Renal Cell Carcinoma

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.

The investigational agent MK-6482 demonstrated durable efficacy and a favorable safety profile in a phase 2 trial of patients with Von Hippel-Lindau (VHL) disease-associated renal cell carcinoma (RCC) and nonrenal lesions, according to a presentation at the European Society for Medical Oncology Virtual Congress 2020.

MK-6482 is an oral inhibitor of hypoxia inducible factor-(HIF) 2-alpha. The drug previously showed favorable safety and antitumor activity in advanced RCC, Ramaprasad Srinivasan, MD, PhD, of the National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Md., said when presenting data from the phase 2 trial.

Dr. Srinivasan noted that, in VHL disease, RCC occurs in 25%-60% of individuals and is a key cause of morbidity and shortened life expectancy despite aggressive treatment. HIF-2-alpha accumulation activates genes that drive tumor growth in VHL-associated RCC.

The primary objective of Dr. Srinivasan’s phase 2 study was to evaluate the efficacy of the HIF-2-alpha inhibitor MK-6482 (at 120 mg daily) for the treatment of VHL-associated RCC.

The study included 61 treatment-naive patients with VHL diagnoses based on germline mutations. All subjects had RCC and additional non-RCC lesions, including pancreatic (100%), central nervous system (CNS) hemangioblastoma (70.5%), and retinal lesions (26.2%).

The patients’ median age at baseline was 41 years (range, 19-66), and 52.5% were men. Most (82%) had an European Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0.
 

Efficacy and safety

At a median follow-up of 68.7 weeks, 56 patients were receiving ongoing treatment.

By independent central review, the overall response rate in target RCC lesions was 36.1% (all partial responses), with unconfirmed partial responses in 11.5% and stable disease in 62.3%. There was no progression in target lesions. Decreases in target lesion size were observed in 91.8% of patients.

The median time to response was 31.1 weeks (range, 11.9-62.3 weeks), and the median duration of response was not reached (range, 11.9-62.3 weeks). The 1-year progression-free survival rate was 98.3%.

“Promising clinical activity was observed with MK-6482 in treatment-naive patients with VHL-associated RCC,” Dr. Srinivasan said. He added that efficacy was durable in both RCC and non-renal lesions.

Complete responses were observed in 6.6% (4/61) of pancreatic lesions and 11.6% (5/43) of CNS hemangioblastomas. Partial response and stable disease rates in pancreatic lesions were 57.4% and 34.4%, respectively. Partial response and stable disease rates in CNS hemangioblastomas were 18.6% and 65.1%, respectively.

In the 16 patients with retinal lesions, 68.8% saw an improvement and 25% had stable disease. No progression was reported.

“MK-6482 was well tolerated and has a favorable safety profile,” Dr. Srinivasan noted.

Most patients (98.4%) had treatment-related adverse events (AEs), with anemia being the most common. Grade 3 AEs included anemia (6.6%), fatigue (4.9%), dyspnea (1.6%), and hypoxia (1.6%). One patient (1.6%) discontinued treatment because of grade 1 dizziness. There was one grade 4 AE and one fatal AE, but both were considered unrelated to study treatment.
 

Remaining questions and next steps

The challenge in managing VHL-associated RCC tumors is finding a balance between the risk of cancer dissemination and renal morbidity, said study discussant Cristina Suárez, MD, PhD, of Hospital Universitari Vall d’Hebron in Barcelona.

“There is no standard of care systemic treatment, and recruitment for clinical trials is challenging,” Dr. Suárez added.

While response rates in RCC lesions with MK-6482 were generally in line with the experience reported for sunitinib and pazopanib, response rates were particularly favorable with MK-6482 in pancreatic lesions and CNS hemangioblastomas, Dr. Suárez said.

“These are the best response rates reported in non-RCC lesions,” she noted.

However, Dr. Suárez said, important questions remain. Specifically, how long should patients continue on treatment, and will lesion rebound occur after treatment discontinuation?

Larger multicenter trials are needed, Dr. Suárez said, pointing out that the current study is the largest to date of systemic therapy for patients with VHL disease.

The study was funded by Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. Dr. Srinivasan disclosed funding from Merck and Calithera Biosciences. Dr. Suárez disclosed relationships with Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, and many other companies.

SOURCE: Srinivasan R et al. ESMO 2020. Abstract LBA26.

The investigational agent MK-6482 demonstrated durable efficacy and a favorable safety profile in a phase 2 trial of patients with Von Hippel-Lindau (VHL) disease-associated renal cell carcinoma (RCC) and nonrenal lesions, according to a presentation at the European Society for Medical Oncology Virtual Congress 2020.

MK-6482 is an oral inhibitor of hypoxia inducible factor-(HIF) 2-alpha. The drug previously showed favorable safety and antitumor activity in advanced RCC, Ramaprasad Srinivasan, MD, PhD, of the National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Md., said when presenting data from the phase 2 trial.

Dr. Srinivasan noted that, in VHL disease, RCC occurs in 25%-60% of individuals and is a key cause of morbidity and shortened life expectancy despite aggressive treatment. HIF-2-alpha accumulation activates genes that drive tumor growth in VHL-associated RCC.

The primary objective of Dr. Srinivasan’s phase 2 study was to evaluate the efficacy of the HIF-2-alpha inhibitor MK-6482 (at 120 mg daily) for the treatment of VHL-associated RCC.

The study included 61 treatment-naive patients with VHL diagnoses based on germline mutations. All subjects had RCC and additional non-RCC lesions, including pancreatic (100%), central nervous system (CNS) hemangioblastoma (70.5%), and retinal lesions (26.2%).

The patients’ median age at baseline was 41 years (range, 19-66), and 52.5% were men. Most (82%) had an European Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0.
 

Efficacy and safety

At a median follow-up of 68.7 weeks, 56 patients were receiving ongoing treatment.

By independent central review, the overall response rate in target RCC lesions was 36.1% (all partial responses), with unconfirmed partial responses in 11.5% and stable disease in 62.3%. There was no progression in target lesions. Decreases in target lesion size were observed in 91.8% of patients.

The median time to response was 31.1 weeks (range, 11.9-62.3 weeks), and the median duration of response was not reached (range, 11.9-62.3 weeks). The 1-year progression-free survival rate was 98.3%.

“Promising clinical activity was observed with MK-6482 in treatment-naive patients with VHL-associated RCC,” Dr. Srinivasan said. He added that efficacy was durable in both RCC and non-renal lesions.

Complete responses were observed in 6.6% (4/61) of pancreatic lesions and 11.6% (5/43) of CNS hemangioblastomas. Partial response and stable disease rates in pancreatic lesions were 57.4% and 34.4%, respectively. Partial response and stable disease rates in CNS hemangioblastomas were 18.6% and 65.1%, respectively.

In the 16 patients with retinal lesions, 68.8% saw an improvement and 25% had stable disease. No progression was reported.

“MK-6482 was well tolerated and has a favorable safety profile,” Dr. Srinivasan noted.

Most patients (98.4%) had treatment-related adverse events (AEs), with anemia being the most common. Grade 3 AEs included anemia (6.6%), fatigue (4.9%), dyspnea (1.6%), and hypoxia (1.6%). One patient (1.6%) discontinued treatment because of grade 1 dizziness. There was one grade 4 AE and one fatal AE, but both were considered unrelated to study treatment.
 

Remaining questions and next steps

The challenge in managing VHL-associated RCC tumors is finding a balance between the risk of cancer dissemination and renal morbidity, said study discussant Cristina Suárez, MD, PhD, of Hospital Universitari Vall d’Hebron in Barcelona.

“There is no standard of care systemic treatment, and recruitment for clinical trials is challenging,” Dr. Suárez added.

While response rates in RCC lesions with MK-6482 were generally in line with the experience reported for sunitinib and pazopanib, response rates were particularly favorable with MK-6482 in pancreatic lesions and CNS hemangioblastomas, Dr. Suárez said.

“These are the best response rates reported in non-RCC lesions,” she noted.

However, Dr. Suárez said, important questions remain. Specifically, how long should patients continue on treatment, and will lesion rebound occur after treatment discontinuation?

Larger multicenter trials are needed, Dr. Suárez said, pointing out that the current study is the largest to date of systemic therapy for patients with VHL disease.

The study was funded by Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. Dr. Srinivasan disclosed funding from Merck and Calithera Biosciences. Dr. Suárez disclosed relationships with Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, and many other companies.

SOURCE: Srinivasan R et al. ESMO 2020. Abstract LBA26.

The investigational agent MK-6482 demonstrated durable efficacy and a favorable safety profile in a phase 2 trial of patients with Von Hippel-Lindau (VHL) disease-associated renal cell carcinoma (RCC) and nonrenal lesions, according to a presentation at the European Society for Medical Oncology Virtual Congress 2020.

