AVAHO

Venetoclax (Venclexta) shows promise as salvage therapy for patients with relapsed or refractory hairy cell leukemia (HCL), according to a small study in which five of six patients responded to the drug when used alone or in combination with rituximab.

Venetoclax is already approved for adults with chronic lymphocytic leukemia, small lymphocytic leukemia, and as part of a treatment combination in certain patients with acute myeloid leukemia.

The new findings suggest that the drug could also be a chemotherapy-free treatment option for HCL patients after the failure of multiple prior lines of therapy, including vemurafenib plus rituximab, the investigators wrote in a letter to the editor published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Treatment options for such patients are limited, they noted.

Enrico Tiacci, MD, of the University of Perugia (Italy), and colleagues decided to explore the use of venetoclax in this patient population after reports of in vitro findings showing a possible benefit.

The investigators administered the drug off-label to six patients who had received vemurafenib plus rituximab as their most recent prior therapy; one was resistant and five relapsed after that therapy, they reported. Venetoclax was delivered in 29-day cycles.

After 6 or 12 cycles, two patients experienced complete remission with minimal residual disease (MRD), and one had partial remission, although each had incomplete platelet recovery.

Adding rituximab at a dose of 375 mg per square meter of body-surface area for three to eight cycles improved the depth of response in a patient who had a previous minor response, further reduced MRD in one who had a complete remission to venetoclax, and led to hematologic remission in one who had no response to venetoclax, they noted.

Progression-free survival ranged from 23 to 53-plus months in all five patients who did not have early progression and was similar or better than PFS seen after vemurafenib plus rituximab.

The main toxic effect of venetoclax was worsening of baseline neutropenia, which was sometimes complicated by infections or febrile neutropenia and was managed by dose reductions and granulocyte colony-stimulating factor.

“Thus, venetoclax with or without rituximab may serve as a safe and effective salvage option after failure of vemurafenib plus rituximab treatment, especially in patients who do not require a rapid recovery of blood count,” they concluded.

The study was supported by grants from Fondazione Associazione Italiana per la Ricerca sul Cancro and the Italian Ministry of Health.

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

Venetoclax (Venclexta) shows promise as salvage therapy for patients with relapsed or refractory hairy cell leukemia (HCL), according to a small study in which five of six patients responded to the drug when used alone or in combination with rituximab.

Venetoclax is already approved for adults with chronic lymphocytic leukemia, small lymphocytic leukemia, and as part of a treatment combination in certain patients with acute myeloid leukemia.

The new findings suggest that the drug could also be a chemotherapy-free treatment option for HCL patients after the failure of multiple prior lines of therapy, including vemurafenib plus rituximab, the investigators wrote in a letter to the editor published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Treatment options for such patients are limited, they noted.

Enrico Tiacci, MD, of the University of Perugia (Italy), and colleagues decided to explore the use of venetoclax in this patient population after reports of in vitro findings showing a possible benefit.

The investigators administered the drug off-label to six patients who had received vemurafenib plus rituximab as their most recent prior therapy; one was resistant and five relapsed after that therapy, they reported. Venetoclax was delivered in 29-day cycles.

After 6 or 12 cycles, two patients experienced complete remission with minimal residual disease (MRD), and one had partial remission, although each had incomplete platelet recovery.

Adding rituximab at a dose of 375 mg per square meter of body-surface area for three to eight cycles improved the depth of response in a patient who had a previous minor response, further reduced MRD in one who had a complete remission to venetoclax, and led to hematologic remission in one who had no response to venetoclax, they noted.

Progression-free survival ranged from 23 to 53-plus months in all five patients who did not have early progression and was similar or better than PFS seen after vemurafenib plus rituximab.

The main toxic effect of venetoclax was worsening of baseline neutropenia, which was sometimes complicated by infections or febrile neutropenia and was managed by dose reductions and granulocyte colony-stimulating factor.

“Thus, venetoclax with or without rituximab may serve as a safe and effective salvage option after failure of vemurafenib plus rituximab treatment, especially in patients who do not require a rapid recovery of blood count,” they concluded.

The study was supported by grants from Fondazione Associazione Italiana per la Ricerca sul Cancro and the Italian Ministry of Health.

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

Venetoclax (Venclexta) shows promise as salvage therapy for patients with relapsed or refractory hairy cell leukemia (HCL), according to a small study in which five of six patients responded to the drug when used alone or in combination with rituximab.

Venetoclax is already approved for adults with chronic lymphocytic leukemia, small lymphocytic leukemia, and as part of a treatment combination in certain patients with acute myeloid leukemia.

The new findings suggest that the drug could also be a chemotherapy-free treatment option for HCL patients after the failure of multiple prior lines of therapy, including vemurafenib plus rituximab, the investigators wrote in a letter to the editor published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Treatment options for such patients are limited, they noted.

Enrico Tiacci, MD, of the University of Perugia (Italy), and colleagues decided to explore the use of venetoclax in this patient population after reports of in vitro findings showing a possible benefit.

The investigators administered the drug off-label to six patients who had received vemurafenib plus rituximab as their most recent prior therapy; one was resistant and five relapsed after that therapy, they reported. Venetoclax was delivered in 29-day cycles.

After 6 or 12 cycles, two patients experienced complete remission with minimal residual disease (MRD), and one had partial remission, although each had incomplete platelet recovery.

Adding rituximab at a dose of 375 mg per square meter of body-surface area for three to eight cycles improved the depth of response in a patient who had a previous minor response, further reduced MRD in one who had a complete remission to venetoclax, and led to hematologic remission in one who had no response to venetoclax, they noted.

Progression-free survival ranged from 23 to 53-plus months in all five patients who did not have early progression and was similar or better than PFS seen after vemurafenib plus rituximab.

The main toxic effect of venetoclax was worsening of baseline neutropenia, which was sometimes complicated by infections or febrile neutropenia and was managed by dose reductions and granulocyte colony-stimulating factor.

“Thus, venetoclax with or without rituximab may serve as a safe and effective salvage option after failure of vemurafenib plus rituximab treatment, especially in patients who do not require a rapid recovery of blood count,” they concluded.

The study was supported by grants from Fondazione Associazione Italiana per la Ricerca sul Cancro and the Italian Ministry of Health.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has made changes to existing mammography regulations.

A final rule, updating the regulations issued under the Mammography Quality Standards Act of 1992, requires that mammography facilities notify patients about the density of their breasts, strengthens the FDA’s oversight of facilities, and provides guidance to help physicians better categorize and assess mammograms, according to a March 9 press release.

The rule requires implementation of the changes within 18 months.

According to the final rule document, the updates are “intended to improve the delivery of mammography services” in ways that reflect changes in mammography technology, quality standards, and the way results are categorized, reported, and communicated to patients and providers.

For instance, mammography reports must include an assessment of breast density to provide greater detail on the potential limitations of the mammogram results and allow patients and physicians to make more informed decisions, such as the possibility of additional imaging for women with dense breast tissue.

“Today’s action represents the agency’s broader commitment to support innovation to prevent, detect and treat cancer,” said Hilary Marston, MD, MPH, FDA’s chief medical officer, in the agency’s press release. The FDA remains “committed to advancing efforts to improve the health of women and strengthen the fight against breast cancer.”

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

The Food and Drug Administration has made changes to existing mammography regulations.

A final rule, updating the regulations issued under the Mammography Quality Standards Act of 1992, requires that mammography facilities notify patients about the density of their breasts, strengthens the FDA’s oversight of facilities, and provides guidance to help physicians better categorize and assess mammograms, according to a March 9 press release.

The rule requires implementation of the changes within 18 months.

According to the final rule document, the updates are “intended to improve the delivery of mammography services” in ways that reflect changes in mammography technology, quality standards, and the way results are categorized, reported, and communicated to patients and providers.

For instance, mammography reports must include an assessment of breast density to provide greater detail on the potential limitations of the mammogram results and allow patients and physicians to make more informed decisions, such as the possibility of additional imaging for women with dense breast tissue.

“Today’s action represents the agency’s broader commitment to support innovation to prevent, detect and treat cancer,” said Hilary Marston, MD, MPH, FDA’s chief medical officer, in the agency’s press release. The FDA remains “committed to advancing efforts to improve the health of women and strengthen the fight against breast cancer.”

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

The Food and Drug Administration has made changes to existing mammography regulations.

A final rule, updating the regulations issued under the Mammography Quality Standards Act of 1992, requires that mammography facilities notify patients about the density of their breasts, strengthens the FDA’s oversight of facilities, and provides guidance to help physicians better categorize and assess mammograms, according to a March 9 press release.

The rule requires implementation of the changes within 18 months.

According to the final rule document, the updates are “intended to improve the delivery of mammography services” in ways that reflect changes in mammography technology, quality standards, and the way results are categorized, reported, and communicated to patients and providers.

For instance, mammography reports must include an assessment of breast density to provide greater detail on the potential limitations of the mammogram results and allow patients and physicians to make more informed decisions, such as the possibility of additional imaging for women with dense breast tissue.

“Today’s action represents the agency’s broader commitment to support innovation to prevent, detect and treat cancer,” said Hilary Marston, MD, MPH, FDA’s chief medical officer, in the agency’s press release. The FDA remains “committed to advancing efforts to improve the health of women and strengthen the fight against breast cancer.”

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

A year before the COVID-19 pandemic began, a team of clinical statisticians at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center sat together in small office for a year, painstakingly hand coding data from the U.S. clinical trials database, www.clinicaltrials.gov.

They were trying to answer a simple question: Why are cancer-drug trials enrolling too few patients over the age of 65?

More than 300 trials and 262,354 patients later, the research team confirmed that participants in clinical trials were, on average, 6.5 years younger than the population for whom the drug was intended.

Ethan Ludmir

“We found marked disparities across different disease sites. ... The patients that are enrolling on studies are markedly younger than the average patient seen in the population with those same conditions,” said team leader Ethan Ludmir, MD, assistant professor, Division of Radiation Oncology at the University of Texas.

And this age disparity was significantly greater in industry-funded trials.

Researchers have known for 20 years that cancer trial participants are not representative of the wider cancer population, and numerous government guidance documents have been issued on the matter. However, this Texas team’s findings were the first unambiguous evidence that pharmaceutical companies seem to be selecting younger patients to test their drugs.

“If we’re being generous then perhaps the answer is: They’re looking for some element of homogeneity, which is to say they don’t want competing risks to make the signal-to-noise ratio uninterpretable,” said Dr. Ludmir.

Dr. Laura Bothwell, PhD, assistant professor, Yale School of Public Health, recently coauthored a 259-page consensus report for the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine on how to increase the research involvement of under-represented groups.

Dr. Bothwell said, “The problem with industry funded research is that ... it’s an inevitable conflict of interest that exists. They want the research to show that their products work. And older populations ... have a lot more complications, which leads to potentially less favorable results.”

The MD Anderson findings were published in JAMA Oncology. “That was the starting point in our journey,” said Dr. Ludmir. For the next 3 years, the researchers mined their painstakingly constructed database to understand what was preventing greater numbers of older patients from enrollment in cancer trials.

Meanwhile, answers were coming from elsewhere. In parallel with the work at MD Anderson, a team in California led by Mina Sedrak, MD, a medical oncologist at the City of Hope National Medical Center, had also started investigating age disparities in clinical trials.

COH

Dr. Sedrak, who also serves as deputy director of Clinical Trials at the Center for Cancer and Aging, said he had become increasingly concerned that he did not have adequate information on new cancer therapies for his older patients.

“I was caring for a large number of people who were ... older adults,” said Dr. Sedrak, “But the data that was being used to get the standard-of-care treatment for cancer did not include older adults. And so there was this lack of applicability.”

He summed up the challenges in a 2021 review paper: “Most of what we know about cancer therapeutics is based on clinical trials conducted in younger, healthier patients.”

By 2030, it is estimated that 70% of all new cancer diagnoses will be in patients 65 years old and older. By contrast, patients over age 65 still account for only 40% of patients in cancer trials registered with the FDA (2015 figures) and older adults make up only 44% of participants in practice-changing cancer trials, according to a 2022 study.

So what is going on? Are studies specifically designed to squeeze out older patients?

Surprisingly, patients are not being kept out of trials by formal age limits, according to Dr. Ludmir. His team found that only 10% of phase 3 trials over the past 30 years had an upper limit for age, and age restrictions have been dropping by 1% a year. (For example, 16% of trials that enrolled in 2002-2005 had an upper age limit, compared with just 8% of trials that started in 2010-2014.)

Dr. Sedrak’s team found that “clinician bias” may be a factor, a situation in which trial investigators – particularly academic oncologists – are subconsciously picking younger, healthier patients for trials and excluding older, sicker patients to protect them from drug toxicities.

Dr. Ludmir said this was understandable, especially in the case of industry-driven trials, which tend to have demanding endpoints and “an overall posture of more treatment aggressiveness.”

“These are typically not trials where they’re saying, `Hey, if we add acupuncture ... are we going to see improved patient reported outcomes?’” Dr. Ludmir explained. “You’re asking ... I’ve got this cocktail of two pretty rough chemos: I want to see what happens if I add an immunotherapy to that. If I’m the clinician in clinic, I might reasonably, subconsciously, say, is the 75-year-old really who I want on this?”

What about patient bias? Perhaps fewer older patients wish to join clinical trials?

Not so, at least not at community cancer centers, said Dr. Sedrak. His team’s analysis of the National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program database for 2016-2019 revealed that older patients were just as keen as the younger patients to participate in trials (68% of patients aged 50-69 years and 65% of patients 70+; P = .28).

However, drug companies may be excluding older patients by more subtle means. One-fifth of patients over 65 have had a prior cancer. Dr. Ludmir and coauthor Roshal Patel, MD, used their hand-coded www.clinicaltrials.gov database to look at prior malignancy exclusion criteria (PMEC). The analysis found “pervasive utilization” of PMEC in phase 3 trials, cropping up in 41% of studies over the past 30 years.

PMEC was significantly associated with age disparities and was significantly more common in industry-funded trials.

When asked whether PMEC are “age restriction by stealth” on the part of drug companies, Dr. Ludmir was reluctant to assign blame, but stood by his data: “The wider you restrict people in terms of having a prior cancer, the wider the age disparities in the subsequent studies, which to me is about as strong, in terms of causal understanding of these phenomena, as you can reasonably get at this level.”

In March the FDA released a guidance document titled Inclusion of Older Adults in Cancer Clinical Trials. However, its recommendations are “nonbinding” and “do not have the force and effect of law.”

To fix the issues, said Dr. Sedrak, the FDA must be given teeth.

“Okay, you write guidelines,” he said. “But if you don’t actually hold people accountable to following the guidelines, how are we going to implement and make sure that we’re transforming policy into action?”

