Roxanne Nelson

In patients with advanced liposarcoma, eribulin was superior to dacarbazine in improving both overall and progression-free survival, investigators report.

In a phase 3 trial that included 452 patients with advanced liposarcoma (LPS), those treated with eribulin had an overall survival of 15.6 months, compared with 8.4 months with dacarbazine (hazard ratio, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.35 to 0.75; P less than .001).

Longer overall survival was also seen in all histologic subtypes of LPS and in all geographic regions included in the study.

Median progression-free survival was significantly longer among patients in the eribulin arm, compared with those who received dacarbazine, at 2.9 versus 1.7 months (HR, 0.521; 95% CI, 0.35 to 0.78; nominal P = .0015).

“Our findings demonstrate that eribulin is an important treatment option for patients with previously treated LPS, a sarcoma subtype for which limited treatment options are available,” wrote lead author George D. Demetri, MD, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Brigham and Women’s Cancer Center, both in Boston, and his colleagues (J Clin Oncol. 2017 Aug 30. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2016.71.6605).

A larger randomized, phase 3 prospective study had found that eribulin significantly improved overall survival versus dacarbazine (13.5 versus 11.5 months, respectively; HR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.62-0.95; P = .0169) in patients with LPS and leiomyosarcoma. Toxicity was also manageable and similar to that observed when used to treat breast cancer.

However, the survival benefit with eribulin was greater in patients with LPS than those with leiomyosarcoma; on the basis of this trial, eribulin was approved in both the United States and European Union for use in advanced LPS in patients who have received a prior anthracycline-containing regimen.

The current study is a subgroup analysis of 452 patients with advanced or metastatic LPS that is dedifferentiated, myxoid/round cell, or pleomorphic and has been deemed incurable by surgery or radiotherapy; patients were randomized to receive either eribulin mesylate (1.4 mg/m² intravenously on days 1 and 8) or dacarbazine (850, 1,000, or 1,200 mg/m² intravenously on day 1) every 21 days.

The largest difference in overall survival for eribulin versus dacarbazine was observed in patients with pleomorphic LPS (22.2 versus 6.7 months), but there were only 23 patients (16.2%) with this disease subtype included in the study. Thus, the authors caution that this particular finding should be interpreted carefully.

All patients who received eribulin and 95.8% treated with dacarbazine experienced adverse events, with the majority being treatment related (95.7% versus 84.7% in the eribulin and dacarbazine arms, respectively).

“On the basis of its activity in patients with advanced LPS, eribulin merits further exploration in earlier lines of treatment, either alone or in combination with other therapies,” the authors concluded.

In patients with advanced liposarcoma, eribulin was superior to dacarbazine in improving both overall and progression-free survival, investigators report.

In a phase 3 trial that included 452 patients with advanced liposarcoma (LPS), those treated with eribulin had an overall survival of 15.6 months, compared with 8.4 months with dacarbazine (hazard ratio, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.35 to 0.75; P less than .001).

Longer overall survival was also seen in all histologic subtypes of LPS and in all geographic regions included in the study.

Median progression-free survival was significantly longer among patients in the eribulin arm, compared with those who received dacarbazine, at 2.9 versus 1.7 months (HR, 0.521; 95% CI, 0.35 to 0.78; nominal P = .0015).

“Our findings demonstrate that eribulin is an important treatment option for patients with previously treated LPS, a sarcoma subtype for which limited treatment options are available,” wrote lead author George D. Demetri, MD, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Brigham and Women’s Cancer Center, both in Boston, and his colleagues (J Clin Oncol. 2017 Aug 30. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2016.71.6605).

A larger randomized, phase 3 prospective study had found that eribulin significantly improved overall survival versus dacarbazine (13.5 versus 11.5 months, respectively; HR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.62-0.95; P = .0169) in patients with LPS and leiomyosarcoma. Toxicity was also manageable and similar to that observed when used to treat breast cancer.

However, the survival benefit with eribulin was greater in patients with LPS than those with leiomyosarcoma; on the basis of this trial, eribulin was approved in both the United States and European Union for use in advanced LPS in patients who have received a prior anthracycline-containing regimen.

The current study is a subgroup analysis of 452 patients with advanced or metastatic LPS that is dedifferentiated, myxoid/round cell, or pleomorphic and has been deemed incurable by surgery or radiotherapy; patients were randomized to receive either eribulin mesylate (1.4 mg/m² intravenously on days 1 and 8) or dacarbazine (850, 1,000, or 1,200 mg/m² intravenously on day 1) every 21 days.

The largest difference in overall survival for eribulin versus dacarbazine was observed in patients with pleomorphic LPS (22.2 versus 6.7 months), but there were only 23 patients (16.2%) with this disease subtype included in the study. Thus, the authors caution that this particular finding should be interpreted carefully.

All patients who received eribulin and 95.8% treated with dacarbazine experienced adverse events, with the majority being treatment related (95.7% versus 84.7% in the eribulin and dacarbazine arms, respectively).

“On the basis of its activity in patients with advanced LPS, eribulin merits further exploration in earlier lines of treatment, either alone or in combination with other therapies,” the authors concluded.

In patients with advanced liposarcoma, eribulin was superior to dacarbazine in improving both overall and progression-free survival, investigators report.

In a phase 3 trial that included 452 patients with advanced liposarcoma (LPS), those treated with eribulin had an overall survival of 15.6 months, compared with 8.4 months with dacarbazine (hazard ratio, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.35 to 0.75; P less than .001).

Longer overall survival was also seen in all histologic subtypes of LPS and in all geographic regions included in the study.

Median progression-free survival was significantly longer among patients in the eribulin arm, compared with those who received dacarbazine, at 2.9 versus 1.7 months (HR, 0.521; 95% CI, 0.35 to 0.78; nominal P = .0015).

“Our findings demonstrate that eribulin is an important treatment option for patients with previously treated LPS, a sarcoma subtype for which limited treatment options are available,” wrote lead author George D. Demetri, MD, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Brigham and Women’s Cancer Center, both in Boston, and his colleagues (J Clin Oncol. 2017 Aug 30. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2016.71.6605).

A larger randomized, phase 3 prospective study had found that eribulin significantly improved overall survival versus dacarbazine (13.5 versus 11.5 months, respectively; HR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.62-0.95; P = .0169) in patients with LPS and leiomyosarcoma. Toxicity was also manageable and similar to that observed when used to treat breast cancer.

However, the survival benefit with eribulin was greater in patients with LPS than those with leiomyosarcoma; on the basis of this trial, eribulin was approved in both the United States and European Union for use in advanced LPS in patients who have received a prior anthracycline-containing regimen.

The current study is a subgroup analysis of 452 patients with advanced or metastatic LPS that is dedifferentiated, myxoid/round cell, or pleomorphic and has been deemed incurable by surgery or radiotherapy; patients were randomized to receive either eribulin mesylate (1.4 mg/m² intravenously on days 1 and 8) or dacarbazine (850, 1,000, or 1,200 mg/m² intravenously on day 1) every 21 days.

The largest difference in overall survival for eribulin versus dacarbazine was observed in patients with pleomorphic LPS (22.2 versus 6.7 months), but there were only 23 patients (16.2%) with this disease subtype included in the study. Thus, the authors caution that this particular finding should be interpreted carefully.

All patients who received eribulin and 95.8% treated with dacarbazine experienced adverse events, with the majority being treatment related (95.7% versus 84.7% in the eribulin and dacarbazine arms, respectively).

“On the basis of its activity in patients with advanced LPS, eribulin merits further exploration in earlier lines of treatment, either alone or in combination with other therapies,” the authors concluded.

Hodgkin lymphoma patients who received haploidentical (HAPLO) allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation after a nonmyeloablative regimen and posttransplantation cyclophosphamide had outcomes similar to those of patients who had conventional transplants, in a retrospective analysis of 709 adult patients in the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation database.

In addition, patients who underwent HAPLO had a lower incidence of extensive chronic graft-versus host disease (cGVHD) compared with HLA-matched unrelated donor (MUD) transplantation and higher cGVHD-free/relapse-free survival compared with HLA-matched sibling donor (SIB) transplantation.

“Use of HAPLO donors may allow patients to proceed more rapidly to transplantation, avoiding the time needed to complete a formal MUD search and arrange for graft collection at a remote center,” wrote Carmen Martinez, MD, of the Institute of Hematology and Oncology, Hospital Clinic, Barcelona. The study was published online in the Journal of Clinical Oncology. Conventional donors are unavailable for a significant proportion of Hodgkin lymphoma patients.

