Patient & Survivor Care

TOPLINE: 

Despite experiencing higher rates of positive margins and pathologic node involvement, patients with early-stage breast cancer who undergo nipple-sparing mastectomy are less likely to receive adjuvant radiation therapy than are those who have breast-conserving surgery. 

METHODOLOGY:

• Nipple-sparing mastectomy has become increasingly popular for treating early-stage breast cancer given the cosmetic and functional benefits of the procedure. However, appropriate use of adjuvant radiation therapy following nipple-sparing mastectomy has not been characterized.
• Researchers compared outcomes and appropriate uses of radiation therapy among 624,075 women diagnosed with cT1-3N0M0 invasive ductal or lobular breast cancer between 2004 and 2017 who underwent breast-conserving surgery (n = 611,907; median age, 63 years) or nipple-sparing mastectomy (n = 12,168; median age, 50 years).
• The researchers compared the rates of postoperative radiation therapy for two standard indications — positive margins and pathologic node involvement — in patients who had breast-conserving surgery or nipple-sparing mastectomy.
• The team also compared overall survival outcomes in patients with positive margins and node involvement.

TAKEAWAY: 

• Patients who had nipple-sparing surgery had higher rates of positive margins (4.5% vs 3.7%; P < .001) and, on multivariable analysis, a 15% higher risk for positive margins compared with those who had breast-conserving surgery (odds ratio [OR], 1.15; P = .005).
• Similarly, patients who had nipple-sparing surgery had significantly higher rates of node involvement compared with those who had breast-conserving surgery (22.5% vs 13.5%) and, on multivariable analysis, an 8% higher risk for node involvement (OR, 1.08; P < .001).
• Despite higher rates of positive margins and node involvement in the nipple-sparing surgery group, these patients were significantly less likely than those in the breast-conserving surgery group to receive adjuvant radiation therapy (OR, 0.07). Overall, only 17.2% of patients who underwent nipple-sparing mastectomy received postoperative radiation therapy compared with 83.3% of those undergoing breast-conserving surgery — an almost fivefold difference (P < .001).
• In the overall study sample, overall survival in the two surgical groups did not differ significantly among patients with positive margins (OR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.30-1.31; P = .21) and those with node involvement (OR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.80-1.28; P = .93).

IN PRACTICE:

The researchers emphasized that although overall survival outcomes were comparable in the two surgery groups, the “current standard indications and guidelines for post-mastectomy radiation are not being appropriately” used after nipple-sparing mastectomy.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Wesley J. Talcott, MD, MBA, Department of Radiation Medicine, Northwell Health, New York City, was published online in Advances in Radiation Oncology. 

LIMITATIONS: 

Data on locoregional recurrence, cause-specific mortality, and all pathologic details were not available. The relatively short median follow-up period might not capture differences in the long-term survival outcomes. 

DISCLOSURES:

The study did not receive any funding support. The authors disclosed no conflicts of interest. 

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE: 

Despite experiencing higher rates of positive margins and pathologic node involvement, patients with early-stage breast cancer who undergo nipple-sparing mastectomy are less likely to receive adjuvant radiation therapy than are those who have breast-conserving surgery. 

METHODOLOGY:

• Nipple-sparing mastectomy has become increasingly popular for treating early-stage breast cancer given the cosmetic and functional benefits of the procedure. However, appropriate use of adjuvant radiation therapy following nipple-sparing mastectomy has not been characterized.
• Researchers compared outcomes and appropriate uses of radiation therapy among 624,075 women diagnosed with cT1-3N0M0 invasive ductal or lobular breast cancer between 2004 and 2017 who underwent breast-conserving surgery (n = 611,907; median age, 63 years) or nipple-sparing mastectomy (n = 12,168; median age, 50 years).
• The researchers compared the rates of postoperative radiation therapy for two standard indications — positive margins and pathologic node involvement — in patients who had breast-conserving surgery or nipple-sparing mastectomy.
• The team also compared overall survival outcomes in patients with positive margins and node involvement.

TAKEAWAY: 

• Patients who had nipple-sparing surgery had higher rates of positive margins (4.5% vs 3.7%; P < .001) and, on multivariable analysis, a 15% higher risk for positive margins compared with those who had breast-conserving surgery (odds ratio [OR], 1.15; P = .005).
• Similarly, patients who had nipple-sparing surgery had significantly higher rates of node involvement compared with those who had breast-conserving surgery (22.5% vs 13.5%) and, on multivariable analysis, an 8% higher risk for node involvement (OR, 1.08; P < .001).
• Despite higher rates of positive margins and node involvement in the nipple-sparing surgery group, these patients were significantly less likely than those in the breast-conserving surgery group to receive adjuvant radiation therapy (OR, 0.07). Overall, only 17.2% of patients who underwent nipple-sparing mastectomy received postoperative radiation therapy compared with 83.3% of those undergoing breast-conserving surgery — an almost fivefold difference (P < .001).
• In the overall study sample, overall survival in the two surgical groups did not differ significantly among patients with positive margins (OR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.30-1.31; P = .21) and those with node involvement (OR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.80-1.28; P = .93).

IN PRACTICE:

The researchers emphasized that although overall survival outcomes were comparable in the two surgery groups, the “current standard indications and guidelines for post-mastectomy radiation are not being appropriately” used after nipple-sparing mastectomy.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Wesley J. Talcott, MD, MBA, Department of Radiation Medicine, Northwell Health, New York City, was published online in Advances in Radiation Oncology. 

LIMITATIONS: 

Data on locoregional recurrence, cause-specific mortality, and all pathologic details were not available. The relatively short median follow-up period might not capture differences in the long-term survival outcomes. 

DISCLOSURES:

The study did not receive any funding support. The authors disclosed no conflicts of interest. 

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE: 

Despite experiencing higher rates of positive margins and pathologic node involvement, patients with early-stage breast cancer who undergo nipple-sparing mastectomy are less likely to receive adjuvant radiation therapy than are those who have breast-conserving surgery. 

METHODOLOGY:

• Nipple-sparing mastectomy has become increasingly popular for treating early-stage breast cancer given the cosmetic and functional benefits of the procedure. However, appropriate use of adjuvant radiation therapy following nipple-sparing mastectomy has not been characterized.
• Researchers compared outcomes and appropriate uses of radiation therapy among 624,075 women diagnosed with cT1-3N0M0 invasive ductal or lobular breast cancer between 2004 and 2017 who underwent breast-conserving surgery (n = 611,907; median age, 63 years) or nipple-sparing mastectomy (n = 12,168; median age, 50 years).
• The researchers compared the rates of postoperative radiation therapy for two standard indications — positive margins and pathologic node involvement — in patients who had breast-conserving surgery or nipple-sparing mastectomy.
• The team also compared overall survival outcomes in patients with positive margins and node involvement.

TAKEAWAY: 

• Patients who had nipple-sparing surgery had higher rates of positive margins (4.5% vs 3.7%; P < .001) and, on multivariable analysis, a 15% higher risk for positive margins compared with those who had breast-conserving surgery (odds ratio [OR], 1.15; P = .005).
• Similarly, patients who had nipple-sparing surgery had significantly higher rates of node involvement compared with those who had breast-conserving surgery (22.5% vs 13.5%) and, on multivariable analysis, an 8% higher risk for node involvement (OR, 1.08; P < .001).
• Despite higher rates of positive margins and node involvement in the nipple-sparing surgery group, these patients were significantly less likely than those in the breast-conserving surgery group to receive adjuvant radiation therapy (OR, 0.07). Overall, only 17.2% of patients who underwent nipple-sparing mastectomy received postoperative radiation therapy compared with 83.3% of those undergoing breast-conserving surgery — an almost fivefold difference (P < .001).
• In the overall study sample, overall survival in the two surgical groups did not differ significantly among patients with positive margins (OR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.30-1.31; P = .21) and those with node involvement (OR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.80-1.28; P = .93).

IN PRACTICE:

The researchers emphasized that although overall survival outcomes were comparable in the two surgery groups, the “current standard indications and guidelines for post-mastectomy radiation are not being appropriately” used after nipple-sparing mastectomy.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Wesley J. Talcott, MD, MBA, Department of Radiation Medicine, Northwell Health, New York City, was published online in Advances in Radiation Oncology. 

LIMITATIONS: 

Data on locoregional recurrence, cause-specific mortality, and all pathologic details were not available. The relatively short median follow-up period might not capture differences in the long-term survival outcomes. 

DISCLOSURES:

The study did not receive any funding support. The authors disclosed no conflicts of interest. 

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

BRCA1 and BRCA2 pathogenic variants carry well-known associations with breast and ovarian cancers in women, which has led to robust clinical guidelines for early genetic testing and risk-reduction strategies. 

Male carriers of BRCA1/2 pathogenic variants also face an increased risk for cancer, particularly of the prostate, pancreas, and breast. 

However, men often fly under the radar. 

Although males represent half of BRCA1/2 pathogenic variant carriers, men are much less likely to receive genetic testing for BRCA mutations. “Most people (including their clinicians) are unaware of their carrier status,” Heather Cheng, MD, PhD, with University of Washington, Seattle, and colleagues explained in a comprehensive review on the subject, published in JAMA Oncology. Most are also unaware of “the associated cancer risks, and management recommendations” for BRCA carriers. 

The testing gap in males may exist, in part, because of a “general lack of awareness” that BRCA gene mutations can be passed down to children from both the mother and father, Elisa Port, MD, chief of breast surgery for the Mount Sinai Health System in New York City, told this news organization.

A daughter can inherit a mutated BRCA gene that puts her at risk for breast or ovarian cancer from her mother’s or father’s family and, similarly, a son can inherit a mutated BRCA gene from either side of the family that puts him at an increased risk for developing prostate and other cancers, explained Dr. Port, director of the Center of Excellence for Breast Cancer at The Tisch Cancer Institute at Mount Sinai. 

Considering family history and genetics on both sides of the family is important when assessing cancer risk in men and women, Dr. Port said. 
 

BRCA Mutations in Men: What’s the Risk? 

Although fewer than 1% of all breast cancers occur in men, when men do carry a BRCA mutation, their risk for breast cancer can increase considerably. The lifetime risk for breast cancer can be as high as 9% in male BRCA2 carriers and up to 1.2% in BRCA1 carriers. 

BRCA1/2 mutations also put men at increased risk for pancreatic and prostate cancers.

For pancreatic cancer, male BRCA1 carriers have a nearly twofold increased risk compared with the general population, with a lifetime risk of 3%. BRCA2 carriers have a three- to nearly eightfold increased risk, with a lifetime risk up to 7%.

Male BRCA1 carriers face a nearly fourfold increased risk of developing prostate cancer and an absolute lifetime risk of 15%-45%. Male BRCA2 carriers have a five- to ninefold increased risk for prostate cancer, with an absolute lifetime risk between 27% and 60%. 
 

When to Test, When to Screen?

Despite the increased risk for several cancers associated with BRCA mutations, many men are not offered genetic testing.

BRCA1/2 genetic testing in men is “ultra-important but underutilized and is an evolving unmet need that the field needs to address,” Kai Tsao, MD MS, medical director of the Medical Oncology Prostate Cancer Program at Mount Sinai in New York City, told this news organization. 

For men considering genetic testing, in Dr. Tsao’s experience, barriers may include fear that insurance may not cover the test and that a positive test may increase insurance premiums, as well as concerns about what the test result may mean for them and their family.

Even for confirmed BRCA carriers, cancer screening guidelines for men vary.

For breast screening in men, there’s limited data to inform guidelines. The National Cancer Center Network currently recommends breast awareness and teaching self-examination starting at age 35 and recommends men with BRCA variants consider yearly mammograms starting at age 50, or 10 years before the earliest male breast cancer diagnosis in the family. 

Data show that screening mammography in men at high-risk for breast cancer yields similar cancer detection rates in men and women, “suggesting mammography screening may be valuable in male BRCA carriers,” the review authors noted. And, in a recent study of men with BRCA1/2 pathogenic variants, most (71%) recommended for screening mammography completed their screening. 

The European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) has similar screening recommendations but focuses only on men with BRCA2 mutations and suggests breast ultrasonography as well as mammography as a screening option.

