Breast Cancer ICYMI

Abraxane, a chemotherapy treatment for advanced pancreatic cancer, advanced non–small cell lung cancer and metastatic breast cancer, is on allocation through early March because of manufacturing delays, forcing physicians to find alternatives for a drug once lauded for being easier to tolerate.

Abraxane (Bristol-Myers Squibb) is a paclitaxel albumin-bound injectable. It is different from alternative chemotherapy treatments like Taxol (paclitaxel) because it doesn’t use the solvents that can make Taxol difficult to tolerate. It was described as a “next-generation taxane” because it didn’t rely on solvents. It was approved in 2005 for metastatic breast cancer, then in 2012 for advanced non–small cell lung cancer, in 2013 for late-stage pancreatic cancer and in 2019 for people with PD-L1–positive metastatic triple-negative breast cancer.

The shortage, which was announced on Oct. 5, 2021, by the Food and Drug Administration, has led to some difficult decisions for patients and physicians. How long the shortage will last isn’t clear.

“I printed out [an] allotment sheet 2 days ago, and all it says [for Abraxane] is allocated,” said Kathy Oubre, MS, CEO of Pontchartrain Cancer Center, Hammond, La. “Everyone is keeping what they’ve got for their own patients, so there really isn’t anything available.”

The Pontchartrain Cancer Center sent two patients to the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, for continued treatment with Abraxane, but that option is costly and time consuming for patients. The two patients had the means to travel, but Ms. Oubre said that many others cannot afford to travel for treatment. “Everyone has patients who are living paycheck to paycheck who certainly couldn’t afford to do that. There are going to be patients across the nation that are not going to be able to have care as a result of these things.”

The supply problems are causing difficult decisions for physicians, who may have to switch a patient from an unavailable drug to an alternative that isn’t as effective, Ms. Oubre said. “I can’t imagine the stress and the sadness that the physicians have to feel when they have to go explain that to a patient. That runs counter to everything they are as physicians.”

Other strategies include chemo holidays and rounding down doses in patients with metastatic cancer, according to Camille Hill, PharmD, vice president of oncology pharmacy services, West Cancer Center, Germantown, Tenn.

Shortages and allocations are growing at an alarming rate, Ms. Oubre said. In her 15 years of working in the industry, “I don’t recall it ever being this challenging.” During a Zoom interview, she held up a lengthy list of drugs on allocation or unavailable that her pharmacy group purchasing organization sent her the previous week. “I don’t ever recall getting this kind of list. Every 3 days, I’m getting this. If it were just that one product, I can live with that. We figure it out. But it’s bigger than that.”

Worker shortages are exacerbating the issue. Ms. Oubre received a letter from a drug company describing its employee issues, which included chemists, plant workers, and loading dock staff. On top of that, delivery companies are experiencing staff shortages, which can result in more delays and complicate matters further. “It’s just compounding. These things can get really difficult very quickly. I don’t want to say we’re in crisis, and we’re not rationing care. We’re not in those buckets yet. But I would say that if these things don’t get better, it’s the first time in my work career that we are having those conversations of: ‘How we are going to plan for that it does come to that?’ ” she said.

“In general, with the pandemic, we have seen all sorts of just disruptions to the supply chain. So, I think you just do your best, you find alternatives for those patients that you can, and you come up with strategies. I don’t know that for Abraxane, or any other product, that I’d be particularly confident that we may not see another shortage,” Dr. Hill said.

Abraxane, a chemotherapy treatment for advanced pancreatic cancer, advanced non–small cell lung cancer and metastatic breast cancer, is on allocation through early March because of manufacturing delays, forcing physicians to find alternatives for a drug once lauded for being easier to tolerate.

Abraxane (Bristol-Myers Squibb) is a paclitaxel albumin-bound injectable. It is different from alternative chemotherapy treatments like Taxol (paclitaxel) because it doesn’t use the solvents that can make Taxol difficult to tolerate. It was described as a “next-generation taxane” because it didn’t rely on solvents. It was approved in 2005 for metastatic breast cancer, then in 2012 for advanced non–small cell lung cancer, in 2013 for late-stage pancreatic cancer and in 2019 for people with PD-L1–positive metastatic triple-negative breast cancer.

The shortage, which was announced on Oct. 5, 2021, by the Food and Drug Administration, has led to some difficult decisions for patients and physicians. How long the shortage will last isn’t clear.

“I printed out [an] allotment sheet 2 days ago, and all it says [for Abraxane] is allocated,” said Kathy Oubre, MS, CEO of Pontchartrain Cancer Center, Hammond, La. “Everyone is keeping what they’ve got for their own patients, so there really isn’t anything available.”

The Pontchartrain Cancer Center sent two patients to the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, for continued treatment with Abraxane, but that option is costly and time consuming for patients. The two patients had the means to travel, but Ms. Oubre said that many others cannot afford to travel for treatment. “Everyone has patients who are living paycheck to paycheck who certainly couldn’t afford to do that. There are going to be patients across the nation that are not going to be able to have care as a result of these things.”

The supply problems are causing difficult decisions for physicians, who may have to switch a patient from an unavailable drug to an alternative that isn’t as effective, Ms. Oubre said. “I can’t imagine the stress and the sadness that the physicians have to feel when they have to go explain that to a patient. That runs counter to everything they are as physicians.”

Other strategies include chemo holidays and rounding down doses in patients with metastatic cancer, according to Camille Hill, PharmD, vice president of oncology pharmacy services, West Cancer Center, Germantown, Tenn.

Shortages and allocations are growing at an alarming rate, Ms. Oubre said. In her 15 years of working in the industry, “I don’t recall it ever being this challenging.” During a Zoom interview, she held up a lengthy list of drugs on allocation or unavailable that her pharmacy group purchasing organization sent her the previous week. “I don’t ever recall getting this kind of list. Every 3 days, I’m getting this. If it were just that one product, I can live with that. We figure it out. But it’s bigger than that.”

Worker shortages are exacerbating the issue. Ms. Oubre received a letter from a drug company describing its employee issues, which included chemists, plant workers, and loading dock staff. On top of that, delivery companies are experiencing staff shortages, which can result in more delays and complicate matters further. “It’s just compounding. These things can get really difficult very quickly. I don’t want to say we’re in crisis, and we’re not rationing care. We’re not in those buckets yet. But I would say that if these things don’t get better, it’s the first time in my work career that we are having those conversations of: ‘How we are going to plan for that it does come to that?’ ” she said.

“In general, with the pandemic, we have seen all sorts of just disruptions to the supply chain. So, I think you just do your best, you find alternatives for those patients that you can, and you come up with strategies. I don’t know that for Abraxane, or any other product, that I’d be particularly confident that we may not see another shortage,” Dr. Hill said.

Abraxane, a chemotherapy treatment for advanced pancreatic cancer, advanced non–small cell lung cancer and metastatic breast cancer, is on allocation through early March because of manufacturing delays, forcing physicians to find alternatives for a drug once lauded for being easier to tolerate.

Abraxane (Bristol-Myers Squibb) is a paclitaxel albumin-bound injectable. It is different from alternative chemotherapy treatments like Taxol (paclitaxel) because it doesn’t use the solvents that can make Taxol difficult to tolerate. It was described as a “next-generation taxane” because it didn’t rely on solvents. It was approved in 2005 for metastatic breast cancer, then in 2012 for advanced non–small cell lung cancer, in 2013 for late-stage pancreatic cancer and in 2019 for people with PD-L1–positive metastatic triple-negative breast cancer.

The shortage, which was announced on Oct. 5, 2021, by the Food and Drug Administration, has led to some difficult decisions for patients and physicians. How long the shortage will last isn’t clear.

“I printed out [an] allotment sheet 2 days ago, and all it says [for Abraxane] is allocated,” said Kathy Oubre, MS, CEO of Pontchartrain Cancer Center, Hammond, La. “Everyone is keeping what they’ve got for their own patients, so there really isn’t anything available.”

The Pontchartrain Cancer Center sent two patients to the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, for continued treatment with Abraxane, but that option is costly and time consuming for patients. The two patients had the means to travel, but Ms. Oubre said that many others cannot afford to travel for treatment. “Everyone has patients who are living paycheck to paycheck who certainly couldn’t afford to do that. There are going to be patients across the nation that are not going to be able to have care as a result of these things.”

The supply problems are causing difficult decisions for physicians, who may have to switch a patient from an unavailable drug to an alternative that isn’t as effective, Ms. Oubre said. “I can’t imagine the stress and the sadness that the physicians have to feel when they have to go explain that to a patient. That runs counter to everything they are as physicians.”

Other strategies include chemo holidays and rounding down doses in patients with metastatic cancer, according to Camille Hill, PharmD, vice president of oncology pharmacy services, West Cancer Center, Germantown, Tenn.

Shortages and allocations are growing at an alarming rate, Ms. Oubre said. In her 15 years of working in the industry, “I don’t recall it ever being this challenging.” During a Zoom interview, she held up a lengthy list of drugs on allocation or unavailable that her pharmacy group purchasing organization sent her the previous week. “I don’t ever recall getting this kind of list. Every 3 days, I’m getting this. If it were just that one product, I can live with that. We figure it out. But it’s bigger than that.”