MK-6482 is an oral inhibitor of hypoxia inducible factor-(HIF) 2-alpha. The drug previously showed favorable safety and antitumor activity in advanced RCC, Ramaprasad Srinivasan, MD, PhD, of the National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Md., said when presenting data from the phase 2 trial.

Dr. Srinivasan noted that, in VHL disease, RCC occurs in 25%-60% of individuals and is a key cause of morbidity and shortened life expectancy despite aggressive treatment. HIF-2-alpha accumulation activates genes that drive tumor growth in VHL-associated RCC.

The primary objective of Dr. Srinivasan’s phase 2 study was to evaluate the efficacy of the HIF-2-alpha inhibitor MK-6482 (at 120 mg daily) for the treatment of VHL-associated RCC.

The study included 61 treatment-naive patients with VHL diagnoses based on germline mutations. All subjects had RCC and additional non-RCC lesions, including pancreatic (100%), central nervous system (CNS) hemangioblastoma (70.5%), and retinal lesions (26.2%).

The patients’ median age at baseline was 41 years (range, 19-66), and 52.5% were men. Most (82%) had an European Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0.
 

Efficacy and safety

At a median follow-up of 68.7 weeks, 56 patients were receiving ongoing treatment.

By independent central review, the overall response rate in target RCC lesions was 36.1% (all partial responses), with unconfirmed partial responses in 11.5% and stable disease in 62.3%. There was no progression in target lesions. Decreases in target lesion size were observed in 91.8% of patients.

The median time to response was 31.1 weeks (range, 11.9-62.3 weeks), and the median duration of response was not reached (range, 11.9-62.3 weeks). The 1-year progression-free survival rate was 98.3%.

“Promising clinical activity was observed with MK-6482 in treatment-naive patients with VHL-associated RCC,” Dr. Srinivasan said. He added that efficacy was durable in both RCC and non-renal lesions.

Complete responses were observed in 6.6% (4/61) of pancreatic lesions and 11.6% (5/43) of CNS hemangioblastomas. Partial response and stable disease rates in pancreatic lesions were 57.4% and 34.4%, respectively. Partial response and stable disease rates in CNS hemangioblastomas were 18.6% and 65.1%, respectively.

In the 16 patients with retinal lesions, 68.8% saw an improvement and 25% had stable disease. No progression was reported.

“MK-6482 was well tolerated and has a favorable safety profile,” Dr. Srinivasan noted.

Most patients (98.4%) had treatment-related adverse events (AEs), with anemia being the most common. Grade 3 AEs included anemia (6.6%), fatigue (4.9%), dyspnea (1.6%), and hypoxia (1.6%). One patient (1.6%) discontinued treatment because of grade 1 dizziness. There was one grade 4 AE and one fatal AE, but both were considered unrelated to study treatment.
 

Remaining questions and next steps

The challenge in managing VHL-associated RCC tumors is finding a balance between the risk of cancer dissemination and renal morbidity, said study discussant Cristina Suárez, MD, PhD, of Hospital Universitari Vall d’Hebron in Barcelona.

“There is no standard of care systemic treatment, and recruitment for clinical trials is challenging,” Dr. Suárez added.

While response rates in RCC lesions with MK-6482 were generally in line with the experience reported for sunitinib and pazopanib, response rates were particularly favorable with MK-6482 in pancreatic lesions and CNS hemangioblastomas, Dr. Suárez said.

“These are the best response rates reported in non-RCC lesions,” she noted.

However, Dr. Suárez said, important questions remain. Specifically, how long should patients continue on treatment, and will lesion rebound occur after treatment discontinuation?

Larger multicenter trials are needed, Dr. Suárez said, pointing out that the current study is the largest to date of systemic therapy for patients with VHL disease.

The study was funded by Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. Dr. Srinivasan disclosed funding from Merck and Calithera Biosciences. Dr. Suárez disclosed relationships with Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, and many other companies.

SOURCE: Srinivasan R et al. ESMO 2020. Abstract LBA26.

Mortality in patients with COVID-19 and cancer is associated with general clinical and demographic factors, cancer-specific factors, cancer treatment variables, and laboratory parameters, according to two presentations at the European Society for Medical Oncology Virtual Congress 2020.

Two analyses of data from the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19) were presented at the meeting.

The data suggest that older age, male sex, more comorbidities, poor performance status, progressive cancer or multiple cancers, hematologic malignancy, and recent cancer therapy are all associated with higher mortality among patients with cancer and COVID-19. Anti-CD20 therapy is associated with an especially high mortality rate, according to an investigator.

Among hospitalized patients, increased absolute neutrophil count as well as abnormal D-dimer, high-sensitivity troponin, and C-reactive protein are associated with a higher risk of mortality.

Prior analyses of CCC19 data pointed to several factors associated with higher COVID-19 death rates, according to Petros Grivas, MD, PhD, of University of Washington, Seattle, who presented some CCC19 data at the meeting. However, the prior analyses were limited by weak statistical power and low event rates, Dr. Grivas said.
 

Clinical and laboratory factors: Abstract LBA72

The aim of Dr. Grivas’s analysis was to validate a priori identified demographic and clinicopathologic factors associated with 30-day all-cause mortality in patients with COVID-19 and cancer. Dr. Grivas and colleagues also explored the potential association between laboratory parameters and 30-day all-cause mortality.

The analysis included 3,899 patients with cancer and COVID-19 from 124 centers. Most centers are in the United States, but 4% are in Canada, and 2% are in Spain. About two-thirds of patients were 60 years of age or younger at baseline, half were men, 79% had solid tumors, and 21% had hematologic malignancies.

Cancer-specific factors associated with an increased risk of 30-day all-cause mortality were having progressive cancer (adjusted odds ratio, 2.9), receiving cancer therapy within 3 months (aOR, 1.2), having a hematologic versus solid tumor (aOR, 1.7), and having multiple malignancies (aOR, 1.5).

Clinical factors associated with an increased risk of 30-day all-cause mortality were Black versus White race (aOR, 1.5), older age (aOR, 1.7 per 10 years), three or more actively treated comorbidities (versus none; aOR, 2.1), and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 2 or more (versus 0; aOR, 4.6).

In hospitalized patients, several laboratory variables were associated with an increased risk of 30-day all-cause mortality. Having an absolute neutrophil count above the upper limit of normal doubled the risk (aOR, 2.0), while abnormal D-dimer, high-sensitivity troponin, and C-reactive protein all more than doubled the risk of mortality (aORs of 2.5, 2.5, and 2.4, respectively).

Further risk modeling with multivariable analysis will be performed after longer follow-up, Dr. Grivas noted.
 

Treatment-related outcomes: Abstract LBA71

An additional analysis of CCC19 data encompassed 3,654 patients. In this analysis, researchers investigated the correlation between timing of cancer treatment and COVID-19–related complications and 30-day mortality.

Mortality was highest among cancer patients treated 1-3 months prior to COVID-19 diagnosis, with all-cause mortality at 28%, said Trisha M. Wise-Draper, MD, PhD, of University of Cincinnati, when presenting the data at the meeting.

Rates for other complications (hospitalization, oxygen required, ICU admission, and mechanical ventilation) were similar regardless of treatment timing.

The unadjusted 30-day mortality rate was highest for patients treated most recently with chemoimmunotherapy (30%), followed by chemotherapy (18%), chemoradiotherapy (18%), and targeted therapy (17%).

The mortality rate was “particularly high,” at 50%, in patients receiving anti-CD20 therapy 1-3 months prior to COVID-19 diagnosis – the time period for which significant B-cell depletion develops, Dr. Wise-Draper observed.

An analysis of disease status among 1,449 patients treated within 3 months of COVID-19 diagnosis showed mortality risk increasing from 6% among patients in remission or with newly emergent disease, to 22% in patients with any active cancer, to 34% in those with progressing disease, Dr. Wise-Draper said.

Discussant Benjamin Solomon, MD, PhD, of Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre in Melbourne, made note of the high 30-day mortality rate seen in patients receiving anti-CD20 therapy as well as the elevated standardized mortality ratios with recent chemoimmunotherapy and targeted therapy.

“Although there are some limitations of this analysis, it provides the best data we have to date about the effects of treatment on early mortality in patients with COVID-19 and cancer. It points to a modest but heterogeneous effect of treatment on outcome, one which is likely to become clearer with larger cohorts and additional analysis,” Dr. Solomon said.

This research was funded by the American Cancer Society, Hope Foundation for Cancer Research, Jim and Carol O’Hare Fund, National Cancer Institute, National Human Genome Research Institute, Vanderbilt Institute for Clinical and Translational Research, and Fonds de Recherche du Quebec-Sante. Dr. Grivas disclosed relationships with many companies, but none are related to this work. Dr. Wise-Draper disclosed relationships with Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Tesaro, GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, Shattuck Labs, and Rakuten. Dr. Solomon disclosed relationships with Amgen, AstraZeneca, Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche-Genentech.

