Renal Cell Carcinoma

All patients receiving active cancer treatment should receive a COVID-19 vaccine and should be prioritized for vaccination, according to preliminary recommendations from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN).

Vaccination timing considerations vary based on factors such as cancer and treatment type, and reasons for delaying vaccination in the general public also apply to cancer patients (recent COVID-19 exposure, for example).

In general, however, patients with cancer should be assigned to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention priority group 1 b/c and immunized when vaccination is available to them, the guidelines state. Exceptions to this recommendation include:

• Patients undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplant or receiving engineered cellular therapy such as chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy. Vaccination should be delayed for at least 3 months in these patients to maximize vaccine efficacy. Caregivers of these patients, however, should be immunized when possible.
• Patients with hematologic malignancies who are receiving intensive cytotoxic chemotherapy, such as cytarabine- or anthracycline-based regimens for acute myeloid leukemia. Vaccination in these patients should be delayed until absolute neutrophil count recovery.
• Patients undergoing major surgery. Vaccination should occur at least a few days before or after surgery.
• Patients who have experienced a severe or immediate adverse reaction to any of the ingredients in the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines.

Conversely, vaccination should occur when available in patients with hematologic malignancies and marrow failure who are expected to have limited or no recovery, patients with hematologic malignancies who are on long-term maintenance therapy, and patients with solid tumors who are receiving cytotoxic chemotherapy, targeted therapy, checkpoint inhibitors and other immunotherapy, or radiotherapy.

Caregivers, household contacts, and other close contacts who are 16 years of age and older should be vaccinated whenever they are eligible.
 

Unique concerns in patients with cancer

The NCCN recommendations were developed to address the unique issues and concerns with respect to patients with cancer, who have an increased risk of severe illness from SARS-CoV-2 infection. But the guidelines come with a caveat: “[t]here are limited safety and efficacy data in these patients,” the NCCN emphasized in a press statement.

“Right now, there is urgent need and limited data,” Steven Pergam, MD, co-leader of the NCCN COVID-19 Vaccination Committee, said in the statement.

“Our number one goal is helping to get the vaccine to as many people as we can,” Dr. Pergam said. “That means following existing national and regional directions for prioritizing people who are more likely to face death or severe illness from COVID-19.”

Dr. Pergam, associate professor at Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle, further explained that “people receiving active cancer treatment are at greater risk for worse outcomes from COVID-19, particularly if they are older and have additional comorbidities, like immunosuppression.”

NCCN’s recommendations couldn’t have come at a better time for patients with cancer, according to Nora Disis, MD, a professor at the University of Washington in Seattle.

“The NCCN’s recommendations to prioritize COVID vaccinations for cancer patients on active treatment is an important step forward in protecting our patients from the infection,” Dr. Disis said in an interview.

“Cancer patients may be at higher risk for the complications seen with infection. In addition, cancer is a disease of older people, and a good number of our patients have the comorbidities that would predict a poorer outcome if they should become sick,” Dr. Disis added. “With the correct treatment, many patients with cancer will be long-term survivors. It is important that they be protected from infection with COVID to realize their best outcome.”
 

Additional vaccine considerations

The NCCN recommendations also address several other issues of importance for cancer patients, including:

• Deprioritizing other vaccines. COVID-19 vaccines should take precedence over other vaccines because data on dual vaccination are lacking. The NCCN recommends waiting 14 days after COVID-19 vaccination to deliver other vaccines.
• Vaccinating clinical trial participants. Trial leads should be consulted to prevent protocol violations or exclusions.
• Decision-making in the setting of limited vaccine availability. The NCCN noted that decisions on allocation must be made in accordance with state and local vaccine guidance but suggests prioritizing appropriate patients on active treatment, those planning to start treatment, and those who have just completed treatment. Additional risk factors for these patients, as well as other factors associated with risk for adverse COVID-19 outcomes, should also be considered. These include advanced age, comorbidities, and adverse social and demographic factors such as poverty and limited health care access.
• The need for ongoing prevention measures. Vaccines have been shown to decrease the incidence of COVID-19 and related complications, but it remains unclear whether vaccines prevent infection and subsequent transmission. This means everyone should continue following prevention recommendations, such as wearing masks and avoiding crowds.

The NCCN stressed that these recommendations are “intended to be a living document that is constantly evolving – it will be updated rapidly whenever new data comes out, as well as any potential new vaccines that may get approved in the future.” The NCCN also noted that the advisory committee will meet regularly to refine the recommendations as needed.

Dr. Pergam disclosed relationships with Chimerix Inc., Merck & Co., Global Life Technologies Inc., and Sanofi-Aventis. Dr. Disis disclosed grants from Pfizer, Bavarian Nordisk, Janssen, and Precigen. She is the founder of EpiThany and editor-in-chief of JAMA Oncology.

[email protected]

All patients receiving active cancer treatment should receive a COVID-19 vaccine and should be prioritized for vaccination, according to preliminary recommendations from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN).

Vaccination timing considerations vary based on factors such as cancer and treatment type, and reasons for delaying vaccination in the general public also apply to cancer patients (recent COVID-19 exposure, for example).

In general, however, patients with cancer should be assigned to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention priority group 1 b/c and immunized when vaccination is available to them, the guidelines state. Exceptions to this recommendation include:

• Patients undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplant or receiving engineered cellular therapy such as chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy. Vaccination should be delayed for at least 3 months in these patients to maximize vaccine efficacy. Caregivers of these patients, however, should be immunized when possible.
• Patients with hematologic malignancies who are receiving intensive cytotoxic chemotherapy, such as cytarabine- or anthracycline-based regimens for acute myeloid leukemia. Vaccination in these patients should be delayed until absolute neutrophil count recovery.
• Patients undergoing major surgery. Vaccination should occur at least a few days before or after surgery.
• Patients who have experienced a severe or immediate adverse reaction to any of the ingredients in the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines.

Conversely, vaccination should occur when available in patients with hematologic malignancies and marrow failure who are expected to have limited or no recovery, patients with hematologic malignancies who are on long-term maintenance therapy, and patients with solid tumors who are receiving cytotoxic chemotherapy, targeted therapy, checkpoint inhibitors and other immunotherapy, or radiotherapy.

Caregivers, household contacts, and other close contacts who are 16 years of age and older should be vaccinated whenever they are eligible.
 

Unique concerns in patients with cancer

The NCCN recommendations were developed to address the unique issues and concerns with respect to patients with cancer, who have an increased risk of severe illness from SARS-CoV-2 infection. But the guidelines come with a caveat: “[t]here are limited safety and efficacy data in these patients,” the NCCN emphasized in a press statement.

“Right now, there is urgent need and limited data,” Steven Pergam, MD, co-leader of the NCCN COVID-19 Vaccination Committee, said in the statement.

“Our number one goal is helping to get the vaccine to as many people as we can,” Dr. Pergam said. “That means following existing national and regional directions for prioritizing people who are more likely to face death or severe illness from COVID-19.”

Dr. Pergam, associate professor at Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle, further explained that “people receiving active cancer treatment are at greater risk for worse outcomes from COVID-19, particularly if they are older and have additional comorbidities, like immunosuppression.”

NCCN’s recommendations couldn’t have come at a better time for patients with cancer, according to Nora Disis, MD, a professor at the University of Washington in Seattle.

“The NCCN’s recommendations to prioritize COVID vaccinations for cancer patients on active treatment is an important step forward in protecting our patients from the infection,” Dr. Disis said in an interview.

“Cancer patients may be at higher risk for the complications seen with infection. In addition, cancer is a disease of older people, and a good number of our patients have the comorbidities that would predict a poorer outcome if they should become sick,” Dr. Disis added. “With the correct treatment, many patients with cancer will be long-term survivors. It is important that they be protected from infection with COVID to realize their best outcome.”
 

Additional vaccine considerations

The NCCN recommendations also address several other issues of importance for cancer patients, including:

• Deprioritizing other vaccines. COVID-19 vaccines should take precedence over other vaccines because data on dual vaccination are lacking. The NCCN recommends waiting 14 days after COVID-19 vaccination to deliver other vaccines.
• Vaccinating clinical trial participants. Trial leads should be consulted to prevent protocol violations or exclusions.
• Decision-making in the setting of limited vaccine availability. The NCCN noted that decisions on allocation must be made in accordance with state and local vaccine guidance but suggests prioritizing appropriate patients on active treatment, those planning to start treatment, and those who have just completed treatment. Additional risk factors for these patients, as well as other factors associated with risk for adverse COVID-19 outcomes, should also be considered. These include advanced age, comorbidities, and adverse social and demographic factors such as poverty and limited health care access.
• The need for ongoing prevention measures. Vaccines have been shown to decrease the incidence of COVID-19 and related complications, but it remains unclear whether vaccines prevent infection and subsequent transmission. This means everyone should continue following prevention recommendations, such as wearing masks and avoiding crowds.

The NCCN stressed that these recommendations are “intended to be a living document that is constantly evolving – it will be updated rapidly whenever new data comes out, as well as any potential new vaccines that may get approved in the future.” The NCCN also noted that the advisory committee will meet regularly to refine the recommendations as needed.

Dr. Pergam disclosed relationships with Chimerix Inc., Merck & Co., Global Life Technologies Inc., and Sanofi-Aventis. Dr. Disis disclosed grants from Pfizer, Bavarian Nordisk, Janssen, and Precigen. She is the founder of EpiThany and editor-in-chief of JAMA Oncology.

[email protected]

All patients receiving active cancer treatment should receive a COVID-19 vaccine and should be prioritized for vaccination, according to preliminary recommendations from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN).

Vaccination timing considerations vary based on factors such as cancer and treatment type, and reasons for delaying vaccination in the general public also apply to cancer patients (recent COVID-19 exposure, for example).

In general, however, patients with cancer should be assigned to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention priority group 1 b/c and immunized when vaccination is available to them, the guidelines state. Exceptions to this recommendation include:

• Patients undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplant or receiving engineered cellular therapy such as chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy. Vaccination should be delayed for at least 3 months in these patients to maximize vaccine efficacy. Caregivers of these patients, however, should be immunized when possible.
• Patients with hematologic malignancies who are receiving intensive cytotoxic chemotherapy, such as cytarabine- or anthracycline-based regimens for acute myeloid leukemia. Vaccination in these patients should be delayed until absolute neutrophil count recovery.
• Patients undergoing major surgery. Vaccination should occur at least a few days before or after surgery.
• Patients who have experienced a severe or immediate adverse reaction to any of the ingredients in the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines.

Conversely, vaccination should occur when available in patients with hematologic malignancies and marrow failure who are expected to have limited or no recovery, patients with hematologic malignancies who are on long-term maintenance therapy, and patients with solid tumors who are receiving cytotoxic chemotherapy, targeted therapy, checkpoint inhibitors and other immunotherapy, or radiotherapy.

Caregivers, household contacts, and other close contacts who are 16 years of age and older should be vaccinated whenever they are eligible.
 

Unique concerns in patients with cancer

The NCCN recommendations were developed to address the unique issues and concerns with respect to patients with cancer, who have an increased risk of severe illness from SARS-CoV-2 infection. But the guidelines come with a caveat: “[t]here are limited safety and efficacy data in these patients,” the NCCN emphasized in a press statement.

“Right now, there is urgent need and limited data,” Steven Pergam, MD, co-leader of the NCCN COVID-19 Vaccination Committee, said in the statement.

“Our number one goal is helping to get the vaccine to as many people as we can,” Dr. Pergam said. “That means following existing national and regional directions for prioritizing people who are more likely to face death or severe illness from COVID-19.”

Dr. Pergam, associate professor at Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle, further explained that “people receiving active cancer treatment are at greater risk for worse outcomes from COVID-19, particularly if they are older and have additional comorbidities, like immunosuppression.”

NCCN’s recommendations couldn’t have come at a better time for patients with cancer, according to Nora Disis, MD, a professor at the University of Washington in Seattle.

“The NCCN’s recommendations to prioritize COVID vaccinations for cancer patients on active treatment is an important step forward in protecting our patients from the infection,” Dr. Disis said in an interview.

“Cancer patients may be at higher risk for the complications seen with infection. In addition, cancer is a disease of older people, and a good number of our patients have the comorbidities that would predict a poorer outcome if they should become sick,” Dr. Disis added. “With the correct treatment, many patients with cancer will be long-term survivors. It is important that they be protected from infection with COVID to realize their best outcome.”
 

Additional vaccine considerations

The NCCN recommendations also address several other issues of importance for cancer patients, including:

• Deprioritizing other vaccines. COVID-19 vaccines should take precedence over other vaccines because data on dual vaccination are lacking. The NCCN recommends waiting 14 days after COVID-19 vaccination to deliver other vaccines.
• Vaccinating clinical trial participants. Trial leads should be consulted to prevent protocol violations or exclusions.
• Decision-making in the setting of limited vaccine availability. The NCCN noted that decisions on allocation must be made in accordance with state and local vaccine guidance but suggests prioritizing appropriate patients on active treatment, those planning to start treatment, and those who have just completed treatment. Additional risk factors for these patients, as well as other factors associated with risk for adverse COVID-19 outcomes, should also be considered. These include advanced age, comorbidities, and adverse social and demographic factors such as poverty and limited health care access.
• The need for ongoing prevention measures. Vaccines have been shown to decrease the incidence of COVID-19 and related complications, but it remains unclear whether vaccines prevent infection and subsequent transmission. This means everyone should continue following prevention recommendations, such as wearing masks and avoiding crowds.

The NCCN stressed that these recommendations are “intended to be a living document that is constantly evolving – it will be updated rapidly whenever new data comes out, as well as any potential new vaccines that may get approved in the future.” The NCCN also noted that the advisory committee will meet regularly to refine the recommendations as needed.

Dr. Pergam disclosed relationships with Chimerix Inc., Merck & Co., Global Life Technologies Inc., and Sanofi-Aventis. Dr. Disis disclosed grants from Pfizer, Bavarian Nordisk, Janssen, and Precigen. She is the founder of EpiThany and editor-in-chief of JAMA Oncology.

[email protected]

A model that crunches data from routine blood tests can accurately identify cancer patients who will develop acute kidney injury (AKI) up to a month before it happens, according to a cohort study.

The algorithm spotted nearly 74% of the patients who went on to develop AKI within 30 days, providing a window for intervention and possibly prevention, according to investigators.

