User login
M. Alexander Otto began his reporting career early in 1999 covering the pharmaceutical industry for a national pharmacists' magazine and freelancing for the Washington Post and other newspapers. He then joined BNA, now part of Bloomberg News, covering health law and the protection of people and animals in medical research. Alex next worked for the McClatchy Company. Based on his work, Alex won a year-long Knight Science Journalism Fellowship to MIT in 2008-2009. He joined the company shortly thereafter. Alex has a newspaper journalism degree from Syracuse (N.Y.) University and a master's degree in medical science -- a physician assistant degree -- from George Washington University. Alex is based in Seattle.
A 4-point thrombocytopenia score was found able to rule out suspected HIT
The real strength of the 4T score for heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) is its negative predictive value, according to hematologist Adam Cuker, MD, of the department of medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
The score assigns patients points based on degree of thrombocytopenia, timing of platelet count fall in relation to heparin exposure, presence of thrombosis and other sequelae, and the likelihood of other causes of thrombocytopenia.
A low score – 3 points or less – has a negative predictive value of 99.8%, “so HIT is basically ruled out; you do not need to order lab testing for HIT or manage the patient empirically for HIT,” and should look for other causes of thrombocytopenia, said Dr. Cuker, lead author of the American Society of Hematology’s most recent HIT guidelines.
Intermediate scores of 4 or 5 points, and high scores of 6-8 points, are a different story. The positive predictive value of an intermediate score is only 14%, and of a high score, 64%, so although they don’t confirm the diagnosis, “you have to take the possibility of HIT seriously.” Discontinue heparin, start a nonheparin anticoagulant, and order a HIT immunoassay. If it’s positive, order a functional assay to confirm the diagnosis, he said.
Suspicion of HIT “is perhaps the most common consult that we get on the hematology service. These are tough consults because it is a high-stakes decision.” There is about a 6% risk of thromboembolism, amputation, and death for every day treatment is delayed. “On the other hand, the nonheparin anticoagulants are expensive, and they carry about a 1% daily risk of major bleeding,” Dr. Cuker explained during his presentation at the 2020 Update in Nonneoplastic Hematology virtual conference.
ELISA immunoassay detects antiplatelet factor 4 heparin antibodies but doesn’t tell whether or not they are able to activate platelets and cause HIT. Functional tests such as the serotonin-release assay detect only those antibodies able to do so, but the assays are difficult to perform, and often require samples to be sent out to a reference lab.
ASH did not specify a particular nonheparin anticoagulant in its 2018 guidelines because “the best choice for your patient” depends on which drugs you have available, your familiarity with them, and patient factors, Dr. Cuker said at the conference sponsored by MedscapeLive.
It makes sense, for instance, to use a short-acting agent such as argatroban or bivalirudin in patients who are critically ill, at high risk of bleeding, or likely to need an urgent unplanned procedure. Fondaparinux or direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) make sense if patients are clinically stable with good organ function and no more than average bleeding risk, because they are easier to administer and facilitate transition to the outpatient setting.
DOACs are newcomers to ASH’s guidelines. Just 81 patients had been reported in the literature when they were being drafted, but only 2 patients had recurrence or progression of thromboembolic events, and there were no major bleeds. The results compared favorably with other options.
The studies were subject to selection and reporting biases, “but, nonetheless, the panel felt the results were positive enough that DOACs ought to be listed as an option,” Dr. Cuker said.
The guidelines note that parenteral options may be the best choice for life- or limb-threatening thrombosis “because few such patients have been treated with a DOAC.” Anticoagulation must continue until platelet counts recover.
Dr. Cuker is a consultant for Synergy and has institutional research support from Alexion, Bayer, Sanofi, and other companies. MedscapeLive and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.
The real strength of the 4T score for heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) is its negative predictive value, according to hematologist Adam Cuker, MD, of the department of medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
The score assigns patients points based on degree of thrombocytopenia, timing of platelet count fall in relation to heparin exposure, presence of thrombosis and other sequelae, and the likelihood of other causes of thrombocytopenia.
A low score – 3 points or less – has a negative predictive value of 99.8%, “so HIT is basically ruled out; you do not need to order lab testing for HIT or manage the patient empirically for HIT,” and should look for other causes of thrombocytopenia, said Dr. Cuker, lead author of the American Society of Hematology’s most recent HIT guidelines.
Intermediate scores of 4 or 5 points, and high scores of 6-8 points, are a different story. The positive predictive value of an intermediate score is only 14%, and of a high score, 64%, so although they don’t confirm the diagnosis, “you have to take the possibility of HIT seriously.” Discontinue heparin, start a nonheparin anticoagulant, and order a HIT immunoassay. If it’s positive, order a functional assay to confirm the diagnosis, he said.
Suspicion of HIT “is perhaps the most common consult that we get on the hematology service. These are tough consults because it is a high-stakes decision.” There is about a 6% risk of thromboembolism, amputation, and death for every day treatment is delayed. “On the other hand, the nonheparin anticoagulants are expensive, and they carry about a 1% daily risk of major bleeding,” Dr. Cuker explained during his presentation at the 2020 Update in Nonneoplastic Hematology virtual conference.
ELISA immunoassay detects antiplatelet factor 4 heparin antibodies but doesn’t tell whether or not they are able to activate platelets and cause HIT. Functional tests such as the serotonin-release assay detect only those antibodies able to do so, but the assays are difficult to perform, and often require samples to be sent out to a reference lab.
ASH did not specify a particular nonheparin anticoagulant in its 2018 guidelines because “the best choice for your patient” depends on which drugs you have available, your familiarity with them, and patient factors, Dr. Cuker said at the conference sponsored by MedscapeLive.
It makes sense, for instance, to use a short-acting agent such as argatroban or bivalirudin in patients who are critically ill, at high risk of bleeding, or likely to need an urgent unplanned procedure. Fondaparinux or direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) make sense if patients are clinically stable with good organ function and no more than average bleeding risk, because they are easier to administer and facilitate transition to the outpatient setting.
DOACs are newcomers to ASH’s guidelines. Just 81 patients had been reported in the literature when they were being drafted, but only 2 patients had recurrence or progression of thromboembolic events, and there were no major bleeds. The results compared favorably with other options.
The studies were subject to selection and reporting biases, “but, nonetheless, the panel felt the results were positive enough that DOACs ought to be listed as an option,” Dr. Cuker said.
The guidelines note that parenteral options may be the best choice for life- or limb-threatening thrombosis “because few such patients have been treated with a DOAC.” Anticoagulation must continue until platelet counts recover.
Dr. Cuker is a consultant for Synergy and has institutional research support from Alexion, Bayer, Sanofi, and other companies. MedscapeLive and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.
The real strength of the 4T score for heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) is its negative predictive value, according to hematologist Adam Cuker, MD, of the department of medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
The score assigns patients points based on degree of thrombocytopenia, timing of platelet count fall in relation to heparin exposure, presence of thrombosis and other sequelae, and the likelihood of other causes of thrombocytopenia.
A low score – 3 points or less – has a negative predictive value of 99.8%, “so HIT is basically ruled out; you do not need to order lab testing for HIT or manage the patient empirically for HIT,” and should look for other causes of thrombocytopenia, said Dr. Cuker, lead author of the American Society of Hematology’s most recent HIT guidelines.
Intermediate scores of 4 or 5 points, and high scores of 6-8 points, are a different story. The positive predictive value of an intermediate score is only 14%, and of a high score, 64%, so although they don’t confirm the diagnosis, “you have to take the possibility of HIT seriously.” Discontinue heparin, start a nonheparin anticoagulant, and order a HIT immunoassay. If it’s positive, order a functional assay to confirm the diagnosis, he said.
Suspicion of HIT “is perhaps the most common consult that we get on the hematology service. These are tough consults because it is a high-stakes decision.” There is about a 6% risk of thromboembolism, amputation, and death for every day treatment is delayed. “On the other hand, the nonheparin anticoagulants are expensive, and they carry about a 1% daily risk of major bleeding,” Dr. Cuker explained during his presentation at the 2020 Update in Nonneoplastic Hematology virtual conference.
ELISA immunoassay detects antiplatelet factor 4 heparin antibodies but doesn’t tell whether or not they are able to activate platelets and cause HIT. Functional tests such as the serotonin-release assay detect only those antibodies able to do so, but the assays are difficult to perform, and often require samples to be sent out to a reference lab.
ASH did not specify a particular nonheparin anticoagulant in its 2018 guidelines because “the best choice for your patient” depends on which drugs you have available, your familiarity with them, and patient factors, Dr. Cuker said at the conference sponsored by MedscapeLive.
It makes sense, for instance, to use a short-acting agent such as argatroban or bivalirudin in patients who are critically ill, at high risk of bleeding, or likely to need an urgent unplanned procedure. Fondaparinux or direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) make sense if patients are clinically stable with good organ function and no more than average bleeding risk, because they are easier to administer and facilitate transition to the outpatient setting.
DOACs are newcomers to ASH’s guidelines. Just 81 patients had been reported in the literature when they were being drafted, but only 2 patients had recurrence or progression of thromboembolic events, and there were no major bleeds. The results compared favorably with other options.
The studies were subject to selection and reporting biases, “but, nonetheless, the panel felt the results were positive enough that DOACs ought to be listed as an option,” Dr. Cuker said.
The guidelines note that parenteral options may be the best choice for life- or limb-threatening thrombosis “because few such patients have been treated with a DOAC.” Anticoagulation must continue until platelet counts recover.
Dr. Cuker is a consultant for Synergy and has institutional research support from Alexion, Bayer, Sanofi, and other companies. MedscapeLive and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.
FROM 2020 UNNH
Caregiver burden of outpatient ASCT for multiple myeloma comparable with inpatient transplant
Tending to patients who opt for outpatient autologous stem cell transplants is well tolerated by caregivers, so long as they have the resources and support necessary, according to a recent Italian report.
Investigators surveyed the primary caregivers – most often the spouse – of 25 multiple myeloma patients who, in consultation with their caregiver, opted for an outpatient procedure and 71 others who chose standard inpatient treatment, and compared the results. Outpatients were discharged a day after transplant with twice-weekly clinic visits until sustained hematologic recovery as reported in Clinical Lymphoma, Myeloma and Leukemia.
The teams used portions of the Caregiver Reaction Assessment survey that focused on self-reported sense of family support plus affect on daily activities and general health. Surveys were taken a week before transplant and 3 months afterwards.
Results did not differ significantly between outpatient and inpatient caregivers at either point, and there was no meaningful change in responses over time.
“The outpatient model neither improves nor impairs global caregivers’ burden, compared with” inpatient transplant. Outpatient caregivers “do not show that they suffer from a greater burden of responsibility as compared to those belonging to the inpatient’s arm,” said investigators led by Massimo Martino, MD, director of stem cell transplants at the Great Metropolitan Hospital in Reggio Calabria, Italy, where the patients were treated.
The relatively short-lasting neutropenia and the limited nonhematologic toxicity of high-dose melphalan make multiple myeloma good candidates for outpatient programs. Indeed, the incidence rate of mucositis, fever, chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting, and other adverse events did not differ between in and outpatients, which is in keeping with previous reports supporting the feasibility and safety of outpatient programs.
However, the burden on loved ones is considerable. At least during the aplastic phase, outpatient caregivers are on call around the clock and spend most of their time with the patient. Homes have to be kept meticulously clean, vital signs checked, medications administered, and ins and outs monitored, among other duties normally handled by inpatient staff.
The main limit of the study was that outpatients were a self-selected group. They and their caregivers may simply have had the resources and support needed for successful outpatient transplants, while other patients did not. As the investigators put it, “we cannot exclude the problem of residual confounding due to unmeasured variables” such as “factors underlying patients’ preference, which could potentially impact the study results.”
Administering the follow-up survey 3 months after transplant might also have missed the acute impact on outpatient caregivers. It’s been “reported that the quality of life of patients undergoing an” outpatient procedure decreases immediately post treatment but bounces back by 6 months. “The same result can probably be observed in caregivers,” the team said.
The outpatient and inpatient groups were comparable, with a majority of men and a mean age of about 60 years in both. The number of infused stem cells, engraftment kinetics, and hematopoietic cell transplantation–comorbidity index scores did not differ significantly between the two groups.
There was no funding for the work, and the investigators reported that they didn’t have any conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Martino M et al. Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk. 2020 Nov 19. doi: 10.1016/j.clml.2020.11.011.
Tending to patients who opt for outpatient autologous stem cell transplants is well tolerated by caregivers, so long as they have the resources and support necessary, according to a recent Italian report.
Investigators surveyed the primary caregivers – most often the spouse – of 25 multiple myeloma patients who, in consultation with their caregiver, opted for an outpatient procedure and 71 others who chose standard inpatient treatment, and compared the results. Outpatients were discharged a day after transplant with twice-weekly clinic visits until sustained hematologic recovery as reported in Clinical Lymphoma, Myeloma and Leukemia.
The teams used portions of the Caregiver Reaction Assessment survey that focused on self-reported sense of family support plus affect on daily activities and general health. Surveys were taken a week before transplant and 3 months afterwards.
Results did not differ significantly between outpatient and inpatient caregivers at either point, and there was no meaningful change in responses over time.
“The outpatient model neither improves nor impairs global caregivers’ burden, compared with” inpatient transplant. Outpatient caregivers “do not show that they suffer from a greater burden of responsibility as compared to those belonging to the inpatient’s arm,” said investigators led by Massimo Martino, MD, director of stem cell transplants at the Great Metropolitan Hospital in Reggio Calabria, Italy, where the patients were treated.
The relatively short-lasting neutropenia and the limited nonhematologic toxicity of high-dose melphalan make multiple myeloma good candidates for outpatient programs. Indeed, the incidence rate of mucositis, fever, chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting, and other adverse events did not differ between in and outpatients, which is in keeping with previous reports supporting the feasibility and safety of outpatient programs.
