2, and 31% of those in arm 3) followed by anemia (in 8%, 8%, and 24%, respectively).
Dose modifications were required in 72% of arm 1 patients, 80% of those in arm 2, and 85% of arm 3 patients. Treatment discontinuation was recorded in 20%, 26%, and 35%, respectively.
Tackling underserved patient populations
Discussing the results, Christina Fotopoulou, MD, PhD, professor of gynecological cancer surgery in the department of surgery and cancer, Imperial College London, said that, while the regimen may seem new, the treatments involved are “veterans,” and that they are nevertheless tackling previously underserved patient populations.
Dr. Fotopoulou, who was not involved in the study, noted that the results were highly anticipated, and the study has delivered a “breakthrough in ovarian cancer.” She nevertheless questioned the choice of the control arm, and pointed out that the hazard ratio in favor of the combination therapy is “relatively modest” considering that it involves three drugs.
Dr. Fotopoulou highlighted, however, that one of the most important results was in the HRD-negative patients, which she characterized as the equivalent of the clinicians going to “the dark side of the moon.” She said that “for the first time, we have a positive study in this patient population,” although she underlined that the results are from an interim analysis.
The key question that remains, Dr. Fotopoulou asked, is “why? What is making the difference?” She noted that, unfortunately, the trial design does not allow the identification of the relative contribution of olaparib and durvalumab.
The study was sponsored by AstraZeneca, and conducted in collaboration with the European Network of Gynaecological Oncological Trial Groups, GOG Foundation, and Myriad Genetic Laboratories. Dr. Aghajanian declared relationships with AstraZeneca, Merck, Eisai, Repare Therapeutics, AbbVie, Clovis Oncology, and Genentech/Roche. Dr. Markham declared relationships with Pfizer, GlaxoSmithKline, Aduro Biotech, Lilly, Tesaro, Novartis, VBL Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, and Merck.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The results come from the DUO-O trial, in which the poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor olaparib (Lynparza) and immunotherapy with the anti–PD-L1 antibody durvalumab (Imfinzi) were added on to standard of care with paclitaxel/carboplatin chemotherapy and bevacizumab (Avastin) in patients with newly diagnosed,non–BRCA-mutated advanced ovarian cancer.
A preplanned interim analysis revealed that the addition of durvalumab and olaparib was associated with a 37% improvement of PFS, compared with the standard of care of chemotherapy plus bevacizumab alone.
This improvement increased to 51% in patients who had tumors positive for homologous recombination deficiency (HRD), which indicates the inability to effectively repair double-stranded DNA breaks, a defect that is present in approximately 70% of ovarian cancers.
Coprincipal investigator Carol Aghajanian, MD, chief of the gynecologic medical oncology service at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, described the benefit seen with the novel combination therapy as both “statistically significant and clinically meaningful.”
She was speaking at a press briefing held ahead of the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, where the results were presented.
Commenting for ASCO, Merry Jennifer Markham, MD, professor of medicine and chief of the division of hematology and oncology at University of Florida Health, Gainesville, said the results represents a “huge step forward.”
She added the rate of progress it represents may not be “quick enough for our patients with advanced ovarian cancer but every little integral improvement that we can find in studies that are important, like this one, really means so much to that individual patient in that exam room.”
Dr. Markham underlined that around 80% of women with epithelial ovarian cancer are diagnosed at an advanced stage. “They know what they are facing,” she said. “The vast majority” of them will have a recurrence “at some point.”
“So while progression-free survival may not necessarily mean their overall survival, there will be hope it does. And I’m very excited to see where this study heads in that direction.” Dr. Markham added that PFS is “very important to our patients,” and the study does represent progress. “We are chipping away at improving outcomes for advanced ovarian cancer.”
Moreover, “women are often disappointed when their tumor doesn’t have a BRCA mutation because they know that that may limit some of their treatment options,” and so the current study suggests that there are “options for all-comers” and “there is still hope.”
Access to treatment and testing
When asked whether there could be any access issues for patients clinically eligible for the novel combination, Dr. Aghajanian said that all of the drugs have been approved by the Food and Drug Administration for indications that cover this usage.
They are also covered by medical insurance and, for those patients with financial toxicity, “there is access to co-pay assistance programs and the like.”
She said that patients can then “be counseled on their expected benefit,” based on their BRCA and HRD testing.
Dr. Markham, on the other hand, said she is “a little less optimistic” about access, explaining that she practices in the southern United States, and “our populations [and] insurance coverages are a bit different.”
She noted that, at her institution, a “fair number of patients are underinsured,” and they “ran into a lot of issues with people not being able to afford their copays,” which can be “prohibitive.”
“A large portion of my counseling has been and will continue to be around the benefit, but also the financial toxicity, that that individual patient may experience and the need for copay assistance programs or other support mechanisms,” Markham said.
Dr. Aghajanian added that “financial toxicity and the access issue comes even prior to the treatment, in getting those BRCA1/2 tests and the HRD testing done, so patients have the information they need to make informed decisions.”
“We do have disparities with genetic testing and genomic testing that need to be solved,” she said.
Study details
Previous studies, including SOLO1 and PAOLA-1, have shown that maintenance therapy with olaparib and bevacizumab improves outcomes in the first-line treatment of advanced ovarian cancer.
