AVAHO

When treating early-stage breast cancer, decisions made on age alone can miss the mark, say researchers reporting new data showing a sharp cut-off at age 70.

“In our study, one of the most significant variables in determining whether breast cancer patients who are close their 70th birthday are recommended standard-of-care radiation or de-escalated treatment is whether they show up a few months before or a few months after that 70th birthday,” commented study author Wesley J. Talcott, MD, of the department of therapeutic radiology at the Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Conn.

The results show a trend in which radiation therapy is 50% less likely to be prescribed for patients age 70 and older with early-stage breast cancer, even when controlling for population size, patient demographics, and disease specific variables.

This suggests that oncologists are weighing the variable of age too heavily when deciding on adjuvant treatments, the authors suggest.

“In certain circumstances, breast cancer oncology providers are treating age like a binary categorical variable when selecting patients for treatments or diagnostic procedures, rather than the continuous variable that it is,” Dr. Talcott commented.

The study was published online in the International Journal of Radiation Oncology: Biology, Physics.

Approached for comment, Casey Chollet-Lipscomb, MD, radiation oncologist with Tennessee Oncology, Nashville, who was not associated with the study, agreed with its main finding.

“The study helps emphasize the importance of individualized care,” she said. “Increasing age is the most common risk factor for breast cancer, but breast cancer is an incredibly diverse disease. While you can observe trends based on age, every patient is unique, and they can’t be lumped into one bucket and prescribed treatment based on a strict age cutoff.”

The retrospective study included two cohorts of women identified in the National Cancer Data Base (2004-2017) all of whom underwent lumpectomy for early-stage breast cancer. All patients had “strong indications” for adjuvant treatment.

Patients in cohort 1 (n = 160,990) included women with estrogen-receptor negative cancer, tumor size greater than 3 cm, who were determined to be “appropriate” for radiation therapy.

Patients in cohort 2 (n = 394,946) had hormone-receptor positive cancer, tumor size greater than 5 mm, and were considered to be “appropriate” candidates for endocrine therapy.

Multivariable analysis was performed to control for comorbidity burden (measured by the Charlson-Deyo Comorbidity Index), race and ethnicity, insurance status, academic versus non-academic treatment center, median annual income of a patient’s area of residence, distance from the site of treatment, and pathology variables including number of lymph nodes sampled, histologic grade, and genomic risk score.

In cohort 1, radiation was recommended for 90%-92% of patients between the ages of 50-69; this dropped to 81% for those aged 70.

After MVA, it was determined that age difference was an independent predictor for adjuvant radiation recommendation only at age 70 versus 69 (odds ratio, 0.47; 95% confidence interval 0.39-0.57, P < .001).

For cohort 2, year-over-year age difference predicted endocrine therapy recommendation only at the juncture between age 70 versus 69 (OR, 0.86, 95% CI 0.74-0.99, P = .001).

“Our results don’t say that we should be increasing the amount of treatment for patients over the age [of] 70 or decreasing that patient treatment for patients younger than age 70. What we believe is that we need to be assessing physiologic age of our patients when treating patients,” Dr. Talcott said.

“We would do this by looking at not just how many years a patient has been on this Earth but also what their current health status is, how many good quality-of-life years they might have after treatment or without it, and what the patient wants in terms of burden of treatment. This is a much more valuable way to approach the allocation of treatments than using age alone,” he added.

Both Dr. Talcott and Dr. Chollet-Lipscomb agreed that a limitation of the study was a lack of data on how physicians decided on a specific treatment in each individual case, but they agree that even without this information the results were “significant.”

Dr. Chollet-Lipscomb also highlighted the factors other than age she would use to determine the best adjuvant treatment for a patient with early stage breast cancer, including the individual features of the tumor, how aggressive it looks under the microscope, what the receptor status is, and a patient’s overall performance status and comorbidities.

Dr. Talcott and Dr. Chollet-Lipscomb report no relevant financial relationships. The authors had no acknowledgement of research support for this study.

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

When treating early-stage breast cancer, decisions made on age alone can miss the mark, say researchers reporting new data showing a sharp cut-off at age 70.

“In our study, one of the most significant variables in determining whether breast cancer patients who are close their 70th birthday are recommended standard-of-care radiation or de-escalated treatment is whether they show up a few months before or a few months after that 70th birthday,” commented study author Wesley J. Talcott, MD, of the department of therapeutic radiology at the Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Conn.

The results show a trend in which radiation therapy is 50% less likely to be prescribed for patients age 70 and older with early-stage breast cancer, even when controlling for population size, patient demographics, and disease specific variables.

This suggests that oncologists are weighing the variable of age too heavily when deciding on adjuvant treatments, the authors suggest.

“In certain circumstances, breast cancer oncology providers are treating age like a binary categorical variable when selecting patients for treatments or diagnostic procedures, rather than the continuous variable that it is,” Dr. Talcott commented.

The study was published online in the International Journal of Radiation Oncology: Biology, Physics.

Approached for comment, Casey Chollet-Lipscomb, MD, radiation oncologist with Tennessee Oncology, Nashville, who was not associated with the study, agreed with its main finding.

“The study helps emphasize the importance of individualized care,” she said. “Increasing age is the most common risk factor for breast cancer, but breast cancer is an incredibly diverse disease. While you can observe trends based on age, every patient is unique, and they can’t be lumped into one bucket and prescribed treatment based on a strict age cutoff.”

The retrospective study included two cohorts of women identified in the National Cancer Data Base (2004-2017) all of whom underwent lumpectomy for early-stage breast cancer. All patients had “strong indications” for adjuvant treatment.

Patients in cohort 1 (n = 160,990) included women with estrogen-receptor negative cancer, tumor size greater than 3 cm, who were determined to be “appropriate” for radiation therapy.

Patients in cohort 2 (n = 394,946) had hormone-receptor positive cancer, tumor size greater than 5 mm, and were considered to be “appropriate” candidates for endocrine therapy.

Multivariable analysis was performed to control for comorbidity burden (measured by the Charlson-Deyo Comorbidity Index), race and ethnicity, insurance status, academic versus non-academic treatment center, median annual income of a patient’s area of residence, distance from the site of treatment, and pathology variables including number of lymph nodes sampled, histologic grade, and genomic risk score.

In cohort 1, radiation was recommended for 90%-92% of patients between the ages of 50-69; this dropped to 81% for those aged 70.

After MVA, it was determined that age difference was an independent predictor for adjuvant radiation recommendation only at age 70 versus 69 (odds ratio, 0.47; 95% confidence interval 0.39-0.57, P < .001).

For cohort 2, year-over-year age difference predicted endocrine therapy recommendation only at the juncture between age 70 versus 69 (OR, 0.86, 95% CI 0.74-0.99, P = .001).

“Our results don’t say that we should be increasing the amount of treatment for patients over the age [of] 70 or decreasing that patient treatment for patients younger than age 70. What we believe is that we need to be assessing physiologic age of our patients when treating patients,” Dr. Talcott said.

“We would do this by looking at not just how many years a patient has been on this Earth but also what their current health status is, how many good quality-of-life years they might have after treatment or without it, and what the patient wants in terms of burden of treatment. This is a much more valuable way to approach the allocation of treatments than using age alone,” he added.

Both Dr. Talcott and Dr. Chollet-Lipscomb agreed that a limitation of the study was a lack of data on how physicians decided on a specific treatment in each individual case, but they agree that even without this information the results were “significant.”

Dr. Chollet-Lipscomb also highlighted the factors other than age she would use to determine the best adjuvant treatment for a patient with early stage breast cancer, including the individual features of the tumor, how aggressive it looks under the microscope, what the receptor status is, and a patient’s overall performance status and comorbidities.

Dr. Talcott and Dr. Chollet-Lipscomb report no relevant financial relationships. The authors had no acknowledgement of research support for this study.

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

When treating early-stage breast cancer, decisions made on age alone can miss the mark, say researchers reporting new data showing a sharp cut-off at age 70.

“In our study, one of the most significant variables in determining whether breast cancer patients who are close their 70th birthday are recommended standard-of-care radiation or de-escalated treatment is whether they show up a few months before or a few months after that 70th birthday,” commented study author Wesley J. Talcott, MD, of the department of therapeutic radiology at the Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Conn.

The results show a trend in which radiation therapy is 50% less likely to be prescribed for patients age 70 and older with early-stage breast cancer, even when controlling for population size, patient demographics, and disease specific variables.

This suggests that oncologists are weighing the variable of age too heavily when deciding on adjuvant treatments, the authors suggest.

“In certain circumstances, breast cancer oncology providers are treating age like a binary categorical variable when selecting patients for treatments or diagnostic procedures, rather than the continuous variable that it is,” Dr. Talcott commented.

The study was published online in the International Journal of Radiation Oncology: Biology, Physics.

Approached for comment, Casey Chollet-Lipscomb, MD, radiation oncologist with Tennessee Oncology, Nashville, who was not associated with the study, agreed with its main finding.

“The study helps emphasize the importance of individualized care,” she said. “Increasing age is the most common risk factor for breast cancer, but breast cancer is an incredibly diverse disease. While you can observe trends based on age, every patient is unique, and they can’t be lumped into one bucket and prescribed treatment based on a strict age cutoff.”

The retrospective study included two cohorts of women identified in the National Cancer Data Base (2004-2017) all of whom underwent lumpectomy for early-stage breast cancer. All patients had “strong indications” for adjuvant treatment.

Patients in cohort 1 (n = 160,990) included women with estrogen-receptor negative cancer, tumor size greater than 3 cm, who were determined to be “appropriate” for radiation therapy.

Patients in cohort 2 (n = 394,946) had hormone-receptor positive cancer, tumor size greater than 5 mm, and were considered to be “appropriate” candidates for endocrine therapy.

Multivariable analysis was performed to control for comorbidity burden (measured by the Charlson-Deyo Comorbidity Index), race and ethnicity, insurance status, academic versus non-academic treatment center, median annual income of a patient’s area of residence, distance from the site of treatment, and pathology variables including number of lymph nodes sampled, histologic grade, and genomic risk score.

In cohort 1, radiation was recommended for 90%-92% of patients between the ages of 50-69; this dropped to 81% for those aged 70.

After MVA, it was determined that age difference was an independent predictor for adjuvant radiation recommendation only at age 70 versus 69 (odds ratio, 0.47; 95% confidence interval 0.39-0.57, P < .001).

For cohort 2, year-over-year age difference predicted endocrine therapy recommendation only at the juncture between age 70 versus 69 (OR, 0.86, 95% CI 0.74-0.99, P = .001).

“Our results don’t say that we should be increasing the amount of treatment for patients over the age [of] 70 or decreasing that patient treatment for patients younger than age 70. What we believe is that we need to be assessing physiologic age of our patients when treating patients,” Dr. Talcott said.

“We would do this by looking at not just how many years a patient has been on this Earth but also what their current health status is, how many good quality-of-life years they might have after treatment or without it, and what the patient wants in terms of burden of treatment. This is a much more valuable way to approach the allocation of treatments than using age alone,” he added.

Both Dr. Talcott and Dr. Chollet-Lipscomb agreed that a limitation of the study was a lack of data on how physicians decided on a specific treatment in each individual case, but they agree that even without this information the results were “significant.”

Dr. Chollet-Lipscomb also highlighted the factors other than age she would use to determine the best adjuvant treatment for a patient with early stage breast cancer, including the individual features of the tumor, how aggressive it looks under the microscope, what the receptor status is, and a patient’s overall performance status and comorbidities.

Dr. Talcott and Dr. Chollet-Lipscomb report no relevant financial relationships. The authors had no acknowledgement of research support for this study.

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

For patients with early stage non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), the survival outcomes can be just as good with sublobar resection as with the more invasive lobar resection, suggest results from the CALGB 140503 trial, although strict patient selection remains key.

These new results contrast with those from a previous study from 1995, which found that local recurrence was three times higher and cancer mortality was twice as high with the less invasive procedure.

Those results from nearly 30 years ago established lobectomy as the standard of surgical care in this patient population, but since then advances in imaging and staging have allowed the detection of smaller and earlier tumors, which has “rekindled interest in sublobar resection,” the authors comment.

Hence, they conducted the new trial, which involved almost 700 U.S. patients with clinical T1aN0 NSCLC and a tumor size up to 2 cm, who were randomly assigned to lobar or sublobar tumor resection, and followed for 7 years.

The rates of both disease-free and overall survival were similar between the two groups, with no significant differences observed. There were also no substantial differences in rates of distant and locoregional recurrence.

In addition, there was a suggestion of less reduction in pulmonary function following the less invasive procedure.

“These findings affirm that sublobar resection ... is an effective management approach for this subgroup of patients with NSCLC,” says lead author Nasser Altorki, MD, Weill Cornell Medicine, NewYork–Presbyterian Hospital, New York.

“It is important that these results are interpreted strictly within the constraints of the eligibility criteria mandated by the trial, he emphasizes. “Specifically, the results are applicable only to a highly selected group of patients ... in whom the absence of metastases to hilar and mediastinal lymph nodes is pathologically confirmed.”

Nevertheless, Dr. Altorki said that “these results will become increasingly relevant as the proportion of patients with early-stage lung cancer increases with expanded implementation of lung cancer screening, and as the number of older persons with early-stage disease in whom sublobar resection may be the preferred surgical option increases.”

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

In an accompanying editorial, Valerie W. Rusch, MD, Thoracic Service, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, agrees. “As CT screening becomes more widespread, this patient population will increase in clinical practice,” she explains.

However, Dr. Rusch also urges caution around patient selection, underlining that the results do not “provide a license for suboptimal surgical care.”

She says that “safeguards” such as the meticulous and strict patient criteria used in the trial “must be preserved in routine practice.”

“Thoracic surgeons will need to expand their expertise in sublobar resections, especially complex segmentectomies, and will need to collaborate closely with pathologists in assessing margins of resection, adequacy of lymph-node staging, and tumor characteristics that may predict recurrence.”

While emphasizing that lobectomy should still be performed when appropriate, Dr. Rusch nevertheless says: “The era of ‘precision’ surgery for NSCLC has arrived.”


 

Consistent with Japanese results

The investigators also point out that their findings are “consistent” with those of a recent Japanese study that compared lobectomy with anatomical segmentectomy, which found that the 5-year overall survival was 91.1% for lobectomy and 94.3% for segmentectomy.

