Renal Cell Carcinoma

PARIS – If results of phase 3, randomized clinical trials are the gold standard for cancer drug approvals, then single-arm trials are at best a bronze or even brass standard, with results that should only be used, under certain conditions, for accelerated approvals that should then be followed by confirmatory studies.

In fact, many drugs approved over the last decade based solely on data from single-arm trials have been subsequently withdrawn when put through the rigors of a head-to-head randomized controlled trial, according to Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, from the department of oncology at Queen’s University, Kingston, Ont.

“Single-arm trials are not meant to provide confirmatory evidence sufficient for approval; However, that ship has sailed, and we have several drugs that are approved on the basis of single-arm trials, but we need to make sure that those approvals are accelerated or conditional approvals, not regular approval,” he said in a presentation included in a special session on drug approvals at the European Society for Medical Oncology Congress.

“We should not allow premature regular approval based on single-arm trials, because once a drug gets conditional approval, access is not an issue. Patients will have access to the drug anyway, but we should ensure that robust evidence follows, and long-term follow-up data are needed to develop confidence in the efficacy outcomes that are seen in single-arm trials,” he said.

In many cases, single-arm trials are large enough or of long enough duration that investigators could have reasonably performed a randomized controlled trial (RCT) in the first place, Dr. Gyawali added.
 

Why do single-arm trials?

The term “single-arm registration trial” is something of an oxymoron, he said, noting that the purpose of such trials should be whether to take the drug to a phase 3, randomized trial. But as authors of a 2019 study in JAMA Network Open showed, of a sample of phase 3 RCTs, 42% did not have a prior phase 2 trial, and 28% had a negative phase 2 trial. Single-arm trials may be acceptable for conditional drug approvals if all of the following conditions are met:

• A RCT is not possible because the disease is rare or randomization would be unethical.
• The safety of the drug is established and its potential benefits outweigh its risks.
• The drug is associated with a high and durable overall or objective response rate.
• The mechanism of action is supported by a strong scientific rationale, and if the drug may meet an unmet medical need.

Survival endpoints won’t do

Efficacy endpoints typically used in RCTs, such as progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) can be misleading because they may be a result of the natural history of the disease and not the drug being tested, whereas ORRs are almost certainly reflective of the action of the drug itself, because spontaneous tumor regression is a rare phenomenon, Dr. Gyawali said.

He cautioned, however, that the ORR of placebo is not zero percent. For example in a 2018 study of sorafenib (Nexavar) versus placebo for advanced or refractory desmoid tumors, the ORR with the active drug was 33%, and the ORR for placebo was 20%.

It’s also open to question, he said, what constitutes an acceptably high ORR and duration of response, pointing to Food and Drug Administration accelerated approval of an indication for nivolumab (Opdivo) for treatment of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) that had progressed on sorafenib. In the single-arm trial used as the basis for approval, the ORRs as assessed by an independent central review committee blinded to the results was 14.3%.

“So, nivolumab in hepatocellular cancer was approved on the basis of a response rate lower than that of placebo, albeit in a different tumor. But the point I’m trying to show here is we don’t have a good definition of what is a good response rate,” he said.

In July 2021, Bristol-Myers Squibb voluntarily withdrew the HCC indication for nivolumab, following negative results of the CheckMate 459 trial and a 5-4 vote against continuing the accelerated approval.
 

On second thought ...

Citing data compiled by Nathan I. Cherny, MD, from Shaare Zedek Medical Center, Jerusalem, Dr. Gyawali noted that 58 of 161 FDA approvals from 2017 to 2021 of drugs for adult solid tumors were based on single-arm trials. Of the 58 drugs, 39 received accelerated approvals, and 19 received regular approvals; of the 39 that received accelerated approvals, 4 were subsequently withdrawn, 8 were converted to regular approvals, and the remainder continued as accelerated approvals.

Interestingly, the median response rate among all the drugs was 40%, and did not differ between the type of approval received, suggesting that response rates are not predictive of whether a drug will receive a conditional or full-fledged go-ahead.
 

What’s rare and safe?

The definition of a rare disease in the United States is one that affects fewer than 40,000 per year, and in Europe it’s an incidence rate of less than 6 per 100,000 population, Dr. Gyawali noted. But he argued that even non–small cell lung cancer, the most common form of cancer in the world, could be considered rare if it is broken down into subtypes that are treated according to specific mutations that may occur in a relatively small number of patients.

He also noted that a specific drug’s safety, one of the most important criteria for granting approval to a drug based on a single-arm trial, can be difficult to judge without adequate controls for comparison.
 

Cherry-picking patients

Winette van der Graaf, MD, president of the European Organization for the Research and Treatment of Cancer, who attended the session where Dr. Gyawali’s presentation was played, said in an interview that clinicians should cast a critical eye on how trials are designed and conducted, including patient selection and choice of endpoints.

“One of the most obvious things to be concerned about is that we’re still having patients with good performance status enrolled, mostly PS 0 or 1, so how representative are these clinical trials for the patients we see in front of us on a daily basis?” she said.

“The other question is radiological endpoints, which we focus on with OS and PFS are most important for patients, especially if you consider that if patients may have asymptomatic disease, and we are only treating them with potentially toxic medication, what are we doing for them? Median overall survival when you look at all of these trials is only 4 months, so we really need to take into account how we affect patients in clinical trials,” she added.

Dr. van der Graaf emphasized that clinical trial investigators need to more routinely incorporate quality of life measures and other patient-reported outcomes in clinical trial results to help regulators and clinicians in practice get a better sense of the true clinical benefit of a new drug.

Dr. Gyawali did not disclose a funding source for his presentation. He reported consulting fees from Vivio Health and research grants from the American Society of Clinical Oncology. Dr. van der Graaf reported no conflicts of interest.

PARIS – If results of phase 3, randomized clinical trials are the gold standard for cancer drug approvals, then single-arm trials are at best a bronze or even brass standard, with results that should only be used, under certain conditions, for accelerated approvals that should then be followed by confirmatory studies.

In fact, many drugs approved over the last decade based solely on data from single-arm trials have been subsequently withdrawn when put through the rigors of a head-to-head randomized controlled trial, according to Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, from the department of oncology at Queen’s University, Kingston, Ont.

“Single-arm trials are not meant to provide confirmatory evidence sufficient for approval; However, that ship has sailed, and we have several drugs that are approved on the basis of single-arm trials, but we need to make sure that those approvals are accelerated or conditional approvals, not regular approval,” he said in a presentation included in a special session on drug approvals at the European Society for Medical Oncology Congress.

“We should not allow premature regular approval based on single-arm trials, because once a drug gets conditional approval, access is not an issue. Patients will have access to the drug anyway, but we should ensure that robust evidence follows, and long-term follow-up data are needed to develop confidence in the efficacy outcomes that are seen in single-arm trials,” he said.

In many cases, single-arm trials are large enough or of long enough duration that investigators could have reasonably performed a randomized controlled trial (RCT) in the first place, Dr. Gyawali added.
 

Why do single-arm trials?

The term “single-arm registration trial” is something of an oxymoron, he said, noting that the purpose of such trials should be whether to take the drug to a phase 3, randomized trial. But as authors of a 2019 study in JAMA Network Open showed, of a sample of phase 3 RCTs, 42% did not have a prior phase 2 trial, and 28% had a negative phase 2 trial. Single-arm trials may be acceptable for conditional drug approvals if all of the following conditions are met:

• A RCT is not possible because the disease is rare or randomization would be unethical.
• The safety of the drug is established and its potential benefits outweigh its risks.
• The drug is associated with a high and durable overall or objective response rate.
• The mechanism of action is supported by a strong scientific rationale, and if the drug may meet an unmet medical need.

Survival endpoints won’t do

Efficacy endpoints typically used in RCTs, such as progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) can be misleading because they may be a result of the natural history of the disease and not the drug being tested, whereas ORRs are almost certainly reflective of the action of the drug itself, because spontaneous tumor regression is a rare phenomenon, Dr. Gyawali said.

He cautioned, however, that the ORR of placebo is not zero percent. For example in a 2018 study of sorafenib (Nexavar) versus placebo for advanced or refractory desmoid tumors, the ORR with the active drug was 33%, and the ORR for placebo was 20%.

It’s also open to question, he said, what constitutes an acceptably high ORR and duration of response, pointing to Food and Drug Administration accelerated approval of an indication for nivolumab (Opdivo) for treatment of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) that had progressed on sorafenib. In the single-arm trial used as the basis for approval, the ORRs as assessed by an independent central review committee blinded to the results was 14.3%.

“So, nivolumab in hepatocellular cancer was approved on the basis of a response rate lower than that of placebo, albeit in a different tumor. But the point I’m trying to show here is we don’t have a good definition of what is a good response rate,” he said.

In July 2021, Bristol-Myers Squibb voluntarily withdrew the HCC indication for nivolumab, following negative results of the CheckMate 459 trial and a 5-4 vote against continuing the accelerated approval.
 

On second thought ...

Citing data compiled by Nathan I. Cherny, MD, from Shaare Zedek Medical Center, Jerusalem, Dr. Gyawali noted that 58 of 161 FDA approvals from 2017 to 2021 of drugs for adult solid tumors were based on single-arm trials. Of the 58 drugs, 39 received accelerated approvals, and 19 received regular approvals; of the 39 that received accelerated approvals, 4 were subsequently withdrawn, 8 were converted to regular approvals, and the remainder continued as accelerated approvals.

Interestingly, the median response rate among all the drugs was 40%, and did not differ between the type of approval received, suggesting that response rates are not predictive of whether a drug will receive a conditional or full-fledged go-ahead.
 

What’s rare and safe?

The definition of a rare disease in the United States is one that affects fewer than 40,000 per year, and in Europe it’s an incidence rate of less than 6 per 100,000 population, Dr. Gyawali noted. But he argued that even non–small cell lung cancer, the most common form of cancer in the world, could be considered rare if it is broken down into subtypes that are treated according to specific mutations that may occur in a relatively small number of patients.

He also noted that a specific drug’s safety, one of the most important criteria for granting approval to a drug based on a single-arm trial, can be difficult to judge without adequate controls for comparison.
 

Cherry-picking patients

Winette van der Graaf, MD, president of the European Organization for the Research and Treatment of Cancer, who attended the session where Dr. Gyawali’s presentation was played, said in an interview that clinicians should cast a critical eye on how trials are designed and conducted, including patient selection and choice of endpoints.

“One of the most obvious things to be concerned about is that we’re still having patients with good performance status enrolled, mostly PS 0 or 1, so how representative are these clinical trials for the patients we see in front of us on a daily basis?” she said.

“The other question is radiological endpoints, which we focus on with OS and PFS are most important for patients, especially if you consider that if patients may have asymptomatic disease, and we are only treating them with potentially toxic medication, what are we doing for them? Median overall survival when you look at all of these trials is only 4 months, so we really need to take into account how we affect patients in clinical trials,” she added.

Dr. van der Graaf emphasized that clinical trial investigators need to more routinely incorporate quality of life measures and other patient-reported outcomes in clinical trial results to help regulators and clinicians in practice get a better sense of the true clinical benefit of a new drug.

Dr. Gyawali did not disclose a funding source for his presentation. He reported consulting fees from Vivio Health and research grants from the American Society of Clinical Oncology. Dr. van der Graaf reported no conflicts of interest.

PARIS – If results of phase 3, randomized clinical trials are the gold standard for cancer drug approvals, then single-arm trials are at best a bronze or even brass standard, with results that should only be used, under certain conditions, for accelerated approvals that should then be followed by confirmatory studies.

In fact, many drugs approved over the last decade based solely on data from single-arm trials have been subsequently withdrawn when put through the rigors of a head-to-head randomized controlled trial, according to Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, from the department of oncology at Queen’s University, Kingston, Ont.

“Single-arm trials are not meant to provide confirmatory evidence sufficient for approval; However, that ship has sailed, and we have several drugs that are approved on the basis of single-arm trials, but we need to make sure that those approvals are accelerated or conditional approvals, not regular approval,” he said in a presentation included in a special session on drug approvals at the European Society for Medical Oncology Congress.

“We should not allow premature regular approval based on single-arm trials, because once a drug gets conditional approval, access is not an issue. Patients will have access to the drug anyway, but we should ensure that robust evidence follows, and long-term follow-up data are needed to develop confidence in the efficacy outcomes that are seen in single-arm trials,” he said.

In many cases, single-arm trials are large enough or of long enough duration that investigators could have reasonably performed a randomized controlled trial (RCT) in the first place, Dr. Gyawali added.
 

Why do single-arm trials?

The term “single-arm registration trial” is something of an oxymoron, he said, noting that the purpose of such trials should be whether to take the drug to a phase 3, randomized trial. But as authors of a 2019 study in JAMA Network Open showed, of a sample of phase 3 RCTs, 42% did not have a prior phase 2 trial, and 28% had a negative phase 2 trial. Single-arm trials may be acceptable for conditional drug approvals if all of the following conditions are met:

• A RCT is not possible because the disease is rare or randomization would be unethical.
• The safety of the drug is established and its potential benefits outweigh its risks.
• The drug is associated with a high and durable overall or objective response rate.
• The mechanism of action is supported by a strong scientific rationale, and if the drug may meet an unmet medical need.

Survival endpoints won’t do

Efficacy endpoints typically used in RCTs, such as progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) can be misleading because they may be a result of the natural history of the disease and not the drug being tested, whereas ORRs are almost certainly reflective of the action of the drug itself, because spontaneous tumor regression is a rare phenomenon, Dr. Gyawali said.

He cautioned, however, that the ORR of placebo is not zero percent. For example in a 2018 study of sorafenib (Nexavar) versus placebo for advanced or refractory desmoid tumors, the ORR with the active drug was 33%, and the ORR for placebo was 20%.

It’s also open to question, he said, what constitutes an acceptably high ORR and duration of response, pointing to Food and Drug Administration accelerated approval of an indication for nivolumab (Opdivo) for treatment of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) that had progressed on sorafenib. In the single-arm trial used as the basis for approval, the ORRs as assessed by an independent central review committee blinded to the results was 14.3%.

“So, nivolumab in hepatocellular cancer was approved on the basis of a response rate lower than that of placebo, albeit in a different tumor. But the point I’m trying to show here is we don’t have a good definition of what is a good response rate,” he said.

In July 2021, Bristol-Myers Squibb voluntarily withdrew the HCC indication for nivolumab, following negative results of the CheckMate 459 trial and a 5-4 vote against continuing the accelerated approval.
 

On second thought ...

Citing data compiled by Nathan I. Cherny, MD, from Shaare Zedek Medical Center, Jerusalem, Dr. Gyawali noted that 58 of 161 FDA approvals from 2017 to 2021 of drugs for adult solid tumors were based on single-arm trials. Of the 58 drugs, 39 received accelerated approvals, and 19 received regular approvals; of the 39 that received accelerated approvals, 4 were subsequently withdrawn, 8 were converted to regular approvals, and the remainder continued as accelerated approvals.

Interestingly, the median response rate among all the drugs was 40%, and did not differ between the type of approval received, suggesting that response rates are not predictive of whether a drug will receive a conditional or full-fledged go-ahead.
 

What’s rare and safe?

The definition of a rare disease in the United States is one that affects fewer than 40,000 per year, and in Europe it’s an incidence rate of less than 6 per 100,000 population, Dr. Gyawali noted. But he argued that even non–small cell lung cancer, the most common form of cancer in the world, could be considered rare if it is broken down into subtypes that are treated according to specific mutations that may occur in a relatively small number of patients.

He also noted that a specific drug’s safety, one of the most important criteria for granting approval to a drug based on a single-arm trial, can be difficult to judge without adequate controls for comparison.
 

Cherry-picking patients

Winette van der Graaf, MD, president of the European Organization for the Research and Treatment of Cancer, who attended the session where Dr. Gyawali’s presentation was played, said in an interview that clinicians should cast a critical eye on how trials are designed and conducted, including patient selection and choice of endpoints.

“One of the most obvious things to be concerned about is that we’re still having patients with good performance status enrolled, mostly PS 0 or 1, so how representative are these clinical trials for the patients we see in front of us on a daily basis?” she said.

“The other question is radiological endpoints, which we focus on with OS and PFS are most important for patients, especially if you consider that if patients may have asymptomatic disease, and we are only treating them with potentially toxic medication, what are we doing for them? Median overall survival when you look at all of these trials is only 4 months, so we really need to take into account how we affect patients in clinical trials,” she added.

Dr. van der Graaf emphasized that clinical trial investigators need to more routinely incorporate quality of life measures and other patient-reported outcomes in clinical trial results to help regulators and clinicians in practice get a better sense of the true clinical benefit of a new drug.

Dr. Gyawali did not disclose a funding source for his presentation. He reported consulting fees from Vivio Health and research grants from the American Society of Clinical Oncology. Dr. van der Graaf reported no conflicts of interest.