SOURCES: Grivas P et al. ESMO 2020, Abstract LBA72; Wise-Draper TM et al. ESMO 2020, Abstract LBA71.

Mortality in patients with COVID-19 and cancer is associated with general clinical and demographic factors, cancer-specific factors, cancer treatment variables, and laboratory parameters, according to two presentations at the European Society for Medical Oncology Virtual Congress 2020.

Two analyses of data from the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19) were presented at the meeting.

The data suggest that older age, male sex, more comorbidities, poor performance status, progressive cancer or multiple cancers, hematologic malignancy, and recent cancer therapy are all associated with higher mortality among patients with cancer and COVID-19. Anti-CD20 therapy is associated with an especially high mortality rate, according to an investigator.

Among hospitalized patients, increased absolute neutrophil count as well as abnormal D-dimer, high-sensitivity troponin, and C-reactive protein are associated with a higher risk of mortality.

Prior analyses of CCC19 data pointed to several factors associated with higher COVID-19 death rates, according to Petros Grivas, MD, PhD, of University of Washington, Seattle, who presented some CCC19 data at the meeting. However, the prior analyses were limited by weak statistical power and low event rates, Dr. Grivas said.
 

Clinical and laboratory factors: Abstract LBA72

The aim of Dr. Grivas’s analysis was to validate a priori identified demographic and clinicopathologic factors associated with 30-day all-cause mortality in patients with COVID-19 and cancer. Dr. Grivas and colleagues also explored the potential association between laboratory parameters and 30-day all-cause mortality.

The analysis included 3,899 patients with cancer and COVID-19 from 124 centers. Most centers are in the United States, but 4% are in Canada, and 2% are in Spain. About two-thirds of patients were 60 years of age or younger at baseline, half were men, 79% had solid tumors, and 21% had hematologic malignancies.

Cancer-specific factors associated with an increased risk of 30-day all-cause mortality were having progressive cancer (adjusted odds ratio, 2.9), receiving cancer therapy within 3 months (aOR, 1.2), having a hematologic versus solid tumor (aOR, 1.7), and having multiple malignancies (aOR, 1.5).

Clinical factors associated with an increased risk of 30-day all-cause mortality were Black versus White race (aOR, 1.5), older age (aOR, 1.7 per 10 years), three or more actively treated comorbidities (versus none; aOR, 2.1), and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 2 or more (versus 0; aOR, 4.6).

In hospitalized patients, several laboratory variables were associated with an increased risk of 30-day all-cause mortality. Having an absolute neutrophil count above the upper limit of normal doubled the risk (aOR, 2.0), while abnormal D-dimer, high-sensitivity troponin, and C-reactive protein all more than doubled the risk of mortality (aORs of 2.5, 2.5, and 2.4, respectively).

Further risk modeling with multivariable analysis will be performed after longer follow-up, Dr. Grivas noted.
 

Treatment-related outcomes: Abstract LBA71

An additional analysis of CCC19 data encompassed 3,654 patients. In this analysis, researchers investigated the correlation between timing of cancer treatment and COVID-19–related complications and 30-day mortality.

Mortality was highest among cancer patients treated 1-3 months prior to COVID-19 diagnosis, with all-cause mortality at 28%, said Trisha M. Wise-Draper, MD, PhD, of University of Cincinnati, when presenting the data at the meeting.

Rates for other complications (hospitalization, oxygen required, ICU admission, and mechanical ventilation) were similar regardless of treatment timing.

The unadjusted 30-day mortality rate was highest for patients treated most recently with chemoimmunotherapy (30%), followed by chemotherapy (18%), chemoradiotherapy (18%), and targeted therapy (17%).

The mortality rate was “particularly high,” at 50%, in patients receiving anti-CD20 therapy 1-3 months prior to COVID-19 diagnosis – the time period for which significant B-cell depletion develops, Dr. Wise-Draper observed.

An analysis of disease status among 1,449 patients treated within 3 months of COVID-19 diagnosis showed mortality risk increasing from 6% among patients in remission or with newly emergent disease, to 22% in patients with any active cancer, to 34% in those with progressing disease, Dr. Wise-Draper said.

Discussant Benjamin Solomon, MD, PhD, of Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre in Melbourne, made note of the high 30-day mortality rate seen in patients receiving anti-CD20 therapy as well as the elevated standardized mortality ratios with recent chemoimmunotherapy and targeted therapy.

“Although there are some limitations of this analysis, it provides the best data we have to date about the effects of treatment on early mortality in patients with COVID-19 and cancer. It points to a modest but heterogeneous effect of treatment on outcome, one which is likely to become clearer with larger cohorts and additional analysis,” Dr. Solomon said.

This research was funded by the American Cancer Society, Hope Foundation for Cancer Research, Jim and Carol O’Hare Fund, National Cancer Institute, National Human Genome Research Institute, Vanderbilt Institute for Clinical and Translational Research, and Fonds de Recherche du Quebec-Sante. Dr. Grivas disclosed relationships with many companies, but none are related to this work. Dr. Wise-Draper disclosed relationships with Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Tesaro, GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, Shattuck Labs, and Rakuten. Dr. Solomon disclosed relationships with Amgen, AstraZeneca, Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche-Genentech.

SOURCES: Grivas P et al. ESMO 2020, Abstract LBA72; Wise-Draper TM et al. ESMO 2020, Abstract LBA71.

Mortality in patients with COVID-19 and cancer is associated with general clinical and demographic factors, cancer-specific factors, cancer treatment variables, and laboratory parameters, according to two presentations at the European Society for Medical Oncology Virtual Congress 2020.

Two analyses of data from the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19) were presented at the meeting.

The data suggest that older age, male sex, more comorbidities, poor performance status, progressive cancer or multiple cancers, hematologic malignancy, and recent cancer therapy are all associated with higher mortality among patients with cancer and COVID-19. Anti-CD20 therapy is associated with an especially high mortality rate, according to an investigator.

Among hospitalized patients, increased absolute neutrophil count as well as abnormal D-dimer, high-sensitivity troponin, and C-reactive protein are associated with a higher risk of mortality.

Prior analyses of CCC19 data pointed to several factors associated with higher COVID-19 death rates, according to Petros Grivas, MD, PhD, of University of Washington, Seattle, who presented some CCC19 data at the meeting. However, the prior analyses were limited by weak statistical power and low event rates, Dr. Grivas said.
 

Clinical and laboratory factors: Abstract LBA72

The aim of Dr. Grivas’s analysis was to validate a priori identified demographic and clinicopathologic factors associated with 30-day all-cause mortality in patients with COVID-19 and cancer. Dr. Grivas and colleagues also explored the potential association between laboratory parameters and 30-day all-cause mortality.

The analysis included 3,899 patients with cancer and COVID-19 from 124 centers. Most centers are in the United States, but 4% are in Canada, and 2% are in Spain. About two-thirds of patients were 60 years of age or younger at baseline, half were men, 79% had solid tumors, and 21% had hematologic malignancies.

Cancer-specific factors associated with an increased risk of 30-day all-cause mortality were having progressive cancer (adjusted odds ratio, 2.9), receiving cancer therapy within 3 months (aOR, 1.2), having a hematologic versus solid tumor (aOR, 1.7), and having multiple malignancies (aOR, 1.5).

Clinical factors associated with an increased risk of 30-day all-cause mortality were Black versus White race (aOR, 1.5), older age (aOR, 1.7 per 10 years), three or more actively treated comorbidities (versus none; aOR, 2.1), and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 2 or more (versus 0; aOR, 4.6).

In hospitalized patients, several laboratory variables were associated with an increased risk of 30-day all-cause mortality. Having an absolute neutrophil count above the upper limit of normal doubled the risk (aOR, 2.0), while abnormal D-dimer, high-sensitivity troponin, and C-reactive protein all more than doubled the risk of mortality (aORs of 2.5, 2.5, and 2.4, respectively).

Further risk modeling with multivariable analysis will be performed after longer follow-up, Dr. Grivas noted.
 

Treatment-related outcomes: Abstract LBA71

An additional analysis of CCC19 data encompassed 3,654 patients. In this analysis, researchers investigated the correlation between timing of cancer treatment and COVID-19–related complications and 30-day mortality.

Mortality was highest among cancer patients treated 1-3 months prior to COVID-19 diagnosis, with all-cause mortality at 28%, said Trisha M. Wise-Draper, MD, PhD, of University of Cincinnati, when presenting the data at the meeting.

Rates for other complications (hospitalization, oxygen required, ICU admission, and mechanical ventilation) were similar regardless of treatment timing.

The unadjusted 30-day mortality rate was highest for patients treated most recently with chemoimmunotherapy (30%), followed by chemotherapy (18%), chemoradiotherapy (18%), and targeted therapy (17%).

The mortality rate was “particularly high,” at 50%, in patients receiving anti-CD20 therapy 1-3 months prior to COVID-19 diagnosis – the time period for which significant B-cell depletion develops, Dr. Wise-Draper observed.