However, the burden on loved ones is considerable. At least during the aplastic phase, outpatient caregivers are on call around the clock and spend most of their time with the patient. Homes have to be kept meticulously clean, vital signs checked, medications administered, and ins and outs monitored, among other duties normally handled by inpatient staff.
The main limit of the study was that outpatients were a self-selected group. They and their caregivers may simply have had the resources and support needed for successful outpatient transplants, while other patients did not. As the investigators put it, “we cannot exclude the problem of residual confounding due to unmeasured variables” such as “factors underlying patients’ preference, which could potentially impact the study results.”
Administering the follow-up survey 3 months after transplant might also have missed the acute impact on outpatient caregivers. It’s been “reported that the quality of life of patients undergoing an” outpatient procedure decreases immediately post treatment but bounces back by 6 months. “The same result can probably be observed in caregivers,” the team said.
The outpatient and inpatient groups were comparable, with a majority of men and a mean age of about 60 years in both. The number of infused stem cells, engraftment kinetics, and hematopoietic cell transplantation–comorbidity index scores did not differ significantly between the two groups.
There was no funding for the work, and the investigators reported that they didn’t have any conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Martino M et al. Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk. 2020 Nov 19. doi: 10.1016/j.clml.2020.11.011.
Tending to patients who opt for outpatient autologous stem cell transplants is well tolerated by caregivers, so long as they have the resources and support necessary, according to a recent Italian report.
Investigators surveyed the primary caregivers – most often the spouse – of 25 multiple myeloma patients who, in consultation with their caregiver, opted for an outpatient procedure and 71 others who chose standard inpatient treatment, and compared the results. Outpatients were discharged a day after transplant with twice-weekly clinic visits until sustained hematologic recovery as reported in Clinical Lymphoma, Myeloma and Leukemia.
The teams used portions of the Caregiver Reaction Assessment survey that focused on self-reported sense of family support plus affect on daily activities and general health. Surveys were taken a week before transplant and 3 months afterwards.
Results did not differ significantly between outpatient and inpatient caregivers at either point, and there was no meaningful change in responses over time.
“The outpatient model neither improves nor impairs global caregivers’ burden, compared with” inpatient transplant. Outpatient caregivers “do not show that they suffer from a greater burden of responsibility as compared to those belonging to the inpatient’s arm,” said investigators led by Massimo Martino, MD, director of stem cell transplants at the Great Metropolitan Hospital in Reggio Calabria, Italy, where the patients were treated.
The relatively short-lasting neutropenia and the limited nonhematologic toxicity of high-dose melphalan make multiple myeloma good candidates for outpatient programs. Indeed, the incidence rate of mucositis, fever, chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting, and other adverse events did not differ between in and outpatients, which is in keeping with previous reports supporting the feasibility and safety of outpatient programs.
However, the burden on loved ones is considerable. At least during the aplastic phase, outpatient caregivers are on call around the clock and spend most of their time with the patient. Homes have to be kept meticulously clean, vital signs checked, medications administered, and ins and outs monitored, among other duties normally handled by inpatient staff.
The main limit of the study was that outpatients were a self-selected group. They and their caregivers may simply have had the resources and support needed for successful outpatient transplants, while other patients did not. As the investigators put it, “we cannot exclude the problem of residual confounding due to unmeasured variables” such as “factors underlying patients’ preference, which could potentially impact the study results.”
Administering the follow-up survey 3 months after transplant might also have missed the acute impact on outpatient caregivers. It’s been “reported that the quality of life of patients undergoing an” outpatient procedure decreases immediately post treatment but bounces back by 6 months. “The same result can probably be observed in caregivers,” the team said.
The outpatient and inpatient groups were comparable, with a majority of men and a mean age of about 60 years in both. The number of infused stem cells, engraftment kinetics, and hematopoietic cell transplantation–comorbidity index scores did not differ significantly between the two groups.
There was no funding for the work, and the investigators reported that they didn’t have any conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Martino M et al. Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk. 2020 Nov 19. doi: 10.1016/j.clml.2020.11.011.
FROM CLINICAL LYMPHOMA, MYELOMA AND LEUKEMIA
Cost is the main hurdle to broad use of caplacizumab for TTP
As hematologists debated the role of the anti–von Willebrand factor agent caplacizumab for acquired thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura (TTP), an investigator on the phase 3 trial that led to its approval had a message.
,” said hematologist Spero Cataland, MD, of the department of internal medicine at Ohio State University in Columbus.
If cost is going to be a factor, and it “has to be in our world these days, it’s more of a discussion,” he said during his presentation at the 2020 Update in Nonneoplastic Hematology virtual conference.
The HERCULES trial Dr. Cataland helped conduct found a median time to platelet count normalization of 2.69 days when caplacizumab was started during plasma exchange versus 2.88 days for placebo; 12% of patients had a TTP recurrence while they continued caplacizumab for 30 days past their last exchange and were followed for an additional 28 days versus 38% randomized to placebo. Caplacizumab subjects needed an average of 5.8 days of plasma exchange versus 9.4 days in the placebo arm (N Engl J Med. 2019 Jan 24;380(4):335-46).
Based on the results, the Food and Drug Administration approved the agent for acquired TTP in combination with plasma exchange and immunosuppressives in Feb. 2019 for 30 days beyond the last plasma exchange, with up to 28 additional days if ADAMTS13 activity remains suppressed. Labeling notes a risk of severe bleeding.
“The data on refractory disease and mortality aren’t quite there yet, but there’s a suggestion [caplacizumab] might impact that as well,” Dr. Cataland said. In its recent TTP guidelines, the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis gave the agent only a conditional recommendation, in part because it’s backed up only by HERCULES and a phase 2 trial.
Also, the group noted that in the phase 2 study caplacizumab patients had a clinically and statistically significant increase in the number of relapses at 12 months: 31% versus 8% placebo. “Caplacizumab may leave patients prone to experience a later recurrence owing to the unresolved ADAMTS13 deficiency and inhibitors,” Dr. Cataland said.
“We do see some early recurrence” when caplacizumab is stopped, suggesting that when the agent’s “protective effect is removed, the risk is still there,” said Dr. Cataland, who was also an author on the ISTH guidelines, as well as the phase 2 trial.
It raises the question of how long patients should be kept on caplacizumab. There are few data on the issue, “but the consensus has been to stop caplacizumab when two consecutive ADAMTS13 measurements show 20% or greater activity,” or perhaps with one reading above 20% in a patient trending in the right direction. “With a bleeding complication, you might stop it sooner,” he said.
Dr. Cataland anticipates TTP management will eventually move away from plasma exchange to more directed therapies, including caplacizumab and perhaps recombinant ADAMTS13, which is in development.
There have been a few reports of TTP patients who refuse plasma exchange on religious grounds being successfully treated with caplacizumab. Dr. Cataland also noted a patient of his with relapsing TTP who didn’t want to be admitted yet again for plasma exchange and steroids at the start of a new episode.
“We managed her with caplacizumab and rituximab, and in a couple weeks she had recovered her ADAMTS13 activity and was able to stop the caplacizumab.” She was a motivated, knowledgeable person, “someone I trusted, so I was comfortable with the approach. I think that may be where we are headed in the future, hopefully,” he said.
Dr. Cataland disclosed research funding and consulting fees from Alexion, caplacizumab’s maker, Sanofi Genzyme, and Takeda,. The conference was sponsored by MedscapeLive. MedscapeLive and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.
As hematologists debated the role of the anti–von Willebrand factor agent caplacizumab for acquired thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura (TTP), an investigator on the phase 3 trial that led to its approval had a message.
,” said hematologist Spero Cataland, MD, of the department of internal medicine at Ohio State University in Columbus.
If cost is going to be a factor, and it “has to be in our world these days, it’s more of a discussion,” he said during his presentation at the 2020 Update in Nonneoplastic Hematology virtual conference.
The HERCULES trial Dr. Cataland helped conduct found a median time to platelet count normalization of 2.69 days when caplacizumab was started during plasma exchange versus 2.88 days for placebo; 12% of patients had a TTP recurrence while they continued caplacizumab for 30 days past their last exchange and were followed for an additional 28 days versus 38% randomized to placebo. Caplacizumab subjects needed an average of 5.8 days of plasma exchange versus 9.4 days in the placebo arm (N Engl J Med. 2019 Jan 24;380(4):335-46).
Based on the results, the Food and Drug Administration approved the agent for acquired TTP in combination with plasma exchange and immunosuppressives in Feb. 2019 for 30 days beyond the last plasma exchange, with up to 28 additional days if ADAMTS13 activity remains suppressed. Labeling notes a risk of severe bleeding.
“The data on refractory disease and mortality aren’t quite there yet, but there’s a suggestion [caplacizumab] might impact that as well,” Dr. Cataland said. In its recent TTP guidelines, the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis gave the agent only a conditional recommendation, in part because it’s backed up only by HERCULES and a phase 2 trial.
Also, the group noted that in the phase 2 study caplacizumab patients had a clinically and statistically significant increase in the number of relapses at 12 months: 31% versus 8% placebo. “Caplacizumab may leave patients prone to experience a later recurrence owing to the unresolved ADAMTS13 deficiency and inhibitors,” Dr. Cataland said.
“We do see some early recurrence” when caplacizumab is stopped, suggesting that when the agent’s “protective effect is removed, the risk is still there,” said Dr. Cataland, who was also an author on the ISTH guidelines, as well as the phase 2 trial.
It raises the question of how long patients should be kept on caplacizumab. There are few data on the issue, “but the consensus has been to stop caplacizumab when two consecutive ADAMTS13 measurements show 20% or greater activity,” or perhaps with one reading above 20% in a patient trending in the right direction. “With a bleeding complication, you might stop it sooner,” he said.
Dr. Cataland anticipates TTP management will eventually move away from plasma exchange to more directed therapies, including caplacizumab and perhaps recombinant ADAMTS13, which is in development.
There have been a few reports of TTP patients who refuse plasma exchange on religious grounds being successfully treated with caplacizumab. Dr. Cataland also noted a patient of his with relapsing TTP who didn’t want to be admitted yet again for plasma exchange and steroids at the start of a new episode.
“We managed her with caplacizumab and rituximab, and in a couple weeks she had recovered her ADAMTS13 activity and was able to stop the caplacizumab.” She was a motivated, knowledgeable person, “someone I trusted, so I was comfortable with the approach. I think that may be where we are headed in the future, hopefully,” he said.
Dr. Cataland disclosed research funding and consulting fees from Alexion, caplacizumab’s maker, Sanofi Genzyme, and Takeda,. The conference was sponsored by MedscapeLive. MedscapeLive and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.
As hematologists debated the role of the anti–von Willebrand factor agent caplacizumab for acquired thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura (TTP), an investigator on the phase 3 trial that led to its approval had a message.
,” said hematologist Spero Cataland, MD, of the department of internal medicine at Ohio State University in Columbus.
If cost is going to be a factor, and it “has to be in our world these days, it’s more of a discussion,” he said during his presentation at the 2020 Update in Nonneoplastic Hematology virtual conference.
The HERCULES trial Dr. Cataland helped conduct found a median time to platelet count normalization of 2.69 days when caplacizumab was started during plasma exchange versus 2.88 days for placebo; 12% of patients had a TTP recurrence while they continued caplacizumab for 30 days past their last exchange and were followed for an additional 28 days versus 38% randomized to placebo. Caplacizumab subjects needed an average of 5.8 days of plasma exchange versus 9.4 days in the placebo arm (N Engl J Med. 2019 Jan 24;380(4):335-46).
Based on the results, the Food and Drug Administration approved the agent for acquired TTP in combination with plasma exchange and immunosuppressives in Feb. 2019 for 30 days beyond the last plasma exchange, with up to 28 additional days if ADAMTS13 activity remains suppressed. Labeling notes a risk of severe bleeding.
“The data on refractory disease and mortality aren’t quite there yet, but there’s a suggestion [caplacizumab] might impact that as well,” Dr. Cataland said. In its recent TTP guidelines, the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis gave the agent only a conditional recommendation, in part because it’s backed up only by HERCULES and a phase 2 trial.
Also, the group noted that in the phase 2 study caplacizumab patients had a clinically and statistically significant increase in the number of relapses at 12 months: 31% versus 8% placebo. “Caplacizumab may leave patients prone to experience a later recurrence owing to the unresolved ADAMTS13 deficiency and inhibitors,” Dr. Cataland said.
“We do see some early recurrence” when caplacizumab is stopped, suggesting that when the agent’s “protective effect is removed, the risk is still there,” said Dr. Cataland, who was also an author on the ISTH guidelines, as well as the phase 2 trial.
It raises the question of how long patients should be kept on caplacizumab. There are few data on the issue, “but the consensus has been to stop caplacizumab when two consecutive ADAMTS13 measurements show 20% or greater activity,” or perhaps with one reading above 20% in a patient trending in the right direction. “With a bleeding complication, you might stop it sooner,” he said.
Dr. Cataland anticipates TTP management will eventually move away from plasma exchange to more directed therapies, including caplacizumab and perhaps recombinant ADAMTS13, which is in development.
There have been a few reports of TTP patients who refuse plasma exchange on religious grounds being successfully treated with caplacizumab. Dr. Cataland also noted a patient of his with relapsing TTP who didn’t want to be admitted yet again for plasma exchange and steroids at the start of a new episode.
“We managed her with caplacizumab and rituximab, and in a couple weeks she had recovered her ADAMTS13 activity and was able to stop the caplacizumab.” She was a motivated, knowledgeable person, “someone I trusted, so I was comfortable with the approach. I think that may be where we are headed in the future, hopefully,” he said.
Dr. Cataland disclosed research funding and consulting fees from Alexion, caplacizumab’s maker, Sanofi Genzyme, and Takeda,. The conference was sponsored by MedscapeLive. MedscapeLive and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.
