Patient & Survivor Care

TOPLINE:

Elevated depression symptoms are linked to an increased risk for severe chemotherapy toxicity in older adults with cancer. This risk is mitigated by geriatric assessment (GA)-driven interventions.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial to evaluate whether greater reductions in grade 3 chemotherapy-related toxicities occurred with geriatric assessment-driven interventions vs standard care.
• A total of 605 patients aged 65 years and older with any stage of solid malignancy were included, with 402 randomized to the intervention arm and 203 to the standard-of-care arm.
• Mental health was assessed using the Mental Health Inventory 13, and chemotherapy toxicity was graded by the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 4.0.
• Patients in the intervention arm received recommendations from a multidisciplinary team based on their baseline GA, while those in the standard-of-care arm received only the baseline assessment results.
• The study was conducted at City of Hope National Medical Center in Duarte, California, and patients were followed throughout treatment or for up to 6 months from starting chemotherapy.

TAKEAWAY:

• According to the authors, patients with depression had increased chemotherapy toxicity in the standard-of-care arm (70.7% vs 54.3%; P = .02) but not in the GA-driven intervention arm (54.3% vs 48.5%; P = .27).
• The association between depression and chemotherapy toxicity was also seen after adjustment for the Cancer and Aging Research Group toxicity score (odds ratio, [OR], 1.98; 95% CI, 1.07-3.65) and for demographic, disease, and treatment factors (OR, 2.00; 95% CI, 1.03-3.85).
• No significant association was found between anxiety and chemotherapy toxicity in either the standard-of-care arm (univariate OR, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.61-1.88) or the GA-driven intervention arm (univariate OR, 1.15; 95% CI, 0.78-1.71).
• The authors stated that depression was associated with increased odds of hematologic-only toxicities (OR, 2.50; 95% CI, 1.13-5.56) in the standard-of-care arm.
• An analysis of a small subgroup found associations between elevated anxiety symptoms and increased risk for hematologic and nonhematologic chemotherapy toxicities.

IN PRACTICE:

“The current study showed that elevated depression symptoms are associated with increased risk of severe chemotherapy toxicities in older adults with cancer. This risk was mitigated in those in the GA intervention arm, which suggests that addressing elevated depression symptoms may lower the risk of toxicities,” the authors wrote. “Overall, elevated anxiety symptoms were not associated with risk for severe chemotherapy toxicity.”

SOURCE:

Reena V. Jayani, MD, MSCI, of Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tennessee, was the first and corresponding author for this paper. This study was published online August 4, 2024, in Cancer. 

LIMITATIONS:

The thresholds for depression and anxiety used in the Mental Health Inventory 13 were based on an English-speaking population, which may not be fully applicable to Chinese- and Spanish-speaking patients included in the study. Depression and anxiety were not evaluated by a mental health professional or with a structured interview to assess formal diagnostic criteria. Psychiatric medication used at the time of baseline GA was not included in the analysis. The study is a secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial, and it is not known which components of the interventions affected mental health.

DISCLOSURES:

This research project was supported by the UniHealth Foundation, the City of Hope Center for Cancer and Aging, and the National Institutes of Health. One coauthor disclosed receiving institutional research funding from AstraZeneca and Brooklyn ImmunoTherapeutics and consulting for multiple pharmaceutical companies, including AbbVie, Adagene, and Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals. William Dale, MD, PhD, of City of Hope National Medical Center, served as senior author and a principal investigator. 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:

Elevated depression symptoms are linked to an increased risk for severe chemotherapy toxicity in older adults with cancer. This risk is mitigated by geriatric assessment (GA)-driven interventions.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial to evaluate whether greater reductions in grade 3 chemotherapy-related toxicities occurred with geriatric assessment-driven interventions vs standard care.
• A total of 605 patients aged 65 years and older with any stage of solid malignancy were included, with 402 randomized to the intervention arm and 203 to the standard-of-care arm.
• Mental health was assessed using the Mental Health Inventory 13, and chemotherapy toxicity was graded by the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 4.0.
• Patients in the intervention arm received recommendations from a multidisciplinary team based on their baseline GA, while those in the standard-of-care arm received only the baseline assessment results.
• The study was conducted at City of Hope National Medical Center in Duarte, California, and patients were followed throughout treatment or for up to 6 months from starting chemotherapy.

TAKEAWAY:

• According to the authors, patients with depression had increased chemotherapy toxicity in the standard-of-care arm (70.7% vs 54.3%; P = .02) but not in the GA-driven intervention arm (54.3% vs 48.5%; P = .27).
• The association between depression and chemotherapy toxicity was also seen after adjustment for the Cancer and Aging Research Group toxicity score (odds ratio, [OR], 1.98; 95% CI, 1.07-3.65) and for demographic, disease, and treatment factors (OR, 2.00; 95% CI, 1.03-3.85).
• No significant association was found between anxiety and chemotherapy toxicity in either the standard-of-care arm (univariate OR, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.61-1.88) or the GA-driven intervention arm (univariate OR, 1.15; 95% CI, 0.78-1.71).
• The authors stated that depression was associated with increased odds of hematologic-only toxicities (OR, 2.50; 95% CI, 1.13-5.56) in the standard-of-care arm.
• An analysis of a small subgroup found associations between elevated anxiety symptoms and increased risk for hematologic and nonhematologic chemotherapy toxicities.

IN PRACTICE:

“The current study showed that elevated depression symptoms are associated with increased risk of severe chemotherapy toxicities in older adults with cancer. This risk was mitigated in those in the GA intervention arm, which suggests that addressing elevated depression symptoms may lower the risk of toxicities,” the authors wrote. “Overall, elevated anxiety symptoms were not associated with risk for severe chemotherapy toxicity.”

SOURCE:

Reena V. Jayani, MD, MSCI, of Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tennessee, was the first and corresponding author for this paper. This study was published online August 4, 2024, in Cancer. 

LIMITATIONS:

The thresholds for depression and anxiety used in the Mental Health Inventory 13 were based on an English-speaking population, which may not be fully applicable to Chinese- and Spanish-speaking patients included in the study. Depression and anxiety were not evaluated by a mental health professional or with a structured interview to assess formal diagnostic criteria. Psychiatric medication used at the time of baseline GA was not included in the analysis. The study is a secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial, and it is not known which components of the interventions affected mental health.

DISCLOSURES:

This research project was supported by the UniHealth Foundation, the City of Hope Center for Cancer and Aging, and the National Institutes of Health. One coauthor disclosed receiving institutional research funding from AstraZeneca and Brooklyn ImmunoTherapeutics and consulting for multiple pharmaceutical companies, including AbbVie, Adagene, and Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals. William Dale, MD, PhD, of City of Hope National Medical Center, served as senior author and a principal investigator. 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:

Elevated depression symptoms are linked to an increased risk for severe chemotherapy toxicity in older adults with cancer. This risk is mitigated by geriatric assessment (GA)-driven interventions.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial to evaluate whether greater reductions in grade 3 chemotherapy-related toxicities occurred with geriatric assessment-driven interventions vs standard care.
• A total of 605 patients aged 65 years and older with any stage of solid malignancy were included, with 402 randomized to the intervention arm and 203 to the standard-of-care arm.
• Mental health was assessed using the Mental Health Inventory 13, and chemotherapy toxicity was graded by the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 4.0.
• Patients in the intervention arm received recommendations from a multidisciplinary team based on their baseline GA, while those in the standard-of-care arm received only the baseline assessment results.
• The study was conducted at City of Hope National Medical Center in Duarte, California, and patients were followed throughout treatment or for up to 6 months from starting chemotherapy.

TAKEAWAY:

• According to the authors, patients with depression had increased chemotherapy toxicity in the standard-of-care arm (70.7% vs 54.3%; P = .02) but not in the GA-driven intervention arm (54.3% vs 48.5%; P = .27).
• The association between depression and chemotherapy toxicity was also seen after adjustment for the Cancer and Aging Research Group toxicity score (odds ratio, [OR], 1.98; 95% CI, 1.07-3.65) and for demographic, disease, and treatment factors (OR, 2.00; 95% CI, 1.03-3.85).
• No significant association was found between anxiety and chemotherapy toxicity in either the standard-of-care arm (univariate OR, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.61-1.88) or the GA-driven intervention arm (univariate OR, 1.15; 95% CI, 0.78-1.71).
• The authors stated that depression was associated with increased odds of hematologic-only toxicities (OR, 2.50; 95% CI, 1.13-5.56) in the standard-of-care arm.
• An analysis of a small subgroup found associations between elevated anxiety symptoms and increased risk for hematologic and nonhematologic chemotherapy toxicities.

IN PRACTICE:

“The current study showed that elevated depression symptoms are associated with increased risk of severe chemotherapy toxicities in older adults with cancer. This risk was mitigated in those in the GA intervention arm, which suggests that addressing elevated depression symptoms may lower the risk of toxicities,” the authors wrote. “Overall, elevated anxiety symptoms were not associated with risk for severe chemotherapy toxicity.”

SOURCE:

Reena V. Jayani, MD, MSCI, of Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tennessee, was the first and corresponding author for this paper. This study was published online August 4, 2024, in Cancer. 

LIMITATIONS:

The thresholds for depression and anxiety used in the Mental Health Inventory 13 were based on an English-speaking population, which may not be fully applicable to Chinese- and Spanish-speaking patients included in the study. Depression and anxiety were not evaluated by a mental health professional or with a structured interview to assess formal diagnostic criteria. Psychiatric medication used at the time of baseline GA was not included in the analysis. The study is a secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial, and it is not known which components of the interventions affected mental health.

DISCLOSURES:

This research project was supported by the UniHealth Foundation, the City of Hope Center for Cancer and Aging, and the National Institutes of Health. One coauthor disclosed receiving institutional research funding from AstraZeneca and Brooklyn ImmunoTherapeutics and consulting for multiple pharmaceutical companies, including AbbVie, Adagene, and Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals. William Dale, MD, PhD, of City of Hope National Medical Center, served as senior author and a principal investigator. 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:

An easy-to-use web-based prognostic tool, MetroPancreas, may help predict the likelihood of futile pancreatectomy in patients with resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma and improve patient selection for upfront surgery.

METHODOLOGY:

• Immediate resection is associated with a high incidence of postoperative complications and disease recurrence within a year of surgery in patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Predicting which patients likely won’t benefit from upfront pancreatectomy is important.
• To identify preoperative risk factors for futile pancreatectomy, researchers evaluated 1426 patients (median age, 69 years; 53.2% men) with anatomically resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma who underwent pancreatic resection between January 2010 and December 2021.
• The patients were divided into derivation (n = 885) and validation (n = 541) cohorts.
• The primary outcome was the rate of futile upfront pancreatectomy, defined as death or disease recurrence within 6 months of surgery. Patients were divided into three risk categories — low, intermediate, and high risk — each with escalating likelihoods of futile resection, worse pathological features, and worse outcomes.
• The secondary endpoint was to develop criteria for surgical candidacy, setting a futility likelihood threshold of < 20%. This threshold corresponds to the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for postneoadjuvant resection rates (resection rate, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.80-1.01) from recent meta-analyses.