The larger “issue is the general population doesn’t think of breast cancer when they think of men, which may delay seeking medical attention,” said Melissa Fana, MD, of NYU Grossman Long Island School of Medicine and NYU Langone Health, who wasn’t involved in the review. 

For pancreatic cancer, guidelines suggest BRCA1/2 carriers be screened for pancreatic cancer starting at age 50, or 10 years before the earliest known pancreatic cancer in the family, although the guidelines vary on the role family history should play.

And for prostate cancer, current guidelines recommend male BRCA carriers begin prostate-specific antigen screening between age 40 and 45 years, although recommendations on screening intervals and start age vary. ESMO recommendations are similar but only apply to BRCA2 carriers.

A male patient with a BRCA1/2 variant is typically referred for genetic counseling as well, Dr. Tsao explained. But “the challenge is that we don’t have a very good healthcare infrastructure right now” to follow through with that, he added. “Oftentimes a patient will wait many months or even more than a year for a genetic counseling appointment.”

To help improve these issues, Mount Sinai recently launched a comprehensive BRCA program for men and women that offers genetic testing and counseling for patients and family members.

Overall, identifying more male BRCA1/2 carriers will “maximize opportunities for cancer early detection, targeted risk management, and cancer treatment for males, along with facilitating opportunities for risk reduction and prevention in their family members, thereby decreasing the burden of hereditary cancer,” Dr. Cheng and colleagues concluded.

Support for the review was provided in part by BRCA Research and Cure Alliance and the Men & BRCA Program at the Basser Center for BRCA. Cheng reported grants from Promontory Pharmaceutics, Medivation, Sanofi, Janssen, royalties from UpToDate, nonfinancial support from Color Health, personal fees from AstraZeneca, BRCA Research and Cure Alliance (CureBRCA) outside the submitted work. Dr. Port, Dr. Tsao, and Dr. Fana had no conflicts of interest.
 

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

BRCA1 and BRCA2 pathogenic variants carry well-known associations with breast and ovarian cancers in women, which has led to robust clinical guidelines for early genetic testing and risk-reduction strategies. 

Male carriers of BRCA1/2 pathogenic variants also face an increased risk for cancer, particularly of the prostate, pancreas, and breast. 

However, men often fly under the radar. 

Although males represent half of BRCA1/2 pathogenic variant carriers, men are much less likely to receive genetic testing for BRCA mutations. “Most people (including their clinicians) are unaware of their carrier status,” Heather Cheng, MD, PhD, with University of Washington, Seattle, and colleagues explained in a comprehensive review on the subject, published in JAMA Oncology. Most are also unaware of “the associated cancer risks, and management recommendations” for BRCA carriers. 

The testing gap in males may exist, in part, because of a “general lack of awareness” that BRCA gene mutations can be passed down to children from both the mother and father, Elisa Port, MD, chief of breast surgery for the Mount Sinai Health System in New York City, told this news organization.

A daughter can inherit a mutated BRCA gene that puts her at risk for breast or ovarian cancer from her mother’s or father’s family and, similarly, a son can inherit a mutated BRCA gene from either side of the family that puts him at an increased risk for developing prostate and other cancers, explained Dr. Port, director of the Center of Excellence for Breast Cancer at The Tisch Cancer Institute at Mount Sinai. 

Considering family history and genetics on both sides of the family is important when assessing cancer risk in men and women, Dr. Port said. 
 

BRCA Mutations in Men: What’s the Risk? 

Although fewer than 1% of all breast cancers occur in men, when men do carry a BRCA mutation, their risk for breast cancer can increase considerably. The lifetime risk for breast cancer can be as high as 9% in male BRCA2 carriers and up to 1.2% in BRCA1 carriers. 

BRCA1/2 mutations also put men at increased risk for pancreatic and prostate cancers.

For pancreatic cancer, male BRCA1 carriers have a nearly twofold increased risk compared with the general population, with a lifetime risk of 3%. BRCA2 carriers have a three- to nearly eightfold increased risk, with a lifetime risk up to 7%.

Male BRCA1 carriers face a nearly fourfold increased risk of developing prostate cancer and an absolute lifetime risk of 15%-45%. Male BRCA2 carriers have a five- to ninefold increased risk for prostate cancer, with an absolute lifetime risk between 27% and 60%. 
 

When to Test, When to Screen?

Despite the increased risk for several cancers associated with BRCA mutations, many men are not offered genetic testing.

BRCA1/2 genetic testing in men is “ultra-important but underutilized and is an evolving unmet need that the field needs to address,” Kai Tsao, MD MS, medical director of the Medical Oncology Prostate Cancer Program at Mount Sinai in New York City, told this news organization. 

For men considering genetic testing, in Dr. Tsao’s experience, barriers may include fear that insurance may not cover the test and that a positive test may increase insurance premiums, as well as concerns about what the test result may mean for them and their family.

Even for confirmed BRCA carriers, cancer screening guidelines for men vary.

For breast screening in men, there’s limited data to inform guidelines. The National Cancer Center Network currently recommends breast awareness and teaching self-examination starting at age 35 and recommends men with BRCA variants consider yearly mammograms starting at age 50, or 10 years before the earliest male breast cancer diagnosis in the family. 

Data show that screening mammography in men at high-risk for breast cancer yields similar cancer detection rates in men and women, “suggesting mammography screening may be valuable in male BRCA carriers,” the review authors noted. And, in a recent study of men with BRCA1/2 pathogenic variants, most (71%) recommended for screening mammography completed their screening. 

The European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) has similar screening recommendations but focuses only on men with BRCA2 mutations and suggests breast ultrasonography as well as mammography as a screening option.

The larger “issue is the general population doesn’t think of breast cancer when they think of men, which may delay seeking medical attention,” said Melissa Fana, MD, of NYU Grossman Long Island School of Medicine and NYU Langone Health, who wasn’t involved in the review. 

For pancreatic cancer, guidelines suggest BRCA1/2 carriers be screened for pancreatic cancer starting at age 50, or 10 years before the earliest known pancreatic cancer in the family, although the guidelines vary on the role family history should play.

And for prostate cancer, current guidelines recommend male BRCA carriers begin prostate-specific antigen screening between age 40 and 45 years, although recommendations on screening intervals and start age vary. ESMO recommendations are similar but only apply to BRCA2 carriers.

A male patient with a BRCA1/2 variant is typically referred for genetic counseling as well, Dr. Tsao explained. But “the challenge is that we don’t have a very good healthcare infrastructure right now” to follow through with that, he added. “Oftentimes a patient will wait many months or even more than a year for a genetic counseling appointment.”

To help improve these issues, Mount Sinai recently launched a comprehensive BRCA program for men and women that offers genetic testing and counseling for patients and family members.

Overall, identifying more male BRCA1/2 carriers will “maximize opportunities for cancer early detection, targeted risk management, and cancer treatment for males, along with facilitating opportunities for risk reduction and prevention in their family members, thereby decreasing the burden of hereditary cancer,” Dr. Cheng and colleagues concluded.

Support for the review was provided in part by BRCA Research and Cure Alliance and the Men & BRCA Program at the Basser Center for BRCA. Cheng reported grants from Promontory Pharmaceutics, Medivation, Sanofi, Janssen, royalties from UpToDate, nonfinancial support from Color Health, personal fees from AstraZeneca, BRCA Research and Cure Alliance (CureBRCA) outside the submitted work. Dr. Port, Dr. Tsao, and Dr. Fana had no conflicts of interest.
 

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

BRCA1 and BRCA2 pathogenic variants carry well-known associations with breast and ovarian cancers in women, which has led to robust clinical guidelines for early genetic testing and risk-reduction strategies. 

Male carriers of BRCA1/2 pathogenic variants also face an increased risk for cancer, particularly of the prostate, pancreas, and breast. 

However, men often fly under the radar. 

Although males represent half of BRCA1/2 pathogenic variant carriers, men are much less likely to receive genetic testing for BRCA mutations. “Most people (including their clinicians) are unaware of their carrier status,” Heather Cheng, MD, PhD, with University of Washington, Seattle, and colleagues explained in a comprehensive review on the subject, published in JAMA Oncology. Most are also unaware of “the associated cancer risks, and management recommendations” for BRCA carriers. 

The testing gap in males may exist, in part, because of a “general lack of awareness” that BRCA gene mutations can be passed down to children from both the mother and father, Elisa Port, MD, chief of breast surgery for the Mount Sinai Health System in New York City, told this news organization.

A daughter can inherit a mutated BRCA gene that puts her at risk for breast or ovarian cancer from her mother’s or father’s family and, similarly, a son can inherit a mutated BRCA gene from either side of the family that puts him at an increased risk for developing prostate and other cancers, explained Dr. Port, director of the Center of Excellence for Breast Cancer at The Tisch Cancer Institute at Mount Sinai. 

Considering family history and genetics on both sides of the family is important when assessing cancer risk in men and women, Dr. Port said. 
 

BRCA Mutations in Men: What’s the Risk? 

Although fewer than 1% of all breast cancers occur in men, when men do carry a BRCA mutation, their risk for breast cancer can increase considerably. The lifetime risk for breast cancer can be as high as 9% in male BRCA2 carriers and up to 1.2% in BRCA1 carriers. 

BRCA1/2 mutations also put men at increased risk for pancreatic and prostate cancers.

For pancreatic cancer, male BRCA1 carriers have a nearly twofold increased risk compared with the general population, with a lifetime risk of 3%. BRCA2 carriers have a three- to nearly eightfold increased risk, with a lifetime risk up to 7%.

Male BRCA1 carriers face a nearly fourfold increased risk of developing prostate cancer and an absolute lifetime risk of 15%-45%. Male BRCA2 carriers have a five- to ninefold increased risk for prostate cancer, with an absolute lifetime risk between 27% and 60%. 
 

When to Test, When to Screen?

Despite the increased risk for several cancers associated with BRCA mutations, many men are not offered genetic testing.

BRCA1/2 genetic testing in men is “ultra-important but underutilized and is an evolving unmet need that the field needs to address,” Kai Tsao, MD MS, medical director of the Medical Oncology Prostate Cancer Program at Mount Sinai in New York City, told this news organization. 

For men considering genetic testing, in Dr. Tsao’s experience, barriers may include fear that insurance may not cover the test and that a positive test may increase insurance premiums, as well as concerns about what the test result may mean for them and their family.

Even for confirmed BRCA carriers, cancer screening guidelines for men vary.

For breast screening in men, there’s limited data to inform guidelines. The National Cancer Center Network currently recommends breast awareness and teaching self-examination starting at age 35 and recommends men with BRCA variants consider yearly mammograms starting at age 50, or 10 years before the earliest male breast cancer diagnosis in the family. 

Data show that screening mammography in men at high-risk for breast cancer yields similar cancer detection rates in men and women, “suggesting mammography screening may be valuable in male BRCA carriers,” the review authors noted. And, in a recent study of men with BRCA1/2 pathogenic variants, most (71%) recommended for screening mammography completed their screening. 

The European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) has similar screening recommendations but focuses only on men with BRCA2 mutations and suggests breast ultrasonography as well as mammography as a screening option.

The larger “issue is the general population doesn’t think of breast cancer when they think of men, which may delay seeking medical attention,” said Melissa Fana, MD, of NYU Grossman Long Island School of Medicine and NYU Langone Health, who wasn’t involved in the review. 

For pancreatic cancer, guidelines suggest BRCA1/2 carriers be screened for pancreatic cancer starting at age 50, or 10 years before the earliest known pancreatic cancer in the family, although the guidelines vary on the role family history should play.

And for prostate cancer, current guidelines recommend male BRCA carriers begin prostate-specific antigen screening between age 40 and 45 years, although recommendations on screening intervals and start age vary. ESMO recommendations are similar but only apply to BRCA2 carriers.

A male patient with a BRCA1/2 variant is typically referred for genetic counseling as well, Dr. Tsao explained. But “the challenge is that we don’t have a very good healthcare infrastructure right now” to follow through with that, he added. “Oftentimes a patient will wait many months or even more than a year for a genetic counseling appointment.”

