Jim Kling

Findings from the LymphVAX study recently presented at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium show that relatively few women with breast cancer who are at risk for lymphedema develop lymph node swelling after receiving an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine.

Lymph node swelling can be a particularly troubling side effect, since it could be mistaken for breast cancer progression. In this study, of 621 women who received the first dose of an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine, 9.8% developed lymph node swelling as compared with 12.9% of 621 women who received the second dose, and 11.3% of 469 women who received the third dose. The findings were comparable to those of studies conducted of the general population, said study author Brooke C. Juhel, BS, a clinical research coordinator in the lymphedema research program at Massachusetts General Hospital and a student at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston. In the general population, 10.2% experienced lymph node swelling after the first dose and 14% after the second dose, according to the Centers for Disease Control and studies of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines.

“This is consistent with the hypothesis that, after repeated vaccine doses, the immune system already has the antigens ready to fight the virus, thus the side effects may worsen as the immune response has increased,” she said. “Having screened over 6,500 women for breast cancer–related lymphedema, and with our patients reaching out with concerns about vaccine side effects, we were in a unique position to conduct this study.”

The study also confirmed that the most common side effects of receiving mRNA COVID-19 vaccines for women treated for breast cancer included injection site soreness, fatigue, muscle soreness, headache and chills lasting an average of 48 hours, which are symptoms comparable with those experienced by the general population.

“The side-effect profiles reported in this study for a cohort of women treated for breast cancer can be used to provide evidence-based patient education regarding future COVID-19 vaccine administration. The effect of the COVID-19 vaccines on breast cancer–related lymphedema risk is currently unknown and more research is required. In the interim, we would recommend vaccination away from the side of lymph node removal, either in the contralateral arm or in the thigh,” Ms. Juhel said.

The median duration of lymph node swelling was less than 1 week. In cases where lymph node swelling occurred after the first dose, 54.1% had swelling in ipsilateral axillary lymph nodes, and 45.9% in contralateral axillary lymph nodes. About 29.5% experienced swelling in ipsilateral supraclavicular lymph nodes, and 18.0% in contralateral supraclavicular lymph nodes.

Injection-site soreness, fatigue, GMS, headache, and chills occurred less often among older individuals (P < .001), and fatigue, muscle soreness, headache, and chills occurred more frequently after the second dose than the first (P < .001). The median duration of all side effects was 48 hours or less.

“The informed education that can be produced based on these results will hopefully ease the fears of women treated for breast cancer and empower them to make informed decisions regarding future vaccine doses,” Ms. Juhel said.

Ms. Juhel has no relevant financial disclosures.

Findings from the LymphVAX study recently presented at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium show that relatively few women with breast cancer who are at risk for lymphedema develop lymph node swelling after receiving an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine.

Lymph node swelling can be a particularly troubling side effect, since it could be mistaken for breast cancer progression. In this study, of 621 women who received the first dose of an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine, 9.8% developed lymph node swelling as compared with 12.9% of 621 women who received the second dose, and 11.3% of 469 women who received the third dose. The findings were comparable to those of studies conducted of the general population, said study author Brooke C. Juhel, BS, a clinical research coordinator in the lymphedema research program at Massachusetts General Hospital and a student at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston. In the general population, 10.2% experienced lymph node swelling after the first dose and 14% after the second dose, according to the Centers for Disease Control and studies of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines.

“This is consistent with the hypothesis that, after repeated vaccine doses, the immune system already has the antigens ready to fight the virus, thus the side effects may worsen as the immune response has increased,” she said. “Having screened over 6,500 women for breast cancer–related lymphedema, and with our patients reaching out with concerns about vaccine side effects, we were in a unique position to conduct this study.”

The study also confirmed that the most common side effects of receiving mRNA COVID-19 vaccines for women treated for breast cancer included injection site soreness, fatigue, muscle soreness, headache and chills lasting an average of 48 hours, which are symptoms comparable with those experienced by the general population.

“The side-effect profiles reported in this study for a cohort of women treated for breast cancer can be used to provide evidence-based patient education regarding future COVID-19 vaccine administration. The effect of the COVID-19 vaccines on breast cancer–related lymphedema risk is currently unknown and more research is required. In the interim, we would recommend vaccination away from the side of lymph node removal, either in the contralateral arm or in the thigh,” Ms. Juhel said.

The median duration of lymph node swelling was less than 1 week. In cases where lymph node swelling occurred after the first dose, 54.1% had swelling in ipsilateral axillary lymph nodes, and 45.9% in contralateral axillary lymph nodes. About 29.5% experienced swelling in ipsilateral supraclavicular lymph nodes, and 18.0% in contralateral supraclavicular lymph nodes.

Injection-site soreness, fatigue, GMS, headache, and chills occurred less often among older individuals (P < .001), and fatigue, muscle soreness, headache, and chills occurred more frequently after the second dose than the first (P < .001). The median duration of all side effects was 48 hours or less.

“The informed education that can be produced based on these results will hopefully ease the fears of women treated for breast cancer and empower them to make informed decisions regarding future vaccine doses,” Ms. Juhel said.

Ms. Juhel has no relevant financial disclosures.

Findings from the LymphVAX study recently presented at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium show that relatively few women with breast cancer who are at risk for lymphedema develop lymph node swelling after receiving an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine.

Lymph node swelling can be a particularly troubling side effect, since it could be mistaken for breast cancer progression. In this study, of 621 women who received the first dose of an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine, 9.8% developed lymph node swelling as compared with 12.9% of 621 women who received the second dose, and 11.3% of 469 women who received the third dose. The findings were comparable to those of studies conducted of the general population, said study author Brooke C. Juhel, BS, a clinical research coordinator in the lymphedema research program at Massachusetts General Hospital and a student at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston. In the general population, 10.2% experienced lymph node swelling after the first dose and 14% after the second dose, according to the Centers for Disease Control and studies of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines.

“This is consistent with the hypothesis that, after repeated vaccine doses, the immune system already has the antigens ready to fight the virus, thus the side effects may worsen as the immune response has increased,” she said. “Having screened over 6,500 women for breast cancer–related lymphedema, and with our patients reaching out with concerns about vaccine side effects, we were in a unique position to conduct this study.”

The study also confirmed that the most common side effects of receiving mRNA COVID-19 vaccines for women treated for breast cancer included injection site soreness, fatigue, muscle soreness, headache and chills lasting an average of 48 hours, which are symptoms comparable with those experienced by the general population.

“The side-effect profiles reported in this study for a cohort of women treated for breast cancer can be used to provide evidence-based patient education regarding future COVID-19 vaccine administration. The effect of the COVID-19 vaccines on breast cancer–related lymphedema risk is currently unknown and more research is required. In the interim, we would recommend vaccination away from the side of lymph node removal, either in the contralateral arm or in the thigh,” Ms. Juhel said.

The median duration of lymph node swelling was less than 1 week. In cases where lymph node swelling occurred after the first dose, 54.1% had swelling in ipsilateral axillary lymph nodes, and 45.9% in contralateral axillary lymph nodes. About 29.5% experienced swelling in ipsilateral supraclavicular lymph nodes, and 18.0% in contralateral supraclavicular lymph nodes.

Injection-site soreness, fatigue, GMS, headache, and chills occurred less often among older individuals (P < .001), and fatigue, muscle soreness, headache, and chills occurred more frequently after the second dose than the first (P < .001). The median duration of all side effects was 48 hours or less.

“The informed education that can be produced based on these results will hopefully ease the fears of women treated for breast cancer and empower them to make informed decisions regarding future vaccine doses,” Ms. Juhel said.

Ms. Juhel has no relevant financial disclosures.

In a series of studies recently presented at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium that examine the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on women with breast cancer, researchers report that ethnicity played a role in later diagnoses, Hispanics presented with more advanced and aggressive disease, and a focus on a single hospital in San Antonio finds a statistical difference between stage at diagnosis prior to the pandemic, compared with the postvaccine era.

Patients treated at the Mays Cancer Center, a cancer hospital of University of Texas Health and MD Anderson Cancer Center in San Antonio, during the pandemic were found to more likely present with advanced disease between March and December 2020, according to Marcela Mazo, MD, an oncologist with UT Health, San Antonio, and an author of each of three studies.

“We learned that Hispanic patients were presenting with more aggressive histologies such as HER2-positive and triple-negative disease. We also confirmed what we were suspecting, which is that Latina women had less access to medical coverage. We had a higher proportion of Hispanic patients presenting to us without medical coverage, which of course made the treatment extremely challenging,” said Dr. Mazo.

Hispanics are one of the fastest-growing minority groups in the United States, and understanding the factors that affect their healthcare is critical to formulating health policies.

“The findings confirmed my suspicion that most patients did not get a mammogram during the lockdown. And I’m sad to say that, even after everything opened up and people could get vaccinated, I still saw some patients who, for whatever reason, did not get a mammogram – which led to [more] clinical presentations of advanced cancer by the time they were seen by us,” she said.

Dr. Mazo said that underscreened women could also be considered victims of the pandemic. “I tell my patients to get their vaccines so they’re protected and they can feel more comfortable going to the doctor where there is a higher proportion of people who could potentially have COVID.”

Other studies have shown that patients in general, regardless of race or ethnicity, have been diagnosed with later-stage breast cancer diagnoses during the pandemic.

The three studies are based on an analysis of 696 patients treated at Mays Cancer Center. Of these, 264 were diagnosed before the pandemic (cohort A), 171 during the lockdown (Apr. 1 to Dec. 31, 2020, cohort B) and 261 after vaccines were introduced (Jan. 1 to Dec. 31, 2021, cohort C). Overall, there was a slight trend toward a higher incidence of HER2-positive disease during the lockdown period (odds ratio, 1.45) and in the postvaccine period (OR, 1.40), though neither relationship was statistically significant (P = .2). No relationships were seen between time period and incidence of triple-negative breast cancer.

The researchers found that Hispanic patients were more likely to be diagnosed with advanced disease in the pandemic years, compared with pre-COVID times. For example, the likelihood of being diagnosed with carcinoma in situ (Tis) versus T1 disease was lower in the postvaccine era than the pre-COVID era (OR, 0.38; P < .001), although there was no significant difference in Tis versus T1 during the lockdown period, compared with the pre-COVID era. The researchers concluded the difference was likely caused by the latency period of breast cancer.

The postvaccine era saw a 15% increase in patients diagnosed with HER2-positive disease, compared with the pre-COVID era. Patients diagnosed in the COVID era (cohorts B and C) were more likely to require neoadjuvant therapy than patients diagnosed in the pre-COVID era (OR, 1.78; P = .009).

They also found significant disparities in health insurance coverage. 91% of non-Hispanic patients were covered by insurance, compared with 70% of Hispanic patients.

Overall, the findings hint at the depth of health care inequities faced by Hispanic women in the region, and should be a call for action, Dr. Mazo said. “I wish that we as physicians would take the lead to do the best we can to support legislative changes that could help all of our patients get treated – independent of where they come from.”

Dr. Mazo has no relevant financial disclosures.

In a series of studies recently presented at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium that examine the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on women with breast cancer, researchers report that ethnicity played a role in later diagnoses, Hispanics presented with more advanced and aggressive disease, and a focus on a single hospital in San Antonio finds a statistical difference between stage at diagnosis prior to the pandemic, compared with the postvaccine era.

Patients treated at the Mays Cancer Center, a cancer hospital of University of Texas Health and MD Anderson Cancer Center in San Antonio, during the pandemic were found to more likely present with advanced disease between March and December 2020, according to Marcela Mazo, MD, an oncologist with UT Health, San Antonio, and an author of each of three studies.

“We learned that Hispanic patients were presenting with more aggressive histologies such as HER2-positive and triple-negative disease. We also confirmed what we were suspecting, which is that Latina women had less access to medical coverage. We had a higher proportion of Hispanic patients presenting to us without medical coverage, which of course made the treatment extremely challenging,” said Dr. Mazo.

Hispanics are one of the fastest-growing minority groups in the United States, and understanding the factors that affect their healthcare is critical to formulating health policies.

“The findings confirmed my suspicion that most patients did not get a mammogram during the lockdown. And I’m sad to say that, even after everything opened up and people could get vaccinated, I still saw some patients who, for whatever reason, did not get a mammogram – which led to [more] clinical presentations of advanced cancer by the time they were seen by us,” she said.

Dr. Mazo said that underscreened women could also be considered victims of the pandemic. “I tell my patients to get their vaccines so they’re protected and they can feel more comfortable going to the doctor where there is a higher proportion of people who could potentially have COVID.”

Other studies have shown that patients in general, regardless of race or ethnicity, have been diagnosed with later-stage breast cancer diagnoses during the pandemic.

The three studies are based on an analysis of 696 patients treated at Mays Cancer Center. Of these, 264 were diagnosed before the pandemic (cohort A), 171 during the lockdown (Apr. 1 to Dec. 31, 2020, cohort B) and 261 after vaccines were introduced (Jan. 1 to Dec. 31, 2021, cohort C). Overall, there was a slight trend toward a higher incidence of HER2-positive disease during the lockdown period (odds ratio, 1.45) and in the postvaccine period (OR, 1.40), though neither relationship was statistically significant (P = .2). No relationships were seen between time period and incidence of triple-negative breast cancer.

