Renal Cell Carcinoma

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.

Pembrolizumab plus axitinib continued to top sunitinib monotherapy as first-line treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) in an extended follow-up of the phase 3 KEYNOTE-426 trial.

The trial’s initial results, published in The New England Journal of Medicine in 2019, showed superior efficacy with the combination. Pembrolizumab plus axitinib was subsequently approved in the United States and elsewhere as first-line treatment for advanced RCC.

The latest results from KEYNOTE-426, published in The Lancet Oncology, show a continued survival benefit with pembrolizumab plus axitinib.

“Overall, the results of this study continue to support pembrolizumab plus axitinib as standard of care in patients with previously untreated advanced renal cell carcinoma,” wrote study author Thomas Powles, MD, of the Queen Mary University and Barts Cancer Centre, London, and colleagues.

However, the new findings “must be read and interpreted together with the existing published literature,” they added. This includes trials of nivolumab plus ipilimumab, avelumab plus axitinib, and atezolizumab plus bevacizumab for advanced RCC, all versus sunitinib.

“Given the impossibility of making direct comparisons between the different combinations ... clinical experience and knowledge of the disease and of our patients will be vital to optimize this new therapeutic arsenal and to be able to reach goals that, until a few years ago, were considered unattainable,” wrote authors of a related editorial in The Lancet Oncology.
 

Trial details and results

KEYNOTE-426 included 861 patients with newly diagnosed stage IV or recurrent metastatic RCC with clear cell histology.

Patients were randomized to sunitinib monotherapy (n = 429) or pembrolizumab plus axitinib (n = 432). Pembrolizumab was given at 200 mg intravenously every 3 weeks for up to 35 cycles, and axitinib was given at 5 mg orally twice daily. Sunitinib was given at 50 mg orally once daily for 4 weeks per 6-week cycle.

Baseline characteristics were similar between the treatment arms. The median age was 62 years in the combination arm and 61 years in the sunitinib arm. Most patients were men (71% and 75%, respectively).

At a median follow-up of 30.6 months, the median overall survival (OS) was 35.7 months in the sunitinib arm but not yet reached in the pembrolizumab-axitinib arm (hazard ratio, 0.68, 95% confidence interval, 0.55-0.85, P = .0003).

The updated hazard ratio for OS with the combination wasn’t as robust as the hazard ratio in the initial analysis (0.53), likely in part because 48% of patients in the sunitinib group subsequently received immunotherapy, according to Dr. Powles and colleagues.

The median progression free survival (PFS) was 11.1 months with sunitinib and 15.4 months with the combination (HR, 0.71, 95% CI, 0.60-0.84, P < .0001). The objective response rate was 60% with pembrolizumab plus axitinib and 40% in the sunitinib group (P < .0001).
 

Risk groups and response criteria

Although patients in the combination arm had better objective response rates and PFS across all risk categories, there was no OS benefit in the favorable-risk subgroup, perhaps because favorable-risk patients have more indolent disease, Dr. Powles and colleagues noted.

Even so, “the pembrolizumab plus axitinib combination achieved a nonnegligible rate of 11% complete responses in favorable-risk cases, suggesting a potential curative role in this setting,” the editorialists wrote.

Dr. Powles and colleagues raised the question of whether RECIST-defined response is adequate to capture the full benefit of the combination.

In a post hoc analysis, the researchers found that change in tumor size was prognostic for OS. Patients in the pembrolizumab-axitinib group with an “at least 80% reduction in target lesions within 6 months of randomization had a durable subsequent overall survival benefit (i.e., 36 months survival), similar to patients who had RECIST-defined complete response,” Dr. Powles and colleagues wrote.

“These data support a hypothesis that durable benefit to an immunotherapy-containing regimen in renal cell cancer is not limited to the subset of complete responders,” the researchers added. “Because RECIST categories might not classify all patients who achieve durable benefit, depth of response might also supplement objective response as an important clinical endpoint.”
 

Safety and discontinuation

There were no new safety signals and no new treatment-related deaths.

The most frequent grade 3 or higher adverse events (in the combination and sunitinib arms, respectively) were hypertension (22% and 20%), alanine aminotransferase elevations (13% and 3%), and diarrhea (11% and 5%).

Treatment-related adverse events led to pembrolizumab interruption in 44% of patients, axitinib interruption in 62%, and interruption of both in 30%. Treatment-related adverse events led to discontinuation of one or the other drug in about 20% of subjects and both in 7%.

The number of discontinuations and interruptions suggests “caution in optimizing the therapeutic choice in real-world patients,” the editorialists wrote.

“New treatment modalities, including intermittent administrations or an induction phase followed by single-agent maintenance, could be explored in future adaptive clinical trials, with undeniable advantages in terms of reducing clinical and financial toxicity,” they added.

The KEYNOTE-426 study was funded by Merck, maker of pembrolizumab. The investigators and the editorialists disclosed ties to Merck and other companies.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Powles T et al. Lancet Oncol. 2020 Oct. 23. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(20)30436-8.

Pembrolizumab plus axitinib continued to top sunitinib monotherapy as first-line treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) in an extended follow-up of the phase 3 KEYNOTE-426 trial.

The trial’s initial results, published in The New England Journal of Medicine in 2019, showed superior efficacy with the combination. Pembrolizumab plus axitinib was subsequently approved in the United States and elsewhere as first-line treatment for advanced RCC.

The latest results from KEYNOTE-426, published in The Lancet Oncology, show a continued survival benefit with pembrolizumab plus axitinib.

“Overall, the results of this study continue to support pembrolizumab plus axitinib as standard of care in patients with previously untreated advanced renal cell carcinoma,” wrote study author Thomas Powles, MD, of the Queen Mary University and Barts Cancer Centre, London, and colleagues.

However, the new findings “must be read and interpreted together with the existing published literature,” they added. This includes trials of nivolumab plus ipilimumab, avelumab plus axitinib, and atezolizumab plus bevacizumab for advanced RCC, all versus sunitinib.

“Given the impossibility of making direct comparisons between the different combinations ... clinical experience and knowledge of the disease and of our patients will be vital to optimize this new therapeutic arsenal and to be able to reach goals that, until a few years ago, were considered unattainable,” wrote authors of a related editorial in The Lancet Oncology.
 

Trial details and results

KEYNOTE-426 included 861 patients with newly diagnosed stage IV or recurrent metastatic RCC with clear cell histology.

Patients were randomized to sunitinib monotherapy (n = 429) or pembrolizumab plus axitinib (n = 432). Pembrolizumab was given at 200 mg intravenously every 3 weeks for up to 35 cycles, and axitinib was given at 5 mg orally twice daily. Sunitinib was given at 50 mg orally once daily for 4 weeks per 6-week cycle.

Baseline characteristics were similar between the treatment arms. The median age was 62 years in the combination arm and 61 years in the sunitinib arm. Most patients were men (71% and 75%, respectively).

At a median follow-up of 30.6 months, the median overall survival (OS) was 35.7 months in the sunitinib arm but not yet reached in the pembrolizumab-axitinib arm (hazard ratio, 0.68, 95% confidence interval, 0.55-0.85, P = .0003).

The updated hazard ratio for OS with the combination wasn’t as robust as the hazard ratio in the initial analysis (0.53), likely in part because 48% of patients in the sunitinib group subsequently received immunotherapy, according to Dr. Powles and colleagues.

The median progression free survival (PFS) was 11.1 months with sunitinib and 15.4 months with the combination (HR, 0.71, 95% CI, 0.60-0.84, P < .0001). The objective response rate was 60% with pembrolizumab plus axitinib and 40% in the sunitinib group (P < .0001).
 

Risk groups and response criteria

Although patients in the combination arm had better objective response rates and PFS across all risk categories, there was no OS benefit in the favorable-risk subgroup, perhaps because favorable-risk patients have more indolent disease, Dr. Powles and colleagues noted.

Even so, “the pembrolizumab plus axitinib combination achieved a nonnegligible rate of 11% complete responses in favorable-risk cases, suggesting a potential curative role in this setting,” the editorialists wrote.

Dr. Powles and colleagues raised the question of whether RECIST-defined response is adequate to capture the full benefit of the combination.

In a post hoc analysis, the researchers found that change in tumor size was prognostic for OS. Patients in the pembrolizumab-axitinib group with an “at least 80% reduction in target lesions within 6 months of randomization had a durable subsequent overall survival benefit (i.e., 36 months survival), similar to patients who had RECIST-defined complete response,” Dr. Powles and colleagues wrote.

“These data support a hypothesis that durable benefit to an immunotherapy-containing regimen in renal cell cancer is not limited to the subset of complete responders,” the researchers added. “Because RECIST categories might not classify all patients who achieve durable benefit, depth of response might also supplement objective response as an important clinical endpoint.”
 

Safety and discontinuation

There were no new safety signals and no new treatment-related deaths.

The most frequent grade 3 or higher adverse events (in the combination and sunitinib arms, respectively) were hypertension (22% and 20%), alanine aminotransferase elevations (13% and 3%), and diarrhea (11% and 5%).

Treatment-related adverse events led to pembrolizumab interruption in 44% of patients, axitinib interruption in 62%, and interruption of both in 30%. Treatment-related adverse events led to discontinuation of one or the other drug in about 20% of subjects and both in 7%.

The number of discontinuations and interruptions suggests “caution in optimizing the therapeutic choice in real-world patients,” the editorialists wrote.

“New treatment modalities, including intermittent administrations or an induction phase followed by single-agent maintenance, could be explored in future adaptive clinical trials, with undeniable advantages in terms of reducing clinical and financial toxicity,” they added.

The KEYNOTE-426 study was funded by Merck, maker of pembrolizumab. The investigators and the editorialists disclosed ties to Merck and other companies.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Powles T et al. Lancet Oncol. 2020 Oct. 23. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(20)30436-8.

Pembrolizumab plus axitinib continued to top sunitinib monotherapy as first-line treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) in an extended follow-up of the phase 3 KEYNOTE-426 trial.

The trial’s initial results, published in The New England Journal of Medicine in 2019, showed superior efficacy with the combination. Pembrolizumab plus axitinib was subsequently approved in the United States and elsewhere as first-line treatment for advanced RCC.

The latest results from KEYNOTE-426, published in The Lancet Oncology, show a continued survival benefit with pembrolizumab plus axitinib.

“Overall, the results of this study continue to support pembrolizumab plus axitinib as standard of care in patients with previously untreated advanced renal cell carcinoma,” wrote study author Thomas Powles, MD, of the Queen Mary University and Barts Cancer Centre, London, and colleagues.

However, the new findings “must be read and interpreted together with the existing published literature,” they added. This includes trials of nivolumab plus ipilimumab, avelumab plus axitinib, and atezolizumab plus bevacizumab for advanced RCC, all versus sunitinib.

“Given the impossibility of making direct comparisons between the different combinations ... clinical experience and knowledge of the disease and of our patients will be vital to optimize this new therapeutic arsenal and to be able to reach goals that, until a few years ago, were considered unattainable,” wrote authors of a related editorial in The Lancet Oncology.
 

Trial details and results

KEYNOTE-426 included 861 patients with newly diagnosed stage IV or recurrent metastatic RCC with clear cell histology.

Patients were randomized to sunitinib monotherapy (n = 429) or pembrolizumab plus axitinib (n = 432). Pembrolizumab was given at 200 mg intravenously every 3 weeks for up to 35 cycles, and axitinib was given at 5 mg orally twice daily. Sunitinib was given at 50 mg orally once daily for 4 weeks per 6-week cycle.

