AVAHO

A new generation of treatments appears to have caused U.S. melanoma mortality rates to plunge between 2013 and 2017 for the first time in 4 decades, a new study finds, although the dip appeared to stabilize over the next 2 years.

“This data is very encouraging and represents the real-world effectiveness of these newer therapies, which include immunotherapies and targeted therapies,” hematologist/oncologist Navkirat Kahlon, MD, MPH, of Seacoast Cancer Center and Massachusetts General Brigham Wentworth-Douglass Hospital, Dover, N.H., one of the study authors, said in an interview. In clinical trials, these new treatments “have been very effective ... so the timing as well as magnitude of drop seen in melanoma-specific population mortality was not at all surprising. But it’s still very exciting.”

The report, published in JAMA Network Open, tracked mortality rates for the deadliest form of skin cancer from 1975 to 2019. The researchers launched the study to better understand outcomes in cutaneous melanoma following the rise of new therapies that now provide options in addition to chemotherapy. “With the use of novel therapies, the survival of these patients has increased from a few weeks or months to many years in clinical trials,” Dr. Kahlon said. “Given the magnitude of benefit compared to traditional chemotherapy in clinical trials, we decided to see if the real-world U.S. population is deriving the same benefit.”

New drugs introduced in recent years include immunotherapy agents such as ipilimumab and targeted therapies such as vemurafenib.

The researchers analyzed age-adjusted melanoma outcome data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database. In 1975, the long-term melanoma mortality rate for melanoma was 2.07 per 100,000 people (95% confidence interval [CI], 2.00-2.13). It rose to 2.65 (95% CI, 2.58-2.65) in 1988 and 2.67 (95% CI, 2.61-2.72) in 2013, then fell to 2.09 (95% CI, 2.05-2.14) in 2017 and 2.01 (95% CI, 1.97-2.06) in 2019.

Per the analysis, the rate grew at an annual percentage change (APC) of 1.65% (95% CI, 1.30%-2.00%, P < .001) from 1975 to 1988 and remained stable from 1988 to 2013 (P = .85). Then it fell by an APC of 6.28% (95% CI, –8.52% to –3.97%, P < .001) from 2013 to 2017. There was no statistically significant difference between 2017 and 2019, although “the trend was downward,” the authors noted.

“Our study didn’t study the parameters that can answer the question about how many more years of life patients are getting or how many lives aren’t lost,” Dr. Kahlon said in the interview. “But looking at other studies and clinical trial data, the prognosis of these patients with a historical median overall survival of a few weeks to months has improved to many months to years.”

But why do melanoma mortality rates remain roughly about the same as they were in 1975? “The incidence of melanoma has continued to rise,” she said. “Also, over time, we have become better at collecting more accurate information, so the [rate] in 1975 could potentially be an underestimated rate.”

In an interview, dermatologist Adewole “Ade” Adamson, MD, MPP, of the University of Texas at Austin, noted that a 2020 study examined melanoma death rates in Whites – who are most affected by melanoma – and found similar trends from 2013 to 2016. “Nothing about these [new] findings surprises me as they have been shown before. However, these confirmatory findings are reassuring because they show the powerful effect of novel treatments at a population level.”

A new generation of treatments appears to have caused U.S. melanoma mortality rates to plunge between 2013 and 2017 for the first time in 4 decades, a new study finds, although the dip appeared to stabilize over the next 2 years.

“This data is very encouraging and represents the real-world effectiveness of these newer therapies, which include immunotherapies and targeted therapies,” hematologist/oncologist Navkirat Kahlon, MD, MPH, of Seacoast Cancer Center and Massachusetts General Brigham Wentworth-Douglass Hospital, Dover, N.H., one of the study authors, said in an interview. In clinical trials, these new treatments “have been very effective ... so the timing as well as magnitude of drop seen in melanoma-specific population mortality was not at all surprising. But it’s still very exciting.”

The report, published in JAMA Network Open, tracked mortality rates for the deadliest form of skin cancer from 1975 to 2019. The researchers launched the study to better understand outcomes in cutaneous melanoma following the rise of new therapies that now provide options in addition to chemotherapy. “With the use of novel therapies, the survival of these patients has increased from a few weeks or months to many years in clinical trials,” Dr. Kahlon said. “Given the magnitude of benefit compared to traditional chemotherapy in clinical trials, we decided to see if the real-world U.S. population is deriving the same benefit.”

New drugs introduced in recent years include immunotherapy agents such as ipilimumab and targeted therapies such as vemurafenib.

The researchers analyzed age-adjusted melanoma outcome data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database. In 1975, the long-term melanoma mortality rate for melanoma was 2.07 per 100,000 people (95% confidence interval [CI], 2.00-2.13). It rose to 2.65 (95% CI, 2.58-2.65) in 1988 and 2.67 (95% CI, 2.61-2.72) in 2013, then fell to 2.09 (95% CI, 2.05-2.14) in 2017 and 2.01 (95% CI, 1.97-2.06) in 2019.

Per the analysis, the rate grew at an annual percentage change (APC) of 1.65% (95% CI, 1.30%-2.00%, P < .001) from 1975 to 1988 and remained stable from 1988 to 2013 (P = .85). Then it fell by an APC of 6.28% (95% CI, –8.52% to –3.97%, P < .001) from 2013 to 2017. There was no statistically significant difference between 2017 and 2019, although “the trend was downward,” the authors noted.

“Our study didn’t study the parameters that can answer the question about how many more years of life patients are getting or how many lives aren’t lost,” Dr. Kahlon said in the interview. “But looking at other studies and clinical trial data, the prognosis of these patients with a historical median overall survival of a few weeks to months has improved to many months to years.”

But why do melanoma mortality rates remain roughly about the same as they were in 1975? “The incidence of melanoma has continued to rise,” she said. “Also, over time, we have become better at collecting more accurate information, so the [rate] in 1975 could potentially be an underestimated rate.”

In an interview, dermatologist Adewole “Ade” Adamson, MD, MPP, of the University of Texas at Austin, noted that a 2020 study examined melanoma death rates in Whites – who are most affected by melanoma – and found similar trends from 2013 to 2016. “Nothing about these [new] findings surprises me as they have been shown before. However, these confirmatory findings are reassuring because they show the powerful effect of novel treatments at a population level.”

A new generation of treatments appears to have caused U.S. melanoma mortality rates to plunge between 2013 and 2017 for the first time in 4 decades, a new study finds, although the dip appeared to stabilize over the next 2 years.

“This data is very encouraging and represents the real-world effectiveness of these newer therapies, which include immunotherapies and targeted therapies,” hematologist/oncologist Navkirat Kahlon, MD, MPH, of Seacoast Cancer Center and Massachusetts General Brigham Wentworth-Douglass Hospital, Dover, N.H., one of the study authors, said in an interview. In clinical trials, these new treatments “have been very effective ... so the timing as well as magnitude of drop seen in melanoma-specific population mortality was not at all surprising. But it’s still very exciting.”

The report, published in JAMA Network Open, tracked mortality rates for the deadliest form of skin cancer from 1975 to 2019. The researchers launched the study to better understand outcomes in cutaneous melanoma following the rise of new therapies that now provide options in addition to chemotherapy. “With the use of novel therapies, the survival of these patients has increased from a few weeks or months to many years in clinical trials,” Dr. Kahlon said. “Given the magnitude of benefit compared to traditional chemotherapy in clinical trials, we decided to see if the real-world U.S. population is deriving the same benefit.”

New drugs introduced in recent years include immunotherapy agents such as ipilimumab and targeted therapies such as vemurafenib.

The researchers analyzed age-adjusted melanoma outcome data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database. In 1975, the long-term melanoma mortality rate for melanoma was 2.07 per 100,000 people (95% confidence interval [CI], 2.00-2.13). It rose to 2.65 (95% CI, 2.58-2.65) in 1988 and 2.67 (95% CI, 2.61-2.72) in 2013, then fell to 2.09 (95% CI, 2.05-2.14) in 2017 and 2.01 (95% CI, 1.97-2.06) in 2019.

Per the analysis, the rate grew at an annual percentage change (APC) of 1.65% (95% CI, 1.30%-2.00%, P < .001) from 1975 to 1988 and remained stable from 1988 to 2013 (P = .85). Then it fell by an APC of 6.28% (95% CI, –8.52% to –3.97%, P < .001) from 2013 to 2017. There was no statistically significant difference between 2017 and 2019, although “the trend was downward,” the authors noted.

“Our study didn’t study the parameters that can answer the question about how many more years of life patients are getting or how many lives aren’t lost,” Dr. Kahlon said in the interview. “But looking at other studies and clinical trial data, the prognosis of these patients with a historical median overall survival of a few weeks to months has improved to many months to years.”

But why do melanoma mortality rates remain roughly about the same as they were in 1975? “The incidence of melanoma has continued to rise,” she said. “Also, over time, we have become better at collecting more accurate information, so the [rate] in 1975 could potentially be an underestimated rate.”

In an interview, dermatologist Adewole “Ade” Adamson, MD, MPP, of the University of Texas at Austin, noted that a 2020 study examined melanoma death rates in Whites – who are most affected by melanoma – and found similar trends from 2013 to 2016. “Nothing about these [new] findings surprises me as they have been shown before. However, these confirmatory findings are reassuring because they show the powerful effect of novel treatments at a population level.”

Another survey has shown that Americans are largely unaware of the link between alcohol consumption and cancer.

The new findings, from a nationally representative survey that included responses from 3,865 adults, show a low awareness of the cancer risk from alcohol, and also that the risk varies by type of drink. Just under a third (31.2%) of respondents thought that consuming liquor/spirits was associated with a risk of cancer, but this fell to 24.9% for drinking beer and even further, to 20.3%, for drinking wine.

In fact, some respondents though the opposite – that drinking alcohol has health benefits; 10.3% of respondents thought that drinking wine was associated with a decreased cancer risk, while 2.25% thought the same for drinking beer, and 1.7% thought that for drinking liquor.

Most U.S. adults (> 50%) reported not knowing how these beverages affected cancer risk, the authors report.

“This study’s findings underscore the need to develop interventions for educating the public about the cancer risks of alcohol use, particularly in the prevailing context of national dialogue about the purported heart health benefits of wine,” commented senior author William M. P. Klein, PhD, associate director of the National Cancer Institute’s Behavioral Research Program, in a statement.

“All types of alcoholic beverages, including wine, increase cancer risk,” Dr. Klein said.

The findings were published online in Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention.

The results echo the findings of a previous national survey that also found that the majority of Americans are not aware that alcohol consumption is associated with an increased risk of developing a variety of cancers.

In contrast, within the scientific community, there is long-standing and increasing awareness of alcohol consumption as a leading modifiable risk factor for cancer, and there is a growing movement calling for more public health awareness of the link.

Recently, there has been some public support for adding written warnings about the cancer risk from alcohol. A Citizen Petition was filed in 2021, and in August 2022, The New England Journal of Medicine issued a call for new labeling.

Several cancer organizations are petitioning for warnings to be added to alcoholic beverages. The petition is supported by the American Society of Clinical Oncology, the American Institute for Cancer Research, and Breast Cancer Prevention Partners, all in collaboration with several public health organizations. Proposed labeling would read: “WARNING: According to the Surgeon General, consumption of alcoholic beverages can cause cancer, including breast and colon cancers.”

Dr. Klein and colleagues suggest that public health interventions, including mass media campaigns, cancer warning labels, and patient-provider communications, could help disseminate information about cancer and alcohol. “Educating the public about how alcohol increases cancer risk will not only empower consumers to make more informed decisions but may also prevent and reduce excessive alcohol use, as well as cancer morbidity and mortality,” Dr. Klein said.

The study was supported by the Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences at the National Cancer Institute. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Another survey has shown that Americans are largely unaware of the link between alcohol consumption and cancer.

The new findings, from a nationally representative survey that included responses from 3,865 adults, show a low awareness of the cancer risk from alcohol, and also that the risk varies by type of drink. Just under a third (31.2%) of respondents thought that consuming liquor/spirits was associated with a risk of cancer, but this fell to 24.9% for drinking beer and even further, to 20.3%, for drinking wine.

In fact, some respondents though the opposite – that drinking alcohol has health benefits; 10.3% of respondents thought that drinking wine was associated with a decreased cancer risk, while 2.25% thought the same for drinking beer, and 1.7% thought that for drinking liquor.

Most U.S. adults (> 50%) reported not knowing how these beverages affected cancer risk, the authors report.

“This study’s findings underscore the need to develop interventions for educating the public about the cancer risks of alcohol use, particularly in the prevailing context of national dialogue about the purported heart health benefits of wine,” commented senior author William M. P. Klein, PhD, associate director of the National Cancer Institute’s Behavioral Research Program, in a statement.

“All types of alcoholic beverages, including wine, increase cancer risk,” Dr. Klein said.

The findings were published online in Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention.

The results echo the findings of a previous national survey that also found that the majority of Americans are not aware that alcohol consumption is associated with an increased risk of developing a variety of cancers.

In contrast, within the scientific community, there is long-standing and increasing awareness of alcohol consumption as a leading modifiable risk factor for cancer, and there is a growing movement calling for more public health awareness of the link.

Recently, there has been some public support for adding written warnings about the cancer risk from alcohol. A Citizen Petition was filed in 2021, and in August 2022, The New England Journal of Medicine issued a call for new labeling.

Several cancer organizations are petitioning for warnings to be added to alcoholic beverages. The petition is supported by the American Society of Clinical Oncology, the American Institute for Cancer Research, and Breast Cancer Prevention Partners, all in collaboration with several public health organizations. Proposed labeling would read: “WARNING: According to the Surgeon General, consumption of alcoholic beverages can cause cancer, including breast and colon cancers.”

Dr. Klein and colleagues suggest that public health interventions, including mass media campaigns, cancer warning labels, and patient-provider communications, could help disseminate information about cancer and alcohol. “Educating the public about how alcohol increases cancer risk will not only empower consumers to make more informed decisions but may also prevent and reduce excessive alcohol use, as well as cancer morbidity and mortality,” Dr. Klein said.

The study was supported by the Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences at the National Cancer Institute. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Another survey has shown that Americans are largely unaware of the link between alcohol consumption and cancer.

The new findings, from a nationally representative survey that included responses from 3,865 adults, show a low awareness of the cancer risk from alcohol, and also that the risk varies by type of drink. Just under a third (31.2%) of respondents thought that consuming liquor/spirits was associated with a risk of cancer, but this fell to 24.9% for drinking beer and even further, to 20.3%, for drinking wine.