The researchers found that Hispanic patients were more likely to be diagnosed with advanced disease in the pandemic years, compared with pre-COVID times. For example, the likelihood of being diagnosed with carcinoma in situ (Tis) versus T1 disease was lower in the postvaccine era than the pre-COVID era (OR, 0.38; P < .001), although there was no significant difference in Tis versus T1 during the lockdown period, compared with the pre-COVID era. The researchers concluded the difference was likely caused by the latency period of breast cancer.

The postvaccine era saw a 15% increase in patients diagnosed with HER2-positive disease, compared with the pre-COVID era. Patients diagnosed in the COVID era (cohorts B and C) were more likely to require neoadjuvant therapy than patients diagnosed in the pre-COVID era (OR, 1.78; P = .009).

They also found significant disparities in health insurance coverage. 91% of non-Hispanic patients were covered by insurance, compared with 70% of Hispanic patients.

Overall, the findings hint at the depth of health care inequities faced by Hispanic women in the region, and should be a call for action, Dr. Mazo said. “I wish that we as physicians would take the lead to do the best we can to support legislative changes that could help all of our patients get treated – independent of where they come from.”

Dr. Mazo has no relevant financial disclosures.

In a series of studies recently presented at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium that examine the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on women with breast cancer, researchers report that ethnicity played a role in later diagnoses, Hispanics presented with more advanced and aggressive disease, and a focus on a single hospital in San Antonio finds a statistical difference between stage at diagnosis prior to the pandemic, compared with the postvaccine era.

Patients treated at the Mays Cancer Center, a cancer hospital of University of Texas Health and MD Anderson Cancer Center in San Antonio, during the pandemic were found to more likely present with advanced disease between March and December 2020, according to Marcela Mazo, MD, an oncologist with UT Health, San Antonio, and an author of each of three studies.

“We learned that Hispanic patients were presenting with more aggressive histologies such as HER2-positive and triple-negative disease. We also confirmed what we were suspecting, which is that Latina women had less access to medical coverage. We had a higher proportion of Hispanic patients presenting to us without medical coverage, which of course made the treatment extremely challenging,” said Dr. Mazo.

Hispanics are one of the fastest-growing minority groups in the United States, and understanding the factors that affect their healthcare is critical to formulating health policies.

“The findings confirmed my suspicion that most patients did not get a mammogram during the lockdown. And I’m sad to say that, even after everything opened up and people could get vaccinated, I still saw some patients who, for whatever reason, did not get a mammogram – which led to [more] clinical presentations of advanced cancer by the time they were seen by us,” she said.

Dr. Mazo said that underscreened women could also be considered victims of the pandemic. “I tell my patients to get their vaccines so they’re protected and they can feel more comfortable going to the doctor where there is a higher proportion of people who could potentially have COVID.”

Other studies have shown that patients in general, regardless of race or ethnicity, have been diagnosed with later-stage breast cancer diagnoses during the pandemic.

The three studies are based on an analysis of 696 patients treated at Mays Cancer Center. Of these, 264 were diagnosed before the pandemic (cohort A), 171 during the lockdown (Apr. 1 to Dec. 31, 2020, cohort B) and 261 after vaccines were introduced (Jan. 1 to Dec. 31, 2021, cohort C). Overall, there was a slight trend toward a higher incidence of HER2-positive disease during the lockdown period (odds ratio, 1.45) and in the postvaccine period (OR, 1.40), though neither relationship was statistically significant (P = .2). No relationships were seen between time period and incidence of triple-negative breast cancer.

The researchers found that Hispanic patients were more likely to be diagnosed with advanced disease in the pandemic years, compared with pre-COVID times. For example, the likelihood of being diagnosed with carcinoma in situ (Tis) versus T1 disease was lower in the postvaccine era than the pre-COVID era (OR, 0.38; P < .001), although there was no significant difference in Tis versus T1 during the lockdown period, compared with the pre-COVID era. The researchers concluded the difference was likely caused by the latency period of breast cancer.

The postvaccine era saw a 15% increase in patients diagnosed with HER2-positive disease, compared with the pre-COVID era. Patients diagnosed in the COVID era (cohorts B and C) were more likely to require neoadjuvant therapy than patients diagnosed in the pre-COVID era (OR, 1.78; P = .009).

They also found significant disparities in health insurance coverage. 91% of non-Hispanic patients were covered by insurance, compared with 70% of Hispanic patients.

Overall, the findings hint at the depth of health care inequities faced by Hispanic women in the region, and should be a call for action, Dr. Mazo said. “I wish that we as physicians would take the lead to do the best we can to support legislative changes that could help all of our patients get treated – independent of where they come from.”

Dr. Mazo has no relevant financial disclosures.

A new study recently presented at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium found that patients in economically and racially/ethnically marginalized neighborhoods are more likely to present with breast cancer at later stages of the disease.

“Neighborhood economic status and residential segregation can shape cancer outcomes such as later-stage diagnosis through several mechanisms, such as access to health care, particularly through limited breast cancer mammographic screening,” said the study’s author, Neha Goel, MD, an assistant professor of surgery at the University of Miami.

The findings are based on an analysis of data from the neighborhood indicator called the Index of Concentration at the Extremes, a database that focuses on the distribution of concentrations of privilege and deprivation, rather than comparing individual or household levels. This is important because growing concentrations of extreme wealth and extreme poverty are becoming increasingly common, and these are not properties discernible by measures by individuals or households. The indicator considers concentration of privilege and deprivation independently, unlike typical models that combine these factors. Doing so reduces bias that can occur in statistical models where these two factors can influence one another. “It brings subtle social inequalities and polarization to the forefront and maps a critical dimension of social inequality,” Dr. Goel said.

Researchers defined structural racism based on its effects, such as separation of marginalized economic and racial/ethnic groups, as well as classism that occurs as a result of discriminatory housing policies over decades. The American Medical Association defines structural racism as the “totality of ways in which societies foster racial discrimination through mutually reinforcing systems of housing, education, employment, earnings, benefits, credit, media, health care and criminal justice.” It considers racism, structural racism, and unconscious biases within medical research and health care delivery to be public health threats. The AMA calls for educational and continuing medical education programs to promote an understanding of all forms of racism, and methods for preventing or reducing the health effects of racism.

The final analysis included 6,145 patients (52.6% Hispanic, 26.3 White, and 17.2% Black) who were treated for breast cancer between 2005 and 2017. At 45.2%, nearly half of participants were privately insured.

Five models were created comparing the likelihood of being diagnosed with a more advance stage tumor (stage 3-4 vs. stage 1-2) between the most disadvantage quartile and the most advantaged group quartile. They found significant relationships for low versus high economic segregation for both the most disadvantaged quartile (odds ratio, 1.36; P < .05) and the second-most disadvantaged quartile (OR, 1.43; P < .05); low-income Black versus high-income White patients in both the most disadvantage quartile (OR, 1.55; P < .05) and the second-most disadvantaged quartile (OR, 1.44; P < .05); Hispanic versus non-Hispanic ethnicity in the most disadvantaged quartile (OR, 1.32; P < .05), and low-income Hispanics versus high-income Whites in both the most disadvantaged quartile (OR, 1.43; P < .05) and the second-most disadvantaged quartile (OR, 1.56; P < .05).

Black patients were more likely to be diagnosed with triple-negative breast cancer than White patients (25.1% vs. 12.5%; P < .001).

The findings suggest that both economically disadvantaged patients and those in racially or ethnically marginalized neighborhoods had a greater probability of having later-stage disease at diagnosis. The researchers controlled for age, insurance status, tumor subtype, and comorbidities like diabetes, coronary artery disease, and hyperlipidemia.

“This study adds insight to a growing body of literature that demonstrate how the ecological effects of structural racism – expressed through poverty and residential segregation – shape cancer outcomes across patients of all races [and] ethnicities,” Dr. Goel said.

Dr. Goel has no relevant financial disclosures.

A new study recently presented at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium found that patients in economically and racially/ethnically marginalized neighborhoods are more likely to present with breast cancer at later stages of the disease.

“Neighborhood economic status and residential segregation can shape cancer outcomes such as later-stage diagnosis through several mechanisms, such as access to health care, particularly through limited breast cancer mammographic screening,” said the study’s author, Neha Goel, MD, an assistant professor of surgery at the University of Miami.

The findings are based on an analysis of data from the neighborhood indicator called the Index of Concentration at the Extremes, a database that focuses on the distribution of concentrations of privilege and deprivation, rather than comparing individual or household levels. This is important because growing concentrations of extreme wealth and extreme poverty are becoming increasingly common, and these are not properties discernible by measures by individuals or households. The indicator considers concentration of privilege and deprivation independently, unlike typical models that combine these factors. Doing so reduces bias that can occur in statistical models where these two factors can influence one another. “It brings subtle social inequalities and polarization to the forefront and maps a critical dimension of social inequality,” Dr. Goel said.

Researchers defined structural racism based on its effects, such as separation of marginalized economic and racial/ethnic groups, as well as classism that occurs as a result of discriminatory housing policies over decades. The American Medical Association defines structural racism as the “totality of ways in which societies foster racial discrimination through mutually reinforcing systems of housing, education, employment, earnings, benefits, credit, media, health care and criminal justice.” It considers racism, structural racism, and unconscious biases within medical research and health care delivery to be public health threats. The AMA calls for educational and continuing medical education programs to promote an understanding of all forms of racism, and methods for preventing or reducing the health effects of racism.

The final analysis included 6,145 patients (52.6% Hispanic, 26.3 White, and 17.2% Black) who were treated for breast cancer between 2005 and 2017. At 45.2%, nearly half of participants were privately insured.

Five models were created comparing the likelihood of being diagnosed with a more advance stage tumor (stage 3-4 vs. stage 1-2) between the most disadvantage quartile and the most advantaged group quartile. They found significant relationships for low versus high economic segregation for both the most disadvantaged quartile (odds ratio, 1.36; P < .05) and the second-most disadvantaged quartile (OR, 1.43; P < .05); low-income Black versus high-income White patients in both the most disadvantage quartile (OR, 1.55; P < .05) and the second-most disadvantaged quartile (OR, 1.44; P < .05); Hispanic versus non-Hispanic ethnicity in the most disadvantaged quartile (OR, 1.32; P < .05), and low-income Hispanics versus high-income Whites in both the most disadvantaged quartile (OR, 1.43; P < .05) and the second-most disadvantaged quartile (OR, 1.56; P < .05).

Black patients were more likely to be diagnosed with triple-negative breast cancer than White patients (25.1% vs. 12.5%; P < .001).

The findings suggest that both economically disadvantaged patients and those in racially or ethnically marginalized neighborhoods had a greater probability of having later-stage disease at diagnosis. The researchers controlled for age, insurance status, tumor subtype, and comorbidities like diabetes, coronary artery disease, and hyperlipidemia.

“This study adds insight to a growing body of literature that demonstrate how the ecological effects of structural racism – expressed through poverty and residential segregation – shape cancer outcomes across patients of all races [and] ethnicities,” Dr. Goel said.

Dr. Goel has no relevant financial disclosures.

A new study recently presented at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium found that patients in economically and racially/ethnically marginalized neighborhoods are more likely to present with breast cancer at later stages of the disease.

“Neighborhood economic status and residential segregation can shape cancer outcomes such as later-stage diagnosis through several mechanisms, such as access to health care, particularly through limited breast cancer mammographic screening,” said the study’s author, Neha Goel, MD, an assistant professor of surgery at the University of Miami.

The findings are based on an analysis of data from the neighborhood indicator called the Index of Concentration at the Extremes, a database that focuses on the distribution of concentrations of privilege and deprivation, rather than comparing individual or household levels. This is important because growing concentrations of extreme wealth and extreme poverty are becoming increasingly common, and these are not properties discernible by measures by individuals or households. The indicator considers concentration of privilege and deprivation independently, unlike typical models that combine these factors. Doing so reduces bias that can occur in statistical models where these two factors can influence one another. “It brings subtle social inequalities and polarization to the forefront and maps a critical dimension of social inequality,” Dr. Goel said.

Researchers defined structural racism based on its effects, such as separation of marginalized economic and racial/ethnic groups, as well as classism that occurs as a result of discriminatory housing policies over decades. The American Medical Association defines structural racism as the “totality of ways in which societies foster racial discrimination through mutually reinforcing systems of housing, education, employment, earnings, benefits, credit, media, health care and criminal justice.” It considers racism, structural racism, and unconscious biases within medical research and health care delivery to be public health threats. The AMA calls for educational and continuing medical education programs to promote an understanding of all forms of racism, and methods for preventing or reducing the health effects of racism.

The final analysis included 6,145 patients (52.6% Hispanic, 26.3 White, and 17.2% Black) who were treated for breast cancer between 2005 and 2017. At 45.2%, nearly half of participants were privately insured.

Five models were created comparing the likelihood of being diagnosed with a more advance stage tumor (stage 3-4 vs. stage 1-2) between the most disadvantage quartile and the most advantaged group quartile. They found significant relationships for low versus high economic segregation for both the most disadvantaged quartile (odds ratio, 1.36; P < .05) and the second-most disadvantaged quartile (OR, 1.43; P < .05); low-income Black versus high-income White patients in both the most disadvantage quartile (OR, 1.55; P < .05) and the second-most disadvantaged quartile (OR, 1.44; P < .05); Hispanic versus non-Hispanic ethnicity in the most disadvantaged quartile (OR, 1.32; P < .05), and low-income Hispanics versus high-income Whites in both the most disadvantaged quartile (OR, 1.43; P < .05) and the second-most disadvantaged quartile (OR, 1.56; P < .05).