Worker shortages are exacerbating the issue. Ms. Oubre received a letter from a drug company describing its employee issues, which included chemists, plant workers, and loading dock staff. On top of that, delivery companies are experiencing staff shortages, which can result in more delays and complicate matters further. “It’s just compounding. These things can get really difficult very quickly. I don’t want to say we’re in crisis, and we’re not rationing care. We’re not in those buckets yet. But I would say that if these things don’t get better, it’s the first time in my work career that we are having those conversations of: ‘How we are going to plan for that it does come to that?’ ” she said.

“In general, with the pandemic, we have seen all sorts of just disruptions to the supply chain. So, I think you just do your best, you find alternatives for those patients that you can, and you come up with strategies. I don’t know that for Abraxane, or any other product, that I’d be particularly confident that we may not see another shortage,” Dr. Hill said.

People with bipolar disorder as well as their unaffected siblings appear to be at increased risk for cancer, particularly of the breast, according to new research from Taiwan.

“To our knowledge, our study is the first to report an increased overall cancer risk as well as increased risks of breast and ectodermal cancer among the unaffected siblings aged < 50 years of patients with bipolar disorder,” Ya-Mei Bai, MD, PhD, of National Yang-Ming University, Taipei, Taiwan, and colleagues write in an article published online in the International Journal of Cancer.

Most, but not all, previous studies have shown a link between bipolar disorder and cancer. Whether the elevated risk of malignancy extends to family members without the mental health condition has not been elucidated.

To investigate, the researchers turned to the National Health Insurance Research Database of Taiwan. They identified 25,356 individuals diagnosed with bipolar disorder by a psychiatrist between 1996 and 2010 and the same number of unaffected siblings, as well as more than 100,000 age-, sex-, income-, and residence-matched controls without severe mental illness.

Compared with the control group, people with bipolar disorder (odds ratio, 1.22) and their unaffected siblings (OR, 1.17) both had a higher risk of developing malignant cancer of any kind. The researchers also found that both groups were at higher risk for breast cancer, with odds ratios of 1.98 in individuals with bipolar disorder and 1.73 in their unaffected siblings.

However, the risk of skin cancer was only high in people with bipolar disorder (OR, 2.70) and not in their siblings (OR, 0.62). And conversely, the risk of kidney cancer was significantly increased in unaffected siblings (OR, 2.45) but not in people with bipolar disorder (OR, 0.47).

When stratified by the embryonic developmental layer from which tumors had originated – ectodermal, mesodermal, or endodermal – the authors observed a significantly increased risk for only ectodermal cancers. In addition, only people under age 50 in both groups (OR, 1.90 for those with bipolar disorder; OR, 1.65 for siblings) were more likely to develop an ectodermal cancer, especially of the breast, compared with the control group. The risks remained elevated after excluding breast cancer but were no longer significant.

When stratified by age, the risk of developing any cancer in both groups also only appeared to be greater for those under age 50 (OR, 1.34 in people with bipolar disorder; OR, 1.32 in siblings) compared with those aged 50 and over (OR, 0.97 and 0.99, respectively). The authors highlighted these figures in the supplemental data set but did not discuss it further in the study beyond a brief mention that “younger patients with bipolar disorder and younger unaffected siblings (< 50 years), but not older ones (≥ 50 years), were more likely to develop any malignancy during the follow-up than matched controls.”

“This paper essentially finds what we have found in our previous work – that people with bipolar disorder have a greater risk of cancer,” said Michael Berk, MBBCh, PhD, a professor of psychiatry at the Deakin University School of Medicine in Geelong, Australia, who published a systematic review and meta-analysis last spring on cancer risk and the role of lithium treatment in bipolar disorder.

“The interesting finding in our work,” Dr. Berk told this news organization, “is that this risk is attenuated by use of lithium but not other agents.”

The Taiwanese researchers propose a “biopsychosocial explanation” for their results, noting that both the nervous system and the breast and skin develop from the ectoderm, and that cancer risk factors such as smoking and obesity are more common in people with bipolar disorder and their unaffected siblings.

“The findings,” they write, “imply a genetic overlap in neurodevelopment and malignancy pathogenesis and may encourage clinicians to closely monitor patients with bipolar disorder and their unaffected siblings for cancer warning signs.”

The authors, however, caution that their study needs validation and had several limitations, including lack of adjustment for drug treatment and lifestyle and environmental factors.

“Our findings may persuade clinicians and researchers to reevaluate the cancer risk among the unaffected siblings of patients with schizophrenia and bipolar disorder because these two severe mental disorders may have a common biopsychosocial pathophysiology,” the team writes.

The study was supported by a grant from Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Yen Tjing Ling Medical Foundation, and the Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

People with bipolar disorder as well as their unaffected siblings appear to be at increased risk for cancer, particularly of the breast, according to new research from Taiwan.

“To our knowledge, our study is the first to report an increased overall cancer risk as well as increased risks of breast and ectodermal cancer among the unaffected siblings aged < 50 years of patients with bipolar disorder,” Ya-Mei Bai, MD, PhD, of National Yang-Ming University, Taipei, Taiwan, and colleagues write in an article published online in the International Journal of Cancer.

Most, but not all, previous studies have shown a link between bipolar disorder and cancer. Whether the elevated risk of malignancy extends to family members without the mental health condition has not been elucidated.

To investigate, the researchers turned to the National Health Insurance Research Database of Taiwan. They identified 25,356 individuals diagnosed with bipolar disorder by a psychiatrist between 1996 and 2010 and the same number of unaffected siblings, as well as more than 100,000 age-, sex-, income-, and residence-matched controls without severe mental illness.

Compared with the control group, people with bipolar disorder (odds ratio, 1.22) and their unaffected siblings (OR, 1.17) both had a higher risk of developing malignant cancer of any kind. The researchers also found that both groups were at higher risk for breast cancer, with odds ratios of 1.98 in individuals with bipolar disorder and 1.73 in their unaffected siblings.

However, the risk of skin cancer was only high in people with bipolar disorder (OR, 2.70) and not in their siblings (OR, 0.62). And conversely, the risk of kidney cancer was significantly increased in unaffected siblings (OR, 2.45) but not in people with bipolar disorder (OR, 0.47).

When stratified by the embryonic developmental layer from which tumors had originated – ectodermal, mesodermal, or endodermal – the authors observed a significantly increased risk for only ectodermal cancers. In addition, only people under age 50 in both groups (OR, 1.90 for those with bipolar disorder; OR, 1.65 for siblings) were more likely to develop an ectodermal cancer, especially of the breast, compared with the control group. The risks remained elevated after excluding breast cancer but were no longer significant.

When stratified by age, the risk of developing any cancer in both groups also only appeared to be greater for those under age 50 (OR, 1.34 in people with bipolar disorder; OR, 1.32 in siblings) compared with those aged 50 and over (OR, 0.97 and 0.99, respectively). The authors highlighted these figures in the supplemental data set but did not discuss it further in the study beyond a brief mention that “younger patients with bipolar disorder and younger unaffected siblings (< 50 years), but not older ones (≥ 50 years), were more likely to develop any malignancy during the follow-up than matched controls.”

“This paper essentially finds what we have found in our previous work – that people with bipolar disorder have a greater risk of cancer,” said Michael Berk, MBBCh, PhD, a professor of psychiatry at the Deakin University School of Medicine in Geelong, Australia, who published a systematic review and meta-analysis last spring on cancer risk and the role of lithium treatment in bipolar disorder.

“The interesting finding in our work,” Dr. Berk told this news organization, “is that this risk is attenuated by use of lithium but not other agents.”

The Taiwanese researchers propose a “biopsychosocial explanation” for their results, noting that both the nervous system and the breast and skin develop from the ectoderm, and that cancer risk factors such as smoking and obesity are more common in people with bipolar disorder and their unaffected siblings.

“The findings,” they write, “imply a genetic overlap in neurodevelopment and malignancy pathogenesis and may encourage clinicians to closely monitor patients with bipolar disorder and their unaffected siblings for cancer warning signs.”

The authors, however, caution that their study needs validation and had several limitations, including lack of adjustment for drug treatment and lifestyle and environmental factors.

“Our findings may persuade clinicians and researchers to reevaluate the cancer risk among the unaffected siblings of patients with schizophrenia and bipolar disorder because these two severe mental disorders may have a common biopsychosocial pathophysiology,” the team writes.

The study was supported by a grant from Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Yen Tjing Ling Medical Foundation, and the Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

People with bipolar disorder as well as their unaffected siblings appear to be at increased risk for cancer, particularly of the breast, according to new research from Taiwan.

“To our knowledge, our study is the first to report an increased overall cancer risk as well as increased risks of breast and ectodermal cancer among the unaffected siblings aged < 50 years of patients with bipolar disorder,” Ya-Mei Bai, MD, PhD, of National Yang-Ming University, Taipei, Taiwan, and colleagues write in an article published online in the International Journal of Cancer.

Most, but not all, previous studies have shown a link between bipolar disorder and cancer. Whether the elevated risk of malignancy extends to family members without the mental health condition has not been elucidated.