TAKEAWAY:

• The futility rate for pancreatectomy was 18.9% — 19.2% in the development cohort and 18.6% in the validation cohort. Three independent risk factors for futile resection included American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class (95% CI for coefficients, 0.68-0.87), preoperative cancer antigen 19.9 serum levels (95% CI for coefficients, 0.05-0.75), and radiologic tumor size (95% CI for coefficients, 0.28-0.46).
• Using these independent risk factors, the predictive model demonstrated adequate calibration and discrimination in both the derivation and validation cohorts.
• The researchers then identified three risk groups. In the derivation cohort, the rate of futile pancreatectomy was 9.2% in the low-risk group, 18.0% in the intermediate-risk group, and 28.7% in the high-risk group (P < .001 for trend). In the validation cohort, the futility rate was 10.9% in the low-risk group, 20.2% in the intermediate-risk group, and 29.2% in the high-risk group (P < .001 for trend).
• Researchers identified four conditions associated with a futility likelihood below 20%, where larger tumor size is paired with lower cancer antigen 19.9 levels (defined as cancer antigen 19.9–adjusted-to-size). Patients who met these criteria experienced significantly longer disease-free survival (median 18.4 months vs 11.2 months) and overall survival (38.5 months vs 22.1 months).

IN PRACTICE:

“Although the study provides an easy-to-use calculator for clinical decision-making, there are some methodological limitations,” according to the authors of accompanying commentary. These limitations include failing to accurately describe how ASA class, cancer antigen 19.9 level, and tumor size were chosen for the model. “While we do not think the model is yet ready for standard clinical use, it may prove to be a viable tool if tested in future randomized trials comparing the neoadjuvant approach to upfront surgery in resectable pancreatic cancer,” the editorialists added.

SOURCE:

This study, led by Stefano Crippa, MD, PhD, Division of Pancreatic Surgery, Pancreas Translational and Clinical Research Center, San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy, and the accompanying commentary were published online in JAMA Surgery.

LIMITATIONS:

In addition to the limitations noted by the editorialists, others include the study’s retrospective design, which could introduce bias. Because preoperative imaging was not revised, the assigned resectability classes could show variability. Institutional differences existed in the selection process for upfront pancreatectomy. The model cannot be applied to cancer antigen 19.9 nonsecretors and was not externally validated.

DISCLOSURES:

The Italian Association for Cancer Research Special Program in Metastatic Disease and Italian Ministry of Health/Italian Foundation for the Research of Pancreatic Diseases supported the study in the form of a grant. Two authors reported receiving personal fees outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.

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

TOPLINE:

An easy-to-use web-based prognostic tool, MetroPancreas, may help predict the likelihood of futile pancreatectomy in patients with resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma and improve patient selection for upfront surgery.

METHODOLOGY:

• Immediate resection is associated with a high incidence of postoperative complications and disease recurrence within a year of surgery in patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Predicting which patients likely won’t benefit from upfront pancreatectomy is important.
• To identify preoperative risk factors for futile pancreatectomy, researchers evaluated 1426 patients (median age, 69 years; 53.2% men) with anatomically resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma who underwent pancreatic resection between January 2010 and December 2021.
• The patients were divided into derivation (n = 885) and validation (n = 541) cohorts.
• The primary outcome was the rate of futile upfront pancreatectomy, defined as death or disease recurrence within 6 months of surgery. Patients were divided into three risk categories — low, intermediate, and high risk — each with escalating likelihoods of futile resection, worse pathological features, and worse outcomes.
• The secondary endpoint was to develop criteria for surgical candidacy, setting a futility likelihood threshold of < 20%. This threshold corresponds to the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for postneoadjuvant resection rates (resection rate, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.80-1.01) from recent meta-analyses.

TAKEAWAY:

• The futility rate for pancreatectomy was 18.9% — 19.2% in the development cohort and 18.6% in the validation cohort. Three independent risk factors for futile resection included American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class (95% CI for coefficients, 0.68-0.87), preoperative cancer antigen 19.9 serum levels (95% CI for coefficients, 0.05-0.75), and radiologic tumor size (95% CI for coefficients, 0.28-0.46).
• Using these independent risk factors, the predictive model demonstrated adequate calibration and discrimination in both the derivation and validation cohorts.
• The researchers then identified three risk groups. In the derivation cohort, the rate of futile pancreatectomy was 9.2% in the low-risk group, 18.0% in the intermediate-risk group, and 28.7% in the high-risk group (P < .001 for trend). In the validation cohort, the futility rate was 10.9% in the low-risk group, 20.2% in the intermediate-risk group, and 29.2% in the high-risk group (P < .001 for trend).
• Researchers identified four conditions associated with a futility likelihood below 20%, where larger tumor size is paired with lower cancer antigen 19.9 levels (defined as cancer antigen 19.9–adjusted-to-size). Patients who met these criteria experienced significantly longer disease-free survival (median 18.4 months vs 11.2 months) and overall survival (38.5 months vs 22.1 months).

IN PRACTICE:

“Although the study provides an easy-to-use calculator for clinical decision-making, there are some methodological limitations,” according to the authors of accompanying commentary. These limitations include failing to accurately describe how ASA class, cancer antigen 19.9 level, and tumor size were chosen for the model. “While we do not think the model is yet ready for standard clinical use, it may prove to be a viable tool if tested in future randomized trials comparing the neoadjuvant approach to upfront surgery in resectable pancreatic cancer,” the editorialists added.

SOURCE:

This study, led by Stefano Crippa, MD, PhD, Division of Pancreatic Surgery, Pancreas Translational and Clinical Research Center, San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy, and the accompanying commentary were published online in JAMA Surgery.

LIMITATIONS:

In addition to the limitations noted by the editorialists, others include the study’s retrospective design, which could introduce bias. Because preoperative imaging was not revised, the assigned resectability classes could show variability. Institutional differences existed in the selection process for upfront pancreatectomy. The model cannot be applied to cancer antigen 19.9 nonsecretors and was not externally validated.

DISCLOSURES:

The Italian Association for Cancer Research Special Program in Metastatic Disease and Italian Ministry of Health/Italian Foundation for the Research of Pancreatic Diseases supported the study in the form of a grant. Two authors reported receiving personal fees outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.

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

TOPLINE:

An easy-to-use web-based prognostic tool, MetroPancreas, may help predict the likelihood of futile pancreatectomy in patients with resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma and improve patient selection for upfront surgery.

METHODOLOGY:

• Immediate resection is associated with a high incidence of postoperative complications and disease recurrence within a year of surgery in patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Predicting which patients likely won’t benefit from upfront pancreatectomy is important.
• To identify preoperative risk factors for futile pancreatectomy, researchers evaluated 1426 patients (median age, 69 years; 53.2% men) with anatomically resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma who underwent pancreatic resection between January 2010 and December 2021.
• The patients were divided into derivation (n = 885) and validation (n = 541) cohorts.
• The primary outcome was the rate of futile upfront pancreatectomy, defined as death or disease recurrence within 6 months of surgery. Patients were divided into three risk categories — low, intermediate, and high risk — each with escalating likelihoods of futile resection, worse pathological features, and worse outcomes.
• The secondary endpoint was to develop criteria for surgical candidacy, setting a futility likelihood threshold of < 20%. This threshold corresponds to the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for postneoadjuvant resection rates (resection rate, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.80-1.01) from recent meta-analyses.

TAKEAWAY:

• The futility rate for pancreatectomy was 18.9% — 19.2% in the development cohort and 18.6% in the validation cohort. Three independent risk factors for futile resection included American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class (95% CI for coefficients, 0.68-0.87), preoperative cancer antigen 19.9 serum levels (95% CI for coefficients, 0.05-0.75), and radiologic tumor size (95% CI for coefficients, 0.28-0.46).
• Using these independent risk factors, the predictive model demonstrated adequate calibration and discrimination in both the derivation and validation cohorts.
• The researchers then identified three risk groups. In the derivation cohort, the rate of futile pancreatectomy was 9.2% in the low-risk group, 18.0% in the intermediate-risk group, and 28.7% in the high-risk group (P < .001 for trend). In the validation cohort, the futility rate was 10.9% in the low-risk group, 20.2% in the intermediate-risk group, and 29.2% in the high-risk group (P < .001 for trend).
• Researchers identified four conditions associated with a futility likelihood below 20%, where larger tumor size is paired with lower cancer antigen 19.9 levels (defined as cancer antigen 19.9–adjusted-to-size). Patients who met these criteria experienced significantly longer disease-free survival (median 18.4 months vs 11.2 months) and overall survival (38.5 months vs 22.1 months).

IN PRACTICE:

“Although the study provides an easy-to-use calculator for clinical decision-making, there are some methodological limitations,” according to the authors of accompanying commentary. These limitations include failing to accurately describe how ASA class, cancer antigen 19.9 level, and tumor size were chosen for the model. “While we do not think the model is yet ready for standard clinical use, it may prove to be a viable tool if tested in future randomized trials comparing the neoadjuvant approach to upfront surgery in resectable pancreatic cancer,” the editorialists added.

SOURCE:

This study, led by Stefano Crippa, MD, PhD, Division of Pancreatic Surgery, Pancreas Translational and Clinical Research Center, San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy, and the accompanying commentary were published online in JAMA Surgery.

LIMITATIONS:

In addition to the limitations noted by the editorialists, others include the study’s retrospective design, which could introduce bias. Because preoperative imaging was not revised, the assigned resectability classes could show variability. Institutional differences existed in the selection process for upfront pancreatectomy. The model cannot be applied to cancer antigen 19.9 nonsecretors and was not externally validated.

DISCLOSURES:

The Italian Association for Cancer Research Special Program in Metastatic Disease and Italian Ministry of Health/Italian Foundation for the Research of Pancreatic Diseases supported the study in the form of a grant. Two authors reported receiving personal fees outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.

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

TOPLINE:

Adding metastasis-directed therapy (MDT) to systemic therapy improves progression-free survival (PFS) to 10.3 months vs 2.5 months with systemic therapy alone in patients with oligometastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC).

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a phase 2 multicenter, randomized basket trial involving 41 patients with oligometastatic PDAC in the EXTEND trial.
• Participants were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive MDT plus systemic therapy or systemic therapy alone.
• MDT included definitive local therapy, with stereotactic ablative radiotherapy recommended when feasible. Members of the control group were allowed to receive MDT if their disease progressed.
• The primary endpoint was PFS, measured from random assignment to radiologic progression, clinical progression, or death.
• “Secondary endpoints included overall survival, time to next-line systemic therapy, time to local failure, time to new lesion formation, toxicity, and quality of life,” the authors said.

TAKEAWAY:

• According to the authors, adding MDT to systemic therapy significantly improved PFS to 10.3 months vs 2.5 months with systemic therapy alone (P = .030).
• The hazard ratio for PFS was 0.43 (95% CI, 0.20-0.94), indicating a substantial reduction in the risk for disease progression or death with MDT.
• No grade 4 or 5 treatment-emergent adverse events were observed, suggesting that MDT is a safe addition to systemic therapy.
• Longer PFS and overall survival were associated with activated systemic immunity after MDT, suggesting that “an activated systemic immune profile, supported by a diverse T-cell receptor repertoire, might promote immunosurveillance of distant microscopic disease.”