Recommendations from the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation consider alloHCT to be the standard treatment option for eligible patients with Hodgkin lymphoma who have relapsed after undergoing autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation and SIB or MUD. For the retrospective study, outcomes were compared for 338 patients who had SIB transplants, 273 patients who had MUD transplants, and 98 patients who received HAPLO transplants after a nonmyeloablative regimen and posttransplantation cyclophosphamide (PTCy) as GVHD prophylaxis.

The rate of grade II-IV acute GVHD after HAPLO was higher than after SIB (33% vs. 18%; P = .003), and was comparable to the rate with MUD (30%). The rates of grade III-IV acute GVHD were similar for all three cohorts (HAPLO, 9%; SIB, 6%; and MUD, 9%).

At 1 year, the cumulative rate of chronic GVHD was 26% after HAPLO and 25% after SIB; it was significantly higher at 41% after MUD (P = .017).

The cumulative incidence of nonrelapse mortality at 1 year was 17% with HAPLO, 13% with SIB, and significantly higher at 21% with MUD (P = .003). At 2 years, the cumulative incidence of relapse or progression was 39%, 49%, and 32%, respectively. The difference was significantly higher for SIB than HAPLO (P = .047) and MUD (P = .001).

There were no significant differences in 2-year overall survival, but MUD transplant recipients had lower overall survival (62%; 95% CI, 56 to 68; P = .039) compared with SIB transplant recipients.

“Whether HAPLO transplantation is the first choice instead of MUD transplantation and whether it can eventually substitute SIB transplantation in specific subgroups of patients must be assessed within the context of a randomized prospective clinical trial,” wrote Dr. Martinez and colleagues.

Hodgkin lymphoma patients who received haploidentical (HAPLO) allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation after a nonmyeloablative regimen and posttransplantation cyclophosphamide had outcomes similar to those of patients who had conventional transplants, in a retrospective analysis of 709 adult patients in the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation database.

In addition, patients who underwent HAPLO had a lower incidence of extensive chronic graft-versus host disease (cGVHD) compared with HLA-matched unrelated donor (MUD) transplantation and higher cGVHD-free/relapse-free survival compared with HLA-matched sibling donor (SIB) transplantation.

“Use of HAPLO donors may allow patients to proceed more rapidly to transplantation, avoiding the time needed to complete a formal MUD search and arrange for graft collection at a remote center,” wrote Carmen Martinez, MD, of the Institute of Hematology and Oncology, Hospital Clinic, Barcelona. The study was published online in the Journal of Clinical Oncology. Conventional donors are unavailable for a significant proportion of Hodgkin lymphoma patients.

Recommendations from the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation consider alloHCT to be the standard treatment option for eligible patients with Hodgkin lymphoma who have relapsed after undergoing autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation and SIB or MUD. For the retrospective study, outcomes were compared for 338 patients who had SIB transplants, 273 patients who had MUD transplants, and 98 patients who received HAPLO transplants after a nonmyeloablative regimen and posttransplantation cyclophosphamide (PTCy) as GVHD prophylaxis.

The rate of grade II-IV acute GVHD after HAPLO was higher than after SIB (33% vs. 18%; P = .003), and was comparable to the rate with MUD (30%). The rates of grade III-IV acute GVHD were similar for all three cohorts (HAPLO, 9%; SIB, 6%; and MUD, 9%).

At 1 year, the cumulative rate of chronic GVHD was 26% after HAPLO and 25% after SIB; it was significantly higher at 41% after MUD (P = .017).

The cumulative incidence of nonrelapse mortality at 1 year was 17% with HAPLO, 13% with SIB, and significantly higher at 21% with MUD (P = .003). At 2 years, the cumulative incidence of relapse or progression was 39%, 49%, and 32%, respectively. The difference was significantly higher for SIB than HAPLO (P = .047) and MUD (P = .001).

There were no significant differences in 2-year overall survival, but MUD transplant recipients had lower overall survival (62%; 95% CI, 56 to 68; P = .039) compared with SIB transplant recipients.

“Whether HAPLO transplantation is the first choice instead of MUD transplantation and whether it can eventually substitute SIB transplantation in specific subgroups of patients must be assessed within the context of a randomized prospective clinical trial,” wrote Dr. Martinez and colleagues.

Hodgkin lymphoma patients who received haploidentical (HAPLO) allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation after a nonmyeloablative regimen and posttransplantation cyclophosphamide had outcomes similar to those of patients who had conventional transplants, in a retrospective analysis of 709 adult patients in the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation database.

In addition, patients who underwent HAPLO had a lower incidence of extensive chronic graft-versus host disease (cGVHD) compared with HLA-matched unrelated donor (MUD) transplantation and higher cGVHD-free/relapse-free survival compared with HLA-matched sibling donor (SIB) transplantation.

“Use of HAPLO donors may allow patients to proceed more rapidly to transplantation, avoiding the time needed to complete a formal MUD search and arrange for graft collection at a remote center,” wrote Carmen Martinez, MD, of the Institute of Hematology and Oncology, Hospital Clinic, Barcelona. The study was published online in the Journal of Clinical Oncology. Conventional donors are unavailable for a significant proportion of Hodgkin lymphoma patients.

Recommendations from the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation consider alloHCT to be the standard treatment option for eligible patients with Hodgkin lymphoma who have relapsed after undergoing autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation and SIB or MUD. For the retrospective study, outcomes were compared for 338 patients who had SIB transplants, 273 patients who had MUD transplants, and 98 patients who received HAPLO transplants after a nonmyeloablative regimen and posttransplantation cyclophosphamide (PTCy) as GVHD prophylaxis.

The rate of grade II-IV acute GVHD after HAPLO was higher than after SIB (33% vs. 18%; P = .003), and was comparable to the rate with MUD (30%). The rates of grade III-IV acute GVHD were similar for all three cohorts (HAPLO, 9%; SIB, 6%; and MUD, 9%).

At 1 year, the cumulative rate of chronic GVHD was 26% after HAPLO and 25% after SIB; it was significantly higher at 41% after MUD (P = .017).

The cumulative incidence of nonrelapse mortality at 1 year was 17% with HAPLO, 13% with SIB, and significantly higher at 21% with MUD (P = .003). At 2 years, the cumulative incidence of relapse or progression was 39%, 49%, and 32%, respectively. The difference was significantly higher for SIB than HAPLO (P = .047) and MUD (P = .001).

There were no significant differences in 2-year overall survival, but MUD transplant recipients had lower overall survival (62%; 95% CI, 56 to 68; P = .039) compared with SIB transplant recipients.

“Whether HAPLO transplantation is the first choice instead of MUD transplantation and whether it can eventually substitute SIB transplantation in specific subgroups of patients must be assessed within the context of a randomized prospective clinical trial,” wrote Dr. Martinez and colleagues.

CHICAGO – Physician burnout is common, and occurs across specialties including gastroenterology, according to a discussion held at the annual Digestive Disease Week.

A number of studies and surveys have reported on physician burnout, including a large 2015 report from the Mayo Clinic, which found that 54% of the physicians surveyed had at least one symptom of burnout (Mayo Clin Proc. 2015 Dec;90[12]:1600-13).

Still, physicians often fail to recognize burnout symptoms in themselves. At the meeting, Laurie A. Keefer Levine, PhD, a GI health psychologist and the director of psychobehavioral research at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, recounted the story of a medical student who jumped from her apartment building and killed herself.

CHICAGO – Physician burnout is common, and occurs across specialties including gastroenterology, according to a discussion held at the annual Digestive Disease Week.

A number of studies and surveys have reported on physician burnout, including a large 2015 report from the Mayo Clinic, which found that 54% of the physicians surveyed had at least one symptom of burnout (Mayo Clin Proc. 2015 Dec;90[12]:1600-13).

Still, physicians often fail to recognize burnout symptoms in themselves. At the meeting, Laurie A. Keefer Levine, PhD, a GI health psychologist and the director of psychobehavioral research at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, recounted the story of a medical student who jumped from her apartment building and killed herself.

CHICAGO – Physician burnout is common, and occurs across specialties including gastroenterology, according to a discussion held at the annual Digestive Disease Week.

A number of studies and surveys have reported on physician burnout, including a large 2015 report from the Mayo Clinic, which found that 54% of the physicians surveyed had at least one symptom of burnout (Mayo Clin Proc. 2015 Dec;90[12]:1600-13).

Still, physicians often fail to recognize burnout symptoms in themselves. At the meeting, Laurie A. Keefer Levine, PhD, a GI health psychologist and the director of psychobehavioral research at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, recounted the story of a medical student who jumped from her apartment building and killed herself.

CHICAGO – Physician burnout is common, and occurs across specialties including gastroenterology, according to a discussion held at the annual Digestive Disease Week^®.