“However, there still remains unmet need, especially in some patient subgroups without a BRCA mutation,” Dr. Aghajanian said.
While the addition of immunotherapy to standard of care has yet to show a clinical benefit in this setting in phase 3 trials, the phase 2 MEDIOLA study indicated that the combination of durvalumab, bevacizumab, and olaparib was active in nongermline, BRCA-mutated, platinum-sensitive relapsed cancer.
The phase 3 DUO-O study therefore set out to determine whether this combination would be beneficial as a maintenance therapy in 1130 patients with newly diagnosed stage III or IV high-grade ovarian cancer without a tumor BRCA1/2 mutation.
Patients were required to have had no prior systemic therapy for ovarian cancer, and be naive to both PARP inhibition and immunotherapy. They also had to have completed up-front primary debulking surgery, or be scheduled to undergo the procedure.
After an initial cycle of paclitaxel/carboplatin chemotherapy, the patients were randomly assigned to one of three regimens:
- Standard of care treatment, comprising chemotherapy plus bevacizumab and durvalumab-placebo, followed by maintenance therapy with bevacizumab, durvalumab-placebo, and olaparib-placebo (arm 1)
- Chemotherapy plus bevacizumab and durvalumab, followed by maintenance therapy with bevacizumab, durvalumab, and olaparib-placebo (arm 2)
- Chemotherapy plus bevacizumab and durvalumab, followed by maintenance therapy with bevacizumab, durvalumab, and olaparib (arm 3)
In the maintenance phase, bevacizumab was to be given for a total of 15 months, while durvalumab and olaparib, or their equivalent placebos, were prescribed for 24 months. Treatment was continued until disease progression, study completion, or another discontinuation criteria was met.
Dr. Aghajanian presented results from a preplanned interim analysis, with a date cutoff of Dec. 5, 2022.
Among HRD-positive patients, those in arm 3 had a significantly longer PFS than those in arm 1, at a median of 37.3 months versus 23 months, or a hazard ratio of 0.49 (P < .0001).
In the intention-to-treat analysis, arm 3 was also associated with a significant improvement in median PFS over arm 1, at 24.2 months versus 19.3 months, or an HR of 0.63 (P < .0001), indicating that the trial met both of its primary endpoints.
While there was a numerical difference in median PFS between arm 2 and arm 1, at a median of 20.6 months versus 19.3 months, this was not significant. This means that relative contribution of adding durvalumab alone is not clear, Dr. Aghajanian commented, and said that this comparison “will be reassessed at the time of the final PFS analysis.”
She added that a “PFS effect was observed across all subgroups for the arm 3 versus arm 1 comparison,” including in the HRD-negative subgroup, at a median of 20.9 months versus 17.4 months, or an HR of 0.68.
The safety and tolerability of the regimens were generally consistent with what is known for the individual agents, she commented.
Serious adverse events were reported in 34%, 43%, and 39% of patients in arms 1, 2, and 3, respectively.
The most common grade 3 or higher adverse events were neutropenia (in 26% of arm 1 patients, 28% of those in arm 2, and 31% of those in arm 3) followed by anemia (in 8%, 8%, and 24%, respectively).
Dose modifications were required in 72% of arm 1 patients, 80% of those in arm 2, and 85% of arm 3 patients. Treatment discontinuation was recorded in 20%, 26%, and 35%, respectively.
Tackling underserved patient populations
Discussing the results, Christina Fotopoulou, MD, PhD, professor of gynecological cancer surgery in the department of surgery and cancer, Imperial College London, said that, while the regimen may seem new, the treatments involved are “veterans,” and that they are nevertheless tackling previously underserved patient populations.
Dr. Fotopoulou, who was not involved in the study, noted that the results were highly anticipated, and the study has delivered a “breakthrough in ovarian cancer.” She nevertheless questioned the choice of the control arm, and pointed out that the hazard ratio in favor of the combination therapy is “relatively modest” considering that it involves three drugs.
Dr. Fotopoulou highlighted, however, that one of the most important results was in the HRD-negative patients, which she characterized as the equivalent of the clinicians going to “the dark side of the moon.” She said that “for the first time, we have a positive study in this patient population,” although she underlined that the results are from an interim analysis.
The key question that remains, Dr. Fotopoulou asked, is “why? What is making the difference?” She noted that, unfortunately, the trial design does not allow the identification of the relative contribution of olaparib and durvalumab.
The study was sponsored by AstraZeneca, and conducted in collaboration with the European Network of Gynaecological Oncological Trial Groups, GOG Foundation, and Myriad Genetic Laboratories. Dr. Aghajanian declared relationships with AstraZeneca, Merck, Eisai, Repare Therapeutics, AbbVie, Clovis Oncology, and Genentech/Roche. Dr. Markham declared relationships with Pfizer, GlaxoSmithKline, Aduro Biotech, Lilly, Tesaro, Novartis, VBL Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, and Merck.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The results come from the DUO-O trial, in which the poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor olaparib (Lynparza) and immunotherapy with the anti–PD-L1 antibody durvalumab (Imfinzi) were added on to standard of care with paclitaxel/carboplatin chemotherapy and bevacizumab (Avastin) in patients with newly diagnosed,non–BRCA-mutated advanced ovarian cancer.