To help improve these issues, Mount Sinai recently launched a comprehensive BRCA program for men and women that offers genetic testing and counseling for patients and family members.

Overall, identifying more male BRCA1/2 carriers will “maximize opportunities for cancer early detection, targeted risk management, and cancer treatment for males, along with facilitating opportunities for risk reduction and prevention in their family members, thereby decreasing the burden of hereditary cancer,” Dr. Cheng and colleagues concluded.

Support for the review was provided in part by BRCA Research and Cure Alliance and the Men & BRCA Program at the Basser Center for BRCA. Cheng reported grants from Promontory Pharmaceutics, Medivation, Sanofi, Janssen, royalties from UpToDate, nonfinancial support from Color Health, personal fees from AstraZeneca, BRCA Research and Cure Alliance (CureBRCA) outside the submitted work. Dr. Port, Dr. Tsao, and Dr. Fana had no conflicts of interest.
 

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

TOPLINE:

Nearly 10% of patients with chronic pain treated with opioids develop opioid use disorder, whereas 30% show signs and symptoms of dependence, highlighting the need for monitoring and alternative pain management strategies. 

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis using MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO databases from inception to January 27, 2021.
• The studies analyzed were predominantly from the United States (n = 115) as well as high-income countries such as the United Kingdom (n = 5), France (n = 3), Spain (n = 4), Germany (n = 4), and Australia (n = 2).
• A total of 148 studies from various settings with over 4.3 million participants were included, focusing on patients aged ≥ 12 years with chronic non-cancer pain of ≥ 3 months duration, treated with opioid analgesics.
• Problematic opioid use was categorized into four categories: dependence and opioid use disorder, signs and symptoms of dependence and opioid use disorder, aberrant behavior, and at risk for dependence and opioid use disorder.

TAKEAWAY:

• The pooled prevalence of dependence and opioid use disorder was 9.3% (95% CI, 5.7%-14.8%), with significant heterogeneity across studies.
• Signs and symptoms of dependence were observed in 29.6% (95% CI, 22.1%-38.3%) of patients, indicating a high prevalence of problematic opioid use.
• Aberrant behavior was reported in 22% (95% CI, 17.4%-27.3%) of patients, highlighting the need for careful monitoring and intervention.
• The prevalence of patients at risk of developing dependence was 12.4% (95% CI, 4.3%-30.7%), suggesting the importance of early identification and prevention strategies.

IN PRACTICE:

“Clinicians and policymakers need a more accurate estimate of the prevalence of problematic opioid use in pain patients so that they can gauge the true extent of the problem, change prescribing guidance if necessary, and develop and implement effective interventions to manage the problem,” Kyla H. Thomas, PhD, the lead author, noted in a press release. Knowing the size of the problem is a necessary step to managing it, she added.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Dr. Thomas, Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol in England. It was published online, in Addiction. 

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s high heterogeneity across included studies suggests caution in interpreting the findings. The reliance on self-reported data and varying definitions of problematic opioid use may affect the accuracy of prevalence estimates. Most studies were conducted in high-income countries, limiting the generalizability to other settings. 

DISCLOSURES: 

The study was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR). Dr. Thomas reported receiving financial support from the NIHR for this study.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Nearly 10% of patients with chronic pain treated with opioids develop opioid use disorder, whereas 30% show signs and symptoms of dependence, highlighting the need for monitoring and alternative pain management strategies. 

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis using MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO databases from inception to January 27, 2021.
• The studies analyzed were predominantly from the United States (n = 115) as well as high-income countries such as the United Kingdom (n = 5), France (n = 3), Spain (n = 4), Germany (n = 4), and Australia (n = 2).
• A total of 148 studies from various settings with over 4.3 million participants were included, focusing on patients aged ≥ 12 years with chronic non-cancer pain of ≥ 3 months duration, treated with opioid analgesics.
• Problematic opioid use was categorized into four categories: dependence and opioid use disorder, signs and symptoms of dependence and opioid use disorder, aberrant behavior, and at risk for dependence and opioid use disorder.

TAKEAWAY:

• The pooled prevalence of dependence and opioid use disorder was 9.3% (95% CI, 5.7%-14.8%), with significant heterogeneity across studies.
• Signs and symptoms of dependence were observed in 29.6% (95% CI, 22.1%-38.3%) of patients, indicating a high prevalence of problematic opioid use.
• Aberrant behavior was reported in 22% (95% CI, 17.4%-27.3%) of patients, highlighting the need for careful monitoring and intervention.
• The prevalence of patients at risk of developing dependence was 12.4% (95% CI, 4.3%-30.7%), suggesting the importance of early identification and prevention strategies.

IN PRACTICE:

“Clinicians and policymakers need a more accurate estimate of the prevalence of problematic opioid use in pain patients so that they can gauge the true extent of the problem, change prescribing guidance if necessary, and develop and implement effective interventions to manage the problem,” Kyla H. Thomas, PhD, the lead author, noted in a press release. Knowing the size of the problem is a necessary step to managing it, she added.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Dr. Thomas, Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol in England. It was published online, in Addiction. 

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s high heterogeneity across included studies suggests caution in interpreting the findings. The reliance on self-reported data and varying definitions of problematic opioid use may affect the accuracy of prevalence estimates. Most studies were conducted in high-income countries, limiting the generalizability to other settings. 

DISCLOSURES: 

The study was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR). Dr. Thomas reported receiving financial support from the NIHR for this study.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Nearly 10% of patients with chronic pain treated with opioids develop opioid use disorder, whereas 30% show signs and symptoms of dependence, highlighting the need for monitoring and alternative pain management strategies. 

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis using MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO databases from inception to January 27, 2021.
• The studies analyzed were predominantly from the United States (n = 115) as well as high-income countries such as the United Kingdom (n = 5), France (n = 3), Spain (n = 4), Germany (n = 4), and Australia (n = 2).
• A total of 148 studies from various settings with over 4.3 million participants were included, focusing on patients aged ≥ 12 years with chronic non-cancer pain of ≥ 3 months duration, treated with opioid analgesics.
• Problematic opioid use was categorized into four categories: dependence and opioid use disorder, signs and symptoms of dependence and opioid use disorder, aberrant behavior, and at risk for dependence and opioid use disorder.

TAKEAWAY:

• The pooled prevalence of dependence and opioid use disorder was 9.3% (95% CI, 5.7%-14.8%), with significant heterogeneity across studies.
• Signs and symptoms of dependence were observed in 29.6% (95% CI, 22.1%-38.3%) of patients, indicating a high prevalence of problematic opioid use.
• Aberrant behavior was reported in 22% (95% CI, 17.4%-27.3%) of patients, highlighting the need for careful monitoring and intervention.
• The prevalence of patients at risk of developing dependence was 12.4% (95% CI, 4.3%-30.7%), suggesting the importance of early identification and prevention strategies.

IN PRACTICE:

“Clinicians and policymakers need a more accurate estimate of the prevalence of problematic opioid use in pain patients so that they can gauge the true extent of the problem, change prescribing guidance if necessary, and develop and implement effective interventions to manage the problem,” Kyla H. Thomas, PhD, the lead author, noted in a press release. Knowing the size of the problem is a necessary step to managing it, she added.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Dr. Thomas, Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol in England. It was published online, in Addiction. 

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s high heterogeneity across included studies suggests caution in interpreting the findings. The reliance on self-reported data and varying definitions of problematic opioid use may affect the accuracy of prevalence estimates. Most studies were conducted in high-income countries, limiting the generalizability to other settings. 

DISCLOSURES: 

The study was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR). Dr. Thomas reported receiving financial support from the NIHR for this study.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Fecal immunochemical test (FIT) screening reduces colorectal cancer (CRC) mortality by 33% overall, with a notable 42% reduction in deaths from left colon and rectal cancers, new data show.

METHODOLOGY:

• In the United States, annual FIT screening is recommended among average-risk adults to reduce the risk for death from CRC, but evidence on its effectiveness is limited.
• Researchers performed a nested case-control study within two large, demographically diverse health systems with long-standing programs of mailing FITs to promote CRC screening efforts.
• They compared 1103 adults who had died of CRC between 2011 and 2017 (cases) with 9608 matched, randomly selected people who were alive and free of CRC (controls).
• Analyses focused on FIT screening completed within 5 years before CRC diagnosis for cases or the corresponding date for controls.
• The primary outcome measured was CRC death overall and by tumor location; secondary analyses assessed CRC death by race and ethnicity.

TAKEAWAY:

• In regression analysis, completing one or more FIT screenings was associated with a 33% lower risk for CRC death overall.
• There was a 42% lower risk for death from left colon and rectum cancers but no significant reduction in mortality from right colon cancers.
• The benefits of FIT screening were observed across racial and ethnic groups, with significant mortality reductions of 63% in non-Hispanic Asian, 42% in non-Hispanic Black, and 29% in non-Hispanic White individuals.

IN PRACTICE:

“The findings support the use of strategies for coordinated and equitable large-scale population-based delivery of FIT screening with follow-up of abnormal screening results to help avert preventable premature CRC deaths,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Chyke A. Doubeni, MD, MPH, Center for Health Equity, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, Ohio, was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

Almost one half of study subjects had completed two or more FITs, but the case-control design was not suitable for assessing the impact of repeated screening. The study was conducted prior to the US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation to start screening at age 45 years, so the findings may not directly apply to adults aged 45-49 years. 

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Doubeni reported receiving royalties from UpToDate, and additional authors reported receiving grants outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.

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

TOPLINE:

Fecal immunochemical test (FIT) screening reduces colorectal cancer (CRC) mortality by 33% overall, with a notable 42% reduction in deaths from left colon and rectal cancers, new data show.

METHODOLOGY:

• In the United States, annual FIT screening is recommended among average-risk adults to reduce the risk for death from CRC, but evidence on its effectiveness is limited.
• Researchers performed a nested case-control study within two large, demographically diverse health systems with long-standing programs of mailing FITs to promote CRC screening efforts.
• They compared 1103 adults who had died of CRC between 2011 and 2017 (cases) with 9608 matched, randomly selected people who were alive and free of CRC (controls).
• Analyses focused on FIT screening completed within 5 years before CRC diagnosis for cases or the corresponding date for controls.
• The primary outcome measured was CRC death overall and by tumor location; secondary analyses assessed CRC death by race and ethnicity.

TAKEAWAY:

• In regression analysis, completing one or more FIT screenings was associated with a 33% lower risk for CRC death overall.
• There was a 42% lower risk for death from left colon and rectum cancers but no significant reduction in mortality from right colon cancers.
• The benefits of FIT screening were observed across racial and ethnic groups, with significant mortality reductions of 63% in non-Hispanic Asian, 42% in non-Hispanic Black, and 29% in non-Hispanic White individuals.

IN PRACTICE:

“The findings support the use of strategies for coordinated and equitable large-scale population-based delivery of FIT screening with follow-up of abnormal screening results to help avert preventable premature CRC deaths,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Chyke A. Doubeni, MD, MPH, Center for Health Equity, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, Ohio, was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

Almost one half of study subjects had completed two or more FITs, but the case-control design was not suitable for assessing the impact of repeated screening. The study was conducted prior to the US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation to start screening at age 45 years, so the findings may not directly apply to adults aged 45-49 years. 

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Doubeni reported receiving royalties from UpToDate, and additional authors reported receiving grants outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.

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

TOPLINE:

Fecal immunochemical test (FIT) screening reduces colorectal cancer (CRC) mortality by 33% overall, with a notable 42% reduction in deaths from left colon and rectal cancers, new data show.

METHODOLOGY:

• In the United States, annual FIT screening is recommended among average-risk adults to reduce the risk for death from CRC, but evidence on its effectiveness is limited.
• Researchers performed a nested case-control study within two large, demographically diverse health systems with long-standing programs of mailing FITs to promote CRC screening efforts.
• They compared 1103 adults who had died of CRC between 2011 and 2017 (cases) with 9608 matched, randomly selected people who were alive and free of CRC (controls).
• Analyses focused on FIT screening completed within 5 years before CRC diagnosis for cases or the corresponding date for controls.
• The primary outcome measured was CRC death overall and by tumor location; secondary analyses assessed CRC death by race and ethnicity.

