User login
CDK 4/6 Blocker Prolongs Survival in HER2+ Metastatic Breast Cancer
according to the results of the phase 3 PATINA study.
This regimen “may represent a new standard of care” for these patients, said principal investigator and presenter Otto Metzger, MD, a medical breast oncologist at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, Massachusetts, who presented the findings at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium (SABCS) 2024.
The open-label PATINA trial, which was conducted in Europe, Australia, New Zealand, and the United States, included a total of 518 patients. Patients received first-line treatment of six to eight cycles of induction chemotherapy plus anti-HER2 therapy. Researchers then randomized patients to either palbociclib plus anti-HER2 and endocrine therapy (n = 261) or to anti-HER2 and endocrine therapy alone (n = 257).
Patients did not progress on induction therapy, which likely would have signaled early resistance to anti-HER2 treatment. For anti-HER2 therapy, 97.3% received a combination of trastuzumab and pertuzumab. For endocrine therapy, 90.9% received an aromatase inhibitor.
Metzger and colleagues found that median progression-free survival was 1.3 years longer in patients receiving palbociclib — 3.7 years in the palbociclib arm vs 2.4 years in the control group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.74; P = .0074).
Although overall survival outcomes are immature, 5-year survival rates were slightly better in the palbociclib arm — 74.3% with palbociclib vs 69.8% without it — but the difference was not statistically significant.
Grade 3 neutropenia was the most frequent adverse event in the palbociclib arm (63.2% vs 2%). Grades 2 and 3 fatigue, stomatitis, and diarrhea were also more common with palbociclib. Grade 4 adverse events occurred in 12.3% of those receiving palbociclib and 8.9% of those who did not. There were no treatment-related deaths.
“We’re very impressed with the results,” said Metzger.
On the basis of previous studies, it’s believed that CDK 4/6 inhibition counteracts the development of resistance to anti-HER2 and endocrine therapies, which likely explains the benefit found in the trial.
But even without CDK 4/6 inhibition, the progression-free survival of 2.4 years in the control arm “far exceed[ed] our expectations,” Metzger reported. This may have occurred because the control arm received endocrine therapy, something previous trials of anti-HER2 therapy have avoided because of tolerability and other concerns.
These findings, however, support “the common use of endocrine therapy,” Metzger said.
‘Incredible’ Results
The progression-free survival as well as overall survival results in the trial are “incredible,” said study discussant Sara Hurvitz, MD, a medical breast oncologist at the Fred Hutch Cancer Center in Seattle, Washington. This is “historic and very important data.”
Hurvitz even suggested the results might mean that patients who fit the PATINA criteria can avoid the toxicity of upfront trastuzumab deruxtecan and use the PATINA regimen instead, potentially preserving their quality of life for longer.
Another study discussant, Virginia Kaklamani, MD, a medical breast oncologist at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, San Antonio, had a similar thought.
In PATINA, “we’re talking about patients being on a treatment that’s well tolerated, where patients continue to work and continue with their lives despite being on treatment for metastatic breast cancer for 4 years, which is remarkable,” Kaklamani said.
Many of us have dabbled with giving CDK 4/6 inhibitors in triple-positive breast cancer, but “now we have more definitive data,” she said. The approach can help “maintain the quality of life of our patients for a longer period of time” and delay the use of chemotherapy in the second line, she added.
Metzger said Pfizer, the maker of palbociclib, plans to file for a HER2-positive indication with the Food and Drug Administration based on the trial results.
For now, the CDK 4/6 blocker is only indicated in combination with endocrine therapy for HR-positive, HER2-negative metastatic disease.
In response to a question about using the PATINA regimen in patients who don’t get chemotherapy induction, Metzger noted that, “while the study didn’t test this directly, I would argue that this data is quite compelling” for using palbociclib plus anti-HER2 and endocrine therapy, even without chemotherapy induction.
The work was funded by palbociclib maker Pfizer. Metzger had no disclosures. Hurvitz has numerous industry ties, including being a researcher and advisor to Pfizer. Kaklamani also has numerous industry ties, including reporting personal/consulting fees from Pfizer Canada.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
according to the results of the phase 3 PATINA study.
This regimen “may represent a new standard of care” for these patients, said principal investigator and presenter Otto Metzger, MD, a medical breast oncologist at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, Massachusetts, who presented the findings at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium (SABCS) 2024.
The open-label PATINA trial, which was conducted in Europe, Australia, New Zealand, and the United States, included a total of 518 patients. Patients received first-line treatment of six to eight cycles of induction chemotherapy plus anti-HER2 therapy. Researchers then randomized patients to either palbociclib plus anti-HER2 and endocrine therapy (n = 261) or to anti-HER2 and endocrine therapy alone (n = 257).
Patients did not progress on induction therapy, which likely would have signaled early resistance to anti-HER2 treatment. For anti-HER2 therapy, 97.3% received a combination of trastuzumab and pertuzumab. For endocrine therapy, 90.9% received an aromatase inhibitor.
Metzger and colleagues found that median progression-free survival was 1.3 years longer in patients receiving palbociclib — 3.7 years in the palbociclib arm vs 2.4 years in the control group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.74; P = .0074).
Although overall survival outcomes are immature, 5-year survival rates were slightly better in the palbociclib arm — 74.3% with palbociclib vs 69.8% without it — but the difference was not statistically significant.
Grade 3 neutropenia was the most frequent adverse event in the palbociclib arm (63.2% vs 2%). Grades 2 and 3 fatigue, stomatitis, and diarrhea were also more common with palbociclib. Grade 4 adverse events occurred in 12.3% of those receiving palbociclib and 8.9% of those who did not. There were no treatment-related deaths.
“We’re very impressed with the results,” said Metzger.
On the basis of previous studies, it’s believed that CDK 4/6 inhibition counteracts the development of resistance to anti-HER2 and endocrine therapies, which likely explains the benefit found in the trial.
But even without CDK 4/6 inhibition, the progression-free survival of 2.4 years in the control arm “far exceed[ed] our expectations,” Metzger reported. This may have occurred because the control arm received endocrine therapy, something previous trials of anti-HER2 therapy have avoided because of tolerability and other concerns.
These findings, however, support “the common use of endocrine therapy,” Metzger said.
‘Incredible’ Results
The progression-free survival as well as overall survival results in the trial are “incredible,” said study discussant Sara Hurvitz, MD, a medical breast oncologist at the Fred Hutch Cancer Center in Seattle, Washington. This is “historic and very important data.”
Hurvitz even suggested the results might mean that patients who fit the PATINA criteria can avoid the toxicity of upfront trastuzumab deruxtecan and use the PATINA regimen instead, potentially preserving their quality of life for longer.
Another study discussant, Virginia Kaklamani, MD, a medical breast oncologist at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, San Antonio, had a similar thought.
In PATINA, “we’re talking about patients being on a treatment that’s well tolerated, where patients continue to work and continue with their lives despite being on treatment for metastatic breast cancer for 4 years, which is remarkable,” Kaklamani said.
Many of us have dabbled with giving CDK 4/6 inhibitors in triple-positive breast cancer, but “now we have more definitive data,” she said. The approach can help “maintain the quality of life of our patients for a longer period of time” and delay the use of chemotherapy in the second line, she added.
Metzger said Pfizer, the maker of palbociclib, plans to file for a HER2-positive indication with the Food and Drug Administration based on the trial results.
For now, the CDK 4/6 blocker is only indicated in combination with endocrine therapy for HR-positive, HER2-negative metastatic disease.
In response to a question about using the PATINA regimen in patients who don’t get chemotherapy induction, Metzger noted that, “while the study didn’t test this directly, I would argue that this data is quite compelling” for using palbociclib plus anti-HER2 and endocrine therapy, even without chemotherapy induction.
The work was funded by palbociclib maker Pfizer. Metzger had no disclosures. Hurvitz has numerous industry ties, including being a researcher and advisor to Pfizer. Kaklamani also has numerous industry ties, including reporting personal/consulting fees from Pfizer Canada.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
according to the results of the phase 3 PATINA study.
This regimen “may represent a new standard of care” for these patients, said principal investigator and presenter Otto Metzger, MD, a medical breast oncologist at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, Massachusetts, who presented the findings at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium (SABCS) 2024.
The open-label PATINA trial, which was conducted in Europe, Australia, New Zealand, and the United States, included a total of 518 patients. Patients received first-line treatment of six to eight cycles of induction chemotherapy plus anti-HER2 therapy. Researchers then randomized patients to either palbociclib plus anti-HER2 and endocrine therapy (n = 261) or to anti-HER2 and endocrine therapy alone (n = 257).
Patients did not progress on induction therapy, which likely would have signaled early resistance to anti-HER2 treatment. For anti-HER2 therapy, 97.3% received a combination of trastuzumab and pertuzumab. For endocrine therapy, 90.9% received an aromatase inhibitor.
Metzger and colleagues found that median progression-free survival was 1.3 years longer in patients receiving palbociclib — 3.7 years in the palbociclib arm vs 2.4 years in the control group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.74; P = .0074).
Although overall survival outcomes are immature, 5-year survival rates were slightly better in the palbociclib arm — 74.3% with palbociclib vs 69.8% without it — but the difference was not statistically significant.
Grade 3 neutropenia was the most frequent adverse event in the palbociclib arm (63.2% vs 2%). Grades 2 and 3 fatigue, stomatitis, and diarrhea were also more common with palbociclib. Grade 4 adverse events occurred in 12.3% of those receiving palbociclib and 8.9% of those who did not. There were no treatment-related deaths.
“We’re very impressed with the results,” said Metzger.
On the basis of previous studies, it’s believed that CDK 4/6 inhibition counteracts the development of resistance to anti-HER2 and endocrine therapies, which likely explains the benefit found in the trial.
But even without CDK 4/6 inhibition, the progression-free survival of 2.4 years in the control arm “far exceed[ed] our expectations,” Metzger reported. This may have occurred because the control arm received endocrine therapy, something previous trials of anti-HER2 therapy have avoided because of tolerability and other concerns.
These findings, however, support “the common use of endocrine therapy,” Metzger said.
‘Incredible’ Results
The progression-free survival as well as overall survival results in the trial are “incredible,” said study discussant Sara Hurvitz, MD, a medical breast oncologist at the Fred Hutch Cancer Center in Seattle, Washington. This is “historic and very important data.”
Hurvitz even suggested the results might mean that patients who fit the PATINA criteria can avoid the toxicity of upfront trastuzumab deruxtecan and use the PATINA regimen instead, potentially preserving their quality of life for longer.
Another study discussant, Virginia Kaklamani, MD, a medical breast oncologist at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, San Antonio, had a similar thought.
In PATINA, “we’re talking about patients being on a treatment that’s well tolerated, where patients continue to work and continue with their lives despite being on treatment for metastatic breast cancer for 4 years, which is remarkable,” Kaklamani said.
Many of us have dabbled with giving CDK 4/6 inhibitors in triple-positive breast cancer, but “now we have more definitive data,” she said. The approach can help “maintain the quality of life of our patients for a longer period of time” and delay the use of chemotherapy in the second line, she added.
Metzger said Pfizer, the maker of palbociclib, plans to file for a HER2-positive indication with the Food and Drug Administration based on the trial results.
For now, the CDK 4/6 blocker is only indicated in combination with endocrine therapy for HR-positive, HER2-negative metastatic disease.
In response to a question about using the PATINA regimen in patients who don’t get chemotherapy induction, Metzger noted that, “while the study didn’t test this directly, I would argue that this data is quite compelling” for using palbociclib plus anti-HER2 and endocrine therapy, even without chemotherapy induction.
The work was funded by palbociclib maker Pfizer. Metzger had no disclosures. Hurvitz has numerous industry ties, including being a researcher and advisor to Pfizer. Kaklamani also has numerous industry ties, including reporting personal/consulting fees from Pfizer Canada.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM SABCS 2024
Surveillance Instead of Surgery for Low-Risk DCIS?
At 2 years, investigators on the COMET trial found no clinically meaningful difference in the rates of ipsilateral invasive breast cancer among women randomized to active surveillance vs standard upfront surgery with or without radiation.
The 2-year findings suggest that surveillance is safe in the short term.
“While these results are provocative, I don’t think they’re quite practice-changing yet,” said lead investigator Shelley Hwang, MD, a surgical breast oncologist at Duke University in Durham, North Carolina, who presented the findings at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium (SABCS) 2024.
For one thing, it generally takes longer than 2 years for DCIS to convert to invasive cancer, so it will be important to wait for the planned analyses at 5, 7, and 10 years to make sure there isn’t an excess number of invasive breast cancers in the surveillance arm, Hwang said.
If the results prove durable, however, the findings will likely be “practice-changing” for women who were at least 40 years old and had grade 1 or 2 hormone receptor–positive DCIS at low risk for conversion, Hwang said.
The goal of active surveillance is to prevent unnecessary treatment. During surveillance, lesions are monitored for changes that indicate conversion to more advanced disease, at which point guideline-concordant care begins.
Although DCIS can convert to invasive breast cancer, this doesn’t always happen. As a result, upfront surgery and radiation aren’t necessary for some women.
The COMET trial aimed to determine the short-term safety of an active monitoring approach compared with guideline-concordant care in patients with low-risk DCIS.
The prospective, randomized noninferiority trial included women aged 40 years or older with a new diagnosis of HR–positive grade 1 or grade 2 DCIS without invasive cancer from 100 US Alliance Cancer Cooperative Group clinical trial sites.
In the trial, 484 women with DCIS were randomized to active surveillance — breast mammography and physical exam every 6 months — and 473 were randomized to standard upfront surgery with or without radiation. Overall, 15.7% of participants were Black and 75.0% were White.
Patients in either group could elect to have endocrine therapy, typically over a 5-year period (71% of women in the active monitoring group and 65.5% in the surgery group opted for endocrine therapy).
At 2 years, the cumulative rate of ipsilateral invasive breast cancer was 4.2% in the surveillance group vs 5.9% in the upfront surgery arm.
The study also included a planned per-protocol analysis among 673 patients who strictly followed the study protocol — 246 in the guideline-concordant care group who had received surgery by 6 months and 427 in the surveillance group who initiated the active monitoring protocol at 6 months.
With almost half of patients randomized to surgery declined to have it, which indicates that patients are interested in active monitoring, Hwang said.
At 2 years, the cumulative rate of invasive breast cancer was 3.1% in the active surveillance group vs 8.7% in the upfront surgery arm.
Among patients receiving endocrine therapy, the rate of invasive cancer was 7.15% in the surgery group and 3.21% in the surveillance arm.
Endocrine therapy “may have resulted in a reduced rate of invasive cancer in the active monitoring group,” the study authors noted.
These findings bring up the question of whether endocrine therapy might be just as good as surgery for low-risk DCIS, Hwang added. Given that one third of women undergo mastectomy for DCIS, “I think it’s not an inconsequential question,” Hwang said.
