AVAHO

Young adults who survive cancer are more likely than cancer-free siblings to be lonely and to develop emotional distress, risky behaviors, and new chronic conditions as a result, findings from a large retrospective study suggest.

Young cancer survivors were more than twice as likely to report loneliness at study baseline and follow-up. Loneliness at these times was associated with an almost 10-fold increased risk for anxiety and a nearly 18-fold increased risk for depression.

“We observed an elevated prevalence of loneliness in survivors, compared to sibling controls, and found that loneliness was associated with emotional, behavioral, and physical health morbidities,” lead study author Chiara Papini, PhD, of St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital, Memphis, and her colleagues write. “Our results highlight the importance of identifying and screening young adult survivors of childhood cancer for loneliness and the need for targeted interventions to reduce loneliness.”

The article was published online in the journal Cancer.

Most young cancer survivors in the United States reach adulthood and need to play catch-up: make up for missed school and work, become reacquainted with old friends, and develop new friendships, social networks, and intimate relationships. Meeting these needs may be hindered by adverse physical and psychosocial problems that linger or develop after treatment, which may leave cancer survivors feeling isolated.

“Young adult survivors of childhood cancer are navigating a developmental period marked by increased social expectations, during which loneliness may have significant impact on physical and mental health,” Dr. Papini and colleagues say.

To better understand the risks for loneliness among young cancer survivors, Dr. Papini and her colleagues analyzed data from the retrospective Childhood Cancer Survivor Study, which followed young survivors who had been diagnosed with a range of cancers before age 21 years. Study participants had been treated at one of 31 study sites in North America and had survived 5 years or longer after diagnosis.

The 9,664 survivors and 2,221 randomly sampled siblings ranged in age from 19 to 39 years at the time they completed a survey that assessed emotional distress at baseline and at follow‐up a median of 6.6 years. At baseline, the median age of the survivors was 27 years, and a median of 17.5 years had passed from the time of their diagnosis.

The most common diagnoses were leukemia (35%), Hodgkin lymphoma (15%), central nervous system (CNS) tumors (14%), and bone tumors (10%). More than half (56%) had received radiation therapy.

Using multivariable models, the researchers found that survivors were more likely than siblings to report moderate to extreme loneliness at either baseline or follow‐up (prevalence ratio, 1.04) and were more than two times more likely to report loneliness at both baseline and follow‐up (PR, 2.21).

Loneliness at baseline and follow‐up was associated with a much greater risk for anxiety (relative risk, 9.75) and depression (RR, 17.86). Loneliness at follow‐up was linked with increased risks for suicidal ideation (RR, 1.52), heavy or risky alcohol consumption (RR, 1.27), and any grade 2-4 new‐onset chronic health condition (RR, 1.29), especially those that were neurologic (RR, 4.37).

Survivors of CNS tumors (odds ratio, 2.59) and leukemia (OR, 2.52) were most likely to report loneliness at both baseline and follow‐up, though survivors of four other cancer types also faced an elevated risk for loneliness: neuroblastoma (OR, 2.32), bone tumor (OR, 2.12), soft tissue sarcoma (OR, 1.78), and Hodgkin lymphoma (OR, 1.69).

Treatment type appeared to matter as well. Survivors who underwent amputation (OR, 1.82) or were treated with cranial radiation greater than or equal to 20 Gy (OR, 1.56) or corticosteroids (OR, 1.31) were more likely to report loneliness at baseline and follow‐up, compared with those who reported no loneliness at both time points.

The authors acknowledge limitations to the study, including the fact that roughly 90% of survivors and siblings were White, which limits the applicability of their results to diverse groups. In addition, the responses were self-reported without external validation.

Overall, though, the findings provide a framework for clinicians to understand and identify loneliness among young cancer survivors and help them cope with their emotions.

“The Childhood Cancer Survivor Study provides the largest and the most comprehensive dataset on childhood cancer survivors and healthy-sibling comparisons, giving us powerful data on survivorship, late effects, and psychosocial and health outcomes,” Rachel M. Moore, PhD, child psychologist at Children’s Mercy Kansas City, Mo., said in an interview.

Asking a simple question – “Are you feeling lonely?” – can identify at-risk survivors and enable health care teams to provide timely interventions that address young patients’ physical and psychological needs, said Dr. Moore, who was not involved in the study.

Dr. Moore noted that within her clinical practice, “adolescent and young adult survivors frequently discuss loneliness in their daily lives. They feel different from their peers and misunderstood. Having a conversation early in survivorship care about the experience of loneliness as a product of cancer treatment can open the door to regular screening and destigmatizing mental health services.”

Supporting young people throughout their survivorship journey is important, said Rusha Bhandari, MD, medical director of the Childhood, Adolescent, and Young Adult Cancer Survivorship Program at City of Hope, Duarte, Calif. This study can help ensure that clinicians “provide comprehensive care, including psychosocial screening and support, to meet the unique needs of our young adult survivors,” said Dr. Bhandari, who also was not involved in the research.

The National Cancer Institute and the American Lebanese Syrian Associated Charities supported the study. One co-author reported receiving corporate consulting fees. Dr. Papini, the remaining co-authors, Dr. Moore, and Dr. Bhandari report no relevant financial involvements.

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

Young adults who survive cancer are more likely than cancer-free siblings to be lonely and to develop emotional distress, risky behaviors, and new chronic conditions as a result, findings from a large retrospective study suggest.

Young cancer survivors were more than twice as likely to report loneliness at study baseline and follow-up. Loneliness at these times was associated with an almost 10-fold increased risk for anxiety and a nearly 18-fold increased risk for depression.

“We observed an elevated prevalence of loneliness in survivors, compared to sibling controls, and found that loneliness was associated with emotional, behavioral, and physical health morbidities,” lead study author Chiara Papini, PhD, of St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital, Memphis, and her colleagues write. “Our results highlight the importance of identifying and screening young adult survivors of childhood cancer for loneliness and the need for targeted interventions to reduce loneliness.”

The article was published online in the journal Cancer.

Most young cancer survivors in the United States reach adulthood and need to play catch-up: make up for missed school and work, become reacquainted with old friends, and develop new friendships, social networks, and intimate relationships. Meeting these needs may be hindered by adverse physical and psychosocial problems that linger or develop after treatment, which may leave cancer survivors feeling isolated.

“Young adult survivors of childhood cancer are navigating a developmental period marked by increased social expectations, during which loneliness may have significant impact on physical and mental health,” Dr. Papini and colleagues say.

To better understand the risks for loneliness among young cancer survivors, Dr. Papini and her colleagues analyzed data from the retrospective Childhood Cancer Survivor Study, which followed young survivors who had been diagnosed with a range of cancers before age 21 years. Study participants had been treated at one of 31 study sites in North America and had survived 5 years or longer after diagnosis.

The 9,664 survivors and 2,221 randomly sampled siblings ranged in age from 19 to 39 years at the time they completed a survey that assessed emotional distress at baseline and at follow‐up a median of 6.6 years. At baseline, the median age of the survivors was 27 years, and a median of 17.5 years had passed from the time of their diagnosis.

The most common diagnoses were leukemia (35%), Hodgkin lymphoma (15%), central nervous system (CNS) tumors (14%), and bone tumors (10%). More than half (56%) had received radiation therapy.

Using multivariable models, the researchers found that survivors were more likely than siblings to report moderate to extreme loneliness at either baseline or follow‐up (prevalence ratio, 1.04) and were more than two times more likely to report loneliness at both baseline and follow‐up (PR, 2.21).

Loneliness at baseline and follow‐up was associated with a much greater risk for anxiety (relative risk, 9.75) and depression (RR, 17.86). Loneliness at follow‐up was linked with increased risks for suicidal ideation (RR, 1.52), heavy or risky alcohol consumption (RR, 1.27), and any grade 2-4 new‐onset chronic health condition (RR, 1.29), especially those that were neurologic (RR, 4.37).

Survivors of CNS tumors (odds ratio, 2.59) and leukemia (OR, 2.52) were most likely to report loneliness at both baseline and follow‐up, though survivors of four other cancer types also faced an elevated risk for loneliness: neuroblastoma (OR, 2.32), bone tumor (OR, 2.12), soft tissue sarcoma (OR, 1.78), and Hodgkin lymphoma (OR, 1.69).

Treatment type appeared to matter as well. Survivors who underwent amputation (OR, 1.82) or were treated with cranial radiation greater than or equal to 20 Gy (OR, 1.56) or corticosteroids (OR, 1.31) were more likely to report loneliness at baseline and follow‐up, compared with those who reported no loneliness at both time points.

The authors acknowledge limitations to the study, including the fact that roughly 90% of survivors and siblings were White, which limits the applicability of their results to diverse groups. In addition, the responses were self-reported without external validation.

Overall, though, the findings provide a framework for clinicians to understand and identify loneliness among young cancer survivors and help them cope with their emotions.

“The Childhood Cancer Survivor Study provides the largest and the most comprehensive dataset on childhood cancer survivors and healthy-sibling comparisons, giving us powerful data on survivorship, late effects, and psychosocial and health outcomes,” Rachel M. Moore, PhD, child psychologist at Children’s Mercy Kansas City, Mo., said in an interview.

Asking a simple question – “Are you feeling lonely?” – can identify at-risk survivors and enable health care teams to provide timely interventions that address young patients’ physical and psychological needs, said Dr. Moore, who was not involved in the study.

Dr. Moore noted that within her clinical practice, “adolescent and young adult survivors frequently discuss loneliness in their daily lives. They feel different from their peers and misunderstood. Having a conversation early in survivorship care about the experience of loneliness as a product of cancer treatment can open the door to regular screening and destigmatizing mental health services.”

Supporting young people throughout their survivorship journey is important, said Rusha Bhandari, MD, medical director of the Childhood, Adolescent, and Young Adult Cancer Survivorship Program at City of Hope, Duarte, Calif. This study can help ensure that clinicians “provide comprehensive care, including psychosocial screening and support, to meet the unique needs of our young adult survivors,” said Dr. Bhandari, who also was not involved in the research.

The National Cancer Institute and the American Lebanese Syrian Associated Charities supported the study. One co-author reported receiving corporate consulting fees. Dr. Papini, the remaining co-authors, Dr. Moore, and Dr. Bhandari report no relevant financial involvements.

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

Young adults who survive cancer are more likely than cancer-free siblings to be lonely and to develop emotional distress, risky behaviors, and new chronic conditions as a result, findings from a large retrospective study suggest.

Young cancer survivors were more than twice as likely to report loneliness at study baseline and follow-up. Loneliness at these times was associated with an almost 10-fold increased risk for anxiety and a nearly 18-fold increased risk for depression.

“We observed an elevated prevalence of loneliness in survivors, compared to sibling controls, and found that loneliness was associated with emotional, behavioral, and physical health morbidities,” lead study author Chiara Papini, PhD, of St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital, Memphis, and her colleagues write. “Our results highlight the importance of identifying and screening young adult survivors of childhood cancer for loneliness and the need for targeted interventions to reduce loneliness.”

The article was published online in the journal Cancer.

Most young cancer survivors in the United States reach adulthood and need to play catch-up: make up for missed school and work, become reacquainted with old friends, and develop new friendships, social networks, and intimate relationships. Meeting these needs may be hindered by adverse physical and psychosocial problems that linger or develop after treatment, which may leave cancer survivors feeling isolated.

“Young adult survivors of childhood cancer are navigating a developmental period marked by increased social expectations, during which loneliness may have significant impact on physical and mental health,” Dr. Papini and colleagues say.

To better understand the risks for loneliness among young cancer survivors, Dr. Papini and her colleagues analyzed data from the retrospective Childhood Cancer Survivor Study, which followed young survivors who had been diagnosed with a range of cancers before age 21 years. Study participants had been treated at one of 31 study sites in North America and had survived 5 years or longer after diagnosis.

The 9,664 survivors and 2,221 randomly sampled siblings ranged in age from 19 to 39 years at the time they completed a survey that assessed emotional distress at baseline and at follow‐up a median of 6.6 years. At baseline, the median age of the survivors was 27 years, and a median of 17.5 years had passed from the time of their diagnosis.

The most common diagnoses were leukemia (35%), Hodgkin lymphoma (15%), central nervous system (CNS) tumors (14%), and bone tumors (10%). More than half (56%) had received radiation therapy.

Using multivariable models, the researchers found that survivors were more likely than siblings to report moderate to extreme loneliness at either baseline or follow‐up (prevalence ratio, 1.04) and were more than two times more likely to report loneliness at both baseline and follow‐up (PR, 2.21).

Loneliness at baseline and follow‐up was associated with a much greater risk for anxiety (relative risk, 9.75) and depression (RR, 17.86). Loneliness at follow‐up was linked with increased risks for suicidal ideation (RR, 1.52), heavy or risky alcohol consumption (RR, 1.27), and any grade 2-4 new‐onset chronic health condition (RR, 1.29), especially those that were neurologic (RR, 4.37).

Survivors of CNS tumors (odds ratio, 2.59) and leukemia (OR, 2.52) were most likely to report loneliness at both baseline and follow‐up, though survivors of four other cancer types also faced an elevated risk for loneliness: neuroblastoma (OR, 2.32), bone tumor (OR, 2.12), soft tissue sarcoma (OR, 1.78), and Hodgkin lymphoma (OR, 1.69).

Treatment type appeared to matter as well. Survivors who underwent amputation (OR, 1.82) or were treated with cranial radiation greater than or equal to 20 Gy (OR, 1.56) or corticosteroids (OR, 1.31) were more likely to report loneliness at baseline and follow‐up, compared with those who reported no loneliness at both time points.

The authors acknowledge limitations to the study, including the fact that roughly 90% of survivors and siblings were White, which limits the applicability of their results to diverse groups. In addition, the responses were self-reported without external validation.

Overall, though, the findings provide a framework for clinicians to understand and identify loneliness among young cancer survivors and help them cope with their emotions.

“The Childhood Cancer Survivor Study provides the largest and the most comprehensive dataset on childhood cancer survivors and healthy-sibling comparisons, giving us powerful data on survivorship, late effects, and psychosocial and health outcomes,” Rachel M. Moore, PhD, child psychologist at Children’s Mercy Kansas City, Mo., said in an interview.

Asking a simple question – “Are you feeling lonely?” – can identify at-risk survivors and enable health care teams to provide timely interventions that address young patients’ physical and psychological needs, said Dr. Moore, who was not involved in the study.

Dr. Moore noted that within her clinical practice, “adolescent and young adult survivors frequently discuss loneliness in their daily lives. They feel different from their peers and misunderstood. Having a conversation early in survivorship care about the experience of loneliness as a product of cancer treatment can open the door to regular screening and destigmatizing mental health services.”

Supporting young people throughout their survivorship journey is important, said Rusha Bhandari, MD, medical director of the Childhood, Adolescent, and Young Adult Cancer Survivorship Program at City of Hope, Duarte, Calif. This study can help ensure that clinicians “provide comprehensive care, including psychosocial screening and support, to meet the unique needs of our young adult survivors,” said Dr. Bhandari, who also was not involved in the research.

The National Cancer Institute and the American Lebanese Syrian Associated Charities supported the study. One co-author reported receiving corporate consulting fees. Dr. Papini, the remaining co-authors, Dr. Moore, and Dr. Bhandari report no relevant financial involvements.

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

Female physicians often spend their child-bearing years in medical training and developing their careers, and this can create problems.  

In a survey of just over 1,000 female oncologists, 95% said their career plans were at least somewhat associated with the timing of when to start a family.

The most striking finding was that one third of respondents had miscarried and another one third reported difficulty with infertility that required fertility counseling and/or treatment.

One third reported experiencing discrimination during pregnancy, and another third said they experienced discrimination for taking maternity leave, and having more than one child increased the likelihood of this.

The most common negative factor associated with family planning was long work hours and heavy workload (66.6%),

These findings suggest there are systemic changes needed not only in the healthcare setting but in society as a whole around women in the workplace and their choices of childbearing, say the authors.

The study was published online in JAMA Network Open and led by Anna Lee MD, MPH, from the department of radiation oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston. 

In an invited commentary, Mona Saleh, MD, and Stephanie Blank, MD, from the department of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive science at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York, suggest that cultural changes are needed that go beyond women in medicine.