Baseline characteristics were similar between the treatment arms. The median age was 62 years in the combination arm and 61 years in the sunitinib arm. Most patients were men (71% and 75%, respectively).

At a median follow-up of 30.6 months, the median overall survival (OS) was 35.7 months in the sunitinib arm but not yet reached in the pembrolizumab-axitinib arm (hazard ratio, 0.68, 95% confidence interval, 0.55-0.85, P = .0003).

The updated hazard ratio for OS with the combination wasn’t as robust as the hazard ratio in the initial analysis (0.53), likely in part because 48% of patients in the sunitinib group subsequently received immunotherapy, according to Dr. Powles and colleagues.

The median progression free survival (PFS) was 11.1 months with sunitinib and 15.4 months with the combination (HR, 0.71, 95% CI, 0.60-0.84, P < .0001). The objective response rate was 60% with pembrolizumab plus axitinib and 40% in the sunitinib group (P < .0001).
 

Risk groups and response criteria

Although patients in the combination arm had better objective response rates and PFS across all risk categories, there was no OS benefit in the favorable-risk subgroup, perhaps because favorable-risk patients have more indolent disease, Dr. Powles and colleagues noted.

Even so, “the pembrolizumab plus axitinib combination achieved a nonnegligible rate of 11% complete responses in favorable-risk cases, suggesting a potential curative role in this setting,” the editorialists wrote.

Dr. Powles and colleagues raised the question of whether RECIST-defined response is adequate to capture the full benefit of the combination.

In a post hoc analysis, the researchers found that change in tumor size was prognostic for OS. Patients in the pembrolizumab-axitinib group with an “at least 80% reduction in target lesions within 6 months of randomization had a durable subsequent overall survival benefit (i.e., 36 months survival), similar to patients who had RECIST-defined complete response,” Dr. Powles and colleagues wrote.

“These data support a hypothesis that durable benefit to an immunotherapy-containing regimen in renal cell cancer is not limited to the subset of complete responders,” the researchers added. “Because RECIST categories might not classify all patients who achieve durable benefit, depth of response might also supplement objective response as an important clinical endpoint.”
 

Safety and discontinuation

There were no new safety signals and no new treatment-related deaths.

The most frequent grade 3 or higher adverse events (in the combination and sunitinib arms, respectively) were hypertension (22% and 20%), alanine aminotransferase elevations (13% and 3%), and diarrhea (11% and 5%).

Treatment-related adverse events led to pembrolizumab interruption in 44% of patients, axitinib interruption in 62%, and interruption of both in 30%. Treatment-related adverse events led to discontinuation of one or the other drug in about 20% of subjects and both in 7%.

The number of discontinuations and interruptions suggests “caution in optimizing the therapeutic choice in real-world patients,” the editorialists wrote.

“New treatment modalities, including intermittent administrations or an induction phase followed by single-agent maintenance, could be explored in future adaptive clinical trials, with undeniable advantages in terms of reducing clinical and financial toxicity,” they added.

The KEYNOTE-426 study was funded by Merck, maker of pembrolizumab. The investigators and the editorialists disclosed ties to Merck and other companies.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Powles T et al. Lancet Oncol. 2020 Oct. 23. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(20)30436-8.

Sorafenib should not be used as adjuvant therapy in patients with resected intermediate- or high-risk renal cell carcinoma (RCC), according to investigators from the phase 3 SORCE trial.

“The results of the SORCE trial will end the debate about adjuvant tyrosine kinase inhibitors in renal cell carcinoma for most investigators,” Tim Eisen, MBBChir, PhD, of Cambridge (England) University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, said in an interview. 

Dr. Eisen and colleagues reported results from SORCE in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

Patients with intermediate- or high-risk RCC after surgical resection have 5-year relapse rates of 30%-40% and 5-year survival of 74.8% that declines steeply to 16% with metastatic disease, Dr. Eisen and colleagues wrote.

While adjuvant strategies – including cytokines, radiotherapy, and hormone therapy – have not yielded success, oral tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) targeting the vascular endothelial growth factor receptor have shown efficacy in metastatic RCC.

With inconsistent results in randomized trials of TKIs in the adjuvant RCC setting, however, active surveillance after nephrectomy has remained the international standard of care. SORCE was conducted “to settle the question of adjuvant TKI therapy” in RCC, according to Dr. Eisen and colleagues.

The investigators enrolled 1,711 patients with completely resected, clear cell or non–clear cell RCC at intermediate or high risk of relapse. The patients’ mean age was 58 years, 71% of patients were men, and 84% had clear cell histology.

Patients were randomized (2:3:3) to 3 years of placebo, 1 year of sorafenib followed by 2 years of placebo, or 3 years of sorafenib.

The initial sorafenib dose was 400 mg twice per day orally, but it was amended to 400 mg daily.

The primary outcome was investigator-reported disease-free survival comparing 3 years of sorafenib with placebo.
 

No survival benefit, more adverse events

Survival outcomes were similar across the study arms. The median disease-free survival was not reached for 3 years of sorafenib or for 3 years of placebo (hazard ratio, 1.01; 95% confidence interval, 0.82-1.23; P = .946).

The restricted mean survival time over 10 years was 6.81 years for 3 years of sorafenib and 6.82 years for 3 years of placebo (P = .988).

As for overall survival, the hazard ratio for 3 years of sorafenib versus 3 years of placebo was 1.06 (95% CI, 0.82-1.38; P = .638), and the hazard ratio for 1 year of sorafenib versus 3 years of placebo was 0.92 (95% CI, 0.71-1.20; P = .541).

Adverse events of grade 3 or higher were reported by 58.6% of patients receiving 1 year of sorafenib, 63.9% of patients receiving 3 years of sorafenib, and 29.2% of patients receiving placebo. Serious adverse events were reported at rates of 19.1% for placebo, 21.6% for 1 year of sorafenib, and 24% for 3 years of sorafenib.

Despite being offered treatment adaptations, more than half of participants had stopped treatment by 12 months because of toxicity.
 

Results undermine TKI use

“The significant toxicity observed with TKI monotherapy, despite pragmatic dose reductions, together with lack of evidence of a survival benefit, fundamentally undermines the use of TKIs in the adjuvant treatment of RCC,” Dr. Eisen and colleagues concluded.

In an interview, Dr. Eisen noted: “We are now asking whether adjuvant PD-1/PD-L1, with or without CTLA4 checkpoint inhibitors, are of benefit for patients who have had a high- or intermediate-risk RCC resected. A more challenging question is whether neoadjuvant checkpoint inhibitors may add further benefit. There are many such studies, which will report over the next few years and have the potential to change the treatment landscape enormously.”

“Interest in the field in general has shifted to immunotherapy and immunotherapy/TKI combinations,” observed Ramaprasad Srinivasan, MD, PhD, of the National Cancer Institute in Bethesda, Md., who was not involved in this study.

“The majority in the field probably had a fairly good idea that sorafenib was unlikely to show any benefit, whether given over 1 or 3 years. SORCE results were not unexpected. They do cement our belief that TKIs such as sorafenib do not have a real role in managing patients with kidney cancer in the adjuvant setting,” Dr. Srinivasan said.

The SORCE trial was supported by Bayer, Cancer Research UK, the Medical Research Council, University College London, Cancer Australia, and the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council. Dr. Eisen disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, Roche, EUSA, Bayer, Pfizer, Macmillan Cancer Support, and Kidney Cancer UK. His coauthors disclosed relationships with many companies. Dr. Srinivasan disclosed that the National Cancer Institute has received funds from Calithera Biosciences and Peloton/Merck for clinical trials on which he was the principal investigator.

SOURCE: Eisen T et al. J Clin Oncol. 2020 Oct 14. J Clin Oncol. 2020 Oct 14. doi: 10.1200/JCO.20.01800.

Sorafenib should not be used as adjuvant therapy in patients with resected intermediate- or high-risk renal cell carcinoma (RCC), according to investigators from the phase 3 SORCE trial.

“The results of the SORCE trial will end the debate about adjuvant tyrosine kinase inhibitors in renal cell carcinoma for most investigators,” Tim Eisen, MBBChir, PhD, of Cambridge (England) University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, said in an interview. 

Dr. Eisen and colleagues reported results from SORCE in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

Patients with intermediate- or high-risk RCC after surgical resection have 5-year relapse rates of 30%-40% and 5-year survival of 74.8% that declines steeply to 16% with metastatic disease, Dr. Eisen and colleagues wrote.

While adjuvant strategies – including cytokines, radiotherapy, and hormone therapy – have not yielded success, oral tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) targeting the vascular endothelial growth factor receptor have shown efficacy in metastatic RCC.

With inconsistent results in randomized trials of TKIs in the adjuvant RCC setting, however, active surveillance after nephrectomy has remained the international standard of care. SORCE was conducted “to settle the question of adjuvant TKI therapy” in RCC, according to Dr. Eisen and colleagues.

The investigators enrolled 1,711 patients with completely resected, clear cell or non–clear cell RCC at intermediate or high risk of relapse. The patients’ mean age was 58 years, 71% of patients were men, and 84% had clear cell histology.

Patients were randomized (2:3:3) to 3 years of placebo, 1 year of sorafenib followed by 2 years of placebo, or 3 years of sorafenib.

The initial sorafenib dose was 400 mg twice per day orally, but it was amended to 400 mg daily.

The primary outcome was investigator-reported disease-free survival comparing 3 years of sorafenib with placebo.
 

No survival benefit, more adverse events

Survival outcomes were similar across the study arms. The median disease-free survival was not reached for 3 years of sorafenib or for 3 years of placebo (hazard ratio, 1.01; 95% confidence interval, 0.82-1.23; P = .946).

The restricted mean survival time over 10 years was 6.81 years for 3 years of sorafenib and 6.82 years for 3 years of placebo (P = .988).

As for overall survival, the hazard ratio for 3 years of sorafenib versus 3 years of placebo was 1.06 (95% CI, 0.82-1.38; P = .638), and the hazard ratio for 1 year of sorafenib versus 3 years of placebo was 0.92 (95% CI, 0.71-1.20; P = .541).

Adverse events of grade 3 or higher were reported by 58.6% of patients receiving 1 year of sorafenib, 63.9% of patients receiving 3 years of sorafenib, and 29.2% of patients receiving placebo. Serious adverse events were reported at rates of 19.1% for placebo, 21.6% for 1 year of sorafenib, and 24% for 3 years of sorafenib.

Despite being offered treatment adaptations, more than half of participants had stopped treatment by 12 months because of toxicity.
 

Results undermine TKI use

“The significant toxicity observed with TKI monotherapy, despite pragmatic dose reductions, together with lack of evidence of a survival benefit, fundamentally undermines the use of TKIs in the adjuvant treatment of RCC,” Dr. Eisen and colleagues concluded.

In an interview, Dr. Eisen noted: “We are now asking whether adjuvant PD-1/PD-L1, with or without CTLA4 checkpoint inhibitors, are of benefit for patients who have had a high- or intermediate-risk RCC resected. A more challenging question is whether neoadjuvant checkpoint inhibitors may add further benefit. There are many such studies, which will report over the next few years and have the potential to change the treatment landscape enormously.”

“Interest in the field in general has shifted to immunotherapy and immunotherapy/TKI combinations,” observed Ramaprasad Srinivasan, MD, PhD, of the National Cancer Institute in Bethesda, Md., who was not involved in this study.

“The majority in the field probably had a fairly good idea that sorafenib was unlikely to show any benefit, whether given over 1 or 3 years. SORCE results were not unexpected. They do cement our belief that TKIs such as sorafenib do not have a real role in managing patients with kidney cancer in the adjuvant setting,” Dr. Srinivasan said.