A preplanned interim analysis revealed that the addition of durvalumab and olaparib was associated with a 37% improvement of PFS, compared with the standard of care of chemotherapy plus bevacizumab alone.
This improvement increased to 51% in patients who had tumors positive for homologous recombination deficiency (HRD), which indicates the inability to effectively repair double-stranded DNA breaks, a defect that is present in approximately 70% of ovarian cancers.
Coprincipal investigator Carol Aghajanian, MD, chief of the gynecologic medical oncology service at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, described the benefit seen with the novel combination therapy as both “statistically significant and clinically meaningful.”
She was speaking at a press briefing held ahead of the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, where the results were presented.
Commenting for ASCO, Merry Jennifer Markham, MD, professor of medicine and chief of the division of hematology and oncology at University of Florida Health, Gainesville, said the results represents a “huge step forward.”
She added the rate of progress it represents may not be “quick enough for our patients with advanced ovarian cancer but every little integral improvement that we can find in studies that are important, like this one, really means so much to that individual patient in that exam room.”
Dr. Markham underlined that around 80% of women with epithelial ovarian cancer are diagnosed at an advanced stage. “They know what they are facing,” she said. “The vast majority” of them will have a recurrence “at some point.”
“So while progression-free survival may not necessarily mean their overall survival, there will be hope it does. And I’m very excited to see where this study heads in that direction.” Dr. Markham added that PFS is “very important to our patients,” and the study does represent progress. “We are chipping away at improving outcomes for advanced ovarian cancer.”
Moreover, “women are often disappointed when their tumor doesn’t have a BRCA mutation because they know that that may limit some of their treatment options,” and so the current study suggests that there are “options for all-comers” and “there is still hope.”
Access to treatment and testing
When asked whether there could be any access issues for patients clinically eligible for the novel combination, Dr. Aghajanian said that all of the drugs have been approved by the Food and Drug Administration for indications that cover this usage.
They are also covered by medical insurance and, for those patients with financial toxicity, “there is access to co-pay assistance programs and the like.”
She said that patients can then “be counseled on their expected benefit,” based on their BRCA and HRD testing.
Dr. Markham, on the other hand, said she is “a little less optimistic” about access, explaining that she practices in the southern United States, and “our populations [and] insurance coverages are a bit different.”
She noted that, at her institution, a “fair number of patients are underinsured,” and they “ran into a lot of issues with people not being able to afford their copays,” which can be “prohibitive.”
“A large portion of my counseling has been and will continue to be around the benefit, but also the financial toxicity, that that individual patient may experience and the need for copay assistance programs or other support mechanisms,” Markham said.
Dr. Aghajanian added that “financial toxicity and the access issue comes even prior to the treatment, in getting those BRCA1/2 tests and the HRD testing done, so patients have the information they need to make informed decisions.”
“We do have disparities with genetic testing and genomic testing that need to be solved,” she said.
Study details
Previous studies, including SOLO1 and PAOLA-1, have shown that maintenance therapy with olaparib and bevacizumab improves outcomes in the first-line treatment of advanced ovarian cancer.
“However, there still remains unmet need, especially in some patient subgroups without a BRCA mutation,” Dr. Aghajanian said.
While the addition of immunotherapy to standard of care has yet to show a clinical benefit in this setting in phase 3 trials, the phase 2 MEDIOLA study indicated that the combination of durvalumab, bevacizumab, and olaparib was active in nongermline, BRCA-mutated, platinum-sensitive relapsed cancer.
The phase 3 DUO-O study therefore set out to determine whether this combination would be beneficial as a maintenance therapy in 1130 patients with newly diagnosed stage III or IV high-grade ovarian cancer without a tumor BRCA1/2 mutation.
Patients were required to have had no prior systemic therapy for ovarian cancer, and be naive to both PARP inhibition and immunotherapy. They also had to have completed up-front primary debulking surgery, or be scheduled to undergo the procedure.
After an initial cycle of paclitaxel/carboplatin chemotherapy, the patients were randomly assigned to one of three regimens:
- Standard of care treatment, comprising chemotherapy plus bevacizumab and durvalumab-placebo, followed by maintenance therapy with bevacizumab, durvalumab-placebo, and olaparib-placebo (arm 1)
- Chemotherapy plus bevacizumab and durvalumab, followed by maintenance therapy with bevacizumab, durvalumab, and olaparib-placebo (arm 2)
- Chemotherapy plus bevacizumab and durvalumab, followed by maintenance therapy with bevacizumab, durvalumab, and olaparib (arm 3)
In the maintenance phase, bevacizumab was to be given for a total of 15 months, while durvalumab and olaparib, or their equivalent placebos, were prescribed for 24 months. Treatment was continued until disease progression, study completion, or another discontinuation criteria was met.
Dr. Aghajanian presented results from a preplanned interim analysis, with a date cutoff of Dec. 5, 2022.
Among HRD-positive patients, those in arm 3 had a significantly longer PFS than those in arm 1, at a median of 37.3 months versus 23 months, or a hazard ratio of 0.49 (P < .0001).
In the intention-to-treat analysis, arm 3 was also associated with a significant improvement in median PFS over arm 1, at 24.2 months versus 19.3 months, or an HR of 0.63 (P < .0001), indicating that the trial met both of its primary endpoints.