In fact, some respondents though the opposite – that drinking alcohol has health benefits; 10.3% of respondents thought that drinking wine was associated with a decreased cancer risk, while 2.25% thought the same for drinking beer, and 1.7% thought that for drinking liquor.

Most U.S. adults (> 50%) reported not knowing how these beverages affected cancer risk, the authors report.

“This study’s findings underscore the need to develop interventions for educating the public about the cancer risks of alcohol use, particularly in the prevailing context of national dialogue about the purported heart health benefits of wine,” commented senior author William M. P. Klein, PhD, associate director of the National Cancer Institute’s Behavioral Research Program, in a statement.

“All types of alcoholic beverages, including wine, increase cancer risk,” Dr. Klein said.

The findings were published online in Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention.

The results echo the findings of a previous national survey that also found that the majority of Americans are not aware that alcohol consumption is associated with an increased risk of developing a variety of cancers.

In contrast, within the scientific community, there is long-standing and increasing awareness of alcohol consumption as a leading modifiable risk factor for cancer, and there is a growing movement calling for more public health awareness of the link.

Recently, there has been some public support for adding written warnings about the cancer risk from alcohol. A Citizen Petition was filed in 2021, and in August 2022, The New England Journal of Medicine issued a call for new labeling.

Several cancer organizations are petitioning for warnings to be added to alcoholic beverages. The petition is supported by the American Society of Clinical Oncology, the American Institute for Cancer Research, and Breast Cancer Prevention Partners, all in collaboration with several public health organizations. Proposed labeling would read: “WARNING: According to the Surgeon General, consumption of alcoholic beverages can cause cancer, including breast and colon cancers.”

Dr. Klein and colleagues suggest that public health interventions, including mass media campaigns, cancer warning labels, and patient-provider communications, could help disseminate information about cancer and alcohol. “Educating the public about how alcohol increases cancer risk will not only empower consumers to make more informed decisions but may also prevent and reduce excessive alcohol use, as well as cancer morbidity and mortality,” Dr. Klein said.

The study was supported by the Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences at the National Cancer Institute. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

As a severe shortage drags on and prices soar, transplant centers have been struggling to cope with the paucity and price of fludarabine, a chemotherapy drug that has become an essential component of stem-cell transplants for some blood cancers.

At Oregon Health and Science University, for example, an extensive algorithm now offers guidance through a thicket of alternative options, from adjusting doses and using substitutes to delaying treatment. Meanwhile, some institutions have enlisted ethicists and attorneys to guide their decisions on which patients will have to wait for potentially life-saving treatment.

Even as surgeons turn to alternatives, advocates for transplantation in hematology have warned about the potential for harm.

“This continued fludarabine shortage is forcing centers to use non–[Food and Drug Administration] approved lymphodepleting regimens that may negatively impact the success of a possibly lifesaving CAR-T therapy,” Brenda Sandmaier, MD, president of the Transplantation and Cellular Therapy American Society, and Jeffery Auletta, MD, a senior vice president with the National Marrow Donor, said in a June 30 letter to the FDA. The physicians added that they “request the FDA to take immediate action on this critical shortage. Many centers currently have no ability to purchase fludarabine through their suppliers and have no estimated time frame for return of availability. Other centers are limited to mere weeks of supply, with continued uncertainty of future availability.”

In October, less than 4 months after that letter was sent, one of the manufacturers of fludarabine – Areva Pharmaceuticals – marked up the price of fludarabine to $2,736 per vial, 10-20 times that of two other makers of the drug.
 

In new treatment era, fludarabine remains crucial

In 2015, ASH Clinical News – a publication of the American Society of Hematology – invited a pair of hematologists to discuss whether fludarabine is “dead” as a front-line treatment for chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). “Fludarabine is not dead yet, but the data from those and other long-term trials may be the final nail in its coffin,” said Mitchell Smith, MD, PhD, who was then with Cleveland Clinic and now works for George Washington University.

Seven years later, the role of fludarabine as a long-term chemotherapeutic agent in blood cancer has definitely evolved. Just as oncologists predicted back in 2015, “the use of fludarabine declined for the primary management of CLL and other B cell malignancies, due to the development of targeted therapies such as BTK inhibitors, venetoclax, and other agents,” Memorial Sloan Kettering hematologic oncologist Anthony Mato, MD, said in an interview.

But the drug “remains a critical agent for conditioning the immune system for cellular therapies such as allogeneic stem cell transplantation and CAR-T cells,” Dr. Mato said.

Nirav Shah, MD, a hematologic oncologist at the Medical College of Wisconsin, explained in an interview that “conditioning” in the stem-cell transplant context refers to “wiping out” the immune system, allowing the donor’s stem cells to avoid rejection. “It’s a commonly used drug,” he said, “and shortage was not really a concern that people faced until this year.”
 

As shortage continues, price hike brings yet another hit

The first reports of fludarabine being in short supply surfaced about a year ago. According to a Nov. 2 update from the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists, five companies now manufacture fludarabine, and all of them report shortages. Areva, which dramatically raised its price, is accepting direct orders. Leucadia and Teva don’t know when the drug will be available; and Fresenius Kabi and Sagent expect availability in early 2023.

Areva, Leucadia, and Teva didn’t provide reasons for their shortages. Fresenius Kabi blamed increased demand, and Sagent pointed to manufacturing delays. Pfizer, another manufacturer, had a tiny market share and stopped making fludarabine in 2020, according to the pharmacist society.

In a May 12 press release, a company called Lannett announced it would take over U.S. distribution of fludarabine for Areva and suggested that the supply shortage would be lucrative: “While total U.S. sales for the 12 months ended March 2022 of Fludarabine Phosphate for injection, USP, 50 mg/2mL were approximately $4.9 million, according to IQVIA, the current market value is believed to be higher due to the recent market disruptions.”

“We were all shocked and outraged when Areva came out with the new, dramatically higher prices,” Bill Greene, PharmD, chief pharmaceutical officer at St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital, said in a recent interview.

In a prior interview, conducted during the summer of 2022, Dr. Greene addressed the topic of hematologic drug shortages. Back then he noted that he was seeking emergency supplies of fludarabine, since all five manufacturers reported having no stock available.

Interviewed again in November 2022, Dr. Greene noted that the hospital “had been able to stay ahead of the need and meet the needs of our patients” through arrangements with Teva and Fresenius Kabi. “In cases of patient need, we certainly are willing to pay a higher product price if that’s what it takes to get it – assuming the product is a quality product.”

The Medical College of Wisconsin’s Dr. Shah said insurers may refuse to cover the higher price, sticking medical institutions with the bill.
 

Alternatives abound, but do they suffice?

There is some good news on the fludarabine shortage front. Areva recently alerted providers that it was releasing fludarabine from non-FDA-approved suppliers with the agency’s permission, and Accord Healthcare said it received permission to sell fludarabine that was marketed in Canada.

Another option – oral fludarabine instead of the standard IV version – remains unavailable in the United States. According to the June letter to the FDA from the American Society for Transplantation and Cellular Therapy and National Marrow Donor Program, it “might be an appropriate alternative” and is available in Europe, Canada and Australia.

The letter warns that “transplant centers have also been forced to move away from fludarabine-based regimens and use alternative drugs such as cladribine or clofarabine, which are both significantly less studied and rely on single-center experience or limited phase II data. ... The limited availability of fludarabine is leading to the use of alternative regimens that are known to be more toxic or understudied alternatives with unknown long-term clinical effects or harms to patients.”

In a November 2022 report published in Transplantation and Cellular Therapy, Dr. Shah and colleagues noted that institutions are adopting strategies such as “(1) pharmacy dose banding and rounding down to save vials, even if a >5% reduction was required; (2) administering all dosing of fludarabine based not on actual body weight but on adjusted body weight; and (3) switching the billing of fludarabine from single-dose vials to billing by dose delivery.”

If the shortage continues, “it becomes necessary for centers to establish algorithms for management now,” they wrote. “Substitution of such agents as bendamustine and cladribine can be considered ... [and] another acceptable solution could be the substitution of clofarabine for fludarabine.”

Still, there are many unanswered questions. “The challenge is that these alternative regimens have not been extensively studied in a large population,” Dr. Shah said. “You have to be more mindful of potential side effects and risks, and the biggest concern is efficacy. Is changing the drug going to be detrimental to a patient’s outcome? To be honest, we don’t know the answer to that.”

Dr. Mato disclosed ties with TG Therapeutics, Pharmacyclics, AbbVie, Acerta, Adaptive Biotechnologies, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, BioPharma, BMS, Curio, Dava, DTRM, Genentech, Genmab, Janssen, Johnson & Johnson, LOXO, Medscape, Nurix, Octapharma, PER, PerView, and Pfizer. Dr. Greene and Dr. Shah have no disclosures.

As a severe shortage drags on and prices soar, transplant centers have been struggling to cope with the paucity and price of fludarabine, a chemotherapy drug that has become an essential component of stem-cell transplants for some blood cancers.

At Oregon Health and Science University, for example, an extensive algorithm now offers guidance through a thicket of alternative options, from adjusting doses and using substitutes to delaying treatment. Meanwhile, some institutions have enlisted ethicists and attorneys to guide their decisions on which patients will have to wait for potentially life-saving treatment.

Even as surgeons turn to alternatives, advocates for transplantation in hematology have warned about the potential for harm.

“This continued fludarabine shortage is forcing centers to use non–[Food and Drug Administration] approved lymphodepleting regimens that may negatively impact the success of a possibly lifesaving CAR-T therapy,” Brenda Sandmaier, MD, president of the Transplantation and Cellular Therapy American Society, and Jeffery Auletta, MD, a senior vice president with the National Marrow Donor, said in a June 30 letter to the FDA. The physicians added that they “request the FDA to take immediate action on this critical shortage. Many centers currently have no ability to purchase fludarabine through their suppliers and have no estimated time frame for return of availability. Other centers are limited to mere weeks of supply, with continued uncertainty of future availability.”

In October, less than 4 months after that letter was sent, one of the manufacturers of fludarabine – Areva Pharmaceuticals – marked up the price of fludarabine to $2,736 per vial, 10-20 times that of two other makers of the drug.
 

In new treatment era, fludarabine remains crucial

In 2015, ASH Clinical News – a publication of the American Society of Hematology – invited a pair of hematologists to discuss whether fludarabine is “dead” as a front-line treatment for chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). “Fludarabine is not dead yet, but the data from those and other long-term trials may be the final nail in its coffin,” said Mitchell Smith, MD, PhD, who was then with Cleveland Clinic and now works for George Washington University.

Seven years later, the role of fludarabine as a long-term chemotherapeutic agent in blood cancer has definitely evolved. Just as oncologists predicted back in 2015, “the use of fludarabine declined for the primary management of CLL and other B cell malignancies, due to the development of targeted therapies such as BTK inhibitors, venetoclax, and other agents,” Memorial Sloan Kettering hematologic oncologist Anthony Mato, MD, said in an interview.

But the drug “remains a critical agent for conditioning the immune system for cellular therapies such as allogeneic stem cell transplantation and CAR-T cells,” Dr. Mato said.

Nirav Shah, MD, a hematologic oncologist at the Medical College of Wisconsin, explained in an interview that “conditioning” in the stem-cell transplant context refers to “wiping out” the immune system, allowing the donor’s stem cells to avoid rejection. “It’s a commonly used drug,” he said, “and shortage was not really a concern that people faced until this year.”
 

As shortage continues, price hike brings yet another hit

The first reports of fludarabine being in short supply surfaced about a year ago. According to a Nov. 2 update from the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists, five companies now manufacture fludarabine, and all of them report shortages. Areva, which dramatically raised its price, is accepting direct orders. Leucadia and Teva don’t know when the drug will be available; and Fresenius Kabi and Sagent expect availability in early 2023.

Areva, Leucadia, and Teva didn’t provide reasons for their shortages. Fresenius Kabi blamed increased demand, and Sagent pointed to manufacturing delays. Pfizer, another manufacturer, had a tiny market share and stopped making fludarabine in 2020, according to the pharmacist society.

In a May 12 press release, a company called Lannett announced it would take over U.S. distribution of fludarabine for Areva and suggested that the supply shortage would be lucrative: “While total U.S. sales for the 12 months ended March 2022 of Fludarabine Phosphate for injection, USP, 50 mg/2mL were approximately $4.9 million, according to IQVIA, the current market value is believed to be higher due to the recent market disruptions.”

“We were all shocked and outraged when Areva came out with the new, dramatically higher prices,” Bill Greene, PharmD, chief pharmaceutical officer at St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital, said in a recent interview.

In a prior interview, conducted during the summer of 2022, Dr. Greene addressed the topic of hematologic drug shortages. Back then he noted that he was seeking emergency supplies of fludarabine, since all five manufacturers reported having no stock available.

Interviewed again in November 2022, Dr. Greene noted that the hospital “had been able to stay ahead of the need and meet the needs of our patients” through arrangements with Teva and Fresenius Kabi. “In cases of patient need, we certainly are willing to pay a higher product price if that’s what it takes to get it – assuming the product is a quality product.”

The Medical College of Wisconsin’s Dr. Shah said insurers may refuse to cover the higher price, sticking medical institutions with the bill.
 

Alternatives abound, but do they suffice?

There is some good news on the fludarabine shortage front. Areva recently alerted providers that it was releasing fludarabine from non-FDA-approved suppliers with the agency’s permission, and Accord Healthcare said it received permission to sell fludarabine that was marketed in Canada.

Another option – oral fludarabine instead of the standard IV version – remains unavailable in the United States. According to the June letter to the FDA from the American Society for Transplantation and Cellular Therapy and National Marrow Donor Program, it “might be an appropriate alternative” and is available in Europe, Canada and Australia.

The letter warns that “transplant centers have also been forced to move away from fludarabine-based regimens and use alternative drugs such as cladribine or clofarabine, which are both significantly less studied and rely on single-center experience or limited phase II data. ... The limited availability of fludarabine is leading to the use of alternative regimens that are known to be more toxic or understudied alternatives with unknown long-term clinical effects or harms to patients.”

In a November 2022 report published in Transplantation and Cellular Therapy, Dr. Shah and colleagues noted that institutions are adopting strategies such as “(1) pharmacy dose banding and rounding down to save vials, even if a >5% reduction was required; (2) administering all dosing of fludarabine based not on actual body weight but on adjusted body weight; and (3) switching the billing of fludarabine from single-dose vials to billing by dose delivery.”