The SORCE trial was supported by Bayer, Cancer Research UK, the Medical Research Council, University College London, Cancer Australia, and the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council. Dr. Eisen disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, Roche, EUSA, Bayer, Pfizer, Macmillan Cancer Support, and Kidney Cancer UK. His coauthors disclosed relationships with many companies. Dr. Srinivasan disclosed that the National Cancer Institute has received funds from Calithera Biosciences and Peloton/Merck for clinical trials on which he was the principal investigator.

SOURCE: Eisen T et al. J Clin Oncol. 2020 Oct 14. J Clin Oncol. 2020 Oct 14. doi: 10.1200/JCO.20.01800.

Sorafenib should not be used as adjuvant therapy in patients with resected intermediate- or high-risk renal cell carcinoma (RCC), according to investigators from the phase 3 SORCE trial.

“The results of the SORCE trial will end the debate about adjuvant tyrosine kinase inhibitors in renal cell carcinoma for most investigators,” Tim Eisen, MBBChir, PhD, of Cambridge (England) University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, said in an interview. 

Dr. Eisen and colleagues reported results from SORCE in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

Patients with intermediate- or high-risk RCC after surgical resection have 5-year relapse rates of 30%-40% and 5-year survival of 74.8% that declines steeply to 16% with metastatic disease, Dr. Eisen and colleagues wrote.

While adjuvant strategies – including cytokines, radiotherapy, and hormone therapy – have not yielded success, oral tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) targeting the vascular endothelial growth factor receptor have shown efficacy in metastatic RCC.

With inconsistent results in randomized trials of TKIs in the adjuvant RCC setting, however, active surveillance after nephrectomy has remained the international standard of care. SORCE was conducted “to settle the question of adjuvant TKI therapy” in RCC, according to Dr. Eisen and colleagues.

The investigators enrolled 1,711 patients with completely resected, clear cell or non–clear cell RCC at intermediate or high risk of relapse. The patients’ mean age was 58 years, 71% of patients were men, and 84% had clear cell histology.

Patients were randomized (2:3:3) to 3 years of placebo, 1 year of sorafenib followed by 2 years of placebo, or 3 years of sorafenib.

The initial sorafenib dose was 400 mg twice per day orally, but it was amended to 400 mg daily.

The primary outcome was investigator-reported disease-free survival comparing 3 years of sorafenib with placebo.
 

No survival benefit, more adverse events

Survival outcomes were similar across the study arms. The median disease-free survival was not reached for 3 years of sorafenib or for 3 years of placebo (hazard ratio, 1.01; 95% confidence interval, 0.82-1.23; P = .946).

The restricted mean survival time over 10 years was 6.81 years for 3 years of sorafenib and 6.82 years for 3 years of placebo (P = .988).

As for overall survival, the hazard ratio for 3 years of sorafenib versus 3 years of placebo was 1.06 (95% CI, 0.82-1.38; P = .638), and the hazard ratio for 1 year of sorafenib versus 3 years of placebo was 0.92 (95% CI, 0.71-1.20; P = .541).

Adverse events of grade 3 or higher were reported by 58.6% of patients receiving 1 year of sorafenib, 63.9% of patients receiving 3 years of sorafenib, and 29.2% of patients receiving placebo. Serious adverse events were reported at rates of 19.1% for placebo, 21.6% for 1 year of sorafenib, and 24% for 3 years of sorafenib.

Despite being offered treatment adaptations, more than half of participants had stopped treatment by 12 months because of toxicity.
 

Results undermine TKI use

“The significant toxicity observed with TKI monotherapy, despite pragmatic dose reductions, together with lack of evidence of a survival benefit, fundamentally undermines the use of TKIs in the adjuvant treatment of RCC,” Dr. Eisen and colleagues concluded.

In an interview, Dr. Eisen noted: “We are now asking whether adjuvant PD-1/PD-L1, with or without CTLA4 checkpoint inhibitors, are of benefit for patients who have had a high- or intermediate-risk RCC resected. A more challenging question is whether neoadjuvant checkpoint inhibitors may add further benefit. There are many such studies, which will report over the next few years and have the potential to change the treatment landscape enormously.”

“Interest in the field in general has shifted to immunotherapy and immunotherapy/TKI combinations,” observed Ramaprasad Srinivasan, MD, PhD, of the National Cancer Institute in Bethesda, Md., who was not involved in this study.

“The majority in the field probably had a fairly good idea that sorafenib was unlikely to show any benefit, whether given over 1 or 3 years. SORCE results were not unexpected. They do cement our belief that TKIs such as sorafenib do not have a real role in managing patients with kidney cancer in the adjuvant setting,” Dr. Srinivasan said.

The SORCE trial was supported by Bayer, Cancer Research UK, the Medical Research Council, University College London, Cancer Australia, and the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council. Dr. Eisen disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, Roche, EUSA, Bayer, Pfizer, Macmillan Cancer Support, and Kidney Cancer UK. His coauthors disclosed relationships with many companies. Dr. Srinivasan disclosed that the National Cancer Institute has received funds from Calithera Biosciences and Peloton/Merck for clinical trials on which he was the principal investigator.

SOURCE: Eisen T et al. J Clin Oncol. 2020 Oct 14. J Clin Oncol. 2020 Oct 14. doi: 10.1200/JCO.20.01800.

Real-world survival outcomes for cancer patients on immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are inferior to outcomes reported in patients on clinical trials of ICIs, according to research published in JCO Clinical Cancer Informatics.

However, the research also suggests that real-world patients who receive ICIs achieve longer survival than patients on standard-of-care medications.

“Patients receiving ICIs in real-world practice may differ from those enrolled in trials in a variety of ways, including age, race, performance status, and comorbidity burden,” said study author Jerry S.H. Lee, PhD, of the University of Southern California, Los Angeles.

Dr. Lee noted that only 3%-4% of cancer patients participate in clinical trials. In fact, more than half of patients with melanoma and nearly three-quarters of those with non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) do not meet criteria for eligibility in clinical trials, he said.

To examine the discrepancies between real-world practice and clinical trials and to better understand which patients receive ICIs in clinical practice, Dr. Lee and colleagues conducted a retrospective analysis using electronic health record data from Veterans Administration (VA) facilities nationwide.

The researchers identified 11,888 cancer patients who were treated with ICIs. The cohort included patients who are underrepresented in pivotal clinical trials, including older, non-White, and/or higher disease-burdened patients.

The majority of patients were treated for NSCLC (51.1%), followed by melanoma (14.4%), renal cell carcinoma (RCC; 8.1%), squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (6.8%), urothelial cancer (6.4%), hepatocellular carcinoma (4.5%), and other less common cancer types (8.8%).
 

Overall survival by indication

In general, median overall survival (OS) in the VA cohort was inferior to median OS reported in clinical trials. However, patients treated with first-line nivolumab for melanoma and second-line pembrolizumab or nivolumab for NSCLC had similar OS in the real-world and trial data.

The researchers did not report exact OS numbers from clinical trials. However, they did report the exact numbers from the VA cohort and show OS differences between the VA cohort and clinical trials graphically.

Among patients in the VA cohort, the median OS was:

• 25.5 months in melanoma patients on first-line nivolumab
• 16.3 months in RCC patients receiving nivolumab in the second line or higher
• 14 months in RCC patients on first-line ipilimumab and nivolumab
• 10.6 months in NSCLC patients on first-line pembrolizumab
• 9.9 months in NSCLC patients receiving pembrolizumab or nivolumab in the second line or higher
• 9.1 months in NSCLC patients on first-line pembrolizumab and platinum-based chemotherapy
• 6.7 months in urothelial cancer patients receiving ICIs in the second line or higher.

A number of factors may have contributed to the shorter OS observed in the VA cohort, according to the researchers. The VA cohort is predominantly male, is older, and has a higher degree of comorbidity, compared with patients in clinical trials.

In addition, no data are available to determine the cause for discontinuation of therapy, and VA patients may have received ICIs after failing multiple lines of previous therapy, while clinical trials may limit patients to only one or two previous lines of therapy.

After stratifying VA patients by frailty status, the OS among non-frail patients was more similar to the OS reported in clinical trials.

“Real-world outcomes from the VA were more similar when adjusted for frailty, which shows the importance of patient diversity in clinical trials,” Dr. Lee said. He added that the definition of frailty among VA patients included potential injury during combat and therefore differs from a generic frailty definition.
 

ICIs vs. standard care

The researchers also found that VA patients treated with ICIs had longer OS, compared with a cohort of VA patients receiving standard-of-care therapies.

The median OS was as follows:

• In melanoma patients on first-line treatment – 39.29 months with nivolumab and 5.75 months with chemotherapy (P < .001).
• In RCC patients on first-line treatment – 14.01 months with ipilimumab plus nivolumab and 8.63 months with targeted therapy (P = .051).
• In RCC patients on second-line or greater treatment – 12.43 months with nivolumab and 8.09 months with everolimus (P < .001).
• In NSCLC patients on first-line therapy – 8.88 months with pembrolizumab and 6.38 months with a platinum doublet (P < .001).
• In NSCLC patients on first-line combination therapy – 10.59 months with pembrolizumab plus platinum chemotherapy and 6.38 months with a platinum doublet (P < .001).
• In NSCLC patients on second-line or greater therapy – 10.06 months with pembrolizumab or nivolumab and 6.41 months with docetaxel (P < .001).
• In urothelial cancer patients on second-line or greater therapy – 7.66 months with an ICI and 6.31 months with chemotherapy (P = .043).
   

Help for treatment decisions

“The real-world survival outcomes not only indicate the breadth of indications but also represent patients who tend not to be eligible for immunotherapy trials, based on their health status,” Dr. Lee said. “We hope this dataset of national-level experience provides practicing oncologists evidence to help patients and family members in the process of decision-making about therapy.”

Real-world data can also inform oncologists who face decisions on whether to prescribe or withhold ICIs and patients who face the financial burden of paying for ICIs, he said.

This dataset will be continually updated. The researchers have already added another 10,000 VA patients who have received immunotherapies in the year since the trial began.

“In a longitudinal way, we plan to examine what causes differences in outcomes and continue to find ways to extend care to veterans with a balance of high quality of life,” Dr. Lee said.

“Patients who participate in clinical trials are, on average, younger and healthier than the general population,” said Bora Youn, PhD, a senior biostatistician at Biogen in Cambridge, Mass., who was not involved in this study.

“In the case of immunotherapies, those with poor performance status and autoimmune conditions are often excluded from trials,” Dr. Youn added. “In the real world, these patients can also receive treatments, and clinicians often need to extrapolate the results from clinical trials. It is therefore important to collect real-world data to understand the effectiveness and safety of these therapies in patients with limited evidence.”

Dr. Youn led a real-world study, published in Cancer, of 1,256 Medicare recipients who were diagnosed with NSCLC and received ICI therapy.

“We found that factors associated with poor prognosis in general, such as squamous histology and failure of aggressive prior treatment, are also predictive of decreased survival among those who initiated immunotherapies. Yet, OS of older patients was relatively comparable to those observed in clinical trials,” Dr. Youn said.

“Understanding the real-world effectiveness of these treatments will help improve the evidence base, especially for those underrepresented in clinical trials. These studies can also help identify patients who are most likely to benefit from immunotherapies,” Dr. Youn added.