A number of studies and surveys have reported on physician burnout, including a large 2015 report from the Mayo Clinic, which found that 54% of the physicians surveyed had at least one symptom of burnout (Mayo Clin Proc. 2015 Dec;90[12]:1600-13).

[email protected]

CHICAGO – Physician burnout is common, and occurs across specialties including gastroenterology, according to a discussion held at the annual Digestive Disease Week^®.

A number of studies and surveys have reported on physician burnout, including a large 2015 report from the Mayo Clinic, which found that 54% of the physicians surveyed had at least one symptom of burnout (Mayo Clin Proc. 2015 Dec;90[12]:1600-13).

[email protected]

CHICAGO – Physician burnout is common, and occurs across specialties including gastroenterology, according to a discussion held at the annual Digestive Disease Week^®.

A number of studies and surveys have reported on physician burnout, including a large 2015 report from the Mayo Clinic, which found that 54% of the physicians surveyed had at least one symptom of burnout (Mayo Clin Proc. 2015 Dec;90[12]:1600-13).

[email protected]

The monoclonal antibody girentuximab does not appear to have a clinical benefit in patients with high-risk clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC).

Adjuvant therapy with girentuximab failed to improve either disease-free or overall survival, compared with placebo, in a cohort of patients who had undergone full surgical resection, according to phase 3 results of the ARISER trial.

In a subset of patients with CAIX scores of 200 or greater, however, there was disease-free survival benefit although it did not reach significance, reported lead author Karim Chamie, MD, of the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, and his colleagues (JAMA Oncol. 2017;3[7]:913-20).

The drug was well tolerated, with an excellent safety profile, and there were no reported drug-related serious adverse events.

“Our finding that girentuximab was more effective in the subgroup of patients younger than 65 years is consistent with these observations and, while requiring prospective confirmation, suggests that an insufficient activation of [antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity] could explain the failure of its efficacy,” wrote Dr. Chamie and his colleagues.

The authors also point out that “virtually all trials of adjuvant therapy in high-risk RCC have failed to show a treatment benefit,” and thus illustrates the difficulty in identifying successful adjuvant therapies.

“The success of future adjuvant trials will require use of inclusion criteria sufficiently broad to meet accrual goals while limiting inclusion to patients who are most likely to benefit from therapy,” they write.

Girentuximab is a chimeric monoclonal antibody that binds carbonic anhydrase IX, a cell surface glycoprotein that is ubiquitously expressed in ccRCC. Phase 2 studies showed the agent to be safe and active in this setting, and served as the basis for conducting the current phase 3 ARISER trial (Adjuvant Rencarex Immunotherapy Phase 3 Trial to Study Efficacy in Nonmetastatic RCC).

The randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial was conducted at 142 academic medical centers in 15 countries in North and South America and Europe and included a cohort of 864 patients who had undergone partial or radical nephrectomy for ccRCC and fell into one of the following high-risk groups: pT3/pT4Nx/N0M0 or pTanyN+M0 or pT1b/pT2Nx/N0M0 with nuclear grade 3 or greater.

The cohort was randomly assigned to either a single loading dose of girentuximab, 50 mg (week 1), followed by weekly intravenous infusions of girentuximab, 20 mg (weeks 2-24), or placebo, stratified by risk group and region.

The overall disease-free survival was comparable for the two groups: at 5 years it was 53.9% and 51.6% for the girentuximab and placebo groups, respectively, while the median disease-free survival was 71.4 months (interquartile range, 3 months to not reached) for patients who received girentuximab and was not reached for those receiving placebo (P = .74).

Median overall survival was not reached for either of the two groups, and there was no difference in overall survival between arms (hazard ratio, 0.99; 95% confidence interval, 0.74-1.32).

Adverse events were reported in 185 patients (21.6%), and were comparable between groups, and serious events occurred in 72 patients (8.4%), and were also comparable between the two arms.

The study was funded by Wilex, AG. Dr. Chamie receives research support from and serves as a consultant for UroGen Pharma, receives grant support from Phase One Foundation and Stop Cancer, and is a consultant for Cold Genesys and a scientific advisory board member of Altor. Several coauthors reported relationships with industry.

The monoclonal antibody girentuximab does not appear to have a clinical benefit in patients with high-risk clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC).

Adjuvant therapy with girentuximab failed to improve either disease-free or overall survival, compared with placebo, in a cohort of patients who had undergone full surgical resection, according to phase 3 results of the ARISER trial.

In a subset of patients with CAIX scores of 200 or greater, however, there was disease-free survival benefit although it did not reach significance, reported lead author Karim Chamie, MD, of the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, and his colleagues (JAMA Oncol. 2017;3[7]:913-20).

The drug was well tolerated, with an excellent safety profile, and there were no reported drug-related serious adverse events.

“Our finding that girentuximab was more effective in the subgroup of patients younger than 65 years is consistent with these observations and, while requiring prospective confirmation, suggests that an insufficient activation of [antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity] could explain the failure of its efficacy,” wrote Dr. Chamie and his colleagues.

The authors also point out that “virtually all trials of adjuvant therapy in high-risk RCC have failed to show a treatment benefit,” and thus illustrates the difficulty in identifying successful adjuvant therapies.

“The success of future adjuvant trials will require use of inclusion criteria sufficiently broad to meet accrual goals while limiting inclusion to patients who are most likely to benefit from therapy,” they write.

Girentuximab is a chimeric monoclonal antibody that binds carbonic anhydrase IX, a cell surface glycoprotein that is ubiquitously expressed in ccRCC. Phase 2 studies showed the agent to be safe and active in this setting, and served as the basis for conducting the current phase 3 ARISER trial (Adjuvant Rencarex Immunotherapy Phase 3 Trial to Study Efficacy in Nonmetastatic RCC).

The randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial was conducted at 142 academic medical centers in 15 countries in North and South America and Europe and included a cohort of 864 patients who had undergone partial or radical nephrectomy for ccRCC and fell into one of the following high-risk groups: pT3/pT4Nx/N0M0 or pTanyN+M0 or pT1b/pT2Nx/N0M0 with nuclear grade 3 or greater.

The cohort was randomly assigned to either a single loading dose of girentuximab, 50 mg (week 1), followed by weekly intravenous infusions of girentuximab, 20 mg (weeks 2-24), or placebo, stratified by risk group and region.

The overall disease-free survival was comparable for the two groups: at 5 years it was 53.9% and 51.6% for the girentuximab and placebo groups, respectively, while the median disease-free survival was 71.4 months (interquartile range, 3 months to not reached) for patients who received girentuximab and was not reached for those receiving placebo (P = .74).

Median overall survival was not reached for either of the two groups, and there was no difference in overall survival between arms (hazard ratio, 0.99; 95% confidence interval, 0.74-1.32).

Adverse events were reported in 185 patients (21.6%), and were comparable between groups, and serious events occurred in 72 patients (8.4%), and were also comparable between the two arms.

The study was funded by Wilex, AG. Dr. Chamie receives research support from and serves as a consultant for UroGen Pharma, receives grant support from Phase One Foundation and Stop Cancer, and is a consultant for Cold Genesys and a scientific advisory board member of Altor. Several coauthors reported relationships with industry.

The monoclonal antibody girentuximab does not appear to have a clinical benefit in patients with high-risk clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC).

Adjuvant therapy with girentuximab failed to improve either disease-free or overall survival, compared with placebo, in a cohort of patients who had undergone full surgical resection, according to phase 3 results of the ARISER trial.

In a subset of patients with CAIX scores of 200 or greater, however, there was disease-free survival benefit although it did not reach significance, reported lead author Karim Chamie, MD, of the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, and his colleagues (JAMA Oncol. 2017;3[7]:913-20).

The drug was well tolerated, with an excellent safety profile, and there were no reported drug-related serious adverse events.

“Our finding that girentuximab was more effective in the subgroup of patients younger than 65 years is consistent with these observations and, while requiring prospective confirmation, suggests that an insufficient activation of [antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity] could explain the failure of its efficacy,” wrote Dr. Chamie and his colleagues.

The authors also point out that “virtually all trials of adjuvant therapy in high-risk RCC have failed to show a treatment benefit,” and thus illustrates the difficulty in identifying successful adjuvant therapies.

“The success of future adjuvant trials will require use of inclusion criteria sufficiently broad to meet accrual goals while limiting inclusion to patients who are most likely to benefit from therapy,” they write.

Girentuximab is a chimeric monoclonal antibody that binds carbonic anhydrase IX, a cell surface glycoprotein that is ubiquitously expressed in ccRCC. Phase 2 studies showed the agent to be safe and active in this setting, and served as the basis for conducting the current phase 3 ARISER trial (Adjuvant Rencarex Immunotherapy Phase 3 Trial to Study Efficacy in Nonmetastatic RCC).

The randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial was conducted at 142 academic medical centers in 15 countries in North and South America and Europe and included a cohort of 864 patients who had undergone partial or radical nephrectomy for ccRCC and fell into one of the following high-risk groups: pT3/pT4Nx/N0M0 or pTanyN+M0 or pT1b/pT2Nx/N0M0 with nuclear grade 3 or greater.

The cohort was randomly assigned to either a single loading dose of girentuximab, 50 mg (week 1), followed by weekly intravenous infusions of girentuximab, 20 mg (weeks 2-24), or placebo, stratified by risk group and region.

The overall disease-free survival was comparable for the two groups: at 5 years it was 53.9% and 51.6% for the girentuximab and placebo groups, respectively, while the median disease-free survival was 71.4 months (interquartile range, 3 months to not reached) for patients who received girentuximab and was not reached for those receiving placebo (P = .74).

Median overall survival was not reached for either of the two groups, and there was no difference in overall survival between arms (hazard ratio, 0.99; 95% confidence interval, 0.74-1.32).

Adverse events were reported in 185 patients (21.6%), and were comparable between groups, and serious events occurred in 72 patients (8.4%), and were also comparable between the two arms.

The study was funded by Wilex, AG. Dr. Chamie receives research support from and serves as a consultant for UroGen Pharma, receives grant support from Phase One Foundation and Stop Cancer, and is a consultant for Cold Genesys and a scientific advisory board member of Altor. Several coauthors reported relationships with industry.

CHICAGO – Out-of-pocket costs may present a barrier to colorectal screening, and removing those costs could reduce colorectal cancer deaths, according to new data presented at the annual Digestive Disease Week^®.

These data imply that removing copayments could result in a 16% decrease in colorectal cancer–related deaths among Medicare beneficiaries, explained lead author Elisabeth Peterse, PhD, of the department of public health, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.

The research also demonstrated that waiving copayments is cost effective, she added.

Despite the effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening, only 58% of eligible individuals adhere to current screening recommendations, Dr. Peterse noted. Financial barriers may play a role in the lack of adherence, as studies have found that removing out-of-pocket costs is one of the most effective interventions for increasing screening.

“But despite the fact that the Affordable Care Act has been successful in partially eliminating cost sharing for colorectal screening, Medicare beneficiaries may still face unexpected out-of-pocket liabilities,” said Dr. Peterse.

Out-of-pocket costs can be complicated, given that they can depend largely on how a procedure is coded. A screening colonoscopy or fecal immunochemical test (FIT) is completely covered if it is coded as a screening test, but follow-up colonoscopies come with 20% copayments.

A screening colonoscopy with polypectomy and a follow-up colonoscopy that is done after a positive fecal immunochemical test are coded as diagnostic rather than screening, so the patient has out-of-pocket costs, she explained.

To explore how waiving the cost of screening could impact colorectal cancer–related mortality and cost effectiveness, the researchers conducted an analysis using a microsimulation model for a cohort composed of 65-year-old individuals.

In the simulation, they estimated colorectal cancer–related mortality, quality-adjusted life-years, and total cost of screening and treatment using the current Medicare copayment schedule. These were then compared with outcomes for alternative situations.

The study was conducted in two parts, explained Dr. Peterse. In the first part, the researchers looked at five scenarios: one in which the 20% copayment was intact. In the second, the copayment was waived without having any impact on adherence. In the third, the investigators looked at a 5% increase in adherence but only at diagnostic follow-up.

In the fourth and fifth scenarios, the investigators looked at 5% and 10% increases in adherence, in both first screening and diagnostic follow-up, she added.

In the study’s second part, the researchers also estimated the threshold increase in participation at which copayment removal would be cost effective, using a $50,000 willingness-to-pay threshold.

They found that without screening, the expected mortality would be 25 colorectal deaths per 1,000 people in a population of 65-year-old individuals. With screening, the number was reduced to 12.8 deaths per 1,000 65-year-olds for colonoscopy, and 14.9 deaths per 1,000 for FIT screening. The total associated costs for screening and treatment for the two modalities were $3.02 million and $2.87 million.

If waiving the copayments had no impact in increasing screening levels, the cost of screening was estimated to increase to $3.1 million (2.8% increase) for colonoscopy and $2.9 million (1.6% increase) for FIT.

But if copayments were removed and there were a 5% increase in adherence, colorectal cancer deaths were estimated to decline to 11.7 (–8.3%) and 13.9 (–6.3%) per 1,000 for colonoscopy and FIT, respectively. That would result in cost-effectiveness ratios of $19,288 and $7,894 for no copayment versus having a copayment. Increasing adherence to 10% would result in an even lower ratio, noted Dr. Peterse.

The threshold increase for participating in screening programs – the point where removing a copayment becomes cost effective – was a 1.8% increase in colonoscopy screening and a 0.8% increase for FIT.

The conclusion is that waiving copayments is cost effective, Dr. Peterse said.

Dr. Peterse added that a limitation to the analysis is that the study authors don’t know to what extent patients are even aware of the copayments. “So, we don’t know if it is a barrier, and we didn’t take other insurance scenarios into account,” she said.

Dr. Peterse declared no relevant disclosures.

AGA Resource

Screening colonoscopy is the most cost-effective test for prevention of colorectal cancer. Patients should be incentivized, through the elimination of cost sharing, to use colonoscopy as a colorectal cancer screening mechanism. Additionally, the preventive screening benefit has contributed to the decline in colorectal cancer rates in our country, and AGA believes that this benefit should be preserved in any health care reform legislation. Read more at http://www.gastro.org/take-action/top-issues/patient-cost-sharing-for-screening-colonoscopy.

CHICAGO – Out-of-pocket costs may present a barrier to colorectal screening, and removing those costs could reduce colorectal cancer deaths, according to new data presented at the annual Digestive Disease Week^®.

These data imply that removing copayments could result in a 16% decrease in colorectal cancer–related deaths among Medicare beneficiaries, explained lead author Elisabeth Peterse, PhD, of the department of public health, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.

The research also demonstrated that waiving copayments is cost effective, she added.

Despite the effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening, only 58% of eligible individuals adhere to current screening recommendations, Dr. Peterse noted. Financial barriers may play a role in the lack of adherence, as studies have found that removing out-of-pocket costs is one of the most effective interventions for increasing screening.

“But despite the fact that the Affordable Care Act has been successful in partially eliminating cost sharing for colorectal screening, Medicare beneficiaries may still face unexpected out-of-pocket liabilities,” said Dr. Peterse.

Out-of-pocket costs can be complicated, given that they can depend largely on how a procedure is coded. A screening colonoscopy or fecal immunochemical test (FIT) is completely covered if it is coded as a screening test, but follow-up colonoscopies come with 20% copayments.

A screening colonoscopy with polypectomy and a follow-up colonoscopy that is done after a positive fecal immunochemical test are coded as diagnostic rather than screening, so the patient has out-of-pocket costs, she explained.

To explore how waiving the cost of screening could impact colorectal cancer–related mortality and cost effectiveness, the researchers conducted an analysis using a microsimulation model for a cohort composed of 65-year-old individuals.

In the simulation, they estimated colorectal cancer–related mortality, quality-adjusted life-years, and total cost of screening and treatment using the current Medicare copayment schedule. These were then compared with outcomes for alternative situations.

The study was conducted in two parts, explained Dr. Peterse. In the first part, the researchers looked at five scenarios: one in which the 20% copayment was intact. In the second, the copayment was waived without having any impact on adherence. In the third, the investigators looked at a 5% increase in adherence but only at diagnostic follow-up.

In the fourth and fifth scenarios, the investigators looked at 5% and 10% increases in adherence, in both first screening and diagnostic follow-up, she added.

In the study’s second part, the researchers also estimated the threshold increase in participation at which copayment removal would be cost effective, using a $50,000 willingness-to-pay threshold.

They found that without screening, the expected mortality would be 25 colorectal deaths per 1,000 people in a population of 65-year-old individuals. With screening, the number was reduced to 12.8 deaths per 1,000 65-year-olds for colonoscopy, and 14.9 deaths per 1,000 for FIT screening. The total associated costs for screening and treatment for the two modalities were $3.02 million and $2.87 million.

If waiving the copayments had no impact in increasing screening levels, the cost of screening was estimated to increase to $3.1 million (2.8% increase) for colonoscopy and $2.9 million (1.6% increase) for FIT.

But if copayments were removed and there were a 5% increase in adherence, colorectal cancer deaths were estimated to decline to 11.7 (–8.3%) and 13.9 (–6.3%) per 1,000 for colonoscopy and FIT, respectively. That would result in cost-effectiveness ratios of $19,288 and $7,894 for no copayment versus having a copayment. Increasing adherence to 10% would result in an even lower ratio, noted Dr. Peterse.