An analysis of disease status among 1,449 patients treated within 3 months of COVID-19 diagnosis showed mortality risk increasing from 6% among patients in remission or with newly emergent disease, to 22% in patients with any active cancer, to 34% in those with progressing disease, Dr. Wise-Draper said.

Discussant Benjamin Solomon, MD, PhD, of Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre in Melbourne, made note of the high 30-day mortality rate seen in patients receiving anti-CD20 therapy as well as the elevated standardized mortality ratios with recent chemoimmunotherapy and targeted therapy.

“Although there are some limitations of this analysis, it provides the best data we have to date about the effects of treatment on early mortality in patients with COVID-19 and cancer. It points to a modest but heterogeneous effect of treatment on outcome, one which is likely to become clearer with larger cohorts and additional analysis,” Dr. Solomon said.

This research was funded by the American Cancer Society, Hope Foundation for Cancer Research, Jim and Carol O’Hare Fund, National Cancer Institute, National Human Genome Research Institute, Vanderbilt Institute for Clinical and Translational Research, and Fonds de Recherche du Quebec-Sante. Dr. Grivas disclosed relationships with many companies, but none are related to this work. Dr. Wise-Draper disclosed relationships with Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Tesaro, GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, Shattuck Labs, and Rakuten. Dr. Solomon disclosed relationships with Amgen, AstraZeneca, Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche-Genentech.

SOURCES: Grivas P et al. ESMO 2020, Abstract LBA72; Wise-Draper TM et al. ESMO 2020, Abstract LBA71.

Because of physiological changes with aging and differences in cancer biology, caring for older adults (OAs) with cancer requires careful assessment and planning.

Clark Dumontier, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, and colleagues sought to define the meaning of the terms “undertreatment” and “overtreatment” for OAs with cancer in a scoping literature review published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

Though OAs are typically defined as adults aged 65 years and older, in this review, the authors defined OAs as patients aged 60 years and older.

The authors theorized that a scoping review of papers about this patient population could provide clues about limitations in the oncology literature and guidance about patient management and future research. Despite comprising the majority of cancer patients, OAs are underrepresented in clinical trials.
 

About scoping reviews

Scoping reviews are used to identify existing evidence in a field, clarify concepts or definitions in the literature, survey how research on a topic is conducted, and identify knowledge gaps. In addition, scoping reviews summarize available evidence without answering a discrete research question.

Industry standards for scoping reviews have been established by the Johanna Briggs Institute and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses extension for scoping reviews. According to these standards, scoping reviews should:

• Establish eligibility criteria with a rationale for each criterion clearly explained
• Search multiple databases in multiple languages
• Include “gray literature,” defined as studies that are unpublished or difficult to locate
• Have several independent reviewers screen titles and abstracts
• Ask multiple independent reviewers to review full text articles
• Present results with charts or diagrams that align with the review’s objective
• Graphically depict the decision process for including/excluding sources
• Identify implications for further research.

In their review, Dr. DuMontier and colleagues fulfilled many of the aforementioned criteria. The team searched three English-language databases for titles and abstracts that included the terms undertreatment and/or overtreatment, and were related to OAs with cancer, inclusive of all types of articles, cancer types, and treatments.

Definitions of undertreatment and overtreatment were extracted, and categories underlying these definitions were derived. Within a random subset of articles, two coauthors independently determined final categories of definitions and independently assigned those categories.
 

Findings and implications

To define OA, Dr. DuMontier and colleagues used a cutoff of 60 years or older. Articles mentioning undertreatment (n = 236), overtreatment (n = 71), or both (n = 51) met criteria for inclusion (n = 256), but only 14 articles (5.5%) explicitly provided formal definitions.

For most of the reviewed articles, the authors judged definitions from the surrounding context. In a random subset of 50 articles, there was a high level of agreement (87.1%; κ = 0.81) between two coauthors in independently assigning categories of definitions.

Undertreatment was applied to therapy that was less than recommended (148 articles; 62.7%) or less than recommended with worse outcomes (88 articles; 37.3%).

Overtreatment most commonly denoted intensive treatment of an OA in whom harms outweighed the benefits of treatment (38 articles; 53.5%) or intensive treatment of a cancer not expected to affect the OA during the patient’s remaining life (33 articles; 46.5%).

Overall, the authors found that undertreatment and overtreatment of OAs with cancer are imprecisely defined concepts. Formal geriatric assessment was recommended in just over half of articles, and only 26.2% recommended formal assessments of age-related vulnerabilities for management. The authors proposed definitions that accounted for both oncologic factors and geriatric domains.
 

Care of individual patients and clinical research

National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines for OAs with cancer recommend initial consideration of overall life expectancy. If a patient is a candidate for cancer treatment on that basis, the next recommended assessment is that of the patient’s capacity to understand the relevant information, appreciate the underlying values and overall medical situation, reason through decisions, and communicate a choice that is consistent with the patient’s articulated goals.

In the pretreatment evaluation of OAs in whom there are no concerns about tolerance to antineoplastic therapy, NCCN guidelines suggest geriatric screening with standardized tools and, if abnormal, comprehensive geriatric screening. The guidelines recommend considering alternative treatment options if nonmodifiable abnormalities are identified.

Referral to a geriatric clinical specialist, use of the Cancer and Aging Research Group’s Chemo Toxicity Calculator, and calculation of Chemotherapy Risk Assessment Scale for High-Age Patients score are specifically suggested if high-risk procedures (such as chemotherapy, radiation, or complex surgery, which most oncologists would consider to be “another day in the office”) are contemplated.

The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) guidelines for geriatric oncology are similarly detailed and endorse similar evaluations and management.

Employing disease-centric and geriatric domains

Dr. DuMontier and colleagues noted that, for OAs with comorbidity or psychosocial challenges, surrogate survival endpoints are unrelated to quality of life (QOL) outcomes. Nonetheless, QOL is valued by OAs at least as much as survival improvement.

Through no fault of their own, the authors’ conclusion that undertreatment and overtreatment are imperfectly defined concepts has a certain neutrality to it. However, the terms undertreatment and overtreatment are commonly used to signify that inappropriate treatment decisions were made. Therefore, the terms are inherently negative and pejorative.

As with most emotionally charged issues in oncology, it is ideal for professionals in our field to take charge when deficiencies exist. ASCO, NCCN, and the authors of this scoping review have provided a conceptual basis for doing so.

An integrated oncologist-geriatrician approach was shown to be effective in the randomized INTEGERATE trial, showing improved QOL, reduced hospital admissions, and reduced early treatment discontinuation from adverse events (ASCO 2020, Abstract 12011).

Therefore, those clinicians who have not formally, systematically, and routinely supplemented the traditional disease-centric endpoints with patient-centered criteria need to do so.

Similarly, a retrospective study published in JAMA Network Open demonstrated that geriatric and surgical comanagement of OAs with cancer was associated with significantly lower 90-day postoperative mortality and receipt of more supportive care services (physical therapy, occupational therapy, speech and swallow rehabilitation, and nutrition services), in comparison with management from the surgical service only.

These clinical and administrative changes will not only enhance patient management but also facilitate the clinical trials required to clarify optimal treatment intensity. As that occurs, we will be able to apply as much precision to the care of OAs with cancer as we do in other areas of cancer treatment.

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.

SOURCE: Dumontier C et al. J Clin Oncol. 2020 Aug 1;38(22):2558-2569.

Because of physiological changes with aging and differences in cancer biology, caring for older adults (OAs) with cancer requires careful assessment and planning.

Clark Dumontier, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, and colleagues sought to define the meaning of the terms “undertreatment” and “overtreatment” for OAs with cancer in a scoping literature review published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

Though OAs are typically defined as adults aged 65 years and older, in this review, the authors defined OAs as patients aged 60 years and older.

The authors theorized that a scoping review of papers about this patient population could provide clues about limitations in the oncology literature and guidance about patient management and future research. Despite comprising the majority of cancer patients, OAs are underrepresented in clinical trials.
 

About scoping reviews

Scoping reviews are used to identify existing evidence in a field, clarify concepts or definitions in the literature, survey how research on a topic is conducted, and identify knowledge gaps. In addition, scoping reviews summarize available evidence without answering a discrete research question.

Industry standards for scoping reviews have been established by the Johanna Briggs Institute and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses extension for scoping reviews. According to these standards, scoping reviews should:

• Establish eligibility criteria with a rationale for each criterion clearly explained
• Search multiple databases in multiple languages
• Include “gray literature,” defined as studies that are unpublished or difficult to locate
• Have several independent reviewers screen titles and abstracts
• Ask multiple independent reviewers to review full text articles
• Present results with charts or diagrams that align with the review’s objective
• Graphically depict the decision process for including/excluding sources
• Identify implications for further research.