The authors suggest that the difference in overall survival rates between the two trials might be due to anatomical segmentectomy being “considered by most surgeons to be more oncologically sound than wedge resection.”

In the current trial, wedge resection was allowed, however, “because it is the most frequently practiced method of sublobar resection in North America and Europe; thus, its inclusion would make the trial more representative of a ‘real world’ setting.”

Another important difference could be that more than 90% of the patients in the Japanese trial had adenocarcinoma, 45% with an associated ground-glass component, which is associated with better survival than a completely solid adenocarcinoma.

Dr. Rusch agrees that there are likely to be various factors related to the survival differences between the two trials, including patient selection, intraoperative management, and tumor characteristics.

“However, these two landmark trials are practice-changing because they establish sublobar resection as the standard of care for a select group of patients with NSCLC,” Dr. Rusch concluded.
 

Study details

Dr. Altorki and colleagues conducted the multicenter, international, randomized, noninferiority, phase 3 trial in patients with clinically staged T1aN0 NSCLC from 83 academic and community-based institutions in the United States, Canada, and Australia.

Patients were required to have a peripheral lung nodule with a solid component of up to 2 cm on preoperative CT, a tumor center in the outer third of the lung, and a tumor location amenable to sublobar resection, whether wedge or segment, or lobar resection, among other criteria.

In all, 697 patients were randomly assigned to undergo either lobar resection or sublobar resection, of whom 59.1% had wedge resection and 37.9% anatomical segmental resection. The median age was 67.9 years, and 57.4% were female. The vast majority (90%) were White.

After a median follow-up of 7 years, the 5-year disease-free survival was 63.6% with sublobar resection and 64.1% following lobar resection.

The team found that sublobar resection was not inferior to lobectomy for disease-free survival, at a hazard ratio for disease recurrence or death of 1.01 (90% confidence interval, 0.83-1.24), which adjusted to 0.99 after taking into account the site where the patient was treated.

The 5-year overall survival rate was 80.3% after sublobar resection, and 78.9% following lobar resection, at a hazard ratio for death of 0.95 (95% CI, 0.72-1.26).

The results were “generally consistent” when accounting for factors such as age group, sex, tumor location, histologic type, smoking history, tumor size, and ECOG performance status, the team says.

Turning to recurrence, they showed that, among 687 patients eligible for assessment, 30.4% of those in the sublobar resection group and 29.3% of those assigned to lobar resection experienced disease recurrence, with 13.4% and 10%, respectively, having locoregional recurrence.

An exploratory analysis indicated that 5-year recurrence-free survival was similar in the two groups, at 70.2% vs. 71.2% or a hazard ratio for recurrence of 1.05 (95% CI, 0.80-1.39). The cumulative incidence of death was also similar.

It was also notable that reduction in predictive forced expiratory volume in 1 second from baseline was lower with sublobar than lobar resection, at –4.0 vs. –6.0, as was the reduction in predicted forced vital capacity, at –3.0 vs. –5.0.

“Although this difference is arguably not clinically meaningful in this patient population with normal baseline pulmonary functions,” the team writes, “it may be more clinically relevant in patients with compromised pulmonary functions, or in those with lower-lobe disease in whom lobar resection may be associated with greater impairment of pulmonary function.”

Dr. Rusch suggests that “more sensitive or functional assessments” of pulmonary function might include “diffusion capacity and 6-minute walk tests,” although she noted that even short-term differences in pulmonary function “may affect perioperative and functional outcomes, especially for tumors in the lower lobe.”

The study was supported by the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health, including via grants to the Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology and the Canadian Cancer Trials Group, and supported in part by Covidien and Ethicon.

Dr. Altorki reports relationships with AstraZeneca, Genentech, Johnson & Johnson, and Regeneron. Dr. Rusch reports relationships with Cancer Research UK, Genentech, and the National Cancer Institute.

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

For patients with early stage non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), the survival outcomes can be just as good with sublobar resection as with the more invasive lobar resection, suggest results from the CALGB 140503 trial, although strict patient selection remains key.

These new results contrast with those from a previous study from 1995, which found that local recurrence was three times higher and cancer mortality was twice as high with the less invasive procedure.

Those results from nearly 30 years ago established lobectomy as the standard of surgical care in this patient population, but since then advances in imaging and staging have allowed the detection of smaller and earlier tumors, which has “rekindled interest in sublobar resection,” the authors comment.

Hence, they conducted the new trial, which involved almost 700 U.S. patients with clinical T1aN0 NSCLC and a tumor size up to 2 cm, who were randomly assigned to lobar or sublobar tumor resection, and followed for 7 years.

The rates of both disease-free and overall survival were similar between the two groups, with no significant differences observed. There were also no substantial differences in rates of distant and locoregional recurrence.

In addition, there was a suggestion of less reduction in pulmonary function following the less invasive procedure.

“These findings affirm that sublobar resection ... is an effective management approach for this subgroup of patients with NSCLC,” says lead author Nasser Altorki, MD, Weill Cornell Medicine, NewYork–Presbyterian Hospital, New York.

“It is important that these results are interpreted strictly within the constraints of the eligibility criteria mandated by the trial, he emphasizes. “Specifically, the results are applicable only to a highly selected group of patients ... in whom the absence of metastases to hilar and mediastinal lymph nodes is pathologically confirmed.”

Nevertheless, Dr. Altorki said that “these results will become increasingly relevant as the proportion of patients with early-stage lung cancer increases with expanded implementation of lung cancer screening, and as the number of older persons with early-stage disease in whom sublobar resection may be the preferred surgical option increases.”

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

In an accompanying editorial, Valerie W. Rusch, MD, Thoracic Service, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, agrees. “As CT screening becomes more widespread, this patient population will increase in clinical practice,” she explains.

However, Dr. Rusch also urges caution around patient selection, underlining that the results do not “provide a license for suboptimal surgical care.”

She says that “safeguards” such as the meticulous and strict patient criteria used in the trial “must be preserved in routine practice.”

“Thoracic surgeons will need to expand their expertise in sublobar resections, especially complex segmentectomies, and will need to collaborate closely with pathologists in assessing margins of resection, adequacy of lymph-node staging, and tumor characteristics that may predict recurrence.”

While emphasizing that lobectomy should still be performed when appropriate, Dr. Rusch nevertheless says: “The era of ‘precision’ surgery for NSCLC has arrived.”


 

Consistent with Japanese results

The investigators also point out that their findings are “consistent” with those of a recent Japanese study that compared lobectomy with anatomical segmentectomy, which found that the 5-year overall survival was 91.1% for lobectomy and 94.3% for segmentectomy.

The authors suggest that the difference in overall survival rates between the two trials might be due to anatomical segmentectomy being “considered by most surgeons to be more oncologically sound than wedge resection.”

In the current trial, wedge resection was allowed, however, “because it is the most frequently practiced method of sublobar resection in North America and Europe; thus, its inclusion would make the trial more representative of a ‘real world’ setting.”

Another important difference could be that more than 90% of the patients in the Japanese trial had adenocarcinoma, 45% with an associated ground-glass component, which is associated with better survival than a completely solid adenocarcinoma.

Dr. Rusch agrees that there are likely to be various factors related to the survival differences between the two trials, including patient selection, intraoperative management, and tumor characteristics.

“However, these two landmark trials are practice-changing because they establish sublobar resection as the standard of care for a select group of patients with NSCLC,” Dr. Rusch concluded.
 

Study details

Dr. Altorki and colleagues conducted the multicenter, international, randomized, noninferiority, phase 3 trial in patients with clinically staged T1aN0 NSCLC from 83 academic and community-based institutions in the United States, Canada, and Australia.

Patients were required to have a peripheral lung nodule with a solid component of up to 2 cm on preoperative CT, a tumor center in the outer third of the lung, and a tumor location amenable to sublobar resection, whether wedge or segment, or lobar resection, among other criteria.

In all, 697 patients were randomly assigned to undergo either lobar resection or sublobar resection, of whom 59.1% had wedge resection and 37.9% anatomical segmental resection. The median age was 67.9 years, and 57.4% were female. The vast majority (90%) were White.

After a median follow-up of 7 years, the 5-year disease-free survival was 63.6% with sublobar resection and 64.1% following lobar resection.

The team found that sublobar resection was not inferior to lobectomy for disease-free survival, at a hazard ratio for disease recurrence or death of 1.01 (90% confidence interval, 0.83-1.24), which adjusted to 0.99 after taking into account the site where the patient was treated.

The 5-year overall survival rate was 80.3% after sublobar resection, and 78.9% following lobar resection, at a hazard ratio for death of 0.95 (95% CI, 0.72-1.26).

The results were “generally consistent” when accounting for factors such as age group, sex, tumor location, histologic type, smoking history, tumor size, and ECOG performance status, the team says.

Turning to recurrence, they showed that, among 687 patients eligible for assessment, 30.4% of those in the sublobar resection group and 29.3% of those assigned to lobar resection experienced disease recurrence, with 13.4% and 10%, respectively, having locoregional recurrence.

An exploratory analysis indicated that 5-year recurrence-free survival was similar in the two groups, at 70.2% vs. 71.2% or a hazard ratio for recurrence of 1.05 (95% CI, 0.80-1.39). The cumulative incidence of death was also similar.

It was also notable that reduction in predictive forced expiratory volume in 1 second from baseline was lower with sublobar than lobar resection, at –4.0 vs. –6.0, as was the reduction in predicted forced vital capacity, at –3.0 vs. –5.0.

“Although this difference is arguably not clinically meaningful in this patient population with normal baseline pulmonary functions,” the team writes, “it may be more clinically relevant in patients with compromised pulmonary functions, or in those with lower-lobe disease in whom lobar resection may be associated with greater impairment of pulmonary function.”

Dr. Rusch suggests that “more sensitive or functional assessments” of pulmonary function might include “diffusion capacity and 6-minute walk tests,” although she noted that even short-term differences in pulmonary function “may affect perioperative and functional outcomes, especially for tumors in the lower lobe.”

The study was supported by the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health, including via grants to the Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology and the Canadian Cancer Trials Group, and supported in part by Covidien and Ethicon.

Dr. Altorki reports relationships with AstraZeneca, Genentech, Johnson & Johnson, and Regeneron. Dr. Rusch reports relationships with Cancer Research UK, Genentech, and the National Cancer Institute.

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

For patients with early stage non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), the survival outcomes can be just as good with sublobar resection as with the more invasive lobar resection, suggest results from the CALGB 140503 trial, although strict patient selection remains key.

These new results contrast with those from a previous study from 1995, which found that local recurrence was three times higher and cancer mortality was twice as high with the less invasive procedure.

Those results from nearly 30 years ago established lobectomy as the standard of surgical care in this patient population, but since then advances in imaging and staging have allowed the detection of smaller and earlier tumors, which has “rekindled interest in sublobar resection,” the authors comment.

Hence, they conducted the new trial, which involved almost 700 U.S. patients with clinical T1aN0 NSCLC and a tumor size up to 2 cm, who were randomly assigned to lobar or sublobar tumor resection, and followed for 7 years.

The rates of both disease-free and overall survival were similar between the two groups, with no significant differences observed. There were also no substantial differences in rates of distant and locoregional recurrence.

In addition, there was a suggestion of less reduction in pulmonary function following the less invasive procedure.

“These findings affirm that sublobar resection ... is an effective management approach for this subgroup of patients with NSCLC,” says lead author Nasser Altorki, MD, Weill Cornell Medicine, NewYork–Presbyterian Hospital, New York.

“It is important that these results are interpreted strictly within the constraints of the eligibility criteria mandated by the trial, he emphasizes. “Specifically, the results are applicable only to a highly selected group of patients ... in whom the absence of metastases to hilar and mediastinal lymph nodes is pathologically confirmed.”

Nevertheless, Dr. Altorki said that “these results will become increasingly relevant as the proportion of patients with early-stage lung cancer increases with expanded implementation of lung cancer screening, and as the number of older persons with early-stage disease in whom sublobar resection may be the preferred surgical option increases.”

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

In an accompanying editorial, Valerie W. Rusch, MD, Thoracic Service, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, agrees. “As CT screening becomes more widespread, this patient population will increase in clinical practice,” she explains.

However, Dr. Rusch also urges caution around patient selection, underlining that the results do not “provide a license for suboptimal surgical care.”

She says that “safeguards” such as the meticulous and strict patient criteria used in the trial “must be preserved in routine practice.”

“Thoracic surgeons will need to expand their expertise in sublobar resections, especially complex segmentectomies, and will need to collaborate closely with pathologists in assessing margins of resection, adequacy of lymph-node staging, and tumor characteristics that may predict recurrence.”

While emphasizing that lobectomy should still be performed when appropriate, Dr. Rusch nevertheless says: “The era of ‘precision’ surgery for NSCLC has arrived.”


 

Consistent with Japanese results

The investigators also point out that their findings are “consistent” with those of a recent Japanese study that compared lobectomy with anatomical segmentectomy, which found that the 5-year overall survival was 91.1% for lobectomy and 94.3% for segmentectomy.

The authors suggest that the difference in overall survival rates between the two trials might be due to anatomical segmentectomy being “considered by most surgeons to be more oncologically sound than wedge resection.”

In the current trial, wedge resection was allowed, however, “because it is the most frequently practiced method of sublobar resection in North America and Europe; thus, its inclusion would make the trial more representative of a ‘real world’ setting.”

Another important difference could be that more than 90% of the patients in the Japanese trial had adenocarcinoma, 45% with an associated ground-glass component, which is associated with better survival than a completely solid adenocarcinoma.

Dr. Rusch agrees that there are likely to be various factors related to the survival differences between the two trials, including patient selection, intraoperative management, and tumor characteristics.

“However, these two landmark trials are practice-changing because they establish sublobar resection as the standard of care for a select group of patients with NSCLC,” Dr. Rusch concluded.
 

Study details

Dr. Altorki and colleagues conducted the multicenter, international, randomized, noninferiority, phase 3 trial in patients with clinically staged T1aN0 NSCLC from 83 academic and community-based institutions in the United States, Canada, and Australia.

Patients were required to have a peripheral lung nodule with a solid component of up to 2 cm on preoperative CT, a tumor center in the outer third of the lung, and a tumor location amenable to sublobar resection, whether wedge or segment, or lobar resection, among other criteria.