While there was a numerical difference in median PFS between arm 2 and arm 1, at a median of 20.6 months versus 19.3 months, this was not significant. This means that relative contribution of adding durvalumab alone is not clear, Dr. Aghajanian commented, and said that this comparison “will be reassessed at the time of the final PFS analysis.”
She added that a “PFS effect was observed across all subgroups for the arm 3 versus arm 1 comparison,” including in the HRD-negative subgroup, at a median of 20.9 months versus 17.4 months, or an HR of 0.68.
The safety and tolerability of the regimens were generally consistent with what is known for the individual agents, she commented.
Serious adverse events were reported in 34%, 43%, and 39% of patients in arms 1, 2, and 3, respectively.
The most common grade 3 or higher adverse events were neutropenia (in 26% of arm 1 patients, 28% of those in arm 2, and 31% of those in arm 3) followed by anemia (in 8%, 8%, and 24%, respectively).
Dose modifications were required in 72% of arm 1 patients, 80% of those in arm 2, and 85% of arm 3 patients. Treatment discontinuation was recorded in 20%, 26%, and 35%, respectively.
Tackling underserved patient populations
Discussing the results, Christina Fotopoulou, MD, PhD, professor of gynecological cancer surgery in the department of surgery and cancer, Imperial College London, said that, while the regimen may seem new, the treatments involved are “veterans,” and that they are nevertheless tackling previously underserved patient populations.
Dr. Fotopoulou, who was not involved in the study, noted that the results were highly anticipated, and the study has delivered a “breakthrough in ovarian cancer.” She nevertheless questioned the choice of the control arm, and pointed out that the hazard ratio in favor of the combination therapy is “relatively modest” considering that it involves three drugs.
Dr. Fotopoulou highlighted, however, that one of the most important results was in the HRD-negative patients, which she characterized as the equivalent of the clinicians going to “the dark side of the moon.” She said that “for the first time, we have a positive study in this patient population,” although she underlined that the results are from an interim analysis.
The key question that remains, Dr. Fotopoulou asked, is “why? What is making the difference?” She noted that, unfortunately, the trial design does not allow the identification of the relative contribution of olaparib and durvalumab.
The study was sponsored by AstraZeneca, and conducted in collaboration with the European Network of Gynaecological Oncological Trial Groups, GOG Foundation, and Myriad Genetic Laboratories. Dr. Aghajanian declared relationships with AstraZeneca, Merck, Eisai, Repare Therapeutics, AbbVie, Clovis Oncology, and Genentech/Roche. Dr. Markham declared relationships with Pfizer, GlaxoSmithKline, Aduro Biotech, Lilly, Tesaro, Novartis, VBL Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, and Merck.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
AT ASCO 2023
Omitting radiation in rectal cancer: ‘Less is more’
“This study establishes preoperative therapy with FOLFOX and only selective use of chemoradiation for patients with locally advanced rectal cancer,” commented principal investigator Deborah Schrag, MD, MPH, gastrointestinal oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York.
“Having this option is important for several reasons,” she said. “First, in many parts of the world, radiation therapy is not readily accessible. An all-chemotherapy approach may make curative intent treatment accessible for patients in these resource-constrained settings. Additionally, given the rising rates of colorectal cancer in young patients, this provides an option for patients who wish to preserve fertility or avoid early menopause.”
Reacting to the findings, Pamela Kunz, MD, leader of the gastrointestinal cancers program at Yale Cancer Center, New Haven, Conn., commented: “What’s important here is that radiation can be safely omitted in many patients with clinically advanced rectal cancer – this is really ‘less is more.’ ”
“We can spare select patients from receiving radiation without compromising efficacy,” she said. “This leads to improved quality of life, and reduced side effects, including things like early menopause and infertility.”
Dr. Kunz spoke at a press briefing where the results were highlighted prior to being presented at a plenary session at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.
She said the trial was “practice changing, and it aligns incredibly well with the theme at this year’s annual meeting around de-escalation of therapy and partnering with patients.”
Julie R. Gralow, MD, ASCO chief medical officer and executive vice president, added that the theme may be de-escalation, but in this case it is “really more accurately optimization, because you were able to de-escalate in 91%, but you found the 9% who really needed that escalation, if you will.”
The efficacy results were published simultaneously in the New England Journal of Medicine, while the patient-reported outcomes were published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.
Chemoradiation is standard approach
Presenting the findings, Dr. Schrag began by noting that approximately half of all new rectal cancer diagnoses have locally advanced disease, which in the United States represents 48,000 cases per year.
She explained that the “standard approach” to treatment is 5½ weeks of daily chemoradiation, comprising radiation to the pelvis alongside sensitizing chemotherapy with a fluoropyrimidine, followed by surgery, and then approximately 16 weeks of adjuvant chemotherapy.
“This way, we have achieved very good outcomes,” Dr. Schrag noted, with the inclusion of radiation in the 1980s a “critically important advance” in slowing rates of recurrence, which is a “cause of enormous suffering.”
However, the treatment is “long and hard,” and the pelvic radiation causes “real toxicities,” she said. These can include impaired bowel, bladder, and sexual function, and an increase in late effects, such as increased risk of pelvic fractures and secondary cancers, as well as infertility and early menopause, and impaired bone marrow function.