IN PRACTICE:

“No other PDAC-specific trials have been reported, and tumor-agnostic studies, such as SABR-COMET or the National Health Service single-arm registry study, have not published PDAC-specific outcomes. Thus, the EXTEND trial provides the strongest evidence to date in favor of the existence of an oligometastatic state in PDAC.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Ethan B. Ludmir, MD, and Alexander D. Sherry, MD, both of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston. It was published online on August 5 in The Journal of Clinical Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s broad enrollment criteria may have introduced heterogeneity in the patient population, potentially affecting the generalizability of the findings. The study was not powered to evaluate overall survival, and the small sample size may have limited the robustness of the results. Crossover and non–cancer-related deaths could have influenced the comparisons, and quality-of-life data were limited because of the COVID-19 pandemic. The definition of oligometastasis used in the trial may have oversimplified the complex spectrum of the disease.

DISCLOSURES:

Dr. Ludmir disclosed employment with Alaunos Therapeutics and consulting for Xerient. Dr. Sherry reported employment with MD Anderson Cancer Center and honoraria from Sermo. One coauthor has an uncompensated relationship with Polaris Consulting. Another coauthor has stock ownership in BriaCell and a consulting or an advisory role with Regeneron. 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:

Adding metastasis-directed therapy (MDT) to systemic therapy improves progression-free survival (PFS) to 10.3 months vs 2.5 months with systemic therapy alone in patients with oligometastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC).

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a phase 2 multicenter, randomized basket trial involving 41 patients with oligometastatic PDAC in the EXTEND trial.
• Participants were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive MDT plus systemic therapy or systemic therapy alone.
• MDT included definitive local therapy, with stereotactic ablative radiotherapy recommended when feasible. Members of the control group were allowed to receive MDT if their disease progressed.
• The primary endpoint was PFS, measured from random assignment to radiologic progression, clinical progression, or death.
• “Secondary endpoints included overall survival, time to next-line systemic therapy, time to local failure, time to new lesion formation, toxicity, and quality of life,” the authors said.

TAKEAWAY:

• According to the authors, adding MDT to systemic therapy significantly improved PFS to 10.3 months vs 2.5 months with systemic therapy alone (P = .030).
• The hazard ratio for PFS was 0.43 (95% CI, 0.20-0.94), indicating a substantial reduction in the risk for disease progression or death with MDT.
• No grade 4 or 5 treatment-emergent adverse events were observed, suggesting that MDT is a safe addition to systemic therapy.
• Longer PFS and overall survival were associated with activated systemic immunity after MDT, suggesting that “an activated systemic immune profile, supported by a diverse T-cell receptor repertoire, might promote immunosurveillance of distant microscopic disease.”

IN PRACTICE:

“No other PDAC-specific trials have been reported, and tumor-agnostic studies, such as SABR-COMET or the National Health Service single-arm registry study, have not published PDAC-specific outcomes. Thus, the EXTEND trial provides the strongest evidence to date in favor of the existence of an oligometastatic state in PDAC.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Ethan B. Ludmir, MD, and Alexander D. Sherry, MD, both of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston. It was published online on August 5 in The Journal of Clinical Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s broad enrollment criteria may have introduced heterogeneity in the patient population, potentially affecting the generalizability of the findings. The study was not powered to evaluate overall survival, and the small sample size may have limited the robustness of the results. Crossover and non–cancer-related deaths could have influenced the comparisons, and quality-of-life data were limited because of the COVID-19 pandemic. The definition of oligometastasis used in the trial may have oversimplified the complex spectrum of the disease.

DISCLOSURES:

Dr. Ludmir disclosed employment with Alaunos Therapeutics and consulting for Xerient. Dr. Sherry reported employment with MD Anderson Cancer Center and honoraria from Sermo. One coauthor has an uncompensated relationship with Polaris Consulting. Another coauthor has stock ownership in BriaCell and a consulting or an advisory role with Regeneron. 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:

Adding metastasis-directed therapy (MDT) to systemic therapy improves progression-free survival (PFS) to 10.3 months vs 2.5 months with systemic therapy alone in patients with oligometastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC).

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a phase 2 multicenter, randomized basket trial involving 41 patients with oligometastatic PDAC in the EXTEND trial.
• Participants were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive MDT plus systemic therapy or systemic therapy alone.
• MDT included definitive local therapy, with stereotactic ablative radiotherapy recommended when feasible. Members of the control group were allowed to receive MDT if their disease progressed.
• The primary endpoint was PFS, measured from random assignment to radiologic progression, clinical progression, or death.
• “Secondary endpoints included overall survival, time to next-line systemic therapy, time to local failure, time to new lesion formation, toxicity, and quality of life,” the authors said.

TAKEAWAY:

• According to the authors, adding MDT to systemic therapy significantly improved PFS to 10.3 months vs 2.5 months with systemic therapy alone (P = .030).
• The hazard ratio for PFS was 0.43 (95% CI, 0.20-0.94), indicating a substantial reduction in the risk for disease progression or death with MDT.
• No grade 4 or 5 treatment-emergent adverse events were observed, suggesting that MDT is a safe addition to systemic therapy.
• Longer PFS and overall survival were associated with activated systemic immunity after MDT, suggesting that “an activated systemic immune profile, supported by a diverse T-cell receptor repertoire, might promote immunosurveillance of distant microscopic disease.”

IN PRACTICE:

“No other PDAC-specific trials have been reported, and tumor-agnostic studies, such as SABR-COMET or the National Health Service single-arm registry study, have not published PDAC-specific outcomes. Thus, the EXTEND trial provides the strongest evidence to date in favor of the existence of an oligometastatic state in PDAC.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Ethan B. Ludmir, MD, and Alexander D. Sherry, MD, both of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston. It was published online on August 5 in The Journal of Clinical Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s broad enrollment criteria may have introduced heterogeneity in the patient population, potentially affecting the generalizability of the findings. The study was not powered to evaluate overall survival, and the small sample size may have limited the robustness of the results. Crossover and non–cancer-related deaths could have influenced the comparisons, and quality-of-life data were limited because of the COVID-19 pandemic. The definition of oligometastasis used in the trial may have oversimplified the complex spectrum of the disease.

DISCLOSURES:

Dr. Ludmir disclosed employment with Alaunos Therapeutics and consulting for Xerient. Dr. Sherry reported employment with MD Anderson Cancer Center and honoraria from Sermo. One coauthor has an uncompensated relationship with Polaris Consulting. Another coauthor has stock ownership in BriaCell and a consulting or an advisory role with Regeneron. 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.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved afamitresgene autoleucel (afami-cel) (Tecelra, Adaptimmune LLC) to treat advanced synovial sarcoma. 

Afami-cel — the first engineered cell therapy for a solid tumor — is indicated specifically for adults with unresectable or metastatic synovial sarcoma who have received prior chemotherapy, are positive for several human leukocyte antigens (HLAs), and whose tumors express melanoma-associated antigen A4, as determined by FDA-authorized companion diagnostic devices.

The single-dose treatment targets solid tumors expressing melanoma-associated antigen A4, a protein highly expressed in synovial sarcoma.

Synovial sarcoma is a rare form of cancer, which affects about 1000 people in the US each year. Malignant cells develop and form a tumor in soft tissues, often in the extremities. 

“Adults with metastatic synovial sarcoma, a life-threatening form of cancer, often face limited treatment options in addition to the risk of cancer spread or recurrence,” Nicole Verdun, MD, director of the Office of Therapeutic Products in the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, said in the agency press release announcing the approval. “Today’s approval represents a significant milestone in the development of an innovative, safe and effective therapy for patients with this rare but potentially fatal disease.”

T-cell receptor therapy, like chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell (CAR-T) therapy, involves altering patient T cells to fight cancer. While CAR-T therapy inserts an artificial receptor to target a specific surface protein on cancer cells, the T-cell receptor therapy modifies existing receptors to recognize an array of antigens on the surface of cancer cells — a promising strategy for targeting solid tumors. 

The accelerated approval of afami-cel was based on the phase 2 SPEARHEAD-1 trial in 44 patients with synovial sarcoma who received a single infusion of the therapy. The trial had enrolled 52 patients, but 8 did not receive afami-cel, including 3 who died and 1 who withdrew. 

According to the FDA announcement, the overall response rate was 43.2%, with a median time to response of 4.9 weeks. The median duration of response was 6 months (95% CI, 4.6 months to not reached). Among patients who responded, 39% had a duration of response of 12 months or longer.

“These results suggest that a one-time treatment with afami-cel has the potential to extend life while allowing responders to go off chemotherapy,” said lead investigator Sandra D’Angelo, MD, a sarcoma specialist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City, in a company press release.

The prescribing information includes a boxed warning for serious or fatal cytokine release syndrome.

The most common nonlaboratory adverse reactions, occurring in at least 20% of patients, included cytokine release syndrome, nausea, vomiting, fatigue, infections, pyrexia, constipation, dyspnea, tachycardia, hypotension, diarrhea, and edema. The most common grade 3 or 4 laboratory abnormalities, occurring in at least 20% of patients, included decreased lymphocyte count, neutrophil count, white cell blood count, red blood cell, and platelet count.

The recommended dose is between 2.68x109 to 10x109 MAGE-A4 T-cell receptor–positive T-cells. The FDA notice specifies not using a leukodepleting filter or prophylactic systemic corticosteroids.

The list price for the one-time therapy is $727,000, according to Fierce Pharma.
 

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

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved afamitresgene autoleucel (afami-cel) (Tecelra, Adaptimmune LLC) to treat advanced synovial sarcoma. 

Afami-cel — the first engineered cell therapy for a solid tumor — is indicated specifically for adults with unresectable or metastatic synovial sarcoma who have received prior chemotherapy, are positive for several human leukocyte antigens (HLAs), and whose tumors express melanoma-associated antigen A4, as determined by FDA-authorized companion diagnostic devices.

The single-dose treatment targets solid tumors expressing melanoma-associated antigen A4, a protein highly expressed in synovial sarcoma.

Synovial sarcoma is a rare form of cancer, which affects about 1000 people in the US each year. Malignant cells develop and form a tumor in soft tissues, often in the extremities. 

“Adults with metastatic synovial sarcoma, a life-threatening form of cancer, often face limited treatment options in addition to the risk of cancer spread or recurrence,” Nicole Verdun, MD, director of the Office of Therapeutic Products in the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, said in the agency press release announcing the approval. “Today’s approval represents a significant milestone in the development of an innovative, safe and effective therapy for patients with this rare but potentially fatal disease.”

T-cell receptor therapy, like chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell (CAR-T) therapy, involves altering patient T cells to fight cancer. While CAR-T therapy inserts an artificial receptor to target a specific surface protein on cancer cells, the T-cell receptor therapy modifies existing receptors to recognize an array of antigens on the surface of cancer cells — a promising strategy for targeting solid tumors. 

The accelerated approval of afami-cel was based on the phase 2 SPEARHEAD-1 trial in 44 patients with synovial sarcoma who received a single infusion of the therapy. The trial had enrolled 52 patients, but 8 did not receive afami-cel, including 3 who died and 1 who withdrew. 