In all, 697 patients were randomly assigned to undergo either lobar resection or sublobar resection, of whom 59.1% had wedge resection and 37.9% anatomical segmental resection. The median age was 67.9 years, and 57.4% were female. The vast majority (90%) were White.

After a median follow-up of 7 years, the 5-year disease-free survival was 63.6% with sublobar resection and 64.1% following lobar resection.

The team found that sublobar resection was not inferior to lobectomy for disease-free survival, at a hazard ratio for disease recurrence or death of 1.01 (90% confidence interval, 0.83-1.24), which adjusted to 0.99 after taking into account the site where the patient was treated.

The 5-year overall survival rate was 80.3% after sublobar resection, and 78.9% following lobar resection, at a hazard ratio for death of 0.95 (95% CI, 0.72-1.26).

The results were “generally consistent” when accounting for factors such as age group, sex, tumor location, histologic type, smoking history, tumor size, and ECOG performance status, the team says.

Turning to recurrence, they showed that, among 687 patients eligible for assessment, 30.4% of those in the sublobar resection group and 29.3% of those assigned to lobar resection experienced disease recurrence, with 13.4% and 10%, respectively, having locoregional recurrence.

An exploratory analysis indicated that 5-year recurrence-free survival was similar in the two groups, at 70.2% vs. 71.2% or a hazard ratio for recurrence of 1.05 (95% CI, 0.80-1.39). The cumulative incidence of death was also similar.

It was also notable that reduction in predictive forced expiratory volume in 1 second from baseline was lower with sublobar than lobar resection, at –4.0 vs. –6.0, as was the reduction in predicted forced vital capacity, at –3.0 vs. –5.0.

“Although this difference is arguably not clinically meaningful in this patient population with normal baseline pulmonary functions,” the team writes, “it may be more clinically relevant in patients with compromised pulmonary functions, or in those with lower-lobe disease in whom lobar resection may be associated with greater impairment of pulmonary function.”

Dr. Rusch suggests that “more sensitive or functional assessments” of pulmonary function might include “diffusion capacity and 6-minute walk tests,” although she noted that even short-term differences in pulmonary function “may affect perioperative and functional outcomes, especially for tumors in the lower lobe.”

The study was supported by the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health, including via grants to the Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology and the Canadian Cancer Trials Group, and supported in part by Covidien and Ethicon.

Dr. Altorki reports relationships with AstraZeneca, Genentech, Johnson & Johnson, and Regeneron. Dr. Rusch reports relationships with Cancer Research UK, Genentech, and the National Cancer Institute.

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

Members of the United States military who served in Vietnam between 1961 and 1971 risked exposure to the weaponized chemical defoliant known as Agent Orange. Among the components of Agent Orange, benzene and tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) are known carcinogens linked to several cancers. They include multiple myeloma, Hodgkin and non-Hodgkin lymphoma, as well as bladder, prostate, and lung cancer. 

In this ReCAP, Dr Timothy O'Brien, section chief of hematology at the Louis Stokes Cleveland VA Medical Center, examines the evidence that suggests a link between service-related Agent Orange exposure and acute myeloid leukemia (AML). He discusses preclinical models that show a relationship between benzene and TCDD exposure and the development of AML. 

Dr O'Brien also explains the factors that have limited researchers' ability to positively connect Agent Orange and AML. For example, there is a dwindling cohort of affected patients to study because dioxins can lie latent in fat cells for more than a decade, delaying the development of AML. During that time, many veterans will have died from unrelated causes. 

More research is needed for veterans to receive service-connected benefits for AML diagnoses. However, as Dr O'Brien notes, the PACT Act provides coverage for veterans who developed AML after exposure to benzene-contaminated water at Camp Lejeune. 

--

Timothy O'Brien, MD, Associate Professor, Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine; Chief of Hematology, Louis Stokes Cleveland VA Medical Center, Cleveland, Ohio  

Timothy O'Brien, MD, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. 

Members of the United States military who served in Vietnam between 1961 and 1971 risked exposure to the weaponized chemical defoliant known as Agent Orange. Among the components of Agent Orange, benzene and tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) are known carcinogens linked to several cancers. They include multiple myeloma, Hodgkin and non-Hodgkin lymphoma, as well as bladder, prostate, and lung cancer. 

In this ReCAP, Dr Timothy O'Brien, section chief of hematology at the Louis Stokes Cleveland VA Medical Center, examines the evidence that suggests a link between service-related Agent Orange exposure and acute myeloid leukemia (AML). He discusses preclinical models that show a relationship between benzene and TCDD exposure and the development of AML. 

Dr O'Brien also explains the factors that have limited researchers' ability to positively connect Agent Orange and AML. For example, there is a dwindling cohort of affected patients to study because dioxins can lie latent in fat cells for more than a decade, delaying the development of AML. During that time, many veterans will have died from unrelated causes. 

More research is needed for veterans to receive service-connected benefits for AML diagnoses. However, as Dr O'Brien notes, the PACT Act provides coverage for veterans who developed AML after exposure to benzene-contaminated water at Camp Lejeune. 

--

Timothy O'Brien, MD, Associate Professor, Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine; Chief of Hematology, Louis Stokes Cleveland VA Medical Center, Cleveland, Ohio  

Timothy O'Brien, MD, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. 

Members of the United States military who served in Vietnam between 1961 and 1971 risked exposure to the weaponized chemical defoliant known as Agent Orange. Among the components of Agent Orange, benzene and tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) are known carcinogens linked to several cancers. They include multiple myeloma, Hodgkin and non-Hodgkin lymphoma, as well as bladder, prostate, and lung cancer. 

In this ReCAP, Dr Timothy O'Brien, section chief of hematology at the Louis Stokes Cleveland VA Medical Center, examines the evidence that suggests a link between service-related Agent Orange exposure and acute myeloid leukemia (AML). He discusses preclinical models that show a relationship between benzene and TCDD exposure and the development of AML. 

Dr O'Brien also explains the factors that have limited researchers' ability to positively connect Agent Orange and AML. For example, there is a dwindling cohort of affected patients to study because dioxins can lie latent in fat cells for more than a decade, delaying the development of AML. During that time, many veterans will have died from unrelated causes. 

More research is needed for veterans to receive service-connected benefits for AML diagnoses. However, as Dr O'Brien notes, the PACT Act provides coverage for veterans who developed AML after exposure to benzene-contaminated water at Camp Lejeune. 

--

Timothy O'Brien, MD, Associate Professor, Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine; Chief of Hematology, Louis Stokes Cleveland VA Medical Center, Cleveland, Ohio  

Timothy O'Brien, MD, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. 

All women, regardless of their risk profile, should consider prophylactic removal of the fallopian tubes at the same time as other pelvic surgery once they are finished having children, the Ovarian Cancer Research Alliance has advised.

The recommendation, announced Feb. 1, replaces the decades-old focus on symptom awareness and early detection and follows “sobering and deeply disappointing” results from a large U.K. study published 2 years ago, the organization said.

That was the UK Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening published in The Lancet in 2021, which followed more than 200,000 women for a median 16 years. It showed that screening average-risk women with a CA-125 blood test and ultrasound does not reduce deaths from the disease, as reported at the time by this news organization.

“We all hoped that the trial would show that early detection was effective in changing mortality rates. When the results came out, it was very hard to accept,” Audra Moran, OCRA president and CEO, said in an interview.

“We have an obligation to let people know that symptom awareness and early detection will not save lives” but considering opportunistic salpingectomy “absolutely will,” said Ms. Moran. Hence the renewed call for women to consider having their fallopian tubes removed.  

What sounds new about this call is that the group is directing fallopian tube removal to all women “who are undergoing pelvic surgeries for benign conditions,” irrespective of what perceived risk they have of developing ovarian cancer (for example, based on family history).

But this advice has been in place for years for women who are known to be at higher risk for the disease.

For instance, women at high risk for ovarian cancer based on Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer Syndrome (HBOC) have long been recommended to undergo surgery to remove ovaries and fallopian tubes (risk-reducing bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy or RRBSO) once there is no longer a desire for pregnancy.

Approached for comment about the new messaging, Stephanie V. Blank, MD, president of the Society of Gynecologic Oncology, says that the new recommendation – that all women who are finished childbearing consider opportunistic salpingectomy at the time of other pelvic surgery for benign conditions – is “not aggressive.”

“It’s reasonable and makes sense,” Dr. Blank said in an interview.

And she pointed out that it’s actually not “new”; it is, however, getting “new attention” based on the disappointing U.K. screening study, said Dr. Blank, director of gynecologic oncology for the Mount Sinai Health System in New York and professor of gynecologic oncology at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai.

She noted that the procedure of opportunistic salpingectomy has been endorsed by SGO since 2013 and by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists since 2015.

There is increasing evidence that most high-grade serous ovarian cancers arise from cells in the fallopian tubes, William Dahut, MD, chief scientific officer for the American Cancer Society, told this news organization.

“Indirect evidence suggests a fairly strong degree of risk reduction associated with opportunistic salpingectomy for the most prevalent type of ovarian cancer (serous), and some risk reduction of epithelial ovarian cancer. At this time, these discussions seem warranted,” Dr. Dahut said.

At this point, however, the fact that leading organizations advise “consideration” means that the evidence base has “not been judged to be sufficiently strong (in terms of what we can say about benefits and harms) to advise a direct recommendation for opportunistic salpingectomy,” Dr. Dahut added.

There is no current recommendation to have fallopian tubes removed as a stand-alone procedure, he pointed out. However, he commented that “the occasion of scheduled gynecologic surgery presents an opportunity to possibly reduce the risk of ovarian cancer without known adverse effects in women who have completed childbearing. Having the discussion seems to be justified by the current evidence,” Dr. Dahut said.

Deanna Gerber, MD, a gynecologic oncologist at NYU Langone Perlmutter Cancer Center-Long Island, agrees. “In women who are scheduled to have a gynecologic or pelvic procedure, clinicians should discuss the possibility of removing the fallopian tubes at that time. A salpingectomy is a relatively low-risk procedure and adds little time to the surgery,” Dr. Gerber said in an interview.

“Women should understand that there is still ongoing research on this topic, but this low-risk procedure may reduce their risk of developing an ovarian or fallopian tube cancer,” Dr. Gerber said.

OCRA also encourages all women (or anyone born with ovaries) to know their risk for ovarian cancer. To that end, the organization has launched a pilot program offering free, at-home genetic testing kits to people with a personal or family history of breast, ovarian, uterine, or colorectal cancer.

Ms. Moran, Dr. Blank, Dr. Dahut, and Dr. Gerber report no relevant financial relationships.

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

All women, regardless of their risk profile, should consider prophylactic removal of the fallopian tubes at the same time as other pelvic surgery once they are finished having children, the Ovarian Cancer Research Alliance has advised.

The recommendation, announced Feb. 1, replaces the decades-old focus on symptom awareness and early detection and follows “sobering and deeply disappointing” results from a large U.K. study published 2 years ago, the organization said.

That was the UK Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening published in The Lancet in 2021, which followed more than 200,000 women for a median 16 years. It showed that screening average-risk women with a CA-125 blood test and ultrasound does not reduce deaths from the disease, as reported at the time by this news organization.

“We all hoped that the trial would show that early detection was effective in changing mortality rates. When the results came out, it was very hard to accept,” Audra Moran, OCRA president and CEO, said in an interview.

“We have an obligation to let people know that symptom awareness and early detection will not save lives” but considering opportunistic salpingectomy “absolutely will,” said Ms. Moran. Hence the renewed call for women to consider having their fallopian tubes removed.  

What sounds new about this call is that the group is directing fallopian tube removal to all women “who are undergoing pelvic surgeries for benign conditions,” irrespective of what perceived risk they have of developing ovarian cancer (for example, based on family history).

But this advice has been in place for years for women who are known to be at higher risk for the disease.

For instance, women at high risk for ovarian cancer based on Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer Syndrome (HBOC) have long been recommended to undergo surgery to remove ovaries and fallopian tubes (risk-reducing bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy or RRBSO) once there is no longer a desire for pregnancy.

Approached for comment about the new messaging, Stephanie V. Blank, MD, president of the Society of Gynecologic Oncology, says that the new recommendation – that all women who are finished childbearing consider opportunistic salpingectomy at the time of other pelvic surgery for benign conditions – is “not aggressive.”

“It’s reasonable and makes sense,” Dr. Blank said in an interview.

And she pointed out that it’s actually not “new”; it is, however, getting “new attention” based on the disappointing U.K. screening study, said Dr. Blank, director of gynecologic oncology for the Mount Sinai Health System in New York and professor of gynecologic oncology at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai.

She noted that the procedure of opportunistic salpingectomy has been endorsed by SGO since 2013 and by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists since 2015.

There is increasing evidence that most high-grade serous ovarian cancers arise from cells in the fallopian tubes, William Dahut, MD, chief scientific officer for the American Cancer Society, told this news organization.

“Indirect evidence suggests a fairly strong degree of risk reduction associated with opportunistic salpingectomy for the most prevalent type of ovarian cancer (serous), and some risk reduction of epithelial ovarian cancer. At this time, these discussions seem warranted,” Dr. Dahut said.

At this point, however, the fact that leading organizations advise “consideration” means that the evidence base has “not been judged to be sufficiently strong (in terms of what we can say about benefits and harms) to advise a direct recommendation for opportunistic salpingectomy,” Dr. Dahut added.

There is no current recommendation to have fallopian tubes removed as a stand-alone procedure, he pointed out. However, he commented that “the occasion of scheduled gynecologic surgery presents an opportunity to possibly reduce the risk of ovarian cancer without known adverse effects in women who have completed childbearing. Having the discussion seems to be justified by the current evidence,” Dr. Dahut said.

Deanna Gerber, MD, a gynecologic oncologist at NYU Langone Perlmutter Cancer Center-Long Island, agrees. “In women who are scheduled to have a gynecologic or pelvic procedure, clinicians should discuss the possibility of removing the fallopian tubes at that time. A salpingectomy is a relatively low-risk procedure and adds little time to the surgery,” Dr. Gerber said in an interview.

“Women should understand that there is still ongoing research on this topic, but this low-risk procedure may reduce their risk of developing an ovarian or fallopian tube cancer,” Dr. Gerber said.