Black patients were more likely to be diagnosed with triple-negative breast cancer than White patients (25.1% vs. 12.5%; P < .001).

The findings suggest that both economically disadvantaged patients and those in racially or ethnically marginalized neighborhoods had a greater probability of having later-stage disease at diagnosis. The researchers controlled for age, insurance status, tumor subtype, and comorbidities like diabetes, coronary artery disease, and hyperlipidemia.

“This study adds insight to a growing body of literature that demonstrate how the ecological effects of structural racism – expressed through poverty and residential segregation – shape cancer outcomes across patients of all races [and] ethnicities,” Dr. Goel said.

Dr. Goel has no relevant financial disclosures.

A retrospective analysis of the National Cancer Database suggests an overall survival benefit to adjuvant chemotherapy among breast cancer patients with an OncotypeDX score of 25 or less. The findings reinforce the positive results from the RxPONDER study, which showed benefits to invasive disease–free and distant relapse–free survival.

OncotypeDX is a prognostic assay for hormone-receptor–positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)–negative and axillary lymph-node–negative breast cancer. It measures expression of 21 different genes and assigns each patient a score between 0 and 100, with higher scores representing a greater risk of recurrence and a worse prognosis. The 2018 TAILORx study validated Oncotype DX and found no benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy added to endocrine therapy in women over 50 with an OncotypeDX score of 11-25, but it did find a benefit in women under 50 years old with a score of 16 or higher.

RxPONDER was a prospective study that randomized women with Oncotype DX scores of 25 or lower and 1-3 positive lymph nodes to adjuvant endocrine therapy with or without chemotherapy. Among premenopausal women, 5-year invasive disease–free survival was 93.9% with chemotherapy and 89.0% with endocrine therapy only (hazard ratio, 0.60; P = .002), while distant relapse–free survival was 96.1% and 92.8%, respectively (HR, 0.58; P = .009).

Overall survival data from RxPONDER has yet to be reported. In the meantime, “We decided to use the National Cancer database to see if this group of patients have an overall survival benefit,” said Prashanth Ashok Kumar, MBBS, who presented the results of the new study at a poster session this month during the 2022 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium.

“Our research further supports the findings of the RxPONDER trial showing that this subgroup of patients may also have an overall survival benefit with adjuvant chemotherapy. We can give physicians a little bit more confidence to recommend the findings of the RxPONDER study to their patients and could recommend chemotherapy in this group,” said Dr. Kumar, who is a second-year oncology fellow at Upstate University Hospital. Syracuse, N.Y.

The study is limited by its retrospective nature, but Dr. Kumar said that the researchers used propensity score matching to reduce confounding. “This would need to be confirmed with further prospective clinical trials and also the mature data from the RxPONDER trial is something that we have to look forward to,” he said.

Adjuvant therapy might be particularly beneficial to patients with more high-risk features, such as T4 or N2 or N3 disease. “We have to go with each individual patient’s features, and also the patient’s personal preference and what they want from their quality of life,” Dr. Kumar said.

The study included 8,628 patients from the 2004-2018 National Cancer Database participant user file. They were 18-50 years old with N1-N3 lymph node status, no metastasis, and any T stage. All had an OncotypeDX score of 25 or less and were hormone receptor–positive and HER2-negative while 40.8% underwent adjuvant chemotherapy.

Unadjusted Kaplan-Meier scores showed a slightly higher 10-year survival with adjuvant chemotherapy (93% versus 91%; HR, 0.602; 95% confidence interval, 0.482-0.751). Multivariate subanalyses showed that adjuvant chemotherapy was associated with better survival among White patients (HR, 0.512; 95% CI, 0.348-0.752) between 18 and 40 years old (HR, 0.429; 95% CI, 0.217-0.847), and for patients between 40 and 50 years old (HR, 0.585; 95% CI, 0.394-0.869); among patients with poorly differentiated tumors (HR, 0.404; 95% CI, 0.186-0.874); among patients with well-differentiated tumors (HR, 0.386; 95% CI, 0.165-0.903); and for those with Oncotype DX scores between 12 and 25 (HR, 0.549; 95% CI, 0.379-0.795).

Dr. Kumar has no relevant financial disclosures.

A retrospective analysis of the National Cancer Database suggests an overall survival benefit to adjuvant chemotherapy among breast cancer patients with an OncotypeDX score of 25 or less. The findings reinforce the positive results from the RxPONDER study, which showed benefits to invasive disease–free and distant relapse–free survival.

OncotypeDX is a prognostic assay for hormone-receptor–positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)–negative and axillary lymph-node–negative breast cancer. It measures expression of 21 different genes and assigns each patient a score between 0 and 100, with higher scores representing a greater risk of recurrence and a worse prognosis. The 2018 TAILORx study validated Oncotype DX and found no benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy added to endocrine therapy in women over 50 with an OncotypeDX score of 11-25, but it did find a benefit in women under 50 years old with a score of 16 or higher.

RxPONDER was a prospective study that randomized women with Oncotype DX scores of 25 or lower and 1-3 positive lymph nodes to adjuvant endocrine therapy with or without chemotherapy. Among premenopausal women, 5-year invasive disease–free survival was 93.9% with chemotherapy and 89.0% with endocrine therapy only (hazard ratio, 0.60; P = .002), while distant relapse–free survival was 96.1% and 92.8%, respectively (HR, 0.58; P = .009).

Overall survival data from RxPONDER has yet to be reported. In the meantime, “We decided to use the National Cancer database to see if this group of patients have an overall survival benefit,” said Prashanth Ashok Kumar, MBBS, who presented the results of the new study at a poster session this month during the 2022 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium.

“Our research further supports the findings of the RxPONDER trial showing that this subgroup of patients may also have an overall survival benefit with adjuvant chemotherapy. We can give physicians a little bit more confidence to recommend the findings of the RxPONDER study to their patients and could recommend chemotherapy in this group,” said Dr. Kumar, who is a second-year oncology fellow at Upstate University Hospital. Syracuse, N.Y.

The study is limited by its retrospective nature, but Dr. Kumar said that the researchers used propensity score matching to reduce confounding. “This would need to be confirmed with further prospective clinical trials and also the mature data from the RxPONDER trial is something that we have to look forward to,” he said.

Adjuvant therapy might be particularly beneficial to patients with more high-risk features, such as T4 or N2 or N3 disease. “We have to go with each individual patient’s features, and also the patient’s personal preference and what they want from their quality of life,” Dr. Kumar said.

The study included 8,628 patients from the 2004-2018 National Cancer Database participant user file. They were 18-50 years old with N1-N3 lymph node status, no metastasis, and any T stage. All had an OncotypeDX score of 25 or less and were hormone receptor–positive and HER2-negative while 40.8% underwent adjuvant chemotherapy.

Unadjusted Kaplan-Meier scores showed a slightly higher 10-year survival with adjuvant chemotherapy (93% versus 91%; HR, 0.602; 95% confidence interval, 0.482-0.751). Multivariate subanalyses showed that adjuvant chemotherapy was associated with better survival among White patients (HR, 0.512; 95% CI, 0.348-0.752) between 18 and 40 years old (HR, 0.429; 95% CI, 0.217-0.847), and for patients between 40 and 50 years old (HR, 0.585; 95% CI, 0.394-0.869); among patients with poorly differentiated tumors (HR, 0.404; 95% CI, 0.186-0.874); among patients with well-differentiated tumors (HR, 0.386; 95% CI, 0.165-0.903); and for those with Oncotype DX scores between 12 and 25 (HR, 0.549; 95% CI, 0.379-0.795).

Dr. Kumar has no relevant financial disclosures.

A retrospective analysis of the National Cancer Database suggests an overall survival benefit to adjuvant chemotherapy among breast cancer patients with an OncotypeDX score of 25 or less. The findings reinforce the positive results from the RxPONDER study, which showed benefits to invasive disease–free and distant relapse–free survival.

OncotypeDX is a prognostic assay for hormone-receptor–positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)–negative and axillary lymph-node–negative breast cancer. It measures expression of 21 different genes and assigns each patient a score between 0 and 100, with higher scores representing a greater risk of recurrence and a worse prognosis. The 2018 TAILORx study validated Oncotype DX and found no benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy added to endocrine therapy in women over 50 with an OncotypeDX score of 11-25, but it did find a benefit in women under 50 years old with a score of 16 or higher.

RxPONDER was a prospective study that randomized women with Oncotype DX scores of 25 or lower and 1-3 positive lymph nodes to adjuvant endocrine therapy with or without chemotherapy. Among premenopausal women, 5-year invasive disease–free survival was 93.9% with chemotherapy and 89.0% with endocrine therapy only (hazard ratio, 0.60; P = .002), while distant relapse–free survival was 96.1% and 92.8%, respectively (HR, 0.58; P = .009).

Overall survival data from RxPONDER has yet to be reported. In the meantime, “We decided to use the National Cancer database to see if this group of patients have an overall survival benefit,” said Prashanth Ashok Kumar, MBBS, who presented the results of the new study at a poster session this month during the 2022 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium.

“Our research further supports the findings of the RxPONDER trial showing that this subgroup of patients may also have an overall survival benefit with adjuvant chemotherapy. We can give physicians a little bit more confidence to recommend the findings of the RxPONDER study to their patients and could recommend chemotherapy in this group,” said Dr. Kumar, who is a second-year oncology fellow at Upstate University Hospital. Syracuse, N.Y.

The study is limited by its retrospective nature, but Dr. Kumar said that the researchers used propensity score matching to reduce confounding. “This would need to be confirmed with further prospective clinical trials and also the mature data from the RxPONDER trial is something that we have to look forward to,” he said.

Adjuvant therapy might be particularly beneficial to patients with more high-risk features, such as T4 or N2 or N3 disease. “We have to go with each individual patient’s features, and also the patient’s personal preference and what they want from their quality of life,” Dr. Kumar said.

The study included 8,628 patients from the 2004-2018 National Cancer Database participant user file. They were 18-50 years old with N1-N3 lymph node status, no metastasis, and any T stage. All had an OncotypeDX score of 25 or less and were hormone receptor–positive and HER2-negative while 40.8% underwent adjuvant chemotherapy.

Unadjusted Kaplan-Meier scores showed a slightly higher 10-year survival with adjuvant chemotherapy (93% versus 91%; HR, 0.602; 95% confidence interval, 0.482-0.751). Multivariate subanalyses showed that adjuvant chemotherapy was associated with better survival among White patients (HR, 0.512; 95% CI, 0.348-0.752) between 18 and 40 years old (HR, 0.429; 95% CI, 0.217-0.847), and for patients between 40 and 50 years old (HR, 0.585; 95% CI, 0.394-0.869); among patients with poorly differentiated tumors (HR, 0.404; 95% CI, 0.186-0.874); among patients with well-differentiated tumors (HR, 0.386; 95% CI, 0.165-0.903); and for those with Oncotype DX scores between 12 and 25 (HR, 0.549; 95% CI, 0.379-0.795).

Dr. Kumar has no relevant financial disclosures.

Among high-risk early breast cancer patients, a radiation boost to the tumor bed during whole breast irradiation was just as safe and effective as delivering the boost sequentially after whole breast irradiation ended. The findings from a phase 3 clinical trial are a boon to patient convenience.

“These findings are indeed practice changing. This was a well-designed trial that looked at shortening treatment from 6 weeks down to 3 weeks. And, they showed equivalent local control and importantly, a good cosmetic outcome over time,” said Kathleen Horst, MD, who served as a discussant at a press conference held at the annual meeting of the American Society for Radiation Oncology where the findings were presented.

“This is substantially more convenient. It is cost effective, both for the health care system and for individual patients. Importantly, our patients come in for treatment every day. They’re taking time off of work, they have to arrange for childcare, and they have to arrange for transportation. So this makes a big difference for these patients,” said Dr. Horst, who is a professor of radiation oncology at Stanford (Calif.) Medicine and director of well-being in the radiation department at Stanford Medicine.

The study was presented by Frank A. Vicini, MD, FASTRO, a radiation oncologist with GenesisCare, Farmington Hills, Mich.

“One of the things I think that was surprising is I think all of us were thinking that this might be a more toxic regimen, but as Dr. Vincini showed, over time it was equally effective and with minimal toxicity, and cosmesis over time was stable, and that’s important. Importantly, that included patient-reported outcomes, not just the physician-reported outcomes. Broadly, I think these findings are applicable for many patients, all patients who are receiving whole breast radiotherapy with an added boost. I think over time this is going to improve the quality of life of our patients. It is an innovative change that everyone is going to be excited to embrace,” Dr. Horst said.

Previous randomized, controlled trials showed that an additional radiation dose to the tumor bed following lumpectomy and whole breast irradiation reduces the relative risk of local recurrence by about 35%. However, this increases treatment time for patients who have already endured an extensive regimen. For whole breast irradiation, hypofractionated radiation is in 15-16 fractions over 3 weeks has comparable recurrence rates as a 5-week regimen, but the relevant trials did not examine the effect hypofractionation may have on a radiation boost to the tumor bed of high-risk patients. Because of this lack of evidence, current practice is for the boost to remain sequential in five to eight fractions after completion of whole breast irradiation, which adds a week to a week and a half to treatment length.