If the shortage continues, “it becomes necessary for centers to establish algorithms for management now,” they wrote. “Substitution of such agents as bendamustine and cladribine can be considered ... [and] another acceptable solution could be the substitution of clofarabine for fludarabine.”

Still, there are many unanswered questions. “The challenge is that these alternative regimens have not been extensively studied in a large population,” Dr. Shah said. “You have to be more mindful of potential side effects and risks, and the biggest concern is efficacy. Is changing the drug going to be detrimental to a patient’s outcome? To be honest, we don’t know the answer to that.”

Dr. Mato disclosed ties with TG Therapeutics, Pharmacyclics, AbbVie, Acerta, Adaptive Biotechnologies, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, BioPharma, BMS, Curio, Dava, DTRM, Genentech, Genmab, Janssen, Johnson & Johnson, LOXO, Medscape, Nurix, Octapharma, PER, PerView, and Pfizer. Dr. Greene and Dr. Shah have no disclosures.

As a severe shortage drags on and prices soar, transplant centers have been struggling to cope with the paucity and price of fludarabine, a chemotherapy drug that has become an essential component of stem-cell transplants for some blood cancers.

At Oregon Health and Science University, for example, an extensive algorithm now offers guidance through a thicket of alternative options, from adjusting doses and using substitutes to delaying treatment. Meanwhile, some institutions have enlisted ethicists and attorneys to guide their decisions on which patients will have to wait for potentially life-saving treatment.

Even as surgeons turn to alternatives, advocates for transplantation in hematology have warned about the potential for harm.

“This continued fludarabine shortage is forcing centers to use non–[Food and Drug Administration] approved lymphodepleting regimens that may negatively impact the success of a possibly lifesaving CAR-T therapy,” Brenda Sandmaier, MD, president of the Transplantation and Cellular Therapy American Society, and Jeffery Auletta, MD, a senior vice president with the National Marrow Donor, said in a June 30 letter to the FDA. The physicians added that they “request the FDA to take immediate action on this critical shortage. Many centers currently have no ability to purchase fludarabine through their suppliers and have no estimated time frame for return of availability. Other centers are limited to mere weeks of supply, with continued uncertainty of future availability.”

In October, less than 4 months after that letter was sent, one of the manufacturers of fludarabine – Areva Pharmaceuticals – marked up the price of fludarabine to $2,736 per vial, 10-20 times that of two other makers of the drug.
 

In new treatment era, fludarabine remains crucial

In 2015, ASH Clinical News – a publication of the American Society of Hematology – invited a pair of hematologists to discuss whether fludarabine is “dead” as a front-line treatment for chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). “Fludarabine is not dead yet, but the data from those and other long-term trials may be the final nail in its coffin,” said Mitchell Smith, MD, PhD, who was then with Cleveland Clinic and now works for George Washington University.

Seven years later, the role of fludarabine as a long-term chemotherapeutic agent in blood cancer has definitely evolved. Just as oncologists predicted back in 2015, “the use of fludarabine declined for the primary management of CLL and other B cell malignancies, due to the development of targeted therapies such as BTK inhibitors, venetoclax, and other agents,” Memorial Sloan Kettering hematologic oncologist Anthony Mato, MD, said in an interview.

But the drug “remains a critical agent for conditioning the immune system for cellular therapies such as allogeneic stem cell transplantation and CAR-T cells,” Dr. Mato said.

Nirav Shah, MD, a hematologic oncologist at the Medical College of Wisconsin, explained in an interview that “conditioning” in the stem-cell transplant context refers to “wiping out” the immune system, allowing the donor’s stem cells to avoid rejection. “It’s a commonly used drug,” he said, “and shortage was not really a concern that people faced until this year.”
 

As shortage continues, price hike brings yet another hit

The first reports of fludarabine being in short supply surfaced about a year ago. According to a Nov. 2 update from the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists, five companies now manufacture fludarabine, and all of them report shortages. Areva, which dramatically raised its price, is accepting direct orders. Leucadia and Teva don’t know when the drug will be available; and Fresenius Kabi and Sagent expect availability in early 2023.

Areva, Leucadia, and Teva didn’t provide reasons for their shortages. Fresenius Kabi blamed increased demand, and Sagent pointed to manufacturing delays. Pfizer, another manufacturer, had a tiny market share and stopped making fludarabine in 2020, according to the pharmacist society.

In a May 12 press release, a company called Lannett announced it would take over U.S. distribution of fludarabine for Areva and suggested that the supply shortage would be lucrative: “While total U.S. sales for the 12 months ended March 2022 of Fludarabine Phosphate for injection, USP, 50 mg/2mL were approximately $4.9 million, according to IQVIA, the current market value is believed to be higher due to the recent market disruptions.”

“We were all shocked and outraged when Areva came out with the new, dramatically higher prices,” Bill Greene, PharmD, chief pharmaceutical officer at St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital, said in a recent interview.

In a prior interview, conducted during the summer of 2022, Dr. Greene addressed the topic of hematologic drug shortages. Back then he noted that he was seeking emergency supplies of fludarabine, since all five manufacturers reported having no stock available.

Interviewed again in November 2022, Dr. Greene noted that the hospital “had been able to stay ahead of the need and meet the needs of our patients” through arrangements with Teva and Fresenius Kabi. “In cases of patient need, we certainly are willing to pay a higher product price if that’s what it takes to get it – assuming the product is a quality product.”

The Medical College of Wisconsin’s Dr. Shah said insurers may refuse to cover the higher price, sticking medical institutions with the bill.
 

Alternatives abound, but do they suffice?

There is some good news on the fludarabine shortage front. Areva recently alerted providers that it was releasing fludarabine from non-FDA-approved suppliers with the agency’s permission, and Accord Healthcare said it received permission to sell fludarabine that was marketed in Canada.

Another option – oral fludarabine instead of the standard IV version – remains unavailable in the United States. According to the June letter to the FDA from the American Society for Transplantation and Cellular Therapy and National Marrow Donor Program, it “might be an appropriate alternative” and is available in Europe, Canada and Australia.

The letter warns that “transplant centers have also been forced to move away from fludarabine-based regimens and use alternative drugs such as cladribine or clofarabine, which are both significantly less studied and rely on single-center experience or limited phase II data. ... The limited availability of fludarabine is leading to the use of alternative regimens that are known to be more toxic or understudied alternatives with unknown long-term clinical effects or harms to patients.”

In a November 2022 report published in Transplantation and Cellular Therapy, Dr. Shah and colleagues noted that institutions are adopting strategies such as “(1) pharmacy dose banding and rounding down to save vials, even if a >5% reduction was required; (2) administering all dosing of fludarabine based not on actual body weight but on adjusted body weight; and (3) switching the billing of fludarabine from single-dose vials to billing by dose delivery.”

If the shortage continues, “it becomes necessary for centers to establish algorithms for management now,” they wrote. “Substitution of such agents as bendamustine and cladribine can be considered ... [and] another acceptable solution could be the substitution of clofarabine for fludarabine.”

Still, there are many unanswered questions. “The challenge is that these alternative regimens have not been extensively studied in a large population,” Dr. Shah said. “You have to be more mindful of potential side effects and risks, and the biggest concern is efficacy. Is changing the drug going to be detrimental to a patient’s outcome? To be honest, we don’t know the answer to that.”

Dr. Mato disclosed ties with TG Therapeutics, Pharmacyclics, AbbVie, Acerta, Adaptive Biotechnologies, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, BioPharma, BMS, Curio, Dava, DTRM, Genentech, Genmab, Janssen, Johnson & Johnson, LOXO, Medscape, Nurix, Octapharma, PER, PerView, and Pfizer. Dr. Greene and Dr. Shah have no disclosures.

Individuals with a primary melanoma may be more likely to develop a second primary melanoma if they have certain characteristics, a new study suggests.

In a cohort study of more than 38,000 patients, those diagnosed with a second primary melanoma were significantly more likely to have a “nevus-prone” phenotype and a high polygenic risk score for melanoma.

Notably, the researchers also found only limited evidence that elevated levels of sun exposure contributed to second melanoma risk.

Overall, the findings suggest that “within the general population, the presence of many nevi and having a high genetic predisposition to melanoma were associated with the highest risks of developing second primary melanoma,” Catherine M. Olsen, PhD, of the University of Queensland, Australia, and colleagues concluded.

The study was published online in JAMA Dermatology.

People with melanoma are believed to be at high risk for developing subsequent tumors, yet most never do. Population-based studies indicate that only about 8%-18% of patients are diagnosed with a second primary melanoma.

Previous studies using modified case-control design have identified several factors associated with developing multiple primary melanomas, including older age, male sex, a family history of melanoma, high nevus counts or presence of atypical nevi, higher ambient UV radiation and personal sun exposure, as well as certain inherited genetic variants.

However, these studies aren’t equipped to assess the magnitude of risk of developing multiple melanomas among those who have not yet had melanoma.

In the current analysis, Dr. Olsen and colleagues set out to understand the level of risk using a prospective cohort study design. The cohort comprised participants in the QSkin Sun and Health Study and included 38,845 patients with a baseline median age of 56 years, followed for a median of 7.4 years. Among these participants, 1,212 (3.1%) had only one primary melanoma diagnosis, and 245 (0.6%) had two or more primary melanomas. Of those with more primary melanomas, 59 had synchronous primary melanoma, meaning first and second primary melanomas were diagnosed on the same day.

The investigators compared the clinical characteristics of patients with first and second melanomas, looking at demographic, phenotypic, sun exposure, and genetic factors. The team found that the median time between first and second melanoma, excluding cases of synchronous primary melanoma, was 18.4 months.

Those who developed second melanomas were older at baseline than those who developed only one (59.3 years vs. 58.2 years, respectively; P < .001), and were more likely to have a sun-sensitive phenotype, a self-reported history of excisions for nonmelanoma skin cancers, and a high polygenic risk score for melanoma. Among people who developed second primary melanomas, the second melanomas were more likely to be in situ and of the lentigo maligna subtype.

Notably, factors including age, sex, sunburn tendency, and family history of melanoma had similarly elevated effect sizes among those diagnosed with first and second melanomas. The authors also found similar associations with baseline measures for personal sun exposure – including sunburns and cumulative sun exposure; however, the number of past skin cancer excisions was more strongly associated with second primaries (P = .05).

The team did identify two factors associated with a higher risk of developing a second primary melanoma. A nevus phenotype was more strongly associated with developing a second primary melanoma (hazard ratio, 6.36) than the initial one (HR, 3.46). And second primary melanomas had stronger associations with high melanoma polygenic risk scores than first primary melanomas (HR, 3.28 vs HR, 2.06; P = .03).

The authors noted several limitations to the study, including the generalizability of the findings outside of Australia and the relatively small number of people with second primary melanomas.

Still, the investigators note that the data “offer unique insights that differ from earlier efforts.” Namely, the “findings showed that many of the classic phenotypic risk factors for melanoma were similarly associated with risk of first and second melanomas; however, high numbers of nevi and high genetic predisposition were more strongly associated with second [rather] than first primary melanomas.”

This work was supported by grants from the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia. Dr. Olsen reports no relevant financial relationships. Coauthor Rachel Neale, PhD, reported grants from Viatris and the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia outside the submitted work. Coauthor David Whiteman, MBBS, PhD, reported personal fees from Pierre Fabre (speaker fees for conference presentation) outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.

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

Individuals with a primary melanoma may be more likely to develop a second primary melanoma if they have certain characteristics, a new study suggests.

In a cohort study of more than 38,000 patients, those diagnosed with a second primary melanoma were significantly more likely to have a “nevus-prone” phenotype and a high polygenic risk score for melanoma.

Notably, the researchers also found only limited evidence that elevated levels of sun exposure contributed to second melanoma risk.

Overall, the findings suggest that “within the general population, the presence of many nevi and having a high genetic predisposition to melanoma were associated with the highest risks of developing second primary melanoma,” Catherine M. Olsen, PhD, of the University of Queensland, Australia, and colleagues concluded.

The study was published online in JAMA Dermatology.

People with melanoma are believed to be at high risk for developing subsequent tumors, yet most never do. Population-based studies indicate that only about 8%-18% of patients are diagnosed with a second primary melanoma.

Previous studies using modified case-control design have identified several factors associated with developing multiple primary melanomas, including older age, male sex, a family history of melanoma, high nevus counts or presence of atypical nevi, higher ambient UV radiation and personal sun exposure, as well as certain inherited genetic variants.

However, these studies aren’t equipped to assess the magnitude of risk of developing multiple melanomas among those who have not yet had melanoma.

In the current analysis, Dr. Olsen and colleagues set out to understand the level of risk using a prospective cohort study design. The cohort comprised participants in the QSkin Sun and Health Study and included 38,845 patients with a baseline median age of 56 years, followed for a median of 7.4 years. Among these participants, 1,212 (3.1%) had only one primary melanoma diagnosis, and 245 (0.6%) had two or more primary melanomas. Of those with more primary melanomas, 59 had synchronous primary melanoma, meaning first and second primary melanomas were diagnosed on the same day.

The investigators compared the clinical characteristics of patients with first and second melanomas, looking at demographic, phenotypic, sun exposure, and genetic factors. The team found that the median time between first and second melanoma, excluding cases of synchronous primary melanoma, was 18.4 months.

Those who developed second melanomas were older at baseline than those who developed only one (59.3 years vs. 58.2 years, respectively; P < .001), and were more likely to have a sun-sensitive phenotype, a self-reported history of excisions for nonmelanoma skin cancers, and a high polygenic risk score for melanoma. Among people who developed second primary melanomas, the second melanomas were more likely to be in situ and of the lentigo maligna subtype.

Notably, factors including age, sex, sunburn tendency, and family history of melanoma had similarly elevated effect sizes among those diagnosed with first and second melanomas. The authors also found similar associations with baseline measures for personal sun exposure – including sunburns and cumulative sun exposure; however, the number of past skin cancer excisions was more strongly associated with second primaries (P = .05).

The team did identify two factors associated with a higher risk of developing a second primary melanoma. A nevus phenotype was more strongly associated with developing a second primary melanoma (hazard ratio, 6.36) than the initial one (HR, 3.46). And second primary melanomas had stronger associations with high melanoma polygenic risk scores than first primary melanomas (HR, 3.28 vs HR, 2.06; P = .03).