These results were reported at the AACR Virtual Special Conference: Artificial Intelligence, Diagnosis, and Imaging (abstract PR-11).

“Cancer patients are a high-risk population for AKI due to the nature of their treatment and illness,” said presenter Lauren A. Scanlon, PhD, a data scientist at The Christie NHS Foundation Trust in Huddersfield, England. “AKI causes a huge disruption in treatment and distress for the patient, so it would be amazing if we could, say, predict the AKI before it occurs and prevent it from even happening.”

U.K. health care providers are already using an algorithm to monitor patients’ creatinine levels, comparing new values against historic ones, Dr. Scanlon explained. When that algorithm detects AKI, it issues an alert that triggers implementation of an AKI care bundle, including measures such as fluid monitoring and medication review, within 24 hours.

Taking this concept further, Dr. Scanlon and colleagues developed a random forest model, a type of machine learning algorithm, that incorporates other markers from blood tests routinely obtained for all patients, with the aim of predicting AKI up to 30 days in advance.

“Using routinely collected blood test results will ensure that the model is applicable to all our patients and can be implemented in an automated manner,” Dr. Scanlon noted.

The investigators developed and trained the model using 597,403 blood test results from 48,865 patients undergoing cancer treatment between January 2017 and May 2020.

The model assigns patients to five categories of risk for AKI in the next 30 days: very low, low, medium, high, and very high.

“We wanted the model to output in this way so that it could be used by clinicians alongside their own insight and knowledge on a case-by-case basis,” Dr. Scanlon explained.

The investigators then prospectively validated the model and its risk categories in another 9,913 patients who underwent cancer treatment between June and August 2020.

Using a model threshold of medium risk or higher, the model correctly predicted AKI in 330 (73.8%) of the 447 patients in the validation cohort who ultimately developed AKI.

“This is pretty amazing and shows that this model really is working and can correctly detect these AKIs up to 30 days before they occur, giving a huge window to put in place preventive strategies,” Dr. Scanlon said.

Among the 154 patients in whom the model incorrectly predicted AKI, 9 patients had only a single follow-up blood test and 17 patients did not have any, leaving their actual outcomes unclear.

“Given that AKI detection uses blood tests, an AKI in these patients was never confirmed,” Dr. Scanlon noted. “So this could give a potential benefit of the model that we never intended: It could reduce undiagnosed AKI by flagging those who are at risk.”

“Our next steps are to test the model through a technology clinical trial to see if putting intervention strategies in place does prevent these AKIs from taking place,” Dr. Scanlon concluded. “We are also going to move to ongoing monitoring of the model performance.”

Dr. Scanlon disclosed no conflicts of interest. The study did not receive specific funding.

A model that crunches data from routine blood tests can accurately identify cancer patients who will develop acute kidney injury (AKI) up to a month before it happens, according to a cohort study.

The algorithm spotted nearly 74% of the patients who went on to develop AKI within 30 days, providing a window for intervention and possibly prevention, according to investigators.

These results were reported at the AACR Virtual Special Conference: Artificial Intelligence, Diagnosis, and Imaging (abstract PR-11).

“Cancer patients are a high-risk population for AKI due to the nature of their treatment and illness,” said presenter Lauren A. Scanlon, PhD, a data scientist at The Christie NHS Foundation Trust in Huddersfield, England. “AKI causes a huge disruption in treatment and distress for the patient, so it would be amazing if we could, say, predict the AKI before it occurs and prevent it from even happening.”

U.K. health care providers are already using an algorithm to monitor patients’ creatinine levels, comparing new values against historic ones, Dr. Scanlon explained. When that algorithm detects AKI, it issues an alert that triggers implementation of an AKI care bundle, including measures such as fluid monitoring and medication review, within 24 hours.

Taking this concept further, Dr. Scanlon and colleagues developed a random forest model, a type of machine learning algorithm, that incorporates other markers from blood tests routinely obtained for all patients, with the aim of predicting AKI up to 30 days in advance.

“Using routinely collected blood test results will ensure that the model is applicable to all our patients and can be implemented in an automated manner,” Dr. Scanlon noted.

The investigators developed and trained the model using 597,403 blood test results from 48,865 patients undergoing cancer treatment between January 2017 and May 2020.

The model assigns patients to five categories of risk for AKI in the next 30 days: very low, low, medium, high, and very high.

“We wanted the model to output in this way so that it could be used by clinicians alongside their own insight and knowledge on a case-by-case basis,” Dr. Scanlon explained.

The investigators then prospectively validated the model and its risk categories in another 9,913 patients who underwent cancer treatment between June and August 2020.

Using a model threshold of medium risk or higher, the model correctly predicted AKI in 330 (73.8%) of the 447 patients in the validation cohort who ultimately developed AKI.

“This is pretty amazing and shows that this model really is working and can correctly detect these AKIs up to 30 days before they occur, giving a huge window to put in place preventive strategies,” Dr. Scanlon said.

Among the 154 patients in whom the model incorrectly predicted AKI, 9 patients had only a single follow-up blood test and 17 patients did not have any, leaving their actual outcomes unclear.

“Given that AKI detection uses blood tests, an AKI in these patients was never confirmed,” Dr. Scanlon noted. “So this could give a potential benefit of the model that we never intended: It could reduce undiagnosed AKI by flagging those who are at risk.”

“Our next steps are to test the model through a technology clinical trial to see if putting intervention strategies in place does prevent these AKIs from taking place,” Dr. Scanlon concluded. “We are also going to move to ongoing monitoring of the model performance.”

Dr. Scanlon disclosed no conflicts of interest. The study did not receive specific funding.

A model that crunches data from routine blood tests can accurately identify cancer patients who will develop acute kidney injury (AKI) up to a month before it happens, according to a cohort study.

The algorithm spotted nearly 74% of the patients who went on to develop AKI within 30 days, providing a window for intervention and possibly prevention, according to investigators.

These results were reported at the AACR Virtual Special Conference: Artificial Intelligence, Diagnosis, and Imaging (abstract PR-11).

“Cancer patients are a high-risk population for AKI due to the nature of their treatment and illness,” said presenter Lauren A. Scanlon, PhD, a data scientist at The Christie NHS Foundation Trust in Huddersfield, England. “AKI causes a huge disruption in treatment and distress for the patient, so it would be amazing if we could, say, predict the AKI before it occurs and prevent it from even happening.”

U.K. health care providers are already using an algorithm to monitor patients’ creatinine levels, comparing new values against historic ones, Dr. Scanlon explained. When that algorithm detects AKI, it issues an alert that triggers implementation of an AKI care bundle, including measures such as fluid monitoring and medication review, within 24 hours.

Taking this concept further, Dr. Scanlon and colleagues developed a random forest model, a type of machine learning algorithm, that incorporates other markers from blood tests routinely obtained for all patients, with the aim of predicting AKI up to 30 days in advance.

“Using routinely collected blood test results will ensure that the model is applicable to all our patients and can be implemented in an automated manner,” Dr. Scanlon noted.

The investigators developed and trained the model using 597,403 blood test results from 48,865 patients undergoing cancer treatment between January 2017 and May 2020.

The model assigns patients to five categories of risk for AKI in the next 30 days: very low, low, medium, high, and very high.

“We wanted the model to output in this way so that it could be used by clinicians alongside their own insight and knowledge on a case-by-case basis,” Dr. Scanlon explained.

The investigators then prospectively validated the model and its risk categories in another 9,913 patients who underwent cancer treatment between June and August 2020.

Using a model threshold of medium risk or higher, the model correctly predicted AKI in 330 (73.8%) of the 447 patients in the validation cohort who ultimately developed AKI.

“This is pretty amazing and shows that this model really is working and can correctly detect these AKIs up to 30 days before they occur, giving a huge window to put in place preventive strategies,” Dr. Scanlon said.

Among the 154 patients in whom the model incorrectly predicted AKI, 9 patients had only a single follow-up blood test and 17 patients did not have any, leaving their actual outcomes unclear.

“Given that AKI detection uses blood tests, an AKI in these patients was never confirmed,” Dr. Scanlon noted. “So this could give a potential benefit of the model that we never intended: It could reduce undiagnosed AKI by flagging those who are at risk.”

“Our next steps are to test the model through a technology clinical trial to see if putting intervention strategies in place does prevent these AKIs from taking place,” Dr. Scanlon concluded. “We are also going to move to ongoing monitoring of the model performance.”

Dr. Scanlon disclosed no conflicts of interest. The study did not receive specific funding.

Earlier this week, Medscape spoke with Nora Disis, MD, about vaccinating cancer patients. Disis is a medical oncologist and director of both the Institute of Translational Health Sciences and the Cancer Vaccine Institute, the University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. As editor-in-chief of JAMA Oncology, she has watched COVID-19 developments in the oncology community over the past year.

Here are a few themes that Disis said oncologists should be aware of as vaccines eventually begin reaching cancer patients.

We should expect cancer patients to respond to vaccines. Historically, some believed that cancer patients would be unable to mount an immune response to vaccines. Data on other viral vaccines have shown otherwise. For example, there has been a long history of studies of flu vaccination in cancer patients, and in general, those vaccines confer protection. Likewise for pneumococcal vaccine, which, generally speaking, cancer patients should receive.

Special cases may include hematologic malignancies in which the immune system has been destroyed and profound immunosuppression occurs. Data on immunization during this immunosuppressed period are scarce, but what data are available suggest that once cancer patients are through this immunosuppressed period, they can be vaccinated successfully.

The type of vaccine will probably be important for cancer patients. Currently, there are 61 coronavirus vaccines in human clinical trials, and 17 have reached the final stages of testing. At least 85 preclinical vaccines are under active investigation in animals.

Both the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna COVID vaccines are mRNA type. There are many other types, including protein-based vaccines, viral vector vaccines based on adenoviruses, and inactivated or attenuated coronavirus vaccines.

The latter vaccines, particularly attenuated live virus vaccines, may not be a good choice for cancer patients. Especially in those with rapidly progressing disease or on chemotherapy, attenuated live viruses may cause a low-grade infection.

Incidentally, the technology used in the genetic, or mRNA, vaccines developed by both Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna was initially developed for fighting cancer, and studies have shown that patients can generate immune responses to cancer-associated proteins with this type of vaccine.

These genetic vaccines could turn out to be the most effective for cancer patients, especially those with solid tumors.

Our understanding is very limited right now. Neither the Pfizer-BioNTech nor the Moderna early data discuss cancer patients. Two of the most important questions for cancer patients are dosing and booster scheduling. Potential defects in lymphocyte function among cancer patients may require unique initial dosing and booster schedules. In terms of timing, it is unclear how active therapy might affect a patient’s immune response to vaccination and whether vaccines should be timed with therapy cycles.

Vaccine access may depend on whether cancer patients are viewed as a vulnerable population. Those at higher risk for severe COVID-19 clearly have a greater need for vaccination. While there are data suggesting that cancer patients are at higher risk, they are a bit murky, in part because cancer patients are a heterogeneous group. For example, there are data suggesting that lung and blood cancer patients fare worse. There is also a suggestion that, like in the general population, COVID risk in cancer patients remains driven by comorbidities.

It is likely, then, that personalized risk factors such as type of cancer therapy, site of disease, and comorbidities will shape individual choices about vaccination among cancer patients.

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

Earlier this week, Medscape spoke with Nora Disis, MD, about vaccinating cancer patients. Disis is a medical oncologist and director of both the Institute of Translational Health Sciences and the Cancer Vaccine Institute, the University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. As editor-in-chief of JAMA Oncology, she has watched COVID-19 developments in the oncology community over the past year.

Here are a few themes that Disis said oncologists should be aware of as vaccines eventually begin reaching cancer patients.

We should expect cancer patients to respond to vaccines. Historically, some believed that cancer patients would be unable to mount an immune response to vaccines. Data on other viral vaccines have shown otherwise. For example, there has been a long history of studies of flu vaccination in cancer patients, and in general, those vaccines confer protection. Likewise for pneumococcal vaccine, which, generally speaking, cancer patients should receive.

Special cases may include hematologic malignancies in which the immune system has been destroyed and profound immunosuppression occurs. Data on immunization during this immunosuppressed period are scarce, but what data are available suggest that once cancer patients are through this immunosuppressed period, they can be vaccinated successfully.

The type of vaccine will probably be important for cancer patients. Currently, there are 61 coronavirus vaccines in human clinical trials, and 17 have reached the final stages of testing. At least 85 preclinical vaccines are under active investigation in animals.

Both the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna COVID vaccines are mRNA type. There are many other types, including protein-based vaccines, viral vector vaccines based on adenoviruses, and inactivated or attenuated coronavirus vaccines.

The latter vaccines, particularly attenuated live virus vaccines, may not be a good choice for cancer patients. Especially in those with rapidly progressing disease or on chemotherapy, attenuated live viruses may cause a low-grade infection.

Incidentally, the technology used in the genetic, or mRNA, vaccines developed by both Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna was initially developed for fighting cancer, and studies have shown that patients can generate immune responses to cancer-associated proteins with this type of vaccine.

These genetic vaccines could turn out to be the most effective for cancer patients, especially those with solid tumors.

Our understanding is very limited right now. Neither the Pfizer-BioNTech nor the Moderna early data discuss cancer patients. Two of the most important questions for cancer patients are dosing and booster scheduling. Potential defects in lymphocyte function among cancer patients may require unique initial dosing and booster schedules. In terms of timing, it is unclear how active therapy might affect a patient’s immune response to vaccination and whether vaccines should be timed with therapy cycles.

Vaccine access may depend on whether cancer patients are viewed as a vulnerable population. Those at higher risk for severe COVID-19 clearly have a greater need for vaccination. While there are data suggesting that cancer patients are at higher risk, they are a bit murky, in part because cancer patients are a heterogeneous group. For example, there are data suggesting that lung and blood cancer patients fare worse. There is also a suggestion that, like in the general population, COVID risk in cancer patients remains driven by comorbidities.

It is likely, then, that personalized risk factors such as type of cancer therapy, site of disease, and comorbidities will shape individual choices about vaccination among cancer patients.

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

Earlier this week, Medscape spoke with Nora Disis, MD, about vaccinating cancer patients. Disis is a medical oncologist and director of both the Institute of Translational Health Sciences and the Cancer Vaccine Institute, the University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. As editor-in-chief of JAMA Oncology, she has watched COVID-19 developments in the oncology community over the past year.