“These cultural values are so deeply pervasive (one could also say invasive) that they affect even these most educated and wealthy professional women, such as those who participated in this survey,” the editorialists write.

“[The researchers] advocate for early education on assisted reproductive technology (ART) risks, benefits, and success rates, but this is not getting at the underlying issue: Pregnancy discrimination and unfair distribution of childbearing responsibilities are a reflection of a larger problematic culture rather than an issue specific to women in medicine,” they add.
 

Survey details

The survey comprised a novel 39-item questionnaire distributed to 1,004 U.S. female oncologists from May 7 to June 30, 2020, via email and social media channels.

Most respondents (84.4%) were married, and 71% were currently working full-time.

About one-third (35%) worked in radiation oncology, another third (34.3%) in medical oncology, 18.4% in surgical oncology, and 9.1% in pediatric oncology.

A total of 768 respondents (76.5%) had children, and of these, 415 (41.3%) first gave birth during postgraduate training and 275 (27.4%) gave birth in years 1-5 as an attending physician.

Of all respondents who had been pregnant, approximately two-thirds (65.7%) had some type of pregnancy complication. About one-third of respondents (31.7%) reported having experienced a miscarriage after a confirmed pregnancy; of those, 61.6% reported one miscarriage, while the remainder had two or more miscarriages (38.4%).

Approximately one-third (31.4%) of respondents reported difficulty with infertility that required fertility counseling and/or treatment.

The questionnaire also asked about assisted reproductive technology, and 164 participants (16.3%) reported the use of fertility medications, and 53 (5.3%) reported cryopreservation of eggs. Nearly 13% reported the use of intrauterine insemination and 13.2% reported the use of in vivo fertilization. Among those who experienced fertility concerns, 36.6% (232 of 634) reported facing financial burdens because of fertility or pregnancy that was in some way associated with their career choice.

When asked on the survey if fertility preservation should be discussed with women during medical school and/or residency, 65.7% of respondents stated that it should.

However, the editorialists suggest that “encouraging formal and directed education regarding the infertility risks specifically toward female physicians (which Lee et al. recommend) could be perceived as a blanket recommendation that it is best for women in medicine to delay childbearing and pursue ART.”

“Medical schools and residency and fellowship training programs should instead focus their energy on creating a framework and culture that normalizes conception during these points in training while also subsidizing and supporting trainees and physicians who prefer to use ART and delay fertility until after training,” they suggest.

The editorialists also emphasized that women may choose to become pregnant at any point during the years that it takes to go from being a medical student to resident/fellow to attending physician, and they should be supported by their workplace on their decisions.

The study was funded by grants from National Institutes of Health/National Cancer Institute Cancer Center.

Dr. Lee and coauthors reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Blank reported receiving grants from AstraZeneca, Aravive, Akesobio, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, and Seattle Genetics outside the submitted work. Dr. Saleh reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

Female physicians often spend their child-bearing years in medical training and developing their careers, and this can create problems.  

In a survey of just over 1,000 female oncologists, 95% said their career plans were at least somewhat associated with the timing of when to start a family.

The most striking finding was that one third of respondents had miscarried and another one third reported difficulty with infertility that required fertility counseling and/or treatment.

One third reported experiencing discrimination during pregnancy, and another third said they experienced discrimination for taking maternity leave, and having more than one child increased the likelihood of this.

The most common negative factor associated with family planning was long work hours and heavy workload (66.6%),

These findings suggest there are systemic changes needed not only in the healthcare setting but in society as a whole around women in the workplace and their choices of childbearing, say the authors.

The study was published online in JAMA Network Open and led by Anna Lee MD, MPH, from the department of radiation oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston. 

In an invited commentary, Mona Saleh, MD, and Stephanie Blank, MD, from the department of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive science at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York, suggest that cultural changes are needed that go beyond women in medicine.

“These cultural values are so deeply pervasive (one could also say invasive) that they affect even these most educated and wealthy professional women, such as those who participated in this survey,” the editorialists write.

“[The researchers] advocate for early education on assisted reproductive technology (ART) risks, benefits, and success rates, but this is not getting at the underlying issue: Pregnancy discrimination and unfair distribution of childbearing responsibilities are a reflection of a larger problematic culture rather than an issue specific to women in medicine,” they add.
 

Survey details

The survey comprised a novel 39-item questionnaire distributed to 1,004 U.S. female oncologists from May 7 to June 30, 2020, via email and social media channels.

Most respondents (84.4%) were married, and 71% were currently working full-time.

About one-third (35%) worked in radiation oncology, another third (34.3%) in medical oncology, 18.4% in surgical oncology, and 9.1% in pediatric oncology.

A total of 768 respondents (76.5%) had children, and of these, 415 (41.3%) first gave birth during postgraduate training and 275 (27.4%) gave birth in years 1-5 as an attending physician.

Of all respondents who had been pregnant, approximately two-thirds (65.7%) had some type of pregnancy complication. About one-third of respondents (31.7%) reported having experienced a miscarriage after a confirmed pregnancy; of those, 61.6% reported one miscarriage, while the remainder had two or more miscarriages (38.4%).

Approximately one-third (31.4%) of respondents reported difficulty with infertility that required fertility counseling and/or treatment.

The questionnaire also asked about assisted reproductive technology, and 164 participants (16.3%) reported the use of fertility medications, and 53 (5.3%) reported cryopreservation of eggs. Nearly 13% reported the use of intrauterine insemination and 13.2% reported the use of in vivo fertilization. Among those who experienced fertility concerns, 36.6% (232 of 634) reported facing financial burdens because of fertility or pregnancy that was in some way associated with their career choice.

When asked on the survey if fertility preservation should be discussed with women during medical school and/or residency, 65.7% of respondents stated that it should.

However, the editorialists suggest that “encouraging formal and directed education regarding the infertility risks specifically toward female physicians (which Lee et al. recommend) could be perceived as a blanket recommendation that it is best for women in medicine to delay childbearing and pursue ART.”

“Medical schools and residency and fellowship training programs should instead focus their energy on creating a framework and culture that normalizes conception during these points in training while also subsidizing and supporting trainees and physicians who prefer to use ART and delay fertility until after training,” they suggest.

The editorialists also emphasized that women may choose to become pregnant at any point during the years that it takes to go from being a medical student to resident/fellow to attending physician, and they should be supported by their workplace on their decisions.

The study was funded by grants from National Institutes of Health/National Cancer Institute Cancer Center.

Dr. Lee and coauthors reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Blank reported receiving grants from AstraZeneca, Aravive, Akesobio, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, and Seattle Genetics outside the submitted work. Dr. Saleh reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

Female physicians often spend their child-bearing years in medical training and developing their careers, and this can create problems.  

In a survey of just over 1,000 female oncologists, 95% said their career plans were at least somewhat associated with the timing of when to start a family.

The most striking finding was that one third of respondents had miscarried and another one third reported difficulty with infertility that required fertility counseling and/or treatment.

One third reported experiencing discrimination during pregnancy, and another third said they experienced discrimination for taking maternity leave, and having more than one child increased the likelihood of this.

The most common negative factor associated with family planning was long work hours and heavy workload (66.6%),

These findings suggest there are systemic changes needed not only in the healthcare setting but in society as a whole around women in the workplace and their choices of childbearing, say the authors.

The study was published online in JAMA Network Open and led by Anna Lee MD, MPH, from the department of radiation oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston. 

In an invited commentary, Mona Saleh, MD, and Stephanie Blank, MD, from the department of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive science at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York, suggest that cultural changes are needed that go beyond women in medicine.

“These cultural values are so deeply pervasive (one could also say invasive) that they affect even these most educated and wealthy professional women, such as those who participated in this survey,” the editorialists write.

“[The researchers] advocate for early education on assisted reproductive technology (ART) risks, benefits, and success rates, but this is not getting at the underlying issue: Pregnancy discrimination and unfair distribution of childbearing responsibilities are a reflection of a larger problematic culture rather than an issue specific to women in medicine,” they add.
 

Survey details

The survey comprised a novel 39-item questionnaire distributed to 1,004 U.S. female oncologists from May 7 to June 30, 2020, via email and social media channels.

Most respondents (84.4%) were married, and 71% were currently working full-time.

About one-third (35%) worked in radiation oncology, another third (34.3%) in medical oncology, 18.4% in surgical oncology, and 9.1% in pediatric oncology.

A total of 768 respondents (76.5%) had children, and of these, 415 (41.3%) first gave birth during postgraduate training and 275 (27.4%) gave birth in years 1-5 as an attending physician.

Of all respondents who had been pregnant, approximately two-thirds (65.7%) had some type of pregnancy complication. About one-third of respondents (31.7%) reported having experienced a miscarriage after a confirmed pregnancy; of those, 61.6% reported one miscarriage, while the remainder had two or more miscarriages (38.4%).

Approximately one-third (31.4%) of respondents reported difficulty with infertility that required fertility counseling and/or treatment.

The questionnaire also asked about assisted reproductive technology, and 164 participants (16.3%) reported the use of fertility medications, and 53 (5.3%) reported cryopreservation of eggs. Nearly 13% reported the use of intrauterine insemination and 13.2% reported the use of in vivo fertilization. Among those who experienced fertility concerns, 36.6% (232 of 634) reported facing financial burdens because of fertility or pregnancy that was in some way associated with their career choice.

When asked on the survey if fertility preservation should be discussed with women during medical school and/or residency, 65.7% of respondents stated that it should.

However, the editorialists suggest that “encouraging formal and directed education regarding the infertility risks specifically toward female physicians (which Lee et al. recommend) could be perceived as a blanket recommendation that it is best for women in medicine to delay childbearing and pursue ART.”

“Medical schools and residency and fellowship training programs should instead focus their energy on creating a framework and culture that normalizes conception during these points in training while also subsidizing and supporting trainees and physicians who prefer to use ART and delay fertility until after training,” they suggest.

The editorialists also emphasized that women may choose to become pregnant at any point during the years that it takes to go from being a medical student to resident/fellow to attending physician, and they should be supported by their workplace on their decisions.

The study was funded by grants from National Institutes of Health/National Cancer Institute Cancer Center.

Dr. Lee and coauthors reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Blank reported receiving grants from AstraZeneca, Aravive, Akesobio, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, and Seattle Genetics outside the submitted work. Dr. Saleh reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

The two national emergency declarations dealing with the COVID-19 pandemic will end May 11, President Joe Biden said on Jan. 30.

Doing so will have many effects, including the end of free vaccines and health services to fight the pandemic. The public health emergency has been renewed every 90 days since it was declared by the Trump administration in January 2020.

The declaration allowed major changes throughout the health care system to deal with the pandemic, including the free distribution of vaccines, testing, and treatments. In addition, telehealth services were expanded, and Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program were extended to millions more Americans.

Biden said the COVID-19 national emergency is set to expire March 1 while the declared public health emergency would currently expire on April 11. The president said both will be extended to end May 11.

There were nearly 300,000 newly reported COVID-19 cases in the United States for the week ending Jan. 25, according to CDC data, as well as more than 3,750 deaths.

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

The two national emergency declarations dealing with the COVID-19 pandemic will end May 11, President Joe Biden said on Jan. 30.

Doing so will have many effects, including the end of free vaccines and health services to fight the pandemic. The public health emergency has been renewed every 90 days since it was declared by the Trump administration in January 2020.

The declaration allowed major changes throughout the health care system to deal with the pandemic, including the free distribution of vaccines, testing, and treatments. In addition, telehealth services were expanded, and Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program were extended to millions more Americans.

Biden said the COVID-19 national emergency is set to expire March 1 while the declared public health emergency would currently expire on April 11. The president said both will be extended to end May 11.

There were nearly 300,000 newly reported COVID-19 cases in the United States for the week ending Jan. 25, according to CDC data, as well as more than 3,750 deaths.

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

The two national emergency declarations dealing with the COVID-19 pandemic will end May 11, President Joe Biden said on Jan. 30.

Doing so will have many effects, including the end of free vaccines and health services to fight the pandemic. The public health emergency has been renewed every 90 days since it was declared by the Trump administration in January 2020.

The declaration allowed major changes throughout the health care system to deal with the pandemic, including the free distribution of vaccines, testing, and treatments. In addition, telehealth services were expanded, and Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program were extended to millions more Americans.

Biden said the COVID-19 national emergency is set to expire March 1 while the declared public health emergency would currently expire on April 11. The president said both will be extended to end May 11.

There were nearly 300,000 newly reported COVID-19 cases in the United States for the week ending Jan. 25, according to CDC data, as well as more than 3,750 deaths.

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

Newly released figures showing a rise in the number of men with advanced prostate cancer have laid bare long-simmering resentment among patient advocates who feel the nation’s leading cancer group has largely ignored their concerns for years.

The American Cancer Society on Jan. 13 revealed what it called “alarming” news about prostate cancer: After 2 decades of decline, the number of men diagnosed with the disease in the United States rose by 15% from 2014 to 2019.

“Most concerning,” according to the group’s CEO Karen Knudsen, PhD, MBA, is that the increase is being driven by diagnoses of advanced disease.

“Since 2011, the diagnosis of advanced-stage (regional- or distant-stage) prostate cancer has increased by 4%-5% annually and the proportion of men diagnosed with distant-stage disease has doubled,” said Dr. Knudsen at a press conference concerning the figures. “These findings underscore the importance of understanding and reducing this trend.”

The increase, which works out to be an additional 99,000 cases of prostate cancer, did not take the ACS by surprise; the group has been predicting a jump in diagnoses of the disease, which is the most common cancer in men after skin cancer, and the second most common cause of cancer death for that group.

The ACS announced a new action plan, “Improving Mortality from Prostate Cancer Together” – or IMPACT – to address the rise, especially in Black men, and to curb the increasing rate of advanced, difficult-to-treat cases.

“We must address these shifts in prostate cancer, especially in the Black community, since the incidence of prostate cancer in Black men is 70% higher than in White men and prostate cancer mortality rates in Black men are approximately two to four times higher than those in every other racial and ethnic group,” William Dahut, MD, PhD, chief scientific officer for the ACS, said at the press conference.

A study published in JAMA Network Open challenged that claim, finding that, after controlling for socioeconomic factors, race does not appear to be a significant predictor of mortality for prostate cancer.

Dr. Dahut said in an interview that IMPACT “is still [in the] early days for this initiative and more details will be coming out soon.”

Charles Ryan, MD, CEO of the Prostate Cancer Foundation, the world’s largest prostate cancer research charity, called IMPACT “extremely important work. Highlighting the disparities can only serve to benefit all men with prostate cancer, especially Black men.”
 

Bold action ... or passivity?

Overall cancer mortality has dropped 33% since 1991, averting an estimated 3.8 million deaths, according to ACS. But the story for prostate cancer is different.

The society and advocates had warned as recently as 2 years ago that prostate cancer was poised to rise again, especially advanced cases that may be too late to treat.

Leaders in the prostate cancer advocacy community praised the ACS plan for IMPACT, but some expressed frustration over what they said was ACS’ passivity in the face of long-anticipated increases in cases of the disease.

“I think prostate cancer was not high on their agenda,” said Rick Davis, founder of AnCan, which offers several support groups for patients with prostate cancer.  “It’s good to see ACS get back into the prostate cancer game.”

Mr. Davis and patient advocate Darryl Mitteldorf, LCSW, founder of Malecare, another prostate support organization, said ACS dropped patient services for prostate cancer patients a decade ago and has not been a vocal supporter of screening for levels of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) to detect prostate cancer early.

“Early detection is supposed to be their goal,” Mr. Davis said.

In 2012, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommended against PSA screening, giving it a D-rating. The move prompted attacks on the task force from most advocates and many urologists.

Following this criticism, the task force recommended shared decision-making between patient and doctor, while giving PSA screening a C-rating. Now, the ACS recommends men in general at age 50 discuss prostate cancer screening with their doctor and that Black men do the same at age 45.

Mr. Mitteldorf said ACS “owes prostate cancer patients an explanation and analysis of its response to the USPTF’s downgrade of PSA testing and how that response might be related to death and instance rates.”

Mr. Mitteldorf added that male patients lost key support from ACS when the group dismantled its Man to Man group for prostate cancer patients and its Brother to Brother group for Blacks in particular.

Dr. Dahut said Man to Man “sunsetted” and was turned over to any local organization that chose to offer it. He said longtime staff didn’t have “a lot of information about [the demise of] Brother to Brother.”