FROM 2020 UNNH
Cancer rates on the rise in adolescents and young adults
Rates of cancer increased by 30% from 1973 to 2015 in adolescents and young adults (AYAs) aged 15–39 years in the United States, according to a review of almost a half million cases in the National Institutes of Health’s Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database.
There was an annual increase of 0.537 new cases per 100,000 people, from 57.2 cases per 100,000 in 1973 to 74.2 in 2015.
Kidney carcinoma led with the highest rate increase. There were also marked increases in thyroid and colorectal carcinoma, germ cell and trophoblastic neoplasms, and melanoma, among others.
The report was published online December 1 in JAMA Network Open.
“Clinicians should be on the lookout for these cancers in their adolescent and young adult patients,” said senior investigator Nicholas Zaorsky, MD, an assistant professor of radiation oncology and public health sciences at the Penn State Cancer Institute, Hershey, Pennsylvania.
“Now that there is a better understanding of the types of cancer that are prevalent and rising in this age group, prevention, screening, diagnosis and treatment protocols specifically targeted to this population should be developed,” he said in a press release.
The reasons for the increases are unclear, but environmental and dietary factors, increasing obesity, and changing screening practices are likely in play, the authors comment. In addition, “cancer screening and overdiagnosis are thought to account for much of the increasing rates of thyroid and kidney carcinoma, among others,” they add.
The American Cancer Society (ACS) recently found similar increases in thyroid, kidney, and colorectal cancer among AYAs, as well as an increase in uterine cancer.
It’s important to note, however, that “this phenomenon is largely driven by trends for thyroid cancer, which is thought to be a result of overdiagnosis,” said ACS surveillance researcher Kimberly Miller, MPH, when asked to comment on the new study.
“As such, it is extremely important to also consider trends in cancer mortality rates among this age group, which are declining overall but are increasing for colorectal and uterine cancers. The fact that both incidence and mortality rates are increasing for these two cancers suggests a true increase in disease burden and certainly requires further attention and research,” she said.
Historically, management of cancer in AYAs has fallen somewhere between pediatric and adult oncology, neither of which capture the distinct biological, social, and economic needs of AYAs. Research has also focused on childhood and adult cancers, leaving cancer in AYAs inadequately studied.
The new findings are “valuable to guide more targeted research and interventions specifically to AYAs,” Zaorsky and colleagues say in their report.
Among female patients ― 59.1% of the study population ― incidence increased for 15 cancers, including kidney carcinoma (annual percent change [APC], 3.632), thyroid carcinoma (APC, 3.456), and myeloma, mast cell, and miscellaneous lymphoreticular neoplasms not otherwise specified (APC, 2.805). Rates of five cancers declined, led by astrocytoma not otherwise specified (APC, –3.369) and carcinoma of the gonads (APC, –1.743).
Among male patients, incidence increased for 14 cancers, including kidney carcinoma (APC, 3.572), unspecified soft tissue sarcoma (APC 2.543), and thyroid carcinoma (APC, 2.273). Incidence fell for seven, led by astrocytoma not otherwise specified (APC, –3.759) and carcinoma of the trachea, bronchus, and lung (APC, –2.635).
Increased testicular cancer rates (APC, 1.246) could be related to greater prenatal exposure to estrogen and progesterone or through dairy consumption; increasing survival of premature infants; and greater exposure to cannabis, among other possibilities, the investigators say.
Increases in colorectal cancer might be related to fewer vegetables and more fat and processed meat in the diet; lack of exercise; and increasing obesity. Human papillomavirus infection has also been implicated.
Higher rates of melanoma could be related to tanning bed use.
Declines in some cancers could be related to greater use of oral contraceptives; laws reducing exposure to benzene and other chemicals; and fewer people smoking.
Although kidney carcinoma has increased at the greatest rate, it’s uncommon. Colorectal and thyroid carcinoma, melanoma, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and germ cell and trophoblastic neoplasms of the gonads contribute more to the overall increase in cancers among AYAs, the investigators note.
Almost 80% of the patients were White; 10.3% were Black.
The study was funded by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences. The investigators have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Rates of cancer increased by 30% from 1973 to 2015 in adolescents and young adults (AYAs) aged 15–39 years in the United States, according to a review of almost a half million cases in the National Institutes of Health’s Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database.
There was an annual increase of 0.537 new cases per 100,000 people, from 57.2 cases per 100,000 in 1973 to 74.2 in 2015.
Kidney carcinoma led with the highest rate increase. There were also marked increases in thyroid and colorectal carcinoma, germ cell and trophoblastic neoplasms, and melanoma, among others.
The report was published online December 1 in JAMA Network Open.
“Clinicians should be on the lookout for these cancers in their adolescent and young adult patients,” said senior investigator Nicholas Zaorsky, MD, an assistant professor of radiation oncology and public health sciences at the Penn State Cancer Institute, Hershey, Pennsylvania.
“Now that there is a better understanding of the types of cancer that are prevalent and rising in this age group, prevention, screening, diagnosis and treatment protocols specifically targeted to this population should be developed,” he said in a press release.
The reasons for the increases are unclear, but environmental and dietary factors, increasing obesity, and changing screening practices are likely in play, the authors comment. In addition, “cancer screening and overdiagnosis are thought to account for much of the increasing rates of thyroid and kidney carcinoma, among others,” they add.
The American Cancer Society (ACS) recently found similar increases in thyroid, kidney, and colorectal cancer among AYAs, as well as an increase in uterine cancer.
It’s important to note, however, that “this phenomenon is largely driven by trends for thyroid cancer, which is thought to be a result of overdiagnosis,” said ACS surveillance researcher Kimberly Miller, MPH, when asked to comment on the new study.
“As such, it is extremely important to also consider trends in cancer mortality rates among this age group, which are declining overall but are increasing for colorectal and uterine cancers. The fact that both incidence and mortality rates are increasing for these two cancers suggests a true increase in disease burden and certainly requires further attention and research,” she said.
Historically, management of cancer in AYAs has fallen somewhere between pediatric and adult oncology, neither of which capture the distinct biological, social, and economic needs of AYAs. Research has also focused on childhood and adult cancers, leaving cancer in AYAs inadequately studied.
The new findings are “valuable to guide more targeted research and interventions specifically to AYAs,” Zaorsky and colleagues say in their report.
Among female patients ― 59.1% of the study population ― incidence increased for 15 cancers, including kidney carcinoma (annual percent change [APC], 3.632), thyroid carcinoma (APC, 3.456), and myeloma, mast cell, and miscellaneous lymphoreticular neoplasms not otherwise specified (APC, 2.805). Rates of five cancers declined, led by astrocytoma not otherwise specified (APC, –3.369) and carcinoma of the gonads (APC, –1.743).
Among male patients, incidence increased for 14 cancers, including kidney carcinoma (APC, 3.572), unspecified soft tissue sarcoma (APC 2.543), and thyroid carcinoma (APC, 2.273). Incidence fell for seven, led by astrocytoma not otherwise specified (APC, –3.759) and carcinoma of the trachea, bronchus, and lung (APC, –2.635).
Increased testicular cancer rates (APC, 1.246) could be related to greater prenatal exposure to estrogen and progesterone or through dairy consumption; increasing survival of premature infants; and greater exposure to cannabis, among other possibilities, the investigators say.
Increases in colorectal cancer might be related to fewer vegetables and more fat and processed meat in the diet; lack of exercise; and increasing obesity. Human papillomavirus infection has also been implicated.
Higher rates of melanoma could be related to tanning bed use.
Declines in some cancers could be related to greater use of oral contraceptives; laws reducing exposure to benzene and other chemicals; and fewer people smoking.
Although kidney carcinoma has increased at the greatest rate, it’s uncommon. Colorectal and thyroid carcinoma, melanoma, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and germ cell and trophoblastic neoplasms of the gonads contribute more to the overall increase in cancers among AYAs, the investigators note.
Almost 80% of the patients were White; 10.3% were Black.
The study was funded by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences. The investigators have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Rates of cancer increased by 30% from 1973 to 2015 in adolescents and young adults (AYAs) aged 15–39 years in the United States, according to a review of almost a half million cases in the National Institutes of Health’s Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database.
There was an annual increase of 0.537 new cases per 100,000 people, from 57.2 cases per 100,000 in 1973 to 74.2 in 2015.
Kidney carcinoma led with the highest rate increase. There were also marked increases in thyroid and colorectal carcinoma, germ cell and trophoblastic neoplasms, and melanoma, among others.
The report was published online December 1 in JAMA Network Open.
“Clinicians should be on the lookout for these cancers in their adolescent and young adult patients,” said senior investigator Nicholas Zaorsky, MD, an assistant professor of radiation oncology and public health sciences at the Penn State Cancer Institute, Hershey, Pennsylvania.
“Now that there is a better understanding of the types of cancer that are prevalent and rising in this age group, prevention, screening, diagnosis and treatment protocols specifically targeted to this population should be developed,” he said in a press release.
The reasons for the increases are unclear, but environmental and dietary factors, increasing obesity, and changing screening practices are likely in play, the authors comment. In addition, “cancer screening and overdiagnosis are thought to account for much of the increasing rates of thyroid and kidney carcinoma, among others,” they add.
The American Cancer Society (ACS) recently found similar increases in thyroid, kidney, and colorectal cancer among AYAs, as well as an increase in uterine cancer.
It’s important to note, however, that “this phenomenon is largely driven by trends for thyroid cancer, which is thought to be a result of overdiagnosis,” said ACS surveillance researcher Kimberly Miller, MPH, when asked to comment on the new study.
“As such, it is extremely important to also consider trends in cancer mortality rates among this age group, which are declining overall but are increasing for colorectal and uterine cancers. The fact that both incidence and mortality rates are increasing for these two cancers suggests a true increase in disease burden and certainly requires further attention and research,” she said.
Historically, management of cancer in AYAs has fallen somewhere between pediatric and adult oncology, neither of which capture the distinct biological, social, and economic needs of AYAs. Research has also focused on childhood and adult cancers, leaving cancer in AYAs inadequately studied.
The new findings are “valuable to guide more targeted research and interventions specifically to AYAs,” Zaorsky and colleagues say in their report.
Among female patients ― 59.1% of the study population ― incidence increased for 15 cancers, including kidney carcinoma (annual percent change [APC], 3.632), thyroid carcinoma (APC, 3.456), and myeloma, mast cell, and miscellaneous lymphoreticular neoplasms not otherwise specified (APC, 2.805). Rates of five cancers declined, led by astrocytoma not otherwise specified (APC, –3.369) and carcinoma of the gonads (APC, –1.743).
Among male patients, incidence increased for 14 cancers, including kidney carcinoma (APC, 3.572), unspecified soft tissue sarcoma (APC 2.543), and thyroid carcinoma (APC, 2.273). Incidence fell for seven, led by astrocytoma not otherwise specified (APC, –3.759) and carcinoma of the trachea, bronchus, and lung (APC, –2.635).
Increased testicular cancer rates (APC, 1.246) could be related to greater prenatal exposure to estrogen and progesterone or through dairy consumption; increasing survival of premature infants; and greater exposure to cannabis, among other possibilities, the investigators say.
Increases in colorectal cancer might be related to fewer vegetables and more fat and processed meat in the diet; lack of exercise; and increasing obesity. Human papillomavirus infection has also been implicated.
Higher rates of melanoma could be related to tanning bed use.
Declines in some cancers could be related to greater use of oral contraceptives; laws reducing exposure to benzene and other chemicals; and fewer people smoking.
Although kidney carcinoma has increased at the greatest rate, it’s uncommon. Colorectal and thyroid carcinoma, melanoma, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and germ cell and trophoblastic neoplasms of the gonads contribute more to the overall increase in cancers among AYAs, the investigators note.
Almost 80% of the patients were White; 10.3% were Black.
The study was funded by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences. The investigators have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Should CTCs guide treatment choice in HR+, HER2– breast cancer?
investigators wrote in JAMA Oncology.
However, authors of a related editorial suggested CTC counts are not adequate for guiding treatment choice in this population.
In a phase 3 trial, investigators compared the use of CTC counts and the use of clinical factors to guide the decision between chemotherapy and endocrine therapy. Results showed similar progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) with both methods but more chemotherapy use with the CTC method.
“The results of this trial demonstrate the reliability and clinical utility of CTC count to guide the choice between single-agent endocrine therapy and chemotherapy as first-line treatment,” but “at the cost of a higher proportion of patients treated with chemotherapy,” study author François-Clement Bidard, MD, PhD, of Institut Curie in Saint-Cloud, France, and colleagues wrote.
The investigators explained that endocrine therapy is the preferred first-line treatment option in this patient population, but chemotherapy is used when women are in visceral crisis, with rapidly progressive, symptomatic disease. The decision usually rests on clinical factors, such as tumor subtype and performance status, but there’s interphysician variability.
The team hoped to find a “more reliable, standardized, and reproducible” biomarker to help remove some of the uncertainty from the situation. They tested CTC count, a well-established prognostic indicator of PFS and OS, as a candidate.
Study results
The trial included 755 patients with hormone receptor–positive, HER2-negative breast cancer in the per-protocol population. The patients’ median age was 63 years (range, 30-88 years).
Among the 377 patients randomized to the CTC arm, those with counts at or above 5 CTCs per 7.5 mL received chemotherapy, while those with a lower count received endocrine therapy.
The 378 patients in the standard-care group received endocrine therapy or chemotherapy based on provider choice guided by clinical factors.
Chemotherapy was given to 37% of patients in the CTC arm and 27% of those in the standard arm.
The median PFS was 15.5 months in the CTC arm and 13.9 months in the standard arm, which meant the primary endpoint of noninferiority was met (hazard ratio, 0.94; 90% confidence interval, 0.81-1.09).
Age older than 60 years was the only baseline characteristic associated with better PFS with CTC-driven decision-making. This may be because of the greater “use of endocrine therapy as the clinically favored treatment, whatever the other clinicopathologic characteristics,” in older subjects, the investigators wrote.