Dr. Bothwell of Yale’s School of Public Health agreed. “Accountability has been the weakest link for decades now.”

She concluded, “In medicine there’s a tendency to believe that a therapy, because it exists and it has been tested and it’s shown some efficacy, it’s useful. But we don’t know the answer to that question unless we have statistically valid research in the population that we’re using it in.”

Dr. Bothwell and Dr. Ludmir report no conflicts of interest. In his publications, Dr. Sedrak reports industry grants from Seattle Genetics, Eli Lilly, Novartis, and Pfizer Foundation.
 

A year before the COVID-19 pandemic began, a team of clinical statisticians at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center sat together in small office for a year, painstakingly hand coding data from the U.S. clinical trials database, www.clinicaltrials.gov.

They were trying to answer a simple question: Why are cancer-drug trials enrolling too few patients over the age of 65?

More than 300 trials and 262,354 patients later, the research team confirmed that participants in clinical trials were, on average, 6.5 years younger than the population for whom the drug was intended.

Ethan Ludmir

“We found marked disparities across different disease sites. ... The patients that are enrolling on studies are markedly younger than the average patient seen in the population with those same conditions,” said team leader Ethan Ludmir, MD, assistant professor, Division of Radiation Oncology at the University of Texas.

And this age disparity was significantly greater in industry-funded trials.

Researchers have known for 20 years that cancer trial participants are not representative of the wider cancer population, and numerous government guidance documents have been issued on the matter. However, this Texas team’s findings were the first unambiguous evidence that pharmaceutical companies seem to be selecting younger patients to test their drugs.

“If we’re being generous then perhaps the answer is: They’re looking for some element of homogeneity, which is to say they don’t want competing risks to make the signal-to-noise ratio uninterpretable,” said Dr. Ludmir.

Dr. Laura Bothwell, PhD, assistant professor, Yale School of Public Health, recently coauthored a 259-page consensus report for the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine on how to increase the research involvement of under-represented groups.

Dr. Bothwell said, “The problem with industry funded research is that ... it’s an inevitable conflict of interest that exists. They want the research to show that their products work. And older populations ... have a lot more complications, which leads to potentially less favorable results.”

The MD Anderson findings were published in JAMA Oncology. “That was the starting point in our journey,” said Dr. Ludmir. For the next 3 years, the researchers mined their painstakingly constructed database to understand what was preventing greater numbers of older patients from enrollment in cancer trials.

Meanwhile, answers were coming from elsewhere. In parallel with the work at MD Anderson, a team in California led by Mina Sedrak, MD, a medical oncologist at the City of Hope National Medical Center, had also started investigating age disparities in clinical trials.

COH

Dr. Sedrak, who also serves as deputy director of Clinical Trials at the Center for Cancer and Aging, said he had become increasingly concerned that he did not have adequate information on new cancer therapies for his older patients.

“I was caring for a large number of people who were ... older adults,” said Dr. Sedrak, “But the data that was being used to get the standard-of-care treatment for cancer did not include older adults. And so there was this lack of applicability.”

He summed up the challenges in a 2021 review paper: “Most of what we know about cancer therapeutics is based on clinical trials conducted in younger, healthier patients.”

By 2030, it is estimated that 70% of all new cancer diagnoses will be in patients 65 years old and older. By contrast, patients over age 65 still account for only 40% of patients in cancer trials registered with the FDA (2015 figures) and older adults make up only 44% of participants in practice-changing cancer trials, according to a 2022 study.

So what is going on? Are studies specifically designed to squeeze out older patients?

Surprisingly, patients are not being kept out of trials by formal age limits, according to Dr. Ludmir. His team found that only 10% of phase 3 trials over the past 30 years had an upper limit for age, and age restrictions have been dropping by 1% a year. (For example, 16% of trials that enrolled in 2002-2005 had an upper age limit, compared with just 8% of trials that started in 2010-2014.)

Dr. Sedrak’s team found that “clinician bias” may be a factor, a situation in which trial investigators – particularly academic oncologists – are subconsciously picking younger, healthier patients for trials and excluding older, sicker patients to protect them from drug toxicities.

Dr. Ludmir said this was understandable, especially in the case of industry-driven trials, which tend to have demanding endpoints and “an overall posture of more treatment aggressiveness.”

“These are typically not trials where they’re saying, `Hey, if we add acupuncture ... are we going to see improved patient reported outcomes?’” Dr. Ludmir explained. “You’re asking ... I’ve got this cocktail of two pretty rough chemos: I want to see what happens if I add an immunotherapy to that. If I’m the clinician in clinic, I might reasonably, subconsciously, say, is the 75-year-old really who I want on this?”

What about patient bias? Perhaps fewer older patients wish to join clinical trials?

Not so, at least not at community cancer centers, said Dr. Sedrak. His team’s analysis of the National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program database for 2016-2019 revealed that older patients were just as keen as the younger patients to participate in trials (68% of patients aged 50-69 years and 65% of patients 70+; P = .28).

However, drug companies may be excluding older patients by more subtle means. One-fifth of patients over 65 have had a prior cancer. Dr. Ludmir and coauthor Roshal Patel, MD, used their hand-coded www.clinicaltrials.gov database to look at prior malignancy exclusion criteria (PMEC). The analysis found “pervasive utilization” of PMEC in phase 3 trials, cropping up in 41% of studies over the past 30 years.

PMEC was significantly associated with age disparities and was significantly more common in industry-funded trials.

When asked whether PMEC are “age restriction by stealth” on the part of drug companies, Dr. Ludmir was reluctant to assign blame, but stood by his data: “The wider you restrict people in terms of having a prior cancer, the wider the age disparities in the subsequent studies, which to me is about as strong, in terms of causal understanding of these phenomena, as you can reasonably get at this level.”

In March the FDA released a guidance document titled Inclusion of Older Adults in Cancer Clinical Trials. However, its recommendations are “nonbinding” and “do not have the force and effect of law.”

To fix the issues, said Dr. Sedrak, the FDA must be given teeth.

“Okay, you write guidelines,” he said. “But if you don’t actually hold people accountable to following the guidelines, how are we going to implement and make sure that we’re transforming policy into action?”

Dr. Bothwell of Yale’s School of Public Health agreed. “Accountability has been the weakest link for decades now.”

She concluded, “In medicine there’s a tendency to believe that a therapy, because it exists and it has been tested and it’s shown some efficacy, it’s useful. But we don’t know the answer to that question unless we have statistically valid research in the population that we’re using it in.”

Dr. Bothwell and Dr. Ludmir report no conflicts of interest. In his publications, Dr. Sedrak reports industry grants from Seattle Genetics, Eli Lilly, Novartis, and Pfizer Foundation.
 

A year before the COVID-19 pandemic began, a team of clinical statisticians at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center sat together in small office for a year, painstakingly hand coding data from the U.S. clinical trials database, www.clinicaltrials.gov.

They were trying to answer a simple question: Why are cancer-drug trials enrolling too few patients over the age of 65?

More than 300 trials and 262,354 patients later, the research team confirmed that participants in clinical trials were, on average, 6.5 years younger than the population for whom the drug was intended.

Ethan Ludmir

“We found marked disparities across different disease sites. ... The patients that are enrolling on studies are markedly younger than the average patient seen in the population with those same conditions,” said team leader Ethan Ludmir, MD, assistant professor, Division of Radiation Oncology at the University of Texas.

And this age disparity was significantly greater in industry-funded trials.

Researchers have known for 20 years that cancer trial participants are not representative of the wider cancer population, and numerous government guidance documents have been issued on the matter. However, this Texas team’s findings were the first unambiguous evidence that pharmaceutical companies seem to be selecting younger patients to test their drugs.

“If we’re being generous then perhaps the answer is: They’re looking for some element of homogeneity, which is to say they don’t want competing risks to make the signal-to-noise ratio uninterpretable,” said Dr. Ludmir.

Dr. Laura Bothwell, PhD, assistant professor, Yale School of Public Health, recently coauthored a 259-page consensus report for the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine on how to increase the research involvement of under-represented groups.

Dr. Bothwell said, “The problem with industry funded research is that ... it’s an inevitable conflict of interest that exists. They want the research to show that their products work. And older populations ... have a lot more complications, which leads to potentially less favorable results.”

The MD Anderson findings were published in JAMA Oncology. “That was the starting point in our journey,” said Dr. Ludmir. For the next 3 years, the researchers mined their painstakingly constructed database to understand what was preventing greater numbers of older patients from enrollment in cancer trials.

Meanwhile, answers were coming from elsewhere. In parallel with the work at MD Anderson, a team in California led by Mina Sedrak, MD, a medical oncologist at the City of Hope National Medical Center, had also started investigating age disparities in clinical trials.

COH

Dr. Sedrak, who also serves as deputy director of Clinical Trials at the Center for Cancer and Aging, said he had become increasingly concerned that he did not have adequate information on new cancer therapies for his older patients.

“I was caring for a large number of people who were ... older adults,” said Dr. Sedrak, “But the data that was being used to get the standard-of-care treatment for cancer did not include older adults. And so there was this lack of applicability.”

He summed up the challenges in a 2021 review paper: “Most of what we know about cancer therapeutics is based on clinical trials conducted in younger, healthier patients.”

By 2030, it is estimated that 70% of all new cancer diagnoses will be in patients 65 years old and older. By contrast, patients over age 65 still account for only 40% of patients in cancer trials registered with the FDA (2015 figures) and older adults make up only 44% of participants in practice-changing cancer trials, according to a 2022 study.

So what is going on? Are studies specifically designed to squeeze out older patients?

Surprisingly, patients are not being kept out of trials by formal age limits, according to Dr. Ludmir. His team found that only 10% of phase 3 trials over the past 30 years had an upper limit for age, and age restrictions have been dropping by 1% a year. (For example, 16% of trials that enrolled in 2002-2005 had an upper age limit, compared with just 8% of trials that started in 2010-2014.)

Dr. Sedrak’s team found that “clinician bias” may be a factor, a situation in which trial investigators – particularly academic oncologists – are subconsciously picking younger, healthier patients for trials and excluding older, sicker patients to protect them from drug toxicities.

Dr. Ludmir said this was understandable, especially in the case of industry-driven trials, which tend to have demanding endpoints and “an overall posture of more treatment aggressiveness.”

“These are typically not trials where they’re saying, `Hey, if we add acupuncture ... are we going to see improved patient reported outcomes?’” Dr. Ludmir explained. “You’re asking ... I’ve got this cocktail of two pretty rough chemos: I want to see what happens if I add an immunotherapy to that. If I’m the clinician in clinic, I might reasonably, subconsciously, say, is the 75-year-old really who I want on this?”

What about patient bias? Perhaps fewer older patients wish to join clinical trials?

Not so, at least not at community cancer centers, said Dr. Sedrak. His team’s analysis of the National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program database for 2016-2019 revealed that older patients were just as keen as the younger patients to participate in trials (68% of patients aged 50-69 years and 65% of patients 70+; P = .28).

However, drug companies may be excluding older patients by more subtle means. One-fifth of patients over 65 have had a prior cancer. Dr. Ludmir and coauthor Roshal Patel, MD, used their hand-coded www.clinicaltrials.gov database to look at prior malignancy exclusion criteria (PMEC). The analysis found “pervasive utilization” of PMEC in phase 3 trials, cropping up in 41% of studies over the past 30 years.

PMEC was significantly associated with age disparities and was significantly more common in industry-funded trials.

When asked whether PMEC are “age restriction by stealth” on the part of drug companies, Dr. Ludmir was reluctant to assign blame, but stood by his data: “The wider you restrict people in terms of having a prior cancer, the wider the age disparities in the subsequent studies, which to me is about as strong, in terms of causal understanding of these phenomena, as you can reasonably get at this level.”

In March the FDA released a guidance document titled Inclusion of Older Adults in Cancer Clinical Trials. However, its recommendations are “nonbinding” and “do not have the force and effect of law.”

To fix the issues, said Dr. Sedrak, the FDA must be given teeth.

“Okay, you write guidelines,” he said. “But if you don’t actually hold people accountable to following the guidelines, how are we going to implement and make sure that we’re transforming policy into action?”

Dr. Bothwell of Yale’s School of Public Health agreed. “Accountability has been the weakest link for decades now.”

She concluded, “In medicine there’s a tendency to believe that a therapy, because it exists and it has been tested and it’s shown some efficacy, it’s useful. But we don’t know the answer to that question unless we have statistically valid research in the population that we’re using it in.”

Dr. Bothwell and Dr. Ludmir report no conflicts of interest. In his publications, Dr. Sedrak reports industry grants from Seattle Genetics, Eli Lilly, Novartis, and Pfizer Foundation.
 

An Irish study attempting to get at the root of why men and women delay colon cancer screening found that, despite an uptick in colon cancer cases among younger adults, screening isn’t a priority for some adults while others are under the impression that a healthy diet with regular bowel movements negates the need for regular screening.

The findings are based on a survey of over 2,000 adults who participated in a population-based fecal immunochemical test (FIT) screening program. The authors found that denying the immediacy of the need to be tested and self-exempting from screening because of a belief in a healthy lifestyle were key drivers for opting out of FIT screening.

“What we found was that people who didn’t take part [in the survey] responded much more defensively to the invitation,” said Nicholas Clarke, PhD, a researcher at Dublin City University, who served as the lead author of the study published in the journal Cancer.

The domain of denying immediacy, which covers decisions like putting off a test because of more pressing life events, was associated with a 47% reduction in screening probability. “That’s quite a high percentage. They’re not saying I won’t do it. They’re saying: ‘I’ll wait to get tested for colon cancer until my other health concerns are under control, or until there’s a better test,’ ” he said.

The other suppression category of self-exempting was associated with a 20% reduction in the odds of participation. “They’re saying: ‘I don’t need to be tested because I have enough vegetables in my diet or because I have regular bowel movements,’ ” Dr. Clarke said.

Despite the proven efficacy of screening, many individuals still resist screening. In previous research, Dr. Clarke found that men in Ireland were less likely than women to undergo screening.

FIT works by identifying small amounts of blood in the stool that could suggest the presence of a tumor or precancerous polyps. The test also looks for methylation and DNA mutations that are indicative of precancer polyps or tumors. A positive test calls for a follow-up procedure such as a colonoscopy, where precancerous polyps can be removed to prevent them from developing into tumors.

FIT has similar sensitivity to colonoscopy in detecting cancers (93% vs. 95%), but is less effective with respect to polyps (42% vs. 75%-93%). For average risk adults between 50-75 years old, the U.S Preventive Services Task Force recommends colonoscopy every 10 years; flexible sigmoidoscopy or CT colonography every 5 years, or flexible sigmoidoscopy every 10 years plus fecal immunochemical test (FIT) every year; FIT DNA test every 3 years; guaiac-based fecal occult blood test or FIT test annually.
 

