CHEST Physician

The investigational bispecific T-cell engager tarlatamab achieved durable responses and clinically meaningful survival outcomes in patients with small-cell lung cancer (SCLC), particularly at lower doses, according to a follow-up analysis of the phase 1 DeLLphi-300 trial.

Most patients with central nervous system tumors also sustained tumor shrinkage long after receiving radiotherapy, providing “encouraging evidence” of the new agent’s intracranial activity, said study presenter Horst-Dieter Hummel, MD, Comprehensive Cancer Center Mainfranken, Würzburg, Germany.

The research was presented at the European Lung Cancer Congress 2024 on March 22.

Tarlatamab targets cancer cells that express the delta-like ligand 3 (DLL3), which occurs infrequently on normal cells but on most SCLC cells. 

Data from the phase 1 and phase 2 DeLLphi trials, published last year, showed the compound achieved “encouraging clinical activity” in pretreated patients, said Dr. Hummel.

The initial phase 1 DeLLphi study found that after a median follow-up of 8.7 months, the immunotherapy led to a disease control rate of 51.4%, a median progression-free survival of 3.7 months, and median overall survival of 13.2 months.

At the meeting, Dr. Hummel reported longer-term outcomes from the phase 1 study over a median of 12.1 months as well as intracranial activity in patients who received clinically relevant doses of tarlatamab, defined as ≥ 10 mg.

The 152 patients included in the analysis had a median of two prior lines of therapy; 76.3% had undergone radiotherapy, and 63.2% had received immunotherapy. Liver metastases were present in 42.1% of patients, and 25.0% had brain metastases.

Doses varied among participants, with 76 patients (50.0%) receiving 100 mg, 32 (21.0%) receiving 100 mg via extended intravenous infusion, 17 (11.2%) receiving 10 mg, and 8 (5.3%) receiving 30 mg.

The overall objective response rate was 25.0%, with a median duration of response of 11.2 months. Among patients given the 10-mg dose, the objective response rate was higher, at 35.3%, as was the median duration of response, at 14.9 months.

Tarlatamab was associated with a median overall survival of 17.5 months, with 57.9% of patients alive at 12 months. Patients receiving the 10 mg dose had a better median overall survival of 20.3 months.

Of the 16 patients with analyzable central nervous system tumors, 62.5% experienced tumor shrinkage by ≥ 30% and 87.5% experienced intracranial disease control, which lasted for a median of 7.4 months.

In this follow-up study, tarlatamab demonstrated “clinically meaningful survival outcomes in patients with previously treated SCLC, particularly with the 10 mg dose,” Dr. Hummel concluded in his presentation.

No new safety signals emerged, though almost all patients did experience tarlatamab-related adverse events (94.8% for doses > 10 mg and 100% of patients with 10 mg doses). Overall, 66.4% of the total cohort experienced cytokine release syndrome of any grade, and 11.8% developed immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome. 

Discontinuation due to treatment-related adverse events occurred in 9 patients overall, and adverse events that led to dose interruption or reduction occurred in 32 patients overall. 

“After many efforts at DLL3 targeting, we finally have an agent that shows activity and efficacy, and with convincing data,” said Jessica Menis, MD, a medical oncologist at the oncology department of the University Hospital of Verona, Italy, who was not involved in the study. The intracranial activity of tarlatamab “needs to be further evaluated in untreated patients,” Dr. Menis noted, because the study included only patients with stable, treated brain metastases.

And given the high rates of adverse events, Dr. Menis cautioned that adverse event management “will be a challenge.”

On X (Twitter), Tom Newsom-Davis, MBBS, PhD, a consultant in medical oncology at Chelsea and Westminster Hospital, London, said that tarlatamab is “not a straightforward drug to use,” highlighting the occurrence of cytokine release syndrome.

“But in this significantly pretreated population and in this hard-to-treat tumor type,” the rate and duration of responses seen with the extended follow-up are ‘impressive’,” he added.

DeLLphi-300, 301, and 304 were funded by Amgen Inc. Dr. Hummel declared relationships with several companies, including Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Merck, Novartis, Daiichi Sankyo, and Roche. Dr. Menis declared relationships with AstraZeneca, BMS, MSD, Roche, and Novartis.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The investigational bispecific T-cell engager tarlatamab achieved durable responses and clinically meaningful survival outcomes in patients with small-cell lung cancer (SCLC), particularly at lower doses, according to a follow-up analysis of the phase 1 DeLLphi-300 trial.

Most patients with central nervous system tumors also sustained tumor shrinkage long after receiving radiotherapy, providing “encouraging evidence” of the new agent’s intracranial activity, said study presenter Horst-Dieter Hummel, MD, Comprehensive Cancer Center Mainfranken, Würzburg, Germany.

The research was presented at the European Lung Cancer Congress 2024 on March 22.

Tarlatamab targets cancer cells that express the delta-like ligand 3 (DLL3), which occurs infrequently on normal cells but on most SCLC cells. 

Data from the phase 1 and phase 2 DeLLphi trials, published last year, showed the compound achieved “encouraging clinical activity” in pretreated patients, said Dr. Hummel.

The initial phase 1 DeLLphi study found that after a median follow-up of 8.7 months, the immunotherapy led to a disease control rate of 51.4%, a median progression-free survival of 3.7 months, and median overall survival of 13.2 months.

At the meeting, Dr. Hummel reported longer-term outcomes from the phase 1 study over a median of 12.1 months as well as intracranial activity in patients who received clinically relevant doses of tarlatamab, defined as ≥ 10 mg.

The 152 patients included in the analysis had a median of two prior lines of therapy; 76.3% had undergone radiotherapy, and 63.2% had received immunotherapy. Liver metastases were present in 42.1% of patients, and 25.0% had brain metastases.

Doses varied among participants, with 76 patients (50.0%) receiving 100 mg, 32 (21.0%) receiving 100 mg via extended intravenous infusion, 17 (11.2%) receiving 10 mg, and 8 (5.3%) receiving 30 mg.

The overall objective response rate was 25.0%, with a median duration of response of 11.2 months. Among patients given the 10-mg dose, the objective response rate was higher, at 35.3%, as was the median duration of response, at 14.9 months.

Tarlatamab was associated with a median overall survival of 17.5 months, with 57.9% of patients alive at 12 months. Patients receiving the 10 mg dose had a better median overall survival of 20.3 months.

Of the 16 patients with analyzable central nervous system tumors, 62.5% experienced tumor shrinkage by ≥ 30% and 87.5% experienced intracranial disease control, which lasted for a median of 7.4 months.

In this follow-up study, tarlatamab demonstrated “clinically meaningful survival outcomes in patients with previously treated SCLC, particularly with the 10 mg dose,” Dr. Hummel concluded in his presentation.

No new safety signals emerged, though almost all patients did experience tarlatamab-related adverse events (94.8% for doses > 10 mg and 100% of patients with 10 mg doses). Overall, 66.4% of the total cohort experienced cytokine release syndrome of any grade, and 11.8% developed immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome. 

Discontinuation due to treatment-related adverse events occurred in 9 patients overall, and adverse events that led to dose interruption or reduction occurred in 32 patients overall. 

“After many efforts at DLL3 targeting, we finally have an agent that shows activity and efficacy, and with convincing data,” said Jessica Menis, MD, a medical oncologist at the oncology department of the University Hospital of Verona, Italy, who was not involved in the study. The intracranial activity of tarlatamab “needs to be further evaluated in untreated patients,” Dr. Menis noted, because the study included only patients with stable, treated brain metastases.

And given the high rates of adverse events, Dr. Menis cautioned that adverse event management “will be a challenge.”

On X (Twitter), Tom Newsom-Davis, MBBS, PhD, a consultant in medical oncology at Chelsea and Westminster Hospital, London, said that tarlatamab is “not a straightforward drug to use,” highlighting the occurrence of cytokine release syndrome.

“But in this significantly pretreated population and in this hard-to-treat tumor type,” the rate and duration of responses seen with the extended follow-up are ‘impressive’,” he added.

DeLLphi-300, 301, and 304 were funded by Amgen Inc. Dr. Hummel declared relationships with several companies, including Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Merck, Novartis, Daiichi Sankyo, and Roche. Dr. Menis declared relationships with AstraZeneca, BMS, MSD, Roche, and Novartis.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The investigational bispecific T-cell engager tarlatamab achieved durable responses and clinically meaningful survival outcomes in patients with small-cell lung cancer (SCLC), particularly at lower doses, according to a follow-up analysis of the phase 1 DeLLphi-300 trial.

Most patients with central nervous system tumors also sustained tumor shrinkage long after receiving radiotherapy, providing “encouraging evidence” of the new agent’s intracranial activity, said study presenter Horst-Dieter Hummel, MD, Comprehensive Cancer Center Mainfranken, Würzburg, Germany.

The research was presented at the European Lung Cancer Congress 2024 on March 22.

Tarlatamab targets cancer cells that express the delta-like ligand 3 (DLL3), which occurs infrequently on normal cells but on most SCLC cells. 

Data from the phase 1 and phase 2 DeLLphi trials, published last year, showed the compound achieved “encouraging clinical activity” in pretreated patients, said Dr. Hummel.

The initial phase 1 DeLLphi study found that after a median follow-up of 8.7 months, the immunotherapy led to a disease control rate of 51.4%, a median progression-free survival of 3.7 months, and median overall survival of 13.2 months.

At the meeting, Dr. Hummel reported longer-term outcomes from the phase 1 study over a median of 12.1 months as well as intracranial activity in patients who received clinically relevant doses of tarlatamab, defined as ≥ 10 mg.

The 152 patients included in the analysis had a median of two prior lines of therapy; 76.3% had undergone radiotherapy, and 63.2% had received immunotherapy. Liver metastases were present in 42.1% of patients, and 25.0% had brain metastases.

Doses varied among participants, with 76 patients (50.0%) receiving 100 mg, 32 (21.0%) receiving 100 mg via extended intravenous infusion, 17 (11.2%) receiving 10 mg, and 8 (5.3%) receiving 30 mg.

The overall objective response rate was 25.0%, with a median duration of response of 11.2 months. Among patients given the 10-mg dose, the objective response rate was higher, at 35.3%, as was the median duration of response, at 14.9 months.

Tarlatamab was associated with a median overall survival of 17.5 months, with 57.9% of patients alive at 12 months. Patients receiving the 10 mg dose had a better median overall survival of 20.3 months.

Of the 16 patients with analyzable central nervous system tumors, 62.5% experienced tumor shrinkage by ≥ 30% and 87.5% experienced intracranial disease control, which lasted for a median of 7.4 months.

In this follow-up study, tarlatamab demonstrated “clinically meaningful survival outcomes in patients with previously treated SCLC, particularly with the 10 mg dose,” Dr. Hummel concluded in his presentation.

No new safety signals emerged, though almost all patients did experience tarlatamab-related adverse events (94.8% for doses > 10 mg and 100% of patients with 10 mg doses). Overall, 66.4% of the total cohort experienced cytokine release syndrome of any grade, and 11.8% developed immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome. 

Discontinuation due to treatment-related adverse events occurred in 9 patients overall, and adverse events that led to dose interruption or reduction occurred in 32 patients overall. 

“After many efforts at DLL3 targeting, we finally have an agent that shows activity and efficacy, and with convincing data,” said Jessica Menis, MD, a medical oncologist at the oncology department of the University Hospital of Verona, Italy, who was not involved in the study. The intracranial activity of tarlatamab “needs to be further evaluated in untreated patients,” Dr. Menis noted, because the study included only patients with stable, treated brain metastases.

And given the high rates of adverse events, Dr. Menis cautioned that adverse event management “will be a challenge.”

On X (Twitter), Tom Newsom-Davis, MBBS, PhD, a consultant in medical oncology at Chelsea and Westminster Hospital, London, said that tarlatamab is “not a straightforward drug to use,” highlighting the occurrence of cytokine release syndrome.

“But in this significantly pretreated population and in this hard-to-treat tumor type,” the rate and duration of responses seen with the extended follow-up are ‘impressive’,” he added.

DeLLphi-300, 301, and 304 were funded by Amgen Inc. Dr. Hummel declared relationships with several companies, including Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Merck, Novartis, Daiichi Sankyo, and Roche. Dr. Menis declared relationships with AstraZeneca, BMS, MSD, Roche, and Novartis.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved sotatercept (Winrevair, Merck), for the treatment of adults with pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH), World Health Organization (WHO) Group 1, to increase exercise capacity, improve WHO functional class, and reduce the risk for clinical worsening events.

Sotatercept, which had breakthrough therapy designation, is a first-in-class activin signaling inhibitor that works by improving the balance between pro- and antiproliferative signaling to regulate the vascular cell proliferation that underlies PAH.

“Sotatercept added to background therapy has the potential to become a new standard-of-care option for patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension,” added coinvestigator Aaron B. Waxman, MD, PhD, executive director of the Center for Pulmonary Heart Diseases at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston.

The approval was based on results of the phase 3 STELLAR study, a global, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter, parallel-group clinical trial in which, 323 patients with PAH (WHO Group 1, functional class II or III) were randomly assigned 1:1 to add sotatercept or placebo to stable background therapy.

The results showed that sotatercept, administered subcutaneously every 3 weeks for 24 weeks, improved average 6-minute walk distance from baseline by a significant and clinically meaningful 40.8 meters compared with placebo for the trial’s primary efficacy endpoint (P < .001).

Sotatercept also led to significant improvement in multiple secondary outcome measures, including:

• Reduction in the risk for death from any cause or PAH clinical worsening events by 84% vs background therapy alone (number of events: 9 vs 42; hazard ratio [HR], 0.16; P < .001) 
• Improvement in FC from baseline at 24 weeks in 29% of patients compared with 14% of patients treated with placebo (P < .001) 
• Improvement in pulmonary vascular resistance (PVR), with an average 235 dyn/sec/cm⁵ reduction in PVR from baseline (P < .001) 
• Improvement from baseline in N-terminal pro–B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) levels. The median treatment difference in NT-proBNP between sotatercept and placebo was -442 pg/mL (P < .001) 

The results were reported last year at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation, with simultaneous publication in The New England Journal of Medicine. 

Sotatercept injection may be administered by patients or caregivers with guidance, training, and follow-up from a healthcare provider. The recommended starting dose is 0.3 mg/kg. The recommended target dose is 0.7 mg/kg every 3 weeks.

