AVAHO

The sex of a red blood cell donor has no effect on the survival of a transfusion recipient, data suggest.

In a randomized clinical trial with almost 9,000 patients, the adjusted hazard ratio of death among recipients of female donors’ blood, compared with recipients of male donors’ blood, was 0.98. The data contradict the finding of previous observational studies that donor sex is associated with recipient outcomes.

“The key finding was that we actually had a null result,” study author Dean Fergusson, MD, PhD, senior scientist at the Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, said in an interview. “We went in thinking that male donor blood would confer a benefit over female donor blood, and we found that there’s absolutely no difference between the donor sexes on recipient outcomes – mortality and other major secondary outcomes,” Dr. Fergusson added.

The study was published in the New England Journal of Medicine.
 

Differences ‘don’t matter’

A 2015 article from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute identified a potential effect of donor sex on transfusion recipient survival. Since then, several observational studies have suggested that donor sex may influence survival after transfusion. This research includes two large studies, one from Canada and one from the Netherlands, that reported a heightened risk of death among recipients of red-cell units from female donors or donors who had been pregnant. Other studies, however, yielded conflicting results.

“The rationale was that female blood, because of biochemical properties, different hormones, exposure to babies and other males, all led to a different product, if you will, and these subtle changes could affect the blood product in terms of shelf life and potency,” said Dr. Fergusson. “That itself would have downstream effects on the recipient.”

The current double-blind study included 8,719 patients who received transfusions from September 2018 to December 2020 at three academic medical centers in Canada. Of this group, 5,190 received male donor blood, and 3,529 received blood from female donors.

The researchers randomly assigned patients in a 60:40 ratio to male and female donor groups. Data collection and follow-up were performed by the Ottawa Hospital Data Warehouse, Canadian Blood Services, and ICES, an independent research institute. Patient characteristics were similar in both trial groups at baseline.

After an average follow-up of 11.2 months, with a maximum follow-up of 29 months, 1,141 patients in the female donor group and 1,712 in the male donor group died. The study found no statistically significant difference in overall survival between the two groups. The unadjusted HR for death, with the male group as the reference, was 0.97, and the adjusted HR was 0.98. The rates of overall survival were 58% and 56.1% in the female and male donor groups, respectively.

The study did not prove that differences in outcome based on donor sex do not exist, said Dr. Fergusson. “But those differences really don’t matter in the recipient.”

The design of the trial itself was unique, Dr. Fergusson said. After patients consented to participate and underwent randomization, the study used routinely collected data from the participating hospitals’ electronic medical records rather than collect data anew for each patient. “That had a profound effect on the efficiency of the trial. We did this trial for a cost of less than $300,000, and typically it would cost $9 million by using high-quality electronic health data.”

The study also evaluated several secondary outcomes. Recipients of female donor blood had twice the incidence of MRSA infection. In addition, an unadjusted subgroup analysis suggested a 10% lower risk of death among male patients assigned to the female donor group, compared with those assigned to the male donor group.

The risk of death was almost three times higher among patients in the female donor group who received units from donors aged 20-29.9 years (HR, 2.93). “The inconsistency of the point estimates across groups and the multiplicity of analyses increase the risk that those findings were due to chance,” according to the authors.
 

Big data

Commenting on the study, Jeannie Callum, MD, professor and director of transfusion medicine at Queen’s University, Kingston, Ont., said that the use of routinely collected data from the participating hospitals’ electronic medical records was “one of the really great things about this paper.”

This use of Big Data “allows you to do a trial like this with almost 9,000 patients without spending millions and millions of dollars to have people go through charts and record data,” she added.

Dr. Callum also pointed out some of the trial’s limitations. “One of the things that kind of detracts from the study in my mind is that they randomized everybody that was getting a transfusion, but outpatients getting a transfusion have a very low mortality rate. So, you have a group of patients that are never going to have that endpoint being included in the study, and that might’ve diluted the findings.”

About 11.4% of participants received blood from a donor group other than the one to which they had been assigned, and this factor may further dilute the findings, said Dr. Callum. “That’s a difficult thing to avoid.” She noted that a trial in which she is collaborating, called Sex Matters, may answer some of these questions about the use of female versus male donor blood.

The investigators also noted that the findings may not be generalizable to other countries. “Just because we didn’t find something in Canada with our blood production system doesn’t mean that the United States might not find it different, because how they manufacture their red blood cells for transfusion is different than how we do them in Canada,” said Dr. Callum.

Nonetheless, this study shows the potential of using Big Data in medicine. “This is the future of large randomized clinical trials to quickly answer questions,” said Dr. Callum. “In the United States, Canada, and other countries that have these large electronic medical records systems, this kind of trial would be able to be done in other centers.”

The study was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Dr. Fergusson and Dr. Callum disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The sex of a red blood cell donor has no effect on the survival of a transfusion recipient, data suggest.

In a randomized clinical trial with almost 9,000 patients, the adjusted hazard ratio of death among recipients of female donors’ blood, compared with recipients of male donors’ blood, was 0.98. The data contradict the finding of previous observational studies that donor sex is associated with recipient outcomes.

“The key finding was that we actually had a null result,” study author Dean Fergusson, MD, PhD, senior scientist at the Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, said in an interview. “We went in thinking that male donor blood would confer a benefit over female donor blood, and we found that there’s absolutely no difference between the donor sexes on recipient outcomes – mortality and other major secondary outcomes,” Dr. Fergusson added.

The study was published in the New England Journal of Medicine.
 

Differences ‘don’t matter’

A 2015 article from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute identified a potential effect of donor sex on transfusion recipient survival. Since then, several observational studies have suggested that donor sex may influence survival after transfusion. This research includes two large studies, one from Canada and one from the Netherlands, that reported a heightened risk of death among recipients of red-cell units from female donors or donors who had been pregnant. Other studies, however, yielded conflicting results.

“The rationale was that female blood, because of biochemical properties, different hormones, exposure to babies and other males, all led to a different product, if you will, and these subtle changes could affect the blood product in terms of shelf life and potency,” said Dr. Fergusson. “That itself would have downstream effects on the recipient.”

The current double-blind study included 8,719 patients who received transfusions from September 2018 to December 2020 at three academic medical centers in Canada. Of this group, 5,190 received male donor blood, and 3,529 received blood from female donors.

The researchers randomly assigned patients in a 60:40 ratio to male and female donor groups. Data collection and follow-up were performed by the Ottawa Hospital Data Warehouse, Canadian Blood Services, and ICES, an independent research institute. Patient characteristics were similar in both trial groups at baseline.

After an average follow-up of 11.2 months, with a maximum follow-up of 29 months, 1,141 patients in the female donor group and 1,712 in the male donor group died. The study found no statistically significant difference in overall survival between the two groups. The unadjusted HR for death, with the male group as the reference, was 0.97, and the adjusted HR was 0.98. The rates of overall survival were 58% and 56.1% in the female and male donor groups, respectively.

The study did not prove that differences in outcome based on donor sex do not exist, said Dr. Fergusson. “But those differences really don’t matter in the recipient.”

The design of the trial itself was unique, Dr. Fergusson said. After patients consented to participate and underwent randomization, the study used routinely collected data from the participating hospitals’ electronic medical records rather than collect data anew for each patient. “That had a profound effect on the efficiency of the trial. We did this trial for a cost of less than $300,000, and typically it would cost $9 million by using high-quality electronic health data.”

The study also evaluated several secondary outcomes. Recipients of female donor blood had twice the incidence of MRSA infection. In addition, an unadjusted subgroup analysis suggested a 10% lower risk of death among male patients assigned to the female donor group, compared with those assigned to the male donor group.

The risk of death was almost three times higher among patients in the female donor group who received units from donors aged 20-29.9 years (HR, 2.93). “The inconsistency of the point estimates across groups and the multiplicity of analyses increase the risk that those findings were due to chance,” according to the authors.
 

Big data

Commenting on the study, Jeannie Callum, MD, professor and director of transfusion medicine at Queen’s University, Kingston, Ont., said that the use of routinely collected data from the participating hospitals’ electronic medical records was “one of the really great things about this paper.”

This use of Big Data “allows you to do a trial like this with almost 9,000 patients without spending millions and millions of dollars to have people go through charts and record data,” she added.

Dr. Callum also pointed out some of the trial’s limitations. “One of the things that kind of detracts from the study in my mind is that they randomized everybody that was getting a transfusion, but outpatients getting a transfusion have a very low mortality rate. So, you have a group of patients that are never going to have that endpoint being included in the study, and that might’ve diluted the findings.”

About 11.4% of participants received blood from a donor group other than the one to which they had been assigned, and this factor may further dilute the findings, said Dr. Callum. “That’s a difficult thing to avoid.” She noted that a trial in which she is collaborating, called Sex Matters, may answer some of these questions about the use of female versus male donor blood.

The investigators also noted that the findings may not be generalizable to other countries. “Just because we didn’t find something in Canada with our blood production system doesn’t mean that the United States might not find it different, because how they manufacture their red blood cells for transfusion is different than how we do them in Canada,” said Dr. Callum.

Nonetheless, this study shows the potential of using Big Data in medicine. “This is the future of large randomized clinical trials to quickly answer questions,” said Dr. Callum. “In the United States, Canada, and other countries that have these large electronic medical records systems, this kind of trial would be able to be done in other centers.”

The study was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Dr. Fergusson and Dr. Callum disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The sex of a red blood cell donor has no effect on the survival of a transfusion recipient, data suggest.

In a randomized clinical trial with almost 9,000 patients, the adjusted hazard ratio of death among recipients of female donors’ blood, compared with recipients of male donors’ blood, was 0.98. The data contradict the finding of previous observational studies that donor sex is associated with recipient outcomes.

“The key finding was that we actually had a null result,” study author Dean Fergusson, MD, PhD, senior scientist at the Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, said in an interview. “We went in thinking that male donor blood would confer a benefit over female donor blood, and we found that there’s absolutely no difference between the donor sexes on recipient outcomes – mortality and other major secondary outcomes,” Dr. Fergusson added.

The study was published in the New England Journal of Medicine.
 

Differences ‘don’t matter’

A 2015 article from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute identified a potential effect of donor sex on transfusion recipient survival. Since then, several observational studies have suggested that donor sex may influence survival after transfusion. This research includes two large studies, one from Canada and one from the Netherlands, that reported a heightened risk of death among recipients of red-cell units from female donors or donors who had been pregnant. Other studies, however, yielded conflicting results.

“The rationale was that female blood, because of biochemical properties, different hormones, exposure to babies and other males, all led to a different product, if you will, and these subtle changes could affect the blood product in terms of shelf life and potency,” said Dr. Fergusson. “That itself would have downstream effects on the recipient.”

The current double-blind study included 8,719 patients who received transfusions from September 2018 to December 2020 at three academic medical centers in Canada. Of this group, 5,190 received male donor blood, and 3,529 received blood from female donors.

The researchers randomly assigned patients in a 60:40 ratio to male and female donor groups. Data collection and follow-up were performed by the Ottawa Hospital Data Warehouse, Canadian Blood Services, and ICES, an independent research institute. Patient characteristics were similar in both trial groups at baseline.

After an average follow-up of 11.2 months, with a maximum follow-up of 29 months, 1,141 patients in the female donor group and 1,712 in the male donor group died. The study found no statistically significant difference in overall survival between the two groups. The unadjusted HR for death, with the male group as the reference, was 0.97, and the adjusted HR was 0.98. The rates of overall survival were 58% and 56.1% in the female and male donor groups, respectively.

The study did not prove that differences in outcome based on donor sex do not exist, said Dr. Fergusson. “But those differences really don’t matter in the recipient.”

The design of the trial itself was unique, Dr. Fergusson said. After patients consented to participate and underwent randomization, the study used routinely collected data from the participating hospitals’ electronic medical records rather than collect data anew for each patient. “That had a profound effect on the efficiency of the trial. We did this trial for a cost of less than $300,000, and typically it would cost $9 million by using high-quality electronic health data.”

The study also evaluated several secondary outcomes. Recipients of female donor blood had twice the incidence of MRSA infection. In addition, an unadjusted subgroup analysis suggested a 10% lower risk of death among male patients assigned to the female donor group, compared with those assigned to the male donor group.

The risk of death was almost three times higher among patients in the female donor group who received units from donors aged 20-29.9 years (HR, 2.93). “The inconsistency of the point estimates across groups and the multiplicity of analyses increase the risk that those findings were due to chance,” according to the authors.
 

Big data

Commenting on the study, Jeannie Callum, MD, professor and director of transfusion medicine at Queen’s University, Kingston, Ont., said that the use of routinely collected data from the participating hospitals’ electronic medical records was “one of the really great things about this paper.”

This use of Big Data “allows you to do a trial like this with almost 9,000 patients without spending millions and millions of dollars to have people go through charts and record data,” she added.

Dr. Callum also pointed out some of the trial’s limitations. “One of the things that kind of detracts from the study in my mind is that they randomized everybody that was getting a transfusion, but outpatients getting a transfusion have a very low mortality rate. So, you have a group of patients that are never going to have that endpoint being included in the study, and that might’ve diluted the findings.”

About 11.4% of participants received blood from a donor group other than the one to which they had been assigned, and this factor may further dilute the findings, said Dr. Callum. “That’s a difficult thing to avoid.” She noted that a trial in which she is collaborating, called Sex Matters, may answer some of these questions about the use of female versus male donor blood.

The investigators also noted that the findings may not be generalizable to other countries. “Just because we didn’t find something in Canada with our blood production system doesn’t mean that the United States might not find it different, because how they manufacture their red blood cells for transfusion is different than how we do them in Canada,” said Dr. Callum.

Nonetheless, this study shows the potential of using Big Data in medicine. “This is the future of large randomized clinical trials to quickly answer questions,” said Dr. Callum. “In the United States, Canada, and other countries that have these large electronic medical records systems, this kind of trial would be able to be done in other centers.”