This depressed bone marrow function can “become a problem for people going into chemotherapy into the future,” while infertility and early menopause are “a big deal because we’re seeing increasing diagnosis of rectal cancer in people before the age of 50 years.”
Dr. Schrag said that, since chemoradiotherapy became the standard of care, there has been “so much progress,” with better chemotherapy, better surgical techniques, and more screening, so we’re finding more tumors when they are smaller and easier to treat.”
The impetus for the PROSPECT trial, Dr. Schrag said, was therefore: “Could we use radiotherapy more selectively, and only give it to people who don’t respond to chemotherapy rather than giving [it] to everybody?”
The trial enrolled 1,128 patients with rectal cancer with clinically staged T2 node–positive, T3 node–negative, or T3 node–positive disease and who were candidates for sphincter-sparing surgery.
They were randomly assigned to receive either a modified chemotherapy regimen (n = 585) or standard chemoradiation (n = 543). The mean age of the patients was 57 years; 34.5% were female. The majority (85%) were White.
All patients then underwent surgery, with low anterior resection with total mesorectal excision.
The standard chemoradiotherapy consisted of pelvic radiotherapy at 50.4 Gy over 28 fractions alongside sensitizing chemotherapy with either fluorouracil or capecitabine.
The modified chemotherapy regimen consisted of mFOLFOX6, which included modified oxaliplatin with l-leucovorin, and bolus/continuous infusion of 5-fluorouracil.
Patients in the mFOLFOX6 group whose primary tumor decreased in size by at least 20% after the six cycles proceeded straight to surgery, while were rest given the chemoradiotherapy before surgery (9% ended up receiving chemoradiotherapy).
Postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy with six cycles in the mFOLFOX6 group, or eight cycles in the chemoradiotherapy group, was suggested but not mandated.
Dr. Schrag said in an interview that the team chose to use mFOLFOX6 because of their long experience in using it.
FOLFOX first became available in 2002, and randomized controlled trials showed that it was more effective than 5-fluorouracil alone in colon cancer trials.
She explained that locally advanced rectal cancer patients were “never included” in those trials because they were already receiving chemoradiotherapy, but that its use in metastatic rectal cancer, coupled with the data in colon cancer, led them to try it in the current setting.
“It’s also quite tolerable, it’s given every 2 weeks, and it’s familiar to oncologists everywhere,” Dr. Schrag added.
She noted that it’s “not risk free,” with an increased risk of neuropathy, “which is not a great side effect, but we’re able to modulate that.”
Trial results
After a median follow-up of 58 months, mFOLFOX6 was found to be noninferior to chemoradiotherapy for disease-free survival, at a hazard ratio for disease recurrence or death of 0.92 (P = .005 for noninferiority).
The 5-year disease-free survival was 80.8% in the mFOLFOX6 group and 78.6% among patients assigned to chemoradiotherapy, while 5-year overall survival was 89.5% versus 90.2%, at a nonsignificant HR for death of 1.04.
Rates of local recurrence at 5 years were low, at 1.8% with mFOLFOX6 and 1.6% with chemoradiotherapy.
Grade 3 or higher adverse effects were twice as common in the mFOLFOX6 group than among patients who received chemoradiotherapy, at 41% versus 22.8%, although the researchers noted that the treatment period was also twice as long in the chemotherapy arm.
The most common grade 3 or higher adverse effects with mFOLFOX6 were neutropenia (20.3%), pain (3.1%), and hypertension (2.9%), while those with chemoradiotherapy were lymphopenia (8.3%), diarrhea (6.4%), and hypertension (1.7%).
In terms of patient reported outcomes, patients receiving mFOLFOX6 reported lower rates of diarrhea and better overall bowel function during the neoadjuvant phase than those given chemoradiotherapy (P < .05 for all).
However, those assigned to chemoradiotherapy experienced lower rates of anxiety, appetite loss, constipation, depression, dysphagia, dyspnea, edema, fatigue, mucositis, nausea, neuropathy, and vomiting during treatment (P < .05 for all).
At 12-month postoperative follow-up, however, those differences had disappeared, and patients originally assigned to mFOLFOX6 had lower rates of fatigue and neuropathy, and better sexual function, than those given chemoradiotherapy (P < .05 for all).
“During the treatment itself, multiple symptoms were worse with chemotherapy, but a year after treatment ended, those symptoms resolved and the pattern flipped so that patients who received radiation exhibited lingering symptoms,” said coinvestigator Ethan Basch, MD, MSc, chief of medical oncology, and director of the cancer outcomes research program at University of North Carolina Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, Chapel Hill.
“Patients ideally will understand the potential impact of treatments on how they feel and function when making choices, so as oncologists we need to talk with our patients about their options and the consequences of those options,” he said in a statement.
The study was funded by the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Schrag reported relationships with Merck, JAMA, the American Association for Cancer Research, and Grail. Dr. Basch reported relationships with AstraZeneca, Navigating Cancer, Resilience Care, SIVAN Innovation, ASCO, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, JAMA, the National Cancer Institute, and the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. Dr. Kunz reported relationships with Novartis, Genentech/Roche, Amgen, Crinetics Pharmaceuticals, Natera, HUTCHMED, and Isotope Technologies Munich. Dr. Gralow reported relationships with Genentech/Roche.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
“This study establishes preoperative therapy with FOLFOX and only selective use of chemoradiation for patients with locally advanced rectal cancer,” commented principal investigator Deborah Schrag, MD, MPH, gastrointestinal oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York.