Sotatercept may increase hemoglobin, may lead to erythrocytosis, and may decrease platelet count and lead to severe thrombocytopenia. Treatment should not be initiated if platelet count is < 50,000/mm³. 

Hemoglobin and platelets should be monitored before each dose of sotatercept for the first five doses, or longer if values are unstable, and periodically thereafter to determine if dose adjustments are required. 

Full prescribing information is available online. 

Merck estimates that sotatercept will be available for dispensing by select specialty pharmacies in the United States by the end of April 2024.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved sotatercept (Winrevair, Merck), for the treatment of adults with pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH), World Health Organization (WHO) Group 1, to increase exercise capacity, improve WHO functional class, and reduce the risk for clinical worsening events.

Sotatercept, which had breakthrough therapy designation, is a first-in-class activin signaling inhibitor that works by improving the balance between pro- and antiproliferative signaling to regulate the vascular cell proliferation that underlies PAH.

“Sotatercept added to background therapy has the potential to become a new standard-of-care option for patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension,” added coinvestigator Aaron B. Waxman, MD, PhD, executive director of the Center for Pulmonary Heart Diseases at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston.

The approval was based on results of the phase 3 STELLAR study, a global, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter, parallel-group clinical trial in which, 323 patients with PAH (WHO Group 1, functional class II or III) were randomly assigned 1:1 to add sotatercept or placebo to stable background therapy.

The results showed that sotatercept, administered subcutaneously every 3 weeks for 24 weeks, improved average 6-minute walk distance from baseline by a significant and clinically meaningful 40.8 meters compared with placebo for the trial’s primary efficacy endpoint (P < .001).

Sotatercept also led to significant improvement in multiple secondary outcome measures, including:

• Reduction in the risk for death from any cause or PAH clinical worsening events by 84% vs background therapy alone (number of events: 9 vs 42; hazard ratio [HR], 0.16; P < .001) 
• Improvement in FC from baseline at 24 weeks in 29% of patients compared with 14% of patients treated with placebo (P < .001) 
• Improvement in pulmonary vascular resistance (PVR), with an average 235 dyn/sec/cm⁵ reduction in PVR from baseline (P < .001) 
• Improvement from baseline in N-terminal pro–B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) levels. The median treatment difference in NT-proBNP between sotatercept and placebo was -442 pg/mL (P < .001) 

The results were reported last year at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation, with simultaneous publication in The New England Journal of Medicine. 

Sotatercept injection may be administered by patients or caregivers with guidance, training, and follow-up from a healthcare provider. The recommended starting dose is 0.3 mg/kg. The recommended target dose is 0.7 mg/kg every 3 weeks.

Sotatercept may increase hemoglobin, may lead to erythrocytosis, and may decrease platelet count and lead to severe thrombocytopenia. Treatment should not be initiated if platelet count is < 50,000/mm³. 

Hemoglobin and platelets should be monitored before each dose of sotatercept for the first five doses, or longer if values are unstable, and periodically thereafter to determine if dose adjustments are required. 

Full prescribing information is available online. 

Merck estimates that sotatercept will be available for dispensing by select specialty pharmacies in the United States by the end of April 2024.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved sotatercept (Winrevair, Merck), for the treatment of adults with pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH), World Health Organization (WHO) Group 1, to increase exercise capacity, improve WHO functional class, and reduce the risk for clinical worsening events.

Sotatercept, which had breakthrough therapy designation, is a first-in-class activin signaling inhibitor that works by improving the balance between pro- and antiproliferative signaling to regulate the vascular cell proliferation that underlies PAH.

“Sotatercept added to background therapy has the potential to become a new standard-of-care option for patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension,” added coinvestigator Aaron B. Waxman, MD, PhD, executive director of the Center for Pulmonary Heart Diseases at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston.

The approval was based on results of the phase 3 STELLAR study, a global, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter, parallel-group clinical trial in which, 323 patients with PAH (WHO Group 1, functional class II or III) were randomly assigned 1:1 to add sotatercept or placebo to stable background therapy.

The results showed that sotatercept, administered subcutaneously every 3 weeks for 24 weeks, improved average 6-minute walk distance from baseline by a significant and clinically meaningful 40.8 meters compared with placebo for the trial’s primary efficacy endpoint (P < .001).

Sotatercept also led to significant improvement in multiple secondary outcome measures, including:

• Reduction in the risk for death from any cause or PAH clinical worsening events by 84% vs background therapy alone (number of events: 9 vs 42; hazard ratio [HR], 0.16; P < .001) 
• Improvement in FC from baseline at 24 weeks in 29% of patients compared with 14% of patients treated with placebo (P < .001) 
• Improvement in pulmonary vascular resistance (PVR), with an average 235 dyn/sec/cm⁵ reduction in PVR from baseline (P < .001) 
• Improvement from baseline in N-terminal pro–B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) levels. The median treatment difference in NT-proBNP between sotatercept and placebo was -442 pg/mL (P < .001) 

The results were reported last year at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation, with simultaneous publication in The New England Journal of Medicine. 

Sotatercept injection may be administered by patients or caregivers with guidance, training, and follow-up from a healthcare provider. The recommended starting dose is 0.3 mg/kg. The recommended target dose is 0.7 mg/kg every 3 weeks.

Sotatercept may increase hemoglobin, may lead to erythrocytosis, and may decrease platelet count and lead to severe thrombocytopenia. Treatment should not be initiated if platelet count is < 50,000/mm³. 

Hemoglobin and platelets should be monitored before each dose of sotatercept for the first five doses, or longer if values are unstable, and periodically thereafter to determine if dose adjustments are required. 

Full prescribing information is available online. 

Merck estimates that sotatercept will be available for dispensing by select specialty pharmacies in the United States by the end of April 2024.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Electronic health records (EHRs) make providing coordinated, efficient care easier and reduce medical errors and test duplications; research has also correlated EHR adoption with higher patient satisfaction and outcomes. However, for physicians, the benefits come at a cost.

Physicians spend significantly more time in healthcare portals, making notes, entering orders, reviewing clinical reports, and responding to patient messages.

“I spend at least the same amount of time in the portal that I do in scheduled clinical time with patients,” said Eve Rittenberg, MD, primary care physician at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and assistant professor at Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. “So, if I have a 4-hour session of seeing patients, I spend at least another 4 or more hours in the patient portal.”

The latest data showed that primary care physicians logged a median of 36.2 minutes in the healthcare portal per patient visit, spending 58.9% more time on orders, 24.4% more time reading and responding to messages, and 13% more time on chart review compared to prepandemic portal use.

“EHRs can be very powerful tools,” said Ralph DeBiasi, MD, a clinical cardiac electrophysiologist at Yale New Haven Health. “We’re still working on how to best harness that power to make us better doctors and better care teams and to take better care of our patients because their use can take up a lot of time.”
 

Portal Time Isn’t Paid Time

Sharp increases in the amount of time spent in the EHR responding to messages or dispensing medical advice via the portal often aren’t linked to increases in compensation; most portal time is unpaid.

“There isn’t specific time allocated to working in the portal; it’s either done in the office while a patient is sitting in an exam room or in the mornings and evenings outside of traditional working hours,” Dr. DeBiasi said. “I think it’s reasonable to consider it being reimbursed because we’re taking our time and effort and making decisions to help the patient.”

Compensation for portal time affects all physicians, but the degree of impact depends on their specialties. Primary care physicians spent significantly more daily and after-hours time in the EHR, entering notes and orders, and doing clinical reviews compared to surgical and medical specialties.

In addition to the outsized impact on primary care, physician compensation for portal time is also an equity issue.

Dr. Rittenberg researched the issue and found a higher volume of communication from both patients and staff to female physicians than male physicians. As a result, female physicians spend 41.4 minutes more on the EHR than their male counterparts, which equates to more unpaid time. It’s likely no coincidence then that burnout rates are also higher among female physicians, who also leave the clinical workforce in higher numbers, especially in primary care.

“Finding ways to fairly compensate physicians for their work also will address some of the equity issues in workload and the consequences,” Dr. Rittenberg said.
 

Addressing the Issue

Some health systems have started charging patients who seek medical advice via patient portals, equating the communication to asynchronous acute care or an additional care touchpoint and billing based on the length and complexity of the messages. Patient fees for seeking medical advice via portals vary widely depending on their health system and insurance.

At University of California San Francisco Health, billing patients for EHR communication led to a sharp decrease in patient messages, which eased physician workload. At Cleveland Clinic, physicians receive “productivity credits” for the time spent in the EHR that can be used to reduce their clinic hours (but have no impact on their compensation).

Changes to the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule also allow physicians to bill for “digital evaluation and management” based on the time spent in an EHR responding to patient-initiated questions and requests.

However, more efforts are needed to ease burnout and reverse the number of physicians who are seeing fewer patients or leaving medical practice altogether as a direct result of spending increasing amounts of unpaid time in the EHR. Dr. Rittenberg, who spends an estimated 50% of her working hours in the portal, had to reduce her clinical workload by 25% due to such heavy portal requirements.

“The workload has become unsustainable,” she said. “The work has undergone a dramatic change over the past decade, and the compensation system has not kept up with that change.”
 

Prioritizing Patient and Physician Experiences

The ever-expanding use of EHR is a result of their value as a healthcare tool. Data showed that the electronic exchange of information between patients and physicians improves diagnostics, reduces medical errors, enhances communication, and leads to more patient-centered care — and physicians want their patients to use the portal to maximize their healthcare.

“[The EHR] is good for patients,” said Dr. DeBiasi. “Sometimes, patients have access issues with healthcare, whether that’s not knowing what number to call or getting the right message to the right person at the right office. If [the portal] is good for them and helps them get access to care, we should embrace that and figure out a way to work it into our day-to-day schedules.”

But maximizing the patient experience shouldn’t come at the physicians’ expense. Dr. Rittenberg advocates a model that compensates physicians for the time spent in the EHR and prioritizes a team approach to rebalance the EHR workload to ensure that physicians aren’t devoting too much time to administrative tasks and can, instead, focus their time on clinical tasks.

“The way in which we provide healthcare has fundamentally shifted, and compensation models need to reflect that new reality,” Dr. Rittenberg added.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Electronic health records (EHRs) make providing coordinated, efficient care easier and reduce medical errors and test duplications; research has also correlated EHR adoption with higher patient satisfaction and outcomes. However, for physicians, the benefits come at a cost.

Physicians spend significantly more time in healthcare portals, making notes, entering orders, reviewing clinical reports, and responding to patient messages.

“I spend at least the same amount of time in the portal that I do in scheduled clinical time with patients,” said Eve Rittenberg, MD, primary care physician at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and assistant professor at Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. “So, if I have a 4-hour session of seeing patients, I spend at least another 4 or more hours in the patient portal.”

The latest data showed that primary care physicians logged a median of 36.2 minutes in the healthcare portal per patient visit, spending 58.9% more time on orders, 24.4% more time reading and responding to messages, and 13% more time on chart review compared to prepandemic portal use.

“EHRs can be very powerful tools,” said Ralph DeBiasi, MD, a clinical cardiac electrophysiologist at Yale New Haven Health. “We’re still working on how to best harness that power to make us better doctors and better care teams and to take better care of our patients because their use can take up a lot of time.”
 

Portal Time Isn’t Paid Time

Sharp increases in the amount of time spent in the EHR responding to messages or dispensing medical advice via the portal often aren’t linked to increases in compensation; most portal time is unpaid.

“There isn’t specific time allocated to working in the portal; it’s either done in the office while a patient is sitting in an exam room or in the mornings and evenings outside of traditional working hours,” Dr. DeBiasi said. “I think it’s reasonable to consider it being reimbursed because we’re taking our time and effort and making decisions to help the patient.”

Compensation for portal time affects all physicians, but the degree of impact depends on their specialties. Primary care physicians spent significantly more daily and after-hours time in the EHR, entering notes and orders, and doing clinical reviews compared to surgical and medical specialties.

In addition to the outsized impact on primary care, physician compensation for portal time is also an equity issue.

Dr. Rittenberg researched the issue and found a higher volume of communication from both patients and staff to female physicians than male physicians. As a result, female physicians spend 41.4 minutes more on the EHR than their male counterparts, which equates to more unpaid time. It’s likely no coincidence then that burnout rates are also higher among female physicians, who also leave the clinical workforce in higher numbers, especially in primary care.

“Finding ways to fairly compensate physicians for their work also will address some of the equity issues in workload and the consequences,” Dr. Rittenberg said.
 

Addressing the Issue

Some health systems have started charging patients who seek medical advice via patient portals, equating the communication to asynchronous acute care or an additional care touchpoint and billing based on the length and complexity of the messages. Patient fees for seeking medical advice via portals vary widely depending on their health system and insurance.

At University of California San Francisco Health, billing patients for EHR communication led to a sharp decrease in patient messages, which eased physician workload. At Cleveland Clinic, physicians receive “productivity credits” for the time spent in the EHR that can be used to reduce their clinic hours (but have no impact on their compensation).

Changes to the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule also allow physicians to bill for “digital evaluation and management” based on the time spent in an EHR responding to patient-initiated questions and requests.

However, more efforts are needed to ease burnout and reverse the number of physicians who are seeing fewer patients or leaving medical practice altogether as a direct result of spending increasing amounts of unpaid time in the EHR. Dr. Rittenberg, who spends an estimated 50% of her working hours in the portal, had to reduce her clinical workload by 25% due to such heavy portal requirements.

“The workload has become unsustainable,” she said. “The work has undergone a dramatic change over the past decade, and the compensation system has not kept up with that change.”
 

Prioritizing Patient and Physician Experiences

The ever-expanding use of EHR is a result of their value as a healthcare tool. Data showed that the electronic exchange of information between patients and physicians improves diagnostics, reduces medical errors, enhances communication, and leads to more patient-centered care — and physicians want their patients to use the portal to maximize their healthcare.

“[The EHR] is good for patients,” said Dr. DeBiasi. “Sometimes, patients have access issues with healthcare, whether that’s not knowing what number to call or getting the right message to the right person at the right office. If [the portal] is good for them and helps them get access to care, we should embrace that and figure out a way to work it into our day-to-day schedules.”