The study was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Dr. Fergusson and Dr. Callum disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

NEW YORK – Most patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) who relapse after treatment with a single agent Bruton’s tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitor have one of several high-risk characteristics, including complex karyotype, 17p-chromosome deletion, or a TP53 mutation. In contrast, genomically stable patients have a 4-year progression-free survival (PFS) rate of about 98% on single agent Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitor therapy.

Dr. Furman

“In people who are genomically unstable, almost half will have their CLL progress on single agent BTK inhibitor therapy. These patients, I’d like to treat with combination of a Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitor plus venetoclax,” said Richard R. Furman, MD, Morton Coleman MD Distinguished Professor of medicine at Weill Cornell Medicine/New York Presbyterian Hospital. He presented on treating relapsed CLL at the Great Debates and Updates Hematologic Malignancies Conference in New York, April 13-15.

The efficacy of venetoclax (VX) in treating high risk CLL patients was demonstrated in the 2019 CLL14 trial (NCT02242942) in which the main entry criteria were being treatment-naive and being considered “unfit” for treatment, meaning that a patient’s Cumulative Illness Rating Scale score was >6, or they presented with decreased kidney function. Study participants were treated with six cycles of either venetoclax-obinutuzumab (VO) or chlorambucil-obinutuzumab (CO); the 4-year PFS was 74% vs. 35.4% (P < .0001) respectively. After 12 cycles of treatment, the 74% of patients in the VO group achieved undetectable minimal residual disease rate (MRD) vs. 32% in the CO group.

Achievement of MRD did predict for outcome, but Dr. Furman concluded that while MRD is a powerful prognostic tool, it is not clinically useful given the inability of its results to guide therapy. He went on to emphasize that “of those patients who achieved MRD levels of 10-4 after 12 cycles of venetoclax, 50% had worsening and 50% had improvement of the residual disease, suggesting that we do not know the optimal duration of venetoclax treatment, as half of the patients still continue to derive benefit.”

Dr. Furman noted that ibrutinib (IB) and the second-generation drugs zanubrutinib (ZB) and acalabrutinib (AL) are all effective, but that the second-generation Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitors enable patients to derive the benefit of remaining on treatment longer, because the rate of concerning cardiac complications is lower than with IB.

The ALPINE trial (NCT03734016) confirmed ZB’s significantly improved overall response rate at 78.3% vs. IB’s 62.5%, as well as a lower rate of atrial fibrillation (2.5%) vs. IB (10.1%).

Noninferiority of AL vs. IB in high-risk relapsed CLL patients was demonstrated in the ELEVATE-RR trial (NCT02477696) with both drugs having a median PFS of 38.4 months. With a median follow up of 41 months, AL demonstrated less atrial fibrillation/atrial flutter, compared with IB (9.4% vs. 16.0%) with no difference in grade > 3 infections. Furthermore, AL’s half-life being shorter than that of IB means that side effects are shorter lived.

“That’s the advantage of the second generation of Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitors,” said Stefan Glück, MD, PhD, a hematologic oncologist and independent consultant who was formerly affiliated with the Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center and taught at the Miller School of Medicine at the University of Miami.

Dr. Glück added that “acalabrutinib and zanubrutinib have demonstrated strong efficacy and safety. When patients no longer respond to these drugs, the addition of VX is crucial. It has a completely different mechanism of action and can reverse resistance to Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitors, allowing them to start working again.”

Dr. Furman also discussed proteolysis-targeting chimeras (PROTACs), one area that he expects to make a significant impact as a future therapy for CLL and many other malignancies. Despite the fact these agents are in phase I studies, he commented that “they appear, thus far, to have tremendous potential.”

Dr. Furman disclosed relationships with Abbvie, Acerta/AstraZeneca, Beigene, Jansen, TG Therapeutics, Genentech-Roche, Incyte Corporation, Loxo Oncology, MEI Pharma, Morphosys, Pharmacyclics, Sanofi/Genzyme, and X4 Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Glück reported no conflicts of interest.
 

NEW YORK – Most patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) who relapse after treatment with a single agent Bruton’s tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitor have one of several high-risk characteristics, including complex karyotype, 17p-chromosome deletion, or a TP53 mutation. In contrast, genomically stable patients have a 4-year progression-free survival (PFS) rate of about 98% on single agent Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitor therapy.

Dr. Furman

“In people who are genomically unstable, almost half will have their CLL progress on single agent BTK inhibitor therapy. These patients, I’d like to treat with combination of a Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitor plus venetoclax,” said Richard R. Furman, MD, Morton Coleman MD Distinguished Professor of medicine at Weill Cornell Medicine/New York Presbyterian Hospital. He presented on treating relapsed CLL at the Great Debates and Updates Hematologic Malignancies Conference in New York, April 13-15.

The efficacy of venetoclax (VX) in treating high risk CLL patients was demonstrated in the 2019 CLL14 trial (NCT02242942) in which the main entry criteria were being treatment-naive and being considered “unfit” for treatment, meaning that a patient’s Cumulative Illness Rating Scale score was >6, or they presented with decreased kidney function. Study participants were treated with six cycles of either venetoclax-obinutuzumab (VO) or chlorambucil-obinutuzumab (CO); the 4-year PFS was 74% vs. 35.4% (P < .0001) respectively. After 12 cycles of treatment, the 74% of patients in the VO group achieved undetectable minimal residual disease rate (MRD) vs. 32% in the CO group.

Achievement of MRD did predict for outcome, but Dr. Furman concluded that while MRD is a powerful prognostic tool, it is not clinically useful given the inability of its results to guide therapy. He went on to emphasize that “of those patients who achieved MRD levels of 10-4 after 12 cycles of venetoclax, 50% had worsening and 50% had improvement of the residual disease, suggesting that we do not know the optimal duration of venetoclax treatment, as half of the patients still continue to derive benefit.”

Dr. Furman noted that ibrutinib (IB) and the second-generation drugs zanubrutinib (ZB) and acalabrutinib (AL) are all effective, but that the second-generation Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitors enable patients to derive the benefit of remaining on treatment longer, because the rate of concerning cardiac complications is lower than with IB.

The ALPINE trial (NCT03734016) confirmed ZB’s significantly improved overall response rate at 78.3% vs. IB’s 62.5%, as well as a lower rate of atrial fibrillation (2.5%) vs. IB (10.1%).

Noninferiority of AL vs. IB in high-risk relapsed CLL patients was demonstrated in the ELEVATE-RR trial (NCT02477696) with both drugs having a median PFS of 38.4 months. With a median follow up of 41 months, AL demonstrated less atrial fibrillation/atrial flutter, compared with IB (9.4% vs. 16.0%) with no difference in grade > 3 infections. Furthermore, AL’s half-life being shorter than that of IB means that side effects are shorter lived.

“That’s the advantage of the second generation of Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitors,” said Stefan Glück, MD, PhD, a hematologic oncologist and independent consultant who was formerly affiliated with the Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center and taught at the Miller School of Medicine at the University of Miami.

Dr. Glück added that “acalabrutinib and zanubrutinib have demonstrated strong efficacy and safety. When patients no longer respond to these drugs, the addition of VX is crucial. It has a completely different mechanism of action and can reverse resistance to Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitors, allowing them to start working again.”

Dr. Furman also discussed proteolysis-targeting chimeras (PROTACs), one area that he expects to make a significant impact as a future therapy for CLL and many other malignancies. Despite the fact these agents are in phase I studies, he commented that “they appear, thus far, to have tremendous potential.”

Dr. Furman disclosed relationships with Abbvie, Acerta/AstraZeneca, Beigene, Jansen, TG Therapeutics, Genentech-Roche, Incyte Corporation, Loxo Oncology, MEI Pharma, Morphosys, Pharmacyclics, Sanofi/Genzyme, and X4 Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Glück reported no conflicts of interest.
 

NEW YORK – Most patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) who relapse after treatment with a single agent Bruton’s tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitor have one of several high-risk characteristics, including complex karyotype, 17p-chromosome deletion, or a TP53 mutation. In contrast, genomically stable patients have a 4-year progression-free survival (PFS) rate of about 98% on single agent Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitor therapy.

Dr. Furman

“In people who are genomically unstable, almost half will have their CLL progress on single agent BTK inhibitor therapy. These patients, I’d like to treat with combination of a Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitor plus venetoclax,” said Richard R. Furman, MD, Morton Coleman MD Distinguished Professor of medicine at Weill Cornell Medicine/New York Presbyterian Hospital. He presented on treating relapsed CLL at the Great Debates and Updates Hematologic Malignancies Conference in New York, April 13-15.

The efficacy of venetoclax (VX) in treating high risk CLL patients was demonstrated in the 2019 CLL14 trial (NCT02242942) in which the main entry criteria were being treatment-naive and being considered “unfit” for treatment, meaning that a patient’s Cumulative Illness Rating Scale score was >6, or they presented with decreased kidney function. Study participants were treated with six cycles of either venetoclax-obinutuzumab (VO) or chlorambucil-obinutuzumab (CO); the 4-year PFS was 74% vs. 35.4% (P < .0001) respectively. After 12 cycles of treatment, the 74% of patients in the VO group achieved undetectable minimal residual disease rate (MRD) vs. 32% in the CO group.

Achievement of MRD did predict for outcome, but Dr. Furman concluded that while MRD is a powerful prognostic tool, it is not clinically useful given the inability of its results to guide therapy. He went on to emphasize that “of those patients who achieved MRD levels of 10-4 after 12 cycles of venetoclax, 50% had worsening and 50% had improvement of the residual disease, suggesting that we do not know the optimal duration of venetoclax treatment, as half of the patients still continue to derive benefit.”

Dr. Furman noted that ibrutinib (IB) and the second-generation drugs zanubrutinib (ZB) and acalabrutinib (AL) are all effective, but that the second-generation Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitors enable patients to derive the benefit of remaining on treatment longer, because the rate of concerning cardiac complications is lower than with IB.

The ALPINE trial (NCT03734016) confirmed ZB’s significantly improved overall response rate at 78.3% vs. IB’s 62.5%, as well as a lower rate of atrial fibrillation (2.5%) vs. IB (10.1%).

Noninferiority of AL vs. IB in high-risk relapsed CLL patients was demonstrated in the ELEVATE-RR trial (NCT02477696) with both drugs having a median PFS of 38.4 months. With a median follow up of 41 months, AL demonstrated less atrial fibrillation/atrial flutter, compared with IB (9.4% vs. 16.0%) with no difference in grade > 3 infections. Furthermore, AL’s half-life being shorter than that of IB means that side effects are shorter lived.

“That’s the advantage of the second generation of Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitors,” said Stefan Glück, MD, PhD, a hematologic oncologist and independent consultant who was formerly affiliated with the Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center and taught at the Miller School of Medicine at the University of Miami.

Dr. Glück added that “acalabrutinib and zanubrutinib have demonstrated strong efficacy and safety. When patients no longer respond to these drugs, the addition of VX is crucial. It has a completely different mechanism of action and can reverse resistance to Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitors, allowing them to start working again.”

Dr. Furman also discussed proteolysis-targeting chimeras (PROTACs), one area that he expects to make a significant impact as a future therapy for CLL and many other malignancies. Despite the fact these agents are in phase I studies, he commented that “they appear, thus far, to have tremendous potential.”

Dr. Furman disclosed relationships with Abbvie, Acerta/AstraZeneca, Beigene, Jansen, TG Therapeutics, Genentech-Roche, Incyte Corporation, Loxo Oncology, MEI Pharma, Morphosys, Pharmacyclics, Sanofi/Genzyme, and X4 Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Glück reported no conflicts of interest.
 

Vaccines for the world’s most deadly diseases, like cancer and heart disease, will likely be ready by 2030 and could save millions of lives, according to the top doctor at one of the world’s leading drug companies.

The announcement is yet another sign of what many are calling “the golden age” of vaccine development, which is largely credited to the pandemic’s use of mRNA technology to create COVID-19 vaccines.

“I think what we have learned in recent months is that if you ever thought that mRNA was just for infectious diseases, or just for COVID, the evidence now is that that’s absolutely not the case,” Moderna Chief Medical Officer Paul Burton, MD, PhD, told The Guardian. “It can be applied to all sorts of disease areas; we are in cancer, infectious disease, cardiovascular disease, autoimmune diseases, rare disease. We have studies in all of those areas, and they have all shown tremendous promise.”

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration recently designated two new Moderna vaccines as breakthrough therapies: a shot that prevents respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) in older people and a shot that helps prevent the recurrence of melanoma. The FDA’s breakthrough designation is given when a new treatment’s early trial results are substantially better than an existing therapy.

The mRNA vaccine technology that made headlines for its role in COVID-19 vaccines works by teaching the body how to make a specific protein to help the immune system prevent or target a certain disease.

Dr. Burton anticipates that mRNA technology will result in breakthroughs such as a cancer vaccine that can be personalized based on the features of a specific tumor.

“I think we will have mRNA-based therapies for rare diseases that were previously undruggable, and I think that 10 years from now, we will be approaching a world where you truly can identify the genetic cause of a disease and, with relative simplicity, go and edit that out and repair it using mRNA-based technology,” he said. 

The Moderna executive made the statements before its annual update on its vaccine pipeline projects, which the company calls “Vaccines Day.” The Massachusetts-based drugmaker said it has given someone the first dose of a “next-generation” COVID-19 vaccine in a phase III trial, has made progress on a Lyme disease shot, and is developing a vaccine for the highly contagious norovirus.

In all, Moderna expects “six major vaccine product launches in the next few years,” the company said in a statement, adding that it expects the COVID-19 booster market alone to be valued at $15 billion.

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

Vaccines for the world’s most deadly diseases, like cancer and heart disease, will likely be ready by 2030 and could save millions of lives, according to the top doctor at one of the world’s leading drug companies.