For Mr. Davis, those smaller cuts add up to a much larger insult.

“Today, in 2023, ACS continues to poke a finger in the eyes of prostate cancer patients,” he said. “Since 2010, they have not given us any respect. ACS dumped its support.”

He pointed to the group’s funding priorities, noting that outlays for prostate cancer have consistently lagged behind those for breast cancer.

The ACS spent $25.3 million on breast cancer research and $6.7 million for prostate cancer in 2018, and in 2023 will designate $126.5 for breast cancer research and $43.9 million for prostate cancer.

ACS has earmarked $62 million this year for lung cancer programs and $61 million for colorectal cancer.

“Parity between breast cancer and prostate cancer would be a good start in sizing the IMPACT program,” Mr. Davis said. “After all, breast cancer and prostate cancer are hardly different in numbers today.”

Dr. Dahut denied any gender bias in research funding. He said the group makes funding decisions “based on finding the most impactful science regardless of tumor type. Our mission includes funding every cancer, every day; thus, we generally do not go into our funding cycle with any set-asides for a particular cancer.”

Mr. Davis also said the ACS data suggest the growing number of prostate cancer cases is even worse than the group has said. Although the society cites a 3% annual increase in prostate cancer diagnoses from 2014 to 2019, since 2019 the annual increase is a much more dramatic 16%. Meanwhile, the number of new cases of the disease is projected to rise from 175,000 per year in 2019 to 288,000 this year.

Dr. Dahut said the society used the 2014-2019 time frame for technical reasons, separating confirmed cases in the earlier period from estimated cases in recent years.

“We discourage comparing projected cases over time because these cases are model-based and subject to fluctuations,” Dr. Dahut said.

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

Newly released figures showing a rise in the number of men with advanced prostate cancer have laid bare long-simmering resentment among patient advocates who feel the nation’s leading cancer group has largely ignored their concerns for years.

The American Cancer Society on Jan. 13 revealed what it called “alarming” news about prostate cancer: After 2 decades of decline, the number of men diagnosed with the disease in the United States rose by 15% from 2014 to 2019.

“Most concerning,” according to the group’s CEO Karen Knudsen, PhD, MBA, is that the increase is being driven by diagnoses of advanced disease.

“Since 2011, the diagnosis of advanced-stage (regional- or distant-stage) prostate cancer has increased by 4%-5% annually and the proportion of men diagnosed with distant-stage disease has doubled,” said Dr. Knudsen at a press conference concerning the figures. “These findings underscore the importance of understanding and reducing this trend.”

The increase, which works out to be an additional 99,000 cases of prostate cancer, did not take the ACS by surprise; the group has been predicting a jump in diagnoses of the disease, which is the most common cancer in men after skin cancer, and the second most common cause of cancer death for that group.

The ACS announced a new action plan, “Improving Mortality from Prostate Cancer Together” – or IMPACT – to address the rise, especially in Black men, and to curb the increasing rate of advanced, difficult-to-treat cases.

“We must address these shifts in prostate cancer, especially in the Black community, since the incidence of prostate cancer in Black men is 70% higher than in White men and prostate cancer mortality rates in Black men are approximately two to four times higher than those in every other racial and ethnic group,” William Dahut, MD, PhD, chief scientific officer for the ACS, said at the press conference.

A study published in JAMA Network Open challenged that claim, finding that, after controlling for socioeconomic factors, race does not appear to be a significant predictor of mortality for prostate cancer.

Dr. Dahut said in an interview that IMPACT “is still [in the] early days for this initiative and more details will be coming out soon.”

Charles Ryan, MD, CEO of the Prostate Cancer Foundation, the world’s largest prostate cancer research charity, called IMPACT “extremely important work. Highlighting the disparities can only serve to benefit all men with prostate cancer, especially Black men.”
 

Bold action ... or passivity?

Overall cancer mortality has dropped 33% since 1991, averting an estimated 3.8 million deaths, according to ACS. But the story for prostate cancer is different.

The society and advocates had warned as recently as 2 years ago that prostate cancer was poised to rise again, especially advanced cases that may be too late to treat.

Leaders in the prostate cancer advocacy community praised the ACS plan for IMPACT, but some expressed frustration over what they said was ACS’ passivity in the face of long-anticipated increases in cases of the disease.

“I think prostate cancer was not high on their agenda,” said Rick Davis, founder of AnCan, which offers several support groups for patients with prostate cancer.  “It’s good to see ACS get back into the prostate cancer game.”

Mr. Davis and patient advocate Darryl Mitteldorf, LCSW, founder of Malecare, another prostate support organization, said ACS dropped patient services for prostate cancer patients a decade ago and has not been a vocal supporter of screening for levels of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) to detect prostate cancer early.

“Early detection is supposed to be their goal,” Mr. Davis said.

In 2012, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommended against PSA screening, giving it a D-rating. The move prompted attacks on the task force from most advocates and many urologists.

Following this criticism, the task force recommended shared decision-making between patient and doctor, while giving PSA screening a C-rating. Now, the ACS recommends men in general at age 50 discuss prostate cancer screening with their doctor and that Black men do the same at age 45.

Mr. Mitteldorf said ACS “owes prostate cancer patients an explanation and analysis of its response to the USPTF’s downgrade of PSA testing and how that response might be related to death and instance rates.”

Mr. Mitteldorf added that male patients lost key support from ACS when the group dismantled its Man to Man group for prostate cancer patients and its Brother to Brother group for Blacks in particular.

Dr. Dahut said Man to Man “sunsetted” and was turned over to any local organization that chose to offer it. He said longtime staff didn’t have “a lot of information about [the demise of] Brother to Brother.”

For Mr. Davis, those smaller cuts add up to a much larger insult.

“Today, in 2023, ACS continues to poke a finger in the eyes of prostate cancer patients,” he said. “Since 2010, they have not given us any respect. ACS dumped its support.”

He pointed to the group’s funding priorities, noting that outlays for prostate cancer have consistently lagged behind those for breast cancer.

The ACS spent $25.3 million on breast cancer research and $6.7 million for prostate cancer in 2018, and in 2023 will designate $126.5 for breast cancer research and $43.9 million for prostate cancer.

ACS has earmarked $62 million this year for lung cancer programs and $61 million for colorectal cancer.

“Parity between breast cancer and prostate cancer would be a good start in sizing the IMPACT program,” Mr. Davis said. “After all, breast cancer and prostate cancer are hardly different in numbers today.”

Dr. Dahut denied any gender bias in research funding. He said the group makes funding decisions “based on finding the most impactful science regardless of tumor type. Our mission includes funding every cancer, every day; thus, we generally do not go into our funding cycle with any set-asides for a particular cancer.”

Mr. Davis also said the ACS data suggest the growing number of prostate cancer cases is even worse than the group has said. Although the society cites a 3% annual increase in prostate cancer diagnoses from 2014 to 2019, since 2019 the annual increase is a much more dramatic 16%. Meanwhile, the number of new cases of the disease is projected to rise from 175,000 per year in 2019 to 288,000 this year.

Dr. Dahut said the society used the 2014-2019 time frame for technical reasons, separating confirmed cases in the earlier period from estimated cases in recent years.

“We discourage comparing projected cases over time because these cases are model-based and subject to fluctuations,” Dr. Dahut said.

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

Newly released figures showing a rise in the number of men with advanced prostate cancer have laid bare long-simmering resentment among patient advocates who feel the nation’s leading cancer group has largely ignored their concerns for years.

The American Cancer Society on Jan. 13 revealed what it called “alarming” news about prostate cancer: After 2 decades of decline, the number of men diagnosed with the disease in the United States rose by 15% from 2014 to 2019.

“Most concerning,” according to the group’s CEO Karen Knudsen, PhD, MBA, is that the increase is being driven by diagnoses of advanced disease.

“Since 2011, the diagnosis of advanced-stage (regional- or distant-stage) prostate cancer has increased by 4%-5% annually and the proportion of men diagnosed with distant-stage disease has doubled,” said Dr. Knudsen at a press conference concerning the figures. “These findings underscore the importance of understanding and reducing this trend.”

The increase, which works out to be an additional 99,000 cases of prostate cancer, did not take the ACS by surprise; the group has been predicting a jump in diagnoses of the disease, which is the most common cancer in men after skin cancer, and the second most common cause of cancer death for that group.

The ACS announced a new action plan, “Improving Mortality from Prostate Cancer Together” – or IMPACT – to address the rise, especially in Black men, and to curb the increasing rate of advanced, difficult-to-treat cases.

“We must address these shifts in prostate cancer, especially in the Black community, since the incidence of prostate cancer in Black men is 70% higher than in White men and prostate cancer mortality rates in Black men are approximately two to four times higher than those in every other racial and ethnic group,” William Dahut, MD, PhD, chief scientific officer for the ACS, said at the press conference.

A study published in JAMA Network Open challenged that claim, finding that, after controlling for socioeconomic factors, race does not appear to be a significant predictor of mortality for prostate cancer.

Dr. Dahut said in an interview that IMPACT “is still [in the] early days for this initiative and more details will be coming out soon.”

Charles Ryan, MD, CEO of the Prostate Cancer Foundation, the world’s largest prostate cancer research charity, called IMPACT “extremely important work. Highlighting the disparities can only serve to benefit all men with prostate cancer, especially Black men.”
 

Bold action ... or passivity?

Overall cancer mortality has dropped 33% since 1991, averting an estimated 3.8 million deaths, according to ACS. But the story for prostate cancer is different.

The society and advocates had warned as recently as 2 years ago that prostate cancer was poised to rise again, especially advanced cases that may be too late to treat.

Leaders in the prostate cancer advocacy community praised the ACS plan for IMPACT, but some expressed frustration over what they said was ACS’ passivity in the face of long-anticipated increases in cases of the disease.

“I think prostate cancer was not high on their agenda,” said Rick Davis, founder of AnCan, which offers several support groups for patients with prostate cancer.  “It’s good to see ACS get back into the prostate cancer game.”

Mr. Davis and patient advocate Darryl Mitteldorf, LCSW, founder of Malecare, another prostate support organization, said ACS dropped patient services for prostate cancer patients a decade ago and has not been a vocal supporter of screening for levels of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) to detect prostate cancer early.

“Early detection is supposed to be their goal,” Mr. Davis said.

In 2012, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommended against PSA screening, giving it a D-rating. The move prompted attacks on the task force from most advocates and many urologists.

Following this criticism, the task force recommended shared decision-making between patient and doctor, while giving PSA screening a C-rating. Now, the ACS recommends men in general at age 50 discuss prostate cancer screening with their doctor and that Black men do the same at age 45.

Mr. Mitteldorf said ACS “owes prostate cancer patients an explanation and analysis of its response to the USPTF’s downgrade of PSA testing and how that response might be related to death and instance rates.”

Mr. Mitteldorf added that male patients lost key support from ACS when the group dismantled its Man to Man group for prostate cancer patients and its Brother to Brother group for Blacks in particular.

Dr. Dahut said Man to Man “sunsetted” and was turned over to any local organization that chose to offer it. He said longtime staff didn’t have “a lot of information about [the demise of] Brother to Brother.”

For Mr. Davis, those smaller cuts add up to a much larger insult.

“Today, in 2023, ACS continues to poke a finger in the eyes of prostate cancer patients,” he said. “Since 2010, they have not given us any respect. ACS dumped its support.”

He pointed to the group’s funding priorities, noting that outlays for prostate cancer have consistently lagged behind those for breast cancer.

The ACS spent $25.3 million on breast cancer research and $6.7 million for prostate cancer in 2018, and in 2023 will designate $126.5 for breast cancer research and $43.9 million for prostate cancer.

ACS has earmarked $62 million this year for lung cancer programs and $61 million for colorectal cancer.

“Parity between breast cancer and prostate cancer would be a good start in sizing the IMPACT program,” Mr. Davis said. “After all, breast cancer and prostate cancer are hardly different in numbers today.”

Dr. Dahut denied any gender bias in research funding. He said the group makes funding decisions “based on finding the most impactful science regardless of tumor type. Our mission includes funding every cancer, every day; thus, we generally do not go into our funding cycle with any set-asides for a particular cancer.”

Mr. Davis also said the ACS data suggest the growing number of prostate cancer cases is even worse than the group has said. Although the society cites a 3% annual increase in prostate cancer diagnoses from 2014 to 2019, since 2019 the annual increase is a much more dramatic 16%. Meanwhile, the number of new cases of the disease is projected to rise from 175,000 per year in 2019 to 288,000 this year.

Dr. Dahut said the society used the 2014-2019 time frame for technical reasons, separating confirmed cases in the earlier period from estimated cases in recent years.

“We discourage comparing projected cases over time because these cases are model-based and subject to fluctuations,” Dr. Dahut said.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has granted accelerated approval to pirtobrutinib (Jaypirca) for relapsed or refractory mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) after at least two lines of systemic therapy, including a Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitor.

Pirtobrutinib is the first and only noncovalent Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitor approved for use in this MCL setting, manufacturer Eli Lilly noted in a press release.

“The approval of Jaypirca represents an important advance for patients with relapsed or refractory MCL, who currently have limited options and historically have had a poor prognosis following discontinuation of treatment with a covalent Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitor,” senior author Michael Wang, MD, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, said in the release.

The approval was based on efficacy demonstrated in the open-label, single-arm, phase 1/2 BRUIN trial – a multicenter study assessing 200 mg once-daily oral pirtobrutinib monotherapy in 120 patients with MCL who had previously received a Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitor, most often ibrutinib (Imbruvica, 67%) acalabrutinib (Calquence, 30%) and zanubrutinib (Brukinsa, 8%). Pirtobrutinib was continued until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

Study participants had a median of three prior lines of therapy, and 83% discontinued their last Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitor because of refractory or progressive disease.

The overall response rate in pirtobrutinib-treated patients was 50% with a complete response rate of 13%. Estimated median duration of response was 8.3 months, and the estimated duration of response at 6 months occurred in nearly two-thirds of patients.

Adverse reactions that occurred in at least 15% of patients included fatigue, musculoskeletal pain, diarrhea, edema, dyspnea, pneumonia, and bruising. Grade 3 or 4 laboratory abnormalities occurring in at least 10% of patients included decreased neutrophil counts, lymphocyte counts, and platelet counts.

Prescribing information for pirtobrutinib includes warnings and precautions for infections, hemorrhage, cytopenias, atrial fibrillation and flutter, and second primary malignancies, noted the FDA, which granted priority review, fast track designation, and orphan drug designation for the application submitted by Eli Lilly.

“Jaypirca can reestablish Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibition in MCL patients previously treated with a covalent Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitor (ibrutinib, acalabrutinib, or zanubrutinib) and extend the benefit of targeting the Bruton’s tyrosine kinase pathway,” according to Eli Lilly’s release.

Dr. Wang added that the agent “has the potential to meaningfully impact the treatment paradigm for relapsed and refractory MCL patients.”

Meghan Gutierrez, CEO at the Lymphoma Research Foundation, also noted that “the approval of Jaypirca brings a new treatment option and, along with that, new hope for people with relapsed or refractory MCL.”

The drug is expected to be available in the United States in the coming weeks, and the confirmatory phase 3 BRUIN trial is currently enrolling patients, Eli Lilly announced. The company also indicated the list price would be $21,000 for a 30-day supply of the 200-mg dose.

Serious adverse events believed to be associated with the use of pirtobrutinib or any medicine or device should be reported to the FDA’s MedWatch Reporting System or by calling 1-800-FDA-1088.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has granted accelerated approval to pirtobrutinib (Jaypirca) for relapsed or refractory mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) after at least two lines of systemic therapy, including a Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitor.

Pirtobrutinib is the first and only noncovalent Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitor approved for use in this MCL setting, manufacturer Eli Lilly noted in a press release.

“The approval of Jaypirca represents an important advance for patients with relapsed or refractory MCL, who currently have limited options and historically have had a poor prognosis following discontinuation of treatment with a covalent Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitor,” senior author Michael Wang, MD, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, said in the release.

The approval was based on efficacy demonstrated in the open-label, single-arm, phase 1/2 BRUIN trial – a multicenter study assessing 200 mg once-daily oral pirtobrutinib monotherapy in 120 patients with MCL who had previously received a Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitor, most often ibrutinib (Imbruvica, 67%) acalabrutinib (Calquence, 30%) and zanubrutinib (Brukinsa, 8%). Pirtobrutinib was continued until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

Study participants had a median of three prior lines of therapy, and 83% discontinued their last Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitor because of refractory or progressive disease.