According to the FDA announcement, the overall response rate was 43.2%, with a median time to response of 4.9 weeks. The median duration of response was 6 months (95% CI, 4.6 months to not reached). Among patients who responded, 39% had a duration of response of 12 months or longer.

“These results suggest that a one-time treatment with afami-cel has the potential to extend life while allowing responders to go off chemotherapy,” said lead investigator Sandra D’Angelo, MD, a sarcoma specialist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City, in a company press release.

The prescribing information includes a boxed warning for serious or fatal cytokine release syndrome.

The most common nonlaboratory adverse reactions, occurring in at least 20% of patients, included cytokine release syndrome, nausea, vomiting, fatigue, infections, pyrexia, constipation, dyspnea, tachycardia, hypotension, diarrhea, and edema. The most common grade 3 or 4 laboratory abnormalities, occurring in at least 20% of patients, included decreased lymphocyte count, neutrophil count, white cell blood count, red blood cell, and platelet count.

The recommended dose is between 2.68x109 to 10x109 MAGE-A4 T-cell receptor–positive T-cells. The FDA notice specifies not using a leukodepleting filter or prophylactic systemic corticosteroids.

The list price for the one-time therapy is $727,000, according to Fierce Pharma.
 

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

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved afamitresgene autoleucel (afami-cel) (Tecelra, Adaptimmune LLC) to treat advanced synovial sarcoma. 

Afami-cel — the first engineered cell therapy for a solid tumor — is indicated specifically for adults with unresectable or metastatic synovial sarcoma who have received prior chemotherapy, are positive for several human leukocyte antigens (HLAs), and whose tumors express melanoma-associated antigen A4, as determined by FDA-authorized companion diagnostic devices.

The single-dose treatment targets solid tumors expressing melanoma-associated antigen A4, a protein highly expressed in synovial sarcoma.

Synovial sarcoma is a rare form of cancer, which affects about 1000 people in the US each year. Malignant cells develop and form a tumor in soft tissues, often in the extremities. 

“Adults with metastatic synovial sarcoma, a life-threatening form of cancer, often face limited treatment options in addition to the risk of cancer spread or recurrence,” Nicole Verdun, MD, director of the Office of Therapeutic Products in the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, said in the agency press release announcing the approval. “Today’s approval represents a significant milestone in the development of an innovative, safe and effective therapy for patients with this rare but potentially fatal disease.”

T-cell receptor therapy, like chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell (CAR-T) therapy, involves altering patient T cells to fight cancer. While CAR-T therapy inserts an artificial receptor to target a specific surface protein on cancer cells, the T-cell receptor therapy modifies existing receptors to recognize an array of antigens on the surface of cancer cells — a promising strategy for targeting solid tumors. 

The accelerated approval of afami-cel was based on the phase 2 SPEARHEAD-1 trial in 44 patients with synovial sarcoma who received a single infusion of the therapy. The trial had enrolled 52 patients, but 8 did not receive afami-cel, including 3 who died and 1 who withdrew. 

According to the FDA announcement, the overall response rate was 43.2%, with a median time to response of 4.9 weeks. The median duration of response was 6 months (95% CI, 4.6 months to not reached). Among patients who responded, 39% had a duration of response of 12 months or longer.

“These results suggest that a one-time treatment with afami-cel has the potential to extend life while allowing responders to go off chemotherapy,” said lead investigator Sandra D’Angelo, MD, a sarcoma specialist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City, in a company press release.

The prescribing information includes a boxed warning for serious or fatal cytokine release syndrome.

The most common nonlaboratory adverse reactions, occurring in at least 20% of patients, included cytokine release syndrome, nausea, vomiting, fatigue, infections, pyrexia, constipation, dyspnea, tachycardia, hypotension, diarrhea, and edema. The most common grade 3 or 4 laboratory abnormalities, occurring in at least 20% of patients, included decreased lymphocyte count, neutrophil count, white cell blood count, red blood cell, and platelet count.

The recommended dose is between 2.68x109 to 10x109 MAGE-A4 T-cell receptor–positive T-cells. The FDA notice specifies not using a leukodepleting filter or prophylactic systemic corticosteroids.

The list price for the one-time therapy is $727,000, according to Fierce Pharma.
 

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

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has expanded the approval of dostarlimab-gxly (Jemperli, GSK) in conjunction with carboplatin and paclitaxel, followed by single-agent dostarlimab-gxly, for adults with primary advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer.

Prior FDA approval of the combination was granted for adults with primary advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer that was mismatch repair deficient (dMMR) or microsatellite instability–high (MSI-H).

The expanded approval, granted following a priority review, was based on efficacy and safety demonstrated in the randomized, controlled, multicenter RUBY trial, which included 494 patients who were randomized to receive the dostarlimab-gxly regimen or placebo plus carboplatin and paclitaxel, followed by placebo.

Researchers observed a significant improvement in median overall survival with treatment vs placebo in the overall population — 44.6 vs 28.2 months, respectively (hazard ratio [HR], 0.69). Median progression-free survival was also significantly better in the treatment vs placebo group — 11.8 vs 7.9 months, respectively (HR, 0.64).

“Today’s expanded approval will offer even more patients the opportunity for improved outcomes,” Matthew Powell, MD, of Washington University School of Medicine, and principal investigator on the RUBY trial, said in a press release. “This is the only immuno-oncology treatment regimen that has shown a statistically significant overall survival benefit for the full patient population, which is a meaningful step forward in treating this challenging cancer.”

Adverse reactions occurring in at least 20% of patients receiving dostarlimab-gxly include anemia, increased creatinine levels, peripheral neuropathy, decreased white blood cell counts, fatigue, nausea, alopecia, low platelet counts, increased glucose levels, lymphopenia, neutropenia, liver function test abnormalities, arthralgia, rash, constipation, diarrhea, decreased albumin levels, abdominal pain, dyspnea, decreased appetite, increased amylase levels, urinary tract infection, and vomiting. Immune-mediated adverse reactions with dostarlimab-gxly were similar to those previously reported.

The recommended dostarlimab-gxly dose, according to the full prescribing information, is 500 mg every 3 weeks for six cycles administered before carboplatin and paclitaxel if given on the same day, followed by 1000 mg monotherapy every 6 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity, or up to 3 years.
 

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

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has expanded the approval of dostarlimab-gxly (Jemperli, GSK) in conjunction with carboplatin and paclitaxel, followed by single-agent dostarlimab-gxly, for adults with primary advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer.

Prior FDA approval of the combination was granted for adults with primary advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer that was mismatch repair deficient (dMMR) or microsatellite instability–high (MSI-H).

The expanded approval, granted following a priority review, was based on efficacy and safety demonstrated in the randomized, controlled, multicenter RUBY trial, which included 494 patients who were randomized to receive the dostarlimab-gxly regimen or placebo plus carboplatin and paclitaxel, followed by placebo.

Researchers observed a significant improvement in median overall survival with treatment vs placebo in the overall population — 44.6 vs 28.2 months, respectively (hazard ratio [HR], 0.69). Median progression-free survival was also significantly better in the treatment vs placebo group — 11.8 vs 7.9 months, respectively (HR, 0.64).

“Today’s expanded approval will offer even more patients the opportunity for improved outcomes,” Matthew Powell, MD, of Washington University School of Medicine, and principal investigator on the RUBY trial, said in a press release. “This is the only immuno-oncology treatment regimen that has shown a statistically significant overall survival benefit for the full patient population, which is a meaningful step forward in treating this challenging cancer.”

Adverse reactions occurring in at least 20% of patients receiving dostarlimab-gxly include anemia, increased creatinine levels, peripheral neuropathy, decreased white blood cell counts, fatigue, nausea, alopecia, low platelet counts, increased glucose levels, lymphopenia, neutropenia, liver function test abnormalities, arthralgia, rash, constipation, diarrhea, decreased albumin levels, abdominal pain, dyspnea, decreased appetite, increased amylase levels, urinary tract infection, and vomiting. Immune-mediated adverse reactions with dostarlimab-gxly were similar to those previously reported.

The recommended dostarlimab-gxly dose, according to the full prescribing information, is 500 mg every 3 weeks for six cycles administered before carboplatin and paclitaxel if given on the same day, followed by 1000 mg monotherapy every 6 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity, or up to 3 years.
 

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

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has expanded the approval of dostarlimab-gxly (Jemperli, GSK) in conjunction with carboplatin and paclitaxel, followed by single-agent dostarlimab-gxly, for adults with primary advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer.

Prior FDA approval of the combination was granted for adults with primary advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer that was mismatch repair deficient (dMMR) or microsatellite instability–high (MSI-H).

The expanded approval, granted following a priority review, was based on efficacy and safety demonstrated in the randomized, controlled, multicenter RUBY trial, which included 494 patients who were randomized to receive the dostarlimab-gxly regimen or placebo plus carboplatin and paclitaxel, followed by placebo.

Researchers observed a significant improvement in median overall survival with treatment vs placebo in the overall population — 44.6 vs 28.2 months, respectively (hazard ratio [HR], 0.69). Median progression-free survival was also significantly better in the treatment vs placebo group — 11.8 vs 7.9 months, respectively (HR, 0.64).

“Today’s expanded approval will offer even more patients the opportunity for improved outcomes,” Matthew Powell, MD, of Washington University School of Medicine, and principal investigator on the RUBY trial, said in a press release. “This is the only immuno-oncology treatment regimen that has shown a statistically significant overall survival benefit for the full patient population, which is a meaningful step forward in treating this challenging cancer.”

Adverse reactions occurring in at least 20% of patients receiving dostarlimab-gxly include anemia, increased creatinine levels, peripheral neuropathy, decreased white blood cell counts, fatigue, nausea, alopecia, low platelet counts, increased glucose levels, lymphopenia, neutropenia, liver function test abnormalities, arthralgia, rash, constipation, diarrhea, decreased albumin levels, abdominal pain, dyspnea, decreased appetite, increased amylase levels, urinary tract infection, and vomiting. Immune-mediated adverse reactions with dostarlimab-gxly were similar to those previously reported.

The recommended dostarlimab-gxly dose, according to the full prescribing information, is 500 mg every 3 weeks for six cycles administered before carboplatin and paclitaxel if given on the same day, followed by 1000 mg monotherapy every 6 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity, or up to 3 years.
 

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

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved daratumumab and hyaluronidase-fihj (Darzalex Faspro, Janssen Research and Development LLC) in combination with bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone for induction and consolidation in transplant-eligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma.

Approval followed priority review and was based on efficacy and safety findings from the open-label PERSEUS trial involving 709 patients under age 70 years who were randomized to receive bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone alone or in combination with daratumumab and hyaluronidase-fihj, according to the FDA. 

Compared with bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone alone, the addition of daratumumab and hyaluronidase-fihj resulted in a 60% reduction in the risk for disease progression or death (hazard ratio, 0.40). Median progression-free survival was not reached in either group.

Adverse reactions occurring in ≥ 20% of patients were peripheral neuropathy, fatigue, edema, pyrexia, upper respiratory infection, constipation, diarrhea, musculoskeletal pain, insomnia, and rash. 