The threshold increase for participating in screening programs – the point where removing a copayment becomes cost effective – was a 1.8% increase in colonoscopy screening and a 0.8% increase for FIT.

The conclusion is that waiving copayments is cost effective, Dr. Peterse said.

Dr. Peterse added that a limitation to the analysis is that the study authors don’t know to what extent patients are even aware of the copayments. “So, we don’t know if it is a barrier, and we didn’t take other insurance scenarios into account,” she said.

Dr. Peterse declared no relevant disclosures.

AGA Resource

Screening colonoscopy is the most cost-effective test for prevention of colorectal cancer. Patients should be incentivized, through the elimination of cost sharing, to use colonoscopy as a colorectal cancer screening mechanism. Additionally, the preventive screening benefit has contributed to the decline in colorectal cancer rates in our country, and AGA believes that this benefit should be preserved in any health care reform legislation. Read more at http://www.gastro.org/take-action/top-issues/patient-cost-sharing-for-screening-colonoscopy.

CHICAGO – Out-of-pocket costs may present a barrier to colorectal screening, and removing those costs could reduce colorectal cancer deaths, according to new data presented at the annual Digestive Disease Week^®.

These data imply that removing copayments could result in a 16% decrease in colorectal cancer–related deaths among Medicare beneficiaries, explained lead author Elisabeth Peterse, PhD, of the department of public health, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.

The research also demonstrated that waiving copayments is cost effective, she added.

Despite the effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening, only 58% of eligible individuals adhere to current screening recommendations, Dr. Peterse noted. Financial barriers may play a role in the lack of adherence, as studies have found that removing out-of-pocket costs is one of the most effective interventions for increasing screening.

“But despite the fact that the Affordable Care Act has been successful in partially eliminating cost sharing for colorectal screening, Medicare beneficiaries may still face unexpected out-of-pocket liabilities,” said Dr. Peterse.

Out-of-pocket costs can be complicated, given that they can depend largely on how a procedure is coded. A screening colonoscopy or fecal immunochemical test (FIT) is completely covered if it is coded as a screening test, but follow-up colonoscopies come with 20% copayments.

A screening colonoscopy with polypectomy and a follow-up colonoscopy that is done after a positive fecal immunochemical test are coded as diagnostic rather than screening, so the patient has out-of-pocket costs, she explained.

To explore how waiving the cost of screening could impact colorectal cancer–related mortality and cost effectiveness, the researchers conducted an analysis using a microsimulation model for a cohort composed of 65-year-old individuals.

In the simulation, they estimated colorectal cancer–related mortality, quality-adjusted life-years, and total cost of screening and treatment using the current Medicare copayment schedule. These were then compared with outcomes for alternative situations.

The study was conducted in two parts, explained Dr. Peterse. In the first part, the researchers looked at five scenarios: one in which the 20% copayment was intact. In the second, the copayment was waived without having any impact on adherence. In the third, the investigators looked at a 5% increase in adherence but only at diagnostic follow-up.

In the fourth and fifth scenarios, the investigators looked at 5% and 10% increases in adherence, in both first screening and diagnostic follow-up, she added.

In the study’s second part, the researchers also estimated the threshold increase in participation at which copayment removal would be cost effective, using a $50,000 willingness-to-pay threshold.

They found that without screening, the expected mortality would be 25 colorectal deaths per 1,000 people in a population of 65-year-old individuals. With screening, the number was reduced to 12.8 deaths per 1,000 65-year-olds for colonoscopy, and 14.9 deaths per 1,000 for FIT screening. The total associated costs for screening and treatment for the two modalities were $3.02 million and $2.87 million.

If waiving the copayments had no impact in increasing screening levels, the cost of screening was estimated to increase to $3.1 million (2.8% increase) for colonoscopy and $2.9 million (1.6% increase) for FIT.

But if copayments were removed and there were a 5% increase in adherence, colorectal cancer deaths were estimated to decline to 11.7 (–8.3%) and 13.9 (–6.3%) per 1,000 for colonoscopy and FIT, respectively. That would result in cost-effectiveness ratios of $19,288 and $7,894 for no copayment versus having a copayment. Increasing adherence to 10% would result in an even lower ratio, noted Dr. Peterse.

The threshold increase for participating in screening programs – the point where removing a copayment becomes cost effective – was a 1.8% increase in colonoscopy screening and a 0.8% increase for FIT.

The conclusion is that waiving copayments is cost effective, Dr. Peterse said.

Dr. Peterse added that a limitation to the analysis is that the study authors don’t know to what extent patients are even aware of the copayments. “So, we don’t know if it is a barrier, and we didn’t take other insurance scenarios into account,” she said.

Dr. Peterse declared no relevant disclosures.

AGA Resource

Screening colonoscopy is the most cost-effective test for prevention of colorectal cancer. Patients should be incentivized, through the elimination of cost sharing, to use colonoscopy as a colorectal cancer screening mechanism. Additionally, the preventive screening benefit has contributed to the decline in colorectal cancer rates in our country, and AGA believes that this benefit should be preserved in any health care reform legislation. Read more at http://www.gastro.org/take-action/top-issues/patient-cost-sharing-for-screening-colonoscopy.

CHICAGO – A substantial number of adenomas may be missed by pathologists, but changes in the standard methodology can significantly decrease that amount, according to findings presented at Digestive Disease Week^®.

A nondiagnostic result is common in histologic specimens obtained from the colon and occurs in about 9% of biopsies. However, a protocol known as “exhaustive leveling of histologically nondiagnostic specimens” can significantly increase the detection of adenomas.

“In our study, we were answering the question, Are pathologists missing adenomas?” said Lauren Suzanne Cole, MD, of the University of Arizona, Phoenix.

During a standard pathology analysis, 50% of the polyp isn’t analyzed at all, and the remaining half is cut into three different levels that are approximately 2 microns each. “Ultimately, less than 1% is actually reviewed by the pathologist,” she said.

GI physicians may perceive that the pathology review is definitive, Dr. Cole explained. “They believe that the section is viewed in its entirety, when, in reality, 50% of the tissue block is cut and less than 1% is viewed to come up with a diagnosis.”

The term nondiagnostic biopsy generally indicates that a specific diagnosis cannot be made. In their literature review, Dr. Cole and her team looked at eight published studies and found that a nondiagnostic biopsy was a very common result, ranging from 9% to 16%. In addition, the literature also showed that there was a significant conversion rate in nondiagnostic biopsies, from 4% to 20%, when additional leveling was performed.

In the current study, they investigated whether the detection of adenomas is improved when pathologists examine representative levels taken from the entire tissue block of specimens that have been diagnosed as nondiagnostic.

They conducted a retrospective review of pathology results that had been performed by a large GI practice (from November 2012 to November 2016) after implementing a so-called “polyp protocol,” which included an analysis of tissue sections from the entire tissue block (exhaustive leveling) of polyps initially deemed histologically nondiagnostic.

A total of 120,115 polyps had been removed during the study period, and, of this group, 10,768 (9%) were initially found to be nondiagnostic and were selected for exhaustive leveling. After exhaustive leveling, more than one-third (37%; n = 3,964) of the diagnoses converted to adenoma.

When the detection rate for adenomas for exhaustive leveling was compared with that for standard leveling, there was a statistically significant 3.3% increase (P less than .0001) from baseline.

“Our conclusion is that adenomas are missed,” said Dr. Cole. “This is partially because pathologists are not typically evaluating an entire specimen.”

These results support the need for implementing standardized protocols for exhaustive leveling as a means of increasing the adenoma detection rate, she noted. “Our research emphasizes the need for further studies assessing pathology specimen processing and analysis.”

Digestive Disease Week^® is jointly sponsored by the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD), the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) Institute, the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE), and the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract (SSAT).

Dr. Cole declared no relevant disclosures.

CHICAGO – A substantial number of adenomas may be missed by pathologists, but changes in the standard methodology can significantly decrease that amount, according to findings presented at Digestive Disease Week^®.

A nondiagnostic result is common in histologic specimens obtained from the colon and occurs in about 9% of biopsies. However, a protocol known as “exhaustive leveling of histologically nondiagnostic specimens” can significantly increase the detection of adenomas.

“In our study, we were answering the question, Are pathologists missing adenomas?” said Lauren Suzanne Cole, MD, of the University of Arizona, Phoenix.

During a standard pathology analysis, 50% of the polyp isn’t analyzed at all, and the remaining half is cut into three different levels that are approximately 2 microns each. “Ultimately, less than 1% is actually reviewed by the pathologist,” she said.