But maximizing the patient experience shouldn’t come at the physicians’ expense. Dr. Rittenberg advocates a model that compensates physicians for the time spent in the EHR and prioritizes a team approach to rebalance the EHR workload to ensure that physicians aren’t devoting too much time to administrative tasks and can, instead, focus their time on clinical tasks.

“The way in which we provide healthcare has fundamentally shifted, and compensation models need to reflect that new reality,” Dr. Rittenberg added.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Electronic health records (EHRs) make providing coordinated, efficient care easier and reduce medical errors and test duplications; research has also correlated EHR adoption with higher patient satisfaction and outcomes. However, for physicians, the benefits come at a cost.

Physicians spend significantly more time in healthcare portals, making notes, entering orders, reviewing clinical reports, and responding to patient messages.

“I spend at least the same amount of time in the portal that I do in scheduled clinical time with patients,” said Eve Rittenberg, MD, primary care physician at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and assistant professor at Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. “So, if I have a 4-hour session of seeing patients, I spend at least another 4 or more hours in the patient portal.”

The latest data showed that primary care physicians logged a median of 36.2 minutes in the healthcare portal per patient visit, spending 58.9% more time on orders, 24.4% more time reading and responding to messages, and 13% more time on chart review compared to prepandemic portal use.

“EHRs can be very powerful tools,” said Ralph DeBiasi, MD, a clinical cardiac electrophysiologist at Yale New Haven Health. “We’re still working on how to best harness that power to make us better doctors and better care teams and to take better care of our patients because their use can take up a lot of time.”
 

Portal Time Isn’t Paid Time

Sharp increases in the amount of time spent in the EHR responding to messages or dispensing medical advice via the portal often aren’t linked to increases in compensation; most portal time is unpaid.

“There isn’t specific time allocated to working in the portal; it’s either done in the office while a patient is sitting in an exam room or in the mornings and evenings outside of traditional working hours,” Dr. DeBiasi said. “I think it’s reasonable to consider it being reimbursed because we’re taking our time and effort and making decisions to help the patient.”

Compensation for portal time affects all physicians, but the degree of impact depends on their specialties. Primary care physicians spent significantly more daily and after-hours time in the EHR, entering notes and orders, and doing clinical reviews compared to surgical and medical specialties.

In addition to the outsized impact on primary care, physician compensation for portal time is also an equity issue.

Dr. Rittenberg researched the issue and found a higher volume of communication from both patients and staff to female physicians than male physicians. As a result, female physicians spend 41.4 minutes more on the EHR than their male counterparts, which equates to more unpaid time. It’s likely no coincidence then that burnout rates are also higher among female physicians, who also leave the clinical workforce in higher numbers, especially in primary care.

“Finding ways to fairly compensate physicians for their work also will address some of the equity issues in workload and the consequences,” Dr. Rittenberg said.
 

Addressing the Issue

Some health systems have started charging patients who seek medical advice via patient portals, equating the communication to asynchronous acute care or an additional care touchpoint and billing based on the length and complexity of the messages. Patient fees for seeking medical advice via portals vary widely depending on their health system and insurance.

At University of California San Francisco Health, billing patients for EHR communication led to a sharp decrease in patient messages, which eased physician workload. At Cleveland Clinic, physicians receive “productivity credits” for the time spent in the EHR that can be used to reduce their clinic hours (but have no impact on their compensation).

Changes to the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule also allow physicians to bill for “digital evaluation and management” based on the time spent in an EHR responding to patient-initiated questions and requests.

However, more efforts are needed to ease burnout and reverse the number of physicians who are seeing fewer patients or leaving medical practice altogether as a direct result of spending increasing amounts of unpaid time in the EHR. Dr. Rittenberg, who spends an estimated 50% of her working hours in the portal, had to reduce her clinical workload by 25% due to such heavy portal requirements.

“The workload has become unsustainable,” she said. “The work has undergone a dramatic change over the past decade, and the compensation system has not kept up with that change.”
 

Prioritizing Patient and Physician Experiences

The ever-expanding use of EHR is a result of their value as a healthcare tool. Data showed that the electronic exchange of information between patients and physicians improves diagnostics, reduces medical errors, enhances communication, and leads to more patient-centered care — and physicians want their patients to use the portal to maximize their healthcare.

“[The EHR] is good for patients,” said Dr. DeBiasi. “Sometimes, patients have access issues with healthcare, whether that’s not knowing what number to call or getting the right message to the right person at the right office. If [the portal] is good for them and helps them get access to care, we should embrace that and figure out a way to work it into our day-to-day schedules.”

But maximizing the patient experience shouldn’t come at the physicians’ expense. Dr. Rittenberg advocates a model that compensates physicians for the time spent in the EHR and prioritizes a team approach to rebalance the EHR workload to ensure that physicians aren’t devoting too much time to administrative tasks and can, instead, focus their time on clinical tasks.

“The way in which we provide healthcare has fundamentally shifted, and compensation models need to reflect that new reality,” Dr. Rittenberg added.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Is liquid biopsy helpful for monitoring the effectiveness of adjuvant therapy for patients with non–small cell lung cancer? It depends on whom you ask.

The clinical utility of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) for detecting minimal residual disease (MRD) and for treatment planning postoperatively was a topic of debate at the European Lung Cancer Congress 2024, held in Prague, Czech Republic.
 

PRO: Prognostic Value

Enriqueta Felip, MD, PhD, of Vall d’Hebron Institute of Oncology in Barcelona, Spain, argued in favor of using liquid biopsy for disease surveillance and decision making about adjuvant therapy.

“In early stage non–small cell lung cancer I think the evidence shows that pretreatment baseline ctDNA levels are clearly prognostic, and also, after surgical resection, the MRD predicts relapse, so we know that at present ctDNA and MRD are strong prognostic markers,” she said.

“I think ctDNA is useful as a noninvasive tool in both settings — at baseline pre surgery and also post surgery — to guide adjuvant therapy decision making,” she added.

Dr. Felip noted that so-called “tumor-informed” assays, such as sequencing of tumor tissue to identify mutations that can then be tracked in plasma samples, are high sensitivity methods, but have a long turnaround time, and approximately one in five patients does not have adequate tumor tissues for analysis.

In contrast, “tumor agnostic” methods rely on epigenetic features such as DNA methylation and cell-free DNA fragmentation patterns to detect tumor-derived DNA, but don’t rely on tumor tissue sample.

Dr. Felip cited a 2017 study published in Cancer Discovery showing that in patients with localized lung cancer post treatment ctDNA detection preceded radiographic progression in 72% of patients by a median of 5.2 months. In addition, the investigators found that 53% of patients had ctDNA mutation profiles that suggested they would respond favorably to tyrosine kinase inhibitors or immune checkpoint inhibitors.

She also pointed to 2022 European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) recommendations on the use of ctDNA in patients with cancer, which state that detection of residual tumor DNA after NSCLC therapy with curative intent is associated with a high risk of future relapse, as supported by evidence from multiple studies. The recommendation also states, however, that there is insufficient evidence to recommend ctDNA testing in routine clinical practice in the absence of evidence from prospective clinical trials.

Evidence to support a benefit of ctDNA detection for treatment planning in the adjuvant setting come from several clinical studies, Dr. Felip said. For example, in a 2020 study published in Nature Cancer, investigators found that patients with detectable ctDNA after chemoradiotherapy who had treatment consolidation with an immune checkpoint inhibitor had significantly better freedom from progression compared with patients who had detectable ctDNA but did not receive consolidation immunotherapy.

In the IMpower010 trial, patients who were ctDNA-positive post surgery and received adjuvant atezolizumab (Tecentriq) had a median disease-free survival of 19.1 months, compared with 7.9 months for patients who did not get the immune checkpoint inhibitor, further indicating the value of ctDNA in the adjuvant setting, she said.

Wrapping up her argument, Dr. Felip acknowledged that currently the negative predictive value of ctDNA/MRD is suboptimal.

“However, we have seen that high ctDNA levels pre surgery predict poor outcome, and MRD-positive following definitive therapy is strongly prognostic and has extremely high positive predictive value for recurrence,” she said.

Taken together, the evidence suggests that patients who are ctDNA-positive preoperatively should be considered for neoadjuvant chemotherapy and immune checkpoint inhibition. If ctDNA persists after neoadjuvant therapy, patients should have extensive re-staging before surgery, because their options for pathologic complete response are limited. Patients who are MRD-positive after surgery should be treated with the same therapeutic approach as for patients with metastatic disease, Dr. Felip concluded.
 

CON: No Data Supporting OS Benefit

Offering counterpoint to Dr. Felip’s argument, Jordi Remon Masip, MD, PhD, of Gustave Roussy cancer treatment center in Villejuif, France, said that the currently available evidence suggests that MRD helps identify a high-risk population, but that its utility in the clinic is still uncertain.

“Today, I am a believer that we need prospective clinical trials, but one of the most important points today is to elucidate if the minimal residual disease is just prognostic or whether we really can use this minimal residual disease for making treatment decisions, not only escalating [but] also de-escalating treatment strategies in early stage non–small cell lung cancer,” he said.

Risk stratification may help to identify those patients who can most benefit from intensive therapy, but it appears to be much more difficult to risk stratify patients with early stage NSCLC, he said, pointing to the International Tailored Chemotherapy Adjuvant (ITACA) trial, a phase III multicenter randomized trial comparing adjuvant pharmacogenomic-driven chemotherapy versus standard adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with completely resected stage II-IIIA NSCLC. In this study, chemotherapy customized to individual patients according to molecular diagnostic analysis after surgery did not improve overall survival outcomes.

Dr. Masip said that as a clinician he would like to have any reliable tool that could help him to decide which patients need more therapy and which can do well with less.

He agreed that MRD-positivity as signaled by ctDNA after surgery or by a tumor-informed method correlates with poor prognosis, but he noted that MRD status depends on clinical characteristics such as sex, smoking status, age, stage, tumor size, histology, and many other factors that need to be taken into account if the assay is to have value in clinical practice.

“It’s true that the minimal residual disease may capture a poor prognostic population. However, even if we apply the minimal residual disease in our daily clinical practice, we can only capture, or we can only rescue 20% of the patients with the wild type or oncogenic early stage non–small cell lung cancer,” he said.

In addition, as Dr. Felip acknowledged, the negative predictive value of MRD is not infallible, with a 63% false negative rate compared with only a 2% false-positive rate.

“Half of the patients with the recurrence of the disease have a very, very low circulating tumor DNA, and the techniques are not sensitive enough to capture this minimal residual disease,” Dr. Masip said.

It would also be a mistake to forgo giving adjuvant therapy to those patients deemed to be MRD-negative on the basis of ctDNA, given the high false-negative rates, he said.

Oncologists also have to put themselves in their patients’ shoes:

“If our patients accept that with minimal residual disease I can only improve the disease-free survival without improving the overall survival, they would accept having less toxicity but the same survival that they would if they started the treatment later, and also what would happen if the patient is randomized to no adjuvant treatment because the minimal residual disease is negative, and some months later there is a recurrence of disease?” Dr. Masip said.

“I think we need more prospective data, but we really, really need a more sensitive test to avoid or to decrease the percentage of patients with false-negative results, and also we need very motivated patients that would accept to be randomized to de-escalate treatment strategies,” he concluded.


Dr. Felip disclosed advisory or speakers bureau roles for AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Beigene, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Eli Lilly, F. Hoffman-La Roche, Genentech, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Medical Trends, Medscape, Merck Serono, MSD, Novartis, PeerVoice, Peptomyc, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi, Takeda, and Turning Point Therapeutics. She has served as a board member of Grifols. Dr. Masip disclosed research support from MSD, AstraZeneca, and Sanofi, and other financial relationships with AstraZeneca, Sanofi, Takeda Roche, and Janssen.

Is liquid biopsy helpful for monitoring the effectiveness of adjuvant therapy for patients with non–small cell lung cancer? It depends on whom you ask.

The clinical utility of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) for detecting minimal residual disease (MRD) and for treatment planning postoperatively was a topic of debate at the European Lung Cancer Congress 2024, held in Prague, Czech Republic.
 

PRO: Prognostic Value

Enriqueta Felip, MD, PhD, of Vall d’Hebron Institute of Oncology in Barcelona, Spain, argued in favor of using liquid biopsy for disease surveillance and decision making about adjuvant therapy.

“In early stage non–small cell lung cancer I think the evidence shows that pretreatment baseline ctDNA levels are clearly prognostic, and also, after surgical resection, the MRD predicts relapse, so we know that at present ctDNA and MRD are strong prognostic markers,” she said.

“I think ctDNA is useful as a noninvasive tool in both settings — at baseline pre surgery and also post surgery — to guide adjuvant therapy decision making,” she added.

Dr. Felip noted that so-called “tumor-informed” assays, such as sequencing of tumor tissue to identify mutations that can then be tracked in plasma samples, are high sensitivity methods, but have a long turnaround time, and approximately one in five patients does not have adequate tumor tissues for analysis.

In contrast, “tumor agnostic” methods rely on epigenetic features such as DNA methylation and cell-free DNA fragmentation patterns to detect tumor-derived DNA, but don’t rely on tumor tissue sample.

Dr. Felip cited a 2017 study published in Cancer Discovery showing that in patients with localized lung cancer post treatment ctDNA detection preceded radiographic progression in 72% of patients by a median of 5.2 months. In addition, the investigators found that 53% of patients had ctDNA mutation profiles that suggested they would respond favorably to tyrosine kinase inhibitors or immune checkpoint inhibitors.

She also pointed to 2022 European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) recommendations on the use of ctDNA in patients with cancer, which state that detection of residual tumor DNA after NSCLC therapy with curative intent is associated with a high risk of future relapse, as supported by evidence from multiple studies. The recommendation also states, however, that there is insufficient evidence to recommend ctDNA testing in routine clinical practice in the absence of evidence from prospective clinical trials.

Evidence to support a benefit of ctDNA detection for treatment planning in the adjuvant setting come from several clinical studies, Dr. Felip said. For example, in a 2020 study published in Nature Cancer, investigators found that patients with detectable ctDNA after chemoradiotherapy who had treatment consolidation with an immune checkpoint inhibitor had significantly better freedom from progression compared with patients who had detectable ctDNA but did not receive consolidation immunotherapy.

In the IMpower010 trial, patients who were ctDNA-positive post surgery and received adjuvant atezolizumab (Tecentriq) had a median disease-free survival of 19.1 months, compared with 7.9 months for patients who did not get the immune checkpoint inhibitor, further indicating the value of ctDNA in the adjuvant setting, she said.

