AVAHO

A 1- or 2-year delay in recommended colorectal cancer (CRC) screenings had little effect on most people’s risk of illness or death from cancer, provided they eventually got screened, according to a modeling study of the impact of pandemic-related screening delays.

Most patients whose screening was delayed still benefited through a reduction in risk of cancer or death, but that benefit was lower than it would have been had they been screened on time, particularly for 65-year-olds who hadn’t ever been screened for CRC.

Extending the upper ages for undergoing screening or substituting fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) for colonoscopies blunted some of this negative effect for 50-year-olds who had never been screened and for previously screened 60-year-olds, but those mitigation strategies weren’t as helpful for never-screened 65-year-olds, report Soham Sinha, MS, of Weill Cornell Medicine, and his colleagues.

Because older patients lose the most benefit from delayed CRC screenings, Mr. Sinha and his colleagues suggest, they should be prioritized when access is reduced.

The findings were published online in Gastroenterology.
 

Modeling the impact of missed screenings

CRC screenings dropped by as much as 82% at the start of the pandemic, Mr. Sinha and his co-authors note, and screening rates haven’t yet recovered as new COVID variants arise.

The researchers therefore sought to evaluate the potential clinical impact of screenings that were missed because of the pandemic on three groups of people who were at average risk of CRC: people who were 50 years old and had never been screened, people who were 65 and had never been screened, and people who had been screened by age 50 but were due for a colonoscopy screening at age 60.

They modeled the incidence and mortality of colorectal cancer for a 1-year and a 2-year delay in screening, compared with on-time screening with a colonoscopy or an annual FIT through age 75, or colonoscopy surveillance through age 80.

Among never-screened 50-year-olds, waiting a year or two to start colonoscopy screening resulted in a 69% reduction in colorectal cancer incidence instead of the 70% reduction that would have occurred with on-time screening. Similarly, the reduction in risk of death from delayed screening was 75% instead of 76% with on-time screening.

A 1- or 2-year delay in starting FIT screening in this group led to a reduction in the benefit of lower risk by one percentage point: Patients had a 57% lower risk of cancer from a 1-year screening delay and a 56% reduction in risk from a 2-year delay, compared with a 58% reduction in risk without any delays. In terms of mortality, benefit fell by one absolute percentage point for each year of delay.
 

Restoring the benefits of screening

The most effective way to mitigate each of those lost percentage points from colonoscopy delays was to combine two rescue strategies: using FIT screening instead of colonoscopy when colonoscopy access was reduced and extending the upper ages of colonoscopy screening to age 76-77 and colonoscopy surveillance to age 81-82.

Solely extending the ages for undergoing screening and surveillance was more effective than solely substituting FIT screening for colonoscopies. To offset the impact of an FIT delay, extending the upper age of the screening or surveillance period was effective.

The negative effect of delayed colonoscopy screenings was greater for never-screened 65-year-olds, whose reduction in risk of developing CRC fell to 53%-54%, rather than the 66% reduction in risk they would have had with on-time screening. The reduction in risk of mortality from CRC was 60% instead of 74% if screenings were delayed instead of occurring on time.

“Starting at age 65 afforded individuals two lifetime colonoscopies, as opposed to one at age 66 or later, given that colorectal screening ended at age 75,” the authors write. “Rescue strategies decreased but did not negate the impact of pandemic-related colorectal screening delays.”

For never-screened 65-year-olds who experienced delays in FIT, undergoing screening 1 year late equated to a 41% reduction in cancer risk, and undergoing screening 2 years late resulted in a 38% reduction, compared with a 44% reduction with on-time FIT screening. The reduction in mortality fell from 60% with on-time screening to 57% with a 1-year delay and 54% with a 2-year delay. Though extending the upper age limited reduced this negative effect, it did not eliminate it.

The researchers found that delaying screening by 1 or 2 years among 60-year-olds who had had a colonoscopy at age 50 only modestly reduced the benefit of reduced risk of CRC or death.

“Rescue strategies mitigated or negated impact from colorectal screening delays and included FIT-based screening when colonoscopy was unavailable, with or without extended screening through ages 75 or 76,” the authors report.

One limitation of the study was its lack of cost-effectiveness calculations, which made it impossible to evaluate the economic implications of either the delays in screening or the proposed mitigation strategies.

“Our work suggests that among the 20% of the U.S. population aged 50-75 who are unscreened for colorectal cancer, older adults would experience the most clinical benefit from colorectal cancer screening if resources were limited during the COVID-19 pandemic,” the authors write.

Younger people who hadn’t yet been screened and those who had been screened at least once with a colonoscopy would not experience as dramatic a reduction in benefit once they underwent screening, they conclude.

One author was supported by the National Cancer Institute. One author has advised Universal Dx and Lean Medical and has consulted for Clinical Genomics, Medtronic, Guardant Health, and Freenome. No other relevant financial relationships have been disclosed.

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

A 1- or 2-year delay in recommended colorectal cancer (CRC) screenings had little effect on most people’s risk of illness or death from cancer, provided they eventually got screened, according to a modeling study of the impact of pandemic-related screening delays.

Most patients whose screening was delayed still benefited through a reduction in risk of cancer or death, but that benefit was lower than it would have been had they been screened on time, particularly for 65-year-olds who hadn’t ever been screened for CRC.

Extending the upper ages for undergoing screening or substituting fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) for colonoscopies blunted some of this negative effect for 50-year-olds who had never been screened and for previously screened 60-year-olds, but those mitigation strategies weren’t as helpful for never-screened 65-year-olds, report Soham Sinha, MS, of Weill Cornell Medicine, and his colleagues.

Because older patients lose the most benefit from delayed CRC screenings, Mr. Sinha and his colleagues suggest, they should be prioritized when access is reduced.

The findings were published online in Gastroenterology.
 

Modeling the impact of missed screenings

CRC screenings dropped by as much as 82% at the start of the pandemic, Mr. Sinha and his co-authors note, and screening rates haven’t yet recovered as new COVID variants arise.

The researchers therefore sought to evaluate the potential clinical impact of screenings that were missed because of the pandemic on three groups of people who were at average risk of CRC: people who were 50 years old and had never been screened, people who were 65 and had never been screened, and people who had been screened by age 50 but were due for a colonoscopy screening at age 60.

They modeled the incidence and mortality of colorectal cancer for a 1-year and a 2-year delay in screening, compared with on-time screening with a colonoscopy or an annual FIT through age 75, or colonoscopy surveillance through age 80.

Among never-screened 50-year-olds, waiting a year or two to start colonoscopy screening resulted in a 69% reduction in colorectal cancer incidence instead of the 70% reduction that would have occurred with on-time screening. Similarly, the reduction in risk of death from delayed screening was 75% instead of 76% with on-time screening.

A 1- or 2-year delay in starting FIT screening in this group led to a reduction in the benefit of lower risk by one percentage point: Patients had a 57% lower risk of cancer from a 1-year screening delay and a 56% reduction in risk from a 2-year delay, compared with a 58% reduction in risk without any delays. In terms of mortality, benefit fell by one absolute percentage point for each year of delay.
 

Restoring the benefits of screening

The most effective way to mitigate each of those lost percentage points from colonoscopy delays was to combine two rescue strategies: using FIT screening instead of colonoscopy when colonoscopy access was reduced and extending the upper ages of colonoscopy screening to age 76-77 and colonoscopy surveillance to age 81-82.

Solely extending the ages for undergoing screening and surveillance was more effective than solely substituting FIT screening for colonoscopies. To offset the impact of an FIT delay, extending the upper age of the screening or surveillance period was effective.

The negative effect of delayed colonoscopy screenings was greater for never-screened 65-year-olds, whose reduction in risk of developing CRC fell to 53%-54%, rather than the 66% reduction in risk they would have had with on-time screening. The reduction in risk of mortality from CRC was 60% instead of 74% if screenings were delayed instead of occurring on time.

“Starting at age 65 afforded individuals two lifetime colonoscopies, as opposed to one at age 66 or later, given that colorectal screening ended at age 75,” the authors write. “Rescue strategies decreased but did not negate the impact of pandemic-related colorectal screening delays.”

For never-screened 65-year-olds who experienced delays in FIT, undergoing screening 1 year late equated to a 41% reduction in cancer risk, and undergoing screening 2 years late resulted in a 38% reduction, compared with a 44% reduction with on-time FIT screening. The reduction in mortality fell from 60% with on-time screening to 57% with a 1-year delay and 54% with a 2-year delay. Though extending the upper age limited reduced this negative effect, it did not eliminate it.

The researchers found that delaying screening by 1 or 2 years among 60-year-olds who had had a colonoscopy at age 50 only modestly reduced the benefit of reduced risk of CRC or death.

“Rescue strategies mitigated or negated impact from colorectal screening delays and included FIT-based screening when colonoscopy was unavailable, with or without extended screening through ages 75 or 76,” the authors report.

One limitation of the study was its lack of cost-effectiveness calculations, which made it impossible to evaluate the economic implications of either the delays in screening or the proposed mitigation strategies.

“Our work suggests that among the 20% of the U.S. population aged 50-75 who are unscreened for colorectal cancer, older adults would experience the most clinical benefit from colorectal cancer screening if resources were limited during the COVID-19 pandemic,” the authors write.

Younger people who hadn’t yet been screened and those who had been screened at least once with a colonoscopy would not experience as dramatic a reduction in benefit once they underwent screening, they conclude.

One author was supported by the National Cancer Institute. One author has advised Universal Dx and Lean Medical and has consulted for Clinical Genomics, Medtronic, Guardant Health, and Freenome. No other relevant financial relationships have been disclosed.

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

A 1- or 2-year delay in recommended colorectal cancer (CRC) screenings had little effect on most people’s risk of illness or death from cancer, provided they eventually got screened, according to a modeling study of the impact of pandemic-related screening delays.

Most patients whose screening was delayed still benefited through a reduction in risk of cancer or death, but that benefit was lower than it would have been had they been screened on time, particularly for 65-year-olds who hadn’t ever been screened for CRC.