GI physicians may perceive that the pathology review is definitive, Dr. Cole explained. “They believe that the section is viewed in its entirety, when, in reality, 50% of the tissue block is cut and less than 1% is viewed to come up with a diagnosis.”

The term nondiagnostic biopsy generally indicates that a specific diagnosis cannot be made. In their literature review, Dr. Cole and her team looked at eight published studies and found that a nondiagnostic biopsy was a very common result, ranging from 9% to 16%. In addition, the literature also showed that there was a significant conversion rate in nondiagnostic biopsies, from 4% to 20%, when additional leveling was performed.

In the current study, they investigated whether the detection of adenomas is improved when pathologists examine representative levels taken from the entire tissue block of specimens that have been diagnosed as nondiagnostic.

They conducted a retrospective review of pathology results that had been performed by a large GI practice (from November 2012 to November 2016) after implementing a so-called “polyp protocol,” which included an analysis of tissue sections from the entire tissue block (exhaustive leveling) of polyps initially deemed histologically nondiagnostic.

A total of 120,115 polyps had been removed during the study period, and, of this group, 10,768 (9%) were initially found to be nondiagnostic and were selected for exhaustive leveling. After exhaustive leveling, more than one-third (37%; n = 3,964) of the diagnoses converted to adenoma.

When the detection rate for adenomas for exhaustive leveling was compared with that for standard leveling, there was a statistically significant 3.3% increase (P less than .0001) from baseline.

“Our conclusion is that adenomas are missed,” said Dr. Cole. “This is partially because pathologists are not typically evaluating an entire specimen.”

These results support the need for implementing standardized protocols for exhaustive leveling as a means of increasing the adenoma detection rate, she noted. “Our research emphasizes the need for further studies assessing pathology specimen processing and analysis.”

Digestive Disease Week^® is jointly sponsored by the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD), the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) Institute, the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE), and the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract (SSAT).

Dr. Cole declared no relevant disclosures.

CHICAGO – A substantial number of adenomas may be missed by pathologists, but changes in the standard methodology can significantly decrease that amount, according to findings presented at Digestive Disease Week^®.

A nondiagnostic result is common in histologic specimens obtained from the colon and occurs in about 9% of biopsies. However, a protocol known as “exhaustive leveling of histologically nondiagnostic specimens” can significantly increase the detection of adenomas.

“In our study, we were answering the question, Are pathologists missing adenomas?” said Lauren Suzanne Cole, MD, of the University of Arizona, Phoenix.

During a standard pathology analysis, 50% of the polyp isn’t analyzed at all, and the remaining half is cut into three different levels that are approximately 2 microns each. “Ultimately, less than 1% is actually reviewed by the pathologist,” she said.

GI physicians may perceive that the pathology review is definitive, Dr. Cole explained. “They believe that the section is viewed in its entirety, when, in reality, 50% of the tissue block is cut and less than 1% is viewed to come up with a diagnosis.”

The term nondiagnostic biopsy generally indicates that a specific diagnosis cannot be made. In their literature review, Dr. Cole and her team looked at eight published studies and found that a nondiagnostic biopsy was a very common result, ranging from 9% to 16%. In addition, the literature also showed that there was a significant conversion rate in nondiagnostic biopsies, from 4% to 20%, when additional leveling was performed.

In the current study, they investigated whether the detection of adenomas is improved when pathologists examine representative levels taken from the entire tissue block of specimens that have been diagnosed as nondiagnostic.

They conducted a retrospective review of pathology results that had been performed by a large GI practice (from November 2012 to November 2016) after implementing a so-called “polyp protocol,” which included an analysis of tissue sections from the entire tissue block (exhaustive leveling) of polyps initially deemed histologically nondiagnostic.

A total of 120,115 polyps had been removed during the study period, and, of this group, 10,768 (9%) were initially found to be nondiagnostic and were selected for exhaustive leveling. After exhaustive leveling, more than one-third (37%; n = 3,964) of the diagnoses converted to adenoma.

When the detection rate for adenomas for exhaustive leveling was compared with that for standard leveling, there was a statistically significant 3.3% increase (P less than .0001) from baseline.

“Our conclusion is that adenomas are missed,” said Dr. Cole. “This is partially because pathologists are not typically evaluating an entire specimen.”

These results support the need for implementing standardized protocols for exhaustive leveling as a means of increasing the adenoma detection rate, she noted. “Our research emphasizes the need for further studies assessing pathology specimen processing and analysis.”

Digestive Disease Week^® is jointly sponsored by the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD), the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) Institute, the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE), and the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract (SSAT).

Dr. Cole declared no relevant disclosures.

CHICAGO – A gluten-free diet is the cornerstone of treatment for celiac disease, but healing of the gut may take longer in some patients than in others.

New findings presented at the annual Digestive Disease Week suggest that, even though patients treated with a gluten-free diet generally experience clinical improvement during the first few weeks or months of making dietary changes, serologic and especially histologic normalization may take longer – and it is not always certain that it will occur.

designer491/Thinkstock

[email protected]

CHICAGO – A gluten-free diet is the cornerstone of treatment for celiac disease, but healing of the gut may take longer in some patients than in others.

New findings presented at the annual Digestive Disease Week suggest that, even though patients treated with a gluten-free diet generally experience clinical improvement during the first few weeks or months of making dietary changes, serologic and especially histologic normalization may take longer – and it is not always certain that it will occur.

designer491/Thinkstock

[email protected]

CHICAGO – A gluten-free diet is the cornerstone of treatment for celiac disease, but healing of the gut may take longer in some patients than in others.

New findings presented at the annual Digestive Disease Week suggest that, even though patients treated with a gluten-free diet generally experience clinical improvement during the first few weeks or months of making dietary changes, serologic and especially histologic normalization may take longer – and it is not always certain that it will occur.

designer491/Thinkstock

[email protected]

CHICAGO – Out-of-pocket costs may present a barrier to colorectal screening, and removing those costs could reduce colorectal cancer deaths, according to new data presented at the annual Digestive Disease Week.

These data imply that removing copayments could result in a 16% decrease in colorectal cancer–related deaths among Medicare beneficiaries, explained lead author Elisabeth Peterse, PhD, of the department of public health, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.

The research also demonstrated that waiving copayments is cost effective, she added.

Despite the effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening, only 58% of eligible individuals adhere to current screening recommendations, Dr. Peterse noted. Financial barriers may play a role in the lack of adherence, as studies have found that removing out-of-pocket costs is one of the most effective interventions for increasing screening.

“But despite the fact that the Affordable Care Act has been successful in partially eliminating cost sharing for colorectal screening, Medicare beneficiaries may still face unexpected out-of-pocket liabilities,” said Dr. Peterse.

Out-of-pocket costs can be complicated, given that they can depend largely on how a procedure is coded. A screening colonoscopy or fecal immunochemical test (FIT) is completely covered if it is coded as a screening test, but follow-up colonoscopies come with 20% copayments.

A screening colonoscopy with polypectomy and a follow-up colonoscopy that is done after a positive fecal immunochemical test are coded as diagnostic rather than screening, so the patient has out-of-pocket costs, she explained.

To explore how waiving the cost of screening could impact colorectal cancer–related mortality and cost effectiveness, the researchers conducted an analysis using a microsimulation model for a cohort composed of 65-year-old individuals.

In the simulation, they estimated colorectal cancer–related mortality, quality-adjusted life-years, and total cost of screening and treatment using the current Medicare copayment schedule. These were then compared with outcomes for alternative situations.

The study was conducted in two parts, explained Dr. Peterse. In the first part, the researchers looked at five scenarios: one in which the 20% copayment was intact. In the second, the copayment was waived without having any impact on adherence. In the third, the investigators looked at a 5% increase in adherence but only at diagnostic follow-up.

In the fourth and fifth scenarios, the investigators looked at 5% and 10% increases in adherence, in both first screening and diagnostic follow-up, she added.

In the study’s second part, the researchers also estimated the threshold increase in participation at which copayment removal would be cost effective, using a $50,000 willingness-to-pay threshold.

They found that without screening, the expected mortality would be 25 colorectal deaths per 1,000 people in a population of 65-year-old individuals. With screening, the number was reduced to 12.8 deaths per 1,000 65-year-olds for colonoscopy, and 14.9 deaths per 1,000 for FIT screening. The total associated costs for screening and treatment for the two modalities were $3.02 million and $2.87 million.

If waiving the copayments had no impact in increasing screening levels, the cost of screening was estimated to increase to $3.1 million (2.8% increase) for colonoscopy and $2.9 million (1.6% increase) for FIT.

But if copayments were removed and there were a 5% increase in adherence, colorectal cancer deaths were estimated to decline to 11.7 (–8.3%) and 13.9 (–6.3%) per 1,000 for colonoscopy and FIT, respectively. That would result in cost-effectiveness ratios of $19,288 and $7,894 for no copayment versus having a copayment. Increasing adherence to 10% would result in an even lower ratio, noted Dr. Peterse.