The announcement is yet another sign of what many are calling “the golden age” of vaccine development, which is largely credited to the pandemic’s use of mRNA technology to create COVID-19 vaccines.

“I think what we have learned in recent months is that if you ever thought that mRNA was just for infectious diseases, or just for COVID, the evidence now is that that’s absolutely not the case,” Moderna Chief Medical Officer Paul Burton, MD, PhD, told The Guardian. “It can be applied to all sorts of disease areas; we are in cancer, infectious disease, cardiovascular disease, autoimmune diseases, rare disease. We have studies in all of those areas, and they have all shown tremendous promise.”

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration recently designated two new Moderna vaccines as breakthrough therapies: a shot that prevents respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) in older people and a shot that helps prevent the recurrence of melanoma. The FDA’s breakthrough designation is given when a new treatment’s early trial results are substantially better than an existing therapy.

The mRNA vaccine technology that made headlines for its role in COVID-19 vaccines works by teaching the body how to make a specific protein to help the immune system prevent or target a certain disease.

Dr. Burton anticipates that mRNA technology will result in breakthroughs such as a cancer vaccine that can be personalized based on the features of a specific tumor.

“I think we will have mRNA-based therapies for rare diseases that were previously undruggable, and I think that 10 years from now, we will be approaching a world where you truly can identify the genetic cause of a disease and, with relative simplicity, go and edit that out and repair it using mRNA-based technology,” he said. 

The Moderna executive made the statements before its annual update on its vaccine pipeline projects, which the company calls “Vaccines Day.” The Massachusetts-based drugmaker said it has given someone the first dose of a “next-generation” COVID-19 vaccine in a phase III trial, has made progress on a Lyme disease shot, and is developing a vaccine for the highly contagious norovirus.

In all, Moderna expects “six major vaccine product launches in the next few years,” the company said in a statement, adding that it expects the COVID-19 booster market alone to be valued at $15 billion.

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

Vaccines for the world’s most deadly diseases, like cancer and heart disease, will likely be ready by 2030 and could save millions of lives, according to the top doctor at one of the world’s leading drug companies.

The announcement is yet another sign of what many are calling “the golden age” of vaccine development, which is largely credited to the pandemic’s use of mRNA technology to create COVID-19 vaccines.

“I think what we have learned in recent months is that if you ever thought that mRNA was just for infectious diseases, or just for COVID, the evidence now is that that’s absolutely not the case,” Moderna Chief Medical Officer Paul Burton, MD, PhD, told The Guardian. “It can be applied to all sorts of disease areas; we are in cancer, infectious disease, cardiovascular disease, autoimmune diseases, rare disease. We have studies in all of those areas, and they have all shown tremendous promise.”

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration recently designated two new Moderna vaccines as breakthrough therapies: a shot that prevents respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) in older people and a shot that helps prevent the recurrence of melanoma. The FDA’s breakthrough designation is given when a new treatment’s early trial results are substantially better than an existing therapy.

The mRNA vaccine technology that made headlines for its role in COVID-19 vaccines works by teaching the body how to make a specific protein to help the immune system prevent or target a certain disease.

Dr. Burton anticipates that mRNA technology will result in breakthroughs such as a cancer vaccine that can be personalized based on the features of a specific tumor.

“I think we will have mRNA-based therapies for rare diseases that were previously undruggable, and I think that 10 years from now, we will be approaching a world where you truly can identify the genetic cause of a disease and, with relative simplicity, go and edit that out and repair it using mRNA-based technology,” he said. 

The Moderna executive made the statements before its annual update on its vaccine pipeline projects, which the company calls “Vaccines Day.” The Massachusetts-based drugmaker said it has given someone the first dose of a “next-generation” COVID-19 vaccine in a phase III trial, has made progress on a Lyme disease shot, and is developing a vaccine for the highly contagious norovirus.

In all, Moderna expects “six major vaccine product launches in the next few years,” the company said in a statement, adding that it expects the COVID-19 booster market alone to be valued at $15 billion.

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

Ibrutinib (Imbruvica) quickly changed the treatment of chronic lymphocytic leukemia after it launched in 2013 as the first Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor and went on to become a bestselling drug in the United States. However, not even the availability of newer treatment options has reduced the price or the rate of prescribing ibrutinib.

In fact, the opposite has been seen: Both the price and prescribing of ibrutinib have increased markedly from 2014 to 2020, the authors of a new study say. The estimated net spending for a 30-day supply of ibrutinib increased by 46% during that period, despite the entry of several less costly and comparable products into the marketplace.

“Further research is needed to understand why oncologists have not embraced clinically superior options for CLL being sold at prices similar to, if not lower than, ibrutinib,” write the authors, led by Edward Scheffer Cliff, MBBS, MPH, from the division of pharmacoepidemiology and pharmacoeconomics, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston.

The study was published online (2023 Apr 7. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.7467) as a research letter in JAMA Network Open.

Ibrutinib is currently indicated for the treatment of mantle cell lymphoma (MCL), chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL)/small lymphocytic lymphoma (SLL), Waldenström’s macroglobulinemia (WM), marginal zone lymphoma (MZL), and chronic graft versus host disease. Among the top-selling drugs in the United States, ibrutinib sales by 2020 accounted for more than $2.8 billion in annual net Medicare spending.

However, since ibrutinib’s launch in 2013, there have been several new drugs approved for use in CLL, the authors note. They include acalabrutinib (Calquence), also a BTK inhibitor but associated with fewer adverse events, and venetoclax (Venclexta), the first-in-class B-cell lymphoma-2 inhibitor that offers additional clinical advantages such as time-limited therapy and the potential for complete remission. In addition, phosphatidylinositol-3 kinase inhibitors (PI3K inhibitors) were also approved for CLL, but they are less effective and associated with higher toxicity and are usually reserved for patients who relapse multiple times.
 

Prescribing and cost increased

With the emergence of several new oral targeted drugs for CLL, the authors hypothesized that this might lower costs as a result of competition and affect overall spending on ibrutinib.

To test their theory, they analyzed trends in Medicare Part D use and spending on these drugs from 2014 to 2020 to determine annual spending on oral CLL drugs, the number of beneficiaries who received these drugs, and the average spending per 30-day fill.

A total of six oral medications were included in their analysis: three BTK inhibitors (ibrutinib, acalabrutinib, and zanubrutinib), two PI3K inhibitors (idelalisib and duvelisib), and one B-cell lymphoma-2 inhibitor (venetoclax).

During the study period, annual net Medicare spending for all six of these drugs and across all indications increased from $254 million to $3.7 billion.

At the start of the study period in 2014, 6,180 Medicare beneficiaries were being treated with ibrutinib, and this number dramatically increased to 26,847 beneficiaries in 2020. Spending on ibrutinib constituted more than three-quarters (77%) of the total Medicare costs for these six drugs in 2020.

The estimated net spending for a 30-day supply of ibrutinib rose by 46%, from $8,206 in 2014 to $11,980 in 2020, despite the entry of the competitor drugs into the marketplace, some of which also had lower price tags: venetoclax in 2016 (2020 30-day fill price, $7,787), acalabrutinib in 2017 ($11,428) and zanubrutinib in 2020 ($12,521).

In addition, a sensitivity analysis showed a similar trend outside of the Medicare system.

Unlike for ibrutinib, net spending for other oral targeted drugs generally did not increase over time, and some drug prices even dropped slightly.

The authors note that one limitation of their study is that Medicare does not report spending by indication, so it was unknown what proportion of the cost was for CLL as opposed to the other B-cell lymphomas.

“Brand-to-brand competition may have been ineffective at lowering Medicare costs due to lags between approval and change in prescriber practices, constraints on payers’ ability to effectively use formularies to negotiate prices, and financial incentives that can encourage intermediaries such as pharmacy benefit managers to accept high prices,” they conclude.

This study was supported by a grant from Arnold Ventures. Several of the authors have reported relationships with industry.

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

Ibrutinib (Imbruvica) quickly changed the treatment of chronic lymphocytic leukemia after it launched in 2013 as the first Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor and went on to become a bestselling drug in the United States. However, not even the availability of newer treatment options has reduced the price or the rate of prescribing ibrutinib.

In fact, the opposite has been seen: Both the price and prescribing of ibrutinib have increased markedly from 2014 to 2020, the authors of a new study say. The estimated net spending for a 30-day supply of ibrutinib increased by 46% during that period, despite the entry of several less costly and comparable products into the marketplace.

“Further research is needed to understand why oncologists have not embraced clinically superior options for CLL being sold at prices similar to, if not lower than, ibrutinib,” write the authors, led by Edward Scheffer Cliff, MBBS, MPH, from the division of pharmacoepidemiology and pharmacoeconomics, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston.

The study was published online (2023 Apr 7. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.7467) as a research letter in JAMA Network Open.

Ibrutinib is currently indicated for the treatment of mantle cell lymphoma (MCL), chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL)/small lymphocytic lymphoma (SLL), Waldenström’s macroglobulinemia (WM), marginal zone lymphoma (MZL), and chronic graft versus host disease. Among the top-selling drugs in the United States, ibrutinib sales by 2020 accounted for more than $2.8 billion in annual net Medicare spending.

However, since ibrutinib’s launch in 2013, there have been several new drugs approved for use in CLL, the authors note. They include acalabrutinib (Calquence), also a BTK inhibitor but associated with fewer adverse events, and venetoclax (Venclexta), the first-in-class B-cell lymphoma-2 inhibitor that offers additional clinical advantages such as time-limited therapy and the potential for complete remission. In addition, phosphatidylinositol-3 kinase inhibitors (PI3K inhibitors) were also approved for CLL, but they are less effective and associated with higher toxicity and are usually reserved for patients who relapse multiple times.
 

Prescribing and cost increased

With the emergence of several new oral targeted drugs for CLL, the authors hypothesized that this might lower costs as a result of competition and affect overall spending on ibrutinib.

To test their theory, they analyzed trends in Medicare Part D use and spending on these drugs from 2014 to 2020 to determine annual spending on oral CLL drugs, the number of beneficiaries who received these drugs, and the average spending per 30-day fill.

A total of six oral medications were included in their analysis: three BTK inhibitors (ibrutinib, acalabrutinib, and zanubrutinib), two PI3K inhibitors (idelalisib and duvelisib), and one B-cell lymphoma-2 inhibitor (venetoclax).

During the study period, annual net Medicare spending for all six of these drugs and across all indications increased from $254 million to $3.7 billion.

At the start of the study period in 2014, 6,180 Medicare beneficiaries were being treated with ibrutinib, and this number dramatically increased to 26,847 beneficiaries in 2020. Spending on ibrutinib constituted more than three-quarters (77%) of the total Medicare costs for these six drugs in 2020.

The estimated net spending for a 30-day supply of ibrutinib rose by 46%, from $8,206 in 2014 to $11,980 in 2020, despite the entry of the competitor drugs into the marketplace, some of which also had lower price tags: venetoclax in 2016 (2020 30-day fill price, $7,787), acalabrutinib in 2017 ($11,428) and zanubrutinib in 2020 ($12,521).

In addition, a sensitivity analysis showed a similar trend outside of the Medicare system.

Unlike for ibrutinib, net spending for other oral targeted drugs generally did not increase over time, and some drug prices even dropped slightly.

The authors note that one limitation of their study is that Medicare does not report spending by indication, so it was unknown what proportion of the cost was for CLL as opposed to the other B-cell lymphomas.

“Brand-to-brand competition may have been ineffective at lowering Medicare costs due to lags between approval and change in prescriber practices, constraints on payers’ ability to effectively use formularies to negotiate prices, and financial incentives that can encourage intermediaries such as pharmacy benefit managers to accept high prices,” they conclude.

This study was supported by a grant from Arnold Ventures. Several of the authors have reported relationships with industry.

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

Ibrutinib (Imbruvica) quickly changed the treatment of chronic lymphocytic leukemia after it launched in 2013 as the first Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor and went on to become a bestselling drug in the United States. However, not even the availability of newer treatment options has reduced the price or the rate of prescribing ibrutinib.

In fact, the opposite has been seen: Both the price and prescribing of ibrutinib have increased markedly from 2014 to 2020, the authors of a new study say. The estimated net spending for a 30-day supply of ibrutinib increased by 46% during that period, despite the entry of several less costly and comparable products into the marketplace.

“Further research is needed to understand why oncologists have not embraced clinically superior options for CLL being sold at prices similar to, if not lower than, ibrutinib,” write the authors, led by Edward Scheffer Cliff, MBBS, MPH, from the division of pharmacoepidemiology and pharmacoeconomics, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston.

The study was published online (2023 Apr 7. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.7467) as a research letter in JAMA Network Open.

Ibrutinib is currently indicated for the treatment of mantle cell lymphoma (MCL), chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL)/small lymphocytic lymphoma (SLL), Waldenström’s macroglobulinemia (WM), marginal zone lymphoma (MZL), and chronic graft versus host disease. Among the top-selling drugs in the United States, ibrutinib sales by 2020 accounted for more than $2.8 billion in annual net Medicare spending.

However, since ibrutinib’s launch in 2013, there have been several new drugs approved for use in CLL, the authors note. They include acalabrutinib (Calquence), also a BTK inhibitor but associated with fewer adverse events, and venetoclax (Venclexta), the first-in-class B-cell lymphoma-2 inhibitor that offers additional clinical advantages such as time-limited therapy and the potential for complete remission. In addition, phosphatidylinositol-3 kinase inhibitors (PI3K inhibitors) were also approved for CLL, but they are less effective and associated with higher toxicity and are usually reserved for patients who relapse multiple times.
 

Prescribing and cost increased

With the emergence of several new oral targeted drugs for CLL, the authors hypothesized that this might lower costs as a result of competition and affect overall spending on ibrutinib.

To test their theory, they analyzed trends in Medicare Part D use and spending on these drugs from 2014 to 2020 to determine annual spending on oral CLL drugs, the number of beneficiaries who received these drugs, and the average spending per 30-day fill.