Extending the upper ages for undergoing screening or substituting fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) for colonoscopies blunted some of this negative effect for 50-year-olds who had never been screened and for previously screened 60-year-olds, but those mitigation strategies weren’t as helpful for never-screened 65-year-olds, report Soham Sinha, MS, of Weill Cornell Medicine, and his colleagues.

Because older patients lose the most benefit from delayed CRC screenings, Mr. Sinha and his colleagues suggest, they should be prioritized when access is reduced.

The findings were published online in Gastroenterology.
 

Modeling the impact of missed screenings

CRC screenings dropped by as much as 82% at the start of the pandemic, Mr. Sinha and his co-authors note, and screening rates haven’t yet recovered as new COVID variants arise.

The researchers therefore sought to evaluate the potential clinical impact of screenings that were missed because of the pandemic on three groups of people who were at average risk of CRC: people who were 50 years old and had never been screened, people who were 65 and had never been screened, and people who had been screened by age 50 but were due for a colonoscopy screening at age 60.

They modeled the incidence and mortality of colorectal cancer for a 1-year and a 2-year delay in screening, compared with on-time screening with a colonoscopy or an annual FIT through age 75, or colonoscopy surveillance through age 80.

Among never-screened 50-year-olds, waiting a year or two to start colonoscopy screening resulted in a 69% reduction in colorectal cancer incidence instead of the 70% reduction that would have occurred with on-time screening. Similarly, the reduction in risk of death from delayed screening was 75% instead of 76% with on-time screening.

A 1- or 2-year delay in starting FIT screening in this group led to a reduction in the benefit of lower risk by one percentage point: Patients had a 57% lower risk of cancer from a 1-year screening delay and a 56% reduction in risk from a 2-year delay, compared with a 58% reduction in risk without any delays. In terms of mortality, benefit fell by one absolute percentage point for each year of delay.
 

Restoring the benefits of screening

The most effective way to mitigate each of those lost percentage points from colonoscopy delays was to combine two rescue strategies: using FIT screening instead of colonoscopy when colonoscopy access was reduced and extending the upper ages of colonoscopy screening to age 76-77 and colonoscopy surveillance to age 81-82.

Solely extending the ages for undergoing screening and surveillance was more effective than solely substituting FIT screening for colonoscopies. To offset the impact of an FIT delay, extending the upper age of the screening or surveillance period was effective.

The negative effect of delayed colonoscopy screenings was greater for never-screened 65-year-olds, whose reduction in risk of developing CRC fell to 53%-54%, rather than the 66% reduction in risk they would have had with on-time screening. The reduction in risk of mortality from CRC was 60% instead of 74% if screenings were delayed instead of occurring on time.

“Starting at age 65 afforded individuals two lifetime colonoscopies, as opposed to one at age 66 or later, given that colorectal screening ended at age 75,” the authors write. “Rescue strategies decreased but did not negate the impact of pandemic-related colorectal screening delays.”

For never-screened 65-year-olds who experienced delays in FIT, undergoing screening 1 year late equated to a 41% reduction in cancer risk, and undergoing screening 2 years late resulted in a 38% reduction, compared with a 44% reduction with on-time FIT screening. The reduction in mortality fell from 60% with on-time screening to 57% with a 1-year delay and 54% with a 2-year delay. Though extending the upper age limited reduced this negative effect, it did not eliminate it.

The researchers found that delaying screening by 1 or 2 years among 60-year-olds who had had a colonoscopy at age 50 only modestly reduced the benefit of reduced risk of CRC or death.

“Rescue strategies mitigated or negated impact from colorectal screening delays and included FIT-based screening when colonoscopy was unavailable, with or without extended screening through ages 75 or 76,” the authors report.

One limitation of the study was its lack of cost-effectiveness calculations, which made it impossible to evaluate the economic implications of either the delays in screening or the proposed mitigation strategies.

“Our work suggests that among the 20% of the U.S. population aged 50-75 who are unscreened for colorectal cancer, older adults would experience the most clinical benefit from colorectal cancer screening if resources were limited during the COVID-19 pandemic,” the authors write.

Younger people who hadn’t yet been screened and those who had been screened at least once with a colonoscopy would not experience as dramatic a reduction in benefit once they underwent screening, they conclude.

One author was supported by the National Cancer Institute. One author has advised Universal Dx and Lean Medical and has consulted for Clinical Genomics, Medtronic, Guardant Health, and Freenome. No other relevant financial relationships have been disclosed.

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

The past decade has witnessed a rapid expansion of genetic tests, including new instruments to inform patients who have been diagnosed with breast cancer about the risk of recurrence and to guide their treatment.

But the clinical significance of many of the inherited mutations that can now be identified remains unclear, and experts are torn on when and how to deploy all the new tests available. Patients are sometimes left paying out-of-pocket for exams that are not yet the standard of care, and even the most up-to-date oncologists may be uncertain how to incorporate the flood of new information into what used to be standard treatment protocols.

A quarter-century ago, Myriad Genetics introduced the first breast cancer genetic test for BRCA mutations, two genes associated with a substantially elevated risk of getting breast cancer, opening the door to a new era in genetic testing. BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations account for as many as half of all hereditary breast cancers, and people with a problematic mutation on one of those genes have a 45%-72% chance of developing breast cancer during their lifetimes. They may also be at higher risk for ovarian and other cancers than people without harmful BRCA mutations.

But the clinical significance is murkier for many other genetic tests.

Testing for BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes used to cost thousands of dollars. Now, for a fraction of that, doctors can order multigene test panels from commercial labs that look for mutations in dozens of genes. Some direct-to-consumer companies offer screening panels for a few hundred dollars, though their reliability varies.

When Jen Carbary was diagnosed with breast cancer in 2017 at age 44, genetic testing identified a mutation in a gene called PALB2 that significantly increases the risk of developing breast cancer. Guidelines suggest that breast cancer patients with a PALB2 mutation, much like those with BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations, consider having a mastectomy to reduce the chance of a breast cancer recurrence.

“I wish genetic testing was the standard of care,” said Ms. Carbary, who owed nothing for the test because her insurer covered the cost.

Ms. Carbary, who lives in Sterling Heights, Mich., said the test results affirmed the decision she had already made to have a double mastectomy and provided important information for family members, including her 21-year-old daughter and 18-year-old son, who will likely be tested in their mid-20s or early 30s.

But some breast cancer experts are concerned that widespread testing may also identify genetic mutations whose impact is unclear, creating anxiety and leading to further testing and to treatment of questionable value that could raise costs for the health care system.

It can also confuse patients.

“It happens a lot, that patients find their way to us after getting confusing results elsewhere,” said Mark Robson, MD, chief of the breast medicine service at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York. Robson said the cancer center has a clinical genetics service, staffed by doctors and genetic counselors, that helps people make decisions about how to manage genetic testing results.

For people diagnosed with breast cancer, many professional groups, including the influential National Comprehensive Cancer Network, recommend limiting testing to certain people, including those with high-risk factors, such as a family history of breast cancer; those who are 45 or younger when they’re diagnosed; and those with Ashkenazi Jewish ancestry.

But in 2019, the American Society of Breast Surgeons recommended a different approach: Offer genetic testing to all patients who are diagnosed with or have a personal history of breast cancer. The recommendation was controversial.

“The NCCN guidelines [cover] most of the women who needed testing, but we wanted to get them all,” said Eric Manahan, MD, a general surgeon in Dalton, Georgia, and a member of the surgeons group’s board of directors.

Mutations on other genes that are associated with breast cancer are much less common than BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations and generally don’t increase the risk of developing breast cancer as much. The cancer-causing impact of these genes may be less clear than that of the BRCA genes, which have been tested for since the mid-1990s.

And the appropriate response to the less common mutations – whether to consider a risk-reducing mastectomy or stepped-up screening – is often unclear.

“Things get sloppier and sloppier when you look at other genes,” said Steven Katz, MD, MPH, a professor of medicine and health management and policy at the University of Michigan. “The risks tend to be lower for different cancers, and less certain and more variable. You might walk away wondering: ‘Why’d I have to know that?’ ”

After people are diagnosed with breast cancer, genetic testing can help inform their decisions about the types of surgery to pursue – for example, a high risk of recurrence or a new breast cancer might persuade some to opt for more extensive surgery, such as a double mastectomy. Testing can also provide important information to family members about their potential cancer risk.

(This type of “germline” genetic testing, as it’s called, looks at mutations in the genes that people inherit from their parents. It is different from genomic tumor tests that look at specific genes or proteins in the cancer cells and can help doctors understand the rate at which the cancer cells are dividing, for example, and the likelihood of a cancer recurrence.)

Increasingly, germline genetic testing can also help guide other treatment decisions. Some patients with metastatic breast cancer who have BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations may be good candidates for poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors, cancer drugs that target tumors with mutations in those genes.

But genetic testing that uncovers inherited mutations in many other genes yields less clearly actionable information, even though positive results may alarm people.

At Memorial Sloan Kettering, cancer specialists focus on “therapeutic actionability,” said Dr. Robson. Will testing help someone decide whether she should get a double mastectomy or provide other important guidance? “A policy of testing everyone will identify very few additional BRCA breast mutations but will cost a lot.”

As a result, doctors are debating how best to deploy and incorporate new genetic knowledge. Insurers are trying to figure out which to pay for.

There is both underuse of tests that science says are relevant and overuse of tests that experts say provide information that can’t be interpreted with any scientific certainty.

The result may be confusion for patients newly diagnosed with breast cancer as they confront the expense of genetic tests and sometimes little guidance on the proper treatment.

Some doctors say the first step is to make sure that the small group of people who would clearly benefit are getting the genetic tests whose meaning is clearly understood. Only 15% of breast cancer patients who met select NCCN testing guidelines for inherited cancer received genetic testing, according to a 2017 study that examined data from a national household health survey between 2005 and 2015.

“I would argue that our focus needs to be on the people who are at high risk for breast cancer that aren’t even identified yet,” said Tuya Pal, MD, associate director for cancer health disparities at Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center and vice chair of the NCCN guidelines panel for genetic/familial high-risk assessment of breast, ovarian, and pancreatic cancers.