To investigate, the researchers turned to the National Health Insurance Research Database of Taiwan. They identified 25,356 individuals diagnosed with bipolar disorder by a psychiatrist between 1996 and 2010 and the same number of unaffected siblings, as well as more than 100,000 age-, sex-, income-, and residence-matched controls without severe mental illness.

Compared with the control group, people with bipolar disorder (odds ratio, 1.22) and their unaffected siblings (OR, 1.17) both had a higher risk of developing malignant cancer of any kind. The researchers also found that both groups were at higher risk for breast cancer, with odds ratios of 1.98 in individuals with bipolar disorder and 1.73 in their unaffected siblings.

However, the risk of skin cancer was only high in people with bipolar disorder (OR, 2.70) and not in their siblings (OR, 0.62). And conversely, the risk of kidney cancer was significantly increased in unaffected siblings (OR, 2.45) but not in people with bipolar disorder (OR, 0.47).

When stratified by the embryonic developmental layer from which tumors had originated – ectodermal, mesodermal, or endodermal – the authors observed a significantly increased risk for only ectodermal cancers. In addition, only people under age 50 in both groups (OR, 1.90 for those with bipolar disorder; OR, 1.65 for siblings) were more likely to develop an ectodermal cancer, especially of the breast, compared with the control group. The risks remained elevated after excluding breast cancer but were no longer significant.

When stratified by age, the risk of developing any cancer in both groups also only appeared to be greater for those under age 50 (OR, 1.34 in people with bipolar disorder; OR, 1.32 in siblings) compared with those aged 50 and over (OR, 0.97 and 0.99, respectively). The authors highlighted these figures in the supplemental data set but did not discuss it further in the study beyond a brief mention that “younger patients with bipolar disorder and younger unaffected siblings (< 50 years), but not older ones (≥ 50 years), were more likely to develop any malignancy during the follow-up than matched controls.”

“This paper essentially finds what we have found in our previous work – that people with bipolar disorder have a greater risk of cancer,” said Michael Berk, MBBCh, PhD, a professor of psychiatry at the Deakin University School of Medicine in Geelong, Australia, who published a systematic review and meta-analysis last spring on cancer risk and the role of lithium treatment in bipolar disorder.

“The interesting finding in our work,” Dr. Berk told this news organization, “is that this risk is attenuated by use of lithium but not other agents.”

The Taiwanese researchers propose a “biopsychosocial explanation” for their results, noting that both the nervous system and the breast and skin develop from the ectoderm, and that cancer risk factors such as smoking and obesity are more common in people with bipolar disorder and their unaffected siblings.

“The findings,” they write, “imply a genetic overlap in neurodevelopment and malignancy pathogenesis and may encourage clinicians to closely monitor patients with bipolar disorder and their unaffected siblings for cancer warning signs.”

The authors, however, caution that their study needs validation and had several limitations, including lack of adjustment for drug treatment and lifestyle and environmental factors.

“Our findings may persuade clinicians and researchers to reevaluate the cancer risk among the unaffected siblings of patients with schizophrenia and bipolar disorder because these two severe mental disorders may have a common biopsychosocial pathophysiology,” the team writes.

The study was supported by a grant from Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Yen Tjing Ling Medical Foundation, and the Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Two new studies show how COVID-19 threatens the health of pregnant people and their newborn infants.

A study conducted in Scotland showed that unvaccinated pregnant people who got COVID were much more likely to have a stillborn infant or one that dies in the first 28 days. The study also found that pregnant women infected with COVID died or needed hospitalization at a much higher rate than vaccinated women who got pregnant.

The University of Edinburgh and Public Health Scotland studied national data in 88,000 pregnancies between Dec. 2020 and Oct. 2021, according to the study published in Nature Medicine.

Overall, 77.4% of infections, 90.9% of COVID-related hospitalizations, and 98% of critical care cases occurred in the unvaccinated people, as did all newborn deaths.

The study said 2,364 babies were born to women infected with COVID, with 2,353 live births. Eleven babies were stillborn and eight live-born babies died within 28 days. Of the live births, 241 were premature.

The problems were more likely if the infection occurred 28 days or less before the delivery date, the researchers said.

The authors said the low vaccination rate among pregnant people was a problem. Only 32% of people giving birth in Oct. 2021 were fully vaccinated, while 77% of the Scottish female population aged 18-44 was fully vaccinated.

“Vaccine hesitancy in pregnancy thus requires addressing, especially in light of new recommendations for booster vaccination administration 3 months after the initial vaccination course to help protect against new variants such as Omicron,” the authors wrote. “Addressing low vaccine uptake rates in pregnant women is imperative to protect the health of women and babies in the ongoing pandemic.”

Vaccinated women who were pregnant had complication rates that were about the same for all pregnant women, the study shows.

The second study, published in The Lancet, found that women who got COVID while pregnant in five Western U.S. states were more likely to have premature births, low birth weights, and stillbirths, even when the COVID cases are mild.

The Institute for Systems Biology researchers in Seattle studied data for women who gave birth in Alaska, California, Montana, Oregon, or Washington from March 5, 2020, to July 4, 2021. About 18,000 of them were tested for COVID, with 882 testing positive. Of the positive tests, 85 came in the first trimester, 226 in the second trimester, and 571 in the third semester. None of the pregnant women had been vaccinated at the time they were infected.

Most of the birth problems occurred with first and second trimester infections, the study noted, and problems occurred even if the pregnant person didn’t have respiratory complications, a major COVID symptom.

“Pregnant people are at an increased risk of adverse outcomes following SARS-CoV-2 infection, even when maternal COVID-19 is less severe, and they may benefit from increased monitoring following infection,” Jennifer Hadlock, MD, an author of the paper, said in a news release.

The study also pointed out continuing inequities in health care, with most of the positive cases occurring among young, non-White people with Medicaid and high body mass index.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

Two new studies show how COVID-19 threatens the health of pregnant people and their newborn infants.

A study conducted in Scotland showed that unvaccinated pregnant people who got COVID were much more likely to have a stillborn infant or one that dies in the first 28 days. The study also found that pregnant women infected with COVID died or needed hospitalization at a much higher rate than vaccinated women who got pregnant.

The University of Edinburgh and Public Health Scotland studied national data in 88,000 pregnancies between Dec. 2020 and Oct. 2021, according to the study published in Nature Medicine.

Overall, 77.4% of infections, 90.9% of COVID-related hospitalizations, and 98% of critical care cases occurred in the unvaccinated people, as did all newborn deaths.

The study said 2,364 babies were born to women infected with COVID, with 2,353 live births. Eleven babies were stillborn and eight live-born babies died within 28 days. Of the live births, 241 were premature.

The problems were more likely if the infection occurred 28 days or less before the delivery date, the researchers said.

The authors said the low vaccination rate among pregnant people was a problem. Only 32% of people giving birth in Oct. 2021 were fully vaccinated, while 77% of the Scottish female population aged 18-44 was fully vaccinated.

“Vaccine hesitancy in pregnancy thus requires addressing, especially in light of new recommendations for booster vaccination administration 3 months after the initial vaccination course to help protect against new variants such as Omicron,” the authors wrote. “Addressing low vaccine uptake rates in pregnant women is imperative to protect the health of women and babies in the ongoing pandemic.”

Vaccinated women who were pregnant had complication rates that were about the same for all pregnant women, the study shows.

The second study, published in The Lancet, found that women who got COVID while pregnant in five Western U.S. states were more likely to have premature births, low birth weights, and stillbirths, even when the COVID cases are mild.

The Institute for Systems Biology researchers in Seattle studied data for women who gave birth in Alaska, California, Montana, Oregon, or Washington from March 5, 2020, to July 4, 2021. About 18,000 of them were tested for COVID, with 882 testing positive. Of the positive tests, 85 came in the first trimester, 226 in the second trimester, and 571 in the third semester. None of the pregnant women had been vaccinated at the time they were infected.

Most of the birth problems occurred with first and second trimester infections, the study noted, and problems occurred even if the pregnant person didn’t have respiratory complications, a major COVID symptom.

“Pregnant people are at an increased risk of adverse outcomes following SARS-CoV-2 infection, even when maternal COVID-19 is less severe, and they may benefit from increased monitoring following infection,” Jennifer Hadlock, MD, an author of the paper, said in a news release.

The study also pointed out continuing inequities in health care, with most of the positive cases occurring among young, non-White people with Medicaid and high body mass index.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

Two new studies show how COVID-19 threatens the health of pregnant people and their newborn infants.

A study conducted in Scotland showed that unvaccinated pregnant people who got COVID were much more likely to have a stillborn infant or one that dies in the first 28 days. The study also found that pregnant women infected with COVID died or needed hospitalization at a much higher rate than vaccinated women who got pregnant.

The University of Edinburgh and Public Health Scotland studied national data in 88,000 pregnancies between Dec. 2020 and Oct. 2021, according to the study published in Nature Medicine.

Overall, 77.4% of infections, 90.9% of COVID-related hospitalizations, and 98% of critical care cases occurred in the unvaccinated people, as did all newborn deaths.

The study said 2,364 babies were born to women infected with COVID, with 2,353 live births. Eleven babies were stillborn and eight live-born babies died within 28 days. Of the live births, 241 were premature.