“Having this option is important for several reasons,” she said. “First, in many parts of the world, radiation therapy is not readily accessible. An all-chemotherapy approach may make curative intent treatment accessible for patients in these resource-constrained settings. Additionally, given the rising rates of colorectal cancer in young patients, this provides an option for patients who wish to preserve fertility or avoid early menopause.”
Reacting to the findings, Pamela Kunz, MD, leader of the gastrointestinal cancers program at Yale Cancer Center, New Haven, Conn., commented: “What’s important here is that radiation can be safely omitted in many patients with clinically advanced rectal cancer – this is really ‘less is more.’ ”
“We can spare select patients from receiving radiation without compromising efficacy,” she said. “This leads to improved quality of life, and reduced side effects, including things like early menopause and infertility.”
Dr. Kunz spoke at a press briefing where the results were highlighted prior to being presented at a plenary session at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.
She said the trial was “practice changing, and it aligns incredibly well with the theme at this year’s annual meeting around de-escalation of therapy and partnering with patients.”
Julie R. Gralow, MD, ASCO chief medical officer and executive vice president, added that the theme may be de-escalation, but in this case it is “really more accurately optimization, because you were able to de-escalate in 91%, but you found the 9% who really needed that escalation, if you will.”
The efficacy results were published simultaneously in the New England Journal of Medicine, while the patient-reported outcomes were published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.
Chemoradiation is standard approach
Presenting the findings, Dr. Schrag began by noting that approximately half of all new rectal cancer diagnoses have locally advanced disease, which in the United States represents 48,000 cases per year.
She explained that the “standard approach” to treatment is 5½ weeks of daily chemoradiation, comprising radiation to the pelvis alongside sensitizing chemotherapy with a fluoropyrimidine, followed by surgery, and then approximately 16 weeks of adjuvant chemotherapy.
“This way, we have achieved very good outcomes,” Dr. Schrag noted, with the inclusion of radiation in the 1980s a “critically important advance” in slowing rates of recurrence, which is a “cause of enormous suffering.”
However, the treatment is “long and hard,” and the pelvic radiation causes “real toxicities,” she said. These can include impaired bowel, bladder, and sexual function, and an increase in late effects, such as increased risk of pelvic fractures and secondary cancers, as well as infertility and early menopause, and impaired bone marrow function.
This depressed bone marrow function can “become a problem for people going into chemotherapy into the future,” while infertility and early menopause are “a big deal because we’re seeing increasing diagnosis of rectal cancer in people before the age of 50 years.”
Dr. Schrag said that, since chemoradiotherapy became the standard of care, there has been “so much progress,” with better chemotherapy, better surgical techniques, and more screening, so we’re finding more tumors when they are smaller and easier to treat.”
The impetus for the PROSPECT trial, Dr. Schrag said, was therefore: “Could we use radiotherapy more selectively, and only give it to people who don’t respond to chemotherapy rather than giving [it] to everybody?”
The trial enrolled 1,128 patients with rectal cancer with clinically staged T2 node–positive, T3 node–negative, or T3 node–positive disease and who were candidates for sphincter-sparing surgery.
They were randomly assigned to receive either a modified chemotherapy regimen (n = 585) or standard chemoradiation (n = 543). The mean age of the patients was 57 years; 34.5% were female. The majority (85%) were White.
All patients then underwent surgery, with low anterior resection with total mesorectal excision.
The standard chemoradiotherapy consisted of pelvic radiotherapy at 50.4 Gy over 28 fractions alongside sensitizing chemotherapy with either fluorouracil or capecitabine.
The modified chemotherapy regimen consisted of mFOLFOX6, which included modified oxaliplatin with l-leucovorin, and bolus/continuous infusion of 5-fluorouracil.
Patients in the mFOLFOX6 group whose primary tumor decreased in size by at least 20% after the six cycles proceeded straight to surgery, while were rest given the chemoradiotherapy before surgery (9% ended up receiving chemoradiotherapy).
Postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy with six cycles in the mFOLFOX6 group, or eight cycles in the chemoradiotherapy group, was suggested but not mandated.
Dr. Schrag said in an interview that the team chose to use mFOLFOX6 because of their long experience in using it.
FOLFOX first became available in 2002, and randomized controlled trials showed that it was more effective than 5-fluorouracil alone in colon cancer trials.
She explained that locally advanced rectal cancer patients were “never included” in those trials because they were already receiving chemoradiotherapy, but that its use in metastatic rectal cancer, coupled with the data in colon cancer, led them to try it in the current setting.
“It’s also quite tolerable, it’s given every 2 weeks, and it’s familiar to oncologists everywhere,” Dr. Schrag added.
She noted that it’s “not risk free,” with an increased risk of neuropathy, “which is not a great side effect, but we’re able to modulate that.”
Trial results
After a median follow-up of 58 months, mFOLFOX6 was found to be noninferior to chemoradiotherapy for disease-free survival, at a hazard ratio for disease recurrence or death of 0.92 (P = .005 for noninferiority).