The recommended dosage for this indication is 1800 mg daratumumab and 30,000 units hyaluronidase, according to the full prescribing information.

Daratumumab and hyaluronidase-fihj, which was first approved in 2020, has a range of other indications in multiple myeloma.

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

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved daratumumab and hyaluronidase-fihj (Darzalex Faspro, Janssen Research and Development LLC) in combination with bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone for induction and consolidation in transplant-eligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma.

Approval followed priority review and was based on efficacy and safety findings from the open-label PERSEUS trial involving 709 patients under age 70 years who were randomized to receive bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone alone or in combination with daratumumab and hyaluronidase-fihj, according to the FDA. 

Compared with bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone alone, the addition of daratumumab and hyaluronidase-fihj resulted in a 60% reduction in the risk for disease progression or death (hazard ratio, 0.40). Median progression-free survival was not reached in either group.

Adverse reactions occurring in ≥ 20% of patients were peripheral neuropathy, fatigue, edema, pyrexia, upper respiratory infection, constipation, diarrhea, musculoskeletal pain, insomnia, and rash. 

The recommended dosage for this indication is 1800 mg daratumumab and 30,000 units hyaluronidase, according to the full prescribing information.

Daratumumab and hyaluronidase-fihj, which was first approved in 2020, has a range of other indications in multiple myeloma.

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

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved daratumumab and hyaluronidase-fihj (Darzalex Faspro, Janssen Research and Development LLC) in combination with bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone for induction and consolidation in transplant-eligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma.

Approval followed priority review and was based on efficacy and safety findings from the open-label PERSEUS trial involving 709 patients under age 70 years who were randomized to receive bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone alone or in combination with daratumumab and hyaluronidase-fihj, according to the FDA. 

Compared with bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone alone, the addition of daratumumab and hyaluronidase-fihj resulted in a 60% reduction in the risk for disease progression or death (hazard ratio, 0.40). Median progression-free survival was not reached in either group.

Adverse reactions occurring in ≥ 20% of patients were peripheral neuropathy, fatigue, edema, pyrexia, upper respiratory infection, constipation, diarrhea, musculoskeletal pain, insomnia, and rash. 

The recommended dosage for this indication is 1800 mg daratumumab and 30,000 units hyaluronidase, according to the full prescribing information.

Daratumumab and hyaluronidase-fihj, which was first approved in 2020, has a range of other indications in multiple myeloma.

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

TOPLINE:

Oncologists show significant variability in prescribing systemic cancer therapies in the last 30 days of life. Patients treated by oncologists in the top quartile for end-of-life prescribing behavior were almost four and a half times more likely to receive end-of-life therapy than those treated by these specialists in the bottom quartile.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers analyzed data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare database, focusing on patients who died of cancer between 2012 and 2017.
• A total of 17,609 patients with breast, lung, colorectal, or prostate cancer were included, treated by 960 oncologists across 388 practices.
• Patients were required to have had at least one systemic cancer therapy claim in the last 180 days of life, with the treating oncologist identified on the basis of the therapy claim closest to the time of death.
• The study used multilevel models to estimate oncologists’ rates of providing cancer therapy in the last 30 days of life, adjusting for patient characteristics and practice variation.
• Functional status was assessed on the basis of paid claims for durable medical equipment in the last 60 months of life, with scores categorized as 0, 1, ≥ 2, or unknown.

TAKEAWAY:

• Oncologists in the 95th percentile for high end-of-life prescribing behavior had a 45% adjusted rate of treating patients in the last 30 days of life, compared with 17% among those in the 5th percentile.
• Patients treated by high end-of-life prescribing oncologists had over four times higher odds of receiving systemic therapy in the last 30 days of life (odds ratio [OR], 4.42; 95% CI, 4.00-4.89).
• Higher end-of-life prescribing oncologists also had a higher proportion of patients hospitalized in the last 30 days of life than low prescribers (58% vs 51.9%).
• No significant association was found between oncologist prescribing behavior and patient race or ethnicity, except for Black patients who had lower odds of receiving treatment (OR, 0.77; P < .001).

IN PRACTICE:

“Given calls to rein in overutilization of end-of-life six to eight cancer therapies, our findings highlight an underappreciated area for further research: How treatment discontinuation before death is shaped by oncologists’ unique treatment propensities. Elucidating the reasons for this remarkable variability in oncologist treatment behavior could inform efforts to reduce end-of-life cancer treatment overutilization,” wrote the authors of the study.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Login S. George, PhD, Institute for Health, Health Care Policy and Aging Research, Rutgers University in New Brunswick, New Jersey. It was published online in Cancer.

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s reliance on SEER-Medicare data may limit the generalizability of the findings to patients with Medicare Advantage, private insurance, or Medicaid, as well as younger patients. The lack of data on patient preferences and other health characteristics could confound the results. The study focused on systemic therapies and may not be generalizable to other treatments such as clinical trial drugs, oral therapies, surgery, or radiation. The data from 2012 to 2017 may not reflect more recent trends in cancer treatment.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by grants from the National Cancer Institute and the Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey. George disclosed receiving grants from these organizations. 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:

Oncologists show significant variability in prescribing systemic cancer therapies in the last 30 days of life. Patients treated by oncologists in the top quartile for end-of-life prescribing behavior were almost four and a half times more likely to receive end-of-life therapy than those treated by these specialists in the bottom quartile.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers analyzed data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare database, focusing on patients who died of cancer between 2012 and 2017.
• A total of 17,609 patients with breast, lung, colorectal, or prostate cancer were included, treated by 960 oncologists across 388 practices.
• Patients were required to have had at least one systemic cancer therapy claim in the last 180 days of life, with the treating oncologist identified on the basis of the therapy claim closest to the time of death.
• The study used multilevel models to estimate oncologists’ rates of providing cancer therapy in the last 30 days of life, adjusting for patient characteristics and practice variation.
• Functional status was assessed on the basis of paid claims for durable medical equipment in the last 60 months of life, with scores categorized as 0, 1, ≥ 2, or unknown.

TAKEAWAY:

• Oncologists in the 95th percentile for high end-of-life prescribing behavior had a 45% adjusted rate of treating patients in the last 30 days of life, compared with 17% among those in the 5th percentile.
• Patients treated by high end-of-life prescribing oncologists had over four times higher odds of receiving systemic therapy in the last 30 days of life (odds ratio [OR], 4.42; 95% CI, 4.00-4.89).
• Higher end-of-life prescribing oncologists also had a higher proportion of patients hospitalized in the last 30 days of life than low prescribers (58% vs 51.9%).
• No significant association was found between oncologist prescribing behavior and patient race or ethnicity, except for Black patients who had lower odds of receiving treatment (OR, 0.77; P < .001).

IN PRACTICE:

“Given calls to rein in overutilization of end-of-life six to eight cancer therapies, our findings highlight an underappreciated area for further research: How treatment discontinuation before death is shaped by oncologists’ unique treatment propensities. Elucidating the reasons for this remarkable variability in oncologist treatment behavior could inform efforts to reduce end-of-life cancer treatment overutilization,” wrote the authors of the study.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Login S. George, PhD, Institute for Health, Health Care Policy and Aging Research, Rutgers University in New Brunswick, New Jersey. It was published online in Cancer.

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s reliance on SEER-Medicare data may limit the generalizability of the findings to patients with Medicare Advantage, private insurance, or Medicaid, as well as younger patients. The lack of data on patient preferences and other health characteristics could confound the results. The study focused on systemic therapies and may not be generalizable to other treatments such as clinical trial drugs, oral therapies, surgery, or radiation. The data from 2012 to 2017 may not reflect more recent trends in cancer treatment.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by grants from the National Cancer Institute and the Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey. George disclosed receiving grants from these organizations. 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:

Oncologists show significant variability in prescribing systemic cancer therapies in the last 30 days of life. Patients treated by oncologists in the top quartile for end-of-life prescribing behavior were almost four and a half times more likely to receive end-of-life therapy than those treated by these specialists in the bottom quartile.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers analyzed data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare database, focusing on patients who died of cancer between 2012 and 2017.
• A total of 17,609 patients with breast, lung, colorectal, or prostate cancer were included, treated by 960 oncologists across 388 practices.
• Patients were required to have had at least one systemic cancer therapy claim in the last 180 days of life, with the treating oncologist identified on the basis of the therapy claim closest to the time of death.
• The study used multilevel models to estimate oncologists’ rates of providing cancer therapy in the last 30 days of life, adjusting for patient characteristics and practice variation.
• Functional status was assessed on the basis of paid claims for durable medical equipment in the last 60 months of life, with scores categorized as 0, 1, ≥ 2, or unknown.

TAKEAWAY:

• Oncologists in the 95th percentile for high end-of-life prescribing behavior had a 45% adjusted rate of treating patients in the last 30 days of life, compared with 17% among those in the 5th percentile.
• Patients treated by high end-of-life prescribing oncologists had over four times higher odds of receiving systemic therapy in the last 30 days of life (odds ratio [OR], 4.42; 95% CI, 4.00-4.89).
• Higher end-of-life prescribing oncologists also had a higher proportion of patients hospitalized in the last 30 days of life than low prescribers (58% vs 51.9%).
• No significant association was found between oncologist prescribing behavior and patient race or ethnicity, except for Black patients who had lower odds of receiving treatment (OR, 0.77; P < .001).

IN PRACTICE:

“Given calls to rein in overutilization of end-of-life six to eight cancer therapies, our findings highlight an underappreciated area for further research: How treatment discontinuation before death is shaped by oncologists’ unique treatment propensities. Elucidating the reasons for this remarkable variability in oncologist treatment behavior could inform efforts to reduce end-of-life cancer treatment overutilization,” wrote the authors of the study.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Login S. George, PhD, Institute for Health, Health Care Policy and Aging Research, Rutgers University in New Brunswick, New Jersey. It was published online in Cancer.

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s reliance on SEER-Medicare data may limit the generalizability of the findings to patients with Medicare Advantage, private insurance, or Medicaid, as well as younger patients. The lack of data on patient preferences and other health characteristics could confound the results. The study focused on systemic therapies and may not be generalizable to other treatments such as clinical trial drugs, oral therapies, surgery, or radiation. The data from 2012 to 2017 may not reflect more recent trends in cancer treatment.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by grants from the National Cancer Institute and the Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey. George disclosed receiving grants from these organizations. 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.

An ancient virus that infected our ancestors tens of millions of years ago may be helping to fuel cancer today, according to a fascinating new study in Science Advances. Targeting these viral remnants still lingering in our DNA could lead to more effective cancer treatment with fewer side effects, the researchers said.

The study “gives a better understanding of how gene regulation can be impacted by these ancient retroviral sequences,” said Dixie Mager, PhD, scientist emeritus at the Terry Fox Laboratory at the British Columbia Cancer Research Institute, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. (Mager was not involved in the study.)

Long thought to be “junk” DNA with no biologic function, “endogenous retroviruses,” which have mutated over time and lost their ability to create the virus, are now known to regulate genes — allowing some genes to turn on and off. Research in recent years suggests they may play a role in diseases like cancer.

But scientists weren’t exactly sure what that role was, said senior study author Edward Chuong, PhD, a genome biologist at the University of Colorado Boulder.