The findings, however, also suggest that surveillance sometimes leaves invasive cancer behind, Hwang explained. Nearly all invasive cancers in the surgery group were found during the initial operation , which may explain the slightly higher rates of invasive cancers in this group. Had the active monitoring group undergone surgery as well, the incidence of invasive cancer may have been the same in both arms, Hwang said.
However, when invasive cancers were removed, there were no significant differences in tumor size, node status, or tumor grade between the two groups, suggesting that there might not be a clinical penalty for delayed intervention with active monitoring, Hwang said.
With more than 10% of patients in the surgery group opting for mastectomy, compared with 1.8% in the active monitoring group, the active monitoring approach may not increase the likelihood of an eventual need for more extensive surgery, the COMET authors explained.
What Strategy Do Patients Prefer?
A companion analysis of patient-reported outcomes in COMET found no meaningful differences in quality of life, symptoms, or anxiety among patients who opted for surveillance over surgery. Results from questionnaires on quality of life, anxiety, depression, and breast cancer concerns were comparable between the two groups, with no evidence of a substantial impact of one approach over the other at 2 years.
“The results of this secondary analysis suggest that the lived experiences of individuals with low-risk DCIS are similar during early follow-up regardless of treatment allocation,” the COMET investigators concluded.
Overall, the findings from COMET provide reassuring short-term data, said Neil Iyengar, MD, a medical breast oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City.
DCIS is not an aggressive cancer, and it’s not going to invade any time soon, so patients have time to consider their options, Iyengar told Medscape Medical News.
The 2-year findings from COMET also help inform patient discussions. “I can tell patients if they decide not to have surgery what the likelihood is that they are going to convert into invasive cancer” after 2 years, he said.
COMET was published in JAMA, and the PRO analysis was published in JAMA Oncology to coincide with the study presentations.
COMET is funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute and others. Hwang is a consultant for Merck and on the advisory board of Clinetic, Exai Bio, and Havah Therapeutics. Iyengar is an advisor and/or researcher for AstraZeneca, Novartis, Pfizer, and other companies.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
At 2 years, investigators on the COMET trial found no clinically meaningful difference in the rates of ipsilateral invasive breast cancer among women randomized to active surveillance vs standard upfront surgery with or without radiation.
The 2-year findings suggest that surveillance is safe in the short term.
“While these results are provocative, I don’t think they’re quite practice-changing yet,” said lead investigator Shelley Hwang, MD, a surgical breast oncologist at Duke University in Durham, North Carolina, who presented the findings at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium (SABCS) 2024.
For one thing, it generally takes longer than 2 years for DCIS to convert to invasive cancer, so it will be important to wait for the planned analyses at 5, 7, and 10 years to make sure there isn’t an excess number of invasive breast cancers in the surveillance arm, Hwang said.
If the results prove durable, however, the findings will likely be “practice-changing” for women who were at least 40 years old and had grade 1 or 2 hormone receptor–positive DCIS at low risk for conversion, Hwang said.
The goal of active surveillance is to prevent unnecessary treatment. During surveillance, lesions are monitored for changes that indicate conversion to more advanced disease, at which point guideline-concordant care begins.
Although DCIS can convert to invasive breast cancer, this doesn’t always happen. As a result, upfront surgery and radiation aren’t necessary for some women.
The COMET trial aimed to determine the short-term safety of an active monitoring approach compared with guideline-concordant care in patients with low-risk DCIS.
The prospective, randomized noninferiority trial included women aged 40 years or older with a new diagnosis of HR–positive grade 1 or grade 2 DCIS without invasive cancer from 100 US Alliance Cancer Cooperative Group clinical trial sites.
In the trial, 484 women with DCIS were randomized to active surveillance — breast mammography and physical exam every 6 months — and 473 were randomized to standard upfront surgery with or without radiation. Overall, 15.7% of participants were Black and 75.0% were White.
Patients in either group could elect to have endocrine therapy, typically over a 5-year period (71% of women in the active monitoring group and 65.5% in the surgery group opted for endocrine therapy).
At 2 years, the cumulative rate of ipsilateral invasive breast cancer was 4.2% in the surveillance group vs 5.9% in the upfront surgery arm.
The study also included a planned per-protocol analysis among 673 patients who strictly followed the study protocol — 246 in the guideline-concordant care group who had received surgery by 6 months and 427 in the surveillance group who initiated the active monitoring protocol at 6 months.
With almost half of patients randomized to surgery declined to have it, which indicates that patients are interested in active monitoring, Hwang said.
At 2 years, the cumulative rate of invasive breast cancer was 3.1% in the active surveillance group vs 8.7% in the upfront surgery arm.
Among patients receiving endocrine therapy, the rate of invasive cancer was 7.15% in the surgery group and 3.21% in the surveillance arm.
Endocrine therapy “may have resulted in a reduced rate of invasive cancer in the active monitoring group,” the study authors noted.
These findings bring up the question of whether endocrine therapy might be just as good as surgery for low-risk DCIS, Hwang added. Given that one third of women undergo mastectomy for DCIS, “I think it’s not an inconsequential question,” Hwang said.
The findings, however, also suggest that surveillance sometimes leaves invasive cancer behind, Hwang explained. Nearly all invasive cancers in the surgery group were found during the initial operation , which may explain the slightly higher rates of invasive cancers in this group. Had the active monitoring group undergone surgery as well, the incidence of invasive cancer may have been the same in both arms, Hwang said.
However, when invasive cancers were removed, there were no significant differences in tumor size, node status, or tumor grade between the two groups, suggesting that there might not be a clinical penalty for delayed intervention with active monitoring, Hwang said.
With more than 10% of patients in the surgery group opting for mastectomy, compared with 1.8% in the active monitoring group, the active monitoring approach may not increase the likelihood of an eventual need for more extensive surgery, the COMET authors explained.
What Strategy Do Patients Prefer?
A companion analysis of patient-reported outcomes in COMET found no meaningful differences in quality of life, symptoms, or anxiety among patients who opted for surveillance over surgery. Results from questionnaires on quality of life, anxiety, depression, and breast cancer concerns were comparable between the two groups, with no evidence of a substantial impact of one approach over the other at 2 years.
“The results of this secondary analysis suggest that the lived experiences of individuals with low-risk DCIS are similar during early follow-up regardless of treatment allocation,” the COMET investigators concluded.
Overall, the findings from COMET provide reassuring short-term data, said Neil Iyengar, MD, a medical breast oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City.
DCIS is not an aggressive cancer, and it’s not going to invade any time soon, so patients have time to consider their options, Iyengar told Medscape Medical News.
The 2-year findings from COMET also help inform patient discussions. “I can tell patients if they decide not to have surgery what the likelihood is that they are going to convert into invasive cancer” after 2 years, he said.
COMET was published in JAMA, and the PRO analysis was published in JAMA Oncology to coincide with the study presentations.
COMET is funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute and others. Hwang is a consultant for Merck and on the advisory board of Clinetic, Exai Bio, and Havah Therapeutics. Iyengar is an advisor and/or researcher for AstraZeneca, Novartis, Pfizer, and other companies.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
At 2 years, investigators on the COMET trial found no clinically meaningful difference in the rates of ipsilateral invasive breast cancer among women randomized to active surveillance vs standard upfront surgery with or without radiation.
The 2-year findings suggest that surveillance is safe in the short term.
“While these results are provocative, I don’t think they’re quite practice-changing yet,” said lead investigator Shelley Hwang, MD, a surgical breast oncologist at Duke University in Durham, North Carolina, who presented the findings at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium (SABCS) 2024.
For one thing, it generally takes longer than 2 years for DCIS to convert to invasive cancer, so it will be important to wait for the planned analyses at 5, 7, and 10 years to make sure there isn’t an excess number of invasive breast cancers in the surveillance arm, Hwang said.
If the results prove durable, however, the findings will likely be “practice-changing” for women who were at least 40 years old and had grade 1 or 2 hormone receptor–positive DCIS at low risk for conversion, Hwang said.
The goal of active surveillance is to prevent unnecessary treatment. During surveillance, lesions are monitored for changes that indicate conversion to more advanced disease, at which point guideline-concordant care begins.
Although DCIS can convert to invasive breast cancer, this doesn’t always happen. As a result, upfront surgery and radiation aren’t necessary for some women.
The COMET trial aimed to determine the short-term safety of an active monitoring approach compared with guideline-concordant care in patients with low-risk DCIS.
The prospective, randomized noninferiority trial included women aged 40 years or older with a new diagnosis of HR–positive grade 1 or grade 2 DCIS without invasive cancer from 100 US Alliance Cancer Cooperative Group clinical trial sites.
In the trial, 484 women with DCIS were randomized to active surveillance — breast mammography and physical exam every 6 months — and 473 were randomized to standard upfront surgery with or without radiation. Overall, 15.7% of participants were Black and 75.0% were White.
Patients in either group could elect to have endocrine therapy, typically over a 5-year period (71% of women in the active monitoring group and 65.5% in the surgery group opted for endocrine therapy).
At 2 years, the cumulative rate of ipsilateral invasive breast cancer was 4.2% in the surveillance group vs 5.9% in the upfront surgery arm.
The study also included a planned per-protocol analysis among 673 patients who strictly followed the study protocol — 246 in the guideline-concordant care group who had received surgery by 6 months and 427 in the surveillance group who initiated the active monitoring protocol at 6 months.
With almost half of patients randomized to surgery declined to have it, which indicates that patients are interested in active monitoring, Hwang said.
At 2 years, the cumulative rate of invasive breast cancer was 3.1% in the active surveillance group vs 8.7% in the upfront surgery arm.
Among patients receiving endocrine therapy, the rate of invasive cancer was 7.15% in the surgery group and 3.21% in the surveillance arm.
Endocrine therapy “may have resulted in a reduced rate of invasive cancer in the active monitoring group,” the study authors noted.
These findings bring up the question of whether endocrine therapy might be just as good as surgery for low-risk DCIS, Hwang added. Given that one third of women undergo mastectomy for DCIS, “I think it’s not an inconsequential question,” Hwang said.
The findings, however, also suggest that surveillance sometimes leaves invasive cancer behind, Hwang explained. Nearly all invasive cancers in the surgery group were found during the initial operation , which may explain the slightly higher rates of invasive cancers in this group. Had the active monitoring group undergone surgery as well, the incidence of invasive cancer may have been the same in both arms, Hwang said.
However, when invasive cancers were removed, there were no significant differences in tumor size, node status, or tumor grade between the two groups, suggesting that there might not be a clinical penalty for delayed intervention with active monitoring, Hwang said.
With more than 10% of patients in the surgery group opting for mastectomy, compared with 1.8% in the active monitoring group, the active monitoring approach may not increase the likelihood of an eventual need for more extensive surgery, the COMET authors explained.
What Strategy Do Patients Prefer?
A companion analysis of patient-reported outcomes in COMET found no meaningful differences in quality of life, symptoms, or anxiety among patients who opted for surveillance over surgery. Results from questionnaires on quality of life, anxiety, depression, and breast cancer concerns were comparable between the two groups, with no evidence of a substantial impact of one approach over the other at 2 years.
“The results of this secondary analysis suggest that the lived experiences of individuals with low-risk DCIS are similar during early follow-up regardless of treatment allocation,” the COMET investigators concluded.
Overall, the findings from COMET provide reassuring short-term data, said Neil Iyengar, MD, a medical breast oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City.
DCIS is not an aggressive cancer, and it’s not going to invade any time soon, so patients have time to consider their options, Iyengar told Medscape Medical News.
The 2-year findings from COMET also help inform patient discussions. “I can tell patients if they decide not to have surgery what the likelihood is that they are going to convert into invasive cancer” after 2 years, he said.
COMET was published in JAMA, and the PRO analysis was published in JAMA Oncology to coincide with the study presentations.
COMET is funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute and others. Hwang is a consultant for Merck and on the advisory board of Clinetic, Exai Bio, and Havah Therapeutics. Iyengar is an advisor and/or researcher for AstraZeneca, Novartis, Pfizer, and other companies.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM SABCS 2024
Imlunestrant Shows PFS Benefit in Advanced Breast Cancer
according to recent findings from the EMBER-3 trial.
This progression-free survival benefit with imlunestrant did not extend to the overall population, but a combination of imlunestrant plus abemaciclib did lead to a significant improvement in progression-free survival compared with imlunestrant alone, regardless of patients’ ESR1 mutation status.
Lead author Komal Jhaveri, MD, a breast oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City, called the findings “encouraging.”
The phase 3 results raise the possibility of a second-line all-oral targeted therapy option for patients with ER–positive, HER2–negative advanced breast cancer, said Jhaveri, who presented the findings at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium (SABCS) 2024, which were published simultaneously in The New England Journal of Medicine.
However, outside experts provided a note of caution that the trial design may limit how relevant the findings are to clinical practice.
First-line treatment for advanced ER–positive, HER2–negative breast cancer includes an aromatase inhibitor, such as exemestane, and a CDK4/6 inhibitor, such as abemaciclib. However, an ESR1 mutation may develop, which can undermine the effectiveness of the aromatase inhibitor. These patients may swap in a selective estrogen receptor degrader (SERD) — typically, the injectable fulvestrant — in place of the aromatase inhibitor.
Over the past several years, researchers have searched for a better agent than fulvestrant because this injectable drug has limited efficacy in patients with ESR1 mutations, and the monthly intramuscular shots are painful and inconvenient for patients.
The oral SERD imlunestrant is one such candidate.
The EMBER-3 trial initially randomized 661 patients after progression/recurrence evenly to either imlunestrant monotherapy (400 mg once daily) or a standard treatment arm that included either exemestane or fulvestrant, with 90% of these patients receiving fulvestrant. Investigators added a third combination arm shortly after the trial started, which included 213 patients who received imlunestrant plus abemaciclib.
About 60% of the overall population had received prior CDK4/6 inhibitors, primarily palbociclib and ribociclib. About 37% of the study population had ESR1 mutations.
Among patients with ESR1 mutations, imlunestrant monotherapy led to a significant improvement in median progression-free survival of 5.5 months vs 3.8 months in the standard care arm (P < .001). Among all patients, however, progression-free survival was no different between the two arms — 5.6 months in the imlunestrant group vs 5.5 months in the standard care group.
When comparing the two treatment arms in the overall population, the median progression-free survival was significantly better in patients who received imlunestrant plus abemaciclib — 9.4 months vs 5.5 months in the imlunestrant group (hazard ratio [HR] for progression or death, 0.57; P < .001). The progression-free survival benefit held across most patient subgroups, regardless of ESR1 mutation status, as well as among patients who had received a CDK4/6 inhibitor previously.