A total of six oral medications were included in their analysis: three BTK inhibitors (ibrutinib, acalabrutinib, and zanubrutinib), two PI3K inhibitors (idelalisib and duvelisib), and one B-cell lymphoma-2 inhibitor (venetoclax).

During the study period, annual net Medicare spending for all six of these drugs and across all indications increased from $254 million to $3.7 billion.

At the start of the study period in 2014, 6,180 Medicare beneficiaries were being treated with ibrutinib, and this number dramatically increased to 26,847 beneficiaries in 2020. Spending on ibrutinib constituted more than three-quarters (77%) of the total Medicare costs for these six drugs in 2020.

The estimated net spending for a 30-day supply of ibrutinib rose by 46%, from $8,206 in 2014 to $11,980 in 2020, despite the entry of the competitor drugs into the marketplace, some of which also had lower price tags: venetoclax in 2016 (2020 30-day fill price, $7,787), acalabrutinib in 2017 ($11,428) and zanubrutinib in 2020 ($12,521).

In addition, a sensitivity analysis showed a similar trend outside of the Medicare system.

Unlike for ibrutinib, net spending for other oral targeted drugs generally did not increase over time, and some drug prices even dropped slightly.

The authors note that one limitation of their study is that Medicare does not report spending by indication, so it was unknown what proportion of the cost was for CLL as opposed to the other B-cell lymphomas.

“Brand-to-brand competition may have been ineffective at lowering Medicare costs due to lags between approval and change in prescriber practices, constraints on payers’ ability to effectively use formularies to negotiate prices, and financial incentives that can encourage intermediaries such as pharmacy benefit managers to accept high prices,” they conclude.

This study was supported by a grant from Arnold Ventures. Several of the authors have reported relationships with industry.

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

Atrial fibrillation (AFib) is a known and serious side effect of some cancer treatments, but it is underreported in cancer drug trials, French investigators said in a new report.

As a result, oncologists likely underestimate the risk of atrial fibrillation when new cancer drugs come to market, they said.

The team came to these conclusions after conducting a meta-analysis of 191 phase 2 or 3 clinical trials that included 26,604 patients. The trials investigated 15 anticancer drugs used as monotherapy.

The meta-analysis showed that the annualized incidence rate of AFib ranged from 0.26 cases per 100 person-years – about the same as placebo – to 4.92 cases, a nearly 20 times’ higher risk.

Rates were the highest for ibrutinib, clofarabine, and ponatinib.

The study was published in JACC: CardioOncology, a journal of the American College of Cardiology.

Actual rates of AFib are probably higher than what they found in this meta-analysis, the authors suspect, because most oncology trials only identify and report severe cases of AFib that require immediate medical attention. Less severe cases can also lead to serious complications, including strokes, but they go unreported, said the investigators, led by Joachim Alexandre, MD, PhD, a member of the cardio-oncology program at the University of Caen Normandie Hospital Center, France.

“These findings suggest a global and systemic underreporting and/or underidentification of cardiotoxicity among cancer clinical trial participants,” and AFib reporting is “particularly affected,” they said.
 

Call for routine monitoring

The root of the problem is the lack of routine rhythm monitoring in cancer trials. This in turn “leads to a significant underestimation of AFib incidence” and rates “markedly lower than those observed among real-life” patients, the authors pointed out.

To address the issue, Dr. Alexandre and his team called for routine cardiac monitoring in trials to capture the true incidence of AFib and to “clearly define which anticancer drugs are significantly associated” with the condition.

Approached for comment, Michael G. Fradley, MD, medical director of cardio-oncology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, agreed.

“It’s incredibly important” to “identify the drugs most likely to cause arrhythmias and determine the best prevention and treatment strategies. Unfortunately, systematic evaluation of arrhythmias in cancer clinical trials has often been lacking,” Dr. Fradley told this news organization.

The investigators said the issue is particularly pressing for drugs known to be associated with AFib. For Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitors such as ibrutinib, for instance, they call for standardize AFib detection in trials “not only on 12-lead ECGs” for symptomatic AFib but also with “longer-term ambulatory monitoring or insertable cardiac monitors to detect subclinical AFib.”

Dr. Fradley said there might also be a role for newer wearable technologies that can detect arrhythmias through a skin patch or by other means.
 

Details of the meta-analysis

The investigators pulled the 191 studies they used in their meta-analysis from the ClinicalTrials.gov database.

The trials covered anticancer drugs used as monotherapy up to Sept. 18, 2020. Almost half were randomized trials, but only seven had placebo arms. Trials involving hematologic cancers outnumbered those involving solid tumors.

The 15 drugs examined were dacarbazine, abiraterone, clofarabine, azacitidine, ibrutinib, nilotinib, ponatinib, midostaurin, ipilimumab, aldesleukin, lenalidomide, pomalidomide, rituximab, bortezomib, and docetaxel.

The annualized incidence AFib rates per 100 person-years were 4.92 cases for ibrutinib, 2.38 cases for clofarabine, and 2.35 cases for ponatinib.

The lowest AFib rates were for ipilimumab (0.26 cases), rituximab (0.27), and nilotinib (0.29).

For placebo, the annualized rate was 0.25 cases per 100 person-years.

The team said caution is warranted regarding their estimations for clofarabine and midostaurin (0.65 cases) because no trials were registered after September 2009, when adverse event reporting became mandatory. As a result, estimates may be artificially low.

One of the limits of the study is that it focused on monotherapy in an age when combination treatment is generally the rule for cancer, the authors noted.

No external funding was reported for the study. Dr. Alexandre has received honoraria for presentations and consulting fees from Bayer, BMS, Pfizer, Amgen, and Bioserenity.
 

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

Atrial fibrillation (AFib) is a known and serious side effect of some cancer treatments, but it is underreported in cancer drug trials, French investigators said in a new report.

As a result, oncologists likely underestimate the risk of atrial fibrillation when new cancer drugs come to market, they said.

The team came to these conclusions after conducting a meta-analysis of 191 phase 2 or 3 clinical trials that included 26,604 patients. The trials investigated 15 anticancer drugs used as monotherapy.

The meta-analysis showed that the annualized incidence rate of AFib ranged from 0.26 cases per 100 person-years – about the same as placebo – to 4.92 cases, a nearly 20 times’ higher risk.

Rates were the highest for ibrutinib, clofarabine, and ponatinib.

The study was published in JACC: CardioOncology, a journal of the American College of Cardiology.

Actual rates of AFib are probably higher than what they found in this meta-analysis, the authors suspect, because most oncology trials only identify and report severe cases of AFib that require immediate medical attention. Less severe cases can also lead to serious complications, including strokes, but they go unreported, said the investigators, led by Joachim Alexandre, MD, PhD, a member of the cardio-oncology program at the University of Caen Normandie Hospital Center, France.

“These findings suggest a global and systemic underreporting and/or underidentification of cardiotoxicity among cancer clinical trial participants,” and AFib reporting is “particularly affected,” they said.
 

Call for routine monitoring

The root of the problem is the lack of routine rhythm monitoring in cancer trials. This in turn “leads to a significant underestimation of AFib incidence” and rates “markedly lower than those observed among real-life” patients, the authors pointed out.

To address the issue, Dr. Alexandre and his team called for routine cardiac monitoring in trials to capture the true incidence of AFib and to “clearly define which anticancer drugs are significantly associated” with the condition.

Approached for comment, Michael G. Fradley, MD, medical director of cardio-oncology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, agreed.

“It’s incredibly important” to “identify the drugs most likely to cause arrhythmias and determine the best prevention and treatment strategies. Unfortunately, systematic evaluation of arrhythmias in cancer clinical trials has often been lacking,” Dr. Fradley told this news organization.

The investigators said the issue is particularly pressing for drugs known to be associated with AFib. For Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitors such as ibrutinib, for instance, they call for standardize AFib detection in trials “not only on 12-lead ECGs” for symptomatic AFib but also with “longer-term ambulatory monitoring or insertable cardiac monitors to detect subclinical AFib.”

Dr. Fradley said there might also be a role for newer wearable technologies that can detect arrhythmias through a skin patch or by other means.
 

Details of the meta-analysis

The investigators pulled the 191 studies they used in their meta-analysis from the ClinicalTrials.gov database.

The trials covered anticancer drugs used as monotherapy up to Sept. 18, 2020. Almost half were randomized trials, but only seven had placebo arms. Trials involving hematologic cancers outnumbered those involving solid tumors.

The 15 drugs examined were dacarbazine, abiraterone, clofarabine, azacitidine, ibrutinib, nilotinib, ponatinib, midostaurin, ipilimumab, aldesleukin, lenalidomide, pomalidomide, rituximab, bortezomib, and docetaxel.

The annualized incidence AFib rates per 100 person-years were 4.92 cases for ibrutinib, 2.38 cases for clofarabine, and 2.35 cases for ponatinib.

The lowest AFib rates were for ipilimumab (0.26 cases), rituximab (0.27), and nilotinib (0.29).

For placebo, the annualized rate was 0.25 cases per 100 person-years.

The team said caution is warranted regarding their estimations for clofarabine and midostaurin (0.65 cases) because no trials were registered after September 2009, when adverse event reporting became mandatory. As a result, estimates may be artificially low.

One of the limits of the study is that it focused on monotherapy in an age when combination treatment is generally the rule for cancer, the authors noted.

No external funding was reported for the study. Dr. Alexandre has received honoraria for presentations and consulting fees from Bayer, BMS, Pfizer, Amgen, and Bioserenity.
 

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

Atrial fibrillation (AFib) is a known and serious side effect of some cancer treatments, but it is underreported in cancer drug trials, French investigators said in a new report.

As a result, oncologists likely underestimate the risk of atrial fibrillation when new cancer drugs come to market, they said.

The team came to these conclusions after conducting a meta-analysis of 191 phase 2 or 3 clinical trials that included 26,604 patients. The trials investigated 15 anticancer drugs used as monotherapy.

The meta-analysis showed that the annualized incidence rate of AFib ranged from 0.26 cases per 100 person-years – about the same as placebo – to 4.92 cases, a nearly 20 times’ higher risk.

Rates were the highest for ibrutinib, clofarabine, and ponatinib.

The study was published in JACC: CardioOncology, a journal of the American College of Cardiology.

Actual rates of AFib are probably higher than what they found in this meta-analysis, the authors suspect, because most oncology trials only identify and report severe cases of AFib that require immediate medical attention. Less severe cases can also lead to serious complications, including strokes, but they go unreported, said the investigators, led by Joachim Alexandre, MD, PhD, a member of the cardio-oncology program at the University of Caen Normandie Hospital Center, France.

“These findings suggest a global and systemic underreporting and/or underidentification of cardiotoxicity among cancer clinical trial participants,” and AFib reporting is “particularly affected,” they said.
 

Call for routine monitoring

The root of the problem is the lack of routine rhythm monitoring in cancer trials. This in turn “leads to a significant underestimation of AFib incidence” and rates “markedly lower than those observed among real-life” patients, the authors pointed out.

To address the issue, Dr. Alexandre and his team called for routine cardiac monitoring in trials to capture the true incidence of AFib and to “clearly define which anticancer drugs are significantly associated” with the condition.

Approached for comment, Michael G. Fradley, MD, medical director of cardio-oncology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, agreed.

“It’s incredibly important” to “identify the drugs most likely to cause arrhythmias and determine the best prevention and treatment strategies. Unfortunately, systematic evaluation of arrhythmias in cancer clinical trials has often been lacking,” Dr. Fradley told this news organization.

The investigators said the issue is particularly pressing for drugs known to be associated with AFib. For Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitors such as ibrutinib, for instance, they call for standardize AFib detection in trials “not only on 12-lead ECGs” for symptomatic AFib but also with “longer-term ambulatory monitoring or insertable cardiac monitors to detect subclinical AFib.”

Dr. Fradley said there might also be a role for newer wearable technologies that can detect arrhythmias through a skin patch or by other means.
 

Details of the meta-analysis

The investigators pulled the 191 studies they used in their meta-analysis from the ClinicalTrials.gov database.

The trials covered anticancer drugs used as monotherapy up to Sept. 18, 2020. Almost half were randomized trials, but only seven had placebo arms. Trials involving hematologic cancers outnumbered those involving solid tumors.

The 15 drugs examined were dacarbazine, abiraterone, clofarabine, azacitidine, ibrutinib, nilotinib, ponatinib, midostaurin, ipilimumab, aldesleukin, lenalidomide, pomalidomide, rituximab, bortezomib, and docetaxel.

The annualized incidence AFib rates per 100 person-years were 4.92 cases for ibrutinib, 2.38 cases for clofarabine, and 2.35 cases for ponatinib.

The lowest AFib rates were for ipilimumab (0.26 cases), rituximab (0.27), and nilotinib (0.29).

For placebo, the annualized rate was 0.25 cases per 100 person-years.

The team said caution is warranted regarding their estimations for clofarabine and midostaurin (0.65 cases) because no trials were registered after September 2009, when adverse event reporting became mandatory. As a result, estimates may be artificially low.

One of the limits of the study is that it focused on monotherapy in an age when combination treatment is generally the rule for cancer, the authors noted.

No external funding was reported for the study. Dr. Alexandre has received honoraria for presentations and consulting fees from Bayer, BMS, Pfizer, Amgen, and Bioserenity.
 

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

Some patients with small, nonfunctional pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) may benefit from surgery, an analysis of U.S. nationwide data suggests.

Overall, researchers found that surgical resection was associated with a 42% improvement in overall survival among patients with small tumors of 1.1-2.0 cm, but not tumors 1 cm or smaller. Among those with 1.1- to 2.0-cm tumors, the survival benefit following surgery was most notable among patients aged 64 years or younger and those with no comorbidities.

The findings were published in JAMA Network Open.