Most studies have looked at whether endogenous retroviruses code for proteins that influence cancer. But these ancient viral strands usually don’t code for proteins at all.

Dr. Chuong took a different approach. Inspired by scientists who’ve studied how viral remnants regulate positive processes (immunity, brain development, or placenta development), he and his team explored whether some might regulate genes that, once activated, help cancer thrive.

Borrowing from epigenomic analysis data (data on molecules that alter gene expression) for 21 cancers mapped by the Cancer Genome Atlas, the researchers identified 19 virus-derived DNA sequences that bind to regulatory proteins more in cancer cells than in healthy cells. All of these could potentially act as gene regulators that promote cancer.

The researchers homed in on one sequence, called LTR10, because it showed especially high activity in several cancers, including lung and colorectal cancer. This DNA segment comes from a virus that entered our ancestors’ genome 30 million years ago, and it’s activated in a third of colorectal cancers.

Using the gene editing technology clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats (CRISPR), Dr. Chuong’s team silenced LTR10 in colorectal cancer cells, altering the gene sequence so it couldn’t bind to regulatory proteins. Doing so dampened the activity of nearby cancer-promoting genes.

“They still behaved like cancer cells,” Dr. Chuong said. But “it made the cancer cells more susceptible to radiation. That would imply that the presence of that viral ‘switch’ actually helped those cancer cells survive radiation therapy.”

Previously, two studies had found that viral regulators play a role in promoting two types of cancer: Leukemia and prostate cancer. The new study shows these two cases weren’t flukes. All 21 cancers they looked at had at least one of those 19 viral elements, presumably working as cancer enhancers.

The study also identified what activates LTR10 to make it promote cancer. The culprit is a regulator protein called mitogen-activated protein (MAP) kinase, which is overactivated in about 40% of all human cancers.

Some cancer drugs — MAP kinase inhibitors — already target MAP kinase, and they’re often the first ones prescribed when a patient is diagnosed with cancer, Dr. Chuong said. As with many cancer treatments, doctors don’t know why they work, just that they do.

“By understanding the mechanisms in the cell, we might be able to make them work better or further optimize their treatment,” he said.

“MAP kinase inhibitors are really like a sledgehammer to the cell,” Dr. Chuong said — meaning they affect many cellular processes, not just those related to cancer.

“If we’re able to say that these viral switches are what’s important, then that could potentially help us develop a more targeted therapy that uses something like CRISPR to silence these viral elements,” he said. Or it could help providers choose a MAP kinase inhibitor from among the dozens available best suited to treat an individual patient and avoid side effects.  

Still, whether the findings translate to real cancer patients remains to be seen. “It’s very, very hard to go the final step of showing in a patient that these actually make a difference in the cancer,” Dr. Mager said.

More lab research, human trials, and at least a few years will be needed before this discovery could help treat cancer. “Directly targeting these elements as a therapy would be at least 5 years out,” Dr. Chuong said, “partly because that application would rely on CRISPR epigenome editing technology that is still being developed for clinical use.”
 

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

An ancient virus that infected our ancestors tens of millions of years ago may be helping to fuel cancer today, according to a fascinating new study in Science Advances. Targeting these viral remnants still lingering in our DNA could lead to more effective cancer treatment with fewer side effects, the researchers said.

The study “gives a better understanding of how gene regulation can be impacted by these ancient retroviral sequences,” said Dixie Mager, PhD, scientist emeritus at the Terry Fox Laboratory at the British Columbia Cancer Research Institute, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. (Mager was not involved in the study.)

Long thought to be “junk” DNA with no biologic function, “endogenous retroviruses,” which have mutated over time and lost their ability to create the virus, are now known to regulate genes — allowing some genes to turn on and off. Research in recent years suggests they may play a role in diseases like cancer.

But scientists weren’t exactly sure what that role was, said senior study author Edward Chuong, PhD, a genome biologist at the University of Colorado Boulder.

Most studies have looked at whether endogenous retroviruses code for proteins that influence cancer. But these ancient viral strands usually don’t code for proteins at all.

Dr. Chuong took a different approach. Inspired by scientists who’ve studied how viral remnants regulate positive processes (immunity, brain development, or placenta development), he and his team explored whether some might regulate genes that, once activated, help cancer thrive.

Borrowing from epigenomic analysis data (data on molecules that alter gene expression) for 21 cancers mapped by the Cancer Genome Atlas, the researchers identified 19 virus-derived DNA sequences that bind to regulatory proteins more in cancer cells than in healthy cells. All of these could potentially act as gene regulators that promote cancer.

The researchers homed in on one sequence, called LTR10, because it showed especially high activity in several cancers, including lung and colorectal cancer. This DNA segment comes from a virus that entered our ancestors’ genome 30 million years ago, and it’s activated in a third of colorectal cancers.

Using the gene editing technology clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats (CRISPR), Dr. Chuong’s team silenced LTR10 in colorectal cancer cells, altering the gene sequence so it couldn’t bind to regulatory proteins. Doing so dampened the activity of nearby cancer-promoting genes.

“They still behaved like cancer cells,” Dr. Chuong said. But “it made the cancer cells more susceptible to radiation. That would imply that the presence of that viral ‘switch’ actually helped those cancer cells survive radiation therapy.”

Previously, two studies had found that viral regulators play a role in promoting two types of cancer: Leukemia and prostate cancer. The new study shows these two cases weren’t flukes. All 21 cancers they looked at had at least one of those 19 viral elements, presumably working as cancer enhancers.

The study also identified what activates LTR10 to make it promote cancer. The culprit is a regulator protein called mitogen-activated protein (MAP) kinase, which is overactivated in about 40% of all human cancers.

Some cancer drugs — MAP kinase inhibitors — already target MAP kinase, and they’re often the first ones prescribed when a patient is diagnosed with cancer, Dr. Chuong said. As with many cancer treatments, doctors don’t know why they work, just that they do.

“By understanding the mechanisms in the cell, we might be able to make them work better or further optimize their treatment,” he said.

“MAP kinase inhibitors are really like a sledgehammer to the cell,” Dr. Chuong said — meaning they affect many cellular processes, not just those related to cancer.

“If we’re able to say that these viral switches are what’s important, then that could potentially help us develop a more targeted therapy that uses something like CRISPR to silence these viral elements,” he said. Or it could help providers choose a MAP kinase inhibitor from among the dozens available best suited to treat an individual patient and avoid side effects.  

Still, whether the findings translate to real cancer patients remains to be seen. “It’s very, very hard to go the final step of showing in a patient that these actually make a difference in the cancer,” Dr. Mager said.

More lab research, human trials, and at least a few years will be needed before this discovery could help treat cancer. “Directly targeting these elements as a therapy would be at least 5 years out,” Dr. Chuong said, “partly because that application would rely on CRISPR epigenome editing technology that is still being developed for clinical use.”
 

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

An ancient virus that infected our ancestors tens of millions of years ago may be helping to fuel cancer today, according to a fascinating new study in Science Advances. Targeting these viral remnants still lingering in our DNA could lead to more effective cancer treatment with fewer side effects, the researchers said.

The study “gives a better understanding of how gene regulation can be impacted by these ancient retroviral sequences,” said Dixie Mager, PhD, scientist emeritus at the Terry Fox Laboratory at the British Columbia Cancer Research Institute, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. (Mager was not involved in the study.)

Long thought to be “junk” DNA with no biologic function, “endogenous retroviruses,” which have mutated over time and lost their ability to create the virus, are now known to regulate genes — allowing some genes to turn on and off. Research in recent years suggests they may play a role in diseases like cancer.

But scientists weren’t exactly sure what that role was, said senior study author Edward Chuong, PhD, a genome biologist at the University of Colorado Boulder.

Most studies have looked at whether endogenous retroviruses code for proteins that influence cancer. But these ancient viral strands usually don’t code for proteins at all.

Dr. Chuong took a different approach. Inspired by scientists who’ve studied how viral remnants regulate positive processes (immunity, brain development, or placenta development), he and his team explored whether some might regulate genes that, once activated, help cancer thrive.

Borrowing from epigenomic analysis data (data on molecules that alter gene expression) for 21 cancers mapped by the Cancer Genome Atlas, the researchers identified 19 virus-derived DNA sequences that bind to regulatory proteins more in cancer cells than in healthy cells. All of these could potentially act as gene regulators that promote cancer.

The researchers homed in on one sequence, called LTR10, because it showed especially high activity in several cancers, including lung and colorectal cancer. This DNA segment comes from a virus that entered our ancestors’ genome 30 million years ago, and it’s activated in a third of colorectal cancers.

Using the gene editing technology clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats (CRISPR), Dr. Chuong’s team silenced LTR10 in colorectal cancer cells, altering the gene sequence so it couldn’t bind to regulatory proteins. Doing so dampened the activity of nearby cancer-promoting genes.

“They still behaved like cancer cells,” Dr. Chuong said. But “it made the cancer cells more susceptible to radiation. That would imply that the presence of that viral ‘switch’ actually helped those cancer cells survive radiation therapy.”

Previously, two studies had found that viral regulators play a role in promoting two types of cancer: Leukemia and prostate cancer. The new study shows these two cases weren’t flukes. All 21 cancers they looked at had at least one of those 19 viral elements, presumably working as cancer enhancers.

The study also identified what activates LTR10 to make it promote cancer. The culprit is a regulator protein called mitogen-activated protein (MAP) kinase, which is overactivated in about 40% of all human cancers.

Some cancer drugs — MAP kinase inhibitors — already target MAP kinase, and they’re often the first ones prescribed when a patient is diagnosed with cancer, Dr. Chuong said. As with many cancer treatments, doctors don’t know why they work, just that they do.

“By understanding the mechanisms in the cell, we might be able to make them work better or further optimize their treatment,” he said.

“MAP kinase inhibitors are really like a sledgehammer to the cell,” Dr. Chuong said — meaning they affect many cellular processes, not just those related to cancer.

“If we’re able to say that these viral switches are what’s important, then that could potentially help us develop a more targeted therapy that uses something like CRISPR to silence these viral elements,” he said. Or it could help providers choose a MAP kinase inhibitor from among the dozens available best suited to treat an individual patient and avoid side effects.  

Still, whether the findings translate to real cancer patients remains to be seen. “It’s very, very hard to go the final step of showing in a patient that these actually make a difference in the cancer,” Dr. Mager said.

More lab research, human trials, and at least a few years will be needed before this discovery could help treat cancer. “Directly targeting these elements as a therapy would be at least 5 years out,” Dr. Chuong said, “partly because that application would rely on CRISPR epigenome editing technology that is still being developed for clinical use.”
 

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

The CDK4/6 inhibitors abemaciclib and ribociclib were independently associated with better progression-free survival (PFS) when compared with palbociclib in a real-world comparison of the agents as first line treatment, along with endocrine therapy (ET), for patients with hormone receptor–positive, HER2-negative advanced breast cancer.

Lead investigator Claudio Vernieri, MD, PhD, presented these findings of the PALMARES-2 study at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

“Along with different safety profiles, drug-drug interactions, and costs of the three available CDK4/6 inhibitor molecules, our efficacy data may help clinicians and patients in choosing the most appropriate CDK4/6 inhibitor in specific clinical contexts,” Dr. Vernieri, who is from the Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milan, Italy, said during the meeting.