The problems were more likely if the infection occurred 28 days or less before the delivery date, the researchers said.

The authors said the low vaccination rate among pregnant people was a problem. Only 32% of people giving birth in Oct. 2021 were fully vaccinated, while 77% of the Scottish female population aged 18-44 was fully vaccinated.

“Vaccine hesitancy in pregnancy thus requires addressing, especially in light of new recommendations for booster vaccination administration 3 months after the initial vaccination course to help protect against new variants such as Omicron,” the authors wrote. “Addressing low vaccine uptake rates in pregnant women is imperative to protect the health of women and babies in the ongoing pandemic.”

Vaccinated women who were pregnant had complication rates that were about the same for all pregnant women, the study shows.

The second study, published in The Lancet, found that women who got COVID while pregnant in five Western U.S. states were more likely to have premature births, low birth weights, and stillbirths, even when the COVID cases are mild.

The Institute for Systems Biology researchers in Seattle studied data for women who gave birth in Alaska, California, Montana, Oregon, or Washington from March 5, 2020, to July 4, 2021. About 18,000 of them were tested for COVID, with 882 testing positive. Of the positive tests, 85 came in the first trimester, 226 in the second trimester, and 571 in the third semester. None of the pregnant women had been vaccinated at the time they were infected.

Most of the birth problems occurred with first and second trimester infections, the study noted, and problems occurred even if the pregnant person didn’t have respiratory complications, a major COVID symptom.

“Pregnant people are at an increased risk of adverse outcomes following SARS-CoV-2 infection, even when maternal COVID-19 is less severe, and they may benefit from increased monitoring following infection,” Jennifer Hadlock, MD, an author of the paper, said in a news release.

The study also pointed out continuing inequities in health care, with most of the positive cases occurring among young, non-White people with Medicaid and high body mass index.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

Approximately 3% of youth who tested positive for COVID-19 in an emergency department setting had severe outcomes after 2 weeks, but this risk was 0.5% among those not admitted to the hospital, based on data from more than 3,000 individuals aged 18 and younger.

In the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic, youth younger than 18 years accounted for fewer than 5% of reported cases, but now account for approximately 25% of positive cases, wrote Anna L. Funk, PhD, of the University of Calgary, Alberta, Canada, and colleagues.

However, the risk of severe outcomes of youth with COVID-19 remains poorly understood and data from large studies are lacking, they noted.

In a prospective cohort study published in JAMA Network Open, the researchers reviewed data from 3,221 children and adolescents who were tested for COVID-19 at one of 41 emergency departments in 10 countries including Argentina, Australia, Canada, Costa Rica, Italy, New Zealand, Paraguay, Singapore, Spain, and the United States between March 2020 and June 2021. Positive infections were confirmed by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing. At 14 days’ follow-up after a positive test, 735 patients (22.8%), were hospitalized, 107 (3.3%) had severe outcomes, and 4 (0.12%) had died. Severe outcomes were significantly more likely in children aged 5-10 years and 10-18 years vs. less than 1 year (odds ratios, 1.60 and 2.39, respectively), and in children with a self-reported chronic illness (OR, 2.34) or a prior episode of pneumonia (OR, 3.15).

Severe outcomes were more likely in patients who presented with symptoms that started 4-7 days before seeking care, compared with those whose symptoms started 0-3 days before seeking care (OR, 2.22).

The researchers also reviewed data from a subgroup of 2,510 individuals who were discharged home from the ED after initial testing. At 14 days’ follow-up, 50 of these patients (2.0%) were hospitalized and 12 (0.5%) had severe outcomes. In addition, the researchers found that the risk of severe outcomes among hospitalized COVID-19–positive youth was nearly four times higher, compared with hospitalized youth who tested negative for COVID-19 (risk difference, 3.9%).

Previous retrospective studies of severe outcomes in children and adolescents with COVID-19 have yielded varying results, in part because of the variation in study populations, the researchers noted in their discussion of the findings. “Our study population provides a risk estimate for youths brought for ED care.” Therefore, “Our lower estimate of severe disease likely reflects our stringent definition, which required the occurrence of complications or specific invasive interventions,” they said.

The study limitations included the potential overestimation of the risk of severe outcomes because patients were recruited in the ED, the researchers noted. Other limitations included variation in regional case definitions, screening criteria, and testing capacity among different sites and time periods. “Thus, 5% of our SARS-CoV-2–positive participants were asymptomatic – most of whom were tested as they were positive contacts of known cases or as part of routine screening procedures,” they said. The findings also are not generalizable to all community EDs and did not account for variants, they added.

However, the results were strengthened by the ability to compare outcomes for children with positive tests to similar children with negative tests, and add to the literature showing an increased risk of severe outcomes for those hospitalized with positive tests, the researchers concluded.
 

Data may inform clinical decisions

“The data [in the current study] are concerning for severe outcomes for children even prior to the Omicron strain,” said Margaret Thew, DNP, FP-BC, of Children’s Wisconsin-Milwaukee Hospital, in an interview. “Presently, the number of children infected with the Omicron strain is much higher and hospitalizations among children are at their highest since COVID-19 began,” she said. “For medical providers caring for this population, the study sheds light on pediatric patients who may be at higher risk of severe illness when they become infected with COVID-19,” she added.

“I was surprised by how high the number of pediatric patients hospitalized (22%) and the percentage (3%) with severe disease were during this time,” given that the timeline for these data preceded the spread of the Omicron strain, said Ms. Thew. “The risk of prior pneumonia was quite surprising. I do not recall seeing prior pneumonia as a risk factor for more severe COVID-19 with children or adults,” she added.

The take-home messaging for clinicians caring for children and adolescents is the added knowledge of the risk factors for severe outcomes from COVID-19, including the 10-18 age range, chronic illness, prior pneumonia, and longer symptom duration before seeking care in the ED, Ms. Thew emphasized.

However, additional research is needed on the impact of the new strains of COVID-19 on pediatric and adolescent hospitalizations, Ms. Thew said. Research also is needed on the other illnesses that have resulted from COVID-19, including illness requiring antibiotic use or medical interventions or treatments, and on the risk of combined COVID-19 and influenza viruses, she noted.

The study was supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Alberta Innovates, the Alberta Health Services University of Calgary Clinical Research Fund, the Alberta Children’s Hospital Research Institute, the COVID-19 Research Accelerator Funding Track (CRAFT) Program at the University of California, Davis, and the Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center Division of Emergency Medicine Small Grants Program. Lead author Dr. Funk was supported by the University of Calgary Eyes-High Post-Doctoral Research Fund, but had no financial conflicts to disclose. Ms. Thew had no financial conflicts to disclose and serves on the Editorial Advisory Board of Pediatric News.

Approximately 3% of youth who tested positive for COVID-19 in an emergency department setting had severe outcomes after 2 weeks, but this risk was 0.5% among those not admitted to the hospital, based on data from more than 3,000 individuals aged 18 and younger.

In the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic, youth younger than 18 years accounted for fewer than 5% of reported cases, but now account for approximately 25% of positive cases, wrote Anna L. Funk, PhD, of the University of Calgary, Alberta, Canada, and colleagues.

However, the risk of severe outcomes of youth with COVID-19 remains poorly understood and data from large studies are lacking, they noted.

In a prospective cohort study published in JAMA Network Open, the researchers reviewed data from 3,221 children and adolescents who were tested for COVID-19 at one of 41 emergency departments in 10 countries including Argentina, Australia, Canada, Costa Rica, Italy, New Zealand, Paraguay, Singapore, Spain, and the United States between March 2020 and June 2021. Positive infections were confirmed by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing. At 14 days’ follow-up after a positive test, 735 patients (22.8%), were hospitalized, 107 (3.3%) had severe outcomes, and 4 (0.12%) had died. Severe outcomes were significantly more likely in children aged 5-10 years and 10-18 years vs. less than 1 year (odds ratios, 1.60 and 2.39, respectively), and in children with a self-reported chronic illness (OR, 2.34) or a prior episode of pneumonia (OR, 3.15).

Severe outcomes were more likely in patients who presented with symptoms that started 4-7 days before seeking care, compared with those whose symptoms started 0-3 days before seeking care (OR, 2.22).

The researchers also reviewed data from a subgroup of 2,510 individuals who were discharged home from the ED after initial testing. At 14 days’ follow-up, 50 of these patients (2.0%) were hospitalized and 12 (0.5%) had severe outcomes. In addition, the researchers found that the risk of severe outcomes among hospitalized COVID-19–positive youth was nearly four times higher, compared with hospitalized youth who tested negative for COVID-19 (risk difference, 3.9%).

Previous retrospective studies of severe outcomes in children and adolescents with COVID-19 have yielded varying results, in part because of the variation in study populations, the researchers noted in their discussion of the findings. “Our study population provides a risk estimate for youths brought for ED care.” Therefore, “Our lower estimate of severe disease likely reflects our stringent definition, which required the occurrence of complications or specific invasive interventions,” they said.