This study was supported by the VA Office of Research and Development Cooperative Studies Program. Dr. Lee and Dr. Youn disclosed no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Jennifer La et al. JCO Clinical Cancer Informatics. 2020:4:918-28.

Real-world survival outcomes for cancer patients on immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are inferior to outcomes reported in patients on clinical trials of ICIs, according to research published in JCO Clinical Cancer Informatics.

However, the research also suggests that real-world patients who receive ICIs achieve longer survival than patients on standard-of-care medications.

“Patients receiving ICIs in real-world practice may differ from those enrolled in trials in a variety of ways, including age, race, performance status, and comorbidity burden,” said study author Jerry S.H. Lee, PhD, of the University of Southern California, Los Angeles.

Dr. Lee noted that only 3%-4% of cancer patients participate in clinical trials. In fact, more than half of patients with melanoma and nearly three-quarters of those with non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) do not meet criteria for eligibility in clinical trials, he said.

To examine the discrepancies between real-world practice and clinical trials and to better understand which patients receive ICIs in clinical practice, Dr. Lee and colleagues conducted a retrospective analysis using electronic health record data from Veterans Administration (VA) facilities nationwide.

The researchers identified 11,888 cancer patients who were treated with ICIs. The cohort included patients who are underrepresented in pivotal clinical trials, including older, non-White, and/or higher disease-burdened patients.

The majority of patients were treated for NSCLC (51.1%), followed by melanoma (14.4%), renal cell carcinoma (RCC; 8.1%), squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (6.8%), urothelial cancer (6.4%), hepatocellular carcinoma (4.5%), and other less common cancer types (8.8%).
 

Overall survival by indication

In general, median overall survival (OS) in the VA cohort was inferior to median OS reported in clinical trials. However, patients treated with first-line nivolumab for melanoma and second-line pembrolizumab or nivolumab for NSCLC had similar OS in the real-world and trial data.

The researchers did not report exact OS numbers from clinical trials. However, they did report the exact numbers from the VA cohort and show OS differences between the VA cohort and clinical trials graphically.

Among patients in the VA cohort, the median OS was:

• 25.5 months in melanoma patients on first-line nivolumab
• 16.3 months in RCC patients receiving nivolumab in the second line or higher
• 14 months in RCC patients on first-line ipilimumab and nivolumab
• 10.6 months in NSCLC patients on first-line pembrolizumab
• 9.9 months in NSCLC patients receiving pembrolizumab or nivolumab in the second line or higher
• 9.1 months in NSCLC patients on first-line pembrolizumab and platinum-based chemotherapy
• 6.7 months in urothelial cancer patients receiving ICIs in the second line or higher.

A number of factors may have contributed to the shorter OS observed in the VA cohort, according to the researchers. The VA cohort is predominantly male, is older, and has a higher degree of comorbidity, compared with patients in clinical trials.

In addition, no data are available to determine the cause for discontinuation of therapy, and VA patients may have received ICIs after failing multiple lines of previous therapy, while clinical trials may limit patients to only one or two previous lines of therapy.

After stratifying VA patients by frailty status, the OS among non-frail patients was more similar to the OS reported in clinical trials.

“Real-world outcomes from the VA were more similar when adjusted for frailty, which shows the importance of patient diversity in clinical trials,” Dr. Lee said. He added that the definition of frailty among VA patients included potential injury during combat and therefore differs from a generic frailty definition.
 

ICIs vs. standard care

The researchers also found that VA patients treated with ICIs had longer OS, compared with a cohort of VA patients receiving standard-of-care therapies.

The median OS was as follows:

• In melanoma patients on first-line treatment – 39.29 months with nivolumab and 5.75 months with chemotherapy (P < .001).
• In RCC patients on first-line treatment – 14.01 months with ipilimumab plus nivolumab and 8.63 months with targeted therapy (P = .051).
• In RCC patients on second-line or greater treatment – 12.43 months with nivolumab and 8.09 months with everolimus (P < .001).
• In NSCLC patients on first-line therapy – 8.88 months with pembrolizumab and 6.38 months with a platinum doublet (P < .001).
• In NSCLC patients on first-line combination therapy – 10.59 months with pembrolizumab plus platinum chemotherapy and 6.38 months with a platinum doublet (P < .001).
• In NSCLC patients on second-line or greater therapy – 10.06 months with pembrolizumab or nivolumab and 6.41 months with docetaxel (P < .001).
• In urothelial cancer patients on second-line or greater therapy – 7.66 months with an ICI and 6.31 months with chemotherapy (P = .043).
   

Help for treatment decisions

“The real-world survival outcomes not only indicate the breadth of indications but also represent patients who tend not to be eligible for immunotherapy trials, based on their health status,” Dr. Lee said. “We hope this dataset of national-level experience provides practicing oncologists evidence to help patients and family members in the process of decision-making about therapy.”

Real-world data can also inform oncologists who face decisions on whether to prescribe or withhold ICIs and patients who face the financial burden of paying for ICIs, he said.

This dataset will be continually updated. The researchers have already added another 10,000 VA patients who have received immunotherapies in the year since the trial began.

“In a longitudinal way, we plan to examine what causes differences in outcomes and continue to find ways to extend care to veterans with a balance of high quality of life,” Dr. Lee said.

“Patients who participate in clinical trials are, on average, younger and healthier than the general population,” said Bora Youn, PhD, a senior biostatistician at Biogen in Cambridge, Mass., who was not involved in this study.

“In the case of immunotherapies, those with poor performance status and autoimmune conditions are often excluded from trials,” Dr. Youn added. “In the real world, these patients can also receive treatments, and clinicians often need to extrapolate the results from clinical trials. It is therefore important to collect real-world data to understand the effectiveness and safety of these therapies in patients with limited evidence.”

Dr. Youn led a real-world study, published in Cancer, of 1,256 Medicare recipients who were diagnosed with NSCLC and received ICI therapy.

“We found that factors associated with poor prognosis in general, such as squamous histology and failure of aggressive prior treatment, are also predictive of decreased survival among those who initiated immunotherapies. Yet, OS of older patients was relatively comparable to those observed in clinical trials,” Dr. Youn said.

“Understanding the real-world effectiveness of these treatments will help improve the evidence base, especially for those underrepresented in clinical trials. These studies can also help identify patients who are most likely to benefit from immunotherapies,” Dr. Youn added.

This study was supported by the VA Office of Research and Development Cooperative Studies Program. Dr. Lee and Dr. Youn disclosed no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Jennifer La et al. JCO Clinical Cancer Informatics. 2020:4:918-28.

Real-world survival outcomes for cancer patients on immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are inferior to outcomes reported in patients on clinical trials of ICIs, according to research published in JCO Clinical Cancer Informatics.

However, the research also suggests that real-world patients who receive ICIs achieve longer survival than patients on standard-of-care medications.

“Patients receiving ICIs in real-world practice may differ from those enrolled in trials in a variety of ways, including age, race, performance status, and comorbidity burden,” said study author Jerry S.H. Lee, PhD, of the University of Southern California, Los Angeles.

Dr. Lee noted that only 3%-4% of cancer patients participate in clinical trials. In fact, more than half of patients with melanoma and nearly three-quarters of those with non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) do not meet criteria for eligibility in clinical trials, he said.

To examine the discrepancies between real-world practice and clinical trials and to better understand which patients receive ICIs in clinical practice, Dr. Lee and colleagues conducted a retrospective analysis using electronic health record data from Veterans Administration (VA) facilities nationwide.

The researchers identified 11,888 cancer patients who were treated with ICIs. The cohort included patients who are underrepresented in pivotal clinical trials, including older, non-White, and/or higher disease-burdened patients.

The majority of patients were treated for NSCLC (51.1%), followed by melanoma (14.4%), renal cell carcinoma (RCC; 8.1%), squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (6.8%), urothelial cancer (6.4%), hepatocellular carcinoma (4.5%), and other less common cancer types (8.8%).
 

Overall survival by indication

In general, median overall survival (OS) in the VA cohort was inferior to median OS reported in clinical trials. However, patients treated with first-line nivolumab for melanoma and second-line pembrolizumab or nivolumab for NSCLC had similar OS in the real-world and trial data.

The researchers did not report exact OS numbers from clinical trials. However, they did report the exact numbers from the VA cohort and show OS differences between the VA cohort and clinical trials graphically.

Among patients in the VA cohort, the median OS was:

• 25.5 months in melanoma patients on first-line nivolumab
• 16.3 months in RCC patients receiving nivolumab in the second line or higher
• 14 months in RCC patients on first-line ipilimumab and nivolumab
• 10.6 months in NSCLC patients on first-line pembrolizumab
• 9.9 months in NSCLC patients receiving pembrolizumab or nivolumab in the second line or higher
• 9.1 months in NSCLC patients on first-line pembrolizumab and platinum-based chemotherapy
• 6.7 months in urothelial cancer patients receiving ICIs in the second line or higher.

A number of factors may have contributed to the shorter OS observed in the VA cohort, according to the researchers. The VA cohort is predominantly male, is older, and has a higher degree of comorbidity, compared with patients in clinical trials.

In addition, no data are available to determine the cause for discontinuation of therapy, and VA patients may have received ICIs after failing multiple lines of previous therapy, while clinical trials may limit patients to only one or two previous lines of therapy.

After stratifying VA patients by frailty status, the OS among non-frail patients was more similar to the OS reported in clinical trials.

“Real-world outcomes from the VA were more similar when adjusted for frailty, which shows the importance of patient diversity in clinical trials,” Dr. Lee said. He added that the definition of frailty among VA patients included potential injury during combat and therefore differs from a generic frailty definition.
 

ICIs vs. standard care

The researchers also found that VA patients treated with ICIs had longer OS, compared with a cohort of VA patients receiving standard-of-care therapies.

The median OS was as follows:

• In melanoma patients on first-line treatment – 39.29 months with nivolumab and 5.75 months with chemotherapy (P < .001).
• In RCC patients on first-line treatment – 14.01 months with ipilimumab plus nivolumab and 8.63 months with targeted therapy (P = .051).
• In RCC patients on second-line or greater treatment – 12.43 months with nivolumab and 8.09 months with everolimus (P < .001).
• In NSCLC patients on first-line therapy – 8.88 months with pembrolizumab and 6.38 months with a platinum doublet (P < .001).
• In NSCLC patients on first-line combination therapy – 10.59 months with pembrolizumab plus platinum chemotherapy and 6.38 months with a platinum doublet (P < .001).
• In NSCLC patients on second-line or greater therapy – 10.06 months with pembrolizumab or nivolumab and 6.41 months with docetaxel (P < .001).
• In urothelial cancer patients on second-line or greater therapy – 7.66 months with an ICI and 6.31 months with chemotherapy (P = .043).
   

Help for treatment decisions

“The real-world survival outcomes not only indicate the breadth of indications but also represent patients who tend not to be eligible for immunotherapy trials, based on their health status,” Dr. Lee said. “We hope this dataset of national-level experience provides practicing oncologists evidence to help patients and family members in the process of decision-making about therapy.”

Real-world data can also inform oncologists who face decisions on whether to prescribe or withhold ICIs and patients who face the financial burden of paying for ICIs, he said.

This dataset will be continually updated. The researchers have already added another 10,000 VA patients who have received immunotherapies in the year since the trial began.

“In a longitudinal way, we plan to examine what causes differences in outcomes and continue to find ways to extend care to veterans with a balance of high quality of life,” Dr. Lee said.

“Patients who participate in clinical trials are, on average, younger and healthier than the general population,” said Bora Youn, PhD, a senior biostatistician at Biogen in Cambridge, Mass., who was not involved in this study.