Time to diagnosis is a crucial factor in cancer. Delays can lead to diagnosis at later stages and prevent optimal therapeutic strategies, both of which have the potential to reduce survival. An estimated 63%-82% of cancers get diagnosed as a result of symptom presentation, and delays in diagnosis can hamper treatment efforts. Diagnosis can be challenging because common symptoms – such as weight loss, weakness, poor appetite, and shortness of breath – are nonspecific.

A new analysis of U.S.-based data shows that the average time to diagnosis is 5.2 months for patients with solid tumors. The authors of the study call for better cancer diagnosis pathways in the U.S.

“Several countries, including the UK, Denmark, Sweden, Canada and Australia, have identified the importance and potential impact of more timely diagnosis by establishing national guidelines, special programs, and treatment pathways. However, in the U.S., there’s relatively little research and effort focused on streamlining the diagnostic pathway. Currently, the U.S. does not have established cancer diagnostic pathways that are used consistently,” Matthew Gitlin, PharmD, said during a presentation at the annual meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

Diagnostic delays can lead to diagnosis at more advanced stages. “That is often associated with worse clinical outcomes, increased economic burden, and decreased health related quality of life,” said Dr. Gitlin, founder and managing director of the health economics consulting firm BluePath Solutions, which conducted the analysis.

The study retrospectively examined administrative billing data drawn from the Clinformatics for Managed Markets longitudinal database. The data represent individuals in Medicare Advantage and a large, U.S.-based private insurance plan. Between 2018 and 2019, there were 458,818 cancer diagnoses. The mean age was 70.6 years and 49.6% of the patients were female. Sixty-five percent were White, 11.1% Black, 8.3% Hispanic, and 2.5% Asian. No race data were available for 13.2%. Medicare Advantage was the primary insurance carrier for 74.0%, and 24.0% had a commercial plan.

The mean time to diagnosis across all tumors was 5.2 months (standard deviation, 5.5 months). There was significant variation across different tumor types, as well as within the same tumor type. The median value was 3.9 months (interquartile range, 1.1-7.2 months).

Mean time to diagnosis ranged from 121.6 days for bladder cancer to as high as 229 days for multiple myeloma. Standard deviations were nearly as large or even larger than the mean values. The study showed that 15.8% of patients waited 6 months or longer for a diagnosis. Delays were most common in kidney cancer, colorectal cancer, gallbladder cancer, esophageal cancer, stomach cancer, lymphoma, and multiple myeloma: More than 25% of patients had a time to diagnosis of at least 6 months in these tumors.

“Although there is limited research in the published literature, our findings are consistent with that literature that does exist. Development or modification of policies, guidelines or medical interventions that streamline the diagnostic pathway are needed to optimize patient outcomes and reduce resource burden and cost to the health care system,” Dr. Gitlin said.

Previous literature on this topic has seen wide variation in how time to diagnosis is defined, and most research is conducted in high-income countries, according to Felipe Roitberg, PhD, who served as a discussant during the session. “Most of the countries and patients in need are localized in low- and middle-income countries, so that is a call to action (for more research),” said Dr. Roitberg, a clinical oncologist at Hospital Sírio Libanês in São Paulo, Brazil.

The study did not look at the associations between race and time to diagnosis. “This is a source of analysis could further be explored,” said Dr. Roitberg.

He noted that the ABC-DO prospective cohort study in sub-Saharan Africa found large variations in breast cancer survival by country, and its authors predicted that downstaging and improvements in treatment could prevent up to one-third of projected breast cancer deaths over the next decade. “So these are the drivers of populational gain in terms of overall survival – not more drugs, not more services available, but coordination of services and making sure the patient has a right pathway (to diagnosis and treatment),” Dr. Roitberg said.

Dr. Gitlin has received consulting fees from GRAIL LLC, which is a subsidiary of Illumina. Dr. Roitberg has received honoraria from Boehringer Ingelheim, Sanofi, Roche, MSD Oncology, AstraZeneca, Nestle Health Science, Dr Reddy’s, and Oncologia Brazil. He has consulted for MSD Oncology. He has received research funding from Roche, Boehringer Ingelheim, MSD, Bayer, AstraZeneca, and Takeda.

Time to diagnosis is a crucial factor in cancer. Delays can lead to diagnosis at later stages and prevent optimal therapeutic strategies, both of which have the potential to reduce survival. An estimated 63%-82% of cancers get diagnosed as a result of symptom presentation, and delays in diagnosis can hamper treatment efforts. Diagnosis can be challenging because common symptoms – such as weight loss, weakness, poor appetite, and shortness of breath – are nonspecific.

A new analysis of U.S.-based data shows that the average time to diagnosis is 5.2 months for patients with solid tumors. The authors of the study call for better cancer diagnosis pathways in the U.S.

“Several countries, including the UK, Denmark, Sweden, Canada and Australia, have identified the importance and potential impact of more timely diagnosis by establishing national guidelines, special programs, and treatment pathways. However, in the U.S., there’s relatively little research and effort focused on streamlining the diagnostic pathway. Currently, the U.S. does not have established cancer diagnostic pathways that are used consistently,” Matthew Gitlin, PharmD, said during a presentation at the annual meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

Diagnostic delays can lead to diagnosis at more advanced stages. “That is often associated with worse clinical outcomes, increased economic burden, and decreased health related quality of life,” said Dr. Gitlin, founder and managing director of the health economics consulting firm BluePath Solutions, which conducted the analysis.

The study retrospectively examined administrative billing data drawn from the Clinformatics for Managed Markets longitudinal database. The data represent individuals in Medicare Advantage and a large, U.S.-based private insurance plan. Between 2018 and 2019, there were 458,818 cancer diagnoses. The mean age was 70.6 years and 49.6% of the patients were female. Sixty-five percent were White, 11.1% Black, 8.3% Hispanic, and 2.5% Asian. No race data were available for 13.2%. Medicare Advantage was the primary insurance carrier for 74.0%, and 24.0% had a commercial plan.

The mean time to diagnosis across all tumors was 5.2 months (standard deviation, 5.5 months). There was significant variation across different tumor types, as well as within the same tumor type. The median value was 3.9 months (interquartile range, 1.1-7.2 months).

Mean time to diagnosis ranged from 121.6 days for bladder cancer to as high as 229 days for multiple myeloma. Standard deviations were nearly as large or even larger than the mean values. The study showed that 15.8% of patients waited 6 months or longer for a diagnosis. Delays were most common in kidney cancer, colorectal cancer, gallbladder cancer, esophageal cancer, stomach cancer, lymphoma, and multiple myeloma: More than 25% of patients had a time to diagnosis of at least 6 months in these tumors.

“Although there is limited research in the published literature, our findings are consistent with that literature that does exist. Development or modification of policies, guidelines or medical interventions that streamline the diagnostic pathway are needed to optimize patient outcomes and reduce resource burden and cost to the health care system,” Dr. Gitlin said.

Previous literature on this topic has seen wide variation in how time to diagnosis is defined, and most research is conducted in high-income countries, according to Felipe Roitberg, PhD, who served as a discussant during the session. “Most of the countries and patients in need are localized in low- and middle-income countries, so that is a call to action (for more research),” said Dr. Roitberg, a clinical oncologist at Hospital Sírio Libanês in São Paulo, Brazil.

The study did not look at the associations between race and time to diagnosis. “This is a source of analysis could further be explored,” said Dr. Roitberg.

He noted that the ABC-DO prospective cohort study in sub-Saharan Africa found large variations in breast cancer survival by country, and its authors predicted that downstaging and improvements in treatment could prevent up to one-third of projected breast cancer deaths over the next decade. “So these are the drivers of populational gain in terms of overall survival – not more drugs, not more services available, but coordination of services and making sure the patient has a right pathway (to diagnosis and treatment),” Dr. Roitberg said.

Dr. Gitlin has received consulting fees from GRAIL LLC, which is a subsidiary of Illumina. Dr. Roitberg has received honoraria from Boehringer Ingelheim, Sanofi, Roche, MSD Oncology, AstraZeneca, Nestle Health Science, Dr Reddy’s, and Oncologia Brazil. He has consulted for MSD Oncology. He has received research funding from Roche, Boehringer Ingelheim, MSD, Bayer, AstraZeneca, and Takeda.

Time to diagnosis is a crucial factor in cancer. Delays can lead to diagnosis at later stages and prevent optimal therapeutic strategies, both of which have the potential to reduce survival. An estimated 63%-82% of cancers get diagnosed as a result of symptom presentation, and delays in diagnosis can hamper treatment efforts. Diagnosis can be challenging because common symptoms – such as weight loss, weakness, poor appetite, and shortness of breath – are nonspecific.

A new analysis of U.S.-based data shows that the average time to diagnosis is 5.2 months for patients with solid tumors. The authors of the study call for better cancer diagnosis pathways in the U.S.

“Several countries, including the UK, Denmark, Sweden, Canada and Australia, have identified the importance and potential impact of more timely diagnosis by establishing national guidelines, special programs, and treatment pathways. However, in the U.S., there’s relatively little research and effort focused on streamlining the diagnostic pathway. Currently, the U.S. does not have established cancer diagnostic pathways that are used consistently,” Matthew Gitlin, PharmD, said during a presentation at the annual meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

Diagnostic delays can lead to diagnosis at more advanced stages. “That is often associated with worse clinical outcomes, increased economic burden, and decreased health related quality of life,” said Dr. Gitlin, founder and managing director of the health economics consulting firm BluePath Solutions, which conducted the analysis.

The study retrospectively examined administrative billing data drawn from the Clinformatics for Managed Markets longitudinal database. The data represent individuals in Medicare Advantage and a large, U.S.-based private insurance plan. Between 2018 and 2019, there were 458,818 cancer diagnoses. The mean age was 70.6 years and 49.6% of the patients were female. Sixty-five percent were White, 11.1% Black, 8.3% Hispanic, and 2.5% Asian. No race data were available for 13.2%. Medicare Advantage was the primary insurance carrier for 74.0%, and 24.0% had a commercial plan.

The mean time to diagnosis across all tumors was 5.2 months (standard deviation, 5.5 months). There was significant variation across different tumor types, as well as within the same tumor type. The median value was 3.9 months (interquartile range, 1.1-7.2 months).

Mean time to diagnosis ranged from 121.6 days for bladder cancer to as high as 229 days for multiple myeloma. Standard deviations were nearly as large or even larger than the mean values. The study showed that 15.8% of patients waited 6 months or longer for a diagnosis. Delays were most common in kidney cancer, colorectal cancer, gallbladder cancer, esophageal cancer, stomach cancer, lymphoma, and multiple myeloma: More than 25% of patients had a time to diagnosis of at least 6 months in these tumors.

“Although there is limited research in the published literature, our findings are consistent with that literature that does exist. Development or modification of policies, guidelines or medical interventions that streamline the diagnostic pathway are needed to optimize patient outcomes and reduce resource burden and cost to the health care system,” Dr. Gitlin said.

Previous literature on this topic has seen wide variation in how time to diagnosis is defined, and most research is conducted in high-income countries, according to Felipe Roitberg, PhD, who served as a discussant during the session. “Most of the countries and patients in need are localized in low- and middle-income countries, so that is a call to action (for more research),” said Dr. Roitberg, a clinical oncologist at Hospital Sírio Libanês in São Paulo, Brazil.

The study did not look at the associations between race and time to diagnosis. “This is a source of analysis could further be explored,” said Dr. Roitberg.

He noted that the ABC-DO prospective cohort study in sub-Saharan Africa found large variations in breast cancer survival by country, and its authors predicted that downstaging and improvements in treatment could prevent up to one-third of projected breast cancer deaths over the next decade. “So these are the drivers of populational gain in terms of overall survival – not more drugs, not more services available, but coordination of services and making sure the patient has a right pathway (to diagnosis and treatment),” Dr. Roitberg said.

Dr. Gitlin has received consulting fees from GRAIL LLC, which is a subsidiary of Illumina. Dr. Roitberg has received honoraria from Boehringer Ingelheim, Sanofi, Roche, MSD Oncology, AstraZeneca, Nestle Health Science, Dr Reddy’s, and Oncologia Brazil. He has consulted for MSD Oncology. He has received research funding from Roche, Boehringer Ingelheim, MSD, Bayer, AstraZeneca, and Takeda.

PARIS – Adding cabozantinib (Cabometyx, Exelixis) to standard-of-care immunotherapy with nivolumab (Opdivo, Bristol Myers Squibb) plus ipilimumab (Yervoy) markedly improved progression-free survival (PFS) in advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC), particularly in intermediate-risk patients, suggest results from the COSMIC-313 trial.

At present, dual checkpoint inhibition with nivolumab and ipilimumab is a standard of care for first-line treatment of aRCC that is deemed to be of intermediate or poor risk on the International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium (IMDC) risk score.

Cabozantinib, a tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI), is also a standard of care in aRCC, both as a single agent and in combination with nivolumab.

The new study investigated the use of the three drugs together as upfront first-line treatment and suggests that this triplet may become a new standard of care, especially in patients with intermediate-risk disease.

The research was presented at the European Society for Medical Oncology Congress in Paris.

The trial involved 855 previously untreated patients with aRCC, all of whom received dual immunotherapy with nivolumab and ipilimumab, who were randomly assigned to also receive either cabozantinib or matched placebo.

Patients given the triplet therapy had a significant 27% reduction in the risk for progression versus the doublet in the overall patient population.

The difference increased to 37% in patients with intermediate-risk disease on the IMDC risk score.

However, patients with poor-risk disease appeared not to derive any benefit from adding cabozantinib to nivolumab plus ipilimumab.

In addition, grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events were more common with the triplet therapy.

The results suggest that adding cabozantinib results in a “statistically significant and clinically meaningful” PFS benefit, study presenter Toni Choueiri, MD, director of the Lank Center for Genitourinary Oncology at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, told a press conference.

He added that the safety profile of the triplet therapy was “generally manageable” and “consistent with the profiles of the treatment components.”

“The study will continue to the next analysis of overall survival, as this secondary endpoint was not met at first interim analysis,” Dr. Choueiri commented.

He told this news organization that, based on the current results, the triplet combination “may end up in intermediate-risk” patients, although it is not clear why there is a difference in response between risk groups, and the finding is “quite intriguing.”

Asked which therapy to choose now for first-line treatment of aRCC, given that there are now so many options, he said that there is now such “an embarrassment of riches of trials in the first-line” that it is perhaps easier to talk about which therapies “not to use.”

“We cannot use single TKIs anymore, so you have to use doublets and possibly now triplets,” he said.

“In my practice, patients that are progressing rapidly ... need a VEGF [vascular endothelial growth factor]–based combination. In patients that can wait and ... do not have a heavy disease burden, I still believe in nivolumab and ipilimumab, which has the longest follow-up, and the responses are durable.”

Approached for comment, Dominik Berthold, MD, Centre hospitalier universitaire vaudois, Lausanne, Switzerland, said that this is a “really important study” because it has a “modern” study comparator in the control arm.

He said in an interview, however, that the question now is “obviously” how much treatment should be escalated to triple therapy “upfront versus the sequencing of active drugs.” The answer, he said, is currently unclear, and overall survival data are awaited.

Alongside the potential “challenge” of the toxicity to patients of the triplet therapy, Dr. Berthold also highlighted that it is “currently a challenge for health systems to imagine giving such expensive combinations.”

So though it is “really interesting data” and potentially represents a “step forward” in the field, the combination of cabozantinib and nivolumab plus ipilimumab is “not for everybody.”

Dr. Choueiri said that he does “agree” that adding a third drug to an already expensive doublet therapy can mean that the costs end up being “exorbitant.”

However, he noted that in aRCC, “the paradigm is sequential, so if we’re able to delay the second line, and give drugs later, especially if there is some quality of life [benefit], I’m not sure it is more expensive” to give the three-drug combination.

Commenting for ESMO, Viktor Grünwald, MD, West German Cancer Center, University Hospital Essen, Germany, noted that this is the “first study” to report “successful treatment intensification” in metastatic RCC through the use of triple therapy.

“However, treatment intensification is rarely seen without additional risks. Patients experienced the benefit of superior disease control but also additional toxicities, treatment pauses and discontinuations,” he pointed out.

“The triplet may compete in the clinical landscape with recommended life-prolonging immune doublets but mature overall survival data is needed for it to become a novel standard of care,” Dr. Grünwald commented.
 

Details of the new results

The phase 3 COSMIC-313 trial enrolled intermediate- or poor-risk patients with aRCC and good performance status who had received no prior systemic therapy and had a clear cell component on histology, which, Dr. Choueiri noted, represents around 80% of patients.

They were randomly assigned to cabozantinib or a matched placebo against a background of four cycles of nivolumab plus ipilimumab followed by nivolumab for up to 2 years. No crossover was allowed between the two arms. Tumor assessment was performed every 8 weeks.

Overall, 855 patients were randomly assigned, 75% of whom had an intermediate risk on the IDMC risk score, and 25% had a poor risk. The median age of the patients was around 60 years, and between 73% and 76% were men. Prior nephrectomy had been performed in 65%.