The study limitations included the potential overestimation of the risk of severe outcomes because patients were recruited in the ED, the researchers noted. Other limitations included variation in regional case definitions, screening criteria, and testing capacity among different sites and time periods. “Thus, 5% of our SARS-CoV-2–positive participants were asymptomatic – most of whom were tested as they were positive contacts of known cases or as part of routine screening procedures,” they said. The findings also are not generalizable to all community EDs and did not account for variants, they added.

However, the results were strengthened by the ability to compare outcomes for children with positive tests to similar children with negative tests, and add to the literature showing an increased risk of severe outcomes for those hospitalized with positive tests, the researchers concluded.
 

Data may inform clinical decisions

“The data [in the current study] are concerning for severe outcomes for children even prior to the Omicron strain,” said Margaret Thew, DNP, FP-BC, of Children’s Wisconsin-Milwaukee Hospital, in an interview. “Presently, the number of children infected with the Omicron strain is much higher and hospitalizations among children are at their highest since COVID-19 began,” she said. “For medical providers caring for this population, the study sheds light on pediatric patients who may be at higher risk of severe illness when they become infected with COVID-19,” she added.

“I was surprised by how high the number of pediatric patients hospitalized (22%) and the percentage (3%) with severe disease were during this time,” given that the timeline for these data preceded the spread of the Omicron strain, said Ms. Thew. “The risk of prior pneumonia was quite surprising. I do not recall seeing prior pneumonia as a risk factor for more severe COVID-19 with children or adults,” she added.

The take-home messaging for clinicians caring for children and adolescents is the added knowledge of the risk factors for severe outcomes from COVID-19, including the 10-18 age range, chronic illness, prior pneumonia, and longer symptom duration before seeking care in the ED, Ms. Thew emphasized.

However, additional research is needed on the impact of the new strains of COVID-19 on pediatric and adolescent hospitalizations, Ms. Thew said. Research also is needed on the other illnesses that have resulted from COVID-19, including illness requiring antibiotic use or medical interventions or treatments, and on the risk of combined COVID-19 and influenza viruses, she noted.

The study was supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Alberta Innovates, the Alberta Health Services University of Calgary Clinical Research Fund, the Alberta Children’s Hospital Research Institute, the COVID-19 Research Accelerator Funding Track (CRAFT) Program at the University of California, Davis, and the Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center Division of Emergency Medicine Small Grants Program. Lead author Dr. Funk was supported by the University of Calgary Eyes-High Post-Doctoral Research Fund, but had no financial conflicts to disclose. Ms. Thew had no financial conflicts to disclose and serves on the Editorial Advisory Board of Pediatric News.

Approximately 3% of youth who tested positive for COVID-19 in an emergency department setting had severe outcomes after 2 weeks, but this risk was 0.5% among those not admitted to the hospital, based on data from more than 3,000 individuals aged 18 and younger.

In the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic, youth younger than 18 years accounted for fewer than 5% of reported cases, but now account for approximately 25% of positive cases, wrote Anna L. Funk, PhD, of the University of Calgary, Alberta, Canada, and colleagues.

However, the risk of severe outcomes of youth with COVID-19 remains poorly understood and data from large studies are lacking, they noted.

In a prospective cohort study published in JAMA Network Open, the researchers reviewed data from 3,221 children and adolescents who were tested for COVID-19 at one of 41 emergency departments in 10 countries including Argentina, Australia, Canada, Costa Rica, Italy, New Zealand, Paraguay, Singapore, Spain, and the United States between March 2020 and June 2021. Positive infections were confirmed by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing. At 14 days’ follow-up after a positive test, 735 patients (22.8%), were hospitalized, 107 (3.3%) had severe outcomes, and 4 (0.12%) had died. Severe outcomes were significantly more likely in children aged 5-10 years and 10-18 years vs. less than 1 year (odds ratios, 1.60 and 2.39, respectively), and in children with a self-reported chronic illness (OR, 2.34) or a prior episode of pneumonia (OR, 3.15).

Severe outcomes were more likely in patients who presented with symptoms that started 4-7 days before seeking care, compared with those whose symptoms started 0-3 days before seeking care (OR, 2.22).

The researchers also reviewed data from a subgroup of 2,510 individuals who were discharged home from the ED after initial testing. At 14 days’ follow-up, 50 of these patients (2.0%) were hospitalized and 12 (0.5%) had severe outcomes. In addition, the researchers found that the risk of severe outcomes among hospitalized COVID-19–positive youth was nearly four times higher, compared with hospitalized youth who tested negative for COVID-19 (risk difference, 3.9%).

Previous retrospective studies of severe outcomes in children and adolescents with COVID-19 have yielded varying results, in part because of the variation in study populations, the researchers noted in their discussion of the findings. “Our study population provides a risk estimate for youths brought for ED care.” Therefore, “Our lower estimate of severe disease likely reflects our stringent definition, which required the occurrence of complications or specific invasive interventions,” they said.

The study limitations included the potential overestimation of the risk of severe outcomes because patients were recruited in the ED, the researchers noted. Other limitations included variation in regional case definitions, screening criteria, and testing capacity among different sites and time periods. “Thus, 5% of our SARS-CoV-2–positive participants were asymptomatic – most of whom were tested as they were positive contacts of known cases or as part of routine screening procedures,” they said. The findings also are not generalizable to all community EDs and did not account for variants, they added.

However, the results were strengthened by the ability to compare outcomes for children with positive tests to similar children with negative tests, and add to the literature showing an increased risk of severe outcomes for those hospitalized with positive tests, the researchers concluded.
 

Data may inform clinical decisions

“The data [in the current study] are concerning for severe outcomes for children even prior to the Omicron strain,” said Margaret Thew, DNP, FP-BC, of Children’s Wisconsin-Milwaukee Hospital, in an interview. “Presently, the number of children infected with the Omicron strain is much higher and hospitalizations among children are at their highest since COVID-19 began,” she said. “For medical providers caring for this population, the study sheds light on pediatric patients who may be at higher risk of severe illness when they become infected with COVID-19,” she added.

“I was surprised by how high the number of pediatric patients hospitalized (22%) and the percentage (3%) with severe disease were during this time,” given that the timeline for these data preceded the spread of the Omicron strain, said Ms. Thew. “The risk of prior pneumonia was quite surprising. I do not recall seeing prior pneumonia as a risk factor for more severe COVID-19 with children or adults,” she added.

The take-home messaging for clinicians caring for children and adolescents is the added knowledge of the risk factors for severe outcomes from COVID-19, including the 10-18 age range, chronic illness, prior pneumonia, and longer symptom duration before seeking care in the ED, Ms. Thew emphasized.

However, additional research is needed on the impact of the new strains of COVID-19 on pediatric and adolescent hospitalizations, Ms. Thew said. Research also is needed on the other illnesses that have resulted from COVID-19, including illness requiring antibiotic use or medical interventions or treatments, and on the risk of combined COVID-19 and influenza viruses, she noted.

The study was supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Alberta Innovates, the Alberta Health Services University of Calgary Clinical Research Fund, the Alberta Children’s Hospital Research Institute, the COVID-19 Research Accelerator Funding Track (CRAFT) Program at the University of California, Davis, and the Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center Division of Emergency Medicine Small Grants Program. Lead author Dr. Funk was supported by the University of Calgary Eyes-High Post-Doctoral Research Fund, but had no financial conflicts to disclose. Ms. Thew had no financial conflicts to disclose and serves on the Editorial Advisory Board of Pediatric News.

Intranasal ketamine may be a viable treatment option for acute cluster headache attacks, a pilot study has found, though it did not reduce pain intensity as quickly as initially anticipated.

“In clinical practice, intranasal ketamine might be a valuable tool for severely affected patients with insufficient response or intolerance to current first-line treatment,” wrote Anja S. Petersen, MD, of the Danish Headache Center at Rigshospitalet-Glostrup (Denmark) and her coauthors. The study was published online ahead of print in Headache.

To assess ketamine’s safety and efficacy in treating cluster headache attacks, the researchers launched a single-center, open-label, proof-of-concept study of 23 Danish patients with chronic cluster headache. Their average age was 51, 70% were males, and their mean disease duration was 18 years. Twenty of the participants suffered a spontaneous attack while under in-hospital observation and were treated with 15 mg of intranasal ketamine every 6 minutes to a maximum of five times.

Fifteen minutes after ketamine was administered, mean pain intensity (±SD) was reduced from 7.2 (±1.3) to 6.1 (±3.1) on an 11-point numeric rating scale, equivalent to a 15% reduction and well below the primary endpoint of a 50% or greater reduction. Only 4 of the 20 participants had a reduction of 50% or more, and 4 patients chose rescue medication at 15 minutes. However, at 30 minutes pain intensity was reduced by 59% (mean difference 4.3, 95% confidence interval, 2.4-6.2, P > 0.001), with 11 out of 16 participants scoring a 4 or below.

Eight of the 20 participants reported feeling complete relief from the ketamine nasal spray, while 6 participants reported feeling no effects. Half of the patients said they preferred ketamine to oxygen and/or sumatriptan injection. Seventeen patients (83%) reported side effects, but 12 of them classified their side effects as “few.” No serious adverse events were identified, with the most common adverse events being dizziness, lightheadedness, nausea/vomiting, and paresthesia.
 