In their review, Dr. DuMontier and colleagues fulfilled many of the aforementioned criteria. The team searched three English-language databases for titles and abstracts that included the terms undertreatment and/or overtreatment, and were related to OAs with cancer, inclusive of all types of articles, cancer types, and treatments.

Definitions of undertreatment and overtreatment were extracted, and categories underlying these definitions were derived. Within a random subset of articles, two coauthors independently determined final categories of definitions and independently assigned those categories.
 

Findings and implications

To define OA, Dr. DuMontier and colleagues used a cutoff of 60 years or older. Articles mentioning undertreatment (n = 236), overtreatment (n = 71), or both (n = 51) met criteria for inclusion (n = 256), but only 14 articles (5.5%) explicitly provided formal definitions.

For most of the reviewed articles, the authors judged definitions from the surrounding context. In a random subset of 50 articles, there was a high level of agreement (87.1%; κ = 0.81) between two coauthors in independently assigning categories of definitions.

Undertreatment was applied to therapy that was less than recommended (148 articles; 62.7%) or less than recommended with worse outcomes (88 articles; 37.3%).

Overtreatment most commonly denoted intensive treatment of an OA in whom harms outweighed the benefits of treatment (38 articles; 53.5%) or intensive treatment of a cancer not expected to affect the OA during the patient’s remaining life (33 articles; 46.5%).

Overall, the authors found that undertreatment and overtreatment of OAs with cancer are imprecisely defined concepts. Formal geriatric assessment was recommended in just over half of articles, and only 26.2% recommended formal assessments of age-related vulnerabilities for management. The authors proposed definitions that accounted for both oncologic factors and geriatric domains.
 

Care of individual patients and clinical research

National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines for OAs with cancer recommend initial consideration of overall life expectancy. If a patient is a candidate for cancer treatment on that basis, the next recommended assessment is that of the patient’s capacity to understand the relevant information, appreciate the underlying values and overall medical situation, reason through decisions, and communicate a choice that is consistent with the patient’s articulated goals.

In the pretreatment evaluation of OAs in whom there are no concerns about tolerance to antineoplastic therapy, NCCN guidelines suggest geriatric screening with standardized tools and, if abnormal, comprehensive geriatric screening. The guidelines recommend considering alternative treatment options if nonmodifiable abnormalities are identified.

Referral to a geriatric clinical specialist, use of the Cancer and Aging Research Group’s Chemo Toxicity Calculator, and calculation of Chemotherapy Risk Assessment Scale for High-Age Patients score are specifically suggested if high-risk procedures (such as chemotherapy, radiation, or complex surgery, which most oncologists would consider to be “another day in the office”) are contemplated.

The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) guidelines for geriatric oncology are similarly detailed and endorse similar evaluations and management.

Employing disease-centric and geriatric domains

Dr. DuMontier and colleagues noted that, for OAs with comorbidity or psychosocial challenges, surrogate survival endpoints are unrelated to quality of life (QOL) outcomes. Nonetheless, QOL is valued by OAs at least as much as survival improvement.

Through no fault of their own, the authors’ conclusion that undertreatment and overtreatment are imperfectly defined concepts has a certain neutrality to it. However, the terms undertreatment and overtreatment are commonly used to signify that inappropriate treatment decisions were made. Therefore, the terms are inherently negative and pejorative.

As with most emotionally charged issues in oncology, it is ideal for professionals in our field to take charge when deficiencies exist. ASCO, NCCN, and the authors of this scoping review have provided a conceptual basis for doing so.

An integrated oncologist-geriatrician approach was shown to be effective in the randomized INTEGERATE trial, showing improved QOL, reduced hospital admissions, and reduced early treatment discontinuation from adverse events (ASCO 2020, Abstract 12011).

Therefore, those clinicians who have not formally, systematically, and routinely supplemented the traditional disease-centric endpoints with patient-centered criteria need to do so.

Similarly, a retrospective study published in JAMA Network Open demonstrated that geriatric and surgical comanagement of OAs with cancer was associated with significantly lower 90-day postoperative mortality and receipt of more supportive care services (physical therapy, occupational therapy, speech and swallow rehabilitation, and nutrition services), in comparison with management from the surgical service only.

These clinical and administrative changes will not only enhance patient management but also facilitate the clinical trials required to clarify optimal treatment intensity. As that occurs, we will be able to apply as much precision to the care of OAs with cancer as we do in other areas of cancer treatment.

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.

SOURCE: Dumontier C et al. J Clin Oncol. 2020 Aug 1;38(22):2558-2569.

Because of physiological changes with aging and differences in cancer biology, caring for older adults (OAs) with cancer requires careful assessment and planning.

Clark Dumontier, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, and colleagues sought to define the meaning of the terms “undertreatment” and “overtreatment” for OAs with cancer in a scoping literature review published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

Though OAs are typically defined as adults aged 65 years and older, in this review, the authors defined OAs as patients aged 60 years and older.

The authors theorized that a scoping review of papers about this patient population could provide clues about limitations in the oncology literature and guidance about patient management and future research. Despite comprising the majority of cancer patients, OAs are underrepresented in clinical trials.
 

About scoping reviews

Scoping reviews are used to identify existing evidence in a field, clarify concepts or definitions in the literature, survey how research on a topic is conducted, and identify knowledge gaps. In addition, scoping reviews summarize available evidence without answering a discrete research question.

Industry standards for scoping reviews have been established by the Johanna Briggs Institute and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses extension for scoping reviews. According to these standards, scoping reviews should:

• Establish eligibility criteria with a rationale for each criterion clearly explained
• Search multiple databases in multiple languages
• Include “gray literature,” defined as studies that are unpublished or difficult to locate
• Have several independent reviewers screen titles and abstracts
• Ask multiple independent reviewers to review full text articles
• Present results with charts or diagrams that align with the review’s objective
• Graphically depict the decision process for including/excluding sources
• Identify implications for further research.

In their review, Dr. DuMontier and colleagues fulfilled many of the aforementioned criteria. The team searched three English-language databases for titles and abstracts that included the terms undertreatment and/or overtreatment, and were related to OAs with cancer, inclusive of all types of articles, cancer types, and treatments.

Definitions of undertreatment and overtreatment were extracted, and categories underlying these definitions were derived. Within a random subset of articles, two coauthors independently determined final categories of definitions and independently assigned those categories.
 

Findings and implications

To define OA, Dr. DuMontier and colleagues used a cutoff of 60 years or older. Articles mentioning undertreatment (n = 236), overtreatment (n = 71), or both (n = 51) met criteria for inclusion (n = 256), but only 14 articles (5.5%) explicitly provided formal definitions.

For most of the reviewed articles, the authors judged definitions from the surrounding context. In a random subset of 50 articles, there was a high level of agreement (87.1%; κ = 0.81) between two coauthors in independently assigning categories of definitions.

Undertreatment was applied to therapy that was less than recommended (148 articles; 62.7%) or less than recommended with worse outcomes (88 articles; 37.3%).

Overtreatment most commonly denoted intensive treatment of an OA in whom harms outweighed the benefits of treatment (38 articles; 53.5%) or intensive treatment of a cancer not expected to affect the OA during the patient’s remaining life (33 articles; 46.5%).

Overall, the authors found that undertreatment and overtreatment of OAs with cancer are imprecisely defined concepts. Formal geriatric assessment was recommended in just over half of articles, and only 26.2% recommended formal assessments of age-related vulnerabilities for management. The authors proposed definitions that accounted for both oncologic factors and geriatric domains.
 

Care of individual patients and clinical research

National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines for OAs with cancer recommend initial consideration of overall life expectancy. If a patient is a candidate for cancer treatment on that basis, the next recommended assessment is that of the patient’s capacity to understand the relevant information, appreciate the underlying values and overall medical situation, reason through decisions, and communicate a choice that is consistent with the patient’s articulated goals.

In the pretreatment evaluation of OAs in whom there are no concerns about tolerance to antineoplastic therapy, NCCN guidelines suggest geriatric screening with standardized tools and, if abnormal, comprehensive geriatric screening. The guidelines recommend considering alternative treatment options if nonmodifiable abnormalities are identified.

Referral to a geriatric clinical specialist, use of the Cancer and Aging Research Group’s Chemo Toxicity Calculator, and calculation of Chemotherapy Risk Assessment Scale for High-Age Patients score are specifically suggested if high-risk procedures (such as chemotherapy, radiation, or complex surgery, which most oncologists would consider to be “another day in the office”) are contemplated.

The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) guidelines for geriatric oncology are similarly detailed and endorse similar evaluations and management.

Employing disease-centric and geriatric domains

Dr. DuMontier and colleagues noted that, for OAs with comorbidity or psychosocial challenges, surrogate survival endpoints are unrelated to quality of life (QOL) outcomes. Nonetheless, QOL is valued by OAs at least as much as survival improvement.