The authors noted several limitations to the study, including the generalizability of the findings outside of Australia and the relatively small number of people with second primary melanomas.

Still, the investigators note that the data “offer unique insights that differ from earlier efforts.” Namely, the “findings showed that many of the classic phenotypic risk factors for melanoma were similarly associated with risk of first and second melanomas; however, high numbers of nevi and high genetic predisposition were more strongly associated with second [rather] than first primary melanomas.”

This work was supported by grants from the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia. Dr. Olsen reports no relevant financial relationships. Coauthor Rachel Neale, PhD, reported grants from Viatris and the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia outside the submitted work. Coauthor David Whiteman, MBBS, PhD, reported personal fees from Pierre Fabre (speaker fees for conference presentation) outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.

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

Individuals with a primary melanoma may be more likely to develop a second primary melanoma if they have certain characteristics, a new study suggests.

In a cohort study of more than 38,000 patients, those diagnosed with a second primary melanoma were significantly more likely to have a “nevus-prone” phenotype and a high polygenic risk score for melanoma.

Notably, the researchers also found only limited evidence that elevated levels of sun exposure contributed to second melanoma risk.

Overall, the findings suggest that “within the general population, the presence of many nevi and having a high genetic predisposition to melanoma were associated with the highest risks of developing second primary melanoma,” Catherine M. Olsen, PhD, of the University of Queensland, Australia, and colleagues concluded.

The study was published online in JAMA Dermatology.

People with melanoma are believed to be at high risk for developing subsequent tumors, yet most never do. Population-based studies indicate that only about 8%-18% of patients are diagnosed with a second primary melanoma.

Previous studies using modified case-control design have identified several factors associated with developing multiple primary melanomas, including older age, male sex, a family history of melanoma, high nevus counts or presence of atypical nevi, higher ambient UV radiation and personal sun exposure, as well as certain inherited genetic variants.

However, these studies aren’t equipped to assess the magnitude of risk of developing multiple melanomas among those who have not yet had melanoma.

In the current analysis, Dr. Olsen and colleagues set out to understand the level of risk using a prospective cohort study design. The cohort comprised participants in the QSkin Sun and Health Study and included 38,845 patients with a baseline median age of 56 years, followed for a median of 7.4 years. Among these participants, 1,212 (3.1%) had only one primary melanoma diagnosis, and 245 (0.6%) had two or more primary melanomas. Of those with more primary melanomas, 59 had synchronous primary melanoma, meaning first and second primary melanomas were diagnosed on the same day.

The investigators compared the clinical characteristics of patients with first and second melanomas, looking at demographic, phenotypic, sun exposure, and genetic factors. The team found that the median time between first and second melanoma, excluding cases of synchronous primary melanoma, was 18.4 months.

Those who developed second melanomas were older at baseline than those who developed only one (59.3 years vs. 58.2 years, respectively; P < .001), and were more likely to have a sun-sensitive phenotype, a self-reported history of excisions for nonmelanoma skin cancers, and a high polygenic risk score for melanoma. Among people who developed second primary melanomas, the second melanomas were more likely to be in situ and of the lentigo maligna subtype.

Notably, factors including age, sex, sunburn tendency, and family history of melanoma had similarly elevated effect sizes among those diagnosed with first and second melanomas. The authors also found similar associations with baseline measures for personal sun exposure – including sunburns and cumulative sun exposure; however, the number of past skin cancer excisions was more strongly associated with second primaries (P = .05).

The team did identify two factors associated with a higher risk of developing a second primary melanoma. A nevus phenotype was more strongly associated with developing a second primary melanoma (hazard ratio, 6.36) than the initial one (HR, 3.46). And second primary melanomas had stronger associations with high melanoma polygenic risk scores than first primary melanomas (HR, 3.28 vs HR, 2.06; P = .03).

The authors noted several limitations to the study, including the generalizability of the findings outside of Australia and the relatively small number of people with second primary melanomas.

Still, the investigators note that the data “offer unique insights that differ from earlier efforts.” Namely, the “findings showed that many of the classic phenotypic risk factors for melanoma were similarly associated with risk of first and second melanomas; however, high numbers of nevi and high genetic predisposition were more strongly associated with second [rather] than first primary melanomas.”

This work was supported by grants from the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia. Dr. Olsen reports no relevant financial relationships. Coauthor Rachel Neale, PhD, reported grants from Viatris and the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia outside the submitted work. Coauthor David Whiteman, MBBS, PhD, reported personal fees from Pierre Fabre (speaker fees for conference presentation) outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has announced it will not approve the investigational drug poziotinib (Spectrum Pharmaceuticals) for the treatment of certain patients with non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

The clinical data the company submitted were deemed insufficient for approval, and additional data including a randomized clinical trial would be needed, the agency said.

The move is not a surprise, as the FDA’s Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee (ODAC) voted 9-4 against approval when it met to discuss the drug in September, as reported at the time by this news organization.

Poziotinib was developed for patients with previously treated locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC harboring HER2 exon 20 insertion mutations, which occur in about 2% of patients with NSCLC.

Poziotinib is a potent oral pan-HER tyrosine kinase inhibitor with activity in patients with these mutations. Clinical data from the ZENITH20 Trial reported last year showed an overall response rate of 43.8%, and the drug was described as showing “clinically meaningful efficacy for treatment-naive NSCLC HER2 exon 20 mutations with [daily] dosing.”

“We continue to believe that poziotinib could present a meaningful treatment option for patients with this rare form of lung cancer, for whom other therapies have failed,” commented Tom Riga, president and chief executive officer of Spectrum Pharmaceuticals. 

However, following multiple interactions with the FDA, “we have made the strategic decision to immediately deprioritize the poziotinib program,” he said. The change is effective immediately, and the company is now in the process of reducing its R&D workforce by approximately 75%.
 

Drug development criticized

At the ODAC meeting, several panelists were openly critical of the approach Spectrum took in developing the drug. The FDA’s top cancer official, Richard Pazdur, MD, characterized Spectrum’s work as “poor drug development” and likened it to “building a house on quicksand.”

The FDA panel detailed several ways they felt that the poziotinib application fell short of the benchmarks needed for accelerated approval.

To win such a speedy clearance, a company needs to show that a drug provides a meaningful therapeutic benefit over existing treatments. The panel argued that, so far, poziotinib appears to be inferior to a product already available for HER2-mutant NSCLC, trastuzumab deruxtecan (Enhertu), which received accelerated approval in August.

The FDA staff contrasted a reported overall response rate for poziotinib, which was estimated at 28% (from data discussed at the meeting), with the overall response rate for trastuzumab deruxtecan, which is 58%.

Harpreet Singh, MD, a director in the FDA’s oncology division, asked the panel to consider what they would do as a physician treating a patient with this mutation, given the choices that are now available.

“That’s something we’re asking the committee to consider … to think about the context of what’s available to you in the clinic,” Dr. Singh said.

Dr. Singh said she expected that patients and physicians would prefer a drug such as trastuzumab deruxtecan, which has a more established record, regardless of the fact that treatment with poziotinib is more convenient because it is given as a tablet.

Dr. Singh and other staff also raised concerns about side effects of poziotinib, including diarrhea, as well as difficulty determining the right dose.

Katherine Scilla, MD, one of the nine ODAC panelists to vote “no,” echoed these views. Although Dr. Scilla, an oncologist at the University of Maryland, Baltimore, sympathized with the need for options for people with this rare form of lung cancer, she was not persuaded by the data on poziotinib that were presented to support accelerated approval.

“I’m not sure that this represents a meaningful therapeutic benefit over other agents,” she said at the time. 

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

The Food and Drug Administration has announced it will not approve the investigational drug poziotinib (Spectrum Pharmaceuticals) for the treatment of certain patients with non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

The clinical data the company submitted were deemed insufficient for approval, and additional data including a randomized clinical trial would be needed, the agency said.

The move is not a surprise, as the FDA’s Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee (ODAC) voted 9-4 against approval when it met to discuss the drug in September, as reported at the time by this news organization.

Poziotinib was developed for patients with previously treated locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC harboring HER2 exon 20 insertion mutations, which occur in about 2% of patients with NSCLC.

Poziotinib is a potent oral pan-HER tyrosine kinase inhibitor with activity in patients with these mutations. Clinical data from the ZENITH20 Trial reported last year showed an overall response rate of 43.8%, and the drug was described as showing “clinically meaningful efficacy for treatment-naive NSCLC HER2 exon 20 mutations with [daily] dosing.”

“We continue to believe that poziotinib could present a meaningful treatment option for patients with this rare form of lung cancer, for whom other therapies have failed,” commented Tom Riga, president and chief executive officer of Spectrum Pharmaceuticals. 

However, following multiple interactions with the FDA, “we have made the strategic decision to immediately deprioritize the poziotinib program,” he said. The change is effective immediately, and the company is now in the process of reducing its R&D workforce by approximately 75%.
 

Drug development criticized

At the ODAC meeting, several panelists were openly critical of the approach Spectrum took in developing the drug. The FDA’s top cancer official, Richard Pazdur, MD, characterized Spectrum’s work as “poor drug development” and likened it to “building a house on quicksand.”

The FDA panel detailed several ways they felt that the poziotinib application fell short of the benchmarks needed for accelerated approval.

To win such a speedy clearance, a company needs to show that a drug provides a meaningful therapeutic benefit over existing treatments. The panel argued that, so far, poziotinib appears to be inferior to a product already available for HER2-mutant NSCLC, trastuzumab deruxtecan (Enhertu), which received accelerated approval in August.

The FDA staff contrasted a reported overall response rate for poziotinib, which was estimated at 28% (from data discussed at the meeting), with the overall response rate for trastuzumab deruxtecan, which is 58%.

Harpreet Singh, MD, a director in the FDA’s oncology division, asked the panel to consider what they would do as a physician treating a patient with this mutation, given the choices that are now available.

“That’s something we’re asking the committee to consider … to think about the context of what’s available to you in the clinic,” Dr. Singh said.

Dr. Singh said she expected that patients and physicians would prefer a drug such as trastuzumab deruxtecan, which has a more established record, regardless of the fact that treatment with poziotinib is more convenient because it is given as a tablet.

Dr. Singh and other staff also raised concerns about side effects of poziotinib, including diarrhea, as well as difficulty determining the right dose.

Katherine Scilla, MD, one of the nine ODAC panelists to vote “no,” echoed these views. Although Dr. Scilla, an oncologist at the University of Maryland, Baltimore, sympathized with the need for options for people with this rare form of lung cancer, she was not persuaded by the data on poziotinib that were presented to support accelerated approval.

“I’m not sure that this represents a meaningful therapeutic benefit over other agents,” she said at the time. 

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

The Food and Drug Administration has announced it will not approve the investigational drug poziotinib (Spectrum Pharmaceuticals) for the treatment of certain patients with non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

The clinical data the company submitted were deemed insufficient for approval, and additional data including a randomized clinical trial would be needed, the agency said.

The move is not a surprise, as the FDA’s Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee (ODAC) voted 9-4 against approval when it met to discuss the drug in September, as reported at the time by this news organization.

Poziotinib was developed for patients with previously treated locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC harboring HER2 exon 20 insertion mutations, which occur in about 2% of patients with NSCLC.

Poziotinib is a potent oral pan-HER tyrosine kinase inhibitor with activity in patients with these mutations. Clinical data from the ZENITH20 Trial reported last year showed an overall response rate of 43.8%, and the drug was described as showing “clinically meaningful efficacy for treatment-naive NSCLC HER2 exon 20 mutations with [daily] dosing.”

“We continue to believe that poziotinib could present a meaningful treatment option for patients with this rare form of lung cancer, for whom other therapies have failed,” commented Tom Riga, president and chief executive officer of Spectrum Pharmaceuticals. 

However, following multiple interactions with the FDA, “we have made the strategic decision to immediately deprioritize the poziotinib program,” he said. The change is effective immediately, and the company is now in the process of reducing its R&D workforce by approximately 75%.
 

Drug development criticized

At the ODAC meeting, several panelists were openly critical of the approach Spectrum took in developing the drug. The FDA’s top cancer official, Richard Pazdur, MD, characterized Spectrum’s work as “poor drug development” and likened it to “building a house on quicksand.”

The FDA panel detailed several ways they felt that the poziotinib application fell short of the benchmarks needed for accelerated approval.

To win such a speedy clearance, a company needs to show that a drug provides a meaningful therapeutic benefit over existing treatments. The panel argued that, so far, poziotinib appears to be inferior to a product already available for HER2-mutant NSCLC, trastuzumab deruxtecan (Enhertu), which received accelerated approval in August.

The FDA staff contrasted a reported overall response rate for poziotinib, which was estimated at 28% (from data discussed at the meeting), with the overall response rate for trastuzumab deruxtecan, which is 58%.

Harpreet Singh, MD, a director in the FDA’s oncology division, asked the panel to consider what they would do as a physician treating a patient with this mutation, given the choices that are now available.

“That’s something we’re asking the committee to consider … to think about the context of what’s available to you in the clinic,” Dr. Singh said.

Dr. Singh said she expected that patients and physicians would prefer a drug such as trastuzumab deruxtecan, which has a more established record, regardless of the fact that treatment with poziotinib is more convenient because it is given as a tablet.

Dr. Singh and other staff also raised concerns about side effects of poziotinib, including diarrhea, as well as difficulty determining the right dose.

Katherine Scilla, MD, one of the nine ODAC panelists to vote “no,” echoed these views. Although Dr. Scilla, an oncologist at the University of Maryland, Baltimore, sympathized with the need for options for people with this rare form of lung cancer, she was not persuaded by the data on poziotinib that were presented to support accelerated approval.

“I’m not sure that this represents a meaningful therapeutic benefit over other agents,” she said at the time. 

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

CHICAGO – Discovering lung cancer early with annual low-dose computed tomography greatly improves long-term survival rates to 80%, findings from a 20-year international study indicate.

Claudia Henschke, MD, PhD, professor of radiology and director of the Early Lung and Cardiac Action Program at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, presented research results at the annual meeting of the Radiological Society of North America.

The researchers studied lung-cancer–specific survival (LCS) of 87,416 participants enrolled in an international, prospective study named the International Early Lung Cancer Action Program.

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death. The American Lung Association states the average 5-year survival rate is 18.6%. Only 16% of the cancers are caught early and more than half of people with lung cancer die within a year of diagnosis.
 