The study met its primary endpoint of a significant improvement in PFS as assessed by blinded independent central review. The median PFS was not reached for the triplet versus 11.3 months for patients given the doublet, at a hazard ratio of 0.73 (P = 0.013).

At 12 months, 57% of patients in the triplet-therapy arm remained disease-free versus 49% of those on dual immunotherapy.

Moreover, there was a higher objective response rate with the triplet therapy, at 43% versus 36% for the doublet, and the median duration of response was not reached in either group.

Prespecified subgroup analysis suggested that most subgroups responded similarly to the overall patient population.

However, breaking the results down by IMDC risk group, Dr. Choueiri showed that PFS benefit was even greater in intermediate-risk patients, at an HR for the triplet versus the doublet therapy of 0.63 (95% confidence interval, 047-0.85), and a similar response rate as in the overall analysis.

But the benefit of adding cabozantinib to nivolumab plus ipilimumab appeared to be lost in poor-risk patients, at an HR for the triplet versus the doublet of 1.04 (95% CI, 0.65-1.69). And in this subgroup, the objective response rates were similar: 37% with the triplet and 38% with the doublet.

Also, the triplet had a higher rate of adverse events. Grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events were observed in 73% of patients on the triplet versus 41% with the doublet; 1% of patients in each group had a grade 5 event.

Treatment-related adverse events leading to discontinuation of all treatment components occurred in 12% of patients receiving triplet therapy and in 5% of those assigned to placebo and nivolumab plus ipilimumab.

Dr. Choueiri highlighted that some adverse events, including elevated liver transaminases, diarrhea, and skin toxicity, were markedly more frequent with cabozantinib and nivolumab plus ipilimumab than with the doublet therapy. Discussing the study, Sumanta K. Pal, MD, co-director of the Kidney Cancer Program at City of Hope, Irvine, Calif., said that ESMO Congress 2022 has been a “high watermark” for trials in the RCC field and congratulated the researchers of COSMIC-313 for the number of “firsts” that it achieved.

However, he continued, the “elephant in the room” is the current lack of overall survival, and he pointed out that those hotly anticipated results could have a major impact on the future use of the triplet combination.

Dr. Pal questioned whether, in the meantime, it is even possible to make a decision about the combination and urged investigators of all trials to make overall survival data available sooner.

He also highlighted the high rates of elevated liver transaminases, and the apparent overlapping toxicities between the TKI and the immune checkpoint inhibitors, asking: “Does toxicity stand in the way of treatment?”

In conclusion, Dr. Pal acknowledged that the study did meet its PFS primary endpoint but asked whether a risk-adapted approach could be used to optimize delivery of triplet therapy.

He also called for investment into biomarker studies for regimens that are “actually used in the clinic” and wondered whether there could be a shift toward using drugs with novel modes of action that do not yield overlapping toxicities.

The study was funded by Exelixis.

Dr. Choueiri reports relationships with Bristol-Myers Squibb; Pfizer; Lilly; Merck; Exelixis; AstraZeneca; EMD Serono; Calithera; Ipsen; Infinity; Surface Oncology; Analysis Group; ww2.peerview.com; gotoper.com; researchtopractice.com; ResearchToPractice; National Association of Managed Care; Orien Network; Aptitude Health; Advent health; UAE Society of Onc; MJH life sciences; MDACC; Cancernet; Kidney Cancer Association; Springer; WebMed; ASiM, Caribou Publishing; Aravive; Roche, and others.

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

PARIS – Adding cabozantinib (Cabometyx, Exelixis) to standard-of-care immunotherapy with nivolumab (Opdivo, Bristol Myers Squibb) plus ipilimumab (Yervoy) markedly improved progression-free survival (PFS) in advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC), particularly in intermediate-risk patients, suggest results from the COSMIC-313 trial.

At present, dual checkpoint inhibition with nivolumab and ipilimumab is a standard of care for first-line treatment of aRCC that is deemed to be of intermediate or poor risk on the International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium (IMDC) risk score.

Cabozantinib, a tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI), is also a standard of care in aRCC, both as a single agent and in combination with nivolumab.

The new study investigated the use of the three drugs together as upfront first-line treatment and suggests that this triplet may become a new standard of care, especially in patients with intermediate-risk disease.

The research was presented at the European Society for Medical Oncology Congress in Paris.

The trial involved 855 previously untreated patients with aRCC, all of whom received dual immunotherapy with nivolumab and ipilimumab, who were randomly assigned to also receive either cabozantinib or matched placebo.

Patients given the triplet therapy had a significant 27% reduction in the risk for progression versus the doublet in the overall patient population.

The difference increased to 37% in patients with intermediate-risk disease on the IMDC risk score.

However, patients with poor-risk disease appeared not to derive any benefit from adding cabozantinib to nivolumab plus ipilimumab.

In addition, grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events were more common with the triplet therapy.

The results suggest that adding cabozantinib results in a “statistically significant and clinically meaningful” PFS benefit, study presenter Toni Choueiri, MD, director of the Lank Center for Genitourinary Oncology at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, told a press conference.

He added that the safety profile of the triplet therapy was “generally manageable” and “consistent with the profiles of the treatment components.”

“The study will continue to the next analysis of overall survival, as this secondary endpoint was not met at first interim analysis,” Dr. Choueiri commented.

He told this news organization that, based on the current results, the triplet combination “may end up in intermediate-risk” patients, although it is not clear why there is a difference in response between risk groups, and the finding is “quite intriguing.”

Asked which therapy to choose now for first-line treatment of aRCC, given that there are now so many options, he said that there is now such “an embarrassment of riches of trials in the first-line” that it is perhaps easier to talk about which therapies “not to use.”

“We cannot use single TKIs anymore, so you have to use doublets and possibly now triplets,” he said.

“In my practice, patients that are progressing rapidly ... need a VEGF [vascular endothelial growth factor]–based combination. In patients that can wait and ... do not have a heavy disease burden, I still believe in nivolumab and ipilimumab, which has the longest follow-up, and the responses are durable.”

Approached for comment, Dominik Berthold, MD, Centre hospitalier universitaire vaudois, Lausanne, Switzerland, said that this is a “really important study” because it has a “modern” study comparator in the control arm.

He said in an interview, however, that the question now is “obviously” how much treatment should be escalated to triple therapy “upfront versus the sequencing of active drugs.” The answer, he said, is currently unclear, and overall survival data are awaited.

Alongside the potential “challenge” of the toxicity to patients of the triplet therapy, Dr. Berthold also highlighted that it is “currently a challenge for health systems to imagine giving such expensive combinations.”

So though it is “really interesting data” and potentially represents a “step forward” in the field, the combination of cabozantinib and nivolumab plus ipilimumab is “not for everybody.”

Dr. Choueiri said that he does “agree” that adding a third drug to an already expensive doublet therapy can mean that the costs end up being “exorbitant.”

However, he noted that in aRCC, “the paradigm is sequential, so if we’re able to delay the second line, and give drugs later, especially if there is some quality of life [benefit], I’m not sure it is more expensive” to give the three-drug combination.

Commenting for ESMO, Viktor Grünwald, MD, West German Cancer Center, University Hospital Essen, Germany, noted that this is the “first study” to report “successful treatment intensification” in metastatic RCC through the use of triple therapy.

“However, treatment intensification is rarely seen without additional risks. Patients experienced the benefit of superior disease control but also additional toxicities, treatment pauses and discontinuations,” he pointed out.

“The triplet may compete in the clinical landscape with recommended life-prolonging immune doublets but mature overall survival data is needed for it to become a novel standard of care,” Dr. Grünwald commented.
 

Details of the new results

The phase 3 COSMIC-313 trial enrolled intermediate- or poor-risk patients with aRCC and good performance status who had received no prior systemic therapy and had a clear cell component on histology, which, Dr. Choueiri noted, represents around 80% of patients.

They were randomly assigned to cabozantinib or a matched placebo against a background of four cycles of nivolumab plus ipilimumab followed by nivolumab for up to 2 years. No crossover was allowed between the two arms. Tumor assessment was performed every 8 weeks.

Overall, 855 patients were randomly assigned, 75% of whom had an intermediate risk on the IDMC risk score, and 25% had a poor risk. The median age of the patients was around 60 years, and between 73% and 76% were men. Prior nephrectomy had been performed in 65%.

The study met its primary endpoint of a significant improvement in PFS as assessed by blinded independent central review. The median PFS was not reached for the triplet versus 11.3 months for patients given the doublet, at a hazard ratio of 0.73 (P = 0.013).

At 12 months, 57% of patients in the triplet-therapy arm remained disease-free versus 49% of those on dual immunotherapy.

Moreover, there was a higher objective response rate with the triplet therapy, at 43% versus 36% for the doublet, and the median duration of response was not reached in either group.

Prespecified subgroup analysis suggested that most subgroups responded similarly to the overall patient population.

However, breaking the results down by IMDC risk group, Dr. Choueiri showed that PFS benefit was even greater in intermediate-risk patients, at an HR for the triplet versus the doublet therapy of 0.63 (95% confidence interval, 047-0.85), and a similar response rate as in the overall analysis.

But the benefit of adding cabozantinib to nivolumab plus ipilimumab appeared to be lost in poor-risk patients, at an HR for the triplet versus the doublet of 1.04 (95% CI, 0.65-1.69). And in this subgroup, the objective response rates were similar: 37% with the triplet and 38% with the doublet.

Also, the triplet had a higher rate of adverse events. Grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events were observed in 73% of patients on the triplet versus 41% with the doublet; 1% of patients in each group had a grade 5 event.

Treatment-related adverse events leading to discontinuation of all treatment components occurred in 12% of patients receiving triplet therapy and in 5% of those assigned to placebo and nivolumab plus ipilimumab.

Dr. Choueiri highlighted that some adverse events, including elevated liver transaminases, diarrhea, and skin toxicity, were markedly more frequent with cabozantinib and nivolumab plus ipilimumab than with the doublet therapy. Discussing the study, Sumanta K. Pal, MD, co-director of the Kidney Cancer Program at City of Hope, Irvine, Calif., said that ESMO Congress 2022 has been a “high watermark” for trials in the RCC field and congratulated the researchers of COSMIC-313 for the number of “firsts” that it achieved.

However, he continued, the “elephant in the room” is the current lack of overall survival, and he pointed out that those hotly anticipated results could have a major impact on the future use of the triplet combination.

Dr. Pal questioned whether, in the meantime, it is even possible to make a decision about the combination and urged investigators of all trials to make overall survival data available sooner.

He also highlighted the high rates of elevated liver transaminases, and the apparent overlapping toxicities between the TKI and the immune checkpoint inhibitors, asking: “Does toxicity stand in the way of treatment?”

In conclusion, Dr. Pal acknowledged that the study did meet its PFS primary endpoint but asked whether a risk-adapted approach could be used to optimize delivery of triplet therapy.

He also called for investment into biomarker studies for regimens that are “actually used in the clinic” and wondered whether there could be a shift toward using drugs with novel modes of action that do not yield overlapping toxicities.

The study was funded by Exelixis.

Dr. Choueiri reports relationships with Bristol-Myers Squibb; Pfizer; Lilly; Merck; Exelixis; AstraZeneca; EMD Serono; Calithera; Ipsen; Infinity; Surface Oncology; Analysis Group; ww2.peerview.com; gotoper.com; researchtopractice.com; ResearchToPractice; National Association of Managed Care; Orien Network; Aptitude Health; Advent health; UAE Society of Onc; MJH life sciences; MDACC; Cancernet; Kidney Cancer Association; Springer; WebMed; ASiM, Caribou Publishing; Aravive; Roche, and others.

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

PARIS – Adding cabozantinib (Cabometyx, Exelixis) to standard-of-care immunotherapy with nivolumab (Opdivo, Bristol Myers Squibb) plus ipilimumab (Yervoy) markedly improved progression-free survival (PFS) in advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC), particularly in intermediate-risk patients, suggest results from the COSMIC-313 trial.

At present, dual checkpoint inhibition with nivolumab and ipilimumab is a standard of care for first-line treatment of aRCC that is deemed to be of intermediate or poor risk on the International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium (IMDC) risk score.

Cabozantinib, a tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI), is also a standard of care in aRCC, both as a single agent and in combination with nivolumab.

The new study investigated the use of the three drugs together as upfront first-line treatment and suggests that this triplet may become a new standard of care, especially in patients with intermediate-risk disease.

The research was presented at the European Society for Medical Oncology Congress in Paris.

The trial involved 855 previously untreated patients with aRCC, all of whom received dual immunotherapy with nivolumab and ipilimumab, who were randomly assigned to also receive either cabozantinib or matched placebo.

Patients given the triplet therapy had a significant 27% reduction in the risk for progression versus the doublet in the overall patient population.

The difference increased to 37% in patients with intermediate-risk disease on the IMDC risk score.

However, patients with poor-risk disease appeared not to derive any benefit from adding cabozantinib to nivolumab plus ipilimumab.

In addition, grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events were more common with the triplet therapy.

The results suggest that adding cabozantinib results in a “statistically significant and clinically meaningful” PFS benefit, study presenter Toni Choueiri, MD, director of the Lank Center for Genitourinary Oncology at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, told a press conference.

He added that the safety profile of the triplet therapy was “generally manageable” and “consistent with the profiles of the treatment components.”

“The study will continue to the next analysis of overall survival, as this secondary endpoint was not met at first interim analysis,” Dr. Choueiri commented.

He told this news organization that, based on the current results, the triplet combination “may end up in intermediate-risk” patients, although it is not clear why there is a difference in response between risk groups, and the finding is “quite intriguing.”

Asked which therapy to choose now for first-line treatment of aRCC, given that there are now so many options, he said that there is now such “an embarrassment of riches of trials in the first-line” that it is perhaps easier to talk about which therapies “not to use.”

“We cannot use single TKIs anymore, so you have to use doublets and possibly now triplets,” he said.

“In my practice, patients that are progressing rapidly ... need a VEGF [vascular endothelial growth factor]–based combination. In patients that can wait and ... do not have a heavy disease burden, I still believe in nivolumab and ipilimumab, which has the longest follow-up, and the responses are durable.”

Approached for comment, Dominik Berthold, MD, Centre hospitalier universitaire vaudois, Lausanne, Switzerland, said that this is a “really important study” because it has a “modern” study comparator in the control arm.

He said in an interview, however, that the question now is “obviously” how much treatment should be escalated to triple therapy “upfront versus the sequencing of active drugs.” The answer, he said, is currently unclear, and overall survival data are awaited.

Alongside the potential “challenge” of the toxicity to patients of the triplet therapy, Dr. Berthold also highlighted that it is “currently a challenge for health systems to imagine giving such expensive combinations.”

So though it is “really interesting data” and potentially represents a “step forward” in the field, the combination of cabozantinib and nivolumab plus ipilimumab is “not for everybody.”

Dr. Choueiri said that he does “agree” that adding a third drug to an already expensive doublet therapy can mean that the costs end up being “exorbitant.”

However, he noted that in aRCC, “the paradigm is sequential, so if we’re able to delay the second line, and give drugs later, especially if there is some quality of life [benefit], I’m not sure it is more expensive” to give the three-drug combination.

Commenting for ESMO, Viktor Grünwald, MD, West German Cancer Center, University Hospital Essen, Germany, noted that this is the “first study” to report “successful treatment intensification” in metastatic RCC through the use of triple therapy.

“However, treatment intensification is rarely seen without additional risks. Patients experienced the benefit of superior disease control but also additional toxicities, treatment pauses and discontinuations,” he pointed out.

“The triplet may compete in the clinical landscape with recommended life-prolonging immune doublets but mature overall survival data is needed for it to become a novel standard of care,” Dr. Grünwald commented.
 

Details of the new results

The phase 3 COSMIC-313 trial enrolled intermediate- or poor-risk patients with aRCC and good performance status who had received no prior systemic therapy and had a clear cell component on histology, which, Dr. Choueiri noted, represents around 80% of patients.

They were randomly assigned to cabozantinib or a matched placebo against a background of four cycles of nivolumab plus ipilimumab followed by nivolumab for up to 2 years. No crossover was allowed between the two arms. Tumor assessment was performed every 8 weeks.

Overall, 855 patients were randomly assigned, 75% of whom had an intermediate risk on the IDMC risk score, and 25% had a poor risk. The median age of the patients was around 60 years, and between 73% and 76% were men. Prior nephrectomy had been performed in 65%.

The study met its primary endpoint of a significant improvement in PFS as assessed by blinded independent central review. The median PFS was not reached for the triplet versus 11.3 months for patients given the doublet, at a hazard ratio of 0.73 (P = 0.013).

At 12 months, 57% of patients in the triplet-therapy arm remained disease-free versus 49% of those on dual immunotherapy.

Moreover, there was a higher objective response rate with the triplet therapy, at 43% versus 36% for the doublet, and the median duration of response was not reached in either group.

Prespecified subgroup analysis suggested that most subgroups responded similarly to the overall patient population.