Here are a few themes that Disis said oncologists should be aware of as vaccines eventually begin reaching cancer patients.

We should expect cancer patients to respond to vaccines. Historically, some believed that cancer patients would be unable to mount an immune response to vaccines. Data on other viral vaccines have shown otherwise. For example, there has been a long history of studies of flu vaccination in cancer patients, and in general, those vaccines confer protection. Likewise for pneumococcal vaccine, which, generally speaking, cancer patients should receive.

Special cases may include hematologic malignancies in which the immune system has been destroyed and profound immunosuppression occurs. Data on immunization during this immunosuppressed period are scarce, but what data are available suggest that once cancer patients are through this immunosuppressed period, they can be vaccinated successfully.

The type of vaccine will probably be important for cancer patients. Currently, there are 61 coronavirus vaccines in human clinical trials, and 17 have reached the final stages of testing. At least 85 preclinical vaccines are under active investigation in animals.

Both the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna COVID vaccines are mRNA type. There are many other types, including protein-based vaccines, viral vector vaccines based on adenoviruses, and inactivated or attenuated coronavirus vaccines.

The latter vaccines, particularly attenuated live virus vaccines, may not be a good choice for cancer patients. Especially in those with rapidly progressing disease or on chemotherapy, attenuated live viruses may cause a low-grade infection.

Incidentally, the technology used in the genetic, or mRNA, vaccines developed by both Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna was initially developed for fighting cancer, and studies have shown that patients can generate immune responses to cancer-associated proteins with this type of vaccine.

These genetic vaccines could turn out to be the most effective for cancer patients, especially those with solid tumors.

Our understanding is very limited right now. Neither the Pfizer-BioNTech nor the Moderna early data discuss cancer patients. Two of the most important questions for cancer patients are dosing and booster scheduling. Potential defects in lymphocyte function among cancer patients may require unique initial dosing and booster schedules. In terms of timing, it is unclear how active therapy might affect a patient’s immune response to vaccination and whether vaccines should be timed with therapy cycles.

Vaccine access may depend on whether cancer patients are viewed as a vulnerable population. Those at higher risk for severe COVID-19 clearly have a greater need for vaccination. While there are data suggesting that cancer patients are at higher risk, they are a bit murky, in part because cancer patients are a heterogeneous group. For example, there are data suggesting that lung and blood cancer patients fare worse. There is also a suggestion that, like in the general population, COVID risk in cancer patients remains driven by comorbidities.

It is likely, then, that personalized risk factors such as type of cancer therapy, site of disease, and comorbidities will shape individual choices about vaccination among cancer patients.

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

The issue of race and survival in patients with clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) has been debated in the literature.

Some studies have shown worse survival for Black patients, while others have suggested that Black race is instead a stand-in for social determinants, including access to care.

New research suggests that Black race is not correlated with increased mortality from ccRCC. These results were published in Urology.

“Despite well documented racial biases and race-specific outcomes in the health care landscape, our study found race was not associated with 5-year cause-specific survival from ccRCC,” wrote investigator Dhaval Jivanji, a medical student at Florida International University, Miami, and colleagues.

In their retrospective study, the investigators examined 5-year survival in ccRCC patients, comparing results across races. The team used data from the Surveillance Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database, which collects cancer data from 13 states using population-based cancer registries. They extracted data on demographics, prevalence, and mortality, in relation to ccRCC.

A total of 8,421 subjects with ccRCC were included in the analysis, which covered the years 2007-2015. The primary outcome was 5-year survival, defined as cause-specific mortality up to the first 60 months from time of cancer diagnosis.

In addition to race, variables included in the statistical model were age (18-50, 51-60, 61-70,71-80, >80), sex (male/female), SEER Summary tumor staging (localized, regionalized, distant), insurance status (uninsured, insured, insured not specific, Medicaid), and marital status (single, married/partner, separated/divorced/widowed).
 

Demographic determinism

In the adjusted analysis, the researchers found no association between race and 5-year cause-specific survival in patients with ccRCC.

The hazard ratios for death were 0.96 for Black patients, 1.01 for American Indian/Alaska Native patients, and 0.99 for Asian/Pacific Islander patients, with White patients as the comparator.

In terms of the other covariates studied, the researchers found that older age (>50 years) and the presence of regional or distant tumors were associated with an increased hazard of death, while female sex and having insurance were associated with a decreased hazard of death.

“Our study found that age, tumor stage, and insurance status are significantly associated with 5-year cause-specific survival. Future studies will benefit from complete assessment of other demographic factors, including income, medical comorbidities, and access to care. These are negative predictors, and [their] potential impact on overall survival should be considered by the clinician in treatment and management plans for RCC patients,” the researchers concluded.

In an editorial commentary published within the main article, Paul Russo, MD, of Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, stated: “Investigations such as this utilizing the SEER registries provide a 30,000-foot demographic view of some disease elements but lack important granularity, such as tumor size and grade, family income, critical medical comorbidities, and patient access to hospitals with surgical and medical oncologic expertise.”

Dr. Russo said it is well known that disparate access to diagnosis, surgical intervention, and expert treatment have an impact on survival.

He went on to ask: “Could African Americans have had superior outcomes if the data was controlled for these important variables? As urologic surgeons, we must join the greater medical community in understanding the root causes leading to structural racial and economic disparities, inequities in access to care, and the profound negative impact these disparities have on health outcomes in general and cancer outcomes specifically.”

The authors did not disclose funding or conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Jivanji D et al. Urology. 2020. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2020.10.055.

The issue of race and survival in patients with clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) has been debated in the literature.

Some studies have shown worse survival for Black patients, while others have suggested that Black race is instead a stand-in for social determinants, including access to care.

New research suggests that Black race is not correlated with increased mortality from ccRCC. These results were published in Urology.

“Despite well documented racial biases and race-specific outcomes in the health care landscape, our study found race was not associated with 5-year cause-specific survival from ccRCC,” wrote investigator Dhaval Jivanji, a medical student at Florida International University, Miami, and colleagues.

In their retrospective study, the investigators examined 5-year survival in ccRCC patients, comparing results across races. The team used data from the Surveillance Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database, which collects cancer data from 13 states using population-based cancer registries. They extracted data on demographics, prevalence, and mortality, in relation to ccRCC.

A total of 8,421 subjects with ccRCC were included in the analysis, which covered the years 2007-2015. The primary outcome was 5-year survival, defined as cause-specific mortality up to the first 60 months from time of cancer diagnosis.

In addition to race, variables included in the statistical model were age (18-50, 51-60, 61-70,71-80, >80), sex (male/female), SEER Summary tumor staging (localized, regionalized, distant), insurance status (uninsured, insured, insured not specific, Medicaid), and marital status (single, married/partner, separated/divorced/widowed).
 

Demographic determinism

In the adjusted analysis, the researchers found no association between race and 5-year cause-specific survival in patients with ccRCC.

The hazard ratios for death were 0.96 for Black patients, 1.01 for American Indian/Alaska Native patients, and 0.99 for Asian/Pacific Islander patients, with White patients as the comparator.

In terms of the other covariates studied, the researchers found that older age (>50 years) and the presence of regional or distant tumors were associated with an increased hazard of death, while female sex and having insurance were associated with a decreased hazard of death.

“Our study found that age, tumor stage, and insurance status are significantly associated with 5-year cause-specific survival. Future studies will benefit from complete assessment of other demographic factors, including income, medical comorbidities, and access to care. These are negative predictors, and [their] potential impact on overall survival should be considered by the clinician in treatment and management plans for RCC patients,” the researchers concluded.

In an editorial commentary published within the main article, Paul Russo, MD, of Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, stated: “Investigations such as this utilizing the SEER registries provide a 30,000-foot demographic view of some disease elements but lack important granularity, such as tumor size and grade, family income, critical medical comorbidities, and patient access to hospitals with surgical and medical oncologic expertise.”

Dr. Russo said it is well known that disparate access to diagnosis, surgical intervention, and expert treatment have an impact on survival.

He went on to ask: “Could African Americans have had superior outcomes if the data was controlled for these important variables? As urologic surgeons, we must join the greater medical community in understanding the root causes leading to structural racial and economic disparities, inequities in access to care, and the profound negative impact these disparities have on health outcomes in general and cancer outcomes specifically.”

The authors did not disclose funding or conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Jivanji D et al. Urology. 2020. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2020.10.055.

The issue of race and survival in patients with clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) has been debated in the literature.

Some studies have shown worse survival for Black patients, while others have suggested that Black race is instead a stand-in for social determinants, including access to care.

New research suggests that Black race is not correlated with increased mortality from ccRCC. These results were published in Urology.

“Despite well documented racial biases and race-specific outcomes in the health care landscape, our study found race was not associated with 5-year cause-specific survival from ccRCC,” wrote investigator Dhaval Jivanji, a medical student at Florida International University, Miami, and colleagues.

In their retrospective study, the investigators examined 5-year survival in ccRCC patients, comparing results across races. The team used data from the Surveillance Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database, which collects cancer data from 13 states using population-based cancer registries. They extracted data on demographics, prevalence, and mortality, in relation to ccRCC.

A total of 8,421 subjects with ccRCC were included in the analysis, which covered the years 2007-2015. The primary outcome was 5-year survival, defined as cause-specific mortality up to the first 60 months from time of cancer diagnosis.

In addition to race, variables included in the statistical model were age (18-50, 51-60, 61-70,71-80, >80), sex (male/female), SEER Summary tumor staging (localized, regionalized, distant), insurance status (uninsured, insured, insured not specific, Medicaid), and marital status (single, married/partner, separated/divorced/widowed).
 

Demographic determinism

In the adjusted analysis, the researchers found no association between race and 5-year cause-specific survival in patients with ccRCC.

The hazard ratios for death were 0.96 for Black patients, 1.01 for American Indian/Alaska Native patients, and 0.99 for Asian/Pacific Islander patients, with White patients as the comparator.

In terms of the other covariates studied, the researchers found that older age (>50 years) and the presence of regional or distant tumors were associated with an increased hazard of death, while female sex and having insurance were associated with a decreased hazard of death.

“Our study found that age, tumor stage, and insurance status are significantly associated with 5-year cause-specific survival. Future studies will benefit from complete assessment of other demographic factors, including income, medical comorbidities, and access to care. These are negative predictors, and [their] potential impact on overall survival should be considered by the clinician in treatment and management plans for RCC patients,” the researchers concluded.

In an editorial commentary published within the main article, Paul Russo, MD, of Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, stated: “Investigations such as this utilizing the SEER registries provide a 30,000-foot demographic view of some disease elements but lack important granularity, such as tumor size and grade, family income, critical medical comorbidities, and patient access to hospitals with surgical and medical oncologic expertise.”

Dr. Russo said it is well known that disparate access to diagnosis, surgical intervention, and expert treatment have an impact on survival.

He went on to ask: “Could African Americans have had superior outcomes if the data was controlled for these important variables? As urologic surgeons, we must join the greater medical community in understanding the root causes leading to structural racial and economic disparities, inequities in access to care, and the profound negative impact these disparities have on health outcomes in general and cancer outcomes specifically.”

The authors did not disclose funding or conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Jivanji D et al. Urology. 2020. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2020.10.055.

A real-world study has revealed factors associated with longer overall survival (OS) in patients who receive cabozantinib to treat heavily pretreated, metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC).

Starting cabozantinib at 60 mg/day, prior nephrectomy, favorable- or intermediate-risk disease, and body mass index of 25 kg/m2 or higher were all significantly associated with better OS.

These findings were based on data from the early access program of the CABOREAL study and were recently published in the European Journal of Cancer.

“The CABOREAL study describes cabozantinib use in a real-life setting in the largest unselected population to date of patients with mRCC,” lead author Laurence Albiges, MD, PhD, of the Gustave Roussy Cancer Center in Villejuif, France, and colleagues wrote.

The retrospective study enrolled 410 patients with mRCC who were treated with at least one dose of cabozantinib between September 2016 and February 2018. Clinical data were collected from medical records at 26 oncology centers in France.

The researchers evaluated the real-world use of cabozantinib, including duration of therapy, treatment discontinuations, and dose changes. OS and predictive factors of OS were assessed as well.

The median age of study participants was 63.0 years (range, 56.0-70.0 years). Roughly a third of patients (33.4%) received two prior lines of therapy (33.4%), and 41.2% received three or more lines of therapy before cabozantinib. Overall, 85.6% of patients had clear cell histology.

The median duration of cabozantinib treatment was 7.6 months (range, 3.2-15.7 months). The starting dose was 60 mg, 40 mg, and 20 mg in 70.9%, 26.7%, and 2.0% of patients, respectively.

The dose was decreased in 57.0% of patients, 58.7% required a dose modification, and 15.6% required a modified dose schedule. The median average daily dose was 40.0 mg (range, 13.9-60.0 mg).

Adverse events were the main reason for dose modification or treatment interruption. In all, 92.5% of patients had a modification because of an adverse event, and 85.0% had an interruption because of an adverse event.

Upon permanent discontinuation of cabozantinib, more than half of patients (54.4%) received subsequent therapy, including nivolumab (47.8%), axitinib (21.7%), and everolimus (19.0%).

The median OS was 14.4 months (95% confidence interval, 12.4-16.2 months), and the 1-year OS rate was 56.5% (95% CI, 51.5-61.2%).

Factors significantly associated with longer OS included cabozantinib initiation at 60 mg/day (P = .0486), prior nephrectomy (P = .0109), favorable or intermediate risk according to the International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium (P < .0001), and body mass index of 25 kg/m2 or higher (P = .0021).

“We report, for the first time, that the daily dose of 60 mg cabozantinib at initiation is an independent predictive factor of OS in a multivariate analysis,” the researchers wrote.

“It is interesting to see real-world studies like this to help to widen our understanding of how to utilize drugs like cabozantinib,” commented Simon Crabb, MBBS, PhD, of the University of Southampton (England).

“In general, we would expect a less favorable prognosis in patients with non-clear cell histology, likely in part part due to the underlying biology of the disease,” he added.

Dr. Albiges and colleagues acknowledged that the retrospective design and lack of a prospective safety evaluation were two key limitations of their study. However, the authors maintain that the reported cabozantinib use and exposure rates are indicative of the real-world setting.