The study included 2,262 patients who were randomized to receive a sequential boost or a concomitant boost. After a median follow-up of 7.4 years, there were 54 ipsilateral breast recurrence (IBR) events. The estimated 7-year risk of IBR was 2.2% in the sequential boost and 2.6% in the concurrent risk group (hazard ratio, 1.32; noninferiority test P = .039). Approximately 60% of patients received adjuvant chemotherapy.

Grade 3 or higher adverse events were similar, with a frequency of 3.3% in the sequential group and 3.5% in the concurrent group (P = .79). The researchers used the Global Cosmetic Score to assess outcomes from the perspective of both physicians and patients; 86% of physicians rated the outcome as excellent/good in the sequential group versus 82% in the concurrent group (P = .33).

“For high-risk early-stage breast cancer patients undergoing breast conservation, a concurrent boost with hypofractionated whole breast irradiation as compared to a sequential boost, results in noninferior local recurrence rates with no significant difference in toxicity, noninferior patient-rated cosmesis, no significant difference in physician rated cosmesis, and delivering the entire treatment even at high risk patients in 3 weeks. Just as critical, the use of target volume–based radiation planning for 3-D [three-dimensional] conformal or [intensity-modulated radiation therapy] whole breast irradiation assessed by dose volume analysis is feasible, and resulted in very low toxicity in the treatment arms, regardless of the fractionation schedule, or the boost delivery,” said Dr. Vincini during the press conference.

The study was grant funded. Neither Dr. Vincini nor Dr. Horst had relevant financial disclosures.

Among high-risk early breast cancer patients, a radiation boost to the tumor bed during whole breast irradiation was just as safe and effective as delivering the boost sequentially after whole breast irradiation ended. The findings from a phase 3 clinical trial are a boon to patient convenience.

“These findings are indeed practice changing. This was a well-designed trial that looked at shortening treatment from 6 weeks down to 3 weeks. And, they showed equivalent local control and importantly, a good cosmetic outcome over time,” said Kathleen Horst, MD, who served as a discussant at a press conference held at the annual meeting of the American Society for Radiation Oncology where the findings were presented.

“This is substantially more convenient. It is cost effective, both for the health care system and for individual patients. Importantly, our patients come in for treatment every day. They’re taking time off of work, they have to arrange for childcare, and they have to arrange for transportation. So this makes a big difference for these patients,” said Dr. Horst, who is a professor of radiation oncology at Stanford (Calif.) Medicine and director of well-being in the radiation department at Stanford Medicine.

The study was presented by Frank A. Vicini, MD, FASTRO, a radiation oncologist with GenesisCare, Farmington Hills, Mich.

“One of the things I think that was surprising is I think all of us were thinking that this might be a more toxic regimen, but as Dr. Vincini showed, over time it was equally effective and with minimal toxicity, and cosmesis over time was stable, and that’s important. Importantly, that included patient-reported outcomes, not just the physician-reported outcomes. Broadly, I think these findings are applicable for many patients, all patients who are receiving whole breast radiotherapy with an added boost. I think over time this is going to improve the quality of life of our patients. It is an innovative change that everyone is going to be excited to embrace,” Dr. Horst said.

Previous randomized, controlled trials showed that an additional radiation dose to the tumor bed following lumpectomy and whole breast irradiation reduces the relative risk of local recurrence by about 35%. However, this increases treatment time for patients who have already endured an extensive regimen. For whole breast irradiation, hypofractionated radiation is in 15-16 fractions over 3 weeks has comparable recurrence rates as a 5-week regimen, but the relevant trials did not examine the effect hypofractionation may have on a radiation boost to the tumor bed of high-risk patients. Because of this lack of evidence, current practice is for the boost to remain sequential in five to eight fractions after completion of whole breast irradiation, which adds a week to a week and a half to treatment length.

The study included 2,262 patients who were randomized to receive a sequential boost or a concomitant boost. After a median follow-up of 7.4 years, there were 54 ipsilateral breast recurrence (IBR) events. The estimated 7-year risk of IBR was 2.2% in the sequential boost and 2.6% in the concurrent risk group (hazard ratio, 1.32; noninferiority test P = .039). Approximately 60% of patients received adjuvant chemotherapy.

Grade 3 or higher adverse events were similar, with a frequency of 3.3% in the sequential group and 3.5% in the concurrent group (P = .79). The researchers used the Global Cosmetic Score to assess outcomes from the perspective of both physicians and patients; 86% of physicians rated the outcome as excellent/good in the sequential group versus 82% in the concurrent group (P = .33).

“For high-risk early-stage breast cancer patients undergoing breast conservation, a concurrent boost with hypofractionated whole breast irradiation as compared to a sequential boost, results in noninferior local recurrence rates with no significant difference in toxicity, noninferior patient-rated cosmesis, no significant difference in physician rated cosmesis, and delivering the entire treatment even at high risk patients in 3 weeks. Just as critical, the use of target volume–based radiation planning for 3-D [three-dimensional] conformal or [intensity-modulated radiation therapy] whole breast irradiation assessed by dose volume analysis is feasible, and resulted in very low toxicity in the treatment arms, regardless of the fractionation schedule, or the boost delivery,” said Dr. Vincini during the press conference.

The study was grant funded. Neither Dr. Vincini nor Dr. Horst had relevant financial disclosures.

Among high-risk early breast cancer patients, a radiation boost to the tumor bed during whole breast irradiation was just as safe and effective as delivering the boost sequentially after whole breast irradiation ended. The findings from a phase 3 clinical trial are a boon to patient convenience.

“These findings are indeed practice changing. This was a well-designed trial that looked at shortening treatment from 6 weeks down to 3 weeks. And, they showed equivalent local control and importantly, a good cosmetic outcome over time,” said Kathleen Horst, MD, who served as a discussant at a press conference held at the annual meeting of the American Society for Radiation Oncology where the findings were presented.

“This is substantially more convenient. It is cost effective, both for the health care system and for individual patients. Importantly, our patients come in for treatment every day. They’re taking time off of work, they have to arrange for childcare, and they have to arrange for transportation. So this makes a big difference for these patients,” said Dr. Horst, who is a professor of radiation oncology at Stanford (Calif.) Medicine and director of well-being in the radiation department at Stanford Medicine.

The study was presented by Frank A. Vicini, MD, FASTRO, a radiation oncologist with GenesisCare, Farmington Hills, Mich.

“One of the things I think that was surprising is I think all of us were thinking that this might be a more toxic regimen, but as Dr. Vincini showed, over time it was equally effective and with minimal toxicity, and cosmesis over time was stable, and that’s important. Importantly, that included patient-reported outcomes, not just the physician-reported outcomes. Broadly, I think these findings are applicable for many patients, all patients who are receiving whole breast radiotherapy with an added boost. I think over time this is going to improve the quality of life of our patients. It is an innovative change that everyone is going to be excited to embrace,” Dr. Horst said.

Previous randomized, controlled trials showed that an additional radiation dose to the tumor bed following lumpectomy and whole breast irradiation reduces the relative risk of local recurrence by about 35%. However, this increases treatment time for patients who have already endured an extensive regimen. For whole breast irradiation, hypofractionated radiation is in 15-16 fractions over 3 weeks has comparable recurrence rates as a 5-week regimen, but the relevant trials did not examine the effect hypofractionation may have on a radiation boost to the tumor bed of high-risk patients. Because of this lack of evidence, current practice is for the boost to remain sequential in five to eight fractions after completion of whole breast irradiation, which adds a week to a week and a half to treatment length.

The study included 2,262 patients who were randomized to receive a sequential boost or a concomitant boost. After a median follow-up of 7.4 years, there were 54 ipsilateral breast recurrence (IBR) events. The estimated 7-year risk of IBR was 2.2% in the sequential boost and 2.6% in the concurrent risk group (hazard ratio, 1.32; noninferiority test P = .039). Approximately 60% of patients received adjuvant chemotherapy.

Grade 3 or higher adverse events were similar, with a frequency of 3.3% in the sequential group and 3.5% in the concurrent group (P = .79). The researchers used the Global Cosmetic Score to assess outcomes from the perspective of both physicians and patients; 86% of physicians rated the outcome as excellent/good in the sequential group versus 82% in the concurrent group (P = .33).

“For high-risk early-stage breast cancer patients undergoing breast conservation, a concurrent boost with hypofractionated whole breast irradiation as compared to a sequential boost, results in noninferior local recurrence rates with no significant difference in toxicity, noninferior patient-rated cosmesis, no significant difference in physician rated cosmesis, and delivering the entire treatment even at high risk patients in 3 weeks. Just as critical, the use of target volume–based radiation planning for 3-D [three-dimensional] conformal or [intensity-modulated radiation therapy] whole breast irradiation assessed by dose volume analysis is feasible, and resulted in very low toxicity in the treatment arms, regardless of the fractionation schedule, or the boost delivery,” said Dr. Vincini during the press conference.

The study was grant funded. Neither Dr. Vincini nor Dr. Horst had relevant financial disclosures.

In human papillomavirus (HPV)-positive, locally advanced oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma, an immune checkpoint blockade regimen combined with radiotherapy led to good survival with a reduction in radiation exposure.

First-line therapy for HPV-positive oropharynx cancer is generally high-dose cisplatin combined with high-dose radiotherapy, but this regimen is associated with significant acute and long-term toxicity.

In previous studies among patients with recurrent or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma, nivolumab (Opdiva, Bristol Myers Squibb) improved survival when combined with platinum-based chemotherapy, and pembrolizumab (Keytruda, Merck) improved survival in recurrent disease compared with chemotherapy plus cetuximab.

Those precedents predicted success for HPV-positive oropharynx cancer, according to Maura Gillison, MD, PhD, who presented the results at a press briefing held in November in advance of the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer’s 37th Annual Meeting. “Given that HPV-positive oropharynx cancers are characterized by an inflamed tumor microenvironment and HPV oncoproteins are omnipresent, required for cancer survival, and are ideal tumor-specific antigens – we hypothesized that induction and concurrent CTLA-4 and PD-1 immune checkpoint blockade, followed by volume- and dose-adapted IMRT (intensity-modulated radiotherapy), would be an effective alternative to the current standard of care,” said Dr. Gillison, who is a professor of medicine at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

Anti–PD-L1 therapy is approved for head and neck cancer, but the frontier is moving it into the locally advanced setting in combination with CTLA-4 inhibitors, according to Robert Ferris, MD, PhD, who moderated the press briefing and was lead author of the nivolumab in metastatic squamous cell carcinoma study. He added that recent trial data suggest this approach should be more effective and create more durable responses.

The new data support the approach. “The trial provides compelling data to support a new approach for treating newly diagnosed HPV-positive head and neck cancers. Our goal is to treat this cancer with immunotherapy alone. The results of this trial make me optimistic that this will be achievable,” Dr. Gillison said.
 

The study details

The researchers conducted a phase 2 clinical trial, enrolling 35 patients with newly diagnosed HPV-positive oropharynx cancer who were positive for PD-L1 expression.

Patients received 1 mg/kg ipilimumab (Yervoy, Bristol Myers Squibb) and 3 mg/kg nivolumab over a 6-week cycle, followed by a second cycle that was accompanied by 40-44 Gy radiotherapy for patients with a complete response in their primary tumor, and a boost to 50-66 based on postinduction treatment volume. The protocol reduced dose to the neck from 52 to 36 Gy. The radiation was delivered to only one nodal echelon beyond the involved node. Standard care delivers radiotherapy to essentially the entire neck, Dr. Gillison said.

Grade 3 or higher adverse events occurred in 66% of patients, the majority of which were attributable to radiotherapy. The complete response rate was 94% at 6 months as assessed by PET scan, and 2-year progression-free survival was 86%. After a median follow-up of 14.9 months, all patients were alive and cancer-free.

Overall response rate was 14% following induction, but 96% showed a histologic treatment effect. Tumor viability was less than 5% in 48% of patients, and a molecular complete response was observed in 30% as measured by plasma cell-free HPV. Patients received 36% less radiation than typical of standard of care, and the dose to critical areas was reduced by 50%.

At the press conference, Dr. Ferris asked Dr. Gillison whether the researchers observed a spike in cell-free HPV DNA before the decline occurred, suggesting evidence of tumor death and DNA release.

“We did see in a remarkable number of patients within 2 weeks of the first dose, a very strong peak in the cell-free HPV DNA, followed by a rapid decline. In those patients who still have viable tumor at the end of induction immunotherapy, we saw a second robust peak in cell-free HPV DNA at the start of radiation, with rapid clearance. So that gave us confidence that (among) those patients who had cell-free HPV clearance by the end of induction, followed by no further detection through radiation, that it’s an excellent surrogate for tumor control,” Dr. Gillison said.

Dr. Gillison has financial relationships with Eisai, Exilixis, Caladrius, iTeos, Istari, Seagen, Sensei, Bicara, Mirati, Coherus, Debiopharm, Kura, Shattuck, Nektar, Ipsen, EMD Serono, Gilead, LXS, BioNTech, Merck, Bristol Myers Squibb, Bayer, Roche, Genocea, NewLink Genetics, Aspyrian, TRM Oncology, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Celgene, and Agenus. Dr. Ferris has financial relationships with Bristol Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca/MedImmune, Merck, and Celgene.

In human papillomavirus (HPV)-positive, locally advanced oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma, an immune checkpoint blockade regimen combined with radiotherapy led to good survival with a reduction in radiation exposure.

First-line therapy for HPV-positive oropharynx cancer is generally high-dose cisplatin combined with high-dose radiotherapy, but this regimen is associated with significant acute and long-term toxicity.