Patients may fall through the cracks because no one tells them they should be tested. In one analysis, 56% of high-risk breast cancer patients who didn’t get genetic testing said their doctors didn’t recommend it.

Even if doctors recommend genetic testing, they may lack the expertise to determine which tests people need and how to interpret the results. That’s the role of genetic counselors, but their ranks are stretched thin.

The consequences can be serious. In a study of 666 breast cancer patients who received genetic testing, half of those at average risk for inherited cancer got double mastectomies based on test results that found “variants of uncertain significance,” which aren’t clinically actionable. As many as half of surgeons reported managing such patients the same way as those with cancer-causing mutations.

“The bulk of our research would say that there is still room for improvement in terms of clinicians getting the understanding they need,” said Allison Kurian, MD, director of the women’s clinical cancer genetics program at Stanford (Calif.) University and a coauthor of the study.

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

The past decade has witnessed a rapid expansion of genetic tests, including new instruments to inform patients who have been diagnosed with breast cancer about the risk of recurrence and to guide their treatment.

But the clinical significance of many of the inherited mutations that can now be identified remains unclear, and experts are torn on when and how to deploy all the new tests available. Patients are sometimes left paying out-of-pocket for exams that are not yet the standard of care, and even the most up-to-date oncologists may be uncertain how to incorporate the flood of new information into what used to be standard treatment protocols.

A quarter-century ago, Myriad Genetics introduced the first breast cancer genetic test for BRCA mutations, two genes associated with a substantially elevated risk of getting breast cancer, opening the door to a new era in genetic testing. BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations account for as many as half of all hereditary breast cancers, and people with a problematic mutation on one of those genes have a 45%-72% chance of developing breast cancer during their lifetimes. They may also be at higher risk for ovarian and other cancers than people without harmful BRCA mutations.

But the clinical significance is murkier for many other genetic tests.

Testing for BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes used to cost thousands of dollars. Now, for a fraction of that, doctors can order multigene test panels from commercial labs that look for mutations in dozens of genes. Some direct-to-consumer companies offer screening panels for a few hundred dollars, though their reliability varies.

When Jen Carbary was diagnosed with breast cancer in 2017 at age 44, genetic testing identified a mutation in a gene called PALB2 that significantly increases the risk of developing breast cancer. Guidelines suggest that breast cancer patients with a PALB2 mutation, much like those with BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations, consider having a mastectomy to reduce the chance of a breast cancer recurrence.

“I wish genetic testing was the standard of care,” said Ms. Carbary, who owed nothing for the test because her insurer covered the cost.

Ms. Carbary, who lives in Sterling Heights, Mich., said the test results affirmed the decision she had already made to have a double mastectomy and provided important information for family members, including her 21-year-old daughter and 18-year-old son, who will likely be tested in their mid-20s or early 30s.

But some breast cancer experts are concerned that widespread testing may also identify genetic mutations whose impact is unclear, creating anxiety and leading to further testing and to treatment of questionable value that could raise costs for the health care system.

It can also confuse patients.

“It happens a lot, that patients find their way to us after getting confusing results elsewhere,” said Mark Robson, MD, chief of the breast medicine service at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York. Robson said the cancer center has a clinical genetics service, staffed by doctors and genetic counselors, that helps people make decisions about how to manage genetic testing results.

For people diagnosed with breast cancer, many professional groups, including the influential National Comprehensive Cancer Network, recommend limiting testing to certain people, including those with high-risk factors, such as a family history of breast cancer; those who are 45 or younger when they’re diagnosed; and those with Ashkenazi Jewish ancestry.

But in 2019, the American Society of Breast Surgeons recommended a different approach: Offer genetic testing to all patients who are diagnosed with or have a personal history of breast cancer. The recommendation was controversial.

“The NCCN guidelines [cover] most of the women who needed testing, but we wanted to get them all,” said Eric Manahan, MD, a general surgeon in Dalton, Georgia, and a member of the surgeons group’s board of directors.

Mutations on other genes that are associated with breast cancer are much less common than BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations and generally don’t increase the risk of developing breast cancer as much. The cancer-causing impact of these genes may be less clear than that of the BRCA genes, which have been tested for since the mid-1990s.

And the appropriate response to the less common mutations – whether to consider a risk-reducing mastectomy or stepped-up screening – is often unclear.

“Things get sloppier and sloppier when you look at other genes,” said Steven Katz, MD, MPH, a professor of medicine and health management and policy at the University of Michigan. “The risks tend to be lower for different cancers, and less certain and more variable. You might walk away wondering: ‘Why’d I have to know that?’ ”

After people are diagnosed with breast cancer, genetic testing can help inform their decisions about the types of surgery to pursue – for example, a high risk of recurrence or a new breast cancer might persuade some to opt for more extensive surgery, such as a double mastectomy. Testing can also provide important information to family members about their potential cancer risk.

(This type of “germline” genetic testing, as it’s called, looks at mutations in the genes that people inherit from their parents. It is different from genomic tumor tests that look at specific genes or proteins in the cancer cells and can help doctors understand the rate at which the cancer cells are dividing, for example, and the likelihood of a cancer recurrence.)

Increasingly, germline genetic testing can also help guide other treatment decisions. Some patients with metastatic breast cancer who have BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations may be good candidates for poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors, cancer drugs that target tumors with mutations in those genes.

But genetic testing that uncovers inherited mutations in many other genes yields less clearly actionable information, even though positive results may alarm people.

At Memorial Sloan Kettering, cancer specialists focus on “therapeutic actionability,” said Dr. Robson. Will testing help someone decide whether she should get a double mastectomy or provide other important guidance? “A policy of testing everyone will identify very few additional BRCA breast mutations but will cost a lot.”

As a result, doctors are debating how best to deploy and incorporate new genetic knowledge. Insurers are trying to figure out which to pay for.

There is both underuse of tests that science says are relevant and overuse of tests that experts say provide information that can’t be interpreted with any scientific certainty.

The result may be confusion for patients newly diagnosed with breast cancer as they confront the expense of genetic tests and sometimes little guidance on the proper treatment.

Some doctors say the first step is to make sure that the small group of people who would clearly benefit are getting the genetic tests whose meaning is clearly understood. Only 15% of breast cancer patients who met select NCCN testing guidelines for inherited cancer received genetic testing, according to a 2017 study that examined data from a national household health survey between 2005 and 2015.

“I would argue that our focus needs to be on the people who are at high risk for breast cancer that aren’t even identified yet,” said Tuya Pal, MD, associate director for cancer health disparities at Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center and vice chair of the NCCN guidelines panel for genetic/familial high-risk assessment of breast, ovarian, and pancreatic cancers.

Patients may fall through the cracks because no one tells them they should be tested. In one analysis, 56% of high-risk breast cancer patients who didn’t get genetic testing said their doctors didn’t recommend it.

Even if doctors recommend genetic testing, they may lack the expertise to determine which tests people need and how to interpret the results. That’s the role of genetic counselors, but their ranks are stretched thin.

The consequences can be serious. In a study of 666 breast cancer patients who received genetic testing, half of those at average risk for inherited cancer got double mastectomies based on test results that found “variants of uncertain significance,” which aren’t clinically actionable. As many as half of surgeons reported managing such patients the same way as those with cancer-causing mutations.

“The bulk of our research would say that there is still room for improvement in terms of clinicians getting the understanding they need,” said Allison Kurian, MD, director of the women’s clinical cancer genetics program at Stanford (Calif.) University and a coauthor of the study.

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

The past decade has witnessed a rapid expansion of genetic tests, including new instruments to inform patients who have been diagnosed with breast cancer about the risk of recurrence and to guide their treatment.

But the clinical significance of many of the inherited mutations that can now be identified remains unclear, and experts are torn on when and how to deploy all the new tests available. Patients are sometimes left paying out-of-pocket for exams that are not yet the standard of care, and even the most up-to-date oncologists may be uncertain how to incorporate the flood of new information into what used to be standard treatment protocols.

A quarter-century ago, Myriad Genetics introduced the first breast cancer genetic test for BRCA mutations, two genes associated with a substantially elevated risk of getting breast cancer, opening the door to a new era in genetic testing. BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations account for as many as half of all hereditary breast cancers, and people with a problematic mutation on one of those genes have a 45%-72% chance of developing breast cancer during their lifetimes. They may also be at higher risk for ovarian and other cancers than people without harmful BRCA mutations.

But the clinical significance is murkier for many other genetic tests.

Testing for BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes used to cost thousands of dollars. Now, for a fraction of that, doctors can order multigene test panels from commercial labs that look for mutations in dozens of genes. Some direct-to-consumer companies offer screening panels for a few hundred dollars, though their reliability varies.

When Jen Carbary was diagnosed with breast cancer in 2017 at age 44, genetic testing identified a mutation in a gene called PALB2 that significantly increases the risk of developing breast cancer. Guidelines suggest that breast cancer patients with a PALB2 mutation, much like those with BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations, consider having a mastectomy to reduce the chance of a breast cancer recurrence.

“I wish genetic testing was the standard of care,” said Ms. Carbary, who owed nothing for the test because her insurer covered the cost.

Ms. Carbary, who lives in Sterling Heights, Mich., said the test results affirmed the decision she had already made to have a double mastectomy and provided important information for family members, including her 21-year-old daughter and 18-year-old son, who will likely be tested in their mid-20s or early 30s.

But some breast cancer experts are concerned that widespread testing may also identify genetic mutations whose impact is unclear, creating anxiety and leading to further testing and to treatment of questionable value that could raise costs for the health care system.

It can also confuse patients.

“It happens a lot, that patients find their way to us after getting confusing results elsewhere,” said Mark Robson, MD, chief of the breast medicine service at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York. Robson said the cancer center has a clinical genetics service, staffed by doctors and genetic counselors, that helps people make decisions about how to manage genetic testing results.

For people diagnosed with breast cancer, many professional groups, including the influential National Comprehensive Cancer Network, recommend limiting testing to certain people, including those with high-risk factors, such as a family history of breast cancer; those who are 45 or younger when they’re diagnosed; and those with Ashkenazi Jewish ancestry.