As with PFS, the median OS was similar between the study arms – 47.3 months in the CTC arm and 42.8 months in the standard arm (HR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.71-1.16).
‘Not good enough’
The investigators behind this study had “a worthy goal,” according to authors of a related editorial.
Without “predictive biomarkers, we are left with our clinical knowledge, experience, and intuition. Patients are left with uncertainty, doubt, and fear,” Tarah Ballinger, MD,, of Indiana University, Indianapolis, and colleagues wrote in the editorial.
However, the editorialists had concerns about the findings. For one thing, the investigators hypothesized that relying on CTC would lead to a deescalation from chemotherapy to endocrine therapy, but use of chemotherapy was actually 10% higher in the CTC arm.
“Adding to or replacing the parameters we use to make a clinical decision should help us improve the lives of patients. ... We should demand an improvement in outcomes before accepting a strategy that exposes more patients to more toxic therapy. Not worse simply is not good enough,” the editorialists wrote.
In addition, the trial was completed before CDK4/6 inhibitors became a standard add-on with endocrine therapy for hormone receptor–positive, HER2-negative patients.
“The overall response rate to CDK4/6 inhibitor therapy is higher than with traditional chemotherapy, and several randomized trials have failed to show a survival benefit of upfront chemotherapy compared with CDK4/6 inhibitor use. ... Thus, it is even less likely that we can assume that baseline high CTC count corresponds to a need for chemotherapy in a modern treatment landscape that offers more patients more benefit from hormone therapy,” Dr. Ballinger and colleagues wrote.
The editorialists concluded that CTC count “alone at baseline primarily reflects disease bulk, much like anatomic staging, rather than disease biology. As treatments become more rooted in our knowledge of breast cancer biology, decisions based on disease bulk are decidedly out of place.”
Perhaps a better use, they suggested, is for treatment personalization. For instance, patients with persistently elevated CTCs despite standard approaches could consider trials of novel targeted therapies, or CTCs could be sequenced to identify actionable molecular targets, achieving a “clinical utility that merely counting CTCs lacks,” the editorialists wrote.
This study was funded by the Institut Curie, the French National Cancer Institute, and Menarini Silicon Biosystems, the maker of the CTC assay used in the trial. The investigators disclosed relationships with Menarini and many other companies. Dr. Ballinger receives honoraria from Medscape, which is owned by the same company as this news organization.
SOURCE: Bidard FC et al. JAMA Oncol. 2020 Nov 5. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2020.5660.
investigators wrote in JAMA Oncology.
However, authors of a related editorial suggested CTC counts are not adequate for guiding treatment choice in this population.
In a phase 3 trial, investigators compared the use of CTC counts and the use of clinical factors to guide the decision between chemotherapy and endocrine therapy. Results showed similar progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) with both methods but more chemotherapy use with the CTC method.
“The results of this trial demonstrate the reliability and clinical utility of CTC count to guide the choice between single-agent endocrine therapy and chemotherapy as first-line treatment,” but “at the cost of a higher proportion of patients treated with chemotherapy,” study author François-Clement Bidard, MD, PhD, of Institut Curie in Saint-Cloud, France, and colleagues wrote.
The investigators explained that endocrine therapy is the preferred first-line treatment option in this patient population, but chemotherapy is used when women are in visceral crisis, with rapidly progressive, symptomatic disease. The decision usually rests on clinical factors, such as tumor subtype and performance status, but there’s interphysician variability.
The team hoped to find a “more reliable, standardized, and reproducible” biomarker to help remove some of the uncertainty from the situation. They tested CTC count, a well-established prognostic indicator of PFS and OS, as a candidate.
Study results
The trial included 755 patients with hormone receptor–positive, HER2-negative breast cancer in the per-protocol population. The patients’ median age was 63 years (range, 30-88 years).
Among the 377 patients randomized to the CTC arm, those with counts at or above 5 CTCs per 7.5 mL received chemotherapy, while those with a lower count received endocrine therapy.
The 378 patients in the standard-care group received endocrine therapy or chemotherapy based on provider choice guided by clinical factors.
Chemotherapy was given to 37% of patients in the CTC arm and 27% of those in the standard arm.
The median PFS was 15.5 months in the CTC arm and 13.9 months in the standard arm, which meant the primary endpoint of noninferiority was met (hazard ratio, 0.94; 90% confidence interval, 0.81-1.09).
Age older than 60 years was the only baseline characteristic associated with better PFS with CTC-driven decision-making. This may be because of the greater “use of endocrine therapy as the clinically favored treatment, whatever the other clinicopathologic characteristics,” in older subjects, the investigators wrote.
As with PFS, the median OS was similar between the study arms – 47.3 months in the CTC arm and 42.8 months in the standard arm (HR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.71-1.16).
‘Not good enough’
The investigators behind this study had “a worthy goal,” according to authors of a related editorial.
Without “predictive biomarkers, we are left with our clinical knowledge, experience, and intuition. Patients are left with uncertainty, doubt, and fear,” Tarah Ballinger, MD,, of Indiana University, Indianapolis, and colleagues wrote in the editorial.
However, the editorialists had concerns about the findings. For one thing, the investigators hypothesized that relying on CTC would lead to a deescalation from chemotherapy to endocrine therapy, but use of chemotherapy was actually 10% higher in the CTC arm.
“Adding to or replacing the parameters we use to make a clinical decision should help us improve the lives of patients. ... We should demand an improvement in outcomes before accepting a strategy that exposes more patients to more toxic therapy. Not worse simply is not good enough,” the editorialists wrote.
In addition, the trial was completed before CDK4/6 inhibitors became a standard add-on with endocrine therapy for hormone receptor–positive, HER2-negative patients.
“The overall response rate to CDK4/6 inhibitor therapy is higher than with traditional chemotherapy, and several randomized trials have failed to show a survival benefit of upfront chemotherapy compared with CDK4/6 inhibitor use. ... Thus, it is even less likely that we can assume that baseline high CTC count corresponds to a need for chemotherapy in a modern treatment landscape that offers more patients more benefit from hormone therapy,” Dr. Ballinger and colleagues wrote.
The editorialists concluded that CTC count “alone at baseline primarily reflects disease bulk, much like anatomic staging, rather than disease biology. As treatments become more rooted in our knowledge of breast cancer biology, decisions based on disease bulk are decidedly out of place.”
Perhaps a better use, they suggested, is for treatment personalization. For instance, patients with persistently elevated CTCs despite standard approaches could consider trials of novel targeted therapies, or CTCs could be sequenced to identify actionable molecular targets, achieving a “clinical utility that merely counting CTCs lacks,” the editorialists wrote.
This study was funded by the Institut Curie, the French National Cancer Institute, and Menarini Silicon Biosystems, the maker of the CTC assay used in the trial. The investigators disclosed relationships with Menarini and many other companies. Dr. Ballinger receives honoraria from Medscape, which is owned by the same company as this news organization.
SOURCE: Bidard FC et al. JAMA Oncol. 2020 Nov 5. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2020.5660.
investigators wrote in JAMA Oncology.
However, authors of a related editorial suggested CTC counts are not adequate for guiding treatment choice in this population.
In a phase 3 trial, investigators compared the use of CTC counts and the use of clinical factors to guide the decision between chemotherapy and endocrine therapy. Results showed similar progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) with both methods but more chemotherapy use with the CTC method.
“The results of this trial demonstrate the reliability and clinical utility of CTC count to guide the choice between single-agent endocrine therapy and chemotherapy as first-line treatment,” but “at the cost of a higher proportion of patients treated with chemotherapy,” study author François-Clement Bidard, MD, PhD, of Institut Curie in Saint-Cloud, France, and colleagues wrote.
The investigators explained that endocrine therapy is the preferred first-line treatment option in this patient population, but chemotherapy is used when women are in visceral crisis, with rapidly progressive, symptomatic disease. The decision usually rests on clinical factors, such as tumor subtype and performance status, but there’s interphysician variability.
The team hoped to find a “more reliable, standardized, and reproducible” biomarker to help remove some of the uncertainty from the situation. They tested CTC count, a well-established prognostic indicator of PFS and OS, as a candidate.
Study results
The trial included 755 patients with hormone receptor–positive, HER2-negative breast cancer in the per-protocol population. The patients’ median age was 63 years (range, 30-88 years).
Among the 377 patients randomized to the CTC arm, those with counts at or above 5 CTCs per 7.5 mL received chemotherapy, while those with a lower count received endocrine therapy.
The 378 patients in the standard-care group received endocrine therapy or chemotherapy based on provider choice guided by clinical factors.
Chemotherapy was given to 37% of patients in the CTC arm and 27% of those in the standard arm.
The median PFS was 15.5 months in the CTC arm and 13.9 months in the standard arm, which meant the primary endpoint of noninferiority was met (hazard ratio, 0.94; 90% confidence interval, 0.81-1.09).
Age older than 60 years was the only baseline characteristic associated with better PFS with CTC-driven decision-making. This may be because of the greater “use of endocrine therapy as the clinically favored treatment, whatever the other clinicopathologic characteristics,” in older subjects, the investigators wrote.
As with PFS, the median OS was similar between the study arms – 47.3 months in the CTC arm and 42.8 months in the standard arm (HR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.71-1.16).
‘Not good enough’
The investigators behind this study had “a worthy goal,” according to authors of a related editorial.
Without “predictive biomarkers, we are left with our clinical knowledge, experience, and intuition. Patients are left with uncertainty, doubt, and fear,” Tarah Ballinger, MD,, of Indiana University, Indianapolis, and colleagues wrote in the editorial.
However, the editorialists had concerns about the findings. For one thing, the investigators hypothesized that relying on CTC would lead to a deescalation from chemotherapy to endocrine therapy, but use of chemotherapy was actually 10% higher in the CTC arm.
“Adding to or replacing the parameters we use to make a clinical decision should help us improve the lives of patients. ... We should demand an improvement in outcomes before accepting a strategy that exposes more patients to more toxic therapy. Not worse simply is not good enough,” the editorialists wrote.
In addition, the trial was completed before CDK4/6 inhibitors became a standard add-on with endocrine therapy for hormone receptor–positive, HER2-negative patients.
“The overall response rate to CDK4/6 inhibitor therapy is higher than with traditional chemotherapy, and several randomized trials have failed to show a survival benefit of upfront chemotherapy compared with CDK4/6 inhibitor use. ... Thus, it is even less likely that we can assume that baseline high CTC count corresponds to a need for chemotherapy in a modern treatment landscape that offers more patients more benefit from hormone therapy,” Dr. Ballinger and colleagues wrote.
The editorialists concluded that CTC count “alone at baseline primarily reflects disease bulk, much like anatomic staging, rather than disease biology. As treatments become more rooted in our knowledge of breast cancer biology, decisions based on disease bulk are decidedly out of place.”
Perhaps a better use, they suggested, is for treatment personalization. For instance, patients with persistently elevated CTCs despite standard approaches could consider trials of novel targeted therapies, or CTCs could be sequenced to identify actionable molecular targets, achieving a “clinical utility that merely counting CTCs lacks,” the editorialists wrote.
This study was funded by the Institut Curie, the French National Cancer Institute, and Menarini Silicon Biosystems, the maker of the CTC assay used in the trial. The investigators disclosed relationships with Menarini and many other companies. Dr. Ballinger receives honoraria from Medscape, which is owned by the same company as this news organization.
SOURCE: Bidard FC et al. JAMA Oncol. 2020 Nov 5. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2020.5660.
FROM JAMA ONCOLOGY
What to do when anticoagulation fails cancer patients
When a patient with cancer develops venous thromboembolism despite anticoagulation, how to help them comes down to clinical judgment, according to hematologist Neil Zakai, MD, associate professor at the University of Vermont, Burlington.
“Unfortunately,” when it comes to “anticoagulation failure, we are entering an evidence free-zone,” with no large trials to guide management and only a few guiding principles, he said during his presentation at the 2020 Update in Nonneoplastic Hematology virtual conference.
The first thing is to check if there was an inciting incident, such as medical noncompliance, an infection, or an interruption of anticoagulation. Dr. Zakai said he’s even had cancer patients develop heparin-induced thrombocytopenia when switched to enoxaparin from a direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC) for a procedure.
Once the underlying problem is addressed, patients may be able to continue with their original anticoagulant.
However, cancer progression is the main reason anticoagulation fails. “In general, it is very difficult to control cancer thrombosis if you can’t control cancer progression,” Dr. Zakai said.
In those cases, he steps up anticoagulation. Prophylactic dosing is increased to full treatment dosing, and patients on a DOAC are generally switched to a low molecular weight heparin (LMWH).
If patients are already on LMWH once daily, they will be bumped up to twice daily dosing; for instance, enoxaparin 1 mg/kg b.i.d. instead of 1.5 mg/kg q.d. Dr. Zakai said he’s gone as high at 2 or even 2.5 mg/kg to control thrombosis, without excessive bleeding.
In general, anticoagulation for thrombosis prophylaxis continues as long as the cancer is active, and certainly while patients are on hormonal treatments such as tamoxifen, which increases the risk.
Dr. Zakai stressed that both thrombosis and bleeding risk change for cancer patients over time, and treatment needs to keep up.
“I continuously assess the risk and benefit of anticoagulation. At certain times” such as during and for a few months after hospitalization, thrombosis risk increases; at other times, bleeding risk is higher. “You need to actively change your anticoagulation during those periods,” and tailor therapy based on transient risk factors. “People with cancer have peaks and troughs for their risk that we don’t take advantage of,” he said.
Dr. Zakai generally favors apixaban or enoxaparin for prophylaxis, carefully monitoring patients for bleeding and, for the DOAC, drug interactions with antiemetics, dexamethasone, and certain chemotherapy drugs.