This study was sponsored by Ipsen. Several authors disclosed financial relationships with Amgen, Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Exelixis, Ipsen, and numerous other companies. Dr. Crabb reported having no conflicts of interest related to this work.

SOURCE: Albiges L et al. Eur J Cancer. 2020 Nov 27. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2020.09.030.

A real-world study has revealed factors associated with longer overall survival (OS) in patients who receive cabozantinib to treat heavily pretreated, metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC).

Starting cabozantinib at 60 mg/day, prior nephrectomy, favorable- or intermediate-risk disease, and body mass index of 25 kg/m2 or higher were all significantly associated with better OS.

These findings were based on data from the early access program of the CABOREAL study and were recently published in the European Journal of Cancer.

“The CABOREAL study describes cabozantinib use in a real-life setting in the largest unselected population to date of patients with mRCC,” lead author Laurence Albiges, MD, PhD, of the Gustave Roussy Cancer Center in Villejuif, France, and colleagues wrote.

The retrospective study enrolled 410 patients with mRCC who were treated with at least one dose of cabozantinib between September 2016 and February 2018. Clinical data were collected from medical records at 26 oncology centers in France.

The researchers evaluated the real-world use of cabozantinib, including duration of therapy, treatment discontinuations, and dose changes. OS and predictive factors of OS were assessed as well.

The median age of study participants was 63.0 years (range, 56.0-70.0 years). Roughly a third of patients (33.4%) received two prior lines of therapy (33.4%), and 41.2% received three or more lines of therapy before cabozantinib. Overall, 85.6% of patients had clear cell histology.

The median duration of cabozantinib treatment was 7.6 months (range, 3.2-15.7 months). The starting dose was 60 mg, 40 mg, and 20 mg in 70.9%, 26.7%, and 2.0% of patients, respectively.

The dose was decreased in 57.0% of patients, 58.7% required a dose modification, and 15.6% required a modified dose schedule. The median average daily dose was 40.0 mg (range, 13.9-60.0 mg).

Adverse events were the main reason for dose modification or treatment interruption. In all, 92.5% of patients had a modification because of an adverse event, and 85.0% had an interruption because of an adverse event.

Upon permanent discontinuation of cabozantinib, more than half of patients (54.4%) received subsequent therapy, including nivolumab (47.8%), axitinib (21.7%), and everolimus (19.0%).

The median OS was 14.4 months (95% confidence interval, 12.4-16.2 months), and the 1-year OS rate was 56.5% (95% CI, 51.5-61.2%).

Factors significantly associated with longer OS included cabozantinib initiation at 60 mg/day (P = .0486), prior nephrectomy (P = .0109), favorable or intermediate risk according to the International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium (P < .0001), and body mass index of 25 kg/m2 or higher (P = .0021).

“We report, for the first time, that the daily dose of 60 mg cabozantinib at initiation is an independent predictive factor of OS in a multivariate analysis,” the researchers wrote.

“It is interesting to see real-world studies like this to help to widen our understanding of how to utilize drugs like cabozantinib,” commented Simon Crabb, MBBS, PhD, of the University of Southampton (England).

“In general, we would expect a less favorable prognosis in patients with non-clear cell histology, likely in part part due to the underlying biology of the disease,” he added.

Dr. Albiges and colleagues acknowledged that the retrospective design and lack of a prospective safety evaluation were two key limitations of their study. However, the authors maintain that the reported cabozantinib use and exposure rates are indicative of the real-world setting.

This study was sponsored by Ipsen. Several authors disclosed financial relationships with Amgen, Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Exelixis, Ipsen, and numerous other companies. Dr. Crabb reported having no conflicts of interest related to this work.

SOURCE: Albiges L et al. Eur J Cancer. 2020 Nov 27. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2020.09.030.

A real-world study has revealed factors associated with longer overall survival (OS) in patients who receive cabozantinib to treat heavily pretreated, metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC).

Starting cabozantinib at 60 mg/day, prior nephrectomy, favorable- or intermediate-risk disease, and body mass index of 25 kg/m2 or higher were all significantly associated with better OS.

These findings were based on data from the early access program of the CABOREAL study and were recently published in the European Journal of Cancer.

“The CABOREAL study describes cabozantinib use in a real-life setting in the largest unselected population to date of patients with mRCC,” lead author Laurence Albiges, MD, PhD, of the Gustave Roussy Cancer Center in Villejuif, France, and colleagues wrote.

The retrospective study enrolled 410 patients with mRCC who were treated with at least one dose of cabozantinib between September 2016 and February 2018. Clinical data were collected from medical records at 26 oncology centers in France.

The researchers evaluated the real-world use of cabozantinib, including duration of therapy, treatment discontinuations, and dose changes. OS and predictive factors of OS were assessed as well.

The median age of study participants was 63.0 years (range, 56.0-70.0 years). Roughly a third of patients (33.4%) received two prior lines of therapy (33.4%), and 41.2% received three or more lines of therapy before cabozantinib. Overall, 85.6% of patients had clear cell histology.

The median duration of cabozantinib treatment was 7.6 months (range, 3.2-15.7 months). The starting dose was 60 mg, 40 mg, and 20 mg in 70.9%, 26.7%, and 2.0% of patients, respectively.

The dose was decreased in 57.0% of patients, 58.7% required a dose modification, and 15.6% required a modified dose schedule. The median average daily dose was 40.0 mg (range, 13.9-60.0 mg).

Adverse events were the main reason for dose modification or treatment interruption. In all, 92.5% of patients had a modification because of an adverse event, and 85.0% had an interruption because of an adverse event.

Upon permanent discontinuation of cabozantinib, more than half of patients (54.4%) received subsequent therapy, including nivolumab (47.8%), axitinib (21.7%), and everolimus (19.0%).

The median OS was 14.4 months (95% confidence interval, 12.4-16.2 months), and the 1-year OS rate was 56.5% (95% CI, 51.5-61.2%).

Factors significantly associated with longer OS included cabozantinib initiation at 60 mg/day (P = .0486), prior nephrectomy (P = .0109), favorable or intermediate risk according to the International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium (P < .0001), and body mass index of 25 kg/m2 or higher (P = .0021).

“We report, for the first time, that the daily dose of 60 mg cabozantinib at initiation is an independent predictive factor of OS in a multivariate analysis,” the researchers wrote.

“It is interesting to see real-world studies like this to help to widen our understanding of how to utilize drugs like cabozantinib,” commented Simon Crabb, MBBS, PhD, of the University of Southampton (England).

“In general, we would expect a less favorable prognosis in patients with non-clear cell histology, likely in part part due to the underlying biology of the disease,” he added.

Dr. Albiges and colleagues acknowledged that the retrospective design and lack of a prospective safety evaluation were two key limitations of their study. However, the authors maintain that the reported cabozantinib use and exposure rates are indicative of the real-world setting.

This study was sponsored by Ipsen. Several authors disclosed financial relationships with Amgen, Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Exelixis, Ipsen, and numerous other companies. Dr. Crabb reported having no conflicts of interest related to this work.

SOURCE: Albiges L et al. Eur J Cancer. 2020 Nov 27. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2020.09.030.

A simple blood test, claimed to detect more than 50 types of cancer, will be used in a pilot trial by National Health Service England in a bid to increase rates of early-stage diagnosis, in particular for cancers that are currently difficult to diagnose.

“Early detection, particularly for hard-to-treat conditions like ovarian and pancreatic cancer, has the potential to save many lives,” said NHS Chief Executive Sir Simon Stevens in a statement.

The pilot trial will use the Galleri blood test, developed by Grail. Sir Stevens described the blood test as “promising” and said it could “be a game changer in cancer care, helping thousands more people to get successful treatment.”

However, some clinicians have expressed concerns over the potential for false-positive results with the test.

Results of a study of the Galleri blood test, published earlier this year, showed that the test detected 50 types of cancer with a specificity of 99.3% and a false positive rate of 0.7%.

It also correctly identified the originating tissue in 90% of cases. However, the sensitivity was lower, at 67%, for the 12 most common cancers, as reported at the time.

The senior author of that study, Michael Seiden, MD, PhD, president of the U.S. Oncology Network, The Woodlands, Tex., noted that it was not a screening study: the test had been used in patients with cancer and in healthy volunteers. He said the test “is intended to be complementary to, and not replace, existing guideline-recommended screening tests and might provide new avenues of investigation for cancers that don’t currently have screening tests.”

The Galleri test uses next-generation sequencing to analyze the arrangement of methyl groups on circulating cell-free DNA in a blood sample.

Several other blood tests for cancer are under development, including the CancerSEEK test, which has been reported to be able to identify eight common cancers. It measures circulating tumor DNA from 16 genes and eight protein biomarkers and then uses machine learning to analyze the data.
 

Improving early detection rates

The pilot trial of the blood test is due to start in mid-2021 and will involve 165,000 people.

The trial will include 140,000 individuals aged 50-79 years who were identified through their health records and who have no cancer symptoms. They will undergo blood tests annually for 3 years and will be referred for investigation if a test result is positive.

A second group will include 25,000 people with potential cancer symptoms. These patients will be offered the blood test to speed up their diagnosis after referral to a hospital via the normal channels.

The results of the pilot are expected in 2023. If successful, the test will be rolled out to 1 million individuals from 2024 to 2025.

The pilot trial is part of the NHS Long Term Plan, which aims to increase early detection of cancer. At present, around half of cancers in England are diagnosed in stage I or II; the NHS aims to increase this to 75% by 2028.

“The NHS has set itself an ambitious target,” commented Peter Johnson, MD, PhD, national clinical director for cancer at NHS England and Improvement.

“Tests like this may help us get there far faster, and I am excited to see how this cutting-edge technology will work out as we test it in clinics across the NHS,” he added.

Lord David Prior, chair of NHS England, noted that almost 200,000 people die from cancer in the United Kingdom every year and that “many of these people are diagnosed too late for treatment to be effective.

“This collaboration between the NHS and Grail offers the chance for a wide range of cancers to be diagnosed much earlier and could fundamentally change the outlook for people with cancer,” he said.

However, some clinicians raised potential concerns.

Stephen Duffy, PhD, Center for Cancer Prevention, Queen Mary University of London, described the pilot as “very exciting,” but cautioned: “We will need to find out just how early the test detects cancers and whether it can it be used in a way which minimizes anxiety from false positives.”

Yong-Jie Lu, MD, PhD, also at Queen Mary University of London, said: “It is not clear how early it aims to catch cancer. For a cancer screen test, it needs very high specificity (>99%), otherwise it may end up in a similar situation as the PSA [prostate-specific antigen] test for prostate cancer, or even worse.”

Mangesh Thorat, MD, Cancer Prevention Trials Unit, King’s College London, warned: “It is likely that for every testing round ... there will be about 1,000 false-positive results, and the test may not be able to pinpoint the location of cancer in 3%-4% of those with a true positive result, necessitating a range of imaging and other investigations in these participants.”

No funding for the study has been declared. The investigators have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A simple blood test, claimed to detect more than 50 types of cancer, will be used in a pilot trial by National Health Service England in a bid to increase rates of early-stage diagnosis, in particular for cancers that are currently difficult to diagnose.

“Early detection, particularly for hard-to-treat conditions like ovarian and pancreatic cancer, has the potential to save many lives,” said NHS Chief Executive Sir Simon Stevens in a statement.

The pilot trial will use the Galleri blood test, developed by Grail. Sir Stevens described the blood test as “promising” and said it could “be a game changer in cancer care, helping thousands more people to get successful treatment.”

However, some clinicians have expressed concerns over the potential for false-positive results with the test.

Results of a study of the Galleri blood test, published earlier this year, showed that the test detected 50 types of cancer with a specificity of 99.3% and a false positive rate of 0.7%.

It also correctly identified the originating tissue in 90% of cases. However, the sensitivity was lower, at 67%, for the 12 most common cancers, as reported at the time.

The senior author of that study, Michael Seiden, MD, PhD, president of the U.S. Oncology Network, The Woodlands, Tex., noted that it was not a screening study: the test had been used in patients with cancer and in healthy volunteers. He said the test “is intended to be complementary to, and not replace, existing guideline-recommended screening tests and might provide new avenues of investigation for cancers that don’t currently have screening tests.”

The Galleri test uses next-generation sequencing to analyze the arrangement of methyl groups on circulating cell-free DNA in a blood sample.

Several other blood tests for cancer are under development, including the CancerSEEK test, which has been reported to be able to identify eight common cancers. It measures circulating tumor DNA from 16 genes and eight protein biomarkers and then uses machine learning to analyze the data.
 

Improving early detection rates

The pilot trial of the blood test is due to start in mid-2021 and will involve 165,000 people.

The trial will include 140,000 individuals aged 50-79 years who were identified through their health records and who have no cancer symptoms. They will undergo blood tests annually for 3 years and will be referred for investigation if a test result is positive.

A second group will include 25,000 people with potential cancer symptoms. These patients will be offered the blood test to speed up their diagnosis after referral to a hospital via the normal channels.

The results of the pilot are expected in 2023. If successful, the test will be rolled out to 1 million individuals from 2024 to 2025.

The pilot trial is part of the NHS Long Term Plan, which aims to increase early detection of cancer. At present, around half of cancers in England are diagnosed in stage I or II; the NHS aims to increase this to 75% by 2028.

“The NHS has set itself an ambitious target,” commented Peter Johnson, MD, PhD, national clinical director for cancer at NHS England and Improvement.

“Tests like this may help us get there far faster, and I am excited to see how this cutting-edge technology will work out as we test it in clinics across the NHS,” he added.

Lord David Prior, chair of NHS England, noted that almost 200,000 people die from cancer in the United Kingdom every year and that “many of these people are diagnosed too late for treatment to be effective.

“This collaboration between the NHS and Grail offers the chance for a wide range of cancers to be diagnosed much earlier and could fundamentally change the outlook for people with cancer,” he said.

However, some clinicians raised potential concerns.

Stephen Duffy, PhD, Center for Cancer Prevention, Queen Mary University of London, described the pilot as “very exciting,” but cautioned: “We will need to find out just how early the test detects cancers and whether it can it be used in a way which minimizes anxiety from false positives.”

Yong-Jie Lu, MD, PhD, also at Queen Mary University of London, said: “It is not clear how early it aims to catch cancer. For a cancer screen test, it needs very high specificity (>99%), otherwise it may end up in a similar situation as the PSA [prostate-specific antigen] test for prostate cancer, or even worse.”