The overall response rate in pirtobrutinib-treated patients was 50% with a complete response rate of 13%. Estimated median duration of response was 8.3 months, and the estimated duration of response at 6 months occurred in nearly two-thirds of patients.

Adverse reactions that occurred in at least 15% of patients included fatigue, musculoskeletal pain, diarrhea, edema, dyspnea, pneumonia, and bruising. Grade 3 or 4 laboratory abnormalities occurring in at least 10% of patients included decreased neutrophil counts, lymphocyte counts, and platelet counts.

Prescribing information for pirtobrutinib includes warnings and precautions for infections, hemorrhage, cytopenias, atrial fibrillation and flutter, and second primary malignancies, noted the FDA, which granted priority review, fast track designation, and orphan drug designation for the application submitted by Eli Lilly.

“Jaypirca can reestablish Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibition in MCL patients previously treated with a covalent Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitor (ibrutinib, acalabrutinib, or zanubrutinib) and extend the benefit of targeting the Bruton’s tyrosine kinase pathway,” according to Eli Lilly’s release.

Dr. Wang added that the agent “has the potential to meaningfully impact the treatment paradigm for relapsed and refractory MCL patients.”

Meghan Gutierrez, CEO at the Lymphoma Research Foundation, also noted that “the approval of Jaypirca brings a new treatment option and, along with that, new hope for people with relapsed or refractory MCL.”

The drug is expected to be available in the United States in the coming weeks, and the confirmatory phase 3 BRUIN trial is currently enrolling patients, Eli Lilly announced. The company also indicated the list price would be $21,000 for a 30-day supply of the 200-mg dose.

Serious adverse events believed to be associated with the use of pirtobrutinib or any medicine or device should be reported to the FDA’s MedWatch Reporting System or by calling 1-800-FDA-1088.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has granted accelerated approval to pirtobrutinib (Jaypirca) for relapsed or refractory mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) after at least two lines of systemic therapy, including a Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitor.

Pirtobrutinib is the first and only noncovalent Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitor approved for use in this MCL setting, manufacturer Eli Lilly noted in a press release.

“The approval of Jaypirca represents an important advance for patients with relapsed or refractory MCL, who currently have limited options and historically have had a poor prognosis following discontinuation of treatment with a covalent Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitor,” senior author Michael Wang, MD, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, said in the release.

The approval was based on efficacy demonstrated in the open-label, single-arm, phase 1/2 BRUIN trial – a multicenter study assessing 200 mg once-daily oral pirtobrutinib monotherapy in 120 patients with MCL who had previously received a Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitor, most often ibrutinib (Imbruvica, 67%) acalabrutinib (Calquence, 30%) and zanubrutinib (Brukinsa, 8%). Pirtobrutinib was continued until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

Study participants had a median of three prior lines of therapy, and 83% discontinued their last Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitor because of refractory or progressive disease.

The overall response rate in pirtobrutinib-treated patients was 50% with a complete response rate of 13%. Estimated median duration of response was 8.3 months, and the estimated duration of response at 6 months occurred in nearly two-thirds of patients.

Adverse reactions that occurred in at least 15% of patients included fatigue, musculoskeletal pain, diarrhea, edema, dyspnea, pneumonia, and bruising. Grade 3 or 4 laboratory abnormalities occurring in at least 10% of patients included decreased neutrophil counts, lymphocyte counts, and platelet counts.

Prescribing information for pirtobrutinib includes warnings and precautions for infections, hemorrhage, cytopenias, atrial fibrillation and flutter, and second primary malignancies, noted the FDA, which granted priority review, fast track designation, and orphan drug designation for the application submitted by Eli Lilly.

“Jaypirca can reestablish Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibition in MCL patients previously treated with a covalent Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitor (ibrutinib, acalabrutinib, or zanubrutinib) and extend the benefit of targeting the Bruton’s tyrosine kinase pathway,” according to Eli Lilly’s release.

Dr. Wang added that the agent “has the potential to meaningfully impact the treatment paradigm for relapsed and refractory MCL patients.”

Meghan Gutierrez, CEO at the Lymphoma Research Foundation, also noted that “the approval of Jaypirca brings a new treatment option and, along with that, new hope for people with relapsed or refractory MCL.”

The drug is expected to be available in the United States in the coming weeks, and the confirmatory phase 3 BRUIN trial is currently enrolling patients, Eli Lilly announced. The company also indicated the list price would be $21,000 for a 30-day supply of the 200-mg dose.

Serious adverse events believed to be associated with the use of pirtobrutinib or any medicine or device should be reported to the FDA’s MedWatch Reporting System or by calling 1-800-FDA-1088.

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

The risk of health harms from alcohol is low for people who consume two standard drinks or fewer per week, but it’s higher with greater consumption, according to new guidance from the Canadian Centre on Substance Use and Addiction.

“Drinking less is better,” says the guidance, which replaces Canada’s 2011 Low-Risk Drinking Guidelines (LRDGs).

Developed in consultation with an executive committee from federal, provincial, and territorial governments; national organizations; three scientific expert panels; and an internal evidence review working group, the guidance presents the following findings:

• Consuming no drinks per week has benefits, such as better health and better sleep, and it’s the only safe option during pregnancy.
• Consuming one or two standard drinks weekly will likely not have alcohol-related consequences.
• Three to six drinks raise the risk of developing breast, colon, and other cancers.
• Seven or more increase the risk of heart disease or stroke.
• Each additional drink “radically increases” the risk of these health consequences.

“Alcohol is more harmful than was previously thought and is a key component of the health of your patients,” Adam Sherk, PhD, a scientist at the Canadian Institute for Substance Use Research at the University of Victoria (B.C.), and a member of the scientific expert panel that contributed to the guidance, said in an interview. “Display and discuss the new guidance with your patients with the main message that drinking less is better.”

Peter Butt, MD, a clinical associate professor at the University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, and cochair of the guidance project, said in an interview: “The World Health Organization has identified over 200 ICD-coded conditions associated with alcohol use. This creates many opportunities to inquire into quantity and frequency of alcohol use, relate it to the patient’s health and well-being, and provide advice on reduction.”

“Canada’s Guidance on Alcohol and Health: Final Report” and a related infographic were published online Jan. 17.
 

Continuum of risk

The impetus for the new guidance came from the fact that “our 2011 LRDGs were no longer current, and there was emerging evidence that people drinking within those levels were coming to harm,” said Dr. Butt.

That evidence indicates that alcohol causes at least seven types of cancer, mostly of the breast or colon; is a risk factor for most types of heart disease; and is a main cause of liver disease. Evidence also indicates that avoiding drinking to the point of intoxication will reduce people’s risk of perpetrating alcohol-related violence.

Responding to the need to accurately quantify the risk, the guidance defines a “standard” drink as 12 oz of beer, cooler, or cider (5% alcohol); 5 oz of wine (12% alcohol); and 1.5 oz of spirits such as whiskey, vodka, or gin (40% alcohol).

Using different mortality risk thresholds, the project’s experts developed the following continuum of risk:

• Low for individuals who consume two standard drinks or fewer per week
• Moderate for those who consume from three to six standard drinks per week
• Increasingly high for those who consume seven standard drinks or more per week

The guidance makes the following observations:

• Consuming more than two standard drinks per drinking occasion is associated with an increased risk of harms to self and others, including injuries and violence.
• When pregnant or trying to get pregnant, no amount of alcohol is safe.
• When breastfeeding, not drinking is safest.
• Above the upper limit of the moderate risk zone, health risks increase more steeply for females than males.
• Far more injuries, violence, and deaths result from men’s alcohol use, especially for per occasion drinking, than from women’s alcohol use.
• Young people should delay alcohol use for as long as possible.
• Individuals should not start to use alcohol or increase their alcohol use for health benefits.
• Any reduction in alcohol use is beneficial.

Other national guidelines

“Countries that haven’t updated their alcohol use guidelines recently should do so, as the evidence regarding alcohol and health has advanced considerably in the past 10 years,” said Dr. Sherk. He acknowledged that “any time health guidance changes substantially, it’s reasonable to expect a period of readjustment.”

“Some will be resistant,” Dr. Butt agreed. “Some professionals will need more education than others on the health effects of alcohol. Some patients will also be more invested in drinking than others. The harm-reduction, risk-zone approach should assist in the process of engaging patients and helping them reduce over time.

“Just as we benefited from the updates done in the United Kingdom, France, and especially Australia, so also researchers elsewhere will critique our work and our approach and make their own decisions on how best to communicate with their public,” Dr. Butt said. He noted that Canada’s contributions regarding the association between alcohol and violence, as well as their sex/gender approach to the evidence, “may influence the next country’s review.”

Commenting on whether the United States should consider changing its guidance, Timothy Brennan, MD, MPH, chief of clinical services for the Addiction Institute of Mount Sinai Health System in New York, said in an interview, “A lot of people will be surprised at the recommended limits on alcohol. Most think that they can have one or two glasses of alcohol per day and not have any increased risk to their health. I think the Canadians deserve credit for putting themselves out there.”

Dr. Brennan said there will “certainly be pushback by the drinking lobby, which is very strong both in the U.S. and in Canada.” In fact, the national trade group Beer Canada was recently quoted as stating that it still supports the 2011 guidelines and that the updating process lacked full transparency and expert technical peer review.

Nevertheless, Dr. Brennan said, “it’s overwhelmingly clear that alcohol affects a ton of different parts of our body, so limiting the amount of alcohol we take in is always going to be a good thing. The Canadian graphic is great because it color-codes the risk. I recommend that clinicians put it up in their offices and begin quantifying the units of alcohol that are going into a patient’s body each day.”

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

The risk of health harms from alcohol is low for people who consume two standard drinks or fewer per week, but it’s higher with greater consumption, according to new guidance from the Canadian Centre on Substance Use and Addiction.

“Drinking less is better,” says the guidance, which replaces Canada’s 2011 Low-Risk Drinking Guidelines (LRDGs).

Developed in consultation with an executive committee from federal, provincial, and territorial governments; national organizations; three scientific expert panels; and an internal evidence review working group, the guidance presents the following findings:

• Consuming no drinks per week has benefits, such as better health and better sleep, and it’s the only safe option during pregnancy.
• Consuming one or two standard drinks weekly will likely not have alcohol-related consequences.
• Three to six drinks raise the risk of developing breast, colon, and other cancers.
• Seven or more increase the risk of heart disease or stroke.
• Each additional drink “radically increases” the risk of these health consequences.

“Alcohol is more harmful than was previously thought and is a key component of the health of your patients,” Adam Sherk, PhD, a scientist at the Canadian Institute for Substance Use Research at the University of Victoria (B.C.), and a member of the scientific expert panel that contributed to the guidance, said in an interview. “Display and discuss the new guidance with your patients with the main message that drinking less is better.”

Peter Butt, MD, a clinical associate professor at the University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, and cochair of the guidance project, said in an interview: “The World Health Organization has identified over 200 ICD-coded conditions associated with alcohol use. This creates many opportunities to inquire into quantity and frequency of alcohol use, relate it to the patient’s health and well-being, and provide advice on reduction.”

“Canada’s Guidance on Alcohol and Health: Final Report” and a related infographic were published online Jan. 17.
 

Continuum of risk

The impetus for the new guidance came from the fact that “our 2011 LRDGs were no longer current, and there was emerging evidence that people drinking within those levels were coming to harm,” said Dr. Butt.

That evidence indicates that alcohol causes at least seven types of cancer, mostly of the breast or colon; is a risk factor for most types of heart disease; and is a main cause of liver disease. Evidence also indicates that avoiding drinking to the point of intoxication will reduce people’s risk of perpetrating alcohol-related violence.

Responding to the need to accurately quantify the risk, the guidance defines a “standard” drink as 12 oz of beer, cooler, or cider (5% alcohol); 5 oz of wine (12% alcohol); and 1.5 oz of spirits such as whiskey, vodka, or gin (40% alcohol).

Using different mortality risk thresholds, the project’s experts developed the following continuum of risk:

• Low for individuals who consume two standard drinks or fewer per week
• Moderate for those who consume from three to six standard drinks per week
• Increasingly high for those who consume seven standard drinks or more per week

The guidance makes the following observations:

• Consuming more than two standard drinks per drinking occasion is associated with an increased risk of harms to self and others, including injuries and violence.
• When pregnant or trying to get pregnant, no amount of alcohol is safe.
• When breastfeeding, not drinking is safest.
• Above the upper limit of the moderate risk zone, health risks increase more steeply for females than males.
• Far more injuries, violence, and deaths result from men’s alcohol use, especially for per occasion drinking, than from women’s alcohol use.
• Young people should delay alcohol use for as long as possible.
• Individuals should not start to use alcohol or increase their alcohol use for health benefits.
• Any reduction in alcohol use is beneficial.

Other national guidelines

“Countries that haven’t updated their alcohol use guidelines recently should do so, as the evidence regarding alcohol and health has advanced considerably in the past 10 years,” said Dr. Sherk. He acknowledged that “any time health guidance changes substantially, it’s reasonable to expect a period of readjustment.”

“Some will be resistant,” Dr. Butt agreed. “Some professionals will need more education than others on the health effects of alcohol. Some patients will also be more invested in drinking than others. The harm-reduction, risk-zone approach should assist in the process of engaging patients and helping them reduce over time.

“Just as we benefited from the updates done in the United Kingdom, France, and especially Australia, so also researchers elsewhere will critique our work and our approach and make their own decisions on how best to communicate with their public,” Dr. Butt said. He noted that Canada’s contributions regarding the association between alcohol and violence, as well as their sex/gender approach to the evidence, “may influence the next country’s review.”

Commenting on whether the United States should consider changing its guidance, Timothy Brennan, MD, MPH, chief of clinical services for the Addiction Institute of Mount Sinai Health System in New York, said in an interview, “A lot of people will be surprised at the recommended limits on alcohol. Most think that they can have one or two glasses of alcohol per day and not have any increased risk to their health. I think the Canadians deserve credit for putting themselves out there.”

Dr. Brennan said there will “certainly be pushback by the drinking lobby, which is very strong both in the U.S. and in Canada.” In fact, the national trade group Beer Canada was recently quoted as stating that it still supports the 2011 guidelines and that the updating process lacked full transparency and expert technical peer review.

Nevertheless, Dr. Brennan said, “it’s overwhelmingly clear that alcohol affects a ton of different parts of our body, so limiting the amount of alcohol we take in is always going to be a good thing. The Canadian graphic is great because it color-codes the risk. I recommend that clinicians put it up in their offices and begin quantifying the units of alcohol that are going into a patient’s body each day.”

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

The risk of health harms from alcohol is low for people who consume two standard drinks or fewer per week, but it’s higher with greater consumption, according to new guidance from the Canadian Centre on Substance Use and Addiction.

“Drinking less is better,” says the guidance, which replaces Canada’s 2011 Low-Risk Drinking Guidelines (LRDGs).

Developed in consultation with an executive committee from federal, provincial, and territorial governments; national organizations; three scientific expert panels; and an internal evidence review working group, the guidance presents the following findings:

• Consuming no drinks per week has benefits, such as better health and better sleep, and it’s the only safe option during pregnancy.
• Consuming one or two standard drinks weekly will likely not have alcohol-related consequences.
• Three to six drinks raise the risk of developing breast, colon, and other cancers.
• Seven or more increase the risk of heart disease or stroke.
• Each additional drink “radically increases” the risk of these health consequences.

“Alcohol is more harmful than was previously thought and is a key component of the health of your patients,” Adam Sherk, PhD, a scientist at the Canadian Institute for Substance Use Research at the University of Victoria (B.C.), and a member of the scientific expert panel that contributed to the guidance, said in an interview. “Display and discuss the new guidance with your patients with the main message that drinking less is better.”

Peter Butt, MD, a clinical associate professor at the University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, and cochair of the guidance project, said in an interview: “The World Health Organization has identified over 200 ICD-coded conditions associated with alcohol use. This creates many opportunities to inquire into quantity and frequency of alcohol use, relate it to the patient’s health and well-being, and provide advice on reduction.”

“Canada’s Guidance on Alcohol and Health: Final Report” and a related infographic were published online Jan. 17.
 