TAKEAWAY:

• In regression analysis, completing one or more FIT screenings was associated with a 33% lower risk for CRC death overall.
• There was a 42% lower risk for death from left colon and rectum cancers but no significant reduction in mortality from right colon cancers.
• The benefits of FIT screening were observed across racial and ethnic groups, with significant mortality reductions of 63% in non-Hispanic Asian, 42% in non-Hispanic Black, and 29% in non-Hispanic White individuals.

IN PRACTICE:

“The findings support the use of strategies for coordinated and equitable large-scale population-based delivery of FIT screening with follow-up of abnormal screening results to help avert preventable premature CRC deaths,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Chyke A. Doubeni, MD, MPH, Center for Health Equity, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, Ohio, was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

Almost one half of study subjects had completed two or more FITs, but the case-control design was not suitable for assessing the impact of repeated screening. The study was conducted prior to the US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation to start screening at age 45 years, so the findings may not directly apply to adults aged 45-49 years. 

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Doubeni reported receiving royalties from UpToDate, and additional authors reported receiving grants outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.

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

TOPLINE:

A novel method combining genetic variants, symptoms, and patient characteristics is moderately successful at predicting which primary care patients are at high risk of developing colorectal cancer (CRC) within the next 2 years — without the benefit of a faecal immunochemical test (FIT). Up to 16% of primary care patients are non-compliant with FIT, which is the gold standard for predicting CRC.

METHODOLOGY:

• This study was retrospective cohort of 50,387 UK Biobank participants reporting a CRC symptom in primary care at age ≥ 40 years.
• The novel method, called an integrated risk model, used a combination of a polygenic risk score from genetic testing, symptoms, and patient characteristics to identify patients likely to develop CRC in the next 2 years.
• The primary outcome was the risk model’s performance in classifying a CRC case according to a statistical metric, the receiver operating characteristic area under the curve. Values range from 0 to 1, where 1 indicates perfect discriminative power and 0.5 indicates no discriminative power.

TAKEAWAY:

• The cohort of 50,387 participants was found to have 438 cases of CRC and 49,949 controls without CRC within 2 years of symptom reporting. CRC cases were diagnosed by hospital records, cancer registries, or death records.
• Increased risk of a CRC diagnosis was identified by a combination of six variables: older age at index date of symptom, higher polygenic risk score, which included 201 variants, male sex, previous smoking, rectal bleeding, and change in bowel habit.
• The polygenic risk score alone had good ability to distinguish cases from controls because 1.45% of participants in the highest quintile and 0.42% in the lowest quintile were later diagnosed with CRC.
• The variables were used to calculate an integrated risk model, which estimated the cross-sectional risk (in 80% of the final cohort) of a subsequent CRC diagnosis within 2 years. The highest scoring integrated risk model in this study was found to have a receiver operating characteristic area under the curve value of 0.76 with a 95% CI of 0.71-0.81. (A value of this magnitude indicates moderate discriminative ability to distinguish cases from controls because it falls between 0.7 and 0.8. A higher value [above 0.8] is considered strong and a lower value [< 0.7] is considered weak.)

IN PRACTICE:

The authors concluded, “The [integrated risk model] developed in this study predicts, with good accuracy, which patients presenting with CRC symptoms in a primary care setting are likely to be diagnosed with CRC within the next 2 years.”

The integrated risk model has “potential to be immediately actionable in the clinical setting … [by] inform[ing] patient triage, improving early diagnostic rates and health outcomes and reducing pressure on diagnostic secondary care services.”

SOURCE:

The corresponding author is Harry D. Green of the University of Exeter, England. The study (2024 Aug 1. doi: 10.1038/s41431-024-01654-3) appeared in the European Journal of Human Genetics.

LIMITATIONS:

Limitations included an observational design and the inability of the integrated risk model to outperform FIT, which has a receiver operating characteristic area under the curve of 0.95.

DISCLOSURES:

None of the authors reported competing interests. The funding sources included the National Institute for Health and Care Research and others.

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

TOPLINE:

A novel method combining genetic variants, symptoms, and patient characteristics is moderately successful at predicting which primary care patients are at high risk of developing colorectal cancer (CRC) within the next 2 years — without the benefit of a faecal immunochemical test (FIT). Up to 16% of primary care patients are non-compliant with FIT, which is the gold standard for predicting CRC.

METHODOLOGY:

• This study was retrospective cohort of 50,387 UK Biobank participants reporting a CRC symptom in primary care at age ≥ 40 years.
• The novel method, called an integrated risk model, used a combination of a polygenic risk score from genetic testing, symptoms, and patient characteristics to identify patients likely to develop CRC in the next 2 years.
• The primary outcome was the risk model’s performance in classifying a CRC case according to a statistical metric, the receiver operating characteristic area under the curve. Values range from 0 to 1, where 1 indicates perfect discriminative power and 0.5 indicates no discriminative power.

TAKEAWAY:

• The cohort of 50,387 participants was found to have 438 cases of CRC and 49,949 controls without CRC within 2 years of symptom reporting. CRC cases were diagnosed by hospital records, cancer registries, or death records.
• Increased risk of a CRC diagnosis was identified by a combination of six variables: older age at index date of symptom, higher polygenic risk score, which included 201 variants, male sex, previous smoking, rectal bleeding, and change in bowel habit.
• The polygenic risk score alone had good ability to distinguish cases from controls because 1.45% of participants in the highest quintile and 0.42% in the lowest quintile were later diagnosed with CRC.
• The variables were used to calculate an integrated risk model, which estimated the cross-sectional risk (in 80% of the final cohort) of a subsequent CRC diagnosis within 2 years. The highest scoring integrated risk model in this study was found to have a receiver operating characteristic area under the curve value of 0.76 with a 95% CI of 0.71-0.81. (A value of this magnitude indicates moderate discriminative ability to distinguish cases from controls because it falls between 0.7 and 0.8. A higher value [above 0.8] is considered strong and a lower value [< 0.7] is considered weak.)

IN PRACTICE:

The authors concluded, “The [integrated risk model] developed in this study predicts, with good accuracy, which patients presenting with CRC symptoms in a primary care setting are likely to be diagnosed with CRC within the next 2 years.”

The integrated risk model has “potential to be immediately actionable in the clinical setting … [by] inform[ing] patient triage, improving early diagnostic rates and health outcomes and reducing pressure on diagnostic secondary care services.”

SOURCE:

The corresponding author is Harry D. Green of the University of Exeter, England. The study (2024 Aug 1. doi: 10.1038/s41431-024-01654-3) appeared in the European Journal of Human Genetics.

LIMITATIONS:

Limitations included an observational design and the inability of the integrated risk model to outperform FIT, which has a receiver operating characteristic area under the curve of 0.95.

DISCLOSURES:

None of the authors reported competing interests. The funding sources included the National Institute for Health and Care Research and others.

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

TOPLINE:

A novel method combining genetic variants, symptoms, and patient characteristics is moderately successful at predicting which primary care patients are at high risk of developing colorectal cancer (CRC) within the next 2 years — without the benefit of a faecal immunochemical test (FIT). Up to 16% of primary care patients are non-compliant with FIT, which is the gold standard for predicting CRC.

METHODOLOGY:

• This study was retrospective cohort of 50,387 UK Biobank participants reporting a CRC symptom in primary care at age ≥ 40 years.
• The novel method, called an integrated risk model, used a combination of a polygenic risk score from genetic testing, symptoms, and patient characteristics to identify patients likely to develop CRC in the next 2 years.
• The primary outcome was the risk model’s performance in classifying a CRC case according to a statistical metric, the receiver operating characteristic area under the curve. Values range from 0 to 1, where 1 indicates perfect discriminative power and 0.5 indicates no discriminative power.

TAKEAWAY:

• The cohort of 50,387 participants was found to have 438 cases of CRC and 49,949 controls without CRC within 2 years of symptom reporting. CRC cases were diagnosed by hospital records, cancer registries, or death records.
• Increased risk of a CRC diagnosis was identified by a combination of six variables: older age at index date of symptom, higher polygenic risk score, which included 201 variants, male sex, previous smoking, rectal bleeding, and change in bowel habit.
• The polygenic risk score alone had good ability to distinguish cases from controls because 1.45% of participants in the highest quintile and 0.42% in the lowest quintile were later diagnosed with CRC.
• The variables were used to calculate an integrated risk model, which estimated the cross-sectional risk (in 80% of the final cohort) of a subsequent CRC diagnosis within 2 years. The highest scoring integrated risk model in this study was found to have a receiver operating characteristic area under the curve value of 0.76 with a 95% CI of 0.71-0.81. (A value of this magnitude indicates moderate discriminative ability to distinguish cases from controls because it falls between 0.7 and 0.8. A higher value [above 0.8] is considered strong and a lower value [< 0.7] is considered weak.)

IN PRACTICE:

The authors concluded, “The [integrated risk model] developed in this study predicts, with good accuracy, which patients presenting with CRC symptoms in a primary care setting are likely to be diagnosed with CRC within the next 2 years.”

The integrated risk model has “potential to be immediately actionable in the clinical setting … [by] inform[ing] patient triage, improving early diagnostic rates and health outcomes and reducing pressure on diagnostic secondary care services.”

SOURCE:

The corresponding author is Harry D. Green of the University of Exeter, England. The study (2024 Aug 1. doi: 10.1038/s41431-024-01654-3) appeared in the European Journal of Human Genetics.

LIMITATIONS:

Limitations included an observational design and the inability of the integrated risk model to outperform FIT, which has a receiver operating characteristic area under the curve of 0.95.

DISCLOSURES:

None of the authors reported competing interests. The funding sources included the National Institute for Health and Care Research and others.

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

TOPLINE:

Patients with pure mucinous breast cancer (PMBC) show superior recurrence-free interval (RFI), recurrence-free survival (RFS), and overall survival (OS), compared with patients with invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC) and invasive lobular carcinoma (ILC). Patients with PMBC had a 5-year RFI of 96.1%, RFS of 94.9%, and OS of 98.1%.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers analyzed data from 23,102 women diagnosed with hormone receptor–positive HER2-negative stage I-III breast cancer, including 20,684 with IDC, 1475 with ILC, and 943 with PMBC.
• The multicenter cohort study included patients who underwent primary breast surgery at six academic institutions in Singapore, Taiwan, Korea, and Japan between January 2000 and December 2015.
• Current National Comprehensive Cancer Network Clinical Practice Guidelines “recommend consideration of adjuvant chemotherapy only for node-positive tumors,” whereas adjuvant endocrine therapy is recommended for estrogen receptor–positive and/or progesterone receptor–positive, node-positive tumors or tumors ≥ 3 cm. Previous studies have reported no significant association between adjuvant chemotherapy and breast cancer–specific survival or OS in patients with early-stage mucinous breast carcinoma.
• The study aimed to compare the recurrence and survival outcomes of PMBC against IDC and ILC, identify clinicopathologic prognostic factors of PMBC, and explore the association of adjuvant systemic therapy with outcomes across subgroups of PMBC.
• Extracted information included patient demographics, tumor characteristics, treatment administered, and staging according to the AJCC TNM classifications.

TAKEAWAY:

• Patients with PMBC had better RFI (hazard ratio [HR], 0.59; 95% CI, 0.43-0.80), RFS (HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.56-0.89), and OS (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.53-0.96) than patients with IDC in multivariable Cox regression analyses.
• Fewer than half (48.7%) of the recurrences in patients with PMBC were distant, which was a lower rate than for patients with IDC (67.3%) and ILC (80.6%).
• Significant prognostic factors for RFI in PMBC included positive lymph node(s) (HR, 2.42; 95% CI, 1.08-5.40), radiotherapy (HR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.23-0.85), and endocrine therapy (HR, 0.25; 95% CI, 0.09-0.70).
• No differential chemotherapy associations with outcomes were detected across PMBC subgroups by nodal stage, tumor size, and age.