But in 2019, the American Society of Breast Surgeons recommended a different approach: Offer genetic testing to all patients who are diagnosed with or have a personal history of breast cancer. The recommendation was controversial.

“The NCCN guidelines [cover] most of the women who needed testing, but we wanted to get them all,” said Eric Manahan, MD, a general surgeon in Dalton, Georgia, and a member of the surgeons group’s board of directors.

Mutations on other genes that are associated with breast cancer are much less common than BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations and generally don’t increase the risk of developing breast cancer as much. The cancer-causing impact of these genes may be less clear than that of the BRCA genes, which have been tested for since the mid-1990s.

And the appropriate response to the less common mutations – whether to consider a risk-reducing mastectomy or stepped-up screening – is often unclear.

“Things get sloppier and sloppier when you look at other genes,” said Steven Katz, MD, MPH, a professor of medicine and health management and policy at the University of Michigan. “The risks tend to be lower for different cancers, and less certain and more variable. You might walk away wondering: ‘Why’d I have to know that?’ ”

After people are diagnosed with breast cancer, genetic testing can help inform their decisions about the types of surgery to pursue – for example, a high risk of recurrence or a new breast cancer might persuade some to opt for more extensive surgery, such as a double mastectomy. Testing can also provide important information to family members about their potential cancer risk.

(This type of “germline” genetic testing, as it’s called, looks at mutations in the genes that people inherit from their parents. It is different from genomic tumor tests that look at specific genes or proteins in the cancer cells and can help doctors understand the rate at which the cancer cells are dividing, for example, and the likelihood of a cancer recurrence.)

Increasingly, germline genetic testing can also help guide other treatment decisions. Some patients with metastatic breast cancer who have BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations may be good candidates for poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors, cancer drugs that target tumors with mutations in those genes.

But genetic testing that uncovers inherited mutations in many other genes yields less clearly actionable information, even though positive results may alarm people.

At Memorial Sloan Kettering, cancer specialists focus on “therapeutic actionability,” said Dr. Robson. Will testing help someone decide whether she should get a double mastectomy or provide other important guidance? “A policy of testing everyone will identify very few additional BRCA breast mutations but will cost a lot.”

As a result, doctors are debating how best to deploy and incorporate new genetic knowledge. Insurers are trying to figure out which to pay for.

There is both underuse of tests that science says are relevant and overuse of tests that experts say provide information that can’t be interpreted with any scientific certainty.

The result may be confusion for patients newly diagnosed with breast cancer as they confront the expense of genetic tests and sometimes little guidance on the proper treatment.

Some doctors say the first step is to make sure that the small group of people who would clearly benefit are getting the genetic tests whose meaning is clearly understood. Only 15% of breast cancer patients who met select NCCN testing guidelines for inherited cancer received genetic testing, according to a 2017 study that examined data from a national household health survey between 2005 and 2015.

“I would argue that our focus needs to be on the people who are at high risk for breast cancer that aren’t even identified yet,” said Tuya Pal, MD, associate director for cancer health disparities at Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center and vice chair of the NCCN guidelines panel for genetic/familial high-risk assessment of breast, ovarian, and pancreatic cancers.

Patients may fall through the cracks because no one tells them they should be tested. In one analysis, 56% of high-risk breast cancer patients who didn’t get genetic testing said their doctors didn’t recommend it.

Even if doctors recommend genetic testing, they may lack the expertise to determine which tests people need and how to interpret the results. That’s the role of genetic counselors, but their ranks are stretched thin.

The consequences can be serious. In a study of 666 breast cancer patients who received genetic testing, half of those at average risk for inherited cancer got double mastectomies based on test results that found “variants of uncertain significance,” which aren’t clinically actionable. As many as half of surgeons reported managing such patients the same way as those with cancer-causing mutations.

“The bulk of our research would say that there is still room for improvement in terms of clinicians getting the understanding they need,” said Allison Kurian, MD, director of the women’s clinical cancer genetics program at Stanford (Calif.) University and a coauthor of the study.

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

More than two dozen patient advocacy organizations have raised alarms about a recent court ruling that could threaten patient access to no-cost preventive screenings, including cancer screenings.

In a statement, the groups highlighted that the decision “would result in a return to financial and other barriers proven to discourage Americans from obtaining lifesaving, preventive care.”

The ruling, issued earlier in September by a federal district judge in Texas, essentially says that the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force has no authority to determine which preventive care services must be fully covered by insurance companies – an ability granted by the Affordable Care Act (ACA).

Judge Reed O’Connor ruled that the method of appointing officers to the USPSTF is unconstitutional, which means the task force’s recommendations for no-cost preventive health care may no longer be guaranteed under the ACA for millions of insured Americans.

The judgment, however, is not yet final, and individuals still have access to these preventive services. The judge must first make the scope of the ruling clear, and the decision will likely be appealed. In addition, the decision does not affect the authority of two other entities that make recommendations about vaccinations and preventive care for infants, children, and adolescents.

But experts are concerned that the ruling will force some individuals to pay out of pocket for preventive cancer screenings and other care that would otherwise have been fully covered by insurance.

After the ruling, a group of 26 patient groups, including the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network and the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society, took a stand.

In a statement, the groups highlighted that “access to preventive health care can prevent both disease and early death.” Under the ACA, more than 150 million Americans have benefited from expanded access to these services, and research reveals that high-quality coverage – which includes preventive services – improves health, reduces health disparities, and lowers health care costs. “This ruling directly threatens these benefits,” they explained.

Lisa Lacasse, MBA, president of ACS CAN, agreed that the ruling “threatens to erode more than a decade of progress reducing cancer deaths and suffering.”

In a statement, the ACS CAN urged the government to “swiftly appeal” the decision.

“We cannot risk returning to a system wherein every individual has to interpret their complex insurance plans to determine if a recommended mammogram will be covered or to determine how much their colonoscopy may cost,” Ms. Lacasse told this news organization.

For now, Ms. Lacasse urged patients and providers to remember that no changes to coverage requirements will occur while litigation continues.

“All preventive services required under the Affordable Care Act remain in place with no cost sharing for enrollees,” she said. “ACS CAN will continue to support and advocate for coverage of preventive services at no cost sharing.”

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

More than two dozen patient advocacy organizations have raised alarms about a recent court ruling that could threaten patient access to no-cost preventive screenings, including cancer screenings.

In a statement, the groups highlighted that the decision “would result in a return to financial and other barriers proven to discourage Americans from obtaining lifesaving, preventive care.”

The ruling, issued earlier in September by a federal district judge in Texas, essentially says that the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force has no authority to determine which preventive care services must be fully covered by insurance companies – an ability granted by the Affordable Care Act (ACA).

Judge Reed O’Connor ruled that the method of appointing officers to the USPSTF is unconstitutional, which means the task force’s recommendations for no-cost preventive health care may no longer be guaranteed under the ACA for millions of insured Americans.

The judgment, however, is not yet final, and individuals still have access to these preventive services. The judge must first make the scope of the ruling clear, and the decision will likely be appealed. In addition, the decision does not affect the authority of two other entities that make recommendations about vaccinations and preventive care for infants, children, and adolescents.

But experts are concerned that the ruling will force some individuals to pay out of pocket for preventive cancer screenings and other care that would otherwise have been fully covered by insurance.

After the ruling, a group of 26 patient groups, including the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network and the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society, took a stand.

In a statement, the groups highlighted that “access to preventive health care can prevent both disease and early death.” Under the ACA, more than 150 million Americans have benefited from expanded access to these services, and research reveals that high-quality coverage – which includes preventive services – improves health, reduces health disparities, and lowers health care costs. “This ruling directly threatens these benefits,” they explained.

Lisa Lacasse, MBA, president of ACS CAN, agreed that the ruling “threatens to erode more than a decade of progress reducing cancer deaths and suffering.”

In a statement, the ACS CAN urged the government to “swiftly appeal” the decision.

“We cannot risk returning to a system wherein every individual has to interpret their complex insurance plans to determine if a recommended mammogram will be covered or to determine how much their colonoscopy may cost,” Ms. Lacasse told this news organization.

For now, Ms. Lacasse urged patients and providers to remember that no changes to coverage requirements will occur while litigation continues.

“All preventive services required under the Affordable Care Act remain in place with no cost sharing for enrollees,” she said. “ACS CAN will continue to support and advocate for coverage of preventive services at no cost sharing.”

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

More than two dozen patient advocacy organizations have raised alarms about a recent court ruling that could threaten patient access to no-cost preventive screenings, including cancer screenings.

In a statement, the groups highlighted that the decision “would result in a return to financial and other barriers proven to discourage Americans from obtaining lifesaving, preventive care.”

The ruling, issued earlier in September by a federal district judge in Texas, essentially says that the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force has no authority to determine which preventive care services must be fully covered by insurance companies – an ability granted by the Affordable Care Act (ACA).

Judge Reed O’Connor ruled that the method of appointing officers to the USPSTF is unconstitutional, which means the task force’s recommendations for no-cost preventive health care may no longer be guaranteed under the ACA for millions of insured Americans.

The judgment, however, is not yet final, and individuals still have access to these preventive services. The judge must first make the scope of the ruling clear, and the decision will likely be appealed. In addition, the decision does not affect the authority of two other entities that make recommendations about vaccinations and preventive care for infants, children, and adolescents.

But experts are concerned that the ruling will force some individuals to pay out of pocket for preventive cancer screenings and other care that would otherwise have been fully covered by insurance.

After the ruling, a group of 26 patient groups, including the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network and the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society, took a stand.

In a statement, the groups highlighted that “access to preventive health care can prevent both disease and early death.” Under the ACA, more than 150 million Americans have benefited from expanded access to these services, and research reveals that high-quality coverage – which includes preventive services – improves health, reduces health disparities, and lowers health care costs. “This ruling directly threatens these benefits,” they explained.

Lisa Lacasse, MBA, president of ACS CAN, agreed that the ruling “threatens to erode more than a decade of progress reducing cancer deaths and suffering.”

In a statement, the ACS CAN urged the government to “swiftly appeal” the decision.