However, breaking the results down by IMDC risk group, Dr. Choueiri showed that PFS benefit was even greater in intermediate-risk patients, at an HR for the triplet versus the doublet therapy of 0.63 (95% confidence interval, 047-0.85), and a similar response rate as in the overall analysis.

But the benefit of adding cabozantinib to nivolumab plus ipilimumab appeared to be lost in poor-risk patients, at an HR for the triplet versus the doublet of 1.04 (95% CI, 0.65-1.69). And in this subgroup, the objective response rates were similar: 37% with the triplet and 38% with the doublet.

Also, the triplet had a higher rate of adverse events. Grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events were observed in 73% of patients on the triplet versus 41% with the doublet; 1% of patients in each group had a grade 5 event.

Treatment-related adverse events leading to discontinuation of all treatment components occurred in 12% of patients receiving triplet therapy and in 5% of those assigned to placebo and nivolumab plus ipilimumab.

Dr. Choueiri highlighted that some adverse events, including elevated liver transaminases, diarrhea, and skin toxicity, were markedly more frequent with cabozantinib and nivolumab plus ipilimumab than with the doublet therapy. Discussing the study, Sumanta K. Pal, MD, co-director of the Kidney Cancer Program at City of Hope, Irvine, Calif., said that ESMO Congress 2022 has been a “high watermark” for trials in the RCC field and congratulated the researchers of COSMIC-313 for the number of “firsts” that it achieved.

However, he continued, the “elephant in the room” is the current lack of overall survival, and he pointed out that those hotly anticipated results could have a major impact on the future use of the triplet combination.

Dr. Pal questioned whether, in the meantime, it is even possible to make a decision about the combination and urged investigators of all trials to make overall survival data available sooner.

He also highlighted the high rates of elevated liver transaminases, and the apparent overlapping toxicities between the TKI and the immune checkpoint inhibitors, asking: “Does toxicity stand in the way of treatment?”

In conclusion, Dr. Pal acknowledged that the study did meet its PFS primary endpoint but asked whether a risk-adapted approach could be used to optimize delivery of triplet therapy.

He also called for investment into biomarker studies for regimens that are “actually used in the clinic” and wondered whether there could be a shift toward using drugs with novel modes of action that do not yield overlapping toxicities.

The study was funded by Exelixis.

Dr. Choueiri reports relationships with Bristol-Myers Squibb; Pfizer; Lilly; Merck; Exelixis; AstraZeneca; EMD Serono; Calithera; Ipsen; Infinity; Surface Oncology; Analysis Group; ww2.peerview.com; gotoper.com; researchtopractice.com; ResearchToPractice; National Association of Managed Care; Orien Network; Aptitude Health; Advent health; UAE Society of Onc; MJH life sciences; MDACC; Cancernet; Kidney Cancer Association; Springer; WebMed; ASiM, Caribou Publishing; Aravive; Roche, and others.

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

A systematic review of immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) combinations suggests that they have a significant survival benefit over the tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) sunitinib and should be made generally available to patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC).

Until recently, first-line therapy for RCC has primarily been TKIs that target vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and other receptors, including sunitinib and pazopanib. Explorations of novel therapeutic regimens focused on the use of multiple TKIs in combination with monoclonal antibodies that directly inhibit VEGF and inhibitors of the mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR), such as everolimus.

Some ICIs have already become the preferred first-line treatment for RCC. VEGF and VEGF receptors inhibitors are believed to have immunomodulatory effects, including boosting immune cell infiltration as a result of their effect on tumor vasculature. That idea has spurred recent clinical trials that have examined ICIs in combination with VEGF-directed therapies.

In a study published online in Therapeutic Advances in Medical Oncology, researchers examined six phase 3 clinical trials. Each compared ICI combinations versus sunitinib as first-line therapy for advanced or metastatic RCC. Four of the studies tested TKI/ICI combinations, and one each tested an ICI/anti-VEGF antibody and dual ICIs.

After median follow-ups of 20-30 months, there was no benefit to PD-L1 inhibitor combinations (atezolizumab plus bevacizumab or avelumab plus axitinib) compared with sunitinib. Final survival analyses from one of the trials have not been reported yet.

PD-1 inhibitor combinations fared better. Nivolumab plus ipilimumab led to a 32% reduced risk of death in intermediate/poor-risk patients, compared with sunitinib, but the combination led to more frequent discontinuation because of toxicity (21.8% versus 12.3%). Nivolumab plus cabozantinib produced a 34% reduction in risk of death (P = .003) and a 48% reduction in risk of progression (P < .0001). Rates of discontinuation because of toxicity were similar to sunitinib.

Pembrolizumab combined with TKIs led to a 32% reduced risk of death (P = .003) and a 29% reduced risk of progression (P < .001). Pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib reduced risk of death by 28% (P value not reported) and the risk of progression by 61% (P < .001). Both combinations had a higher frequency of discontinuation because of toxicity (25.9% versus 10.1% and 37.2% versus 14.4%, respectively).

Given that there are no head-to-head comparisons between dual ICI or PD-1/TKI combinations, the researchers suggested that response outcomes may assist in selection between the two approaches. Overall, PD-1/TKI combinations had better overall response rates. The highest was seen in pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib, where frequency of progressive disease ranged from 5.4% to 11.3%. Complete response rate ranged from 8% to 10%.

The authors suggest that upfront treatment with a PD-1 inhibitor and a TKI could be appropriate for patients with a high tumor burden or aggressive disease, in whom stopping tumor growth is urgent and progression could be particularly worrisome.

Safety concerns associated with dual-ICI combination therapy was similar to that seen in RCC and other cancers. Dose delays, rapid diagnostic workups, appropriate timing, and the use of glucocorticoids were among strategies used to manage treatment-related adverse events.

The authors note that five combinations are approved by either the Food and Drug Administration or the European Medicines Agency for first-line treatment of metastatic RCC. Factors to consider for treatment selection include patient and disease characteristics, IMDC risk status, treatment history during earlier disease stage, and eligibility for immunotherapy. Nivolumab plus ipilimumab may be a good choice for patients with an intermediate or poor IMDC risk since it provides a strong and durable overall survival benefit. Pembrolizumab plus axitinib, pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib, and nivolumab plus cabozantinib all have good overall response rates and can prolong life, though extended TKI use can lead to chronic toxicity. Nivolumab plus ipilimumab is not approved for those with a favorable IMDC risk in many regions.

Four of the authors reported receiving honoraria, research funding, or consulting for a variety of pharmaceutical companies, including AbbVie, Astellas, Bayer, BMS, Eisai, Ipsen, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and TerSera.

A systematic review of immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) combinations suggests that they have a significant survival benefit over the tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) sunitinib and should be made generally available to patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC).

Until recently, first-line therapy for RCC has primarily been TKIs that target vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and other receptors, including sunitinib and pazopanib. Explorations of novel therapeutic regimens focused on the use of multiple TKIs in combination with monoclonal antibodies that directly inhibit VEGF and inhibitors of the mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR), such as everolimus.

Some ICIs have already become the preferred first-line treatment for RCC. VEGF and VEGF receptors inhibitors are believed to have immunomodulatory effects, including boosting immune cell infiltration as a result of their effect on tumor vasculature. That idea has spurred recent clinical trials that have examined ICIs in combination with VEGF-directed therapies.

In a study published online in Therapeutic Advances in Medical Oncology, researchers examined six phase 3 clinical trials. Each compared ICI combinations versus sunitinib as first-line therapy for advanced or metastatic RCC. Four of the studies tested TKI/ICI combinations, and one each tested an ICI/anti-VEGF antibody and dual ICIs.

After median follow-ups of 20-30 months, there was no benefit to PD-L1 inhibitor combinations (atezolizumab plus bevacizumab or avelumab plus axitinib) compared with sunitinib. Final survival analyses from one of the trials have not been reported yet.

PD-1 inhibitor combinations fared better. Nivolumab plus ipilimumab led to a 32% reduced risk of death in intermediate/poor-risk patients, compared with sunitinib, but the combination led to more frequent discontinuation because of toxicity (21.8% versus 12.3%). Nivolumab plus cabozantinib produced a 34% reduction in risk of death (P = .003) and a 48% reduction in risk of progression (P < .0001). Rates of discontinuation because of toxicity were similar to sunitinib.

Pembrolizumab combined with TKIs led to a 32% reduced risk of death (P = .003) and a 29% reduced risk of progression (P < .001). Pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib reduced risk of death by 28% (P value not reported) and the risk of progression by 61% (P < .001). Both combinations had a higher frequency of discontinuation because of toxicity (25.9% versus 10.1% and 37.2% versus 14.4%, respectively).

Given that there are no head-to-head comparisons between dual ICI or PD-1/TKI combinations, the researchers suggested that response outcomes may assist in selection between the two approaches. Overall, PD-1/TKI combinations had better overall response rates. The highest was seen in pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib, where frequency of progressive disease ranged from 5.4% to 11.3%. Complete response rate ranged from 8% to 10%.

The authors suggest that upfront treatment with a PD-1 inhibitor and a TKI could be appropriate for patients with a high tumor burden or aggressive disease, in whom stopping tumor growth is urgent and progression could be particularly worrisome.

Safety concerns associated with dual-ICI combination therapy was similar to that seen in RCC and other cancers. Dose delays, rapid diagnostic workups, appropriate timing, and the use of glucocorticoids were among strategies used to manage treatment-related adverse events.

The authors note that five combinations are approved by either the Food and Drug Administration or the European Medicines Agency for first-line treatment of metastatic RCC. Factors to consider for treatment selection include patient and disease characteristics, IMDC risk status, treatment history during earlier disease stage, and eligibility for immunotherapy. Nivolumab plus ipilimumab may be a good choice for patients with an intermediate or poor IMDC risk since it provides a strong and durable overall survival benefit. Pembrolizumab plus axitinib, pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib, and nivolumab plus cabozantinib all have good overall response rates and can prolong life, though extended TKI use can lead to chronic toxicity. Nivolumab plus ipilimumab is not approved for those with a favorable IMDC risk in many regions.

Four of the authors reported receiving honoraria, research funding, or consulting for a variety of pharmaceutical companies, including AbbVie, Astellas, Bayer, BMS, Eisai, Ipsen, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and TerSera.

A systematic review of immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) combinations suggests that they have a significant survival benefit over the tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) sunitinib and should be made generally available to patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC).

Until recently, first-line therapy for RCC has primarily been TKIs that target vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and other receptors, including sunitinib and pazopanib. Explorations of novel therapeutic regimens focused on the use of multiple TKIs in combination with monoclonal antibodies that directly inhibit VEGF and inhibitors of the mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR), such as everolimus.

Some ICIs have already become the preferred first-line treatment for RCC. VEGF and VEGF receptors inhibitors are believed to have immunomodulatory effects, including boosting immune cell infiltration as a result of their effect on tumor vasculature. That idea has spurred recent clinical trials that have examined ICIs in combination with VEGF-directed therapies.

In a study published online in Therapeutic Advances in Medical Oncology, researchers examined six phase 3 clinical trials. Each compared ICI combinations versus sunitinib as first-line therapy for advanced or metastatic RCC. Four of the studies tested TKI/ICI combinations, and one each tested an ICI/anti-VEGF antibody and dual ICIs.

After median follow-ups of 20-30 months, there was no benefit to PD-L1 inhibitor combinations (atezolizumab plus bevacizumab or avelumab plus axitinib) compared with sunitinib. Final survival analyses from one of the trials have not been reported yet.

PD-1 inhibitor combinations fared better. Nivolumab plus ipilimumab led to a 32% reduced risk of death in intermediate/poor-risk patients, compared with sunitinib, but the combination led to more frequent discontinuation because of toxicity (21.8% versus 12.3%). Nivolumab plus cabozantinib produced a 34% reduction in risk of death (P = .003) and a 48% reduction in risk of progression (P < .0001). Rates of discontinuation because of toxicity were similar to sunitinib.

Pembrolizumab combined with TKIs led to a 32% reduced risk of death (P = .003) and a 29% reduced risk of progression (P < .001). Pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib reduced risk of death by 28% (P value not reported) and the risk of progression by 61% (P < .001). Both combinations had a higher frequency of discontinuation because of toxicity (25.9% versus 10.1% and 37.2% versus 14.4%, respectively).

Given that there are no head-to-head comparisons between dual ICI or PD-1/TKI combinations, the researchers suggested that response outcomes may assist in selection between the two approaches. Overall, PD-1/TKI combinations had better overall response rates. The highest was seen in pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib, where frequency of progressive disease ranged from 5.4% to 11.3%. Complete response rate ranged from 8% to 10%.

The authors suggest that upfront treatment with a PD-1 inhibitor and a TKI could be appropriate for patients with a high tumor burden or aggressive disease, in whom stopping tumor growth is urgent and progression could be particularly worrisome.

Safety concerns associated with dual-ICI combination therapy was similar to that seen in RCC and other cancers. Dose delays, rapid diagnostic workups, appropriate timing, and the use of glucocorticoids were among strategies used to manage treatment-related adverse events.

The authors note that five combinations are approved by either the Food and Drug Administration or the European Medicines Agency for first-line treatment of metastatic RCC. Factors to consider for treatment selection include patient and disease characteristics, IMDC risk status, treatment history during earlier disease stage, and eligibility for immunotherapy. Nivolumab plus ipilimumab may be a good choice for patients with an intermediate or poor IMDC risk since it provides a strong and durable overall survival benefit. Pembrolizumab plus axitinib, pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib, and nivolumab plus cabozantinib all have good overall response rates and can prolong life, though extended TKI use can lead to chronic toxicity. Nivolumab plus ipilimumab is not approved for those with a favorable IMDC risk in many regions.

Four of the authors reported receiving honoraria, research funding, or consulting for a variety of pharmaceutical companies, including AbbVie, Astellas, Bayer, BMS, Eisai, Ipsen, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and TerSera.

In 2016, as vice president, Joe Biden launched the Cancer Moonshot program just 1 year after his son Beau died from glioblastoma multiforme. His objective, he said, was to “cure” cancer, but to get close to that goal, researchers from two leading National Cancer Institute-designated cancer centers say an infusion of new funding for cancer research is needed to get cancer research just back up to pre-COVID-19 pandemic levels.

There has been a significant decrease in the launch of new clinical trials for cancer and biologic therapies since 2020. “That can affect every aspect of our research operation. It really affected our capacity to continue to move forward at a fast pace. It will require a behemoth effort to get back to pre-COVID times,” said Tanios S. Bekaii-Saab, MD, leader of the gastrointestinal cancer program at Mayo Clinic in Phoenix.

Congress passed the 21st Century Cures Act in 2016 authorizing $1.8 billion for Cancer Moonshot over 7 years. More recently, the program received $194 million from the $6.9 billion National Cancer Institute budget in FY 2022.

Joseph Alvarnas, MD, a hematologist oncologist and vice president of government affairs at City of Hope, Duarte, Calif., sees the Moonshot budget as a potential shortcoming.

“The priorities are well founded and based on what we would think are the most important things to cover, but, if we’re going to achieve these extraordinarily ambitious goals of halving cancer mortality and serving communities more equitably, it’s going to need more funding positioned at making these things real,” he said.

Moonshot is being positioned as an opportunity to double down on efforts started in 2016, but treating cancer is complex and goes well beyond funding new research.

“We know that we have amazing research and progress around innovations that will drive us toward the goal of reducing the death rate from cancer. But we also know that we have tools that aren’t reaching all parts of the country, so we have a great opportunity to make sure that we’re doing all we can to prevent, detect and treat cancer,” Dr. Carnival said.
 

Can cancer be cured?

The Biden administration relaunched Moonshot in 2022 with newly defined goals: Cut the rate of cancer-related deaths in half within 25 years; improve the experience of people with cancer, cancer survivors, and their families; and “end cancer as we know it,” President Biden said in a press conference in February.

Cancer is the second leading cause of death in the United States after heart disease, but it may indeed be possible to cut the total number of cancer-related deaths in half over the next 25 years.

“As a hematologist who’s been involved in both research and clinical care, I think it’s important to realize this is actually doable. Between 1990 and 2020 cancer mortality rates decreased by 31%, and in the last American Cancer Society’s annual report, mortality rates dropped by the largest percentages for 2 consecutive years in a row. The question shifts now from ‘Is this possible? to ‘How do we ensure that it’s possible?’ The spirit of Cancer Moonshot 2.0 is identifying the multiple paths to move this effort forward,” Dr. Alvarnas said.

But without a significant infusion of cash for research, it’s doubtful cancer-related deaths will drop by 50% over the next 25 years.

“There are a lot of big and lofty goals in Cancer Moonshot, and the words ‘ending cancer,’ well those are big words,” Dr. Bekaii-Saab said. “The reality is how do we measure in 25 years the impact of this today? I think it will require significantly more funding over the next few years to achieve the goals set by the Moonshot. Otherwise it will be a 7-year done deal that will accrue a lot of great numbers but won’t make a dent in those goals for the next 25 years. To stop it at some point and not invest more into it, we will probably lose most of the benefit.”