Findings from the new study

In the new study, researchers contacted both 2,299 responders and nonresponders to FIT tests that had been mailed out as part of a Dublin colorectal cancer screening program between 2008 and 2012. Researchers employed the McQueen defensive information processing (DIP) measure, which includes four domains of defensive attitudes that include information avoidance, mental disengagement or denial, suppression through belief that one is immune, and arguing against the evidence.

In this study, 7,476 men and women in Dublin were invited to participate in a population‐based FIT screening program. In follow-up questionnaires sent to those who did or did not complete FIT, 53% of those who completed FIT screening answered the questionnaire, while 8% of those who did not complete the screening returned the questionnaire. Those who didn’t complete the FIT test had higher DIP scores suggesting more rates of opting out of receiving health information, avoiding doctor visits, prevention avoidance, continually delaying screening, either claiming colon cancer is rare or normalizing cancer risk, and falsely aligning regular bowel movements with good health which was directly associated with less screening.
 

Increasing rates of early onset colorectal cancer

The research may shed light on reasons for increasing rates of early-onset colorectal cancer. “Often younger people feel invincible and as Beverly Green, MD, MPH, pointed out in an editorial on defensive information processing, invincibility is a good example of self-exemption DIP,” Dr. Clarke said.

“I think what’s underlying these two pieces is a lack of awareness of the trajectory of colorectal cancer, but it’s also the future consequences of not taking part [in screening]. A person can have their colorectal cancer for about 10 years before they begin to feel any symptoms from it, and usually at that point, the disease has gone to an advanced stage, so it’s much more difficult to treat, and the person will have much poorer outcomes. If it’s detected at stage 1, the outcomes are far better,” Dr. Clarke said.

Doctors should react calmly to defensiveness and listen to the patient’s concerns. “Informing them of the aim of screening, i.e. to detect it when its precancerous or at the earliest possible stage, is very important. Letting them know they are taking responsibility for their own health and giving them the best chance of a healthy old age may be a good way of counteracting defensiveness,” he said.

Dr. Green noted that nonresponders claiming lack of immediacy could be swayed with the right approach. She has conducted similar research and subjects themselves suggested the use of marketing techniques “like what happens on Amazon. People remind you frequently the same thing when they get a clue that you have an interest in that behavior. Or, they tell you it’s on sale, and you might lose out from that big bargain if you don’t buy it now. There’s a deadline. I think a lot of the things we might do to nudge people are similar to what’s already happening in marketing,” said Dr. Green, who is a family physician and a researcher at the Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute.

Dr. Clarke and Dr. Green have no relevant financial disclosures.

An Irish study attempting to get at the root of why men and women delay colon cancer screening found that, despite an uptick in colon cancer cases among younger adults, screening isn’t a priority for some adults while others are under the impression that a healthy diet with regular bowel movements negates the need for regular screening.

The findings are based on a survey of over 2,000 adults who participated in a population-based fecal immunochemical test (FIT) screening program. The authors found that denying the immediacy of the need to be tested and self-exempting from screening because of a belief in a healthy lifestyle were key drivers for opting out of FIT screening.

“What we found was that people who didn’t take part [in the survey] responded much more defensively to the invitation,” said Nicholas Clarke, PhD, a researcher at Dublin City University, who served as the lead author of the study published in the journal Cancer.

The domain of denying immediacy, which covers decisions like putting off a test because of more pressing life events, was associated with a 47% reduction in screening probability. “That’s quite a high percentage. They’re not saying I won’t do it. They’re saying: ‘I’ll wait to get tested for colon cancer until my other health concerns are under control, or until there’s a better test,’ ” he said.

The other suppression category of self-exempting was associated with a 20% reduction in the odds of participation. “They’re saying: ‘I don’t need to be tested because I have enough vegetables in my diet or because I have regular bowel movements,’ ” Dr. Clarke said.

Despite the proven efficacy of screening, many individuals still resist screening. In previous research, Dr. Clarke found that men in Ireland were less likely than women to undergo screening.

FIT works by identifying small amounts of blood in the stool that could suggest the presence of a tumor or precancerous polyps. The test also looks for methylation and DNA mutations that are indicative of precancer polyps or tumors. A positive test calls for a follow-up procedure such as a colonoscopy, where precancerous polyps can be removed to prevent them from developing into tumors.

FIT has similar sensitivity to colonoscopy in detecting cancers (93% vs. 95%), but is less effective with respect to polyps (42% vs. 75%-93%). For average risk adults between 50-75 years old, the U.S Preventive Services Task Force recommends colonoscopy every 10 years; flexible sigmoidoscopy or CT colonography every 5 years, or flexible sigmoidoscopy every 10 years plus fecal immunochemical test (FIT) every year; FIT DNA test every 3 years; guaiac-based fecal occult blood test or FIT test annually.
 

Findings from the new study

In the new study, researchers contacted both 2,299 responders and nonresponders to FIT tests that had been mailed out as part of a Dublin colorectal cancer screening program between 2008 and 2012. Researchers employed the McQueen defensive information processing (DIP) measure, which includes four domains of defensive attitudes that include information avoidance, mental disengagement or denial, suppression through belief that one is immune, and arguing against the evidence.

In this study, 7,476 men and women in Dublin were invited to participate in a population‐based FIT screening program. In follow-up questionnaires sent to those who did or did not complete FIT, 53% of those who completed FIT screening answered the questionnaire, while 8% of those who did not complete the screening returned the questionnaire. Those who didn’t complete the FIT test had higher DIP scores suggesting more rates of opting out of receiving health information, avoiding doctor visits, prevention avoidance, continually delaying screening, either claiming colon cancer is rare or normalizing cancer risk, and falsely aligning regular bowel movements with good health which was directly associated with less screening.
 

Increasing rates of early onset colorectal cancer

The research may shed light on reasons for increasing rates of early-onset colorectal cancer. “Often younger people feel invincible and as Beverly Green, MD, MPH, pointed out in an editorial on defensive information processing, invincibility is a good example of self-exemption DIP,” Dr. Clarke said.

“I think what’s underlying these two pieces is a lack of awareness of the trajectory of colorectal cancer, but it’s also the future consequences of not taking part [in screening]. A person can have their colorectal cancer for about 10 years before they begin to feel any symptoms from it, and usually at that point, the disease has gone to an advanced stage, so it’s much more difficult to treat, and the person will have much poorer outcomes. If it’s detected at stage 1, the outcomes are far better,” Dr. Clarke said.

Doctors should react calmly to defensiveness and listen to the patient’s concerns. “Informing them of the aim of screening, i.e. to detect it when its precancerous or at the earliest possible stage, is very important. Letting them know they are taking responsibility for their own health and giving them the best chance of a healthy old age may be a good way of counteracting defensiveness,” he said.

Dr. Green noted that nonresponders claiming lack of immediacy could be swayed with the right approach. She has conducted similar research and subjects themselves suggested the use of marketing techniques “like what happens on Amazon. People remind you frequently the same thing when they get a clue that you have an interest in that behavior. Or, they tell you it’s on sale, and you might lose out from that big bargain if you don’t buy it now. There’s a deadline. I think a lot of the things we might do to nudge people are similar to what’s already happening in marketing,” said Dr. Green, who is a family physician and a researcher at the Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute.

Dr. Clarke and Dr. Green have no relevant financial disclosures.

An Irish study attempting to get at the root of why men and women delay colon cancer screening found that, despite an uptick in colon cancer cases among younger adults, screening isn’t a priority for some adults while others are under the impression that a healthy diet with regular bowel movements negates the need for regular screening.

The findings are based on a survey of over 2,000 adults who participated in a population-based fecal immunochemical test (FIT) screening program. The authors found that denying the immediacy of the need to be tested and self-exempting from screening because of a belief in a healthy lifestyle were key drivers for opting out of FIT screening.

“What we found was that people who didn’t take part [in the survey] responded much more defensively to the invitation,” said Nicholas Clarke, PhD, a researcher at Dublin City University, who served as the lead author of the study published in the journal Cancer.

The domain of denying immediacy, which covers decisions like putting off a test because of more pressing life events, was associated with a 47% reduction in screening probability. “That’s quite a high percentage. They’re not saying I won’t do it. They’re saying: ‘I’ll wait to get tested for colon cancer until my other health concerns are under control, or until there’s a better test,’ ” he said.

The other suppression category of self-exempting was associated with a 20% reduction in the odds of participation. “They’re saying: ‘I don’t need to be tested because I have enough vegetables in my diet or because I have regular bowel movements,’ ” Dr. Clarke said.

Despite the proven efficacy of screening, many individuals still resist screening. In previous research, Dr. Clarke found that men in Ireland were less likely than women to undergo screening.

FIT works by identifying small amounts of blood in the stool that could suggest the presence of a tumor or precancerous polyps. The test also looks for methylation and DNA mutations that are indicative of precancer polyps or tumors. A positive test calls for a follow-up procedure such as a colonoscopy, where precancerous polyps can be removed to prevent them from developing into tumors.

FIT has similar sensitivity to colonoscopy in detecting cancers (93% vs. 95%), but is less effective with respect to polyps (42% vs. 75%-93%). For average risk adults between 50-75 years old, the U.S Preventive Services Task Force recommends colonoscopy every 10 years; flexible sigmoidoscopy or CT colonography every 5 years, or flexible sigmoidoscopy every 10 years plus fecal immunochemical test (FIT) every year; FIT DNA test every 3 years; guaiac-based fecal occult blood test or FIT test annually.
 

Findings from the new study

In the new study, researchers contacted both 2,299 responders and nonresponders to FIT tests that had been mailed out as part of a Dublin colorectal cancer screening program between 2008 and 2012. Researchers employed the McQueen defensive information processing (DIP) measure, which includes four domains of defensive attitudes that include information avoidance, mental disengagement or denial, suppression through belief that one is immune, and arguing against the evidence.

In this study, 7,476 men and women in Dublin were invited to participate in a population‐based FIT screening program. In follow-up questionnaires sent to those who did or did not complete FIT, 53% of those who completed FIT screening answered the questionnaire, while 8% of those who did not complete the screening returned the questionnaire. Those who didn’t complete the FIT test had higher DIP scores suggesting more rates of opting out of receiving health information, avoiding doctor visits, prevention avoidance, continually delaying screening, either claiming colon cancer is rare or normalizing cancer risk, and falsely aligning regular bowel movements with good health which was directly associated with less screening.
 

Increasing rates of early onset colorectal cancer

The research may shed light on reasons for increasing rates of early-onset colorectal cancer. “Often younger people feel invincible and as Beverly Green, MD, MPH, pointed out in an editorial on defensive information processing, invincibility is a good example of self-exemption DIP,” Dr. Clarke said.

“I think what’s underlying these two pieces is a lack of awareness of the trajectory of colorectal cancer, but it’s also the future consequences of not taking part [in screening]. A person can have their colorectal cancer for about 10 years before they begin to feel any symptoms from it, and usually at that point, the disease has gone to an advanced stage, so it’s much more difficult to treat, and the person will have much poorer outcomes. If it’s detected at stage 1, the outcomes are far better,” Dr. Clarke said.

Doctors should react calmly to defensiveness and listen to the patient’s concerns. “Informing them of the aim of screening, i.e. to detect it when its precancerous or at the earliest possible stage, is very important. Letting them know they are taking responsibility for their own health and giving them the best chance of a healthy old age may be a good way of counteracting defensiveness,” he said.

Dr. Green noted that nonresponders claiming lack of immediacy could be swayed with the right approach. She has conducted similar research and subjects themselves suggested the use of marketing techniques “like what happens on Amazon. People remind you frequently the same thing when they get a clue that you have an interest in that behavior. Or, they tell you it’s on sale, and you might lose out from that big bargain if you don’t buy it now. There’s a deadline. I think a lot of the things we might do to nudge people are similar to what’s already happening in marketing,” said Dr. Green, who is a family physician and a researcher at the Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute.

Dr. Clarke and Dr. Green have no relevant financial disclosures.

Patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma who are taking a tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) to prolong their lives will typically keep going without a break until the disease progresses or toxicities such as severe fatigue and diarrhea become intolerable.

That might soon change with the publication of a unique study. Lasting 10 years, the phase 3 STAR trial involved 920 patients across 60 cancer centers. These patients had advanced kidney cancer and were taking either sunitinib (Sutent) or pazopanib (Votrient).

The results showed that taking an occasional respite from TKI therapy had little impact on the patient’s survival.

The study was published online in The Lancet Oncology.

The study was funded by the United Kingdom’s National Institute for Health and Care Research because drug companies never run studies on how to reduce the use of their drug, commented lead author Janet Brown, MD, of the University of Sheffield (England).

“We rely on the NIHR to do these important trials that … companies wouldn’t do,” she commented to this news organization.

Commenting on the rationale for STAR, coauthor Jenny Hewison, PhD, of Leeds (England) University School of Medicine, explained that patients often find it difficult to tolerate TKIs. “Although these patients are getting the best treatment that we can offer them, it’s very demanding. … It could make them feel tired, quite unwell. And there can be a range of other effects including sickness and diarrhea.”

As an example, 77% of patients in the pivotal trial of sunitinib in kidney cancer experienced grade 3 or 4 adverse events such as hypertension (13%), fatigue (15%), diarrhea (10%) and hand-foot syndrome (8%).

Both sunitinib and pazopanib carry label warnings of severe and fatal hepatotoxicity.

Also, in contrast to conventional chemotherapy, which is usually given in a finite number of courses, treatment with TKIs carries on indefinitely.

“It feels like you’re taking [TKIs] for the whole of the rest of your life,” said Dr. Brown.
 

Study details

The STAR trial, an open-label, noninferiority, randomized controlled study, is the first phase 3 study of treatment breaks in renal cell carcinoma. The participants had inoperable locoregional or metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) and had received no systemic therapy for advanced disease.

They were randomly assigned before TKI treatment to a conventional continuation strategy or a drug-free interval approach. The treating physician decided whether a patient would take sunitinib or pazopanib.

All participants took their drugs for four cycles (6 weeks each cycle). At the 24-week point, those with a complete response, partial response, or stable disease began their randomized assignment.

Individuals who took a break continued until their disease progressed, at which point therapy was resumed. They could take further treatment breaks once their disease was back under control. The group on continuous treatment kept going until disease progression or intolerable toxicities. Median follow up was 58 months.

In both the per-protocol and intent-to-treat (ITT) populations, overall survival was 28 months for the people who received continuous treatment vs. 27 months for those who took a break. Statistical noninferiority was established in the ITT population but not in the per-protocol population.

The median length of all treatment breaks was 87 days. Many people took two or more breaks; one patient took nine breaks overall. The breaks were popular: only 3% of participants who were meant to stop therapy withdrew from the study in order to continue their treatment.