Wrapping up her argument, Dr. Felip acknowledged that currently the negative predictive value of ctDNA/MRD is suboptimal.

“However, we have seen that high ctDNA levels pre surgery predict poor outcome, and MRD-positive following definitive therapy is strongly prognostic and has extremely high positive predictive value for recurrence,” she said.

Taken together, the evidence suggests that patients who are ctDNA-positive preoperatively should be considered for neoadjuvant chemotherapy and immune checkpoint inhibition. If ctDNA persists after neoadjuvant therapy, patients should have extensive re-staging before surgery, because their options for pathologic complete response are limited. Patients who are MRD-positive after surgery should be treated with the same therapeutic approach as for patients with metastatic disease, Dr. Felip concluded.
 

CON: No Data Supporting OS Benefit

Offering counterpoint to Dr. Felip’s argument, Jordi Remon Masip, MD, PhD, of Gustave Roussy cancer treatment center in Villejuif, France, said that the currently available evidence suggests that MRD helps identify a high-risk population, but that its utility in the clinic is still uncertain.

“Today, I am a believer that we need prospective clinical trials, but one of the most important points today is to elucidate if the minimal residual disease is just prognostic or whether we really can use this minimal residual disease for making treatment decisions, not only escalating [but] also de-escalating treatment strategies in early stage non–small cell lung cancer,” he said.

Risk stratification may help to identify those patients who can most benefit from intensive therapy, but it appears to be much more difficult to risk stratify patients with early stage NSCLC, he said, pointing to the International Tailored Chemotherapy Adjuvant (ITACA) trial, a phase III multicenter randomized trial comparing adjuvant pharmacogenomic-driven chemotherapy versus standard adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with completely resected stage II-IIIA NSCLC. In this study, chemotherapy customized to individual patients according to molecular diagnostic analysis after surgery did not improve overall survival outcomes.

Dr. Masip said that as a clinician he would like to have any reliable tool that could help him to decide which patients need more therapy and which can do well with less.

He agreed that MRD-positivity as signaled by ctDNA after surgery or by a tumor-informed method correlates with poor prognosis, but he noted that MRD status depends on clinical characteristics such as sex, smoking status, age, stage, tumor size, histology, and many other factors that need to be taken into account if the assay is to have value in clinical practice.

“It’s true that the minimal residual disease may capture a poor prognostic population. However, even if we apply the minimal residual disease in our daily clinical practice, we can only capture, or we can only rescue 20% of the patients with the wild type or oncogenic early stage non–small cell lung cancer,” he said.

In addition, as Dr. Felip acknowledged, the negative predictive value of MRD is not infallible, with a 63% false negative rate compared with only a 2% false-positive rate.

“Half of the patients with the recurrence of the disease have a very, very low circulating tumor DNA, and the techniques are not sensitive enough to capture this minimal residual disease,” Dr. Masip said.

It would also be a mistake to forgo giving adjuvant therapy to those patients deemed to be MRD-negative on the basis of ctDNA, given the high false-negative rates, he said.

Oncologists also have to put themselves in their patients’ shoes:

“If our patients accept that with minimal residual disease I can only improve the disease-free survival without improving the overall survival, they would accept having less toxicity but the same survival that they would if they started the treatment later, and also what would happen if the patient is randomized to no adjuvant treatment because the minimal residual disease is negative, and some months later there is a recurrence of disease?” Dr. Masip said.

“I think we need more prospective data, but we really, really need a more sensitive test to avoid or to decrease the percentage of patients with false-negative results, and also we need very motivated patients that would accept to be randomized to de-escalate treatment strategies,” he concluded.


Dr. Felip disclosed advisory or speakers bureau roles for AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Beigene, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Eli Lilly, F. Hoffman-La Roche, Genentech, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Medical Trends, Medscape, Merck Serono, MSD, Novartis, PeerVoice, Peptomyc, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi, Takeda, and Turning Point Therapeutics. She has served as a board member of Grifols. Dr. Masip disclosed research support from MSD, AstraZeneca, and Sanofi, and other financial relationships with AstraZeneca, Sanofi, Takeda Roche, and Janssen.

Is liquid biopsy helpful for monitoring the effectiveness of adjuvant therapy for patients with non–small cell lung cancer? It depends on whom you ask.

The clinical utility of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) for detecting minimal residual disease (MRD) and for treatment planning postoperatively was a topic of debate at the European Lung Cancer Congress 2024, held in Prague, Czech Republic.
 

PRO: Prognostic Value

Enriqueta Felip, MD, PhD, of Vall d’Hebron Institute of Oncology in Barcelona, Spain, argued in favor of using liquid biopsy for disease surveillance and decision making about adjuvant therapy.

“In early stage non–small cell lung cancer I think the evidence shows that pretreatment baseline ctDNA levels are clearly prognostic, and also, after surgical resection, the MRD predicts relapse, so we know that at present ctDNA and MRD are strong prognostic markers,” she said.

“I think ctDNA is useful as a noninvasive tool in both settings — at baseline pre surgery and also post surgery — to guide adjuvant therapy decision making,” she added.

Dr. Felip noted that so-called “tumor-informed” assays, such as sequencing of tumor tissue to identify mutations that can then be tracked in plasma samples, are high sensitivity methods, but have a long turnaround time, and approximately one in five patients does not have adequate tumor tissues for analysis.

In contrast, “tumor agnostic” methods rely on epigenetic features such as DNA methylation and cell-free DNA fragmentation patterns to detect tumor-derived DNA, but don’t rely on tumor tissue sample.

Dr. Felip cited a 2017 study published in Cancer Discovery showing that in patients with localized lung cancer post treatment ctDNA detection preceded radiographic progression in 72% of patients by a median of 5.2 months. In addition, the investigators found that 53% of patients had ctDNA mutation profiles that suggested they would respond favorably to tyrosine kinase inhibitors or immune checkpoint inhibitors.

She also pointed to 2022 European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) recommendations on the use of ctDNA in patients with cancer, which state that detection of residual tumor DNA after NSCLC therapy with curative intent is associated with a high risk of future relapse, as supported by evidence from multiple studies. The recommendation also states, however, that there is insufficient evidence to recommend ctDNA testing in routine clinical practice in the absence of evidence from prospective clinical trials.

Evidence to support a benefit of ctDNA detection for treatment planning in the adjuvant setting come from several clinical studies, Dr. Felip said. For example, in a 2020 study published in Nature Cancer, investigators found that patients with detectable ctDNA after chemoradiotherapy who had treatment consolidation with an immune checkpoint inhibitor had significantly better freedom from progression compared with patients who had detectable ctDNA but did not receive consolidation immunotherapy.

In the IMpower010 trial, patients who were ctDNA-positive post surgery and received adjuvant atezolizumab (Tecentriq) had a median disease-free survival of 19.1 months, compared with 7.9 months for patients who did not get the immune checkpoint inhibitor, further indicating the value of ctDNA in the adjuvant setting, she said.

Wrapping up her argument, Dr. Felip acknowledged that currently the negative predictive value of ctDNA/MRD is suboptimal.

“However, we have seen that high ctDNA levels pre surgery predict poor outcome, and MRD-positive following definitive therapy is strongly prognostic and has extremely high positive predictive value for recurrence,” she said.

Taken together, the evidence suggests that patients who are ctDNA-positive preoperatively should be considered for neoadjuvant chemotherapy and immune checkpoint inhibition. If ctDNA persists after neoadjuvant therapy, patients should have extensive re-staging before surgery, because their options for pathologic complete response are limited. Patients who are MRD-positive after surgery should be treated with the same therapeutic approach as for patients with metastatic disease, Dr. Felip concluded.
 

CON: No Data Supporting OS Benefit

Offering counterpoint to Dr. Felip’s argument, Jordi Remon Masip, MD, PhD, of Gustave Roussy cancer treatment center in Villejuif, France, said that the currently available evidence suggests that MRD helps identify a high-risk population, but that its utility in the clinic is still uncertain.

“Today, I am a believer that we need prospective clinical trials, but one of the most important points today is to elucidate if the minimal residual disease is just prognostic or whether we really can use this minimal residual disease for making treatment decisions, not only escalating [but] also de-escalating treatment strategies in early stage non–small cell lung cancer,” he said.

Risk stratification may help to identify those patients who can most benefit from intensive therapy, but it appears to be much more difficult to risk stratify patients with early stage NSCLC, he said, pointing to the International Tailored Chemotherapy Adjuvant (ITACA) trial, a phase III multicenter randomized trial comparing adjuvant pharmacogenomic-driven chemotherapy versus standard adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with completely resected stage II-IIIA NSCLC. In this study, chemotherapy customized to individual patients according to molecular diagnostic analysis after surgery did not improve overall survival outcomes.

Dr. Masip said that as a clinician he would like to have any reliable tool that could help him to decide which patients need more therapy and which can do well with less.

He agreed that MRD-positivity as signaled by ctDNA after surgery or by a tumor-informed method correlates with poor prognosis, but he noted that MRD status depends on clinical characteristics such as sex, smoking status, age, stage, tumor size, histology, and many other factors that need to be taken into account if the assay is to have value in clinical practice.

“It’s true that the minimal residual disease may capture a poor prognostic population. However, even if we apply the minimal residual disease in our daily clinical practice, we can only capture, or we can only rescue 20% of the patients with the wild type or oncogenic early stage non–small cell lung cancer,” he said.

In addition, as Dr. Felip acknowledged, the negative predictive value of MRD is not infallible, with a 63% false negative rate compared with only a 2% false-positive rate.

“Half of the patients with the recurrence of the disease have a very, very low circulating tumor DNA, and the techniques are not sensitive enough to capture this minimal residual disease,” Dr. Masip said.

It would also be a mistake to forgo giving adjuvant therapy to those patients deemed to be MRD-negative on the basis of ctDNA, given the high false-negative rates, he said.

Oncologists also have to put themselves in their patients’ shoes:

“If our patients accept that with minimal residual disease I can only improve the disease-free survival without improving the overall survival, they would accept having less toxicity but the same survival that they would if they started the treatment later, and also what would happen if the patient is randomized to no adjuvant treatment because the minimal residual disease is negative, and some months later there is a recurrence of disease?” Dr. Masip said.

“I think we need more prospective data, but we really, really need a more sensitive test to avoid or to decrease the percentage of patients with false-negative results, and also we need very motivated patients that would accept to be randomized to de-escalate treatment strategies,” he concluded.


Dr. Felip disclosed advisory or speakers bureau roles for AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Beigene, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Eli Lilly, F. Hoffman-La Roche, Genentech, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Medical Trends, Medscape, Merck Serono, MSD, Novartis, PeerVoice, Peptomyc, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi, Takeda, and Turning Point Therapeutics. She has served as a board member of Grifols. Dr. Masip disclosed research support from MSD, AstraZeneca, and Sanofi, and other financial relationships with AstraZeneca, Sanofi, Takeda Roche, and Janssen.

In most Western countries, professional standards dictate that physicians should practice medicine with compassion. Patients also expect compassionate care from physicians because it represents a model capable of providing greater patient satisfaction, fostering better doctor-patient relationships, and enabling better psychological states among patients.

The etymology of the term “compassion” derives from the Latin roots “com,” meaning “together with,” and “pati,” meaning “to endure or suffer.” When discussing compassion, it is necessary to distinguish it from empathy, a term generally used to refer to cognitive or emotional processes in which the perspective of the other (in this case, the patient) is taken. Compassion implies or requires empathy and includes the desire to help or alleviate the suffering of others. Compassion in the medical context is likely a specific instance of a more complex adaptive system that has evolved, not only among humans, to motivate recognition and assistance when others suffer.
 

Compassion Fatigue

Physicians’ compassion is expected by patients and the profession. It is fundamental for effective clinical practice. Although compassion is central to medical practice, most research related to the topic has focused on “compassion fatigue,” which is understood as a specific type of professional burnout, as if physicians had a limited reserve of compassion that dwindles or becomes exhausted with use or overuse. This is one aspect of a much more complex problem, in which compassion represents the endpoint of a dynamic process that encompasses the influences of the physician, the patient, the clinic, and the institution.

Compassion Capacity: Conditioning Factors

Chronic exposure of physicians to conflicting work demands may be associated with the depletion of their psychological resources and, consequently, emotional and cognitive fatigue that can contribute to poorer work outcomes, including the ability to express compassion.

Rates of professional burnout in medicine are increasing. The driving factors of this phenomenon are largely rooted in organizations and healthcare systems and include excessive workloads, inefficient work processes, administrative burdens, and lack of input or control by physicians regarding issues concerning their work life. The outcome often is early retirement of physicians, a current, increasingly widespread phenomenon and a critical issue not only for the Italian National Health Service but also for other healthcare systems worldwide.
 

Organizational and Personal Values

There is no clear empirical evidence supporting the hypothesis that working in healthcare environments experienced as discrepant with one’s own values has negative effects on key professional outcomes. However, a study published in the Journal of Internal Medicine highlighted the overall negative effect of misalignment between system values and physicians’ personal values, including impaired ability to provide compassionate care, as well as reduced job satisfaction, burnout, absenteeism, and considering the possibility of early retirement. Results from 1000 surveyed professionals indicate that physicians’ subjective competence in providing compassionate care may remain high, but their ability to express it is compromised. From data analysis, the authors hypothesize that when working in environments with discrepant values, occupational contingencies may repeatedly require physicians to set aside their personal values, which can lead them to refrain from using available skills to keep their performance in line with organizational requirements.

These results and hypotheses are not consistent with the notion of compassion fatigue as a reflection of the cost of care resulting from exposure to repeated suffering. Previous evidence shows that expressing compassion in healthcare facilitates greater understanding, suggesting that providing compassion does not impoverish physicians but rather supports them in the effectiveness of interventions and in their satisfaction.

In summary, this study suggests that what prevents compassion is the inability to provide it when hindered by factors related to the situation in which the physician operates. Improving compassion does not simply depend on motivating individual professionals to be more compassionate or on promoting fundamental skills, but probably on the creation of organizational and clinical conditions in which physician compassion can thrive.

This story was translated from Univadis Italy, which is part of the Medscape professional network, using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In most Western countries, professional standards dictate that physicians should practice medicine with compassion. Patients also expect compassionate care from physicians because it represents a model capable of providing greater patient satisfaction, fostering better doctor-patient relationships, and enabling better psychological states among patients.