CDK4/6 inhibitors combined with ET, are the standard of care as first line treatment for this population, noted Dr. Vernieri. However, their efficacy has never been directly compared in a large clinical trial.

“Since these compounds have different pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, safety profiles, costs, and drug-drug interactions, identifying which of the three CDK4/6 inhibitors may be more effective in specific clinical contexts is a highly clinically relevant issue,” he said. “Real-world data represent a key source to perform direct comparisons.”

The PALMARES-2 study was a retrospective, multicenter, population-based study, in 18 Italian cancer centers. Its two main objectives were to compare the real-world PFS of abemaciclib versus ribociclib versus palbociclib, in combination with ET, in the whole study cohort, as well as in various subgroups including patients with endocrine-resistant disease, luminal B-like disease, or in premenopausal women.

A total of 1,850 patients (median age, 63 years) were enrolled between January 1, 2016 and September 1, 2023, with 750 (40.6%) receiving palbociclib, and 676 (36.5%) and 424 (22.9%) receiving ribociclib and abemaciclib, respectively.
 

Baseline imbalance

Importantly, there were significant imbalances in baseline characteristics of the patients, with those receiving abemaciclib being more likely to have endocrine-resistant disease, low progesterone receptor expression, and liver metastasis, and less likely to have de novo metastatic disease, compared with other patients, said Dr. Vernieri.

The analysis showed that across the entire cohort, the median real-world PFS and overall survival (OS) were 34.7 months and 66.6 months, respectively, by a January 1, 2024, data cutoff date. “I believe that the overall survival data are still immature to make a definitive conclusion,” he commented, noting that at enrollment only about half of patients had undergone disease progression, and at the close of the study only about 25% had died.

After adjusting for clinically relevant patient- and tumor-related covariates, “we found that both abemaciclib and ribociclib were more effective than palbociclib, whereas we did not find statistically significant differences between abemaciclib and ribociclib,” he reported.

Specifically, the adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) for PFS was 0.71 for abemaciclib versus palbociclib (95% CI, 0.56-0.90; P = .005), 0.81 for ribociclib versus palbociclib (95% CI, 0.65-0.99; P = .048), and 0.91 for abemaciclib versus ribociclib (95% CI, 0.70-1.19; P = .505).

“Regarding subgroup analysis, we found that abemaciclib and ribociclib were more effective than palbociclib in patients with endocrine-resistant or luminal B-like disease, as well as in premenopausal women. Abemaciclib was superior to palbociclib in patients with poorer ECOG [Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group] performance status and to both palbociclib and ribociclib in patients with de novo metastatic disease. Both ribociclib and abemaciclib showed a trend toward higher efficacy in patients with liver metastases. However, this difference only reached statistical significance in patients treated with ribociclib. And finally, the three CDK4/6 inhibitors were similarly effective in patients who were older or at bone-only disease,” he concluded.
 

Justifying adjustment

Speaking during the audience question period Giuseppe Del Priore, MD, from Morehouse School of Medicine in Atlanta, Georgia, said he preferred unadjusted results when examining real-world data, “because that’s the benefit,” and he questioned why the researchers had adjusted their numbers.

Dr. Vernieri explained that the adjustments were made to account for the important imbalances in the baseline characteristics of the patients.

“When we plotted unadjusted curves, we did not find statistically significant differences between these three drugs, only a trend toward the direction that I showed you today,” he said. “However, as you saw from the tables showing the characteristics of patients, there were important imbalances in terms of important prognostic factors in the three patient cohorts. So, I think that, for this kind of data and based on this level of imbalance, adjustment is necessary.

“To reinforce our conclusions, what we did was also to perform a propensity score match–based analysis,” Dr. Vernieri continued. “I did not have the time to show the results today, but these data were fully in line with the study conclusions. And we also performed a backward selection of variables. So, we basically selected variables more likely to be associated with patient prognosis. And also those models confirm the study conclusion. So I think the conclusions are quite solid.”

Dr. Del Priore, an adjunct professor of obstetrics and gynecology with a specialty in oncology, on the other hand, said he was not convinced that any of the drugs might be better or worse in the actual population treated.

“I still maintain that unadjusted real-world data should be presented and then only a limited adjusted analysis performed using the most unbalanced variables,” he said. “To do more elaborate adjustments may falsely imply a difference in drug choice and outcomes which never should be the conclusion with observational studies. Instead, the conclusions should be that, with typical use, the following similarities in PFS and OS were observed. Then point out how drug choice and important prognostic variables might be linked, thus limiting the generalizable conclusions even further.

“I would conclude that prospective studies should balance for the variables used in the PALMARES-2 analyses, which actually may have been chosen for adjustment post hoc,” Dr. Del Priore said.

The study was funded by the Italian Association for Cancer Research, the European Research Council, the Ministero della Salute, the Scientific Directorate of Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Giuliani’s Foundation and Roche. Dr. Vernieri reported consulting or advisory roles with Daiichi Sankyo/Astra Zeneca, Novartis, and Pfizer; speakers’ bureau roles with Accademia Nazionale Di Medicina (ACCMED), Istituto Gentili, Lilly and Novartis; and research funding from Roche. Dr. Del Priore reported no conflicts of interest and disclosed that he is chief medical officer at BriaCell.

The CDK4/6 inhibitors abemaciclib and ribociclib were independently associated with better progression-free survival (PFS) when compared with palbociclib in a real-world comparison of the agents as first line treatment, along with endocrine therapy (ET), for patients with hormone receptor–positive, HER2-negative advanced breast cancer.

Lead investigator Claudio Vernieri, MD, PhD, presented these findings of the PALMARES-2 study at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

“Along with different safety profiles, drug-drug interactions, and costs of the three available CDK4/6 inhibitor molecules, our efficacy data may help clinicians and patients in choosing the most appropriate CDK4/6 inhibitor in specific clinical contexts,” Dr. Vernieri, who is from the Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milan, Italy, said during the meeting.

CDK4/6 inhibitors combined with ET, are the standard of care as first line treatment for this population, noted Dr. Vernieri. However, their efficacy has never been directly compared in a large clinical trial.

“Since these compounds have different pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, safety profiles, costs, and drug-drug interactions, identifying which of the three CDK4/6 inhibitors may be more effective in specific clinical contexts is a highly clinically relevant issue,” he said. “Real-world data represent a key source to perform direct comparisons.”

The PALMARES-2 study was a retrospective, multicenter, population-based study, in 18 Italian cancer centers. Its two main objectives were to compare the real-world PFS of abemaciclib versus ribociclib versus palbociclib, in combination with ET, in the whole study cohort, as well as in various subgroups including patients with endocrine-resistant disease, luminal B-like disease, or in premenopausal women.

A total of 1,850 patients (median age, 63 years) were enrolled between January 1, 2016 and September 1, 2023, with 750 (40.6%) receiving palbociclib, and 676 (36.5%) and 424 (22.9%) receiving ribociclib and abemaciclib, respectively.
 

Baseline imbalance

Importantly, there were significant imbalances in baseline characteristics of the patients, with those receiving abemaciclib being more likely to have endocrine-resistant disease, low progesterone receptor expression, and liver metastasis, and less likely to have de novo metastatic disease, compared with other patients, said Dr. Vernieri.

The analysis showed that across the entire cohort, the median real-world PFS and overall survival (OS) were 34.7 months and 66.6 months, respectively, by a January 1, 2024, data cutoff date. “I believe that the overall survival data are still immature to make a definitive conclusion,” he commented, noting that at enrollment only about half of patients had undergone disease progression, and at the close of the study only about 25% had died.

After adjusting for clinically relevant patient- and tumor-related covariates, “we found that both abemaciclib and ribociclib were more effective than palbociclib, whereas we did not find statistically significant differences between abemaciclib and ribociclib,” he reported.

Specifically, the adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) for PFS was 0.71 for abemaciclib versus palbociclib (95% CI, 0.56-0.90; P = .005), 0.81 for ribociclib versus palbociclib (95% CI, 0.65-0.99; P = .048), and 0.91 for abemaciclib versus ribociclib (95% CI, 0.70-1.19; P = .505).

“Regarding subgroup analysis, we found that abemaciclib and ribociclib were more effective than palbociclib in patients with endocrine-resistant or luminal B-like disease, as well as in premenopausal women. Abemaciclib was superior to palbociclib in patients with poorer ECOG [Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group] performance status and to both palbociclib and ribociclib in patients with de novo metastatic disease. Both ribociclib and abemaciclib showed a trend toward higher efficacy in patients with liver metastases. However, this difference only reached statistical significance in patients treated with ribociclib. And finally, the three CDK4/6 inhibitors were similarly effective in patients who were older or at bone-only disease,” he concluded.
 

Justifying adjustment

Speaking during the audience question period Giuseppe Del Priore, MD, from Morehouse School of Medicine in Atlanta, Georgia, said he preferred unadjusted results when examining real-world data, “because that’s the benefit,” and he questioned why the researchers had adjusted their numbers.

Dr. Vernieri explained that the adjustments were made to account for the important imbalances in the baseline characteristics of the patients.

“When we plotted unadjusted curves, we did not find statistically significant differences between these three drugs, only a trend toward the direction that I showed you today,” he said. “However, as you saw from the tables showing the characteristics of patients, there were important imbalances in terms of important prognostic factors in the three patient cohorts. So, I think that, for this kind of data and based on this level of imbalance, adjustment is necessary.

“To reinforce our conclusions, what we did was also to perform a propensity score match–based analysis,” Dr. Vernieri continued. “I did not have the time to show the results today, but these data were fully in line with the study conclusions. And we also performed a backward selection of variables. So, we basically selected variables more likely to be associated with patient prognosis. And also those models confirm the study conclusion. So I think the conclusions are quite solid.”

Dr. Del Priore, an adjunct professor of obstetrics and gynecology with a specialty in oncology, on the other hand, said he was not convinced that any of the drugs might be better or worse in the actual population treated.

“I still maintain that unadjusted real-world data should be presented and then only a limited adjusted analysis performed using the most unbalanced variables,” he said. “To do more elaborate adjustments may falsely imply a difference in drug choice and outcomes which never should be the conclusion with observational studies. Instead, the conclusions should be that, with typical use, the following similarities in PFS and OS were observed. Then point out how drug choice and important prognostic variables might be linked, thus limiting the generalizable conclusions even further.

“I would conclude that prospective studies should balance for the variables used in the PALMARES-2 analyses, which actually may have been chosen for adjustment post hoc,” Dr. Del Priore said.

The study was funded by the Italian Association for Cancer Research, the European Research Council, the Ministero della Salute, the Scientific Directorate of Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Giuliani’s Foundation and Roche. Dr. Vernieri reported consulting or advisory roles with Daiichi Sankyo/Astra Zeneca, Novartis, and Pfizer; speakers’ bureau roles with Accademia Nazionale Di Medicina (ACCMED), Istituto Gentili, Lilly and Novartis; and research funding from Roche. Dr. Del Priore reported no conflicts of interest and disclosed that he is chief medical officer at BriaCell.