OCRA also encourages all women (or anyone born with ovaries) to know their risk for ovarian cancer. To that end, the organization has launched a pilot program offering free, at-home genetic testing kits to people with a personal or family history of breast, ovarian, uterine, or colorectal cancer.

Ms. Moran, Dr. Blank, Dr. Dahut, and Dr. Gerber report no relevant financial relationships.

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

All women, regardless of their risk profile, should consider prophylactic removal of the fallopian tubes at the same time as other pelvic surgery once they are finished having children, the Ovarian Cancer Research Alliance has advised.

The recommendation, announced Feb. 1, replaces the decades-old focus on symptom awareness and early detection and follows “sobering and deeply disappointing” results from a large U.K. study published 2 years ago, the organization said.

That was the UK Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening published in The Lancet in 2021, which followed more than 200,000 women for a median 16 years. It showed that screening average-risk women with a CA-125 blood test and ultrasound does not reduce deaths from the disease, as reported at the time by this news organization.

“We all hoped that the trial would show that early detection was effective in changing mortality rates. When the results came out, it was very hard to accept,” Audra Moran, OCRA president and CEO, said in an interview.

“We have an obligation to let people know that symptom awareness and early detection will not save lives” but considering opportunistic salpingectomy “absolutely will,” said Ms. Moran. Hence the renewed call for women to consider having their fallopian tubes removed.  

What sounds new about this call is that the group is directing fallopian tube removal to all women “who are undergoing pelvic surgeries for benign conditions,” irrespective of what perceived risk they have of developing ovarian cancer (for example, based on family history).

But this advice has been in place for years for women who are known to be at higher risk for the disease.

For instance, women at high risk for ovarian cancer based on Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer Syndrome (HBOC) have long been recommended to undergo surgery to remove ovaries and fallopian tubes (risk-reducing bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy or RRBSO) once there is no longer a desire for pregnancy.

Approached for comment about the new messaging, Stephanie V. Blank, MD, president of the Society of Gynecologic Oncology, says that the new recommendation – that all women who are finished childbearing consider opportunistic salpingectomy at the time of other pelvic surgery for benign conditions – is “not aggressive.”

“It’s reasonable and makes sense,” Dr. Blank said in an interview.

And she pointed out that it’s actually not “new”; it is, however, getting “new attention” based on the disappointing U.K. screening study, said Dr. Blank, director of gynecologic oncology for the Mount Sinai Health System in New York and professor of gynecologic oncology at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai.

She noted that the procedure of opportunistic salpingectomy has been endorsed by SGO since 2013 and by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists since 2015.

There is increasing evidence that most high-grade serous ovarian cancers arise from cells in the fallopian tubes, William Dahut, MD, chief scientific officer for the American Cancer Society, told this news organization.

“Indirect evidence suggests a fairly strong degree of risk reduction associated with opportunistic salpingectomy for the most prevalent type of ovarian cancer (serous), and some risk reduction of epithelial ovarian cancer. At this time, these discussions seem warranted,” Dr. Dahut said.

At this point, however, the fact that leading organizations advise “consideration” means that the evidence base has “not been judged to be sufficiently strong (in terms of what we can say about benefits and harms) to advise a direct recommendation for opportunistic salpingectomy,” Dr. Dahut added.

There is no current recommendation to have fallopian tubes removed as a stand-alone procedure, he pointed out. However, he commented that “the occasion of scheduled gynecologic surgery presents an opportunity to possibly reduce the risk of ovarian cancer without known adverse effects in women who have completed childbearing. Having the discussion seems to be justified by the current evidence,” Dr. Dahut said.

Deanna Gerber, MD, a gynecologic oncologist at NYU Langone Perlmutter Cancer Center-Long Island, agrees. “In women who are scheduled to have a gynecologic or pelvic procedure, clinicians should discuss the possibility of removing the fallopian tubes at that time. A salpingectomy is a relatively low-risk procedure and adds little time to the surgery,” Dr. Gerber said in an interview.

“Women should understand that there is still ongoing research on this topic, but this low-risk procedure may reduce their risk of developing an ovarian or fallopian tube cancer,” Dr. Gerber said.

OCRA also encourages all women (or anyone born with ovaries) to know their risk for ovarian cancer. To that end, the organization has launched a pilot program offering free, at-home genetic testing kits to people with a personal or family history of breast, ovarian, uterine, or colorectal cancer.

Ms. Moran, Dr. Blank, Dr. Dahut, and Dr. Gerber report no relevant financial relationships.

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

San Diego – Despite advances in dermoscopy and other techniques for diagnosing cutaneous melanoma, histology remains the gold standard.

“I don’t think that’s going to change in the short term,” Travis W. Blalock, MD, director of dermatologic surgery, Mohs micrographic surgery, and cutaneous oncology at Emory University, Atlanta, said at the annual Cutaneous Malignancy Update. “But I do think we can supplement that with other modalities that will improve the clinical examination and help dermatopathologists as they assess and evaluate these lesions,” he said, adding: “The reality is, histopathology, while it may be the gold standard, is not necessarily a consistently reproducible evaluation. That raises the question: What can we do better?”

Christoph Burgstedt/Science Photo Library/Getty Images

According to Dr. Blalock, the future may include more routine use of noninvasive genetic molecular assays to assist with the diagnostics challenges linked to the visual image and pattern recognition approach of detecting cutaneous melanoma. For example, a two-gene classification method based on LINC00518 and preferentially expressed antigen in melanoma (PRAME) gene expression was evaluated and validated in 555 pigmented lesions obtained noninvasively via adhesive patch biopsy.

“Today, you can pick up a kit from your local pharmacy that can tell you a bit about broad genetic susceptibilities,” he said at the meeting, which was hosted by Scripps MD Anderson Cancer Center. He predicted that using adhesive patch biopsies to assess suspicious melanocytic lesions “is likely the wave of the future.” This may increase patient understanding “as to the types of risks they have, the different lesions they have, and minimize invasive disease, but it also will pose different challenges for us when it comes to deploying patient-centered health care. For example, in a patient with multiple different lesions, how are you going to keep track of them all?”

Dermoscopy

In Dr. Blalock’s clinical opinion, dermoscopy improves the sensitivity of human visual detection of melanoma and may allow detection before a lesion displays classical features described with the “ABCDE rule.” However, the learning curve for dermoscopy is steep, he added, and whether the technique should be considered a first-line tool or as a supplement to other methods of examining cutaneous lesions remains a matter of debate.

“Dermoscopy is our version of the stethoscope,” he said. “We need to figure out when we’re going to use it. Should we be using it all of the time or only some of the time? Based on the clinical setting, maybe it’s a personal choice, but this can be a helpful skill and art in your practice if you’re willing to take the time to learn.”

In 2007, the International Dermoscopy Society (IDS) established a proposal for the standardization and recommended criteria necessary to effectively convey dermoscopic findings to consulting physicians and colleagues. The document includes 10 points categorized as either recommended or optional for a standardized dermoscopy report.

“The first step is to assess the lesion to determine whether or not it’s melanocytic in the first place,” said Dr. Blalock. “There are many different features – the mile-high [global features] evaluation of the lesions – then more specific local features that may clue you in to specific diagnoses,” he noted. “Once we get past that first step of determining that a lesion is melanocytic, it’s not enough to stop there, because we don’t want to biopsy every single lesion that’s melanocytic,” so there is a need to determine which ones require intervention, which is where dermoscopy “gets trickier and a little more challenging.”

According to the IDS, a standard dermoscopy report should include the patient’s age, relevant history pertaining to the lesion, pertinent personal and family history (recommended); clinical description of the lesion (recommended); the two-step method of dermoscopy differentiating melanocytic from nonmelanocytic tumors (recommended); and the use of standardized terms to describe structures as defined by the Dermoscopy Consensus Report published in 2003.

For new terms, the document states, “it would be helpful” for the physician to provide a working definition (recommended); the dermoscopic algorithm used should be mentioned (optional); information on the imaging equipment and magnification (recommended); clinical and dermoscopic images of the tumor (recommended); a diagnosis or differential diagnosis (recommended); decision concerning management (recommended), and specific comments for the pathologist when excision and histopathologic examination are recommended (optional).

The 2007 IDS document also includes a proposed seven-point checklist to differentiate between benign and melanocytic lesions on dermoscopy. Three major criteria are worth two points each: The presence of an atypical pigment network, gray-blue areas (commonly known as the veil), and an atypical vascular pattern. Four minor criteria are worth one point each: Irregular streaks, irregular dots/globules, irregular pigmentation, and regression structures. A minimum total score of 3 is required to establish a diagnosis of melanoma.

Another diagnostic technique, digital mole mapping, involves the use of photography to detect new or changing lesions. Dr. Blalock described this approach as rife with limitations, including variations in quality, challenges of storing and maintaining records, cost, time required to evaluate them, and determining which patients are appropriate candidates.

Other techniques being evaluated include computer algorithms to help dermatologists determine the diagnosis of melanoma from dermoscopic images, electrical impedance spectroscopy for noninvasive evaluation of atypical pigmented lesions, and ultrasound for staging of cutaneous malignant tumors.

Ultimately, “I think we’ll have multiple tools in our belt,” Dr. Blalock said, adding, “How do we pull them out at the right time to improve the lives of our patients? Are we going to use ultrasound? Dermoscopy? Integrate them with some of the genetic findings?”

Dr. Blalock disclosed that he has served as a principal investigator for Castle Biosciences.

San Diego – Despite advances in dermoscopy and other techniques for diagnosing cutaneous melanoma, histology remains the gold standard.

“I don’t think that’s going to change in the short term,” Travis W. Blalock, MD, director of dermatologic surgery, Mohs micrographic surgery, and cutaneous oncology at Emory University, Atlanta, said at the annual Cutaneous Malignancy Update. “But I do think we can supplement that with other modalities that will improve the clinical examination and help dermatopathologists as they assess and evaluate these lesions,” he said, adding: “The reality is, histopathology, while it may be the gold standard, is not necessarily a consistently reproducible evaluation. That raises the question: What can we do better?”

Christoph Burgstedt/Science Photo Library/Getty Images

According to Dr. Blalock, the future may include more routine use of noninvasive genetic molecular assays to assist with the diagnostics challenges linked to the visual image and pattern recognition approach of detecting cutaneous melanoma. For example, a two-gene classification method based on LINC00518 and preferentially expressed antigen in melanoma (PRAME) gene expression was evaluated and validated in 555 pigmented lesions obtained noninvasively via adhesive patch biopsy.

“Today, you can pick up a kit from your local pharmacy that can tell you a bit about broad genetic susceptibilities,” he said at the meeting, which was hosted by Scripps MD Anderson Cancer Center. He predicted that using adhesive patch biopsies to assess suspicious melanocytic lesions “is likely the wave of the future.” This may increase patient understanding “as to the types of risks they have, the different lesions they have, and minimize invasive disease, but it also will pose different challenges for us when it comes to deploying patient-centered health care. For example, in a patient with multiple different lesions, how are you going to keep track of them all?”

Dermoscopy

In Dr. Blalock’s clinical opinion, dermoscopy improves the sensitivity of human visual detection of melanoma and may allow detection before a lesion displays classical features described with the “ABCDE rule.” However, the learning curve for dermoscopy is steep, he added, and whether the technique should be considered a first-line tool or as a supplement to other methods of examining cutaneous lesions remains a matter of debate.

“Dermoscopy is our version of the stethoscope,” he said. “We need to figure out when we’re going to use it. Should we be using it all of the time or only some of the time? Based on the clinical setting, maybe it’s a personal choice, but this can be a helpful skill and art in your practice if you’re willing to take the time to learn.”

In 2007, the International Dermoscopy Society (IDS) established a proposal for the standardization and recommended criteria necessary to effectively convey dermoscopic findings to consulting physicians and colleagues. The document includes 10 points categorized as either recommended or optional for a standardized dermoscopy report.

“The first step is to assess the lesion to determine whether or not it’s melanocytic in the first place,” said Dr. Blalock. “There are many different features – the mile-high [global features] evaluation of the lesions – then more specific local features that may clue you in to specific diagnoses,” he noted. “Once we get past that first step of determining that a lesion is melanocytic, it’s not enough to stop there, because we don’t want to biopsy every single lesion that’s melanocytic,” so there is a need to determine which ones require intervention, which is where dermoscopy “gets trickier and a little more challenging.”

According to the IDS, a standard dermoscopy report should include the patient’s age, relevant history pertaining to the lesion, pertinent personal and family history (recommended); clinical description of the lesion (recommended); the two-step method of dermoscopy differentiating melanocytic from nonmelanocytic tumors (recommended); and the use of standardized terms to describe structures as defined by the Dermoscopy Consensus Report published in 2003.

For new terms, the document states, “it would be helpful” for the physician to provide a working definition (recommended); the dermoscopic algorithm used should be mentioned (optional); information on the imaging equipment and magnification (recommended); clinical and dermoscopic images of the tumor (recommended); a diagnosis or differential diagnosis (recommended); decision concerning management (recommended), and specific comments for the pathologist when excision and histopathologic examination are recommended (optional).

The 2007 IDS document also includes a proposed seven-point checklist to differentiate between benign and melanocytic lesions on dermoscopy. Three major criteria are worth two points each: The presence of an atypical pigment network, gray-blue areas (commonly known as the veil), and an atypical vascular pattern. Four minor criteria are worth one point each: Irregular streaks, irregular dots/globules, irregular pigmentation, and regression structures. A minimum total score of 3 is required to establish a diagnosis of melanoma.

Another diagnostic technique, digital mole mapping, involves the use of photography to detect new or changing lesions. Dr. Blalock described this approach as rife with limitations, including variations in quality, challenges of storing and maintaining records, cost, time required to evaluate them, and determining which patients are appropriate candidates.

Other techniques being evaluated include computer algorithms to help dermatologists determine the diagnosis of melanoma from dermoscopic images, electrical impedance spectroscopy for noninvasive evaluation of atypical pigmented lesions, and ultrasound for staging of cutaneous malignant tumors.

Ultimately, “I think we’ll have multiple tools in our belt,” Dr. Blalock said, adding, “How do we pull them out at the right time to improve the lives of our patients? Are we going to use ultrasound? Dermoscopy? Integrate them with some of the genetic findings?”