Closing the loop on data sharing

Moonshot has been instrumental in fostering research collaborations by encouraging data sharing among scientists.

“It also brought together a new way for the National Cancer Institute and Department of Energy to drive progress on some of the big data initiatives. The initial Cancer Moonshot infused a sense of urgency and hope into this effort,” said Danielle Carnival, PhD, coordinator of Cancer Moonshot.

Between 2017 and 2022, Cancer Moonshot created more than 70 consortiums or programs, and funded about 240 research projects. Its fundamental goals of improving data sharing and encouraging collaboration are very important, Dr. Bekaii-Saab said.

“Because, historically, what happens with cancer is that researchers compete for resources...and they become very protective of their data. Sharing gets more difficult, collaborations become more onerous, and it becomes counterproductive,” he said.

Dr. Bekaii-Saab highlighted two networks created specifically for data sharing. They include the Human Tumor Atlas for cellular, morphological, and molecular tumor data, and PDXNet, a patient derived xenograft research network.
 

A shift in funding priorities?

Cancer funding has been stagnant for years. When adjusted for growth, it hasn’t had a significant infusion of funding since at least 2003—at least in relative terms, Dr. Bekaii-Saab said. “This affects a lot of the things we do, including NCI-funded clinical trials. It pushes us to work with the private sector, which is not necessarily a detriment, but it doesn’t advance the academic mission at the same level. So, overall, I wouldn’t call it tragic, but I do think we’re falling behind,” he said.

“I think when we do the process for the budget for FY24 and after we’ve had time to really explore the best ideas and build the foundation for some of these new aspects of the Cancer Moonshot, we hope to have something more concrete going toward these efforts,” Dr. Carnival said.

But in addition to funding, Dr. Alvarnas says, it is equally important to address gaps in care. Not all patients have access to existing cancer treatments.

“The great challenge to us in the 2020s is not only about developing new and more effective technologies, but also in doing a better job of getting existing life-saving treatments into the hands of underserved populations. One of the really positive challenges set forth by the Biden administration is the idea that financing care equity is as important, if not more so, than advancing technologies. If there’s been stagnation, it’s because from a government and resourcing point of view, that priority has been ineffectively supported financially.”
 

The pandemic stymies cancer research

The pandemic has had a significant impact on cancer research. As in other fields, it disrupted ongoing research, but it may have also contributed to the loss of employees who resigned in what’s been called the “Great Resignation.” “A lot of employees just decided to change jobs in the middle of the pandemic, which led to a cancer research staffing crisis,” Dr. Bekaii-Saab said.

“We all recognized that turning so much of the attention of the entire biomedical research engine and health system to the COVID-19 pandemic would have an impact across cancer research, screenings and care,” Dr. Carnival said. “There is work to do to get us back to whole, but from a research perspective, we’ve seen a reorientation of the trial networks we were using for COVID-19 research, back to their initial purpose. Some of those are cancer and oncology networks, so we’re excited about that and fully believe that we can catch up.”

But then there’s also the impact the pandemic has had on cancer patients who delayed their care at the primary level. This, Dr. Bekaii-Saab fears, will lead to more patients presenting with more advanced disease in years to come. “One of the biggest problems was that a lot of patients delayed their care at the primary level. My biggest concern is that in the years to come we will see a lot more patients presenting with more advanced cancer.”

In 2016, as vice president, Joe Biden launched the Cancer Moonshot program just 1 year after his son Beau died from glioblastoma multiforme. His objective, he said, was to “cure” cancer, but to get close to that goal, researchers from two leading National Cancer Institute-designated cancer centers say an infusion of new funding for cancer research is needed to get cancer research just back up to pre-COVID-19 pandemic levels.

There has been a significant decrease in the launch of new clinical trials for cancer and biologic therapies since 2020. “That can affect every aspect of our research operation. It really affected our capacity to continue to move forward at a fast pace. It will require a behemoth effort to get back to pre-COVID times,” said Tanios S. Bekaii-Saab, MD, leader of the gastrointestinal cancer program at Mayo Clinic in Phoenix.

Congress passed the 21st Century Cures Act in 2016 authorizing $1.8 billion for Cancer Moonshot over 7 years. More recently, the program received $194 million from the $6.9 billion National Cancer Institute budget in FY 2022.

Joseph Alvarnas, MD, a hematologist oncologist and vice president of government affairs at City of Hope, Duarte, Calif., sees the Moonshot budget as a potential shortcoming.

“The priorities are well founded and based on what we would think are the most important things to cover, but, if we’re going to achieve these extraordinarily ambitious goals of halving cancer mortality and serving communities more equitably, it’s going to need more funding positioned at making these things real,” he said.

Moonshot is being positioned as an opportunity to double down on efforts started in 2016, but treating cancer is complex and goes well beyond funding new research.

“We know that we have amazing research and progress around innovations that will drive us toward the goal of reducing the death rate from cancer. But we also know that we have tools that aren’t reaching all parts of the country, so we have a great opportunity to make sure that we’re doing all we can to prevent, detect and treat cancer,” Dr. Carnival said.
 

Can cancer be cured?

The Biden administration relaunched Moonshot in 2022 with newly defined goals: Cut the rate of cancer-related deaths in half within 25 years; improve the experience of people with cancer, cancer survivors, and their families; and “end cancer as we know it,” President Biden said in a press conference in February.

Cancer is the second leading cause of death in the United States after heart disease, but it may indeed be possible to cut the total number of cancer-related deaths in half over the next 25 years.

“As a hematologist who’s been involved in both research and clinical care, I think it’s important to realize this is actually doable. Between 1990 and 2020 cancer mortality rates decreased by 31%, and in the last American Cancer Society’s annual report, mortality rates dropped by the largest percentages for 2 consecutive years in a row. The question shifts now from ‘Is this possible? to ‘How do we ensure that it’s possible?’ The spirit of Cancer Moonshot 2.0 is identifying the multiple paths to move this effort forward,” Dr. Alvarnas said.

But without a significant infusion of cash for research, it’s doubtful cancer-related deaths will drop by 50% over the next 25 years.

“There are a lot of big and lofty goals in Cancer Moonshot, and the words ‘ending cancer,’ well those are big words,” Dr. Bekaii-Saab said. “The reality is how do we measure in 25 years the impact of this today? I think it will require significantly more funding over the next few years to achieve the goals set by the Moonshot. Otherwise it will be a 7-year done deal that will accrue a lot of great numbers but won’t make a dent in those goals for the next 25 years. To stop it at some point and not invest more into it, we will probably lose most of the benefit.”

Closing the loop on data sharing

Moonshot has been instrumental in fostering research collaborations by encouraging data sharing among scientists.

“It also brought together a new way for the National Cancer Institute and Department of Energy to drive progress on some of the big data initiatives. The initial Cancer Moonshot infused a sense of urgency and hope into this effort,” said Danielle Carnival, PhD, coordinator of Cancer Moonshot.

Between 2017 and 2022, Cancer Moonshot created more than 70 consortiums or programs, and funded about 240 research projects. Its fundamental goals of improving data sharing and encouraging collaboration are very important, Dr. Bekaii-Saab said.

“Because, historically, what happens with cancer is that researchers compete for resources...and they become very protective of their data. Sharing gets more difficult, collaborations become more onerous, and it becomes counterproductive,” he said.

Dr. Bekaii-Saab highlighted two networks created specifically for data sharing. They include the Human Tumor Atlas for cellular, morphological, and molecular tumor data, and PDXNet, a patient derived xenograft research network.
 

A shift in funding priorities?

Cancer funding has been stagnant for years. When adjusted for growth, it hasn’t had a significant infusion of funding since at least 2003—at least in relative terms, Dr. Bekaii-Saab said. “This affects a lot of the things we do, including NCI-funded clinical trials. It pushes us to work with the private sector, which is not necessarily a detriment, but it doesn’t advance the academic mission at the same level. So, overall, I wouldn’t call it tragic, but I do think we’re falling behind,” he said.

“I think when we do the process for the budget for FY24 and after we’ve had time to really explore the best ideas and build the foundation for some of these new aspects of the Cancer Moonshot, we hope to have something more concrete going toward these efforts,” Dr. Carnival said.

But in addition to funding, Dr. Alvarnas says, it is equally important to address gaps in care. Not all patients have access to existing cancer treatments.

“The great challenge to us in the 2020s is not only about developing new and more effective technologies, but also in doing a better job of getting existing life-saving treatments into the hands of underserved populations. One of the really positive challenges set forth by the Biden administration is the idea that financing care equity is as important, if not more so, than advancing technologies. If there’s been stagnation, it’s because from a government and resourcing point of view, that priority has been ineffectively supported financially.”
 

The pandemic stymies cancer research

The pandemic has had a significant impact on cancer research. As in other fields, it disrupted ongoing research, but it may have also contributed to the loss of employees who resigned in what’s been called the “Great Resignation.” “A lot of employees just decided to change jobs in the middle of the pandemic, which led to a cancer research staffing crisis,” Dr. Bekaii-Saab said.

“We all recognized that turning so much of the attention of the entire biomedical research engine and health system to the COVID-19 pandemic would have an impact across cancer research, screenings and care,” Dr. Carnival said. “There is work to do to get us back to whole, but from a research perspective, we’ve seen a reorientation of the trial networks we were using for COVID-19 research, back to their initial purpose. Some of those are cancer and oncology networks, so we’re excited about that and fully believe that we can catch up.”

But then there’s also the impact the pandemic has had on cancer patients who delayed their care at the primary level. This, Dr. Bekaii-Saab fears, will lead to more patients presenting with more advanced disease in years to come. “One of the biggest problems was that a lot of patients delayed their care at the primary level. My biggest concern is that in the years to come we will see a lot more patients presenting with more advanced cancer.”

In 2016, as vice president, Joe Biden launched the Cancer Moonshot program just 1 year after his son Beau died from glioblastoma multiforme. His objective, he said, was to “cure” cancer, but to get close to that goal, researchers from two leading National Cancer Institute-designated cancer centers say an infusion of new funding for cancer research is needed to get cancer research just back up to pre-COVID-19 pandemic levels.

There has been a significant decrease in the launch of new clinical trials for cancer and biologic therapies since 2020. “That can affect every aspect of our research operation. It really affected our capacity to continue to move forward at a fast pace. It will require a behemoth effort to get back to pre-COVID times,” said Tanios S. Bekaii-Saab, MD, leader of the gastrointestinal cancer program at Mayo Clinic in Phoenix.

Congress passed the 21st Century Cures Act in 2016 authorizing $1.8 billion for Cancer Moonshot over 7 years. More recently, the program received $194 million from the $6.9 billion National Cancer Institute budget in FY 2022.

Joseph Alvarnas, MD, a hematologist oncologist and vice president of government affairs at City of Hope, Duarte, Calif., sees the Moonshot budget as a potential shortcoming.

“The priorities are well founded and based on what we would think are the most important things to cover, but, if we’re going to achieve these extraordinarily ambitious goals of halving cancer mortality and serving communities more equitably, it’s going to need more funding positioned at making these things real,” he said.

Moonshot is being positioned as an opportunity to double down on efforts started in 2016, but treating cancer is complex and goes well beyond funding new research.

“We know that we have amazing research and progress around innovations that will drive us toward the goal of reducing the death rate from cancer. But we also know that we have tools that aren’t reaching all parts of the country, so we have a great opportunity to make sure that we’re doing all we can to prevent, detect and treat cancer,” Dr. Carnival said.
 

Can cancer be cured?

The Biden administration relaunched Moonshot in 2022 with newly defined goals: Cut the rate of cancer-related deaths in half within 25 years; improve the experience of people with cancer, cancer survivors, and their families; and “end cancer as we know it,” President Biden said in a press conference in February.

Cancer is the second leading cause of death in the United States after heart disease, but it may indeed be possible to cut the total number of cancer-related deaths in half over the next 25 years.

“As a hematologist who’s been involved in both research and clinical care, I think it’s important to realize this is actually doable. Between 1990 and 2020 cancer mortality rates decreased by 31%, and in the last American Cancer Society’s annual report, mortality rates dropped by the largest percentages for 2 consecutive years in a row. The question shifts now from ‘Is this possible? to ‘How do we ensure that it’s possible?’ The spirit of Cancer Moonshot 2.0 is identifying the multiple paths to move this effort forward,” Dr. Alvarnas said.

But without a significant infusion of cash for research, it’s doubtful cancer-related deaths will drop by 50% over the next 25 years.

“There are a lot of big and lofty goals in Cancer Moonshot, and the words ‘ending cancer,’ well those are big words,” Dr. Bekaii-Saab said. “The reality is how do we measure in 25 years the impact of this today? I think it will require significantly more funding over the next few years to achieve the goals set by the Moonshot. Otherwise it will be a 7-year done deal that will accrue a lot of great numbers but won’t make a dent in those goals for the next 25 years. To stop it at some point and not invest more into it, we will probably lose most of the benefit.”

Closing the loop on data sharing

Moonshot has been instrumental in fostering research collaborations by encouraging data sharing among scientists.

“It also brought together a new way for the National Cancer Institute and Department of Energy to drive progress on some of the big data initiatives. The initial Cancer Moonshot infused a sense of urgency and hope into this effort,” said Danielle Carnival, PhD, coordinator of Cancer Moonshot.

Between 2017 and 2022, Cancer Moonshot created more than 70 consortiums or programs, and funded about 240 research projects. Its fundamental goals of improving data sharing and encouraging collaboration are very important, Dr. Bekaii-Saab said.

“Because, historically, what happens with cancer is that researchers compete for resources...and they become very protective of their data. Sharing gets more difficult, collaborations become more onerous, and it becomes counterproductive,” he said.

Dr. Bekaii-Saab highlighted two networks created specifically for data sharing. They include the Human Tumor Atlas for cellular, morphological, and molecular tumor data, and PDXNet, a patient derived xenograft research network.
 

A shift in funding priorities?

Cancer funding has been stagnant for years. When adjusted for growth, it hasn’t had a significant infusion of funding since at least 2003—at least in relative terms, Dr. Bekaii-Saab said. “This affects a lot of the things we do, including NCI-funded clinical trials. It pushes us to work with the private sector, which is not necessarily a detriment, but it doesn’t advance the academic mission at the same level. So, overall, I wouldn’t call it tragic, but I do think we’re falling behind,” he said.

“I think when we do the process for the budget for FY24 and after we’ve had time to really explore the best ideas and build the foundation for some of these new aspects of the Cancer Moonshot, we hope to have something more concrete going toward these efforts,” Dr. Carnival said.

But in addition to funding, Dr. Alvarnas says, it is equally important to address gaps in care. Not all patients have access to existing cancer treatments.

“The great challenge to us in the 2020s is not only about developing new and more effective technologies, but also in doing a better job of getting existing life-saving treatments into the hands of underserved populations. One of the really positive challenges set forth by the Biden administration is the idea that financing care equity is as important, if not more so, than advancing technologies. If there’s been stagnation, it’s because from a government and resourcing point of view, that priority has been ineffectively supported financially.”
 

The pandemic stymies cancer research

The pandemic has had a significant impact on cancer research. As in other fields, it disrupted ongoing research, but it may have also contributed to the loss of employees who resigned in what’s been called the “Great Resignation.” “A lot of employees just decided to change jobs in the middle of the pandemic, which led to a cancer research staffing crisis,” Dr. Bekaii-Saab said.

“We all recognized that turning so much of the attention of the entire biomedical research engine and health system to the COVID-19 pandemic would have an impact across cancer research, screenings and care,” Dr. Carnival said. “There is work to do to get us back to whole, but from a research perspective, we’ve seen a reorientation of the trial networks we were using for COVID-19 research, back to their initial purpose. Some of those are cancer and oncology networks, so we’re excited about that and fully believe that we can catch up.”

But then there’s also the impact the pandemic has had on cancer patients who delayed their care at the primary level. This, Dr. Bekaii-Saab fears, will lead to more patients presenting with more advanced disease in years to come. “One of the biggest problems was that a lot of patients delayed their care at the primary level. My biggest concern is that in the years to come we will see a lot more patients presenting with more advanced cancer.”

In advanced renal cell carcinoma, four out of five immuno-oncology drug-based combination treatments are showing impressive results in trials, a new review finds. Based on initial data, all appear to show advantages over the standard first-line treatment with the older targeted-therapy drug sunitinib.

However, the review, published in the International Journal of Urology, cautions that uncertainty remains because of the “absence of long-term prognostic as well as safety data regarding these combination therapies.”

The review, led by Ken-ichi Harada MD, PhD, of Kobe (Japan) University, notes that the introduction of targeted therapies and immuno-oncology drugs over the last 2 decades has revolutionized the treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma. Multiple combination therapies based on immuno-oncology drugs are now recommended by treatment guidelines.

However, the lack of head-to-head data means that “it is still challenging for physicians to make the best decision on first-line therapy,” the authors wrote.