Participants’ 20-year survival rate 80%

Results of this large international study showed the overall 20-year survival rate for the 1,285 screening participants diagnosed with early-stage cancer was 80% (95% confidence interval, 77%-83%). Among the 1,285 diagnosed, 83% had stage 1 cancer, Dr. Henschke said.

Lung cancer survival (LCS) was 100% for the 139 participants with nonsolid nodule consistency and for the 155 participants with part-solid consistency. LCS was 73% (95% CI, 69%-77%) for the 991 with solid consistency, and for clinical stage IA participants LCS was 86% (95% CI, 83%-89%), regardless of consistency.

For participants with pathologic stage IA lung cancer 10 mm or less in average diameter, the 20-year survival rate with identification and resection was 92% (95% CI, 87%-96%).

No lung cancer deaths were identified in the part-solid and nonsolid cancers, the researchers report.

These results show the 10-year findings from 2006 published in the New England Journal of Medicine, which also showed 80% survival rates with low-dose CT, have persisted, she said.

At the time of the 2006 paper, 95% of Americans diagnosed with lung cancer died from it, Dr. Henschke said.

Dr. Henschke notes that by the time symptoms appear, lung cancer is often advanced, so the best tool for detecting early-stage lung cancer is enrolling in an annual screening program.

When cancer is small enough and can be surgically removed, patients can be effectively cured long-term, she said.

“In the future, perhaps blood markers will allow us to detect it in the first half of the life cycle of lung cancer instead of CT at the beginning of the second half of the life cycle,” Dr. Henschke said.

“The study raises the power of prospective data collection in the context of clinical care as recommended by the Institute of Medicine long ago,” she said.
 

Findings “very promising”

Ernest Hawk, MD, MPH, head of the division of cancer prevention and population sciences at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer, Houston, told this news organization the findings look “very promising.” Dr. Hawk was not involved in the study.

“This was one of the earliest studies to evaluate low-dose CT scanning. Their report that the initial benefits seem to be holding up over a longer period of observation is great,” he said.

“This bolsters the data that lung cancer screening is beneficial over a longer period of observation,” he said, noting that most of the randomized controlled trials have been shorter.

Lung cancer screening is now recommended for high-risk individuals – those with at least a 20-pack-year history of tobacco use who are between 50 and 80 years old.

So far, screening is still limited to people at high risk, Dr. Hawk said, though there’s discussion about whether benefit would extend to people exposed to asbestos, for instance, or secondhand smoke.

“The biggest challenge right now is getting the screening to those who actually meet the criteria,” Dr. Hawk said.

Medscape reported earlier this month that less than 6% of high-risk smokers have the recommended annual lung cancer screening, according to a new report from the American Lung Association.

Dr. Henschke is on the Advisory Board for LungLifeAI and is on the board for the Early Diagnosis and Treatment Research Foundation. Dr. Hawk reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

CHICAGO – Discovering lung cancer early with annual low-dose computed tomography greatly improves long-term survival rates to 80%, findings from a 20-year international study indicate.

Claudia Henschke, MD, PhD, professor of radiology and director of the Early Lung and Cardiac Action Program at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, presented research results at the annual meeting of the Radiological Society of North America.

The researchers studied lung-cancer–specific survival (LCS) of 87,416 participants enrolled in an international, prospective study named the International Early Lung Cancer Action Program.

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death. The American Lung Association states the average 5-year survival rate is 18.6%. Only 16% of the cancers are caught early and more than half of people with lung cancer die within a year of diagnosis.
 

Participants’ 20-year survival rate 80%

Results of this large international study showed the overall 20-year survival rate for the 1,285 screening participants diagnosed with early-stage cancer was 80% (95% confidence interval, 77%-83%). Among the 1,285 diagnosed, 83% had stage 1 cancer, Dr. Henschke said.

Lung cancer survival (LCS) was 100% for the 139 participants with nonsolid nodule consistency and for the 155 participants with part-solid consistency. LCS was 73% (95% CI, 69%-77%) for the 991 with solid consistency, and for clinical stage IA participants LCS was 86% (95% CI, 83%-89%), regardless of consistency.

For participants with pathologic stage IA lung cancer 10 mm or less in average diameter, the 20-year survival rate with identification and resection was 92% (95% CI, 87%-96%).

No lung cancer deaths were identified in the part-solid and nonsolid cancers, the researchers report.

These results show the 10-year findings from 2006 published in the New England Journal of Medicine, which also showed 80% survival rates with low-dose CT, have persisted, she said.

At the time of the 2006 paper, 95% of Americans diagnosed with lung cancer died from it, Dr. Henschke said.

Dr. Henschke notes that by the time symptoms appear, lung cancer is often advanced, so the best tool for detecting early-stage lung cancer is enrolling in an annual screening program.

When cancer is small enough and can be surgically removed, patients can be effectively cured long-term, she said.

“In the future, perhaps blood markers will allow us to detect it in the first half of the life cycle of lung cancer instead of CT at the beginning of the second half of the life cycle,” Dr. Henschke said.

“The study raises the power of prospective data collection in the context of clinical care as recommended by the Institute of Medicine long ago,” she said.
 

Findings “very promising”

Ernest Hawk, MD, MPH, head of the division of cancer prevention and population sciences at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer, Houston, told this news organization the findings look “very promising.” Dr. Hawk was not involved in the study.

“This was one of the earliest studies to evaluate low-dose CT scanning. Their report that the initial benefits seem to be holding up over a longer period of observation is great,” he said.

“This bolsters the data that lung cancer screening is beneficial over a longer period of observation,” he said, noting that most of the randomized controlled trials have been shorter.

Lung cancer screening is now recommended for high-risk individuals – those with at least a 20-pack-year history of tobacco use who are between 50 and 80 years old.

So far, screening is still limited to people at high risk, Dr. Hawk said, though there’s discussion about whether benefit would extend to people exposed to asbestos, for instance, or secondhand smoke.

“The biggest challenge right now is getting the screening to those who actually meet the criteria,” Dr. Hawk said.

Medscape reported earlier this month that less than 6% of high-risk smokers have the recommended annual lung cancer screening, according to a new report from the American Lung Association.

Dr. Henschke is on the Advisory Board for LungLifeAI and is on the board for the Early Diagnosis and Treatment Research Foundation. Dr. Hawk reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

CHICAGO – Discovering lung cancer early with annual low-dose computed tomography greatly improves long-term survival rates to 80%, findings from a 20-year international study indicate.

Claudia Henschke, MD, PhD, professor of radiology and director of the Early Lung and Cardiac Action Program at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, presented research results at the annual meeting of the Radiological Society of North America.

The researchers studied lung-cancer–specific survival (LCS) of 87,416 participants enrolled in an international, prospective study named the International Early Lung Cancer Action Program.

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death. The American Lung Association states the average 5-year survival rate is 18.6%. Only 16% of the cancers are caught early and more than half of people with lung cancer die within a year of diagnosis.
 

Participants’ 20-year survival rate 80%

Results of this large international study showed the overall 20-year survival rate for the 1,285 screening participants diagnosed with early-stage cancer was 80% (95% confidence interval, 77%-83%). Among the 1,285 diagnosed, 83% had stage 1 cancer, Dr. Henschke said.

Lung cancer survival (LCS) was 100% for the 139 participants with nonsolid nodule consistency and for the 155 participants with part-solid consistency. LCS was 73% (95% CI, 69%-77%) for the 991 with solid consistency, and for clinical stage IA participants LCS was 86% (95% CI, 83%-89%), regardless of consistency.

For participants with pathologic stage IA lung cancer 10 mm or less in average diameter, the 20-year survival rate with identification and resection was 92% (95% CI, 87%-96%).

No lung cancer deaths were identified in the part-solid and nonsolid cancers, the researchers report.

These results show the 10-year findings from 2006 published in the New England Journal of Medicine, which also showed 80% survival rates with low-dose CT, have persisted, she said.

At the time of the 2006 paper, 95% of Americans diagnosed with lung cancer died from it, Dr. Henschke said.

Dr. Henschke notes that by the time symptoms appear, lung cancer is often advanced, so the best tool for detecting early-stage lung cancer is enrolling in an annual screening program.

When cancer is small enough and can be surgically removed, patients can be effectively cured long-term, she said.

“In the future, perhaps blood markers will allow us to detect it in the first half of the life cycle of lung cancer instead of CT at the beginning of the second half of the life cycle,” Dr. Henschke said.

“The study raises the power of prospective data collection in the context of clinical care as recommended by the Institute of Medicine long ago,” she said.
 

Findings “very promising”

Ernest Hawk, MD, MPH, head of the division of cancer prevention and population sciences at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer, Houston, told this news organization the findings look “very promising.” Dr. Hawk was not involved in the study.

“This was one of the earliest studies to evaluate low-dose CT scanning. Their report that the initial benefits seem to be holding up over a longer period of observation is great,” he said.

“This bolsters the data that lung cancer screening is beneficial over a longer period of observation,” he said, noting that most of the randomized controlled trials have been shorter.

Lung cancer screening is now recommended for high-risk individuals – those with at least a 20-pack-year history of tobacco use who are between 50 and 80 years old.

So far, screening is still limited to people at high risk, Dr. Hawk said, though there’s discussion about whether benefit would extend to people exposed to asbestos, for instance, or secondhand smoke.

“The biggest challenge right now is getting the screening to those who actually meet the criteria,” Dr. Hawk said.

Medscape reported earlier this month that less than 6% of high-risk smokers have the recommended annual lung cancer screening, according to a new report from the American Lung Association.

Dr. Henschke is on the Advisory Board for LungLifeAI and is on the board for the Early Diagnosis and Treatment Research Foundation. Dr. Hawk reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

Atezolizumab (Tecentriq) is no longer approved in the United States for use in certain patients with bladder or urinary tract cancer.

The drug is an anti–PD-L1 inhibitor immunotherapy, and continues to be approved for use in lung and liver cancer and melanoma.

The manufacturer, Genentech, announced that it was voluntarily withdrawing the U.S. indication for atezolizumab that covered its use in adults with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma (bladder cancer) who are not eligible for cisplatin-containing chemotherapy and whose tumors express PD-L1 or are not eligible for any platinum-containing chemotherapy regardless of PD-L1 status.

The company said that it made the decision after consultation with the Food and Drug Administration.

“While we are disappointed with this withdrawal, we understand the need to uphold the principles of the FDA’s Accelerated Approval Program, which brings innovative medicines to patients sooner,” said Levi Garraway, MD, PhD, Genentech chief medical officer and head of Global Product Development.

Atezolizumab had been granted an accelerated approval for this indication back in 2016, based on response rate data from the IMvigor210 trial.

The company was obliged to conduct a follow-up trial to show clinical benefit, and launched IMvigor130, which it described as “the designated postmarketing requirement to convert the accelerated approval to regular approval.”

The bladder cancer indication for atezolizumab was discussed (alongside several other indications for different immunotherapy drugs) at a historic 3-day meeting of the FDA’s oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee in April 2021. At the time, ODAC voted 10-1 in favor of maintaining the indication for atezolizumab for the first-line treatment of cisplatin-ineligible patients with advanced/metastatic urothelial carcinoma, pending final overall survival results from the IMvigor130 trial.

Genentech has now said that this trial “did not meet the coprimary endpoint of overall survival for atezolizumab plus chemotherapy compared with chemotherapy alone” when used for the first-line treatment of patients with previously untreated advanced bladder cancer.

These data will be presented at an upcoming medical meeting, the company added.

“There is a considerable unmet need for effective and tolerable treatments for people living with advanced bladder cancer and so we regret that the IMvigor130 trial did not cross the statistical threshold for overall survival,” Dr. Garraway commented.

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

Atezolizumab (Tecentriq) is no longer approved in the United States for use in certain patients with bladder or urinary tract cancer.

The drug is an anti–PD-L1 inhibitor immunotherapy, and continues to be approved for use in lung and liver cancer and melanoma.

The manufacturer, Genentech, announced that it was voluntarily withdrawing the U.S. indication for atezolizumab that covered its use in adults with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma (bladder cancer) who are not eligible for cisplatin-containing chemotherapy and whose tumors express PD-L1 or are not eligible for any platinum-containing chemotherapy regardless of PD-L1 status.

The company said that it made the decision after consultation with the Food and Drug Administration.

“While we are disappointed with this withdrawal, we understand the need to uphold the principles of the FDA’s Accelerated Approval Program, which brings innovative medicines to patients sooner,” said Levi Garraway, MD, PhD, Genentech chief medical officer and head of Global Product Development.

Atezolizumab had been granted an accelerated approval for this indication back in 2016, based on response rate data from the IMvigor210 trial.

The company was obliged to conduct a follow-up trial to show clinical benefit, and launched IMvigor130, which it described as “the designated postmarketing requirement to convert the accelerated approval to regular approval.”

The bladder cancer indication for atezolizumab was discussed (alongside several other indications for different immunotherapy drugs) at a historic 3-day meeting of the FDA’s oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee in April 2021. At the time, ODAC voted 10-1 in favor of maintaining the indication for atezolizumab for the first-line treatment of cisplatin-ineligible patients with advanced/metastatic urothelial carcinoma, pending final overall survival results from the IMvigor130 trial.

Genentech has now said that this trial “did not meet the coprimary endpoint of overall survival for atezolizumab plus chemotherapy compared with chemotherapy alone” when used for the first-line treatment of patients with previously untreated advanced bladder cancer.

These data will be presented at an upcoming medical meeting, the company added.

“There is a considerable unmet need for effective and tolerable treatments for people living with advanced bladder cancer and so we regret that the IMvigor130 trial did not cross the statistical threshold for overall survival,” Dr. Garraway commented.

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

Atezolizumab (Tecentriq) is no longer approved in the United States for use in certain patients with bladder or urinary tract cancer.

The drug is an anti–PD-L1 inhibitor immunotherapy, and continues to be approved for use in lung and liver cancer and melanoma.

The manufacturer, Genentech, announced that it was voluntarily withdrawing the U.S. indication for atezolizumab that covered its use in adults with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma (bladder cancer) who are not eligible for cisplatin-containing chemotherapy and whose tumors express PD-L1 or are not eligible for any platinum-containing chemotherapy regardless of PD-L1 status.

The company said that it made the decision after consultation with the Food and Drug Administration.

“While we are disappointed with this withdrawal, we understand the need to uphold the principles of the FDA’s Accelerated Approval Program, which brings innovative medicines to patients sooner,” said Levi Garraway, MD, PhD, Genentech chief medical officer and head of Global Product Development.