“In the case of immunotherapies, those with poor performance status and autoimmune conditions are often excluded from trials,” Dr. Youn added. “In the real world, these patients can also receive treatments, and clinicians often need to extrapolate the results from clinical trials. It is therefore important to collect real-world data to understand the effectiveness and safety of these therapies in patients with limited evidence.”

Dr. Youn led a real-world study, published in Cancer, of 1,256 Medicare recipients who were diagnosed with NSCLC and received ICI therapy.

“We found that factors associated with poor prognosis in general, such as squamous histology and failure of aggressive prior treatment, are also predictive of decreased survival among those who initiated immunotherapies. Yet, OS of older patients was relatively comparable to those observed in clinical trials,” Dr. Youn said.

“Understanding the real-world effectiveness of these treatments will help improve the evidence base, especially for those underrepresented in clinical trials. These studies can also help identify patients who are most likely to benefit from immunotherapies,” Dr. Youn added.

This study was supported by the VA Office of Research and Development Cooperative Studies Program. Dr. Lee and Dr. Youn disclosed no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Jennifer La et al. JCO Clinical Cancer Informatics. 2020:4:918-28.

It’s not ready for the clinic, but new research suggests that angiotensin receptor II blockers (ARBs) widely used to treat hypertension may improve responses to cancer immunotherapy agents targeted against the programmed death-1/ligand-1 (PD-1/PD-L1) pathway.

That conclusion comes from an observational study of 597 patients with more than 3 dozen different cancer types treated in clinical trials at the US National Institutes of Health. Investigators found that both objective response rates and 3-year overall survival (OS) rates were significantly higher for patients treated with a PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor who were on ARBs, compared with patients who weren’t taking the antihypertensive agents.

An association was also seen between higher ORR and OS rates for patients taking ACE inhibitors, but it was not statistically significant, reported Julius Strauss, MD, from the Center for Cancer Research at the National Cancer Institute in Bethesda, Md.

All study patients received PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors, and the ORR for patients treated with ARBs was 33.8%, compared with 19.5% for those treated with ACE inhibitors, and 17% for those who took neither drug. The respective complete response (CR) rates were 11.3%, 3.7%, and 3.1%.

Strauss discussed the data during an online briefing prior to his presentation of the findings during the 32nd EORTC-NCI-AACR Symposium on Molecular Targets and Cancer Therapeutics, which is taking place virtually.

Several early studies have suggested that angiotensin II, in addition to its effect on blood pressure, can also affect cancer growth by leading to downstream production of two proteins: vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and transforming growth factor–beta (TGF-beta), he explained.

“Both of these [proteins] have been linked to cancer growth and cancer resistance to immune system attack,” Strauss observed.

He also discussed the mechanics of possible effects. Angiotensin II increases VEGF and TGF-beta through binding to the AT1 receptor, but has the opposite effect when it binds to the AT2 receptor, resulting in a decrease in both of the growth factors, he added.

ACE inhibitors prevent the conversion of angiotensin I to angiotensin II, with the result being that the drugs indirectly block both the AT1 and AT2 receptors.

In contrast, ARBs block only the AT1 receptor and leave the AT2 counter-regulatory receptor alone, said Strauss.
 

More data, including on overall survival

Strauss and colleagues examined whether ACE inhibitors and/or ARBs could have an effect on the response to PD-1/PD-L1 immune checkpoint inhibitors delivered with or without other immunotherapies, such as anti-cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 (CTLA-4) checkpoint inhibitors, or targeted agents such as tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs).

They pooled data on 597 patients receiving PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors in clinical trials for various cancers, including 71 receiving concomitant ARBs, 82 receiving an ACE inhibitor, and 444 who were not receiving either class of antihypertensives.

The above-mentioned improvement in ORR with ARBs compared with patients not receiving the drug was statistically significant (P = .001), as was the improvement in CR rates (P = .002). In contrast, neither ORR nor CR were significantly better with patients on ACE inhibitors compared with patients not taking these drugs.

In multiple regression analysis controlling for age, gender, body mass index (BMI), tumor type, and additional therapies given, the superior ORR and CR rates with ARBs remained (P = .039 and .002, respectively), while there continued to be no significant additional benefit with ACE inhibitors.

The median overall survival was 35.2 months for patients on ARBs, 26.2 months for those on ACE inhibitors, and 18.8 months for patients on neither drug. The respective 3-year OS rates were 48.1%, 37.2%, and 31.5%, with the difference between the ARB and no-drug groups being significant (P = .0078).

In regression analysis controlling for the factors mentioned before, the OS advantage with ARBs but not ACE inhibitors remained significant (P = .006 for ARBs, and .078 for ACE inhibitors).

Strauss emphasized that further study is needed to determine if AT1 blockade can improve outcomes when combined anti-PD-1/PD-L1-based therapy.

It might be reasonable for patients who are taking ACE inhibitors to control blood pressure and are also receiving immunotherapy with a PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor to be switched to an ARB if it is deemed safe and if further research bears it out, said Strauss in response to a question from Medscape Medical News.
 

Hypothesis-generating study

Meeting cochair Emiliano Calvo, MD, PhD, from Hospital de Madrid Norte Sanchinarro in Madrid, who attended the media briefing but was not involved in the study, commented that hypothesis-generating research using drugs already on the market for other indications adds important value to cancer therapy.

James Gulley, MD, PhD, from the Center for Cancer Research at the NCI, also a meeting cochair, agreed with Calvo.

“Thinking about utilizing the data that already exists to really get hypothesis-generating questions, it also opens up the possibility for real-world data, real-world evidence from these big datasets from [electronic medical records] that we could really interrogate and understand what we might see and get these hypothesis-generating findings that we could then prospectively evaluate,” Gulley said.

The research was funded by the National Cancer Institute. Strauss and Gulley are National Cancer Institute employees. Calvo disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

It’s not ready for the clinic, but new research suggests that angiotensin receptor II blockers (ARBs) widely used to treat hypertension may improve responses to cancer immunotherapy agents targeted against the programmed death-1/ligand-1 (PD-1/PD-L1) pathway.

That conclusion comes from an observational study of 597 patients with more than 3 dozen different cancer types treated in clinical trials at the US National Institutes of Health. Investigators found that both objective response rates and 3-year overall survival (OS) rates were significantly higher for patients treated with a PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor who were on ARBs, compared with patients who weren’t taking the antihypertensive agents.

An association was also seen between higher ORR and OS rates for patients taking ACE inhibitors, but it was not statistically significant, reported Julius Strauss, MD, from the Center for Cancer Research at the National Cancer Institute in Bethesda, Md.

All study patients received PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors, and the ORR for patients treated with ARBs was 33.8%, compared with 19.5% for those treated with ACE inhibitors, and 17% for those who took neither drug. The respective complete response (CR) rates were 11.3%, 3.7%, and 3.1%.

Strauss discussed the data during an online briefing prior to his presentation of the findings during the 32nd EORTC-NCI-AACR Symposium on Molecular Targets and Cancer Therapeutics, which is taking place virtually.

Several early studies have suggested that angiotensin II, in addition to its effect on blood pressure, can also affect cancer growth by leading to downstream production of two proteins: vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and transforming growth factor–beta (TGF-beta), he explained.

“Both of these [proteins] have been linked to cancer growth and cancer resistance to immune system attack,” Strauss observed.

He also discussed the mechanics of possible effects. Angiotensin II increases VEGF and TGF-beta through binding to the AT1 receptor, but has the opposite effect when it binds to the AT2 receptor, resulting in a decrease in both of the growth factors, he added.

ACE inhibitors prevent the conversion of angiotensin I to angiotensin II, with the result being that the drugs indirectly block both the AT1 and AT2 receptors.

In contrast, ARBs block only the AT1 receptor and leave the AT2 counter-regulatory receptor alone, said Strauss.
 

More data, including on overall survival

Strauss and colleagues examined whether ACE inhibitors and/or ARBs could have an effect on the response to PD-1/PD-L1 immune checkpoint inhibitors delivered with or without other immunotherapies, such as anti-cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 (CTLA-4) checkpoint inhibitors, or targeted agents such as tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs).

They pooled data on 597 patients receiving PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors in clinical trials for various cancers, including 71 receiving concomitant ARBs, 82 receiving an ACE inhibitor, and 444 who were not receiving either class of antihypertensives.

The above-mentioned improvement in ORR with ARBs compared with patients not receiving the drug was statistically significant (P = .001), as was the improvement in CR rates (P = .002). In contrast, neither ORR nor CR were significantly better with patients on ACE inhibitors compared with patients not taking these drugs.

In multiple regression analysis controlling for age, gender, body mass index (BMI), tumor type, and additional therapies given, the superior ORR and CR rates with ARBs remained (P = .039 and .002, respectively), while there continued to be no significant additional benefit with ACE inhibitors.

The median overall survival was 35.2 months for patients on ARBs, 26.2 months for those on ACE inhibitors, and 18.8 months for patients on neither drug. The respective 3-year OS rates were 48.1%, 37.2%, and 31.5%, with the difference between the ARB and no-drug groups being significant (P = .0078).

In regression analysis controlling for the factors mentioned before, the OS advantage with ARBs but not ACE inhibitors remained significant (P = .006 for ARBs, and .078 for ACE inhibitors).

Strauss emphasized that further study is needed to determine if AT1 blockade can improve outcomes when combined anti-PD-1/PD-L1-based therapy.

It might be reasonable for patients who are taking ACE inhibitors to control blood pressure and are also receiving immunotherapy with a PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor to be switched to an ARB if it is deemed safe and if further research bears it out, said Strauss in response to a question from Medscape Medical News.
 

Hypothesis-generating study

Meeting cochair Emiliano Calvo, MD, PhD, from Hospital de Madrid Norte Sanchinarro in Madrid, who attended the media briefing but was not involved in the study, commented that hypothesis-generating research using drugs already on the market for other indications adds important value to cancer therapy.

James Gulley, MD, PhD, from the Center for Cancer Research at the NCI, also a meeting cochair, agreed with Calvo.

“Thinking about utilizing the data that already exists to really get hypothesis-generating questions, it also opens up the possibility for real-world data, real-world evidence from these big datasets from [electronic medical records] that we could really interrogate and understand what we might see and get these hypothesis-generating findings that we could then prospectively evaluate,” Gulley said.

The research was funded by the National Cancer Institute. Strauss and Gulley are National Cancer Institute employees. Calvo disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

It’s not ready for the clinic, but new research suggests that angiotensin receptor II blockers (ARBs) widely used to treat hypertension may improve responses to cancer immunotherapy agents targeted against the programmed death-1/ligand-1 (PD-1/PD-L1) pathway.

That conclusion comes from an observational study of 597 patients with more than 3 dozen different cancer types treated in clinical trials at the US National Institutes of Health. Investigators found that both objective response rates and 3-year overall survival (OS) rates were significantly higher for patients treated with a PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor who were on ARBs, compared with patients who weren’t taking the antihypertensive agents.

An association was also seen between higher ORR and OS rates for patients taking ACE inhibitors, but it was not statistically significant, reported Julius Strauss, MD, from the Center for Cancer Research at the National Cancer Institute in Bethesda, Md.

All study patients received PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors, and the ORR for patients treated with ARBs was 33.8%, compared with 19.5% for those treated with ACE inhibitors, and 17% for those who took neither drug. The respective complete response (CR) rates were 11.3%, 3.7%, and 3.1%.