In previous studies among patients with recurrent or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma, nivolumab (Opdiva, Bristol Myers Squibb) improved survival when combined with platinum-based chemotherapy, and pembrolizumab (Keytruda, Merck) improved survival in recurrent disease compared with chemotherapy plus cetuximab.

Those precedents predicted success for HPV-positive oropharynx cancer, according to Maura Gillison, MD, PhD, who presented the results at a press briefing held in November in advance of the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer’s 37th Annual Meeting. “Given that HPV-positive oropharynx cancers are characterized by an inflamed tumor microenvironment and HPV oncoproteins are omnipresent, required for cancer survival, and are ideal tumor-specific antigens – we hypothesized that induction and concurrent CTLA-4 and PD-1 immune checkpoint blockade, followed by volume- and dose-adapted IMRT (intensity-modulated radiotherapy), would be an effective alternative to the current standard of care,” said Dr. Gillison, who is a professor of medicine at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

Anti–PD-L1 therapy is approved for head and neck cancer, but the frontier is moving it into the locally advanced setting in combination with CTLA-4 inhibitors, according to Robert Ferris, MD, PhD, who moderated the press briefing and was lead author of the nivolumab in metastatic squamous cell carcinoma study. He added that recent trial data suggest this approach should be more effective and create more durable responses.

The new data support the approach. “The trial provides compelling data to support a new approach for treating newly diagnosed HPV-positive head and neck cancers. Our goal is to treat this cancer with immunotherapy alone. The results of this trial make me optimistic that this will be achievable,” Dr. Gillison said.
 

The study details

The researchers conducted a phase 2 clinical trial, enrolling 35 patients with newly diagnosed HPV-positive oropharynx cancer who were positive for PD-L1 expression.

Patients received 1 mg/kg ipilimumab (Yervoy, Bristol Myers Squibb) and 3 mg/kg nivolumab over a 6-week cycle, followed by a second cycle that was accompanied by 40-44 Gy radiotherapy for patients with a complete response in their primary tumor, and a boost to 50-66 based on postinduction treatment volume. The protocol reduced dose to the neck from 52 to 36 Gy. The radiation was delivered to only one nodal echelon beyond the involved node. Standard care delivers radiotherapy to essentially the entire neck, Dr. Gillison said.

Grade 3 or higher adverse events occurred in 66% of patients, the majority of which were attributable to radiotherapy. The complete response rate was 94% at 6 months as assessed by PET scan, and 2-year progression-free survival was 86%. After a median follow-up of 14.9 months, all patients were alive and cancer-free.

Overall response rate was 14% following induction, but 96% showed a histologic treatment effect. Tumor viability was less than 5% in 48% of patients, and a molecular complete response was observed in 30% as measured by plasma cell-free HPV. Patients received 36% less radiation than typical of standard of care, and the dose to critical areas was reduced by 50%.

At the press conference, Dr. Ferris asked Dr. Gillison whether the researchers observed a spike in cell-free HPV DNA before the decline occurred, suggesting evidence of tumor death and DNA release.

“We did see in a remarkable number of patients within 2 weeks of the first dose, a very strong peak in the cell-free HPV DNA, followed by a rapid decline. In those patients who still have viable tumor at the end of induction immunotherapy, we saw a second robust peak in cell-free HPV DNA at the start of radiation, with rapid clearance. So that gave us confidence that (among) those patients who had cell-free HPV clearance by the end of induction, followed by no further detection through radiation, that it’s an excellent surrogate for tumor control,” Dr. Gillison said.

Dr. Gillison has financial relationships with Eisai, Exilixis, Caladrius, iTeos, Istari, Seagen, Sensei, Bicara, Mirati, Coherus, Debiopharm, Kura, Shattuck, Nektar, Ipsen, EMD Serono, Gilead, LXS, BioNTech, Merck, Bristol Myers Squibb, Bayer, Roche, Genocea, NewLink Genetics, Aspyrian, TRM Oncology, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Celgene, and Agenus. Dr. Ferris has financial relationships with Bristol Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca/MedImmune, Merck, and Celgene.

In human papillomavirus (HPV)-positive, locally advanced oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma, an immune checkpoint blockade regimen combined with radiotherapy led to good survival with a reduction in radiation exposure.

First-line therapy for HPV-positive oropharynx cancer is generally high-dose cisplatin combined with high-dose radiotherapy, but this regimen is associated with significant acute and long-term toxicity.

In previous studies among patients with recurrent or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma, nivolumab (Opdiva, Bristol Myers Squibb) improved survival when combined with platinum-based chemotherapy, and pembrolizumab (Keytruda, Merck) improved survival in recurrent disease compared with chemotherapy plus cetuximab.

Those precedents predicted success for HPV-positive oropharynx cancer, according to Maura Gillison, MD, PhD, who presented the results at a press briefing held in November in advance of the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer’s 37th Annual Meeting. “Given that HPV-positive oropharynx cancers are characterized by an inflamed tumor microenvironment and HPV oncoproteins are omnipresent, required for cancer survival, and are ideal tumor-specific antigens – we hypothesized that induction and concurrent CTLA-4 and PD-1 immune checkpoint blockade, followed by volume- and dose-adapted IMRT (intensity-modulated radiotherapy), would be an effective alternative to the current standard of care,” said Dr. Gillison, who is a professor of medicine at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

Anti–PD-L1 therapy is approved for head and neck cancer, but the frontier is moving it into the locally advanced setting in combination with CTLA-4 inhibitors, according to Robert Ferris, MD, PhD, who moderated the press briefing and was lead author of the nivolumab in metastatic squamous cell carcinoma study. He added that recent trial data suggest this approach should be more effective and create more durable responses.

The new data support the approach. “The trial provides compelling data to support a new approach for treating newly diagnosed HPV-positive head and neck cancers. Our goal is to treat this cancer with immunotherapy alone. The results of this trial make me optimistic that this will be achievable,” Dr. Gillison said.
 

The study details

The researchers conducted a phase 2 clinical trial, enrolling 35 patients with newly diagnosed HPV-positive oropharynx cancer who were positive for PD-L1 expression.

Patients received 1 mg/kg ipilimumab (Yervoy, Bristol Myers Squibb) and 3 mg/kg nivolumab over a 6-week cycle, followed by a second cycle that was accompanied by 40-44 Gy radiotherapy for patients with a complete response in their primary tumor, and a boost to 50-66 based on postinduction treatment volume. The protocol reduced dose to the neck from 52 to 36 Gy. The radiation was delivered to only one nodal echelon beyond the involved node. Standard care delivers radiotherapy to essentially the entire neck, Dr. Gillison said.

Grade 3 or higher adverse events occurred in 66% of patients, the majority of which were attributable to radiotherapy. The complete response rate was 94% at 6 months as assessed by PET scan, and 2-year progression-free survival was 86%. After a median follow-up of 14.9 months, all patients were alive and cancer-free.

Overall response rate was 14% following induction, but 96% showed a histologic treatment effect. Tumor viability was less than 5% in 48% of patients, and a molecular complete response was observed in 30% as measured by plasma cell-free HPV. Patients received 36% less radiation than typical of standard of care, and the dose to critical areas was reduced by 50%.

At the press conference, Dr. Ferris asked Dr. Gillison whether the researchers observed a spike in cell-free HPV DNA before the decline occurred, suggesting evidence of tumor death and DNA release.

“We did see in a remarkable number of patients within 2 weeks of the first dose, a very strong peak in the cell-free HPV DNA, followed by a rapid decline. In those patients who still have viable tumor at the end of induction immunotherapy, we saw a second robust peak in cell-free HPV DNA at the start of radiation, with rapid clearance. So that gave us confidence that (among) those patients who had cell-free HPV clearance by the end of induction, followed by no further detection through radiation, that it’s an excellent surrogate for tumor control,” Dr. Gillison said.

Dr. Gillison has financial relationships with Eisai, Exilixis, Caladrius, iTeos, Istari, Seagen, Sensei, Bicara, Mirati, Coherus, Debiopharm, Kura, Shattuck, Nektar, Ipsen, EMD Serono, Gilead, LXS, BioNTech, Merck, Bristol Myers Squibb, Bayer, Roche, Genocea, NewLink Genetics, Aspyrian, TRM Oncology, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Celgene, and Agenus. Dr. Ferris has financial relationships with Bristol Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca/MedImmune, Merck, and Celgene.

Latinx individuals have a lower overall risk of melanoma than non-Latinx Whites (NLW), but they are more likely to be diagnosed with advanced disease, and experience greater mortality. A new qualitative study of Latinx and low-income NLW individuals in California has revealed some of the socioeconomic and community factors that may play a role in preventing early access to care.

Thicker melanomas, which are more likely to be lethal, are on the rise in the United States among people with lower socioeconomic status (SES), as well as African Americans and Hispanics, and both Black and Latinx people are more likely than NLW people to present with stage 3 or stage 4 disease. “That has really prompted us to look at community engagement and outreach and then really understand the qualitative aspects that are driving individuals into higher risk for melanoma, apart from just limited insurance and access to health care,” said Susan Swetter, MD, who presented the results of the study at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

Other studies, such as a Boston-area survey published in 2020, suggest that Hispanics are less likely than Whites to know the meaning of the term melanoma (odds ratio, 0.27; P =.0037), suggesting the need for educational efforts. The authors of that study noted that knowledge of melanoma in 2017, when the survey was conducted, remained essentially unchanged since a previous study was published in 1996.

“Our results support a need for better public educational programs, particularly those geared toward minority populations. Educational programs that are culturally relevant and include specific sections for skin of color have been shown to better promote early melanoma detection in individuals of ethnic minorities and may help decrease the ethnic disparities in melanoma-related mortality. At the patient-physician level, dermatologists may educate their patients, including Hispanic patients, should they choose to perform (skin self-examinations) to specifically inspect the extremities and acral areas, given the higher incidence rates of melanoma on those areas in this population,” the authors wrote.

The goal of the new study is to get a better understanding of the factors that affect attitudes toward health care, and the researchers found a complex mixture that including ethnicity, cultural, gender identity, geography, skin color, gender norms, and socioeconomic status (SES). “Qualitative research can inform our preventive and early detection strategies. For instance, in the Latinx group, there’s a lot of mistrust of health systems, medical providers, and who is providing that knowledge. We have to figure out ways to provide a trusted source of information. Doctors and physicians and health providers tend to be trusted, but there are many barriers to getting lower SES patients into care. We’re now investigating the use of community health workers and even individuals in various settings and community centers, religious settings or religious leaders, where we’ve determined through this focus group research that there is increased trust,” Dr. Swetter said.

The researchers assembled 19 focus groups with 176 total adult participants, interviewing them about perceptions of melanoma risk, prevention and screening strategies and their acceptability, and barriers to melanoma prevention and care. The sample include people from urban and semirural areas; 55%-62% of participants self-identified as Latinx or Hispanic and 26%-27% as NLW.

Latinx and semirural participants reported having minimal conversations with family about melanoma prevention, and those who reported having darker skin perceived their risk from skin cancer as lower. Participants who lived in rural areas, were Latinx, or of low SES status indicated that health care access challenges included out-of-pocket costs, past experiences of physicians showing less concern about them, and little confidence that rural physicians had the needed expertise or would make an appropriate referral.

The study is just the first step in a series of efforts to improve melanoma outcomes in high-risk populations, which is being pursued through Stanford University’s Wipe Out Melanoma–California statewide initiative and research consortium. “What we aim to do is use this knowledge to now design programs to reach the populations who are more likely to present with worse disease, and to prevent that disease from happening. These qualitative analyses are few and far between in the world of melanoma, and we’re really happy to really push this envelope and change the way we deliver preventive and early detection efforts,” said Dr. Swetter, who is a professor of dermatology and director of the pigmented lesion/melanoma and cutaneous oncology programs at Stanford (Calif.) University Medical Center. Dr. Swetter also chairs the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines for cutaneous melanoma.

The study could also improve care of advanced melanoma. “There’s clear evidence that many of these patient and SES factors, economic and knowledge barriers are the same when it comes to getting patients with advanced melanoma into appropriate care and on clinical trials, and that’s true across all races and ethnicities,” said Dr. Swetter.

The ultimate goal of these approaches is to give individuals greater “self-efficacy, such that a person feels more competent to manage his or her own health outcomes. One aspect of this approach is the use of novel technology such as smartphone apps that can track moles or help visualize lesions during teledermatology. “I think that the future of melanoma prevention and early detection is bright, especially if we incorporate novel technologies and engage patients and their communities in the effort. It’s a different strategy, as opposed to the top-down approach of physicians imparting knowledge and providing the exam. Increasing community engagement is critical to reaching the populations at highest risk for advanced disease and getting them into care and detection early,” Dr. Swetter said.

Dr. Swetter has no relevant financial disclosures.

Latinx individuals have a lower overall risk of melanoma than non-Latinx Whites (NLW), but they are more likely to be diagnosed with advanced disease, and experience greater mortality. A new qualitative study of Latinx and low-income NLW individuals in California has revealed some of the socioeconomic and community factors that may play a role in preventing early access to care.