Data from other studies presented at SABCS indicate that another SERD, elacestrant, in combination with abemaciclib, may provide a similar progression-free survival benefit in this patient population. Elacestrant was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in January 2023 for second-line treatment of patients with advanced breast cancer and ESR1 mutations.
The EMBER trial also reported early overall survival findings. Although immature, overall survival trends favored imlunestrant over the standard treatment. The estimated overall survival at 18 months was 77% in the imlunestrant group and 58.6% in the standard therapy group among patients with ESR1 mutations (HR, 0.55), and 78.6% in the imlunestrant group vs 71.8% in the standard-therapy group for all patients (HR, 0.69).
Common all-grade adverse events with imlunestrant vs standard therapy included fatigue (22.6% vs 13.3%), diarrhea (21.4% vs 11.7%), and nausea (17% vs 13%). Grade 3 or higher anemia and neutropenia were low and similar in both arms.
All-grade diarrhea (86%) and nausea (49%) were more common with the combination of imlunestrant and abemaciclib.
The incidence of grade 3 or higher events was 17% with imlunestrant monotherapy, 21% for standard treatment, and 49% for imlunestrant plus abemaciclib.
EMBER-3 discussant Harold Burstein, MD, PhD, a breast oncologist at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, said that, overall, oral SERDs are starting to “break out from the ESR1 mutation box,” perhaps reflecting the idea that an agent more active than fulvestrant in combination with a non-cross–resistant CDK4/6 inhibitor like abemaciclib might lead to a better long-term outcome, regardless of ESR1 status.
A major limit of EMBER-3, however, is that it did not compare imlunestrant/abemaciclib with fulvestrant/abemaciclib, which would have been a true standard-of-care control, said Burstein.
Kathy Miller, MD, a breast oncologist at Indiana University, Indianapolis, agreed.
She was also concerned about the use of monotherapy in the standard care arm.
“Monotherapy hormone therapy is not what people would be treated with,” Miller said. Patients would typically get fulvestrant with either a targeted therapy or everolimus.
Without appropriate controls, “the data are impossible to interpret” in the context of current practice, Miller told Medscape Medical News.
Eli Lilly, maker of imlunestrant, funded, designed, and largely conducted the trial. Jhaveri is a consultant and researcher for the company. Burstein and Miller had no disclosures. Miller is an editorial advisor for Medscape Oncology.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
according to recent findings from the EMBER-3 trial.
This progression-free survival benefit with imlunestrant did not extend to the overall population, but a combination of imlunestrant plus abemaciclib did lead to a significant improvement in progression-free survival compared with imlunestrant alone, regardless of patients’ ESR1 mutation status.
Lead author Komal Jhaveri, MD, a breast oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City, called the findings “encouraging.”
The phase 3 results raise the possibility of a second-line all-oral targeted therapy option for patients with ER–positive, HER2–negative advanced breast cancer, said Jhaveri, who presented the findings at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium (SABCS) 2024, which were published simultaneously in The New England Journal of Medicine.
However, outside experts provided a note of caution that the trial design may limit how relevant the findings are to clinical practice.
First-line treatment for advanced ER–positive, HER2–negative breast cancer includes an aromatase inhibitor, such as exemestane, and a CDK4/6 inhibitor, such as abemaciclib. However, an ESR1 mutation may develop, which can undermine the effectiveness of the aromatase inhibitor. These patients may swap in a selective estrogen receptor degrader (SERD) — typically, the injectable fulvestrant — in place of the aromatase inhibitor.
Over the past several years, researchers have searched for a better agent than fulvestrant because this injectable drug has limited efficacy in patients with ESR1 mutations, and the monthly intramuscular shots are painful and inconvenient for patients.
The oral SERD imlunestrant is one such candidate.
The EMBER-3 trial initially randomized 661 patients after progression/recurrence evenly to either imlunestrant monotherapy (400 mg once daily) or a standard treatment arm that included either exemestane or fulvestrant, with 90% of these patients receiving fulvestrant. Investigators added a third combination arm shortly after the trial started, which included 213 patients who received imlunestrant plus abemaciclib.
About 60% of the overall population had received prior CDK4/6 inhibitors, primarily palbociclib and ribociclib. About 37% of the study population had ESR1 mutations.
Among patients with ESR1 mutations, imlunestrant monotherapy led to a significant improvement in median progression-free survival of 5.5 months vs 3.8 months in the standard care arm (P < .001). Among all patients, however, progression-free survival was no different between the two arms — 5.6 months in the imlunestrant group vs 5.5 months in the standard care group.
When comparing the two treatment arms in the overall population, the median progression-free survival was significantly better in patients who received imlunestrant plus abemaciclib — 9.4 months vs 5.5 months in the imlunestrant group (hazard ratio [HR] for progression or death, 0.57; P < .001). The progression-free survival benefit held across most patient subgroups, regardless of ESR1 mutation status, as well as among patients who had received a CDK4/6 inhibitor previously.
Data from other studies presented at SABCS indicate that another SERD, elacestrant, in combination with abemaciclib, may provide a similar progression-free survival benefit in this patient population. Elacestrant was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in January 2023 for second-line treatment of patients with advanced breast cancer and ESR1 mutations.
The EMBER trial also reported early overall survival findings. Although immature, overall survival trends favored imlunestrant over the standard treatment. The estimated overall survival at 18 months was 77% in the imlunestrant group and 58.6% in the standard therapy group among patients with ESR1 mutations (HR, 0.55), and 78.6% in the imlunestrant group vs 71.8% in the standard-therapy group for all patients (HR, 0.69).
Common all-grade adverse events with imlunestrant vs standard therapy included fatigue (22.6% vs 13.3%), diarrhea (21.4% vs 11.7%), and nausea (17% vs 13%). Grade 3 or higher anemia and neutropenia were low and similar in both arms.
All-grade diarrhea (86%) and nausea (49%) were more common with the combination of imlunestrant and abemaciclib.
The incidence of grade 3 or higher events was 17% with imlunestrant monotherapy, 21% for standard treatment, and 49% for imlunestrant plus abemaciclib.
EMBER-3 discussant Harold Burstein, MD, PhD, a breast oncologist at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, said that, overall, oral SERDs are starting to “break out from the ESR1 mutation box,” perhaps reflecting the idea that an agent more active than fulvestrant in combination with a non-cross–resistant CDK4/6 inhibitor like abemaciclib might lead to a better long-term outcome, regardless of ESR1 status.
A major limit of EMBER-3, however, is that it did not compare imlunestrant/abemaciclib with fulvestrant/abemaciclib, which would have been a true standard-of-care control, said Burstein.
Kathy Miller, MD, a breast oncologist at Indiana University, Indianapolis, agreed.
She was also concerned about the use of monotherapy in the standard care arm.
“Monotherapy hormone therapy is not what people would be treated with,” Miller said. Patients would typically get fulvestrant with either a targeted therapy or everolimus.
Without appropriate controls, “the data are impossible to interpret” in the context of current practice, Miller told Medscape Medical News.
Eli Lilly, maker of imlunestrant, funded, designed, and largely conducted the trial. Jhaveri is a consultant and researcher for the company. Burstein and Miller had no disclosures. Miller is an editorial advisor for Medscape Oncology.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
according to recent findings from the EMBER-3 trial.
This progression-free survival benefit with imlunestrant did not extend to the overall population, but a combination of imlunestrant plus abemaciclib did lead to a significant improvement in progression-free survival compared with imlunestrant alone, regardless of patients’ ESR1 mutation status.
Lead author Komal Jhaveri, MD, a breast oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City, called the findings “encouraging.”
The phase 3 results raise the possibility of a second-line all-oral targeted therapy option for patients with ER–positive, HER2–negative advanced breast cancer, said Jhaveri, who presented the findings at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium (SABCS) 2024, which were published simultaneously in The New England Journal of Medicine.
However, outside experts provided a note of caution that the trial design may limit how relevant the findings are to clinical practice.
First-line treatment for advanced ER–positive, HER2–negative breast cancer includes an aromatase inhibitor, such as exemestane, and a CDK4/6 inhibitor, such as abemaciclib. However, an ESR1 mutation may develop, which can undermine the effectiveness of the aromatase inhibitor. These patients may swap in a selective estrogen receptor degrader (SERD) — typically, the injectable fulvestrant — in place of the aromatase inhibitor.
Over the past several years, researchers have searched for a better agent than fulvestrant because this injectable drug has limited efficacy in patients with ESR1 mutations, and the monthly intramuscular shots are painful and inconvenient for patients.
The oral SERD imlunestrant is one such candidate.
The EMBER-3 trial initially randomized 661 patients after progression/recurrence evenly to either imlunestrant monotherapy (400 mg once daily) or a standard treatment arm that included either exemestane or fulvestrant, with 90% of these patients receiving fulvestrant. Investigators added a third combination arm shortly after the trial started, which included 213 patients who received imlunestrant plus abemaciclib.
About 60% of the overall population had received prior CDK4/6 inhibitors, primarily palbociclib and ribociclib. About 37% of the study population had ESR1 mutations.
Among patients with ESR1 mutations, imlunestrant monotherapy led to a significant improvement in median progression-free survival of 5.5 months vs 3.8 months in the standard care arm (P < .001). Among all patients, however, progression-free survival was no different between the two arms — 5.6 months in the imlunestrant group vs 5.5 months in the standard care group.
When comparing the two treatment arms in the overall population, the median progression-free survival was significantly better in patients who received imlunestrant plus abemaciclib — 9.4 months vs 5.5 months in the imlunestrant group (hazard ratio [HR] for progression or death, 0.57; P < .001). The progression-free survival benefit held across most patient subgroups, regardless of ESR1 mutation status, as well as among patients who had received a CDK4/6 inhibitor previously.
Data from other studies presented at SABCS indicate that another SERD, elacestrant, in combination with abemaciclib, may provide a similar progression-free survival benefit in this patient population. Elacestrant was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in January 2023 for second-line treatment of patients with advanced breast cancer and ESR1 mutations.
The EMBER trial also reported early overall survival findings. Although immature, overall survival trends favored imlunestrant over the standard treatment. The estimated overall survival at 18 months was 77% in the imlunestrant group and 58.6% in the standard therapy group among patients with ESR1 mutations (HR, 0.55), and 78.6% in the imlunestrant group vs 71.8% in the standard-therapy group for all patients (HR, 0.69).
Common all-grade adverse events with imlunestrant vs standard therapy included fatigue (22.6% vs 13.3%), diarrhea (21.4% vs 11.7%), and nausea (17% vs 13%). Grade 3 or higher anemia and neutropenia were low and similar in both arms.
All-grade diarrhea (86%) and nausea (49%) were more common with the combination of imlunestrant and abemaciclib.
The incidence of grade 3 or higher events was 17% with imlunestrant monotherapy, 21% for standard treatment, and 49% for imlunestrant plus abemaciclib.
EMBER-3 discussant Harold Burstein, MD, PhD, a breast oncologist at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, said that, overall, oral SERDs are starting to “break out from the ESR1 mutation box,” perhaps reflecting the idea that an agent more active than fulvestrant in combination with a non-cross–resistant CDK4/6 inhibitor like abemaciclib might lead to a better long-term outcome, regardless of ESR1 status.
A major limit of EMBER-3, however, is that it did not compare imlunestrant/abemaciclib with fulvestrant/abemaciclib, which would have been a true standard-of-care control, said Burstein.
Kathy Miller, MD, a breast oncologist at Indiana University, Indianapolis, agreed.
She was also concerned about the use of monotherapy in the standard care arm.
“Monotherapy hormone therapy is not what people would be treated with,” Miller said. Patients would typically get fulvestrant with either a targeted therapy or everolimus.
Without appropriate controls, “the data are impossible to interpret” in the context of current practice, Miller told Medscape Medical News.
Eli Lilly, maker of imlunestrant, funded, designed, and largely conducted the trial. Jhaveri is a consultant and researcher for the company. Burstein and Miller had no disclosures. Miller is an editorial advisor for Medscape Oncology.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM SABCS 2024
Popular Weight Loss Drugs Now for Patients With Cancer?
Demand for new weight loss drugs has surged over the past few years.
Led by the antiobesity drugs semaglutide (Wegovy) and tirzepatide (Zepbound), these popular medications — more commonly known as glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) agonists — have become game changers for shedding excess pounds.
Aside from obesity indications, both drugs have been approved to treat type 2 diabetes under different brand names and have a growing list of other potential benefits, such as reducing inflammation and depression.
While there’s limited data to support the use of GLP-1 agonists for weight loss in cancer, some oncologists have begun carefully integrating the antiobesity agents into care and studying their effects in this patient population.
The reason: Research suggests that obesity can reduce the effectiveness of cancer therapies, especially in patients with breast cancer, and can increase the risk for treatment-related side effects.
The idea is that managing patients’ weight will improve their cancer outcomes, explained Lajos Pusztai, MD, PhD, a breast cancer specialist and professor of medicine at Yale School of Medicine in New Haven, Connecticut.
Although Dr. Pusztai and his oncology peers at Yale don’t yet use GPL-1 agonists, Neil Iyengar, MD, and colleagues have begun doing so to help some patients with breast cancer manage their weight. Dr. Iyengar estimates that a few hundred — almost 40% — of his patients are on the antiobesity drugs.
“For a patient who has really tried to reduce their weight and who is in the obese range, that’s where I think the use of these medications can be considered,” said Dr. Iyengar, a breast cancer oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City.
Why GLP-1s in Cancer?
GLP-1 is a hormone that the small intestine releases after eating. GLP-1 agonists work by mimicking GLP-1 to trigger the release of insulin and reduce the production of glucagon — two processes that help regulate blood sugar.
These agents, such as Wegovy (or Ozempic when prescribed for diabetes), also slow gastric emptying and can make people feel fuller longer.
Zebound (or Mounjaro for type 2 diabetes) is considered a dual GLP-1 and glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide agonist, which may enhance its weight loss benefits.
In practice, however, these drugs can increase nausea and vomiting from chemotherapy, so Dr. Iyengar typically has patients use them afterwards, during maintenance treatment.
Oncologists don’t prescribe the drugs themselves but instead refer patients to endocrinologists or weight management centers that then write the prescriptions. Taking these drugs involves weekly subcutaneous injections patients can administer themselves.
Endocrinologist Emily Gallagher, MD, PhD, of Mount Sinai Hospital in New York City, estimates she has prescribed the antiobesity drugs to a few hundred patients with cancer and, like Dr. Iyengar, uses the drugs during maintenance treatment with hormone therapy for breast cancer. She also has used these agents in patients with prostate and endometrial cancers and has found the drugs can help counter steroid weight gain in multiple myeloma.
But, to date, the evidence for using GPL-1 agonists in cancer remains limited and the practice has not yet become widespread.