The etymology of the term “compassion” derives from the Latin roots “com,” meaning “together with,” and “pati,” meaning “to endure or suffer.” When discussing compassion, it is necessary to distinguish it from empathy, a term generally used to refer to cognitive or emotional processes in which the perspective of the other (in this case, the patient) is taken. Compassion implies or requires empathy and includes the desire to help or alleviate the suffering of others. Compassion in the medical context is likely a specific instance of a more complex adaptive system that has evolved, not only among humans, to motivate recognition and assistance when others suffer.
 

Compassion Fatigue

Physicians’ compassion is expected by patients and the profession. It is fundamental for effective clinical practice. Although compassion is central to medical practice, most research related to the topic has focused on “compassion fatigue,” which is understood as a specific type of professional burnout, as if physicians had a limited reserve of compassion that dwindles or becomes exhausted with use or overuse. This is one aspect of a much more complex problem, in which compassion represents the endpoint of a dynamic process that encompasses the influences of the physician, the patient, the clinic, and the institution.

Compassion Capacity: Conditioning Factors

Chronic exposure of physicians to conflicting work demands may be associated with the depletion of their psychological resources and, consequently, emotional and cognitive fatigue that can contribute to poorer work outcomes, including the ability to express compassion.

Rates of professional burnout in medicine are increasing. The driving factors of this phenomenon are largely rooted in organizations and healthcare systems and include excessive workloads, inefficient work processes, administrative burdens, and lack of input or control by physicians regarding issues concerning their work life. The outcome often is early retirement of physicians, a current, increasingly widespread phenomenon and a critical issue not only for the Italian National Health Service but also for other healthcare systems worldwide.
 

Organizational and Personal Values

There is no clear empirical evidence supporting the hypothesis that working in healthcare environments experienced as discrepant with one’s own values has negative effects on key professional outcomes. However, a study published in the Journal of Internal Medicine highlighted the overall negative effect of misalignment between system values and physicians’ personal values, including impaired ability to provide compassionate care, as well as reduced job satisfaction, burnout, absenteeism, and considering the possibility of early retirement. Results from 1000 surveyed professionals indicate that physicians’ subjective competence in providing compassionate care may remain high, but their ability to express it is compromised. From data analysis, the authors hypothesize that when working in environments with discrepant values, occupational contingencies may repeatedly require physicians to set aside their personal values, which can lead them to refrain from using available skills to keep their performance in line with organizational requirements.

These results and hypotheses are not consistent with the notion of compassion fatigue as a reflection of the cost of care resulting from exposure to repeated suffering. Previous evidence shows that expressing compassion in healthcare facilitates greater understanding, suggesting that providing compassion does not impoverish physicians but rather supports them in the effectiveness of interventions and in their satisfaction.

In summary, this study suggests that what prevents compassion is the inability to provide it when hindered by factors related to the situation in which the physician operates. Improving compassion does not simply depend on motivating individual professionals to be more compassionate or on promoting fundamental skills, but probably on the creation of organizational and clinical conditions in which physician compassion can thrive.

This story was translated from Univadis Italy, which is part of the Medscape professional network, using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In most Western countries, professional standards dictate that physicians should practice medicine with compassion. Patients also expect compassionate care from physicians because it represents a model capable of providing greater patient satisfaction, fostering better doctor-patient relationships, and enabling better psychological states among patients.

The etymology of the term “compassion” derives from the Latin roots “com,” meaning “together with,” and “pati,” meaning “to endure or suffer.” When discussing compassion, it is necessary to distinguish it from empathy, a term generally used to refer to cognitive or emotional processes in which the perspective of the other (in this case, the patient) is taken. Compassion implies or requires empathy and includes the desire to help or alleviate the suffering of others. Compassion in the medical context is likely a specific instance of a more complex adaptive system that has evolved, not only among humans, to motivate recognition and assistance when others suffer.
 

Compassion Fatigue

Physicians’ compassion is expected by patients and the profession. It is fundamental for effective clinical practice. Although compassion is central to medical practice, most research related to the topic has focused on “compassion fatigue,” which is understood as a specific type of professional burnout, as if physicians had a limited reserve of compassion that dwindles or becomes exhausted with use or overuse. This is one aspect of a much more complex problem, in which compassion represents the endpoint of a dynamic process that encompasses the influences of the physician, the patient, the clinic, and the institution.

Compassion Capacity: Conditioning Factors

Chronic exposure of physicians to conflicting work demands may be associated with the depletion of their psychological resources and, consequently, emotional and cognitive fatigue that can contribute to poorer work outcomes, including the ability to express compassion.

Rates of professional burnout in medicine are increasing. The driving factors of this phenomenon are largely rooted in organizations and healthcare systems and include excessive workloads, inefficient work processes, administrative burdens, and lack of input or control by physicians regarding issues concerning their work life. The outcome often is early retirement of physicians, a current, increasingly widespread phenomenon and a critical issue not only for the Italian National Health Service but also for other healthcare systems worldwide.
 

Organizational and Personal Values

There is no clear empirical evidence supporting the hypothesis that working in healthcare environments experienced as discrepant with one’s own values has negative effects on key professional outcomes. However, a study published in the Journal of Internal Medicine highlighted the overall negative effect of misalignment between system values and physicians’ personal values, including impaired ability to provide compassionate care, as well as reduced job satisfaction, burnout, absenteeism, and considering the possibility of early retirement. Results from 1000 surveyed professionals indicate that physicians’ subjective competence in providing compassionate care may remain high, but their ability to express it is compromised. From data analysis, the authors hypothesize that when working in environments with discrepant values, occupational contingencies may repeatedly require physicians to set aside their personal values, which can lead them to refrain from using available skills to keep their performance in line with organizational requirements.

These results and hypotheses are not consistent with the notion of compassion fatigue as a reflection of the cost of care resulting from exposure to repeated suffering. Previous evidence shows that expressing compassion in healthcare facilitates greater understanding, suggesting that providing compassion does not impoverish physicians but rather supports them in the effectiveness of interventions and in their satisfaction.

In summary, this study suggests that what prevents compassion is the inability to provide it when hindered by factors related to the situation in which the physician operates. Improving compassion does not simply depend on motivating individual professionals to be more compassionate or on promoting fundamental skills, but probably on the creation of organizational and clinical conditions in which physician compassion can thrive.

This story was translated from Univadis Italy, which is part of the Medscape professional network, using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Savolitinib, a selective oral tyrosine kinase inhibitor, showed good activity against locally advanced or metastatic non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) bearing MET exon 14 mutations as both first-line therapy for treatment-naive patients and in second-line of therapy for previously treated patients

“The phase 3b study results further confirm savolitinib as a valuable targeted therapy option for naive and previously-treated non–small cell lung cancer with MET 14 exon mutations,” Yongchang Zhang, MD, said while presenting the final results of the trial at the European Lung Cancer Congress 2024.

For 87 previously untreated patients the objective response rate (ORR) as assessed by independent review, the primary endpoint, was 62.1%. For 79 patients receiving savolitinib in the second line, the ORR was 39.2%, reported Dr. Zhang, MD, of the Hunan Cancer Hospital in Changsha, China.

Preliminary results of this trial were reported at the World Conference on Lung Cancer in 2023.

Selective Inhibitor

Savolitinib (AZD6094, also called volitinib) is reported to be a highly selective oral inhibitor of the MET receptor tyrosine kinase (TKI). It is approved in China for the treatment of patients with NSCLC harboring MET exon 14 mutations that has progressed on prior systemic therapy, or patients who are unable to tolerate platinum-based chemotherapy.

In the phase 3b study, patients with MET ex14-positive tumors who were negative for EGFR, ALK or ROS1 alterations and were naive to a MET inhibitor were enrolled. Those who weighed 50 kg or greater received 600 mg savolitinib orally once daily for each 21-day cycle, while patients who weighed less than 50 kg received a 400-mg daily dose. Therapy continued until disease progression, death, or unacceptable toxicity.

Tumors were evaluated by investigators every 6 weeks for the first year, than every 12 weeks thereafter.

As noted before, ORR by independent review was 62.1% for treatment-naive patients and 39.2% for previously treated patients. The respective ORRs by investigator assessment were 59.8% and 43%. All responses in each arm were partial responses.

Median progression-free survival (PFS) after a median follow-up of 18 months for treatment-naive patients and 11 months for treatment-experienced patients was 13.7 months and 11 months, respectively.

Overall survival after a median follow-up of 20.8 months for treatment-naive patients and 12.5 months for previously treated patients was not reached in treatment-naive patients and not mature in treatment-experienced patients.

Grade 3 or greater treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 74.1% of patients, including 3 events (1.8%) leading to death. Dose modifications were required for 74.7% of patients.

Grade 3 or greater adverse events included peripheral edema, liver enzyme elevations, abnormal liver function, decreased platelet and white blood cell counts, and vomiting.
 

Which TKI is Best?

Invited discussant Antonio Passaro, MD, PhD, from the European Institute of Oncology in Milan, noted that eligibility for treatment with savolitinib or other MET exon 14-targeting TKIs is limited to about 3% of patients with NSCLC of adenocarcinoma histology.

He said that savolitinib appears to be similar in performance to two other TKIs for NSCLC with MET exon-14 skipping mutations that are currently on the market in the United States, Europe, and Japan: capmatinib (Tabrecta) and tepotinib (Tepmetko).

“Globally, all the results show a numerically better performance when we use a selective TKI in first-line treatment over the second-line treatment, in particular for overall response rate,” he said.

Dr. Passaro noted that savolitinib differs from the other two MET TKIs in that PFS with savolitinib is similar for treatment-naive and previously treated patients.

He added, however, that “today it’s very difficult” to determine which is the “perfect” agent for a specific disease presentation, particularly since MET exon 14 skipping mutations can also be found in patients with squamous cell carcinomas and those with a history of smoking.

To get a better sense of which drug to use in a specific situation, it would be helpful to analyze trial results in the context of tumor histology, smoking history, programmed death protein 1-ligand 1 status, and co-mutations, he said.

The study was sponsored by Hutchmed. Dr. Zhang reported having no conflicts of interest. Dr. Passaro reported a consulting, advisory, or speakers bureau role for multiple companies, not including Hutchmed.

Savolitinib, a selective oral tyrosine kinase inhibitor, showed good activity against locally advanced or metastatic non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) bearing MET exon 14 mutations as both first-line therapy for treatment-naive patients and in second-line of therapy for previously treated patients

“The phase 3b study results further confirm savolitinib as a valuable targeted therapy option for naive and previously-treated non–small cell lung cancer with MET 14 exon mutations,” Yongchang Zhang, MD, said while presenting the final results of the trial at the European Lung Cancer Congress 2024.

For 87 previously untreated patients the objective response rate (ORR) as assessed by independent review, the primary endpoint, was 62.1%. For 79 patients receiving savolitinib in the second line, the ORR was 39.2%, reported Dr. Zhang, MD, of the Hunan Cancer Hospital in Changsha, China.

Preliminary results of this trial were reported at the World Conference on Lung Cancer in 2023.

Selective Inhibitor

Savolitinib (AZD6094, also called volitinib) is reported to be a highly selective oral inhibitor of the MET receptor tyrosine kinase (TKI). It is approved in China for the treatment of patients with NSCLC harboring MET exon 14 mutations that has progressed on prior systemic therapy, or patients who are unable to tolerate platinum-based chemotherapy.

In the phase 3b study, patients with MET ex14-positive tumors who were negative for EGFR, ALK or ROS1 alterations and were naive to a MET inhibitor were enrolled. Those who weighed 50 kg or greater received 600 mg savolitinib orally once daily for each 21-day cycle, while patients who weighed less than 50 kg received a 400-mg daily dose. Therapy continued until disease progression, death, or unacceptable toxicity.

Tumors were evaluated by investigators every 6 weeks for the first year, than every 12 weeks thereafter.

As noted before, ORR by independent review was 62.1% for treatment-naive patients and 39.2% for previously treated patients. The respective ORRs by investigator assessment were 59.8% and 43%. All responses in each arm were partial responses.

Median progression-free survival (PFS) after a median follow-up of 18 months for treatment-naive patients and 11 months for treatment-experienced patients was 13.7 months and 11 months, respectively.

Overall survival after a median follow-up of 20.8 months for treatment-naive patients and 12.5 months for previously treated patients was not reached in treatment-naive patients and not mature in treatment-experienced patients.

Grade 3 or greater treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 74.1% of patients, including 3 events (1.8%) leading to death. Dose modifications were required for 74.7% of patients.

Grade 3 or greater adverse events included peripheral edema, liver enzyme elevations, abnormal liver function, decreased platelet and white blood cell counts, and vomiting.
 

Which TKI is Best?

Invited discussant Antonio Passaro, MD, PhD, from the European Institute of Oncology in Milan, noted that eligibility for treatment with savolitinib or other MET exon 14-targeting TKIs is limited to about 3% of patients with NSCLC of adenocarcinoma histology.

He said that savolitinib appears to be similar in performance to two other TKIs for NSCLC with MET exon-14 skipping mutations that are currently on the market in the United States, Europe, and Japan: capmatinib (Tabrecta) and tepotinib (Tepmetko).

“Globally, all the results show a numerically better performance when we use a selective TKI in first-line treatment over the second-line treatment, in particular for overall response rate,” he said.

Dr. Passaro noted that savolitinib differs from the other two MET TKIs in that PFS with savolitinib is similar for treatment-naive and previously treated patients.

He added, however, that “today it’s very difficult” to determine which is the “perfect” agent for a specific disease presentation, particularly since MET exon 14 skipping mutations can also be found in patients with squamous cell carcinomas and those with a history of smoking.

To get a better sense of which drug to use in a specific situation, it would be helpful to analyze trial results in the context of tumor histology, smoking history, programmed death protein 1-ligand 1 status, and co-mutations, he said.

The study was sponsored by Hutchmed. Dr. Zhang reported having no conflicts of interest. Dr. Passaro reported a consulting, advisory, or speakers bureau role for multiple companies, not including Hutchmed.