The threshold increase for participating in screening programs – the point where removing a copayment becomes cost effective – was a 1.8% increase in colonoscopy screening and a 0.8% increase for FIT.

The conclusion is that waiving copayments is cost effective, Dr. Peterse said.

Dr. Peterse added that a limitation to the analysis is that the study authors don’t know to what extent patients are even aware of the copayments. “So, we don’t know if it is a barrier, and we didn’t take other insurance scenarios into account,” she said.

Dr. Peterse declared no relevant disclosures.

CHICAGO – Out-of-pocket costs may present a barrier to colorectal screening, and removing those costs could reduce colorectal cancer deaths, according to new data presented at the annual Digestive Disease Week.

These data imply that removing copayments could result in a 16% decrease in colorectal cancer–related deaths among Medicare beneficiaries, explained lead author Elisabeth Peterse, PhD, of the department of public health, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.

The research also demonstrated that waiving copayments is cost effective, she added.

Despite the effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening, only 58% of eligible individuals adhere to current screening recommendations, Dr. Peterse noted. Financial barriers may play a role in the lack of adherence, as studies have found that removing out-of-pocket costs is one of the most effective interventions for increasing screening.

“But despite the fact that the Affordable Care Act has been successful in partially eliminating cost sharing for colorectal screening, Medicare beneficiaries may still face unexpected out-of-pocket liabilities,” said Dr. Peterse.

Out-of-pocket costs can be complicated, given that they can depend largely on how a procedure is coded. A screening colonoscopy or fecal immunochemical test (FIT) is completely covered if it is coded as a screening test, but follow-up colonoscopies come with 20% copayments.

A screening colonoscopy with polypectomy and a follow-up colonoscopy that is done after a positive fecal immunochemical test are coded as diagnostic rather than screening, so the patient has out-of-pocket costs, she explained.

To explore how waiving the cost of screening could impact colorectal cancer–related mortality and cost effectiveness, the researchers conducted an analysis using a microsimulation model for a cohort composed of 65-year-old individuals.

In the simulation, they estimated colorectal cancer–related mortality, quality-adjusted life-years, and total cost of screening and treatment using the current Medicare copayment schedule. These were then compared with outcomes for alternative situations.

The study was conducted in two parts, explained Dr. Peterse. In the first part, the researchers looked at five scenarios: one in which the 20% copayment was intact. In the second, the copayment was waived without having any impact on adherence. In the third, the investigators looked at a 5% increase in adherence but only at diagnostic follow-up.

In the fourth and fifth scenarios, the investigators looked at 5% and 10% increases in adherence, in both first screening and diagnostic follow-up, she added.

In the study’s second part, the researchers also estimated the threshold increase in participation at which copayment removal would be cost effective, using a $50,000 willingness-to-pay threshold.

They found that without screening, the expected mortality would be 25 colorectal deaths per 1,000 people in a population of 65-year-old individuals. With screening, the number was reduced to 12.8 deaths per 1,000 65-year-olds for colonoscopy, and 14.9 deaths per 1,000 for FIT screening. The total associated costs for screening and treatment for the two modalities were $3.02 million and $2.87 million.

If waiving the copayments had no impact in increasing screening levels, the cost of screening was estimated to increase to $3.1 million (2.8% increase) for colonoscopy and $2.9 million (1.6% increase) for FIT.

But if copayments were removed and there were a 5% increase in adherence, colorectal cancer deaths were estimated to decline to 11.7 (–8.3%) and 13.9 (–6.3%) per 1,000 for colonoscopy and FIT, respectively. That would result in cost-effectiveness ratios of $19,288 and $7,894 for no copayment versus having a copayment. Increasing adherence to 10% would result in an even lower ratio, noted Dr. Peterse.

The threshold increase for participating in screening programs – the point where removing a copayment becomes cost effective – was a 1.8% increase in colonoscopy screening and a 0.8% increase for FIT.

The conclusion is that waiving copayments is cost effective, Dr. Peterse said.

Dr. Peterse added that a limitation to the analysis is that the study authors don’t know to what extent patients are even aware of the copayments. “So, we don’t know if it is a barrier, and we didn’t take other insurance scenarios into account,” she said.

Dr. Peterse declared no relevant disclosures.

CHICAGO – Out-of-pocket costs may present a barrier to colorectal screening, and removing those costs could reduce colorectal cancer deaths, according to new data presented at the annual Digestive Disease Week.

These data imply that removing copayments could result in a 16% decrease in colorectal cancer–related deaths among Medicare beneficiaries, explained lead author Elisabeth Peterse, PhD, of the department of public health, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.

The research also demonstrated that waiving copayments is cost effective, she added.

Despite the effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening, only 58% of eligible individuals adhere to current screening recommendations, Dr. Peterse noted. Financial barriers may play a role in the lack of adherence, as studies have found that removing out-of-pocket costs is one of the most effective interventions for increasing screening.

“But despite the fact that the Affordable Care Act has been successful in partially eliminating cost sharing for colorectal screening, Medicare beneficiaries may still face unexpected out-of-pocket liabilities,” said Dr. Peterse.

Out-of-pocket costs can be complicated, given that they can depend largely on how a procedure is coded. A screening colonoscopy or fecal immunochemical test (FIT) is completely covered if it is coded as a screening test, but follow-up colonoscopies come with 20% copayments.

A screening colonoscopy with polypectomy and a follow-up colonoscopy that is done after a positive fecal immunochemical test are coded as diagnostic rather than screening, so the patient has out-of-pocket costs, she explained.

To explore how waiving the cost of screening could impact colorectal cancer–related mortality and cost effectiveness, the researchers conducted an analysis using a microsimulation model for a cohort composed of 65-year-old individuals.

In the simulation, they estimated colorectal cancer–related mortality, quality-adjusted life-years, and total cost of screening and treatment using the current Medicare copayment schedule. These were then compared with outcomes for alternative situations.

The study was conducted in two parts, explained Dr. Peterse. In the first part, the researchers looked at five scenarios: one in which the 20% copayment was intact. In the second, the copayment was waived without having any impact on adherence. In the third, the investigators looked at a 5% increase in adherence but only at diagnostic follow-up.

In the fourth and fifth scenarios, the investigators looked at 5% and 10% increases in adherence, in both first screening and diagnostic follow-up, she added.

In the study’s second part, the researchers also estimated the threshold increase in participation at which copayment removal would be cost effective, using a $50,000 willingness-to-pay threshold.

They found that without screening, the expected mortality would be 25 colorectal deaths per 1,000 people in a population of 65-year-old individuals. With screening, the number was reduced to 12.8 deaths per 1,000 65-year-olds for colonoscopy, and 14.9 deaths per 1,000 for FIT screening. The total associated costs for screening and treatment for the two modalities were $3.02 million and $2.87 million.

If waiving the copayments had no impact in increasing screening levels, the cost of screening was estimated to increase to $3.1 million (2.8% increase) for colonoscopy and $2.9 million (1.6% increase) for FIT.

But if copayments were removed and there were a 5% increase in adherence, colorectal cancer deaths were estimated to decline to 11.7 (–8.3%) and 13.9 (–6.3%) per 1,000 for colonoscopy and FIT, respectively. That would result in cost-effectiveness ratios of $19,288 and $7,894 for no copayment versus having a copayment. Increasing adherence to 10% would result in an even lower ratio, noted Dr. Peterse.

The threshold increase for participating in screening programs – the point where removing a copayment becomes cost effective – was a 1.8% increase in colonoscopy screening and a 0.8% increase for FIT.

The conclusion is that waiving copayments is cost effective, Dr. Peterse said.

Dr. Peterse added that a limitation to the analysis is that the study authors don’t know to what extent patients are even aware of the copayments. “So, we don’t know if it is a barrier, and we didn’t take other insurance scenarios into account,” she said.

Dr. Peterse declared no relevant disclosures.

CHICAGO – The biosimilar infliximab CT-P13 is not inferior to the originator infliximab in terms of efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity in the treatment of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), a phase IV randomized trial showed.

Patient outcomes were not compromised with the use of the biosimilar, and the cost of treatment was much lower, said lead author Kristin K. Jørgensen, MD, PhD, at Digestive Disease Week^®.

“Biologics represent a substantial source of IBD expenditure,” said Dr. Jørgensen of Akershus University Hospital, Lørenskog, Norway. “The medication is expensive, patients are treated on a long-term basis, and the incidence of IBD is increasing.”