“We cannot risk returning to a system wherein every individual has to interpret their complex insurance plans to determine if a recommended mammogram will be covered or to determine how much their colonoscopy may cost,” Ms. Lacasse told this news organization.

For now, Ms. Lacasse urged patients and providers to remember that no changes to coverage requirements will occur while litigation continues.

“All preventive services required under the Affordable Care Act remain in place with no cost sharing for enrollees,” she said. “ACS CAN will continue to support and advocate for coverage of preventive services at no cost sharing.”

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

Researchers have developed a blood test that can detect hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) at an early stage, increasing the likelihood of potentially curative therapy and improved patient prognosis.

HCC accounts for the majority of primary liver cancers and mainly occurs in patients with cirrhosis or chronic hepatitis B virus infection. The prognosis of HCC is poor, largely owing to advanced disease stage at diagnosis.

The current guidelines recommend surveillance with twice-yearly liver ultrasound, with or without serum alpha-fetoprotein, for patients at risk for HCC, although the diagnostic performance is suboptimal.

The new “liquid biopsy” uses HCC-associated extracellular vesicles (EVs) to establish an HCC EV ECG score for distinguishing patients with early-stage HCC from at-risk controls with cirrhosis from a 400-mcL plasma sample.

“We’re the first team looking at extracellular vesicles as a detection biomarker for early-stage liver cancer, and our study showed it had outstanding performance,” study investigator Ju Dong Yang, MD, with Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, said in a news release.

The study was published online in Hepatology.

In a phase 2 biomarker (case-control) study, the investigators tested their blood test in a training cohort of 106 individuals (45 patients with treatment-naive early-stage HCC and 61 with cirrhosis) and an independent validation cohort with 72 participants (35 patients with treatment-naive early-stage HCC and 37 with cirrhosis).

The HCC EV ECG score had “excellent accuracy” for discriminating between HCC and cirrhosis, with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) of 0.95 and 0.93 in the training and validation cohorts, respectively, they report.

The diagnostic performance “remained excellent” among the subpopulations of HCC etiology and those with tumors within the Milan criteria.

Adding the serum alpha-fetoprotein level to the HCC EV ECG score did not improve its performance.

The researchers say that further validation of the blood test in a larger phase 2 study and a subsequent phase 3 study are needed to confirm its utility in clinical settings.

“We are planning on doing larger-scale studies to further validate this test and bring it into routine clinical practice here – and globally,” Dr. Yang said.

“In addition to its excellent performance, this marker has the advantages of being user friendly, cost efficient, and having a fast turnaround time – within 6 hours from sample collection to result,” Dan Theodorescu, MD, PhD, director of Cedars-Sinai Cancer, who is not an author on the study, said in the news release.

“Once this marker has been validated in subsequent studies, it can be easily adopted by existing PCR [polymerase chain reaction] facilities,” Dr. Theodorescu added.

The study was supported by an American College of Gastroenterology Junior Faculty Development Award, a Department of Defense Peer Reviewed Cancer Research Program Career Development Award, and the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Yang provides a consulting service for Exact Sciences, Gilead Sciences, and Eisai. Dr. Theodorescu reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

Researchers have developed a blood test that can detect hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) at an early stage, increasing the likelihood of potentially curative therapy and improved patient prognosis.

HCC accounts for the majority of primary liver cancers and mainly occurs in patients with cirrhosis or chronic hepatitis B virus infection. The prognosis of HCC is poor, largely owing to advanced disease stage at diagnosis.

The current guidelines recommend surveillance with twice-yearly liver ultrasound, with or without serum alpha-fetoprotein, for patients at risk for HCC, although the diagnostic performance is suboptimal.

The new “liquid biopsy” uses HCC-associated extracellular vesicles (EVs) to establish an HCC EV ECG score for distinguishing patients with early-stage HCC from at-risk controls with cirrhosis from a 400-mcL plasma sample.

“We’re the first team looking at extracellular vesicles as a detection biomarker for early-stage liver cancer, and our study showed it had outstanding performance,” study investigator Ju Dong Yang, MD, with Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, said in a news release.

The study was published online in Hepatology.

In a phase 2 biomarker (case-control) study, the investigators tested their blood test in a training cohort of 106 individuals (45 patients with treatment-naive early-stage HCC and 61 with cirrhosis) and an independent validation cohort with 72 participants (35 patients with treatment-naive early-stage HCC and 37 with cirrhosis).

The HCC EV ECG score had “excellent accuracy” for discriminating between HCC and cirrhosis, with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) of 0.95 and 0.93 in the training and validation cohorts, respectively, they report.

The diagnostic performance “remained excellent” among the subpopulations of HCC etiology and those with tumors within the Milan criteria.

Adding the serum alpha-fetoprotein level to the HCC EV ECG score did not improve its performance.

The researchers say that further validation of the blood test in a larger phase 2 study and a subsequent phase 3 study are needed to confirm its utility in clinical settings.

“We are planning on doing larger-scale studies to further validate this test and bring it into routine clinical practice here – and globally,” Dr. Yang said.

“In addition to its excellent performance, this marker has the advantages of being user friendly, cost efficient, and having a fast turnaround time – within 6 hours from sample collection to result,” Dan Theodorescu, MD, PhD, director of Cedars-Sinai Cancer, who is not an author on the study, said in the news release.

“Once this marker has been validated in subsequent studies, it can be easily adopted by existing PCR [polymerase chain reaction] facilities,” Dr. Theodorescu added.

The study was supported by an American College of Gastroenterology Junior Faculty Development Award, a Department of Defense Peer Reviewed Cancer Research Program Career Development Award, and the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Yang provides a consulting service for Exact Sciences, Gilead Sciences, and Eisai. Dr. Theodorescu reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

Researchers have developed a blood test that can detect hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) at an early stage, increasing the likelihood of potentially curative therapy and improved patient prognosis.

HCC accounts for the majority of primary liver cancers and mainly occurs in patients with cirrhosis or chronic hepatitis B virus infection. The prognosis of HCC is poor, largely owing to advanced disease stage at diagnosis.

The current guidelines recommend surveillance with twice-yearly liver ultrasound, with or without serum alpha-fetoprotein, for patients at risk for HCC, although the diagnostic performance is suboptimal.

The new “liquid biopsy” uses HCC-associated extracellular vesicles (EVs) to establish an HCC EV ECG score for distinguishing patients with early-stage HCC from at-risk controls with cirrhosis from a 400-mcL plasma sample.

“We’re the first team looking at extracellular vesicles as a detection biomarker for early-stage liver cancer, and our study showed it had outstanding performance,” study investigator Ju Dong Yang, MD, with Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, said in a news release.

The study was published online in Hepatology.

In a phase 2 biomarker (case-control) study, the investigators tested their blood test in a training cohort of 106 individuals (45 patients with treatment-naive early-stage HCC and 61 with cirrhosis) and an independent validation cohort with 72 participants (35 patients with treatment-naive early-stage HCC and 37 with cirrhosis).

The HCC EV ECG score had “excellent accuracy” for discriminating between HCC and cirrhosis, with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) of 0.95 and 0.93 in the training and validation cohorts, respectively, they report.

The diagnostic performance “remained excellent” among the subpopulations of HCC etiology and those with tumors within the Milan criteria.

Adding the serum alpha-fetoprotein level to the HCC EV ECG score did not improve its performance.

The researchers say that further validation of the blood test in a larger phase 2 study and a subsequent phase 3 study are needed to confirm its utility in clinical settings.

“We are planning on doing larger-scale studies to further validate this test and bring it into routine clinical practice here – and globally,” Dr. Yang said.

“In addition to its excellent performance, this marker has the advantages of being user friendly, cost efficient, and having a fast turnaround time – within 6 hours from sample collection to result,” Dan Theodorescu, MD, PhD, director of Cedars-Sinai Cancer, who is not an author on the study, said in the news release.

“Once this marker has been validated in subsequent studies, it can be easily adopted by existing PCR [polymerase chain reaction] facilities,” Dr. Theodorescu added.

The study was supported by an American College of Gastroenterology Junior Faculty Development Award, a Department of Defense Peer Reviewed Cancer Research Program Career Development Award, and the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Yang provides a consulting service for Exact Sciences, Gilead Sciences, and Eisai. Dr. Theodorescu reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

PARIS – Patients with untreated non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who could not withstand the rigors of platinum-based chemotherapy regimens had significantly better overall survival when treated with the immune checkpoint inhibitor atezolizumab (Tecentriq), compared with their counterparts treated with either vinorelbine or gemcitabine in a phase 3 randomized trial.

Among 353 patients with treatment-naive stage 3B to 4 NSCLC who were not candidates for platinum-based chemotherapy because of poor performance status (PS), advanced age, or significant comorbidities, the median overall survival (OS) was 10.3 months for patients treated with atezolizumab vs. 9.2 months for patients assigned to receive the investigator’s choice of single-agent chemotherapy.

This difference translated into a hazard ratio for death with atezolizumab of 0.78 (P = .028), Siow Ming Lee, MD, PhD, of University College London, reported at the ESMO Congress.

The 2-year OS rate with atezolizumab was 24.3%, compared with 12.4% for single-agent chemotherapy.

“When I saw the data, I was amazed. One of four patients survived for 2 years!” he said in an interview.

Neil Osterweil/MDedge News

Excluded from clinical trials

“Cancer chemotherapy has changed the treatment landscape for the metastatic NSCLC population, but these treatments are mainly recommended for fit patients,” Dr. Lee said during his presentation of the data in a presidential symposium.

First-line pivotal trials for lung cancer patients comparing either single-agent immunotherapy or an immunotherapy/chemotherapy combination have all been conducted in fit patients, with ECOG PS of 0 or 1, he noted.

“In reality, we still have a large population of unfit NSCLC patients, of at least 40%, many of which we cannot treat with standard platinum chemotherapy. There are many elderly patients with poor performance status, and the elderly with many comorbidities, and they are frequently on many drug medications, which we see frequently in our clinic,” he said.
 