Savolitinib, a selective oral tyrosine kinase inhibitor, showed good activity against locally advanced or metastatic non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) bearing MET exon 14 mutations as both first-line therapy for treatment-naive patients and in second-line of therapy for previously treated patients

“The phase 3b study results further confirm savolitinib as a valuable targeted therapy option for naive and previously-treated non–small cell lung cancer with MET 14 exon mutations,” Yongchang Zhang, MD, said while presenting the final results of the trial at the European Lung Cancer Congress 2024.

For 87 previously untreated patients the objective response rate (ORR) as assessed by independent review, the primary endpoint, was 62.1%. For 79 patients receiving savolitinib in the second line, the ORR was 39.2%, reported Dr. Zhang, MD, of the Hunan Cancer Hospital in Changsha, China.

Preliminary results of this trial were reported at the World Conference on Lung Cancer in 2023.

Selective Inhibitor

Savolitinib (AZD6094, also called volitinib) is reported to be a highly selective oral inhibitor of the MET receptor tyrosine kinase (TKI). It is approved in China for the treatment of patients with NSCLC harboring MET exon 14 mutations that has progressed on prior systemic therapy, or patients who are unable to tolerate platinum-based chemotherapy.

In the phase 3b study, patients with MET ex14-positive tumors who were negative for EGFR, ALK or ROS1 alterations and were naive to a MET inhibitor were enrolled. Those who weighed 50 kg or greater received 600 mg savolitinib orally once daily for each 21-day cycle, while patients who weighed less than 50 kg received a 400-mg daily dose. Therapy continued until disease progression, death, or unacceptable toxicity.

Tumors were evaluated by investigators every 6 weeks for the first year, than every 12 weeks thereafter.

As noted before, ORR by independent review was 62.1% for treatment-naive patients and 39.2% for previously treated patients. The respective ORRs by investigator assessment were 59.8% and 43%. All responses in each arm were partial responses.

Median progression-free survival (PFS) after a median follow-up of 18 months for treatment-naive patients and 11 months for treatment-experienced patients was 13.7 months and 11 months, respectively.

Overall survival after a median follow-up of 20.8 months for treatment-naive patients and 12.5 months for previously treated patients was not reached in treatment-naive patients and not mature in treatment-experienced patients.

Grade 3 or greater treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 74.1% of patients, including 3 events (1.8%) leading to death. Dose modifications were required for 74.7% of patients.

Grade 3 or greater adverse events included peripheral edema, liver enzyme elevations, abnormal liver function, decreased platelet and white blood cell counts, and vomiting.
 

Which TKI is Best?

Invited discussant Antonio Passaro, MD, PhD, from the European Institute of Oncology in Milan, noted that eligibility for treatment with savolitinib or other MET exon 14-targeting TKIs is limited to about 3% of patients with NSCLC of adenocarcinoma histology.

He said that savolitinib appears to be similar in performance to two other TKIs for NSCLC with MET exon-14 skipping mutations that are currently on the market in the United States, Europe, and Japan: capmatinib (Tabrecta) and tepotinib (Tepmetko).

“Globally, all the results show a numerically better performance when we use a selective TKI in first-line treatment over the second-line treatment, in particular for overall response rate,” he said.

Dr. Passaro noted that savolitinib differs from the other two MET TKIs in that PFS with savolitinib is similar for treatment-naive and previously treated patients.

He added, however, that “today it’s very difficult” to determine which is the “perfect” agent for a specific disease presentation, particularly since MET exon 14 skipping mutations can also be found in patients with squamous cell carcinomas and those with a history of smoking.

To get a better sense of which drug to use in a specific situation, it would be helpful to analyze trial results in the context of tumor histology, smoking history, programmed death protein 1-ligand 1 status, and co-mutations, he said.

The study was sponsored by Hutchmed. Dr. Zhang reported having no conflicts of interest. Dr. Passaro reported a consulting, advisory, or speakers bureau role for multiple companies, not including Hutchmed.

TOPLINE:

Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) therapies for patients may need to be briefly halted during treatment for COVID-19, but it does not escalate IBD flares, with prior vaccination for COVID-19 helping reduce complications from the virus.

METHODOLOGY:

• Patients with IBD who receive immunosuppressive agents are at an increased risk of developing severe SARS-CoV-2 infection; however, the effects of COVID-19 vaccination and treatment on the outcomes in patients with IBD are less known.
• Researchers assessed the effect of COVID-19 medications in 127 patients with IBD (age ≥ 18 years; 54% women) who were diagnosed with COVID-19 after the advent of vaccines and release of antiviral therapies.
• Patients were stratified into those who received treatment for COVID-19 (n = 44), defined as the use of antivirals and/or intravenous antibodies, and those who did not receive treatment for COVID-19 (n = 83).
• The primary outcome was the development of a severe SARS-CoV-2 infection (defined by the need for oxygen supplements, corticosteroids and/or antibiotic treatment, or hospitalization).
• The secondary outcomes were the percentage of patients who had their IBD therapy withheld and rates of IBD flare post COVID-19.

TAKEAWAY:

• The likelihood of being treated for COVID-19 was higher in patients on corticosteroids (odds ratio [OR], 4.61; P = .002) or in those undergoing advanced IBD therapies (OR, 2.78; P = .041) prior to infection.
• Advanced age at the time of infection (adjusted OR [aOR], 1.06; P = .018) and corticosteroid treatment prior to contracting COVID-19 (aOR, 9.86; P = .001) were associated with an increased risk for severe infection.
• After adjustment for multiple factors, the likelihood of withholding IBD treatment was higher in patients being treated for COVID-19 (aOR, 6.95; P = .007).

IN PRACTICE:

“Patients with IBD on advanced therapies were frequently treated for acute COVID-19. Although COVID-19 treatment was associated with temporary withholding of IBD therapy, it did not result in increased IBD flares,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The investigation, led by Laura C. Sahyoun, MD, Section of Digestive Diseases, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, was published online in Digestive Diseases and Sciences.

LIMITATIONS:

Owing to the small sample size, the outcomes comparing antivirals to intravenous antibodies and SARS-CoV-2 strain prevalence could not be assessed. This single-center study also may not reflect the different clinical practices pertaining to IBD and COVID-19 treatments.

DISCLOSURES:

The study did not receive any specific funding. One author reported receiving speaker fees and being part of advisory boards, and another author received research support and reported being a part of advisory boards.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) therapies for patients may need to be briefly halted during treatment for COVID-19, but it does not escalate IBD flares, with prior vaccination for COVID-19 helping reduce complications from the virus.

METHODOLOGY:

• Patients with IBD who receive immunosuppressive agents are at an increased risk of developing severe SARS-CoV-2 infection; however, the effects of COVID-19 vaccination and treatment on the outcomes in patients with IBD are less known.
• Researchers assessed the effect of COVID-19 medications in 127 patients with IBD (age ≥ 18 years; 54% women) who were diagnosed with COVID-19 after the advent of vaccines and release of antiviral therapies.
• Patients were stratified into those who received treatment for COVID-19 (n = 44), defined as the use of antivirals and/or intravenous antibodies, and those who did not receive treatment for COVID-19 (n = 83).
• The primary outcome was the development of a severe SARS-CoV-2 infection (defined by the need for oxygen supplements, corticosteroids and/or antibiotic treatment, or hospitalization).
• The secondary outcomes were the percentage of patients who had their IBD therapy withheld and rates of IBD flare post COVID-19.

TAKEAWAY:

• The likelihood of being treated for COVID-19 was higher in patients on corticosteroids (odds ratio [OR], 4.61; P = .002) or in those undergoing advanced IBD therapies (OR, 2.78; P = .041) prior to infection.
• Advanced age at the time of infection (adjusted OR [aOR], 1.06; P = .018) and corticosteroid treatment prior to contracting COVID-19 (aOR, 9.86; P = .001) were associated with an increased risk for severe infection.
• After adjustment for multiple factors, the likelihood of withholding IBD treatment was higher in patients being treated for COVID-19 (aOR, 6.95; P = .007).

IN PRACTICE:

“Patients with IBD on advanced therapies were frequently treated for acute COVID-19. Although COVID-19 treatment was associated with temporary withholding of IBD therapy, it did not result in increased IBD flares,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The investigation, led by Laura C. Sahyoun, MD, Section of Digestive Diseases, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, was published online in Digestive Diseases and Sciences.

LIMITATIONS:

Owing to the small sample size, the outcomes comparing antivirals to intravenous antibodies and SARS-CoV-2 strain prevalence could not be assessed. This single-center study also may not reflect the different clinical practices pertaining to IBD and COVID-19 treatments.

DISCLOSURES:

The study did not receive any specific funding. One author reported receiving speaker fees and being part of advisory boards, and another author received research support and reported being a part of advisory boards.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) therapies for patients may need to be briefly halted during treatment for COVID-19, but it does not escalate IBD flares, with prior vaccination for COVID-19 helping reduce complications from the virus.

METHODOLOGY:

• Patients with IBD who receive immunosuppressive agents are at an increased risk of developing severe SARS-CoV-2 infection; however, the effects of COVID-19 vaccination and treatment on the outcomes in patients with IBD are less known.
• Researchers assessed the effect of COVID-19 medications in 127 patients with IBD (age ≥ 18 years; 54% women) who were diagnosed with COVID-19 after the advent of vaccines and release of antiviral therapies.
• Patients were stratified into those who received treatment for COVID-19 (n = 44), defined as the use of antivirals and/or intravenous antibodies, and those who did not receive treatment for COVID-19 (n = 83).
• The primary outcome was the development of a severe SARS-CoV-2 infection (defined by the need for oxygen supplements, corticosteroids and/or antibiotic treatment, or hospitalization).
• The secondary outcomes were the percentage of patients who had their IBD therapy withheld and rates of IBD flare post COVID-19.

TAKEAWAY:

• The likelihood of being treated for COVID-19 was higher in patients on corticosteroids (odds ratio [OR], 4.61; P = .002) or in those undergoing advanced IBD therapies (OR, 2.78; P = .041) prior to infection.
• Advanced age at the time of infection (adjusted OR [aOR], 1.06; P = .018) and corticosteroid treatment prior to contracting COVID-19 (aOR, 9.86; P = .001) were associated with an increased risk for severe infection.
• After adjustment for multiple factors, the likelihood of withholding IBD treatment was higher in patients being treated for COVID-19 (aOR, 6.95; P = .007).

IN PRACTICE:

“Patients with IBD on advanced therapies were frequently treated for acute COVID-19. Although COVID-19 treatment was associated with temporary withholding of IBD therapy, it did not result in increased IBD flares,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The investigation, led by Laura C. Sahyoun, MD, Section of Digestive Diseases, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, was published online in Digestive Diseases and Sciences.

LIMITATIONS:

Owing to the small sample size, the outcomes comparing antivirals to intravenous antibodies and SARS-CoV-2 strain prevalence could not be assessed. This single-center study also may not reflect the different clinical practices pertaining to IBD and COVID-19 treatments.

DISCLOSURES:

The study did not receive any specific funding. One author reported receiving speaker fees and being part of advisory boards, and another author received research support and reported being a part of advisory boards.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Hospitalization for influenza is linked to a greater risk for subsequent neurologic disorders including migraine, stroke, or epilepsy than is hospitalization for COVID-19, results of a large study show.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers used healthcare claims data to compare 77,300 people hospitalized with COVID-19 with 77,300 hospitalized with influenza. The study did not include individuals with long COVID.
• In the final sample of 154,500 participants, the mean age was 51 years, and more than half (58%) were female.
• Investigators followed participants from both cohorts for a year to find out how many of them had medical care for six of the most common neurologic disorders: migraine, epilepsy, stroke, neuropathy, movement disorders, and dementia.
• If participants had one of these neurologic disorders prior to the original hospitalization, the primary outcome involved subsequent healthcare encounters for the neurologic diagnosis.

TAKEAWAY:

• Participants hospitalized with COVID-19 versus influenza were significantly less likely to require care in the following year for migraine (2% vs 3.2%), epilepsy (1.6% vs 2.1%), neuropathy (1.9% vs 3.6%), movement disorders (1.5% vs 2.5%), stroke (2% vs 2.4%), and dementia (2% vs 2.3%) (all P < .001).
• After adjusting for age, sex, and other health conditions, researchers found that people hospitalized with COVID-19 had a 35% lower risk of receiving care for migraine, a 22% lower risk of receiving care for epilepsy, and a 44% lower risk of receiving care for neuropathy than those with influenza. They also had a 36% lower risk of receiving care for movement disorders, a 10% lower risk for stroke (all P < .001), as well as a 7% lower risk for dementia (P = .0007).
• In participants who did not have a preexisting neurologic condition at the time of hospitalization for either COVID-19 or influenza, 2.8% hospitalized with COVID-19 developed one in the next year compared with 5% of those hospitalized with influenza.

IN PRACTICE:

“While the results were not what we expected to find, they are reassuring in that we found being hospitalized with COVID did not lead to more care for common neurologic conditions when compared to being hospitalized with influenza,” study investigator Brian C. Callaghan, MD, of University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said in a press release.

SOURCE:

Adam de Havenon, MD, of Yale University in New Haven, Connecticut, led the study, which was published online on March 20 in Neurology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study relied on ICD codes in health claims databases, which could introduce misclassification bias. Also, by selecting only individuals who had associated hospital-based care, there may have been a selection bias based on disease severity.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the American Academy of Neurology. Dr. De Havenon reported receiving consultant fees from Integra and Novo Nordisk and royalty fees from UpToDate and has equity in Titin KM and Certus. Dr. Callaghan has consulted for DynaMed and the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. Other disclosures were noted in the original article.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Hospitalization for influenza is linked to a greater risk for subsequent neurologic disorders including migraine, stroke, or epilepsy than is hospitalization for COVID-19, results of a large study show.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers used healthcare claims data to compare 77,300 people hospitalized with COVID-19 with 77,300 hospitalized with influenza. The study did not include individuals with long COVID.
• In the final sample of 154,500 participants, the mean age was 51 years, and more than half (58%) were female.
• Investigators followed participants from both cohorts for a year to find out how many of them had medical care for six of the most common neurologic disorders: migraine, epilepsy, stroke, neuropathy, movement disorders, and dementia.
• If participants had one of these neurologic disorders prior to the original hospitalization, the primary outcome involved subsequent healthcare encounters for the neurologic diagnosis.