Biosimilars are biotherapeutic products that are similar in terms of quality, safety, and efficacy to the already licensed reference biologic product. “Use of biosimilars can potentially dramatically decrease costs and may lead to better patient care,” said Dr. Jørgensen. “The patient gets increased access to biologic therapy, and it is easier to intensify dosing if indicated.”

Tumor necrosis factor–inhibitors are commonly used to treat Crohn’s disease, ulcerative colitis, spondyloarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, and chronic plaque psoriasis, and, while they have altered the treatment paradigm, they are expensive products.

The goal of the NOR-SWITCH was to evaluate switching from originator infliximab to CT-P13, in terms of efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity.

Dr. Jørgensen and her colleagues conducted a randomized phase IV trial that enrolled 482 patients who were randomly assigned to either infliximab originator (n = 241) or CT-P13 (n = 241). The primary endpoint was disease worsening during follow-up.

Of the group, 155 patients (32%) had Crohn’s disease, 93 (19%) had ulcerative colitis, 91 (19%) had spondyloarthritis, 77 (16%) had rheumatoid arthritis, 30 (6%) had psoriatic arthritis, and 35 (7%) had chronic plaque psoriasis.

Disease worsening occurred at a similar rate in both groups. In the infliximab originator group, 53 patients (26%) experienced a worsening of their symptoms, compared with 61 patients (30%) in the CT-P13 group. The 95% confidence interval of the adjusted risk difference (−4.4%) was −12.7% to 3.9%, which fell within the prespecified noninferiority margin of 15%.

Therefore, the findings demonstrated that CT-P13 is not inferior to infliximab originator, and the adjusted relative risk of disease worsening for CT-P13 patients was 1.17 (95% CI, 0.82-1.52), compared with the infliximab originator group.

An almost equal number of patients achieved disease remission, 123 patients (61%) in the infliximab originator group and 126 patients (61%) in the CT-P13 group, and the adjusted rate difference was 0.6% (95% CI, –7.5%-8.8%; per-protocol set).

An explorative subgroup analysis that looked at patients with Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis showed similar findings between patients treated with either agent.

“Our results support switching from the originator to a biosimilar for nonmedical reasons,” concluded Dr. Jørgensen.

However, she urged caution in generalizing these findings to other biologic agents.

The study was funded by the Norwegian Ministry of Health and Care Services. Dr. Jorgensen reported receiving personal fees from Tillotts, Intercept, and Celltrion. Several coauthors also reported relationships with industry.

Digestive Disease Week^® is jointly sponsored by the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD), the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) Institute, the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE), and the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract (SSAT).

CHICAGO – The biosimilar infliximab CT-P13 is not inferior to the originator infliximab in terms of efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity in the treatment of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), a phase IV randomized trial showed.

Patient outcomes were not compromised with the use of the biosimilar, and the cost of treatment was much lower, said lead author Kristin K. Jørgensen, MD, PhD, at Digestive Disease Week^®.

“Biologics represent a substantial source of IBD expenditure,” said Dr. Jørgensen of Akershus University Hospital, Lørenskog, Norway. “The medication is expensive, patients are treated on a long-term basis, and the incidence of IBD is increasing.”

Biosimilars are biotherapeutic products that are similar in terms of quality, safety, and efficacy to the already licensed reference biologic product. “Use of biosimilars can potentially dramatically decrease costs and may lead to better patient care,” said Dr. Jørgensen. “The patient gets increased access to biologic therapy, and it is easier to intensify dosing if indicated.”

Tumor necrosis factor–inhibitors are commonly used to treat Crohn’s disease, ulcerative colitis, spondyloarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, and chronic plaque psoriasis, and, while they have altered the treatment paradigm, they are expensive products.

The goal of the NOR-SWITCH was to evaluate switching from originator infliximab to CT-P13, in terms of efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity.

Dr. Jørgensen and her colleagues conducted a randomized phase IV trial that enrolled 482 patients who were randomly assigned to either infliximab originator (n = 241) or CT-P13 (n = 241). The primary endpoint was disease worsening during follow-up.

Of the group, 155 patients (32%) had Crohn’s disease, 93 (19%) had ulcerative colitis, 91 (19%) had spondyloarthritis, 77 (16%) had rheumatoid arthritis, 30 (6%) had psoriatic arthritis, and 35 (7%) had chronic plaque psoriasis.

Disease worsening occurred at a similar rate in both groups. In the infliximab originator group, 53 patients (26%) experienced a worsening of their symptoms, compared with 61 patients (30%) in the CT-P13 group. The 95% confidence interval of the adjusted risk difference (−4.4%) was −12.7% to 3.9%, which fell within the prespecified noninferiority margin of 15%.

Therefore, the findings demonstrated that CT-P13 is not inferior to infliximab originator, and the adjusted relative risk of disease worsening for CT-P13 patients was 1.17 (95% CI, 0.82-1.52), compared with the infliximab originator group.

An almost equal number of patients achieved disease remission, 123 patients (61%) in the infliximab originator group and 126 patients (61%) in the CT-P13 group, and the adjusted rate difference was 0.6% (95% CI, –7.5%-8.8%; per-protocol set).

An explorative subgroup analysis that looked at patients with Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis showed similar findings between patients treated with either agent.

“Our results support switching from the originator to a biosimilar for nonmedical reasons,” concluded Dr. Jørgensen.

However, she urged caution in generalizing these findings to other biologic agents.

The study was funded by the Norwegian Ministry of Health and Care Services. Dr. Jorgensen reported receiving personal fees from Tillotts, Intercept, and Celltrion. Several coauthors also reported relationships with industry.

Digestive Disease Week^® is jointly sponsored by the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD), the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) Institute, the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE), and the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract (SSAT).

CHICAGO – The biosimilar infliximab CT-P13 is not inferior to the originator infliximab in terms of efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity in the treatment of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), a phase IV randomized trial showed.

Patient outcomes were not compromised with the use of the biosimilar, and the cost of treatment was much lower, said lead author Kristin K. Jørgensen, MD, PhD, at Digestive Disease Week^®.

“Biologics represent a substantial source of IBD expenditure,” said Dr. Jørgensen of Akershus University Hospital, Lørenskog, Norway. “The medication is expensive, patients are treated on a long-term basis, and the incidence of IBD is increasing.”

Biosimilars are biotherapeutic products that are similar in terms of quality, safety, and efficacy to the already licensed reference biologic product. “Use of biosimilars can potentially dramatically decrease costs and may lead to better patient care,” said Dr. Jørgensen. “The patient gets increased access to biologic therapy, and it is easier to intensify dosing if indicated.”

Tumor necrosis factor–inhibitors are commonly used to treat Crohn’s disease, ulcerative colitis, spondyloarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, and chronic plaque psoriasis, and, while they have altered the treatment paradigm, they are expensive products.

The goal of the NOR-SWITCH was to evaluate switching from originator infliximab to CT-P13, in terms of efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity.

Dr. Jørgensen and her colleagues conducted a randomized phase IV trial that enrolled 482 patients who were randomly assigned to either infliximab originator (n = 241) or CT-P13 (n = 241). The primary endpoint was disease worsening during follow-up.

Of the group, 155 patients (32%) had Crohn’s disease, 93 (19%) had ulcerative colitis, 91 (19%) had spondyloarthritis, 77 (16%) had rheumatoid arthritis, 30 (6%) had psoriatic arthritis, and 35 (7%) had chronic plaque psoriasis.

Disease worsening occurred at a similar rate in both groups. In the infliximab originator group, 53 patients (26%) experienced a worsening of their symptoms, compared with 61 patients (30%) in the CT-P13 group. The 95% confidence interval of the adjusted risk difference (−4.4%) was −12.7% to 3.9%, which fell within the prespecified noninferiority margin of 15%.

Therefore, the findings demonstrated that CT-P13 is not inferior to infliximab originator, and the adjusted relative risk of disease worsening for CT-P13 patients was 1.17 (95% CI, 0.82-1.52), compared with the infliximab originator group.

An almost equal number of patients achieved disease remission, 123 patients (61%) in the infliximab originator group and 126 patients (61%) in the CT-P13 group, and the adjusted rate difference was 0.6% (95% CI, –7.5%-8.8%; per-protocol set).

An explorative subgroup analysis that looked at patients with Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis showed similar findings between patients treated with either agent.

“Our results support switching from the originator to a biosimilar for nonmedical reasons,” concluded Dr. Jørgensen.

However, she urged caution in generalizing these findings to other biologic agents.

The study was funded by the Norwegian Ministry of Health and Care Services. Dr. Jorgensen reported receiving personal fees from Tillotts, Intercept, and Celltrion. Several coauthors also reported relationships with industry.

Digestive Disease Week^® is jointly sponsored by the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD), the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) Institute, the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE), and the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract (SSAT).