Study details

To see whether immunotherapy could improve outcomes for unfit patients, investigators designed the IPSOS trial, a phase 3 multicenter open-label study of efficacy, safety, and patient-reported outcomes with atezolizumab compared with single-agent chemotherapy.

Patients from 23 centers in North America, South America, Europe, and Asia who were ineligible for platinum-based chemotherapy because of ECOG performance status of 2 or 3, or who were aged 70 or older with performance status 0 or 1 but with multiple comorbidities or other contraindications to platinum were stratified by histology, programmed death-ligand-1 (PD-L1) expression, and brain metastases, and were then randomly assigned to receive either atezolizumab 1,200 mg intravenously every 3 weeks (302 patients), or to investigator’s choice of either vinorelbine delivered orally or intravenously, according to local practice, or intravenous gemcitabine given intravenously per local practice (151 patients).

As noted before, overall survival, the primary endpoint, was significantly better with atezolizumab, translating into a 22% reduction in risk of death compared with chemotherapy.

The 1-year OS rates were 43.7% with atezolizumab vs. 36.6% with chemotherapy, and the 2-year rates were 24.3% vs. 12.4%, respectively.

­­A subgroup analysis showed trends toward better benefit for immunotherapy regardless of age, sex, race, performance status, history of tobacco use, tumor histology, stage, presence of liver metastases, number of metastatic sites, or PD-L1 expression levels. The benefit of atezolizumab was also significantly better among patients without brain metastases.

The median duration of response was 14 months with ateziluzmab vs. 7.8 months with chemotherapy. Respective objective response rates were 16.9% vs. 15.5%. Median progression-free survival, a secondary endpoint, was 4.2 months with atezolizumab and 4 months with chemotherapy, a difference that was not statistically significant. Median treatment duration was 3.5 months with atezolizumab, 2.3 months with gemcitabine, and 1.8 months with vinorelbine. Treatment-related adverse events of any grade occurred in 57% of patients on immunotherapy vs. 80.3% of those on chemotherapy. Grade 3 or 4 adverse events related to therapy occurred in 16.3% vs. 33.3%, respectively. About 13% of patients in each arm had an adverse event leading to drug discontinuation. There were three treatment-related deaths among patients on atezolizumab, and four among patients on chemotherapy. Compared with chemotherapy, atezolizumab was associated with stabilizing of health-related quality-of-life domains of functioning, and significant improvement in delaying the time to deterioration of chest pain.
 

Age is not prognostic

“I think it’s important though to remember that in this study there are very distinct populations of patients. Poor performance status and comorbidities are prognostic, but age is not,” Dr. Leighl said in her discussion.

“In terms of current standards, performance status 3 patients are currently recommended to have best supportive care unless a targeted therapy is available for them, and while PS 2 patients have been excluded from checkpoint inhibitor trials, we treat most of these patients the same way. In this study in particular, patients had to be ineligible for platinum doublet therapy, but of course this definition was subjective,” she said.

She also commented that “if we’re now going to treat everyone with atezolizumab, I think the budget impact of this is going to be huge.”

It will be important to identify more clearly those patients aged 80 and older who might benefit from atezolizumab in this setting by better incorporating biomarkers such as PD-L1 levels to determine who can benefit from therapy and who might be spared the necessity of coming into the hospital or clinic for regular intravenous infusions, she added.

The study was supported by F. Hoffman-La Roche. Dr. Lee disclosed research funding from the company to his institution. Dr. Leighl disclosed institutional grant funding and personal fees from Roche and others.

PARIS – Patients with untreated non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who could not withstand the rigors of platinum-based chemotherapy regimens had significantly better overall survival when treated with the immune checkpoint inhibitor atezolizumab (Tecentriq), compared with their counterparts treated with either vinorelbine or gemcitabine in a phase 3 randomized trial.

Among 353 patients with treatment-naive stage 3B to 4 NSCLC who were not candidates for platinum-based chemotherapy because of poor performance status (PS), advanced age, or significant comorbidities, the median overall survival (OS) was 10.3 months for patients treated with atezolizumab vs. 9.2 months for patients assigned to receive the investigator’s choice of single-agent chemotherapy.

This difference translated into a hazard ratio for death with atezolizumab of 0.78 (P = .028), Siow Ming Lee, MD, PhD, of University College London, reported at the ESMO Congress.

The 2-year OS rate with atezolizumab was 24.3%, compared with 12.4% for single-agent chemotherapy.

“When I saw the data, I was amazed. One of four patients survived for 2 years!” he said in an interview.

Neil Osterweil/MDedge News

Excluded from clinical trials

“Cancer chemotherapy has changed the treatment landscape for the metastatic NSCLC population, but these treatments are mainly recommended for fit patients,” Dr. Lee said during his presentation of the data in a presidential symposium.

First-line pivotal trials for lung cancer patients comparing either single-agent immunotherapy or an immunotherapy/chemotherapy combination have all been conducted in fit patients, with ECOG PS of 0 or 1, he noted.

“In reality, we still have a large population of unfit NSCLC patients, of at least 40%, many of which we cannot treat with standard platinum chemotherapy. There are many elderly patients with poor performance status, and the elderly with many comorbidities, and they are frequently on many drug medications, which we see frequently in our clinic,” he said.
 

Study details

To see whether immunotherapy could improve outcomes for unfit patients, investigators designed the IPSOS trial, a phase 3 multicenter open-label study of efficacy, safety, and patient-reported outcomes with atezolizumab compared with single-agent chemotherapy.

Patients from 23 centers in North America, South America, Europe, and Asia who were ineligible for platinum-based chemotherapy because of ECOG performance status of 2 or 3, or who were aged 70 or older with performance status 0 or 1 but with multiple comorbidities or other contraindications to platinum were stratified by histology, programmed death-ligand-1 (PD-L1) expression, and brain metastases, and were then randomly assigned to receive either atezolizumab 1,200 mg intravenously every 3 weeks (302 patients), or to investigator’s choice of either vinorelbine delivered orally or intravenously, according to local practice, or intravenous gemcitabine given intravenously per local practice (151 patients).

As noted before, overall survival, the primary endpoint, was significantly better with atezolizumab, translating into a 22% reduction in risk of death compared with chemotherapy.

The 1-year OS rates were 43.7% with atezolizumab vs. 36.6% with chemotherapy, and the 2-year rates were 24.3% vs. 12.4%, respectively.

­­A subgroup analysis showed trends toward better benefit for immunotherapy regardless of age, sex, race, performance status, history of tobacco use, tumor histology, stage, presence of liver metastases, number of metastatic sites, or PD-L1 expression levels. The benefit of atezolizumab was also significantly better among patients without brain metastases.

The median duration of response was 14 months with ateziluzmab vs. 7.8 months with chemotherapy. Respective objective response rates were 16.9% vs. 15.5%. Median progression-free survival, a secondary endpoint, was 4.2 months with atezolizumab and 4 months with chemotherapy, a difference that was not statistically significant. Median treatment duration was 3.5 months with atezolizumab, 2.3 months with gemcitabine, and 1.8 months with vinorelbine. Treatment-related adverse events of any grade occurred in 57% of patients on immunotherapy vs. 80.3% of those on chemotherapy. Grade 3 or 4 adverse events related to therapy occurred in 16.3% vs. 33.3%, respectively. About 13% of patients in each arm had an adverse event leading to drug discontinuation. There were three treatment-related deaths among patients on atezolizumab, and four among patients on chemotherapy. Compared with chemotherapy, atezolizumab was associated with stabilizing of health-related quality-of-life domains of functioning, and significant improvement in delaying the time to deterioration of chest pain.
 

Age is not prognostic

“I think it’s important though to remember that in this study there are very distinct populations of patients. Poor performance status and comorbidities are prognostic, but age is not,” Dr. Leighl said in her discussion.

“In terms of current standards, performance status 3 patients are currently recommended to have best supportive care unless a targeted therapy is available for them, and while PS 2 patients have been excluded from checkpoint inhibitor trials, we treat most of these patients the same way. In this study in particular, patients had to be ineligible for platinum doublet therapy, but of course this definition was subjective,” she said.

She also commented that “if we’re now going to treat everyone with atezolizumab, I think the budget impact of this is going to be huge.”

It will be important to identify more clearly those patients aged 80 and older who might benefit from atezolizumab in this setting by better incorporating biomarkers such as PD-L1 levels to determine who can benefit from therapy and who might be spared the necessity of coming into the hospital or clinic for regular intravenous infusions, she added.

The study was supported by F. Hoffman-La Roche. Dr. Lee disclosed research funding from the company to his institution. Dr. Leighl disclosed institutional grant funding and personal fees from Roche and others.

PARIS – Patients with untreated non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who could not withstand the rigors of platinum-based chemotherapy regimens had significantly better overall survival when treated with the immune checkpoint inhibitor atezolizumab (Tecentriq), compared with their counterparts treated with either vinorelbine or gemcitabine in a phase 3 randomized trial.

Among 353 patients with treatment-naive stage 3B to 4 NSCLC who were not candidates for platinum-based chemotherapy because of poor performance status (PS), advanced age, or significant comorbidities, the median overall survival (OS) was 10.3 months for patients treated with atezolizumab vs. 9.2 months for patients assigned to receive the investigator’s choice of single-agent chemotherapy.

This difference translated into a hazard ratio for death with atezolizumab of 0.78 (P = .028), Siow Ming Lee, MD, PhD, of University College London, reported at the ESMO Congress.

The 2-year OS rate with atezolizumab was 24.3%, compared with 12.4% for single-agent chemotherapy.

“When I saw the data, I was amazed. One of four patients survived for 2 years!” he said in an interview.

Neil Osterweil/MDedge News

Excluded from clinical trials

“Cancer chemotherapy has changed the treatment landscape for the metastatic NSCLC population, but these treatments are mainly recommended for fit patients,” Dr. Lee said during his presentation of the data in a presidential symposium.

First-line pivotal trials for lung cancer patients comparing either single-agent immunotherapy or an immunotherapy/chemotherapy combination have all been conducted in fit patients, with ECOG PS of 0 or 1, he noted.