Research largely comes down to a few small retrospective studies in patients with breast cancer receiving aromatase inhibitors. Although no safety issues have emerged so far, these initial reports suggest that the drugs lead to significantly less weight loss in patients with cancer compared to the general population.
Dr. Iyengar led one recent study, presented at the 2024 annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, in which he and his team assessed outcomes in 75 women with breast cancer who received a GLP-1 agonist. Almost 80% of patients had diabetes, and 60% received hormone therapy, most commonly an aromatase inhibitor. Patients’ median body mass index (BMI) at baseline was 34 kg/m2 (range, 23-50 kg/m2).
From baseline, patients lost 6.2 kg, on average, or about 5% of their total body weight, 12 months after initiating GLP-1 therapy.
In contrast, phase 3 trials show much higher mean weight loss — about two times — in patients without cancer.
Another recent study also reported modest weight loss results in patients with breast cancer undergoing endocrine therapy. The researchers reported that, at 12 months, Wegovy led to 4.34% reduction in BMI, compared with a 14% change reported in the general population. Zebound, however, was associated with a 2.31% BMI increase overall — though some patients did experience a decrease — compared with a 15% reduction in the general population.
“These findings indicate a substantially reduced weight loss efficacy in breast cancer patients on endocrine therapy compared to the general population,” the authors concluded.
It’s unclear why the drugs appear to not work as well in patients with cancer. It’s possible that hormone therapy or metabolic changes interfere with their effectiveness, given that some cancer therapies lead to weight gain. Steroids and hormone therapies, for instance, often increase appetite, and some treatments can slow patients’ metabolism or lead to fatigue, which can make it harder to exercise.
Patients with cancer may need a higher dose of GLP-1 agonists to achieve similar weight loss to the general population, Dr. Iyengar noted.
However, Dr. Gallagher said, in her own experience, she hasn’t found the drugs to be less effective in patients with cancer, especially the newer agents, like Wegovy and Zepbound.
As for safety, Wegovy and Zepbound both carry a black box warning for thyroid C-cell tumors, including medullary thyroid carcinoma. (Recent research, however, has found that GLP-1 agonists do not increase thyroid cancer risk).
These antiobesity agents are also contraindicated in patients with a personal or family history of medullary thyroid carcinoma and in patients who have multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2, which is associated with medullary thyroid carcinoma.
Dr. Gallagher hasn’t seen any secondary tumors — thyroid or otherwise — in her patients with cancer, but she follows the labeling contraindications. Dr. Iyengar also noted that more recent and larger data sets have shown no impact on this risk, which may not actually exist, he said
Dr. Gallagher remains cautious about using GPL-1 agonists in patients who have had bariatric surgery because these agents can compound the slower gastric emptying and intestinal transit from surgery, potentially leading to gastrointestinal obstructions.
Looking ahead, GPL-1 manufacturers are interested in adding cancer indications to the drug labeling. Both Dr. Iyengar and Dr. Gallagher said their institutions are in talks with companies to participate in large, multicenter, global phase 3 trials.
Dr. Iyengar welcomes the efforts, not only to test the effectiveness of GPL-1 agonists in oncology but also to “nail down” their safety in cancer.
“I don’t think that there’s mechanistically anything that’s particularly worrisome,” and current observations suggest that these drugs are likely to be safe, Dr. Iyengar said. Even so, “GLP-1 agonists do a lot of things that we don’t fully understand yet.”
The bigger challenge, Dr. Iyengar noted, is that companies will have to show a sizable benefit to using these drugs in patients with cancer to get the Food and Drug Administration’s approval. And to move the needle on cancer-specific outcomes, these antiobesity drugs will need to demonstrate significant, durable weight loss in patients with cancer.
But if these drugs can do that, “I think it’s going to be one of the biggest advances in medicine and oncology given the obesity and cancer epidemic,” Dr. Iyengar said.
Dr. Iyengar has adviser and/or researcher ties with companies that make or are developing GPL-1 agonists, including AstraZeneca, Novartis, Gilead, and Pfizer. Dr. Gallagher is a consultant for Novartis, Flare Therapeutics, Reactive Biosciences, and Seagen.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Demand for new weight loss drugs has surged over the past few years.
Led by the antiobesity drugs semaglutide (Wegovy) and tirzepatide (Zepbound), these popular medications — more commonly known as glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) agonists — have become game changers for shedding excess pounds.
Aside from obesity indications, both drugs have been approved to treat type 2 diabetes under different brand names and have a growing list of other potential benefits, such as reducing inflammation and depression.
While there’s limited data to support the use of GLP-1 agonists for weight loss in cancer, some oncologists have begun carefully integrating the antiobesity agents into care and studying their effects in this patient population.
The reason: Research suggests that obesity can reduce the effectiveness of cancer therapies, especially in patients with breast cancer, and can increase the risk for treatment-related side effects.
The idea is that managing patients’ weight will improve their cancer outcomes, explained Lajos Pusztai, MD, PhD, a breast cancer specialist and professor of medicine at Yale School of Medicine in New Haven, Connecticut.
Although Dr. Pusztai and his oncology peers at Yale don’t yet use GPL-1 agonists, Neil Iyengar, MD, and colleagues have begun doing so to help some patients with breast cancer manage their weight. Dr. Iyengar estimates that a few hundred — almost 40% — of his patients are on the antiobesity drugs.
“For a patient who has really tried to reduce their weight and who is in the obese range, that’s where I think the use of these medications can be considered,” said Dr. Iyengar, a breast cancer oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City.
Why GLP-1s in Cancer?
GLP-1 is a hormone that the small intestine releases after eating. GLP-1 agonists work by mimicking GLP-1 to trigger the release of insulin and reduce the production of glucagon — two processes that help regulate blood sugar.
These agents, such as Wegovy (or Ozempic when prescribed for diabetes), also slow gastric emptying and can make people feel fuller longer.
Zebound (or Mounjaro for type 2 diabetes) is considered a dual GLP-1 and glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide agonist, which may enhance its weight loss benefits.
In practice, however, these drugs can increase nausea and vomiting from chemotherapy, so Dr. Iyengar typically has patients use them afterwards, during maintenance treatment.
Oncologists don’t prescribe the drugs themselves but instead refer patients to endocrinologists or weight management centers that then write the prescriptions. Taking these drugs involves weekly subcutaneous injections patients can administer themselves.
Endocrinologist Emily Gallagher, MD, PhD, of Mount Sinai Hospital in New York City, estimates she has prescribed the antiobesity drugs to a few hundred patients with cancer and, like Dr. Iyengar, uses the drugs during maintenance treatment with hormone therapy for breast cancer. She also has used these agents in patients with prostate and endometrial cancers and has found the drugs can help counter steroid weight gain in multiple myeloma.
But, to date, the evidence for using GPL-1 agonists in cancer remains limited and the practice has not yet become widespread.
Research largely comes down to a few small retrospective studies in patients with breast cancer receiving aromatase inhibitors. Although no safety issues have emerged so far, these initial reports suggest that the drugs lead to significantly less weight loss in patients with cancer compared to the general population.
Dr. Iyengar led one recent study, presented at the 2024 annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, in which he and his team assessed outcomes in 75 women with breast cancer who received a GLP-1 agonist. Almost 80% of patients had diabetes, and 60% received hormone therapy, most commonly an aromatase inhibitor. Patients’ median body mass index (BMI) at baseline was 34 kg/m2 (range, 23-50 kg/m2).
From baseline, patients lost 6.2 kg, on average, or about 5% of their total body weight, 12 months after initiating GLP-1 therapy.
In contrast, phase 3 trials show much higher mean weight loss — about two times — in patients without cancer.
Another recent study also reported modest weight loss results in patients with breast cancer undergoing endocrine therapy. The researchers reported that, at 12 months, Wegovy led to 4.34% reduction in BMI, compared with a 14% change reported in the general population. Zebound, however, was associated with a 2.31% BMI increase overall — though some patients did experience a decrease — compared with a 15% reduction in the general population.
“These findings indicate a substantially reduced weight loss efficacy in breast cancer patients on endocrine therapy compared to the general population,” the authors concluded.
It’s unclear why the drugs appear to not work as well in patients with cancer. It’s possible that hormone therapy or metabolic changes interfere with their effectiveness, given that some cancer therapies lead to weight gain. Steroids and hormone therapies, for instance, often increase appetite, and some treatments can slow patients’ metabolism or lead to fatigue, which can make it harder to exercise.
Patients with cancer may need a higher dose of GLP-1 agonists to achieve similar weight loss to the general population, Dr. Iyengar noted.
However, Dr. Gallagher said, in her own experience, she hasn’t found the drugs to be less effective in patients with cancer, especially the newer agents, like Wegovy and Zepbound.
As for safety, Wegovy and Zepbound both carry a black box warning for thyroid C-cell tumors, including medullary thyroid carcinoma. (Recent research, however, has found that GLP-1 agonists do not increase thyroid cancer risk).
These antiobesity agents are also contraindicated in patients with a personal or family history of medullary thyroid carcinoma and in patients who have multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2, which is associated with medullary thyroid carcinoma.
Dr. Gallagher hasn’t seen any secondary tumors — thyroid or otherwise — in her patients with cancer, but she follows the labeling contraindications. Dr. Iyengar also noted that more recent and larger data sets have shown no impact on this risk, which may not actually exist, he said
Dr. Gallagher remains cautious about using GPL-1 agonists in patients who have had bariatric surgery because these agents can compound the slower gastric emptying and intestinal transit from surgery, potentially leading to gastrointestinal obstructions.
Looking ahead, GPL-1 manufacturers are interested in adding cancer indications to the drug labeling. Both Dr. Iyengar and Dr. Gallagher said their institutions are in talks with companies to participate in large, multicenter, global phase 3 trials.
Dr. Iyengar welcomes the efforts, not only to test the effectiveness of GPL-1 agonists in oncology but also to “nail down” their safety in cancer.
“I don’t think that there’s mechanistically anything that’s particularly worrisome,” and current observations suggest that these drugs are likely to be safe, Dr. Iyengar said. Even so, “GLP-1 agonists do a lot of things that we don’t fully understand yet.”
The bigger challenge, Dr. Iyengar noted, is that companies will have to show a sizable benefit to using these drugs in patients with cancer to get the Food and Drug Administration’s approval. And to move the needle on cancer-specific outcomes, these antiobesity drugs will need to demonstrate significant, durable weight loss in patients with cancer.
But if these drugs can do that, “I think it’s going to be one of the biggest advances in medicine and oncology given the obesity and cancer epidemic,” Dr. Iyengar said.
Dr. Iyengar has adviser and/or researcher ties with companies that make or are developing GPL-1 agonists, including AstraZeneca, Novartis, Gilead, and Pfizer. Dr. Gallagher is a consultant for Novartis, Flare Therapeutics, Reactive Biosciences, and Seagen.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Demand for new weight loss drugs has surged over the past few years.
Led by the antiobesity drugs semaglutide (Wegovy) and tirzepatide (Zepbound), these popular medications — more commonly known as glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) agonists — have become game changers for shedding excess pounds.
Aside from obesity indications, both drugs have been approved to treat type 2 diabetes under different brand names and have a growing list of other potential benefits, such as reducing inflammation and depression.
While there’s limited data to support the use of GLP-1 agonists for weight loss in cancer, some oncologists have begun carefully integrating the antiobesity agents into care and studying their effects in this patient population.
The reason: Research suggests that obesity can reduce the effectiveness of cancer therapies, especially in patients with breast cancer, and can increase the risk for treatment-related side effects.
The idea is that managing patients’ weight will improve their cancer outcomes, explained Lajos Pusztai, MD, PhD, a breast cancer specialist and professor of medicine at Yale School of Medicine in New Haven, Connecticut.
Although Dr. Pusztai and his oncology peers at Yale don’t yet use GPL-1 agonists, Neil Iyengar, MD, and colleagues have begun doing so to help some patients with breast cancer manage their weight. Dr. Iyengar estimates that a few hundred — almost 40% — of his patients are on the antiobesity drugs.
“For a patient who has really tried to reduce their weight and who is in the obese range, that’s where I think the use of these medications can be considered,” said Dr. Iyengar, a breast cancer oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City.
Why GLP-1s in Cancer?
GLP-1 is a hormone that the small intestine releases after eating. GLP-1 agonists work by mimicking GLP-1 to trigger the release of insulin and reduce the production of glucagon — two processes that help regulate blood sugar.
These agents, such as Wegovy (or Ozempic when prescribed for diabetes), also slow gastric emptying and can make people feel fuller longer.
Zebound (or Mounjaro for type 2 diabetes) is considered a dual GLP-1 and glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide agonist, which may enhance its weight loss benefits.
In practice, however, these drugs can increase nausea and vomiting from chemotherapy, so Dr. Iyengar typically has patients use them afterwards, during maintenance treatment.
Oncologists don’t prescribe the drugs themselves but instead refer patients to endocrinologists or weight management centers that then write the prescriptions. Taking these drugs involves weekly subcutaneous injections patients can administer themselves.
Endocrinologist Emily Gallagher, MD, PhD, of Mount Sinai Hospital in New York City, estimates she has prescribed the antiobesity drugs to a few hundred patients with cancer and, like Dr. Iyengar, uses the drugs during maintenance treatment with hormone therapy for breast cancer. She also has used these agents in patients with prostate and endometrial cancers and has found the drugs can help counter steroid weight gain in multiple myeloma.
But, to date, the evidence for using GPL-1 agonists in cancer remains limited and the practice has not yet become widespread.
Research largely comes down to a few small retrospective studies in patients with breast cancer receiving aromatase inhibitors. Although no safety issues have emerged so far, these initial reports suggest that the drugs lead to significantly less weight loss in patients with cancer compared to the general population.
Dr. Iyengar led one recent study, presented at the 2024 annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, in which he and his team assessed outcomes in 75 women with breast cancer who received a GLP-1 agonist. Almost 80% of patients had diabetes, and 60% received hormone therapy, most commonly an aromatase inhibitor. Patients’ median body mass index (BMI) at baseline was 34 kg/m2 (range, 23-50 kg/m2).
From baseline, patients lost 6.2 kg, on average, or about 5% of their total body weight, 12 months after initiating GLP-1 therapy.
In contrast, phase 3 trials show much higher mean weight loss — about two times — in patients without cancer.
Another recent study also reported modest weight loss results in patients with breast cancer undergoing endocrine therapy. The researchers reported that, at 12 months, Wegovy led to 4.34% reduction in BMI, compared with a 14% change reported in the general population. Zebound, however, was associated with a 2.31% BMI increase overall — though some patients did experience a decrease — compared with a 15% reduction in the general population.
“These findings indicate a substantially reduced weight loss efficacy in breast cancer patients on endocrine therapy compared to the general population,” the authors concluded.