He noted a recent trial that found a 59% reduction in venous thromboembolism risk in ambulatory cancer patients with apixaban 2.5 mg twice daily over 6 months, versus placebo, and a 6% absolute reduction, but at the cost of a twofold increase in bleeding risk, with an absolute 1.7% increase.
Dr. Zakai cautioned that patients in trials are selected for higher VTE and lower bleeding risks, so outcomes might “poorly reflect real world populations.” Dr. Zakai did not have any industry disclosures. The conference was sponsored by MedscapeLive. MedscapeLive and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.
When a patient with cancer develops venous thromboembolism despite anticoagulation, how to help them comes down to clinical judgment, according to hematologist Neil Zakai, MD, associate professor at the University of Vermont, Burlington.
“Unfortunately,” when it comes to “anticoagulation failure, we are entering an evidence free-zone,” with no large trials to guide management and only a few guiding principles, he said during his presentation at the 2020 Update in Nonneoplastic Hematology virtual conference.
The first thing is to check if there was an inciting incident, such as medical noncompliance, an infection, or an interruption of anticoagulation. Dr. Zakai said he’s even had cancer patients develop heparin-induced thrombocytopenia when switched to enoxaparin from a direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC) for a procedure.
Once the underlying problem is addressed, patients may be able to continue with their original anticoagulant.
However, cancer progression is the main reason anticoagulation fails. “In general, it is very difficult to control cancer thrombosis if you can’t control cancer progression,” Dr. Zakai said.
In those cases, he steps up anticoagulation. Prophylactic dosing is increased to full treatment dosing, and patients on a DOAC are generally switched to a low molecular weight heparin (LMWH).
If patients are already on LMWH once daily, they will be bumped up to twice daily dosing; for instance, enoxaparin 1 mg/kg b.i.d. instead of 1.5 mg/kg q.d. Dr. Zakai said he’s gone as high at 2 or even 2.5 mg/kg to control thrombosis, without excessive bleeding.
In general, anticoagulation for thrombosis prophylaxis continues as long as the cancer is active, and certainly while patients are on hormonal treatments such as tamoxifen, which increases the risk.
Dr. Zakai stressed that both thrombosis and bleeding risk change for cancer patients over time, and treatment needs to keep up.
“I continuously assess the risk and benefit of anticoagulation. At certain times” such as during and for a few months after hospitalization, thrombosis risk increases; at other times, bleeding risk is higher. “You need to actively change your anticoagulation during those periods,” and tailor therapy based on transient risk factors. “People with cancer have peaks and troughs for their risk that we don’t take advantage of,” he said.
Dr. Zakai generally favors apixaban or enoxaparin for prophylaxis, carefully monitoring patients for bleeding and, for the DOAC, drug interactions with antiemetics, dexamethasone, and certain chemotherapy drugs.
He noted a recent trial that found a 59% reduction in venous thromboembolism risk in ambulatory cancer patients with apixaban 2.5 mg twice daily over 6 months, versus placebo, and a 6% absolute reduction, but at the cost of a twofold increase in bleeding risk, with an absolute 1.7% increase.
Dr. Zakai cautioned that patients in trials are selected for higher VTE and lower bleeding risks, so outcomes might “poorly reflect real world populations.” Dr. Zakai did not have any industry disclosures. The conference was sponsored by MedscapeLive. MedscapeLive and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.
When a patient with cancer develops venous thromboembolism despite anticoagulation, how to help them comes down to clinical judgment, according to hematologist Neil Zakai, MD, associate professor at the University of Vermont, Burlington.
“Unfortunately,” when it comes to “anticoagulation failure, we are entering an evidence free-zone,” with no large trials to guide management and only a few guiding principles, he said during his presentation at the 2020 Update in Nonneoplastic Hematology virtual conference.
The first thing is to check if there was an inciting incident, such as medical noncompliance, an infection, or an interruption of anticoagulation. Dr. Zakai said he’s even had cancer patients develop heparin-induced thrombocytopenia when switched to enoxaparin from a direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC) for a procedure.
Once the underlying problem is addressed, patients may be able to continue with their original anticoagulant.
However, cancer progression is the main reason anticoagulation fails. “In general, it is very difficult to control cancer thrombosis if you can’t control cancer progression,” Dr. Zakai said.
In those cases, he steps up anticoagulation. Prophylactic dosing is increased to full treatment dosing, and patients on a DOAC are generally switched to a low molecular weight heparin (LMWH).
If patients are already on LMWH once daily, they will be bumped up to twice daily dosing; for instance, enoxaparin 1 mg/kg b.i.d. instead of 1.5 mg/kg q.d. Dr. Zakai said he’s gone as high at 2 or even 2.5 mg/kg to control thrombosis, without excessive bleeding.
In general, anticoagulation for thrombosis prophylaxis continues as long as the cancer is active, and certainly while patients are on hormonal treatments such as tamoxifen, which increases the risk.
Dr. Zakai stressed that both thrombosis and bleeding risk change for cancer patients over time, and treatment needs to keep up.
“I continuously assess the risk and benefit of anticoagulation. At certain times” such as during and for a few months after hospitalization, thrombosis risk increases; at other times, bleeding risk is higher. “You need to actively change your anticoagulation during those periods,” and tailor therapy based on transient risk factors. “People with cancer have peaks and troughs for their risk that we don’t take advantage of,” he said.
Dr. Zakai generally favors apixaban or enoxaparin for prophylaxis, carefully monitoring patients for bleeding and, for the DOAC, drug interactions with antiemetics, dexamethasone, and certain chemotherapy drugs.
He noted a recent trial that found a 59% reduction in venous thromboembolism risk in ambulatory cancer patients with apixaban 2.5 mg twice daily over 6 months, versus placebo, and a 6% absolute reduction, but at the cost of a twofold increase in bleeding risk, with an absolute 1.7% increase.
Dr. Zakai cautioned that patients in trials are selected for higher VTE and lower bleeding risks, so outcomes might “poorly reflect real world populations.” Dr. Zakai did not have any industry disclosures. The conference was sponsored by MedscapeLive. MedscapeLive and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.
FROM 2020 UNNH
Reduced cancer mortality with Medicaid expansion
Researchers reviewed data on 523,802 patients in the National Cancer Database who were diagnosed with cancer from 2012 through 2015. Slightly more than half of patients (55.2%) lived in Medicaid expansion states.
After expansion, mortality significantly decreased in expansion states (hazard ratio, 0.98; P = .008) but not in nonexpansion states (HR, 1.01; P = .43). The difference was significant in a difference-in-difference analysis (HR, 1.03; P = .01).
Across 69,000 patients with newly diagnosed cancer in Medicaid expansion states, the 2% decrease in the hazard of death would translate to 1,384 lives saved annually.
The benefit was primarily observed in patients with nonmetastatic cancer. For patients with stage I-III cancer, the risk of death was increased in nonexpansion states (HR, 1.05; P < .001) and unchanged in expansion states (HR, 0.99; P = .64). Mortality significantly improved in expansion states vs. nonexpansion states (HR, 1.05; P = .003).
For patients with stage IV cancer, both expansion and nonexpansion states had improvements in mortality, but the differences were not significant.
“Earlier stage at diagnosis appears to explain the mortality improvement,” wrote study author Miranda Lam, MD, of Harvard Medical School, Boston, and colleagues.
Clinical benefits, ‘no economic downside’
Under the Affordable Care Act, passed in 2010, states have the option of expanding Medicaid eligibility to adults with incomes at or below 138% of the federal poverty level. As of March 2020, 36 states and the District of Columbia had expanded Medicaid, with more than 20 million residents obtaining coverage.
Previous studies have associated Medicaid expansion with fewer patients being uninsured, increased cancer screening, and earlier stage of diagnosis, as well as reduced racial disparities in access to high-volume hospitals for cancer surgery and increased rates of cancer surgery among low-income patients.
“This study adds to an increasingly large body of research finding that Medicaid expansion has improved our ability to fight cancer,” said Coleman Drake, PhD, of the University of Pittsburgh, who was not involved in this study.
“Obtaining health insurance through Medicaid allows patients to receive recommended preventive cancer screenings, which explains the increase in early-stage diagnosis rates. Detecting cancer early is critical for successful cancer treatment,” Dr. Drake noted.
“It is hard to overstate the positive effects of Medicaid expansion on health outcomes. At the same time, concerns that Medicaid expansion would be costly to state governments’ budgets have not been realized. In short, Medicaid expansion yields many benefits and has no economic downside for state policymakers. Clinical and economic evidence make an overwhelming case for states to expand Medicaid,” Dr. Drake said.
Significant difference for lung cancer
Most patients in this study were women (73.6%), and the patients’ mean age was 54.8 years (range, 40-64 years). Patients had newly diagnosed breast cancer (52.2%), colorectal cancer (21.3%), and lung cancer (26.5%).
The benefits of Medicaid expansion persisted after adjustment for education, income, insurance, and race.
The lower mortality in expansion states compared with nonexpansion states was similar across all three cancer types. However, in stratified analyses, the difference was significant only for lung cancer (P = .03).
“Lung cancer has a higher mortality rate than breast and colorectal cancer, and with longer follow-up, it is possible that the lower mortality rates seen for breast and colorectal cancer may also become significant,” the authors wrote.
This research was funded by Harvard Catalyst, the Harvard Clinical and Translational Science Center, and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences at the National Institutes of Health. The investigators and Dr. Drake had no relevant disclosures.
SOURCE: Lam MB et al. JAMA Netw Open. 2020 Nov 2;3(11):e2024366.
Researchers reviewed data on 523,802 patients in the National Cancer Database who were diagnosed with cancer from 2012 through 2015. Slightly more than half of patients (55.2%) lived in Medicaid expansion states.
After expansion, mortality significantly decreased in expansion states (hazard ratio, 0.98; P = .008) but not in nonexpansion states (HR, 1.01; P = .43). The difference was significant in a difference-in-difference analysis (HR, 1.03; P = .01).
Across 69,000 patients with newly diagnosed cancer in Medicaid expansion states, the 2% decrease in the hazard of death would translate to 1,384 lives saved annually.
The benefit was primarily observed in patients with nonmetastatic cancer. For patients with stage I-III cancer, the risk of death was increased in nonexpansion states (HR, 1.05; P < .001) and unchanged in expansion states (HR, 0.99; P = .64). Mortality significantly improved in expansion states vs. nonexpansion states (HR, 1.05; P = .003).
For patients with stage IV cancer, both expansion and nonexpansion states had improvements in mortality, but the differences were not significant.
“Earlier stage at diagnosis appears to explain the mortality improvement,” wrote study author Miranda Lam, MD, of Harvard Medical School, Boston, and colleagues.
Clinical benefits, ‘no economic downside’
Under the Affordable Care Act, passed in 2010, states have the option of expanding Medicaid eligibility to adults with incomes at or below 138% of the federal poverty level. As of March 2020, 36 states and the District of Columbia had expanded Medicaid, with more than 20 million residents obtaining coverage.
Previous studies have associated Medicaid expansion with fewer patients being uninsured, increased cancer screening, and earlier stage of diagnosis, as well as reduced racial disparities in access to high-volume hospitals for cancer surgery and increased rates of cancer surgery among low-income patients.
“This study adds to an increasingly large body of research finding that Medicaid expansion has improved our ability to fight cancer,” said Coleman Drake, PhD, of the University of Pittsburgh, who was not involved in this study.
“Obtaining health insurance through Medicaid allows patients to receive recommended preventive cancer screenings, which explains the increase in early-stage diagnosis rates. Detecting cancer early is critical for successful cancer treatment,” Dr. Drake noted.
“It is hard to overstate the positive effects of Medicaid expansion on health outcomes. At the same time, concerns that Medicaid expansion would be costly to state governments’ budgets have not been realized. In short, Medicaid expansion yields many benefits and has no economic downside for state policymakers. Clinical and economic evidence make an overwhelming case for states to expand Medicaid,” Dr. Drake said.
Significant difference for lung cancer
Most patients in this study were women (73.6%), and the patients’ mean age was 54.8 years (range, 40-64 years). Patients had newly diagnosed breast cancer (52.2%), colorectal cancer (21.3%), and lung cancer (26.5%).
The benefits of Medicaid expansion persisted after adjustment for education, income, insurance, and race.
The lower mortality in expansion states compared with nonexpansion states was similar across all three cancer types. However, in stratified analyses, the difference was significant only for lung cancer (P = .03).
“Lung cancer has a higher mortality rate than breast and colorectal cancer, and with longer follow-up, it is possible that the lower mortality rates seen for breast and colorectal cancer may also become significant,” the authors wrote.
This research was funded by Harvard Catalyst, the Harvard Clinical and Translational Science Center, and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences at the National Institutes of Health. The investigators and Dr. Drake had no relevant disclosures.
SOURCE: Lam MB et al. JAMA Netw Open. 2020 Nov 2;3(11):e2024366.
Researchers reviewed data on 523,802 patients in the National Cancer Database who were diagnosed with cancer from 2012 through 2015. Slightly more than half of patients (55.2%) lived in Medicaid expansion states.
After expansion, mortality significantly decreased in expansion states (hazard ratio, 0.98; P = .008) but not in nonexpansion states (HR, 1.01; P = .43). The difference was significant in a difference-in-difference analysis (HR, 1.03; P = .01).
Across 69,000 patients with newly diagnosed cancer in Medicaid expansion states, the 2% decrease in the hazard of death would translate to 1,384 lives saved annually.
The benefit was primarily observed in patients with nonmetastatic cancer. For patients with stage I-III cancer, the risk of death was increased in nonexpansion states (HR, 1.05; P < .001) and unchanged in expansion states (HR, 0.99; P = .64). Mortality significantly improved in expansion states vs. nonexpansion states (HR, 1.05; P = .003).
For patients with stage IV cancer, both expansion and nonexpansion states had improvements in mortality, but the differences were not significant.