Said Dr. Hewison: “In the very early days of planning the study there were some doubts as to whether it would succeed because of potential unwillingness of people to stop treatment for a while.”

Dr. Brown agreed: “People did worry about that initially, but it actually seemed to be more the other way around. By that time – 6 months – people were relieved to be there. …We actually had some people from the other arm asking, could they also have a break?”

To understand better the benefits of treatment breaks to patients, Janine Bestall, PhD, a senior research fellow in applied health research at the University of Leeds, conducted a qualitative study in parallel with the main trial.

Summing up the patients’ experiences, Dr. Bestall said the drug-free periods “gave them more time.”

Dr. Bestall quoted one patient who said: “I know that things can happen and it grows back, but you’ve always got the buffer there knowing that you can go back and get help. But you actually lead a normal life and the advantage is, yeah, you can go on holiday, you can actually do more things in the garden, cleaning up, painting, whatever needs doing, you do it.”

Dr. Brown said, “I had a lady who, when she was on the trial, had four breaks in total, one when her daughter got married, and [she said] that was really nice for her to do all the shopping and all the normal things that you do, and not be on something that was making her tired and causing sore hands and diarrhea.” 

The drug-free interval strategy provided annual cost savings of 3,235 pounds sterling ($3,850) and a noninferior quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) benefit in both the ITT and per-protocol populations.

Serious adverse reactions occurred in 9% of patients in the treatment-break group versus 12% of the continuous-treatment group.

The authors of the study concluded, “Treatment breaks might be a feasible and cost-effective option with lifestyle benefits for patients during tyrosine kinase inhibitor therapy in patients with renal cell carcinoma.”
 

Changes in treatment strategies

The STAR trial started recruiting in January 2012.

Since that time, immunotherapy has taken over as first-line treatment for many patients with advanced ccRCC in both the United Kingdom and the United States.

However, TKIs still have a place. The NCCN Kidney Cancer 2022 Guidelines recommend both sunitinib and pazopanib as options for first-line therapy in advanced disease. The 2022 ASCO Metastatic ccRCC guidelines recommend either drug as first-line treatment in combination with an immune checkpoint inhibitor or in monotherapy if there are “coexisting medical problems.”

In the United States, intermittent sunitinib in metastatic RCC was tested in a small study in 2017 with little activity in the literature since then. The authors, led by Moshe Ornstein, MD, from the Cleveland Clinic, concluded at the time that sunitinib treatment breaks were feasible and “clinical efficacy does not seem to be compromised.” Dr. Ornstein was approached for comment on this latest U.K. study but declined.

Back in the United Kingdom, the results of STAR arrived just in time.

Said Dr. Brown: “This has … been really helpful in the U.K. in the pandemic when people said, can these patients have extra breaks? At the worst of the pandemic we were able to say, sure, if it’s stable, we can keep them off for 3-6 months. …And so that’s already had a powerful impact.”

Dr. Brown concluded, “I think what the trial does allow us to do, as individual oncologists, is to look at the patients that this might be suitable for – it won’t be everybody – and to say yes, it’s okay to personalize things.”

The study was funded by the U.K.’s National Institute for Health and Care Research. Dr. Bestall reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Hewison reported funding to her institution from the NIHR Health Technology Assessment. Dr. Brown reports having served as a consultant or adviser for Novartis, Ipsen, Amgen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Bayer; honoraria from Novartis, Ipsen, Amgen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Bayer; research funding paid to their institution from the National Institute for Health and Care Research; and travel expenses from Ipsen. Other coauthors reported numerous relationships with industry.

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

Patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma who are taking a tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) to prolong their lives will typically keep going without a break until the disease progresses or toxicities such as severe fatigue and diarrhea become intolerable.

That might soon change with the publication of a unique study. Lasting 10 years, the phase 3 STAR trial involved 920 patients across 60 cancer centers. These patients had advanced kidney cancer and were taking either sunitinib (Sutent) or pazopanib (Votrient).

The results showed that taking an occasional respite from TKI therapy had little impact on the patient’s survival.

The study was published online in The Lancet Oncology.

The study was funded by the United Kingdom’s National Institute for Health and Care Research because drug companies never run studies on how to reduce the use of their drug, commented lead author Janet Brown, MD, of the University of Sheffield (England).

“We rely on the NIHR to do these important trials that … companies wouldn’t do,” she commented to this news organization.

Commenting on the rationale for STAR, coauthor Jenny Hewison, PhD, of Leeds (England) University School of Medicine, explained that patients often find it difficult to tolerate TKIs. “Although these patients are getting the best treatment that we can offer them, it’s very demanding. … It could make them feel tired, quite unwell. And there can be a range of other effects including sickness and diarrhea.”

As an example, 77% of patients in the pivotal trial of sunitinib in kidney cancer experienced grade 3 or 4 adverse events such as hypertension (13%), fatigue (15%), diarrhea (10%) and hand-foot syndrome (8%).

Both sunitinib and pazopanib carry label warnings of severe and fatal hepatotoxicity.

Also, in contrast to conventional chemotherapy, which is usually given in a finite number of courses, treatment with TKIs carries on indefinitely.

“It feels like you’re taking [TKIs] for the whole of the rest of your life,” said Dr. Brown.
 

Study details

The STAR trial, an open-label, noninferiority, randomized controlled study, is the first phase 3 study of treatment breaks in renal cell carcinoma. The participants had inoperable locoregional or metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) and had received no systemic therapy for advanced disease.

They were randomly assigned before TKI treatment to a conventional continuation strategy or a drug-free interval approach. The treating physician decided whether a patient would take sunitinib or pazopanib.

All participants took their drugs for four cycles (6 weeks each cycle). At the 24-week point, those with a complete response, partial response, or stable disease began their randomized assignment.

Individuals who took a break continued until their disease progressed, at which point therapy was resumed. They could take further treatment breaks once their disease was back under control. The group on continuous treatment kept going until disease progression or intolerable toxicities. Median follow up was 58 months.

In both the per-protocol and intent-to-treat (ITT) populations, overall survival was 28 months for the people who received continuous treatment vs. 27 months for those who took a break. Statistical noninferiority was established in the ITT population but not in the per-protocol population.

The median length of all treatment breaks was 87 days. Many people took two or more breaks; one patient took nine breaks overall. The breaks were popular: only 3% of participants who were meant to stop therapy withdrew from the study in order to continue their treatment.

Said Dr. Hewison: “In the very early days of planning the study there were some doubts as to whether it would succeed because of potential unwillingness of people to stop treatment for a while.”

Dr. Brown agreed: “People did worry about that initially, but it actually seemed to be more the other way around. By that time – 6 months – people were relieved to be there. …We actually had some people from the other arm asking, could they also have a break?”

To understand better the benefits of treatment breaks to patients, Janine Bestall, PhD, a senior research fellow in applied health research at the University of Leeds, conducted a qualitative study in parallel with the main trial.

Summing up the patients’ experiences, Dr. Bestall said the drug-free periods “gave them more time.”

Dr. Bestall quoted one patient who said: “I know that things can happen and it grows back, but you’ve always got the buffer there knowing that you can go back and get help. But you actually lead a normal life and the advantage is, yeah, you can go on holiday, you can actually do more things in the garden, cleaning up, painting, whatever needs doing, you do it.”

Dr. Brown said, “I had a lady who, when she was on the trial, had four breaks in total, one when her daughter got married, and [she said] that was really nice for her to do all the shopping and all the normal things that you do, and not be on something that was making her tired and causing sore hands and diarrhea.” 

The drug-free interval strategy provided annual cost savings of 3,235 pounds sterling ($3,850) and a noninferior quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) benefit in both the ITT and per-protocol populations.

Serious adverse reactions occurred in 9% of patients in the treatment-break group versus 12% of the continuous-treatment group.

The authors of the study concluded, “Treatment breaks might be a feasible and cost-effective option with lifestyle benefits for patients during tyrosine kinase inhibitor therapy in patients with renal cell carcinoma.”
 

Changes in treatment strategies

The STAR trial started recruiting in January 2012.

Since that time, immunotherapy has taken over as first-line treatment for many patients with advanced ccRCC in both the United Kingdom and the United States.

However, TKIs still have a place. The NCCN Kidney Cancer 2022 Guidelines recommend both sunitinib and pazopanib as options for first-line therapy in advanced disease. The 2022 ASCO Metastatic ccRCC guidelines recommend either drug as first-line treatment in combination with an immune checkpoint inhibitor or in monotherapy if there are “coexisting medical problems.”

In the United States, intermittent sunitinib in metastatic RCC was tested in a small study in 2017 with little activity in the literature since then. The authors, led by Moshe Ornstein, MD, from the Cleveland Clinic, concluded at the time that sunitinib treatment breaks were feasible and “clinical efficacy does not seem to be compromised.” Dr. Ornstein was approached for comment on this latest U.K. study but declined.

Back in the United Kingdom, the results of STAR arrived just in time.

Said Dr. Brown: “This has … been really helpful in the U.K. in the pandemic when people said, can these patients have extra breaks? At the worst of the pandemic we were able to say, sure, if it’s stable, we can keep them off for 3-6 months. …And so that’s already had a powerful impact.”

Dr. Brown concluded, “I think what the trial does allow us to do, as individual oncologists, is to look at the patients that this might be suitable for – it won’t be everybody – and to say yes, it’s okay to personalize things.”

The study was funded by the U.K.’s National Institute for Health and Care Research. Dr. Bestall reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Hewison reported funding to her institution from the NIHR Health Technology Assessment. Dr. Brown reports having served as a consultant or adviser for Novartis, Ipsen, Amgen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Bayer; honoraria from Novartis, Ipsen, Amgen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Bayer; research funding paid to their institution from the National Institute for Health and Care Research; and travel expenses from Ipsen. Other coauthors reported numerous relationships with industry.

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

Patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma who are taking a tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) to prolong their lives will typically keep going without a break until the disease progresses or toxicities such as severe fatigue and diarrhea become intolerable.

That might soon change with the publication of a unique study. Lasting 10 years, the phase 3 STAR trial involved 920 patients across 60 cancer centers. These patients had advanced kidney cancer and were taking either sunitinib (Sutent) or pazopanib (Votrient).

The results showed that taking an occasional respite from TKI therapy had little impact on the patient’s survival.

The study was published online in The Lancet Oncology.

The study was funded by the United Kingdom’s National Institute for Health and Care Research because drug companies never run studies on how to reduce the use of their drug, commented lead author Janet Brown, MD, of the University of Sheffield (England).

“We rely on the NIHR to do these important trials that … companies wouldn’t do,” she commented to this news organization.

Commenting on the rationale for STAR, coauthor Jenny Hewison, PhD, of Leeds (England) University School of Medicine, explained that patients often find it difficult to tolerate TKIs. “Although these patients are getting the best treatment that we can offer them, it’s very demanding. … It could make them feel tired, quite unwell. And there can be a range of other effects including sickness and diarrhea.”

As an example, 77% of patients in the pivotal trial of sunitinib in kidney cancer experienced grade 3 or 4 adverse events such as hypertension (13%), fatigue (15%), diarrhea (10%) and hand-foot syndrome (8%).

Both sunitinib and pazopanib carry label warnings of severe and fatal hepatotoxicity.

Also, in contrast to conventional chemotherapy, which is usually given in a finite number of courses, treatment with TKIs carries on indefinitely.

“It feels like you’re taking [TKIs] for the whole of the rest of your life,” said Dr. Brown.
 

Study details

The STAR trial, an open-label, noninferiority, randomized controlled study, is the first phase 3 study of treatment breaks in renal cell carcinoma. The participants had inoperable locoregional or metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) and had received no systemic therapy for advanced disease.

They were randomly assigned before TKI treatment to a conventional continuation strategy or a drug-free interval approach. The treating physician decided whether a patient would take sunitinib or pazopanib.

All participants took their drugs for four cycles (6 weeks each cycle). At the 24-week point, those with a complete response, partial response, or stable disease began their randomized assignment.

Individuals who took a break continued until their disease progressed, at which point therapy was resumed. They could take further treatment breaks once their disease was back under control. The group on continuous treatment kept going until disease progression or intolerable toxicities. Median follow up was 58 months.

In both the per-protocol and intent-to-treat (ITT) populations, overall survival was 28 months for the people who received continuous treatment vs. 27 months for those who took a break. Statistical noninferiority was established in the ITT population but not in the per-protocol population.

The median length of all treatment breaks was 87 days. Many people took two or more breaks; one patient took nine breaks overall. The breaks were popular: only 3% of participants who were meant to stop therapy withdrew from the study in order to continue their treatment.

Said Dr. Hewison: “In the very early days of planning the study there were some doubts as to whether it would succeed because of potential unwillingness of people to stop treatment for a while.”

Dr. Brown agreed: “People did worry about that initially, but it actually seemed to be more the other way around. By that time – 6 months – people were relieved to be there. …We actually had some people from the other arm asking, could they also have a break?”

To understand better the benefits of treatment breaks to patients, Janine Bestall, PhD, a senior research fellow in applied health research at the University of Leeds, conducted a qualitative study in parallel with the main trial.

Summing up the patients’ experiences, Dr. Bestall said the drug-free periods “gave them more time.”

Dr. Bestall quoted one patient who said: “I know that things can happen and it grows back, but you’ve always got the buffer there knowing that you can go back and get help. But you actually lead a normal life and the advantage is, yeah, you can go on holiday, you can actually do more things in the garden, cleaning up, painting, whatever needs doing, you do it.”

Dr. Brown said, “I had a lady who, when she was on the trial, had four breaks in total, one when her daughter got married, and [she said] that was really nice for her to do all the shopping and all the normal things that you do, and not be on something that was making her tired and causing sore hands and diarrhea.” 

The drug-free interval strategy provided annual cost savings of 3,235 pounds sterling ($3,850) and a noninferior quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) benefit in both the ITT and per-protocol populations.

Serious adverse reactions occurred in 9% of patients in the treatment-break group versus 12% of the continuous-treatment group.

The authors of the study concluded, “Treatment breaks might be a feasible and cost-effective option with lifestyle benefits for patients during tyrosine kinase inhibitor therapy in patients with renal cell carcinoma.”
 

Changes in treatment strategies

The STAR trial started recruiting in January 2012.

Since that time, immunotherapy has taken over as first-line treatment for many patients with advanced ccRCC in both the United Kingdom and the United States.

However, TKIs still have a place. The NCCN Kidney Cancer 2022 Guidelines recommend both sunitinib and pazopanib as options for first-line therapy in advanced disease. The 2022 ASCO Metastatic ccRCC guidelines recommend either drug as first-line treatment in combination with an immune checkpoint inhibitor or in monotherapy if there are “coexisting medical problems.”