Continuum of risk

The impetus for the new guidance came from the fact that “our 2011 LRDGs were no longer current, and there was emerging evidence that people drinking within those levels were coming to harm,” said Dr. Butt.

That evidence indicates that alcohol causes at least seven types of cancer, mostly of the breast or colon; is a risk factor for most types of heart disease; and is a main cause of liver disease. Evidence also indicates that avoiding drinking to the point of intoxication will reduce people’s risk of perpetrating alcohol-related violence.

Responding to the need to accurately quantify the risk, the guidance defines a “standard” drink as 12 oz of beer, cooler, or cider (5% alcohol); 5 oz of wine (12% alcohol); and 1.5 oz of spirits such as whiskey, vodka, or gin (40% alcohol).

Using different mortality risk thresholds, the project’s experts developed the following continuum of risk:

• Low for individuals who consume two standard drinks or fewer per week
• Moderate for those who consume from three to six standard drinks per week
• Increasingly high for those who consume seven standard drinks or more per week

The guidance makes the following observations:

• Consuming more than two standard drinks per drinking occasion is associated with an increased risk of harms to self and others, including injuries and violence.
• When pregnant or trying to get pregnant, no amount of alcohol is safe.
• When breastfeeding, not drinking is safest.
• Above the upper limit of the moderate risk zone, health risks increase more steeply for females than males.
• Far more injuries, violence, and deaths result from men’s alcohol use, especially for per occasion drinking, than from women’s alcohol use.
• Young people should delay alcohol use for as long as possible.
• Individuals should not start to use alcohol or increase their alcohol use for health benefits.
• Any reduction in alcohol use is beneficial.

Other national guidelines

“Countries that haven’t updated their alcohol use guidelines recently should do so, as the evidence regarding alcohol and health has advanced considerably in the past 10 years,” said Dr. Sherk. He acknowledged that “any time health guidance changes substantially, it’s reasonable to expect a period of readjustment.”

“Some will be resistant,” Dr. Butt agreed. “Some professionals will need more education than others on the health effects of alcohol. Some patients will also be more invested in drinking than others. The harm-reduction, risk-zone approach should assist in the process of engaging patients and helping them reduce over time.

“Just as we benefited from the updates done in the United Kingdom, France, and especially Australia, so also researchers elsewhere will critique our work and our approach and make their own decisions on how best to communicate with their public,” Dr. Butt said. He noted that Canada’s contributions regarding the association between alcohol and violence, as well as their sex/gender approach to the evidence, “may influence the next country’s review.”

Commenting on whether the United States should consider changing its guidance, Timothy Brennan, MD, MPH, chief of clinical services for the Addiction Institute of Mount Sinai Health System in New York, said in an interview, “A lot of people will be surprised at the recommended limits on alcohol. Most think that they can have one or two glasses of alcohol per day and not have any increased risk to their health. I think the Canadians deserve credit for putting themselves out there.”

Dr. Brennan said there will “certainly be pushback by the drinking lobby, which is very strong both in the U.S. and in Canada.” In fact, the national trade group Beer Canada was recently quoted as stating that it still supports the 2011 guidelines and that the updating process lacked full transparency and expert technical peer review.

Nevertheless, Dr. Brennan said, “it’s overwhelmingly clear that alcohol affects a ton of different parts of our body, so limiting the amount of alcohol we take in is always going to be a good thing. The Canadian graphic is great because it color-codes the risk. I recommend that clinicians put it up in their offices and begin quantifying the units of alcohol that are going into a patient’s body each day.”

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

Systemic mastocytosis is widely underdiagnosed, and many more hematologic oncologists should be looking for it. This call to action was issued late in 2022 by Stanford (Calif.) Cancer Institute’s Jason Gotlib, MD, speaking at the Lymphoma, Leukemia & Myeloma Congress in New York.

Nationwide, approximately 1,000 adults are diagnosed with systemic mastocytosis annually. This rare disease is a myeloid neoplasm with a highly variable phenotypic expression, in which abnormal mast cells proliferate and infiltrate organs and tissues. It swings widely from a nonadvanced form, composed of indolent or smoldering disease, to advanced disease that progresses to leukemia in 6% of cases.

More than 80% of systemic mastocytosis is driven by the KIT D816V mutation. Along with a host of other rare KIT mutations, KIT D816V activates KIT-receptor tyrosine kinase to trigger mast cell proliferation.

Dr. Gotlib could not be contacted for an interview. However, there are many good reasons to identify patients with systemic mastocytosis, according to Attilio Orazi, MD, professor and chair of the department of pathology at Texas Tech University, El Paso. The chief reason is that the patient may be in grave peril.

“The degree of heterogeneity is amazing. ... There’s very indolent [disease], which is really not a big deal. And then you have a disease in which you’re dead in 3 months,” Dr. Orazi said. “So you run the gamut between an indolent, no-problem cutaneous disease to a very nasty systemic, aggressive leukemia-like neoplasm.”

Since 2001, the diagnosis of mastocytosis has been guided by the World Health Organization Classification of Tumours, or “Blue Book.” In 2022, Dr. Orazi along with 137 other senior experts, most of whom were involved in past editions of the Blue Book, published their own version: The International Consensus Classification of Myeloid Neoplasms and Acute Leukemias (the ICC 2022).

In September 2021, this group of specialists held a virtual/in-person advisory committee meeting at the University of Chicago to create the document. One factor in their decision to go it alone, Dr. Orazi said, was that WHO decided to proceed with the fifth edition of the Blue Book using its own internal editorial group without convening an advisory committee, despite repeated requests to do so.

ICC 2022 divides advanced systemic mastocytosis into three subtypes: aggressive systemic mastocytosis (ASM), systemic mastocytosis with an associated hematologic neoplasm (SM-AHN), and mast cell leukemia (MCL). Median survival is 3.5 years for patients with ASM, 2 years for those with SM-AHN and as low as 2 months for MCL.

The second key reason to increase awareness of mastocytosis among physicians, said Dr. Orazi, is that patients falling through the net are likely to be ambulatory, and their presentation can be “a little confusing.”

Patients with indolent disease are relatively straightforward to recognize, explained Dr. Orazi. Similarly, very sick patients with SM-AHN or MCL are easily recognized by hem-oncs.

“But if you see a patient in an ambulatory setting, in your clinic or whatever, and you’re suspicious, then you need to decide [how] you’re going to investigate that patient further,” he said, Dr. Orazi noted the next step is not always obvious, especially for primary-practice or internal medicine physicians likely to be unfamiliar with such a rare disease.

A practice survey published in 2022 by other researchers backed up Dr. Orazi’s remarks. The study found that community/solo-practice physicians were less likely to have tested systemic mastocytosis patients for KIT816V mutation than academic/specialty physicians (58% vs. 80%; P = .004; n = 111). Clinicians treating these patients estimated that it took an average of 8.5 months for a “typical” patient to receive the diagnosis from the time of symptom onset.

The research was headed by Ruben Mesa, MD, director of University of Texas Health, San Antonio, and funded by Blueprint Medicines, the manufacturer of avapritinib (Ayvakit), a new drug for the disease.

Dr. Orazi urged clinicians to have a high degree of suspicion for mastocytosis in a patient who walks into the clinic with any combination of the following: urticarial-type skin manifestations, especially if persistent into adulthood; history of undue reaction to an insect sting; a big spleen in a patient with a history of cutaneous flushing or rash; chronic diarrhea, especially if a biopsy has shown “too many mast cells” in the lamina propria of the small bowel; and positivity for KIT816V mutation.

Dr. Orazi stressed that the majority of patients will have indolent disease, but for the few patients for whom immediate treatment is essential, “the distinction between indolent and aggressive [disease] is really very, very important.”

Patients with advanced systemic mastocytosis can now be effectively treated, following the arrival of midostaurin (Rydapt, Tauritmo) and avapritinib.

Midostaurin, a multikinase/KIT inhibitor, was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2017 for the treatment of advanced systemic mastocytosis (ASM, SM-AHN, and MCL). Avapritinib, a selective kinase inhibitor of KIT816V and platelet-derived growth factor receptor alpha as well as multiple KIT exon 11, 11/17 and 17 mutants, gained the same indication in June 2021.

As with all rare diseases, it is challenging to obtain accurate numbers on how many patients are affected by systemic mastocytosis. The first population-based study of the disorder, presented at the 2018 annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology, used the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database from 2000 to 2014 to estimate incidence at 0.046 per 10,000, which translates to 1,050 new adult cases per year. The study data have never been published in full.

How many of these cases are advanced disease? There are no U.S. data but extrapolating from a Danish registry study that found 82% of systemic mastocytosis cases to be indolent disease, the incidence of advanced systemic mastocytosis in the United States could be as low as 200 adults a year.

This information, in turn, suggests that identifying more patients with advanced disease would not only benefit those patients but would also benefit clinical trial investigators who are seeking the proverbial needle in the haystack.

Nationwide, five clinical trials are recruiting individuals with advanced systemic mastocytosis, collectively looking for 352 patients in the United States. Two of the studies focus on mast-cell activation (NCT0544944) and cutaneous mastocytoses (NCT04846348). Two trials in a range of hematological malignancies are testing bispecific antibodies flotetuzumab and MGD024 (both from Macrogenics; NCT04681105, NCT05362773).

Apex, a phase 2 study of tyrosine-kinase inhibitor bezuclastinib (a Cogent hopeful), is specifically focusing on advanced disease. Dr. Gotlib and coinvestigators are aiming for 140 participants.

As a pathologist, Dr. Orazi said he find mastocytosis fascinating because he believes he has “a truly useful role,” contrasting with some other hematological diseases in which the molecular profile rules.

“Pathology plays a major role here,” he explained, “because you have to correlate what you see at the microscope with the full clinical picture, selected laboratory tests such as CBC and serum tryptase, and molecular results. You often need integration through a pathologist to put all the pieces together.

“It’s easier to treat once you know exactly what disease you’re dealing with and whether it is an aggressive or indolent subtype,” Dr. Orazi concluded.

Dr. Orazi disclosed no conflicts of interest. Dr. Gotlib has disclosed ties with Blueprint Medicines, Deciphera, Incyte, and Kartos Therapeutics, and has led committees for Blueprint Medicine’s EXPLORER and PATHFINDER studies, Deciphera’s Study Steering Committee for ripretinib in AdvSM, and the Central Response Review Committee for the phase 2 study of bezuclastinib in AdvSM.

Systemic mastocytosis is widely underdiagnosed, and many more hematologic oncologists should be looking for it. This call to action was issued late in 2022 by Stanford (Calif.) Cancer Institute’s Jason Gotlib, MD, speaking at the Lymphoma, Leukemia & Myeloma Congress in New York.

Nationwide, approximately 1,000 adults are diagnosed with systemic mastocytosis annually. This rare disease is a myeloid neoplasm with a highly variable phenotypic expression, in which abnormal mast cells proliferate and infiltrate organs and tissues. It swings widely from a nonadvanced form, composed of indolent or smoldering disease, to advanced disease that progresses to leukemia in 6% of cases.

More than 80% of systemic mastocytosis is driven by the KIT D816V mutation. Along with a host of other rare KIT mutations, KIT D816V activates KIT-receptor tyrosine kinase to trigger mast cell proliferation.

Dr. Gotlib could not be contacted for an interview. However, there are many good reasons to identify patients with systemic mastocytosis, according to Attilio Orazi, MD, professor and chair of the department of pathology at Texas Tech University, El Paso. The chief reason is that the patient may be in grave peril.

“The degree of heterogeneity is amazing. ... There’s very indolent [disease], which is really not a big deal. And then you have a disease in which you’re dead in 3 months,” Dr. Orazi said. “So you run the gamut between an indolent, no-problem cutaneous disease to a very nasty systemic, aggressive leukemia-like neoplasm.”

Since 2001, the diagnosis of mastocytosis has been guided by the World Health Organization Classification of Tumours, or “Blue Book.” In 2022, Dr. Orazi along with 137 other senior experts, most of whom were involved in past editions of the Blue Book, published their own version: The International Consensus Classification of Myeloid Neoplasms and Acute Leukemias (the ICC 2022).

In September 2021, this group of specialists held a virtual/in-person advisory committee meeting at the University of Chicago to create the document. One factor in their decision to go it alone, Dr. Orazi said, was that WHO decided to proceed with the fifth edition of the Blue Book using its own internal editorial group without convening an advisory committee, despite repeated requests to do so.

ICC 2022 divides advanced systemic mastocytosis into three subtypes: aggressive systemic mastocytosis (ASM), systemic mastocytosis with an associated hematologic neoplasm (SM-AHN), and mast cell leukemia (MCL). Median survival is 3.5 years for patients with ASM, 2 years for those with SM-AHN and as low as 2 months for MCL.

The second key reason to increase awareness of mastocytosis among physicians, said Dr. Orazi, is that patients falling through the net are likely to be ambulatory, and their presentation can be “a little confusing.”

Patients with indolent disease are relatively straightforward to recognize, explained Dr. Orazi. Similarly, very sick patients with SM-AHN or MCL are easily recognized by hem-oncs.

“But if you see a patient in an ambulatory setting, in your clinic or whatever, and you’re suspicious, then you need to decide [how] you’re going to investigate that patient further,” he said, Dr. Orazi noted the next step is not always obvious, especially for primary-practice or internal medicine physicians likely to be unfamiliar with such a rare disease.

A practice survey published in 2022 by other researchers backed up Dr. Orazi’s remarks. The study found that community/solo-practice physicians were less likely to have tested systemic mastocytosis patients for KIT816V mutation than academic/specialty physicians (58% vs. 80%; P = .004; n = 111). Clinicians treating these patients estimated that it took an average of 8.5 months for a “typical” patient to receive the diagnosis from the time of symptom onset.

The research was headed by Ruben Mesa, MD, director of University of Texas Health, San Antonio, and funded by Blueprint Medicines, the manufacturer of avapritinib (Ayvakit), a new drug for the disease.

Dr. Orazi urged clinicians to have a high degree of suspicion for mastocytosis in a patient who walks into the clinic with any combination of the following: urticarial-type skin manifestations, especially if persistent into adulthood; history of undue reaction to an insect sting; a big spleen in a patient with a history of cutaneous flushing or rash; chronic diarrhea, especially if a biopsy has shown “too many mast cells” in the lamina propria of the small bowel; and positivity for KIT816V mutation.

Dr. Orazi stressed that the majority of patients will have indolent disease, but for the few patients for whom immediate treatment is essential, “the distinction between indolent and aggressive [disease] is really very, very important.”

Patients with advanced systemic mastocytosis can now be effectively treated, following the arrival of midostaurin (Rydapt, Tauritmo) and avapritinib.

Midostaurin, a multikinase/KIT inhibitor, was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2017 for the treatment of advanced systemic mastocytosis (ASM, SM-AHN, and MCL). Avapritinib, a selective kinase inhibitor of KIT816V and platelet-derived growth factor receptor alpha as well as multiple KIT exon 11, 11/17 and 17 mutants, gained the same indication in June 2021.

As with all rare diseases, it is challenging to obtain accurate numbers on how many patients are affected by systemic mastocytosis. The first population-based study of the disorder, presented at the 2018 annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology, used the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database from 2000 to 2014 to estimate incidence at 0.046 per 10,000, which translates to 1,050 new adult cases per year. The study data have never been published in full.

How many of these cases are advanced disease? There are no U.S. data but extrapolating from a Danish registry study that found 82% of systemic mastocytosis cases to be indolent disease, the incidence of advanced systemic mastocytosis in the United States could be as low as 200 adults a year.

This information, in turn, suggests that identifying more patients with advanced disease would not only benefit those patients but would also benefit clinical trial investigators who are seeking the proverbial needle in the haystack.

Nationwide, five clinical trials are recruiting individuals with advanced systemic mastocytosis, collectively looking for 352 patients in the United States. Two of the studies focus on mast-cell activation (NCT0544944) and cutaneous mastocytoses (NCT04846348). Two trials in a range of hematological malignancies are testing bispecific antibodies flotetuzumab and MGD024 (both from Macrogenics; NCT04681105, NCT05362773).

Apex, a phase 2 study of tyrosine-kinase inhibitor bezuclastinib (a Cogent hopeful), is specifically focusing on advanced disease. Dr. Gotlib and coinvestigators are aiming for 140 participants.