In the review, the authors recapped the evidence regarding several combination therapies:

• Ipilimumab plus nivolumab, a combination of two monoclonal antibodies, has shown higher overall survival than sunitinib in multiple studies. Treatment-related adverse events are common, however, with one trial reporting that they led 69% of patients to discontinue treatment. Even so, “ipilimumab plus nivolumab therapy continues to demonstrate durable efficacy benefits over sunitinib in advanced renal cell carcinoma patients classified into intermediate or poor risk group after long-term follow-up.”
• Avelumab, a monoclonal antibody, plus the tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) axitinib has not shown better overall survival rates versus sunitinib in a single trial, although there are signs of better progression-free survival. “Accordingly, avelumab plus axitinib is either not or discreetly recommended as a standard first-line therapy for advanced renal cell carcinoma patients by major clinical guidelines.”
• Pembrolizumab, a monoclonal antibody, plus axitinib has shown better progression-free survival and overall survival than sunitinib in a single trial. “Accordingly, pembrolizumab plus axitinib could be expected to have a powerful impact on favorable long-term cancer control with less frequent occurrence of severe adverse events, considering almost equivalent landmark overall survival to ipilimumab plus nivolumab.”
• Nivolumab plus cabozantinib, a TKI, beat sunitinib in a single trial in terms of progression-free survival and overall survival. “Nivolumab plus cabozantinib could be regarded as an efficacious therapeutic option for untreated advanced renal cell carcinoma patients with manageable safety.”
• Pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib, a TKI, showed better overall survival versus sunitinib in a single trial.

“These findings suggest that pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib could provide marked benefits with regard to cancer control in treatment-naive advanced renal cell carcinoma patients, and that caution should be exercised regarding the safety profile, considering the initial introduction of lenvatinib in the field of urological malignancies,” the authors wrote.

When compared against each other, most of these treatments appear to perform similarly, the authors wrote. With the exception of avelumab plus axitinib, all “showed almost similar advantages for the improvement of overall survival compared with sunitinib, judging from hazard ratios, and all five immuno-oncology drug-based combination therapies, particularly pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib, significantly prolonged progression-free survival, compared with sunitinib.”

No study funding was reported. The authors report various disclosures including relationships to Novartis, Pfizer, Ono, Takeda, MSD, Merck, and Bristol-Myers Squibb.

In advanced renal cell carcinoma, four out of five immuno-oncology drug-based combination treatments are showing impressive results in trials, a new review finds. Based on initial data, all appear to show advantages over the standard first-line treatment with the older targeted-therapy drug sunitinib.

However, the review, published in the International Journal of Urology, cautions that uncertainty remains because of the “absence of long-term prognostic as well as safety data regarding these combination therapies.”

The review, led by Ken-ichi Harada MD, PhD, of Kobe (Japan) University, notes that the introduction of targeted therapies and immuno-oncology drugs over the last 2 decades has revolutionized the treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma. Multiple combination therapies based on immuno-oncology drugs are now recommended by treatment guidelines.

However, the lack of head-to-head data means that “it is still challenging for physicians to make the best decision on first-line therapy,” the authors wrote.

In the review, the authors recapped the evidence regarding several combination therapies:

• Ipilimumab plus nivolumab, a combination of two monoclonal antibodies, has shown higher overall survival than sunitinib in multiple studies. Treatment-related adverse events are common, however, with one trial reporting that they led 69% of patients to discontinue treatment. Even so, “ipilimumab plus nivolumab therapy continues to demonstrate durable efficacy benefits over sunitinib in advanced renal cell carcinoma patients classified into intermediate or poor risk group after long-term follow-up.”
• Avelumab, a monoclonal antibody, plus the tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) axitinib has not shown better overall survival rates versus sunitinib in a single trial, although there are signs of better progression-free survival. “Accordingly, avelumab plus axitinib is either not or discreetly recommended as a standard first-line therapy for advanced renal cell carcinoma patients by major clinical guidelines.”
• Pembrolizumab, a monoclonal antibody, plus axitinib has shown better progression-free survival and overall survival than sunitinib in a single trial. “Accordingly, pembrolizumab plus axitinib could be expected to have a powerful impact on favorable long-term cancer control with less frequent occurrence of severe adverse events, considering almost equivalent landmark overall survival to ipilimumab plus nivolumab.”
• Nivolumab plus cabozantinib, a TKI, beat sunitinib in a single trial in terms of progression-free survival and overall survival. “Nivolumab plus cabozantinib could be regarded as an efficacious therapeutic option for untreated advanced renal cell carcinoma patients with manageable safety.”
• Pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib, a TKI, showed better overall survival versus sunitinib in a single trial.

“These findings suggest that pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib could provide marked benefits with regard to cancer control in treatment-naive advanced renal cell carcinoma patients, and that caution should be exercised regarding the safety profile, considering the initial introduction of lenvatinib in the field of urological malignancies,” the authors wrote.

When compared against each other, most of these treatments appear to perform similarly, the authors wrote. With the exception of avelumab plus axitinib, all “showed almost similar advantages for the improvement of overall survival compared with sunitinib, judging from hazard ratios, and all five immuno-oncology drug-based combination therapies, particularly pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib, significantly prolonged progression-free survival, compared with sunitinib.”

No study funding was reported. The authors report various disclosures including relationships to Novartis, Pfizer, Ono, Takeda, MSD, Merck, and Bristol-Myers Squibb.

In advanced renal cell carcinoma, four out of five immuno-oncology drug-based combination treatments are showing impressive results in trials, a new review finds. Based on initial data, all appear to show advantages over the standard first-line treatment with the older targeted-therapy drug sunitinib.

However, the review, published in the International Journal of Urology, cautions that uncertainty remains because of the “absence of long-term prognostic as well as safety data regarding these combination therapies.”

The review, led by Ken-ichi Harada MD, PhD, of Kobe (Japan) University, notes that the introduction of targeted therapies and immuno-oncology drugs over the last 2 decades has revolutionized the treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma. Multiple combination therapies based on immuno-oncology drugs are now recommended by treatment guidelines.

However, the lack of head-to-head data means that “it is still challenging for physicians to make the best decision on first-line therapy,” the authors wrote.

In the review, the authors recapped the evidence regarding several combination therapies:

• Ipilimumab plus nivolumab, a combination of two monoclonal antibodies, has shown higher overall survival than sunitinib in multiple studies. Treatment-related adverse events are common, however, with one trial reporting that they led 69% of patients to discontinue treatment. Even so, “ipilimumab plus nivolumab therapy continues to demonstrate durable efficacy benefits over sunitinib in advanced renal cell carcinoma patients classified into intermediate or poor risk group after long-term follow-up.”
• Avelumab, a monoclonal antibody, plus the tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) axitinib has not shown better overall survival rates versus sunitinib in a single trial, although there are signs of better progression-free survival. “Accordingly, avelumab plus axitinib is either not or discreetly recommended as a standard first-line therapy for advanced renal cell carcinoma patients by major clinical guidelines.”
• Pembrolizumab, a monoclonal antibody, plus axitinib has shown better progression-free survival and overall survival than sunitinib in a single trial. “Accordingly, pembrolizumab plus axitinib could be expected to have a powerful impact on favorable long-term cancer control with less frequent occurrence of severe adverse events, considering almost equivalent landmark overall survival to ipilimumab plus nivolumab.”
• Nivolumab plus cabozantinib, a TKI, beat sunitinib in a single trial in terms of progression-free survival and overall survival. “Nivolumab plus cabozantinib could be regarded as an efficacious therapeutic option for untreated advanced renal cell carcinoma patients with manageable safety.”
• Pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib, a TKI, showed better overall survival versus sunitinib in a single trial.

“These findings suggest that pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib could provide marked benefits with regard to cancer control in treatment-naive advanced renal cell carcinoma patients, and that caution should be exercised regarding the safety profile, considering the initial introduction of lenvatinib in the field of urological malignancies,” the authors wrote.

When compared against each other, most of these treatments appear to perform similarly, the authors wrote. With the exception of avelumab plus axitinib, all “showed almost similar advantages for the improvement of overall survival compared with sunitinib, judging from hazard ratios, and all five immuno-oncology drug-based combination therapies, particularly pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib, significantly prolonged progression-free survival, compared with sunitinib.”

No study funding was reported. The authors report various disclosures including relationships to Novartis, Pfizer, Ono, Takeda, MSD, Merck, and Bristol-Myers Squibb.

New research offers more evidence linking targeted therapies for patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma to higher risks for major adverse cardiovascular events.

Patients on targeted therapy were more likely to develop conditions such as heart attacks and stroke than were those who took cytokine therapy (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.80; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.19-2.74), according to a retrospective Taiwanese study reports.

“These findings may inform the evaluation of cardiovascular risk when considering targeted cancer therapies for patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma in real-world clinical practice,” wrote the authors of the report, which appeared in JACC: CardioOncology.

The study notes that one kind of targeted therapy – tyrosine kinase inhibitors with anti–vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGFR-TKI) have been linked to higher rates of major adverse cardiovascular events (1.38-22.7). There have also been reports linking another kind of targeted therapy, mechanistic target of rapamycin inhibitors (mTOR), to major adverse cardiovascular events.

In the new study, Dong-Yi Chen, MD, of Chang Gung University, Taiwan, and colleagues, tracked patients with renal cell carcinoma who underwent treatment with targeted therapy (sunitinib, sorafenib, pazopanib, everolimus, or temsirolimus, (n = 2,257, 81%) or cytokine therapy (interleukin-2 or interferon gamma, n = 528, 19%) from 2007 to 2018.

The two groups had similar gender, age and socioeconomic levels. Combined, the groups were 74% male, the median age was 63, and 68% had hypertension.

After stabilized inverse probability of treatment weighting, the adjusted incidence rates of major cardiovascular events were 6.65 and 3.36 per 100 person-years in the targeted and cytokine therapy groups, respectively. “The higher cardiovascular risk of the targeted group was driven primarily by the VEGFR TKI–treated patients,” the authors wrote.

Two drugs were linked to statistically significant higher rates of major cardiovascular adverse events compared with the reference drug sunitinib: the VEGFR TKI sorafenib (univariable HR, 1.94, 95% CI, 1.11-3.39), P = .021) and the mTOR temsirolimus (univariable HR, 2.11, 95% CI, 1.24-3.59, P = .006). Sunitinib was by far the most commonly used targeted therapy drug.

Among patients on targeted therapy, several factors were linked to higher rates of major cardiovascular events, such as baseline history of heart failure (HR, 3.88, 95% CI, 2.25-6.71), atrial fibrillation (HR, 3.60, 95% CI, 2.16-5.99), venous thromboembolism (HR, 2.50, 95% CI, 1.27-4.92), ischemic stroke (HR, 1.88, 95% CI, 1.14-3.11), and age at least 65 years (HR, 1.81, 95% CI, 1.27-2.58).

According to the authors, there are several theories about why targeted therapy may boost the risk of major adverse cardiovascular risk. “VEGF signaling inhibitors have been associated with hypertension,” which is a risk factor for cardiac death, they noted. Also, “multi-receptor TKIs, including VEGFR and platelet-derived growth factor receptor inhibitors, could destabilize the coronary microvascular endothelial network and reduce coronary flow reserve, leading to an increased risk for thrombosis and arterial ischemic events, including myocardial infarction and ischemic stroke.”

The study was funded by Chang Gung Memorial Hospital.

New research offers more evidence linking targeted therapies for patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma to higher risks for major adverse cardiovascular events.

Patients on targeted therapy were more likely to develop conditions such as heart attacks and stroke than were those who took cytokine therapy (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.80; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.19-2.74), according to a retrospective Taiwanese study reports.

“These findings may inform the evaluation of cardiovascular risk when considering targeted cancer therapies for patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma in real-world clinical practice,” wrote the authors of the report, which appeared in JACC: CardioOncology.

The study notes that one kind of targeted therapy – tyrosine kinase inhibitors with anti–vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGFR-TKI) have been linked to higher rates of major adverse cardiovascular events (1.38-22.7). There have also been reports linking another kind of targeted therapy, mechanistic target of rapamycin inhibitors (mTOR), to major adverse cardiovascular events.

In the new study, Dong-Yi Chen, MD, of Chang Gung University, Taiwan, and colleagues, tracked patients with renal cell carcinoma who underwent treatment with targeted therapy (sunitinib, sorafenib, pazopanib, everolimus, or temsirolimus, (n = 2,257, 81%) or cytokine therapy (interleukin-2 or interferon gamma, n = 528, 19%) from 2007 to 2018.

The two groups had similar gender, age and socioeconomic levels. Combined, the groups were 74% male, the median age was 63, and 68% had hypertension.

After stabilized inverse probability of treatment weighting, the adjusted incidence rates of major cardiovascular events were 6.65 and 3.36 per 100 person-years in the targeted and cytokine therapy groups, respectively. “The higher cardiovascular risk of the targeted group was driven primarily by the VEGFR TKI–treated patients,” the authors wrote.

Two drugs were linked to statistically significant higher rates of major cardiovascular adverse events compared with the reference drug sunitinib: the VEGFR TKI sorafenib (univariable HR, 1.94, 95% CI, 1.11-3.39), P = .021) and the mTOR temsirolimus (univariable HR, 2.11, 95% CI, 1.24-3.59, P = .006). Sunitinib was by far the most commonly used targeted therapy drug.

Among patients on targeted therapy, several factors were linked to higher rates of major cardiovascular events, such as baseline history of heart failure (HR, 3.88, 95% CI, 2.25-6.71), atrial fibrillation (HR, 3.60, 95% CI, 2.16-5.99), venous thromboembolism (HR, 2.50, 95% CI, 1.27-4.92), ischemic stroke (HR, 1.88, 95% CI, 1.14-3.11), and age at least 65 years (HR, 1.81, 95% CI, 1.27-2.58).

According to the authors, there are several theories about why targeted therapy may boost the risk of major adverse cardiovascular risk. “VEGF signaling inhibitors have been associated with hypertension,” which is a risk factor for cardiac death, they noted. Also, “multi-receptor TKIs, including VEGFR and platelet-derived growth factor receptor inhibitors, could destabilize the coronary microvascular endothelial network and reduce coronary flow reserve, leading to an increased risk for thrombosis and arterial ischemic events, including myocardial infarction and ischemic stroke.”

The study was funded by Chang Gung Memorial Hospital.

New research offers more evidence linking targeted therapies for patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma to higher risks for major adverse cardiovascular events.

Patients on targeted therapy were more likely to develop conditions such as heart attacks and stroke than were those who took cytokine therapy (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.80; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.19-2.74), according to a retrospective Taiwanese study reports.

“These findings may inform the evaluation of cardiovascular risk when considering targeted cancer therapies for patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma in real-world clinical practice,” wrote the authors of the report, which appeared in JACC: CardioOncology.

The study notes that one kind of targeted therapy – tyrosine kinase inhibitors with anti–vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGFR-TKI) have been linked to higher rates of major adverse cardiovascular events (1.38-22.7). There have also been reports linking another kind of targeted therapy, mechanistic target of rapamycin inhibitors (mTOR), to major adverse cardiovascular events.

In the new study, Dong-Yi Chen, MD, of Chang Gung University, Taiwan, and colleagues, tracked patients with renal cell carcinoma who underwent treatment with targeted therapy (sunitinib, sorafenib, pazopanib, everolimus, or temsirolimus, (n = 2,257, 81%) or cytokine therapy (interleukin-2 or interferon gamma, n = 528, 19%) from 2007 to 2018.

The two groups had similar gender, age and socioeconomic levels. Combined, the groups were 74% male, the median age was 63, and 68% had hypertension.

After stabilized inverse probability of treatment weighting, the adjusted incidence rates of major cardiovascular events were 6.65 and 3.36 per 100 person-years in the targeted and cytokine therapy groups, respectively. “The higher cardiovascular risk of the targeted group was driven primarily by the VEGFR TKI–treated patients,” the authors wrote.

Two drugs were linked to statistically significant higher rates of major cardiovascular adverse events compared with the reference drug sunitinib: the VEGFR TKI sorafenib (univariable HR, 1.94, 95% CI, 1.11-3.39), P = .021) and the mTOR temsirolimus (univariable HR, 2.11, 95% CI, 1.24-3.59, P = .006). Sunitinib was by far the most commonly used targeted therapy drug.

Among patients on targeted therapy, several factors were linked to higher rates of major cardiovascular events, such as baseline history of heart failure (HR, 3.88, 95% CI, 2.25-6.71), atrial fibrillation (HR, 3.60, 95% CI, 2.16-5.99), venous thromboembolism (HR, 2.50, 95% CI, 1.27-4.92), ischemic stroke (HR, 1.88, 95% CI, 1.14-3.11), and age at least 65 years (HR, 1.81, 95% CI, 1.27-2.58).