The 5-year disease-free survival was 80.8% in the mFOLFOX6 group and 78.6% among patients assigned to chemoradiotherapy, while 5-year overall survival was 89.5% versus 90.2%, at a nonsignificant HR for death of 1.04.
Rates of local recurrence at 5 years were low, at 1.8% with mFOLFOX6 and 1.6% with chemoradiotherapy.
Grade 3 or higher adverse effects were twice as common in the mFOLFOX6 group than among patients who received chemoradiotherapy, at 41% versus 22.8%, although the researchers noted that the treatment period was also twice as long in the chemotherapy arm.
The most common grade 3 or higher adverse effects with mFOLFOX6 were neutropenia (20.3%), pain (3.1%), and hypertension (2.9%), while those with chemoradiotherapy were lymphopenia (8.3%), diarrhea (6.4%), and hypertension (1.7%).
In terms of patient reported outcomes, patients receiving mFOLFOX6 reported lower rates of diarrhea and better overall bowel function during the neoadjuvant phase than those given chemoradiotherapy (P < .05 for all).
However, those assigned to chemoradiotherapy experienced lower rates of anxiety, appetite loss, constipation, depression, dysphagia, dyspnea, edema, fatigue, mucositis, nausea, neuropathy, and vomiting during treatment (P < .05 for all).
At 12-month postoperative follow-up, however, those differences had disappeared, and patients originally assigned to mFOLFOX6 had lower rates of fatigue and neuropathy, and better sexual function, than those given chemoradiotherapy (P < .05 for all).
“During the treatment itself, multiple symptoms were worse with chemotherapy, but a year after treatment ended, those symptoms resolved and the pattern flipped so that patients who received radiation exhibited lingering symptoms,” said coinvestigator Ethan Basch, MD, MSc, chief of medical oncology, and director of the cancer outcomes research program at University of North Carolina Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, Chapel Hill.
“Patients ideally will understand the potential impact of treatments on how they feel and function when making choices, so as oncologists we need to talk with our patients about their options and the consequences of those options,” he said in a statement.
The study was funded by the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Schrag reported relationships with Merck, JAMA, the American Association for Cancer Research, and Grail. Dr. Basch reported relationships with AstraZeneca, Navigating Cancer, Resilience Care, SIVAN Innovation, ASCO, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, JAMA, the National Cancer Institute, and the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. Dr. Kunz reported relationships with Novartis, Genentech/Roche, Amgen, Crinetics Pharmaceuticals, Natera, HUTCHMED, and Isotope Technologies Munich. Dr. Gralow reported relationships with Genentech/Roche.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
“This study establishes preoperative therapy with FOLFOX and only selective use of chemoradiation for patients with locally advanced rectal cancer,” commented principal investigator Deborah Schrag, MD, MPH, gastrointestinal oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York.
“Having this option is important for several reasons,” she said. “First, in many parts of the world, radiation therapy is not readily accessible. An all-chemotherapy approach may make curative intent treatment accessible for patients in these resource-constrained settings. Additionally, given the rising rates of colorectal cancer in young patients, this provides an option for patients who wish to preserve fertility or avoid early menopause.”
Reacting to the findings, Pamela Kunz, MD, leader of the gastrointestinal cancers program at Yale Cancer Center, New Haven, Conn., commented: “What’s important here is that radiation can be safely omitted in many patients with clinically advanced rectal cancer – this is really ‘less is more.’ ”
“We can spare select patients from receiving radiation without compromising efficacy,” she said. “This leads to improved quality of life, and reduced side effects, including things like early menopause and infertility.”
Dr. Kunz spoke at a press briefing where the results were highlighted prior to being presented at a plenary session at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.
She said the trial was “practice changing, and it aligns incredibly well with the theme at this year’s annual meeting around de-escalation of therapy and partnering with patients.”
Julie R. Gralow, MD, ASCO chief medical officer and executive vice president, added that the theme may be de-escalation, but in this case it is “really more accurately optimization, because you were able to de-escalate in 91%, but you found the 9% who really needed that escalation, if you will.”
The efficacy results were published simultaneously in the New England Journal of Medicine, while the patient-reported outcomes were published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.
Chemoradiation is standard approach
Presenting the findings, Dr. Schrag began by noting that approximately half of all new rectal cancer diagnoses have locally advanced disease, which in the United States represents 48,000 cases per year.
She explained that the “standard approach” to treatment is 5½ weeks of daily chemoradiation, comprising radiation to the pelvis alongside sensitizing chemotherapy with a fluoropyrimidine, followed by surgery, and then approximately 16 weeks of adjuvant chemotherapy.
“This way, we have achieved very good outcomes,” Dr. Schrag noted, with the inclusion of radiation in the 1980s a “critically important advance” in slowing rates of recurrence, which is a “cause of enormous suffering.”
However, the treatment is “long and hard,” and the pelvic radiation causes “real toxicities,” she said. These can include impaired bowel, bladder, and sexual function, and an increase in late effects, such as increased risk of pelvic fractures and secondary cancers, as well as infertility and early menopause, and impaired bone marrow function.