Strauss discussed the data during an online briefing prior to his presentation of the findings during the 32nd EORTC-NCI-AACR Symposium on Molecular Targets and Cancer Therapeutics, which is taking place virtually.

Several early studies have suggested that angiotensin II, in addition to its effect on blood pressure, can also affect cancer growth by leading to downstream production of two proteins: vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and transforming growth factor–beta (TGF-beta), he explained.

“Both of these [proteins] have been linked to cancer growth and cancer resistance to immune system attack,” Strauss observed.

He also discussed the mechanics of possible effects. Angiotensin II increases VEGF and TGF-beta through binding to the AT1 receptor, but has the opposite effect when it binds to the AT2 receptor, resulting in a decrease in both of the growth factors, he added.

ACE inhibitors prevent the conversion of angiotensin I to angiotensin II, with the result being that the drugs indirectly block both the AT1 and AT2 receptors.

In contrast, ARBs block only the AT1 receptor and leave the AT2 counter-regulatory receptor alone, said Strauss.
 

More data, including on overall survival

Strauss and colleagues examined whether ACE inhibitors and/or ARBs could have an effect on the response to PD-1/PD-L1 immune checkpoint inhibitors delivered with or without other immunotherapies, such as anti-cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 (CTLA-4) checkpoint inhibitors, or targeted agents such as tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs).

They pooled data on 597 patients receiving PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors in clinical trials for various cancers, including 71 receiving concomitant ARBs, 82 receiving an ACE inhibitor, and 444 who were not receiving either class of antihypertensives.

The above-mentioned improvement in ORR with ARBs compared with patients not receiving the drug was statistically significant (P = .001), as was the improvement in CR rates (P = .002). In contrast, neither ORR nor CR were significantly better with patients on ACE inhibitors compared with patients not taking these drugs.

In multiple regression analysis controlling for age, gender, body mass index (BMI), tumor type, and additional therapies given, the superior ORR and CR rates with ARBs remained (P = .039 and .002, respectively), while there continued to be no significant additional benefit with ACE inhibitors.

The median overall survival was 35.2 months for patients on ARBs, 26.2 months for those on ACE inhibitors, and 18.8 months for patients on neither drug. The respective 3-year OS rates were 48.1%, 37.2%, and 31.5%, with the difference between the ARB and no-drug groups being significant (P = .0078).

In regression analysis controlling for the factors mentioned before, the OS advantage with ARBs but not ACE inhibitors remained significant (P = .006 for ARBs, and .078 for ACE inhibitors).

Strauss emphasized that further study is needed to determine if AT1 blockade can improve outcomes when combined anti-PD-1/PD-L1-based therapy.

It might be reasonable for patients who are taking ACE inhibitors to control blood pressure and are also receiving immunotherapy with a PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor to be switched to an ARB if it is deemed safe and if further research bears it out, said Strauss in response to a question from Medscape Medical News.
 

Hypothesis-generating study

Meeting cochair Emiliano Calvo, MD, PhD, from Hospital de Madrid Norte Sanchinarro in Madrid, who attended the media briefing but was not involved in the study, commented that hypothesis-generating research using drugs already on the market for other indications adds important value to cancer therapy.

James Gulley, MD, PhD, from the Center for Cancer Research at the NCI, also a meeting cochair, agreed with Calvo.

“Thinking about utilizing the data that already exists to really get hypothesis-generating questions, it also opens up the possibility for real-world data, real-world evidence from these big datasets from [electronic medical records] that we could really interrogate and understand what we might see and get these hypothesis-generating findings that we could then prospectively evaluate,” Gulley said.

The research was funded by the National Cancer Institute. Strauss and Gulley are National Cancer Institute employees. Calvo disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Canceled appointments, postponed surgeries, and delayed cancer diagnoses – all are a recipe for exhaustion for oncologists around the world, struggling to reach and treat their patients during the pandemic. Physicians and their teams felt the pain as COVID-19 took its initial march around the globe.

“We saw the distress of people with cancer who could no longer get to anyone on the phone. Their medical visit was usually canceled. Their radiotherapy session was postponed or modified, and chemotherapy postponed,” says Axel Kahn, MD, chairman of the board of directors of La Ligue Nationale Contre le Cancer (National League Against Cancer). “In the vast majority of cases, cancer treatment can be postponed or readjusted, without affecting the patient’s chances of survival, but there has been a lot of anxiety because the patients do not know that.”

The stay-at-home factor was one that played out across many months during the first wave.

“I believe that the ‘stay-home’ message that we transmitted was rigorously followed by patients who should have come to the emergency room much earlier and who, therefore, were admitted with a much more deteriorated general condition than in non-COVID-19 times,” says Benjamín Domingo Arrué, MD, from the department of medical oncology at Hospital Universitari i Politècnic La Fe in Valencia, Spain.

And in Brazil, some of the impact from the initial hit of COVID-19 on oncology is only now being felt, according to Laura Testa, MD, head of breast medical oncology, Instituto do Câncer do Estado de São Paulo.

“We are starting to see a lot of cancer cases that didn’t show up at the beginning of the pandemic, but now they are arriving to us already in advanced stages,” she said. “These patients need hospital care. If the situation worsens and goes back to what we saw at the peak of the curve, I fear the public system won’t be able to treat properly the oncology patients that need hospital care and the patients with cancer who also have COVID-19.”

But even as health care worker fatigue and concerns linger, oncologists say that what they have learned in the last 6 months has helped them prepare as COVID-19 cases increase and a second global wave kicks up.
 

Lessons from the first wave

In the United States, COVID-19 hit different regions at different times and to different degrees. One of the areas hit first was Seattle.

“We jumped on top of this, we were evidence based, we put things in place very, very quickly,” said Julie Gralow, MD, professor at the University of Washington and the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, both in Seattle.

“We did a really good job keeping COVID out of our cancer centers,” Dr. Gralow said. “We learned how to be super safe, and to keep symptomatic people out of the building, and to limit the extra people they could bring with them. It’s all about the number of contacts you have.”

The story was different, though, for oncologists in several other countries, and sometimes it varied immensely within each nation.

“We treated fewer patients with cancer during the first wave,” says Dirk Arnold, MD, medical director of the Asklepios Tumor Center Hamburg (Germany), in an interview. “In part, this was because staff were quarantined and because we had a completely different infrastructure in all of the hospitals. But also fewer patients with cancer came to the clinic at all. A lot of resources were directed toward COVID-19.” 

In Spain, telemedicine helped keep up with visits, but other areas felt the effect of COVID-19 patient loads.

“At least in the oncology department of our center, we have practically maintained 100% of visits, mostly by telephone,” says Dr. Arrué, “but the reality is that our country has not yet been prepared for telemedicine.”

Laura Mezquita, MD, of the department of medical oncology at Hospital Clinic de Barcelona, describes a more dramatic situation: “We have seen how some of our patients, especially with metastatic disease, have been dismissed for intensive care and life-support treatments, as well as specific treatments against COVID-19 (tocilizumab, remdesivir, etc.) due to the general health collapse of the former wave,” she said. She adds that specific oncologic populations, such as those with thoracic tumors, have been more affected.
 

Distress among oncologists 

Many oncologists are still feeling stressed and fatigued after the first wave, just as a second string of outbreaks is on its way. 

A survey presented at last month’s ESMO 2020 Congress found that, in July-August, moral distress was reported by one-third of the oncologists who responded, and more than half reported a feeling of exhaustion. 

“The tiredness and team exhaustion is noticeable,” said Dr. Arnold. “We recently had a task force discussion about what will happen when we have a second wave and how the department and our services will adapt. It was clear that those who were at the very front in the first wave had only a limited desire to do that again in the second wave.”

Another concern: COVID-19’s effect on staffing levels. 

“We have a population of young caregivers who are affected by the COVID-19 disease with an absenteeism rate that is quite unprecedented,” said Sophie Beaupère, general delegate of Unicancer since January.

She said that, in general, the absenteeism rate in the cancer centers averages 5%-6%, depending on the year. But that rate is now skyrocketing.
 

Stop-start cycle for surgery

As caregivers quarantined around the world, more than 10% of patients with cancer had treatment canceled or delayed during the first wave of the pandemic, according to another survey from ESMO, involving 109 oncologists from 18 countries.

Difficulties were reported for surgeries by 34% of the centers, but also difficulties with delivering chemotherapy (22% of centers), radiotherapy (13.7%), and therapy with checkpoint inhibitors (9.1%), monoclonal antibodies (9%), and oral targeted therapy (3.7%).

Stopping surgery is a real concern in France, noted Dr. Kahn, the National League Against Cancer chair. He says that in regions that were badly hit by COVID-19, “it was not possible to have access to the operating room for people who absolutely needed surgery; for example, patients with lung cancer that was still operable. Most of the recovery rooms were mobilized for resuscitation.”

There may be some solutions, suggested Thierry Breton, director general of the National Institute of Cancer in France. “We are getting prepared, with the health ministry, for a possible increase in hospital tension, which would lead to a situation where we would have to reschedule operations. Nationally, regionally, and locally, we are seeing how we can resume and prioritize surgeries that have not been done.”
 

Delays in cancer diagnosis

While COVID-19 affected treatment, many oncologists say the major impact of the first wave was a delay in diagnosing cancer. Some of this was a result of the suspension of cancer screening programs, but there was also fear among the general public about visiting clinics and hospitals during a pandemic.

“We didn’t do so well with cancer during the first wave here in the U.K.,” said Karol Sikora, PhD, MBBChir, professor of cancer medicine and founding dean at the University of Buckingham Medical School, London. “Cancer diagnostic pathways virtually stalled partly because patients didn’t seek help, but getting scans and biopsies was also very difficult. Even patients referred urgently under the ‘2-weeks-wait’ rule were turned down.” 

In France, “the delay in diagnosis is indisputable,” said Dr. Kahn. “About 50% of the cancer diagnoses one would expect during this period were missed.” 

“I am worried that there remains a major traffic jam that has not been caught up with, and, in the meantime, the health crisis is worsening,” he added.  

In Seattle, Dr. Gralow said the first COVID-19 wave had little impact on treatment for breast cancer, but it was in screening for breast cancer “where things really got messed up.”

“Even though we’ve been fully ramped up again,” she said, concerns remain. To ensure that screening mammography is maintained, “we have spaced out the visits to keep our waiting rooms less populated, with a longer time between using the machine so we can clean it. To do this, we have extended operating hours and are now opening on Saturday.

“So we’re actually at 100% of our capacity, but I’m really nervous, though, that a lot of people put off their screening mammogram and aren’t going to come in and get it.

“Not only did people get the message to stay home and not do nonessential things, but I think a lot of people lost their health insurance when they lost their jobs,” she said, and without health insurance, they are not covered for cancer screening.
 

Looking ahead, with a plan

Many oncologists agree that access to care can and must be improved – and there were some positive moves.

“Some regimens changed during the first months of the pandemic, and I don’t see them going back to the way they were anytime soon,” said Dr. Testa. “The changes/adaptations that were made to minimize the chance of SARS-CoV-2 infection are still in place and will go on for a while. In this context, telemedicine helped a lot. The pandemic forced the stakeholders to step up and put it in place in March. And now it’s here to stay.”

The experience gained in the last several months has driven preparation for the next wave.

“We are not going to see the disorganization that we saw during the first wave,” said Florence Joly, MD, PhD, head of medical oncology at the Centre François Baclesse in Caen, France. “The difference between now and earlier this year is that COVID diagnostic tests are available. That was one of the problems in the first wave. We had no way to diagnose.”