Debating ketamine’s potential for cluster headache patients

“I’m not crazy about the prospects,” said Stewart J. Tepper, MD, professor of neurology at the Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, N.H., in an interview. “It was an admirable proof-of-concept trial, and well worth doing. These are desperate patients. But if the aim was to decrease pain intensity within 15 minutes for cluster patients without side effects, this clearly did not do that,” Dr. Tepper said.

“In a sense, this study was to evaluate whether glutamate might be a target for chronic cluster headache, to determine if blocking NMDA glutamate receptors by ketamine would be effective,” Dr. Tepper said. “And I must say, I’m not very impressed.”

He noted his concerns about the study – including 30 minutes being an “unacceptable” wait for patients undergoing a cluster attack, the 20% of patients who required a rescue at 15 minutes, and the various side effects that come with ketamine in nasal form – and said the results did not sway him to consider ketamine a practical option for cluster headache patients.

“You add all of that up, and I would say this was an equivocal study,” he said. “There might be enough there to be worth studying in episodic cluster rather than chronic cluster; there might be enough to consider a randomized, placebo-controlled trial. But it’s not something that I would ring the bell at Wall Street about.”

“The acute treatment of a patient with chronic cluster headache is a real problem for us headache specialists,” added Alan Rapoport, MD, professor of neurology at University of California, Los Angeles, and past president of the International Headache Society, in an interview. “Cluster headache is probably the worst pain we deal with; women who’ve gone through childbirth say that cluster headache is worse. So it’s very reasonable to have tried.”

“It’s not an impressive finding,” he said, “but it does indicate that there’s some value here. Maybe they need to change the dose; maybe they need to get it in faster by doing something tricky like combining the drug with another substance that will make it attach to the nasal mucosa better. I urge them to study it again, and I hope that they come up with better results the next time, because what they attempted to study is absolutely vital.”

The authors acknowledged their study’s limitations, including a homogeneous patient population and the lack of placebo-controlled verification of effect after 30 minutes. They added, however, that a pilot study like this provides “critical information and paves the way for subsequent placebo-controlled studies.” They also admitted that “daily usage [of ketamine] seems suboptimal” because of the potential of patients becoming addicted.

The study was funded by CCH Pharmaceuticals. Several authors reported receiving speaker’s fees and being subinvestigators in trials run by various pharmaceutical companies, including CCH Pharmaceuticals.

Intranasal ketamine may be a viable treatment option for acute cluster headache attacks, a pilot study has found, though it did not reduce pain intensity as quickly as initially anticipated.

“In clinical practice, intranasal ketamine might be a valuable tool for severely affected patients with insufficient response or intolerance to current first-line treatment,” wrote Anja S. Petersen, MD, of the Danish Headache Center at Rigshospitalet-Glostrup (Denmark) and her coauthors. The study was published online ahead of print in Headache.

To assess ketamine’s safety and efficacy in treating cluster headache attacks, the researchers launched a single-center, open-label, proof-of-concept study of 23 Danish patients with chronic cluster headache. Their average age was 51, 70% were males, and their mean disease duration was 18 years. Twenty of the participants suffered a spontaneous attack while under in-hospital observation and were treated with 15 mg of intranasal ketamine every 6 minutes to a maximum of five times.

Fifteen minutes after ketamine was administered, mean pain intensity (±SD) was reduced from 7.2 (±1.3) to 6.1 (±3.1) on an 11-point numeric rating scale, equivalent to a 15% reduction and well below the primary endpoint of a 50% or greater reduction. Only 4 of the 20 participants had a reduction of 50% or more, and 4 patients chose rescue medication at 15 minutes. However, at 30 minutes pain intensity was reduced by 59% (mean difference 4.3, 95% confidence interval, 2.4-6.2, P > 0.001), with 11 out of 16 participants scoring a 4 or below.

Eight of the 20 participants reported feeling complete relief from the ketamine nasal spray, while 6 participants reported feeling no effects. Half of the patients said they preferred ketamine to oxygen and/or sumatriptan injection. Seventeen patients (83%) reported side effects, but 12 of them classified their side effects as “few.” No serious adverse events were identified, with the most common adverse events being dizziness, lightheadedness, nausea/vomiting, and paresthesia.
 

Debating ketamine’s potential for cluster headache patients

“I’m not crazy about the prospects,” said Stewart J. Tepper, MD, professor of neurology at the Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, N.H., in an interview. “It was an admirable proof-of-concept trial, and well worth doing. These are desperate patients. But if the aim was to decrease pain intensity within 15 minutes for cluster patients without side effects, this clearly did not do that,” Dr. Tepper said.

“In a sense, this study was to evaluate whether glutamate might be a target for chronic cluster headache, to determine if blocking NMDA glutamate receptors by ketamine would be effective,” Dr. Tepper said. “And I must say, I’m not very impressed.”

He noted his concerns about the study – including 30 minutes being an “unacceptable” wait for patients undergoing a cluster attack, the 20% of patients who required a rescue at 15 minutes, and the various side effects that come with ketamine in nasal form – and said the results did not sway him to consider ketamine a practical option for cluster headache patients.

“You add all of that up, and I would say this was an equivocal study,” he said. “There might be enough there to be worth studying in episodic cluster rather than chronic cluster; there might be enough to consider a randomized, placebo-controlled trial. But it’s not something that I would ring the bell at Wall Street about.”

“The acute treatment of a patient with chronic cluster headache is a real problem for us headache specialists,” added Alan Rapoport, MD, professor of neurology at University of California, Los Angeles, and past president of the International Headache Society, in an interview. “Cluster headache is probably the worst pain we deal with; women who’ve gone through childbirth say that cluster headache is worse. So it’s very reasonable to have tried.”

“It’s not an impressive finding,” he said, “but it does indicate that there’s some value here. Maybe they need to change the dose; maybe they need to get it in faster by doing something tricky like combining the drug with another substance that will make it attach to the nasal mucosa better. I urge them to study it again, and I hope that they come up with better results the next time, because what they attempted to study is absolutely vital.”

The authors acknowledged their study’s limitations, including a homogeneous patient population and the lack of placebo-controlled verification of effect after 30 minutes. They added, however, that a pilot study like this provides “critical information and paves the way for subsequent placebo-controlled studies.” They also admitted that “daily usage [of ketamine] seems suboptimal” because of the potential of patients becoming addicted.

The study was funded by CCH Pharmaceuticals. Several authors reported receiving speaker’s fees and being subinvestigators in trials run by various pharmaceutical companies, including CCH Pharmaceuticals.

Intranasal ketamine may be a viable treatment option for acute cluster headache attacks, a pilot study has found, though it did not reduce pain intensity as quickly as initially anticipated.

“In clinical practice, intranasal ketamine might be a valuable tool for severely affected patients with insufficient response or intolerance to current first-line treatment,” wrote Anja S. Petersen, MD, of the Danish Headache Center at Rigshospitalet-Glostrup (Denmark) and her coauthors. The study was published online ahead of print in Headache.

To assess ketamine’s safety and efficacy in treating cluster headache attacks, the researchers launched a single-center, open-label, proof-of-concept study of 23 Danish patients with chronic cluster headache. Their average age was 51, 70% were males, and their mean disease duration was 18 years. Twenty of the participants suffered a spontaneous attack while under in-hospital observation and were treated with 15 mg of intranasal ketamine every 6 minutes to a maximum of five times.

Fifteen minutes after ketamine was administered, mean pain intensity (±SD) was reduced from 7.2 (±1.3) to 6.1 (±3.1) on an 11-point numeric rating scale, equivalent to a 15% reduction and well below the primary endpoint of a 50% or greater reduction. Only 4 of the 20 participants had a reduction of 50% or more, and 4 patients chose rescue medication at 15 minutes. However, at 30 minutes pain intensity was reduced by 59% (mean difference 4.3, 95% confidence interval, 2.4-6.2, P > 0.001), with 11 out of 16 participants scoring a 4 or below.

Eight of the 20 participants reported feeling complete relief from the ketamine nasal spray, while 6 participants reported feeling no effects. Half of the patients said they preferred ketamine to oxygen and/or sumatriptan injection. Seventeen patients (83%) reported side effects, but 12 of them classified their side effects as “few.” No serious adverse events were identified, with the most common adverse events being dizziness, lightheadedness, nausea/vomiting, and paresthesia.
 

Debating ketamine’s potential for cluster headache patients

“I’m not crazy about the prospects,” said Stewart J. Tepper, MD, professor of neurology at the Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, N.H., in an interview. “It was an admirable proof-of-concept trial, and well worth doing. These are desperate patients. But if the aim was to decrease pain intensity within 15 minutes for cluster patients without side effects, this clearly did not do that,” Dr. Tepper said.

“In a sense, this study was to evaluate whether glutamate might be a target for chronic cluster headache, to determine if blocking NMDA glutamate receptors by ketamine would be effective,” Dr. Tepper said. “And I must say, I’m not very impressed.”

He noted his concerns about the study – including 30 minutes being an “unacceptable” wait for patients undergoing a cluster attack, the 20% of patients who required a rescue at 15 minutes, and the various side effects that come with ketamine in nasal form – and said the results did not sway him to consider ketamine a practical option for cluster headache patients.