Thicker melanomas, which are more likely to be lethal, are on the rise in the United States among people with lower socioeconomic status (SES), as well as African Americans and Hispanics, and both Black and Latinx people are more likely than NLW people to present with stage 3 or stage 4 disease. “That has really prompted us to look at community engagement and outreach and then really understand the qualitative aspects that are driving individuals into higher risk for melanoma, apart from just limited insurance and access to health care,” said Susan Swetter, MD, who presented the results of the study at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

Other studies, such as a Boston-area survey published in 2020, suggest that Hispanics are less likely than Whites to know the meaning of the term melanoma (odds ratio, 0.27; P =.0037), suggesting the need for educational efforts. The authors of that study noted that knowledge of melanoma in 2017, when the survey was conducted, remained essentially unchanged since a previous study was published in 1996.

“Our results support a need for better public educational programs, particularly those geared toward minority populations. Educational programs that are culturally relevant and include specific sections for skin of color have been shown to better promote early melanoma detection in individuals of ethnic minorities and may help decrease the ethnic disparities in melanoma-related mortality. At the patient-physician level, dermatologists may educate their patients, including Hispanic patients, should they choose to perform (skin self-examinations) to specifically inspect the extremities and acral areas, given the higher incidence rates of melanoma on those areas in this population,” the authors wrote.

The goal of the new study is to get a better understanding of the factors that affect attitudes toward health care, and the researchers found a complex mixture that including ethnicity, cultural, gender identity, geography, skin color, gender norms, and socioeconomic status (SES). “Qualitative research can inform our preventive and early detection strategies. For instance, in the Latinx group, there’s a lot of mistrust of health systems, medical providers, and who is providing that knowledge. We have to figure out ways to provide a trusted source of information. Doctors and physicians and health providers tend to be trusted, but there are many barriers to getting lower SES patients into care. We’re now investigating the use of community health workers and even individuals in various settings and community centers, religious settings or religious leaders, where we’ve determined through this focus group research that there is increased trust,” Dr. Swetter said.

The researchers assembled 19 focus groups with 176 total adult participants, interviewing them about perceptions of melanoma risk, prevention and screening strategies and their acceptability, and barriers to melanoma prevention and care. The sample include people from urban and semirural areas; 55%-62% of participants self-identified as Latinx or Hispanic and 26%-27% as NLW.

Latinx and semirural participants reported having minimal conversations with family about melanoma prevention, and those who reported having darker skin perceived their risk from skin cancer as lower. Participants who lived in rural areas, were Latinx, or of low SES status indicated that health care access challenges included out-of-pocket costs, past experiences of physicians showing less concern about them, and little confidence that rural physicians had the needed expertise or would make an appropriate referral.

The study is just the first step in a series of efforts to improve melanoma outcomes in high-risk populations, which is being pursued through Stanford University’s Wipe Out Melanoma–California statewide initiative and research consortium. “What we aim to do is use this knowledge to now design programs to reach the populations who are more likely to present with worse disease, and to prevent that disease from happening. These qualitative analyses are few and far between in the world of melanoma, and we’re really happy to really push this envelope and change the way we deliver preventive and early detection efforts,” said Dr. Swetter, who is a professor of dermatology and director of the pigmented lesion/melanoma and cutaneous oncology programs at Stanford (Calif.) University Medical Center. Dr. Swetter also chairs the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines for cutaneous melanoma.

The study could also improve care of advanced melanoma. “There’s clear evidence that many of these patient and SES factors, economic and knowledge barriers are the same when it comes to getting patients with advanced melanoma into appropriate care and on clinical trials, and that’s true across all races and ethnicities,” said Dr. Swetter.

The ultimate goal of these approaches is to give individuals greater “self-efficacy, such that a person feels more competent to manage his or her own health outcomes. One aspect of this approach is the use of novel technology such as smartphone apps that can track moles or help visualize lesions during teledermatology. “I think that the future of melanoma prevention and early detection is bright, especially if we incorporate novel technologies and engage patients and their communities in the effort. It’s a different strategy, as opposed to the top-down approach of physicians imparting knowledge and providing the exam. Increasing community engagement is critical to reaching the populations at highest risk for advanced disease and getting them into care and detection early,” Dr. Swetter said.

Dr. Swetter has no relevant financial disclosures.

Latinx individuals have a lower overall risk of melanoma than non-Latinx Whites (NLW), but they are more likely to be diagnosed with advanced disease, and experience greater mortality. A new qualitative study of Latinx and low-income NLW individuals in California has revealed some of the socioeconomic and community factors that may play a role in preventing early access to care.

Thicker melanomas, which are more likely to be lethal, are on the rise in the United States among people with lower socioeconomic status (SES), as well as African Americans and Hispanics, and both Black and Latinx people are more likely than NLW people to present with stage 3 or stage 4 disease. “That has really prompted us to look at community engagement and outreach and then really understand the qualitative aspects that are driving individuals into higher risk for melanoma, apart from just limited insurance and access to health care,” said Susan Swetter, MD, who presented the results of the study at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

Other studies, such as a Boston-area survey published in 2020, suggest that Hispanics are less likely than Whites to know the meaning of the term melanoma (odds ratio, 0.27; P =.0037), suggesting the need for educational efforts. The authors of that study noted that knowledge of melanoma in 2017, when the survey was conducted, remained essentially unchanged since a previous study was published in 1996.

“Our results support a need for better public educational programs, particularly those geared toward minority populations. Educational programs that are culturally relevant and include specific sections for skin of color have been shown to better promote early melanoma detection in individuals of ethnic minorities and may help decrease the ethnic disparities in melanoma-related mortality. At the patient-physician level, dermatologists may educate their patients, including Hispanic patients, should they choose to perform (skin self-examinations) to specifically inspect the extremities and acral areas, given the higher incidence rates of melanoma on those areas in this population,” the authors wrote.

The goal of the new study is to get a better understanding of the factors that affect attitudes toward health care, and the researchers found a complex mixture that including ethnicity, cultural, gender identity, geography, skin color, gender norms, and socioeconomic status (SES). “Qualitative research can inform our preventive and early detection strategies. For instance, in the Latinx group, there’s a lot of mistrust of health systems, medical providers, and who is providing that knowledge. We have to figure out ways to provide a trusted source of information. Doctors and physicians and health providers tend to be trusted, but there are many barriers to getting lower SES patients into care. We’re now investigating the use of community health workers and even individuals in various settings and community centers, religious settings or religious leaders, where we’ve determined through this focus group research that there is increased trust,” Dr. Swetter said.

The researchers assembled 19 focus groups with 176 total adult participants, interviewing them about perceptions of melanoma risk, prevention and screening strategies and their acceptability, and barriers to melanoma prevention and care. The sample include people from urban and semirural areas; 55%-62% of participants self-identified as Latinx or Hispanic and 26%-27% as NLW.

Latinx and semirural participants reported having minimal conversations with family about melanoma prevention, and those who reported having darker skin perceived their risk from skin cancer as lower. Participants who lived in rural areas, were Latinx, or of low SES status indicated that health care access challenges included out-of-pocket costs, past experiences of physicians showing less concern about them, and little confidence that rural physicians had the needed expertise or would make an appropriate referral.

The study is just the first step in a series of efforts to improve melanoma outcomes in high-risk populations, which is being pursued through Stanford University’s Wipe Out Melanoma–California statewide initiative and research consortium. “What we aim to do is use this knowledge to now design programs to reach the populations who are more likely to present with worse disease, and to prevent that disease from happening. These qualitative analyses are few and far between in the world of melanoma, and we’re really happy to really push this envelope and change the way we deliver preventive and early detection efforts,” said Dr. Swetter, who is a professor of dermatology and director of the pigmented lesion/melanoma and cutaneous oncology programs at Stanford (Calif.) University Medical Center. Dr. Swetter also chairs the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines for cutaneous melanoma.

The study could also improve care of advanced melanoma. “There’s clear evidence that many of these patient and SES factors, economic and knowledge barriers are the same when it comes to getting patients with advanced melanoma into appropriate care and on clinical trials, and that’s true across all races and ethnicities,” said Dr. Swetter.

The ultimate goal of these approaches is to give individuals greater “self-efficacy, such that a person feels more competent to manage his or her own health outcomes. One aspect of this approach is the use of novel technology such as smartphone apps that can track moles or help visualize lesions during teledermatology. “I think that the future of melanoma prevention and early detection is bright, especially if we incorporate novel technologies and engage patients and their communities in the effort. It’s a different strategy, as opposed to the top-down approach of physicians imparting knowledge and providing the exam. Increasing community engagement is critical to reaching the populations at highest risk for advanced disease and getting them into care and detection early,” Dr. Swetter said.

Dr. Swetter has no relevant financial disclosures.

The combination of nivolumab and vidutolimod led to a high rate of pathologic complete response and pathologic major response in a phase 2 trial of patients with stage 3 resectable melanoma. The result led researchers to call for a future study comparing the regimen against a suitable control group.

“We were very excited to see the ability of intratumoral vidutolimod to augment T-cell infiltrate. (Pathologic) response was associated with a dense infiltrate of CD8 T cells. We were also able to demonstrate for what I think may be the first time, that intratumoral CpG resulted in clear evidence of CD303+ plasmacytoid dendritic cells [pDCs],” said Diwakar Davar, MD, assistant professor of medicine at the University of Pittsburgh, during a presentation of the results at the annual meeting of the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer. He noted that pDCs represent a very rare cell population, less than 0.4% of circulating peripheral blood mononuclear cells, and tend to be found in lymph nodes.

The current standard of care for stage 3 melanoma is up-front surgery followed by adjuvant therapy – anti–PD-1 therapy for patients with wild-type or BRAF-mutant cancers, and targeted therapy with BRAF/MEK inhibitors in patients with BRAF mutations. However, preclinical studies suggest that neoadjuvant immunotherapy could lead to a stronger antitumor T-cell response than adjuvant immunotherapy.

Vidutolimod targets the toll-like receptor 9 (TLR-9) endosomal receptor found in B cells and pDC cells. The formulation is a virus-like particle (VLP) that contains unmethylated cytosine guanine–rich oligonucleotides (CpG ODN). Bacterial and viral genomes tend to be enriched in CpG ODN, and this acts as a TLR-9 agonist. TLR-9 activation in turn triggers an interferon response, and this may help overcome PD-1 blockade resistance in metastatic melanoma.

The researchers conducted a nonrandomized, open-label trial that included 30 patients with stage 3 melanoma (14 women; median age, 61 years). Patients received neoadjuvant nivolumab and vidutolimod for 8 weeks, then were evaluated for surgery. Patients continued both drugs in the adjuvant setting for 48 weeks. 47% experienced complete pathologic response, 10% a major pathologic response, and 10% a partial pathologic response.

Analysis of resected samples revealed clear evidence of an immune response, Dr. Davar said during a press conference held in advance of the meeting. “Pathologic response was associated with compelling evidence of immune activation both peripherally and within the tumor, with clear evidence of pDC infiltrate and pDC activation – something that has not previously been seen in human specimens.”

The study regimen appeared safe, with no dose-limiting toxicities or grade 4 or 5 adverse events. He noted that the regimen is now being tested in the phase 2 ECOG-ACRIN trial.

The results are “very exciting,” said Pamela Ohashi, PhD, who commented on the study during the press conference. The virus-like nature of vidutolimod may be an important element of the therapy. “I think scientifically we would have predicted that the VLP carrying the CPG would be very good at activating the CD8 cells, which in fact is what you’re seeing. So I think it’s very exciting and has lots of potential for future combinations,” said Dr. Ohashi, who is director of the tumor immunotherapy program at the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto.

The study was funded by Checkmate Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Davar has financial relationships with Checkmate Pharmaceuticals and Regeneron, which has acquired Checkmate Pharmaceuticals.

The combination of nivolumab and vidutolimod led to a high rate of pathologic complete response and pathologic major response in a phase 2 trial of patients with stage 3 resectable melanoma. The result led researchers to call for a future study comparing the regimen against a suitable control group.

“We were very excited to see the ability of intratumoral vidutolimod to augment T-cell infiltrate. (Pathologic) response was associated with a dense infiltrate of CD8 T cells. We were also able to demonstrate for what I think may be the first time, that intratumoral CpG resulted in clear evidence of CD303+ plasmacytoid dendritic cells [pDCs],” said Diwakar Davar, MD, assistant professor of medicine at the University of Pittsburgh, during a presentation of the results at the annual meeting of the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer. He noted that pDCs represent a very rare cell population, less than 0.4% of circulating peripheral blood mononuclear cells, and tend to be found in lymph nodes.

The current standard of care for stage 3 melanoma is up-front surgery followed by adjuvant therapy – anti–PD-1 therapy for patients with wild-type or BRAF-mutant cancers, and targeted therapy with BRAF/MEK inhibitors in patients with BRAF mutations. However, preclinical studies suggest that neoadjuvant immunotherapy could lead to a stronger antitumor T-cell response than adjuvant immunotherapy.

Vidutolimod targets the toll-like receptor 9 (TLR-9) endosomal receptor found in B cells and pDC cells. The formulation is a virus-like particle (VLP) that contains unmethylated cytosine guanine–rich oligonucleotides (CpG ODN). Bacterial and viral genomes tend to be enriched in CpG ODN, and this acts as a TLR-9 agonist. TLR-9 activation in turn triggers an interferon response, and this may help overcome PD-1 blockade resistance in metastatic melanoma.

The researchers conducted a nonrandomized, open-label trial that included 30 patients with stage 3 melanoma (14 women; median age, 61 years). Patients received neoadjuvant nivolumab and vidutolimod for 8 weeks, then were evaluated for surgery. Patients continued both drugs in the adjuvant setting for 48 weeks. 47% experienced complete pathologic response, 10% a major pathologic response, and 10% a partial pathologic response.