It’s unclear why the drugs appear to not work as well in patients with cancer. It’s possible that hormone therapy or metabolic changes interfere with their effectiveness, given that some cancer therapies lead to weight gain. Steroids and hormone therapies, for instance, often increase appetite, and some treatments can slow patients’ metabolism or lead to fatigue, which can make it harder to exercise.
Patients with cancer may need a higher dose of GLP-1 agonists to achieve similar weight loss to the general population, Dr. Iyengar noted.
However, Dr. Gallagher said, in her own experience, she hasn’t found the drugs to be less effective in patients with cancer, especially the newer agents, like Wegovy and Zepbound.
As for safety, Wegovy and Zepbound both carry a black box warning for thyroid C-cell tumors, including medullary thyroid carcinoma. (Recent research, however, has found that GLP-1 agonists do not increase thyroid cancer risk).
These antiobesity agents are also contraindicated in patients with a personal or family history of medullary thyroid carcinoma and in patients who have multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2, which is associated with medullary thyroid carcinoma.
Dr. Gallagher hasn’t seen any secondary tumors — thyroid or otherwise — in her patients with cancer, but she follows the labeling contraindications. Dr. Iyengar also noted that more recent and larger data sets have shown no impact on this risk, which may not actually exist, he said
Dr. Gallagher remains cautious about using GPL-1 agonists in patients who have had bariatric surgery because these agents can compound the slower gastric emptying and intestinal transit from surgery, potentially leading to gastrointestinal obstructions.
Looking ahead, GPL-1 manufacturers are interested in adding cancer indications to the drug labeling. Both Dr. Iyengar and Dr. Gallagher said their institutions are in talks with companies to participate in large, multicenter, global phase 3 trials.
Dr. Iyengar welcomes the efforts, not only to test the effectiveness of GPL-1 agonists in oncology but also to “nail down” their safety in cancer.
“I don’t think that there’s mechanistically anything that’s particularly worrisome,” and current observations suggest that these drugs are likely to be safe, Dr. Iyengar said. Even so, “GLP-1 agonists do a lot of things that we don’t fully understand yet.”
The bigger challenge, Dr. Iyengar noted, is that companies will have to show a sizable benefit to using these drugs in patients with cancer to get the Food and Drug Administration’s approval. And to move the needle on cancer-specific outcomes, these antiobesity drugs will need to demonstrate significant, durable weight loss in patients with cancer.
But if these drugs can do that, “I think it’s going to be one of the biggest advances in medicine and oncology given the obesity and cancer epidemic,” Dr. Iyengar said.
Dr. Iyengar has adviser and/or researcher ties with companies that make or are developing GPL-1 agonists, including AstraZeneca, Novartis, Gilead, and Pfizer. Dr. Gallagher is a consultant for Novartis, Flare Therapeutics, Reactive Biosciences, and Seagen.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FDA approves first gene therapy, betibeglogene autotemcel (Zynteglo), for beta-thalassemia
Betibeglogene autotemcel, a one-time gene therapy, represents a potential cure in which functional copies of the mutated gene are inserted into patients’ hematopoietic stem cells via a replication-defective lentivirus.
“Today’s approval is an important advance in the treatment of beta-thalassemia, particularly in individuals who require ongoing red blood cell transfusions,” Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, said in an FDA press release. “Given the potential health complications associated with this serious disease, this action highlights the FDA’s continued commitment to supporting development of innovative therapies for patients who have limited treatment options.”
The approval was based on phase 3 trials, in which 89% of 41 patients aged 4-34 years who received the therapy maintained normal or near-normal hemoglobin levels and didn’t need transfusions for at least a year. The patients were as young as age 4, maker Bluebird Bio said in a press release.
FDA’s Cellular, Tissue, and Gene Therapies Advisory Committee unanimously recommended approval in June. The gene therapy had been approved in Europe, where it carried a price tag of about $1.8 million, but Bluebird pulled it from the market in 2021 because of problems with reimbursement.
“The decision to discontinue operations in Europe resulted from prolonged negotiations with European payers and challenges to achieving appropriate value recognition and market access,” the company said in a Securities and Exchange Commission filing.
The projected price in the United States is even higher: $2.1 million.
But the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review, an influential Boston-based nonprofit organization that specializes in medical cost-effectiveness analyses, concluded in June that, “given the high annual costs of standard care ... this new treatment meets commonly accepted value thresholds at an anticipated price of $2.1 million,” particularly with Bluebird’s proposal to pay back 80% of the cost if patients need a transfusion within 5 years.
The company is planning an October 2022 launch and estimates the U.S. market for betibeglogene autotemcel to be about 1,500 patients.
Adverse events in studies were “infrequent and consisted primarily of nonserious infusion-related reactions,” such as abdominal pain, hot flush, dyspnea, tachycardia, noncardiac chest pain, and cytopenias, including thrombocytopenia, leukopenia, and neutropenia. One case of thrombocytopenia was considered serious but resolved, according to the company.
Most of the serious adverse events were related to hematopoietic stem cell collection and the busulfan conditioning regimen. Insertional oncogenesis and/or cancer have been reported with Bluebird’s other gene therapy products, but no cases have been associated with betibeglogene autotemcel.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Betibeglogene autotemcel, a one-time gene therapy, represents a potential cure in which functional copies of the mutated gene are inserted into patients’ hematopoietic stem cells via a replication-defective lentivirus.
“Today’s approval is an important advance in the treatment of beta-thalassemia, particularly in individuals who require ongoing red blood cell transfusions,” Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, said in an FDA press release. “Given the potential health complications associated with this serious disease, this action highlights the FDA’s continued commitment to supporting development of innovative therapies for patients who have limited treatment options.”
The approval was based on phase 3 trials, in which 89% of 41 patients aged 4-34 years who received the therapy maintained normal or near-normal hemoglobin levels and didn’t need transfusions for at least a year. The patients were as young as age 4, maker Bluebird Bio said in a press release.
FDA’s Cellular, Tissue, and Gene Therapies Advisory Committee unanimously recommended approval in June. The gene therapy had been approved in Europe, where it carried a price tag of about $1.8 million, but Bluebird pulled it from the market in 2021 because of problems with reimbursement.
“The decision to discontinue operations in Europe resulted from prolonged negotiations with European payers and challenges to achieving appropriate value recognition and market access,” the company said in a Securities and Exchange Commission filing.
The projected price in the United States is even higher: $2.1 million.
But the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review, an influential Boston-based nonprofit organization that specializes in medical cost-effectiveness analyses, concluded in June that, “given the high annual costs of standard care ... this new treatment meets commonly accepted value thresholds at an anticipated price of $2.1 million,” particularly with Bluebird’s proposal to pay back 80% of the cost if patients need a transfusion within 5 years.
The company is planning an October 2022 launch and estimates the U.S. market for betibeglogene autotemcel to be about 1,500 patients.
Adverse events in studies were “infrequent and consisted primarily of nonserious infusion-related reactions,” such as abdominal pain, hot flush, dyspnea, tachycardia, noncardiac chest pain, and cytopenias, including thrombocytopenia, leukopenia, and neutropenia. One case of thrombocytopenia was considered serious but resolved, according to the company.
Most of the serious adverse events were related to hematopoietic stem cell collection and the busulfan conditioning regimen. Insertional oncogenesis and/or cancer have been reported with Bluebird’s other gene therapy products, but no cases have been associated with betibeglogene autotemcel.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Betibeglogene autotemcel, a one-time gene therapy, represents a potential cure in which functional copies of the mutated gene are inserted into patients’ hematopoietic stem cells via a replication-defective lentivirus.
“Today’s approval is an important advance in the treatment of beta-thalassemia, particularly in individuals who require ongoing red blood cell transfusions,” Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, said in an FDA press release. “Given the potential health complications associated with this serious disease, this action highlights the FDA’s continued commitment to supporting development of innovative therapies for patients who have limited treatment options.”
The approval was based on phase 3 trials, in which 89% of 41 patients aged 4-34 years who received the therapy maintained normal or near-normal hemoglobin levels and didn’t need transfusions for at least a year. The patients were as young as age 4, maker Bluebird Bio said in a press release.
FDA’s Cellular, Tissue, and Gene Therapies Advisory Committee unanimously recommended approval in June. The gene therapy had been approved in Europe, where it carried a price tag of about $1.8 million, but Bluebird pulled it from the market in 2021 because of problems with reimbursement.
“The decision to discontinue operations in Europe resulted from prolonged negotiations with European payers and challenges to achieving appropriate value recognition and market access,” the company said in a Securities and Exchange Commission filing.
The projected price in the United States is even higher: $2.1 million.
But the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review, an influential Boston-based nonprofit organization that specializes in medical cost-effectiveness analyses, concluded in June that, “given the high annual costs of standard care ... this new treatment meets commonly accepted value thresholds at an anticipated price of $2.1 million,” particularly with Bluebird’s proposal to pay back 80% of the cost if patients need a transfusion within 5 years.
The company is planning an October 2022 launch and estimates the U.S. market for betibeglogene autotemcel to be about 1,500 patients.
Adverse events in studies were “infrequent and consisted primarily of nonserious infusion-related reactions,” such as abdominal pain, hot flush, dyspnea, tachycardia, noncardiac chest pain, and cytopenias, including thrombocytopenia, leukopenia, and neutropenia. One case of thrombocytopenia was considered serious but resolved, according to the company.
Most of the serious adverse events were related to hematopoietic stem cell collection and the busulfan conditioning regimen. Insertional oncogenesis and/or cancer have been reported with Bluebird’s other gene therapy products, but no cases have been associated with betibeglogene autotemcel.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Annual PSA screening important for Black men
, new data suggest.
The data come from a review of 45,834 veterans (aged 55-69 years) who had been diagnosed with prostate cancer. About one-third of these men self-identified as non-Hispanic Black, and the rest were White.
During the study period (2004-2017), 2,465 men (5.4%) died of the disease.
The review found that annual prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening significantly reduced the risk of dying from prostate cancer among Black men but not White men.
The study was published online in JAMA Oncology.
“These results may be biologically plausible because a shorter screening interval may be valuable for detecting aggressive disease, which is more common in Black men,” say investigators, led by University of California, San Diego, radiation oncology resident Michael Sherer, MD.
“Given that Black men are younger at diagnosis and have worse prostate cancer survival compared with White men,” more intensive screening recommendations “may benefit Black patients,” they write.
The study “conclusions are reasonable,” said Christopher Wallis, MD, PhD, a urologic oncologist at Mount Sinai Hospital in Toronto, when asked for comment.
Annual screening may well have “a greater potential to benefit” Black men, he said. “While we would ideally see randomized data supporting this, those data are unlikely to ever be forthcoming. Thus, this study provides a strong rationale to support the recommendations from many guideline panels (including those from the American Urological Association) that Black men, in the context of shared decision-making, may benefit more from PSA-based prostate cancer screening than the population at large,” he added.
Overall, the findings could help inform screening discussions with Black men, the investigators comments. In its most recent guidance, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommends shared decision-making regarding PSA screening for men aged 55-69 years.
Similar screening frequency
For their study, the team reviewed Veterans Health Administration data to assess PSA screening patterns – which they categorized as no screening, less than annual screening, or annual screening – in the 5 years leading up to diagnosis.
They then correlated screening behaviors with the subsequent risk of dying from prostate cancer.
Overall, the reduction in risk of prostate cancer–specific mortality (PCSM) associated with screening was similar among Black men (subdistribution hazard ratio, 0.56; P = .001) and White men (sHR, 0.58; P = .001).
However, on multivariable regression, annual screening, in comparison with some screening, was associated with a significant reduction in the risk of dying from prostate cancer only among Black men (sHR, 0.65; P = .02), not among White men (sHR, 0.91; P = .35).
The cumulative incidence of PCSM among Black men was 4.7% with annual screening but 7.3% with only some screening.
Among White men, the cumulative incidence of PCSM with annual screening was 5.9% vs. 6.9% with less than annual screening.
Screening frequency was similar between Black men and White men. Black men were younger on average (61.8 vs. 63.1 years) and had slightly higher PSA levels at diagnosis but were not more likely to have regional or metastatic disease.
No funding was reported for this study. The investigators have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Wallis has received personal fees from Janssen Canada.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, new data suggest.
The data come from a review of 45,834 veterans (aged 55-69 years) who had been diagnosed with prostate cancer. About one-third of these men self-identified as non-Hispanic Black, and the rest were White.
During the study period (2004-2017), 2,465 men (5.4%) died of the disease.
The review found that annual prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening significantly reduced the risk of dying from prostate cancer among Black men but not White men.
The study was published online in JAMA Oncology.
“These results may be biologically plausible because a shorter screening interval may be valuable for detecting aggressive disease, which is more common in Black men,” say investigators, led by University of California, San Diego, radiation oncology resident Michael Sherer, MD.
“Given that Black men are younger at diagnosis and have worse prostate cancer survival compared with White men,” more intensive screening recommendations “may benefit Black patients,” they write.
The study “conclusions are reasonable,” said Christopher Wallis, MD, PhD, a urologic oncologist at Mount Sinai Hospital in Toronto, when asked for comment.
Annual screening may well have “a greater potential to benefit” Black men, he said. “While we would ideally see randomized data supporting this, those data are unlikely to ever be forthcoming. Thus, this study provides a strong rationale to support the recommendations from many guideline panels (including those from the American Urological Association) that Black men, in the context of shared decision-making, may benefit more from PSA-based prostate cancer screening than the population at large,” he added.
Overall, the findings could help inform screening discussions with Black men, the investigators comments. In its most recent guidance, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommends shared decision-making regarding PSA screening for men aged 55-69 years.
Similar screening frequency
For their study, the team reviewed Veterans Health Administration data to assess PSA screening patterns – which they categorized as no screening, less than annual screening, or annual screening – in the 5 years leading up to diagnosis.
They then correlated screening behaviors with the subsequent risk of dying from prostate cancer.
Overall, the reduction in risk of prostate cancer–specific mortality (PCSM) associated with screening was similar among Black men (subdistribution hazard ratio, 0.56; P = .001) and White men (sHR, 0.58; P = .001).
However, on multivariable regression, annual screening, in comparison with some screening, was associated with a significant reduction in the risk of dying from prostate cancer only among Black men (sHR, 0.65; P = .02), not among White men (sHR, 0.91; P = .35).
The cumulative incidence of PCSM among Black men was 4.7% with annual screening but 7.3% with only some screening.
Among White men, the cumulative incidence of PCSM with annual screening was 5.9% vs. 6.9% with less than annual screening.
Screening frequency was similar between Black men and White men. Black men were younger on average (61.8 vs. 63.1 years) and had slightly higher PSA levels at diagnosis but were not more likely to have regional or metastatic disease.
No funding was reported for this study. The investigators have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Wallis has received personal fees from Janssen Canada.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, new data suggest.