“You add all of that up, and I would say this was an equivocal study,” he said. “There might be enough there to be worth studying in episodic cluster rather than chronic cluster; there might be enough to consider a randomized, placebo-controlled trial. But it’s not something that I would ring the bell at Wall Street about.”

“The acute treatment of a patient with chronic cluster headache is a real problem for us headache specialists,” added Alan Rapoport, MD, professor of neurology at University of California, Los Angeles, and past president of the International Headache Society, in an interview. “Cluster headache is probably the worst pain we deal with; women who’ve gone through childbirth say that cluster headache is worse. So it’s very reasonable to have tried.”

“It’s not an impressive finding,” he said, “but it does indicate that there’s some value here. Maybe they need to change the dose; maybe they need to get it in faster by doing something tricky like combining the drug with another substance that will make it attach to the nasal mucosa better. I urge them to study it again, and I hope that they come up with better results the next time, because what they attempted to study is absolutely vital.”

The authors acknowledged their study’s limitations, including a homogeneous patient population and the lack of placebo-controlled verification of effect after 30 minutes. They added, however, that a pilot study like this provides “critical information and paves the way for subsequent placebo-controlled studies.” They also admitted that “daily usage [of ketamine] seems suboptimal” because of the potential of patients becoming addicted.

The study was funded by CCH Pharmaceuticals. Several authors reported receiving speaker’s fees and being subinvestigators in trials run by various pharmaceutical companies, including CCH Pharmaceuticals.

Key clinical point: Compared with fulvestrant alone, addition of sapanisertib to fulvestrant led to numerical but not statistically significant improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) in postmenopausal women with estrogen receptor-positive (ER+)/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2−) advanced breast cancer (BC), but with increased toxicity.

Major finding: Median PFS was 3.5 months with only fulvestrant vs 7.2 months with fulvestrant+sapanisertib daily (QD; hazard ratio [HR], 0.77; 95% CI, 0.47-1.26) and 5.6 months with fulvestrant+sapanisertib weekly (QW; HR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.53-1.45) arms. Fulvestrant+sapanisertib vs fulvestrant alone was associated with higher grade ≥3 treatment-related treatment-emergent adverse events (>50% vs none).

Study details: Findings are from a phase 2 study including 141 postmenopausal women with ER+/HER2− advanced or metastatic BC who were randomly assigned to fulvestrant, fulvestrant+sapanisertib QD, or fulvestrant+sapanisertib QW.

Disclosures: This study was funded by Millennium Pharmaceuticals. The authors declared serving in the advisory committee and speaker’s bureau and/or receiving consulting fees, grants, funds, honoraria, and travel expenses from Millennium Pharmaceuticals and other sources. Five authors declared being employees and/or shareholders of Millennium Pharmaceuticals.

Source: García-Sáenz JÁ et al. Clin Cancer Res. 2022 Jan 3. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-21-2652.

Key clinical point: Compared with fulvestrant alone, addition of sapanisertib to fulvestrant led to numerical but not statistically significant improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) in postmenopausal women with estrogen receptor-positive (ER+)/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2−) advanced breast cancer (BC), but with increased toxicity.

Major finding: Median PFS was 3.5 months with only fulvestrant vs 7.2 months with fulvestrant+sapanisertib daily (QD; hazard ratio [HR], 0.77; 95% CI, 0.47-1.26) and 5.6 months with fulvestrant+sapanisertib weekly (QW; HR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.53-1.45) arms. Fulvestrant+sapanisertib vs fulvestrant alone was associated with higher grade ≥3 treatment-related treatment-emergent adverse events (>50% vs none).

Study details: Findings are from a phase 2 study including 141 postmenopausal women with ER+/HER2− advanced or metastatic BC who were randomly assigned to fulvestrant, fulvestrant+sapanisertib QD, or fulvestrant+sapanisertib QW.

Disclosures: This study was funded by Millennium Pharmaceuticals. The authors declared serving in the advisory committee and speaker’s bureau and/or receiving consulting fees, grants, funds, honoraria, and travel expenses from Millennium Pharmaceuticals and other sources. Five authors declared being employees and/or shareholders of Millennium Pharmaceuticals.

Source: García-Sáenz JÁ et al. Clin Cancer Res. 2022 Jan 3. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-21-2652.

Key clinical point: Compared with fulvestrant alone, addition of sapanisertib to fulvestrant led to numerical but not statistically significant improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) in postmenopausal women with estrogen receptor-positive (ER+)/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2−) advanced breast cancer (BC), but with increased toxicity.

Major finding: Median PFS was 3.5 months with only fulvestrant vs 7.2 months with fulvestrant+sapanisertib daily (QD; hazard ratio [HR], 0.77; 95% CI, 0.47-1.26) and 5.6 months with fulvestrant+sapanisertib weekly (QW; HR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.53-1.45) arms. Fulvestrant+sapanisertib vs fulvestrant alone was associated with higher grade ≥3 treatment-related treatment-emergent adverse events (>50% vs none).

Study details: Findings are from a phase 2 study including 141 postmenopausal women with ER+/HER2− advanced or metastatic BC who were randomly assigned to fulvestrant, fulvestrant+sapanisertib QD, or fulvestrant+sapanisertib QW.

Disclosures: This study was funded by Millennium Pharmaceuticals. The authors declared serving in the advisory committee and speaker’s bureau and/or receiving consulting fees, grants, funds, honoraria, and travel expenses from Millennium Pharmaceuticals and other sources. Five authors declared being employees and/or shareholders of Millennium Pharmaceuticals.

Source: García-Sáenz JÁ et al. Clin Cancer Res. 2022 Jan 3. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-21-2652.

Key clinical point: With an extended median follow-up of 53.5 months, ribociclib+endocrine therapy (ET) continued to prolong survival vs placebo+ET in pre-/perimenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive (HR+), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2−) advanced breast cancer (BC).

Major finding: Ribociclib vs placebo prolonged the median overall survival in overall population (58.7 months vs 48 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.76; 95% CI, 0.61-0.96) and in women aged <40 years (51.3 months vs 40.5 months; HR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.43-0.98). No new safety signals were identified.

Study details: Findings are from an exploratory analysis of phase 3 MONALEESA-7 trial including 672 pre- or perimenopausal women with HR+/HER2− advanced BC who were randomly assigned to ET+ribociclib or ET+placebo.

Disclosures: This study was funded by Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation. The authors reported receiving grants, nonfinancial support, and advisory and personal fees from Novartis and other sources. Six authors declared being employees and shareholders of Novartis.

Source: Lu YS et al. Clin Cancer Res. 2021 Dec 29. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-21-3032.

Key clinical point: With an extended median follow-up of 53.5 months, ribociclib+endocrine therapy (ET) continued to prolong survival vs placebo+ET in pre-/perimenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive (HR+), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2−) advanced breast cancer (BC).

Major finding: Ribociclib vs placebo prolonged the median overall survival in overall population (58.7 months vs 48 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.76; 95% CI, 0.61-0.96) and in women aged <40 years (51.3 months vs 40.5 months; HR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.43-0.98). No new safety signals were identified.

Study details: Findings are from an exploratory analysis of phase 3 MONALEESA-7 trial including 672 pre- or perimenopausal women with HR+/HER2− advanced BC who were randomly assigned to ET+ribociclib or ET+placebo.

Disclosures: This study was funded by Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation. The authors reported receiving grants, nonfinancial support, and advisory and personal fees from Novartis and other sources. Six authors declared being employees and shareholders of Novartis.

Source: Lu YS et al. Clin Cancer Res. 2021 Dec 29. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-21-3032.

Key clinical point: With an extended median follow-up of 53.5 months, ribociclib+endocrine therapy (ET) continued to prolong survival vs placebo+ET in pre-/perimenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive (HR+), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2−) advanced breast cancer (BC).

Major finding: Ribociclib vs placebo prolonged the median overall survival in overall population (58.7 months vs 48 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.76; 95% CI, 0.61-0.96) and in women aged <40 years (51.3 months vs 40.5 months; HR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.43-0.98). No new safety signals were identified.

Study details: Findings are from an exploratory analysis of phase 3 MONALEESA-7 trial including 672 pre- or perimenopausal women with HR+/HER2− advanced BC who were randomly assigned to ET+ribociclib or ET+placebo.

Disclosures: This study was funded by Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation. The authors reported receiving grants, nonfinancial support, and advisory and personal fees from Novartis and other sources. Six authors declared being employees and shareholders of Novartis.

Source: Lu YS et al. Clin Cancer Res. 2021 Dec 29. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-21-3032.

Key clinical point: Low vs high expression of tumor-specific thyroid hormone receptor alpha-2 (THRα-2) was associated with unfavorable tumor characteristics and higher breast cancer-specific mortality in women with invasive breast cancer.

Major finding: Low vs high THRα-2 expression was associated with estrogen receptor (ER) negativity (odds ratio [OR], 4.04; 95% CI, 2.28-7.15), tumor size of >20-50 mm (OR, 2.20; 95% CI, 1.39-3.49), and high risk for breast cancer-specific mortality in the overall population (hazard ratio [HR], 1.38; 95% CI, 0.96-1.99) and among women with ER-positive tumors (adjusted HR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.01-1.73).