Analysis of resected samples revealed clear evidence of an immune response, Dr. Davar said during a press conference held in advance of the meeting. “Pathologic response was associated with compelling evidence of immune activation both peripherally and within the tumor, with clear evidence of pDC infiltrate and pDC activation – something that has not previously been seen in human specimens.”

The study regimen appeared safe, with no dose-limiting toxicities or grade 4 or 5 adverse events. He noted that the regimen is now being tested in the phase 2 ECOG-ACRIN trial.

The results are “very exciting,” said Pamela Ohashi, PhD, who commented on the study during the press conference. The virus-like nature of vidutolimod may be an important element of the therapy. “I think scientifically we would have predicted that the VLP carrying the CPG would be very good at activating the CD8 cells, which in fact is what you’re seeing. So I think it’s very exciting and has lots of potential for future combinations,” said Dr. Ohashi, who is director of the tumor immunotherapy program at the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto.

The study was funded by Checkmate Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Davar has financial relationships with Checkmate Pharmaceuticals and Regeneron, which has acquired Checkmate Pharmaceuticals.

The combination of nivolumab and vidutolimod led to a high rate of pathologic complete response and pathologic major response in a phase 2 trial of patients with stage 3 resectable melanoma. The result led researchers to call for a future study comparing the regimen against a suitable control group.

“We were very excited to see the ability of intratumoral vidutolimod to augment T-cell infiltrate. (Pathologic) response was associated with a dense infiltrate of CD8 T cells. We were also able to demonstrate for what I think may be the first time, that intratumoral CpG resulted in clear evidence of CD303+ plasmacytoid dendritic cells [pDCs],” said Diwakar Davar, MD, assistant professor of medicine at the University of Pittsburgh, during a presentation of the results at the annual meeting of the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer. He noted that pDCs represent a very rare cell population, less than 0.4% of circulating peripheral blood mononuclear cells, and tend to be found in lymph nodes.

The current standard of care for stage 3 melanoma is up-front surgery followed by adjuvant therapy – anti–PD-1 therapy for patients with wild-type or BRAF-mutant cancers, and targeted therapy with BRAF/MEK inhibitors in patients with BRAF mutations. However, preclinical studies suggest that neoadjuvant immunotherapy could lead to a stronger antitumor T-cell response than adjuvant immunotherapy.

Vidutolimod targets the toll-like receptor 9 (TLR-9) endosomal receptor found in B cells and pDC cells. The formulation is a virus-like particle (VLP) that contains unmethylated cytosine guanine–rich oligonucleotides (CpG ODN). Bacterial and viral genomes tend to be enriched in CpG ODN, and this acts as a TLR-9 agonist. TLR-9 activation in turn triggers an interferon response, and this may help overcome PD-1 blockade resistance in metastatic melanoma.

The researchers conducted a nonrandomized, open-label trial that included 30 patients with stage 3 melanoma (14 women; median age, 61 years). Patients received neoadjuvant nivolumab and vidutolimod for 8 weeks, then were evaluated for surgery. Patients continued both drugs in the adjuvant setting for 48 weeks. 47% experienced complete pathologic response, 10% a major pathologic response, and 10% a partial pathologic response.

Analysis of resected samples revealed clear evidence of an immune response, Dr. Davar said during a press conference held in advance of the meeting. “Pathologic response was associated with compelling evidence of immune activation both peripherally and within the tumor, with clear evidence of pDC infiltrate and pDC activation – something that has not previously been seen in human specimens.”

The study regimen appeared safe, with no dose-limiting toxicities or grade 4 or 5 adverse events. He noted that the regimen is now being tested in the phase 2 ECOG-ACRIN trial.

The results are “very exciting,” said Pamela Ohashi, PhD, who commented on the study during the press conference. The virus-like nature of vidutolimod may be an important element of the therapy. “I think scientifically we would have predicted that the VLP carrying the CPG would be very good at activating the CD8 cells, which in fact is what you’re seeing. So I think it’s very exciting and has lots of potential for future combinations,” said Dr. Ohashi, who is director of the tumor immunotherapy program at the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto.

The study was funded by Checkmate Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Davar has financial relationships with Checkmate Pharmaceuticals and Regeneron, which has acquired Checkmate Pharmaceuticals.

Hepatitis B virus (HBV), which can lead to acute and chronic hepatitis, infects more than 2 billion people worldwide, according to serological evidence. Although vaccines and treatments are available, there are approximately 1.5 million new HBV infections each year globally.

A new study has revealed a key step in the HBV life cycle: Researchers found that HBV virions can be released within exosomes, which are capable of infecting neighboring cells. The authors, led by Qingyan Wu of the department of virology, Paul-Ehrlich-Institute, Langen, Germany, suggest this strategy may help the virus escape immune surveillance and target a new hepatocyte.

The study was published online in Cellular and Molecular Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

The researchers isolated exosomes from the supernatants of HBV-producing cells using exosomal and HBV markers. Electron microscopy using ultrathin sectioning along with immunogold labeling confirmed the presence of intact HBV virions in exosomes. The ultracentrifugation enabled the separation of the free virion fraction from the virions enclosed in exosomes. These findings fit in with previous discoveries of quasi-enveloped hepatitis A virus and hepatitis E virus.

The exosomes released free HBV virion and naked capsid after exposure to detergent. Cellular exposure to exosome morphogenesis inhibitors interfered with the release of exosome-packaged HBV. The researchers also observed large HBV surface antigens (LHB) on the external surface of the exosomes and found that the antigens allowed the exosome to infect susceptible cells through interaction with the sodium-taurocholate co-transporting polypeptide. LHB may also play an additional role in infectivity by countering the ability of antibodies to neutralize HBV.

However, the researchers also found that an LHB-specific neutralizing antibody inhibited infection of differentiated HepaRG cells with exosome-containing HBV. One explanation is that the antibody blocks the interaction between LHB and the target cell. Another is that the exosome disassembles near the target cell membrane and releases the virus, which is then blocked by the antibody since it can block entry of released virus.

To investigate the release pathway, the researchers used three different exosome release inhibitors and found that all three interfered with HBV exosomal release. They also found that cells deficient in the exosome proteins Alix and syntenin did not release exosomal HBV.

Alix appears to be involved in HBV exosomal release, as evidenced by the fact that release of exosomal HBV is boosted in Alix-deficient cells following rescue through overexpression of mCherry-Alix fusion construct. Overexpression of mCherry-Alix had no effect on release of free HBV virions.

The researchers also found evidence that two other exosomal proteins, CD63 and TSG101, play a role in incorporation of LHBs in the HBV envelope, as well as release of HBV through interactions with the protein alpha-taxilin. CD63 and TSG101 are also critical to the formation of exosomes, and the authors suggest further research into their functioning could be fruitful.

Whether exosome-released HBV results from crosstalk between the virus and host cells still needs to be determined. If host factors play a role in connecting HBV to exosomes, it will be interesting to work out which conditions trigger this process, as well as determine which events trigger the release of free virus through multivesicular bodies.

The researchers posit that LHBs could perform a similar function as classical hepatitis B surface antigens and filaments in foiling the immune response. Such a function would require that the virus escape from antibodies before opsonin proteins tag the antigens. It’s also possible that LHBs enable infection of nonhepatic tissues, though this would likely be inefficient.

Many other host proteins have been observed in exosomes released by HBV-infected hepatocytes, suggesting that host proteins may play other roles. A proteomics analysis found proteasome subunit proteins in HepAD38-derived exosomes. The authors suggest that those proteins may allow the exosomes to mediate transcellular immune regulation.

Subviral particles may enhance viral infection, and exosomes from HBV-positive cells may contribute, possibly through exosome surface LHBs, according to the authors. They found that an LHB-specific neutralizing antibody inhibited infection of differentiated HepaRG cells. One explanation is that the antibody blocks the interaction between LHB and the target cell. Another is that the exosome disassembles near the target cell membrane and releases the virus, which is then blocked by the antibody since it can block entry of released virus.

“This previously undiscovered strategy of sequestering HBV particles in exosomes could be a strategy to escape from the immune response and to target them, protected by the exosomal membrane, to the hepatocyte. Exosomes that carry HBV particles seem also to have the potential to deliver HBV to nonpermissive cells with low efficiency. This suggests that exosomes could be an additional factor that contributes to the spread of HBV,” the authors wrote.

The authors had no financial conflicts. This research was funded by the LOEWE Center ACLF, DRUID, the Germany Research Foundation, and the China Scholarship Council.

Hepatitis B virus (HBV), which can lead to acute and chronic hepatitis, infects more than 2 billion people worldwide, according to serological evidence. Although vaccines and treatments are available, there are approximately 1.5 million new HBV infections each year globally.

A new study has revealed a key step in the HBV life cycle: Researchers found that HBV virions can be released within exosomes, which are capable of infecting neighboring cells. The authors, led by Qingyan Wu of the department of virology, Paul-Ehrlich-Institute, Langen, Germany, suggest this strategy may help the virus escape immune surveillance and target a new hepatocyte.

The study was published online in Cellular and Molecular Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

The researchers isolated exosomes from the supernatants of HBV-producing cells using exosomal and HBV markers. Electron microscopy using ultrathin sectioning along with immunogold labeling confirmed the presence of intact HBV virions in exosomes. The ultracentrifugation enabled the separation of the free virion fraction from the virions enclosed in exosomes. These findings fit in with previous discoveries of quasi-enveloped hepatitis A virus and hepatitis E virus.

The exosomes released free HBV virion and naked capsid after exposure to detergent. Cellular exposure to exosome morphogenesis inhibitors interfered with the release of exosome-packaged HBV. The researchers also observed large HBV surface antigens (LHB) on the external surface of the exosomes and found that the antigens allowed the exosome to infect susceptible cells through interaction with the sodium-taurocholate co-transporting polypeptide. LHB may also play an additional role in infectivity by countering the ability of antibodies to neutralize HBV.

However, the researchers also found that an LHB-specific neutralizing antibody inhibited infection of differentiated HepaRG cells with exosome-containing HBV. One explanation is that the antibody blocks the interaction between LHB and the target cell. Another is that the exosome disassembles near the target cell membrane and releases the virus, which is then blocked by the antibody since it can block entry of released virus.

To investigate the release pathway, the researchers used three different exosome release inhibitors and found that all three interfered with HBV exosomal release. They also found that cells deficient in the exosome proteins Alix and syntenin did not release exosomal HBV.

Alix appears to be involved in HBV exosomal release, as evidenced by the fact that release of exosomal HBV is boosted in Alix-deficient cells following rescue through overexpression of mCherry-Alix fusion construct. Overexpression of mCherry-Alix had no effect on release of free HBV virions.

The researchers also found evidence that two other exosomal proteins, CD63 and TSG101, play a role in incorporation of LHBs in the HBV envelope, as well as release of HBV through interactions with the protein alpha-taxilin. CD63 and TSG101 are also critical to the formation of exosomes, and the authors suggest further research into their functioning could be fruitful.

Whether exosome-released HBV results from crosstalk between the virus and host cells still needs to be determined. If host factors play a role in connecting HBV to exosomes, it will be interesting to work out which conditions trigger this process, as well as determine which events trigger the release of free virus through multivesicular bodies.

The researchers posit that LHBs could perform a similar function as classical hepatitis B surface antigens and filaments in foiling the immune response. Such a function would require that the virus escape from antibodies before opsonin proteins tag the antigens. It’s also possible that LHBs enable infection of nonhepatic tissues, though this would likely be inefficient.

Many other host proteins have been observed in exosomes released by HBV-infected hepatocytes, suggesting that host proteins may play other roles. A proteomics analysis found proteasome subunit proteins in HepAD38-derived exosomes. The authors suggest that those proteins may allow the exosomes to mediate transcellular immune regulation.

Subviral particles may enhance viral infection, and exosomes from HBV-positive cells may contribute, possibly through exosome surface LHBs, according to the authors. They found that an LHB-specific neutralizing antibody inhibited infection of differentiated HepaRG cells. One explanation is that the antibody blocks the interaction between LHB and the target cell. Another is that the exosome disassembles near the target cell membrane and releases the virus, which is then blocked by the antibody since it can block entry of released virus.

“This previously undiscovered strategy of sequestering HBV particles in exosomes could be a strategy to escape from the immune response and to target them, protected by the exosomal membrane, to the hepatocyte. Exosomes that carry HBV particles seem also to have the potential to deliver HBV to nonpermissive cells with low efficiency. This suggests that exosomes could be an additional factor that contributes to the spread of HBV,” the authors wrote.

The authors had no financial conflicts. This research was funded by the LOEWE Center ACLF, DRUID, the Germany Research Foundation, and the China Scholarship Council.

Hepatitis B virus (HBV), which can lead to acute and chronic hepatitis, infects more than 2 billion people worldwide, according to serological evidence. Although vaccines and treatments are available, there are approximately 1.5 million new HBV infections each year globally.

A new study has revealed a key step in the HBV life cycle: Researchers found that HBV virions can be released within exosomes, which are capable of infecting neighboring cells. The authors, led by Qingyan Wu of the department of virology, Paul-Ehrlich-Institute, Langen, Germany, suggest this strategy may help the virus escape immune surveillance and target a new hepatocyte.