TAKEAWAY:

• Participants hospitalized with COVID-19 versus influenza were significantly less likely to require care in the following year for migraine (2% vs 3.2%), epilepsy (1.6% vs 2.1%), neuropathy (1.9% vs 3.6%), movement disorders (1.5% vs 2.5%), stroke (2% vs 2.4%), and dementia (2% vs 2.3%) (all P < .001).
• After adjusting for age, sex, and other health conditions, researchers found that people hospitalized with COVID-19 had a 35% lower risk of receiving care for migraine, a 22% lower risk of receiving care for epilepsy, and a 44% lower risk of receiving care for neuropathy than those with influenza. They also had a 36% lower risk of receiving care for movement disorders, a 10% lower risk for stroke (all P < .001), as well as a 7% lower risk for dementia (P = .0007).
• In participants who did not have a preexisting neurologic condition at the time of hospitalization for either COVID-19 or influenza, 2.8% hospitalized with COVID-19 developed one in the next year compared with 5% of those hospitalized with influenza.

IN PRACTICE:

“While the results were not what we expected to find, they are reassuring in that we found being hospitalized with COVID did not lead to more care for common neurologic conditions when compared to being hospitalized with influenza,” study investigator Brian C. Callaghan, MD, of University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said in a press release.

SOURCE:

Adam de Havenon, MD, of Yale University in New Haven, Connecticut, led the study, which was published online on March 20 in Neurology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study relied on ICD codes in health claims databases, which could introduce misclassification bias. Also, by selecting only individuals who had associated hospital-based care, there may have been a selection bias based on disease severity.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the American Academy of Neurology. Dr. De Havenon reported receiving consultant fees from Integra and Novo Nordisk and royalty fees from UpToDate and has equity in Titin KM and Certus. Dr. Callaghan has consulted for DynaMed and the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. Other disclosures were noted in the original article.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Hospitalization for influenza is linked to a greater risk for subsequent neurologic disorders including migraine, stroke, or epilepsy than is hospitalization for COVID-19, results of a large study show.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers used healthcare claims data to compare 77,300 people hospitalized with COVID-19 with 77,300 hospitalized with influenza. The study did not include individuals with long COVID.
• In the final sample of 154,500 participants, the mean age was 51 years, and more than half (58%) were female.
• Investigators followed participants from both cohorts for a year to find out how many of them had medical care for six of the most common neurologic disorders: migraine, epilepsy, stroke, neuropathy, movement disorders, and dementia.
• If participants had one of these neurologic disorders prior to the original hospitalization, the primary outcome involved subsequent healthcare encounters for the neurologic diagnosis.

TAKEAWAY:

• Participants hospitalized with COVID-19 versus influenza were significantly less likely to require care in the following year for migraine (2% vs 3.2%), epilepsy (1.6% vs 2.1%), neuropathy (1.9% vs 3.6%), movement disorders (1.5% vs 2.5%), stroke (2% vs 2.4%), and dementia (2% vs 2.3%) (all P < .001).
• After adjusting for age, sex, and other health conditions, researchers found that people hospitalized with COVID-19 had a 35% lower risk of receiving care for migraine, a 22% lower risk of receiving care for epilepsy, and a 44% lower risk of receiving care for neuropathy than those with influenza. They also had a 36% lower risk of receiving care for movement disorders, a 10% lower risk for stroke (all P < .001), as well as a 7% lower risk for dementia (P = .0007).
• In participants who did not have a preexisting neurologic condition at the time of hospitalization for either COVID-19 or influenza, 2.8% hospitalized with COVID-19 developed one in the next year compared with 5% of those hospitalized with influenza.

IN PRACTICE:

“While the results were not what we expected to find, they are reassuring in that we found being hospitalized with COVID did not lead to more care for common neurologic conditions when compared to being hospitalized with influenza,” study investigator Brian C. Callaghan, MD, of University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said in a press release.

SOURCE:

Adam de Havenon, MD, of Yale University in New Haven, Connecticut, led the study, which was published online on March 20 in Neurology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study relied on ICD codes in health claims databases, which could introduce misclassification bias. Also, by selecting only individuals who had associated hospital-based care, there may have been a selection bias based on disease severity.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the American Academy of Neurology. Dr. De Havenon reported receiving consultant fees from Integra and Novo Nordisk and royalty fees from UpToDate and has equity in Titin KM and Certus. Dr. Callaghan has consulted for DynaMed and the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. Other disclosures were noted in the original article.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Most survivors of childhood cancer don’t meet surveillance guidelines that recommend screening for adult cancers or other long-term adverse effects of treatment, according to a new study.

Among childhood cancer survivors in Ontario, Canada, who faced an elevated risk due to chemotherapy or radiation treatments, 53% followed screening recommendations for cardiomyopathy, 13% met colorectal cancer screening guidelines, and 6% adhered to breast cancer screening guidelines.

“Although over 80% of children newly diagnosed with cancer will become long-term survivors, as many as four out of five of these survivors will develop a serious or life-threatening late effect of their cancer therapy by age 45,” lead author Jennifer Shuldiner, PhD, MPH, a scientist at Women’s College Hospital Institute for Health Systems Solutions and Virtual Care in Toronto, told this news organization.

For instance, the risk for colorectal cancer in childhood cancer survivors is two to three times higher than it is among the general population, and the risk for breast cancer is similar between those who underwent chest radiation and those with a BRCA mutation. As many as 50% of those who received anthracycline chemotherapy or radiation involving the heart later develop cardiotoxicity.

The North American Children’s Oncology Group has published long-term follow-up guidelines for survivors of childhood cancer, yet many survivors don’t follow them because of lack of awareness or other barriers, said Dr. Shuldiner.

“Prior research has shown that many survivors do not complete these recommended tests,” she said. “With better knowledge of this at-risk population, we can design, test, and implement appropriate interventions and supports to tackle the issues.”

The study was published online on March 11 in CMAJ. 
 

Changes in Adherence 

The researchers conducted a retrospective population-based cohort study analyzing Ontario healthcare administrative data for adult survivors of childhood cancer diagnosed between 1986 and 2014 who faced an elevated risk for therapy-related colorectal cancer, breast cancer, or cardiomyopathy. The research team then assessed long-term adherence to the North American Children’s Oncology Group guidelines and predictors of adherence.

Among 3241 survivors, 3205 (99%) were at elevated risk for cardiomyopathy, 327 (10%) were at elevated risk for colorectal cancer, and 234 (7%) were at elevated risk for breast cancer. In addition, 2806 (87%) were at risk for one late effect, 345 (11%) were at risk for two late effects, and 90 (3%) were at risk for three late effects.

Overall, 53%, 13%, and 6% were adherent to their recommended surveillance for cardiomyopathy, colorectal cancer, and breast cancer, respectively. Over time, adherence increased for colorectal cancer and cardiomyopathy but decreased for breast cancer.

In addition, patients who were older at diagnosis were more likely to follow screening guidelines for colorectal and breast cancers, whereas those who were younger at diagnosis were more likely to follow screening guidelines for cardiomyopathy.

During a median follow-up of 7.8 years, the proportion of time spent adherent was 43% for cardiomyopathy, 14% for colorectal cancer, and 10% for breast cancer.

Survivors who attended a long-term follow-up clinic in the previous year had low adherence rates as well, though they were higher than in the rest of the cohort. In this group, the proportion of time that was spent adherent was 71% for cardiomyopathy, 27% for colorectal cancer, and 15% for breast cancer.

Shuldiner and colleagues are launching a research trial to determine whether a provincial support system can help childhood cancer survivors receive the recommended surveillance. The support system provides information about screening recommendations to survivors as well as reminders and sends key information to their family doctors.

“We now understand that childhood cancer survivors need help to complete the recommended tests,” said Dr. Shuldiner. “If the trial is successful, we hope it will be implemented in Ontario.” 
 

Survivorship Care Plans 

Low screening rates may result from a lack of awareness about screening recommendations and the negative long-term effects of cancer treatments, the study authors wrote. Cancer survivors, caregivers, family physicians, specialists, and survivor support groups can share the responsibility of spreading awareness and adhering to guidelines, they noted. In some cases, a survivorship care plan (SCP) may help.

“SCPs are intended to improve adherence by providing follow-up information and facilitating the transition from cancer treatment to survivorship and from pediatric to adult care,” Adam Yan, MD, a staff oncologist and oncology informatics lead at the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto, told this news organization.

Dr. Yan, who wasn’t involved with this study, has researched surveillance adherence for secondary cancers and cardiac dysfunction among childhood cancer survivors. He and his colleagues found that screening rates were typically low among survivors who faced high risks for cardiac dysfunction and breast, colorectal, or skin cancers.

However, having a survivorship care plan seemed to help, and survivors treated after 1990 were more likely to have an SCP.

“SCP possession by high-risk survivors was associated with increased breast, skin, and cardiac surveillance,” he said. “It is uncertain whether SCP possession leads to adherence or whether SCP possession is a marker of survivors who are focused on their health and thus likely to adhere to preventive health practices, including surveillance.”

The study was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and ICES, which receives support from the Ontario Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Long-Term Care. Dr. Shuldiner received a Canadian Institutes of Health Research Health System Impact Postdoctoral Fellowship in support of the work. Dr. Yan disclosed no relevant financial relationships. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Most survivors of childhood cancer don’t meet surveillance guidelines that recommend screening for adult cancers or other long-term adverse effects of treatment, according to a new study.

Among childhood cancer survivors in Ontario, Canada, who faced an elevated risk due to chemotherapy or radiation treatments, 53% followed screening recommendations for cardiomyopathy, 13% met colorectal cancer screening guidelines, and 6% adhered to breast cancer screening guidelines.

“Although over 80% of children newly diagnosed with cancer will become long-term survivors, as many as four out of five of these survivors will develop a serious or life-threatening late effect of their cancer therapy by age 45,” lead author Jennifer Shuldiner, PhD, MPH, a scientist at Women’s College Hospital Institute for Health Systems Solutions and Virtual Care in Toronto, told this news organization.

For instance, the risk for colorectal cancer in childhood cancer survivors is two to three times higher than it is among the general population, and the risk for breast cancer is similar between those who underwent chest radiation and those with a BRCA mutation. As many as 50% of those who received anthracycline chemotherapy or radiation involving the heart later develop cardiotoxicity.

The North American Children’s Oncology Group has published long-term follow-up guidelines for survivors of childhood cancer, yet many survivors don’t follow them because of lack of awareness or other barriers, said Dr. Shuldiner.

“Prior research has shown that many survivors do not complete these recommended tests,” she said. “With better knowledge of this at-risk population, we can design, test, and implement appropriate interventions and supports to tackle the issues.”

The study was published online on March 11 in CMAJ. 
 

Changes in Adherence 

The researchers conducted a retrospective population-based cohort study analyzing Ontario healthcare administrative data for adult survivors of childhood cancer diagnosed between 1986 and 2014 who faced an elevated risk for therapy-related colorectal cancer, breast cancer, or cardiomyopathy. The research team then assessed long-term adherence to the North American Children’s Oncology Group guidelines and predictors of adherence.

Among 3241 survivors, 3205 (99%) were at elevated risk for cardiomyopathy, 327 (10%) were at elevated risk for colorectal cancer, and 234 (7%) were at elevated risk for breast cancer. In addition, 2806 (87%) were at risk for one late effect, 345 (11%) were at risk for two late effects, and 90 (3%) were at risk for three late effects.

Overall, 53%, 13%, and 6% were adherent to their recommended surveillance for cardiomyopathy, colorectal cancer, and breast cancer, respectively. Over time, adherence increased for colorectal cancer and cardiomyopathy but decreased for breast cancer.

In addition, patients who were older at diagnosis were more likely to follow screening guidelines for colorectal and breast cancers, whereas those who were younger at diagnosis were more likely to follow screening guidelines for cardiomyopathy.

During a median follow-up of 7.8 years, the proportion of time spent adherent was 43% for cardiomyopathy, 14% for colorectal cancer, and 10% for breast cancer.

Survivors who attended a long-term follow-up clinic in the previous year had low adherence rates as well, though they were higher than in the rest of the cohort. In this group, the proportion of time that was spent adherent was 71% for cardiomyopathy, 27% for colorectal cancer, and 15% for breast cancer.

Shuldiner and colleagues are launching a research trial to determine whether a provincial support system can help childhood cancer survivors receive the recommended surveillance. The support system provides information about screening recommendations to survivors as well as reminders and sends key information to their family doctors.

“We now understand that childhood cancer survivors need help to complete the recommended tests,” said Dr. Shuldiner. “If the trial is successful, we hope it will be implemented in Ontario.” 
 

Survivorship Care Plans 

Low screening rates may result from a lack of awareness about screening recommendations and the negative long-term effects of cancer treatments, the study authors wrote. Cancer survivors, caregivers, family physicians, specialists, and survivor support groups can share the responsibility of spreading awareness and adhering to guidelines, they noted. In some cases, a survivorship care plan (SCP) may help.

“SCPs are intended to improve adherence by providing follow-up information and facilitating the transition from cancer treatment to survivorship and from pediatric to adult care,” Adam Yan, MD, a staff oncologist and oncology informatics lead at the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto, told this news organization.

Dr. Yan, who wasn’t involved with this study, has researched surveillance adherence for secondary cancers and cardiac dysfunction among childhood cancer survivors. He and his colleagues found that screening rates were typically low among survivors who faced high risks for cardiac dysfunction and breast, colorectal, or skin cancers.

However, having a survivorship care plan seemed to help, and survivors treated after 1990 were more likely to have an SCP.

“SCP possession by high-risk survivors was associated with increased breast, skin, and cardiac surveillance,” he said. “It is uncertain whether SCP possession leads to adherence or whether SCP possession is a marker of survivors who are focused on their health and thus likely to adhere to preventive health practices, including surveillance.”

The study was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and ICES, which receives support from the Ontario Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Long-Term Care. Dr. Shuldiner received a Canadian Institutes of Health Research Health System Impact Postdoctoral Fellowship in support of the work. Dr. Yan disclosed no relevant financial relationships. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Most survivors of childhood cancer don’t meet surveillance guidelines that recommend screening for adult cancers or other long-term adverse effects of treatment, according to a new study.

Among childhood cancer survivors in Ontario, Canada, who faced an elevated risk due to chemotherapy or radiation treatments, 53% followed screening recommendations for cardiomyopathy, 13% met colorectal cancer screening guidelines, and 6% adhered to breast cancer screening guidelines.