As a pathologist, Dr. Orazi said he find mastocytosis fascinating because he believes he has “a truly useful role,” contrasting with some other hematological diseases in which the molecular profile rules.

“Pathology plays a major role here,” he explained, “because you have to correlate what you see at the microscope with the full clinical picture, selected laboratory tests such as CBC and serum tryptase, and molecular results. You often need integration through a pathologist to put all the pieces together.

“It’s easier to treat once you know exactly what disease you’re dealing with and whether it is an aggressive or indolent subtype,” Dr. Orazi concluded.

Dr. Orazi disclosed no conflicts of interest. Dr. Gotlib has disclosed ties with Blueprint Medicines, Deciphera, Incyte, and Kartos Therapeutics, and has led committees for Blueprint Medicine’s EXPLORER and PATHFINDER studies, Deciphera’s Study Steering Committee for ripretinib in AdvSM, and the Central Response Review Committee for the phase 2 study of bezuclastinib in AdvSM.

Systemic mastocytosis is widely underdiagnosed, and many more hematologic oncologists should be looking for it. This call to action was issued late in 2022 by Stanford (Calif.) Cancer Institute’s Jason Gotlib, MD, speaking at the Lymphoma, Leukemia & Myeloma Congress in New York.

Nationwide, approximately 1,000 adults are diagnosed with systemic mastocytosis annually. This rare disease is a myeloid neoplasm with a highly variable phenotypic expression, in which abnormal mast cells proliferate and infiltrate organs and tissues. It swings widely from a nonadvanced form, composed of indolent or smoldering disease, to advanced disease that progresses to leukemia in 6% of cases.

More than 80% of systemic mastocytosis is driven by the KIT D816V mutation. Along with a host of other rare KIT mutations, KIT D816V activates KIT-receptor tyrosine kinase to trigger mast cell proliferation.

Dr. Gotlib could not be contacted for an interview. However, there are many good reasons to identify patients with systemic mastocytosis, according to Attilio Orazi, MD, professor and chair of the department of pathology at Texas Tech University, El Paso. The chief reason is that the patient may be in grave peril.

“The degree of heterogeneity is amazing. ... There’s very indolent [disease], which is really not a big deal. And then you have a disease in which you’re dead in 3 months,” Dr. Orazi said. “So you run the gamut between an indolent, no-problem cutaneous disease to a very nasty systemic, aggressive leukemia-like neoplasm.”

Since 2001, the diagnosis of mastocytosis has been guided by the World Health Organization Classification of Tumours, or “Blue Book.” In 2022, Dr. Orazi along with 137 other senior experts, most of whom were involved in past editions of the Blue Book, published their own version: The International Consensus Classification of Myeloid Neoplasms and Acute Leukemias (the ICC 2022).

In September 2021, this group of specialists held a virtual/in-person advisory committee meeting at the University of Chicago to create the document. One factor in their decision to go it alone, Dr. Orazi said, was that WHO decided to proceed with the fifth edition of the Blue Book using its own internal editorial group without convening an advisory committee, despite repeated requests to do so.

ICC 2022 divides advanced systemic mastocytosis into three subtypes: aggressive systemic mastocytosis (ASM), systemic mastocytosis with an associated hematologic neoplasm (SM-AHN), and mast cell leukemia (MCL). Median survival is 3.5 years for patients with ASM, 2 years for those with SM-AHN and as low as 2 months for MCL.

The second key reason to increase awareness of mastocytosis among physicians, said Dr. Orazi, is that patients falling through the net are likely to be ambulatory, and their presentation can be “a little confusing.”

Patients with indolent disease are relatively straightforward to recognize, explained Dr. Orazi. Similarly, very sick patients with SM-AHN or MCL are easily recognized by hem-oncs.

“But if you see a patient in an ambulatory setting, in your clinic or whatever, and you’re suspicious, then you need to decide [how] you’re going to investigate that patient further,” he said, Dr. Orazi noted the next step is not always obvious, especially for primary-practice or internal medicine physicians likely to be unfamiliar with such a rare disease.

A practice survey published in 2022 by other researchers backed up Dr. Orazi’s remarks. The study found that community/solo-practice physicians were less likely to have tested systemic mastocytosis patients for KIT816V mutation than academic/specialty physicians (58% vs. 80%; P = .004; n = 111). Clinicians treating these patients estimated that it took an average of 8.5 months for a “typical” patient to receive the diagnosis from the time of symptom onset.

The research was headed by Ruben Mesa, MD, director of University of Texas Health, San Antonio, and funded by Blueprint Medicines, the manufacturer of avapritinib (Ayvakit), a new drug for the disease.

Dr. Orazi urged clinicians to have a high degree of suspicion for mastocytosis in a patient who walks into the clinic with any combination of the following: urticarial-type skin manifestations, especially if persistent into adulthood; history of undue reaction to an insect sting; a big spleen in a patient with a history of cutaneous flushing or rash; chronic diarrhea, especially if a biopsy has shown “too many mast cells” in the lamina propria of the small bowel; and positivity for KIT816V mutation.

Dr. Orazi stressed that the majority of patients will have indolent disease, but for the few patients for whom immediate treatment is essential, “the distinction between indolent and aggressive [disease] is really very, very important.”

Patients with advanced systemic mastocytosis can now be effectively treated, following the arrival of midostaurin (Rydapt, Tauritmo) and avapritinib.

Midostaurin, a multikinase/KIT inhibitor, was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2017 for the treatment of advanced systemic mastocytosis (ASM, SM-AHN, and MCL). Avapritinib, a selective kinase inhibitor of KIT816V and platelet-derived growth factor receptor alpha as well as multiple KIT exon 11, 11/17 and 17 mutants, gained the same indication in June 2021.

As with all rare diseases, it is challenging to obtain accurate numbers on how many patients are affected by systemic mastocytosis. The first population-based study of the disorder, presented at the 2018 annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology, used the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database from 2000 to 2014 to estimate incidence at 0.046 per 10,000, which translates to 1,050 new adult cases per year. The study data have never been published in full.

How many of these cases are advanced disease? There are no U.S. data but extrapolating from a Danish registry study that found 82% of systemic mastocytosis cases to be indolent disease, the incidence of advanced systemic mastocytosis in the United States could be as low as 200 adults a year.

This information, in turn, suggests that identifying more patients with advanced disease would not only benefit those patients but would also benefit clinical trial investigators who are seeking the proverbial needle in the haystack.

Nationwide, five clinical trials are recruiting individuals with advanced systemic mastocytosis, collectively looking for 352 patients in the United States. Two of the studies focus on mast-cell activation (NCT0544944) and cutaneous mastocytoses (NCT04846348). Two trials in a range of hematological malignancies are testing bispecific antibodies flotetuzumab and MGD024 (both from Macrogenics; NCT04681105, NCT05362773).

Apex, a phase 2 study of tyrosine-kinase inhibitor bezuclastinib (a Cogent hopeful), is specifically focusing on advanced disease. Dr. Gotlib and coinvestigators are aiming for 140 participants.

As a pathologist, Dr. Orazi said he find mastocytosis fascinating because he believes he has “a truly useful role,” contrasting with some other hematological diseases in which the molecular profile rules.

“Pathology plays a major role here,” he explained, “because you have to correlate what you see at the microscope with the full clinical picture, selected laboratory tests such as CBC and serum tryptase, and molecular results. You often need integration through a pathologist to put all the pieces together.

“It’s easier to treat once you know exactly what disease you’re dealing with and whether it is an aggressive or indolent subtype,” Dr. Orazi concluded.

Dr. Orazi disclosed no conflicts of interest. Dr. Gotlib has disclosed ties with Blueprint Medicines, Deciphera, Incyte, and Kartos Therapeutics, and has led committees for Blueprint Medicine’s EXPLORER and PATHFINDER studies, Deciphera’s Study Steering Committee for ripretinib in AdvSM, and the Central Response Review Committee for the phase 2 study of bezuclastinib in AdvSM.

Adding venetoclax to ibrutinib for chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) improved rates of durable, treatment-free remission among 45 patients at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

Investigators led by Philip Thompson, MD, a hematologist/oncologist at the center, explained that CLL patients receiving ibrutinib, a Bruton’s kinase inhibitor, “rarely achieve complete remission with undetectable measurable residual disease,” so they stay on the costly treatment indefinitely or until disease progression or accumulating adverse events force a switch to venetoclax.

Using the two agents together, instead of consecutively, may allow strong responders to stop treatment altogether and suboptimal responders to have longer remissions, they said.

“We would not advocate prolonged Bruton’s kinase inhibitor use prior to starting venetoclax in treatment-naive patients, as the safety and efficacy of commencing venetoclax after a 3-month ibrutinib monotherapy phase has been repeatedly demonstrated,” the team said.

However, the investigators noted that their “study was not intended to directly answer the question of whether combination therapy is superior to the current paradigm of sequential monotherapy.” Randomized trials are looking into the matter. The study was published recently as a preprint on ResearchSquare.com and has not been peer reviewed.
 

Complete remission in over half

The 45 adult subjects had one or more high-risk features for CLL progression and had received at least 1 year of ibrutinib at 140-420 mg once daily, depending on tolerance. They had bone marrow detectable disease at study entry but did not meet criteria for progression. Median duration of ibrutinib at baseline was 32 months, and about half the subjects were on it as their initial therapy.

Venetoclax, a BCL2 inhibitor with a completely different mechanisms of action, was added to ibrutinib for up to 2 years, escalated up to a target dose of 400 mg once daily.

On intention-to-treat analysis, venetoclax add-on improved ibrutinib response to complete remission in 55% of patients; complete remission was defined as less than 1 CLL cell per 10,000 leukocytes in bone marrow on two consecutive occasions 6 months apart.

The rate of undetectable bone marrow disease was 57% after 1 year of combined treatment and 71% after venetoclax completion, at which point 23 patients with undetectable disease stopped ibrutinib along with venetoclax.

Five patients had disease progression at a median of 41 months after venetoclax initiation, one during combined therapy, three during ibrutinib maintenance afterward, and one with Richter transformation after complete remission and discontinuation of all treatment. No patient had died from CLL.

“There has so far been no significant difference noted in” time to residual disease re-emergence, the team said, based on whether or not patients continued ibrutinib after venetoclax add-on.

There was no significant difference in the rate of bone marrow clearance according to the presence or absence of TP53 abnormalities, complex karyotypes, or prior treatment status.

The most common grade 3/4 adverse event was neutropenia in 20% of patients. Nine patients developed nonmelanoma skin cancer during the trial; six were diagnosed with other solid tumors; three came down with grade 3 infections, and two developed myelodysplastic syndrome, both with a prior history of chemotherapy.

No one stopped venetoclax because of toxicity, but about a third of subjects required dose reductions, most often because of neutropenia.

The study was funded by AbbVie, which is commercializing venetoclax along with Genentech. Investigators disclosed ties to both companies and many others. Dr. Thompson disclosed ties to AbbVie, Pharmacyclics, Lilly, Adaptive Biotechnologies, Janssen, Beigene, and Genentech.

Adding venetoclax to ibrutinib for chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) improved rates of durable, treatment-free remission among 45 patients at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

Investigators led by Philip Thompson, MD, a hematologist/oncologist at the center, explained that CLL patients receiving ibrutinib, a Bruton’s kinase inhibitor, “rarely achieve complete remission with undetectable measurable residual disease,” so they stay on the costly treatment indefinitely or until disease progression or accumulating adverse events force a switch to venetoclax.

Using the two agents together, instead of consecutively, may allow strong responders to stop treatment altogether and suboptimal responders to have longer remissions, they said.

“We would not advocate prolonged Bruton’s kinase inhibitor use prior to starting venetoclax in treatment-naive patients, as the safety and efficacy of commencing venetoclax after a 3-month ibrutinib monotherapy phase has been repeatedly demonstrated,” the team said.

However, the investigators noted that their “study was not intended to directly answer the question of whether combination therapy is superior to the current paradigm of sequential monotherapy.” Randomized trials are looking into the matter. The study was published recently as a preprint on ResearchSquare.com and has not been peer reviewed.
 

Complete remission in over half

The 45 adult subjects had one or more high-risk features for CLL progression and had received at least 1 year of ibrutinib at 140-420 mg once daily, depending on tolerance. They had bone marrow detectable disease at study entry but did not meet criteria for progression. Median duration of ibrutinib at baseline was 32 months, and about half the subjects were on it as their initial therapy.

Venetoclax, a BCL2 inhibitor with a completely different mechanisms of action, was added to ibrutinib for up to 2 years, escalated up to a target dose of 400 mg once daily.

On intention-to-treat analysis, venetoclax add-on improved ibrutinib response to complete remission in 55% of patients; complete remission was defined as less than 1 CLL cell per 10,000 leukocytes in bone marrow on two consecutive occasions 6 months apart.

The rate of undetectable bone marrow disease was 57% after 1 year of combined treatment and 71% after venetoclax completion, at which point 23 patients with undetectable disease stopped ibrutinib along with venetoclax.

Five patients had disease progression at a median of 41 months after venetoclax initiation, one during combined therapy, three during ibrutinib maintenance afterward, and one with Richter transformation after complete remission and discontinuation of all treatment. No patient had died from CLL.

“There has so far been no significant difference noted in” time to residual disease re-emergence, the team said, based on whether or not patients continued ibrutinib after venetoclax add-on.

There was no significant difference in the rate of bone marrow clearance according to the presence or absence of TP53 abnormalities, complex karyotypes, or prior treatment status.

The most common grade 3/4 adverse event was neutropenia in 20% of patients. Nine patients developed nonmelanoma skin cancer during the trial; six were diagnosed with other solid tumors; three came down with grade 3 infections, and two developed myelodysplastic syndrome, both with a prior history of chemotherapy.

No one stopped venetoclax because of toxicity, but about a third of subjects required dose reductions, most often because of neutropenia.

The study was funded by AbbVie, which is commercializing venetoclax along with Genentech. Investigators disclosed ties to both companies and many others. Dr. Thompson disclosed ties to AbbVie, Pharmacyclics, Lilly, Adaptive Biotechnologies, Janssen, Beigene, and Genentech.

Adding venetoclax to ibrutinib for chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) improved rates of durable, treatment-free remission among 45 patients at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

Investigators led by Philip Thompson, MD, a hematologist/oncologist at the center, explained that CLL patients receiving ibrutinib, a Bruton’s kinase inhibitor, “rarely achieve complete remission with undetectable measurable residual disease,” so they stay on the costly treatment indefinitely or until disease progression or accumulating adverse events force a switch to venetoclax.

Using the two agents together, instead of consecutively, may allow strong responders to stop treatment altogether and suboptimal responders to have longer remissions, they said.

“We would not advocate prolonged Bruton’s kinase inhibitor use prior to starting venetoclax in treatment-naive patients, as the safety and efficacy of commencing venetoclax after a 3-month ibrutinib monotherapy phase has been repeatedly demonstrated,” the team said.

However, the investigators noted that their “study was not intended to directly answer the question of whether combination therapy is superior to the current paradigm of sequential monotherapy.” Randomized trials are looking into the matter. The study was published recently as a preprint on ResearchSquare.com and has not been peer reviewed.
 

Complete remission in over half

The 45 adult subjects had one or more high-risk features for CLL progression and had received at least 1 year of ibrutinib at 140-420 mg once daily, depending on tolerance. They had bone marrow detectable disease at study entry but did not meet criteria for progression. Median duration of ibrutinib at baseline was 32 months, and about half the subjects were on it as their initial therapy.

Venetoclax, a BCL2 inhibitor with a completely different mechanisms of action, was added to ibrutinib for up to 2 years, escalated up to a target dose of 400 mg once daily.

On intention-to-treat analysis, venetoclax add-on improved ibrutinib response to complete remission in 55% of patients; complete remission was defined as less than 1 CLL cell per 10,000 leukocytes in bone marrow on two consecutive occasions 6 months apart.

The rate of undetectable bone marrow disease was 57% after 1 year of combined treatment and 71% after venetoclax completion, at which point 23 patients with undetectable disease stopped ibrutinib along with venetoclax.

Five patients had disease progression at a median of 41 months after venetoclax initiation, one during combined therapy, three during ibrutinib maintenance afterward, and one with Richter transformation after complete remission and discontinuation of all treatment. No patient had died from CLL.