The data come from a review of 45,834 veterans (aged 55-69 years) who had been diagnosed with prostate cancer. About one-third of these men self-identified as non-Hispanic Black, and the rest were White.
During the study period (2004-2017), 2,465 men (5.4%) died of the disease.
The review found that annual prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening significantly reduced the risk of dying from prostate cancer among Black men but not White men.
The study was published online in JAMA Oncology.
“These results may be biologically plausible because a shorter screening interval may be valuable for detecting aggressive disease, which is more common in Black men,” say investigators, led by University of California, San Diego, radiation oncology resident Michael Sherer, MD.
“Given that Black men are younger at diagnosis and have worse prostate cancer survival compared with White men,” more intensive screening recommendations “may benefit Black patients,” they write.
The study “conclusions are reasonable,” said Christopher Wallis, MD, PhD, a urologic oncologist at Mount Sinai Hospital in Toronto, when asked for comment.
Annual screening may well have “a greater potential to benefit” Black men, he said. “While we would ideally see randomized data supporting this, those data are unlikely to ever be forthcoming. Thus, this study provides a strong rationale to support the recommendations from many guideline panels (including those from the American Urological Association) that Black men, in the context of shared decision-making, may benefit more from PSA-based prostate cancer screening than the population at large,” he added.
Overall, the findings could help inform screening discussions with Black men, the investigators comments. In its most recent guidance, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommends shared decision-making regarding PSA screening for men aged 55-69 years.
Similar screening frequency
For their study, the team reviewed Veterans Health Administration data to assess PSA screening patterns – which they categorized as no screening, less than annual screening, or annual screening – in the 5 years leading up to diagnosis.
They then correlated screening behaviors with the subsequent risk of dying from prostate cancer.
Overall, the reduction in risk of prostate cancer–specific mortality (PCSM) associated with screening was similar among Black men (subdistribution hazard ratio, 0.56; P = .001) and White men (sHR, 0.58; P = .001).
However, on multivariable regression, annual screening, in comparison with some screening, was associated with a significant reduction in the risk of dying from prostate cancer only among Black men (sHR, 0.65; P = .02), not among White men (sHR, 0.91; P = .35).
The cumulative incidence of PCSM among Black men was 4.7% with annual screening but 7.3% with only some screening.
Among White men, the cumulative incidence of PCSM with annual screening was 5.9% vs. 6.9% with less than annual screening.
Screening frequency was similar between Black men and White men. Black men were younger on average (61.8 vs. 63.1 years) and had slightly higher PSA levels at diagnosis but were not more likely to have regional or metastatic disease.
No funding was reported for this study. The investigators have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Wallis has received personal fees from Janssen Canada.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM JAMA ONCOLOGY
FDA approves trastuzumab-deruxtecan for HER2-low breast cancer
This is the first therapy approved for HER2-low breast cancer, a newly defined subset of HER2-negative breast cancer in which there are some HER2 proteins on the cell surface, but not enough to warrant classification as HER2-positive cancer, the FDA said in a press release.
The indication is for patients who have received prior chemotherapy in the metastatic setting or for patients whose cancer has returned during adjuvant chemotherapy or within 6 months of completing it.
Approval was based on the DESTINY-Breast04 trial, which included 557 patients with unresectable or metastatic HER2-low breast cancer. The trial had two cohorts: 494 hormone receptor–positive (HR+) patients, and 63 hormone receptor–negative (HR–) patients.
Of these patients, 373 were randomly assigned to received trastuzumab deruxtecan every 3 weeks, and 184 were randomly assigned to receive physician’s choice of chemotherapy (eribulin, capecitabine, gemcitabine, nab paclitaxel, or paclitaxel).
Among patients who received trastuzumab deruxtecan, progression-free survival was longer (10.1 months vs. 5.4 months), as was overall survival (23.9 months vs. 17.5 months), compared with those in the chemotherapy group.
“Overall, these results establish HER2-low metastatic breast cancer as a targetable population of breast cancer with trastuzumab deruxtecan as a new standard of care in this setting,” Shanu Modi, MD, said in June at a press conference held during the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, where she presented the results.
The most common adverse reactions in the trial were nausea, fatigue, alopecia, vomiting, constipation, decreased appetite, musculoskeletal pain, and diarrhea. The agent carries a boxed warning regarding the risk of interstitial lung disease and embryo-fetal toxicity.
The targeted agent is not recommended for women who are pregnant.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
This is the first therapy approved for HER2-low breast cancer, a newly defined subset of HER2-negative breast cancer in which there are some HER2 proteins on the cell surface, but not enough to warrant classification as HER2-positive cancer, the FDA said in a press release.
The indication is for patients who have received prior chemotherapy in the metastatic setting or for patients whose cancer has returned during adjuvant chemotherapy or within 6 months of completing it.
Approval was based on the DESTINY-Breast04 trial, which included 557 patients with unresectable or metastatic HER2-low breast cancer. The trial had two cohorts: 494 hormone receptor–positive (HR+) patients, and 63 hormone receptor–negative (HR–) patients.
Of these patients, 373 were randomly assigned to received trastuzumab deruxtecan every 3 weeks, and 184 were randomly assigned to receive physician’s choice of chemotherapy (eribulin, capecitabine, gemcitabine, nab paclitaxel, or paclitaxel).
Among patients who received trastuzumab deruxtecan, progression-free survival was longer (10.1 months vs. 5.4 months), as was overall survival (23.9 months vs. 17.5 months), compared with those in the chemotherapy group.
“Overall, these results establish HER2-low metastatic breast cancer as a targetable population of breast cancer with trastuzumab deruxtecan as a new standard of care in this setting,” Shanu Modi, MD, said in June at a press conference held during the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, where she presented the results.
The most common adverse reactions in the trial were nausea, fatigue, alopecia, vomiting, constipation, decreased appetite, musculoskeletal pain, and diarrhea. The agent carries a boxed warning regarding the risk of interstitial lung disease and embryo-fetal toxicity.
The targeted agent is not recommended for women who are pregnant.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
This is the first therapy approved for HER2-low breast cancer, a newly defined subset of HER2-negative breast cancer in which there are some HER2 proteins on the cell surface, but not enough to warrant classification as HER2-positive cancer, the FDA said in a press release.
The indication is for patients who have received prior chemotherapy in the metastatic setting or for patients whose cancer has returned during adjuvant chemotherapy or within 6 months of completing it.
Approval was based on the DESTINY-Breast04 trial, which included 557 patients with unresectable or metastatic HER2-low breast cancer. The trial had two cohorts: 494 hormone receptor–positive (HR+) patients, and 63 hormone receptor–negative (HR–) patients.
Of these patients, 373 were randomly assigned to received trastuzumab deruxtecan every 3 weeks, and 184 were randomly assigned to receive physician’s choice of chemotherapy (eribulin, capecitabine, gemcitabine, nab paclitaxel, or paclitaxel).
Among patients who received trastuzumab deruxtecan, progression-free survival was longer (10.1 months vs. 5.4 months), as was overall survival (23.9 months vs. 17.5 months), compared with those in the chemotherapy group.
“Overall, these results establish HER2-low metastatic breast cancer as a targetable population of breast cancer with trastuzumab deruxtecan as a new standard of care in this setting,” Shanu Modi, MD, said in June at a press conference held during the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, where she presented the results.
The most common adverse reactions in the trial were nausea, fatigue, alopecia, vomiting, constipation, decreased appetite, musculoskeletal pain, and diarrhea. The agent carries a boxed warning regarding the risk of interstitial lung disease and embryo-fetal toxicity.
The targeted agent is not recommended for women who are pregnant.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
HPV vaccination with Cervarix ‘unmasks’ cervical lesions from non-vax strains
Vaccines against human papillomavirus have been hailed as a success: they have been shown to decrease the incidence of cervical lesions associated with the HPV types that are in the vaccine.
However,
An expert not involved in the research said the new data “tell us to be a little bit careful.” Although the HPV types not included in the vaccine are rarer and less aggressive, they can still cause cancer.
The data come from the Costa Rica HPV Vaccine Trial, which involved more than 10,000 women aged 18-25 years. The HPV vaccine used in the trial was Cervarix, from GlaxoSmithKline. It covers the two leading causes of cervical cancer, HPV-16 and -18, and provides partial protection against three other genotypes.
After a follow-up of 11 years, among vaccinated women, there was an excess of precancerous cervical lesions caused by genotypes not included in the vaccine, resulting in negative vaccine efficacy for those HPV variants.
The increase wasn’t enough to offset the overall benefit of vaccination when all genotypes were considered, said the researchers, led by Jaimie Shing, PhD, a postdoctoral research fellow at the National Cancer Institute in Bethesda, Md.
Vaccinated women “still had long-term absolute reductions in high-grade lesions,” they pointed out.
The net protection “remained considerable, emphasizing the importance of HPV vaccination for cervical cancer prevention,” the team concluded.
The findings were published online in The Lancet Oncology.
The results are likely the first evidence to date of “clinical unmasking” with HPV vaccination, meaning that protection against the strains covered by the vaccine leaves women more prone to attack from other carcinogenic HPV variants.
This phenomenon “could attenuate long-term reductions in high-grade disease following successful implementation of HPV vaccination programs,” the investigators commented.
Highlighting a need for caution
The take-home message from the trial is that “we have to be careful,” said Marc Steben, MD, co-President of HPV Global Action and a professor at the University of Montreal.
He noted that the Cervarix HPV vaccine used in the trial is not the vaccine that is used now in developed nations.
The current standard HPV vaccine is Gardasil 9 (Merck), which offers broader coverage against nine HPV types (types 6, 11, 16, 18, 31, 33, 45, 52, and 58).
There are 12 main carcinogenic HPV genotypes, so unmasking of other strains is still possible with Gardasil 9, he said.
There is another issue, Dr. Steben added. The success of HPV vaccinations - a nearly 90% reduction in invasive cervical cancer in women who are vaccinated at a young age – has led to questions about the future role of routine cervical cancer screening.
“Some people are saying that if we achieve 90% coverage, we might” eliminate community transmission and no longer need to screen, he said.
These trial results “tell us to be a little bit careful,” Dr. Steben continued. Those HPV types that are less aggressive and rarer than HPV-16 and -18 “can still cause cancer and might be there and surprise us. It could take more time than we thought” to get to the point where screening can be eliminated.
“There might be a little problem if we stop too early,” he said.
Study details
During the period 2004-2005, the investigators randomly assigned 3,727 women aged 18-25 years to receive Cervarix and 3,739 to a control group that received the hepatitis A vaccine; after 4 years, the control group also received Cervarix and exited the study. They were replaced by an unvaccinated control group of 2,836 women. The new control group and the original HPV vaccine group were followed for an additional 7 years.
In years 7-11 of the trial, the investigators found 9.2 additional cervical intraepithelial neoplasias of grade 2 or worse (CIN2+) from HPV types not covered by Cervarix per 1,000 vaccinated women in comparison with unvaccinated participants. This corresponds to –71.2% negative vaccine efficacy against CIN2+ lesions of HPV types not covered by the vaccine.
There were 8.3 additional CIN3+ lesions from nontargeted HPV strains per 1,000 vaccinated women in comparison with unvaccinated participants, which corresponds to –135% negative vaccine efficacy.
Overall, however, there was a net benefit of vaccination, with 27 fewer CIN2+ lesions when all HPV genotypes – vaccine covered or not – were considered per 1,000 vaccinated women over the entire 11 years of follow-up.
There were also 8.7 fewer CIN3+ lesions across all genotypes per 1,000 vaccinated women, but the benefit was not statistically significant.
Among the study limits, the team was unable to evaluate the effect of clinical unmasking on cervical cancer, because women were treated for high-grade cervical lesions before cases could progress to cervical cancer.
The trial was funded by the National Cancer Institute and the National Institutes of Health Office of Research on Women’s Health. GlaxoSmithKline provided the Cervarix vaccine and supported aspects of the trial. Two authors are named inventors on U.S. government–owned HPV vaccine patents with expired licenses to GlaxoSmithKline and Merck. Dr. Steben is an adviser/speaker for many companies, including GlaxoSmithKline and Merck.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Vaccines against human papillomavirus have been hailed as a success: they have been shown to decrease the incidence of cervical lesions associated with the HPV types that are in the vaccine.
However,
An expert not involved in the research said the new data “tell us to be a little bit careful.” Although the HPV types not included in the vaccine are rarer and less aggressive, they can still cause cancer.
The data come from the Costa Rica HPV Vaccine Trial, which involved more than 10,000 women aged 18-25 years. The HPV vaccine used in the trial was Cervarix, from GlaxoSmithKline. It covers the two leading causes of cervical cancer, HPV-16 and -18, and provides partial protection against three other genotypes.
After a follow-up of 11 years, among vaccinated women, there was an excess of precancerous cervical lesions caused by genotypes not included in the vaccine, resulting in negative vaccine efficacy for those HPV variants.
The increase wasn’t enough to offset the overall benefit of vaccination when all genotypes were considered, said the researchers, led by Jaimie Shing, PhD, a postdoctoral research fellow at the National Cancer Institute in Bethesda, Md.
Vaccinated women “still had long-term absolute reductions in high-grade lesions,” they pointed out.
The net protection “remained considerable, emphasizing the importance of HPV vaccination for cervical cancer prevention,” the team concluded.
The findings were published online in The Lancet Oncology.
The results are likely the first evidence to date of “clinical unmasking” with HPV vaccination, meaning that protection against the strains covered by the vaccine leaves women more prone to attack from other carcinogenic HPV variants.
This phenomenon “could attenuate long-term reductions in high-grade disease following successful implementation of HPV vaccination programs,” the investigators commented.
Highlighting a need for caution
The take-home message from the trial is that “we have to be careful,” said Marc Steben, MD, co-President of HPV Global Action and a professor at the University of Montreal.
He noted that the Cervarix HPV vaccine used in the trial is not the vaccine that is used now in developed nations.
The current standard HPV vaccine is Gardasil 9 (Merck), which offers broader coverage against nine HPV types (types 6, 11, 16, 18, 31, 33, 45, 52, and 58).
There are 12 main carcinogenic HPV genotypes, so unmasking of other strains is still possible with Gardasil 9, he said.
There is another issue, Dr. Steben added. The success of HPV vaccinations - a nearly 90% reduction in invasive cervical cancer in women who are vaccinated at a young age – has led to questions about the future role of routine cervical cancer screening.
“Some people are saying that if we achieve 90% coverage, we might” eliminate community transmission and no longer need to screen, he said.
These trial results “tell us to be a little bit careful,” Dr. Steben continued. Those HPV types that are less aggressive and rarer than HPV-16 and -18 “can still cause cancer and might be there and surprise us. It could take more time than we thought” to get to the point where screening can be eliminated.
“There might be a little problem if we stop too early,” he said.