In the United States, intermittent sunitinib in metastatic RCC was tested in a small study in 2017 with little activity in the literature since then. The authors, led by Moshe Ornstein, MD, from the Cleveland Clinic, concluded at the time that sunitinib treatment breaks were feasible and “clinical efficacy does not seem to be compromised.” Dr. Ornstein was approached for comment on this latest U.K. study but declined.

Back in the United Kingdom, the results of STAR arrived just in time.

Said Dr. Brown: “This has … been really helpful in the U.K. in the pandemic when people said, can these patients have extra breaks? At the worst of the pandemic we were able to say, sure, if it’s stable, we can keep them off for 3-6 months. …And so that’s already had a powerful impact.”

Dr. Brown concluded, “I think what the trial does allow us to do, as individual oncologists, is to look at the patients that this might be suitable for – it won’t be everybody – and to say yes, it’s okay to personalize things.”

The study was funded by the U.K.’s National Institute for Health and Care Research. Dr. Bestall reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Hewison reported funding to her institution from the NIHR Health Technology Assessment. Dr. Brown reports having served as a consultant or adviser for Novartis, Ipsen, Amgen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Bayer; honoraria from Novartis, Ipsen, Amgen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Bayer; research funding paid to their institution from the National Institute for Health and Care Research; and travel expenses from Ipsen. Other coauthors reported numerous relationships with industry.

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

Sales of a best-selling health book by a high-profile University of Southern California, Los Angeles, oncologist have been suspended because of dozens of instances of plagiarism.

The Los Angeles Times reported earlier this week that it identified at least 95 instances of plagiarism by author David B. Agus, MD, in “The Book of Animal Secrets: Nature’s Lessons for a Long and Happy Life.”

According to the LA Times, Dr. Agus copied passages from numerous sources, including The New York Times, National Geographic, Wikipedia, and smaller niche sites. Some instances involved a sentence or two; others involved multiparagraph, word-for-word copying without attribution.

The book by Dr. Agus – who interviews celebrities for a health-related miniseries on Paramount Plus – had reached the top spot on Amazon’s list of best-selling books about animals a week before its planned March 7 release.

Publisher Simon & Schuster released a statement announcing a recall of the book at Dr. Agus’ expense “until a fully revised and corrected edition can be released.”

Dr. Agus included his own statement apologizing “to the scientists and writers whose work or words were used or not fully attributed,” and said he will “rewrite the passages in question with new language, will provide proper and full attribution, and when ready will announce a new publication date.”

“Writers should always be credited for their work, and I deeply regret these mistakes and the lack of rigor in finalizing the book,” he stated, adding that “[t]his book contains important lessons, messages, and guidance about health that I wanted to convey to the readers. I do not want these mistakes to interfere with that effort.”
 

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

Sales of a best-selling health book by a high-profile University of Southern California, Los Angeles, oncologist have been suspended because of dozens of instances of plagiarism.

The Los Angeles Times reported earlier this week that it identified at least 95 instances of plagiarism by author David B. Agus, MD, in “The Book of Animal Secrets: Nature’s Lessons for a Long and Happy Life.”

According to the LA Times, Dr. Agus copied passages from numerous sources, including The New York Times, National Geographic, Wikipedia, and smaller niche sites. Some instances involved a sentence or two; others involved multiparagraph, word-for-word copying without attribution.

The book by Dr. Agus – who interviews celebrities for a health-related miniseries on Paramount Plus – had reached the top spot on Amazon’s list of best-selling books about animals a week before its planned March 7 release.

Publisher Simon & Schuster released a statement announcing a recall of the book at Dr. Agus’ expense “until a fully revised and corrected edition can be released.”

Dr. Agus included his own statement apologizing “to the scientists and writers whose work or words were used or not fully attributed,” and said he will “rewrite the passages in question with new language, will provide proper and full attribution, and when ready will announce a new publication date.”

“Writers should always be credited for their work, and I deeply regret these mistakes and the lack of rigor in finalizing the book,” he stated, adding that “[t]his book contains important lessons, messages, and guidance about health that I wanted to convey to the readers. I do not want these mistakes to interfere with that effort.”
 

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

Sales of a best-selling health book by a high-profile University of Southern California, Los Angeles, oncologist have been suspended because of dozens of instances of plagiarism.

The Los Angeles Times reported earlier this week that it identified at least 95 instances of plagiarism by author David B. Agus, MD, in “The Book of Animal Secrets: Nature’s Lessons for a Long and Happy Life.”

According to the LA Times, Dr. Agus copied passages from numerous sources, including The New York Times, National Geographic, Wikipedia, and smaller niche sites. Some instances involved a sentence or two; others involved multiparagraph, word-for-word copying without attribution.

The book by Dr. Agus – who interviews celebrities for a health-related miniseries on Paramount Plus – had reached the top spot on Amazon’s list of best-selling books about animals a week before its planned March 7 release.

Publisher Simon & Schuster released a statement announcing a recall of the book at Dr. Agus’ expense “until a fully revised and corrected edition can be released.”

Dr. Agus included his own statement apologizing “to the scientists and writers whose work or words were used or not fully attributed,” and said he will “rewrite the passages in question with new language, will provide proper and full attribution, and when ready will announce a new publication date.”

“Writers should always be credited for their work, and I deeply regret these mistakes and the lack of rigor in finalizing the book,” he stated, adding that “[t]his book contains important lessons, messages, and guidance about health that I wanted to convey to the readers. I do not want these mistakes to interfere with that effort.”
 

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

Most women with breast cancer undergo primary surgery within 8 weeks of diagnosis and any later may be associated with worse overall survival, according to findings from a case series.

With no national quality metrics delineating optimal breast cancer surgery timing, the researchers recommend surgery before 8 weeks from breast cancer diagnosis.

“This time interval does not appear to have a detrimental association with cancer outcomes and allows for multidisciplinary care,” the researchers, led by Alyssa A. Wiener, MD, from University of Wisconsin–Madison, said.

But, in an accompanying editorial, two surgical oncologists questioned whether faster surgery is always better.

“Efficiency might associate with quality, but doesn’t always ensure it,” Rita Mukhtar, MD, and Laura Esserman, MD, with the division of surgical oncology, University of California, San Francisco, said.

The study and editorial were published online in JAMA Surgery.


 

Optimal timing for surgery?

Some studies have found worse survival outcomes for women who experience delays between breast cancer diagnosis and surgical treatment, but the optimal window for surgery and the point at which surgery becomes less advantageous remain unknown.

Using the National Cancer Database, Dr. Wiener and colleagues identified 373,334 women (median age, 61) who were diagnosed with stage I to stage III ductal or lobular breast cancer from 2010 to 2014 and followed up through 2019.

All women underwent surgery as their first course of treatment. Patients with prior breast cancer, those who had neoadjuvant or experimental therapy or missing receptor information, and those who were diagnosed with breast cancer on the date of their primary surgery were excluded.

Most patients had timely surgery. The median time to surgery was 30 days, and 88% of patients underwent surgery before the 57-day time point.

Only 12% of patients had surgery more than 8 weeks after their diagnosis. Factors associated with longer times to surgery included age younger than 45, having Medicaid or no insurance, and lower household income.

The overall 5-year survival for the cohort was high at 90%. On multivariable analysis, the researchers found no statistically significant association between time to surgery and overall survival when surgery was performed between 0 and 8 weeks.

However, women who had surgery 9 or more weeks after diagnosis had a significantly higher rate of death within 5 years, compared with those who had surgery performed between 0 and 4 weeks (hazard ratio, 1.15; P < .001). Performing surgery up to 9 weeks (57-63 days) post diagnosis also did not appear to be negatively associated with survival.

This study “highlights that time to treatment of breast cancer is important,” said Sarah P. Cate, MD, director, Breast Surgery Quality Program, Mount Sinai Health System, New York, who wasn’t involved in the study. “Surgery is only one-third of the treatment of breast cancer, so these patients who had longer delays to the OR may have also not started their postsurgery treatments in time.”

In addition, the study found that socioeconomic status – Medicaid or uninsured status and lower household incomes – was associated with longer times to surgery.

“Socioeconomic factors like these may be independently associated with worse outcomes and may contribute to some of the disparities in cancer outcomes observed for resource-limited patients due to delayed care,” the authors said.

Identifying 8 weeks as a goal for time to surgery can help uncover delays associated with socioeconomic factors and provide adequate time for decision-making, the researchers noted.
 

Is faster always better?

Dr. Wiener and colleagues cautioned, however, that their findings should be considered “hypothesis generating,” given that decision-making surrounding breast cancer surgery is complex.

Importantly, the authors noted, tumor characteristics, such as tumor size, nodal status, and receptor subtype, appeared to have a pronounced impact on overall survival, compared with timing of surgery. For instance, compared with a tumor size of 2 cm or fewer, larger tumors – those > 2 cm to ≤ 5 cm and > 5 cm – were associated with worse survival (HR, 1.80 and 2.62, respectively).

“This highlights that tumor biology is the primary driver of patients’ breast cancer outcomes,” the authors noted.

In an accompanying editorial, two surgical oncologists highlighted that faster may not always be better.

For instance, Dr. Mukhtar and Dr. Esserman explained, if a patient with a large node-positive, triple-negative breast cancer receives surgery within a week of diagnosis, “one must question whether this timely care represents quality care, as the opportunity to understand tumor response and affect breast cancer survival has been lost.”

The editorialists noted that time to surgery might also matter very little for indolent, screen-detected cancers, and time to treatment start might matter a lot for fast-growing, interval cancers.

In addition, they questioned whether including the socioeconomic factors highlighted in the overall model would “mitigate the association between time to surgery and survival seen in this study.”

Overall, “operating too soon could indicate lack of quality, while operating too late perhaps reflects lack of access to care,” the editorialists said.

This study was supported by grants from the National Cancer Institute and the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Wiener and Dr. Cate report no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Esserman is a member of the Blue Cross Medical advisory panel, is a board member of the Quantum Leap Healthcare Collaborative, and leads an investigator-initiated vaccine trial for high-risk ductal carcinoma in situ, which is funded by Merck.

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

Most women with breast cancer undergo primary surgery within 8 weeks of diagnosis and any later may be associated with worse overall survival, according to findings from a case series.

With no national quality metrics delineating optimal breast cancer surgery timing, the researchers recommend surgery before 8 weeks from breast cancer diagnosis.

“This time interval does not appear to have a detrimental association with cancer outcomes and allows for multidisciplinary care,” the researchers, led by Alyssa A. Wiener, MD, from University of Wisconsin–Madison, said.

But, in an accompanying editorial, two surgical oncologists questioned whether faster surgery is always better.

“Efficiency might associate with quality, but doesn’t always ensure it,” Rita Mukhtar, MD, and Laura Esserman, MD, with the division of surgical oncology, University of California, San Francisco, said.

The study and editorial were published online in JAMA Surgery.


 

Optimal timing for surgery?

Some studies have found worse survival outcomes for women who experience delays between breast cancer diagnosis and surgical treatment, but the optimal window for surgery and the point at which surgery becomes less advantageous remain unknown.

Using the National Cancer Database, Dr. Wiener and colleagues identified 373,334 women (median age, 61) who were diagnosed with stage I to stage III ductal or lobular breast cancer from 2010 to 2014 and followed up through 2019.

All women underwent surgery as their first course of treatment. Patients with prior breast cancer, those who had neoadjuvant or experimental therapy or missing receptor information, and those who were diagnosed with breast cancer on the date of their primary surgery were excluded.

Most patients had timely surgery. The median time to surgery was 30 days, and 88% of patients underwent surgery before the 57-day time point.

Only 12% of patients had surgery more than 8 weeks after their diagnosis. Factors associated with longer times to surgery included age younger than 45, having Medicaid or no insurance, and lower household income.

The overall 5-year survival for the cohort was high at 90%. On multivariable analysis, the researchers found no statistically significant association between time to surgery and overall survival when surgery was performed between 0 and 8 weeks.

However, women who had surgery 9 or more weeks after diagnosis had a significantly higher rate of death within 5 years, compared with those who had surgery performed between 0 and 4 weeks (hazard ratio, 1.15; P < .001). Performing surgery up to 9 weeks (57-63 days) post diagnosis also did not appear to be negatively associated with survival.

This study “highlights that time to treatment of breast cancer is important,” said Sarah P. Cate, MD, director, Breast Surgery Quality Program, Mount Sinai Health System, New York, who wasn’t involved in the study. “Surgery is only one-third of the treatment of breast cancer, so these patients who had longer delays to the OR may have also not started their postsurgery treatments in time.”

In addition, the study found that socioeconomic status – Medicaid or uninsured status and lower household incomes – was associated with longer times to surgery.

“Socioeconomic factors like these may be independently associated with worse outcomes and may contribute to some of the disparities in cancer outcomes observed for resource-limited patients due to delayed care,” the authors said.

Identifying 8 weeks as a goal for time to surgery can help uncover delays associated with socioeconomic factors and provide adequate time for decision-making, the researchers noted.
 

Is faster always better?

Dr. Wiener and colleagues cautioned, however, that their findings should be considered “hypothesis generating,” given that decision-making surrounding breast cancer surgery is complex.

Importantly, the authors noted, tumor characteristics, such as tumor size, nodal status, and receptor subtype, appeared to have a pronounced impact on overall survival, compared with timing of surgery. For instance, compared with a tumor size of 2 cm or fewer, larger tumors – those > 2 cm to ≤ 5 cm and > 5 cm – were associated with worse survival (HR, 1.80 and 2.62, respectively).

“This highlights that tumor biology is the primary driver of patients’ breast cancer outcomes,” the authors noted.

In an accompanying editorial, two surgical oncologists highlighted that faster may not always be better.

For instance, Dr. Mukhtar and Dr. Esserman explained, if a patient with a large node-positive, triple-negative breast cancer receives surgery within a week of diagnosis, “one must question whether this timely care represents quality care, as the opportunity to understand tumor response and affect breast cancer survival has been lost.”

The editorialists noted that time to surgery might also matter very little for indolent, screen-detected cancers, and time to treatment start might matter a lot for fast-growing, interval cancers.

In addition, they questioned whether including the socioeconomic factors highlighted in the overall model would “mitigate the association between time to surgery and survival seen in this study.”

Overall, “operating too soon could indicate lack of quality, while operating too late perhaps reflects lack of access to care,” the editorialists said.

This study was supported by grants from the National Cancer Institute and the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Wiener and Dr. Cate report no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Esserman is a member of the Blue Cross Medical advisory panel, is a board member of the Quantum Leap Healthcare Collaborative, and leads an investigator-initiated vaccine trial for high-risk ductal carcinoma in situ, which is funded by Merck.

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

Most women with breast cancer undergo primary surgery within 8 weeks of diagnosis and any later may be associated with worse overall survival, according to findings from a case series.