“There has so far been no significant difference noted in” time to residual disease re-emergence, the team said, based on whether or not patients continued ibrutinib after venetoclax add-on.

There was no significant difference in the rate of bone marrow clearance according to the presence or absence of TP53 abnormalities, complex karyotypes, or prior treatment status.

The most common grade 3/4 adverse event was neutropenia in 20% of patients. Nine patients developed nonmelanoma skin cancer during the trial; six were diagnosed with other solid tumors; three came down with grade 3 infections, and two developed myelodysplastic syndrome, both with a prior history of chemotherapy.

No one stopped venetoclax because of toxicity, but about a third of subjects required dose reductions, most often because of neutropenia.

The study was funded by AbbVie, which is commercializing venetoclax along with Genentech. Investigators disclosed ties to both companies and many others. Dr. Thompson disclosed ties to AbbVie, Pharmacyclics, Lilly, Adaptive Biotechnologies, Janssen, Beigene, and Genentech.

Cancer dietitian Lisa Cianciotta often finds herself sitting across from a patient who suddenly fishes a bottle of antioxidant supplements from their bag and says, “My friend told me this works really well,” or “I read on the Internet that this is supposed to be really good for cancer.” 

Although taking an antioxidant pill sounds harmless, Ms. Cianciotta, a clinical dietitian who works with cancer patients at New York–Presbyterian Hospital, knows well that this popular dietary supplement can interfere with a patient’s radiation or chemotherapy.

But many patients with cancer believe these over-the-counter vitamins, minerals, or herbal remedies will help them, and most use at least one dietary supplement alongside their cancer treatment.

And that leaves Ms. Cianciotta with a delicate conversation ahead of her. 

Drug-supplement interactions are complex, often varying by supplement, cancer, and treatment type, and can do more harm than good. Popular dietary supplements may, for instance, cancel the effects of a cancer treatment, making it less effective, or increase serious side effects, such as liver toxicity. But in other cases, supplementation, such as vitamin D for patients who lack the vitamin, may be beneficial, Ms. Cianciotta said. 

These drug-supplement interactions can be hard to pinpoint, given that more than two-thirds of doctors don’t know their patients are using supplements.

Here’s what patients need to know about the potential risks of supplement use during treatment, and how oncologists can address this thorny, often poorly understood topic with patients.
 

The complex drug-supplement landscape

The list of dietary supplements and how they can interact with different treatments and cancer types is long and nuanced. 

But certain supplements appear to affect cancer treatments regardless of other things and should be avoided. Any supplement that strongly alters the body’s levels of the protein cytochromes P450 is one example. This group of enzymes plays a key role in metabolizing drugs, including chemotherapy and immunotherapy agents. 

Certain supplements – most notably St. John’s wort extract – may decrease or increase the activity of cytochrome P450, which can then  affect the concentrations of anticancer drugs in the blood, said William Figg, PharmD, an associate director of the Center for Cancer Research at the National Cancer Institute in Bethesda, Md. Studies show, for instance, that this common herbal supplement can increase the activity of cytochrome P450, resulting in lower levels of cancer drugs.

Outside of drug metabolism, patients with hormone-related cancers, such as breast and prostate cancers, should steer clear of dietary supplements that can alter levels of testosterone or estrogen, Dr. Figg said. The evergreen shrub ashwagandha, for example, is marketed to reduce stress and fatigue, but can also increase testosterone levels – a potential problem for those with prostate cancer receiving androgen deprivation therapy, which lowers testosterone levels. 

Many oncologists counsel patients against using antioxidant-based dietary supplements – particularly turmeric and green tea extract – while they have radiation therapy and certain chemotherapies. These therapies work by creating an abundance of highly reactive molecules called free radicals in tumor cells, which increase stress within these cells, ultimately killing them off. Antioxidants, in theory, can neutralize this effect, said Skyler Johnson, MD, a radiation oncologist at Huntsman Cancer Institute at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City.  Some studies suggest that antioxidant supplements may lessen the effects of radiation and chemotherapy, although the evidence is mixed.

Some dietary supplements, including high-dose green tea extract and vitamin A, can cause kidney or liver toxicity, and “many cancer patients already have compromised kidney or liver function,” said Jun J. Mao, MD, chief of integrative medicine at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York. Even herbs that don’t interfere with how well a cancer drug works, such as stevia, can increase treatment-related side effects, such as nausea and vomiting. 

Another potential problem with dietary supplements: It’s nearly impossible to know exactly what’s in them. For instance, just last year, the Food and Drug Administration sent nearly 50 warning letters to companies marketing dietary supplements. The issue is that federal regulations governing production are less strict for supplements than for medications. As a result, some supplements contain ingredients not listed on the label. 

One historical example was the supplement PC-SPES, a mix of eight herbs, marketed to men with prostate cancer. The supplement was recalled in 2002 after certain batches were found to contain traces of prescription drugs, including diethylstilbestrol, ethinyl estradiol, warfarin, and alprazolam.

To further complicate matters, some dietary supplements can be helpful. Most patients with cancer “are malnourished and missing out on nutrients they could be getting from food,” said Ms. Cianciotta.

Patients are tested routinely for vitamin deficiencies and receive supplements as needed, she said. Vitamin D and folic acid are two of the most common deficiencies in this patient population. Vitamin D supplementation can improve outcomes in patients who have received a stem cell transplant by aiding engraftment and rebuilding the immune system, while folic acid supplementation can help to raise low red blood cell counts and hemoglobin levels. 

Although she rarely sees vitamin toxicity, Ms. Cianciotta stressed that more is not always better and supplement use, even when it seems safe or warranted due to a deficiency, should be taken under supervision, and monitored carefully by the patient’s care team. 
 

Bringing supplement use into the light

Too often, providers are unaware of a patient’s supplement use. 

A core reason: Dietary supplements are often touted as natural, which many patients equate with safety, said Samantha Heller, a senior clinical nutritionist at New York (N.Y.) University Langone Health. 

That means patients may not know a supplement can act like a drug and interfere with their cancer treatment, and thus may not see the importance of telling their doctors.

Still, the promise of herbs, vitamins, and minerals can be alluring, and there are many reasons patients decide to partake. One major appeal: Dietary supplements can help some patients feel empowered.

“Cancer is a disease that takes away a lot of control from the individual. Taking supplements or herbs is a way to regain some sense of control,” said Dr. Mao. 

The phenomenon can also be cultural, he said. Some people grow up taking herbs and supplements to stay healthy or combat health woes.

Pressure or advice from family or friends who may think they are helping a loved one with their dietary recommendations may play a role as well. Friends and family “cannot prescribe chemo, but they can buy herbs and supplements,” Dr. Mao said. 

Patients seeking greater control over their health or who feel high levels of anxiety may be more likely to take suggestions from friends and family or more likely to believe false or misleading claims about the efficacy or safety of supplements, explained  medical oncologist William Dahut, MD, chief scientific officer for the American Cancer Society. 

Plus, social media often amplifies and normalizes this misinformation, noted Dr. Johnson. In a 2021 study published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, he and colleagues found that one-third of the most popular articles on cancer treatment posted to social media in 2018 and 2019 contained false, inaccurate, or misleading information that was often harmful. 

Some of the false claims centered on unproven, potentially unsafe herbal remedies, according to Dr. Johnson. These included “lung cancer can be cured with cannabis oil” and “golden berries cure and prevent cancer.” 

Given exaggerated claims of “cures,” some patients may keep their supplement use under the radar out of fear they will be judged or criticized. 

“Clinicians should avoid making patients feel judged or telling people not to go online to do their own research,” Dr. Johnson said.

Guiding patients, instead, to accurate sources of online information may be one way to help patients feel empowered, he said. Cancer.gov and the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center’s About Herbs database provide accessible and accurate information on dietary supplements and cancer treatment for both health care professionals and patients, he noted. 

If a particular supplement is not safe during treatment, providers should be able to explain why, said  Ms. Cianciotta. In a recent study, 80% of health care providers surveyed believed that interactions between herbals and medications could be problematic, but only 15% could explain why. 

“Being able to explain why we are discouraging a particular supplement right now tends to be much better received than just telling a patient not to take something, because it is bad,” she said. 

Another key is listening closely to patients to understand why they may be taking a particular supplement. Does the patient feel out of control? Is nausea a problem? 

“Allowing patients to tell you why they are using a particular supplement will often reveal unmet needs or psychosocial challenges,” Dr. Mao said. This information can allow providers to suggest an evidence-based alternative, such as mindfulness meditation or acupuncture, to manage stress.

And if a patient has received a dietary supplement from well-meaning family and friends?

“Simply telling a patient that a given supplement is useless or harmful could create family tension,” said  Dr. Mao. 

Instead, he recommends reframing the issue. 

“We want to have a better understanding of how patients are tolerating chemo or immunotherapy before throwing other things on top of it. Let them know that now may just not be the right time to add a supplement to the mix,” Dr. Mao said. 

The bottom line: “Patients want to play an active role in their own care, and we want to help them do that in a safe way,” he said. 

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

Cancer dietitian Lisa Cianciotta often finds herself sitting across from a patient who suddenly fishes a bottle of antioxidant supplements from their bag and says, “My friend told me this works really well,” or “I read on the Internet that this is supposed to be really good for cancer.” 

Although taking an antioxidant pill sounds harmless, Ms. Cianciotta, a clinical dietitian who works with cancer patients at New York–Presbyterian Hospital, knows well that this popular dietary supplement can interfere with a patient’s radiation or chemotherapy.

But many patients with cancer believe these over-the-counter vitamins, minerals, or herbal remedies will help them, and most use at least one dietary supplement alongside their cancer treatment.

And that leaves Ms. Cianciotta with a delicate conversation ahead of her. 

Drug-supplement interactions are complex, often varying by supplement, cancer, and treatment type, and can do more harm than good. Popular dietary supplements may, for instance, cancel the effects of a cancer treatment, making it less effective, or increase serious side effects, such as liver toxicity. But in other cases, supplementation, such as vitamin D for patients who lack the vitamin, may be beneficial, Ms. Cianciotta said. 

These drug-supplement interactions can be hard to pinpoint, given that more than two-thirds of doctors don’t know their patients are using supplements.

Here’s what patients need to know about the potential risks of supplement use during treatment, and how oncologists can address this thorny, often poorly understood topic with patients.
 

The complex drug-supplement landscape

The list of dietary supplements and how they can interact with different treatments and cancer types is long and nuanced. 

But certain supplements appear to affect cancer treatments regardless of other things and should be avoided. Any supplement that strongly alters the body’s levels of the protein cytochromes P450 is one example. This group of enzymes plays a key role in metabolizing drugs, including chemotherapy and immunotherapy agents. 

Certain supplements – most notably St. John’s wort extract – may decrease or increase the activity of cytochrome P450, which can then  affect the concentrations of anticancer drugs in the blood, said William Figg, PharmD, an associate director of the Center for Cancer Research at the National Cancer Institute in Bethesda, Md. Studies show, for instance, that this common herbal supplement can increase the activity of cytochrome P450, resulting in lower levels of cancer drugs.

Outside of drug metabolism, patients with hormone-related cancers, such as breast and prostate cancers, should steer clear of dietary supplements that can alter levels of testosterone or estrogen, Dr. Figg said. The evergreen shrub ashwagandha, for example, is marketed to reduce stress and fatigue, but can also increase testosterone levels – a potential problem for those with prostate cancer receiving androgen deprivation therapy, which lowers testosterone levels. 

Many oncologists counsel patients against using antioxidant-based dietary supplements – particularly turmeric and green tea extract – while they have radiation therapy and certain chemotherapies. These therapies work by creating an abundance of highly reactive molecules called free radicals in tumor cells, which increase stress within these cells, ultimately killing them off. Antioxidants, in theory, can neutralize this effect, said Skyler Johnson, MD, a radiation oncologist at Huntsman Cancer Institute at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City.  Some studies suggest that antioxidant supplements may lessen the effects of radiation and chemotherapy, although the evidence is mixed.

Some dietary supplements, including high-dose green tea extract and vitamin A, can cause kidney or liver toxicity, and “many cancer patients already have compromised kidney or liver function,” said Jun J. Mao, MD, chief of integrative medicine at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York. Even herbs that don’t interfere with how well a cancer drug works, such as stevia, can increase treatment-related side effects, such as nausea and vomiting. 

Another potential problem with dietary supplements: It’s nearly impossible to know exactly what’s in them. For instance, just last year, the Food and Drug Administration sent nearly 50 warning letters to companies marketing dietary supplements. The issue is that federal regulations governing production are less strict for supplements than for medications. As a result, some supplements contain ingredients not listed on the label. 

One historical example was the supplement PC-SPES, a mix of eight herbs, marketed to men with prostate cancer. The supplement was recalled in 2002 after certain batches were found to contain traces of prescription drugs, including diethylstilbestrol, ethinyl estradiol, warfarin, and alprazolam.

To further complicate matters, some dietary supplements can be helpful. Most patients with cancer “are malnourished and missing out on nutrients they could be getting from food,” said Ms. Cianciotta.

Patients are tested routinely for vitamin deficiencies and receive supplements as needed, she said. Vitamin D and folic acid are two of the most common deficiencies in this patient population. Vitamin D supplementation can improve outcomes in patients who have received a stem cell transplant by aiding engraftment and rebuilding the immune system, while folic acid supplementation can help to raise low red blood cell counts and hemoglobin levels. 

Although she rarely sees vitamin toxicity, Ms. Cianciotta stressed that more is not always better and supplement use, even when it seems safe or warranted due to a deficiency, should be taken under supervision, and monitored carefully by the patient’s care team. 
 

Bringing supplement use into the light

Too often, providers are unaware of a patient’s supplement use. 

A core reason: Dietary supplements are often touted as natural, which many patients equate with safety, said Samantha Heller, a senior clinical nutritionist at New York (N.Y.) University Langone Health. 

That means patients may not know a supplement can act like a drug and interfere with their cancer treatment, and thus may not see the importance of telling their doctors.

Still, the promise of herbs, vitamins, and minerals can be alluring, and there are many reasons patients decide to partake. One major appeal: Dietary supplements can help some patients feel empowered.

“Cancer is a disease that takes away a lot of control from the individual. Taking supplements or herbs is a way to regain some sense of control,” said Dr. Mao. 

The phenomenon can also be cultural, he said. Some people grow up taking herbs and supplements to stay healthy or combat health woes.

Pressure or advice from family or friends who may think they are helping a loved one with their dietary recommendations may play a role as well. Friends and family “cannot prescribe chemo, but they can buy herbs and supplements,” Dr. Mao said. 

Patients seeking greater control over their health or who feel high levels of anxiety may be more likely to take suggestions from friends and family or more likely to believe false or misleading claims about the efficacy or safety of supplements, explained  medical oncologist William Dahut, MD, chief scientific officer for the American Cancer Society. 

Plus, social media often amplifies and normalizes this misinformation, noted Dr. Johnson. In a 2021 study published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, he and colleagues found that one-third of the most popular articles on cancer treatment posted to social media in 2018 and 2019 contained false, inaccurate, or misleading information that was often harmful. 

Some of the false claims centered on unproven, potentially unsafe herbal remedies, according to Dr. Johnson. These included “lung cancer can be cured with cannabis oil” and “golden berries cure and prevent cancer.” 

Given exaggerated claims of “cures,” some patients may keep their supplement use under the radar out of fear they will be judged or criticized. 

“Clinicians should avoid making patients feel judged or telling people not to go online to do their own research,” Dr. Johnson said.

Guiding patients, instead, to accurate sources of online information may be one way to help patients feel empowered, he said. Cancer.gov and the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center’s About Herbs database provide accessible and accurate information on dietary supplements and cancer treatment for both health care professionals and patients, he noted. 

If a particular supplement is not safe during treatment, providers should be able to explain why, said  Ms. Cianciotta. In a recent study, 80% of health care providers surveyed believed that interactions between herbals and medications could be problematic, but only 15% could explain why. 

“Being able to explain why we are discouraging a particular supplement right now tends to be much better received than just telling a patient not to take something, because it is bad,” she said. 

Another key is listening closely to patients to understand why they may be taking a particular supplement. Does the patient feel out of control? Is nausea a problem? 

“Allowing patients to tell you why they are using a particular supplement will often reveal unmet needs or psychosocial challenges,” Dr. Mao said. This information can allow providers to suggest an evidence-based alternative, such as mindfulness meditation or acupuncture, to manage stress.