Dr. Blalock disclosed that he has served as a principal investigator for Castle Biosciences.

San Diego – Despite advances in dermoscopy and other techniques for diagnosing cutaneous melanoma, histology remains the gold standard.

“I don’t think that’s going to change in the short term,” Travis W. Blalock, MD, director of dermatologic surgery, Mohs micrographic surgery, and cutaneous oncology at Emory University, Atlanta, said at the annual Cutaneous Malignancy Update. “But I do think we can supplement that with other modalities that will improve the clinical examination and help dermatopathologists as they assess and evaluate these lesions,” he said, adding: “The reality is, histopathology, while it may be the gold standard, is not necessarily a consistently reproducible evaluation. That raises the question: What can we do better?”

Christoph Burgstedt/Science Photo Library/Getty Images

According to Dr. Blalock, the future may include more routine use of noninvasive genetic molecular assays to assist with the diagnostics challenges linked to the visual image and pattern recognition approach of detecting cutaneous melanoma. For example, a two-gene classification method based on LINC00518 and preferentially expressed antigen in melanoma (PRAME) gene expression was evaluated and validated in 555 pigmented lesions obtained noninvasively via adhesive patch biopsy.

“Today, you can pick up a kit from your local pharmacy that can tell you a bit about broad genetic susceptibilities,” he said at the meeting, which was hosted by Scripps MD Anderson Cancer Center. He predicted that using adhesive patch biopsies to assess suspicious melanocytic lesions “is likely the wave of the future.” This may increase patient understanding “as to the types of risks they have, the different lesions they have, and minimize invasive disease, but it also will pose different challenges for us when it comes to deploying patient-centered health care. For example, in a patient with multiple different lesions, how are you going to keep track of them all?”

Dermoscopy

In Dr. Blalock’s clinical opinion, dermoscopy improves the sensitivity of human visual detection of melanoma and may allow detection before a lesion displays classical features described with the “ABCDE rule.” However, the learning curve for dermoscopy is steep, he added, and whether the technique should be considered a first-line tool or as a supplement to other methods of examining cutaneous lesions remains a matter of debate.

“Dermoscopy is our version of the stethoscope,” he said. “We need to figure out when we’re going to use it. Should we be using it all of the time or only some of the time? Based on the clinical setting, maybe it’s a personal choice, but this can be a helpful skill and art in your practice if you’re willing to take the time to learn.”

In 2007, the International Dermoscopy Society (IDS) established a proposal for the standardization and recommended criteria necessary to effectively convey dermoscopic findings to consulting physicians and colleagues. The document includes 10 points categorized as either recommended or optional for a standardized dermoscopy report.

“The first step is to assess the lesion to determine whether or not it’s melanocytic in the first place,” said Dr. Blalock. “There are many different features – the mile-high [global features] evaluation of the lesions – then more specific local features that may clue you in to specific diagnoses,” he noted. “Once we get past that first step of determining that a lesion is melanocytic, it’s not enough to stop there, because we don’t want to biopsy every single lesion that’s melanocytic,” so there is a need to determine which ones require intervention, which is where dermoscopy “gets trickier and a little more challenging.”

According to the IDS, a standard dermoscopy report should include the patient’s age, relevant history pertaining to the lesion, pertinent personal and family history (recommended); clinical description of the lesion (recommended); the two-step method of dermoscopy differentiating melanocytic from nonmelanocytic tumors (recommended); and the use of standardized terms to describe structures as defined by the Dermoscopy Consensus Report published in 2003.

For new terms, the document states, “it would be helpful” for the physician to provide a working definition (recommended); the dermoscopic algorithm used should be mentioned (optional); information on the imaging equipment and magnification (recommended); clinical and dermoscopic images of the tumor (recommended); a diagnosis or differential diagnosis (recommended); decision concerning management (recommended), and specific comments for the pathologist when excision and histopathologic examination are recommended (optional).

The 2007 IDS document also includes a proposed seven-point checklist to differentiate between benign and melanocytic lesions on dermoscopy. Three major criteria are worth two points each: The presence of an atypical pigment network, gray-blue areas (commonly known as the veil), and an atypical vascular pattern. Four minor criteria are worth one point each: Irregular streaks, irregular dots/globules, irregular pigmentation, and regression structures. A minimum total score of 3 is required to establish a diagnosis of melanoma.

Another diagnostic technique, digital mole mapping, involves the use of photography to detect new or changing lesions. Dr. Blalock described this approach as rife with limitations, including variations in quality, challenges of storing and maintaining records, cost, time required to evaluate them, and determining which patients are appropriate candidates.

Other techniques being evaluated include computer algorithms to help dermatologists determine the diagnosis of melanoma from dermoscopic images, electrical impedance spectroscopy for noninvasive evaluation of atypical pigmented lesions, and ultrasound for staging of cutaneous malignant tumors.

Ultimately, “I think we’ll have multiple tools in our belt,” Dr. Blalock said, adding, “How do we pull them out at the right time to improve the lives of our patients? Are we going to use ultrasound? Dermoscopy? Integrate them with some of the genetic findings?”

Dr. Blalock disclosed that he has served as a principal investigator for Castle Biosciences.

A 27-gene immuno-oncology assay appears to provide useful information about whether patients with advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) could benefit from immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy despite their poor status, researchers reported.

Positive findings on the test, known as DetermaIO, were “associated with efficacy of response to ICI therapy in advanced NSCLC patients,” Matthew G. Varga, PhD, manager of scientific affairs at Oncocyte, said in an interview. “These data suggest that DetermaIO warrants further study in poor performance status patients as it has the potential to identify likely responders to ICI therapy.”

Oncocyte, which is developing the test, presented the findings in a poster at the annual meeting of the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer.

According to Dr. Varga, “DetermaIO is an RT-qPCR test that can be applied to FFPE [formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded] tissue specimens to quantify the relative gene expression of 27 genes and subsequently applies our proprietary algorithm to generate an IO score based on the gene expression profile. The DetermaIO score is a binary IO+ or IO– score, representing likely responder or nonresponder, respectively.”

The test was originally developed for triple negative breast cancer, Dr. Varga said, and it’s been validated in non–small cell lung cancer, metastatic urothelial carcinoma, and metastatic colorectal carcinoma.

For the study, the researchers retrospectively tracked associations between DetermaIO score and either progression-free survival (PFS) or overall survival (OS) in 147 patients in Canada with NSCLC who were treated with ICI monotherapy. All had programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) ≥ 50%.

Overall, outcomes were poor: The median survival was 12.7 months, and median PFS was 7.0 months. These outcomes were even worse in those who underwent therapy as a second- line treatment: The median survival was 9.7 months, and median PFS was 4.4 months.

“DetermaIO was significantly associated with PFS at hazard ratio [HR] = 0.55, 95% [confidence interval] CI, 0.32-0.94, P = .028. In our analyses, a hazard ratio less than 1 suggests lower risk – i.e, that DetermaIO+ patients have lower risk of an event – death or progression – compared to a DetermaIO– patient,” Dr. Varga said. “The association for overall survival was not statistically significant, but it was suggestive of clinically meaningful benefit.”

He added that “we could identify likely responders from nonresponders, suggesting that the DetermaIO score adds both independent and incremental data to the existing gold standard biomarker. The objective response rate for all first-line patients – n = 78 – was 44.9%. Twenty-two DetermaIO– tumors had a 23% response rate (5 partial responses) whereas of the 56 DetermaIO+ patients, the response rate was 54% (2 complete response and 28 partial responses).”

A score on the test, he said, was not associated with OS or PFS in patients who received second-line or later treatment.

The study was not designed to evaluate the predictive power of the test. “For a biomarker to be defined as predictive requires a formal test of interaction between a treatment group (ICI monotherapy, for example) vs. a control group (chemo-only or other regimen),” Dr. Varga explained. “In our analysis, there was no group of patients who did not receive ICI monotherapy. Thus a test for interaction and a predictive claim cannot be made.”

The test is available for at no cost via an early access program, Dr. Varga said, and Oncocyte is getting ready to seek Medicare coverage. The ultimate cost of the test, he said, is unknown.

Oncocyte funded this study. Dr. Varga and several other study authors are Oncocyte employees, and another author is a paid consultant to the company.

A 27-gene immuno-oncology assay appears to provide useful information about whether patients with advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) could benefit from immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy despite their poor status, researchers reported.

Positive findings on the test, known as DetermaIO, were “associated with efficacy of response to ICI therapy in advanced NSCLC patients,” Matthew G. Varga, PhD, manager of scientific affairs at Oncocyte, said in an interview. “These data suggest that DetermaIO warrants further study in poor performance status patients as it has the potential to identify likely responders to ICI therapy.”

Oncocyte, which is developing the test, presented the findings in a poster at the annual meeting of the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer.

According to Dr. Varga, “DetermaIO is an RT-qPCR test that can be applied to FFPE [formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded] tissue specimens to quantify the relative gene expression of 27 genes and subsequently applies our proprietary algorithm to generate an IO score based on the gene expression profile. The DetermaIO score is a binary IO+ or IO– score, representing likely responder or nonresponder, respectively.”

The test was originally developed for triple negative breast cancer, Dr. Varga said, and it’s been validated in non–small cell lung cancer, metastatic urothelial carcinoma, and metastatic colorectal carcinoma.

For the study, the researchers retrospectively tracked associations between DetermaIO score and either progression-free survival (PFS) or overall survival (OS) in 147 patients in Canada with NSCLC who were treated with ICI monotherapy. All had programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) ≥ 50%.

Overall, outcomes were poor: The median survival was 12.7 months, and median PFS was 7.0 months. These outcomes were even worse in those who underwent therapy as a second- line treatment: The median survival was 9.7 months, and median PFS was 4.4 months.

“DetermaIO was significantly associated with PFS at hazard ratio [HR] = 0.55, 95% [confidence interval] CI, 0.32-0.94, P = .028. In our analyses, a hazard ratio less than 1 suggests lower risk – i.e, that DetermaIO+ patients have lower risk of an event – death or progression – compared to a DetermaIO– patient,” Dr. Varga said. “The association for overall survival was not statistically significant, but it was suggestive of clinically meaningful benefit.”

He added that “we could identify likely responders from nonresponders, suggesting that the DetermaIO score adds both independent and incremental data to the existing gold standard biomarker. The objective response rate for all first-line patients – n = 78 – was 44.9%. Twenty-two DetermaIO– tumors had a 23% response rate (5 partial responses) whereas of the 56 DetermaIO+ patients, the response rate was 54% (2 complete response and 28 partial responses).”

A score on the test, he said, was not associated with OS or PFS in patients who received second-line or later treatment.

The study was not designed to evaluate the predictive power of the test. “For a biomarker to be defined as predictive requires a formal test of interaction between a treatment group (ICI monotherapy, for example) vs. a control group (chemo-only or other regimen),” Dr. Varga explained. “In our analysis, there was no group of patients who did not receive ICI monotherapy. Thus a test for interaction and a predictive claim cannot be made.”

The test is available for at no cost via an early access program, Dr. Varga said, and Oncocyte is getting ready to seek Medicare coverage. The ultimate cost of the test, he said, is unknown.

Oncocyte funded this study. Dr. Varga and several other study authors are Oncocyte employees, and another author is a paid consultant to the company.

A 27-gene immuno-oncology assay appears to provide useful information about whether patients with advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) could benefit from immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy despite their poor status, researchers reported.

Positive findings on the test, known as DetermaIO, were “associated with efficacy of response to ICI therapy in advanced NSCLC patients,” Matthew G. Varga, PhD, manager of scientific affairs at Oncocyte, said in an interview. “These data suggest that DetermaIO warrants further study in poor performance status patients as it has the potential to identify likely responders to ICI therapy.”

Oncocyte, which is developing the test, presented the findings in a poster at the annual meeting of the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer.

According to Dr. Varga, “DetermaIO is an RT-qPCR test that can be applied to FFPE [formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded] tissue specimens to quantify the relative gene expression of 27 genes and subsequently applies our proprietary algorithm to generate an IO score based on the gene expression profile. The DetermaIO score is a binary IO+ or IO– score, representing likely responder or nonresponder, respectively.”

The test was originally developed for triple negative breast cancer, Dr. Varga said, and it’s been validated in non–small cell lung cancer, metastatic urothelial carcinoma, and metastatic colorectal carcinoma.

For the study, the researchers retrospectively tracked associations between DetermaIO score and either progression-free survival (PFS) or overall survival (OS) in 147 patients in Canada with NSCLC who were treated with ICI monotherapy. All had programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) ≥ 50%.

Overall, outcomes were poor: The median survival was 12.7 months, and median PFS was 7.0 months. These outcomes were even worse in those who underwent therapy as a second- line treatment: The median survival was 9.7 months, and median PFS was 4.4 months.

“DetermaIO was significantly associated with PFS at hazard ratio [HR] = 0.55, 95% [confidence interval] CI, 0.32-0.94, P = .028. In our analyses, a hazard ratio less than 1 suggests lower risk – i.e, that DetermaIO+ patients have lower risk of an event – death or progression – compared to a DetermaIO– patient,” Dr. Varga said. “The association for overall survival was not statistically significant, but it was suggestive of clinically meaningful benefit.”

He added that “we could identify likely responders from nonresponders, suggesting that the DetermaIO score adds both independent and incremental data to the existing gold standard biomarker. The objective response rate for all first-line patients – n = 78 – was 44.9%. Twenty-two DetermaIO– tumors had a 23% response rate (5 partial responses) whereas of the 56 DetermaIO+ patients, the response rate was 54% (2 complete response and 28 partial responses).”

A score on the test, he said, was not associated with OS or PFS in patients who received second-line or later treatment.

The study was not designed to evaluate the predictive power of the test. “For a biomarker to be defined as predictive requires a formal test of interaction between a treatment group (ICI monotherapy, for example) vs. a control group (chemo-only or other regimen),” Dr. Varga explained. “In our analysis, there was no group of patients who did not receive ICI monotherapy. Thus a test for interaction and a predictive claim cannot be made.”

The test is available for at no cost via an early access program, Dr. Varga said, and Oncocyte is getting ready to seek Medicare coverage. The ultimate cost of the test, he said, is unknown.

Oncocyte funded this study. Dr. Varga and several other study authors are Oncocyte employees, and another author is a paid consultant to the company.