Study details: Findings are from a follow-up of a population-based cohort, the Malmö Diet and Cancer Study consisting of 17,035 women, of which 654 women with invasive breast cancer and evaluable tumor tissue were included in the present study.

Disclosures: This study was funded by the Swedish Cancer Society, Gunnar Nilsson Cancer Foundation, Ernhold Lundström Foundation, and other sources. The authors declared no conflict of interests.

Source: Sandsveden M et al. Breast Cancer Res. 2021 Dec 20. doi: 10.1186/s13058-021-01496-7.

Key clinical point: Low vs high expression of tumor-specific thyroid hormone receptor alpha-2 (THRα-2) was associated with unfavorable tumor characteristics and higher breast cancer-specific mortality in women with invasive breast cancer.

Major finding: Low vs high THRα-2 expression was associated with estrogen receptor (ER) negativity (odds ratio [OR], 4.04; 95% CI, 2.28-7.15), tumor size of >20-50 mm (OR, 2.20; 95% CI, 1.39-3.49), and high risk for breast cancer-specific mortality in the overall population (hazard ratio [HR], 1.38; 95% CI, 0.96-1.99) and among women with ER-positive tumors (adjusted HR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.01-1.73).

Study details: Findings are from a follow-up of a population-based cohort, the Malmö Diet and Cancer Study consisting of 17,035 women, of which 654 women with invasive breast cancer and evaluable tumor tissue were included in the present study.

Disclosures: This study was funded by the Swedish Cancer Society, Gunnar Nilsson Cancer Foundation, Ernhold Lundström Foundation, and other sources. The authors declared no conflict of interests.

Source: Sandsveden M et al. Breast Cancer Res. 2021 Dec 20. doi: 10.1186/s13058-021-01496-7.

Key clinical point: Low vs high expression of tumor-specific thyroid hormone receptor alpha-2 (THRα-2) was associated with unfavorable tumor characteristics and higher breast cancer-specific mortality in women with invasive breast cancer.

Major finding: Low vs high THRα-2 expression was associated with estrogen receptor (ER) negativity (odds ratio [OR], 4.04; 95% CI, 2.28-7.15), tumor size of >20-50 mm (OR, 2.20; 95% CI, 1.39-3.49), and high risk for breast cancer-specific mortality in the overall population (hazard ratio [HR], 1.38; 95% CI, 0.96-1.99) and among women with ER-positive tumors (adjusted HR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.01-1.73).

Study details: Findings are from a follow-up of a population-based cohort, the Malmö Diet and Cancer Study consisting of 17,035 women, of which 654 women with invasive breast cancer and evaluable tumor tissue were included in the present study.

Disclosures: This study was funded by the Swedish Cancer Society, Gunnar Nilsson Cancer Foundation, Ernhold Lundström Foundation, and other sources. The authors declared no conflict of interests.

Source: Sandsveden M et al. Breast Cancer Res. 2021 Dec 20. doi: 10.1186/s13058-021-01496-7.

Key clinical point: In this real-world population, low expression of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) did not affect the prognosis of metastatic breast cancer (BC).

Major finding: HER2-low vs HER2-negative disease had no significant effect on the overall survival, neither in hormone receptor-positive (hazard ratio [HR], 0.89; P = .171) nor in triple-negative (HR, 0.92; P = .585) subgroups.

Study details: Findings are from an analysis of 1,973 patients with metastatic BC from the metastatic BC-Registry of the Austrian Study Group of Medical Tumor Therapy (AGMT). Among evaluable patients, 20.3% were HER2-positive, 35.2% were HER2-low, and 44.5% were completely HER2-negative.

Disclosures: The AGMT-MBC-registry is supported by grants from Roche, Daiichi Sankyo, Pfizer, and AstraZeneca. The authors declared expert testimony and/or receiving honoraria, research grants, and travel support from several sources.

Source: Gampenrieder SP et al. Breast Cancer Res. 2021 Dec 14. doi: 10.1186/s13058-021-01492-x.

Key clinical point: In this real-world population, low expression of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) did not affect the prognosis of metastatic breast cancer (BC).

Major finding: HER2-low vs HER2-negative disease had no significant effect on the overall survival, neither in hormone receptor-positive (hazard ratio [HR], 0.89; P = .171) nor in triple-negative (HR, 0.92; P = .585) subgroups.

Study details: Findings are from an analysis of 1,973 patients with metastatic BC from the metastatic BC-Registry of the Austrian Study Group of Medical Tumor Therapy (AGMT). Among evaluable patients, 20.3% were HER2-positive, 35.2% were HER2-low, and 44.5% were completely HER2-negative.

Disclosures: The AGMT-MBC-registry is supported by grants from Roche, Daiichi Sankyo, Pfizer, and AstraZeneca. The authors declared expert testimony and/or receiving honoraria, research grants, and travel support from several sources.

Source: Gampenrieder SP et al. Breast Cancer Res. 2021 Dec 14. doi: 10.1186/s13058-021-01492-x.

Key clinical point: In this real-world population, low expression of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) did not affect the prognosis of metastatic breast cancer (BC).

Major finding: HER2-low vs HER2-negative disease had no significant effect on the overall survival, neither in hormone receptor-positive (hazard ratio [HR], 0.89; P = .171) nor in triple-negative (HR, 0.92; P = .585) subgroups.

Study details: Findings are from an analysis of 1,973 patients with metastatic BC from the metastatic BC-Registry of the Austrian Study Group of Medical Tumor Therapy (AGMT). Among evaluable patients, 20.3% were HER2-positive, 35.2% were HER2-low, and 44.5% were completely HER2-negative.

Disclosures: The AGMT-MBC-registry is supported by grants from Roche, Daiichi Sankyo, Pfizer, and AstraZeneca. The authors declared expert testimony and/or receiving honoraria, research grants, and travel support from several sources.

Source: Gampenrieder SP et al. Breast Cancer Res. 2021 Dec 14. doi: 10.1186/s13058-021-01492-x.

Key clinical point: Replacing trastuzumab+taxane with trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1) did not improve survival in high-risk human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive early breast cancer (BC).

Major finding: The risk for invasive disease-free survival was not significantly different between trastuzumab+taxane+pertuzumab and T-DM1+pertuzumab arms in the overall population (stratified hazard ratio [sHR], 0.98; 95% CI, 0.72-1.32) and the node-positive subpopulation (sHR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.71-1.32) along with similar rates of grade 3 or higher and serious adverse events.

Study details: Findings are from the phase 3 KAITLIN study, including 1,846 patients with HER2-positive early BC who were randomly assigned to receive T-DM1+pertuzumab or trastuzumab+taxane+pertuzumab after surgery and anthracycline chemotherapy.

Disclosures: This study was supported by F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. The authors declared serving as consultant, speaker, and/or receiving honorarium, funding, and travel expense from several sources. Some authors were employed and/or held stocks in various sources.

Source: Krop IE et al. J Clin Oncol. 2021 Dec 10. doi: 10.1200/JCO.21.00896.

Key clinical point: Replacing trastuzumab+taxane with trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1) did not improve survival in high-risk human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive early breast cancer (BC).

Major finding: The risk for invasive disease-free survival was not significantly different between trastuzumab+taxane+pertuzumab and T-DM1+pertuzumab arms in the overall population (stratified hazard ratio [sHR], 0.98; 95% CI, 0.72-1.32) and the node-positive subpopulation (sHR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.71-1.32) along with similar rates of grade 3 or higher and serious adverse events.

Study details: Findings are from the phase 3 KAITLIN study, including 1,846 patients with HER2-positive early BC who were randomly assigned to receive T-DM1+pertuzumab or trastuzumab+taxane+pertuzumab after surgery and anthracycline chemotherapy.

Disclosures: This study was supported by F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. The authors declared serving as consultant, speaker, and/or receiving honorarium, funding, and travel expense from several sources. Some authors were employed and/or held stocks in various sources.

Source: Krop IE et al. J Clin Oncol. 2021 Dec 10. doi: 10.1200/JCO.21.00896.

Key clinical point: Replacing trastuzumab+taxane with trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1) did not improve survival in high-risk human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive early breast cancer (BC).

Major finding: The risk for invasive disease-free survival was not significantly different between trastuzumab+taxane+pertuzumab and T-DM1+pertuzumab arms in the overall population (stratified hazard ratio [sHR], 0.98; 95% CI, 0.72-1.32) and the node-positive subpopulation (sHR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.71-1.32) along with similar rates of grade 3 or higher and serious adverse events.

Study details: Findings are from the phase 3 KAITLIN study, including 1,846 patients with HER2-positive early BC who were randomly assigned to receive T-DM1+pertuzumab or trastuzumab+taxane+pertuzumab after surgery and anthracycline chemotherapy.

Disclosures: This study was supported by F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. The authors declared serving as consultant, speaker, and/or receiving honorarium, funding, and travel expense from several sources. Some authors were employed and/or held stocks in various sources.

Source: Krop IE et al. J Clin Oncol. 2021 Dec 10. doi: 10.1200/JCO.21.00896.