Mangesh Thorat, MD, Cancer Prevention Trials Unit, King’s College London, warned: “It is likely that for every testing round ... there will be about 1,000 false-positive results, and the test may not be able to pinpoint the location of cancer in 3%-4% of those with a true positive result, necessitating a range of imaging and other investigations in these participants.”

No funding for the study has been declared. The investigators have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A simple blood test, claimed to detect more than 50 types of cancer, will be used in a pilot trial by National Health Service England in a bid to increase rates of early-stage diagnosis, in particular for cancers that are currently difficult to diagnose.

“Early detection, particularly for hard-to-treat conditions like ovarian and pancreatic cancer, has the potential to save many lives,” said NHS Chief Executive Sir Simon Stevens in a statement.

The pilot trial will use the Galleri blood test, developed by Grail. Sir Stevens described the blood test as “promising” and said it could “be a game changer in cancer care, helping thousands more people to get successful treatment.”

However, some clinicians have expressed concerns over the potential for false-positive results with the test.

Results of a study of the Galleri blood test, published earlier this year, showed that the test detected 50 types of cancer with a specificity of 99.3% and a false positive rate of 0.7%.

It also correctly identified the originating tissue in 90% of cases. However, the sensitivity was lower, at 67%, for the 12 most common cancers, as reported at the time.

The senior author of that study, Michael Seiden, MD, PhD, president of the U.S. Oncology Network, The Woodlands, Tex., noted that it was not a screening study: the test had been used in patients with cancer and in healthy volunteers. He said the test “is intended to be complementary to, and not replace, existing guideline-recommended screening tests and might provide new avenues of investigation for cancers that don’t currently have screening tests.”

The Galleri test uses next-generation sequencing to analyze the arrangement of methyl groups on circulating cell-free DNA in a blood sample.

Several other blood tests for cancer are under development, including the CancerSEEK test, which has been reported to be able to identify eight common cancers. It measures circulating tumor DNA from 16 genes and eight protein biomarkers and then uses machine learning to analyze the data.
 

Improving early detection rates

The pilot trial of the blood test is due to start in mid-2021 and will involve 165,000 people.

The trial will include 140,000 individuals aged 50-79 years who were identified through their health records and who have no cancer symptoms. They will undergo blood tests annually for 3 years and will be referred for investigation if a test result is positive.

A second group will include 25,000 people with potential cancer symptoms. These patients will be offered the blood test to speed up their diagnosis after referral to a hospital via the normal channels.

The results of the pilot are expected in 2023. If successful, the test will be rolled out to 1 million individuals from 2024 to 2025.

The pilot trial is part of the NHS Long Term Plan, which aims to increase early detection of cancer. At present, around half of cancers in England are diagnosed in stage I or II; the NHS aims to increase this to 75% by 2028.

“The NHS has set itself an ambitious target,” commented Peter Johnson, MD, PhD, national clinical director for cancer at NHS England and Improvement.

“Tests like this may help us get there far faster, and I am excited to see how this cutting-edge technology will work out as we test it in clinics across the NHS,” he added.

Lord David Prior, chair of NHS England, noted that almost 200,000 people die from cancer in the United Kingdom every year and that “many of these people are diagnosed too late for treatment to be effective.

“This collaboration between the NHS and Grail offers the chance for a wide range of cancers to be diagnosed much earlier and could fundamentally change the outlook for people with cancer,” he said.

However, some clinicians raised potential concerns.

Stephen Duffy, PhD, Center for Cancer Prevention, Queen Mary University of London, described the pilot as “very exciting,” but cautioned: “We will need to find out just how early the test detects cancers and whether it can it be used in a way which minimizes anxiety from false positives.”

Yong-Jie Lu, MD, PhD, also at Queen Mary University of London, said: “It is not clear how early it aims to catch cancer. For a cancer screen test, it needs very high specificity (>99%), otherwise it may end up in a similar situation as the PSA [prostate-specific antigen] test for prostate cancer, or even worse.”

Mangesh Thorat, MD, Cancer Prevention Trials Unit, King’s College London, warned: “It is likely that for every testing round ... there will be about 1,000 false-positive results, and the test may not be able to pinpoint the location of cancer in 3%-4% of those with a true positive result, necessitating a range of imaging and other investigations in these participants.”

No funding for the study has been declared. The investigators have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Rates of cancer increased by 30% from 1973 to 2015 in adolescents and young adults (AYAs) aged 15–39 years in the United States, according to a review of almost a half million cases in the National Institutes of Health’s Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database.

There was an annual increase of 0.537 new cases per 100,000 people, from 57.2 cases per 100,000 in 1973 to 74.2 in 2015.

Kidney carcinoma led with the highest rate increase. There were also marked increases in thyroid and colorectal carcinoma, germ cell and trophoblastic neoplasms, and melanoma, among others.

The report was published online December 1 in JAMA Network Open.

“Clinicians should be on the lookout for these cancers in their adolescent and young adult patients,” said senior investigator Nicholas Zaorsky, MD, an assistant professor of radiation oncology and public health sciences at the Penn State Cancer Institute, Hershey, Pennsylvania.

“Now that there is a better understanding of the types of cancer that are prevalent and rising in this age group, prevention, screening, diagnosis and treatment protocols specifically targeted to this population should be developed,” he said in a press release.

The reasons for the increases are unclear, but environmental and dietary factors, increasing obesity, and changing screening practices are likely in play, the authors comment. In addition, “cancer screening and overdiagnosis are thought to account for much of the increasing rates of thyroid and kidney carcinoma, among others,” they add.

The American Cancer Society (ACS) recently found similar increases in thyroid, kidney, and colorectal cancer among AYAs, as well as an increase in uterine cancer.

It’s important to note, however, that “this phenomenon is largely driven by trends for thyroid cancer, which is thought to be a result of overdiagnosis,” said ACS surveillance researcher Kimberly Miller, MPH, when asked to comment on the new study.

“As such, it is extremely important to also consider trends in cancer mortality rates among this age group, which are declining overall but are increasing for colorectal and uterine cancers. The fact that both incidence and mortality rates are increasing for these two cancers suggests a true increase in disease burden and certainly requires further attention and research,” she said.

Historically, management of cancer in AYAs has fallen somewhere between pediatric and adult oncology, neither of which capture the distinct biological, social, and economic needs of AYAs. Research has also focused on childhood and adult cancers, leaving cancer in AYAs inadequately studied.

The new findings are “valuable to guide more targeted research and interventions specifically to AYAs,” Zaorsky and colleagues say in their report.

Among female patients ― 59.1% of the study population ― incidence increased for 15 cancers, including kidney carcinoma (annual percent change [APC], 3.632), thyroid carcinoma (APC, 3.456), and myeloma, mast cell, and miscellaneous lymphoreticular neoplasms not otherwise specified (APC, 2.805). Rates of five cancers declined, led by astrocytoma not otherwise specified (APC, –3.369) and carcinoma of the gonads (APC, –1.743).

Among male patients, incidence increased for 14 cancers, including kidney carcinoma (APC, 3.572), unspecified soft tissue sarcoma (APC 2.543), and thyroid carcinoma (APC, 2.273). Incidence fell for seven, led by astrocytoma not otherwise specified (APC, –3.759) and carcinoma of the trachea, bronchus, and lung (APC, –2.635).

Increased testicular cancer rates (APC, 1.246) could be related to greater prenatal exposure to estrogen and progesterone or through dairy consumption; increasing survival of premature infants; and greater exposure to cannabis, among other possibilities, the investigators say.

Increases in colorectal cancer might be related to fewer vegetables and more fat and processed meat in the diet; lack of exercise; and increasing obesity. Human papillomavirus infection has also been implicated.

Higher rates of melanoma could be related to tanning bed use.

Declines in some cancers could be related to greater use of oral contraceptives; laws reducing exposure to benzene and other chemicals; and fewer people smoking.

Although kidney carcinoma has increased at the greatest rate, it’s uncommon. Colorectal and thyroid carcinoma, melanoma, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and germ cell and trophoblastic neoplasms of the gonads contribute more to the overall increase in cancers among AYAs, the investigators note.

Almost 80% of the patients were White; 10.3% were Black.

The study was funded by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences. The investigators have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Rates of cancer increased by 30% from 1973 to 2015 in adolescents and young adults (AYAs) aged 15–39 years in the United States, according to a review of almost a half million cases in the National Institutes of Health’s Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database.

There was an annual increase of 0.537 new cases per 100,000 people, from 57.2 cases per 100,000 in 1973 to 74.2 in 2015.

Kidney carcinoma led with the highest rate increase. There were also marked increases in thyroid and colorectal carcinoma, germ cell and trophoblastic neoplasms, and melanoma, among others.

The report was published online December 1 in JAMA Network Open.

“Clinicians should be on the lookout for these cancers in their adolescent and young adult patients,” said senior investigator Nicholas Zaorsky, MD, an assistant professor of radiation oncology and public health sciences at the Penn State Cancer Institute, Hershey, Pennsylvania.

“Now that there is a better understanding of the types of cancer that are prevalent and rising in this age group, prevention, screening, diagnosis and treatment protocols specifically targeted to this population should be developed,” he said in a press release.

The reasons for the increases are unclear, but environmental and dietary factors, increasing obesity, and changing screening practices are likely in play, the authors comment. In addition, “cancer screening and overdiagnosis are thought to account for much of the increasing rates of thyroid and kidney carcinoma, among others,” they add.

The American Cancer Society (ACS) recently found similar increases in thyroid, kidney, and colorectal cancer among AYAs, as well as an increase in uterine cancer.

It’s important to note, however, that “this phenomenon is largely driven by trends for thyroid cancer, which is thought to be a result of overdiagnosis,” said ACS surveillance researcher Kimberly Miller, MPH, when asked to comment on the new study.

“As such, it is extremely important to also consider trends in cancer mortality rates among this age group, which are declining overall but are increasing for colorectal and uterine cancers. The fact that both incidence and mortality rates are increasing for these two cancers suggests a true increase in disease burden and certainly requires further attention and research,” she said.

Historically, management of cancer in AYAs has fallen somewhere between pediatric and adult oncology, neither of which capture the distinct biological, social, and economic needs of AYAs. Research has also focused on childhood and adult cancers, leaving cancer in AYAs inadequately studied.

The new findings are “valuable to guide more targeted research and interventions specifically to AYAs,” Zaorsky and colleagues say in their report.

Among female patients ― 59.1% of the study population ― incidence increased for 15 cancers, including kidney carcinoma (annual percent change [APC], 3.632), thyroid carcinoma (APC, 3.456), and myeloma, mast cell, and miscellaneous lymphoreticular neoplasms not otherwise specified (APC, 2.805). Rates of five cancers declined, led by astrocytoma not otherwise specified (APC, –3.369) and carcinoma of the gonads (APC, –1.743).

Among male patients, incidence increased for 14 cancers, including kidney carcinoma (APC, 3.572), unspecified soft tissue sarcoma (APC 2.543), and thyroid carcinoma (APC, 2.273). Incidence fell for seven, led by astrocytoma not otherwise specified (APC, –3.759) and carcinoma of the trachea, bronchus, and lung (APC, –2.635).

Increased testicular cancer rates (APC, 1.246) could be related to greater prenatal exposure to estrogen and progesterone or through dairy consumption; increasing survival of premature infants; and greater exposure to cannabis, among other possibilities, the investigators say.

Increases in colorectal cancer might be related to fewer vegetables and more fat and processed meat in the diet; lack of exercise; and increasing obesity. Human papillomavirus infection has also been implicated.

Higher rates of melanoma could be related to tanning bed use.

Declines in some cancers could be related to greater use of oral contraceptives; laws reducing exposure to benzene and other chemicals; and fewer people smoking.

Although kidney carcinoma has increased at the greatest rate, it’s uncommon. Colorectal and thyroid carcinoma, melanoma, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and germ cell and trophoblastic neoplasms of the gonads contribute more to the overall increase in cancers among AYAs, the investigators note.

Almost 80% of the patients were White; 10.3% were Black.

The study was funded by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences. The investigators have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Rates of cancer increased by 30% from 1973 to 2015 in adolescents and young adults (AYAs) aged 15–39 years in the United States, according to a review of almost a half million cases in the National Institutes of Health’s Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database.

There was an annual increase of 0.537 new cases per 100,000 people, from 57.2 cases per 100,000 in 1973 to 74.2 in 2015.

Kidney carcinoma led with the highest rate increase. There were also marked increases in thyroid and colorectal carcinoma, germ cell and trophoblastic neoplasms, and melanoma, among others.

The report was published online December 1 in JAMA Network Open.

“Clinicians should be on the lookout for these cancers in their adolescent and young adult patients,” said senior investigator Nicholas Zaorsky, MD, an assistant professor of radiation oncology and public health sciences at the Penn State Cancer Institute, Hershey, Pennsylvania.

“Now that there is a better understanding of the types of cancer that are prevalent and rising in this age group, prevention, screening, diagnosis and treatment protocols specifically targeted to this population should be developed,” he said in a press release.

The reasons for the increases are unclear, but environmental and dietary factors, increasing obesity, and changing screening practices are likely in play, the authors comment. In addition, “cancer screening and overdiagnosis are thought to account for much of the increasing rates of thyroid and kidney carcinoma, among others,” they add.

The American Cancer Society (ACS) recently found similar increases in thyroid, kidney, and colorectal cancer among AYAs, as well as an increase in uterine cancer.

It’s important to note, however, that “this phenomenon is largely driven by trends for thyroid cancer, which is thought to be a result of overdiagnosis,” said ACS surveillance researcher Kimberly Miller, MPH, when asked to comment on the new study.

“As such, it is extremely important to also consider trends in cancer mortality rates among this age group, which are declining overall but are increasing for colorectal and uterine cancers. The fact that both incidence and mortality rates are increasing for these two cancers suggests a true increase in disease burden and certainly requires further attention and research,” she said.

Historically, management of cancer in AYAs has fallen somewhere between pediatric and adult oncology, neither of which capture the distinct biological, social, and economic needs of AYAs. Research has also focused on childhood and adult cancers, leaving cancer in AYAs inadequately studied.

The new findings are “valuable to guide more targeted research and interventions specifically to AYAs,” Zaorsky and colleagues say in their report.