On the East Coast of the United States, medical oncologist Charu Aggarwal, MD, MPH, is also optimistic: “I think we’re at a place where we can manage.”

“I believe if there was going to be a new wave of COVID-19 cases we would be: better psychologically prepared and better organized,” said Dr. Aggarwal, assistant professor of medicine in the hematology-oncology division at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. “We already have experience with all of the tools, we have telemedicine available, we have screening protocols available, we have testing, we are already universally masking, everyone’s hand-washing, so I do think that means we would be okay.” 

Dr. Arnold agreed that “we are much better prepared than for the first wave, but … we have immense tasks in the area of patient management, the digitization of patient care, the clear allocation of resources when there is a second or third wave. In many areas of preparation, I believe, unfortunately, we are not as well positioned as we had actually hoped.” 

The first wave of COVID hit cancer services in the United Kingdom particularly hard: One modeling study suggested that delays in cancer referrals will lead to thousands of additional deaths and tens of thousands of life-years lost.

“Cancer services are working at near normal levels now, but they are still fragile and could be severely compromised again if the NHS [National Health Service] gets flooded by COVID patients,” said Dr. Sikora.

The second wave may be different. “Although the number of infections has increased, the hospitalizations have only risen a little. Let’s see what happens,” he said in an interview. Since then, however, infections have continued to rise, and there has been an increase in hospitalizations. New social distancing measures in the United Kingdom were put into place on Oct. 12, with the aim of protecting the NHS from overload.

Dr. Arrué describes it this way: “The reality is that the ‘second wave’ has left behind the initial grief and shock that both patients and health professionals experienced when faced with something that, until now, we had only seen in the movies.” The second wave has led to new restrictions – including a partial lockdown since the beginning of October.

Dr. Aggarwal says her department recently had a conference with Anthony Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, about the impact of COVID-19 on oncology.

“I asked him what advice he’d give oncologists, and he said to go back to as much screening as you were doing previously as quickly as possible. That’s what must be relayed to our oncologists in the community – and also to primary care physicians – because they are often the ones who are ordering and championing the screening efforts.”

This article was originated by Aude Lecrubier, Medscape French edition, and developed by Zosia Chustecka, Medscape Oncology. With additional reporting by Kate Johnson, freelance medical journalist, Claudia Gottschling for Medscape Germany, Leoleli Schwartz for Medscape em português, Tim Locke for Medscape United Kingdom, and Carla Nieto Martínez, freelance medical journalist for Medscape Spanish edition. 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Canceled appointments, postponed surgeries, and delayed cancer diagnoses – all are a recipe for exhaustion for oncologists around the world, struggling to reach and treat their patients during the pandemic. Physicians and their teams felt the pain as COVID-19 took its initial march around the globe.

“We saw the distress of people with cancer who could no longer get to anyone on the phone. Their medical visit was usually canceled. Their radiotherapy session was postponed or modified, and chemotherapy postponed,” says Axel Kahn, MD, chairman of the board of directors of La Ligue Nationale Contre le Cancer (National League Against Cancer). “In the vast majority of cases, cancer treatment can be postponed or readjusted, without affecting the patient’s chances of survival, but there has been a lot of anxiety because the patients do not know that.”

The stay-at-home factor was one that played out across many months during the first wave.

“I believe that the ‘stay-home’ message that we transmitted was rigorously followed by patients who should have come to the emergency room much earlier and who, therefore, were admitted with a much more deteriorated general condition than in non-COVID-19 times,” says Benjamín Domingo Arrué, MD, from the department of medical oncology at Hospital Universitari i Politècnic La Fe in Valencia, Spain.

And in Brazil, some of the impact from the initial hit of COVID-19 on oncology is only now being felt, according to Laura Testa, MD, head of breast medical oncology, Instituto do Câncer do Estado de São Paulo.

“We are starting to see a lot of cancer cases that didn’t show up at the beginning of the pandemic, but now they are arriving to us already in advanced stages,” she said. “These patients need hospital care. If the situation worsens and goes back to what we saw at the peak of the curve, I fear the public system won’t be able to treat properly the oncology patients that need hospital care and the patients with cancer who also have COVID-19.”

But even as health care worker fatigue and concerns linger, oncologists say that what they have learned in the last 6 months has helped them prepare as COVID-19 cases increase and a second global wave kicks up.
 

Lessons from the first wave

In the United States, COVID-19 hit different regions at different times and to different degrees. One of the areas hit first was Seattle.

“We jumped on top of this, we were evidence based, we put things in place very, very quickly,” said Julie Gralow, MD, professor at the University of Washington and the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, both in Seattle.

“We did a really good job keeping COVID out of our cancer centers,” Dr. Gralow said. “We learned how to be super safe, and to keep symptomatic people out of the building, and to limit the extra people they could bring with them. It’s all about the number of contacts you have.”

The story was different, though, for oncologists in several other countries, and sometimes it varied immensely within each nation.

“We treated fewer patients with cancer during the first wave,” says Dirk Arnold, MD, medical director of the Asklepios Tumor Center Hamburg (Germany), in an interview. “In part, this was because staff were quarantined and because we had a completely different infrastructure in all of the hospitals. But also fewer patients with cancer came to the clinic at all. A lot of resources were directed toward COVID-19.” 

In Spain, telemedicine helped keep up with visits, but other areas felt the effect of COVID-19 patient loads.

“At least in the oncology department of our center, we have practically maintained 100% of visits, mostly by telephone,” says Dr. Arrué, “but the reality is that our country has not yet been prepared for telemedicine.”

Laura Mezquita, MD, of the department of medical oncology at Hospital Clinic de Barcelona, describes a more dramatic situation: “We have seen how some of our patients, especially with metastatic disease, have been dismissed for intensive care and life-support treatments, as well as specific treatments against COVID-19 (tocilizumab, remdesivir, etc.) due to the general health collapse of the former wave,” she said. She adds that specific oncologic populations, such as those with thoracic tumors, have been more affected.
 

Distress among oncologists 

Many oncologists are still feeling stressed and fatigued after the first wave, just as a second string of outbreaks is on its way. 

A survey presented at last month’s ESMO 2020 Congress found that, in July-August, moral distress was reported by one-third of the oncologists who responded, and more than half reported a feeling of exhaustion. 

“The tiredness and team exhaustion is noticeable,” said Dr. Arnold. “We recently had a task force discussion about what will happen when we have a second wave and how the department and our services will adapt. It was clear that those who were at the very front in the first wave had only a limited desire to do that again in the second wave.”

Another concern: COVID-19’s effect on staffing levels. 

“We have a population of young caregivers who are affected by the COVID-19 disease with an absenteeism rate that is quite unprecedented,” said Sophie Beaupère, general delegate of Unicancer since January.

She said that, in general, the absenteeism rate in the cancer centers averages 5%-6%, depending on the year. But that rate is now skyrocketing.
 

Stop-start cycle for surgery

As caregivers quarantined around the world, more than 10% of patients with cancer had treatment canceled or delayed during the first wave of the pandemic, according to another survey from ESMO, involving 109 oncologists from 18 countries.

Difficulties were reported for surgeries by 34% of the centers, but also difficulties with delivering chemotherapy (22% of centers), radiotherapy (13.7%), and therapy with checkpoint inhibitors (9.1%), monoclonal antibodies (9%), and oral targeted therapy (3.7%).

Stopping surgery is a real concern in France, noted Dr. Kahn, the National League Against Cancer chair. He says that in regions that were badly hit by COVID-19, “it was not possible to have access to the operating room for people who absolutely needed surgery; for example, patients with lung cancer that was still operable. Most of the recovery rooms were mobilized for resuscitation.”

There may be some solutions, suggested Thierry Breton, director general of the National Institute of Cancer in France. “We are getting prepared, with the health ministry, for a possible increase in hospital tension, which would lead to a situation where we would have to reschedule operations. Nationally, regionally, and locally, we are seeing how we can resume and prioritize surgeries that have not been done.”
 

Delays in cancer diagnosis

While COVID-19 affected treatment, many oncologists say the major impact of the first wave was a delay in diagnosing cancer. Some of this was a result of the suspension of cancer screening programs, but there was also fear among the general public about visiting clinics and hospitals during a pandemic.

“We didn’t do so well with cancer during the first wave here in the U.K.,” said Karol Sikora, PhD, MBBChir, professor of cancer medicine and founding dean at the University of Buckingham Medical School, London. “Cancer diagnostic pathways virtually stalled partly because patients didn’t seek help, but getting scans and biopsies was also very difficult. Even patients referred urgently under the ‘2-weeks-wait’ rule were turned down.” 

In France, “the delay in diagnosis is indisputable,” said Dr. Kahn. “About 50% of the cancer diagnoses one would expect during this period were missed.” 

“I am worried that there remains a major traffic jam that has not been caught up with, and, in the meantime, the health crisis is worsening,” he added.  

In Seattle, Dr. Gralow said the first COVID-19 wave had little impact on treatment for breast cancer, but it was in screening for breast cancer “where things really got messed up.”

“Even though we’ve been fully ramped up again,” she said, concerns remain. To ensure that screening mammography is maintained, “we have spaced out the visits to keep our waiting rooms less populated, with a longer time between using the machine so we can clean it. To do this, we have extended operating hours and are now opening on Saturday.

“So we’re actually at 100% of our capacity, but I’m really nervous, though, that a lot of people put off their screening mammogram and aren’t going to come in and get it.

“Not only did people get the message to stay home and not do nonessential things, but I think a lot of people lost their health insurance when they lost their jobs,” she said, and without health insurance, they are not covered for cancer screening.
 

Looking ahead, with a plan

Many oncologists agree that access to care can and must be improved – and there were some positive moves.

“Some regimens changed during the first months of the pandemic, and I don’t see them going back to the way they were anytime soon,” said Dr. Testa. “The changes/adaptations that were made to minimize the chance of SARS-CoV-2 infection are still in place and will go on for a while. In this context, telemedicine helped a lot. The pandemic forced the stakeholders to step up and put it in place in March. And now it’s here to stay.”

The experience gained in the last several months has driven preparation for the next wave.

“We are not going to see the disorganization that we saw during the first wave,” said Florence Joly, MD, PhD, head of medical oncology at the Centre François Baclesse in Caen, France. “The difference between now and earlier this year is that COVID diagnostic tests are available. That was one of the problems in the first wave. We had no way to diagnose.”

On the East Coast of the United States, medical oncologist Charu Aggarwal, MD, MPH, is also optimistic: “I think we’re at a place where we can manage.”

“I believe if there was going to be a new wave of COVID-19 cases we would be: better psychologically prepared and better organized,” said Dr. Aggarwal, assistant professor of medicine in the hematology-oncology division at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. “We already have experience with all of the tools, we have telemedicine available, we have screening protocols available, we have testing, we are already universally masking, everyone’s hand-washing, so I do think that means we would be okay.” 

Dr. Arnold agreed that “we are much better prepared than for the first wave, but … we have immense tasks in the area of patient management, the digitization of patient care, the clear allocation of resources when there is a second or third wave. In many areas of preparation, I believe, unfortunately, we are not as well positioned as we had actually hoped.” 

The first wave of COVID hit cancer services in the United Kingdom particularly hard: One modeling study suggested that delays in cancer referrals will lead to thousands of additional deaths and tens of thousands of life-years lost.

“Cancer services are working at near normal levels now, but they are still fragile and could be severely compromised again if the NHS [National Health Service] gets flooded by COVID patients,” said Dr. Sikora.