Atezolizumab had been granted an accelerated approval for this indication back in 2016, based on response rate data from the IMvigor210 trial.

The company was obliged to conduct a follow-up trial to show clinical benefit, and launched IMvigor130, which it described as “the designated postmarketing requirement to convert the accelerated approval to regular approval.”

The bladder cancer indication for atezolizumab was discussed (alongside several other indications for different immunotherapy drugs) at a historic 3-day meeting of the FDA’s oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee in April 2021. At the time, ODAC voted 10-1 in favor of maintaining the indication for atezolizumab for the first-line treatment of cisplatin-ineligible patients with advanced/metastatic urothelial carcinoma, pending final overall survival results from the IMvigor130 trial.

Genentech has now said that this trial “did not meet the coprimary endpoint of overall survival for atezolizumab plus chemotherapy compared with chemotherapy alone” when used for the first-line treatment of patients with previously untreated advanced bladder cancer.

These data will be presented at an upcoming medical meeting, the company added.

“There is a considerable unmet need for effective and tolerable treatments for people living with advanced bladder cancer and so we regret that the IMvigor130 trial did not cross the statistical threshold for overall survival,” Dr. Garraway commented.

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

Among high-risk early breast cancer patients, a radiation boost to the tumor bed during whole breast irradiation was just as safe and effective as delivering the boost sequentially after whole breast irradiation ended. The findings from a phase 3 clinical trial are a boon to patient convenience.

“These findings are indeed practice changing. This was a well-designed trial that looked at shortening treatment from 6 weeks down to 3 weeks. And, they showed equivalent local control and importantly, a good cosmetic outcome over time,” said Kathleen Horst, MD, who served as a discussant at a press conference held at the annual meeting of the American Society for Radiation Oncology where the findings were presented.

“This is substantially more convenient. It is cost effective, both for the health care system and for individual patients. Importantly, our patients come in for treatment every day. They’re taking time off of work, they have to arrange for childcare, and they have to arrange for transportation. So this makes a big difference for these patients,” said Dr. Horst, who is a professor of radiation oncology at Stanford (Calif.) Medicine and director of well-being in the radiation department at Stanford Medicine.

The study was presented by Frank A. Vicini, MD, FASTRO, a radiation oncologist with GenesisCare, Farmington Hills, Mich.

“One of the things I think that was surprising is I think all of us were thinking that this might be a more toxic regimen, but as Dr. Vincini showed, over time it was equally effective and with minimal toxicity, and cosmesis over time was stable, and that’s important. Importantly, that included patient-reported outcomes, not just the physician-reported outcomes. Broadly, I think these findings are applicable for many patients, all patients who are receiving whole breast radiotherapy with an added boost. I think over time this is going to improve the quality of life of our patients. It is an innovative change that everyone is going to be excited to embrace,” Dr. Horst said.

Previous randomized, controlled trials showed that an additional radiation dose to the tumor bed following lumpectomy and whole breast irradiation reduces the relative risk of local recurrence by about 35%. However, this increases treatment time for patients who have already endured an extensive regimen. For whole breast irradiation, hypofractionated radiation is in 15-16 fractions over 3 weeks has comparable recurrence rates as a 5-week regimen, but the relevant trials did not examine the effect hypofractionation may have on a radiation boost to the tumor bed of high-risk patients. Because of this lack of evidence, current practice is for the boost to remain sequential in five to eight fractions after completion of whole breast irradiation, which adds a week to a week and a half to treatment length.

The study included 2,262 patients who were randomized to receive a sequential boost or a concomitant boost. After a median follow-up of 7.4 years, there were 54 ipsilateral breast recurrence (IBR) events. The estimated 7-year risk of IBR was 2.2% in the sequential boost and 2.6% in the concurrent risk group (hazard ratio, 1.32; noninferiority test P = .039). Approximately 60% of patients received adjuvant chemotherapy.

Grade 3 or higher adverse events were similar, with a frequency of 3.3% in the sequential group and 3.5% in the concurrent group (P = .79). The researchers used the Global Cosmetic Score to assess outcomes from the perspective of both physicians and patients; 86% of physicians rated the outcome as excellent/good in the sequential group versus 82% in the concurrent group (P = .33).

“For high-risk early-stage breast cancer patients undergoing breast conservation, a concurrent boost with hypofractionated whole breast irradiation as compared to a sequential boost, results in noninferior local recurrence rates with no significant difference in toxicity, noninferior patient-rated cosmesis, no significant difference in physician rated cosmesis, and delivering the entire treatment even at high risk patients in 3 weeks. Just as critical, the use of target volume–based radiation planning for 3-D [three-dimensional] conformal or [intensity-modulated radiation therapy] whole breast irradiation assessed by dose volume analysis is feasible, and resulted in very low toxicity in the treatment arms, regardless of the fractionation schedule, or the boost delivery,” said Dr. Vincini during the press conference.

The study was grant funded. Neither Dr. Vincini nor Dr. Horst had relevant financial disclosures.

Among high-risk early breast cancer patients, a radiation boost to the tumor bed during whole breast irradiation was just as safe and effective as delivering the boost sequentially after whole breast irradiation ended. The findings from a phase 3 clinical trial are a boon to patient convenience.

“These findings are indeed practice changing. This was a well-designed trial that looked at shortening treatment from 6 weeks down to 3 weeks. And, they showed equivalent local control and importantly, a good cosmetic outcome over time,” said Kathleen Horst, MD, who served as a discussant at a press conference held at the annual meeting of the American Society for Radiation Oncology where the findings were presented.

“This is substantially more convenient. It is cost effective, both for the health care system and for individual patients. Importantly, our patients come in for treatment every day. They’re taking time off of work, they have to arrange for childcare, and they have to arrange for transportation. So this makes a big difference for these patients,” said Dr. Horst, who is a professor of radiation oncology at Stanford (Calif.) Medicine and director of well-being in the radiation department at Stanford Medicine.

The study was presented by Frank A. Vicini, MD, FASTRO, a radiation oncologist with GenesisCare, Farmington Hills, Mich.

“One of the things I think that was surprising is I think all of us were thinking that this might be a more toxic regimen, but as Dr. Vincini showed, over time it was equally effective and with minimal toxicity, and cosmesis over time was stable, and that’s important. Importantly, that included patient-reported outcomes, not just the physician-reported outcomes. Broadly, I think these findings are applicable for many patients, all patients who are receiving whole breast radiotherapy with an added boost. I think over time this is going to improve the quality of life of our patients. It is an innovative change that everyone is going to be excited to embrace,” Dr. Horst said.

Previous randomized, controlled trials showed that an additional radiation dose to the tumor bed following lumpectomy and whole breast irradiation reduces the relative risk of local recurrence by about 35%. However, this increases treatment time for patients who have already endured an extensive regimen. For whole breast irradiation, hypofractionated radiation is in 15-16 fractions over 3 weeks has comparable recurrence rates as a 5-week regimen, but the relevant trials did not examine the effect hypofractionation may have on a radiation boost to the tumor bed of high-risk patients. Because of this lack of evidence, current practice is for the boost to remain sequential in five to eight fractions after completion of whole breast irradiation, which adds a week to a week and a half to treatment length.

The study included 2,262 patients who were randomized to receive a sequential boost or a concomitant boost. After a median follow-up of 7.4 years, there were 54 ipsilateral breast recurrence (IBR) events. The estimated 7-year risk of IBR was 2.2% in the sequential boost and 2.6% in the concurrent risk group (hazard ratio, 1.32; noninferiority test P = .039). Approximately 60% of patients received adjuvant chemotherapy.

Grade 3 or higher adverse events were similar, with a frequency of 3.3% in the sequential group and 3.5% in the concurrent group (P = .79). The researchers used the Global Cosmetic Score to assess outcomes from the perspective of both physicians and patients; 86% of physicians rated the outcome as excellent/good in the sequential group versus 82% in the concurrent group (P = .33).

“For high-risk early-stage breast cancer patients undergoing breast conservation, a concurrent boost with hypofractionated whole breast irradiation as compared to a sequential boost, results in noninferior local recurrence rates with no significant difference in toxicity, noninferior patient-rated cosmesis, no significant difference in physician rated cosmesis, and delivering the entire treatment even at high risk patients in 3 weeks. Just as critical, the use of target volume–based radiation planning for 3-D [three-dimensional] conformal or [intensity-modulated radiation therapy] whole breast irradiation assessed by dose volume analysis is feasible, and resulted in very low toxicity in the treatment arms, regardless of the fractionation schedule, or the boost delivery,” said Dr. Vincini during the press conference.

The study was grant funded. Neither Dr. Vincini nor Dr. Horst had relevant financial disclosures.

Among high-risk early breast cancer patients, a radiation boost to the tumor bed during whole breast irradiation was just as safe and effective as delivering the boost sequentially after whole breast irradiation ended. The findings from a phase 3 clinical trial are a boon to patient convenience.

“These findings are indeed practice changing. This was a well-designed trial that looked at shortening treatment from 6 weeks down to 3 weeks. And, they showed equivalent local control and importantly, a good cosmetic outcome over time,” said Kathleen Horst, MD, who served as a discussant at a press conference held at the annual meeting of the American Society for Radiation Oncology where the findings were presented.

“This is substantially more convenient. It is cost effective, both for the health care system and for individual patients. Importantly, our patients come in for treatment every day. They’re taking time off of work, they have to arrange for childcare, and they have to arrange for transportation. So this makes a big difference for these patients,” said Dr. Horst, who is a professor of radiation oncology at Stanford (Calif.) Medicine and director of well-being in the radiation department at Stanford Medicine.

The study was presented by Frank A. Vicini, MD, FASTRO, a radiation oncologist with GenesisCare, Farmington Hills, Mich.

“One of the things I think that was surprising is I think all of us were thinking that this might be a more toxic regimen, but as Dr. Vincini showed, over time it was equally effective and with minimal toxicity, and cosmesis over time was stable, and that’s important. Importantly, that included patient-reported outcomes, not just the physician-reported outcomes. Broadly, I think these findings are applicable for many patients, all patients who are receiving whole breast radiotherapy with an added boost. I think over time this is going to improve the quality of life of our patients. It is an innovative change that everyone is going to be excited to embrace,” Dr. Horst said.

Previous randomized, controlled trials showed that an additional radiation dose to the tumor bed following lumpectomy and whole breast irradiation reduces the relative risk of local recurrence by about 35%. However, this increases treatment time for patients who have already endured an extensive regimen. For whole breast irradiation, hypofractionated radiation is in 15-16 fractions over 3 weeks has comparable recurrence rates as a 5-week regimen, but the relevant trials did not examine the effect hypofractionation may have on a radiation boost to the tumor bed of high-risk patients. Because of this lack of evidence, current practice is for the boost to remain sequential in five to eight fractions after completion of whole breast irradiation, which adds a week to a week and a half to treatment length.

The study included 2,262 patients who were randomized to receive a sequential boost or a concomitant boost. After a median follow-up of 7.4 years, there were 54 ipsilateral breast recurrence (IBR) events. The estimated 7-year risk of IBR was 2.2% in the sequential boost and 2.6% in the concurrent risk group (hazard ratio, 1.32; noninferiority test P = .039). Approximately 60% of patients received adjuvant chemotherapy.

Grade 3 or higher adverse events were similar, with a frequency of 3.3% in the sequential group and 3.5% in the concurrent group (P = .79). The researchers used the Global Cosmetic Score to assess outcomes from the perspective of both physicians and patients; 86% of physicians rated the outcome as excellent/good in the sequential group versus 82% in the concurrent group (P = .33).

“For high-risk early-stage breast cancer patients undergoing breast conservation, a concurrent boost with hypofractionated whole breast irradiation as compared to a sequential boost, results in noninferior local recurrence rates with no significant difference in toxicity, noninferior patient-rated cosmesis, no significant difference in physician rated cosmesis, and delivering the entire treatment even at high risk patients in 3 weeks. Just as critical, the use of target volume–based radiation planning for 3-D [three-dimensional] conformal or [intensity-modulated radiation therapy] whole breast irradiation assessed by dose volume analysis is feasible, and resulted in very low toxicity in the treatment arms, regardless of the fractionation schedule, or the boost delivery,” said Dr. Vincini during the press conference.

The study was grant funded. Neither Dr. Vincini nor Dr. Horst had relevant financial disclosures.

DENVER – As best practices for screening and surveillance of high-risk cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (CSCC) continue to evolve, mounting evidence supports the use of radiologic imaging.

In a study published in 2020, Emily Ruiz, MD, MPH, and colleagues identified 87 CSCC tumors in 83 patients who underwent baseline or surveillance imaging primary at the Brigham and Women’s Hospital Mohs Surgery Clinic and the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute High-Risk Skin Cancer Clinic, both in Boston, from Jan. 1, 2017, to June 1, 2019. Of the 87 primary CSCCs, 48 (58%) underwent surveillance imaging. The researchers found that imaging detected additional disease in 26 patients, or 30% of cases, “whether that be nodal metastasis, local invasion beyond what was clinically accepted, or in-transit disease,” Dr. Ruiz, academic director of the Mohs and Dermatologic Surgery Center at Brigham and Women’s, said during the annual meeting of the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery. “But if you look at the 16 nodal metastases in this cohort, all were picked up on imaging and not on clinical exam.”

Since publication of these results, Dr. Ruiz routinely considers baseline radiologic imaging in T2b and T3 tumors; borderline T2a tumors (which she said they are now calling “T2a high,” for those who have one risk factor plus another intermediate risk factor),” and T2a tumors in patients who are profoundly immunosuppressed.

“My preference is to always do [the imaging] before treatment unless I’m up-staging them during surgery,” said Dr. Ruiz, who also directs the High-Risk Skin Cancer Clinic at Dana Farber. “We have picked up nodal metastases before surgery, which enables us to create a good therapeutic plan for our patients before we start operating. Then we image them every 6 months or so for about 2 years. Sometimes we will extend that out to 3 years.”

Some clinicians use sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) as a diagnostic test, but there are mixed results about its prognostic significance. A retrospective observational study of 720 patients with CSCC found that SLNB provided no benefit regarding further metastasis or tumor-specific survival, compared with those who received routine observation and follow-up, “but head and neck surgeons in the U.S. are putting together some prospective data from multiple centers,” Dr. Ruiz said. “I think in the coming years, you will have more multicenter data to inform us as to whether to do SLNB or not.”