While surgical resection has been the first-line treatment for patients with functional or symptomatic localized, low-grade pancreatic NETs, surgery for asymptomatic low-grade nonfunctional pancreatic NETs of 2 cm or less “remains unclear even in consensus guidelines,” study author Richard D. Schulick, MD, MBA, of the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, and colleagues write.

Consensus guidelines from the European Neuroendocrine Tumor Society, for instance, indicate surveillance for these smaller tumors, while those from the Japan Neuroendocrine Tumor Society recommend surgery. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN), which recently updated its guidelines, suggests observation as an option for patients with tumors as large as 2.0 cm but who are strongly considering resection.

To determine whether surgical resection of these smaller lesions influences overall survival, the team combed the U.S. National Cancer Database and identified 4,641 patients with nonfunctional pancreatic NETs up to 2.0 cm in size.

Researchers divided patients by tumor sizes of up to 1 cm (group 1a) and 1.1-2.0 cm (group 1b) and examined a range of variables, including age, comorbidities, tumor location and differentiation, and overall survival.

Overall, 1,278 patients had tumors measuring up to 1.0 cm (group 1a), and 3,363 had tumors measuring 1.1-2.0 cm (group 1b). The mean age across both groups was 60.5 years; about half were men, and most (77.4%) were White.

Over a median follow-up of 47.1 months, the surgical resection rate was significantly lower among patients in group 1a (82.0%) than in group 1b (87.0%). Patients who underwent resection, on average, were younger and were more likely to have tumors located in the pancreas tail and to have clinical lymph node metastasis.

Overall, the team found that surgical resection was associated with longer overall survival for patients with tumors of 1.1-2.0 cm (hazard ratio, 0.58) but not 1 cm or smaller (HR, 0.68; P = .12).

Among patients in group 1b (those with 1.1- to 2.0-cm tumors), the team also found that age 64 years or younger (adjusted HR, 0.34), treatment at academic institutions (aHR, 0.40), absence of comorbidities (aHR, 0.53), absence of clinical lymph node metastasis (aHR, 0.54), as well as tumors in the body (aHR, 0.36) and tail (aHR, 0.37) of the pancreas were significantly associated with increased survival after surgical resection.

Among patients with resected small nonmetastatic nonfunctional pancreatic NETs, pathologic lymph node metastasis (HR, 1.28; P = .43) and lymphovascular invasion (HR, 0.85; P = .75) were not associated with overall survival.

The results of the study “support an association between surgical resection and increased survival in select patients” among those with tumors 1.1-2.0 cm, Dr. Schulick and colleagues write.

James R. Howe, MD, who was not involved in the research, highlighted that the study tries to answer an important clinical problem: What should we do with small, nonfunctional pancreatic NETs?

However, he noted “significant selection bias” among patients included in the dataset.

More than 80% of patients with tumors under 1 cm underwent surgery, which “is not consistent with what most people would do in practice,” said Dr. Howe, of the division of surgical oncology and endocrine surgery, University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics, Iowa City. “Most would be observed and might not make it into the National Cancer Database.”

Dr. Howe pointed to an even larger group of patients with pancreatic NETs who were not included in the database – those with CT evidence of a pancreatic NET but without biopsy confirmation.

With many patients potentially missing from the data, “it is very difficult to know that patients with tumors 1.1-2.0 cm in size are really benefiting from surgery, as suggested in the article,” he said.

Dr. Howe highlighted a recent interim analysis that indicated that active surveillance is the “preferred approach” for tumors no larger than 2 cm.

Dr. Schulick and the research team acknowledge limitations in their dataset, including the potential for coding errors and lack of information on the Ki-67 index, symptoms, incidental diagnosis, and recurrence.

Overall, though, the authors conclude that the findings “support the recommendations of the NCCN guidelines to resect small [nonfunctional pancreatic] NETs for selected patients” but need “to be further investigated to verify the results.”

The study was supported by a grant from the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science Overseas Challenge Program for Young Researchers and a grant from the Mochida Memorial Foundation for Medical and Pharmaceutical Research. Dr. Schulick is the inventor of a patent licensed to DynamiCure and has received laboratory equipment from Haemonetics outside the submitted work. Other authors also have relevant financial relationships.

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

Some patients with small, nonfunctional pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) may benefit from surgery, an analysis of U.S. nationwide data suggests.

Overall, researchers found that surgical resection was associated with a 42% improvement in overall survival among patients with small tumors of 1.1-2.0 cm, but not tumors 1 cm or smaller. Among those with 1.1- to 2.0-cm tumors, the survival benefit following surgery was most notable among patients aged 64 years or younger and those with no comorbidities.

The findings were published in JAMA Network Open.

While surgical resection has been the first-line treatment for patients with functional or symptomatic localized, low-grade pancreatic NETs, surgery for asymptomatic low-grade nonfunctional pancreatic NETs of 2 cm or less “remains unclear even in consensus guidelines,” study author Richard D. Schulick, MD, MBA, of the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, and colleagues write.

Consensus guidelines from the European Neuroendocrine Tumor Society, for instance, indicate surveillance for these smaller tumors, while those from the Japan Neuroendocrine Tumor Society recommend surgery. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN), which recently updated its guidelines, suggests observation as an option for patients with tumors as large as 2.0 cm but who are strongly considering resection.

To determine whether surgical resection of these smaller lesions influences overall survival, the team combed the U.S. National Cancer Database and identified 4,641 patients with nonfunctional pancreatic NETs up to 2.0 cm in size.

Researchers divided patients by tumor sizes of up to 1 cm (group 1a) and 1.1-2.0 cm (group 1b) and examined a range of variables, including age, comorbidities, tumor location and differentiation, and overall survival.

Overall, 1,278 patients had tumors measuring up to 1.0 cm (group 1a), and 3,363 had tumors measuring 1.1-2.0 cm (group 1b). The mean age across both groups was 60.5 years; about half were men, and most (77.4%) were White.

Over a median follow-up of 47.1 months, the surgical resection rate was significantly lower among patients in group 1a (82.0%) than in group 1b (87.0%). Patients who underwent resection, on average, were younger and were more likely to have tumors located in the pancreas tail and to have clinical lymph node metastasis.

Overall, the team found that surgical resection was associated with longer overall survival for patients with tumors of 1.1-2.0 cm (hazard ratio, 0.58) but not 1 cm or smaller (HR, 0.68; P = .12).

Among patients in group 1b (those with 1.1- to 2.0-cm tumors), the team also found that age 64 years or younger (adjusted HR, 0.34), treatment at academic institutions (aHR, 0.40), absence of comorbidities (aHR, 0.53), absence of clinical lymph node metastasis (aHR, 0.54), as well as tumors in the body (aHR, 0.36) and tail (aHR, 0.37) of the pancreas were significantly associated with increased survival after surgical resection.

Among patients with resected small nonmetastatic nonfunctional pancreatic NETs, pathologic lymph node metastasis (HR, 1.28; P = .43) and lymphovascular invasion (HR, 0.85; P = .75) were not associated with overall survival.

The results of the study “support an association between surgical resection and increased survival in select patients” among those with tumors 1.1-2.0 cm, Dr. Schulick and colleagues write.

James R. Howe, MD, who was not involved in the research, highlighted that the study tries to answer an important clinical problem: What should we do with small, nonfunctional pancreatic NETs?

However, he noted “significant selection bias” among patients included in the dataset.

More than 80% of patients with tumors under 1 cm underwent surgery, which “is not consistent with what most people would do in practice,” said Dr. Howe, of the division of surgical oncology and endocrine surgery, University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics, Iowa City. “Most would be observed and might not make it into the National Cancer Database.”

Dr. Howe pointed to an even larger group of patients with pancreatic NETs who were not included in the database – those with CT evidence of a pancreatic NET but without biopsy confirmation.

With many patients potentially missing from the data, “it is very difficult to know that patients with tumors 1.1-2.0 cm in size are really benefiting from surgery, as suggested in the article,” he said.

Dr. Howe highlighted a recent interim analysis that indicated that active surveillance is the “preferred approach” for tumors no larger than 2 cm.

Dr. Schulick and the research team acknowledge limitations in their dataset, including the potential for coding errors and lack of information on the Ki-67 index, symptoms, incidental diagnosis, and recurrence.

Overall, though, the authors conclude that the findings “support the recommendations of the NCCN guidelines to resect small [nonfunctional pancreatic] NETs for selected patients” but need “to be further investigated to verify the results.”

The study was supported by a grant from the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science Overseas Challenge Program for Young Researchers and a grant from the Mochida Memorial Foundation for Medical and Pharmaceutical Research. Dr. Schulick is the inventor of a patent licensed to DynamiCure and has received laboratory equipment from Haemonetics outside the submitted work. Other authors also have relevant financial relationships.

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

Some patients with small, nonfunctional pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) may benefit from surgery, an analysis of U.S. nationwide data suggests.

Overall, researchers found that surgical resection was associated with a 42% improvement in overall survival among patients with small tumors of 1.1-2.0 cm, but not tumors 1 cm or smaller. Among those with 1.1- to 2.0-cm tumors, the survival benefit following surgery was most notable among patients aged 64 years or younger and those with no comorbidities.

The findings were published in JAMA Network Open.

While surgical resection has been the first-line treatment for patients with functional or symptomatic localized, low-grade pancreatic NETs, surgery for asymptomatic low-grade nonfunctional pancreatic NETs of 2 cm or less “remains unclear even in consensus guidelines,” study author Richard D. Schulick, MD, MBA, of the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, and colleagues write.

Consensus guidelines from the European Neuroendocrine Tumor Society, for instance, indicate surveillance for these smaller tumors, while those from the Japan Neuroendocrine Tumor Society recommend surgery. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN), which recently updated its guidelines, suggests observation as an option for patients with tumors as large as 2.0 cm but who are strongly considering resection.

To determine whether surgical resection of these smaller lesions influences overall survival, the team combed the U.S. National Cancer Database and identified 4,641 patients with nonfunctional pancreatic NETs up to 2.0 cm in size.

Researchers divided patients by tumor sizes of up to 1 cm (group 1a) and 1.1-2.0 cm (group 1b) and examined a range of variables, including age, comorbidities, tumor location and differentiation, and overall survival.

Overall, 1,278 patients had tumors measuring up to 1.0 cm (group 1a), and 3,363 had tumors measuring 1.1-2.0 cm (group 1b). The mean age across both groups was 60.5 years; about half were men, and most (77.4%) were White.

Over a median follow-up of 47.1 months, the surgical resection rate was significantly lower among patients in group 1a (82.0%) than in group 1b (87.0%). Patients who underwent resection, on average, were younger and were more likely to have tumors located in the pancreas tail and to have clinical lymph node metastasis.

Overall, the team found that surgical resection was associated with longer overall survival for patients with tumors of 1.1-2.0 cm (hazard ratio, 0.58) but not 1 cm or smaller (HR, 0.68; P = .12).

Among patients in group 1b (those with 1.1- to 2.0-cm tumors), the team also found that age 64 years or younger (adjusted HR, 0.34), treatment at academic institutions (aHR, 0.40), absence of comorbidities (aHR, 0.53), absence of clinical lymph node metastasis (aHR, 0.54), as well as tumors in the body (aHR, 0.36) and tail (aHR, 0.37) of the pancreas were significantly associated with increased survival after surgical resection.

Among patients with resected small nonmetastatic nonfunctional pancreatic NETs, pathologic lymph node metastasis (HR, 1.28; P = .43) and lymphovascular invasion (HR, 0.85; P = .75) were not associated with overall survival.

The results of the study “support an association between surgical resection and increased survival in select patients” among those with tumors 1.1-2.0 cm, Dr. Schulick and colleagues write.

James R. Howe, MD, who was not involved in the research, highlighted that the study tries to answer an important clinical problem: What should we do with small, nonfunctional pancreatic NETs?

However, he noted “significant selection bias” among patients included in the dataset.

More than 80% of patients with tumors under 1 cm underwent surgery, which “is not consistent with what most people would do in practice,” said Dr. Howe, of the division of surgical oncology and endocrine surgery, University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics, Iowa City. “Most would be observed and might not make it into the National Cancer Database.”

Dr. Howe pointed to an even larger group of patients with pancreatic NETs who were not included in the database – those with CT evidence of a pancreatic NET but without biopsy confirmation.

With many patients potentially missing from the data, “it is very difficult to know that patients with tumors 1.1-2.0 cm in size are really benefiting from surgery, as suggested in the article,” he said.

Dr. Howe highlighted a recent interim analysis that indicated that active surveillance is the “preferred approach” for tumors no larger than 2 cm.

Dr. Schulick and the research team acknowledge limitations in their dataset, including the potential for coding errors and lack of information on the Ki-67 index, symptoms, incidental diagnosis, and recurrence.

Overall, though, the authors conclude that the findings “support the recommendations of the NCCN guidelines to resect small [nonfunctional pancreatic] NETs for selected patients” but need “to be further investigated to verify the results.”

The study was supported by a grant from the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science Overseas Challenge Program for Young Researchers and a grant from the Mochida Memorial Foundation for Medical and Pharmaceutical Research. Dr. Schulick is the inventor of a patent licensed to DynamiCure and has received laboratory equipment from Haemonetics outside the submitted work. Other authors also have relevant financial relationships.

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

Colorectal cancer (CRC) remains the second most common cause of cancer-related death in the United States. Although the past several decades have seen significantly greater emphasis on screening and disease prevention for CRC, it has also become increasingly apparent that the age profile and associated risks for this cancer are rapidly changing.

Evidence of this can be found in recently released CRC statistics from the American Cancer Society, which are updated every 3 years using population-based cancer registries.

The incidence in CRC has shown a progressive decline over the past 4 decades. However, whereas in the 2000s there was an average decline of approximately 3%-4% annually, it slowed to 1% per year between 2011 and 2019. This effect is in part because of the trends among younger individuals (< 55 years), in whom the incidence of CRC has increased by 9% over the past 25 years.