Long-course radiation therapy for rectal cancer is more likely to spare organs than short-course therapy, including when chemotherapy is provided first as part of a total neoadjuvant therapy (TNT) strategy, shows new research presented at the ASCO Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium 2023.

“When we looked at the 2-year organ preservation rates, they were numerically higher in the long-course group versus the short-course group,” said study author J. Joshua Smith, MD, PhD,FACS, a colorectal surgeon with Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York. “Our study will be the first, to our knowledge, that examines a significant proportion of patients treated with the induction total neoadjuvant therapy approach – chemo first.”

An ideal outcome in rectal cancer is no need for surgery, Dr. Smith said. “If you can avoid surgery altogether and preserve the organ [the rectum], that’s a big win for the patient as they are usually able to avoid having a permanent or temporary ostomy.”

Long-course and short-course radiation have similar outcomes in terms of patients going on to need surgery, but it’s not clear which is superior in terms of organ sparing, toxicity, and side effects, said Paul Romesser, MD, a radiation oncologist with Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, who served as first author of the study.

During the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic, the cancer center embraced short-course radiation in rectal cancer, Dr. Romesser said. “Once we emerged from the cloud of COVID, we said: ‘Well, what do we do now? Where do we go? Do we go back to what we did before? Or, do we go stick with the same? And what does that mean for organ preservation?’ ”

The researchers retrospectively identified 563 consecutive patients treated with TNT from 2018 to 2021. They focused on 332 who didn’t have metastatic disease, synchronous/metachronous malignancies, or nonadenocarcinoma histology (long course = 256, short course = 76). The groups had similar high-risk features, and about 82% were clinical stage III).

Patients most commonly received induction chemotherapy followed by consolidative radiation (78% long course, 70% short course).

The 2-year survival rates were similar, but organ preservation was higher in the long-course group versus the short-course group (40%; 95% confidence interval, 35%-47% vs. 29%; 95% CI, 20%-42%). And the 2-year local regrowth rate was also better in the long-course group versus the short-course group (20%; 95% CI, 12%-27% vs. 36%; 95% CI, 16%-52%).

Why might long-course therapy be better? “It’s probably just coming down to the biologically equivalent dose,” which is likely lower in short-course radiation, Dr. Romesser said.

Going forward, Dr. Romesser said he’ll tell patients about the findings of this study and a previous report published in 2022 that determined that “organ preservation is achievable in half of the patients with rectal cancer treated with total neoadjuvant therapy, without an apparent detriment in survival, compared with historical controls treated with chemoradiotherapy, TME [total mesorectal excision], and postoperative chemotherapy.” Dr. Smith is a coauthor of that study.

“Generally, I’ll steer patients toward long course, assuming all else is equal, and it’s not an undue burden on them financially and socially to come in for 5-6 weeks of chemoradiation,” Dr. Romesser said. He added that, “generally, the insurance companies recognize [short-course and long-course radiation] as both acceptable and standard treatment options for patients. We haven’t found that insurances will approve one, but not the other.”

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Romesser disclosed consulting/advisory roles (EMD Serono, Faeth, Natera), research funding (XRad), and travel/accommodations/expenses (Elekta). Dr. Smith disclosed consulting/advisory roles (Foundation Medicine, Guardant Health). The other study authors reported no conflicts of interest.

The Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium is sponsored by the American Gastroenterological Association, the American Society for Clinical Oncology, the American Society for Radiation Oncology, and the Society of Surgical Oncology.

Long-course radiation therapy for rectal cancer is more likely to spare organs than short-course therapy, including when chemotherapy is provided first as part of a total neoadjuvant therapy (TNT) strategy, shows new research presented at the ASCO Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium 2023.

“When we looked at the 2-year organ preservation rates, they were numerically higher in the long-course group versus the short-course group,” said study author J. Joshua Smith, MD, PhD,FACS, a colorectal surgeon with Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York. “Our study will be the first, to our knowledge, that examines a significant proportion of patients treated with the induction total neoadjuvant therapy approach – chemo first.”

An ideal outcome in rectal cancer is no need for surgery, Dr. Smith said. “If you can avoid surgery altogether and preserve the organ [the rectum], that’s a big win for the patient as they are usually able to avoid having a permanent or temporary ostomy.”

Long-course and short-course radiation have similar outcomes in terms of patients going on to need surgery, but it’s not clear which is superior in terms of organ sparing, toxicity, and side effects, said Paul Romesser, MD, a radiation oncologist with Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, who served as first author of the study.

During the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic, the cancer center embraced short-course radiation in rectal cancer, Dr. Romesser said. “Once we emerged from the cloud of COVID, we said: ‘Well, what do we do now? Where do we go? Do we go back to what we did before? Or, do we go stick with the same? And what does that mean for organ preservation?’ ”

The researchers retrospectively identified 563 consecutive patients treated with TNT from 2018 to 2021. They focused on 332 who didn’t have metastatic disease, synchronous/metachronous malignancies, or nonadenocarcinoma histology (long course = 256, short course = 76). The groups had similar high-risk features, and about 82% were clinical stage III).

Patients most commonly received induction chemotherapy followed by consolidative radiation (78% long course, 70% short course).

The 2-year survival rates were similar, but organ preservation was higher in the long-course group versus the short-course group (40%; 95% confidence interval, 35%-47% vs. 29%; 95% CI, 20%-42%). And the 2-year local regrowth rate was also better in the long-course group versus the short-course group (20%; 95% CI, 12%-27% vs. 36%; 95% CI, 16%-52%).

Why might long-course therapy be better? “It’s probably just coming down to the biologically equivalent dose,” which is likely lower in short-course radiation, Dr. Romesser said.

Going forward, Dr. Romesser said he’ll tell patients about the findings of this study and a previous report published in 2022 that determined that “organ preservation is achievable in half of the patients with rectal cancer treated with total neoadjuvant therapy, without an apparent detriment in survival, compared with historical controls treated with chemoradiotherapy, TME [total mesorectal excision], and postoperative chemotherapy.” Dr. Smith is a coauthor of that study.

“Generally, I’ll steer patients toward long course, assuming all else is equal, and it’s not an undue burden on them financially and socially to come in for 5-6 weeks of chemoradiation,” Dr. Romesser said. He added that, “generally, the insurance companies recognize [short-course and long-course radiation] as both acceptable and standard treatment options for patients. We haven’t found that insurances will approve one, but not the other.”

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Romesser disclosed consulting/advisory roles (EMD Serono, Faeth, Natera), research funding (XRad), and travel/accommodations/expenses (Elekta). Dr. Smith disclosed consulting/advisory roles (Foundation Medicine, Guardant Health). The other study authors reported no conflicts of interest.

The Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium is sponsored by the American Gastroenterological Association, the American Society for Clinical Oncology, the American Society for Radiation Oncology, and the Society of Surgical Oncology.

Long-course radiation therapy for rectal cancer is more likely to spare organs than short-course therapy, including when chemotherapy is provided first as part of a total neoadjuvant therapy (TNT) strategy, shows new research presented at the ASCO Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium 2023.

“When we looked at the 2-year organ preservation rates, they were numerically higher in the long-course group versus the short-course group,” said study author J. Joshua Smith, MD, PhD,FACS, a colorectal surgeon with Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York. “Our study will be the first, to our knowledge, that examines a significant proportion of patients treated with the induction total neoadjuvant therapy approach – chemo first.”

An ideal outcome in rectal cancer is no need for surgery, Dr. Smith said. “If you can avoid surgery altogether and preserve the organ [the rectum], that’s a big win for the patient as they are usually able to avoid having a permanent or temporary ostomy.”

Long-course and short-course radiation have similar outcomes in terms of patients going on to need surgery, but it’s not clear which is superior in terms of organ sparing, toxicity, and side effects, said Paul Romesser, MD, a radiation oncologist with Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, who served as first author of the study.

During the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic, the cancer center embraced short-course radiation in rectal cancer, Dr. Romesser said. “Once we emerged from the cloud of COVID, we said: ‘Well, what do we do now? Where do we go? Do we go back to what we did before? Or, do we go stick with the same? And what does that mean for organ preservation?’ ”

The researchers retrospectively identified 563 consecutive patients treated with TNT from 2018 to 2021. They focused on 332 who didn’t have metastatic disease, synchronous/metachronous malignancies, or nonadenocarcinoma histology (long course = 256, short course = 76). The groups had similar high-risk features, and about 82% were clinical stage III).

Patients most commonly received induction chemotherapy followed by consolidative radiation (78% long course, 70% short course).

The 2-year survival rates were similar, but organ preservation was higher in the long-course group versus the short-course group (40%; 95% confidence interval, 35%-47% vs. 29%; 95% CI, 20%-42%). And the 2-year local regrowth rate was also better in the long-course group versus the short-course group (20%; 95% CI, 12%-27% vs. 36%; 95% CI, 16%-52%).

Why might long-course therapy be better? “It’s probably just coming down to the biologically equivalent dose,” which is likely lower in short-course radiation, Dr. Romesser said.

Going forward, Dr. Romesser said he’ll tell patients about the findings of this study and a previous report published in 2022 that determined that “organ preservation is achievable in half of the patients with rectal cancer treated with total neoadjuvant therapy, without an apparent detriment in survival, compared with historical controls treated with chemoradiotherapy, TME [total mesorectal excision], and postoperative chemotherapy.” Dr. Smith is a coauthor of that study.

“Generally, I’ll steer patients toward long course, assuming all else is equal, and it’s not an undue burden on them financially and socially to come in for 5-6 weeks of chemoradiation,” Dr. Romesser said. He added that, “generally, the insurance companies recognize [short-course and long-course radiation] as both acceptable and standard treatment options for patients. We haven’t found that insurances will approve one, but not the other.”

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Romesser disclosed consulting/advisory roles (EMD Serono, Faeth, Natera), research funding (XRad), and travel/accommodations/expenses (Elekta). Dr. Smith disclosed consulting/advisory roles (Foundation Medicine, Guardant Health). The other study authors reported no conflicts of interest.

The Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium is sponsored by the American Gastroenterological Association, the American Society for Clinical Oncology, the American Society for Radiation Oncology, and the Society of Surgical Oncology.

A pair of new studies suggest limitations of adjuvant chemotherapy among older adults with stage 3 colorectal cancer. A phase 2, multi-institutional feasibility study found a completion rate of 67.3%, while a prospective study found that completion was associated with improved disease-free survival.

Both studies were presented in January at the ASCO Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium 2023.

In HiSCO-04, Japanese researchers found that of 64 older patients with stage 3A colorectal cancer who underwent adjuvant chemotherapy, 53% completed the treatment with an improvement in disease-free survival. Patients who completed adjuvant chemotherapy had better disease-free survival (P = .03), while the survival was lower among those who did not receive adjuvant chemotherapy, and lowest among those who discontinued adjuvant chemotherapy.

“The results showed that adjuvant chemotherapy is not always recommended for elderly patients, and that patients who are able to complete treatment may have a better prognosis for survival. However, the results do not indicate which patients are unable to complete chemotherapy, and it will be necessary to identify patients who are intolerant of chemotherapy,” said the study’s lead author Manabu Shimomura, MD, PhD, an assistant professor of gastroenterological and transplant surgery at the Hiroshima University Graduate School of Biomedical and Health Sciences in Japan.

The study, which was conducted between 2013 and 2021, enrolled 214 patients (99 men, 115 women, 80-101 years old) who were in stage 3 cancer (27 cases 3A, 158 cases 3B, and 29 cases 3C). A total of 41 patients were ineligible for chemotherapy. Of the remaining patients, 65 received adjuvant chemotherapy and 108 did not receive adjuvant chemotherapy.

The 3-year disease-free survival was 63.6%, the 3-year overall survival was 76.9%, and the 3-year relapse-free survival was 63.1%. Thirty-six patients died because of colorectal cancer, and 30 patients died of other causes. There was recurrence in 58 cases and secondary cancers were observed in 17 cases during the 42.5 months–long follow-up period.

There were few reports of serious adverse events, but some cases of treatment discontinuation were because of adverse events.

In a second study presented by Dr. Shimomura’s group, called HiSCO-03, 65 patients (33 female) underwent curative resection and received five courses of uracil-tegafur and leucovorin (UFT/LV).

The completion rate of 67.3% had a 95% lower bound of 54.9%, which were lower than the predefined thresholds of 75% completion and a lower bound of 60%. “Based on the results of a previous (ACTS-CC phase III) study, we set the expected value of UFT/LV therapy in patients over 80 years of age at 75% and the threshold at 60%. Since the target age group of previous study was 75 years or younger, we concluded from the results of the current study that UFT/LV therapy is less well tolerated in patients 80 years of age and older than in patients 75 years of age and younger,” Dr. Shimomura said.

The treatment completion rate trended higher in males than females (77.6% versus 57.2%; P = .06) and performance status of 0 versus 1 or 2 (74.3% versus 58.9%; P = .10). The most common adverse events were anorexia (33.8%), diarrhea (30.8%), and anemia (24.6%). The median relative dose intensity was 84% for UFT and 100% for LV.

The challenges of treating older patients

If and how older patients with colorectal cancer should be treated is not clear cut. While 20% of patients in the United States who have colorectal cancer are over 80 years old, each case should be evaluated individually, experts say.

Writing in a 2015 review of colorectal cancer treatment in older adults, Monica Millan, MD, PhD, of Joan XXIII University Hospital, Tarragona, Spain, and colleagues, wrote that physiological heterogeneity and coexisting medical conditions make treating older patients with colorectal cancer challenging.

“Age in itself should not be an exclusion criterion for radical treatment, but there will be many elderly patients that will not tolerate or respond well to standard therapies. These patients need to be properly assessed before proposing treatment, and a tailored, individualized approach should be offered in a multidisciplinary setting,” wrote Dr. Millan, who is a colorectal surgeon.

The authors suggest that older patients who are fit could be treated similarly to younger patients, but there remain uncertainties about how to proceed in frail older adults with comorbidities.

“Most elderly patients with cancer will have priorities besides simply prolonging their lives. Surveys have found that their top concerns include avoiding suffering, strengthening relationships with family and friends, being mentally aware, not being a burden on others, and achieving a sense that their life is complete. The treatment plan should be comprehensive: cancer-specific treatment, symptom-specific treatment, supportive treatment modalities, and end-of-life care,” they wrote.