IN PRACTICE:

“This international multicenter cohort study on PMBC evaluated one of the largest contemporary real-world datasets for clinical prognostic factors, which also includes valuable data on relapse events, associations of adjuvant systemic therapy, and a comparison with the SEER database,” wrote the authors of the study. “In our cohort, as anticipated, PMBC showed superior RFI, RFS, and OS compared with IDC and ILC, which both had comparatively similar survival outcomes.”

SOURCE:

Corresponding author, Yoon-Sim Yap, MBBS, PhD, of the National Cancer Centre Singapore in Singapore, designed the study. The paper was published online on May 14 in the Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network.

LIMITATIONS:

The retrospective nature over a long period and lack of a central pathology review in this study are among its limitations. The high extent of missing values for tumor grade in PMBC in the multicenter cohort could impact the identified prognostic factors. The study’s findings may not be generalizable to all populations due to the specific geographic locations of the participating institutions.

DISCLOSURES:

Study author Yeon Hee Park, MD, PhD, disclosed serving on a data safety monitoring board and on an advisory board for AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Roche, Menarini, Novartis, and Daiichi Sankyo and serving as a consultant for AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Eli Lilly and Company, Gilead Sciences, Merck, Eisai, Roche, Daiichi Sankyo, Menarini, Everest Pharmaceuticals, and Novartis. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Patients with pure mucinous breast cancer (PMBC) show superior recurrence-free interval (RFI), recurrence-free survival (RFS), and overall survival (OS), compared with patients with invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC) and invasive lobular carcinoma (ILC). Patients with PMBC had a 5-year RFI of 96.1%, RFS of 94.9%, and OS of 98.1%.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers analyzed data from 23,102 women diagnosed with hormone receptor–positive HER2-negative stage I-III breast cancer, including 20,684 with IDC, 1475 with ILC, and 943 with PMBC.
• The multicenter cohort study included patients who underwent primary breast surgery at six academic institutions in Singapore, Taiwan, Korea, and Japan between January 2000 and December 2015.
• Current National Comprehensive Cancer Network Clinical Practice Guidelines “recommend consideration of adjuvant chemotherapy only for node-positive tumors,” whereas adjuvant endocrine therapy is recommended for estrogen receptor–positive and/or progesterone receptor–positive, node-positive tumors or tumors ≥ 3 cm. Previous studies have reported no significant association between adjuvant chemotherapy and breast cancer–specific survival or OS in patients with early-stage mucinous breast carcinoma.
• The study aimed to compare the recurrence and survival outcomes of PMBC against IDC and ILC, identify clinicopathologic prognostic factors of PMBC, and explore the association of adjuvant systemic therapy with outcomes across subgroups of PMBC.
• Extracted information included patient demographics, tumor characteristics, treatment administered, and staging according to the AJCC TNM classifications.

TAKEAWAY:

• Patients with PMBC had better RFI (hazard ratio [HR], 0.59; 95% CI, 0.43-0.80), RFS (HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.56-0.89), and OS (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.53-0.96) than patients with IDC in multivariable Cox regression analyses.
• Fewer than half (48.7%) of the recurrences in patients with PMBC were distant, which was a lower rate than for patients with IDC (67.3%) and ILC (80.6%).
• Significant prognostic factors for RFI in PMBC included positive lymph node(s) (HR, 2.42; 95% CI, 1.08-5.40), radiotherapy (HR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.23-0.85), and endocrine therapy (HR, 0.25; 95% CI, 0.09-0.70).
• No differential chemotherapy associations with outcomes were detected across PMBC subgroups by nodal stage, tumor size, and age.

IN PRACTICE:

“This international multicenter cohort study on PMBC evaluated one of the largest contemporary real-world datasets for clinical prognostic factors, which also includes valuable data on relapse events, associations of adjuvant systemic therapy, and a comparison with the SEER database,” wrote the authors of the study. “In our cohort, as anticipated, PMBC showed superior RFI, RFS, and OS compared with IDC and ILC, which both had comparatively similar survival outcomes.”

SOURCE:

Corresponding author, Yoon-Sim Yap, MBBS, PhD, of the National Cancer Centre Singapore in Singapore, designed the study. The paper was published online on May 14 in the Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network.

LIMITATIONS:

The retrospective nature over a long period and lack of a central pathology review in this study are among its limitations. The high extent of missing values for tumor grade in PMBC in the multicenter cohort could impact the identified prognostic factors. The study’s findings may not be generalizable to all populations due to the specific geographic locations of the participating institutions.

DISCLOSURES:

Study author Yeon Hee Park, MD, PhD, disclosed serving on a data safety monitoring board and on an advisory board for AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Roche, Menarini, Novartis, and Daiichi Sankyo and serving as a consultant for AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Eli Lilly and Company, Gilead Sciences, Merck, Eisai, Roche, Daiichi Sankyo, Menarini, Everest Pharmaceuticals, and Novartis. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Patients with pure mucinous breast cancer (PMBC) show superior recurrence-free interval (RFI), recurrence-free survival (RFS), and overall survival (OS), compared with patients with invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC) and invasive lobular carcinoma (ILC). Patients with PMBC had a 5-year RFI of 96.1%, RFS of 94.9%, and OS of 98.1%.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers analyzed data from 23,102 women diagnosed with hormone receptor–positive HER2-negative stage I-III breast cancer, including 20,684 with IDC, 1475 with ILC, and 943 with PMBC.
• The multicenter cohort study included patients who underwent primary breast surgery at six academic institutions in Singapore, Taiwan, Korea, and Japan between January 2000 and December 2015.
• Current National Comprehensive Cancer Network Clinical Practice Guidelines “recommend consideration of adjuvant chemotherapy only for node-positive tumors,” whereas adjuvant endocrine therapy is recommended for estrogen receptor–positive and/or progesterone receptor–positive, node-positive tumors or tumors ≥ 3 cm. Previous studies have reported no significant association between adjuvant chemotherapy and breast cancer–specific survival or OS in patients with early-stage mucinous breast carcinoma.
• The study aimed to compare the recurrence and survival outcomes of PMBC against IDC and ILC, identify clinicopathologic prognostic factors of PMBC, and explore the association of adjuvant systemic therapy with outcomes across subgroups of PMBC.
• Extracted information included patient demographics, tumor characteristics, treatment administered, and staging according to the AJCC TNM classifications.

TAKEAWAY:

• Patients with PMBC had better RFI (hazard ratio [HR], 0.59; 95% CI, 0.43-0.80), RFS (HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.56-0.89), and OS (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.53-0.96) than patients with IDC in multivariable Cox regression analyses.
• Fewer than half (48.7%) of the recurrences in patients with PMBC were distant, which was a lower rate than for patients with IDC (67.3%) and ILC (80.6%).
• Significant prognostic factors for RFI in PMBC included positive lymph node(s) (HR, 2.42; 95% CI, 1.08-5.40), radiotherapy (HR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.23-0.85), and endocrine therapy (HR, 0.25; 95% CI, 0.09-0.70).
• No differential chemotherapy associations with outcomes were detected across PMBC subgroups by nodal stage, tumor size, and age.

IN PRACTICE:

“This international multicenter cohort study on PMBC evaluated one of the largest contemporary real-world datasets for clinical prognostic factors, which also includes valuable data on relapse events, associations of adjuvant systemic therapy, and a comparison with the SEER database,” wrote the authors of the study. “In our cohort, as anticipated, PMBC showed superior RFI, RFS, and OS compared with IDC and ILC, which both had comparatively similar survival outcomes.”

SOURCE:

Corresponding author, Yoon-Sim Yap, MBBS, PhD, of the National Cancer Centre Singapore in Singapore, designed the study. The paper was published online on May 14 in the Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network.

LIMITATIONS:

The retrospective nature over a long period and lack of a central pathology review in this study are among its limitations. The high extent of missing values for tumor grade in PMBC in the multicenter cohort could impact the identified prognostic factors. The study’s findings may not be generalizable to all populations due to the specific geographic locations of the participating institutions.

DISCLOSURES:

Study author Yeon Hee Park, MD, PhD, disclosed serving on a data safety monitoring board and on an advisory board for AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Roche, Menarini, Novartis, and Daiichi Sankyo and serving as a consultant for AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Eli Lilly and Company, Gilead Sciences, Merck, Eisai, Roche, Daiichi Sankyo, Menarini, Everest Pharmaceuticals, and Novartis. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Among patients with overweight or obesity, frontline immunotherapy for advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) was not associated with a survival benefit compared with conventional chemotherapy. Overall, however, compared with low body mass index (BMI), overweight or obesity was associated with a lower risk for mortality among patients receiving either therapy.

METHODOLOGY:

• The association between BMI and overall survival in patients with cancer who receive immunotherapy or conventional chemotherapy in the frontline remains unclear. Patients with cancer and obesity are generally considered to have a worse prognosis, but some data suggest an obesity paradox, where patients with cancer and a higher BMI demonstrate better overall survival following immunotherapy or chemotherapy.
• To clarify whether (or how) BMI affects overall survival outcomes and the optimal frontline treatment choice, researchers evaluated 31,257 patients with advanced NSCLC from Japan who received immune checkpoint inhibitors (n = 12,816) or conventional chemotherapy (n = 18,441).
• Patient outcomes were assessed according to weight categories and frontline therapy type (immune checkpoint inhibitors or conventional chemotherapy), with overall survival as the primary outcome.
• A BMI < 18.5 was considered underweight, 18.5-24.9 was considered normal weight, 25.0-29.9 was considered overweight, and ≥ 30.0 was considered obese.

TAKEAWAY:

• In the overall population, regardless of weight, patients who received chemotherapy had a higher mortality rate than those who received immunotherapy — 35.9% vs 28.0%, respectively — over a follow-up of 3 years.
• However, overweight or obesity was associated with a lower risk for mortality compared with a lower BMI among patients with advanced NSCLC, regardless of whether they received immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy or conventional chemotherapy.
• Among patients who received immunotherapy, the risk for mortality decreased steadily as BMI increased from 15 to 24 and then increased at higher BMIs, indicating a U-shaped association.
• Immunotherapy was associated with a significant improvement in overall survival compared with conventional chemotherapy among patients with a BMI < 28; however, researchers observed no difference in overall survival between the two therapies in those with a BMI ≥ 28.

IN PRACTICE:

Overall, “these results support the presence of the obesity paradox in patients with [advanced] NSCLC who underwent either therapy,” the authors concluded.

But when focused on patients in the higher BMI group, there was no overall survival benefit with the frontline immunotherapy vs the conventional chemotherapy. “Immunotherapy therapy may not necessarily be the optimal first-line therapy for patients with overweight or obesity,” the authors wrote, adding that “the use of conventional chemotherapy should also be considered.”

SOURCE:

The study, led by Yasutaka Ihara, PharmD, Osaka Metropolitan University, Osaka, Japan, was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS: 

Retrospective design has inherent bias. PD-L1 status was not known, and the inclusion of Japanese population may have limited the generalizability of the findings. 

DISCLOSURES:

This study received funding from the Graduate School of Medicine, Osaka Metropolitan University. Several authors reported receiving personal fees from various pharmaceutical sources.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

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

TOPLINE:

Among patients with overweight or obesity, frontline immunotherapy for advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) was not associated with a survival benefit compared with conventional chemotherapy. Overall, however, compared with low body mass index (BMI), overweight or obesity was associated with a lower risk for mortality among patients receiving either therapy.

METHODOLOGY:

• The association between BMI and overall survival in patients with cancer who receive immunotherapy or conventional chemotherapy in the frontline remains unclear. Patients with cancer and obesity are generally considered to have a worse prognosis, but some data suggest an obesity paradox, where patients with cancer and a higher BMI demonstrate better overall survival following immunotherapy or chemotherapy.
• To clarify whether (or how) BMI affects overall survival outcomes and the optimal frontline treatment choice, researchers evaluated 31,257 patients with advanced NSCLC from Japan who received immune checkpoint inhibitors (n = 12,816) or conventional chemotherapy (n = 18,441).
• Patient outcomes were assessed according to weight categories and frontline therapy type (immune checkpoint inhibitors or conventional chemotherapy), with overall survival as the primary outcome.
• A BMI < 18.5 was considered underweight, 18.5-24.9 was considered normal weight, 25.0-29.9 was considered overweight, and ≥ 30.0 was considered obese.