Study details
During the period 2004-2005, the investigators randomly assigned 3,727 women aged 18-25 years to receive Cervarix and 3,739 to a control group that received the hepatitis A vaccine; after 4 years, the control group also received Cervarix and exited the study. They were replaced by an unvaccinated control group of 2,836 women. The new control group and the original HPV vaccine group were followed for an additional 7 years.
In years 7-11 of the trial, the investigators found 9.2 additional cervical intraepithelial neoplasias of grade 2 or worse (CIN2+) from HPV types not covered by Cervarix per 1,000 vaccinated women in comparison with unvaccinated participants. This corresponds to –71.2% negative vaccine efficacy against CIN2+ lesions of HPV types not covered by the vaccine.
There were 8.3 additional CIN3+ lesions from nontargeted HPV strains per 1,000 vaccinated women in comparison with unvaccinated participants, which corresponds to –135% negative vaccine efficacy.
Overall, however, there was a net benefit of vaccination, with 27 fewer CIN2+ lesions when all HPV genotypes – vaccine covered or not – were considered per 1,000 vaccinated women over the entire 11 years of follow-up.
There were also 8.7 fewer CIN3+ lesions across all genotypes per 1,000 vaccinated women, but the benefit was not statistically significant.
Among the study limits, the team was unable to evaluate the effect of clinical unmasking on cervical cancer, because women were treated for high-grade cervical lesions before cases could progress to cervical cancer.
The trial was funded by the National Cancer Institute and the National Institutes of Health Office of Research on Women’s Health. GlaxoSmithKline provided the Cervarix vaccine and supported aspects of the trial. Two authors are named inventors on U.S. government–owned HPV vaccine patents with expired licenses to GlaxoSmithKline and Merck. Dr. Steben is an adviser/speaker for many companies, including GlaxoSmithKline and Merck.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Vaccines against human papillomavirus have been hailed as a success: they have been shown to decrease the incidence of cervical lesions associated with the HPV types that are in the vaccine.
However,
An expert not involved in the research said the new data “tell us to be a little bit careful.” Although the HPV types not included in the vaccine are rarer and less aggressive, they can still cause cancer.
The data come from the Costa Rica HPV Vaccine Trial, which involved more than 10,000 women aged 18-25 years. The HPV vaccine used in the trial was Cervarix, from GlaxoSmithKline. It covers the two leading causes of cervical cancer, HPV-16 and -18, and provides partial protection against three other genotypes.
After a follow-up of 11 years, among vaccinated women, there was an excess of precancerous cervical lesions caused by genotypes not included in the vaccine, resulting in negative vaccine efficacy for those HPV variants.
The increase wasn’t enough to offset the overall benefit of vaccination when all genotypes were considered, said the researchers, led by Jaimie Shing, PhD, a postdoctoral research fellow at the National Cancer Institute in Bethesda, Md.
Vaccinated women “still had long-term absolute reductions in high-grade lesions,” they pointed out.
The net protection “remained considerable, emphasizing the importance of HPV vaccination for cervical cancer prevention,” the team concluded.
The findings were published online in The Lancet Oncology.
The results are likely the first evidence to date of “clinical unmasking” with HPV vaccination, meaning that protection against the strains covered by the vaccine leaves women more prone to attack from other carcinogenic HPV variants.
This phenomenon “could attenuate long-term reductions in high-grade disease following successful implementation of HPV vaccination programs,” the investigators commented.
Highlighting a need for caution
The take-home message from the trial is that “we have to be careful,” said Marc Steben, MD, co-President of HPV Global Action and a professor at the University of Montreal.
He noted that the Cervarix HPV vaccine used in the trial is not the vaccine that is used now in developed nations.
The current standard HPV vaccine is Gardasil 9 (Merck), which offers broader coverage against nine HPV types (types 6, 11, 16, 18, 31, 33, 45, 52, and 58).
There are 12 main carcinogenic HPV genotypes, so unmasking of other strains is still possible with Gardasil 9, he said.
There is another issue, Dr. Steben added. The success of HPV vaccinations - a nearly 90% reduction in invasive cervical cancer in women who are vaccinated at a young age – has led to questions about the future role of routine cervical cancer screening.
“Some people are saying that if we achieve 90% coverage, we might” eliminate community transmission and no longer need to screen, he said.
These trial results “tell us to be a little bit careful,” Dr. Steben continued. Those HPV types that are less aggressive and rarer than HPV-16 and -18 “can still cause cancer and might be there and surprise us. It could take more time than we thought” to get to the point where screening can be eliminated.
“There might be a little problem if we stop too early,” he said.
Study details
During the period 2004-2005, the investigators randomly assigned 3,727 women aged 18-25 years to receive Cervarix and 3,739 to a control group that received the hepatitis A vaccine; after 4 years, the control group also received Cervarix and exited the study. They were replaced by an unvaccinated control group of 2,836 women. The new control group and the original HPV vaccine group were followed for an additional 7 years.
In years 7-11 of the trial, the investigators found 9.2 additional cervical intraepithelial neoplasias of grade 2 or worse (CIN2+) from HPV types not covered by Cervarix per 1,000 vaccinated women in comparison with unvaccinated participants. This corresponds to –71.2% negative vaccine efficacy against CIN2+ lesions of HPV types not covered by the vaccine.
There were 8.3 additional CIN3+ lesions from nontargeted HPV strains per 1,000 vaccinated women in comparison with unvaccinated participants, which corresponds to –135% negative vaccine efficacy.
Overall, however, there was a net benefit of vaccination, with 27 fewer CIN2+ lesions when all HPV genotypes – vaccine covered or not – were considered per 1,000 vaccinated women over the entire 11 years of follow-up.
There were also 8.7 fewer CIN3+ lesions across all genotypes per 1,000 vaccinated women, but the benefit was not statistically significant.
Among the study limits, the team was unable to evaluate the effect of clinical unmasking on cervical cancer, because women were treated for high-grade cervical lesions before cases could progress to cervical cancer.
The trial was funded by the National Cancer Institute and the National Institutes of Health Office of Research on Women’s Health. GlaxoSmithKline provided the Cervarix vaccine and supported aspects of the trial. Two authors are named inventors on U.S. government–owned HPV vaccine patents with expired licenses to GlaxoSmithKline and Merck. Dr. Steben is an adviser/speaker for many companies, including GlaxoSmithKline and Merck.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM THE LANCET ONCOLOGY
Acetaminophen linked to diminished response to immunotherapy in cancer
The team found a strong association between the use of acetaminophen and a decreased response to immune checkpoint inhibitors in a study of three clinical cohorts involving more than 600 patients with advanced cancer.
Patients who took acetaminophen at the start of immunotherapy – with acetaminophen exposure confirmed by plasma testing – were found to have worse overall survival and progression-free survival than patients who did not take the analgesic. Multivariate analysis confirmed the association independent of other prognostic factors. “It is unlikely that our data are the result of bias or unmeasured confounding,” the authors comment.
The findings “present a compelling case for caution” in using acetaminophen in patients with cancer who are receiving immune checkpoint blockers, senior investigator Antoine Italiano, MD, PhD, a medical oncologist at the University of Bordeaux (France), and colleagues concluded.
The study was presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology and published simultaneously in Annals of Oncology.
“Patients with advanced cancer taking [acetaminophen] during immunotherapy experience worse clinical outcomes, which suggests that [acetaminophen] decreases T cell–mediated antitumor immunity,” the authors comment.
They also report bench research and blood studies in four healthy volunteers, which showed an up-regulation of immunosuppressive regulatory T cells (Tregs) with acetaminophen, and other findings that together suggest that acetaminophen undermines the antitumor immune processes by which checkpoint inhibitors work.
Reconsider acetaminophen pretreatment
After hearing Dr. Italiano present the results at the meeting, a Polish oncologist in the audience said he was concerned that his clinic premedicates with acetaminophen before immune checkpoint blockade and wanted to know if they should stop doing it.
“I don’t think inducing Tregs ... in cancer patients is a good approach. I do a lot of clinical trials,” and “I do not understand why in several cases sponsors required mandatory premedication with acetaminophen. I think ... we should reconsider this approach,” Dr. Italiano said.
There’s precedence for the findings. Acetaminophen – also known as paracetamol – has been shown in some studies to limit immune cell proliferation, T-cell–dependent antibody response, and viral clearance, among other things. After a randomized trial showing blunted responses to vaccines in individuals who were taking acetaminophen, the World Health Organization recommended in 2015 against concurrent use of acetaminophen with vaccines.
Steroids, antibiotics, and proton pump inhibitors have also recently been shown to worsen outcomes with pembrolizumab, noted invited discussant, Margaret Gatti-Mays, MD, a medical oncologist at Ohio State University, Columbus.
“We are starting to understand that ... commonly used medications may have a larger impact on the efficacy and toxicity of immune checkpoint blockade than historically seen with chemotherapy,” she said.
However, she expressed some uncertainty over the French findings, as she was concerned that even the multivariate analysis didn’t completely rule out that acetaminophen users had worse disease to begin with and so would be expected to have worse outcomes.
She was also unsure of how much acetaminophen is too much.
Acetaminophen has a half-life of around 3 hours or less, where the immune checkpoint inhibitors have a half-life of around 20 days or more.
Given that, Dr. Gatti-Mays wondered whether “a single dose of acetaminophen [is] enough to derail the benefit of checkpoint inhibition? Does exposure need to be continuous?”
She allowed that acetaminophen use may turn out to be one more of the many patient-level factors emerging lately – such as chronic stress, diet, body flora, and physiological age, among others – that might help explain why checkpoint inhibition works in only about 20% of eligible patients with cancer.
Study details
Dr. Italiano and his team analyzed plasma samples from 297 participants in the CheckMate 025 trial of nivolumab for renal cancer; 34 participants in the BIP study into actionable molecular alterations in cancer; and 297 participants in the PREMIS immune-related adverse events study. The patients in these last two studies had a variety of cancers and were taking various agents.
All 628 patients were on checkpoint inhibitors. The investigators divided them according to who had acetaminophen or its metabolite acetaminophen glucuronide in their plasma when they started checkpoint inhibition and those who did not.
In CheckMate 025, overall survival was significantly worse among participants who had detectable acetaminophen or its metabolite in plasma (hazard ratio, 0.67; P = .004).
None of the acetaminophen-positive participants in the BIP study responded to checkpoint blockade, compared with almost 30% of those who were negative. Acetaminophen-positive participants also trended toward worse progression-free survival (median, 1.87 vs. 4.72 months) and overall survival (median, 7.87 vs. 16.56 months).
In PREMIS, progression-free survival was a median of 2.63 months in the acetaminophen group versus 5.03 months in negative participants (P = .009); median overall survival was 8.43 months versus 14.93 months, respectively (P < .0001).
A multivariate analysis was performed in PREMIS. Acetaminophen exposure was associated with both progression-free survival (hazard ratio, 1.43; P =.015) and overall survival (HR, 1.78; P =.006) independently of performance status, liver metastases, bone metastases, number of metastases sites, tumor type, number of previous lines of treatment, steroid/antibiotic use, lactate dehydrogenase levels, and other factors.
There was no funding for the work. Dr. Italiano is a consultant for AstraZeneca, Bayer, Chugai, Deciphera, Merck, Parthenon, Roche, and Springworks, He also has grants from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, MSD, Novartis, Pharmamar, and Roche. Two authors work for Explicyte and one works for Amgen. Dr. Gatti-Mays is a consultant for Seattle Genetics.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The team found a strong association between the use of acetaminophen and a decreased response to immune checkpoint inhibitors in a study of three clinical cohorts involving more than 600 patients with advanced cancer.
Patients who took acetaminophen at the start of immunotherapy – with acetaminophen exposure confirmed by plasma testing – were found to have worse overall survival and progression-free survival than patients who did not take the analgesic. Multivariate analysis confirmed the association independent of other prognostic factors. “It is unlikely that our data are the result of bias or unmeasured confounding,” the authors comment.
The findings “present a compelling case for caution” in using acetaminophen in patients with cancer who are receiving immune checkpoint blockers, senior investigator Antoine Italiano, MD, PhD, a medical oncologist at the University of Bordeaux (France), and colleagues concluded.
The study was presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology and published simultaneously in Annals of Oncology.
“Patients with advanced cancer taking [acetaminophen] during immunotherapy experience worse clinical outcomes, which suggests that [acetaminophen] decreases T cell–mediated antitumor immunity,” the authors comment.
They also report bench research and blood studies in four healthy volunteers, which showed an up-regulation of immunosuppressive regulatory T cells (Tregs) with acetaminophen, and other findings that together suggest that acetaminophen undermines the antitumor immune processes by which checkpoint inhibitors work.
Reconsider acetaminophen pretreatment
After hearing Dr. Italiano present the results at the meeting, a Polish oncologist in the audience said he was concerned that his clinic premedicates with acetaminophen before immune checkpoint blockade and wanted to know if they should stop doing it.
“I don’t think inducing Tregs ... in cancer patients is a good approach. I do a lot of clinical trials,” and “I do not understand why in several cases sponsors required mandatory premedication with acetaminophen. I think ... we should reconsider this approach,” Dr. Italiano said.
There’s precedence for the findings. Acetaminophen – also known as paracetamol – has been shown in some studies to limit immune cell proliferation, T-cell–dependent antibody response, and viral clearance, among other things. After a randomized trial showing blunted responses to vaccines in individuals who were taking acetaminophen, the World Health Organization recommended in 2015 against concurrent use of acetaminophen with vaccines.
Steroids, antibiotics, and proton pump inhibitors have also recently been shown to worsen outcomes with pembrolizumab, noted invited discussant, Margaret Gatti-Mays, MD, a medical oncologist at Ohio State University, Columbus.
“We are starting to understand that ... commonly used medications may have a larger impact on the efficacy and toxicity of immune checkpoint blockade than historically seen with chemotherapy,” she said.
However, she expressed some uncertainty over the French findings, as she was concerned that even the multivariate analysis didn’t completely rule out that acetaminophen users had worse disease to begin with and so would be expected to have worse outcomes.
She was also unsure of how much acetaminophen is too much.
Acetaminophen has a half-life of around 3 hours or less, where the immune checkpoint inhibitors have a half-life of around 20 days or more.
Given that, Dr. Gatti-Mays wondered whether “a single dose of acetaminophen [is] enough to derail the benefit of checkpoint inhibition? Does exposure need to be continuous?”
She allowed that acetaminophen use may turn out to be one more of the many patient-level factors emerging lately – such as chronic stress, diet, body flora, and physiological age, among others – that might help explain why checkpoint inhibition works in only about 20% of eligible patients with cancer.
Study details
Dr. Italiano and his team analyzed plasma samples from 297 participants in the CheckMate 025 trial of nivolumab for renal cancer; 34 participants in the BIP study into actionable molecular alterations in cancer; and 297 participants in the PREMIS immune-related adverse events study. The patients in these last two studies had a variety of cancers and were taking various agents.