The CDK4/6 inhibitors abemaciclib and ribociclib were independently associated with better progression-free survival (PFS) when compared with palbociclib in a real-world comparison of the agents as first line treatment, along with endocrine therapy (ET), for patients with hormone receptor–positive, HER2-negative advanced breast cancer.

Lead investigator Claudio Vernieri, MD, PhD, presented these findings of the PALMARES-2 study at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

“Along with different safety profiles, drug-drug interactions, and costs of the three available CDK4/6 inhibitor molecules, our efficacy data may help clinicians and patients in choosing the most appropriate CDK4/6 inhibitor in specific clinical contexts,” Dr. Vernieri, who is from the Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milan, Italy, said during the meeting.

CDK4/6 inhibitors combined with ET, are the standard of care as first line treatment for this population, noted Dr. Vernieri. However, their efficacy has never been directly compared in a large clinical trial.

“Since these compounds have different pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, safety profiles, costs, and drug-drug interactions, identifying which of the three CDK4/6 inhibitors may be more effective in specific clinical contexts is a highly clinically relevant issue,” he said. “Real-world data represent a key source to perform direct comparisons.”

The PALMARES-2 study was a retrospective, multicenter, population-based study, in 18 Italian cancer centers. Its two main objectives were to compare the real-world PFS of abemaciclib versus ribociclib versus palbociclib, in combination with ET, in the whole study cohort, as well as in various subgroups including patients with endocrine-resistant disease, luminal B-like disease, or in premenopausal women.

A total of 1,850 patients (median age, 63 years) were enrolled between January 1, 2016 and September 1, 2023, with 750 (40.6%) receiving palbociclib, and 676 (36.5%) and 424 (22.9%) receiving ribociclib and abemaciclib, respectively.
 

Baseline imbalance

Importantly, there were significant imbalances in baseline characteristics of the patients, with those receiving abemaciclib being more likely to have endocrine-resistant disease, low progesterone receptor expression, and liver metastasis, and less likely to have de novo metastatic disease, compared with other patients, said Dr. Vernieri.

The analysis showed that across the entire cohort, the median real-world PFS and overall survival (OS) were 34.7 months and 66.6 months, respectively, by a January 1, 2024, data cutoff date. “I believe that the overall survival data are still immature to make a definitive conclusion,” he commented, noting that at enrollment only about half of patients had undergone disease progression, and at the close of the study only about 25% had died.

After adjusting for clinically relevant patient- and tumor-related covariates, “we found that both abemaciclib and ribociclib were more effective than palbociclib, whereas we did not find statistically significant differences between abemaciclib and ribociclib,” he reported.

Specifically, the adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) for PFS was 0.71 for abemaciclib versus palbociclib (95% CI, 0.56-0.90; P = .005), 0.81 for ribociclib versus palbociclib (95% CI, 0.65-0.99; P = .048), and 0.91 for abemaciclib versus ribociclib (95% CI, 0.70-1.19; P = .505).

“Regarding subgroup analysis, we found that abemaciclib and ribociclib were more effective than palbociclib in patients with endocrine-resistant or luminal B-like disease, as well as in premenopausal women. Abemaciclib was superior to palbociclib in patients with poorer ECOG [Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group] performance status and to both palbociclib and ribociclib in patients with de novo metastatic disease. Both ribociclib and abemaciclib showed a trend toward higher efficacy in patients with liver metastases. However, this difference only reached statistical significance in patients treated with ribociclib. And finally, the three CDK4/6 inhibitors were similarly effective in patients who were older or at bone-only disease,” he concluded.
 

Justifying adjustment

Speaking during the audience question period Giuseppe Del Priore, MD, from Morehouse School of Medicine in Atlanta, Georgia, said he preferred unadjusted results when examining real-world data, “because that’s the benefit,” and he questioned why the researchers had adjusted their numbers.

Dr. Vernieri explained that the adjustments were made to account for the important imbalances in the baseline characteristics of the patients.

“When we plotted unadjusted curves, we did not find statistically significant differences between these three drugs, only a trend toward the direction that I showed you today,” he said. “However, as you saw from the tables showing the characteristics of patients, there were important imbalances in terms of important prognostic factors in the three patient cohorts. So, I think that, for this kind of data and based on this level of imbalance, adjustment is necessary.

“To reinforce our conclusions, what we did was also to perform a propensity score match–based analysis,” Dr. Vernieri continued. “I did not have the time to show the results today, but these data were fully in line with the study conclusions. And we also performed a backward selection of variables. So, we basically selected variables more likely to be associated with patient prognosis. And also those models confirm the study conclusion. So I think the conclusions are quite solid.”

Dr. Del Priore, an adjunct professor of obstetrics and gynecology with a specialty in oncology, on the other hand, said he was not convinced that any of the drugs might be better or worse in the actual population treated.

“I still maintain that unadjusted real-world data should be presented and then only a limited adjusted analysis performed using the most unbalanced variables,” he said. “To do more elaborate adjustments may falsely imply a difference in drug choice and outcomes which never should be the conclusion with observational studies. Instead, the conclusions should be that, with typical use, the following similarities in PFS and OS were observed. Then point out how drug choice and important prognostic variables might be linked, thus limiting the generalizable conclusions even further.

“I would conclude that prospective studies should balance for the variables used in the PALMARES-2 analyses, which actually may have been chosen for adjustment post hoc,” Dr. Del Priore said.

The study was funded by the Italian Association for Cancer Research, the European Research Council, the Ministero della Salute, the Scientific Directorate of Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Giuliani’s Foundation and Roche. Dr. Vernieri reported consulting or advisory roles with Daiichi Sankyo/Astra Zeneca, Novartis, and Pfizer; speakers’ bureau roles with Accademia Nazionale Di Medicina (ACCMED), Istituto Gentili, Lilly and Novartis; and research funding from Roche. Dr. Del Priore reported no conflicts of interest and disclosed that he is chief medical officer at BriaCell.

A breakthrough in medical testing now allows for colorectal cancer screening with just a simple blood test, promising a more accessible and less invasive way to catch the disease early. 

The FDA on July 29 approved the test, called Shield, which can accurately detect tumors in the colon or rectum about 87% of the time when the cancer is in treatable early stages. The approval was announced July 29 by the test’s maker, Guardant Health, and comes just months after promising clinical trial results were published in The New England Journal of Medicine.

Colorectal cancer is among the most common types of cancer diagnosed in the United States each year, along with being one of the leading causes of cancer deaths. The condition is treatable in early stages, but about 1 in 3 people don’t stay up to date on regular screenings, which should begin at age 45.

The simplicity of a blood test could make it more likely for people to be screened for and, ultimately, survive the disease. Other primary screening options include feces-based tests or colonoscopy. The 5-year survival rate for colorectal cancer is 64%.

While highly accurate at detecting DNA shed by tumors during treatable stages of colorectal cancer, the Shield test was not as effective at detecting precancerous areas of tissue, which are typically removed after being detected.

In its news release, Guardant Health officials said they anticipate the test to be covered under Medicare. The out-of-pocket cost for people whose insurance does not cover the test has not yet been announced. The test is expected to be available by next week, The New York Times reported.

If someone’s Shield test comes back positive, the person would then get more tests to confirm the result. Shield was shown in trials to have a 10% false positive rate.

“I was in for a routine physical, and my doctor asked when I had my last colonoscopy,” said John Gormly, a 77-year-old business executive in Newport Beach, California, according to a Guardant Health news release. “I said it’s been a long time, so he offered to give me the Shield blood test. A few days later, the result came back positive, so he referred me for a colonoscopy. It turned out I had stage II colon cancer. The tumor was removed, and I recovered very quickly. Thank God I had taken that blood test.”
 

A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com.

A breakthrough in medical testing now allows for colorectal cancer screening with just a simple blood test, promising a more accessible and less invasive way to catch the disease early. 

The FDA on July 29 approved the test, called Shield, which can accurately detect tumors in the colon or rectum about 87% of the time when the cancer is in treatable early stages. The approval was announced July 29 by the test’s maker, Guardant Health, and comes just months after promising clinical trial results were published in The New England Journal of Medicine.

Colorectal cancer is among the most common types of cancer diagnosed in the United States each year, along with being one of the leading causes of cancer deaths. The condition is treatable in early stages, but about 1 in 3 people don’t stay up to date on regular screenings, which should begin at age 45.

The simplicity of a blood test could make it more likely for people to be screened for and, ultimately, survive the disease. Other primary screening options include feces-based tests or colonoscopy. The 5-year survival rate for colorectal cancer is 64%.

While highly accurate at detecting DNA shed by tumors during treatable stages of colorectal cancer, the Shield test was not as effective at detecting precancerous areas of tissue, which are typically removed after being detected.

In its news release, Guardant Health officials said they anticipate the test to be covered under Medicare. The out-of-pocket cost for people whose insurance does not cover the test has not yet been announced. The test is expected to be available by next week, The New York Times reported.

If someone’s Shield test comes back positive, the person would then get more tests to confirm the result. Shield was shown in trials to have a 10% false positive rate.

“I was in for a routine physical, and my doctor asked when I had my last colonoscopy,” said John Gormly, a 77-year-old business executive in Newport Beach, California, according to a Guardant Health news release. “I said it’s been a long time, so he offered to give me the Shield blood test. A few days later, the result came back positive, so he referred me for a colonoscopy. It turned out I had stage II colon cancer. The tumor was removed, and I recovered very quickly. Thank God I had taken that blood test.”
 

A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com.

A breakthrough in medical testing now allows for colorectal cancer screening with just a simple blood test, promising a more accessible and less invasive way to catch the disease early. 

The FDA on July 29 approved the test, called Shield, which can accurately detect tumors in the colon or rectum about 87% of the time when the cancer is in treatable early stages. The approval was announced July 29 by the test’s maker, Guardant Health, and comes just months after promising clinical trial results were published in The New England Journal of Medicine.

Colorectal cancer is among the most common types of cancer diagnosed in the United States each year, along with being one of the leading causes of cancer deaths. The condition is treatable in early stages, but about 1 in 3 people don’t stay up to date on regular screenings, which should begin at age 45.

The simplicity of a blood test could make it more likely for people to be screened for and, ultimately, survive the disease. Other primary screening options include feces-based tests or colonoscopy. The 5-year survival rate for colorectal cancer is 64%.

While highly accurate at detecting DNA shed by tumors during treatable stages of colorectal cancer, the Shield test was not as effective at detecting precancerous areas of tissue, which are typically removed after being detected.

In its news release, Guardant Health officials said they anticipate the test to be covered under Medicare. The out-of-pocket cost for people whose insurance does not cover the test has not yet been announced. The test is expected to be available by next week, The New York Times reported.

If someone’s Shield test comes back positive, the person would then get more tests to confirm the result. Shield was shown in trials to have a 10% false positive rate.

“I was in for a routine physical, and my doctor asked when I had my last colonoscopy,” said John Gormly, a 77-year-old business executive in Newport Beach, California, according to a Guardant Health news release. “I said it’s been a long time, so he offered to give me the Shield blood test. A few days later, the result came back positive, so he referred me for a colonoscopy. It turned out I had stage II colon cancer. The tumor was removed, and I recovered very quickly. Thank God I had taken that blood test.”
 

A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com.