With no national quality metrics delineating optimal breast cancer surgery timing, the researchers recommend surgery before 8 weeks from breast cancer diagnosis.

“This time interval does not appear to have a detrimental association with cancer outcomes and allows for multidisciplinary care,” the researchers, led by Alyssa A. Wiener, MD, from University of Wisconsin–Madison, said.

But, in an accompanying editorial, two surgical oncologists questioned whether faster surgery is always better.

“Efficiency might associate with quality, but doesn’t always ensure it,” Rita Mukhtar, MD, and Laura Esserman, MD, with the division of surgical oncology, University of California, San Francisco, said.

The study and editorial were published online in JAMA Surgery.


 

Optimal timing for surgery?

Some studies have found worse survival outcomes for women who experience delays between breast cancer diagnosis and surgical treatment, but the optimal window for surgery and the point at which surgery becomes less advantageous remain unknown.

Using the National Cancer Database, Dr. Wiener and colleagues identified 373,334 women (median age, 61) who were diagnosed with stage I to stage III ductal or lobular breast cancer from 2010 to 2014 and followed up through 2019.

All women underwent surgery as their first course of treatment. Patients with prior breast cancer, those who had neoadjuvant or experimental therapy or missing receptor information, and those who were diagnosed with breast cancer on the date of their primary surgery were excluded.

Most patients had timely surgery. The median time to surgery was 30 days, and 88% of patients underwent surgery before the 57-day time point.

Only 12% of patients had surgery more than 8 weeks after their diagnosis. Factors associated with longer times to surgery included age younger than 45, having Medicaid or no insurance, and lower household income.

The overall 5-year survival for the cohort was high at 90%. On multivariable analysis, the researchers found no statistically significant association between time to surgery and overall survival when surgery was performed between 0 and 8 weeks.

However, women who had surgery 9 or more weeks after diagnosis had a significantly higher rate of death within 5 years, compared with those who had surgery performed between 0 and 4 weeks (hazard ratio, 1.15; P < .001). Performing surgery up to 9 weeks (57-63 days) post diagnosis also did not appear to be negatively associated with survival.

This study “highlights that time to treatment of breast cancer is important,” said Sarah P. Cate, MD, director, Breast Surgery Quality Program, Mount Sinai Health System, New York, who wasn’t involved in the study. “Surgery is only one-third of the treatment of breast cancer, so these patients who had longer delays to the OR may have also not started their postsurgery treatments in time.”

In addition, the study found that socioeconomic status – Medicaid or uninsured status and lower household incomes – was associated with longer times to surgery.

“Socioeconomic factors like these may be independently associated with worse outcomes and may contribute to some of the disparities in cancer outcomes observed for resource-limited patients due to delayed care,” the authors said.

Identifying 8 weeks as a goal for time to surgery can help uncover delays associated with socioeconomic factors and provide adequate time for decision-making, the researchers noted.
 

Is faster always better?

Dr. Wiener and colleagues cautioned, however, that their findings should be considered “hypothesis generating,” given that decision-making surrounding breast cancer surgery is complex.

Importantly, the authors noted, tumor characteristics, such as tumor size, nodal status, and receptor subtype, appeared to have a pronounced impact on overall survival, compared with timing of surgery. For instance, compared with a tumor size of 2 cm or fewer, larger tumors – those > 2 cm to ≤ 5 cm and > 5 cm – were associated with worse survival (HR, 1.80 and 2.62, respectively).

“This highlights that tumor biology is the primary driver of patients’ breast cancer outcomes,” the authors noted.

In an accompanying editorial, two surgical oncologists highlighted that faster may not always be better.

For instance, Dr. Mukhtar and Dr. Esserman explained, if a patient with a large node-positive, triple-negative breast cancer receives surgery within a week of diagnosis, “one must question whether this timely care represents quality care, as the opportunity to understand tumor response and affect breast cancer survival has been lost.”

The editorialists noted that time to surgery might also matter very little for indolent, screen-detected cancers, and time to treatment start might matter a lot for fast-growing, interval cancers.

In addition, they questioned whether including the socioeconomic factors highlighted in the overall model would “mitigate the association between time to surgery and survival seen in this study.”

Overall, “operating too soon could indicate lack of quality, while operating too late perhaps reflects lack of access to care,” the editorialists said.

This study was supported by grants from the National Cancer Institute and the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Wiener and Dr. Cate report no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Esserman is a member of the Blue Cross Medical advisory panel, is a board member of the Quantum Leap Healthcare Collaborative, and leads an investigator-initiated vaccine trial for high-risk ductal carcinoma in situ, which is funded by Merck.

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

Much attention has been focused recently on the idea that breast cancer with a low expression of HER2 can be treated with HER2-targeted agents. Not surprisingly, manufacturers of these drugs have pounced on this idea, as it opens up a whole new patient population: previously these drugs were only for tumors with a high HER2 expression.

There is a large potential market at stake: HER2-low (also referred to as ERBB2-low), as defined by a score of 0 to 3+ on immunohistochemistry (IHC), is seen in approximately 50%-60% of all breast cancers

However, there is still much debate over whether low-HER2 breast cancer is, in fact, a separate clinical entity.

A new large-scale analysis concludes that it is not. The authors argued that it actually it represents a series of biological differences from HER2-negative disease that do not have a strong bearing on outcomes.

The analysis was published online in JAMA Oncology.

For the study, researchers from the University of Chicago examined data on more than 1.1 million breast cancer patients recorded as HER2-negative in the U.S. National Cancer Database, and re-classified almost two thirds as HER2-low on further analysis.

They found that HER2-low status was associated with higher estrogen receptor (ER) expression, as well as a lower rate of pathologic complete response, compared with HER2-negative disease. It was also linked to an improvement in overall survival on multivariate analysis of up to 9% in advance stage triple negative tumors.

“However, the clinical significance of these differences is questionable,” the researchers commented.

HER2-low status alone “should not influence neoadjuvant treatment decisions with currently approved regimens,” they added.

These results “do not support classification of HER2-low breast cancer as a distinct clinical subtype,” the team concluded.

Not necessarily, according to Giuseppe Curigliano, MD, PhD, director of the new drugs and early drug development for innovative therapies division at the European Institute of Oncology, Milan. He argued the opposite case, that HER2-low is a separate clinical entity, in a recent debate on the topic held at the 2022 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium.

In a comment, Dr. Curigliano said that a “major strength” of the current study is its large patient cohort, which reflects the majority of cancer diagnoses in the United States, but that it nevertheless has “important limitations that should be considered when interpreting the results.”

The inclusion of only overall survival in the dataset limits the ability to make associations between HER2-low status and cancer-specific prognosis, as “survival may lag years behind recurrence.”

The lack of centralized assessment of IHC results is also an issue, as “some of the results may be associated with regional variation in practice of classifying cases as HER2 0 versus HER2 1+.”

“In my opinion, this is a great limitation,” he said, in being able to conclude that there is “no prognostic difference between ERBB2-low and -negative patients.”

He also noted that, from a molecular point of view, “the key determinant of the gene expression profile is the expression of hormone receptors, [and] if we perform a correction for hormone receptor expression, only marginal differences in gene expression are found” between HER2-low and HER2-negative tumors.

“Similarly, large genomic studies have identified no specific and consistent difference in genomic profiles,” Dr. Curigliano said, and so, HER2-low disease, “as currently defined, should not be considered a distinct molecular entity, but rather a heterogeneous group of tumors, with biology primarily driven by hormone receptor expression.”
 

Analysis quoted by both sides

Senior author of the new analysis, Frederick M. Howard, MD, from the section of hematology-oncology in the department of medicine at the University of Chicago, said that his team’s work was quoted by both sides of the debate at SABCS 2022.

This reflects the fact that, while differences between ERBB2-low and -negative are present, it is “questionable how clinically significant those differences are,” he said in an interview. It’s a matter of “the eye of the beholder.”

Dr. Howard does not think that clinicians are going to modify standard treatment regimens based solely on HER2-low status, and that low expression of the protein “is probably just a reflection of some underlying biologic processes.”

Dr. Howard agreed with Dr. Curigliano that a “caveat” of their study is that the IHC analyses were performed locally, especially as it has shown that there can be discordance between pathologists in around 40% of cases, and that the associations they found might therefore be “strengthened” by more precise quantification of HER2 expression.

“But, even then,” Dr. Howard continued, “I doubt that [ERBB2-low status] is going to be that strong a prognostic factor.”

He believes that advances in analytic techniques will, in the future, allow tumors to be characterized more precisely, and it may be that HER2-low tumors end up being called something else in 5 years.
 

Renewed interest in this subgroup

In their paper, Dr. Howard and colleagues pointed out that, as a group, HER2-low tumors are heterogeneous, with HER2-low found in both hormone receptor–positive and triple-negative breast cancers. Also, various studies have come to different conclusions about what HER2 low means prognostically, with conclusions ranging from negative to neutral and to positive prognoses.

However, new research has shown that patients with HER2-low tumors can benefit from HER2-targeted drugs. In particular, the recent report that the antibody-drug conjugate trastuzumab deruxtecan doubled progression-free survival versus chemotherapy in ERBB2-low tumors led to “renewed interest in the subgroup,” the researchers noted.

To examine this subgroup further, they embarked on their analysis. Examining the National Cancer Database, they gathered information on more than 1.1 million U.S. patients diagnosed with HER2-negative invasive breast cancer in the 10-year period 2010-2019, and for whom IHC results were available.

The patients were reclassified as having HER2-low disease if they had an IHC score of 1+, or 2+ with a negative in situ hybridization test, while those with an IHC score of 0 were deemed to be HER2-negative. They were followed up until Nov. 30, 2022.

These patients had a mean age of 62.4 years, and 99.1% were female. The majority (78.6%) were non-Hispanic white. HER2-low was identified in 65.5% of the cohort, while 34.5% were HER2-negative.

The proportion of HER2-low disease was lower in non-Hispanic black (62.8%) and Hispanic (61%) patients than in non-Hispanic White patients, at 66.1%.

HER2-low disease was also more common in hormone receptor–positive than triple-negative tumors, at just 51.5%, rising to 58.6% for progesterone receptor–positive, ER-negative, and 69.1% for PR-positive, ER-positive tumors.

Multivariate logistic regression analysis taking into account age, sex, race and ethnicity, comorbidity score, and treatment facility type, among other factors, revealed that the likelihood of HER2-low disease was significantly with increased ER expression, at an adjusted odds ratio of 1.15 for each 10% increase (P < .001).

Non-Hispanic Black, Asian, and Pacific Islander patients had similar rates of HER2-low disease as non-Hispanic White patients after adjustment, whereas Native American patients had an increased rate, at an aOR of 1.22 (P < .001), and Hispanic patients had a lower rate, at an aOR of 0.85 (P < .001).

HER2-low status was associated with a slightly reduced likelihood of having a pathologic complete response (aOR, 0.89; P < .001), with similar results when restricting the analysis to patients with triple negative or hormone receptor-positive tumors.

After a median follow-up of 54 months, HER2-low disease was associated with a minor improvement in survival on multivariate analysis, at an adjusted hazard ratio for death of 0.98 (P < .001).

The greatest improvement in survival was seen in patients with stage III and IV triple-negative breast cancer, at HRs of 0.92 and 0.91, respectively, although the researchers noted that this represented only a 2% and 0.4% improvement in 5-year overall survival, respectively.

The study was supported by the Breast Cancer Research Foundation, the American Society of Clinical Oncology/Conquer Cancer Foundation, the Department of Defense, the National Institutes of Health/National Cancer Institute, Susan G. Komen, the Breast Cancer Research Foundation, and the University of Chicago Elwood V. Jensen Scholars Program. Dr. Howard reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Curigliano has relationships with Pfizer, Novartis, Lilly, Roche, Seattle Genetics, Celltrion, Veracyte, Daiichi Sankyo, AstraZeneca, Merck, Seagen, Exact Sciences, Gilead, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Scientific Affairs Group, and Ellipsis.

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

Much attention has been focused recently on the idea that breast cancer with a low expression of HER2 can be treated with HER2-targeted agents. Not surprisingly, manufacturers of these drugs have pounced on this idea, as it opens up a whole new patient population: previously these drugs were only for tumors with a high HER2 expression.

There is a large potential market at stake: HER2-low (also referred to as ERBB2-low), as defined by a score of 0 to 3+ on immunohistochemistry (IHC), is seen in approximately 50%-60% of all breast cancers

However, there is still much debate over whether low-HER2 breast cancer is, in fact, a separate clinical entity.

A new large-scale analysis concludes that it is not. The authors argued that it actually it represents a series of biological differences from HER2-negative disease that do not have a strong bearing on outcomes.

The analysis was published online in JAMA Oncology.

For the study, researchers from the University of Chicago examined data on more than 1.1 million breast cancer patients recorded as HER2-negative in the U.S. National Cancer Database, and re-classified almost two thirds as HER2-low on further analysis.

They found that HER2-low status was associated with higher estrogen receptor (ER) expression, as well as a lower rate of pathologic complete response, compared with HER2-negative disease. It was also linked to an improvement in overall survival on multivariate analysis of up to 9% in advance stage triple negative tumors.

“However, the clinical significance of these differences is questionable,” the researchers commented.

HER2-low status alone “should not influence neoadjuvant treatment decisions with currently approved regimens,” they added.

These results “do not support classification of HER2-low breast cancer as a distinct clinical subtype,” the team concluded.

Not necessarily, according to Giuseppe Curigliano, MD, PhD, director of the new drugs and early drug development for innovative therapies division at the European Institute of Oncology, Milan. He argued the opposite case, that HER2-low is a separate clinical entity, in a recent debate on the topic held at the 2022 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium.

In a comment, Dr. Curigliano said that a “major strength” of the current study is its large patient cohort, which reflects the majority of cancer diagnoses in the United States, but that it nevertheless has “important limitations that should be considered when interpreting the results.”

The inclusion of only overall survival in the dataset limits the ability to make associations between HER2-low status and cancer-specific prognosis, as “survival may lag years behind recurrence.”

The lack of centralized assessment of IHC results is also an issue, as “some of the results may be associated with regional variation in practice of classifying cases as HER2 0 versus HER2 1+.”

“In my opinion, this is a great limitation,” he said, in being able to conclude that there is “no prognostic difference between ERBB2-low and -negative patients.”

He also noted that, from a molecular point of view, “the key determinant of the gene expression profile is the expression of hormone receptors, [and] if we perform a correction for hormone receptor expression, only marginal differences in gene expression are found” between HER2-low and HER2-negative tumors.

“Similarly, large genomic studies have identified no specific and consistent difference in genomic profiles,” Dr. Curigliano said, and so, HER2-low disease, “as currently defined, should not be considered a distinct molecular entity, but rather a heterogeneous group of tumors, with biology primarily driven by hormone receptor expression.”
 