Surgery may be the mainstay of treatment for resectable SCC, but the emerging role of neoadjuvant therapeutics is changing the way oncologists treat these tumors. For example, in a phase 2 trial recently published in the New England Journal of Medicine, 79 patients with stage II-IV CSCC received up to four doses of immunotherapy with the programmed death receptor–1 (PD-1) blocker cemiplimab administered every 3 weeks. The primary endpoint was a pathologic complete response, defined as the absence of viable tumor cells in the surgical specimen at a central laboratory. The researchers observed that 68% of patients had an objective response.

“These were patients with localized tumors that were either very aggressive or had nodal metastases,” said Dr, Ruiz, who was the site primary investigator at Dana Farber and a coauthor of the NEJM study. “This has altered the way we approach treating our larger tumors that could be resectable but have a lot of disease either locally or in the nodal basin. We think that we can shrink down the tumor and make it easier to resect, but also there is the possibility or improving outcomes.”

At Brigham and Women’s and the Dana Farber, she and her colleagues consider immunotherapy for multiple recurrent tumors that have been previously irradiated; cases of large tumor burden locally or in the nodal basin; tumors that have a complex surgical plan; cases where there is a low likelihood of achieving clear surgical margins; and cases of in-transit disease.

“We use two to four doses of immunotherapy prior to surgery and assess the tumor response after two doses both clinically and radiologically,” she said. “If the tumor continues to grow, we would do surgery sooner.”

The side-effect profile of immunotherapy is another consideration. “Some patients are not appropriate for a neoadjuvant immunotherapy approach, such as transplant patients,” she said.

According to the latest National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines, surgery with or without adjuvant radiation is the current standard of care for treating CSCC. These guidelines were developed without much data to support the use of radiation, but a 20-year retrospective cohort study at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and the Cleveland Clinic Foundation found that adjuvant radiation following margin resection in high T-stage CSCC cut the risk of local and locoregional recurrence in half.

“This is something that radiation oncologists have told us for years, but there was no data to support it, so it was nice to see that borne out in clinical data,” said Dr. Ruiz, the study’s lead author. The 10% risk of local recurrence observed in the study “may not be high enough for some of our older patients, so we wanted to see if we could identify a group of high tumors that had higher risk of local recurrence,” she said. They found that patients who had a greater than 20% risk of poor outcome were those with recurrent tumors, those with tumors 6 cm or greater in size, and those with all four BWH risk factors (tumor diameter ≥ 2 cm, poorly differentiated histology, perineural invasion ≥ 0.1 mm, or tumor invasion beyond fat excluding bone invasion).

“Those risks were also cut in half if you added radiation,” she said. “So, the way I now approach counseling patients is, I try to estimate their baseline risk as best I can based on the tumor itself. I tell them that if they want to do adjuvant radiation it would cut the risk in half. Some patients are too frail and want to pass on it, while others are very interested.”

Of patients who did not receive radiation but had a disease recurrence, just under half of tumors were salvageable, about 25% died of their disease, and 23% had persistent disease. “I think this does support using radiation earlier on for the appropriate patient,” Dr. Ruiz said. “I consider the baseline risks [and] balance that with the patient’s comorbidities.”

Limited data exists on adjuvant immunotherapy for CSCC, but two ongoing randomized prospective clinical trials underway are studying the PD-1 inhibitors cemiplimab and pembrolizumab versus placebo. “We don’t have data yet, but prior to randomization, patients undergo surgery with macroscopic gross resection of all disease,” Dr. Ruiz said. “All tumors receive ART [adjuvant radiation therapy] prior to randomization”

Dr. Ruiz disclosed that she is a consultant for Sanofi, Regeneron, Genentech, and Jaunce Therapeutics. She is also a member of the advisory board for Checkpoint Therapeutics and is an investigator for Merck, Sanofi, and Regeneron.

DENVER – As best practices for screening and surveillance of high-risk cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (CSCC) continue to evolve, mounting evidence supports the use of radiologic imaging.

In a study published in 2020, Emily Ruiz, MD, MPH, and colleagues identified 87 CSCC tumors in 83 patients who underwent baseline or surveillance imaging primary at the Brigham and Women’s Hospital Mohs Surgery Clinic and the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute High-Risk Skin Cancer Clinic, both in Boston, from Jan. 1, 2017, to June 1, 2019. Of the 87 primary CSCCs, 48 (58%) underwent surveillance imaging. The researchers found that imaging detected additional disease in 26 patients, or 30% of cases, “whether that be nodal metastasis, local invasion beyond what was clinically accepted, or in-transit disease,” Dr. Ruiz, academic director of the Mohs and Dermatologic Surgery Center at Brigham and Women’s, said during the annual meeting of the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery. “But if you look at the 16 nodal metastases in this cohort, all were picked up on imaging and not on clinical exam.”

Since publication of these results, Dr. Ruiz routinely considers baseline radiologic imaging in T2b and T3 tumors; borderline T2a tumors (which she said they are now calling “T2a high,” for those who have one risk factor plus another intermediate risk factor),” and T2a tumors in patients who are profoundly immunosuppressed.

“My preference is to always do [the imaging] before treatment unless I’m up-staging them during surgery,” said Dr. Ruiz, who also directs the High-Risk Skin Cancer Clinic at Dana Farber. “We have picked up nodal metastases before surgery, which enables us to create a good therapeutic plan for our patients before we start operating. Then we image them every 6 months or so for about 2 years. Sometimes we will extend that out to 3 years.”

Some clinicians use sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) as a diagnostic test, but there are mixed results about its prognostic significance. A retrospective observational study of 720 patients with CSCC found that SLNB provided no benefit regarding further metastasis or tumor-specific survival, compared with those who received routine observation and follow-up, “but head and neck surgeons in the U.S. are putting together some prospective data from multiple centers,” Dr. Ruiz said. “I think in the coming years, you will have more multicenter data to inform us as to whether to do SLNB or not.”

Surgery may be the mainstay of treatment for resectable SCC, but the emerging role of neoadjuvant therapeutics is changing the way oncologists treat these tumors. For example, in a phase 2 trial recently published in the New England Journal of Medicine, 79 patients with stage II-IV CSCC received up to four doses of immunotherapy with the programmed death receptor–1 (PD-1) blocker cemiplimab administered every 3 weeks. The primary endpoint was a pathologic complete response, defined as the absence of viable tumor cells in the surgical specimen at a central laboratory. The researchers observed that 68% of patients had an objective response.

“These were patients with localized tumors that were either very aggressive or had nodal metastases,” said Dr, Ruiz, who was the site primary investigator at Dana Farber and a coauthor of the NEJM study. “This has altered the way we approach treating our larger tumors that could be resectable but have a lot of disease either locally or in the nodal basin. We think that we can shrink down the tumor and make it easier to resect, but also there is the possibility or improving outcomes.”

At Brigham and Women’s and the Dana Farber, she and her colleagues consider immunotherapy for multiple recurrent tumors that have been previously irradiated; cases of large tumor burden locally or in the nodal basin; tumors that have a complex surgical plan; cases where there is a low likelihood of achieving clear surgical margins; and cases of in-transit disease.

“We use two to four doses of immunotherapy prior to surgery and assess the tumor response after two doses both clinically and radiologically,” she said. “If the tumor continues to grow, we would do surgery sooner.”

The side-effect profile of immunotherapy is another consideration. “Some patients are not appropriate for a neoadjuvant immunotherapy approach, such as transplant patients,” she said.

According to the latest National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines, surgery with or without adjuvant radiation is the current standard of care for treating CSCC. These guidelines were developed without much data to support the use of radiation, but a 20-year retrospective cohort study at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and the Cleveland Clinic Foundation found that adjuvant radiation following margin resection in high T-stage CSCC cut the risk of local and locoregional recurrence in half.

“This is something that radiation oncologists have told us for years, but there was no data to support it, so it was nice to see that borne out in clinical data,” said Dr. Ruiz, the study’s lead author. The 10% risk of local recurrence observed in the study “may not be high enough for some of our older patients, so we wanted to see if we could identify a group of high tumors that had higher risk of local recurrence,” she said. They found that patients who had a greater than 20% risk of poor outcome were those with recurrent tumors, those with tumors 6 cm or greater in size, and those with all four BWH risk factors (tumor diameter ≥ 2 cm, poorly differentiated histology, perineural invasion ≥ 0.1 mm, or tumor invasion beyond fat excluding bone invasion).

“Those risks were also cut in half if you added radiation,” she said. “So, the way I now approach counseling patients is, I try to estimate their baseline risk as best I can based on the tumor itself. I tell them that if they want to do adjuvant radiation it would cut the risk in half. Some patients are too frail and want to pass on it, while others are very interested.”

Of patients who did not receive radiation but had a disease recurrence, just under half of tumors were salvageable, about 25% died of their disease, and 23% had persistent disease. “I think this does support using radiation earlier on for the appropriate patient,” Dr. Ruiz said. “I consider the baseline risks [and] balance that with the patient’s comorbidities.”

Limited data exists on adjuvant immunotherapy for CSCC, but two ongoing randomized prospective clinical trials underway are studying the PD-1 inhibitors cemiplimab and pembrolizumab versus placebo. “We don’t have data yet, but prior to randomization, patients undergo surgery with macroscopic gross resection of all disease,” Dr. Ruiz said. “All tumors receive ART [adjuvant radiation therapy] prior to randomization”

Dr. Ruiz disclosed that she is a consultant for Sanofi, Regeneron, Genentech, and Jaunce Therapeutics. She is also a member of the advisory board for Checkpoint Therapeutics and is an investigator for Merck, Sanofi, and Regeneron.

DENVER – As best practices for screening and surveillance of high-risk cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (CSCC) continue to evolve, mounting evidence supports the use of radiologic imaging.

In a study published in 2020, Emily Ruiz, MD, MPH, and colleagues identified 87 CSCC tumors in 83 patients who underwent baseline or surveillance imaging primary at the Brigham and Women’s Hospital Mohs Surgery Clinic and the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute High-Risk Skin Cancer Clinic, both in Boston, from Jan. 1, 2017, to June 1, 2019. Of the 87 primary CSCCs, 48 (58%) underwent surveillance imaging. The researchers found that imaging detected additional disease in 26 patients, or 30% of cases, “whether that be nodal metastasis, local invasion beyond what was clinically accepted, or in-transit disease,” Dr. Ruiz, academic director of the Mohs and Dermatologic Surgery Center at Brigham and Women’s, said during the annual meeting of the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery. “But if you look at the 16 nodal metastases in this cohort, all were picked up on imaging and not on clinical exam.”

Since publication of these results, Dr. Ruiz routinely considers baseline radiologic imaging in T2b and T3 tumors; borderline T2a tumors (which she said they are now calling “T2a high,” for those who have one risk factor plus another intermediate risk factor),” and T2a tumors in patients who are profoundly immunosuppressed.

“My preference is to always do [the imaging] before treatment unless I’m up-staging them during surgery,” said Dr. Ruiz, who also directs the High-Risk Skin Cancer Clinic at Dana Farber. “We have picked up nodal metastases before surgery, which enables us to create a good therapeutic plan for our patients before we start operating. Then we image them every 6 months or so for about 2 years. Sometimes we will extend that out to 3 years.”

Some clinicians use sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) as a diagnostic test, but there are mixed results about its prognostic significance. A retrospective observational study of 720 patients with CSCC found that SLNB provided no benefit regarding further metastasis or tumor-specific survival, compared with those who received routine observation and follow-up, “but head and neck surgeons in the U.S. are putting together some prospective data from multiple centers,” Dr. Ruiz said. “I think in the coming years, you will have more multicenter data to inform us as to whether to do SLNB or not.”

Surgery may be the mainstay of treatment for resectable SCC, but the emerging role of neoadjuvant therapeutics is changing the way oncologists treat these tumors. For example, in a phase 2 trial recently published in the New England Journal of Medicine, 79 patients with stage II-IV CSCC received up to four doses of immunotherapy with the programmed death receptor–1 (PD-1) blocker cemiplimab administered every 3 weeks. The primary endpoint was a pathologic complete response, defined as the absence of viable tumor cells in the surgical specimen at a central laboratory. The researchers observed that 68% of patients had an objective response.

“These were patients with localized tumors that were either very aggressive or had nodal metastases,” said Dr, Ruiz, who was the site primary investigator at Dana Farber and a coauthor of the NEJM study. “This has altered the way we approach treating our larger tumors that could be resectable but have a lot of disease either locally or in the nodal basin. We think that we can shrink down the tumor and make it easier to resect, but also there is the possibility or improving outcomes.”

At Brigham and Women’s and the Dana Farber, she and her colleagues consider immunotherapy for multiple recurrent tumors that have been previously irradiated; cases of large tumor burden locally or in the nodal basin; tumors that have a complex surgical plan; cases where there is a low likelihood of achieving clear surgical margins; and cases of in-transit disease.

“We use two to four doses of immunotherapy prior to surgery and assess the tumor response after two doses both clinically and radiologically,” she said. “If the tumor continues to grow, we would do surgery sooner.”

The side-effect profile of immunotherapy is another consideration. “Some patients are not appropriate for a neoadjuvant immunotherapy approach, such as transplant patients,” she said.

According to the latest National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines, surgery with or without adjuvant radiation is the current standard of care for treating CSCC. These guidelines were developed without much data to support the use of radiation, but a 20-year retrospective cohort study at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and the Cleveland Clinic Foundation found that adjuvant radiation following margin resection in high T-stage CSCC cut the risk of local and locoregional recurrence in half.

“This is something that radiation oncologists have told us for years, but there was no data to support it, so it was nice to see that borne out in clinical data,” said Dr. Ruiz, the study’s lead author. The 10% risk of local recurrence observed in the study “may not be high enough for some of our older patients, so we wanted to see if we could identify a group of high tumors that had higher risk of local recurrence,” she said. They found that patients who had a greater than 20% risk of poor outcome were those with recurrent tumors, those with tumors 6 cm or greater in size, and those with all four BWH risk factors (tumor diameter ≥ 2 cm, poorly differentiated histology, perineural invasion ≥ 0.1 mm, or tumor invasion beyond fat excluding bone invasion).

“Those risks were also cut in half if you added radiation,” she said. “So, the way I now approach counseling patients is, I try to estimate their baseline risk as best I can based on the tumor itself. I tell them that if they want to do adjuvant radiation it would cut the risk in half. Some patients are too frail and want to pass on it, while others are very interested.”