TAKEAWAY:

• In the overall population, regardless of weight, patients who received chemotherapy had a higher mortality rate than those who received immunotherapy — 35.9% vs 28.0%, respectively — over a follow-up of 3 years.
• However, overweight or obesity was associated with a lower risk for mortality compared with a lower BMI among patients with advanced NSCLC, regardless of whether they received immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy or conventional chemotherapy.
• Among patients who received immunotherapy, the risk for mortality decreased steadily as BMI increased from 15 to 24 and then increased at higher BMIs, indicating a U-shaped association.
• Immunotherapy was associated with a significant improvement in overall survival compared with conventional chemotherapy among patients with a BMI < 28; however, researchers observed no difference in overall survival between the two therapies in those with a BMI ≥ 28.

IN PRACTICE:

Overall, “these results support the presence of the obesity paradox in patients with [advanced] NSCLC who underwent either therapy,” the authors concluded.

But when focused on patients in the higher BMI group, there was no overall survival benefit with the frontline immunotherapy vs the conventional chemotherapy. “Immunotherapy therapy may not necessarily be the optimal first-line therapy for patients with overweight or obesity,” the authors wrote, adding that “the use of conventional chemotherapy should also be considered.”

SOURCE:

The study, led by Yasutaka Ihara, PharmD, Osaka Metropolitan University, Osaka, Japan, was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS: 

Retrospective design has inherent bias. PD-L1 status was not known, and the inclusion of Japanese population may have limited the generalizability of the findings. 

DISCLOSURES:

This study received funding from the Graduate School of Medicine, Osaka Metropolitan University. Several authors reported receiving personal fees from various pharmaceutical sources.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

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

TOPLINE:

Among patients with overweight or obesity, frontline immunotherapy for advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) was not associated with a survival benefit compared with conventional chemotherapy. Overall, however, compared with low body mass index (BMI), overweight or obesity was associated with a lower risk for mortality among patients receiving either therapy.

METHODOLOGY:

• The association between BMI and overall survival in patients with cancer who receive immunotherapy or conventional chemotherapy in the frontline remains unclear. Patients with cancer and obesity are generally considered to have a worse prognosis, but some data suggest an obesity paradox, where patients with cancer and a higher BMI demonstrate better overall survival following immunotherapy or chemotherapy.
• To clarify whether (or how) BMI affects overall survival outcomes and the optimal frontline treatment choice, researchers evaluated 31,257 patients with advanced NSCLC from Japan who received immune checkpoint inhibitors (n = 12,816) or conventional chemotherapy (n = 18,441).
• Patient outcomes were assessed according to weight categories and frontline therapy type (immune checkpoint inhibitors or conventional chemotherapy), with overall survival as the primary outcome.
• A BMI < 18.5 was considered underweight, 18.5-24.9 was considered normal weight, 25.0-29.9 was considered overweight, and ≥ 30.0 was considered obese.

TAKEAWAY:

• In the overall population, regardless of weight, patients who received chemotherapy had a higher mortality rate than those who received immunotherapy — 35.9% vs 28.0%, respectively — over a follow-up of 3 years.
• However, overweight or obesity was associated with a lower risk for mortality compared with a lower BMI among patients with advanced NSCLC, regardless of whether they received immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy or conventional chemotherapy.
• Among patients who received immunotherapy, the risk for mortality decreased steadily as BMI increased from 15 to 24 and then increased at higher BMIs, indicating a U-shaped association.
• Immunotherapy was associated with a significant improvement in overall survival compared with conventional chemotherapy among patients with a BMI < 28; however, researchers observed no difference in overall survival between the two therapies in those with a BMI ≥ 28.

IN PRACTICE:

Overall, “these results support the presence of the obesity paradox in patients with [advanced] NSCLC who underwent either therapy,” the authors concluded.

But when focused on patients in the higher BMI group, there was no overall survival benefit with the frontline immunotherapy vs the conventional chemotherapy. “Immunotherapy therapy may not necessarily be the optimal first-line therapy for patients with overweight or obesity,” the authors wrote, adding that “the use of conventional chemotherapy should also be considered.”

SOURCE:

The study, led by Yasutaka Ihara, PharmD, Osaka Metropolitan University, Osaka, Japan, was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS: 

Retrospective design has inherent bias. PD-L1 status was not known, and the inclusion of Japanese population may have limited the generalizability of the findings. 

DISCLOSURES:

This study received funding from the Graduate School of Medicine, Osaka Metropolitan University. Several authors reported receiving personal fees from various pharmaceutical sources.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved denileukin diftitox-cxdl (Lymphir, Citius Pharmaceuticals) for adults with relapsed or refractory stage 1-3 cutaneous T-cell lymphoma after at least one prior systemic therapy.

The immunotherapy is a reformulation of denileukin diftitox (Ontak), initially approved in 1999 for certain patients with persistent or recurrent cutaneous T-cell lymphoma. In 2014, the original formulation was voluntarily withdrawn from the US market. Citius acquired rights to market a reformulated product outside of Asia in 2021. 

This is the first indication for Lymphir, which targets interleukin-2 receptors on malignant T cells.

This approval marks “a significant milestone” for patients with cutaneous T-cell lymphoma, a rare cancer, company CEO Leonard Mazur said in a press release announcing the approval. “The introduction of Lymphir, with its potential to rapidly reduce skin disease and control symptomatic itching without cumulative toxicity, is expected to expand the [cutaneous T-cell lymphoma] treatment landscape and grow the overall market, currently estimated to be $300-$400 million.” 

Approval was based on the single-arm, open-label 302 study in 69 patients who had a median of four prior anticancer therapies. Patients received 9 mcg/kg daily from day 1 to day 5 of 21-day cycles until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

The objective response rate was 36.2%, including complete responses in 8.7% of patients. Responses lasted 6 months or longer in 52% of patients. Over 80% of subjects had a decrease in skin tumor burden, and almost a third had clinically significant improvements in pruritus. 

Adverse events occurring in 20% or more of patients include increased transaminases, decreased albumin, decreased hemoglobin, nausea, edema, fatigue, musculoskeletal pain, rash, chills, constipation, pyrexia, and capillary leak syndrome.

Labeling carries a boxed warning of capillary leak syndrome. Other warnings include visual impairment, infusion reactions, hepatotoxicity, and embryo-fetal toxicity. Citius is under a postmarketing requirement to characterize the risk for visual impairment.

The company expects to launch the agent within 5 months.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved denileukin diftitox-cxdl (Lymphir, Citius Pharmaceuticals) for adults with relapsed or refractory stage 1-3 cutaneous T-cell lymphoma after at least one prior systemic therapy.

The immunotherapy is a reformulation of denileukin diftitox (Ontak), initially approved in 1999 for certain patients with persistent or recurrent cutaneous T-cell lymphoma. In 2014, the original formulation was voluntarily withdrawn from the US market. Citius acquired rights to market a reformulated product outside of Asia in 2021. 

This is the first indication for Lymphir, which targets interleukin-2 receptors on malignant T cells.

This approval marks “a significant milestone” for patients with cutaneous T-cell lymphoma, a rare cancer, company CEO Leonard Mazur said in a press release announcing the approval. “The introduction of Lymphir, with its potential to rapidly reduce skin disease and control symptomatic itching without cumulative toxicity, is expected to expand the [cutaneous T-cell lymphoma] treatment landscape and grow the overall market, currently estimated to be $300-$400 million.” 

Approval was based on the single-arm, open-label 302 study in 69 patients who had a median of four prior anticancer therapies. Patients received 9 mcg/kg daily from day 1 to day 5 of 21-day cycles until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

The objective response rate was 36.2%, including complete responses in 8.7% of patients. Responses lasted 6 months or longer in 52% of patients. Over 80% of subjects had a decrease in skin tumor burden, and almost a third had clinically significant improvements in pruritus. 

Adverse events occurring in 20% or more of patients include increased transaminases, decreased albumin, decreased hemoglobin, nausea, edema, fatigue, musculoskeletal pain, rash, chills, constipation, pyrexia, and capillary leak syndrome.

Labeling carries a boxed warning of capillary leak syndrome. Other warnings include visual impairment, infusion reactions, hepatotoxicity, and embryo-fetal toxicity. Citius is under a postmarketing requirement to characterize the risk for visual impairment.

The company expects to launch the agent within 5 months.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved denileukin diftitox-cxdl (Lymphir, Citius Pharmaceuticals) for adults with relapsed or refractory stage 1-3 cutaneous T-cell lymphoma after at least one prior systemic therapy.

The immunotherapy is a reformulation of denileukin diftitox (Ontak), initially approved in 1999 for certain patients with persistent or recurrent cutaneous T-cell lymphoma. In 2014, the original formulation was voluntarily withdrawn from the US market. Citius acquired rights to market a reformulated product outside of Asia in 2021. 

This is the first indication for Lymphir, which targets interleukin-2 receptors on malignant T cells.

This approval marks “a significant milestone” for patients with cutaneous T-cell lymphoma, a rare cancer, company CEO Leonard Mazur said in a press release announcing the approval. “The introduction of Lymphir, with its potential to rapidly reduce skin disease and control symptomatic itching without cumulative toxicity, is expected to expand the [cutaneous T-cell lymphoma] treatment landscape and grow the overall market, currently estimated to be $300-$400 million.” 

Approval was based on the single-arm, open-label 302 study in 69 patients who had a median of four prior anticancer therapies. Patients received 9 mcg/kg daily from day 1 to day 5 of 21-day cycles until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

The objective response rate was 36.2%, including complete responses in 8.7% of patients. Responses lasted 6 months or longer in 52% of patients. Over 80% of subjects had a decrease in skin tumor burden, and almost a third had clinically significant improvements in pruritus. 

Adverse events occurring in 20% or more of patients include increased transaminases, decreased albumin, decreased hemoglobin, nausea, edema, fatigue, musculoskeletal pain, rash, chills, constipation, pyrexia, and capillary leak syndrome.

Labeling carries a boxed warning of capillary leak syndrome. Other warnings include visual impairment, infusion reactions, hepatotoxicity, and embryo-fetal toxicity. Citius is under a postmarketing requirement to characterize the risk for visual impairment.

The company expects to launch the agent within 5 months.

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

Chemotherapy has fallen out of favor for treating cancer toward the end of life. The toxicity is too high, and the benefit, if any, is often too low.

Immunotherapy, however, has been taking its place. Checkpoint inhibitors are increasingly being initiated to treat metastatic cancer in patients approaching the end of life and have become the leading driver of end-of-life cancer spending.

This means “there are patients who are getting immunotherapy who shouldn’t,” said Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, surgical oncologist Sajid Khan, MD, senior investigator on a recent study that highlighted the growing use of these agents in patients’ last month of life.

What’s driving this trend, and how can oncologists avoid overtreatment with immunotherapy at the end of life?
 

The N-of-1 Patient

With immunotherapy at the end of life, “each of us has had our N-of-1” where a patient bounces back with a remarkable and durable response, said Don Dizon, MD, a gynecologic oncologist at Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island.

He recalled a patient with sarcoma who did not respond to chemotherapy. But after Dr. Dizon started her on immunotherapy, everything turned around. She has now been in remission for 8 years and counting.

The possibility of an unexpected or remarkable responder is seductive. And the improved safety of immunotherapy over chemotherapy adds to the allure.

Meanwhile, patients are often desperate. It’s rare for someone to be ready to stop treatment, Dr. Dizon said. Everybody “hopes that they’re going to be the exceptional responder.”

At the end of the day, the question often becomes: “Why not try immunotherapy? What’s there to lose?”

This thinking may be prompting broader use of immunotherapy in late-stage disease, even in instances with no Food and Drug Administration indication and virtually no supportive data, such as for metastatic ovarian cancer, Dr. Dizon said.
 

Back to Earth

The problem with the hopeful approach is that end-of-life turnarounds with immunotherapy are rare, and there’s no way at the moment to predict who will have one, said Laura Petrillo, MD, a palliative care physician at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

Even though immunotherapy generally comes with fewer adverse events than chemotherapy, catastrophic side effects are still possible.