And if a patient has received a dietary supplement from well-meaning family and friends?

“Simply telling a patient that a given supplement is useless or harmful could create family tension,” said  Dr. Mao. 

Instead, he recommends reframing the issue. 

“We want to have a better understanding of how patients are tolerating chemo or immunotherapy before throwing other things on top of it. Let them know that now may just not be the right time to add a supplement to the mix,” Dr. Mao said. 

The bottom line: “Patients want to play an active role in their own care, and we want to help them do that in a safe way,” he said. 

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

Cancer dietitian Lisa Cianciotta often finds herself sitting across from a patient who suddenly fishes a bottle of antioxidant supplements from their bag and says, “My friend told me this works really well,” or “I read on the Internet that this is supposed to be really good for cancer.” 

Although taking an antioxidant pill sounds harmless, Ms. Cianciotta, a clinical dietitian who works with cancer patients at New York–Presbyterian Hospital, knows well that this popular dietary supplement can interfere with a patient’s radiation or chemotherapy.

But many patients with cancer believe these over-the-counter vitamins, minerals, or herbal remedies will help them, and most use at least one dietary supplement alongside their cancer treatment.

And that leaves Ms. Cianciotta with a delicate conversation ahead of her. 

Drug-supplement interactions are complex, often varying by supplement, cancer, and treatment type, and can do more harm than good. Popular dietary supplements may, for instance, cancel the effects of a cancer treatment, making it less effective, or increase serious side effects, such as liver toxicity. But in other cases, supplementation, such as vitamin D for patients who lack the vitamin, may be beneficial, Ms. Cianciotta said. 

These drug-supplement interactions can be hard to pinpoint, given that more than two-thirds of doctors don’t know their patients are using supplements.

Here’s what patients need to know about the potential risks of supplement use during treatment, and how oncologists can address this thorny, often poorly understood topic with patients.
 

The complex drug-supplement landscape

The list of dietary supplements and how they can interact with different treatments and cancer types is long and nuanced. 

But certain supplements appear to affect cancer treatments regardless of other things and should be avoided. Any supplement that strongly alters the body’s levels of the protein cytochromes P450 is one example. This group of enzymes plays a key role in metabolizing drugs, including chemotherapy and immunotherapy agents. 

Certain supplements – most notably St. John’s wort extract – may decrease or increase the activity of cytochrome P450, which can then  affect the concentrations of anticancer drugs in the blood, said William Figg, PharmD, an associate director of the Center for Cancer Research at the National Cancer Institute in Bethesda, Md. Studies show, for instance, that this common herbal supplement can increase the activity of cytochrome P450, resulting in lower levels of cancer drugs.

Outside of drug metabolism, patients with hormone-related cancers, such as breast and prostate cancers, should steer clear of dietary supplements that can alter levels of testosterone or estrogen, Dr. Figg said. The evergreen shrub ashwagandha, for example, is marketed to reduce stress and fatigue, but can also increase testosterone levels – a potential problem for those with prostate cancer receiving androgen deprivation therapy, which lowers testosterone levels. 

Many oncologists counsel patients against using antioxidant-based dietary supplements – particularly turmeric and green tea extract – while they have radiation therapy and certain chemotherapies. These therapies work by creating an abundance of highly reactive molecules called free radicals in tumor cells, which increase stress within these cells, ultimately killing them off. Antioxidants, in theory, can neutralize this effect, said Skyler Johnson, MD, a radiation oncologist at Huntsman Cancer Institute at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City.  Some studies suggest that antioxidant supplements may lessen the effects of radiation and chemotherapy, although the evidence is mixed.

Some dietary supplements, including high-dose green tea extract and vitamin A, can cause kidney or liver toxicity, and “many cancer patients already have compromised kidney or liver function,” said Jun J. Mao, MD, chief of integrative medicine at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York. Even herbs that don’t interfere with how well a cancer drug works, such as stevia, can increase treatment-related side effects, such as nausea and vomiting. 

Another potential problem with dietary supplements: It’s nearly impossible to know exactly what’s in them. For instance, just last year, the Food and Drug Administration sent nearly 50 warning letters to companies marketing dietary supplements. The issue is that federal regulations governing production are less strict for supplements than for medications. As a result, some supplements contain ingredients not listed on the label. 

One historical example was the supplement PC-SPES, a mix of eight herbs, marketed to men with prostate cancer. The supplement was recalled in 2002 after certain batches were found to contain traces of prescription drugs, including diethylstilbestrol, ethinyl estradiol, warfarin, and alprazolam.

To further complicate matters, some dietary supplements can be helpful. Most patients with cancer “are malnourished and missing out on nutrients they could be getting from food,” said Ms. Cianciotta.

Patients are tested routinely for vitamin deficiencies and receive supplements as needed, she said. Vitamin D and folic acid are two of the most common deficiencies in this patient population. Vitamin D supplementation can improve outcomes in patients who have received a stem cell transplant by aiding engraftment and rebuilding the immune system, while folic acid supplementation can help to raise low red blood cell counts and hemoglobin levels. 

Although she rarely sees vitamin toxicity, Ms. Cianciotta stressed that more is not always better and supplement use, even when it seems safe or warranted due to a deficiency, should be taken under supervision, and monitored carefully by the patient’s care team. 
 

Bringing supplement use into the light

Too often, providers are unaware of a patient’s supplement use. 

A core reason: Dietary supplements are often touted as natural, which many patients equate with safety, said Samantha Heller, a senior clinical nutritionist at New York (N.Y.) University Langone Health. 

That means patients may not know a supplement can act like a drug and interfere with their cancer treatment, and thus may not see the importance of telling their doctors.

Still, the promise of herbs, vitamins, and minerals can be alluring, and there are many reasons patients decide to partake. One major appeal: Dietary supplements can help some patients feel empowered.

“Cancer is a disease that takes away a lot of control from the individual. Taking supplements or herbs is a way to regain some sense of control,” said Dr. Mao. 

The phenomenon can also be cultural, he said. Some people grow up taking herbs and supplements to stay healthy or combat health woes.

Pressure or advice from family or friends who may think they are helping a loved one with their dietary recommendations may play a role as well. Friends and family “cannot prescribe chemo, but they can buy herbs and supplements,” Dr. Mao said. 

Patients seeking greater control over their health or who feel high levels of anxiety may be more likely to take suggestions from friends and family or more likely to believe false or misleading claims about the efficacy or safety of supplements, explained  medical oncologist William Dahut, MD, chief scientific officer for the American Cancer Society. 

Plus, social media often amplifies and normalizes this misinformation, noted Dr. Johnson. In a 2021 study published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, he and colleagues found that one-third of the most popular articles on cancer treatment posted to social media in 2018 and 2019 contained false, inaccurate, or misleading information that was often harmful. 

Some of the false claims centered on unproven, potentially unsafe herbal remedies, according to Dr. Johnson. These included “lung cancer can be cured with cannabis oil” and “golden berries cure and prevent cancer.” 

Given exaggerated claims of “cures,” some patients may keep their supplement use under the radar out of fear they will be judged or criticized. 

“Clinicians should avoid making patients feel judged or telling people not to go online to do their own research,” Dr. Johnson said.

Guiding patients, instead, to accurate sources of online information may be one way to help patients feel empowered, he said. Cancer.gov and the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center’s About Herbs database provide accessible and accurate information on dietary supplements and cancer treatment for both health care professionals and patients, he noted. 

If a particular supplement is not safe during treatment, providers should be able to explain why, said  Ms. Cianciotta. In a recent study, 80% of health care providers surveyed believed that interactions between herbals and medications could be problematic, but only 15% could explain why. 

“Being able to explain why we are discouraging a particular supplement right now tends to be much better received than just telling a patient not to take something, because it is bad,” she said. 

Another key is listening closely to patients to understand why they may be taking a particular supplement. Does the patient feel out of control? Is nausea a problem? 

“Allowing patients to tell you why they are using a particular supplement will often reveal unmet needs or psychosocial challenges,” Dr. Mao said. This information can allow providers to suggest an evidence-based alternative, such as mindfulness meditation or acupuncture, to manage stress.

And if a patient has received a dietary supplement from well-meaning family and friends?

“Simply telling a patient that a given supplement is useless or harmful could create family tension,” said  Dr. Mao. 

Instead, he recommends reframing the issue. 

“We want to have a better understanding of how patients are tolerating chemo or immunotherapy before throwing other things on top of it. Let them know that now may just not be the right time to add a supplement to the mix,” Dr. Mao said. 

The bottom line: “Patients want to play an active role in their own care, and we want to help them do that in a safe way,” he said. 

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

A combination of HER2-targeted drugs used in breast cancer is now available for use in colorectal cancer.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has granted accelerated approval to tucatinib (Tukysa) in combination with trastuzumab for use in RAS wild-type, HER2-positive unresectable or metastatic colorectal cancer that has progressed after fluoropyrimidine, oxaliplatin, and irinotecan-based chemotherapy.

This is the first FDA-approved treatment for HER2-positive metastatic colorectal cancer, maker Seagen said in a Jan. 19 press release.

“Historically, patients with HER2-positive metastatic colorectal cancer who have progressed following frontline therapy have had poor outcomes. The FDA approval of a chemotherapy-free combination regimen that specifically targets HER2 is great news for these patients,” John Strickler, MD, associate professor of medicine at Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C., said in the press release.

Dr. Strickler was the lead investigator on the approval trial, dubbed MOUNTAINEER, which involved 84 patients who met the treatment criteria and who had also been treated with an anti-VEGF antibody. Participants whose tumors were deficient in mismatch repair proteins or were microsatellite instability–high must also have received a PD-1 inhibitor. Patients who received prior anti-HER2 therapy were excluded, the FDA explained in its own press release.

Participants were treated with tucatinib 300 mg orally twice daily– the recommended dose in product labeling – with trastuzumab administered at a loading dose of 8 mg/kg intravenously on day 1 of cycle 1 followed by a maintenance dose of trastuzumab 6 mg/kg on day 1 of each subsequent 21-day cycle.

Overall response rate was 38%, and median duration of response was 12.4 months.

The most common adverse events, occurring in at least 20% of study participants, were diarrhea, fatigue, rash, nausea, abdominal pain, infusion related reactions, and pyrexia. The most common laboratory abnormalities were increased creatinine, decreased lymphocytes, increased alanine aminotransferase, and decreased hemoglobin, among others.

Serious adverse reactions occurred in 22% of patients. The most common (occurring in ≥ 2% of patients) were intestinal obstruction (7%); urinary tract infection (3.5%); and pneumonia, abdominal pain, and rectal perforation (2.3% each). Adverse reactions leading to permanent discontinuation occurred in 6% of patients, including increased alanine aminotransferase in 2.3%.

Continued approval for the indication may be contingent upon verification and description of clinical benefit in confirmatory trials, the company said.

A global, randomized phase 3 clinical trial (MOUNTAINEER-03) is ongoing and is comparing tucatinib in combination with trastuzumab and mFOLFOX6 with standard of care and is intended to serve as a confirmatory trial, the company said.

Tucatinib is already approved in combination with trastuzumab and capecitabine for use in the treatment of advanced unresectable or metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer.

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

A combination of HER2-targeted drugs used in breast cancer is now available for use in colorectal cancer.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has granted accelerated approval to tucatinib (Tukysa) in combination with trastuzumab for use in RAS wild-type, HER2-positive unresectable or metastatic colorectal cancer that has progressed after fluoropyrimidine, oxaliplatin, and irinotecan-based chemotherapy.

This is the first FDA-approved treatment for HER2-positive metastatic colorectal cancer, maker Seagen said in a Jan. 19 press release.

“Historically, patients with HER2-positive metastatic colorectal cancer who have progressed following frontline therapy have had poor outcomes. The FDA approval of a chemotherapy-free combination regimen that specifically targets HER2 is great news for these patients,” John Strickler, MD, associate professor of medicine at Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C., said in the press release.

Dr. Strickler was the lead investigator on the approval trial, dubbed MOUNTAINEER, which involved 84 patients who met the treatment criteria and who had also been treated with an anti-VEGF antibody. Participants whose tumors were deficient in mismatch repair proteins or were microsatellite instability–high must also have received a PD-1 inhibitor. Patients who received prior anti-HER2 therapy were excluded, the FDA explained in its own press release.

Participants were treated with tucatinib 300 mg orally twice daily– the recommended dose in product labeling – with trastuzumab administered at a loading dose of 8 mg/kg intravenously on day 1 of cycle 1 followed by a maintenance dose of trastuzumab 6 mg/kg on day 1 of each subsequent 21-day cycle.

Overall response rate was 38%, and median duration of response was 12.4 months.

The most common adverse events, occurring in at least 20% of study participants, were diarrhea, fatigue, rash, nausea, abdominal pain, infusion related reactions, and pyrexia. The most common laboratory abnormalities were increased creatinine, decreased lymphocytes, increased alanine aminotransferase, and decreased hemoglobin, among others.

Serious adverse reactions occurred in 22% of patients. The most common (occurring in ≥ 2% of patients) were intestinal obstruction (7%); urinary tract infection (3.5%); and pneumonia, abdominal pain, and rectal perforation (2.3% each). Adverse reactions leading to permanent discontinuation occurred in 6% of patients, including increased alanine aminotransferase in 2.3%.

Continued approval for the indication may be contingent upon verification and description of clinical benefit in confirmatory trials, the company said.

A global, randomized phase 3 clinical trial (MOUNTAINEER-03) is ongoing and is comparing tucatinib in combination with trastuzumab and mFOLFOX6 with standard of care and is intended to serve as a confirmatory trial, the company said.

Tucatinib is already approved in combination with trastuzumab and capecitabine for use in the treatment of advanced unresectable or metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer.

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

A combination of HER2-targeted drugs used in breast cancer is now available for use in colorectal cancer.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has granted accelerated approval to tucatinib (Tukysa) in combination with trastuzumab for use in RAS wild-type, HER2-positive unresectable or metastatic colorectal cancer that has progressed after fluoropyrimidine, oxaliplatin, and irinotecan-based chemotherapy.

This is the first FDA-approved treatment for HER2-positive metastatic colorectal cancer, maker Seagen said in a Jan. 19 press release.

“Historically, patients with HER2-positive metastatic colorectal cancer who have progressed following frontline therapy have had poor outcomes. The FDA approval of a chemotherapy-free combination regimen that specifically targets HER2 is great news for these patients,” John Strickler, MD, associate professor of medicine at Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C., said in the press release.

Dr. Strickler was the lead investigator on the approval trial, dubbed MOUNTAINEER, which involved 84 patients who met the treatment criteria and who had also been treated with an anti-VEGF antibody. Participants whose tumors were deficient in mismatch repair proteins or were microsatellite instability–high must also have received a PD-1 inhibitor. Patients who received prior anti-HER2 therapy were excluded, the FDA explained in its own press release.

Participants were treated with tucatinib 300 mg orally twice daily– the recommended dose in product labeling – with trastuzumab administered at a loading dose of 8 mg/kg intravenously on day 1 of cycle 1 followed by a maintenance dose of trastuzumab 6 mg/kg on day 1 of each subsequent 21-day cycle.

Overall response rate was 38%, and median duration of response was 12.4 months.

The most common adverse events, occurring in at least 20% of study participants, were diarrhea, fatigue, rash, nausea, abdominal pain, infusion related reactions, and pyrexia. The most common laboratory abnormalities were increased creatinine, decreased lymphocytes, increased alanine aminotransferase, and decreased hemoglobin, among others.

Serious adverse reactions occurred in 22% of patients. The most common (occurring in ≥ 2% of patients) were intestinal obstruction (7%); urinary tract infection (3.5%); and pneumonia, abdominal pain, and rectal perforation (2.3% each). Adverse reactions leading to permanent discontinuation occurred in 6% of patients, including increased alanine aminotransferase in 2.3%.

Continued approval for the indication may be contingent upon verification and description of clinical benefit in confirmatory trials, the company said.

A global, randomized phase 3 clinical trial (MOUNTAINEER-03) is ongoing and is comparing tucatinib in combination with trastuzumab and mFOLFOX6 with standard of care and is intended to serve as a confirmatory trial, the company said.

Tucatinib is already approved in combination with trastuzumab and capecitabine for use in the treatment of advanced unresectable or metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer.

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