The incidence of regional-stage disease also increased by 2%-3% per year for those younger than 65 years, with an additional increase in the incidence of more advanced/distant disease by 0.5%-3% per year. The latter finding represents a reversal of earlier trends observed for staged disease in the decade from 1995 to 2005.

These recent statistics reveal other notable changes that occurred in parallel with the increased incidence of younger-onset CRC. There was a significant shift to left-sided tumors, with a 4% increase in rectal cancers in the decades spanning 1995–2019.

Although the overall mortality declined 2% from 2011 to 2020, the reverse was seen in patients younger than 50 years, in whom there was an increase by 0.5%-3% annually.

Available incidence and mortality data for the current year are understandably lacking, as there is a 2- to 4-year lag for data collection and assimilation, and there have also been methodological changes for tracking and projections. Nonetheless, 2023 projections estimate that there will be 153,020 new cases in the United States, with 19,550 (13%) to occur in those younger than 50 years and 33% in those aged 50-64 years. Overall, 43% of cases are projected to occur in those aged 45-49 years, which is noteworthy given that these ages are now included in the most current CRC screening recommendations.

Further underscoring the risks posed by earlier-onset trends is the projection of 52,550 CRC-related deaths in 2023, with 7% estimated to occur in those younger than 50 years.
 

What’s behind the trend toward younger onset?

The specific factors contributing to increasing rates of CRC in younger individuals are not well known, but there are several plausible explanations. Notable possible contributing factors reported in the literature include obesity, smoking, alcohol, diet, and microbial changes, among other demographic variables. Exposure to high-fructose corn syrup, sugar-sweetened beverages, and processed meats has also recently received attention as contributing dietary risk factors.

The shifting trends toward the onset of CRC among younger patients are now clearly established, with approximately 20% of new cases occurring in those in their early 50s or younger and a higher rate of left-sided tumor development. Unfortunately, these shifts are also associated with a more advanced stage of disease.

There are unique clinical challenges when it comes to identifying younger-onset CRC. A low level of suspicion among primary care providers that their younger patients may have CRC can result in delays in their receiving clinically appropriate diagnostic testing (particularly for overt or occult bleeding/iron deficiency). Younger patients may also be less likely to know about or adhere to new recommendations that they undergo screening.

The landscape for age-related CRC is changing. Although there are many obstacles for implementing new practices, these recent findings from the ACS also highlight a clear path for improvement.

David A. Johnson, MD, is professor of medicine and chief of gastroenterology at Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk, and a past president of the American College of Gastroenterology.

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

Colorectal cancer (CRC) remains the second most common cause of cancer-related death in the United States. Although the past several decades have seen significantly greater emphasis on screening and disease prevention for CRC, it has also become increasingly apparent that the age profile and associated risks for this cancer are rapidly changing.

Evidence of this can be found in recently released CRC statistics from the American Cancer Society, which are updated every 3 years using population-based cancer registries.

The incidence in CRC has shown a progressive decline over the past 4 decades. However, whereas in the 2000s there was an average decline of approximately 3%-4% annually, it slowed to 1% per year between 2011 and 2019. This effect is in part because of the trends among younger individuals (< 55 years), in whom the incidence of CRC has increased by 9% over the past 25 years.

The incidence of regional-stage disease also increased by 2%-3% per year for those younger than 65 years, with an additional increase in the incidence of more advanced/distant disease by 0.5%-3% per year. The latter finding represents a reversal of earlier trends observed for staged disease in the decade from 1995 to 2005.

These recent statistics reveal other notable changes that occurred in parallel with the increased incidence of younger-onset CRC. There was a significant shift to left-sided tumors, with a 4% increase in rectal cancers in the decades spanning 1995–2019.

Although the overall mortality declined 2% from 2011 to 2020, the reverse was seen in patients younger than 50 years, in whom there was an increase by 0.5%-3% annually.

Available incidence and mortality data for the current year are understandably lacking, as there is a 2- to 4-year lag for data collection and assimilation, and there have also been methodological changes for tracking and projections. Nonetheless, 2023 projections estimate that there will be 153,020 new cases in the United States, with 19,550 (13%) to occur in those younger than 50 years and 33% in those aged 50-64 years. Overall, 43% of cases are projected to occur in those aged 45-49 years, which is noteworthy given that these ages are now included in the most current CRC screening recommendations.

Further underscoring the risks posed by earlier-onset trends is the projection of 52,550 CRC-related deaths in 2023, with 7% estimated to occur in those younger than 50 years.
 

What’s behind the trend toward younger onset?

The specific factors contributing to increasing rates of CRC in younger individuals are not well known, but there are several plausible explanations. Notable possible contributing factors reported in the literature include obesity, smoking, alcohol, diet, and microbial changes, among other demographic variables. Exposure to high-fructose corn syrup, sugar-sweetened beverages, and processed meats has also recently received attention as contributing dietary risk factors.

The shifting trends toward the onset of CRC among younger patients are now clearly established, with approximately 20% of new cases occurring in those in their early 50s or younger and a higher rate of left-sided tumor development. Unfortunately, these shifts are also associated with a more advanced stage of disease.

There are unique clinical challenges when it comes to identifying younger-onset CRC. A low level of suspicion among primary care providers that their younger patients may have CRC can result in delays in their receiving clinically appropriate diagnostic testing (particularly for overt or occult bleeding/iron deficiency). Younger patients may also be less likely to know about or adhere to new recommendations that they undergo screening.

The landscape for age-related CRC is changing. Although there are many obstacles for implementing new practices, these recent findings from the ACS also highlight a clear path for improvement.

David A. Johnson, MD, is professor of medicine and chief of gastroenterology at Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk, and a past president of the American College of Gastroenterology.

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

Colorectal cancer (CRC) remains the second most common cause of cancer-related death in the United States. Although the past several decades have seen significantly greater emphasis on screening and disease prevention for CRC, it has also become increasingly apparent that the age profile and associated risks for this cancer are rapidly changing.

Evidence of this can be found in recently released CRC statistics from the American Cancer Society, which are updated every 3 years using population-based cancer registries.

The incidence in CRC has shown a progressive decline over the past 4 decades. However, whereas in the 2000s there was an average decline of approximately 3%-4% annually, it slowed to 1% per year between 2011 and 2019. This effect is in part because of the trends among younger individuals (< 55 years), in whom the incidence of CRC has increased by 9% over the past 25 years.

The incidence of regional-stage disease also increased by 2%-3% per year for those younger than 65 years, with an additional increase in the incidence of more advanced/distant disease by 0.5%-3% per year. The latter finding represents a reversal of earlier trends observed for staged disease in the decade from 1995 to 2005.

These recent statistics reveal other notable changes that occurred in parallel with the increased incidence of younger-onset CRC. There was a significant shift to left-sided tumors, with a 4% increase in rectal cancers in the decades spanning 1995–2019.

Although the overall mortality declined 2% from 2011 to 2020, the reverse was seen in patients younger than 50 years, in whom there was an increase by 0.5%-3% annually.

Available incidence and mortality data for the current year are understandably lacking, as there is a 2- to 4-year lag for data collection and assimilation, and there have also been methodological changes for tracking and projections. Nonetheless, 2023 projections estimate that there will be 153,020 new cases in the United States, with 19,550 (13%) to occur in those younger than 50 years and 33% in those aged 50-64 years. Overall, 43% of cases are projected to occur in those aged 45-49 years, which is noteworthy given that these ages are now included in the most current CRC screening recommendations.

Further underscoring the risks posed by earlier-onset trends is the projection of 52,550 CRC-related deaths in 2023, with 7% estimated to occur in those younger than 50 years.
 

What’s behind the trend toward younger onset?

The specific factors contributing to increasing rates of CRC in younger individuals are not well known, but there are several plausible explanations. Notable possible contributing factors reported in the literature include obesity, smoking, alcohol, diet, and microbial changes, among other demographic variables. Exposure to high-fructose corn syrup, sugar-sweetened beverages, and processed meats has also recently received attention as contributing dietary risk factors.

The shifting trends toward the onset of CRC among younger patients are now clearly established, with approximately 20% of new cases occurring in those in their early 50s or younger and a higher rate of left-sided tumor development. Unfortunately, these shifts are also associated with a more advanced stage of disease.

There are unique clinical challenges when it comes to identifying younger-onset CRC. A low level of suspicion among primary care providers that their younger patients may have CRC can result in delays in their receiving clinically appropriate diagnostic testing (particularly for overt or occult bleeding/iron deficiency). Younger patients may also be less likely to know about or adhere to new recommendations that they undergo screening.

The landscape for age-related CRC is changing. Although there are many obstacles for implementing new practices, these recent findings from the ACS also highlight a clear path for improvement.

David A. Johnson, MD, is professor of medicine and chief of gastroenterology at Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk, and a past president of the American College of Gastroenterology.

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

Radiotherapy followed by immunotherapy within 1-12 months – but not sooner or later – may boost progression-free survival in patients with metastatic non–small cell lung cancer, according to a new study. However, patients still fared poorly on average since overall survival remained low and didn’t change significantly.

While not conclusive, the new research – released at European Lung Cancer Congress 2023 – offers early insight into the best timing for the experimental combination treatment, study coauthor Yanyan Lou, MD, PhD, an oncologist at Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Fla., said in an interview.

The wide availability of radiation therapy could also allow the therapy to be administered even in regions with poor access to sophisticated medical care, she said. “Radiation is a very feasible approach that pretty much everybody in your community can get.”

Radiotherapy is typically not added to immunotherapy in patients with non–small cell lung cancer. But “there has been recent interest in the combination: Would tumor necrosis from radiation enhance the immunogenicity of the tumor and thus enhance the effect of immunotherapy?” oncologist Toby Campbell, MD, of University of Wisconsin–Madison, said in an interview.

Research has indeed suggested that the treatments may have a synergistic effect, he said, and it’s clear that “strategies to try and increase immunogenicity are an important area to investigate.”

But he cautioned that “we have a long way to go to understanding how immunogenicity works and how the gut microbiome, tumor, immunotherapy, and the immune system interact with one another.”

For the new study, researchers retrospectively analyzed cases of 225 patients with metastatic non–small cell lung cancer (male = 56%, median age = 68, 79% adenocarcinoma) who were treated with immunotherapy at Mayo Clinic–Jacksonville from 2011 to 2022. The study excluded those who received targeted therapy or prior concurrent chemoradiotherapy and durvalumab.

The most common metastases were bone and central nervous system types (41% and 25%, respectively). Fifty-six percent of patients received radiotherapy before or during immunotherapy. Another 27% never received radiotherapy, and 17% received it after immunotherapy was discontinued.

Common types of immunotherapy included pembrolizumab (78%), nivolumab (14%), and atezolizumab (12%).

Overall, the researchers found no statistically significant differences in various outcomes between patients who received radiotherapy before or during immunotherapy compared with those who didn’t get radiotherapy (progression-free survival: 5.9 vs. 5.5 months, P = .66; overall survival: 16.9 vs. 13.1 months, P = .84; immune-related adverse events: 26.2% vs. 34.4%, P = .24).

However, the researchers found that progression-free survival was significantly higher in one group: Those who received radiotherapy 1-12 months before immunotherapy vs. those who received it less than 1 month before (12.6 vs. 4.2 months, hazard ratio [HR], 0.46, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.26-0.83, P = .005,) and those who never received radiotherapy (12.6 vs. 5.5 months, HR, 0.56, 95% CI, 0.36-0.89, P = .0197).

There wasn’t a statistically significant difference in overall survival.

The small number of subjects and the variation in treatment protocols may have prevented the study from revealing a survival benefit, Dr. Lou said.

As for adverse effects, she said a preliminary analysis didn’t turn up any.

It’s not clear why a 1- to 12-month gap between radiotherapy and immunotherapy may be most effective, she said. Moving forward, “we need validate this in a large cohort,” she noted.

In regard to cost, immunotherapy is notoriously expensive. Pembrolizumab, for example, has a list price of $10,897 per 200-mg dose given every 3 weeks, and patients may take the drug for a year or two.

Dr. Campbell, who didn’t take part in the new study, said it suggests that research into radiation-immunotherapy combination treatment may be worthwhile.

No funding was reported. The study authors and Dr. Campbell reported no disclosures.

Radiotherapy followed by immunotherapy within 1-12 months – but not sooner or later – may boost progression-free survival in patients with metastatic non–small cell lung cancer, according to a new study. However, patients still fared poorly on average since overall survival remained low and didn’t change significantly.

While not conclusive, the new research – released at European Lung Cancer Congress 2023 – offers early insight into the best timing for the experimental combination treatment, study coauthor Yanyan Lou, MD, PhD, an oncologist at Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Fla., said in an interview.

The wide availability of radiation therapy could also allow the therapy to be administered even in regions with poor access to sophisticated medical care, she said. “Radiation is a very feasible approach that pretty much everybody in your community can get.”

Radiotherapy is typically not added to immunotherapy in patients with non–small cell lung cancer. But “there has been recent interest in the combination: Would tumor necrosis from radiation enhance the immunogenicity of the tumor and thus enhance the effect of immunotherapy?” oncologist Toby Campbell, MD, of University of Wisconsin–Madison, said in an interview.

Research has indeed suggested that the treatments may have a synergistic effect, he said, and it’s clear that “strategies to try and increase immunogenicity are an important area to investigate.”

But he cautioned that “we have a long way to go to understanding how immunogenicity works and how the gut microbiome, tumor, immunotherapy, and the immune system interact with one another.”

For the new study, researchers retrospectively analyzed cases of 225 patients with metastatic non–small cell lung cancer (male = 56%, median age = 68, 79% adenocarcinoma) who were treated with immunotherapy at Mayo Clinic–Jacksonville from 2011 to 2022. The study excluded those who received targeted therapy or prior concurrent chemoradiotherapy and durvalumab.