All 628 patients were on checkpoint inhibitors. The investigators divided them according to who had acetaminophen or its metabolite acetaminophen glucuronide in their plasma when they started checkpoint inhibition and those who did not.
In CheckMate 025, overall survival was significantly worse among participants who had detectable acetaminophen or its metabolite in plasma (hazard ratio, 0.67; P = .004).
None of the acetaminophen-positive participants in the BIP study responded to checkpoint blockade, compared with almost 30% of those who were negative. Acetaminophen-positive participants also trended toward worse progression-free survival (median, 1.87 vs. 4.72 months) and overall survival (median, 7.87 vs. 16.56 months).
In PREMIS, progression-free survival was a median of 2.63 months in the acetaminophen group versus 5.03 months in negative participants (P = .009); median overall survival was 8.43 months versus 14.93 months, respectively (P < .0001).
A multivariate analysis was performed in PREMIS. Acetaminophen exposure was associated with both progression-free survival (hazard ratio, 1.43; P =.015) and overall survival (HR, 1.78; P =.006) independently of performance status, liver metastases, bone metastases, number of metastases sites, tumor type, number of previous lines of treatment, steroid/antibiotic use, lactate dehydrogenase levels, and other factors.
There was no funding for the work. Dr. Italiano is a consultant for AstraZeneca, Bayer, Chugai, Deciphera, Merck, Parthenon, Roche, and Springworks, He also has grants from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, MSD, Novartis, Pharmamar, and Roche. Two authors work for Explicyte and one works for Amgen. Dr. Gatti-Mays is a consultant for Seattle Genetics.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The team found a strong association between the use of acetaminophen and a decreased response to immune checkpoint inhibitors in a study of three clinical cohorts involving more than 600 patients with advanced cancer.
Patients who took acetaminophen at the start of immunotherapy – with acetaminophen exposure confirmed by plasma testing – were found to have worse overall survival and progression-free survival than patients who did not take the analgesic. Multivariate analysis confirmed the association independent of other prognostic factors. “It is unlikely that our data are the result of bias or unmeasured confounding,” the authors comment.
The findings “present a compelling case for caution” in using acetaminophen in patients with cancer who are receiving immune checkpoint blockers, senior investigator Antoine Italiano, MD, PhD, a medical oncologist at the University of Bordeaux (France), and colleagues concluded.
The study was presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology and published simultaneously in Annals of Oncology.
“Patients with advanced cancer taking [acetaminophen] during immunotherapy experience worse clinical outcomes, which suggests that [acetaminophen] decreases T cell–mediated antitumor immunity,” the authors comment.
They also report bench research and blood studies in four healthy volunteers, which showed an up-regulation of immunosuppressive regulatory T cells (Tregs) with acetaminophen, and other findings that together suggest that acetaminophen undermines the antitumor immune processes by which checkpoint inhibitors work.
Reconsider acetaminophen pretreatment
After hearing Dr. Italiano present the results at the meeting, a Polish oncologist in the audience said he was concerned that his clinic premedicates with acetaminophen before immune checkpoint blockade and wanted to know if they should stop doing it.
“I don’t think inducing Tregs ... in cancer patients is a good approach. I do a lot of clinical trials,” and “I do not understand why in several cases sponsors required mandatory premedication with acetaminophen. I think ... we should reconsider this approach,” Dr. Italiano said.
There’s precedence for the findings. Acetaminophen – also known as paracetamol – has been shown in some studies to limit immune cell proliferation, T-cell–dependent antibody response, and viral clearance, among other things. After a randomized trial showing blunted responses to vaccines in individuals who were taking acetaminophen, the World Health Organization recommended in 2015 against concurrent use of acetaminophen with vaccines.
Steroids, antibiotics, and proton pump inhibitors have also recently been shown to worsen outcomes with pembrolizumab, noted invited discussant, Margaret Gatti-Mays, MD, a medical oncologist at Ohio State University, Columbus.
“We are starting to understand that ... commonly used medications may have a larger impact on the efficacy and toxicity of immune checkpoint blockade than historically seen with chemotherapy,” she said.
However, she expressed some uncertainty over the French findings, as she was concerned that even the multivariate analysis didn’t completely rule out that acetaminophen users had worse disease to begin with and so would be expected to have worse outcomes.
She was also unsure of how much acetaminophen is too much.
Acetaminophen has a half-life of around 3 hours or less, where the immune checkpoint inhibitors have a half-life of around 20 days or more.
Given that, Dr. Gatti-Mays wondered whether “a single dose of acetaminophen [is] enough to derail the benefit of checkpoint inhibition? Does exposure need to be continuous?”
She allowed that acetaminophen use may turn out to be one more of the many patient-level factors emerging lately – such as chronic stress, diet, body flora, and physiological age, among others – that might help explain why checkpoint inhibition works in only about 20% of eligible patients with cancer.
Study details
Dr. Italiano and his team analyzed plasma samples from 297 participants in the CheckMate 025 trial of nivolumab for renal cancer; 34 participants in the BIP study into actionable molecular alterations in cancer; and 297 participants in the PREMIS immune-related adverse events study. The patients in these last two studies had a variety of cancers and were taking various agents.
All 628 patients were on checkpoint inhibitors. The investigators divided them according to who had acetaminophen or its metabolite acetaminophen glucuronide in their plasma when they started checkpoint inhibition and those who did not.
In CheckMate 025, overall survival was significantly worse among participants who had detectable acetaminophen or its metabolite in plasma (hazard ratio, 0.67; P = .004).
None of the acetaminophen-positive participants in the BIP study responded to checkpoint blockade, compared with almost 30% of those who were negative. Acetaminophen-positive participants also trended toward worse progression-free survival (median, 1.87 vs. 4.72 months) and overall survival (median, 7.87 vs. 16.56 months).
In PREMIS, progression-free survival was a median of 2.63 months in the acetaminophen group versus 5.03 months in negative participants (P = .009); median overall survival was 8.43 months versus 14.93 months, respectively (P < .0001).
A multivariate analysis was performed in PREMIS. Acetaminophen exposure was associated with both progression-free survival (hazard ratio, 1.43; P =.015) and overall survival (HR, 1.78; P =.006) independently of performance status, liver metastases, bone metastases, number of metastases sites, tumor type, number of previous lines of treatment, steroid/antibiotic use, lactate dehydrogenase levels, and other factors.
There was no funding for the work. Dr. Italiano is a consultant for AstraZeneca, Bayer, Chugai, Deciphera, Merck, Parthenon, Roche, and Springworks, He also has grants from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, MSD, Novartis, Pharmamar, and Roche. Two authors work for Explicyte and one works for Amgen. Dr. Gatti-Mays is a consultant for Seattle Genetics.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM ASCO 2022
Debate: Should biologics be used for milder cases of psoriasis?
The issue was tackled in a debate at the American Academy of Dermatology Virtual Meeting Experience.
Taking the con side, Kenneth Gordon, MD, professor and chair of dermatology at the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, argued that, with the high cost of biologics, availability of many alternatives, and other issues, “we should just say no. ... There is no good reason that we need to expand the use of biologics in patients with limited disease.”
On the pro side, Richard Langley, MD, professor of dermatology at Dalhousie University Halifax, N.S, argued for a nuanced approach. He noted that patients with smaller patches of disease can be just as miserable as patients who hit traditional benchmarks of increased severity, such as high body surface area involvement – especially if those small areas are in sensitive locations like the scalp, palms, or genitals.
The decision to use a biologic should hinge on how badly patients and their quality of life are affected, not on “some artificial and limiting definition” of severity, Dr. Langley said.
Dr. Gordon didn’t disagree, noting that current use criteria include objective measures as well as disease in sensitive areas and failure of alternative treatments.
Rather, he was concerned about “expanding the definition of who is eligible beyond these criteria ... to chase every last bit of” disease. “I don’t think we have” a good rationale for that approach, he said.
Cost is the most important issue, Dr. Gordon said.
With more biologics on the way and prices continuing to go up, “there is going to a be a huge challenge to our use of these expensive medicines over the next few years” from payers. “It is important that we use them smartly in order to make sure we are able to use them for people with severe disease” who really need them. If “we start using biologics for all our patients with psoriasis,” it will be a “cost disaster,” Dr. Gordon said.
In addition, topicals and home phototherapy can be effective as long as patients adhere to them, as can alternative systemic agents, such as methotrexate and apremilast.
Often with biologics, “the issue is mainly convenience” rather than a fundamental problem with the alternatives, and despite the good safety record in trials, “chasing the last bit” of psoriasis with a biologic “is not necessarily” without risk for the patient, Dr. Gordon said.
Still, there can be a “pretty significant disconnect” between how patients perceive their psoriasis and “what physicians are thinking and prescribing” for it based on objective measures, Dr. Langley noted. Sometimes patients who have limited disease but are in significant distress aren’t even receiving treatment or are only given another cream to add to their collection of ones that haven’t worked.
One problem with traditional severity classifications is that they don’t generally take patients’ subjective experience into account, he added. There’s also been a lack of standardization to the point that dermatologists, researchers, and payers can sometimes disagree over severity in a given patient.
There’s movement toward better incorporation of patient experience into severity considerations, but for now at least, a designation of mild psoriasis can underestimate the true severity of disease, Dr. Langley said.
Dr. Gordon and Dr. Langley reported receiving honoraria and/or research support from many pharmaceutical companies, including AbbVie, Pfizer, and Lilly.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The issue was tackled in a debate at the American Academy of Dermatology Virtual Meeting Experience.
Taking the con side, Kenneth Gordon, MD, professor and chair of dermatology at the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, argued that, with the high cost of biologics, availability of many alternatives, and other issues, “we should just say no. ... There is no good reason that we need to expand the use of biologics in patients with limited disease.”
On the pro side, Richard Langley, MD, professor of dermatology at Dalhousie University Halifax, N.S, argued for a nuanced approach. He noted that patients with smaller patches of disease can be just as miserable as patients who hit traditional benchmarks of increased severity, such as high body surface area involvement – especially if those small areas are in sensitive locations like the scalp, palms, or genitals.
The decision to use a biologic should hinge on how badly patients and their quality of life are affected, not on “some artificial and limiting definition” of severity, Dr. Langley said.
Dr. Gordon didn’t disagree, noting that current use criteria include objective measures as well as disease in sensitive areas and failure of alternative treatments.
Rather, he was concerned about “expanding the definition of who is eligible beyond these criteria ... to chase every last bit of” disease. “I don’t think we have” a good rationale for that approach, he said.
Cost is the most important issue, Dr. Gordon said.
With more biologics on the way and prices continuing to go up, “there is going to a be a huge challenge to our use of these expensive medicines over the next few years” from payers. “It is important that we use them smartly in order to make sure we are able to use them for people with severe disease” who really need them. If “we start using biologics for all our patients with psoriasis,” it will be a “cost disaster,” Dr. Gordon said.
In addition, topicals and home phototherapy can be effective as long as patients adhere to them, as can alternative systemic agents, such as methotrexate and apremilast.
Often with biologics, “the issue is mainly convenience” rather than a fundamental problem with the alternatives, and despite the good safety record in trials, “chasing the last bit” of psoriasis with a biologic “is not necessarily” without risk for the patient, Dr. Gordon said.
Still, there can be a “pretty significant disconnect” between how patients perceive their psoriasis and “what physicians are thinking and prescribing” for it based on objective measures, Dr. Langley noted. Sometimes patients who have limited disease but are in significant distress aren’t even receiving treatment or are only given another cream to add to their collection of ones that haven’t worked.
One problem with traditional severity classifications is that they don’t generally take patients’ subjective experience into account, he added. There’s also been a lack of standardization to the point that dermatologists, researchers, and payers can sometimes disagree over severity in a given patient.
There’s movement toward better incorporation of patient experience into severity considerations, but for now at least, a designation of mild psoriasis can underestimate the true severity of disease, Dr. Langley said.
Dr. Gordon and Dr. Langley reported receiving honoraria and/or research support from many pharmaceutical companies, including AbbVie, Pfizer, and Lilly.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The issue was tackled in a debate at the American Academy of Dermatology Virtual Meeting Experience.
Taking the con side, Kenneth Gordon, MD, professor and chair of dermatology at the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, argued that, with the high cost of biologics, availability of many alternatives, and other issues, “we should just say no. ... There is no good reason that we need to expand the use of biologics in patients with limited disease.”
On the pro side, Richard Langley, MD, professor of dermatology at Dalhousie University Halifax, N.S, argued for a nuanced approach. He noted that patients with smaller patches of disease can be just as miserable as patients who hit traditional benchmarks of increased severity, such as high body surface area involvement – especially if those small areas are in sensitive locations like the scalp, palms, or genitals.
The decision to use a biologic should hinge on how badly patients and their quality of life are affected, not on “some artificial and limiting definition” of severity, Dr. Langley said.
Dr. Gordon didn’t disagree, noting that current use criteria include objective measures as well as disease in sensitive areas and failure of alternative treatments.
Rather, he was concerned about “expanding the definition of who is eligible beyond these criteria ... to chase every last bit of” disease. “I don’t think we have” a good rationale for that approach, he said.
Cost is the most important issue, Dr. Gordon said.
With more biologics on the way and prices continuing to go up, “there is going to a be a huge challenge to our use of these expensive medicines over the next few years” from payers. “It is important that we use them smartly in order to make sure we are able to use them for people with severe disease” who really need them. If “we start using biologics for all our patients with psoriasis,” it will be a “cost disaster,” Dr. Gordon said.
In addition, topicals and home phototherapy can be effective as long as patients adhere to them, as can alternative systemic agents, such as methotrexate and apremilast.
Often with biologics, “the issue is mainly convenience” rather than a fundamental problem with the alternatives, and despite the good safety record in trials, “chasing the last bit” of psoriasis with a biologic “is not necessarily” without risk for the patient, Dr. Gordon said.
Still, there can be a “pretty significant disconnect” between how patients perceive their psoriasis and “what physicians are thinking and prescribing” for it based on objective measures, Dr. Langley noted. Sometimes patients who have limited disease but are in significant distress aren’t even receiving treatment or are only given another cream to add to their collection of ones that haven’t worked.
One problem with traditional severity classifications is that they don’t generally take patients’ subjective experience into account, he added. There’s also been a lack of standardization to the point that dermatologists, researchers, and payers can sometimes disagree over severity in a given patient.
There’s movement toward better incorporation of patient experience into severity considerations, but for now at least, a designation of mild psoriasis can underestimate the true severity of disease, Dr. Langley said.
Dr. Gordon and Dr. Langley reported receiving honoraria and/or research support from many pharmaceutical companies, including AbbVie, Pfizer, and Lilly.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.