“Although over 80% of children newly diagnosed with cancer will become long-term survivors, as many as four out of five of these survivors will develop a serious or life-threatening late effect of their cancer therapy by age 45,” lead author Jennifer Shuldiner, PhD, MPH, a scientist at Women’s College Hospital Institute for Health Systems Solutions and Virtual Care in Toronto, told this news organization.

For instance, the risk for colorectal cancer in childhood cancer survivors is two to three times higher than it is among the general population, and the risk for breast cancer is similar between those who underwent chest radiation and those with a BRCA mutation. As many as 50% of those who received anthracycline chemotherapy or radiation involving the heart later develop cardiotoxicity.

The North American Children’s Oncology Group has published long-term follow-up guidelines for survivors of childhood cancer, yet many survivors don’t follow them because of lack of awareness or other barriers, said Dr. Shuldiner.

“Prior research has shown that many survivors do not complete these recommended tests,” she said. “With better knowledge of this at-risk population, we can design, test, and implement appropriate interventions and supports to tackle the issues.”

The study was published online on March 11 in CMAJ. 
 

Changes in Adherence 

The researchers conducted a retrospective population-based cohort study analyzing Ontario healthcare administrative data for adult survivors of childhood cancer diagnosed between 1986 and 2014 who faced an elevated risk for therapy-related colorectal cancer, breast cancer, or cardiomyopathy. The research team then assessed long-term adherence to the North American Children’s Oncology Group guidelines and predictors of adherence.

Among 3241 survivors, 3205 (99%) were at elevated risk for cardiomyopathy, 327 (10%) were at elevated risk for colorectal cancer, and 234 (7%) were at elevated risk for breast cancer. In addition, 2806 (87%) were at risk for one late effect, 345 (11%) were at risk for two late effects, and 90 (3%) were at risk for three late effects.

Overall, 53%, 13%, and 6% were adherent to their recommended surveillance for cardiomyopathy, colorectal cancer, and breast cancer, respectively. Over time, adherence increased for colorectal cancer and cardiomyopathy but decreased for breast cancer.

In addition, patients who were older at diagnosis were more likely to follow screening guidelines for colorectal and breast cancers, whereas those who were younger at diagnosis were more likely to follow screening guidelines for cardiomyopathy.

During a median follow-up of 7.8 years, the proportion of time spent adherent was 43% for cardiomyopathy, 14% for colorectal cancer, and 10% for breast cancer.

Survivors who attended a long-term follow-up clinic in the previous year had low adherence rates as well, though they were higher than in the rest of the cohort. In this group, the proportion of time that was spent adherent was 71% for cardiomyopathy, 27% for colorectal cancer, and 15% for breast cancer.

Shuldiner and colleagues are launching a research trial to determine whether a provincial support system can help childhood cancer survivors receive the recommended surveillance. The support system provides information about screening recommendations to survivors as well as reminders and sends key information to their family doctors.

“We now understand that childhood cancer survivors need help to complete the recommended tests,” said Dr. Shuldiner. “If the trial is successful, we hope it will be implemented in Ontario.” 
 

Survivorship Care Plans 

Low screening rates may result from a lack of awareness about screening recommendations and the negative long-term effects of cancer treatments, the study authors wrote. Cancer survivors, caregivers, family physicians, specialists, and survivor support groups can share the responsibility of spreading awareness and adhering to guidelines, they noted. In some cases, a survivorship care plan (SCP) may help.

“SCPs are intended to improve adherence by providing follow-up information and facilitating the transition from cancer treatment to survivorship and from pediatric to adult care,” Adam Yan, MD, a staff oncologist and oncology informatics lead at the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto, told this news organization.

Dr. Yan, who wasn’t involved with this study, has researched surveillance adherence for secondary cancers and cardiac dysfunction among childhood cancer survivors. He and his colleagues found that screening rates were typically low among survivors who faced high risks for cardiac dysfunction and breast, colorectal, or skin cancers.

However, having a survivorship care plan seemed to help, and survivors treated after 1990 were more likely to have an SCP.

“SCP possession by high-risk survivors was associated with increased breast, skin, and cardiac surveillance,” he said. “It is uncertain whether SCP possession leads to adherence or whether SCP possession is a marker of survivors who are focused on their health and thus likely to adhere to preventive health practices, including surveillance.”

The study was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and ICES, which receives support from the Ontario Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Long-Term Care. Dr. Shuldiner received a Canadian Institutes of Health Research Health System Impact Postdoctoral Fellowship in support of the work. Dr. Yan disclosed no relevant financial relationships. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In the not-too-distant future, immunotherapy might be administered to cancer patients in their homes.

The possibility is being driven by the development of subcutaneous formulations of commonly used immune checkpoint inhibitors for non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and other indications, including pembrolizumab, nivolumab, durvalumab, atezolizumab, and amivantamab.

Instead of waiting anywhere from 30 minutes to several hours for infusions into their veins, patients would spend just a few minutes being injected under the loose skin of their abdomens or thighs. Clinicians would save time and money, and patients would leave the clinic much sooner than normal. The ease of subcutaneous injections also opens up an opportunity for home treatment, a potential boon for people who don’t want to spend their remaining time on hospital visits.

“In the future, I hope we can deliver these medicines at home,” said Hazel O’Sullivan, MBBCh, a medical lung cancer oncologist at Cork University, Ireland, who explained the issues during a session at the 2024 European Lung Cancer Congress.

She was the discussant on two studies at the meeting that highlighted the latest developments in the field, the IMscin002 study of subcutaneous atezolizumab and the PALOMA study of subcutaneous amivantamab, both mostly in NSCLC patients.

Subcutaneous atezolizumab was approved recently in Europe after its maker, Genentech/Roche, made a convincing case that its pharmacokinetics, efficacy, and safety are comparable to the intravenous (IV) version. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is considering approval; Genentech/Roche anticipates a decision in 2024.

IMscin002 randomized 179 stage 2-4 NSCLC patients evenly to IV or subcutaneous atezolizumab for the first three cycles, then switched them for three more cycles.

Participants were then asked what version they preferred and what they wanted to continue with.

Seventy-one percent said they liked the subcutaneous version better and 80% opted to continue with it. Their main reasons were because they spent less time in the clinic and it was more comfortable.

When asked about the potential for home administration, presenter Federico Cappuzzo, MD, PhD, a medical lung cancer oncologist in Rome, said that it could be “an important option in the future,” particularly in isolated areas far away from hospitals.

The authors of new research are currently evaluating whether home administration is possible. Nurses are administering atezolizumab to patients in their homes with telemedicine monitoring.

The other subcutaneous study presented at the meeting, the PALOMA trial with amivantamab, had only 19 subjects. Administration took no more than 10 minutes, versus potentially hours, especially for the first dose. Subcutaneous amivantamab was given once a month, versus every 2 weeks for the IV formulation, during the maintenance phase of treatment.

The take-home from PALOMA is that the risk of infusion reactions is lower with subcutaneous administration (16% versus 67%) but the risk of mostly mild skin rashes is higher (79% versus 36%).

Investigation is ongoing to confirm safety, pharmacokinetic, and efficacy equivalence with the IV formulation, including in combination with other medications.

When asked about home administration of amivantamab, PALOMA lead investigator Natasha Leighl, MD, a lung, and breast cancer medical oncologist at the University of Toronto, stated that patients probably need to be watched in the clinic for the first 4 months.

The atezolizumab study was funded by maker Genentech/Roche. The amivantamab study was funded by its maker, Janssen. The amivantamab investigator, Dr. Leighl, reported grants, honoraria, and travel payments from Janssen. Dr. Cappuzzo, the investigator on the atezolizumab study, reported speaker and adviser payments from Genentech/Roche. The discussant, Dr. O’Sullivan, wasn’t involved with either company but reported payments from Amgen and AstraZeneca and travel costs covered by Takeda.

In the not-too-distant future, immunotherapy might be administered to cancer patients in their homes.

The possibility is being driven by the development of subcutaneous formulations of commonly used immune checkpoint inhibitors for non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and other indications, including pembrolizumab, nivolumab, durvalumab, atezolizumab, and amivantamab.

Instead of waiting anywhere from 30 minutes to several hours for infusions into their veins, patients would spend just a few minutes being injected under the loose skin of their abdomens or thighs. Clinicians would save time and money, and patients would leave the clinic much sooner than normal. The ease of subcutaneous injections also opens up an opportunity for home treatment, a potential boon for people who don’t want to spend their remaining time on hospital visits.

“In the future, I hope we can deliver these medicines at home,” said Hazel O’Sullivan, MBBCh, a medical lung cancer oncologist at Cork University, Ireland, who explained the issues during a session at the 2024 European Lung Cancer Congress.

She was the discussant on two studies at the meeting that highlighted the latest developments in the field, the IMscin002 study of subcutaneous atezolizumab and the PALOMA study of subcutaneous amivantamab, both mostly in NSCLC patients.

Subcutaneous atezolizumab was approved recently in Europe after its maker, Genentech/Roche, made a convincing case that its pharmacokinetics, efficacy, and safety are comparable to the intravenous (IV) version. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is considering approval; Genentech/Roche anticipates a decision in 2024.

IMscin002 randomized 179 stage 2-4 NSCLC patients evenly to IV or subcutaneous atezolizumab for the first three cycles, then switched them for three more cycles.

Participants were then asked what version they preferred and what they wanted to continue with.

Seventy-one percent said they liked the subcutaneous version better and 80% opted to continue with it. Their main reasons were because they spent less time in the clinic and it was more comfortable.

When asked about the potential for home administration, presenter Federico Cappuzzo, MD, PhD, a medical lung cancer oncologist in Rome, said that it could be “an important option in the future,” particularly in isolated areas far away from hospitals.

The authors of new research are currently evaluating whether home administration is possible. Nurses are administering atezolizumab to patients in their homes with telemedicine monitoring.

The other subcutaneous study presented at the meeting, the PALOMA trial with amivantamab, had only 19 subjects. Administration took no more than 10 minutes, versus potentially hours, especially for the first dose. Subcutaneous amivantamab was given once a month, versus every 2 weeks for the IV formulation, during the maintenance phase of treatment.

The take-home from PALOMA is that the risk of infusion reactions is lower with subcutaneous administration (16% versus 67%) but the risk of mostly mild skin rashes is higher (79% versus 36%).

Investigation is ongoing to confirm safety, pharmacokinetic, and efficacy equivalence with the IV formulation, including in combination with other medications.

When asked about home administration of amivantamab, PALOMA lead investigator Natasha Leighl, MD, a lung, and breast cancer medical oncologist at the University of Toronto, stated that patients probably need to be watched in the clinic for the first 4 months.

The atezolizumab study was funded by maker Genentech/Roche. The amivantamab study was funded by its maker, Janssen. The amivantamab investigator, Dr. Leighl, reported grants, honoraria, and travel payments from Janssen. Dr. Cappuzzo, the investigator on the atezolizumab study, reported speaker and adviser payments from Genentech/Roche. The discussant, Dr. O’Sullivan, wasn’t involved with either company but reported payments from Amgen and AstraZeneca and travel costs covered by Takeda.

In the not-too-distant future, immunotherapy might be administered to cancer patients in their homes.

The possibility is being driven by the development of subcutaneous formulations of commonly used immune checkpoint inhibitors for non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and other indications, including pembrolizumab, nivolumab, durvalumab, atezolizumab, and amivantamab.

Instead of waiting anywhere from 30 minutes to several hours for infusions into their veins, patients would spend just a few minutes being injected under the loose skin of their abdomens or thighs. Clinicians would save time and money, and patients would leave the clinic much sooner than normal. The ease of subcutaneous injections also opens up an opportunity for home treatment, a potential boon for people who don’t want to spend their remaining time on hospital visits.

“In the future, I hope we can deliver these medicines at home,” said Hazel O’Sullivan, MBBCh, a medical lung cancer oncologist at Cork University, Ireland, who explained the issues during a session at the 2024 European Lung Cancer Congress.

She was the discussant on two studies at the meeting that highlighted the latest developments in the field, the IMscin002 study of subcutaneous atezolizumab and the PALOMA study of subcutaneous amivantamab, both mostly in NSCLC patients.

Subcutaneous atezolizumab was approved recently in Europe after its maker, Genentech/Roche, made a convincing case that its pharmacokinetics, efficacy, and safety are comparable to the intravenous (IV) version. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is considering approval; Genentech/Roche anticipates a decision in 2024.

IMscin002 randomized 179 stage 2-4 NSCLC patients evenly to IV or subcutaneous atezolizumab for the first three cycles, then switched them for three more cycles.

Participants were then asked what version they preferred and what they wanted to continue with.

Seventy-one percent said they liked the subcutaneous version better and 80% opted to continue with it. Their main reasons were because they spent less time in the clinic and it was more comfortable.

When asked about the potential for home administration, presenter Federico Cappuzzo, MD, PhD, a medical lung cancer oncologist in Rome, said that it could be “an important option in the future,” particularly in isolated areas far away from hospitals.

The authors of new research are currently evaluating whether home administration is possible. Nurses are administering atezolizumab to patients in their homes with telemedicine monitoring.

The other subcutaneous study presented at the meeting, the PALOMA trial with amivantamab, had only 19 subjects. Administration took no more than 10 minutes, versus potentially hours, especially for the first dose. Subcutaneous amivantamab was given once a month, versus every 2 weeks for the IV formulation, during the maintenance phase of treatment.

The take-home from PALOMA is that the risk of infusion reactions is lower with subcutaneous administration (16% versus 67%) but the risk of mostly mild skin rashes is higher (79% versus 36%).

Investigation is ongoing to confirm safety, pharmacokinetic, and efficacy equivalence with the IV formulation, including in combination with other medications.

When asked about home administration of amivantamab, PALOMA lead investigator Natasha Leighl, MD, a lung, and breast cancer medical oncologist at the University of Toronto, stated that patients probably need to be watched in the clinic for the first 4 months.

The atezolizumab study was funded by maker Genentech/Roche. The amivantamab study was funded by its maker, Janssen. The amivantamab investigator, Dr. Leighl, reported grants, honoraria, and travel payments from Janssen. Dr. Cappuzzo, the investigator on the atezolizumab study, reported speaker and adviser payments from Genentech/Roche. The discussant, Dr. O’Sullivan, wasn’t involved with either company but reported payments from Amgen and AstraZeneca and travel costs covered by Takeda.