The most common metastases were bone and central nervous system types (41% and 25%, respectively). Fifty-six percent of patients received radiotherapy before or during immunotherapy. Another 27% never received radiotherapy, and 17% received it after immunotherapy was discontinued.

Common types of immunotherapy included pembrolizumab (78%), nivolumab (14%), and atezolizumab (12%).

Overall, the researchers found no statistically significant differences in various outcomes between patients who received radiotherapy before or during immunotherapy compared with those who didn’t get radiotherapy (progression-free survival: 5.9 vs. 5.5 months, P = .66; overall survival: 16.9 vs. 13.1 months, P = .84; immune-related adverse events: 26.2% vs. 34.4%, P = .24).

However, the researchers found that progression-free survival was significantly higher in one group: Those who received radiotherapy 1-12 months before immunotherapy vs. those who received it less than 1 month before (12.6 vs. 4.2 months, hazard ratio [HR], 0.46, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.26-0.83, P = .005,) and those who never received radiotherapy (12.6 vs. 5.5 months, HR, 0.56, 95% CI, 0.36-0.89, P = .0197).

There wasn’t a statistically significant difference in overall survival.

The small number of subjects and the variation in treatment protocols may have prevented the study from revealing a survival benefit, Dr. Lou said.

As for adverse effects, she said a preliminary analysis didn’t turn up any.

It’s not clear why a 1- to 12-month gap between radiotherapy and immunotherapy may be most effective, she said. Moving forward, “we need validate this in a large cohort,” she noted.

In regard to cost, immunotherapy is notoriously expensive. Pembrolizumab, for example, has a list price of $10,897 per 200-mg dose given every 3 weeks, and patients may take the drug for a year or two.

Dr. Campbell, who didn’t take part in the new study, said it suggests that research into radiation-immunotherapy combination treatment may be worthwhile.

No funding was reported. The study authors and Dr. Campbell reported no disclosures.

Radiotherapy followed by immunotherapy within 1-12 months – but not sooner or later – may boost progression-free survival in patients with metastatic non–small cell lung cancer, according to a new study. However, patients still fared poorly on average since overall survival remained low and didn’t change significantly.

While not conclusive, the new research – released at European Lung Cancer Congress 2023 – offers early insight into the best timing for the experimental combination treatment, study coauthor Yanyan Lou, MD, PhD, an oncologist at Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Fla., said in an interview.

The wide availability of radiation therapy could also allow the therapy to be administered even in regions with poor access to sophisticated medical care, she said. “Radiation is a very feasible approach that pretty much everybody in your community can get.”

Radiotherapy is typically not added to immunotherapy in patients with non–small cell lung cancer. But “there has been recent interest in the combination: Would tumor necrosis from radiation enhance the immunogenicity of the tumor and thus enhance the effect of immunotherapy?” oncologist Toby Campbell, MD, of University of Wisconsin–Madison, said in an interview.

Research has indeed suggested that the treatments may have a synergistic effect, he said, and it’s clear that “strategies to try and increase immunogenicity are an important area to investigate.”

But he cautioned that “we have a long way to go to understanding how immunogenicity works and how the gut microbiome, tumor, immunotherapy, and the immune system interact with one another.”

For the new study, researchers retrospectively analyzed cases of 225 patients with metastatic non–small cell lung cancer (male = 56%, median age = 68, 79% adenocarcinoma) who were treated with immunotherapy at Mayo Clinic–Jacksonville from 2011 to 2022. The study excluded those who received targeted therapy or prior concurrent chemoradiotherapy and durvalumab.

The most common metastases were bone and central nervous system types (41% and 25%, respectively). Fifty-six percent of patients received radiotherapy before or during immunotherapy. Another 27% never received radiotherapy, and 17% received it after immunotherapy was discontinued.

Common types of immunotherapy included pembrolizumab (78%), nivolumab (14%), and atezolizumab (12%).

Overall, the researchers found no statistically significant differences in various outcomes between patients who received radiotherapy before or during immunotherapy compared with those who didn’t get radiotherapy (progression-free survival: 5.9 vs. 5.5 months, P = .66; overall survival: 16.9 vs. 13.1 months, P = .84; immune-related adverse events: 26.2% vs. 34.4%, P = .24).

However, the researchers found that progression-free survival was significantly higher in one group: Those who received radiotherapy 1-12 months before immunotherapy vs. those who received it less than 1 month before (12.6 vs. 4.2 months, hazard ratio [HR], 0.46, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.26-0.83, P = .005,) and those who never received radiotherapy (12.6 vs. 5.5 months, HR, 0.56, 95% CI, 0.36-0.89, P = .0197).

There wasn’t a statistically significant difference in overall survival.

The small number of subjects and the variation in treatment protocols may have prevented the study from revealing a survival benefit, Dr. Lou said.

As for adverse effects, she said a preliminary analysis didn’t turn up any.

It’s not clear why a 1- to 12-month gap between radiotherapy and immunotherapy may be most effective, she said. Moving forward, “we need validate this in a large cohort,” she noted.

In regard to cost, immunotherapy is notoriously expensive. Pembrolizumab, for example, has a list price of $10,897 per 200-mg dose given every 3 weeks, and patients may take the drug for a year or two.

Dr. Campbell, who didn’t take part in the new study, said it suggests that research into radiation-immunotherapy combination treatment may be worthwhile.

No funding was reported. The study authors and Dr. Campbell reported no disclosures.

Although people who survive a childhood cancer are at an increased risk of developing and dying from subsequent cancers, as well as heart disease and stroke, they can reduce this risk by following a healthy lifestyle, say U.S. investigators.

This message comes from a retrospective analysis of more than 34,000 childhood cancer survivors, which found that 40 years after the initial cancer diagnosis, the cumulative all-cause mortality rate was 23.3%, compared with less than 5% in the general population.

However, following a healthy lifestyle was associated with a 20% reduction in health-related mortality, independent of other factors, the analysis showed. This rose even further, up to a 30% reduction, among individuals who did not have hypertension or diabetes.

The study was published online  in The Lancet.

“We identified that long-term survivors of childhood cancer are experiencing a large number of deaths in excess of what would be expected for the general, aging population,” first author Stephanie Dixon, MD, MPH, oncology department, St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital, Memphis, Tenn., said in a press release.

“These excess deaths are predominantly due to the same leading causes of death as in the general population,” including subsequent cancers, heart disease, cerebrovascular disease/stroke, chronic liver and kidney disease, and infectious diseases, she noted. However, in these childhood cancer survivors they are occurring “at a younger age and higher rate.”

“What was most exciting to see,” Dr. Dixon added, “was that, independent of prior treatment exposures and sociodemographic factors, a healthy lifestyle and absence of hypertension or diabetes were each associated with a reduced risk of health-related mortality.”

“This is important because our goal is to extend the life span of survivors and to improve their ‘health span’ as well,” said senior author Greg Armstrong, MD, MSCE, chair of the department of epidemiology and cancer control at St. Jude.

As such, “the study highlights the importance of encouraging survivors to practice healthy behaviors and maintain good control of cardiovascular disease risk factors,” emphasized coauthor Melissa M. Hudson, MD, director of the cancer survivorship division at St. Jude.

Future research should focus on interventions for modifiable lifestyle and cardiovascular risk factors that “may need to be specifically tailored to survivors, with the goal of reducing chronic disease development” and extending their lifespan, the researchers said.
 

Late effects of treatment

Childhood cancer has a tremendous success rate: In the United States, the 5-year survival rate is now more than 85%.

However, long-term survivors experience excess morbidity and late mortality compared with the general population, both of which are “attributable to late effects of treatment,” the team pointed out.

Their study focused on individuals who had been diagnosed with cancer before they were 21 years old and who had survived at least 5 years after the cancer diagnosis.

The median age at diagnosis was 6 years, and the most common diagnoses were acute lymphoblastic leukemia (36%), Hodgkin lymphoma (11%), astrocytoma (10%), and kidney tumors (8%).

The team identified 34,230 survivors who had been treated between Jan. 1, 1970, and Dec. 31, 1999, at 31 institutions in the United States and Canada.

They  represented approximately 20% of all childhood cancer survivors in the United States over the study period. The team noted that 56% of the survivors were male, and the majority (64%) were non-Hispanic White.

The date and causes of death through December 2017 were obtained via linkage to the National Death Index, and cancer treatment information was collated for 21,418 survivors who provided consent. Lifestyle factors – including smoking, alcohol use, physical activity, and unhealthy weight – were graded on a score of 0-4.

Over a median follow-up of 29.1 years, there were 5,916 deaths, with 34% attributable to the recurrence or progression of the primary cancer, and 51.2% attributable to other causes, such as subsequent neoplasms, and cardiac, pulmonary, and other health-related causes.

Overall, survivors were at an elevated risk of death compared with the general population, at a standardized mortality ratio of 5.6. This ratio peaked at 5-9 years after diagnosis at an 18.1-fold increased risk of death compared with the general population.

Forty years or more from the initial diagnosis, two-thirds of the 131 per 10,000 person-years excess deaths from health-related causes were due to the top three causes of health-related death in the general population, the team reported.

This included an absolute excess risk of death from cancer of 54 per 10,000 person-years, an excess risk of heart disease mortality of 27 per 10,000 person-years, and an excess risk of cerebrovascular disease mortality of 10 per 10,000 person-years.

The individual cases of death contributing the greatest excess risk were gastrointestinal cancers (11 per 10,000 person-years), cerebrovascular disease (10 per 10,000 person-years), ischemic heart disease (10 per 10,000 person-years), and valvular heart disease (9 per 10,000 person-years).

The good news is that following a healthy lifestyle was associated with a 20% reduction in health-related mortality versus an unhealthy lifestyle (P = .0020).

Moreover, following even a moderately healthy lifestyle was associated with a 10% reduction in health-related mortality, the researchers noted.

The study was supported by grants from the National Cancer Institute, St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital Cancer Center Support, and the American Lebanese-Syrian Associated Charities. The authors reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Although people who survive a childhood cancer are at an increased risk of developing and dying from subsequent cancers, as well as heart disease and stroke, they can reduce this risk by following a healthy lifestyle, say U.S. investigators.

This message comes from a retrospective analysis of more than 34,000 childhood cancer survivors, which found that 40 years after the initial cancer diagnosis, the cumulative all-cause mortality rate was 23.3%, compared with less than 5% in the general population.

However, following a healthy lifestyle was associated with a 20% reduction in health-related mortality, independent of other factors, the analysis showed. This rose even further, up to a 30% reduction, among individuals who did not have hypertension or diabetes.

The study was published online  in The Lancet.

“We identified that long-term survivors of childhood cancer are experiencing a large number of deaths in excess of what would be expected for the general, aging population,” first author Stephanie Dixon, MD, MPH, oncology department, St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital, Memphis, Tenn., said in a press release.

“These excess deaths are predominantly due to the same leading causes of death as in the general population,” including subsequent cancers, heart disease, cerebrovascular disease/stroke, chronic liver and kidney disease, and infectious diseases, she noted. However, in these childhood cancer survivors they are occurring “at a younger age and higher rate.”

“What was most exciting to see,” Dr. Dixon added, “was that, independent of prior treatment exposures and sociodemographic factors, a healthy lifestyle and absence of hypertension or diabetes were each associated with a reduced risk of health-related mortality.”

“This is important because our goal is to extend the life span of survivors and to improve their ‘health span’ as well,” said senior author Greg Armstrong, MD, MSCE, chair of the department of epidemiology and cancer control at St. Jude.

As such, “the study highlights the importance of encouraging survivors to practice healthy behaviors and maintain good control of cardiovascular disease risk factors,” emphasized coauthor Melissa M. Hudson, MD, director of the cancer survivorship division at St. Jude.

Future research should focus on interventions for modifiable lifestyle and cardiovascular risk factors that “may need to be specifically tailored to survivors, with the goal of reducing chronic disease development” and extending their lifespan, the researchers said.
 

Late effects of treatment

Childhood cancer has a tremendous success rate: In the United States, the 5-year survival rate is now more than 85%.

However, long-term survivors experience excess morbidity and late mortality compared with the general population, both of which are “attributable to late effects of treatment,” the team pointed out.

Their study focused on individuals who had been diagnosed with cancer before they were 21 years old and who had survived at least 5 years after the cancer diagnosis.

The median age at diagnosis was 6 years, and the most common diagnoses were acute lymphoblastic leukemia (36%), Hodgkin lymphoma (11%), astrocytoma (10%), and kidney tumors (8%).

The team identified 34,230 survivors who had been treated between Jan. 1, 1970, and Dec. 31, 1999, at 31 institutions in the United States and Canada.

They  represented approximately 20% of all childhood cancer survivors in the United States over the study period. The team noted that 56% of the survivors were male, and the majority (64%) were non-Hispanic White.

The date and causes of death through December 2017 were obtained via linkage to the National Death Index, and cancer treatment information was collated for 21,418 survivors who provided consent. Lifestyle factors – including smoking, alcohol use, physical activity, and unhealthy weight – were graded on a score of 0-4.

Over a median follow-up of 29.1 years, there were 5,916 deaths, with 34% attributable to the recurrence or progression of the primary cancer, and 51.2% attributable to other causes, such as subsequent neoplasms, and cardiac, pulmonary, and other health-related causes.

Overall, survivors were at an elevated risk of death compared with the general population, at a standardized mortality ratio of 5.6. This ratio peaked at 5-9 years after diagnosis at an 18.1-fold increased risk of death compared with the general population.

Forty years or more from the initial diagnosis, two-thirds of the 131 per 10,000 person-years excess deaths from health-related causes were due to the top three causes of health-related death in the general population, the team reported.

This included an absolute excess risk of death from cancer of 54 per 10,000 person-years, an excess risk of heart disease mortality of 27 per 10,000 person-years, and an excess risk of cerebrovascular disease mortality of 10 per 10,000 person-years.