Dr. Petrillo recalled a 95-year-old woman with metastatic cancer who was largely asymptomatic.

She had a qualifying mutation for a checkpoint inhibitor, so her oncologist started her on one. The patient never bounced back from the severe colitis the agent caused, and she died of complications in the hospital.

Although such reactions with immunotherapy are uncommon, less serious problems caused by the agents can still have a major impact on a person’s quality of life. Low-grade diarrhea, for instance, may not sound too bad, but in a patient’s daily life, it can translate to six or more episodes a day.

Even with no side effects, prescribing immunotherapy can mean that patients with limited time left spend a good portion of it at an infusion clinic instead of at home. These patients are also less likely to be referred to hospice and more likely to be admitted to and die in the hospital.

And with treatments that can cost $20,000 per dose, financial toxicity becomes a big concern.

In short, some of the reasons why chemotherapy is not recommended at the end of life also apply to immunotherapy, Dr. Petrillo said.
 

Prescribing Decisions

Recent research highlights the growing use of immunotherapy at the end of life.

Dr. Khan’s retrospective study found, for instance, that the percentage of patients starting immunotherapy in the last 30 days of life increased by about fourfold to fivefold over the study period for the three cancers analyzed — stage IV melanoma, lung, and kidney cancers.

Among the population that died within 30 days, the percentage receiving immunotherapy increased over the study periods — 0.8%-4.3% for melanoma, 0.9%-3.2% for NSCLC, and 0.5%-2.6% for kidney cell carcinoma — prompting the conclusion that immunotherapy prescriptions in the last month of life are on the rise.

Prescribing immunotherapy in patients who ultimately died within 1 month occurred more frequently at low-volume, nonacademic centers than at academic or high-volume centers, and outcomes varied by practice setting.

Patients had better survival outcomes overall when receiving immunotherapy at academic or high-volume centers — a finding Dr. Khan said is worth investigating further. Possible explanations include better management of severe immune-related side effects at larger centers and more caution when prescribing immunotherapy to “borderline” candidates, such as those with several comorbidities.

Importantly, given the retrospective design, Dr. Khan and colleagues already knew which patients prescribed immunotherapy died within 30 days of initiating treatment.

More specifically, 5192 of 71,204 patients who received immunotherapy (7.3%) died within a month of initiating therapy, while 66,012 (92.7%) lived beyond that point.

The study, however, did not assess how the remaining 92.7% who lived beyond 30 days fared on immunotherapy and the differences between those who lived less than 30 days and those who survived longer.

Knowing the outcome of patients at the outset of the analysis still leaves open the question of when immunotherapy can extend life and when it can’t for the patient in front of you.

To avoid overtreating at the end of life, it’s important to have “the same standard that you have for giving chemotherapy. You have to treat it with the same respect,” said Moshe Chasky, MD, a community medical oncologist with Alliance Cancer Specialists in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. “You can’t just be throwing” immunotherapy around “at the end of life.”

While there are no clear predictors of risk and benefit, there are some factors to help guide decisions.

As with chemotherapy, Dr. Petrillo said performance status is key. Dr. Petrillo and colleagues found that median overall survival with immune checkpoint inhibitors for advanced non–small cell lung cancer was 14.3 months in patients with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance score of 0-1 but only 4.5 months with scores of ≥ 2.

Dr. Khan also found that immunotherapy survival is, unsurprisingly, worse in patients with high metastatic burdens and more comorbidities.

“You should still consider immunotherapy for metastatic melanoma, non–small cell lung cancer, and renal cell carcinoma,” Dr. Khan said. The message here is to “think twice before using” it, especially in comorbid patients with widespread metastases.

“Just because something can be done doesn’t always mean it should be done,” he said.

At Yale, when Dr. Khan works, immunotherapy decisions are considered by a multidisciplinary tumor board. At Mass General, immunotherapy has generally moved to the frontline setting, and the hospital no longer prescribes checkpoint inhibitors to hospitalized patients because the cost is too high relative to the potential benefit, Dr. Petrillo explained.

Still, with all the uncertainties about risk and benefit, counseling patients is a challenge. Dr. Dizon called it “the epitome of shared decision-making.”

Dr. Petrillo noted that it’s critical not to counsel patients based solely on the anecdotal patients who do surprisingly well.

“It’s hard to mention that and not have that be what somebody anchors on,” she said. But that speaks to “how desperate people can feel, how hopeful they can be.”

Dr. Khan, Dr. Petrillo, and Dr. Chasky all reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

Chemotherapy has fallen out of favor for treating cancer toward the end of life. The toxicity is too high, and the benefit, if any, is often too low.

Immunotherapy, however, has been taking its place. Checkpoint inhibitors are increasingly being initiated to treat metastatic cancer in patients approaching the end of life and have become the leading driver of end-of-life cancer spending.

This means “there are patients who are getting immunotherapy who shouldn’t,” said Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, surgical oncologist Sajid Khan, MD, senior investigator on a recent study that highlighted the growing use of these agents in patients’ last month of life.

What’s driving this trend, and how can oncologists avoid overtreatment with immunotherapy at the end of life?
 

The N-of-1 Patient

With immunotherapy at the end of life, “each of us has had our N-of-1” where a patient bounces back with a remarkable and durable response, said Don Dizon, MD, a gynecologic oncologist at Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island.

He recalled a patient with sarcoma who did not respond to chemotherapy. But after Dr. Dizon started her on immunotherapy, everything turned around. She has now been in remission for 8 years and counting.

The possibility of an unexpected or remarkable responder is seductive. And the improved safety of immunotherapy over chemotherapy adds to the allure.

Meanwhile, patients are often desperate. It’s rare for someone to be ready to stop treatment, Dr. Dizon said. Everybody “hopes that they’re going to be the exceptional responder.”

At the end of the day, the question often becomes: “Why not try immunotherapy? What’s there to lose?”

This thinking may be prompting broader use of immunotherapy in late-stage disease, even in instances with no Food and Drug Administration indication and virtually no supportive data, such as for metastatic ovarian cancer, Dr. Dizon said.
 

Back to Earth

The problem with the hopeful approach is that end-of-life turnarounds with immunotherapy are rare, and there’s no way at the moment to predict who will have one, said Laura Petrillo, MD, a palliative care physician at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

Even though immunotherapy generally comes with fewer adverse events than chemotherapy, catastrophic side effects are still possible.

Dr. Petrillo recalled a 95-year-old woman with metastatic cancer who was largely asymptomatic.

She had a qualifying mutation for a checkpoint inhibitor, so her oncologist started her on one. The patient never bounced back from the severe colitis the agent caused, and she died of complications in the hospital.

Although such reactions with immunotherapy are uncommon, less serious problems caused by the agents can still have a major impact on a person’s quality of life. Low-grade diarrhea, for instance, may not sound too bad, but in a patient’s daily life, it can translate to six or more episodes a day.

Even with no side effects, prescribing immunotherapy can mean that patients with limited time left spend a good portion of it at an infusion clinic instead of at home. These patients are also less likely to be referred to hospice and more likely to be admitted to and die in the hospital.

And with treatments that can cost $20,000 per dose, financial toxicity becomes a big concern.

In short, some of the reasons why chemotherapy is not recommended at the end of life also apply to immunotherapy, Dr. Petrillo said.
 

Prescribing Decisions

Recent research highlights the growing use of immunotherapy at the end of life.

Dr. Khan’s retrospective study found, for instance, that the percentage of patients starting immunotherapy in the last 30 days of life increased by about fourfold to fivefold over the study period for the three cancers analyzed — stage IV melanoma, lung, and kidney cancers.

Among the population that died within 30 days, the percentage receiving immunotherapy increased over the study periods — 0.8%-4.3% for melanoma, 0.9%-3.2% for NSCLC, and 0.5%-2.6% for kidney cell carcinoma — prompting the conclusion that immunotherapy prescriptions in the last month of life are on the rise.

Prescribing immunotherapy in patients who ultimately died within 1 month occurred more frequently at low-volume, nonacademic centers than at academic or high-volume centers, and outcomes varied by practice setting.

Patients had better survival outcomes overall when receiving immunotherapy at academic or high-volume centers — a finding Dr. Khan said is worth investigating further. Possible explanations include better management of severe immune-related side effects at larger centers and more caution when prescribing immunotherapy to “borderline” candidates, such as those with several comorbidities.

Importantly, given the retrospective design, Dr. Khan and colleagues already knew which patients prescribed immunotherapy died within 30 days of initiating treatment.

More specifically, 5192 of 71,204 patients who received immunotherapy (7.3%) died within a month of initiating therapy, while 66,012 (92.7%) lived beyond that point.

The study, however, did not assess how the remaining 92.7% who lived beyond 30 days fared on immunotherapy and the differences between those who lived less than 30 days and those who survived longer.

Knowing the outcome of patients at the outset of the analysis still leaves open the question of when immunotherapy can extend life and when it can’t for the patient in front of you.

To avoid overtreating at the end of life, it’s important to have “the same standard that you have for giving chemotherapy. You have to treat it with the same respect,” said Moshe Chasky, MD, a community medical oncologist with Alliance Cancer Specialists in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. “You can’t just be throwing” immunotherapy around “at the end of life.”

While there are no clear predictors of risk and benefit, there are some factors to help guide decisions.

As with chemotherapy, Dr. Petrillo said performance status is key. Dr. Petrillo and colleagues found that median overall survival with immune checkpoint inhibitors for advanced non–small cell lung cancer was 14.3 months in patients with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance score of 0-1 but only 4.5 months with scores of ≥ 2.

Dr. Khan also found that immunotherapy survival is, unsurprisingly, worse in patients with high metastatic burdens and more comorbidities.

“You should still consider immunotherapy for metastatic melanoma, non–small cell lung cancer, and renal cell carcinoma,” Dr. Khan said. The message here is to “think twice before using” it, especially in comorbid patients with widespread metastases.

“Just because something can be done doesn’t always mean it should be done,” he said.

At Yale, when Dr. Khan works, immunotherapy decisions are considered by a multidisciplinary tumor board. At Mass General, immunotherapy has generally moved to the frontline setting, and the hospital no longer prescribes checkpoint inhibitors to hospitalized patients because the cost is too high relative to the potential benefit, Dr. Petrillo explained.

Still, with all the uncertainties about risk and benefit, counseling patients is a challenge. Dr. Dizon called it “the epitome of shared decision-making.”

Dr. Petrillo noted that it’s critical not to counsel patients based solely on the anecdotal patients who do surprisingly well.

“It’s hard to mention that and not have that be what somebody anchors on,” she said. But that speaks to “how desperate people can feel, how hopeful they can be.”

Dr. Khan, Dr. Petrillo, and Dr. Chasky all reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

Chemotherapy has fallen out of favor for treating cancer toward the end of life. The toxicity is too high, and the benefit, if any, is often too low.

Immunotherapy, however, has been taking its place. Checkpoint inhibitors are increasingly being initiated to treat metastatic cancer in patients approaching the end of life and have become the leading driver of end-of-life cancer spending.

This means “there are patients who are getting immunotherapy who shouldn’t,” said Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, surgical oncologist Sajid Khan, MD, senior investigator on a recent study that highlighted the growing use of these agents in patients’ last month of life.

What’s driving this trend, and how can oncologists avoid overtreatment with immunotherapy at the end of life?
 

The N-of-1 Patient

With immunotherapy at the end of life, “each of us has had our N-of-1” where a patient bounces back with a remarkable and durable response, said Don Dizon, MD, a gynecologic oncologist at Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island.

He recalled a patient with sarcoma who did not respond to chemotherapy. But after Dr. Dizon started her on immunotherapy, everything turned around. She has now been in remission for 8 years and counting.

The possibility of an unexpected or remarkable responder is seductive. And the improved safety of immunotherapy over chemotherapy adds to the allure.

Meanwhile, patients are often desperate. It’s rare for someone to be ready to stop treatment, Dr. Dizon said. Everybody “hopes that they’re going to be the exceptional responder.”