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommends colorectal cancer screening for men and women who are between 45 and 75 years old; however, screening for patients between 76 and 85 years old should be done on a case-by-case basis based on a patient’s overall health, screening history, and the patient’s preferences.

Colorectal cancer incidence rates have been declining since the mid-1980s because of an increase in screening among adults 50 years and older, according to the American Cancer Society. Likewise, mortality rates have dropped from 29.2% in 1970 to 12.6% in 2020 – mostly because of screening.

Dr. Shimomura has no relevant financial disclosures.

The Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium is sponsored by the American Gastroenterological Association, the American Society for Clinical Oncology, the American Society for Radiation Oncology, and the Society of Surgical Oncology.

A pair of new studies suggest limitations of adjuvant chemotherapy among older adults with stage 3 colorectal cancer. A phase 2, multi-institutional feasibility study found a completion rate of 67.3%, while a prospective study found that completion was associated with improved disease-free survival.

Both studies were presented in January at the ASCO Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium 2023.

In HiSCO-04, Japanese researchers found that of 64 older patients with stage 3A colorectal cancer who underwent adjuvant chemotherapy, 53% completed the treatment with an improvement in disease-free survival. Patients who completed adjuvant chemotherapy had better disease-free survival (P = .03), while the survival was lower among those who did not receive adjuvant chemotherapy, and lowest among those who discontinued adjuvant chemotherapy.

“The results showed that adjuvant chemotherapy is not always recommended for elderly patients, and that patients who are able to complete treatment may have a better prognosis for survival. However, the results do not indicate which patients are unable to complete chemotherapy, and it will be necessary to identify patients who are intolerant of chemotherapy,” said the study’s lead author Manabu Shimomura, MD, PhD, an assistant professor of gastroenterological and transplant surgery at the Hiroshima University Graduate School of Biomedical and Health Sciences in Japan.

The study, which was conducted between 2013 and 2021, enrolled 214 patients (99 men, 115 women, 80-101 years old) who were in stage 3 cancer (27 cases 3A, 158 cases 3B, and 29 cases 3C). A total of 41 patients were ineligible for chemotherapy. Of the remaining patients, 65 received adjuvant chemotherapy and 108 did not receive adjuvant chemotherapy.

The 3-year disease-free survival was 63.6%, the 3-year overall survival was 76.9%, and the 3-year relapse-free survival was 63.1%. Thirty-six patients died because of colorectal cancer, and 30 patients died of other causes. There was recurrence in 58 cases and secondary cancers were observed in 17 cases during the 42.5 months–long follow-up period.

There were few reports of serious adverse events, but some cases of treatment discontinuation were because of adverse events.

In a second study presented by Dr. Shimomura’s group, called HiSCO-03, 65 patients (33 female) underwent curative resection and received five courses of uracil-tegafur and leucovorin (UFT/LV).

The completion rate of 67.3% had a 95% lower bound of 54.9%, which were lower than the predefined thresholds of 75% completion and a lower bound of 60%. “Based on the results of a previous (ACTS-CC phase III) study, we set the expected value of UFT/LV therapy in patients over 80 years of age at 75% and the threshold at 60%. Since the target age group of previous study was 75 years or younger, we concluded from the results of the current study that UFT/LV therapy is less well tolerated in patients 80 years of age and older than in patients 75 years of age and younger,” Dr. Shimomura said.

The treatment completion rate trended higher in males than females (77.6% versus 57.2%; P = .06) and performance status of 0 versus 1 or 2 (74.3% versus 58.9%; P = .10). The most common adverse events were anorexia (33.8%), diarrhea (30.8%), and anemia (24.6%). The median relative dose intensity was 84% for UFT and 100% for LV.

The challenges of treating older patients

If and how older patients with colorectal cancer should be treated is not clear cut. While 20% of patients in the United States who have colorectal cancer are over 80 years old, each case should be evaluated individually, experts say.

Writing in a 2015 review of colorectal cancer treatment in older adults, Monica Millan, MD, PhD, of Joan XXIII University Hospital, Tarragona, Spain, and colleagues, wrote that physiological heterogeneity and coexisting medical conditions make treating older patients with colorectal cancer challenging.

“Age in itself should not be an exclusion criterion for radical treatment, but there will be many elderly patients that will not tolerate or respond well to standard therapies. These patients need to be properly assessed before proposing treatment, and a tailored, individualized approach should be offered in a multidisciplinary setting,” wrote Dr. Millan, who is a colorectal surgeon.

The authors suggest that older patients who are fit could be treated similarly to younger patients, but there remain uncertainties about how to proceed in frail older adults with comorbidities.

“Most elderly patients with cancer will have priorities besides simply prolonging their lives. Surveys have found that their top concerns include avoiding suffering, strengthening relationships with family and friends, being mentally aware, not being a burden on others, and achieving a sense that their life is complete. The treatment plan should be comprehensive: cancer-specific treatment, symptom-specific treatment, supportive treatment modalities, and end-of-life care,” they wrote.

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommends colorectal cancer screening for men and women who are between 45 and 75 years old; however, screening for patients between 76 and 85 years old should be done on a case-by-case basis based on a patient’s overall health, screening history, and the patient’s preferences.

Colorectal cancer incidence rates have been declining since the mid-1980s because of an increase in screening among adults 50 years and older, according to the American Cancer Society. Likewise, mortality rates have dropped from 29.2% in 1970 to 12.6% in 2020 – mostly because of screening.

Dr. Shimomura has no relevant financial disclosures.

The Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium is sponsored by the American Gastroenterological Association, the American Society for Clinical Oncology, the American Society for Radiation Oncology, and the Society of Surgical Oncology.

A pair of new studies suggest limitations of adjuvant chemotherapy among older adults with stage 3 colorectal cancer. A phase 2, multi-institutional feasibility study found a completion rate of 67.3%, while a prospective study found that completion was associated with improved disease-free survival.

Both studies were presented in January at the ASCO Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium 2023.

In HiSCO-04, Japanese researchers found that of 64 older patients with stage 3A colorectal cancer who underwent adjuvant chemotherapy, 53% completed the treatment with an improvement in disease-free survival. Patients who completed adjuvant chemotherapy had better disease-free survival (P = .03), while the survival was lower among those who did not receive adjuvant chemotherapy, and lowest among those who discontinued adjuvant chemotherapy.

“The results showed that adjuvant chemotherapy is not always recommended for elderly patients, and that patients who are able to complete treatment may have a better prognosis for survival. However, the results do not indicate which patients are unable to complete chemotherapy, and it will be necessary to identify patients who are intolerant of chemotherapy,” said the study’s lead author Manabu Shimomura, MD, PhD, an assistant professor of gastroenterological and transplant surgery at the Hiroshima University Graduate School of Biomedical and Health Sciences in Japan.

The study, which was conducted between 2013 and 2021, enrolled 214 patients (99 men, 115 women, 80-101 years old) who were in stage 3 cancer (27 cases 3A, 158 cases 3B, and 29 cases 3C). A total of 41 patients were ineligible for chemotherapy. Of the remaining patients, 65 received adjuvant chemotherapy and 108 did not receive adjuvant chemotherapy.

The 3-year disease-free survival was 63.6%, the 3-year overall survival was 76.9%, and the 3-year relapse-free survival was 63.1%. Thirty-six patients died because of colorectal cancer, and 30 patients died of other causes. There was recurrence in 58 cases and secondary cancers were observed in 17 cases during the 42.5 months–long follow-up period.

There were few reports of serious adverse events, but some cases of treatment discontinuation were because of adverse events.

In a second study presented by Dr. Shimomura’s group, called HiSCO-03, 65 patients (33 female) underwent curative resection and received five courses of uracil-tegafur and leucovorin (UFT/LV).

The completion rate of 67.3% had a 95% lower bound of 54.9%, which were lower than the predefined thresholds of 75% completion and a lower bound of 60%. “Based on the results of a previous (ACTS-CC phase III) study, we set the expected value of UFT/LV therapy in patients over 80 years of age at 75% and the threshold at 60%. Since the target age group of previous study was 75 years or younger, we concluded from the results of the current study that UFT/LV therapy is less well tolerated in patients 80 years of age and older than in patients 75 years of age and younger,” Dr. Shimomura said.

The treatment completion rate trended higher in males than females (77.6% versus 57.2%; P = .06) and performance status of 0 versus 1 or 2 (74.3% versus 58.9%; P = .10). The most common adverse events were anorexia (33.8%), diarrhea (30.8%), and anemia (24.6%). The median relative dose intensity was 84% for UFT and 100% for LV.

The challenges of treating older patients

If and how older patients with colorectal cancer should be treated is not clear cut. While 20% of patients in the United States who have colorectal cancer are over 80 years old, each case should be evaluated individually, experts say.

Writing in a 2015 review of colorectal cancer treatment in older adults, Monica Millan, MD, PhD, of Joan XXIII University Hospital, Tarragona, Spain, and colleagues, wrote that physiological heterogeneity and coexisting medical conditions make treating older patients with colorectal cancer challenging.

“Age in itself should not be an exclusion criterion for radical treatment, but there will be many elderly patients that will not tolerate or respond well to standard therapies. These patients need to be properly assessed before proposing treatment, and a tailored, individualized approach should be offered in a multidisciplinary setting,” wrote Dr. Millan, who is a colorectal surgeon.

The authors suggest that older patients who are fit could be treated similarly to younger patients, but there remain uncertainties about how to proceed in frail older adults with comorbidities.

“Most elderly patients with cancer will have priorities besides simply prolonging their lives. Surveys have found that their top concerns include avoiding suffering, strengthening relationships with family and friends, being mentally aware, not being a burden on others, and achieving a sense that their life is complete. The treatment plan should be comprehensive: cancer-specific treatment, symptom-specific treatment, supportive treatment modalities, and end-of-life care,” they wrote.

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommends colorectal cancer screening for men and women who are between 45 and 75 years old; however, screening for patients between 76 and 85 years old should be done on a case-by-case basis based on a patient’s overall health, screening history, and the patient’s preferences.

Colorectal cancer incidence rates have been declining since the mid-1980s because of an increase in screening among adults 50 years and older, according to the American Cancer Society. Likewise, mortality rates have dropped from 29.2% in 1970 to 12.6% in 2020 – mostly because of screening.

Dr. Shimomura has no relevant financial disclosures.

The Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium is sponsored by the American Gastroenterological Association, the American Society for Clinical Oncology, the American Society for Radiation Oncology, and the Society of Surgical Oncology.

The Food and Drug Administration approved a new indication for sacituzumab govitecan (Trodelvy, Gilead Sciences) on Feb. 3 for patients with unresectable, locally advanced or metastatic hormone receptor (HR)–positive, HER2-negative breast cancer after endocrine-based therapy and at least two additional systemic therapies for metastatic disease.

Label expansion for the Trop-2–directed antibody-drug conjugate was based on the TROPICS-02 trial, which randomized 543 adults 1:1 to either sacituzumab govitecan 10 mg/kg IV on days 1 and 8 of a 21-day cycle or single agent chemotherapy, most often eribulin but also vinorelbine, gemcitabine, or capecitabine.

Median progression free survival was 5.5 months with sacituzumab govitecan versus 4 months with single agent chemotherapy (hazard ratio, 0.66; P = .0003). Median overall survival was 14.4 months in the sacituzumab govitecan group versus 11.2 months with chemotherapy (HR, 0.79), according to an FDA press release announcing the approval.

In a Gilead press release, Hope Rugo, MD, a breast cancer specialist at the University of California, San Francisco, and principal investigator for TROPICS-02, said the approval “is significant for the breast cancer community. We have had limited options to offer patients after endocrine-based therapy and chemotherapy, and to see a clinically meaningful survival benefit of more than 3 months with a quality-of-life benefit for these women is exceptional.”

The most common adverse events associated with sacituzumab govitecan in the trial, occurring in a quarter or more of participants, were decreased leukocyte count, decreased neutrophil count, decreased hemoglobin, decreased lymphocyte count, diarrhea, fatigue, nausea, alopecia, glucose elevation, constipation, and decreased albumin.

Labeling for the agent carries a boxedwarning of severe or life-threatening neutropenia and severe diarrhea.

The recommended dose is the trial dose: 10 mg/kg IV on days 1 and 8 of 21-day cycles until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

Sacituzumab govitecan was previously approved for unresectable, locally advanced or metastatic triple-negative breast cancer after two or more prior systemic therapies and locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer after platinum-based chemotherapy and either a PD-1 or PD-L1 inhibitor.

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

The Food and Drug Administration approved a new indication for sacituzumab govitecan (Trodelvy, Gilead Sciences) on Feb. 3 for patients with unresectable, locally advanced or metastatic hormone receptor (HR)–positive, HER2-negative breast cancer after endocrine-based therapy and at least two additional systemic therapies for metastatic disease.

Label expansion for the Trop-2–directed antibody-drug conjugate was based on the TROPICS-02 trial, which randomized 543 adults 1:1 to either sacituzumab govitecan 10 mg/kg IV on days 1 and 8 of a 21-day cycle or single agent chemotherapy, most often eribulin but also vinorelbine, gemcitabine, or capecitabine.

Median progression free survival was 5.5 months with sacituzumab govitecan versus 4 months with single agent chemotherapy (hazard ratio, 0.66; P = .0003). Median overall survival was 14.4 months in the sacituzumab govitecan group versus 11.2 months with chemotherapy (HR, 0.79), according to an FDA press release announcing the approval.

In a Gilead press release, Hope Rugo, MD, a breast cancer specialist at the University of California, San Francisco, and principal investigator for TROPICS-02, said the approval “is significant for the breast cancer community. We have had limited options to offer patients after endocrine-based therapy and chemotherapy, and to see a clinically meaningful survival benefit of more than 3 months with a quality-of-life benefit for these women is exceptional.”

The most common adverse events associated with sacituzumab govitecan in the trial, occurring in a quarter or more of participants, were decreased leukocyte count, decreased neutrophil count, decreased hemoglobin, decreased lymphocyte count, diarrhea, fatigue, nausea, alopecia, glucose elevation, constipation, and decreased albumin.

Labeling for the agent carries a boxedwarning of severe or life-threatening neutropenia and severe diarrhea.