According to the authors, there are several theories about why targeted therapy may boost the risk of major adverse cardiovascular risk. “VEGF signaling inhibitors have been associated with hypertension,” which is a risk factor for cardiac death, they noted. Also, “multi-receptor TKIs, including VEGFR and platelet-derived growth factor receptor inhibitors, could destabilize the coronary microvascular endothelial network and reduce coronary flow reserve, leading to an increased risk for thrombosis and arterial ischemic events, including myocardial infarction and ischemic stroke.”

The study was funded by Chang Gung Memorial Hospital.

Treatment with immune checkpoint inhibitors and vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) inhibitors has made a notable dent in survival statistics for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma, but up to 20% of patients will only ever achieve progressive disease status and at 1 year, 20% of patients will have died from the condition.

The treatment is still superior to doublet immune checkpoint blockade therapy, shows a cohort study among patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma published in JAMA Network Open.

The investigation also found that objective imaging responses were associated with improvement in overall survival among patients receiving either type of therapy. Led by Vishal Navani, MBBS, University of Calgary (Alta.), this was a multicenter international cohort study of 899 patients (median age 62.8 years; 74.2% male) with a histologically confirmed diagnosis of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) nested in routine clinical practice (International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium [IMDC]). Complete or partial responses were independently more likely with first-line VEGF inhibitor therapy (IOVE) (including axitinib-avelumab, axitinib-pembrolizumab, cabozantinib-nivolumab, and lenvatinib-pembrolizumab therapies) than with the first-line immuno-oncology doublet (IOIO) of ipilimumab-nivolumab (odds ratio [OR], 1.89; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.26-2.81; P = .002). Analysis of factors affecting responses showed they were more likely to occur in the presence of lung metastases (OR, 1.49: 95% CI, 1.01-2.20), receipt of cytoreductive nephrectomy (OR, 1.59; 95% CI, 1.04-2.43), and favorable IMDC risk.

Beyond imaging response, Dr. Navani and colleagues tested the association between objective imaging response and overall survival as a secondary endpoint. Among responders versus nonresponders, median overall survival was not estimable (95%CI, 48.2 months to not estimable) versus 31.6 months (95%CI, 24.2-41.4 months; log rank P < .001). The overall survival advantage for objective imaging response versus nonresponse persisted in both the IOIO and IOVE groups taken separately (log rank P < .001 and log rank P = .02, respectively).

A large proportion of patients (27.5%) in the IOIO group experienced progressive disease as the best overall response, with significantly reduced median overall survival of 8.4 months (95%CI, 7.2-13.0 months). In the IOVE group, by contrast, 12.2% experienced progressive disease as the best overall response, with improved median overall survival of 18.5 months (95%CI, 4.9-22.4 months).

While first-line combination therapies have brought meaningful overall survival benefits in this population, up to 20% of patients, the researchers wrote, have progressive disease as their best overall response, and all-cause mortality in clinical trials is as high as 20% at 1 year. Improving the survival curve has been hampered by the lack of biomarkers to predict objective imaging response or survival benefit with first-line therapies. Also, the association between treatment with first-line immuno-oncology combination therapies and physician-assessed objective imaging response among patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma has remained uncharacterized. Meaningful clinical differences in the likelihood of objective imaging response based on the first-line therapy type shown in this analysis may inform therapy selection, particularly if tumor reduction is needed to inhibit life-limiting disease progression and to palliate tumor-induced symptoms.

The authors pointed out the study’s strength, citing the inclusion of a large data set from a 90% nonclinical trial population, and its limitations, which include a lack of independent blinded centralized imaging review.

They declared no relevant disclosures.

Treatment with immune checkpoint inhibitors and vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) inhibitors has made a notable dent in survival statistics for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma, but up to 20% of patients will only ever achieve progressive disease status and at 1 year, 20% of patients will have died from the condition.

The treatment is still superior to doublet immune checkpoint blockade therapy, shows a cohort study among patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma published in JAMA Network Open.

The investigation also found that objective imaging responses were associated with improvement in overall survival among patients receiving either type of therapy. Led by Vishal Navani, MBBS, University of Calgary (Alta.), this was a multicenter international cohort study of 899 patients (median age 62.8 years; 74.2% male) with a histologically confirmed diagnosis of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) nested in routine clinical practice (International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium [IMDC]). Complete or partial responses were independently more likely with first-line VEGF inhibitor therapy (IOVE) (including axitinib-avelumab, axitinib-pembrolizumab, cabozantinib-nivolumab, and lenvatinib-pembrolizumab therapies) than with the first-line immuno-oncology doublet (IOIO) of ipilimumab-nivolumab (odds ratio [OR], 1.89; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.26-2.81; P = .002). Analysis of factors affecting responses showed they were more likely to occur in the presence of lung metastases (OR, 1.49: 95% CI, 1.01-2.20), receipt of cytoreductive nephrectomy (OR, 1.59; 95% CI, 1.04-2.43), and favorable IMDC risk.

Beyond imaging response, Dr. Navani and colleagues tested the association between objective imaging response and overall survival as a secondary endpoint. Among responders versus nonresponders, median overall survival was not estimable (95%CI, 48.2 months to not estimable) versus 31.6 months (95%CI, 24.2-41.4 months; log rank P < .001). The overall survival advantage for objective imaging response versus nonresponse persisted in both the IOIO and IOVE groups taken separately (log rank P < .001 and log rank P = .02, respectively).

A large proportion of patients (27.5%) in the IOIO group experienced progressive disease as the best overall response, with significantly reduced median overall survival of 8.4 months (95%CI, 7.2-13.0 months). In the IOVE group, by contrast, 12.2% experienced progressive disease as the best overall response, with improved median overall survival of 18.5 months (95%CI, 4.9-22.4 months).

While first-line combination therapies have brought meaningful overall survival benefits in this population, up to 20% of patients, the researchers wrote, have progressive disease as their best overall response, and all-cause mortality in clinical trials is as high as 20% at 1 year. Improving the survival curve has been hampered by the lack of biomarkers to predict objective imaging response or survival benefit with first-line therapies. Also, the association between treatment with first-line immuno-oncology combination therapies and physician-assessed objective imaging response among patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma has remained uncharacterized. Meaningful clinical differences in the likelihood of objective imaging response based on the first-line therapy type shown in this analysis may inform therapy selection, particularly if tumor reduction is needed to inhibit life-limiting disease progression and to palliate tumor-induced symptoms.

The authors pointed out the study’s strength, citing the inclusion of a large data set from a 90% nonclinical trial population, and its limitations, which include a lack of independent blinded centralized imaging review.

They declared no relevant disclosures.

Treatment with immune checkpoint inhibitors and vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) inhibitors has made a notable dent in survival statistics for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma, but up to 20% of patients will only ever achieve progressive disease status and at 1 year, 20% of patients will have died from the condition.

The treatment is still superior to doublet immune checkpoint blockade therapy, shows a cohort study among patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma published in JAMA Network Open.

The investigation also found that objective imaging responses were associated with improvement in overall survival among patients receiving either type of therapy. Led by Vishal Navani, MBBS, University of Calgary (Alta.), this was a multicenter international cohort study of 899 patients (median age 62.8 years; 74.2% male) with a histologically confirmed diagnosis of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) nested in routine clinical practice (International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium [IMDC]). Complete or partial responses were independently more likely with first-line VEGF inhibitor therapy (IOVE) (including axitinib-avelumab, axitinib-pembrolizumab, cabozantinib-nivolumab, and lenvatinib-pembrolizumab therapies) than with the first-line immuno-oncology doublet (IOIO) of ipilimumab-nivolumab (odds ratio [OR], 1.89; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.26-2.81; P = .002). Analysis of factors affecting responses showed they were more likely to occur in the presence of lung metastases (OR, 1.49: 95% CI, 1.01-2.20), receipt of cytoreductive nephrectomy (OR, 1.59; 95% CI, 1.04-2.43), and favorable IMDC risk.

Beyond imaging response, Dr. Navani and colleagues tested the association between objective imaging response and overall survival as a secondary endpoint. Among responders versus nonresponders, median overall survival was not estimable (95%CI, 48.2 months to not estimable) versus 31.6 months (95%CI, 24.2-41.4 months; log rank P < .001). The overall survival advantage for objective imaging response versus nonresponse persisted in both the IOIO and IOVE groups taken separately (log rank P < .001 and log rank P = .02, respectively).

A large proportion of patients (27.5%) in the IOIO group experienced progressive disease as the best overall response, with significantly reduced median overall survival of 8.4 months (95%CI, 7.2-13.0 months). In the IOVE group, by contrast, 12.2% experienced progressive disease as the best overall response, with improved median overall survival of 18.5 months (95%CI, 4.9-22.4 months).

While first-line combination therapies have brought meaningful overall survival benefits in this population, up to 20% of patients, the researchers wrote, have progressive disease as their best overall response, and all-cause mortality in clinical trials is as high as 20% at 1 year. Improving the survival curve has been hampered by the lack of biomarkers to predict objective imaging response or survival benefit with first-line therapies. Also, the association between treatment with first-line immuno-oncology combination therapies and physician-assessed objective imaging response among patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma has remained uncharacterized. Meaningful clinical differences in the likelihood of objective imaging response based on the first-line therapy type shown in this analysis may inform therapy selection, particularly if tumor reduction is needed to inhibit life-limiting disease progression and to palliate tumor-induced symptoms.

The authors pointed out the study’s strength, citing the inclusion of a large data set from a 90% nonclinical trial population, and its limitations, which include a lack of independent blinded centralized imaging review.

They declared no relevant disclosures.

Researchers writing in JAMA Network Open report that for patients with metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma, removing the kidney and its primary tumor is not associated with improved overall survival.

The finding, which was derived using instrumental variable analysis to adjust for bias due to unmeasured variables, is in contradiction to findings from prior observational data sets.

“These observational studies did not account for selection bias related to unmeasured confounding by surgical indication, and as such, their results may not accurately reflect the effectiveness of the intervention,” wrote the authors, led by Nicholas H. Chakiryan, MD, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, Fla.

The primary outcome analysis using conventional adjustments for selection bias in the final study population of 12,766 patients (median age 63 years, 68% male, 88% White) found cytoreductive nephrectomy performed in 5,005 patients (39%) to be associated with a significant overall survival benefit (multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression: hazard ratio [HR], 0.49; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.47-0.51; propensity score matching: HR, 0.48; 95%CI, 0.46-0.50). Analysis using instrumental variable estimates, however, did not demonstrate an association between cytoreductive nephrectomy and overall survival (HR, 0.92; 95%CI, 0.78-1.09). “This discrepancy likely reflects the fact that surgical indication for cytoreductive nephrectomy is primarily driven by factors that are not commonly measured or available in observational data sets,” wrote Dr. Chakiryan and colleagues.

For metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) surgical candidates lacking poor-risk disease, cytoreductive nephrectomy has been a clinical standard for decades. Several large observational studies conducted during the current postcytokine, tyrosine kinase–inhibiting targeted therapy era have demonstrated that cytoreductive nephrectomy continues to offer substantial overall survival benefit. These studies did not, however, account for selection bias related to unmeasured confounding by surgical indication.

The researchers identified 12,766 cases of ccRCC from the National Cancer Database, which includes more than 70% of incident cancer cases diagnosed in the United States, from Jan. 1, 2006, to Dec. 31, 2016. Their primary objective was to assess the effect of cytoreductive nephrectomy on overall survival for patients with metastatic ccRCC using instrumental variable analysis to adjust for unmeasured confounding and to compare these results with those generated by conventional adjustments for selection bias.

Instrumental variables are used to control for confounding and measurement error in observational studies. In this study, increasing distance to the treating facility was a significant instrumental variable (P < .001), with an increasing proportion of patients undergoing cytoreductive nephrectomy as distance to a facility increased. “It is worth reinforcing that instrumental variable estimates reflect the outcomes of marginal patients in the sample,” the researchers noted. “In this instance, marginal patients are those whose cytoreductive nephrectomy status was primarily associated with their distance to the treating facility. Increasing distance to the treating facility was significantly associated with receipt of a cytoreductive nephrectomy, presumably because patients are more willing to travel to referral centers for complex surgical care with a limited number of visits, as opposed to receipt of systemic therapy that requires frequent visits for an indefinite period and can be effectively administered locally.”

“Consistent with contemporary level 1 evidence, instrumental variable analysis demonstrated that cytoreductive nephrectomy was not associated with improved overall survival for patients with metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma,” the authors concluded.

Among limitations of the analysis, they noted that instrumental variable analyses functionally compare marginal patient populations within the overall cohort, potentially limiting the generalizability of the results.

Researchers writing in JAMA Network Open report that for patients with metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma, removing the kidney and its primary tumor is not associated with improved overall survival.

The finding, which was derived using instrumental variable analysis to adjust for bias due to unmeasured variables, is in contradiction to findings from prior observational data sets.

“These observational studies did not account for selection bias related to unmeasured confounding by surgical indication, and as such, their results may not accurately reflect the effectiveness of the intervention,” wrote the authors, led by Nicholas H. Chakiryan, MD, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, Fla.

The primary outcome analysis using conventional adjustments for selection bias in the final study population of 12,766 patients (median age 63 years, 68% male, 88% White) found cytoreductive nephrectomy performed in 5,005 patients (39%) to be associated with a significant overall survival benefit (multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression: hazard ratio [HR], 0.49; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.47-0.51; propensity score matching: HR, 0.48; 95%CI, 0.46-0.50). Analysis using instrumental variable estimates, however, did not demonstrate an association between cytoreductive nephrectomy and overall survival (HR, 0.92; 95%CI, 0.78-1.09). “This discrepancy likely reflects the fact that surgical indication for cytoreductive nephrectomy is primarily driven by factors that are not commonly measured or available in observational data sets,” wrote Dr. Chakiryan and colleagues.

For metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) surgical candidates lacking poor-risk disease, cytoreductive nephrectomy has been a clinical standard for decades. Several large observational studies conducted during the current postcytokine, tyrosine kinase–inhibiting targeted therapy era have demonstrated that cytoreductive nephrectomy continues to offer substantial overall survival benefit. These studies did not, however, account for selection bias related to unmeasured confounding by surgical indication.

The researchers identified 12,766 cases of ccRCC from the National Cancer Database, which includes more than 70% of incident cancer cases diagnosed in the United States, from Jan. 1, 2006, to Dec. 31, 2016. Their primary objective was to assess the effect of cytoreductive nephrectomy on overall survival for patients with metastatic ccRCC using instrumental variable analysis to adjust for unmeasured confounding and to compare these results with those generated by conventional adjustments for selection bias.

Instrumental variables are used to control for confounding and measurement error in observational studies. In this study, increasing distance to the treating facility was a significant instrumental variable (P < .001), with an increasing proportion of patients undergoing cytoreductive nephrectomy as distance to a facility increased. “It is worth reinforcing that instrumental variable estimates reflect the outcomes of marginal patients in the sample,” the researchers noted. “In this instance, marginal patients are those whose cytoreductive nephrectomy status was primarily associated with their distance to the treating facility. Increasing distance to the treating facility was significantly associated with receipt of a cytoreductive nephrectomy, presumably because patients are more willing to travel to referral centers for complex surgical care with a limited number of visits, as opposed to receipt of systemic therapy that requires frequent visits for an indefinite period and can be effectively administered locally.”

“Consistent with contemporary level 1 evidence, instrumental variable analysis demonstrated that cytoreductive nephrectomy was not associated with improved overall survival for patients with metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma,” the authors concluded.

Among limitations of the analysis, they noted that instrumental variable analyses functionally compare marginal patient populations within the overall cohort, potentially limiting the generalizability of the results.

Researchers writing in JAMA Network Open report that for patients with metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma, removing the kidney and its primary tumor is not associated with improved overall survival.

The finding, which was derived using instrumental variable analysis to adjust for bias due to unmeasured variables, is in contradiction to findings from prior observational data sets.

“These observational studies did not account for selection bias related to unmeasured confounding by surgical indication, and as such, their results may not accurately reflect the effectiveness of the intervention,” wrote the authors, led by Nicholas H. Chakiryan, MD, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, Fla.

The primary outcome analysis using conventional adjustments for selection bias in the final study population of 12,766 patients (median age 63 years, 68% male, 88% White) found cytoreductive nephrectomy performed in 5,005 patients (39%) to be associated with a significant overall survival benefit (multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression: hazard ratio [HR], 0.49; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.47-0.51; propensity score matching: HR, 0.48; 95%CI, 0.46-0.50). Analysis using instrumental variable estimates, however, did not demonstrate an association between cytoreductive nephrectomy and overall survival (HR, 0.92; 95%CI, 0.78-1.09). “This discrepancy likely reflects the fact that surgical indication for cytoreductive nephrectomy is primarily driven by factors that are not commonly measured or available in observational data sets,” wrote Dr. Chakiryan and colleagues.

For metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) surgical candidates lacking poor-risk disease, cytoreductive nephrectomy has been a clinical standard for decades. Several large observational studies conducted during the current postcytokine, tyrosine kinase–inhibiting targeted therapy era have demonstrated that cytoreductive nephrectomy continues to offer substantial overall survival benefit. These studies did not, however, account for selection bias related to unmeasured confounding by surgical indication.

The researchers identified 12,766 cases of ccRCC from the National Cancer Database, which includes more than 70% of incident cancer cases diagnosed in the United States, from Jan. 1, 2006, to Dec. 31, 2016. Their primary objective was to assess the effect of cytoreductive nephrectomy on overall survival for patients with metastatic ccRCC using instrumental variable analysis to adjust for unmeasured confounding and to compare these results with those generated by conventional adjustments for selection bias.

Instrumental variables are used to control for confounding and measurement error in observational studies. In this study, increasing distance to the treating facility was a significant instrumental variable (P < .001), with an increasing proportion of patients undergoing cytoreductive nephrectomy as distance to a facility increased. “It is worth reinforcing that instrumental variable estimates reflect the outcomes of marginal patients in the sample,” the researchers noted. “In this instance, marginal patients are those whose cytoreductive nephrectomy status was primarily associated with their distance to the treating facility. Increasing distance to the treating facility was significantly associated with receipt of a cytoreductive nephrectomy, presumably because patients are more willing to travel to referral centers for complex surgical care with a limited number of visits, as opposed to receipt of systemic therapy that requires frequent visits for an indefinite period and can be effectively administered locally.”

“Consistent with contemporary level 1 evidence, instrumental variable analysis demonstrated that cytoreductive nephrectomy was not associated with improved overall survival for patients with metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma,” the authors concluded.

Among limitations of the analysis, they noted that instrumental variable analyses functionally compare marginal patient populations within the overall cohort, potentially limiting the generalizability of the results.

Only a small number of research clinical trials for cancer drugs actually show benefit in quality of life, according to a study published in JAMA Oncology.

The study found trials that failed to show improved quality of life often reported their quality of life outcomes more favorably. Non–immunotherapy-targeted drugs were found to lead to worse quality of life outcomes more often than did cytotoxic agents. And, while there is an association between quality of life benefit and overall survival, no such association was found with progression-free survival.

“In this study, we evaluated the outcomes of cancer drug trials with regard to patients’ quality of life and found that only a quarter of phase 3 cancer drug trials in the advanced-disease setting demonstrated improved quality of life,” wrote authors who were led by Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, of the Cancer Research Institute, Queen’s University, Kingston, Ont.

“Improved quality of life outcomes were associated with improved overall survival but not with improved progression-free survival. Importantly, almost half of the cancer drugs drug trials that showed improved progression-free survival showed no improved overall survival or quality of life (i.e., PFS-only benefit). Some reports included conclusions regarding quality of life (QOL) findings that were not directly supported by the trial data, particularly for inferior or non–statistically significant QOL outcomes, thereby framing the findings in a favorable light or downplaying detrimental effects of the study intervention on QOL. Furthermore, contrary to common perception, inferior QOL outcomes were more common with targeted drugs than cytotoxic drugs. Taken together, these findings have important policy implications,” the authors wrote.

These findings are based on the results of a cohort study of 45 phase 3 research clinical trials of 24,806 patients. Only a small percentage of patients showed QOL benefits. The study found that industry-funded clinical trial reports often framed QOL findings more favorably than was warranted by the data.

The study found improved QOL with experimental agents in 11 of 45 randomized controlled trials (24.4%). Studies that reported improved QOL were more likely to also show improved overall survival as compared with trials in which quality of life was not improved (7 of 11 [64%] versus 10 of 34 [29%] trials). For improved progression-free survival, however, there was no positive association (6 of 11 [55%] trials versus 17 of 34 [50%] trials without improved QOL). Among six trials reporting worsening QOL, three (50%) were trials of targeted drugs. Among 11 trials reporting improved QOL, 6 (55%) were trials of immunotherapy drugs. Among the 34 trials in which QOL was not improved compared with controls, the findings were framed favorably (versus neutrally or negatively) in the abstract or conclusions in 16 (47%), an observation that was statistically significantly associated with industry funding (chi-squared = 6.35; P = .01).

“It is important to clearly understand and communicate the effects of cancer drugs”

To fulfill the obligation to inform patients about proposed treatments, the authors wrote that it is important to clearly understand and communicate the effects of cancer drugs on patient quality of life alongside their effects on overall survival and intermediate end points such as progression-free survival. “Patients with advanced cancer expect treatment to help them live longer or have better lives,” the authors wrote. In that respect, in clinical trials of cancer medicines, overall survival and quality of life are the most important measures. Toxicity profiles and disease progression delays do not reliably predict quality of life, and studies have shown poor correlations between quality of life, overall survival, and progression-free survival. This raises the question of validity of progression-free survival as a surrogate endpoint. “Progression-free survival is meaningless without overall survival or quality of life gains,” Dr. Gyawali said in an interview.

Writing in The Lancet Oncology in March, Dr. Gyawali stated that, because progression free survival “does not directly measure how a patient feels or functions, or how long a patient lives, progression-free survival was not intended to inform clinical practice or establish whether a new therapy provides clinically meaningful benefits for patients. However, over the past 2 decades, it has become the most common primary endpoint in oncology clinical trials. We are deeply worried about how the term survival in this phrase can influence clinical practice and patient choices. We propose replacing the phrase progression-free survival with a less ambiguous term: progression-free interval.”

In JAMA Oncology, Dr. Gyawali aimed to elucidate relationships between QOL, overall survival, and progression-free survival, and to assess, as well, how QOL results are framed, especially in industry-sponsored research. When drug trials they analyzed showed no change in QOL but reported that QOL did not worsen or QOL was maintained rather than stating that QOL did not improve, or if there was downplaying of worse QOL outcomes, the study had favorable interpretation, Dr. Gyawali and associates wrote. The expectation of patients receiving cancer drugs would be improved QOL rather than “not worse” QOL, Dr. Gyawali said.

Regarding the finding that QOL outcomes were described as favorable in 47% of trials with unimproved QOL outcomes, Dr. Gyawali said, “the bias in reporting should be corrected by the reviewers and editors of journals. Also, quality of life reporting should be made mandatory. Without unbiased quality of life information, informed decision making on whether or not to use a certain drug is impossible. Patients and physicians need to know that information. Regulators can demand that this should be mandatory in all trials in noncurative settings.”

He remarked further on the worsening QOL in some targeted drug trials, “People tout chemo-free regimens as automatically having better quality of life, but that doesn’t seem to be the case. Targeted drugs can have a severe impact on quality of life, probably due to prolonged duration of side effects. Quality of life should be measured and reported for all drugs.”

Dr. Gyawali and associates noted the limitation in that several studies with negative QOL results are not published at all or are published after a considerable delay, so the present observations may understate the issues that have been raised.

Dr. Gyawali declared that he received no funding and disclosed no conflicts of interest for this study.

Only a small number of research clinical trials for cancer drugs actually show benefit in quality of life, according to a study published in JAMA Oncology.

The study found trials that failed to show improved quality of life often reported their quality of life outcomes more favorably. Non–immunotherapy-targeted drugs were found to lead to worse quality of life outcomes more often than did cytotoxic agents. And, while there is an association between quality of life benefit and overall survival, no such association was found with progression-free survival.

“In this study, we evaluated the outcomes of cancer drug trials with regard to patients’ quality of life and found that only a quarter of phase 3 cancer drug trials in the advanced-disease setting demonstrated improved quality of life,” wrote authors who were led by Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, of the Cancer Research Institute, Queen’s University, Kingston, Ont.

“Improved quality of life outcomes were associated with improved overall survival but not with improved progression-free survival. Importantly, almost half of the cancer drugs drug trials that showed improved progression-free survival showed no improved overall survival or quality of life (i.e., PFS-only benefit). Some reports included conclusions regarding quality of life (QOL) findings that were not directly supported by the trial data, particularly for inferior or non–statistically significant QOL outcomes, thereby framing the findings in a favorable light or downplaying detrimental effects of the study intervention on QOL. Furthermore, contrary to common perception, inferior QOL outcomes were more common with targeted drugs than cytotoxic drugs. Taken together, these findings have important policy implications,” the authors wrote.

These findings are based on the results of a cohort study of 45 phase 3 research clinical trials of 24,806 patients. Only a small percentage of patients showed QOL benefits. The study found that industry-funded clinical trial reports often framed QOL findings more favorably than was warranted by the data.

The study found improved QOL with experimental agents in 11 of 45 randomized controlled trials (24.4%). Studies that reported improved QOL were more likely to also show improved overall survival as compared with trials in which quality of life was not improved (7 of 11 [64%] versus 10 of 34 [29%] trials). For improved progression-free survival, however, there was no positive association (6 of 11 [55%] trials versus 17 of 34 [50%] trials without improved QOL). Among six trials reporting worsening QOL, three (50%) were trials of targeted drugs. Among 11 trials reporting improved QOL, 6 (55%) were trials of immunotherapy drugs. Among the 34 trials in which QOL was not improved compared with controls, the findings were framed favorably (versus neutrally or negatively) in the abstract or conclusions in 16 (47%), an observation that was statistically significantly associated with industry funding (chi-squared = 6.35; P = .01).

“It is important to clearly understand and communicate the effects of cancer drugs”

To fulfill the obligation to inform patients about proposed treatments, the authors wrote that it is important to clearly understand and communicate the effects of cancer drugs on patient quality of life alongside their effects on overall survival and intermediate end points such as progression-free survival. “Patients with advanced cancer expect treatment to help them live longer or have better lives,” the authors wrote. In that respect, in clinical trials of cancer medicines, overall survival and quality of life are the most important measures. Toxicity profiles and disease progression delays do not reliably predict quality of life, and studies have shown poor correlations between quality of life, overall survival, and progression-free survival. This raises the question of validity of progression-free survival as a surrogate endpoint. “Progression-free survival is meaningless without overall survival or quality of life gains,” Dr. Gyawali said in an interview.

Writing in The Lancet Oncology in March, Dr. Gyawali stated that, because progression free survival “does not directly measure how a patient feels or functions, or how long a patient lives, progression-free survival was not intended to inform clinical practice or establish whether a new therapy provides clinically meaningful benefits for patients. However, over the past 2 decades, it has become the most common primary endpoint in oncology clinical trials. We are deeply worried about how the term survival in this phrase can influence clinical practice and patient choices. We propose replacing the phrase progression-free survival with a less ambiguous term: progression-free interval.”

In JAMA Oncology, Dr. Gyawali aimed to elucidate relationships between QOL, overall survival, and progression-free survival, and to assess, as well, how QOL results are framed, especially in industry-sponsored research. When drug trials they analyzed showed no change in QOL but reported that QOL did not worsen or QOL was maintained rather than stating that QOL did not improve, or if there was downplaying of worse QOL outcomes, the study had favorable interpretation, Dr. Gyawali and associates wrote. The expectation of patients receiving cancer drugs would be improved QOL rather than “not worse” QOL, Dr. Gyawali said.

Regarding the finding that QOL outcomes were described as favorable in 47% of trials with unimproved QOL outcomes, Dr. Gyawali said, “the bias in reporting should be corrected by the reviewers and editors of journals. Also, quality of life reporting should be made mandatory. Without unbiased quality of life information, informed decision making on whether or not to use a certain drug is impossible. Patients and physicians need to know that information. Regulators can demand that this should be mandatory in all trials in noncurative settings.”

He remarked further on the worsening QOL in some targeted drug trials, “People tout chemo-free regimens as automatically having better quality of life, but that doesn’t seem to be the case. Targeted drugs can have a severe impact on quality of life, probably due to prolonged duration of side effects. Quality of life should be measured and reported for all drugs.”

Dr. Gyawali and associates noted the limitation in that several studies with negative QOL results are not published at all or are published after a considerable delay, so the present observations may understate the issues that have been raised.

Dr. Gyawali declared that he received no funding and disclosed no conflicts of interest for this study.

Only a small number of research clinical trials for cancer drugs actually show benefit in quality of life, according to a study published in JAMA Oncology.

The study found trials that failed to show improved quality of life often reported their quality of life outcomes more favorably. Non–immunotherapy-targeted drugs were found to lead to worse quality of life outcomes more often than did cytotoxic agents. And, while there is an association between quality of life benefit and overall survival, no such association was found with progression-free survival.

“In this study, we evaluated the outcomes of cancer drug trials with regard to patients’ quality of life and found that only a quarter of phase 3 cancer drug trials in the advanced-disease setting demonstrated improved quality of life,” wrote authors who were led by Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, of the Cancer Research Institute, Queen’s University, Kingston, Ont.

“Improved quality of life outcomes were associated with improved overall survival but not with improved progression-free survival. Importantly, almost half of the cancer drugs drug trials that showed improved progression-free survival showed no improved overall survival or quality of life (i.e., PFS-only benefit). Some reports included conclusions regarding quality of life (QOL) findings that were not directly supported by the trial data, particularly for inferior or non–statistically significant QOL outcomes, thereby framing the findings in a favorable light or downplaying detrimental effects of the study intervention on QOL. Furthermore, contrary to common perception, inferior QOL outcomes were more common with targeted drugs than cytotoxic drugs. Taken together, these findings have important policy implications,” the authors wrote.

These findings are based on the results of a cohort study of 45 phase 3 research clinical trials of 24,806 patients. Only a small percentage of patients showed QOL benefits. The study found that industry-funded clinical trial reports often framed QOL findings more favorably than was warranted by the data.

The study found improved QOL with experimental agents in 11 of 45 randomized controlled trials (24.4%). Studies that reported improved QOL were more likely to also show improved overall survival as compared with trials in which quality of life was not improved (7 of 11 [64%] versus 10 of 34 [29%] trials). For improved progression-free survival, however, there was no positive association (6 of 11 [55%] trials versus 17 of 34 [50%] trials without improved QOL). Among six trials reporting worsening QOL, three (50%) were trials of targeted drugs. Among 11 trials reporting improved QOL, 6 (55%) were trials of immunotherapy drugs. Among the 34 trials in which QOL was not improved compared with controls, the findings were framed favorably (versus neutrally or negatively) in the abstract or conclusions in 16 (47%), an observation that was statistically significantly associated with industry funding (chi-squared = 6.35; P = .01).

“It is important to clearly understand and communicate the effects of cancer drugs”

To fulfill the obligation to inform patients about proposed treatments, the authors wrote that it is important to clearly understand and communicate the effects of cancer drugs on patient quality of life alongside their effects on overall survival and intermediate end points such as progression-free survival. “Patients with advanced cancer expect treatment to help them live longer or have better lives,” the authors wrote. In that respect, in clinical trials of cancer medicines, overall survival and quality of life are the most important measures. Toxicity profiles and disease progression delays do not reliably predict quality of life, and studies have shown poor correlations between quality of life, overall survival, and progression-free survival. This raises the question of validity of progression-free survival as a surrogate endpoint. “Progression-free survival is meaningless without overall survival or quality of life gains,” Dr. Gyawali said in an interview.

Writing in The Lancet Oncology in March, Dr. Gyawali stated that, because progression free survival “does not directly measure how a patient feels or functions, or how long a patient lives, progression-free survival was not intended to inform clinical practice or establish whether a new therapy provides clinically meaningful benefits for patients. However, over the past 2 decades, it has become the most common primary endpoint in oncology clinical trials. We are deeply worried about how the term survival in this phrase can influence clinical practice and patient choices. We propose replacing the phrase progression-free survival with a less ambiguous term: progression-free interval.”

In JAMA Oncology, Dr. Gyawali aimed to elucidate relationships between QOL, overall survival, and progression-free survival, and to assess, as well, how QOL results are framed, especially in industry-sponsored research. When drug trials they analyzed showed no change in QOL but reported that QOL did not worsen or QOL was maintained rather than stating that QOL did not improve, or if there was downplaying of worse QOL outcomes, the study had favorable interpretation, Dr. Gyawali and associates wrote. The expectation of patients receiving cancer drugs would be improved QOL rather than “not worse” QOL, Dr. Gyawali said.

Regarding the finding that QOL outcomes were described as favorable in 47% of trials with unimproved QOL outcomes, Dr. Gyawali said, “the bias in reporting should be corrected by the reviewers and editors of journals. Also, quality of life reporting should be made mandatory. Without unbiased quality of life information, informed decision making on whether or not to use a certain drug is impossible. Patients and physicians need to know that information. Regulators can demand that this should be mandatory in all trials in noncurative settings.”

He remarked further on the worsening QOL in some targeted drug trials, “People tout chemo-free regimens as automatically having better quality of life, but that doesn’t seem to be the case. Targeted drugs can have a severe impact on quality of life, probably due to prolonged duration of side effects. Quality of life should be measured and reported for all drugs.”

Dr. Gyawali and associates noted the limitation in that several studies with negative QOL results are not published at all or are published after a considerable delay, so the present observations may understate the issues that have been raised.

Dr. Gyawali declared that he received no funding and disclosed no conflicts of interest for this study.