“Earlier stage at diagnosis appears to explain the mortality improvement,” wrote study author Miranda Lam, MD, of Harvard Medical School, Boston, and colleagues.
Clinical benefits, ‘no economic downside’
Under the Affordable Care Act, passed in 2010, states have the option of expanding Medicaid eligibility to adults with incomes at or below 138% of the federal poverty level. As of March 2020, 36 states and the District of Columbia had expanded Medicaid, with more than 20 million residents obtaining coverage.
Previous studies have associated Medicaid expansion with fewer patients being uninsured, increased cancer screening, and earlier stage of diagnosis, as well as reduced racial disparities in access to high-volume hospitals for cancer surgery and increased rates of cancer surgery among low-income patients.
“This study adds to an increasingly large body of research finding that Medicaid expansion has improved our ability to fight cancer,” said Coleman Drake, PhD, of the University of Pittsburgh, who was not involved in this study.
“Obtaining health insurance through Medicaid allows patients to receive recommended preventive cancer screenings, which explains the increase in early-stage diagnosis rates. Detecting cancer early is critical for successful cancer treatment,” Dr. Drake noted.
“It is hard to overstate the positive effects of Medicaid expansion on health outcomes. At the same time, concerns that Medicaid expansion would be costly to state governments’ budgets have not been realized. In short, Medicaid expansion yields many benefits and has no economic downside for state policymakers. Clinical and economic evidence make an overwhelming case for states to expand Medicaid,” Dr. Drake said.
Significant difference for lung cancer
Most patients in this study were women (73.6%), and the patients’ mean age was 54.8 years (range, 40-64 years). Patients had newly diagnosed breast cancer (52.2%), colorectal cancer (21.3%), and lung cancer (26.5%).
The benefits of Medicaid expansion persisted after adjustment for education, income, insurance, and race.
The lower mortality in expansion states compared with nonexpansion states was similar across all three cancer types. However, in stratified analyses, the difference was significant only for lung cancer (P = .03).
“Lung cancer has a higher mortality rate than breast and colorectal cancer, and with longer follow-up, it is possible that the lower mortality rates seen for breast and colorectal cancer may also become significant,” the authors wrote.
This research was funded by Harvard Catalyst, the Harvard Clinical and Translational Science Center, and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences at the National Institutes of Health. The investigators and Dr. Drake had no relevant disclosures.
SOURCE: Lam MB et al. JAMA Netw Open. 2020 Nov 2;3(11):e2024366.
FROM JAMA OPEN NETWORK
Study supports genetic testing in older women with breast cancer
according to researchers.
The prevalence of pathogenic variants in genes predisposing women to breast cancer was 3.18% among women with breast cancer and 1.48% among women without breast cancer in a case-control study of 26,707 women older than 65 years.
Variants in BRCA1/2, CHEK2, and PALB2 were significantly associated with increased breast cancer risk. The residual risk of breast cancer for women aged 66-85 years was 18.3% for BRCA1, 18.6% for BRCA2, 14.9% for CHEK2, and 15.8% for PALB2. In comparison, the residual risk of breast cancer for the general population was 6.8%, according to Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results data.
The investigators noted that women who develop breast cancer beyond 65 years of age – a large percentage of the breast cancer population – do not often qualify for genetic testing, but the frequency of pathogenic variants “is not negligible in this population” and significantly elevates remaining lifetime risk.
The data from this study “can be used to reevaluate cancer screening and additional risk management strategies for women over the age of 65,” investigator Nicholas Boddicker, PhD, of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., and colleagues wrote in a poster presentation.
The researchers presented their findings at the American Society of Human Genetics Virtual Meeting 2020.
Results may inform guidelines
National guidelines generally recommend screening for genetic variants when women develop breast cancer early in life or if they have a family history of breast cancer, but there has been controversy about whether those screening recommendations should be expanded, Dr. Boddicker and colleagues noted. The team thinks data from their study should help inform the discussion.
“We had an idea that the prevalence of these mutations in this population was not going to be zero, but I am not sure we were thinking that it was going to be over 3%. We believe these data will assist with reassessing genetic testing guidelines,” Dr. Boddicker said in an interview.
He said expanding genetic screening to include older women would have clinical implications. Women found to have pathogenic variants could perhaps undergo MRI surveillance in addition to mammography. If they are especially high risk, prophylactic mastectomy could be considered. Also, newer treatments hinge on the presence of pathogenic variants, such as PARP inhibitors for HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer with BRCA mutations.
Current testing limits ‘ridiculous’
“This is an excellent study and shows that even women over 65 have significant risk of breast cancer if they have a pathogenic variant. The variant could absolutely affect their treatment,” said Peter Beitsch, MD, a breast cancer surgical oncologist at the Dallas Surgical Group.
Dr. Beitsch was the lead author of a study, published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology in 2019, that showed that nearly half of breast cancer patients with a clinically actionable pathogenic variant were missed by current testing guidelines.
“All patients with a diagnosis of breast cancer [should] undergo expanded panel testing,” Dr. Beitsch and colleagues concluded in the paper.
Dr. Beitsch said current limitations on genetic screening make “no common sense. It’s OK to genetically test a woman who is 64 years and 11 months, but not 1 month later? Obviously ridiculous,” he said when asked for comment on the new report.
“The bigger impact is on their relatives,” Dr. Beitsch added. “Identifying people (men and women) with the same pathogenic variant can potentially save lives from more intensive screening or even prevent a cancer by doing prophylactic mastectomies. Male relatives have increased incidence of cancers with pathogenic variants in many of these genes.”
Screening for those variants could “lead to earlier detection or prevention,” Dr. Beitsch said.
As Dr. Boddicker noted, however, there is the question of who would pay for expanded screening and how to counsel patients who, despite increased risk, may never develop cancer.
Study details and next steps
The study included 13,762 women with breast cancer who were older than 65 years and 12,945 age-matched controls without breast cancer. A multigene amplicon-based panel was used to identify 12 known pathogenic variants in breast cancer–predisposing genes.
The women were part of the CARRIERS consortium, which pools breast cancer patients from case-control studies. Overall, 82.6% of subjects were non-Hispanic White, 25.6% of breast cancer patients and 17.9% of control subjects had a positive family history, and the mean age was 72.8 years (range, 66-94.3 years).
Across the entire study population, 0.48% of subjects had variants in ATM, 0.18% in BRCA1, 0.49% in BRCA2, 0.67% in CHEK2, and 0.23% in PALB2.
After adjustment for age, race, and family history, pathogenic variants in BRCA1 increased the risk of cancer more than threefold (odds ratio, 3.37), with similar findings for BRCA2 (OR, 2.64), PALB2 (OR, 3.09), and CHEK2 (OR, 2.13). ATM variants were not associated with a significantly increased risk of breast cancer (OR, 1.38).
Dr. Boddicker said the researchers’ next steps are to incorporate polygenic risk scores into the analyses and further investigate the impact of race.
The study is funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Boddicker and Dr. Beitsch didn’t have any disclosures.
SOURCE: Boddicker NJ et al. ASHG 2020, Abstract 2412.
according to researchers.
The prevalence of pathogenic variants in genes predisposing women to breast cancer was 3.18% among women with breast cancer and 1.48% among women without breast cancer in a case-control study of 26,707 women older than 65 years.
Variants in BRCA1/2, CHEK2, and PALB2 were significantly associated with increased breast cancer risk. The residual risk of breast cancer for women aged 66-85 years was 18.3% for BRCA1, 18.6% for BRCA2, 14.9% for CHEK2, and 15.8% for PALB2. In comparison, the residual risk of breast cancer for the general population was 6.8%, according to Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results data.
The investigators noted that women who develop breast cancer beyond 65 years of age – a large percentage of the breast cancer population – do not often qualify for genetic testing, but the frequency of pathogenic variants “is not negligible in this population” and significantly elevates remaining lifetime risk.
The data from this study “can be used to reevaluate cancer screening and additional risk management strategies for women over the age of 65,” investigator Nicholas Boddicker, PhD, of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., and colleagues wrote in a poster presentation.
The researchers presented their findings at the American Society of Human Genetics Virtual Meeting 2020.
Results may inform guidelines
National guidelines generally recommend screening for genetic variants when women develop breast cancer early in life or if they have a family history of breast cancer, but there has been controversy about whether those screening recommendations should be expanded, Dr. Boddicker and colleagues noted. The team thinks data from their study should help inform the discussion.
“We had an idea that the prevalence of these mutations in this population was not going to be zero, but I am not sure we were thinking that it was going to be over 3%. We believe these data will assist with reassessing genetic testing guidelines,” Dr. Boddicker said in an interview.
He said expanding genetic screening to include older women would have clinical implications. Women found to have pathogenic variants could perhaps undergo MRI surveillance in addition to mammography. If they are especially high risk, prophylactic mastectomy could be considered. Also, newer treatments hinge on the presence of pathogenic variants, such as PARP inhibitors for HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer with BRCA mutations.
Current testing limits ‘ridiculous’
“This is an excellent study and shows that even women over 65 have significant risk of breast cancer if they have a pathogenic variant. The variant could absolutely affect their treatment,” said Peter Beitsch, MD, a breast cancer surgical oncologist at the Dallas Surgical Group.
Dr. Beitsch was the lead author of a study, published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology in 2019, that showed that nearly half of breast cancer patients with a clinically actionable pathogenic variant were missed by current testing guidelines.
“All patients with a diagnosis of breast cancer [should] undergo expanded panel testing,” Dr. Beitsch and colleagues concluded in the paper.
Dr. Beitsch said current limitations on genetic screening make “no common sense. It’s OK to genetically test a woman who is 64 years and 11 months, but not 1 month later? Obviously ridiculous,” he said when asked for comment on the new report.
“The bigger impact is on their relatives,” Dr. Beitsch added. “Identifying people (men and women) with the same pathogenic variant can potentially save lives from more intensive screening or even prevent a cancer by doing prophylactic mastectomies. Male relatives have increased incidence of cancers with pathogenic variants in many of these genes.”
Screening for those variants could “lead to earlier detection or prevention,” Dr. Beitsch said.
As Dr. Boddicker noted, however, there is the question of who would pay for expanded screening and how to counsel patients who, despite increased risk, may never develop cancer.
Study details and next steps
The study included 13,762 women with breast cancer who were older than 65 years and 12,945 age-matched controls without breast cancer. A multigene amplicon-based panel was used to identify 12 known pathogenic variants in breast cancer–predisposing genes.
The women were part of the CARRIERS consortium, which pools breast cancer patients from case-control studies. Overall, 82.6% of subjects were non-Hispanic White, 25.6% of breast cancer patients and 17.9% of control subjects had a positive family history, and the mean age was 72.8 years (range, 66-94.3 years).
Across the entire study population, 0.48% of subjects had variants in ATM, 0.18% in BRCA1, 0.49% in BRCA2, 0.67% in CHEK2, and 0.23% in PALB2.
After adjustment for age, race, and family history, pathogenic variants in BRCA1 increased the risk of cancer more than threefold (odds ratio, 3.37), with similar findings for BRCA2 (OR, 2.64), PALB2 (OR, 3.09), and CHEK2 (OR, 2.13). ATM variants were not associated with a significantly increased risk of breast cancer (OR, 1.38).
Dr. Boddicker said the researchers’ next steps are to incorporate polygenic risk scores into the analyses and further investigate the impact of race.
The study is funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Boddicker and Dr. Beitsch didn’t have any disclosures.
SOURCE: Boddicker NJ et al. ASHG 2020, Abstract 2412.
according to researchers.
The prevalence of pathogenic variants in genes predisposing women to breast cancer was 3.18% among women with breast cancer and 1.48% among women without breast cancer in a case-control study of 26,707 women older than 65 years.
Variants in BRCA1/2, CHEK2, and PALB2 were significantly associated with increased breast cancer risk. The residual risk of breast cancer for women aged 66-85 years was 18.3% for BRCA1, 18.6% for BRCA2, 14.9% for CHEK2, and 15.8% for PALB2. In comparison, the residual risk of breast cancer for the general population was 6.8%, according to Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results data.
The investigators noted that women who develop breast cancer beyond 65 years of age – a large percentage of the breast cancer population – do not often qualify for genetic testing, but the frequency of pathogenic variants “is not negligible in this population” and significantly elevates remaining lifetime risk.
The data from this study “can be used to reevaluate cancer screening and additional risk management strategies for women over the age of 65,” investigator Nicholas Boddicker, PhD, of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., and colleagues wrote in a poster presentation.
The researchers presented their findings at the American Society of Human Genetics Virtual Meeting 2020.
Results may inform guidelines
National guidelines generally recommend screening for genetic variants when women develop breast cancer early in life or if they have a family history of breast cancer, but there has been controversy about whether those screening recommendations should be expanded, Dr. Boddicker and colleagues noted. The team thinks data from their study should help inform the discussion.
“We had an idea that the prevalence of these mutations in this population was not going to be zero, but I am not sure we were thinking that it was going to be over 3%. We believe these data will assist with reassessing genetic testing guidelines,” Dr. Boddicker said in an interview.
He said expanding genetic screening to include older women would have clinical implications. Women found to have pathogenic variants could perhaps undergo MRI surveillance in addition to mammography. If they are especially high risk, prophylactic mastectomy could be considered. Also, newer treatments hinge on the presence of pathogenic variants, such as PARP inhibitors for HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer with BRCA mutations.
Current testing limits ‘ridiculous’
“This is an excellent study and shows that even women over 65 have significant risk of breast cancer if they have a pathogenic variant. The variant could absolutely affect their treatment,” said Peter Beitsch, MD, a breast cancer surgical oncologist at the Dallas Surgical Group.
Dr. Beitsch was the lead author of a study, published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology in 2019, that showed that nearly half of breast cancer patients with a clinically actionable pathogenic variant were missed by current testing guidelines.
“All patients with a diagnosis of breast cancer [should] undergo expanded panel testing,” Dr. Beitsch and colleagues concluded in the paper.