Among female patients ― 59.1% of the study population ― incidence increased for 15 cancers, including kidney carcinoma (annual percent change [APC], 3.632), thyroid carcinoma (APC, 3.456), and myeloma, mast cell, and miscellaneous lymphoreticular neoplasms not otherwise specified (APC, 2.805). Rates of five cancers declined, led by astrocytoma not otherwise specified (APC, –3.369) and carcinoma of the gonads (APC, –1.743).

Among male patients, incidence increased for 14 cancers, including kidney carcinoma (APC, 3.572), unspecified soft tissue sarcoma (APC 2.543), and thyroid carcinoma (APC, 2.273). Incidence fell for seven, led by astrocytoma not otherwise specified (APC, –3.759) and carcinoma of the trachea, bronchus, and lung (APC, –2.635).

Increased testicular cancer rates (APC, 1.246) could be related to greater prenatal exposure to estrogen and progesterone or through dairy consumption; increasing survival of premature infants; and greater exposure to cannabis, among other possibilities, the investigators say.

Increases in colorectal cancer might be related to fewer vegetables and more fat and processed meat in the diet; lack of exercise; and increasing obesity. Human papillomavirus infection has also been implicated.

Higher rates of melanoma could be related to tanning bed use.

Declines in some cancers could be related to greater use of oral contraceptives; laws reducing exposure to benzene and other chemicals; and fewer people smoking.

Although kidney carcinoma has increased at the greatest rate, it’s uncommon. Colorectal and thyroid carcinoma, melanoma, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and germ cell and trophoblastic neoplasms of the gonads contribute more to the overall increase in cancers among AYAs, the investigators note.

Almost 80% of the patients were White; 10.3% were Black.

The study was funded by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences. The investigators have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Many survivors of localized renal cell carcinoma (RCC) experience fear of cancer recurrence (FCR), according to a survey.

About 55% of survivors surveyed expressed this fear, which is higher than the average prevalence among patients diagnosed with other cancers.

Younger and female RCC survivors appear to be at particular risk, but disease stage and time since diagnosis are not associated with FCR, according to the survey.

The results were published in JCO Oncology Practice.

The majority of existing studies concerning FCR have been of survivors of breast, prostate, and gynecologic cancers. For the first time, researchers examined this issue in RCC survivors in a large trial.

More than 1,000 survivors of localized RCC were asked to participate in a survey through social media by the Kidney Cancer Research Alliance.

A total of 412 survivors were included in the analysis. They had a median age of 54 years (range, 30-80 years), were mostly female (79.4%), were mostly well educated (58.3%), and had a median of 17.5 months’ time since diagnosis.

More than half of patients were diagnosed with stage I disease, and about two-thirds had a clear understanding of their diagnosis.
 

Results: FCR persists in RCC

Two-thirds of the survivors had a high prevalence of moderate to severe distress, and 54.9% reported FCR.

“This is the first study to assess fear of cancer recurrence in RCC,” said lead study author Cristiane Decat Bergerot, PhD, who conducted the research during a fellowship at City of Hope in Duarte, Calif. She is now director of the department of psycho-oncology at CETTRO Cancer Research Hospital in Brasilia, Brazil.

“RCC patients really experience this emotion,” Dr. Bergerot said. “Other emotional symptoms, even stress, tend to lower over time. This does not happen with FCR in RCC patients. More than 3 years later, they still had the same prevalence of FCR.”

The prevalence of FCR was not associated with race, education level, country, residential area, cancer care facility type, travel time to hospital, or clinical characteristics such as disease stage and time since diagnosis.

However, higher FCR was associated with female gender, younger age, and lack of understanding of diagnosis. For younger and female patients, the social and emotional consequences of RCC may make it hard for them to keep up with daily activities. Younger patients may have multiple social roles and responsibilities, and an RCC diagnosis interrupts their life.

Even though RCC is more prevalent in males, “females traditionally have no fear of saying they are not doing well with diagnosis or treatment. Women appear to be more open to support,” Dr. Bergerot said.
 

Interventions and support

Psychosocial support with targeted interventions can help address FCR for RCC patients, according to Dr. Bergerot. For example, researchers are developing an app to allow for psychosocial intervention at home to help patients cope with FCR, she said, noting that clinicians in cancer centers more often see metastatic disease, not localized disease.

“Clinicians can teach patients to be more comfortable and feel less anxious about their prognosis and also help them participate in treatment decision-making,” Dr. Bergerot said. “When a RCC patient worries too much about cancer recurrence, refer the patient to a psychosocial team. The patient can receive practical advice to balance emotional symptoms, learn more about their current situation, and find more information through cancer support groups.”

“FCR is a key factor underlying emotional and behavioral difficulties faced by survivors of cancer,” said Daniel L. Hall, PhD, of Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School in Boston, who was not involved in this study. “Clinicians treating cancer survivors are well positioned to assess and intervene on FCR, distress, and health behaviors.”  

Dr. Hall noted that these fears are a near-ubiquitous concern for cancer survivors.

“Inherently, managing FCR requires acknowledging and facing the uncertainty about one’s future health, which, of course, for all of us is unpredictable, ambiguous, and ever-changing. Although many patients who fear recurrence are fortunate to have a low objective risk of recurrence, I believe patients facing cancer, regardless of demographic or medical characteristics, can feel afraid when facing an unknown, possibly dangerous future,” Dr. Hall said. 

Calls for interventions targeting FCR have emphasized the need for evidence-based treatments and multimodal interventions that teach a variety of targeted skills. Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) and mind-body interventions are being studied to address FCR.

“Our team conducted a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials of these interventions and found that pooled effects were significant, yet small, suggesting the need for further intervention development,” Dr. Hall said. “Through funding from the NIH’s National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health, we are currently evaluating a multimodal, group-based intervention that integrates many of the most effective FCR management skills: CBT, mindfulness meditation, relaxation response training, and positive psychology.”

Harvard researchers recently published encouraging results from a small pilot study of a group intervention. The next step is to test a remote, synchronous program in a randomized trial, with recruitment anticipated in early 2021.

“In addition to our work, other groups are developing asynchronous interventions that cancer survivors can use by accessing a website, which may appeal to survivors looking for information quickly or who may not be interested in participating in a group intervention,” Dr. Hall said.

The current study did not receive specific funding. The authors disclosed relationships with many companies, which can be found in the paper. Dr. Hall has no disclosures.

SOURCE: Bergerot CD et al. JCO Oncol Pract. 2020 Nov;16(11):e1264-71.

Many survivors of localized renal cell carcinoma (RCC) experience fear of cancer recurrence (FCR), according to a survey.

About 55% of survivors surveyed expressed this fear, which is higher than the average prevalence among patients diagnosed with other cancers.

Younger and female RCC survivors appear to be at particular risk, but disease stage and time since diagnosis are not associated with FCR, according to the survey.

The results were published in JCO Oncology Practice.

The majority of existing studies concerning FCR have been of survivors of breast, prostate, and gynecologic cancers. For the first time, researchers examined this issue in RCC survivors in a large trial.

More than 1,000 survivors of localized RCC were asked to participate in a survey through social media by the Kidney Cancer Research Alliance.

A total of 412 survivors were included in the analysis. They had a median age of 54 years (range, 30-80 years), were mostly female (79.4%), were mostly well educated (58.3%), and had a median of 17.5 months’ time since diagnosis.

More than half of patients were diagnosed with stage I disease, and about two-thirds had a clear understanding of their diagnosis.
 

Results: FCR persists in RCC

Two-thirds of the survivors had a high prevalence of moderate to severe distress, and 54.9% reported FCR.

“This is the first study to assess fear of cancer recurrence in RCC,” said lead study author Cristiane Decat Bergerot, PhD, who conducted the research during a fellowship at City of Hope in Duarte, Calif. She is now director of the department of psycho-oncology at CETTRO Cancer Research Hospital in Brasilia, Brazil.

“RCC patients really experience this emotion,” Dr. Bergerot said. “Other emotional symptoms, even stress, tend to lower over time. This does not happen with FCR in RCC patients. More than 3 years later, they still had the same prevalence of FCR.”

The prevalence of FCR was not associated with race, education level, country, residential area, cancer care facility type, travel time to hospital, or clinical characteristics such as disease stage and time since diagnosis.

However, higher FCR was associated with female gender, younger age, and lack of understanding of diagnosis. For younger and female patients, the social and emotional consequences of RCC may make it hard for them to keep up with daily activities. Younger patients may have multiple social roles and responsibilities, and an RCC diagnosis interrupts their life.

Even though RCC is more prevalent in males, “females traditionally have no fear of saying they are not doing well with diagnosis or treatment. Women appear to be more open to support,” Dr. Bergerot said.
 

Interventions and support

Psychosocial support with targeted interventions can help address FCR for RCC patients, according to Dr. Bergerot. For example, researchers are developing an app to allow for psychosocial intervention at home to help patients cope with FCR, she said, noting that clinicians in cancer centers more often see metastatic disease, not localized disease.

“Clinicians can teach patients to be more comfortable and feel less anxious about their prognosis and also help them participate in treatment decision-making,” Dr. Bergerot said. “When a RCC patient worries too much about cancer recurrence, refer the patient to a psychosocial team. The patient can receive practical advice to balance emotional symptoms, learn more about their current situation, and find more information through cancer support groups.”

“FCR is a key factor underlying emotional and behavioral difficulties faced by survivors of cancer,” said Daniel L. Hall, PhD, of Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School in Boston, who was not involved in this study. “Clinicians treating cancer survivors are well positioned to assess and intervene on FCR, distress, and health behaviors.”  

Dr. Hall noted that these fears are a near-ubiquitous concern for cancer survivors.

“Inherently, managing FCR requires acknowledging and facing the uncertainty about one’s future health, which, of course, for all of us is unpredictable, ambiguous, and ever-changing. Although many patients who fear recurrence are fortunate to have a low objective risk of recurrence, I believe patients facing cancer, regardless of demographic or medical characteristics, can feel afraid when facing an unknown, possibly dangerous future,” Dr. Hall said. 

Calls for interventions targeting FCR have emphasized the need for evidence-based treatments and multimodal interventions that teach a variety of targeted skills. Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) and mind-body interventions are being studied to address FCR.

“Our team conducted a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials of these interventions and found that pooled effects were significant, yet small, suggesting the need for further intervention development,” Dr. Hall said. “Through funding from the NIH’s National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health, we are currently evaluating a multimodal, group-based intervention that integrates many of the most effective FCR management skills: CBT, mindfulness meditation, relaxation response training, and positive psychology.”

Harvard researchers recently published encouraging results from a small pilot study of a group intervention. The next step is to test a remote, synchronous program in a randomized trial, with recruitment anticipated in early 2021.

“In addition to our work, other groups are developing asynchronous interventions that cancer survivors can use by accessing a website, which may appeal to survivors looking for information quickly or who may not be interested in participating in a group intervention,” Dr. Hall said.

The current study did not receive specific funding. The authors disclosed relationships with many companies, which can be found in the paper. Dr. Hall has no disclosures.

SOURCE: Bergerot CD et al. JCO Oncol Pract. 2020 Nov;16(11):e1264-71.

Many survivors of localized renal cell carcinoma (RCC) experience fear of cancer recurrence (FCR), according to a survey.

About 55% of survivors surveyed expressed this fear, which is higher than the average prevalence among patients diagnosed with other cancers.

Younger and female RCC survivors appear to be at particular risk, but disease stage and time since diagnosis are not associated with FCR, according to the survey.

The results were published in JCO Oncology Practice.

The majority of existing studies concerning FCR have been of survivors of breast, prostate, and gynecologic cancers. For the first time, researchers examined this issue in RCC survivors in a large trial.

More than 1,000 survivors of localized RCC were asked to participate in a survey through social media by the Kidney Cancer Research Alliance.

A total of 412 survivors were included in the analysis. They had a median age of 54 years (range, 30-80 years), were mostly female (79.4%), were mostly well educated (58.3%), and had a median of 17.5 months’ time since diagnosis.

More than half of patients were diagnosed with stage I disease, and about two-thirds had a clear understanding of their diagnosis.
 

Results: FCR persists in RCC

Two-thirds of the survivors had a high prevalence of moderate to severe distress, and 54.9% reported FCR.

“This is the first study to assess fear of cancer recurrence in RCC,” said lead study author Cristiane Decat Bergerot, PhD, who conducted the research during a fellowship at City of Hope in Duarte, Calif. She is now director of the department of psycho-oncology at CETTRO Cancer Research Hospital in Brasilia, Brazil.

“RCC patients really experience this emotion,” Dr. Bergerot said. “Other emotional symptoms, even stress, tend to lower over time. This does not happen with FCR in RCC patients. More than 3 years later, they still had the same prevalence of FCR.”

The prevalence of FCR was not associated with race, education level, country, residential area, cancer care facility type, travel time to hospital, or clinical characteristics such as disease stage and time since diagnosis.

However, higher FCR was associated with female gender, younger age, and lack of understanding of diagnosis. For younger and female patients, the social and emotional consequences of RCC may make it hard for them to keep up with daily activities. Younger patients may have multiple social roles and responsibilities, and an RCC diagnosis interrupts their life.

Even though RCC is more prevalent in males, “females traditionally have no fear of saying they are not doing well with diagnosis or treatment. Women appear to be more open to support,” Dr. Bergerot said.
 

Interventions and support

Psychosocial support with targeted interventions can help address FCR for RCC patients, according to Dr. Bergerot. For example, researchers are developing an app to allow for psychosocial intervention at home to help patients cope with FCR, she said, noting that clinicians in cancer centers more often see metastatic disease, not localized disease.

“Clinicians can teach patients to be more comfortable and feel less anxious about their prognosis and also help them participate in treatment decision-making,” Dr. Bergerot said. “When a RCC patient worries too much about cancer recurrence, refer the patient to a psychosocial team. The patient can receive practical advice to balance emotional symptoms, learn more about their current situation, and find more information through cancer support groups.”

“FCR is a key factor underlying emotional and behavioral difficulties faced by survivors of cancer,” said Daniel L. Hall, PhD, of Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School in Boston, who was not involved in this study. “Clinicians treating cancer survivors are well positioned to assess and intervene on FCR, distress, and health behaviors.”  

Dr. Hall noted that these fears are a near-ubiquitous concern for cancer survivors.