Through no fault of their own, the authors’ conclusion that undertreatment and overtreatment are imperfectly defined concepts has a certain neutrality to it. However, the terms undertreatment and overtreatment are commonly used to signify that inappropriate treatment decisions were made. Therefore, the terms are inherently negative and pejorative.

As with most emotionally charged issues in oncology, it is ideal for professionals in our field to take charge when deficiencies exist. ASCO, NCCN, and the authors of this scoping review have provided a conceptual basis for doing so.

An integrated oncologist-geriatrician approach was shown to be effective in the randomized INTEGERATE trial, showing improved QOL, reduced hospital admissions, and reduced early treatment discontinuation from adverse events (ASCO 2020, Abstract 12011).

Therefore, those clinicians who have not formally, systematically, and routinely supplemented the traditional disease-centric endpoints with patient-centered criteria need to do so.

Similarly, a retrospective study published in JAMA Network Open demonstrated that geriatric and surgical comanagement of OAs with cancer was associated with significantly lower 90-day postoperative mortality and receipt of more supportive care services (physical therapy, occupational therapy, speech and swallow rehabilitation, and nutrition services), in comparison with management from the surgical service only.

These clinical and administrative changes will not only enhance patient management but also facilitate the clinical trials required to clarify optimal treatment intensity. As that occurs, we will be able to apply as much precision to the care of OAs with cancer as we do in other areas of cancer treatment.

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.

SOURCE: Dumontier C et al. J Clin Oncol. 2020 Aug 1;38(22):2558-2569.

Good news about cancer – with new data showing falling mortality rates and improved survival rates – is tempered somewhat by a “grim reality,” says the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR).

“The burden of cancer is not shouldered equally by all segments of the U.S. population,” the AACR adds. “The adverse differences in cancer burden that exist among certain population groups are one of the most pressing public health challenges that we face in the United States.” 

AACR president Antoni Ribas, MD, PhD, gave some examples of these disparities at a September 16 Congressional briefing that focused on the inaugural AACR Cancer Disparities Progress Report 2020.

He noted that:

• Black men have more than double the rate of death from prostate cancer compared with men of other racial and ethnic groups.
• Hispanic children are 24% more likely to develop leukemia than non-Hispanic children.
• Non-Hispanic Black children and adolescents with cancer are more than 50% more likely to die from the cancer than non-Hispanic white children and adolescents with cancer.
• Women of low socioeconomic status with early stage ovarian cancer are 50% less likely to receive recommended care than are women of high socioeconomic status.
• In addition to racial and ethnic minority groups, other populations that bear a disproportionate burden when it comes to cancer include individuals lacking adequate health insurance coverage, immigrants, those with disabilities, residents in rural areas, and members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender communities.

“It is absolutely unacceptable that advances in cancer care and treatment are not benefiting everyone equally,” Ribas commented.
 

Making progress against cancer

Progress being made against cancer was highlighted in another publication, the annual AACR Cancer Progress Report 2020.

U.S. cancer deaths declined by 29% between 1991 and 2017, translating to nearly 3 million cancer deaths avoided, the report notes. In addition, 5-year survival rates for all cancers combined increased from 49% in the mid-1970s to 70% for patients diagnosed from 2010-2016.

Between August 2019 and July 31 of this year, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved 20 new anticancer drugs for various cancer types and 15 new indications for previously approved cancer drugs, marking the highest number of approvals in one 12-month period since AACR started producing these reports 10 years ago.

A continuing reduction in the cigarette smoking rate among US adults, which is now below 14%, is contributing greatly to declines in lung cancer rates, which have largely driven the improvements in cancer survival, the AACR noted.

This report also notes that progress has been made toward reducing cancer disparities. Overall disparities in cancer death rates among racial and ethnic groups are less pronounced now than they have been in the past two decades. For example, the overall cancer death rate for African American patients was 33% higher than for White patients in 1990 but just 14% higher in 2016.

However, both reports agree that more must be done to reduce cancer disparities even further. 

They highlight initiatives that are underway, including:

• The draft guidance issued by the FDA to promote diversification of clinical trial populations.
• The National Institutes of Health’s (NIH’s) Continuing Umbrella of Research Experiences (CURE) program supporting underrepresented students and scientists along their academic and research career pathway.
• The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Racial and Ethnic Approaches to Community Health (REACH) program, a grant-making program focused on encouraging preventive behaviors in underserved communities.
• The NIH’s All of Us program, which is gathering information from the genomes of 1 million healthy individuals with a focus on recruitment from historically underrepresented populations.

Ribas also announced that AACR has established a task force to focus on racial inequalities in cancer research.

Eliminating disparities would save money, argued John D. Carpten, PhD, from the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, who chaired the steering committee that developed the AACR Cancer Disparities Progress Report.

Carpten noted research showing that eliminating disparities for racial and ethnic minorities between 2003 and 2006 would have reduced health care costs by more than $1 trillion in the United States. This underscores the potentially far-reaching impact of efforts to eliminate disparities, he said.

“Without a doubt, socioeconomics and inequities in access to quality care represent major factors influencing cancer health disparities, and these disparities will persist until we address these issues” he said.

Both progress reports culminate in a call to action, largely focused on the need for “unwavering, bipartisan support from Congress, in the form of robust and sustained annual increases in funding for the NIH, NCI [National Cancer Institute], and FDA,” which is vital for accelerating the pace of progress.

The challenge is now compounded by the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic: Both progress reports note that racial and ethnic minorities, including African Americans, are not only affected disproportionately by cancer, but also by COVID-19, further highlighting the “stark inequities in health care.”

Ribas further called for action from national leadership and the scientific community.

“During this unprecedented time in our nation’s history, there is also a need for our nation’s leaders to take on a much bigger role in confronting and combating the structural and systemic racism that contributes to health disparities,” he said. The “pervasive racism and social injustices” that have contributed to disparities in both COVID-19 and cancer underscore the need for “the scientific community to step up and partner with Congress to assess and address this issue within the research community.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Good news about cancer – with new data showing falling mortality rates and improved survival rates – is tempered somewhat by a “grim reality,” says the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR).

“The burden of cancer is not shouldered equally by all segments of the U.S. population,” the AACR adds. “The adverse differences in cancer burden that exist among certain population groups are one of the most pressing public health challenges that we face in the United States.” 

AACR president Antoni Ribas, MD, PhD, gave some examples of these disparities at a September 16 Congressional briefing that focused on the inaugural AACR Cancer Disparities Progress Report 2020.

He noted that:

• Black men have more than double the rate of death from prostate cancer compared with men of other racial and ethnic groups.
• Hispanic children are 24% more likely to develop leukemia than non-Hispanic children.
• Non-Hispanic Black children and adolescents with cancer are more than 50% more likely to die from the cancer than non-Hispanic white children and adolescents with cancer.
• Women of low socioeconomic status with early stage ovarian cancer are 50% less likely to receive recommended care than are women of high socioeconomic status.
• In addition to racial and ethnic minority groups, other populations that bear a disproportionate burden when it comes to cancer include individuals lacking adequate health insurance coverage, immigrants, those with disabilities, residents in rural areas, and members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender communities.

“It is absolutely unacceptable that advances in cancer care and treatment are not benefiting everyone equally,” Ribas commented.
 

Making progress against cancer

Progress being made against cancer was highlighted in another publication, the annual AACR Cancer Progress Report 2020.

U.S. cancer deaths declined by 29% between 1991 and 2017, translating to nearly 3 million cancer deaths avoided, the report notes. In addition, 5-year survival rates for all cancers combined increased from 49% in the mid-1970s to 70% for patients diagnosed from 2010-2016.

Between August 2019 and July 31 of this year, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved 20 new anticancer drugs for various cancer types and 15 new indications for previously approved cancer drugs, marking the highest number of approvals in one 12-month period since AACR started producing these reports 10 years ago.

A continuing reduction in the cigarette smoking rate among US adults, which is now below 14%, is contributing greatly to declines in lung cancer rates, which have largely driven the improvements in cancer survival, the AACR noted.

This report also notes that progress has been made toward reducing cancer disparities. Overall disparities in cancer death rates among racial and ethnic groups are less pronounced now than they have been in the past two decades. For example, the overall cancer death rate for African American patients was 33% higher than for White patients in 1990 but just 14% higher in 2016.

However, both reports agree that more must be done to reduce cancer disparities even further. 

They highlight initiatives that are underway, including:

• The draft guidance issued by the FDA to promote diversification of clinical trial populations.
• The National Institutes of Health’s (NIH’s) Continuing Umbrella of Research Experiences (CURE) program supporting underrepresented students and scientists along their academic and research career pathway.
• The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Racial and Ethnic Approaches to Community Health (REACH) program, a grant-making program focused on encouraging preventive behaviors in underserved communities.
• The NIH’s All of Us program, which is gathering information from the genomes of 1 million healthy individuals with a focus on recruitment from historically underrepresented populations.