Dr. Beitsch said current limitations on genetic screening make “no common sense. It’s OK to genetically test a woman who is 64 years and 11 months, but not 1 month later? Obviously ridiculous,” he said when asked for comment on the new report.
“The bigger impact is on their relatives,” Dr. Beitsch added. “Identifying people (men and women) with the same pathogenic variant can potentially save lives from more intensive screening or even prevent a cancer by doing prophylactic mastectomies. Male relatives have increased incidence of cancers with pathogenic variants in many of these genes.”
Screening for those variants could “lead to earlier detection or prevention,” Dr. Beitsch said.
As Dr. Boddicker noted, however, there is the question of who would pay for expanded screening and how to counsel patients who, despite increased risk, may never develop cancer.
Study details and next steps
The study included 13,762 women with breast cancer who were older than 65 years and 12,945 age-matched controls without breast cancer. A multigene amplicon-based panel was used to identify 12 known pathogenic variants in breast cancer–predisposing genes.
The women were part of the CARRIERS consortium, which pools breast cancer patients from case-control studies. Overall, 82.6% of subjects were non-Hispanic White, 25.6% of breast cancer patients and 17.9% of control subjects had a positive family history, and the mean age was 72.8 years (range, 66-94.3 years).
Across the entire study population, 0.48% of subjects had variants in ATM, 0.18% in BRCA1, 0.49% in BRCA2, 0.67% in CHEK2, and 0.23% in PALB2.
After adjustment for age, race, and family history, pathogenic variants in BRCA1 increased the risk of cancer more than threefold (odds ratio, 3.37), with similar findings for BRCA2 (OR, 2.64), PALB2 (OR, 3.09), and CHEK2 (OR, 2.13). ATM variants were not associated with a significantly increased risk of breast cancer (OR, 1.38).
Dr. Boddicker said the researchers’ next steps are to incorporate polygenic risk scores into the analyses and further investigate the impact of race.
The study is funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Boddicker and Dr. Beitsch didn’t have any disclosures.
SOURCE: Boddicker NJ et al. ASHG 2020, Abstract 2412.
FROM ASHG 2020
Pembrolizumab plus axitinib continues to outshine sunitinib for advanced RCC
Pembrolizumab plus axitinib continued to top sunitinib monotherapy as first-line treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) in an extended follow-up of the phase 3 KEYNOTE-426 trial.
The trial’s initial results, published in The New England Journal of Medicine in 2019, showed superior efficacy with the combination. Pembrolizumab plus axitinib was subsequently approved in the United States and elsewhere as first-line treatment for advanced RCC.
The latest results from KEYNOTE-426, published in The Lancet Oncology, show a continued survival benefit with pembrolizumab plus axitinib.
“Overall, the results of this study continue to support pembrolizumab plus axitinib as standard of care in patients with previously untreated advanced renal cell carcinoma,” wrote study author Thomas Powles, MD, of the Queen Mary University and Barts Cancer Centre, London, and colleagues.
However, the new findings “must be read and interpreted together with the existing published literature,” they added. This includes trials of nivolumab plus ipilimumab, avelumab plus axitinib, and atezolizumab plus bevacizumab for advanced RCC, all versus sunitinib.
“Given the impossibility of making direct comparisons between the different combinations ... clinical experience and knowledge of the disease and of our patients will be vital to optimize this new therapeutic arsenal and to be able to reach goals that, until a few years ago, were considered unattainable,” wrote authors of a related editorial in The Lancet Oncology.
Trial details and results
KEYNOTE-426 included 861 patients with newly diagnosed stage IV or recurrent metastatic RCC with clear cell histology.
Patients were randomized to sunitinib monotherapy (n = 429) or pembrolizumab plus axitinib (n = 432). Pembrolizumab was given at 200 mg intravenously every 3 weeks for up to 35 cycles, and axitinib was given at 5 mg orally twice daily. Sunitinib was given at 50 mg orally once daily for 4 weeks per 6-week cycle.
Baseline characteristics were similar between the treatment arms. The median age was 62 years in the combination arm and 61 years in the sunitinib arm. Most patients were men (71% and 75%, respectively).
At a median follow-up of 30.6 months, the median overall survival (OS) was 35.7 months in the sunitinib arm but not yet reached in the pembrolizumab-axitinib arm (hazard ratio, 0.68, 95% confidence interval, 0.55-0.85, P = .0003).
The updated hazard ratio for OS with the combination wasn’t as robust as the hazard ratio in the initial analysis (0.53), likely in part because 48% of patients in the sunitinib group subsequently received immunotherapy, according to Dr. Powles and colleagues.
The median progression free survival (PFS) was 11.1 months with sunitinib and 15.4 months with the combination (HR, 0.71, 95% CI, 0.60-0.84, P < .0001). The objective response rate was 60% with pembrolizumab plus axitinib and 40% in the sunitinib group (P < .0001).
Risk groups and response criteria
Although patients in the combination arm had better objective response rates and PFS across all risk categories, there was no OS benefit in the favorable-risk subgroup, perhaps because favorable-risk patients have more indolent disease, Dr. Powles and colleagues noted.
Even so, “the pembrolizumab plus axitinib combination achieved a nonnegligible rate of 11% complete responses in favorable-risk cases, suggesting a potential curative role in this setting,” the editorialists wrote.
Dr. Powles and colleagues raised the question of whether RECIST-defined response is adequate to capture the full benefit of the combination.
In a post hoc analysis, the researchers found that change in tumor size was prognostic for OS. Patients in the pembrolizumab-axitinib group with an “at least 80% reduction in target lesions within 6 months of randomization had a durable subsequent overall survival benefit (i.e., 36 months survival), similar to patients who had RECIST-defined complete response,” Dr. Powles and colleagues wrote.
“These data support a hypothesis that durable benefit to an immunotherapy-containing regimen in renal cell cancer is not limited to the subset of complete responders,” the researchers added. “Because RECIST categories might not classify all patients who achieve durable benefit, depth of response might also supplement objective response as an important clinical endpoint.”
Safety and discontinuation
There were no new safety signals and no new treatment-related deaths.
The most frequent grade 3 or higher adverse events (in the combination and sunitinib arms, respectively) were hypertension (22% and 20%), alanine aminotransferase elevations (13% and 3%), and diarrhea (11% and 5%).
Treatment-related adverse events led to pembrolizumab interruption in 44% of patients, axitinib interruption in 62%, and interruption of both in 30%. Treatment-related adverse events led to discontinuation of one or the other drug in about 20% of subjects and both in 7%.
The number of discontinuations and interruptions suggests “caution in optimizing the therapeutic choice in real-world patients,” the editorialists wrote.
“New treatment modalities, including intermittent administrations or an induction phase followed by single-agent maintenance, could be explored in future adaptive clinical trials, with undeniable advantages in terms of reducing clinical and financial toxicity,” they added.
The KEYNOTE-426 study was funded by Merck, maker of pembrolizumab. The investigators and the editorialists disclosed ties to Merck and other companies.
SOURCE: Powles T et al. Lancet Oncol. 2020 Oct. 23. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(20)30436-8.
Pembrolizumab plus axitinib continued to top sunitinib monotherapy as first-line treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) in an extended follow-up of the phase 3 KEYNOTE-426 trial.
The trial’s initial results, published in The New England Journal of Medicine in 2019, showed superior efficacy with the combination. Pembrolizumab plus axitinib was subsequently approved in the United States and elsewhere as first-line treatment for advanced RCC.
The latest results from KEYNOTE-426, published in The Lancet Oncology, show a continued survival benefit with pembrolizumab plus axitinib.
“Overall, the results of this study continue to support pembrolizumab plus axitinib as standard of care in patients with previously untreated advanced renal cell carcinoma,” wrote study author Thomas Powles, MD, of the Queen Mary University and Barts Cancer Centre, London, and colleagues.
However, the new findings “must be read and interpreted together with the existing published literature,” they added. This includes trials of nivolumab plus ipilimumab, avelumab plus axitinib, and atezolizumab plus bevacizumab for advanced RCC, all versus sunitinib.
“Given the impossibility of making direct comparisons between the different combinations ... clinical experience and knowledge of the disease and of our patients will be vital to optimize this new therapeutic arsenal and to be able to reach goals that, until a few years ago, were considered unattainable,” wrote authors of a related editorial in The Lancet Oncology.
Trial details and results
KEYNOTE-426 included 861 patients with newly diagnosed stage IV or recurrent metastatic RCC with clear cell histology.
Patients were randomized to sunitinib monotherapy (n = 429) or pembrolizumab plus axitinib (n = 432). Pembrolizumab was given at 200 mg intravenously every 3 weeks for up to 35 cycles, and axitinib was given at 5 mg orally twice daily. Sunitinib was given at 50 mg orally once daily for 4 weeks per 6-week cycle.
Baseline characteristics were similar between the treatment arms. The median age was 62 years in the combination arm and 61 years in the sunitinib arm. Most patients were men (71% and 75%, respectively).
At a median follow-up of 30.6 months, the median overall survival (OS) was 35.7 months in the sunitinib arm but not yet reached in the pembrolizumab-axitinib arm (hazard ratio, 0.68, 95% confidence interval, 0.55-0.85, P = .0003).
The updated hazard ratio for OS with the combination wasn’t as robust as the hazard ratio in the initial analysis (0.53), likely in part because 48% of patients in the sunitinib group subsequently received immunotherapy, according to Dr. Powles and colleagues.
The median progression free survival (PFS) was 11.1 months with sunitinib and 15.4 months with the combination (HR, 0.71, 95% CI, 0.60-0.84, P < .0001). The objective response rate was 60% with pembrolizumab plus axitinib and 40% in the sunitinib group (P < .0001).
Risk groups and response criteria
Although patients in the combination arm had better objective response rates and PFS across all risk categories, there was no OS benefit in the favorable-risk subgroup, perhaps because favorable-risk patients have more indolent disease, Dr. Powles and colleagues noted.
Even so, “the pembrolizumab plus axitinib combination achieved a nonnegligible rate of 11% complete responses in favorable-risk cases, suggesting a potential curative role in this setting,” the editorialists wrote.
Dr. Powles and colleagues raised the question of whether RECIST-defined response is adequate to capture the full benefit of the combination.
In a post hoc analysis, the researchers found that change in tumor size was prognostic for OS. Patients in the pembrolizumab-axitinib group with an “at least 80% reduction in target lesions within 6 months of randomization had a durable subsequent overall survival benefit (i.e., 36 months survival), similar to patients who had RECIST-defined complete response,” Dr. Powles and colleagues wrote.
“These data support a hypothesis that durable benefit to an immunotherapy-containing regimen in renal cell cancer is not limited to the subset of complete responders,” the researchers added. “Because RECIST categories might not classify all patients who achieve durable benefit, depth of response might also supplement objective response as an important clinical endpoint.”
Safety and discontinuation
There were no new safety signals and no new treatment-related deaths.
The most frequent grade 3 or higher adverse events (in the combination and sunitinib arms, respectively) were hypertension (22% and 20%), alanine aminotransferase elevations (13% and 3%), and diarrhea (11% and 5%).
Treatment-related adverse events led to pembrolizumab interruption in 44% of patients, axitinib interruption in 62%, and interruption of both in 30%. Treatment-related adverse events led to discontinuation of one or the other drug in about 20% of subjects and both in 7%.
The number of discontinuations and interruptions suggests “caution in optimizing the therapeutic choice in real-world patients,” the editorialists wrote.
“New treatment modalities, including intermittent administrations or an induction phase followed by single-agent maintenance, could be explored in future adaptive clinical trials, with undeniable advantages in terms of reducing clinical and financial toxicity,” they added.
The KEYNOTE-426 study was funded by Merck, maker of pembrolizumab. The investigators and the editorialists disclosed ties to Merck and other companies.
SOURCE: Powles T et al. Lancet Oncol. 2020 Oct. 23. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(20)30436-8.
Pembrolizumab plus axitinib continued to top sunitinib monotherapy as first-line treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) in an extended follow-up of the phase 3 KEYNOTE-426 trial.
The trial’s initial results, published in The New England Journal of Medicine in 2019, showed superior efficacy with the combination. Pembrolizumab plus axitinib was subsequently approved in the United States and elsewhere as first-line treatment for advanced RCC.
The latest results from KEYNOTE-426, published in The Lancet Oncology, show a continued survival benefit with pembrolizumab plus axitinib.
“Overall, the results of this study continue to support pembrolizumab plus axitinib as standard of care in patients with previously untreated advanced renal cell carcinoma,” wrote study author Thomas Powles, MD, of the Queen Mary University and Barts Cancer Centre, London, and colleagues.
However, the new findings “must be read and interpreted together with the existing published literature,” they added. This includes trials of nivolumab plus ipilimumab, avelumab plus axitinib, and atezolizumab plus bevacizumab for advanced RCC, all versus sunitinib.
“Given the impossibility of making direct comparisons between the different combinations ... clinical experience and knowledge of the disease and of our patients will be vital to optimize this new therapeutic arsenal and to be able to reach goals that, until a few years ago, were considered unattainable,” wrote authors of a related editorial in The Lancet Oncology.
Trial details and results
KEYNOTE-426 included 861 patients with newly diagnosed stage IV or recurrent metastatic RCC with clear cell histology.
Patients were randomized to sunitinib monotherapy (n = 429) or pembrolizumab plus axitinib (n = 432). Pembrolizumab was given at 200 mg intravenously every 3 weeks for up to 35 cycles, and axitinib was given at 5 mg orally twice daily. Sunitinib was given at 50 mg orally once daily for 4 weeks per 6-week cycle.
Baseline characteristics were similar between the treatment arms. The median age was 62 years in the combination arm and 61 years in the sunitinib arm. Most patients were men (71% and 75%, respectively).