The individual cases of death contributing the greatest excess risk were gastrointestinal cancers (11 per 10,000 person-years), cerebrovascular disease (10 per 10,000 person-years), ischemic heart disease (10 per 10,000 person-years), and valvular heart disease (9 per 10,000 person-years).

The good news is that following a healthy lifestyle was associated with a 20% reduction in health-related mortality versus an unhealthy lifestyle (P = .0020).

Moreover, following even a moderately healthy lifestyle was associated with a 10% reduction in health-related mortality, the researchers noted.

The study was supported by grants from the National Cancer Institute, St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital Cancer Center Support, and the American Lebanese-Syrian Associated Charities. The authors reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Although people who survive a childhood cancer are at an increased risk of developing and dying from subsequent cancers, as well as heart disease and stroke, they can reduce this risk by following a healthy lifestyle, say U.S. investigators.

This message comes from a retrospective analysis of more than 34,000 childhood cancer survivors, which found that 40 years after the initial cancer diagnosis, the cumulative all-cause mortality rate was 23.3%, compared with less than 5% in the general population.

However, following a healthy lifestyle was associated with a 20% reduction in health-related mortality, independent of other factors, the analysis showed. This rose even further, up to a 30% reduction, among individuals who did not have hypertension or diabetes.

The study was published online  in The Lancet.

“We identified that long-term survivors of childhood cancer are experiencing a large number of deaths in excess of what would be expected for the general, aging population,” first author Stephanie Dixon, MD, MPH, oncology department, St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital, Memphis, Tenn., said in a press release.

“These excess deaths are predominantly due to the same leading causes of death as in the general population,” including subsequent cancers, heart disease, cerebrovascular disease/stroke, chronic liver and kidney disease, and infectious diseases, she noted. However, in these childhood cancer survivors they are occurring “at a younger age and higher rate.”

“What was most exciting to see,” Dr. Dixon added, “was that, independent of prior treatment exposures and sociodemographic factors, a healthy lifestyle and absence of hypertension or diabetes were each associated with a reduced risk of health-related mortality.”

“This is important because our goal is to extend the life span of survivors and to improve their ‘health span’ as well,” said senior author Greg Armstrong, MD, MSCE, chair of the department of epidemiology and cancer control at St. Jude.

As such, “the study highlights the importance of encouraging survivors to practice healthy behaviors and maintain good control of cardiovascular disease risk factors,” emphasized coauthor Melissa M. Hudson, MD, director of the cancer survivorship division at St. Jude.

Future research should focus on interventions for modifiable lifestyle and cardiovascular risk factors that “may need to be specifically tailored to survivors, with the goal of reducing chronic disease development” and extending their lifespan, the researchers said.
 

Late effects of treatment

Childhood cancer has a tremendous success rate: In the United States, the 5-year survival rate is now more than 85%.

However, long-term survivors experience excess morbidity and late mortality compared with the general population, both of which are “attributable to late effects of treatment,” the team pointed out.

Their study focused on individuals who had been diagnosed with cancer before they were 21 years old and who had survived at least 5 years after the cancer diagnosis.

The median age at diagnosis was 6 years, and the most common diagnoses were acute lymphoblastic leukemia (36%), Hodgkin lymphoma (11%), astrocytoma (10%), and kidney tumors (8%).

The team identified 34,230 survivors who had been treated between Jan. 1, 1970, and Dec. 31, 1999, at 31 institutions in the United States and Canada.

They  represented approximately 20% of all childhood cancer survivors in the United States over the study period. The team noted that 56% of the survivors were male, and the majority (64%) were non-Hispanic White.

The date and causes of death through December 2017 were obtained via linkage to the National Death Index, and cancer treatment information was collated for 21,418 survivors who provided consent. Lifestyle factors – including smoking, alcohol use, physical activity, and unhealthy weight – were graded on a score of 0-4.

Over a median follow-up of 29.1 years, there were 5,916 deaths, with 34% attributable to the recurrence or progression of the primary cancer, and 51.2% attributable to other causes, such as subsequent neoplasms, and cardiac, pulmonary, and other health-related causes.

Overall, survivors were at an elevated risk of death compared with the general population, at a standardized mortality ratio of 5.6. This ratio peaked at 5-9 years after diagnosis at an 18.1-fold increased risk of death compared with the general population.

Forty years or more from the initial diagnosis, two-thirds of the 131 per 10,000 person-years excess deaths from health-related causes were due to the top three causes of health-related death in the general population, the team reported.

This included an absolute excess risk of death from cancer of 54 per 10,000 person-years, an excess risk of heart disease mortality of 27 per 10,000 person-years, and an excess risk of cerebrovascular disease mortality of 10 per 10,000 person-years.

The individual cases of death contributing the greatest excess risk were gastrointestinal cancers (11 per 10,000 person-years), cerebrovascular disease (10 per 10,000 person-years), ischemic heart disease (10 per 10,000 person-years), and valvular heart disease (9 per 10,000 person-years).

The good news is that following a healthy lifestyle was associated with a 20% reduction in health-related mortality versus an unhealthy lifestyle (P = .0020).

Moreover, following even a moderately healthy lifestyle was associated with a 10% reduction in health-related mortality, the researchers noted.

The study was supported by grants from the National Cancer Institute, St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital Cancer Center Support, and the American Lebanese-Syrian Associated Charities. The authors reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

A new analysis suggests that the initial target of therapy – lung or brain – doesn’t affect overall survival rates in patients with non–small cell lung cancer that has spread to the brain.

“The findings of our study highlight the importance of adopting a personalized, case-based approach when treating each patient” instead of always treating the brain or lung first, lead author Arvind Kumar, a medical student at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said in an interview.

The study was released at European Lung Cancer Congress 2023.

According to the author, current guidelines recommend treating the brain first in patients with non–small cell lung cancer and a tumor that has spread to the brain.

“Determining whether the brain or body gets treated first depends on where the symptoms are coming from, how severe the symptoms are, how bulky the disease is, and how long the treatment to each is expected to take,” radiation oncologist Henry S. Park, MD, MPH, chief of the thoracic radiotherapy program at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., said in an interview. “Often the brain is treated first since surgery is used for both diagnosis of metastatic disease as well as removal of the brain metastasis, especially if it is causing symptoms. The radiosurgery that follows tends to occur within a day or a few days.”

However, he said, “if the brain disease is small and not causing symptoms, and the lung disease is more problematic, then we will often treat the body first and fit in the brain treatment later.”

For the new study, researchers identified 1,044 patients in the National Cancer Database with non–small cell lung cancer and brain metastases who received systemic therapy plus surgery, brain stereotactic radiosurgery, or lung radiation. All were treated from 2010 to 2019; 79.0% received brain treatment first, and the other 21.0% received lung treatment first.

There was no statistically significant difference in overall survival between those whose brains were treated first and those whose lungs were treated first (hazard ratio, 1.24, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.91-1.70, P = .17). A propensity score–matched analysis turned up no difference in 5-year survival (38.2% of those whose brains were treated first, 95% CI, 27.5-34.4, vs. 38.0% of those whose lungs were treated first, 95% CI, 29.9-44.7, P = .32.)

“These results were consistent regardless of which combination of treatment modalities the patient received – neurosurgery versus brain stereotactic radiosurgery, thoracic surgery versus thoracic radiation,” the author said.

He cautioned that “our study only included patients who were considered candidates for either surgery or radiation to both the brain and lung. The results of our study should therefore be cautiously interpreted for patients who may have contraindications to such treatment.”

Dr. Park, who didn’t take part in the study, said “the results are consistent with what I would generally expect.”

He added: “The take-home message for clinicians should be that there is no one correct answer in how to manage non–small cell lung cancer with synchronous limited metastatic disease in only the brain. If the brain disease is bulky and/or causes symptoms while the body disease isn’t – or if a biopsy or surgery is required to prove that the patient in fact has metastatic disease – then the brain disease should be treated first. On the other hand, if the body disease is bulky and/or causing symptoms while the brain disease isn’t – and there is no need for surgery but rather only a biopsy of the brain – then the body disease can be treated first.”

No funding was reported. The study authors and Dr. Park reported no financial conflicts or other disclosures.

A new analysis suggests that the initial target of therapy – lung or brain – doesn’t affect overall survival rates in patients with non–small cell lung cancer that has spread to the brain.

“The findings of our study highlight the importance of adopting a personalized, case-based approach when treating each patient” instead of always treating the brain or lung first, lead author Arvind Kumar, a medical student at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said in an interview.

The study was released at European Lung Cancer Congress 2023.

According to the author, current guidelines recommend treating the brain first in patients with non–small cell lung cancer and a tumor that has spread to the brain.

“Determining whether the brain or body gets treated first depends on where the symptoms are coming from, how severe the symptoms are, how bulky the disease is, and how long the treatment to each is expected to take,” radiation oncologist Henry S. Park, MD, MPH, chief of the thoracic radiotherapy program at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., said in an interview. “Often the brain is treated first since surgery is used for both diagnosis of metastatic disease as well as removal of the brain metastasis, especially if it is causing symptoms. The radiosurgery that follows tends to occur within a day or a few days.”

However, he said, “if the brain disease is small and not causing symptoms, and the lung disease is more problematic, then we will often treat the body first and fit in the brain treatment later.”

For the new study, researchers identified 1,044 patients in the National Cancer Database with non–small cell lung cancer and brain metastases who received systemic therapy plus surgery, brain stereotactic radiosurgery, or lung radiation. All were treated from 2010 to 2019; 79.0% received brain treatment first, and the other 21.0% received lung treatment first.

There was no statistically significant difference in overall survival between those whose brains were treated first and those whose lungs were treated first (hazard ratio, 1.24, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.91-1.70, P = .17). A propensity score–matched analysis turned up no difference in 5-year survival (38.2% of those whose brains were treated first, 95% CI, 27.5-34.4, vs. 38.0% of those whose lungs were treated first, 95% CI, 29.9-44.7, P = .32.)

“These results were consistent regardless of which combination of treatment modalities the patient received – neurosurgery versus brain stereotactic radiosurgery, thoracic surgery versus thoracic radiation,” the author said.

He cautioned that “our study only included patients who were considered candidates for either surgery or radiation to both the brain and lung. The results of our study should therefore be cautiously interpreted for patients who may have contraindications to such treatment.”

Dr. Park, who didn’t take part in the study, said “the results are consistent with what I would generally expect.”

He added: “The take-home message for clinicians should be that there is no one correct answer in how to manage non–small cell lung cancer with synchronous limited metastatic disease in only the brain. If the brain disease is bulky and/or causes symptoms while the body disease isn’t – or if a biopsy or surgery is required to prove that the patient in fact has metastatic disease – then the brain disease should be treated first. On the other hand, if the body disease is bulky and/or causing symptoms while the brain disease isn’t – and there is no need for surgery but rather only a biopsy of the brain – then the body disease can be treated first.”

No funding was reported. The study authors and Dr. Park reported no financial conflicts or other disclosures.

A new analysis suggests that the initial target of therapy – lung or brain – doesn’t affect overall survival rates in patients with non–small cell lung cancer that has spread to the brain.

“The findings of our study highlight the importance of adopting a personalized, case-based approach when treating each patient” instead of always treating the brain or lung first, lead author Arvind Kumar, a medical student at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said in an interview.

The study was released at European Lung Cancer Congress 2023.

According to the author, current guidelines recommend treating the brain first in patients with non–small cell lung cancer and a tumor that has spread to the brain.

“Determining whether the brain or body gets treated first depends on where the symptoms are coming from, how severe the symptoms are, how bulky the disease is, and how long the treatment to each is expected to take,” radiation oncologist Henry S. Park, MD, MPH, chief of the thoracic radiotherapy program at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., said in an interview. “Often the brain is treated first since surgery is used for both diagnosis of metastatic disease as well as removal of the brain metastasis, especially if it is causing symptoms. The radiosurgery that follows tends to occur within a day or a few days.”

However, he said, “if the brain disease is small and not causing symptoms, and the lung disease is more problematic, then we will often treat the body first and fit in the brain treatment later.”

For the new study, researchers identified 1,044 patients in the National Cancer Database with non–small cell lung cancer and brain metastases who received systemic therapy plus surgery, brain stereotactic radiosurgery, or lung radiation. All were treated from 2010 to 2019; 79.0% received brain treatment first, and the other 21.0% received lung treatment first.

There was no statistically significant difference in overall survival between those whose brains were treated first and those whose lungs were treated first (hazard ratio, 1.24, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.91-1.70, P = .17). A propensity score–matched analysis turned up no difference in 5-year survival (38.2% of those whose brains were treated first, 95% CI, 27.5-34.4, vs. 38.0% of those whose lungs were treated first, 95% CI, 29.9-44.7, P = .32.)

“These results were consistent regardless of which combination of treatment modalities the patient received – neurosurgery versus brain stereotactic radiosurgery, thoracic surgery versus thoracic radiation,” the author said.

He cautioned that “our study only included patients who were considered candidates for either surgery or radiation to both the brain and lung. The results of our study should therefore be cautiously interpreted for patients who may have contraindications to such treatment.”

Dr. Park, who didn’t take part in the study, said “the results are consistent with what I would generally expect.”

He added: “The take-home message for clinicians should be that there is no one correct answer in how to manage non–small cell lung cancer with synchronous limited metastatic disease in only the brain. If the brain disease is bulky and/or causes symptoms while the body disease isn’t – or if a biopsy or surgery is required to prove that the patient in fact has metastatic disease – then the brain disease should be treated first. On the other hand, if the body disease is bulky and/or causing symptoms while the brain disease isn’t – and there is no need for surgery but rather only a biopsy of the brain – then the body disease can be treated first.”

No funding was reported. The study authors and Dr. Park reported no financial conflicts or other disclosures.