“In reality, we still have a large population of unfit NSCLC patients, of at least 40%, many of which we cannot treat with standard platinum chemotherapy. There are many elderly patients with poor performance status, and the elderly with many comorbidities, and they are frequently on many drug medications, which we see frequently in our clinic,” he said.
 

Study details

To see whether immunotherapy could improve outcomes for unfit patients, investigators designed the IPSOS trial, a phase 3 multicenter open-label study of efficacy, safety, and patient-reported outcomes with atezolizumab compared with single-agent chemotherapy.

Patients from 23 centers in North America, South America, Europe, and Asia who were ineligible for platinum-based chemotherapy because of ECOG performance status of 2 or 3, or who were aged 70 or older with performance status 0 or 1 but with multiple comorbidities or other contraindications to platinum were stratified by histology, programmed death-ligand-1 (PD-L1) expression, and brain metastases, and were then randomly assigned to receive either atezolizumab 1,200 mg intravenously every 3 weeks (302 patients), or to investigator’s choice of either vinorelbine delivered orally or intravenously, according to local practice, or intravenous gemcitabine given intravenously per local practice (151 patients).

As noted before, overall survival, the primary endpoint, was significantly better with atezolizumab, translating into a 22% reduction in risk of death compared with chemotherapy.

The 1-year OS rates were 43.7% with atezolizumab vs. 36.6% with chemotherapy, and the 2-year rates were 24.3% vs. 12.4%, respectively.

­­A subgroup analysis showed trends toward better benefit for immunotherapy regardless of age, sex, race, performance status, history of tobacco use, tumor histology, stage, presence of liver metastases, number of metastatic sites, or PD-L1 expression levels. The benefit of atezolizumab was also significantly better among patients without brain metastases.

The median duration of response was 14 months with ateziluzmab vs. 7.8 months with chemotherapy. Respective objective response rates were 16.9% vs. 15.5%. Median progression-free survival, a secondary endpoint, was 4.2 months with atezolizumab and 4 months with chemotherapy, a difference that was not statistically significant. Median treatment duration was 3.5 months with atezolizumab, 2.3 months with gemcitabine, and 1.8 months with vinorelbine. Treatment-related adverse events of any grade occurred in 57% of patients on immunotherapy vs. 80.3% of those on chemotherapy. Grade 3 or 4 adverse events related to therapy occurred in 16.3% vs. 33.3%, respectively. About 13% of patients in each arm had an adverse event leading to drug discontinuation. There were three treatment-related deaths among patients on atezolizumab, and four among patients on chemotherapy. Compared with chemotherapy, atezolizumab was associated with stabilizing of health-related quality-of-life domains of functioning, and significant improvement in delaying the time to deterioration of chest pain.
 

Age is not prognostic

“I think it’s important though to remember that in this study there are very distinct populations of patients. Poor performance status and comorbidities are prognostic, but age is not,” Dr. Leighl said in her discussion.

“In terms of current standards, performance status 3 patients are currently recommended to have best supportive care unless a targeted therapy is available for them, and while PS 2 patients have been excluded from checkpoint inhibitor trials, we treat most of these patients the same way. In this study in particular, patients had to be ineligible for platinum doublet therapy, but of course this definition was subjective,” she said.

She also commented that “if we’re now going to treat everyone with atezolizumab, I think the budget impact of this is going to be huge.”

It will be important to identify more clearly those patients aged 80 and older who might benefit from atezolizumab in this setting by better incorporating biomarkers such as PD-L1 levels to determine who can benefit from therapy and who might be spared the necessity of coming into the hospital or clinic for regular intravenous infusions, she added.

The study was supported by F. Hoffman-La Roche. Dr. Lee disclosed research funding from the company to his institution. Dr. Leighl disclosed institutional grant funding and personal fees from Roche and others.

PARIS – If results of phase 3, randomized clinical trials are the gold standard for cancer drug approvals, then single-arm trials are at best a bronze or even brass standard, with results that should only be used, under certain conditions, for accelerated approvals that should then be followed by confirmatory studies.

In fact, many drugs approved over the last decade based solely on data from single-arm trials have been subsequently withdrawn when put through the rigors of a head-to-head randomized controlled trial, according to Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, from the department of oncology at Queen’s University, Kingston, Ont.

“Single-arm trials are not meant to provide confirmatory evidence sufficient for approval; However, that ship has sailed, and we have several drugs that are approved on the basis of single-arm trials, but we need to make sure that those approvals are accelerated or conditional approvals, not regular approval,” he said in a presentation included in a special session on drug approvals at the European Society for Medical Oncology Congress.

“We should not allow premature regular approval based on single-arm trials, because once a drug gets conditional approval, access is not an issue. Patients will have access to the drug anyway, but we should ensure that robust evidence follows, and long-term follow-up data are needed to develop confidence in the efficacy outcomes that are seen in single-arm trials,” he said.

In many cases, single-arm trials are large enough or of long enough duration that investigators could have reasonably performed a randomized controlled trial (RCT) in the first place, Dr. Gyawali added.
 

Why do single-arm trials?

The term “single-arm registration trial” is something of an oxymoron, he said, noting that the purpose of such trials should be whether to take the drug to a phase 3, randomized trial. But as authors of a 2019 study in JAMA Network Open showed, of a sample of phase 3 RCTs, 42% did not have a prior phase 2 trial, and 28% had a negative phase 2 trial. Single-arm trials may be acceptable for conditional drug approvals if all of the following conditions are met:

• A RCT is not possible because the disease is rare or randomization would be unethical.
• The safety of the drug is established and its potential benefits outweigh its risks.
• The drug is associated with a high and durable overall or objective response rate.
• The mechanism of action is supported by a strong scientific rationale, and if the drug may meet an unmet medical need.

Survival endpoints won’t do

Efficacy endpoints typically used in RCTs, such as progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) can be misleading because they may be a result of the natural history of the disease and not the drug being tested, whereas ORRs are almost certainly reflective of the action of the drug itself, because spontaneous tumor regression is a rare phenomenon, Dr. Gyawali said.

He cautioned, however, that the ORR of placebo is not zero percent. For example in a 2018 study of sorafenib (Nexavar) versus placebo for advanced or refractory desmoid tumors, the ORR with the active drug was 33%, and the ORR for placebo was 20%.

It’s also open to question, he said, what constitutes an acceptably high ORR and duration of response, pointing to Food and Drug Administration accelerated approval of an indication for nivolumab (Opdivo) for treatment of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) that had progressed on sorafenib. In the single-arm trial used as the basis for approval, the ORRs as assessed by an independent central review committee blinded to the results was 14.3%.

“So, nivolumab in hepatocellular cancer was approved on the basis of a response rate lower than that of placebo, albeit in a different tumor. But the point I’m trying to show here is we don’t have a good definition of what is a good response rate,” he said.

In July 2021, Bristol-Myers Squibb voluntarily withdrew the HCC indication for nivolumab, following negative results of the CheckMate 459 trial and a 5-4 vote against continuing the accelerated approval.
 

On second thought ...

Citing data compiled by Nathan I. Cherny, MD, from Shaare Zedek Medical Center, Jerusalem, Dr. Gyawali noted that 58 of 161 FDA approvals from 2017 to 2021 of drugs for adult solid tumors were based on single-arm trials. Of the 58 drugs, 39 received accelerated approvals, and 19 received regular approvals; of the 39 that received accelerated approvals, 4 were subsequently withdrawn, 8 were converted to regular approvals, and the remainder continued as accelerated approvals.

Interestingly, the median response rate among all the drugs was 40%, and did not differ between the type of approval received, suggesting that response rates are not predictive of whether a drug will receive a conditional or full-fledged go-ahead.
 

What’s rare and safe?

The definition of a rare disease in the United States is one that affects fewer than 40,000 per year, and in Europe it’s an incidence rate of less than 6 per 100,000 population, Dr. Gyawali noted. But he argued that even non–small cell lung cancer, the most common form of cancer in the world, could be considered rare if it is broken down into subtypes that are treated according to specific mutations that may occur in a relatively small number of patients.

He also noted that a specific drug’s safety, one of the most important criteria for granting approval to a drug based on a single-arm trial, can be difficult to judge without adequate controls for comparison.
 

Cherry-picking patients

Winette van der Graaf, MD, president of the European Organization for the Research and Treatment of Cancer, who attended the session where Dr. Gyawali’s presentation was played, said in an interview that clinicians should cast a critical eye on how trials are designed and conducted, including patient selection and choice of endpoints.

“One of the most obvious things to be concerned about is that we’re still having patients with good performance status enrolled, mostly PS 0 or 1, so how representative are these clinical trials for the patients we see in front of us on a daily basis?” she said.

“The other question is radiological endpoints, which we focus on with OS and PFS are most important for patients, especially if you consider that if patients may have asymptomatic disease, and we are only treating them with potentially toxic medication, what are we doing for them? Median overall survival when you look at all of these trials is only 4 months, so we really need to take into account how we affect patients in clinical trials,” she added.

Dr. van der Graaf emphasized that clinical trial investigators need to more routinely incorporate quality of life measures and other patient-reported outcomes in clinical trial results to help regulators and clinicians in practice get a better sense of the true clinical benefit of a new drug.

Dr. Gyawali did not disclose a funding source for his presentation. He reported consulting fees from Vivio Health and research grants from the American Society of Clinical Oncology. Dr. van der Graaf reported no conflicts of interest.

PARIS – If results of phase 3, randomized clinical trials are the gold standard for cancer drug approvals, then single-arm trials are at best a bronze or even brass standard, with results that should only be used, under certain conditions, for accelerated approvals that should then be followed by confirmatory studies.

In fact, many drugs approved over the last decade based solely on data from single-arm trials have been subsequently withdrawn when put through the rigors of a head-to-head randomized controlled trial, according to Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, from the department of oncology at Queen’s University, Kingston, Ont.

“Single-arm trials are not meant to provide confirmatory evidence sufficient for approval; However, that ship has sailed, and we have several drugs that are approved on the basis of single-arm trials, but we need to make sure that those approvals are accelerated or conditional approvals, not regular approval,” he said in a presentation included in a special session on drug approvals at the European Society for Medical Oncology Congress.