At the end of the day, the question often becomes: “Why not try immunotherapy? What’s there to lose?”

This thinking may be prompting broader use of immunotherapy in late-stage disease, even in instances with no Food and Drug Administration indication and virtually no supportive data, such as for metastatic ovarian cancer, Dr. Dizon said.
 

Back to Earth

The problem with the hopeful approach is that end-of-life turnarounds with immunotherapy are rare, and there’s no way at the moment to predict who will have one, said Laura Petrillo, MD, a palliative care physician at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

Even though immunotherapy generally comes with fewer adverse events than chemotherapy, catastrophic side effects are still possible.

Dr. Petrillo recalled a 95-year-old woman with metastatic cancer who was largely asymptomatic.

She had a qualifying mutation for a checkpoint inhibitor, so her oncologist started her on one. The patient never bounced back from the severe colitis the agent caused, and she died of complications in the hospital.

Although such reactions with immunotherapy are uncommon, less serious problems caused by the agents can still have a major impact on a person’s quality of life. Low-grade diarrhea, for instance, may not sound too bad, but in a patient’s daily life, it can translate to six or more episodes a day.

Even with no side effects, prescribing immunotherapy can mean that patients with limited time left spend a good portion of it at an infusion clinic instead of at home. These patients are also less likely to be referred to hospice and more likely to be admitted to and die in the hospital.

And with treatments that can cost $20,000 per dose, financial toxicity becomes a big concern.

In short, some of the reasons why chemotherapy is not recommended at the end of life also apply to immunotherapy, Dr. Petrillo said.
 

Prescribing Decisions

Recent research highlights the growing use of immunotherapy at the end of life.

Dr. Khan’s retrospective study found, for instance, that the percentage of patients starting immunotherapy in the last 30 days of life increased by about fourfold to fivefold over the study period for the three cancers analyzed — stage IV melanoma, lung, and kidney cancers.

Among the population that died within 30 days, the percentage receiving immunotherapy increased over the study periods — 0.8%-4.3% for melanoma, 0.9%-3.2% for NSCLC, and 0.5%-2.6% for kidney cell carcinoma — prompting the conclusion that immunotherapy prescriptions in the last month of life are on the rise.

Prescribing immunotherapy in patients who ultimately died within 1 month occurred more frequently at low-volume, nonacademic centers than at academic or high-volume centers, and outcomes varied by practice setting.

Patients had better survival outcomes overall when receiving immunotherapy at academic or high-volume centers — a finding Dr. Khan said is worth investigating further. Possible explanations include better management of severe immune-related side effects at larger centers and more caution when prescribing immunotherapy to “borderline” candidates, such as those with several comorbidities.

Importantly, given the retrospective design, Dr. Khan and colleagues already knew which patients prescribed immunotherapy died within 30 days of initiating treatment.

More specifically, 5192 of 71,204 patients who received immunotherapy (7.3%) died within a month of initiating therapy, while 66,012 (92.7%) lived beyond that point.

The study, however, did not assess how the remaining 92.7% who lived beyond 30 days fared on immunotherapy and the differences between those who lived less than 30 days and those who survived longer.

Knowing the outcome of patients at the outset of the analysis still leaves open the question of when immunotherapy can extend life and when it can’t for the patient in front of you.

To avoid overtreating at the end of life, it’s important to have “the same standard that you have for giving chemotherapy. You have to treat it with the same respect,” said Moshe Chasky, MD, a community medical oncologist with Alliance Cancer Specialists in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. “You can’t just be throwing” immunotherapy around “at the end of life.”

While there are no clear predictors of risk and benefit, there are some factors to help guide decisions.

As with chemotherapy, Dr. Petrillo said performance status is key. Dr. Petrillo and colleagues found that median overall survival with immune checkpoint inhibitors for advanced non–small cell lung cancer was 14.3 months in patients with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance score of 0-1 but only 4.5 months with scores of ≥ 2.

Dr. Khan also found that immunotherapy survival is, unsurprisingly, worse in patients with high metastatic burdens and more comorbidities.

“You should still consider immunotherapy for metastatic melanoma, non–small cell lung cancer, and renal cell carcinoma,” Dr. Khan said. The message here is to “think twice before using” it, especially in comorbid patients with widespread metastases.

“Just because something can be done doesn’t always mean it should be done,” he said.

At Yale, when Dr. Khan works, immunotherapy decisions are considered by a multidisciplinary tumor board. At Mass General, immunotherapy has generally moved to the frontline setting, and the hospital no longer prescribes checkpoint inhibitors to hospitalized patients because the cost is too high relative to the potential benefit, Dr. Petrillo explained.

Still, with all the uncertainties about risk and benefit, counseling patients is a challenge. Dr. Dizon called it “the epitome of shared decision-making.”

Dr. Petrillo noted that it’s critical not to counsel patients based solely on the anecdotal patients who do surprisingly well.

“It’s hard to mention that and not have that be what somebody anchors on,” she said. But that speaks to “how desperate people can feel, how hopeful they can be.”

Dr. Khan, Dr. Petrillo, and Dr. Chasky all reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

TOPLINE:

Breast cancer immunotherapy trials yield modest clinical impact, with a quarter of trials failing to report their outcomes, particularly among single-center studies which are more likely to go unreported, and many phase 2 studies failing to translate into successful phase 3 trials.

METHODOLOGY:

• Few immunotherapy agents — only pembrolizumab in the United States, as of December 2023, and atezolizumab in Europe — have received approvals for use in patients with breast cancer, indicating low returns on the large number of breast cancer immunotherapy trials launched in the early 2010s.
• In this cross-sectional study, researchers evaluated 331 immunotherapy trials, initiated between January 2004 and April 2023, that enrolled 48,844 patients with breast cancer.
• Of these, 47 were phase 1 trials, 242 were phase 2 trials, and 42 were phase 3 trials.
• A trial was considered reported if the results were posted on ClinicalTrial.gov or reported as an abstract or a manuscript.
• Overall, 120 trials met their completion date up to November 2022; of these, 30 (25%) failed to report outcomes, which included two phase 3 trials.

TAKEAWAY:

• Phase 1 trials had the highest rate of nonreporting (31.8%), followed by phase 2 (23.6%) and phase 3 (22.2%) trials.
• Single-center studies were more likely to be unreported than multicenter studies (35.2% vs 15.0%; P = .02).
• Of 90 reported trials, 47 (52.2%) met their primary endpoints and 43 (47.8%) did not.
• The majority, 17 out of 19 (89.5%), of the reported randomized trials had negative results.

IN PRACTICE:

“The findings of this study suggest that the large number of immunotherapy trials being run have yielded modest clinical impact,” the authors wrote. “More selective initiation of phase 2 trials, grounded in preclinical and biomarker observations and with optimal statistical designs for early efficacy assessment, is needed to increase trial efficiency.” 

SOURCE:

The study, led by Marco Mariani, MD, Università Vita-Salute San Raffaele, Milan, Italy, was published online in JAMA Network Open. 

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s reliance on ClinicalTrials.gov as the primary source of trial data might have resulted in some trials being overlooked. In addition, manual data extraction could cause inaccuracies and potentially introduced biases in the interpretation of trial results. Primary study completion date cutoff of December 2022 could have excluded significant data from more recent trials.

DISCLOSURES:

This study received support via Susan Komen Leadership Grant and the Fondazione AIRC per la Ricerca sul Cancro. Several authors reported receiving grants and personal fees and having other ties with various sources.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Breast cancer immunotherapy trials yield modest clinical impact, with a quarter of trials failing to report their outcomes, particularly among single-center studies which are more likely to go unreported, and many phase 2 studies failing to translate into successful phase 3 trials.

METHODOLOGY:

• Few immunotherapy agents — only pembrolizumab in the United States, as of December 2023, and atezolizumab in Europe — have received approvals for use in patients with breast cancer, indicating low returns on the large number of breast cancer immunotherapy trials launched in the early 2010s.
• In this cross-sectional study, researchers evaluated 331 immunotherapy trials, initiated between January 2004 and April 2023, that enrolled 48,844 patients with breast cancer.
• Of these, 47 were phase 1 trials, 242 were phase 2 trials, and 42 were phase 3 trials.
• A trial was considered reported if the results were posted on ClinicalTrial.gov or reported as an abstract or a manuscript.
• Overall, 120 trials met their completion date up to November 2022; of these, 30 (25%) failed to report outcomes, which included two phase 3 trials.

TAKEAWAY:

• Phase 1 trials had the highest rate of nonreporting (31.8%), followed by phase 2 (23.6%) and phase 3 (22.2%) trials.
• Single-center studies were more likely to be unreported than multicenter studies (35.2% vs 15.0%; P = .02).
• Of 90 reported trials, 47 (52.2%) met their primary endpoints and 43 (47.8%) did not.
• The majority, 17 out of 19 (89.5%), of the reported randomized trials had negative results.

IN PRACTICE:

“The findings of this study suggest that the large number of immunotherapy trials being run have yielded modest clinical impact,” the authors wrote. “More selective initiation of phase 2 trials, grounded in preclinical and biomarker observations and with optimal statistical designs for early efficacy assessment, is needed to increase trial efficiency.” 

SOURCE:

The study, led by Marco Mariani, MD, Università Vita-Salute San Raffaele, Milan, Italy, was published online in JAMA Network Open. 

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s reliance on ClinicalTrials.gov as the primary source of trial data might have resulted in some trials being overlooked. In addition, manual data extraction could cause inaccuracies and potentially introduced biases in the interpretation of trial results. Primary study completion date cutoff of December 2022 could have excluded significant data from more recent trials.

DISCLOSURES:

This study received support via Susan Komen Leadership Grant and the Fondazione AIRC per la Ricerca sul Cancro. Several authors reported receiving grants and personal fees and having other ties with various sources.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Breast cancer immunotherapy trials yield modest clinical impact, with a quarter of trials failing to report their outcomes, particularly among single-center studies which are more likely to go unreported, and many phase 2 studies failing to translate into successful phase 3 trials.

METHODOLOGY:

• Few immunotherapy agents — only pembrolizumab in the United States, as of December 2023, and atezolizumab in Europe — have received approvals for use in patients with breast cancer, indicating low returns on the large number of breast cancer immunotherapy trials launched in the early 2010s.
• In this cross-sectional study, researchers evaluated 331 immunotherapy trials, initiated between January 2004 and April 2023, that enrolled 48,844 patients with breast cancer.
• Of these, 47 were phase 1 trials, 242 were phase 2 trials, and 42 were phase 3 trials.
• A trial was considered reported if the results were posted on ClinicalTrial.gov or reported as an abstract or a manuscript.
• Overall, 120 trials met their completion date up to November 2022; of these, 30 (25%) failed to report outcomes, which included two phase 3 trials.

TAKEAWAY:

• Phase 1 trials had the highest rate of nonreporting (31.8%), followed by phase 2 (23.6%) and phase 3 (22.2%) trials.
• Single-center studies were more likely to be unreported than multicenter studies (35.2% vs 15.0%; P = .02).
• Of 90 reported trials, 47 (52.2%) met their primary endpoints and 43 (47.8%) did not.
• The majority, 17 out of 19 (89.5%), of the reported randomized trials had negative results.

IN PRACTICE:

“The findings of this study suggest that the large number of immunotherapy trials being run have yielded modest clinical impact,” the authors wrote. “More selective initiation of phase 2 trials, grounded in preclinical and biomarker observations and with optimal statistical designs for early efficacy assessment, is needed to increase trial efficiency.” 

SOURCE:

The study, led by Marco Mariani, MD, Università Vita-Salute San Raffaele, Milan, Italy, was published online in JAMA Network Open. 

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s reliance on ClinicalTrials.gov as the primary source of trial data might have resulted in some trials being overlooked. In addition, manual data extraction could cause inaccuracies and potentially introduced biases in the interpretation of trial results. Primary study completion date cutoff of December 2022 could have excluded significant data from more recent trials.

DISCLOSURES:

This study received support via Susan Komen Leadership Grant and the Fondazione AIRC per la Ricerca sul Cancro. Several authors reported receiving grants and personal fees and having other ties with various sources.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.