Ribas also announced that AACR has established a task force to focus on racial inequalities in cancer research.

Eliminating disparities would save money, argued John D. Carpten, PhD, from the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, who chaired the steering committee that developed the AACR Cancer Disparities Progress Report.

Carpten noted research showing that eliminating disparities for racial and ethnic minorities between 2003 and 2006 would have reduced health care costs by more than $1 trillion in the United States. This underscores the potentially far-reaching impact of efforts to eliminate disparities, he said.

“Without a doubt, socioeconomics and inequities in access to quality care represent major factors influencing cancer health disparities, and these disparities will persist until we address these issues” he said.

Both progress reports culminate in a call to action, largely focused on the need for “unwavering, bipartisan support from Congress, in the form of robust and sustained annual increases in funding for the NIH, NCI [National Cancer Institute], and FDA,” which is vital for accelerating the pace of progress.

The challenge is now compounded by the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic: Both progress reports note that racial and ethnic minorities, including African Americans, are not only affected disproportionately by cancer, but also by COVID-19, further highlighting the “stark inequities in health care.”

Ribas further called for action from national leadership and the scientific community.

“During this unprecedented time in our nation’s history, there is also a need for our nation’s leaders to take on a much bigger role in confronting and combating the structural and systemic racism that contributes to health disparities,” he said. The “pervasive racism and social injustices” that have contributed to disparities in both COVID-19 and cancer underscore the need for “the scientific community to step up and partner with Congress to assess and address this issue within the research community.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Good news about cancer – with new data showing falling mortality rates and improved survival rates – is tempered somewhat by a “grim reality,” says the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR).

“The burden of cancer is not shouldered equally by all segments of the U.S. population,” the AACR adds. “The adverse differences in cancer burden that exist among certain population groups are one of the most pressing public health challenges that we face in the United States.” 

AACR president Antoni Ribas, MD, PhD, gave some examples of these disparities at a September 16 Congressional briefing that focused on the inaugural AACR Cancer Disparities Progress Report 2020.

He noted that:

• Black men have more than double the rate of death from prostate cancer compared with men of other racial and ethnic groups.
• Hispanic children are 24% more likely to develop leukemia than non-Hispanic children.
• Non-Hispanic Black children and adolescents with cancer are more than 50% more likely to die from the cancer than non-Hispanic white children and adolescents with cancer.
• Women of low socioeconomic status with early stage ovarian cancer are 50% less likely to receive recommended care than are women of high socioeconomic status.
• In addition to racial and ethnic minority groups, other populations that bear a disproportionate burden when it comes to cancer include individuals lacking adequate health insurance coverage, immigrants, those with disabilities, residents in rural areas, and members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender communities.

“It is absolutely unacceptable that advances in cancer care and treatment are not benefiting everyone equally,” Ribas commented.
 

Making progress against cancer

Progress being made against cancer was highlighted in another publication, the annual AACR Cancer Progress Report 2020.

U.S. cancer deaths declined by 29% between 1991 and 2017, translating to nearly 3 million cancer deaths avoided, the report notes. In addition, 5-year survival rates for all cancers combined increased from 49% in the mid-1970s to 70% for patients diagnosed from 2010-2016.

Between August 2019 and July 31 of this year, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved 20 new anticancer drugs for various cancer types and 15 new indications for previously approved cancer drugs, marking the highest number of approvals in one 12-month period since AACR started producing these reports 10 years ago.

A continuing reduction in the cigarette smoking rate among US adults, which is now below 14%, is contributing greatly to declines in lung cancer rates, which have largely driven the improvements in cancer survival, the AACR noted.

This report also notes that progress has been made toward reducing cancer disparities. Overall disparities in cancer death rates among racial and ethnic groups are less pronounced now than they have been in the past two decades. For example, the overall cancer death rate for African American patients was 33% higher than for White patients in 1990 but just 14% higher in 2016.

However, both reports agree that more must be done to reduce cancer disparities even further. 

They highlight initiatives that are underway, including:

• The draft guidance issued by the FDA to promote diversification of clinical trial populations.
• The National Institutes of Health’s (NIH’s) Continuing Umbrella of Research Experiences (CURE) program supporting underrepresented students and scientists along their academic and research career pathway.
• The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Racial and Ethnic Approaches to Community Health (REACH) program, a grant-making program focused on encouraging preventive behaviors in underserved communities.
• The NIH’s All of Us program, which is gathering information from the genomes of 1 million healthy individuals with a focus on recruitment from historically underrepresented populations.

Ribas also announced that AACR has established a task force to focus on racial inequalities in cancer research.

Eliminating disparities would save money, argued John D. Carpten, PhD, from the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, who chaired the steering committee that developed the AACR Cancer Disparities Progress Report.

Carpten noted research showing that eliminating disparities for racial and ethnic minorities between 2003 and 2006 would have reduced health care costs by more than $1 trillion in the United States. This underscores the potentially far-reaching impact of efforts to eliminate disparities, he said.

“Without a doubt, socioeconomics and inequities in access to quality care represent major factors influencing cancer health disparities, and these disparities will persist until we address these issues” he said.

Both progress reports culminate in a call to action, largely focused on the need for “unwavering, bipartisan support from Congress, in the form of robust and sustained annual increases in funding for the NIH, NCI [National Cancer Institute], and FDA,” which is vital for accelerating the pace of progress.

The challenge is now compounded by the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic: Both progress reports note that racial and ethnic minorities, including African Americans, are not only affected disproportionately by cancer, but also by COVID-19, further highlighting the “stark inequities in health care.”

Ribas further called for action from national leadership and the scientific community.

“During this unprecedented time in our nation’s history, there is also a need for our nation’s leaders to take on a much bigger role in confronting and combating the structural and systemic racism that contributes to health disparities,” he said. The “pervasive racism and social injustices” that have contributed to disparities in both COVID-19 and cancer underscore the need for “the scientific community to step up and partner with Congress to assess and address this issue within the research community.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients with higher intraoperative blood loss and those treated at lower-volume surgical centers had a greater risk of high-grade complications after undergoing cytoreductive nephrectomy (CN) for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC), according to an analysis of registry data.

Higher intraoperative blood loss was also associated with low-grade postoperative complications. Intraoperative complications were more likely in patients who had concurrent thrombectomy and surgery on adjacent organs.

Eduard Roussel, MD, of University Hospitals Leuven (Belgium) and colleagues reported these findings in European Urology Oncology.

The authors noted that the role of CN in metastatic RCC is controversial. The CARMENA trial, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, “shifted treatment paradigms” away from surgery by suggesting that sunitinib alone is noninferior to sunitinib after CN.

“Nonetheless, there is a general consensus that certain selected subgroups of patients with low-volume, single-site metastases and few adverse IMDC [International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium] criteria would still benefit from the continued use of upfront CN,” the authors wrote.

They advised clinicians to weigh the risks and benefits of CN, particularly because “postoperative morbidity might preclude or delay the use of subsequent systemic therapies.” However, the risk/benefit calculation for CN has been difficult because past investigations have tended to focus only on survival outcomes, so there isn’t much data on morbidity, the authors wrote.

Patient characteristics and complications

To investigate morbidity associated with CN, Dr. Roussel and colleagues reviewed data from the Registry of Metastatic RCC (REMARCC). The team analyzed the clinical records of 736 patients who underwent nephrectomy for metastatic RCC during 1980-2019.

The patients’ median age was 63 years (range, 55-70 years), and about three-quarters were men. The majority had clear cell carcinoma, and the lungs were the most common site of metastases.

More than 97% of procedures were complete nephrectomies, and the rest were partial. The median estimated blood loss was 400 mL, and the median follow-up was 16.5 months.

There were 69 patients who had intraoperative complications, most commonly bleeding (n = 25), spleen laceration (n = 13), and vascular injury (n = 11).

There were 217 patients who had postoperative complications, including 45 patients with high-grade complications (grade 3-5) and 10 who died.

The most common postoperative complications were vascular/lymphatic in nature. These occurred in 67 patients and included 10 lymphoceles.

“[G]iven the relatively high rate of postoperative lymphoceles, which is probably attributable to the performance of lymph node dissections and the lack of proven oncological survival benefit thereof, surgeons might reconsider the performance of lymphadenectomy during CN,” the investigators wrote.

Other common postoperative complications included infectious and cardiopulmonary issues, which occurred in 42 and 39 patients, respectively.
 

Predictors of complications

Thrombectomy and adjacent organ removal were significant predictors of intraoperative complications on multivariable analysis. The odds ratios were 1.38 (P = .009) for thrombectomy and 2.71 (P = .004) for adjacent organ removal.

Estimated blood loss was a significant predictor of low- and high-grade postoperative complications. The OR for high-grade complications per 200 mL of blood lost was 1.06 (P = .007), and the OR for low-grade complications per 200 mL blood lost was 1.09 (P = .001).