This depressed bone marrow function can “become a problem for people going into chemotherapy into the future,” while infertility and early menopause are “a big deal because we’re seeing increasing diagnosis of rectal cancer in people before the age of 50 years.”
Dr. Schrag said that, since chemoradiotherapy became the standard of care, there has been “so much progress,” with better chemotherapy, better surgical techniques, and more screening, so we’re finding more tumors when they are smaller and easier to treat.”
The impetus for the PROSPECT trial, Dr. Schrag said, was therefore: “Could we use radiotherapy more selectively, and only give it to people who don’t respond to chemotherapy rather than giving [it] to everybody?”
The trial enrolled 1,128 patients with rectal cancer with clinically staged T2 node–positive, T3 node–negative, or T3 node–positive disease and who were candidates for sphincter-sparing surgery.
They were randomly assigned to receive either a modified chemotherapy regimen (n = 585) or standard chemoradiation (n = 543). The mean age of the patients was 57 years; 34.5% were female. The majority (85%) were White.
All patients then underwent surgery, with low anterior resection with total mesorectal excision.
The standard chemoradiotherapy consisted of pelvic radiotherapy at 50.4 Gy over 28 fractions alongside sensitizing chemotherapy with either fluorouracil or capecitabine.
The modified chemotherapy regimen consisted of mFOLFOX6, which included modified oxaliplatin with l-leucovorin, and bolus/continuous infusion of 5-fluorouracil.
Patients in the mFOLFOX6 group whose primary tumor decreased in size by at least 20% after the six cycles proceeded straight to surgery, while were rest given the chemoradiotherapy before surgery (9% ended up receiving chemoradiotherapy).
Postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy with six cycles in the mFOLFOX6 group, or eight cycles in the chemoradiotherapy group, was suggested but not mandated.
Dr. Schrag said in an interview that the team chose to use mFOLFOX6 because of their long experience in using it.
FOLFOX first became available in 2002, and randomized controlled trials showed that it was more effective than 5-fluorouracil alone in colon cancer trials.
She explained that locally advanced rectal cancer patients were “never included” in those trials because they were already receiving chemoradiotherapy, but that its use in metastatic rectal cancer, coupled with the data in colon cancer, led them to try it in the current setting.
“It’s also quite tolerable, it’s given every 2 weeks, and it’s familiar to oncologists everywhere,” Dr. Schrag added.
She noted that it’s “not risk free,” with an increased risk of neuropathy, “which is not a great side effect, but we’re able to modulate that.”
Trial results
After a median follow-up of 58 months, mFOLFOX6 was found to be noninferior to chemoradiotherapy for disease-free survival, at a hazard ratio for disease recurrence or death of 0.92 (P = .005 for noninferiority).
The 5-year disease-free survival was 80.8% in the mFOLFOX6 group and 78.6% among patients assigned to chemoradiotherapy, while 5-year overall survival was 89.5% versus 90.2%, at a nonsignificant HR for death of 1.04.
Rates of local recurrence at 5 years were low, at 1.8% with mFOLFOX6 and 1.6% with chemoradiotherapy.
Grade 3 or higher adverse effects were twice as common in the mFOLFOX6 group than among patients who received chemoradiotherapy, at 41% versus 22.8%, although the researchers noted that the treatment period was also twice as long in the chemotherapy arm.
The most common grade 3 or higher adverse effects with mFOLFOX6 were neutropenia (20.3%), pain (3.1%), and hypertension (2.9%), while those with chemoradiotherapy were lymphopenia (8.3%), diarrhea (6.4%), and hypertension (1.7%).
In terms of patient reported outcomes, patients receiving mFOLFOX6 reported lower rates of diarrhea and better overall bowel function during the neoadjuvant phase than those given chemoradiotherapy (P < .05 for all).
However, those assigned to chemoradiotherapy experienced lower rates of anxiety, appetite loss, constipation, depression, dysphagia, dyspnea, edema, fatigue, mucositis, nausea, neuropathy, and vomiting during treatment (P < .05 for all).
At 12-month postoperative follow-up, however, those differences had disappeared, and patients originally assigned to mFOLFOX6 had lower rates of fatigue and neuropathy, and better sexual function, than those given chemoradiotherapy (P < .05 for all).
“During the treatment itself, multiple symptoms were worse with chemotherapy, but a year after treatment ended, those symptoms resolved and the pattern flipped so that patients who received radiation exhibited lingering symptoms,” said coinvestigator Ethan Basch, MD, MSc, chief of medical oncology, and director of the cancer outcomes research program at University of North Carolina Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, Chapel Hill.
“Patients ideally will understand the potential impact of treatments on how they feel and function when making choices, so as oncologists we need to talk with our patients about their options and the consequences of those options,” he said in a statement.
The study was funded by the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Schrag reported relationships with Merck, JAMA, the American Association for Cancer Research, and Grail. Dr. Basch reported relationships with AstraZeneca, Navigating Cancer, Resilience Care, SIVAN Innovation, ASCO, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, JAMA, the National Cancer Institute, and the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. Dr. Kunz reported relationships with Novartis, Genentech/Roche, Amgen, Crinetics Pharmaceuticals, Natera, HUTCHMED, and Isotope Technologies Munich. Dr. Gralow reported relationships with Genentech/Roche.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
AT ASCO 2023