“Inherently, managing FCR requires acknowledging and facing the uncertainty about one’s future health, which, of course, for all of us is unpredictable, ambiguous, and ever-changing. Although many patients who fear recurrence are fortunate to have a low objective risk of recurrence, I believe patients facing cancer, regardless of demographic or medical characteristics, can feel afraid when facing an unknown, possibly dangerous future,” Dr. Hall said. 

Calls for interventions targeting FCR have emphasized the need for evidence-based treatments and multimodal interventions that teach a variety of targeted skills. Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) and mind-body interventions are being studied to address FCR.

“Our team conducted a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials of these interventions and found that pooled effects were significant, yet small, suggesting the need for further intervention development,” Dr. Hall said. “Through funding from the NIH’s National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health, we are currently evaluating a multimodal, group-based intervention that integrates many of the most effective FCR management skills: CBT, mindfulness meditation, relaxation response training, and positive psychology.”

Harvard researchers recently published encouraging results from a small pilot study of a group intervention. The next step is to test a remote, synchronous program in a randomized trial, with recruitment anticipated in early 2021.

“In addition to our work, other groups are developing asynchronous interventions that cancer survivors can use by accessing a website, which may appeal to survivors looking for information quickly or who may not be interested in participating in a group intervention,” Dr. Hall said.

The current study did not receive specific funding. The authors disclosed relationships with many companies, which can be found in the paper. Dr. Hall has no disclosures.

SOURCE: Bergerot CD et al. JCO Oncol Pract. 2020 Nov;16(11):e1264-71.

The first nationwide study of severe immune-related adverse events among cancer patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors helps identify those at elevated risk. The findings were reported at the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer’s 35th Anniversary Annual Meeting.

“Immune-related adverse events are a very serious side effect of immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy, and as this therapy has become more common for treating advanced cancers, the incidence of immune-related adverse events has increased as well,” said presenting author William Murphy, a dual MD and MBA student at Harvard Medical School and Harvard Business School, both in Boston.

“However, because there is no ICD code for immune-related adverse events, it’s very difficult to study them at a population level. Most of the current literature around the incidence of immune-related adverse events and factors that are predictive of incidence are based on clinical trials and small studies,” Mr. Murphy noted.

He and his colleagues analyzed claims data from a U.S. nationwide health insurance plan for 14,378 patients who had a primary cancer and received at least one administration of an immune checkpoint inhibitor – an inhibitor of PD-1, PD-L1, or CTLA4 – during 2011-2019.

Over 19,117 patient-years of follow-up, 504 patients (3.5%) developed a severe immune-related adverse event (irAE), defined as one occurring within 2 years of their treatment and requiring inpatient hospitalization and new immunosuppression.

The incidence of severe irAEs per patient treatment year was 2.6% overall, rising from 0% in 2011 to 3.7% in 2016.

In multivariate analysis, patients had an elevated risk of severe irAEs if they received combination immunotherapy as compared with monotherapy (odds ratio, 2.44; P < .001).

On the other hand, risk fell with advancing age (OR, 0.98 per additional year; P < .001). And risk was lower for patients with melanoma (OR, 0.70; P = .01), renal cell carcinoma (OR, 0.71; P = .03), and other cancers (OR, 0.50; P < .001), compared with lung cancer.

Sex, geographic region, income, employment status, and comorbidity were not significantly associated with the risk of severe irAEs.

“We hope that patients and providers can use this evidence from a nationwide study of severe irAEs to guide treatment and management decisions,” Mr. Murphy concluded.
 

Real-world evidence

“As the use of immune checkpoint inhibitors increases for patients with a variety of different tumor types, there is increasing need for population-level evidence for patients treated outside of clinical trials,” said Allison Betof Warner, MD, PhD, an assistant attending physician with the melanoma service at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York.

“This is a well-conducted study with an innovative approach to using real-world evidence to examine immune-related adverse events,” she added.

To her knowledge, it is the first study to look at multiple cancers for which immunotherapy is approved, Dr. Betof Warner said. This approach resulted in a large patient sample, giving power to detect differences between groups.

“The authors’ finding that combination immunotherapy is associated with more severe irAEs is in line with our clinical experience and other data sets, and the data regarding increased odds of severe irAEs in younger patients and those with lung cancer raise interesting biological questions about the etiology of irAEs,” Dr. Betof Warner noted.

However, certain factors complicate interpretation of the study’s findings, she cautioned. One such factor is requiring hospitalization to define an irAE.

“Practice patterns regarding hospitalization vary quite widely from center to center. For example, in some centers, all patients with immune-mediated colitis are hospitalized, whereas in others, these patients are managed predominantly in the outpatient setting, even in cases of high-grade toxicity,” she explained. “Practice patterns have also changed drastically over time as oncologists have grown more comfortable managing immune-related adverse events.”

Another factor is potential confounding. For example, patients with melanoma are more likely to receive combination immunotherapy given its longstanding approval for this cancer, whereas it is comparatively new for other cancers. Also, age may differ across cancers.

“The data the authors have provided are a great starting point, but I think further analysis is needed before these observations can be validated and integrated into practice,” Dr. Betof Warner concluded.

This study did not receive any specific funding. Mr. Murphy and Dr. Betof Warner disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Murphy W et al. SITC 2020, Abstract 854.

The first nationwide study of severe immune-related adverse events among cancer patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors helps identify those at elevated risk. The findings were reported at the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer’s 35th Anniversary Annual Meeting.

“Immune-related adverse events are a very serious side effect of immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy, and as this therapy has become more common for treating advanced cancers, the incidence of immune-related adverse events has increased as well,” said presenting author William Murphy, a dual MD and MBA student at Harvard Medical School and Harvard Business School, both in Boston.

“However, because there is no ICD code for immune-related adverse events, it’s very difficult to study them at a population level. Most of the current literature around the incidence of immune-related adverse events and factors that are predictive of incidence are based on clinical trials and small studies,” Mr. Murphy noted.

He and his colleagues analyzed claims data from a U.S. nationwide health insurance plan for 14,378 patients who had a primary cancer and received at least one administration of an immune checkpoint inhibitor – an inhibitor of PD-1, PD-L1, or CTLA4 – during 2011-2019.

Over 19,117 patient-years of follow-up, 504 patients (3.5%) developed a severe immune-related adverse event (irAE), defined as one occurring within 2 years of their treatment and requiring inpatient hospitalization and new immunosuppression.

The incidence of severe irAEs per patient treatment year was 2.6% overall, rising from 0% in 2011 to 3.7% in 2016.

In multivariate analysis, patients had an elevated risk of severe irAEs if they received combination immunotherapy as compared with monotherapy (odds ratio, 2.44; P < .001).

On the other hand, risk fell with advancing age (OR, 0.98 per additional year; P < .001). And risk was lower for patients with melanoma (OR, 0.70; P = .01), renal cell carcinoma (OR, 0.71; P = .03), and other cancers (OR, 0.50; P < .001), compared with lung cancer.

Sex, geographic region, income, employment status, and comorbidity were not significantly associated with the risk of severe irAEs.

“We hope that patients and providers can use this evidence from a nationwide study of severe irAEs to guide treatment and management decisions,” Mr. Murphy concluded.
 

Real-world evidence

“As the use of immune checkpoint inhibitors increases for patients with a variety of different tumor types, there is increasing need for population-level evidence for patients treated outside of clinical trials,” said Allison Betof Warner, MD, PhD, an assistant attending physician with the melanoma service at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York.

“This is a well-conducted study with an innovative approach to using real-world evidence to examine immune-related adverse events,” she added.

To her knowledge, it is the first study to look at multiple cancers for which immunotherapy is approved, Dr. Betof Warner said. This approach resulted in a large patient sample, giving power to detect differences between groups.

“The authors’ finding that combination immunotherapy is associated with more severe irAEs is in line with our clinical experience and other data sets, and the data regarding increased odds of severe irAEs in younger patients and those with lung cancer raise interesting biological questions about the etiology of irAEs,” Dr. Betof Warner noted.

However, certain factors complicate interpretation of the study’s findings, she cautioned. One such factor is requiring hospitalization to define an irAE.

“Practice patterns regarding hospitalization vary quite widely from center to center. For example, in some centers, all patients with immune-mediated colitis are hospitalized, whereas in others, these patients are managed predominantly in the outpatient setting, even in cases of high-grade toxicity,” she explained. “Practice patterns have also changed drastically over time as oncologists have grown more comfortable managing immune-related adverse events.”

Another factor is potential confounding. For example, patients with melanoma are more likely to receive combination immunotherapy given its longstanding approval for this cancer, whereas it is comparatively new for other cancers. Also, age may differ across cancers.

“The data the authors have provided are a great starting point, but I think further analysis is needed before these observations can be validated and integrated into practice,” Dr. Betof Warner concluded.

This study did not receive any specific funding. Mr. Murphy and Dr. Betof Warner disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Murphy W et al. SITC 2020, Abstract 854.

The first nationwide study of severe immune-related adverse events among cancer patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors helps identify those at elevated risk. The findings were reported at the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer’s 35th Anniversary Annual Meeting.

“Immune-related adverse events are a very serious side effect of immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy, and as this therapy has become more common for treating advanced cancers, the incidence of immune-related adverse events has increased as well,” said presenting author William Murphy, a dual MD and MBA student at Harvard Medical School and Harvard Business School, both in Boston.

“However, because there is no ICD code for immune-related adverse events, it’s very difficult to study them at a population level. Most of the current literature around the incidence of immune-related adverse events and factors that are predictive of incidence are based on clinical trials and small studies,” Mr. Murphy noted.

He and his colleagues analyzed claims data from a U.S. nationwide health insurance plan for 14,378 patients who had a primary cancer and received at least one administration of an immune checkpoint inhibitor – an inhibitor of PD-1, PD-L1, or CTLA4 – during 2011-2019.

Over 19,117 patient-years of follow-up, 504 patients (3.5%) developed a severe immune-related adverse event (irAE), defined as one occurring within 2 years of their treatment and requiring inpatient hospitalization and new immunosuppression.

The incidence of severe irAEs per patient treatment year was 2.6% overall, rising from 0% in 2011 to 3.7% in 2016.

In multivariate analysis, patients had an elevated risk of severe irAEs if they received combination immunotherapy as compared with monotherapy (odds ratio, 2.44; P < .001).

On the other hand, risk fell with advancing age (OR, 0.98 per additional year; P < .001). And risk was lower for patients with melanoma (OR, 0.70; P = .01), renal cell carcinoma (OR, 0.71; P = .03), and other cancers (OR, 0.50; P < .001), compared with lung cancer.

Sex, geographic region, income, employment status, and comorbidity were not significantly associated with the risk of severe irAEs.

“We hope that patients and providers can use this evidence from a nationwide study of severe irAEs to guide treatment and management decisions,” Mr. Murphy concluded.
 

Real-world evidence

“As the use of immune checkpoint inhibitors increases for patients with a variety of different tumor types, there is increasing need for population-level evidence for patients treated outside of clinical trials,” said Allison Betof Warner, MD, PhD, an assistant attending physician with the melanoma service at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York.

“This is a well-conducted study with an innovative approach to using real-world evidence to examine immune-related adverse events,” she added.

To her knowledge, it is the first study to look at multiple cancers for which immunotherapy is approved, Dr. Betof Warner said. This approach resulted in a large patient sample, giving power to detect differences between groups.

“The authors’ finding that combination immunotherapy is associated with more severe irAEs is in line with our clinical experience and other data sets, and the data regarding increased odds of severe irAEs in younger patients and those with lung cancer raise interesting biological questions about the etiology of irAEs,” Dr. Betof Warner noted.

However, certain factors complicate interpretation of the study’s findings, she cautioned. One such factor is requiring hospitalization to define an irAE.

“Practice patterns regarding hospitalization vary quite widely from center to center. For example, in some centers, all patients with immune-mediated colitis are hospitalized, whereas in others, these patients are managed predominantly in the outpatient setting, even in cases of high-grade toxicity,” she explained. “Practice patterns have also changed drastically over time as oncologists have grown more comfortable managing immune-related adverse events.”

Another factor is potential confounding. For example, patients with melanoma are more likely to receive combination immunotherapy given its longstanding approval for this cancer, whereas it is comparatively new for other cancers. Also, age may differ across cancers.

“The data the authors have provided are a great starting point, but I think further analysis is needed before these observations can be validated and integrated into practice,” Dr. Betof Warner concluded.

This study did not receive any specific funding. Mr. Murphy and Dr. Betof Warner disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Murphy W et al. SITC 2020, Abstract 854.

Traditional delivery of palliative care to outpatients with cancer is associated with many challenges.

Telehealth can eliminate some of these challenges but comes with issues of its own, according to results of the REACH PC trial.

Jennifer S. Temel, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, discussed the use of telemedicine in palliative care, including results from REACH PC, during an educational session at the ASCO Virtual Quality Care Symposium 2020.

Dr. Temel noted that, for cancer patients, an in-person visit with a palliative care specialist can cost time, induce fatigue, and increase financial burden from transportation and parking expenses.

For caregivers and family, an in-person visit may necessitate absence from family and/or work, require complex scheduling to coordinate with other office visits, and result in additional transportation and/or parking expenses.

For health care systems, to have a dedicated palliative care clinic requires precious space and financial expenditures for office personnel and other resources.

These issues make it attractive to consider whether telehealth could be used for palliative care services.
 

Scarcity of palliative care specialists

In the United States, there is roughly 1 palliative care physician for every 20,000 older adults with a life-limiting illness, according to research published in Annual Review of Public Health in 2014.

In its 2019 state-by-state report card, the Center to Advance Palliative Care noted that only 72% of U.S. hospitals with 50 or more beds have a palliative care team.

For patients with serious illnesses and those who are socioeconomically or geographically disadvantaged, palliative care is often inaccessible.

Inefficiencies in the current system are an additional impediment. Palliative care specialists frequently see patients during a portion of the patient’s routine visit to subspecialty or primary care clinics. This limits the palliative care specialist’s ability to perform comprehensive assessments and provide patient-centered care efficiently.
 

Special considerations regarding telehealth for palliative care

As a specialty, palliative care involves interactions that could make the use of telehealth problematic. For example, conveyance of interest, warmth, and touch are challenging or impossible in a video format.

Palliative care specialists engage with patients regarding relatively serious topics such as prognosis and end-of-life preferences. There is uncertainty about how those discussions would be received by patients and their caregivers via video.