The second wave may be different. “Although the number of infections has increased, the hospitalizations have only risen a little. Let’s see what happens,” he said in an interview. Since then, however, infections have continued to rise, and there has been an increase in hospitalizations. New social distancing measures in the United Kingdom were put into place on Oct. 12, with the aim of protecting the NHS from overload.

Dr. Arrué describes it this way: “The reality is that the ‘second wave’ has left behind the initial grief and shock that both patients and health professionals experienced when faced with something that, until now, we had only seen in the movies.” The second wave has led to new restrictions – including a partial lockdown since the beginning of October.

Dr. Aggarwal says her department recently had a conference with Anthony Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, about the impact of COVID-19 on oncology.

“I asked him what advice he’d give oncologists, and he said to go back to as much screening as you were doing previously as quickly as possible. That’s what must be relayed to our oncologists in the community – and also to primary care physicians – because they are often the ones who are ordering and championing the screening efforts.”

This article was originated by Aude Lecrubier, Medscape French edition, and developed by Zosia Chustecka, Medscape Oncology. With additional reporting by Kate Johnson, freelance medical journalist, Claudia Gottschling for Medscape Germany, Leoleli Schwartz for Medscape em português, Tim Locke for Medscape United Kingdom, and Carla Nieto Martínez, freelance medical journalist for Medscape Spanish edition. 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Canceled appointments, postponed surgeries, and delayed cancer diagnoses – all are a recipe for exhaustion for oncologists around the world, struggling to reach and treat their patients during the pandemic. Physicians and their teams felt the pain as COVID-19 took its initial march around the globe.

“We saw the distress of people with cancer who could no longer get to anyone on the phone. Their medical visit was usually canceled. Their radiotherapy session was postponed or modified, and chemotherapy postponed,” says Axel Kahn, MD, chairman of the board of directors of La Ligue Nationale Contre le Cancer (National League Against Cancer). “In the vast majority of cases, cancer treatment can be postponed or readjusted, without affecting the patient’s chances of survival, but there has been a lot of anxiety because the patients do not know that.”

The stay-at-home factor was one that played out across many months during the first wave.

“I believe that the ‘stay-home’ message that we transmitted was rigorously followed by patients who should have come to the emergency room much earlier and who, therefore, were admitted with a much more deteriorated general condition than in non-COVID-19 times,” says Benjamín Domingo Arrué, MD, from the department of medical oncology at Hospital Universitari i Politècnic La Fe in Valencia, Spain.

And in Brazil, some of the impact from the initial hit of COVID-19 on oncology is only now being felt, according to Laura Testa, MD, head of breast medical oncology, Instituto do Câncer do Estado de São Paulo.

“We are starting to see a lot of cancer cases that didn’t show up at the beginning of the pandemic, but now they are arriving to us already in advanced stages,” she said. “These patients need hospital care. If the situation worsens and goes back to what we saw at the peak of the curve, I fear the public system won’t be able to treat properly the oncology patients that need hospital care and the patients with cancer who also have COVID-19.”

But even as health care worker fatigue and concerns linger, oncologists say that what they have learned in the last 6 months has helped them prepare as COVID-19 cases increase and a second global wave kicks up.
 

Lessons from the first wave

In the United States, COVID-19 hit different regions at different times and to different degrees. One of the areas hit first was Seattle.

“We jumped on top of this, we were evidence based, we put things in place very, very quickly,” said Julie Gralow, MD, professor at the University of Washington and the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, both in Seattle.

“We did a really good job keeping COVID out of our cancer centers,” Dr. Gralow said. “We learned how to be super safe, and to keep symptomatic people out of the building, and to limit the extra people they could bring with them. It’s all about the number of contacts you have.”

The story was different, though, for oncologists in several other countries, and sometimes it varied immensely within each nation.

“We treated fewer patients with cancer during the first wave,” says Dirk Arnold, MD, medical director of the Asklepios Tumor Center Hamburg (Germany), in an interview. “In part, this was because staff were quarantined and because we had a completely different infrastructure in all of the hospitals. But also fewer patients with cancer came to the clinic at all. A lot of resources were directed toward COVID-19.” 

In Spain, telemedicine helped keep up with visits, but other areas felt the effect of COVID-19 patient loads.

“At least in the oncology department of our center, we have practically maintained 100% of visits, mostly by telephone,” says Dr. Arrué, “but the reality is that our country has not yet been prepared for telemedicine.”

Laura Mezquita, MD, of the department of medical oncology at Hospital Clinic de Barcelona, describes a more dramatic situation: “We have seen how some of our patients, especially with metastatic disease, have been dismissed for intensive care and life-support treatments, as well as specific treatments against COVID-19 (tocilizumab, remdesivir, etc.) due to the general health collapse of the former wave,” she said. She adds that specific oncologic populations, such as those with thoracic tumors, have been more affected.
 

Distress among oncologists 

Many oncologists are still feeling stressed and fatigued after the first wave, just as a second string of outbreaks is on its way. 

A survey presented at last month’s ESMO 2020 Congress found that, in July-August, moral distress was reported by one-third of the oncologists who responded, and more than half reported a feeling of exhaustion. 

“The tiredness and team exhaustion is noticeable,” said Dr. Arnold. “We recently had a task force discussion about what will happen when we have a second wave and how the department and our services will adapt. It was clear that those who were at the very front in the first wave had only a limited desire to do that again in the second wave.”

Another concern: COVID-19’s effect on staffing levels. 

“We have a population of young caregivers who are affected by the COVID-19 disease with an absenteeism rate that is quite unprecedented,” said Sophie Beaupère, general delegate of Unicancer since January.

She said that, in general, the absenteeism rate in the cancer centers averages 5%-6%, depending on the year. But that rate is now skyrocketing.
 

Stop-start cycle for surgery

As caregivers quarantined around the world, more than 10% of patients with cancer had treatment canceled or delayed during the first wave of the pandemic, according to another survey from ESMO, involving 109 oncologists from 18 countries.

Difficulties were reported for surgeries by 34% of the centers, but also difficulties with delivering chemotherapy (22% of centers), radiotherapy (13.7%), and therapy with checkpoint inhibitors (9.1%), monoclonal antibodies (9%), and oral targeted therapy (3.7%).

Stopping surgery is a real concern in France, noted Dr. Kahn, the National League Against Cancer chair. He says that in regions that were badly hit by COVID-19, “it was not possible to have access to the operating room for people who absolutely needed surgery; for example, patients with lung cancer that was still operable. Most of the recovery rooms were mobilized for resuscitation.”

There may be some solutions, suggested Thierry Breton, director general of the National Institute of Cancer in France. “We are getting prepared, with the health ministry, for a possible increase in hospital tension, which would lead to a situation where we would have to reschedule operations. Nationally, regionally, and locally, we are seeing how we can resume and prioritize surgeries that have not been done.”
 

Delays in cancer diagnosis

While COVID-19 affected treatment, many oncologists say the major impact of the first wave was a delay in diagnosing cancer. Some of this was a result of the suspension of cancer screening programs, but there was also fear among the general public about visiting clinics and hospitals during a pandemic.

“We didn’t do so well with cancer during the first wave here in the U.K.,” said Karol Sikora, PhD, MBBChir, professor of cancer medicine and founding dean at the University of Buckingham Medical School, London. “Cancer diagnostic pathways virtually stalled partly because patients didn’t seek help, but getting scans and biopsies was also very difficult. Even patients referred urgently under the ‘2-weeks-wait’ rule were turned down.” 

In France, “the delay in diagnosis is indisputable,” said Dr. Kahn. “About 50% of the cancer diagnoses one would expect during this period were missed.” 

“I am worried that there remains a major traffic jam that has not been caught up with, and, in the meantime, the health crisis is worsening,” he added.  

In Seattle, Dr. Gralow said the first COVID-19 wave had little impact on treatment for breast cancer, but it was in screening for breast cancer “where things really got messed up.”

“Even though we’ve been fully ramped up again,” she said, concerns remain. To ensure that screening mammography is maintained, “we have spaced out the visits to keep our waiting rooms less populated, with a longer time between using the machine so we can clean it. To do this, we have extended operating hours and are now opening on Saturday.

“So we’re actually at 100% of our capacity, but I’m really nervous, though, that a lot of people put off their screening mammogram and aren’t going to come in and get it.

“Not only did people get the message to stay home and not do nonessential things, but I think a lot of people lost their health insurance when they lost their jobs,” she said, and without health insurance, they are not covered for cancer screening.
 

Looking ahead, with a plan

Many oncologists agree that access to care can and must be improved – and there were some positive moves.

“Some regimens changed during the first months of the pandemic, and I don’t see them going back to the way they were anytime soon,” said Dr. Testa. “The changes/adaptations that were made to minimize the chance of SARS-CoV-2 infection are still in place and will go on for a while. In this context, telemedicine helped a lot. The pandemic forced the stakeholders to step up and put it in place in March. And now it’s here to stay.”

The experience gained in the last several months has driven preparation for the next wave.

“We are not going to see the disorganization that we saw during the first wave,” said Florence Joly, MD, PhD, head of medical oncology at the Centre François Baclesse in Caen, France. “The difference between now and earlier this year is that COVID diagnostic tests are available. That was one of the problems in the first wave. We had no way to diagnose.”

On the East Coast of the United States, medical oncologist Charu Aggarwal, MD, MPH, is also optimistic: “I think we’re at a place where we can manage.”

“I believe if there was going to be a new wave of COVID-19 cases we would be: better psychologically prepared and better organized,” said Dr. Aggarwal, assistant professor of medicine in the hematology-oncology division at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. “We already have experience with all of the tools, we have telemedicine available, we have screening protocols available, we have testing, we are already universally masking, everyone’s hand-washing, so I do think that means we would be okay.” 

Dr. Arnold agreed that “we are much better prepared than for the first wave, but … we have immense tasks in the area of patient management, the digitization of patient care, the clear allocation of resources when there is a second or third wave. In many areas of preparation, I believe, unfortunately, we are not as well positioned as we had actually hoped.” 

The first wave of COVID hit cancer services in the United Kingdom particularly hard: One modeling study suggested that delays in cancer referrals will lead to thousands of additional deaths and tens of thousands of life-years lost.

“Cancer services are working at near normal levels now, but they are still fragile and could be severely compromised again if the NHS [National Health Service] gets flooded by COVID patients,” said Dr. Sikora.

The second wave may be different. “Although the number of infections has increased, the hospitalizations have only risen a little. Let’s see what happens,” he said in an interview. Since then, however, infections have continued to rise, and there has been an increase in hospitalizations. New social distancing measures in the United Kingdom were put into place on Oct. 12, with the aim of protecting the NHS from overload.

Dr. Arrué describes it this way: “The reality is that the ‘second wave’ has left behind the initial grief and shock that both patients and health professionals experienced when faced with something that, until now, we had only seen in the movies.” The second wave has led to new restrictions – including a partial lockdown since the beginning of October.

Dr. Aggarwal says her department recently had a conference with Anthony Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, about the impact of COVID-19 on oncology.

“I asked him what advice he’d give oncologists, and he said to go back to as much screening as you were doing previously as quickly as possible. That’s what must be relayed to our oncologists in the community – and also to primary care physicians – because they are often the ones who are ordering and championing the screening efforts.”

This article was originated by Aude Lecrubier, Medscape French edition, and developed by Zosia Chustecka, Medscape Oncology. With additional reporting by Kate Johnson, freelance medical journalist, Claudia Gottschling for Medscape Germany, Leoleli Schwartz for Medscape em português, Tim Locke for Medscape United Kingdom, and Carla Nieto Martínez, freelance medical journalist for Medscape Spanish edition. 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.