Analysis quoted by both sides

Senior author of the new analysis, Frederick M. Howard, MD, from the section of hematology-oncology in the department of medicine at the University of Chicago, said that his team’s work was quoted by both sides of the debate at SABCS 2022.

This reflects the fact that, while differences between ERBB2-low and -negative are present, it is “questionable how clinically significant those differences are,” he said in an interview. It’s a matter of “the eye of the beholder.”

Dr. Howard does not think that clinicians are going to modify standard treatment regimens based solely on HER2-low status, and that low expression of the protein “is probably just a reflection of some underlying biologic processes.”

Dr. Howard agreed with Dr. Curigliano that a “caveat” of their study is that the IHC analyses were performed locally, especially as it has shown that there can be discordance between pathologists in around 40% of cases, and that the associations they found might therefore be “strengthened” by more precise quantification of HER2 expression.

“But, even then,” Dr. Howard continued, “I doubt that [ERBB2-low status] is going to be that strong a prognostic factor.”

He believes that advances in analytic techniques will, in the future, allow tumors to be characterized more precisely, and it may be that HER2-low tumors end up being called something else in 5 years.
 

Renewed interest in this subgroup

In their paper, Dr. Howard and colleagues pointed out that, as a group, HER2-low tumors are heterogeneous, with HER2-low found in both hormone receptor–positive and triple-negative breast cancers. Also, various studies have come to different conclusions about what HER2 low means prognostically, with conclusions ranging from negative to neutral and to positive prognoses.

However, new research has shown that patients with HER2-low tumors can benefit from HER2-targeted drugs. In particular, the recent report that the antibody-drug conjugate trastuzumab deruxtecan doubled progression-free survival versus chemotherapy in ERBB2-low tumors led to “renewed interest in the subgroup,” the researchers noted.

To examine this subgroup further, they embarked on their analysis. Examining the National Cancer Database, they gathered information on more than 1.1 million U.S. patients diagnosed with HER2-negative invasive breast cancer in the 10-year period 2010-2019, and for whom IHC results were available.

The patients were reclassified as having HER2-low disease if they had an IHC score of 1+, or 2+ with a negative in situ hybridization test, while those with an IHC score of 0 were deemed to be HER2-negative. They were followed up until Nov. 30, 2022.

These patients had a mean age of 62.4 years, and 99.1% were female. The majority (78.6%) were non-Hispanic white. HER2-low was identified in 65.5% of the cohort, while 34.5% were HER2-negative.

The proportion of HER2-low disease was lower in non-Hispanic black (62.8%) and Hispanic (61%) patients than in non-Hispanic White patients, at 66.1%.

HER2-low disease was also more common in hormone receptor–positive than triple-negative tumors, at just 51.5%, rising to 58.6% for progesterone receptor–positive, ER-negative, and 69.1% for PR-positive, ER-positive tumors.

Multivariate logistic regression analysis taking into account age, sex, race and ethnicity, comorbidity score, and treatment facility type, among other factors, revealed that the likelihood of HER2-low disease was significantly with increased ER expression, at an adjusted odds ratio of 1.15 for each 10% increase (P < .001).

Non-Hispanic Black, Asian, and Pacific Islander patients had similar rates of HER2-low disease as non-Hispanic White patients after adjustment, whereas Native American patients had an increased rate, at an aOR of 1.22 (P < .001), and Hispanic patients had a lower rate, at an aOR of 0.85 (P < .001).

HER2-low status was associated with a slightly reduced likelihood of having a pathologic complete response (aOR, 0.89; P < .001), with similar results when restricting the analysis to patients with triple negative or hormone receptor-positive tumors.

After a median follow-up of 54 months, HER2-low disease was associated with a minor improvement in survival on multivariate analysis, at an adjusted hazard ratio for death of 0.98 (P < .001).

The greatest improvement in survival was seen in patients with stage III and IV triple-negative breast cancer, at HRs of 0.92 and 0.91, respectively, although the researchers noted that this represented only a 2% and 0.4% improvement in 5-year overall survival, respectively.

The study was supported by the Breast Cancer Research Foundation, the American Society of Clinical Oncology/Conquer Cancer Foundation, the Department of Defense, the National Institutes of Health/National Cancer Institute, Susan G. Komen, the Breast Cancer Research Foundation, and the University of Chicago Elwood V. Jensen Scholars Program. Dr. Howard reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Curigliano has relationships with Pfizer, Novartis, Lilly, Roche, Seattle Genetics, Celltrion, Veracyte, Daiichi Sankyo, AstraZeneca, Merck, Seagen, Exact Sciences, Gilead, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Scientific Affairs Group, and Ellipsis.

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

Much attention has been focused recently on the idea that breast cancer with a low expression of HER2 can be treated with HER2-targeted agents. Not surprisingly, manufacturers of these drugs have pounced on this idea, as it opens up a whole new patient population: previously these drugs were only for tumors with a high HER2 expression.

There is a large potential market at stake: HER2-low (also referred to as ERBB2-low), as defined by a score of 0 to 3+ on immunohistochemistry (IHC), is seen in approximately 50%-60% of all breast cancers

However, there is still much debate over whether low-HER2 breast cancer is, in fact, a separate clinical entity.

A new large-scale analysis concludes that it is not. The authors argued that it actually it represents a series of biological differences from HER2-negative disease that do not have a strong bearing on outcomes.

The analysis was published online in JAMA Oncology.

For the study, researchers from the University of Chicago examined data on more than 1.1 million breast cancer patients recorded as HER2-negative in the U.S. National Cancer Database, and re-classified almost two thirds as HER2-low on further analysis.

They found that HER2-low status was associated with higher estrogen receptor (ER) expression, as well as a lower rate of pathologic complete response, compared with HER2-negative disease. It was also linked to an improvement in overall survival on multivariate analysis of up to 9% in advance stage triple negative tumors.

“However, the clinical significance of these differences is questionable,” the researchers commented.

HER2-low status alone “should not influence neoadjuvant treatment decisions with currently approved regimens,” they added.

These results “do not support classification of HER2-low breast cancer as a distinct clinical subtype,” the team concluded.

Not necessarily, according to Giuseppe Curigliano, MD, PhD, director of the new drugs and early drug development for innovative therapies division at the European Institute of Oncology, Milan. He argued the opposite case, that HER2-low is a separate clinical entity, in a recent debate on the topic held at the 2022 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium.

In a comment, Dr. Curigliano said that a “major strength” of the current study is its large patient cohort, which reflects the majority of cancer diagnoses in the United States, but that it nevertheless has “important limitations that should be considered when interpreting the results.”

The inclusion of only overall survival in the dataset limits the ability to make associations between HER2-low status and cancer-specific prognosis, as “survival may lag years behind recurrence.”

The lack of centralized assessment of IHC results is also an issue, as “some of the results may be associated with regional variation in practice of classifying cases as HER2 0 versus HER2 1+.”

“In my opinion, this is a great limitation,” he said, in being able to conclude that there is “no prognostic difference between ERBB2-low and -negative patients.”

He also noted that, from a molecular point of view, “the key determinant of the gene expression profile is the expression of hormone receptors, [and] if we perform a correction for hormone receptor expression, only marginal differences in gene expression are found” between HER2-low and HER2-negative tumors.

“Similarly, large genomic studies have identified no specific and consistent difference in genomic profiles,” Dr. Curigliano said, and so, HER2-low disease, “as currently defined, should not be considered a distinct molecular entity, but rather a heterogeneous group of tumors, with biology primarily driven by hormone receptor expression.”
 

Analysis quoted by both sides

Senior author of the new analysis, Frederick M. Howard, MD, from the section of hematology-oncology in the department of medicine at the University of Chicago, said that his team’s work was quoted by both sides of the debate at SABCS 2022.

This reflects the fact that, while differences between ERBB2-low and -negative are present, it is “questionable how clinically significant those differences are,” he said in an interview. It’s a matter of “the eye of the beholder.”

Dr. Howard does not think that clinicians are going to modify standard treatment regimens based solely on HER2-low status, and that low expression of the protein “is probably just a reflection of some underlying biologic processes.”

Dr. Howard agreed with Dr. Curigliano that a “caveat” of their study is that the IHC analyses were performed locally, especially as it has shown that there can be discordance between pathologists in around 40% of cases, and that the associations they found might therefore be “strengthened” by more precise quantification of HER2 expression.

“But, even then,” Dr. Howard continued, “I doubt that [ERBB2-low status] is going to be that strong a prognostic factor.”

He believes that advances in analytic techniques will, in the future, allow tumors to be characterized more precisely, and it may be that HER2-low tumors end up being called something else in 5 years.
 

Renewed interest in this subgroup

In their paper, Dr. Howard and colleagues pointed out that, as a group, HER2-low tumors are heterogeneous, with HER2-low found in both hormone receptor–positive and triple-negative breast cancers. Also, various studies have come to different conclusions about what HER2 low means prognostically, with conclusions ranging from negative to neutral and to positive prognoses.

However, new research has shown that patients with HER2-low tumors can benefit from HER2-targeted drugs. In particular, the recent report that the antibody-drug conjugate trastuzumab deruxtecan doubled progression-free survival versus chemotherapy in ERBB2-low tumors led to “renewed interest in the subgroup,” the researchers noted.

To examine this subgroup further, they embarked on their analysis. Examining the National Cancer Database, they gathered information on more than 1.1 million U.S. patients diagnosed with HER2-negative invasive breast cancer in the 10-year period 2010-2019, and for whom IHC results were available.

The patients were reclassified as having HER2-low disease if they had an IHC score of 1+, or 2+ with a negative in situ hybridization test, while those with an IHC score of 0 were deemed to be HER2-negative. They were followed up until Nov. 30, 2022.

These patients had a mean age of 62.4 years, and 99.1% were female. The majority (78.6%) were non-Hispanic white. HER2-low was identified in 65.5% of the cohort, while 34.5% were HER2-negative.

The proportion of HER2-low disease was lower in non-Hispanic black (62.8%) and Hispanic (61%) patients than in non-Hispanic White patients, at 66.1%.

HER2-low disease was also more common in hormone receptor–positive than triple-negative tumors, at just 51.5%, rising to 58.6% for progesterone receptor–positive, ER-negative, and 69.1% for PR-positive, ER-positive tumors.

Multivariate logistic regression analysis taking into account age, sex, race and ethnicity, comorbidity score, and treatment facility type, among other factors, revealed that the likelihood of HER2-low disease was significantly with increased ER expression, at an adjusted odds ratio of 1.15 for each 10% increase (P < .001).

Non-Hispanic Black, Asian, and Pacific Islander patients had similar rates of HER2-low disease as non-Hispanic White patients after adjustment, whereas Native American patients had an increased rate, at an aOR of 1.22 (P < .001), and Hispanic patients had a lower rate, at an aOR of 0.85 (P < .001).

HER2-low status was associated with a slightly reduced likelihood of having a pathologic complete response (aOR, 0.89; P < .001), with similar results when restricting the analysis to patients with triple negative or hormone receptor-positive tumors.

After a median follow-up of 54 months, HER2-low disease was associated with a minor improvement in survival on multivariate analysis, at an adjusted hazard ratio for death of 0.98 (P < .001).

The greatest improvement in survival was seen in patients with stage III and IV triple-negative breast cancer, at HRs of 0.92 and 0.91, respectively, although the researchers noted that this represented only a 2% and 0.4% improvement in 5-year overall survival, respectively.

The study was supported by the Breast Cancer Research Foundation, the American Society of Clinical Oncology/Conquer Cancer Foundation, the Department of Defense, the National Institutes of Health/National Cancer Institute, Susan G. Komen, the Breast Cancer Research Foundation, and the University of Chicago Elwood V. Jensen Scholars Program. Dr. Howard reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Curigliano has relationships with Pfizer, Novartis, Lilly, Roche, Seattle Genetics, Celltrion, Veracyte, Daiichi Sankyo, AstraZeneca, Merck, Seagen, Exact Sciences, Gilead, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Scientific Affairs Group, and Ellipsis.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has expanded the indication for adjuvant abemaciclib (Verzenio) in combination with endocrine therapy for patients with hormone receptor–positive, HER2-negative, node-positive early breast cancer who are at high risk for recurrence.

Abemaciclib was previously approved for this group of high-risk patients with the requirement that they have a Ki-67 score of at least 20%. The new expansion removes the Ki-67 testing requirement, meaning more patients are now eligible to receive this drug. High-risk patients eligible for the CDK4/6 inhibitor can now be identified solely on the basis of nodal status, tumor size, and tumor grade.

The FDA’s decision to expand the approval was based on 4-year data from the phase 3 monarchE trial of adjuvant abemaciclib, which showed benefit in invasive disease-free survival beyond the 2-year treatment course.

At 4 years, 85.5% of patients remained recurrence free with abemaciclib plus endocrine therapy, compared with 78.6% who received endocrine therapy alone, an absolute difference in invasive disease-free survival of 6.9%.

“The initial Verzenio FDA approval in early breast cancer was practice changing and now, through this indication expansion, we have the potential to reduce the risk of breast cancer recurrence for many more patients, relying solely on commonly utilized clinicopathologic features to identify them,” Erika P. Hamilton, MD, an investigator on the monarchE clinical trial, said in a press release.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has expanded the indication for adjuvant abemaciclib (Verzenio) in combination with endocrine therapy for patients with hormone receptor–positive, HER2-negative, node-positive early breast cancer who are at high risk for recurrence.

Abemaciclib was previously approved for this group of high-risk patients with the requirement that they have a Ki-67 score of at least 20%. The new expansion removes the Ki-67 testing requirement, meaning more patients are now eligible to receive this drug. High-risk patients eligible for the CDK4/6 inhibitor can now be identified solely on the basis of nodal status, tumor size, and tumor grade.

The FDA’s decision to expand the approval was based on 4-year data from the phase 3 monarchE trial of adjuvant abemaciclib, which showed benefit in invasive disease-free survival beyond the 2-year treatment course.

At 4 years, 85.5% of patients remained recurrence free with abemaciclib plus endocrine therapy, compared with 78.6% who received endocrine therapy alone, an absolute difference in invasive disease-free survival of 6.9%.

“The initial Verzenio FDA approval in early breast cancer was practice changing and now, through this indication expansion, we have the potential to reduce the risk of breast cancer recurrence for many more patients, relying solely on commonly utilized clinicopathologic features to identify them,” Erika P. Hamilton, MD, an investigator on the monarchE clinical trial, said in a press release.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has expanded the indication for adjuvant abemaciclib (Verzenio) in combination with endocrine therapy for patients with hormone receptor–positive, HER2-negative, node-positive early breast cancer who are at high risk for recurrence.