Furthermore, there are logistical impediments such as prescribing opioids with video or across state lines.

Despite these concerns, the ENABLE study showed that supplementing usual oncology care with weekly (transitioning to monthly) telephone-based educational palliative care produced higher quality of life and mood than did usual oncology care alone. These results were published in JAMA in 2009.
 

REACH PC study demonstrates feasibility of telehealth model

Dr. Temel described the ongoing REACH PC trial in which palliative care is delivered via video visits and compared with in-person palliative care for patients with advanced non–small cell lung cancer.

The primary aim of REACH PC is to determine whether telehealth palliative care is equivalent to traditional palliative care in improving quality of life as a supplement to routine oncology care.

Currently, REACH PC has enrolled 581 patients at its 20 sites, spanning a geographically diverse area. Just over half of patients approached about REACH PC agreed to enroll in it. Ultimately, 1,250 enrollees are sought.

Among patients who declined to participate, 7.6% indicated “discomfort with technology” as the reason. Most refusals were due to lack of interest in research (35.1%) and/or palliative care (22.9%).

Older adults were prominent among enrollees. More than 60% were older than 60 years of age, and more than one-third were older than 70 years.

Among patients who began the trial, there were slightly more withdrawals in the telehealth participants, in comparison with in-person participants (13.6% versus 9.1%).

When palliative care clinicians were queried about video visits, 64.3% said there were no challenges. This is comparable to the 65.5% of clinicians who had no challenges with in-person visits.

When problems occurred with video visits, they were most frequently technical (19.1%). Only 1.4% of clinicians reported difficulty addressing topics that felt uncomfortable over video, and 1.5% reported difficulty establishing rapport.

The success rates of video and in-person visits were similar. About 80% of visits accomplished planned goals.
 

‘Webside’ manner

Strategies such as reflective listening and summarizing what patients say (to verify an accurate understanding of the patient’s perspective) are key to successful palliative care visits, regardless of the setting.

For telehealth visits, Dr. Temel described techniques she defined as “webside manner,” to compensate for the inability of the clinician to touch a patient. These techniques include leaning in toward the camera, nodding, and pausing to be certain the patient has finished speaking before the clinician speaks again.
 

Is telehealth the future of palliative care?

I include myself among those oncologists who have voiced concern about moving from face-to-face to remote visits for complicated consultations such as those required for palliative care. Nonetheless, from the preliminary results of the REACH PC trial, it appears that telehealth could be a valuable tool.

To minimize differences between in-person and remote delivery of palliative care, practical strategies for ensuring rapport and facilitating a trusting relationship should be defined further and disseminated.

In addition, we need to be vigilant for widening inequities of care from rapid movement to the use of technology (i.e., an equity gap). In their telehealth experience during the COVID-19 pandemic, investigators at Houston Methodist Cancer Center found that patients declining virtual visits tended to be older, lower-income, and less likely to have commercial insurance. These results were recently published in JCO Oncology Practice.

For the foregoing reasons, hybrid systems for palliative care services will probably always be needed.

Going forward, we should heed the advice of Alvin Toffler in his book Future Shock. Mr. Toffler said, “The illiterate of the 21st century will not be those who cannot read and write, but those who cannot learn, unlearn, and relearn.”

The traditional model for delivering palliative care will almost certainly need to be reimagined and relearned.

Dr. Temel disclosed institutional research funding from Pfizer.


Dr. Lyss was a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years before his recent retirement. His clinical and research interests were focused on breast and lung cancers, as well as expanding clinical trial access to medically underserved populations. He is based in St. Louis. He has no conflicts of interest.

Traditional delivery of palliative care to outpatients with cancer is associated with many challenges.

Telehealth can eliminate some of these challenges but comes with issues of its own, according to results of the REACH PC trial.

Jennifer S. Temel, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, discussed the use of telemedicine in palliative care, including results from REACH PC, during an educational session at the ASCO Virtual Quality Care Symposium 2020.

Dr. Temel noted that, for cancer patients, an in-person visit with a palliative care specialist can cost time, induce fatigue, and increase financial burden from transportation and parking expenses.

For caregivers and family, an in-person visit may necessitate absence from family and/or work, require complex scheduling to coordinate with other office visits, and result in additional transportation and/or parking expenses.

For health care systems, to have a dedicated palliative care clinic requires precious space and financial expenditures for office personnel and other resources.

These issues make it attractive to consider whether telehealth could be used for palliative care services.
 

Scarcity of palliative care specialists

In the United States, there is roughly 1 palliative care physician for every 20,000 older adults with a life-limiting illness, according to research published in Annual Review of Public Health in 2014.

In its 2019 state-by-state report card, the Center to Advance Palliative Care noted that only 72% of U.S. hospitals with 50 or more beds have a palliative care team.

For patients with serious illnesses and those who are socioeconomically or geographically disadvantaged, palliative care is often inaccessible.

Inefficiencies in the current system are an additional impediment. Palliative care specialists frequently see patients during a portion of the patient’s routine visit to subspecialty or primary care clinics. This limits the palliative care specialist’s ability to perform comprehensive assessments and provide patient-centered care efficiently.
 

Special considerations regarding telehealth for palliative care

As a specialty, palliative care involves interactions that could make the use of telehealth problematic. For example, conveyance of interest, warmth, and touch are challenging or impossible in a video format.

Palliative care specialists engage with patients regarding relatively serious topics such as prognosis and end-of-life preferences. There is uncertainty about how those discussions would be received by patients and their caregivers via video.

Furthermore, there are logistical impediments such as prescribing opioids with video or across state lines.

Despite these concerns, the ENABLE study showed that supplementing usual oncology care with weekly (transitioning to monthly) telephone-based educational palliative care produced higher quality of life and mood than did usual oncology care alone. These results were published in JAMA in 2009.
 

REACH PC study demonstrates feasibility of telehealth model

Dr. Temel described the ongoing REACH PC trial in which palliative care is delivered via video visits and compared with in-person palliative care for patients with advanced non–small cell lung cancer.

The primary aim of REACH PC is to determine whether telehealth palliative care is equivalent to traditional palliative care in improving quality of life as a supplement to routine oncology care.

Currently, REACH PC has enrolled 581 patients at its 20 sites, spanning a geographically diverse area. Just over half of patients approached about REACH PC agreed to enroll in it. Ultimately, 1,250 enrollees are sought.

Among patients who declined to participate, 7.6% indicated “discomfort with technology” as the reason. Most refusals were due to lack of interest in research (35.1%) and/or palliative care (22.9%).

Older adults were prominent among enrollees. More than 60% were older than 60 years of age, and more than one-third were older than 70 years.

Among patients who began the trial, there were slightly more withdrawals in the telehealth participants, in comparison with in-person participants (13.6% versus 9.1%).

When palliative care clinicians were queried about video visits, 64.3% said there were no challenges. This is comparable to the 65.5% of clinicians who had no challenges with in-person visits.

When problems occurred with video visits, they were most frequently technical (19.1%). Only 1.4% of clinicians reported difficulty addressing topics that felt uncomfortable over video, and 1.5% reported difficulty establishing rapport.

The success rates of video and in-person visits were similar. About 80% of visits accomplished planned goals.
 

‘Webside’ manner

Strategies such as reflective listening and summarizing what patients say (to verify an accurate understanding of the patient’s perspective) are key to successful palliative care visits, regardless of the setting.

For telehealth visits, Dr. Temel described techniques she defined as “webside manner,” to compensate for the inability of the clinician to touch a patient. These techniques include leaning in toward the camera, nodding, and pausing to be certain the patient has finished speaking before the clinician speaks again.
 

Is telehealth the future of palliative care?

I include myself among those oncologists who have voiced concern about moving from face-to-face to remote visits for complicated consultations such as those required for palliative care. Nonetheless, from the preliminary results of the REACH PC trial, it appears that telehealth could be a valuable tool.

To minimize differences between in-person and remote delivery of palliative care, practical strategies for ensuring rapport and facilitating a trusting relationship should be defined further and disseminated.

In addition, we need to be vigilant for widening inequities of care from rapid movement to the use of technology (i.e., an equity gap). In their telehealth experience during the COVID-19 pandemic, investigators at Houston Methodist Cancer Center found that patients declining virtual visits tended to be older, lower-income, and less likely to have commercial insurance. These results were recently published in JCO Oncology Practice.

For the foregoing reasons, hybrid systems for palliative care services will probably always be needed.

Going forward, we should heed the advice of Alvin Toffler in his book Future Shock. Mr. Toffler said, “The illiterate of the 21st century will not be those who cannot read and write, but those who cannot learn, unlearn, and relearn.”

The traditional model for delivering palliative care will almost certainly need to be reimagined and relearned.

Dr. Temel disclosed institutional research funding from Pfizer.


Dr. Lyss was a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years before his recent retirement. His clinical and research interests were focused on breast and lung cancers, as well as expanding clinical trial access to medically underserved populations. He is based in St. Louis. He has no conflicts of interest.

Traditional delivery of palliative care to outpatients with cancer is associated with many challenges.

Telehealth can eliminate some of these challenges but comes with issues of its own, according to results of the REACH PC trial.

Jennifer S. Temel, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, discussed the use of telemedicine in palliative care, including results from REACH PC, during an educational session at the ASCO Virtual Quality Care Symposium 2020.

Dr. Temel noted that, for cancer patients, an in-person visit with a palliative care specialist can cost time, induce fatigue, and increase financial burden from transportation and parking expenses.

For caregivers and family, an in-person visit may necessitate absence from family and/or work, require complex scheduling to coordinate with other office visits, and result in additional transportation and/or parking expenses.

For health care systems, to have a dedicated palliative care clinic requires precious space and financial expenditures for office personnel and other resources.

These issues make it attractive to consider whether telehealth could be used for palliative care services.
 

Scarcity of palliative care specialists

In the United States, there is roughly 1 palliative care physician for every 20,000 older adults with a life-limiting illness, according to research published in Annual Review of Public Health in 2014.

In its 2019 state-by-state report card, the Center to Advance Palliative Care noted that only 72% of U.S. hospitals with 50 or more beds have a palliative care team.

For patients with serious illnesses and those who are socioeconomically or geographically disadvantaged, palliative care is often inaccessible.

Inefficiencies in the current system are an additional impediment. Palliative care specialists frequently see patients during a portion of the patient’s routine visit to subspecialty or primary care clinics. This limits the palliative care specialist’s ability to perform comprehensive assessments and provide patient-centered care efficiently.
 

Special considerations regarding telehealth for palliative care

As a specialty, palliative care involves interactions that could make the use of telehealth problematic. For example, conveyance of interest, warmth, and touch are challenging or impossible in a video format.

Palliative care specialists engage with patients regarding relatively serious topics such as prognosis and end-of-life preferences. There is uncertainty about how those discussions would be received by patients and their caregivers via video.

Furthermore, there are logistical impediments such as prescribing opioids with video or across state lines.

Despite these concerns, the ENABLE study showed that supplementing usual oncology care with weekly (transitioning to monthly) telephone-based educational palliative care produced higher quality of life and mood than did usual oncology care alone. These results were published in JAMA in 2009.
 

REACH PC study demonstrates feasibility of telehealth model

Dr. Temel described the ongoing REACH PC trial in which palliative care is delivered via video visits and compared with in-person palliative care for patients with advanced non–small cell lung cancer.

The primary aim of REACH PC is to determine whether telehealth palliative care is equivalent to traditional palliative care in improving quality of life as a supplement to routine oncology care.

Currently, REACH PC has enrolled 581 patients at its 20 sites, spanning a geographically diverse area. Just over half of patients approached about REACH PC agreed to enroll in it. Ultimately, 1,250 enrollees are sought.

Among patients who declined to participate, 7.6% indicated “discomfort with technology” as the reason. Most refusals were due to lack of interest in research (35.1%) and/or palliative care (22.9%).

Older adults were prominent among enrollees. More than 60% were older than 60 years of age, and more than one-third were older than 70 years.

Among patients who began the trial, there were slightly more withdrawals in the telehealth participants, in comparison with in-person participants (13.6% versus 9.1%).

When palliative care clinicians were queried about video visits, 64.3% said there were no challenges. This is comparable to the 65.5% of clinicians who had no challenges with in-person visits.

When problems occurred with video visits, they were most frequently technical (19.1%). Only 1.4% of clinicians reported difficulty addressing topics that felt uncomfortable over video, and 1.5% reported difficulty establishing rapport.

The success rates of video and in-person visits were similar. About 80% of visits accomplished planned goals.
 

‘Webside’ manner

Strategies such as reflective listening and summarizing what patients say (to verify an accurate understanding of the patient’s perspective) are key to successful palliative care visits, regardless of the setting.

For telehealth visits, Dr. Temel described techniques she defined as “webside manner,” to compensate for the inability of the clinician to touch a patient. These techniques include leaning in toward the camera, nodding, and pausing to be certain the patient has finished speaking before the clinician speaks again.
 

Is telehealth the future of palliative care?

I include myself among those oncologists who have voiced concern about moving from face-to-face to remote visits for complicated consultations such as those required for palliative care. Nonetheless, from the preliminary results of the REACH PC trial, it appears that telehealth could be a valuable tool.

To minimize differences between in-person and remote delivery of palliative care, practical strategies for ensuring rapport and facilitating a trusting relationship should be defined further and disseminated.

In addition, we need to be vigilant for widening inequities of care from rapid movement to the use of technology (i.e., an equity gap). In their telehealth experience during the COVID-19 pandemic, investigators at Houston Methodist Cancer Center found that patients declining virtual visits tended to be older, lower-income, and less likely to have commercial insurance. These results were recently published in JCO Oncology Practice.

For the foregoing reasons, hybrid systems for palliative care services will probably always be needed.

Going forward, we should heed the advice of Alvin Toffler in his book Future Shock. Mr. Toffler said, “The illiterate of the 21st century will not be those who cannot read and write, but those who cannot learn, unlearn, and relearn.”

The traditional model for delivering palliative care will almost certainly need to be reimagined and relearned.

Dr. Temel disclosed institutional research funding from Pfizer.


Dr. Lyss was a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years before his recent retirement. His clinical and research interests were focused on breast and lung cancers, as well as expanding clinical trial access to medically underserved populations. He is based in St. Louis. He has no conflicts of interest.