The study was published online in Cellular and Molecular Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

The researchers isolated exosomes from the supernatants of HBV-producing cells using exosomal and HBV markers. Electron microscopy using ultrathin sectioning along with immunogold labeling confirmed the presence of intact HBV virions in exosomes. The ultracentrifugation enabled the separation of the free virion fraction from the virions enclosed in exosomes. These findings fit in with previous discoveries of quasi-enveloped hepatitis A virus and hepatitis E virus.

The exosomes released free HBV virion and naked capsid after exposure to detergent. Cellular exposure to exosome morphogenesis inhibitors interfered with the release of exosome-packaged HBV. The researchers also observed large HBV surface antigens (LHB) on the external surface of the exosomes and found that the antigens allowed the exosome to infect susceptible cells through interaction with the sodium-taurocholate co-transporting polypeptide. LHB may also play an additional role in infectivity by countering the ability of antibodies to neutralize HBV.

However, the researchers also found that an LHB-specific neutralizing antibody inhibited infection of differentiated HepaRG cells with exosome-containing HBV. One explanation is that the antibody blocks the interaction between LHB and the target cell. Another is that the exosome disassembles near the target cell membrane and releases the virus, which is then blocked by the antibody since it can block entry of released virus.

To investigate the release pathway, the researchers used three different exosome release inhibitors and found that all three interfered with HBV exosomal release. They also found that cells deficient in the exosome proteins Alix and syntenin did not release exosomal HBV.

Alix appears to be involved in HBV exosomal release, as evidenced by the fact that release of exosomal HBV is boosted in Alix-deficient cells following rescue through overexpression of mCherry-Alix fusion construct. Overexpression of mCherry-Alix had no effect on release of free HBV virions.

The researchers also found evidence that two other exosomal proteins, CD63 and TSG101, play a role in incorporation of LHBs in the HBV envelope, as well as release of HBV through interactions with the protein alpha-taxilin. CD63 and TSG101 are also critical to the formation of exosomes, and the authors suggest further research into their functioning could be fruitful.

Whether exosome-released HBV results from crosstalk between the virus and host cells still needs to be determined. If host factors play a role in connecting HBV to exosomes, it will be interesting to work out which conditions trigger this process, as well as determine which events trigger the release of free virus through multivesicular bodies.

The researchers posit that LHBs could perform a similar function as classical hepatitis B surface antigens and filaments in foiling the immune response. Such a function would require that the virus escape from antibodies before opsonin proteins tag the antigens. It’s also possible that LHBs enable infection of nonhepatic tissues, though this would likely be inefficient.

Many other host proteins have been observed in exosomes released by HBV-infected hepatocytes, suggesting that host proteins may play other roles. A proteomics analysis found proteasome subunit proteins in HepAD38-derived exosomes. The authors suggest that those proteins may allow the exosomes to mediate transcellular immune regulation.

Subviral particles may enhance viral infection, and exosomes from HBV-positive cells may contribute, possibly through exosome surface LHBs, according to the authors. They found that an LHB-specific neutralizing antibody inhibited infection of differentiated HepaRG cells. One explanation is that the antibody blocks the interaction between LHB and the target cell. Another is that the exosome disassembles near the target cell membrane and releases the virus, which is then blocked by the antibody since it can block entry of released virus.

“This previously undiscovered strategy of sequestering HBV particles in exosomes could be a strategy to escape from the immune response and to target them, protected by the exosomal membrane, to the hepatocyte. Exosomes that carry HBV particles seem also to have the potential to deliver HBV to nonpermissive cells with low efficiency. This suggests that exosomes could be an additional factor that contributes to the spread of HBV,” the authors wrote.

The authors had no financial conflicts. This research was funded by the LOEWE Center ACLF, DRUID, the Germany Research Foundation, and the China Scholarship Council.

In advanced and metastatic melanoma patients, fecal microbiota transplant (FMT) from healthy donors in advance of anti–PD-1 immunotherapy led to a 75% clinical benefit rate, defined as complete response, partial response, or stable disease that lasted 6 months or longer. The results come from a small, single arm phase 1 study whose primary endpoint was safety.

“We know that the gut microbiome has shown the ability to affect the systemic antitumor immunity by affecting the CD8+ T cells and CD4+ T cells, and these are the cells that are ultimately important for the function of checkpoint inhibitors. There is now clinical evidence that has shown that changing patient microbiota via fecal microbiota transplantation using stool from previous responder patients has the capacity to sensitize immunotherapy refractory melanomas to anti–PD-1 therapy, (with) about 30% response in this setting,” said Saman Maleki, PhD, during his presentation of the results at the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer’s 37th Annual Meeting. He also noted that broad-spectrum antibiotics have been shown to negatively influence responses to immunotherapy.

Rather than using stool from donors who responded to immunotherapy, the researchers chose instead to use stool from healthy donors.

The study included 20 patients with advanced melanoma who had not been treated with anti–PD-1 therapy. The median age was 75.5 years, 40% were female, and 75% had wild type BRAF. All patients underwent bowel prep and then received fecal transplants from healthy donors, followed by a 7-day engraftment period before initiating anti–PD-1 therapy in the form of nivolumab or pembrolizumab.

The primary endpoint of the study was safety, and no grade 3 or 4 toxicities were observed during the FMT, and safety signals associated with anti–PD-1 therapies were in line with previous experience.

Fifteen percent of patients had a complete response, 50% had a partial response, 15% had stable disease, and 20% had progressive disease. Seventy-five percent of patients had a complete response, partial response, or stable disease that lasted at least 6 months.

Analysis of the microbiomes showed much higher diversity in the donor microbiomes than in patients. “What was really interesting was that the success of engraftment and retention of the donor microbiome was really key in determining between responders and nonresponders. Responders had successful engraftment that lasted over time, and in nonresponders we did not see that,” said Dr. Maleki, who is a cancer immunology researcher at the University of Western Ontario, London.

They also saw differences between responders and nonresponders in how their microbiome evolved over time. Responders had enrichment in Ruminococcus callidus and other bacteria, while nonresponders had enrichment in different bacteria, among them Catabacter hongkongensis, which has previously been implicated as negatively impacting anti–PD-1 responses, according to Dr. Maleki.

Microbiomes from healthy donors had greater diversity than the patients. Following FMT, patients’ microbiomes increased regardless of clinical response to immunotherapy. However, the tendency for patients to trend toward and retain greater diversity over time was associated with treatment success. “What we saw that was key in patients’ response to immunotherapy was the ability of the patients to retain the donor microbiome. All patients’ microbiomes changed and shifted toward the donors’ post FMT. However, only the responders were able to keep the donor microbiome over time, and the nonresponders’ microbiomes reverted to the previous microbiome,” Dr. Maleki said.

The researchers also conducted a mouse version of the clinical trial. They transplanted mice with the baseline fecal samples of a human responder and then exposed the animals to tumors. They then conducted a second FMT with stool from the human donor, and the animals then responded to anti–PD-1 therapy. The results further confirm “that the donor still has the capacity to drive response in this setting,” Dr. Maleki said.

Dr. Maleki is a board member of IMV Inc.

In advanced and metastatic melanoma patients, fecal microbiota transplant (FMT) from healthy donors in advance of anti–PD-1 immunotherapy led to a 75% clinical benefit rate, defined as complete response, partial response, or stable disease that lasted 6 months or longer. The results come from a small, single arm phase 1 study whose primary endpoint was safety.

“We know that the gut microbiome has shown the ability to affect the systemic antitumor immunity by affecting the CD8+ T cells and CD4+ T cells, and these are the cells that are ultimately important for the function of checkpoint inhibitors. There is now clinical evidence that has shown that changing patient microbiota via fecal microbiota transplantation using stool from previous responder patients has the capacity to sensitize immunotherapy refractory melanomas to anti–PD-1 therapy, (with) about 30% response in this setting,” said Saman Maleki, PhD, during his presentation of the results at the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer’s 37th Annual Meeting. He also noted that broad-spectrum antibiotics have been shown to negatively influence responses to immunotherapy.

Rather than using stool from donors who responded to immunotherapy, the researchers chose instead to use stool from healthy donors.

The study included 20 patients with advanced melanoma who had not been treated with anti–PD-1 therapy. The median age was 75.5 years, 40% were female, and 75% had wild type BRAF. All patients underwent bowel prep and then received fecal transplants from healthy donors, followed by a 7-day engraftment period before initiating anti–PD-1 therapy in the form of nivolumab or pembrolizumab.

The primary endpoint of the study was safety, and no grade 3 or 4 toxicities were observed during the FMT, and safety signals associated with anti–PD-1 therapies were in line with previous experience.

Fifteen percent of patients had a complete response, 50% had a partial response, 15% had stable disease, and 20% had progressive disease. Seventy-five percent of patients had a complete response, partial response, or stable disease that lasted at least 6 months.

Analysis of the microbiomes showed much higher diversity in the donor microbiomes than in patients. “What was really interesting was that the success of engraftment and retention of the donor microbiome was really key in determining between responders and nonresponders. Responders had successful engraftment that lasted over time, and in nonresponders we did not see that,” said Dr. Maleki, who is a cancer immunology researcher at the University of Western Ontario, London.

They also saw differences between responders and nonresponders in how their microbiome evolved over time. Responders had enrichment in Ruminococcus callidus and other bacteria, while nonresponders had enrichment in different bacteria, among them Catabacter hongkongensis, which has previously been implicated as negatively impacting anti–PD-1 responses, according to Dr. Maleki.

Microbiomes from healthy donors had greater diversity than the patients. Following FMT, patients’ microbiomes increased regardless of clinical response to immunotherapy. However, the tendency for patients to trend toward and retain greater diversity over time was associated with treatment success. “What we saw that was key in patients’ response to immunotherapy was the ability of the patients to retain the donor microbiome. All patients’ microbiomes changed and shifted toward the donors’ post FMT. However, only the responders were able to keep the donor microbiome over time, and the nonresponders’ microbiomes reverted to the previous microbiome,” Dr. Maleki said.

The researchers also conducted a mouse version of the clinical trial. They transplanted mice with the baseline fecal samples of a human responder and then exposed the animals to tumors. They then conducted a second FMT with stool from the human donor, and the animals then responded to anti–PD-1 therapy. The results further confirm “that the donor still has the capacity to drive response in this setting,” Dr. Maleki said.

Dr. Maleki is a board member of IMV Inc.

In advanced and metastatic melanoma patients, fecal microbiota transplant (FMT) from healthy donors in advance of anti–PD-1 immunotherapy led to a 75% clinical benefit rate, defined as complete response, partial response, or stable disease that lasted 6 months or longer. The results come from a small, single arm phase 1 study whose primary endpoint was safety.

“We know that the gut microbiome has shown the ability to affect the systemic antitumor immunity by affecting the CD8+ T cells and CD4+ T cells, and these are the cells that are ultimately important for the function of checkpoint inhibitors. There is now clinical evidence that has shown that changing patient microbiota via fecal microbiota transplantation using stool from previous responder patients has the capacity to sensitize immunotherapy refractory melanomas to anti–PD-1 therapy, (with) about 30% response in this setting,” said Saman Maleki, PhD, during his presentation of the results at the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer’s 37th Annual Meeting. He also noted that broad-spectrum antibiotics have been shown to negatively influence responses to immunotherapy.

Rather than using stool from donors who responded to immunotherapy, the researchers chose instead to use stool from healthy donors.

The study included 20 patients with advanced melanoma who had not been treated with anti–PD-1 therapy. The median age was 75.5 years, 40% were female, and 75% had wild type BRAF. All patients underwent bowel prep and then received fecal transplants from healthy donors, followed by a 7-day engraftment period before initiating anti–PD-1 therapy in the form of nivolumab or pembrolizumab.

The primary endpoint of the study was safety, and no grade 3 or 4 toxicities were observed during the FMT, and safety signals associated with anti–PD-1 therapies were in line with previous experience.

Fifteen percent of patients had a complete response, 50% had a partial response, 15% had stable disease, and 20% had progressive disease. Seventy-five percent of patients had a complete response, partial response, or stable disease that lasted at least 6 months.

Analysis of the microbiomes showed much higher diversity in the donor microbiomes than in patients. “What was really interesting was that the success of engraftment and retention of the donor microbiome was really key in determining between responders and nonresponders. Responders had successful engraftment that lasted over time, and in nonresponders we did not see that,” said Dr. Maleki, who is a cancer immunology researcher at the University of Western Ontario, London.

They also saw differences between responders and nonresponders in how their microbiome evolved over time. Responders had enrichment in Ruminococcus callidus and other bacteria, while nonresponders had enrichment in different bacteria, among them Catabacter hongkongensis, which has previously been implicated as negatively impacting anti–PD-1 responses, according to Dr. Maleki.

Microbiomes from healthy donors had greater diversity than the patients. Following FMT, patients’ microbiomes increased regardless of clinical response to immunotherapy. However, the tendency for patients to trend toward and retain greater diversity over time was associated with treatment success. “What we saw that was key in patients’ response to immunotherapy was the ability of the patients to retain the donor microbiome. All patients’ microbiomes changed and shifted toward the donors’ post FMT. However, only the responders were able to keep the donor microbiome over time, and the nonresponders’ microbiomes reverted to the previous microbiome,” Dr. Maleki said.

The researchers also conducted a mouse version of the clinical trial. They transplanted mice with the baseline fecal samples of a human responder and then exposed the animals to tumors. They then conducted a second FMT with stool from the human donor, and the animals then responded to anti–PD-1 therapy. The results further confirm “that the donor still has the capacity to drive response in this setting,” Dr. Maleki said.

Dr. Maleki is a board member of IMV Inc.