Of patients who did not receive radiation but had a disease recurrence, just under half of tumors were salvageable, about 25% died of their disease, and 23% had persistent disease. “I think this does support using radiation earlier on for the appropriate patient,” Dr. Ruiz said. “I consider the baseline risks [and] balance that with the patient’s comorbidities.”

Limited data exists on adjuvant immunotherapy for CSCC, but two ongoing randomized prospective clinical trials underway are studying the PD-1 inhibitors cemiplimab and pembrolizumab versus placebo. “We don’t have data yet, but prior to randomization, patients undergo surgery with macroscopic gross resection of all disease,” Dr. Ruiz said. “All tumors receive ART [adjuvant radiation therapy] prior to randomization”

Dr. Ruiz disclosed that she is a consultant for Sanofi, Regeneron, Genentech, and Jaunce Therapeutics. She is also a member of the advisory board for Checkpoint Therapeutics and is an investigator for Merck, Sanofi, and Regeneron.

Latinx individuals have a lower overall risk of melanoma than non-Latinx Whites (NLW), but they are more likely to be diagnosed with advanced disease, and experience greater mortality. A new qualitative study of Latinx and low-income NLW individuals in California has revealed some of the socioeconomic and community factors that may play a role in preventing early access to care.

Thicker melanomas, which are more likely to be lethal, are on the rise in the United States among people with lower socioeconomic status (SES), as well as African Americans and Hispanics, and both Black and Latinx people are more likely than NLW people to present with stage 3 or stage 4 disease. “That has really prompted us to look at community engagement and outreach and then really understand the qualitative aspects that are driving individuals into higher risk for melanoma, apart from just limited insurance and access to health care,” said Susan Swetter, MD, who presented the results of the study at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

Other studies, such as a Boston-area survey published in 2020, suggest that Hispanics are less likely than Whites to know the meaning of the term melanoma (odds ratio, 0.27; P =.0037), suggesting the need for educational efforts. The authors of that study noted that knowledge of melanoma in 2017, when the survey was conducted, remained essentially unchanged since a previous study was published in 1996.

“Our results support a need for better public educational programs, particularly those geared toward minority populations. Educational programs that are culturally relevant and include specific sections for skin of color have been shown to better promote early melanoma detection in individuals of ethnic minorities and may help decrease the ethnic disparities in melanoma-related mortality. At the patient-physician level, dermatologists may educate their patients, including Hispanic patients, should they choose to perform (skin self-examinations) to specifically inspect the extremities and acral areas, given the higher incidence rates of melanoma on those areas in this population,” the authors wrote.

The goal of the new study is to get a better understanding of the factors that affect attitudes toward health care, and the researchers found a complex mixture that including ethnicity, cultural, gender identity, geography, skin color, gender norms, and socioeconomic status (SES). “Qualitative research can inform our preventive and early detection strategies. For instance, in the Latinx group, there’s a lot of mistrust of health systems, medical providers, and who is providing that knowledge. We have to figure out ways to provide a trusted source of information. Doctors and physicians and health providers tend to be trusted, but there are many barriers to getting lower SES patients into care. We’re now investigating the use of community health workers and even individuals in various settings and community centers, religious settings or religious leaders, where we’ve determined through this focus group research that there is increased trust,” Dr. Swetter said.

The researchers assembled 19 focus groups with 176 total adult participants, interviewing them about perceptions of melanoma risk, prevention and screening strategies and their acceptability, and barriers to melanoma prevention and care. The sample include people from urban and semirural areas; 55%-62% of participants self-identified as Latinx or Hispanic and 26%-27% as NLW.

Latinx and semirural participants reported having minimal conversations with family about melanoma prevention, and those who reported having darker skin perceived their risk from skin cancer as lower. Participants who lived in rural areas, were Latinx, or of low SES status indicated that health care access challenges included out-of-pocket costs, past experiences of physicians showing less concern about them, and little confidence that rural physicians had the needed expertise or would make an appropriate referral.

The study is just the first step in a series of efforts to improve melanoma outcomes in high-risk populations, which is being pursued through Stanford University’s Wipe Out Melanoma–California statewide initiative and research consortium. “What we aim to do is use this knowledge to now design programs to reach the populations who are more likely to present with worse disease, and to prevent that disease from happening. These qualitative analyses are few and far between in the world of melanoma, and we’re really happy to really push this envelope and change the way we deliver preventive and early detection efforts,” said Dr. Swetter, who is a professor of dermatology and director of the pigmented lesion/melanoma and cutaneous oncology programs at Stanford (Calif.) University Medical Center. Dr. Swetter also chairs the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines for cutaneous melanoma.

The study could also improve care of advanced melanoma. “There’s clear evidence that many of these patient and SES factors, economic and knowledge barriers are the same when it comes to getting patients with advanced melanoma into appropriate care and on clinical trials, and that’s true across all races and ethnicities,” said Dr. Swetter.

The ultimate goal of these approaches is to give individuals greater “self-efficacy, such that a person feels more competent to manage his or her own health outcomes. One aspect of this approach is the use of novel technology such as smartphone apps that can track moles or help visualize lesions during teledermatology. “I think that the future of melanoma prevention and early detection is bright, especially if we incorporate novel technologies and engage patients and their communities in the effort. It’s a different strategy, as opposed to the top-down approach of physicians imparting knowledge and providing the exam. Increasing community engagement is critical to reaching the populations at highest risk for advanced disease and getting them into care and detection early,” Dr. Swetter said.

Dr. Swetter has no relevant financial disclosures.

Latinx individuals have a lower overall risk of melanoma than non-Latinx Whites (NLW), but they are more likely to be diagnosed with advanced disease, and experience greater mortality. A new qualitative study of Latinx and low-income NLW individuals in California has revealed some of the socioeconomic and community factors that may play a role in preventing early access to care.

Thicker melanomas, which are more likely to be lethal, are on the rise in the United States among people with lower socioeconomic status (SES), as well as African Americans and Hispanics, and both Black and Latinx people are more likely than NLW people to present with stage 3 or stage 4 disease. “That has really prompted us to look at community engagement and outreach and then really understand the qualitative aspects that are driving individuals into higher risk for melanoma, apart from just limited insurance and access to health care,” said Susan Swetter, MD, who presented the results of the study at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

Other studies, such as a Boston-area survey published in 2020, suggest that Hispanics are less likely than Whites to know the meaning of the term melanoma (odds ratio, 0.27; P =.0037), suggesting the need for educational efforts. The authors of that study noted that knowledge of melanoma in 2017, when the survey was conducted, remained essentially unchanged since a previous study was published in 1996.

“Our results support a need for better public educational programs, particularly those geared toward minority populations. Educational programs that are culturally relevant and include specific sections for skin of color have been shown to better promote early melanoma detection in individuals of ethnic minorities and may help decrease the ethnic disparities in melanoma-related mortality. At the patient-physician level, dermatologists may educate their patients, including Hispanic patients, should they choose to perform (skin self-examinations) to specifically inspect the extremities and acral areas, given the higher incidence rates of melanoma on those areas in this population,” the authors wrote.

The goal of the new study is to get a better understanding of the factors that affect attitudes toward health care, and the researchers found a complex mixture that including ethnicity, cultural, gender identity, geography, skin color, gender norms, and socioeconomic status (SES). “Qualitative research can inform our preventive and early detection strategies. For instance, in the Latinx group, there’s a lot of mistrust of health systems, medical providers, and who is providing that knowledge. We have to figure out ways to provide a trusted source of information. Doctors and physicians and health providers tend to be trusted, but there are many barriers to getting lower SES patients into care. We’re now investigating the use of community health workers and even individuals in various settings and community centers, religious settings or religious leaders, where we’ve determined through this focus group research that there is increased trust,” Dr. Swetter said.

The researchers assembled 19 focus groups with 176 total adult participants, interviewing them about perceptions of melanoma risk, prevention and screening strategies and their acceptability, and barriers to melanoma prevention and care. The sample include people from urban and semirural areas; 55%-62% of participants self-identified as Latinx or Hispanic and 26%-27% as NLW.

Latinx and semirural participants reported having minimal conversations with family about melanoma prevention, and those who reported having darker skin perceived their risk from skin cancer as lower. Participants who lived in rural areas, were Latinx, or of low SES status indicated that health care access challenges included out-of-pocket costs, past experiences of physicians showing less concern about them, and little confidence that rural physicians had the needed expertise or would make an appropriate referral.

The study is just the first step in a series of efforts to improve melanoma outcomes in high-risk populations, which is being pursued through Stanford University’s Wipe Out Melanoma–California statewide initiative and research consortium. “What we aim to do is use this knowledge to now design programs to reach the populations who are more likely to present with worse disease, and to prevent that disease from happening. These qualitative analyses are few and far between in the world of melanoma, and we’re really happy to really push this envelope and change the way we deliver preventive and early detection efforts,” said Dr. Swetter, who is a professor of dermatology and director of the pigmented lesion/melanoma and cutaneous oncology programs at Stanford (Calif.) University Medical Center. Dr. Swetter also chairs the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines for cutaneous melanoma.

The study could also improve care of advanced melanoma. “There’s clear evidence that many of these patient and SES factors, economic and knowledge barriers are the same when it comes to getting patients with advanced melanoma into appropriate care and on clinical trials, and that’s true across all races and ethnicities,” said Dr. Swetter.

The ultimate goal of these approaches is to give individuals greater “self-efficacy, such that a person feels more competent to manage his or her own health outcomes. One aspect of this approach is the use of novel technology such as smartphone apps that can track moles or help visualize lesions during teledermatology. “I think that the future of melanoma prevention and early detection is bright, especially if we incorporate novel technologies and engage patients and their communities in the effort. It’s a different strategy, as opposed to the top-down approach of physicians imparting knowledge and providing the exam. Increasing community engagement is critical to reaching the populations at highest risk for advanced disease and getting them into care and detection early,” Dr. Swetter said.

Dr. Swetter has no relevant financial disclosures.

Latinx individuals have a lower overall risk of melanoma than non-Latinx Whites (NLW), but they are more likely to be diagnosed with advanced disease, and experience greater mortality. A new qualitative study of Latinx and low-income NLW individuals in California has revealed some of the socioeconomic and community factors that may play a role in preventing early access to care.

Thicker melanomas, which are more likely to be lethal, are on the rise in the United States among people with lower socioeconomic status (SES), as well as African Americans and Hispanics, and both Black and Latinx people are more likely than NLW people to present with stage 3 or stage 4 disease. “That has really prompted us to look at community engagement and outreach and then really understand the qualitative aspects that are driving individuals into higher risk for melanoma, apart from just limited insurance and access to health care,” said Susan Swetter, MD, who presented the results of the study at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

Other studies, such as a Boston-area survey published in 2020, suggest that Hispanics are less likely than Whites to know the meaning of the term melanoma (odds ratio, 0.27; P =.0037), suggesting the need for educational efforts. The authors of that study noted that knowledge of melanoma in 2017, when the survey was conducted, remained essentially unchanged since a previous study was published in 1996.

“Our results support a need for better public educational programs, particularly those geared toward minority populations. Educational programs that are culturally relevant and include specific sections for skin of color have been shown to better promote early melanoma detection in individuals of ethnic minorities and may help decrease the ethnic disparities in melanoma-related mortality. At the patient-physician level, dermatologists may educate their patients, including Hispanic patients, should they choose to perform (skin self-examinations) to specifically inspect the extremities and acral areas, given the higher incidence rates of melanoma on those areas in this population,” the authors wrote.

The goal of the new study is to get a better understanding of the factors that affect attitudes toward health care, and the researchers found a complex mixture that including ethnicity, cultural, gender identity, geography, skin color, gender norms, and socioeconomic status (SES). “Qualitative research can inform our preventive and early detection strategies. For instance, in the Latinx group, there’s a lot of mistrust of health systems, medical providers, and who is providing that knowledge. We have to figure out ways to provide a trusted source of information. Doctors and physicians and health providers tend to be trusted, but there are many barriers to getting lower SES patients into care. We’re now investigating the use of community health workers and even individuals in various settings and community centers, religious settings or religious leaders, where we’ve determined through this focus group research that there is increased trust,” Dr. Swetter said.

The researchers assembled 19 focus groups with 176 total adult participants, interviewing them about perceptions of melanoma risk, prevention and screening strategies and their acceptability, and barriers to melanoma prevention and care. The sample include people from urban and semirural areas; 55%-62% of participants self-identified as Latinx or Hispanic and 26%-27% as NLW.

Latinx and semirural participants reported having minimal conversations with family about melanoma prevention, and those who reported having darker skin perceived their risk from skin cancer as lower. Participants who lived in rural areas, were Latinx, or of low SES status indicated that health care access challenges included out-of-pocket costs, past experiences of physicians showing less concern about them, and little confidence that rural physicians had the needed expertise or would make an appropriate referral.

The study is just the first step in a series of efforts to improve melanoma outcomes in high-risk populations, which is being pursued through Stanford University’s Wipe Out Melanoma–California statewide initiative and research consortium. “What we aim to do is use this knowledge to now design programs to reach the populations who are more likely to present with worse disease, and to prevent that disease from happening. These qualitative analyses are few and far between in the world of melanoma, and we’re really happy to really push this envelope and change the way we deliver preventive and early detection efforts,” said Dr. Swetter, who is a professor of dermatology and director of the pigmented lesion/melanoma and cutaneous oncology programs at Stanford (Calif.) University Medical Center. Dr. Swetter also chairs the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines for cutaneous melanoma.

The study could also improve care of advanced melanoma. “There’s clear evidence that many of these patient and SES factors, economic and knowledge barriers are the same when it comes to getting patients with advanced melanoma into appropriate care and on clinical trials, and that’s true across all races and ethnicities,” said Dr. Swetter.

The ultimate goal of these approaches is to give individuals greater “self-efficacy, such that a person feels more competent to manage his or her own health outcomes. One aspect of this approach is the use of novel technology such as smartphone apps that can track moles or help visualize lesions during teledermatology. “I think that the future of melanoma prevention and early detection is bright, especially if we incorporate novel technologies and engage patients and their communities in the effort. It’s a different strategy, as opposed to the top-down approach of physicians imparting knowledge and providing the exam. Increasing community engagement is critical to reaching the populations at highest risk for advanced disease and getting them into care and detection early,” Dr. Swetter said.

Dr. Swetter has no relevant financial disclosures.