The recommended dose is the trial dose: 10 mg/kg IV on days 1 and 8 of 21-day cycles until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

Sacituzumab govitecan was previously approved for unresectable, locally advanced or metastatic triple-negative breast cancer after two or more prior systemic therapies and locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer after platinum-based chemotherapy and either a PD-1 or PD-L1 inhibitor.

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

The Food and Drug Administration approved a new indication for sacituzumab govitecan (Trodelvy, Gilead Sciences) on Feb. 3 for patients with unresectable, locally advanced or metastatic hormone receptor (HR)–positive, HER2-negative breast cancer after endocrine-based therapy and at least two additional systemic therapies for metastatic disease.

Label expansion for the Trop-2–directed antibody-drug conjugate was based on the TROPICS-02 trial, which randomized 543 adults 1:1 to either sacituzumab govitecan 10 mg/kg IV on days 1 and 8 of a 21-day cycle or single agent chemotherapy, most often eribulin but also vinorelbine, gemcitabine, or capecitabine.

Median progression free survival was 5.5 months with sacituzumab govitecan versus 4 months with single agent chemotherapy (hazard ratio, 0.66; P = .0003). Median overall survival was 14.4 months in the sacituzumab govitecan group versus 11.2 months with chemotherapy (HR, 0.79), according to an FDA press release announcing the approval.

In a Gilead press release, Hope Rugo, MD, a breast cancer specialist at the University of California, San Francisco, and principal investigator for TROPICS-02, said the approval “is significant for the breast cancer community. We have had limited options to offer patients after endocrine-based therapy and chemotherapy, and to see a clinically meaningful survival benefit of more than 3 months with a quality-of-life benefit for these women is exceptional.”

The most common adverse events associated with sacituzumab govitecan in the trial, occurring in a quarter or more of participants, were decreased leukocyte count, decreased neutrophil count, decreased hemoglobin, decreased lymphocyte count, diarrhea, fatigue, nausea, alopecia, glucose elevation, constipation, and decreased albumin.

Labeling for the agent carries a boxedwarning of severe or life-threatening neutropenia and severe diarrhea.

The recommended dose is the trial dose: 10 mg/kg IV on days 1 and 8 of 21-day cycles until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

Sacituzumab govitecan was previously approved for unresectable, locally advanced or metastatic triple-negative breast cancer after two or more prior systemic therapies and locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer after platinum-based chemotherapy and either a PD-1 or PD-L1 inhibitor.

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

Both race and place of residence affect how soon a woman in North Carolina receives treatment for breast cancer, suggesting the need to target high-risk geographic regions and patient groups to ensure timely care, new research suggests.

Among nearly 33,000 women from North Carolina with stage I-III breast cancer, Black patients were nearly twice as likely has non-Black patients to experience treatment delays of more than 60 days, researchers found.

“Our findings suggest that treatment delays are alarmingly common in patients at high risk for breast cancer death, including young Black women and patients with stage III disease,” the authors note in their article, which was published online in Cancer.

Research shows that breast cancer treatment delays of 30-60 days can lower survival, and Black patients face a “disproportionate risk of treatment delays across the breast cancer care delivery spectrum,” the authors explain.

However, studies exploring whether or how racial disparities in treatment delays relate to geography are more limited.

In the current analysis, researchers amassed a retrospective cohort of all patients with stage I-III breast cancer between 2004 and 2015 in the North Carolina Central Cancer Registry and explored the risk of treatment delay by race and geographic subregion.

The cohort included 32,626 women, 6,190 (19.0%) of whom were Black. Counties were divided into the nine Area Health Education Center regions for North Carolina.

Compared with non‐Black patients, Black patients were more likely to have stage III disease (15.2% vs. 9.3%), hormone receptor–negative tumors (29.3% vs. 15.6%), Medicaid insurance (46.7% vs. 14.9%), and to live within 5 miles of their treatment site (30.6% vs. 25.2%).

Overall, Black patients were almost two times more likely to experience a treatment delay of more than 60 days (15% vs. 8%).

On average, about one in seven Black women experienced a lengthy delay, but the risk varied depending on geographic location. Patients living in certain regions of the state were more likely to experience delays; those in the highest-risk region were about twice as likely to experience a delay as those in the lowest-risk region (relative risk, 2.1 among Black patients; and RR, 1.9 among non-Black patients).

The magnitude of the racial gap in treatment delay varied by region – from 0% to 9.4%. But overall, of patients who experienced treatment delays, a significantly greater proportion were Black patients in every region except region 2, where only 2.7% (93 of 3,362) of patients were Black.

Notably, two regions with the greatest disparities in treatment delay, as well as the highest absolute risk of treatment delay for Black patients, surround large cities.

“These delays weren’t explained by the patients’ distance from cancer treatment facilities, their specific stage of cancer or type of treatment, or what insurance they had,” lead author Katherine Reeder-Hayes, MD, with the University of North Carolina Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, Chapel Hill, said in a news release.

Instead, Dr. Reeder-Hayes said, the findings suggest that the structure of local health care systems, rather than patient characteristics, may better explain why some patients experience treatment delays.

In other words, “if cancer care teams in certain areas say, ‘Oh, it’s particularly hard to treat breast cancer in our area because people are poor or have really advanced stages of cancer when they come in,’ our research does not bear out that explanation,” Dr. Reeder-Hayes said in email to this news organization.

This study “highlights the persistent disparities in treatment delays Black women encounter, which often lead to worse outcomes,” said Kathie-Ann Joseph, MD, MPH, who was not involved in the research.

“Interestingly, the authors could not attribute these delays in treatment to patient-level factors,” said Dr. Joseph, a breast cancer surgeon at NYU Langone Perlmutter Cancer Center, New York. But the authors “did find substantial geographic variation, which suggests the need to address structural barriers contributing to treatment delays in Black women.”

Sara P. Cate, MD, who was not involved with the research, also noted that the study highlights a known issue – “that racial minorities have longer delays in cancer treatment.” And notably, she said, the findings reveal that this disparity persists in areas where access to care is better and more robust.

“The nuances of the delays to care are multifactorial,” said Dr. Cate, a breast cancer surgeon and director of the Breast Surgery Quality Program at Mount Sinai in New York. “We need to do better with this population, and it is a multilevel solution of financial assistance, social work, and patient navigation.”

The study was supported in part by grants from the Susan G. Komen Foundation and the NC State Employees’ Credit Union. Dr. Reeder-Hayes, Dr. Cate, and Dr. Joseph have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Both race and place of residence affect how soon a woman in North Carolina receives treatment for breast cancer, suggesting the need to target high-risk geographic regions and patient groups to ensure timely care, new research suggests.

Among nearly 33,000 women from North Carolina with stage I-III breast cancer, Black patients were nearly twice as likely has non-Black patients to experience treatment delays of more than 60 days, researchers found.

“Our findings suggest that treatment delays are alarmingly common in patients at high risk for breast cancer death, including young Black women and patients with stage III disease,” the authors note in their article, which was published online in Cancer.

Research shows that breast cancer treatment delays of 30-60 days can lower survival, and Black patients face a “disproportionate risk of treatment delays across the breast cancer care delivery spectrum,” the authors explain.

However, studies exploring whether or how racial disparities in treatment delays relate to geography are more limited.

In the current analysis, researchers amassed a retrospective cohort of all patients with stage I-III breast cancer between 2004 and 2015 in the North Carolina Central Cancer Registry and explored the risk of treatment delay by race and geographic subregion.

The cohort included 32,626 women, 6,190 (19.0%) of whom were Black. Counties were divided into the nine Area Health Education Center regions for North Carolina.

Compared with non‐Black patients, Black patients were more likely to have stage III disease (15.2% vs. 9.3%), hormone receptor–negative tumors (29.3% vs. 15.6%), Medicaid insurance (46.7% vs. 14.9%), and to live within 5 miles of their treatment site (30.6% vs. 25.2%).

Overall, Black patients were almost two times more likely to experience a treatment delay of more than 60 days (15% vs. 8%).

On average, about one in seven Black women experienced a lengthy delay, but the risk varied depending on geographic location. Patients living in certain regions of the state were more likely to experience delays; those in the highest-risk region were about twice as likely to experience a delay as those in the lowest-risk region (relative risk, 2.1 among Black patients; and RR, 1.9 among non-Black patients).

The magnitude of the racial gap in treatment delay varied by region – from 0% to 9.4%. But overall, of patients who experienced treatment delays, a significantly greater proportion were Black patients in every region except region 2, where only 2.7% (93 of 3,362) of patients were Black.

Notably, two regions with the greatest disparities in treatment delay, as well as the highest absolute risk of treatment delay for Black patients, surround large cities.

“These delays weren’t explained by the patients’ distance from cancer treatment facilities, their specific stage of cancer or type of treatment, or what insurance they had,” lead author Katherine Reeder-Hayes, MD, with the University of North Carolina Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, Chapel Hill, said in a news release.

Instead, Dr. Reeder-Hayes said, the findings suggest that the structure of local health care systems, rather than patient characteristics, may better explain why some patients experience treatment delays.

In other words, “if cancer care teams in certain areas say, ‘Oh, it’s particularly hard to treat breast cancer in our area because people are poor or have really advanced stages of cancer when they come in,’ our research does not bear out that explanation,” Dr. Reeder-Hayes said in email to this news organization.

This study “highlights the persistent disparities in treatment delays Black women encounter, which often lead to worse outcomes,” said Kathie-Ann Joseph, MD, MPH, who was not involved in the research.

“Interestingly, the authors could not attribute these delays in treatment to patient-level factors,” said Dr. Joseph, a breast cancer surgeon at NYU Langone Perlmutter Cancer Center, New York. But the authors “did find substantial geographic variation, which suggests the need to address structural barriers contributing to treatment delays in Black women.”

Sara P. Cate, MD, who was not involved with the research, also noted that the study highlights a known issue – “that racial minorities have longer delays in cancer treatment.” And notably, she said, the findings reveal that this disparity persists in areas where access to care is better and more robust.

“The nuances of the delays to care are multifactorial,” said Dr. Cate, a breast cancer surgeon and director of the Breast Surgery Quality Program at Mount Sinai in New York. “We need to do better with this population, and it is a multilevel solution of financial assistance, social work, and patient navigation.”

The study was supported in part by grants from the Susan G. Komen Foundation and the NC State Employees’ Credit Union. Dr. Reeder-Hayes, Dr. Cate, and Dr. Joseph have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Both race and place of residence affect how soon a woman in North Carolina receives treatment for breast cancer, suggesting the need to target high-risk geographic regions and patient groups to ensure timely care, new research suggests.

Among nearly 33,000 women from North Carolina with stage I-III breast cancer, Black patients were nearly twice as likely has non-Black patients to experience treatment delays of more than 60 days, researchers found.

“Our findings suggest that treatment delays are alarmingly common in patients at high risk for breast cancer death, including young Black women and patients with stage III disease,” the authors note in their article, which was published online in Cancer.

Research shows that breast cancer treatment delays of 30-60 days can lower survival, and Black patients face a “disproportionate risk of treatment delays across the breast cancer care delivery spectrum,” the authors explain.

However, studies exploring whether or how racial disparities in treatment delays relate to geography are more limited.

In the current analysis, researchers amassed a retrospective cohort of all patients with stage I-III breast cancer between 2004 and 2015 in the North Carolina Central Cancer Registry and explored the risk of treatment delay by race and geographic subregion.

The cohort included 32,626 women, 6,190 (19.0%) of whom were Black. Counties were divided into the nine Area Health Education Center regions for North Carolina.

Compared with non‐Black patients, Black patients were more likely to have stage III disease (15.2% vs. 9.3%), hormone receptor–negative tumors (29.3% vs. 15.6%), Medicaid insurance (46.7% vs. 14.9%), and to live within 5 miles of their treatment site (30.6% vs. 25.2%).

Overall, Black patients were almost two times more likely to experience a treatment delay of more than 60 days (15% vs. 8%).

On average, about one in seven Black women experienced a lengthy delay, but the risk varied depending on geographic location. Patients living in certain regions of the state were more likely to experience delays; those in the highest-risk region were about twice as likely to experience a delay as those in the lowest-risk region (relative risk, 2.1 among Black patients; and RR, 1.9 among non-Black patients).

The magnitude of the racial gap in treatment delay varied by region – from 0% to 9.4%. But overall, of patients who experienced treatment delays, a significantly greater proportion were Black patients in every region except region 2, where only 2.7% (93 of 3,362) of patients were Black.

Notably, two regions with the greatest disparities in treatment delay, as well as the highest absolute risk of treatment delay for Black patients, surround large cities.

“These delays weren’t explained by the patients’ distance from cancer treatment facilities, their specific stage of cancer or type of treatment, or what insurance they had,” lead author Katherine Reeder-Hayes, MD, with the University of North Carolina Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, Chapel Hill, said in a news release.

Instead, Dr. Reeder-Hayes said, the findings suggest that the structure of local health care systems, rather than patient characteristics, may better explain why some patients experience treatment delays.

In other words, “if cancer care teams in certain areas say, ‘Oh, it’s particularly hard to treat breast cancer in our area because people are poor or have really advanced stages of cancer when they come in,’ our research does not bear out that explanation,” Dr. Reeder-Hayes said in email to this news organization.

This study “highlights the persistent disparities in treatment delays Black women encounter, which often lead to worse outcomes,” said Kathie-Ann Joseph, MD, MPH, who was not involved in the research.

“Interestingly, the authors could not attribute these delays in treatment to patient-level factors,” said Dr. Joseph, a breast cancer surgeon at NYU Langone Perlmutter Cancer Center, New York. But the authors “did find substantial geographic variation, which suggests the need to address structural barriers contributing to treatment delays in Black women.”

Sara P. Cate, MD, who was not involved with the research, also noted that the study highlights a known issue – “that racial minorities have longer delays in cancer treatment.” And notably, she said, the findings reveal that this disparity persists in areas where access to care is better and more robust.

“The nuances of the delays to care are multifactorial,” said Dr. Cate, a breast cancer surgeon and director of the Breast Surgery Quality Program at Mount Sinai in New York. “We need to do better with this population, and it is a multilevel solution of financial assistance, social work, and patient navigation.”

The study was supported in part by grants from the Susan G. Komen Foundation and the NC State Employees’ Credit Union. Dr. Reeder-Hayes, Dr. Cate, and Dr. Joseph have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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