Abemaciclib was previously approved for this group of high-risk patients with the requirement that they have a Ki-67 score of at least 20%. The new expansion removes the Ki-67 testing requirement, meaning more patients are now eligible to receive this drug. High-risk patients eligible for the CDK4/6 inhibitor can now be identified solely on the basis of nodal status, tumor size, and tumor grade.

The FDA’s decision to expand the approval was based on 4-year data from the phase 3 monarchE trial of adjuvant abemaciclib, which showed benefit in invasive disease-free survival beyond the 2-year treatment course.

At 4 years, 85.5% of patients remained recurrence free with abemaciclib plus endocrine therapy, compared with 78.6% who received endocrine therapy alone, an absolute difference in invasive disease-free survival of 6.9%.

“The initial Verzenio FDA approval in early breast cancer was practice changing and now, through this indication expansion, we have the potential to reduce the risk of breast cancer recurrence for many more patients, relying solely on commonly utilized clinicopathologic features to identify them,” Erika P. Hamilton, MD, an investigator on the monarchE clinical trial, said in a press release.

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

Giving pembrolizumab (Keytruda) both before and after surgery for advanced melanoma significantly improves event-free survival, show results from the phase 2 SWOG S1801 trial.

The trial involved 319 patients with operable stage IIIB to stage IV melanoma. The investigators found that patients who received pembrolizumab both before and after surgery (i.e., neoadjuvant and adjuvant therapy) fared better than those who received the drug only after surgery: The 2-year event-free survival rates were 72% vs. 49%, respectively.

The research was published in the New England Journal of Medicine, but similar results had already been presented at the European Society for Medical Oncology 2022 annual Meeting.

“It’s not just what you give; it’s when you give it,” said lead author Sapna Patel, MD, in a press release issued by the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, echoing comments she gave at ESMO 2022.

The study, she continued, “demonstrates the same treatment for resectable melanoma given before surgery can generate better outcomes.”

On the basis of their findings, Dr. Patel, who is associate professor of melanoma medical oncology at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, said that patients with high-risk melanoma “should start immunotherapy prior to surgery to generate an immune response while the bulk of the melanoma and the anti-tumor T cells are intact.”

The mechanism of action of PD-1 blockade “relies on the presence of preexisting anti-tumor T cells attempting to attack cancer cells,” with the immunotherapy allowing the anti-tumor cells to proliferate and mediate clinical responses.

Resection of the bulk of the tumor is therefore “likely to take away some or even most of the potential anti-tumor T cells that would proliferate after PD-1 blockade,” they write.
 

Likely to apply also to nivolumab

Approached for comment, Jeffrey S. Weber, MD, PhD, professor of medicine, NYU Langone Medical Center, New York, said that outside of trials, both pembrolizumab and ipilimumab (Yervoy)/nivolumab (Opdivo) are already being used neoadjuvantly.

He thinks that the findings for neoadjuvant and adjuvant pembrolizumab could also apply to nivolumab because “the drugs are quite similar in efficacy.”

Dr. Weber told this news organization that, “even though the S1801 trial was not accepted as a registration trial by the FDA, I think that its results could very well change practice and confirm it for others who already use neoadjuvant therapy for palpable stage III melanoma.”

One question that is being addressed to an extent in the NADINA trial is whether adjuvant immunotherapy can be avoided all together and patients receive only neoadjuvant therapy, although Dr. Weber said, “I doubt that will be the case.”

Study details

In this study, patients were randomly assigned to either surgery followed by 18 doses of adjuvant pembrolizumab, or to receive 3 doses of neoadjuvant pembrolizumab followed by surgery and then 15 additional doses of adjuvant pembrolizumab.

After a median duration of follow-up of 14.7 months, there were 38 events in the neoadjuvant-adjuvant group and 67 in the adjuvant-only group.

“Events” were defined as disease progression, toxic effects, or complications that precluded surgery or the initiation of adjuvant therapy within 84 days of surgery, as well as the inability to fully resect the gross disease, melanoma recurrence, and death.

The team calculated that event-free survival was significantly longer in the neoadjuvant-adjuvant group (P = .004), with 2-year event-free survival at 72% vs. 49% in the adjuvant-only group.

“The benefit of neoadjuvant pembrolizumab was seen across all subgroups of patients,” the investigators note.

At the data cut-off, there were 14 deaths in the neoadjuvant-adjuvant group vs. 22 in the adjuvant-only group, which the researchers say is too few to allow “definitive comparison” in terms of overall survival.

Definitive surgery had been performed in 88% of neoadjuvant-adjuvant patients and in 95% of those assigned to adjuvant-only pembrolizumab. The most common reason for not undergoing surgery was disease progression.

Among the patients for whom safety data were available, 7% in the neoadjuvant-adjuvant group had at least one grade 3 or 4 adverse event related to pembrolizumab, whereas 7% had at least one grade 3 or 4 adverse event related to surgery.

In the adjuvant-only arm, 4% of patients had at least one grade 3 adverse event related to surgery, with no grade 4 adverse events reported.

The rates of grade 3 or 4 adverse events during adjuvant therapy were similar in the two groups, at 12% in patients assigned to neoadjuvant-adjuvant therapy and 14% in those given adjuvant-only pembrolizumab.

“Future studies can explore deescalation strategies for both surgery and adjuvant therapy, as well as approaches for patients whose melanoma does not respond to neoadjuvant therapy,” the researchers commented.

The study was funded by the National Cancer Institute and Merck Sharp and Dohme.

Dr. Patel reports numerous relationships with industry, including with Merck, manufacturer of pembrolizumab; other coauthors also have numerous relationships with industry. Dr. Weber is a regular columnist for this news organization and lists his disclosures in his Weber on Oncology column.

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

Giving pembrolizumab (Keytruda) both before and after surgery for advanced melanoma significantly improves event-free survival, show results from the phase 2 SWOG S1801 trial.

The trial involved 319 patients with operable stage IIIB to stage IV melanoma. The investigators found that patients who received pembrolizumab both before and after surgery (i.e., neoadjuvant and adjuvant therapy) fared better than those who received the drug only after surgery: The 2-year event-free survival rates were 72% vs. 49%, respectively.

The research was published in the New England Journal of Medicine, but similar results had already been presented at the European Society for Medical Oncology 2022 annual Meeting.

“It’s not just what you give; it’s when you give it,” said lead author Sapna Patel, MD, in a press release issued by the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, echoing comments she gave at ESMO 2022.

The study, she continued, “demonstrates the same treatment for resectable melanoma given before surgery can generate better outcomes.”

On the basis of their findings, Dr. Patel, who is associate professor of melanoma medical oncology at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, said that patients with high-risk melanoma “should start immunotherapy prior to surgery to generate an immune response while the bulk of the melanoma and the anti-tumor T cells are intact.”

The mechanism of action of PD-1 blockade “relies on the presence of preexisting anti-tumor T cells attempting to attack cancer cells,” with the immunotherapy allowing the anti-tumor cells to proliferate and mediate clinical responses.

Resection of the bulk of the tumor is therefore “likely to take away some or even most of the potential anti-tumor T cells that would proliferate after PD-1 blockade,” they write.
 

Likely to apply also to nivolumab

Approached for comment, Jeffrey S. Weber, MD, PhD, professor of medicine, NYU Langone Medical Center, New York, said that outside of trials, both pembrolizumab and ipilimumab (Yervoy)/nivolumab (Opdivo) are already being used neoadjuvantly.

He thinks that the findings for neoadjuvant and adjuvant pembrolizumab could also apply to nivolumab because “the drugs are quite similar in efficacy.”

Dr. Weber told this news organization that, “even though the S1801 trial was not accepted as a registration trial by the FDA, I think that its results could very well change practice and confirm it for others who already use neoadjuvant therapy for palpable stage III melanoma.”

One question that is being addressed to an extent in the NADINA trial is whether adjuvant immunotherapy can be avoided all together and patients receive only neoadjuvant therapy, although Dr. Weber said, “I doubt that will be the case.”

Study details

In this study, patients were randomly assigned to either surgery followed by 18 doses of adjuvant pembrolizumab, or to receive 3 doses of neoadjuvant pembrolizumab followed by surgery and then 15 additional doses of adjuvant pembrolizumab.

After a median duration of follow-up of 14.7 months, there were 38 events in the neoadjuvant-adjuvant group and 67 in the adjuvant-only group.

“Events” were defined as disease progression, toxic effects, or complications that precluded surgery or the initiation of adjuvant therapy within 84 days of surgery, as well as the inability to fully resect the gross disease, melanoma recurrence, and death.

The team calculated that event-free survival was significantly longer in the neoadjuvant-adjuvant group (P = .004), with 2-year event-free survival at 72% vs. 49% in the adjuvant-only group.

“The benefit of neoadjuvant pembrolizumab was seen across all subgroups of patients,” the investigators note.

At the data cut-off, there were 14 deaths in the neoadjuvant-adjuvant group vs. 22 in the adjuvant-only group, which the researchers say is too few to allow “definitive comparison” in terms of overall survival.

Definitive surgery had been performed in 88% of neoadjuvant-adjuvant patients and in 95% of those assigned to adjuvant-only pembrolizumab. The most common reason for not undergoing surgery was disease progression.

Among the patients for whom safety data were available, 7% in the neoadjuvant-adjuvant group had at least one grade 3 or 4 adverse event related to pembrolizumab, whereas 7% had at least one grade 3 or 4 adverse event related to surgery.

In the adjuvant-only arm, 4% of patients had at least one grade 3 adverse event related to surgery, with no grade 4 adverse events reported.

The rates of grade 3 or 4 adverse events during adjuvant therapy were similar in the two groups, at 12% in patients assigned to neoadjuvant-adjuvant therapy and 14% in those given adjuvant-only pembrolizumab.

“Future studies can explore deescalation strategies for both surgery and adjuvant therapy, as well as approaches for patients whose melanoma does not respond to neoadjuvant therapy,” the researchers commented.

The study was funded by the National Cancer Institute and Merck Sharp and Dohme.

Dr. Patel reports numerous relationships with industry, including with Merck, manufacturer of pembrolizumab; other coauthors also have numerous relationships with industry. Dr. Weber is a regular columnist for this news organization and lists his disclosures in his Weber on Oncology column.

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

Giving pembrolizumab (Keytruda) both before and after surgery for advanced melanoma significantly improves event-free survival, show results from the phase 2 SWOG S1801 trial.

The trial involved 319 patients with operable stage IIIB to stage IV melanoma. The investigators found that patients who received pembrolizumab both before and after surgery (i.e., neoadjuvant and adjuvant therapy) fared better than those who received the drug only after surgery: The 2-year event-free survival rates were 72% vs. 49%, respectively.

The research was published in the New England Journal of Medicine, but similar results had already been presented at the European Society for Medical Oncology 2022 annual Meeting.

“It’s not just what you give; it’s when you give it,” said lead author Sapna Patel, MD, in a press release issued by the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, echoing comments she gave at ESMO 2022.

The study, she continued, “demonstrates the same treatment for resectable melanoma given before surgery can generate better outcomes.”

On the basis of their findings, Dr. Patel, who is associate professor of melanoma medical oncology at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, said that patients with high-risk melanoma “should start immunotherapy prior to surgery to generate an immune response while the bulk of the melanoma and the anti-tumor T cells are intact.”

The mechanism of action of PD-1 blockade “relies on the presence of preexisting anti-tumor T cells attempting to attack cancer cells,” with the immunotherapy allowing the anti-tumor cells to proliferate and mediate clinical responses.

Resection of the bulk of the tumor is therefore “likely to take away some or even most of the potential anti-tumor T cells that would proliferate after PD-1 blockade,” they write.
 

Likely to apply also to nivolumab

Approached for comment, Jeffrey S. Weber, MD, PhD, professor of medicine, NYU Langone Medical Center, New York, said that outside of trials, both pembrolizumab and ipilimumab (Yervoy)/nivolumab (Opdivo) are already being used neoadjuvantly.

He thinks that the findings for neoadjuvant and adjuvant pembrolizumab could also apply to nivolumab because “the drugs are quite similar in efficacy.”

Dr. Weber told this news organization that, “even though the S1801 trial was not accepted as a registration trial by the FDA, I think that its results could very well change practice and confirm it for others who already use neoadjuvant therapy for palpable stage III melanoma.”

One question that is being addressed to an extent in the NADINA trial is whether adjuvant immunotherapy can be avoided all together and patients receive only neoadjuvant therapy, although Dr. Weber said, “I doubt that will be the case.”

Study details

In this study, patients were randomly assigned to either surgery followed by 18 doses of adjuvant pembrolizumab, or to receive 3 doses of neoadjuvant pembrolizumab followed by surgery and then 15 additional doses of adjuvant pembrolizumab.

After a median duration of follow-up of 14.7 months, there were 38 events in the neoadjuvant-adjuvant group and 67 in the adjuvant-only group.

“Events” were defined as disease progression, toxic effects, or complications that precluded surgery or the initiation of adjuvant therapy within 84 days of surgery, as well as the inability to fully resect the gross disease, melanoma recurrence, and death.

The team calculated that event-free survival was significantly longer in the neoadjuvant-adjuvant group (P = .004), with 2-year event-free survival at 72% vs. 49% in the adjuvant-only group.

“The benefit of neoadjuvant pembrolizumab was seen across all subgroups of patients,” the investigators note.

At the data cut-off, there were 14 deaths in the neoadjuvant-adjuvant group vs. 22 in the adjuvant-only group, which the researchers say is too few to allow “definitive comparison” in terms of overall survival.

Definitive surgery had been performed in 88% of neoadjuvant-adjuvant patients and in 95% of those assigned to adjuvant-only pembrolizumab. The most common reason for not undergoing surgery was disease progression.

Among the patients for whom safety data were available, 7% in the neoadjuvant-adjuvant group had at least one grade 3 or 4 adverse event related to pembrolizumab, whereas 7% had at least one grade 3 or 4 adverse event related to surgery.

In the adjuvant-only arm, 4% of patients had at least one grade 3 adverse event related to surgery, with no grade 4 adverse events reported.

The rates of grade 3 or 4 adverse events during adjuvant therapy were similar in the two groups, at 12% in patients assigned to neoadjuvant-adjuvant therapy and 14% in those given adjuvant-only pembrolizumab.

“Future studies can explore deescalation strategies for both surgery and adjuvant therapy, as well as approaches for patients whose melanoma does not respond to neoadjuvant therapy,” the researchers commented.

The study was funded by the National Cancer Institute and Merck Sharp and Dohme.

Dr. Patel reports numerous relationships with industry, including with Merck, manufacturer of pembrolizumab; other coauthors also have numerous relationships with industry. Dr. Weber is a regular columnist for this news organization and lists his disclosures in his Weber on Oncology column.

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