At a median follow-up of 30.6 months, the median overall survival (OS) was 35.7 months in the sunitinib arm but not yet reached in the pembrolizumab-axitinib arm (hazard ratio, 0.68, 95% confidence interval, 0.55-0.85, P = .0003).
The updated hazard ratio for OS with the combination wasn’t as robust as the hazard ratio in the initial analysis (0.53), likely in part because 48% of patients in the sunitinib group subsequently received immunotherapy, according to Dr. Powles and colleagues.
The median progression free survival (PFS) was 11.1 months with sunitinib and 15.4 months with the combination (HR, 0.71, 95% CI, 0.60-0.84, P < .0001). The objective response rate was 60% with pembrolizumab plus axitinib and 40% in the sunitinib group (P < .0001).
Risk groups and response criteria
Although patients in the combination arm had better objective response rates and PFS across all risk categories, there was no OS benefit in the favorable-risk subgroup, perhaps because favorable-risk patients have more indolent disease, Dr. Powles and colleagues noted.
Even so, “the pembrolizumab plus axitinib combination achieved a nonnegligible rate of 11% complete responses in favorable-risk cases, suggesting a potential curative role in this setting,” the editorialists wrote.
Dr. Powles and colleagues raised the question of whether RECIST-defined response is adequate to capture the full benefit of the combination.
In a post hoc analysis, the researchers found that change in tumor size was prognostic for OS. Patients in the pembrolizumab-axitinib group with an “at least 80% reduction in target lesions within 6 months of randomization had a durable subsequent overall survival benefit (i.e., 36 months survival), similar to patients who had RECIST-defined complete response,” Dr. Powles and colleagues wrote.
“These data support a hypothesis that durable benefit to an immunotherapy-containing regimen in renal cell cancer is not limited to the subset of complete responders,” the researchers added. “Because RECIST categories might not classify all patients who achieve durable benefit, depth of response might also supplement objective response as an important clinical endpoint.”
Safety and discontinuation
There were no new safety signals and no new treatment-related deaths.
The most frequent grade 3 or higher adverse events (in the combination and sunitinib arms, respectively) were hypertension (22% and 20%), alanine aminotransferase elevations (13% and 3%), and diarrhea (11% and 5%).
Treatment-related adverse events led to pembrolizumab interruption in 44% of patients, axitinib interruption in 62%, and interruption of both in 30%. Treatment-related adverse events led to discontinuation of one or the other drug in about 20% of subjects and both in 7%.
The number of discontinuations and interruptions suggests “caution in optimizing the therapeutic choice in real-world patients,” the editorialists wrote.
“New treatment modalities, including intermittent administrations or an induction phase followed by single-agent maintenance, could be explored in future adaptive clinical trials, with undeniable advantages in terms of reducing clinical and financial toxicity,” they added.
The KEYNOTE-426 study was funded by Merck, maker of pembrolizumab. The investigators and the editorialists disclosed ties to Merck and other companies.
SOURCE: Powles T et al. Lancet Oncol. 2020 Oct. 23. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(20)30436-8.
FROM LANCET ONCOLOGY
Early results ‘encouraging’ for CAR NKT cells in neuroblastoma
, according to results of an ongoing phase 1 trial.
In one of three patients treated thus far, the CAR NKT cells induced an objective response with regression of a metastatic bone lesion.
Andras Heczey, MD, of Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, and colleagues reported outcomes for the first three patients in Nature Medicine.
The three boys – two 12-year-olds and one 6-year-old – had relapsed/refractory neuroblastoma.
NKT cells were collected from the patients, then genetically engineered to express a CAR to recognize the GD2-ganglioside expressed in neuroblastomas and also to express interleukin-15, which supports NKT cell survival. The cells were expanded and reinfused back into the patients.
The initial results suggest that CAR NKT cells can be used safely to treat neuroblastomas and perhaps other solid tumors, investigators said.
‘A significant advance’ if confirmed
Treating solid tumors with CAR T cells has been a challenge, in part because of inefficient trafficking into tumors.
However, NKT cells naturally migrate to tumors in response to tumor-derived chemokines, Dr. Heczey and colleagues noted. NKT cells kill macrophages associated with tumor growth and promote NK- and T-cell–mediated antitumor responses.
“We decided to leverage this intrinsic property of NKTs and to arm them with an additional bullet – the so-called CAR – to further potentiate their capacity to destroy the tumor,” investigator Gianpietro Dotti, MD, of the University of North Carolina Lindberger Comprehensive Cancer Center in Chapel Hill, said in a press release.
Overall, the “results are very encouraging and, if confirmed in a larger cohort of patients, present a significant advance in the cell therapy field for solid tumors,” said CAR-T researcher Stephen Gottschalk, MD, of St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital in Memphis, Tenn., when asked for comment.
Treatment, safety, and efficacy details
NKT cells are infrequent in human peripheral blood, so the investigators stimulated the NKT cells collected from patients with alpha-galactosylceramide–pulsed irradiated peripheral blood mononuclear cells.
The final products reached a mean NKT cell purity of 95%. The proportion of cells positive for the GD2-CAR ranged from 20% to 70% across the three patients.
After lymphodepletion with cyclophosphamide/fludarabine, the patients were infused with 3 × 106 CAR NKT cells/m2.
The cells were well tolerated, with no dose-limiting toxicities. There were grade 3/4 adverse events, but they occurred before CAR NKT-cell infusion and were thought to be related to lymphodepletion.
NKT-cell frequency and absolute numbers increased in the peripheral blood over baseline and remained elevated at the week 4 assessment.
Two patients had stable disease at 4 weeks, but one had a partial response and a change in Curie score from 2 to 1. The patient’s SPECT- and MIBG-merged scans “revealed a dramatic reduction in the size and MIBG uptake of a bone metastasis. The patient consequently received salvage therapy and achieved a complete response that lasted approximately 6 months,” the investigators noted.
The team found higher percentages of CAR NKT cells in primary tumor and metastatic bone marrow biopsies than in peripheral blood. A high percentage of CAR NKT cells from the tumor specimen, but only a small fraction from the bone metastasis, expressed the GD2-CAR.
This research was funded by Kuur Therapeutics, Alex’s Lemonade Stand Foundation for Childhood Cancer, the American Cancer Society, Cookies for Kids’ Cancer Foundation, and the Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas. Dr. Heczey, Dr. Dotti, and two other researchers are coinventors on pending patent applications for NKT cells in cancer immunotherapy that have been licensed to Kuur Therapeutics for commercial development. Dr. Gottschalk has patent applications in the fields of T-cell and/or gene therapy for cancer. He has relationships with TESSA Therapeutics, Immatics, and Tidal.
SOURCE: Heczey A et al. Nat Med. 2020 Oct 12. doi: 10.1038/s41591-020-1074-2.
, according to results of an ongoing phase 1 trial.
In one of three patients treated thus far, the CAR NKT cells induced an objective response with regression of a metastatic bone lesion.
Andras Heczey, MD, of Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, and colleagues reported outcomes for the first three patients in Nature Medicine.
The three boys – two 12-year-olds and one 6-year-old – had relapsed/refractory neuroblastoma.
NKT cells were collected from the patients, then genetically engineered to express a CAR to recognize the GD2-ganglioside expressed in neuroblastomas and also to express interleukin-15, which supports NKT cell survival. The cells were expanded and reinfused back into the patients.
The initial results suggest that CAR NKT cells can be used safely to treat neuroblastomas and perhaps other solid tumors, investigators said.
‘A significant advance’ if confirmed
Treating solid tumors with CAR T cells has been a challenge, in part because of inefficient trafficking into tumors.
However, NKT cells naturally migrate to tumors in response to tumor-derived chemokines, Dr. Heczey and colleagues noted. NKT cells kill macrophages associated with tumor growth and promote NK- and T-cell–mediated antitumor responses.
“We decided to leverage this intrinsic property of NKTs and to arm them with an additional bullet – the so-called CAR – to further potentiate their capacity to destroy the tumor,” investigator Gianpietro Dotti, MD, of the University of North Carolina Lindberger Comprehensive Cancer Center in Chapel Hill, said in a press release.
Overall, the “results are very encouraging and, if confirmed in a larger cohort of patients, present a significant advance in the cell therapy field for solid tumors,” said CAR-T researcher Stephen Gottschalk, MD, of St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital in Memphis, Tenn., when asked for comment.
Treatment, safety, and efficacy details
NKT cells are infrequent in human peripheral blood, so the investigators stimulated the NKT cells collected from patients with alpha-galactosylceramide–pulsed irradiated peripheral blood mononuclear cells.
The final products reached a mean NKT cell purity of 95%. The proportion of cells positive for the GD2-CAR ranged from 20% to 70% across the three patients.
After lymphodepletion with cyclophosphamide/fludarabine, the patients were infused with 3 × 106 CAR NKT cells/m2.
The cells were well tolerated, with no dose-limiting toxicities. There were grade 3/4 adverse events, but they occurred before CAR NKT-cell infusion and were thought to be related to lymphodepletion.
NKT-cell frequency and absolute numbers increased in the peripheral blood over baseline and remained elevated at the week 4 assessment.
Two patients had stable disease at 4 weeks, but one had a partial response and a change in Curie score from 2 to 1. The patient’s SPECT- and MIBG-merged scans “revealed a dramatic reduction in the size and MIBG uptake of a bone metastasis. The patient consequently received salvage therapy and achieved a complete response that lasted approximately 6 months,” the investigators noted.
The team found higher percentages of CAR NKT cells in primary tumor and metastatic bone marrow biopsies than in peripheral blood. A high percentage of CAR NKT cells from the tumor specimen, but only a small fraction from the bone metastasis, expressed the GD2-CAR.
This research was funded by Kuur Therapeutics, Alex’s Lemonade Stand Foundation for Childhood Cancer, the American Cancer Society, Cookies for Kids’ Cancer Foundation, and the Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas. Dr. Heczey, Dr. Dotti, and two other researchers are coinventors on pending patent applications for NKT cells in cancer immunotherapy that have been licensed to Kuur Therapeutics for commercial development. Dr. Gottschalk has patent applications in the fields of T-cell and/or gene therapy for cancer. He has relationships with TESSA Therapeutics, Immatics, and Tidal.
SOURCE: Heczey A et al. Nat Med. 2020 Oct 12. doi: 10.1038/s41591-020-1074-2.
, according to results of an ongoing phase 1 trial.
In one of three patients treated thus far, the CAR NKT cells induced an objective response with regression of a metastatic bone lesion.
Andras Heczey, MD, of Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, and colleagues reported outcomes for the first three patients in Nature Medicine.
The three boys – two 12-year-olds and one 6-year-old – had relapsed/refractory neuroblastoma.
NKT cells were collected from the patients, then genetically engineered to express a CAR to recognize the GD2-ganglioside expressed in neuroblastomas and also to express interleukin-15, which supports NKT cell survival. The cells were expanded and reinfused back into the patients.
The initial results suggest that CAR NKT cells can be used safely to treat neuroblastomas and perhaps other solid tumors, investigators said.
‘A significant advance’ if confirmed
Treating solid tumors with CAR T cells has been a challenge, in part because of inefficient trafficking into tumors.
However, NKT cells naturally migrate to tumors in response to tumor-derived chemokines, Dr. Heczey and colleagues noted. NKT cells kill macrophages associated with tumor growth and promote NK- and T-cell–mediated antitumor responses.
“We decided to leverage this intrinsic property of NKTs and to arm them with an additional bullet – the so-called CAR – to further potentiate their capacity to destroy the tumor,” investigator Gianpietro Dotti, MD, of the University of North Carolina Lindberger Comprehensive Cancer Center in Chapel Hill, said in a press release.
Overall, the “results are very encouraging and, if confirmed in a larger cohort of patients, present a significant advance in the cell therapy field for solid tumors,” said CAR-T researcher Stephen Gottschalk, MD, of St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital in Memphis, Tenn., when asked for comment.
Treatment, safety, and efficacy details
NKT cells are infrequent in human peripheral blood, so the investigators stimulated the NKT cells collected from patients with alpha-galactosylceramide–pulsed irradiated peripheral blood mononuclear cells.
The final products reached a mean NKT cell purity of 95%. The proportion of cells positive for the GD2-CAR ranged from 20% to 70% across the three patients.
After lymphodepletion with cyclophosphamide/fludarabine, the patients were infused with 3 × 106 CAR NKT cells/m2.
The cells were well tolerated, with no dose-limiting toxicities. There were grade 3/4 adverse events, but they occurred before CAR NKT-cell infusion and were thought to be related to lymphodepletion.
NKT-cell frequency and absolute numbers increased in the peripheral blood over baseline and remained elevated at the week 4 assessment.
Two patients had stable disease at 4 weeks, but one had a partial response and a change in Curie score from 2 to 1. The patient’s SPECT- and MIBG-merged scans “revealed a dramatic reduction in the size and MIBG uptake of a bone metastasis. The patient consequently received salvage therapy and achieved a complete response that lasted approximately 6 months,” the investigators noted.
The team found higher percentages of CAR NKT cells in primary tumor and metastatic bone marrow biopsies than in peripheral blood. A high percentage of CAR NKT cells from the tumor specimen, but only a small fraction from the bone metastasis, expressed the GD2-CAR.
This research was funded by Kuur Therapeutics, Alex’s Lemonade Stand Foundation for Childhood Cancer, the American Cancer Society, Cookies for Kids’ Cancer Foundation, and the Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas. Dr. Heczey, Dr. Dotti, and two other researchers are coinventors on pending patent applications for NKT cells in cancer immunotherapy that have been licensed to Kuur Therapeutics for commercial development. Dr. Gottschalk has patent applications in the fields of T-cell and/or gene therapy for cancer. He has relationships with TESSA Therapeutics, Immatics, and Tidal.
SOURCE: Heczey A et al. Nat Med. 2020 Oct 12. doi: 10.1038/s41591-020-1074-2.
FROM NATURE MEDICINE