There was a strong inverse correlation with CN case load at each center and high-grade postoperative complications, which highlights “the impact of centralization of care on postoperative outcomes in complex surgical scenarios,” the investigators wrote. The OR per 25 cases was 0.88 (P = .04).

Results were largely the same when the analysis was limited to the 560 subjects treated since 2006, in the targeted therapy era, except that adjacent organ removal as a predictor of intraoperative complications did not quite reach statistical significance (P = .06).

The presurgery risk factors identified in this study should assist with presurgical counseling, said Zachery Reichert, MD, PhD, a genitourinary medical oncologist and assistant professor at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, who was not involved in this study.

“This is especially important for patients who require thrombectomy or adjacent organ removal or do not have access to a surgeon with high cytoreductive nephrectomy caseloads,” he said.

Dr. Reichert reported having no disclosures. There was no external funding for this study, and the investigators didn’t have any disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Roussel E et al. Eur Urol Oncol. 2020 Aug;3(4):523-9.

Patients with higher intraoperative blood loss and those treated at lower-volume surgical centers had a greater risk of high-grade complications after undergoing cytoreductive nephrectomy (CN) for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC), according to an analysis of registry data.

Higher intraoperative blood loss was also associated with low-grade postoperative complications. Intraoperative complications were more likely in patients who had concurrent thrombectomy and surgery on adjacent organs.

Eduard Roussel, MD, of University Hospitals Leuven (Belgium) and colleagues reported these findings in European Urology Oncology.

The authors noted that the role of CN in metastatic RCC is controversial. The CARMENA trial, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, “shifted treatment paradigms” away from surgery by suggesting that sunitinib alone is noninferior to sunitinib after CN.

“Nonetheless, there is a general consensus that certain selected subgroups of patients with low-volume, single-site metastases and few adverse IMDC [International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium] criteria would still benefit from the continued use of upfront CN,” the authors wrote.

They advised clinicians to weigh the risks and benefits of CN, particularly because “postoperative morbidity might preclude or delay the use of subsequent systemic therapies.” However, the risk/benefit calculation for CN has been difficult because past investigations have tended to focus only on survival outcomes, so there isn’t much data on morbidity, the authors wrote.

Patient characteristics and complications

To investigate morbidity associated with CN, Dr. Roussel and colleagues reviewed data from the Registry of Metastatic RCC (REMARCC). The team analyzed the clinical records of 736 patients who underwent nephrectomy for metastatic RCC during 1980-2019.

The patients’ median age was 63 years (range, 55-70 years), and about three-quarters were men. The majority had clear cell carcinoma, and the lungs were the most common site of metastases.

More than 97% of procedures were complete nephrectomies, and the rest were partial. The median estimated blood loss was 400 mL, and the median follow-up was 16.5 months.

There were 69 patients who had intraoperative complications, most commonly bleeding (n = 25), spleen laceration (n = 13), and vascular injury (n = 11).

There were 217 patients who had postoperative complications, including 45 patients with high-grade complications (grade 3-5) and 10 who died.

The most common postoperative complications were vascular/lymphatic in nature. These occurred in 67 patients and included 10 lymphoceles.

“[G]iven the relatively high rate of postoperative lymphoceles, which is probably attributable to the performance of lymph node dissections and the lack of proven oncological survival benefit thereof, surgeons might reconsider the performance of lymphadenectomy during CN,” the investigators wrote.

Other common postoperative complications included infectious and cardiopulmonary issues, which occurred in 42 and 39 patients, respectively.
 

Predictors of complications

Thrombectomy and adjacent organ removal were significant predictors of intraoperative complications on multivariable analysis. The odds ratios were 1.38 (P = .009) for thrombectomy and 2.71 (P = .004) for adjacent organ removal.

Estimated blood loss was a significant predictor of low- and high-grade postoperative complications. The OR for high-grade complications per 200 mL of blood lost was 1.06 (P = .007), and the OR for low-grade complications per 200 mL blood lost was 1.09 (P = .001).

There was a strong inverse correlation with CN case load at each center and high-grade postoperative complications, which highlights “the impact of centralization of care on postoperative outcomes in complex surgical scenarios,” the investigators wrote. The OR per 25 cases was 0.88 (P = .04).

Results were largely the same when the analysis was limited to the 560 subjects treated since 2006, in the targeted therapy era, except that adjacent organ removal as a predictor of intraoperative complications did not quite reach statistical significance (P = .06).

The presurgery risk factors identified in this study should assist with presurgical counseling, said Zachery Reichert, MD, PhD, a genitourinary medical oncologist and assistant professor at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, who was not involved in this study.

“This is especially important for patients who require thrombectomy or adjacent organ removal or do not have access to a surgeon with high cytoreductive nephrectomy caseloads,” he said.

Dr. Reichert reported having no disclosures. There was no external funding for this study, and the investigators didn’t have any disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Roussel E et al. Eur Urol Oncol. 2020 Aug;3(4):523-9.

Patients with higher intraoperative blood loss and those treated at lower-volume surgical centers had a greater risk of high-grade complications after undergoing cytoreductive nephrectomy (CN) for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC), according to an analysis of registry data.

Higher intraoperative blood loss was also associated with low-grade postoperative complications. Intraoperative complications were more likely in patients who had concurrent thrombectomy and surgery on adjacent organs.

Eduard Roussel, MD, of University Hospitals Leuven (Belgium) and colleagues reported these findings in European Urology Oncology.

The authors noted that the role of CN in metastatic RCC is controversial. The CARMENA trial, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, “shifted treatment paradigms” away from surgery by suggesting that sunitinib alone is noninferior to sunitinib after CN.

“Nonetheless, there is a general consensus that certain selected subgroups of patients with low-volume, single-site metastases and few adverse IMDC [International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium] criteria would still benefit from the continued use of upfront CN,” the authors wrote.

They advised clinicians to weigh the risks and benefits of CN, particularly because “postoperative morbidity might preclude or delay the use of subsequent systemic therapies.” However, the risk/benefit calculation for CN has been difficult because past investigations have tended to focus only on survival outcomes, so there isn’t much data on morbidity, the authors wrote.

Patient characteristics and complications

To investigate morbidity associated with CN, Dr. Roussel and colleagues reviewed data from the Registry of Metastatic RCC (REMARCC). The team analyzed the clinical records of 736 patients who underwent nephrectomy for metastatic RCC during 1980-2019.

The patients’ median age was 63 years (range, 55-70 years), and about three-quarters were men. The majority had clear cell carcinoma, and the lungs were the most common site of metastases.

More than 97% of procedures were complete nephrectomies, and the rest were partial. The median estimated blood loss was 400 mL, and the median follow-up was 16.5 months.

There were 69 patients who had intraoperative complications, most commonly bleeding (n = 25), spleen laceration (n = 13), and vascular injury (n = 11).

There were 217 patients who had postoperative complications, including 45 patients with high-grade complications (grade 3-5) and 10 who died.

The most common postoperative complications were vascular/lymphatic in nature. These occurred in 67 patients and included 10 lymphoceles.

“[G]iven the relatively high rate of postoperative lymphoceles, which is probably attributable to the performance of lymph node dissections and the lack of proven oncological survival benefit thereof, surgeons might reconsider the performance of lymphadenectomy during CN,” the investigators wrote.

Other common postoperative complications included infectious and cardiopulmonary issues, which occurred in 42 and 39 patients, respectively.
 

Predictors of complications

Thrombectomy and adjacent organ removal were significant predictors of intraoperative complications on multivariable analysis. The odds ratios were 1.38 (P = .009) for thrombectomy and 2.71 (P = .004) for adjacent organ removal.

Estimated blood loss was a significant predictor of low- and high-grade postoperative complications. The OR for high-grade complications per 200 mL of blood lost was 1.06 (P = .007), and the OR for low-grade complications per 200 mL blood lost was 1.09 (P = .001).

There was a strong inverse correlation with CN case load at each center and high-grade postoperative complications, which highlights “the impact of centralization of care on postoperative outcomes in complex surgical scenarios,” the investigators wrote. The OR per 25 cases was 0.88 (P = .04).

Results were largely the same when the analysis was limited to the 560 subjects treated since 2006, in the targeted therapy era, except that adjacent organ removal as a predictor of intraoperative complications did not quite reach statistical significance (P = .06).

The presurgery risk factors identified in this study should assist with presurgical counseling, said Zachery Reichert, MD, PhD, a genitourinary medical oncologist and assistant professor at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, who was not involved in this study.

“This is especially important for patients who require thrombectomy or adjacent organ removal or do not have access to a surgeon with high cytoreductive nephrectomy caseloads,” he said.

Dr. Reichert reported having no disclosures. There was no external funding for this study, and the investigators didn’t have any disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Roussel E et al. Eur Urol Oncol. 2020 Aug;3(4):523-9.