“We should not allow premature regular approval based on single-arm trials, because once a drug gets conditional approval, access is not an issue. Patients will have access to the drug anyway, but we should ensure that robust evidence follows, and long-term follow-up data are needed to develop confidence in the efficacy outcomes that are seen in single-arm trials,” he said.

In many cases, single-arm trials are large enough or of long enough duration that investigators could have reasonably performed a randomized controlled trial (RCT) in the first place, Dr. Gyawali added.
 

Why do single-arm trials?

The term “single-arm registration trial” is something of an oxymoron, he said, noting that the purpose of such trials should be whether to take the drug to a phase 3, randomized trial. But as authors of a 2019 study in JAMA Network Open showed, of a sample of phase 3 RCTs, 42% did not have a prior phase 2 trial, and 28% had a negative phase 2 trial. Single-arm trials may be acceptable for conditional drug approvals if all of the following conditions are met:

• A RCT is not possible because the disease is rare or randomization would be unethical.
• The safety of the drug is established and its potential benefits outweigh its risks.
• The drug is associated with a high and durable overall or objective response rate.
• The mechanism of action is supported by a strong scientific rationale, and if the drug may meet an unmet medical need.

Survival endpoints won’t do

Efficacy endpoints typically used in RCTs, such as progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) can be misleading because they may be a result of the natural history of the disease and not the drug being tested, whereas ORRs are almost certainly reflective of the action of the drug itself, because spontaneous tumor regression is a rare phenomenon, Dr. Gyawali said.

He cautioned, however, that the ORR of placebo is not zero percent. For example in a 2018 study of sorafenib (Nexavar) versus placebo for advanced or refractory desmoid tumors, the ORR with the active drug was 33%, and the ORR for placebo was 20%.

It’s also open to question, he said, what constitutes an acceptably high ORR and duration of response, pointing to Food and Drug Administration accelerated approval of an indication for nivolumab (Opdivo) for treatment of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) that had progressed on sorafenib. In the single-arm trial used as the basis for approval, the ORRs as assessed by an independent central review committee blinded to the results was 14.3%.

“So, nivolumab in hepatocellular cancer was approved on the basis of a response rate lower than that of placebo, albeit in a different tumor. But the point I’m trying to show here is we don’t have a good definition of what is a good response rate,” he said.

In July 2021, Bristol-Myers Squibb voluntarily withdrew the HCC indication for nivolumab, following negative results of the CheckMate 459 trial and a 5-4 vote against continuing the accelerated approval.
 

On second thought ...

Citing data compiled by Nathan I. Cherny, MD, from Shaare Zedek Medical Center, Jerusalem, Dr. Gyawali noted that 58 of 161 FDA approvals from 2017 to 2021 of drugs for adult solid tumors were based on single-arm trials. Of the 58 drugs, 39 received accelerated approvals, and 19 received regular approvals; of the 39 that received accelerated approvals, 4 were subsequently withdrawn, 8 were converted to regular approvals, and the remainder continued as accelerated approvals.

Interestingly, the median response rate among all the drugs was 40%, and did not differ between the type of approval received, suggesting that response rates are not predictive of whether a drug will receive a conditional or full-fledged go-ahead.
 

What’s rare and safe?

The definition of a rare disease in the United States is one that affects fewer than 40,000 per year, and in Europe it’s an incidence rate of less than 6 per 100,000 population, Dr. Gyawali noted. But he argued that even non–small cell lung cancer, the most common form of cancer in the world, could be considered rare if it is broken down into subtypes that are treated according to specific mutations that may occur in a relatively small number of patients.

He also noted that a specific drug’s safety, one of the most important criteria for granting approval to a drug based on a single-arm trial, can be difficult to judge without adequate controls for comparison.
 

Cherry-picking patients

Winette van der Graaf, MD, president of the European Organization for the Research and Treatment of Cancer, who attended the session where Dr. Gyawali’s presentation was played, said in an interview that clinicians should cast a critical eye on how trials are designed and conducted, including patient selection and choice of endpoints.

“One of the most obvious things to be concerned about is that we’re still having patients with good performance status enrolled, mostly PS 0 or 1, so how representative are these clinical trials for the patients we see in front of us on a daily basis?” she said.

“The other question is radiological endpoints, which we focus on with OS and PFS are most important for patients, especially if you consider that if patients may have asymptomatic disease, and we are only treating them with potentially toxic medication, what are we doing for them? Median overall survival when you look at all of these trials is only 4 months, so we really need to take into account how we affect patients in clinical trials,” she added.

Dr. van der Graaf emphasized that clinical trial investigators need to more routinely incorporate quality of life measures and other patient-reported outcomes in clinical trial results to help regulators and clinicians in practice get a better sense of the true clinical benefit of a new drug.

Dr. Gyawali did not disclose a funding source for his presentation. He reported consulting fees from Vivio Health and research grants from the American Society of Clinical Oncology. Dr. van der Graaf reported no conflicts of interest.

PARIS – If results of phase 3, randomized clinical trials are the gold standard for cancer drug approvals, then single-arm trials are at best a bronze or even brass standard, with results that should only be used, under certain conditions, for accelerated approvals that should then be followed by confirmatory studies.

In fact, many drugs approved over the last decade based solely on data from single-arm trials have been subsequently withdrawn when put through the rigors of a head-to-head randomized controlled trial, according to Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, from the department of oncology at Queen’s University, Kingston, Ont.

“Single-arm trials are not meant to provide confirmatory evidence sufficient for approval; However, that ship has sailed, and we have several drugs that are approved on the basis of single-arm trials, but we need to make sure that those approvals are accelerated or conditional approvals, not regular approval,” he said in a presentation included in a special session on drug approvals at the European Society for Medical Oncology Congress.

“We should not allow premature regular approval based on single-arm trials, because once a drug gets conditional approval, access is not an issue. Patients will have access to the drug anyway, but we should ensure that robust evidence follows, and long-term follow-up data are needed to develop confidence in the efficacy outcomes that are seen in single-arm trials,” he said.

In many cases, single-arm trials are large enough or of long enough duration that investigators could have reasonably performed a randomized controlled trial (RCT) in the first place, Dr. Gyawali added.
 

Why do single-arm trials?

The term “single-arm registration trial” is something of an oxymoron, he said, noting that the purpose of such trials should be whether to take the drug to a phase 3, randomized trial. But as authors of a 2019 study in JAMA Network Open showed, of a sample of phase 3 RCTs, 42% did not have a prior phase 2 trial, and 28% had a negative phase 2 trial. Single-arm trials may be acceptable for conditional drug approvals if all of the following conditions are met:

• A RCT is not possible because the disease is rare or randomization would be unethical.
• The safety of the drug is established and its potential benefits outweigh its risks.
• The drug is associated with a high and durable overall or objective response rate.
• The mechanism of action is supported by a strong scientific rationale, and if the drug may meet an unmet medical need.

Survival endpoints won’t do

Efficacy endpoints typically used in RCTs, such as progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) can be misleading because they may be a result of the natural history of the disease and not the drug being tested, whereas ORRs are almost certainly reflective of the action of the drug itself, because spontaneous tumor regression is a rare phenomenon, Dr. Gyawali said.

He cautioned, however, that the ORR of placebo is not zero percent. For example in a 2018 study of sorafenib (Nexavar) versus placebo for advanced or refractory desmoid tumors, the ORR with the active drug was 33%, and the ORR for placebo was 20%.

It’s also open to question, he said, what constitutes an acceptably high ORR and duration of response, pointing to Food and Drug Administration accelerated approval of an indication for nivolumab (Opdivo) for treatment of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) that had progressed on sorafenib. In the single-arm trial used as the basis for approval, the ORRs as assessed by an independent central review committee blinded to the results was 14.3%.

“So, nivolumab in hepatocellular cancer was approved on the basis of a response rate lower than that of placebo, albeit in a different tumor. But the point I’m trying to show here is we don’t have a good definition of what is a good response rate,” he said.

In July 2021, Bristol-Myers Squibb voluntarily withdrew the HCC indication for nivolumab, following negative results of the CheckMate 459 trial and a 5-4 vote against continuing the accelerated approval.
 

On second thought ...

Citing data compiled by Nathan I. Cherny, MD, from Shaare Zedek Medical Center, Jerusalem, Dr. Gyawali noted that 58 of 161 FDA approvals from 2017 to 2021 of drugs for adult solid tumors were based on single-arm trials. Of the 58 drugs, 39 received accelerated approvals, and 19 received regular approvals; of the 39 that received accelerated approvals, 4 were subsequently withdrawn, 8 were converted to regular approvals, and the remainder continued as accelerated approvals.

Interestingly, the median response rate among all the drugs was 40%, and did not differ between the type of approval received, suggesting that response rates are not predictive of whether a drug will receive a conditional or full-fledged go-ahead.
 

What’s rare and safe?

The definition of a rare disease in the United States is one that affects fewer than 40,000 per year, and in Europe it’s an incidence rate of less than 6 per 100,000 population, Dr. Gyawali noted. But he argued that even non–small cell lung cancer, the most common form of cancer in the world, could be considered rare if it is broken down into subtypes that are treated according to specific mutations that may occur in a relatively small number of patients.

He also noted that a specific drug’s safety, one of the most important criteria for granting approval to a drug based on a single-arm trial, can be difficult to judge without adequate controls for comparison.
 

Cherry-picking patients

Winette van der Graaf, MD, president of the European Organization for the Research and Treatment of Cancer, who attended the session where Dr. Gyawali’s presentation was played, said in an interview that clinicians should cast a critical eye on how trials are designed and conducted, including patient selection and choice of endpoints.

“One of the most obvious things to be concerned about is that we’re still having patients with good performance status enrolled, mostly PS 0 or 1, so how representative are these clinical trials for the patients we see in front of us on a daily basis?” she said.

“The other question is radiological endpoints, which we focus on with OS and PFS are most important for patients, especially if you consider that if patients may have asymptomatic disease, and we are only treating them with potentially toxic medication, what are we doing for them? Median overall survival when you look at all of these trials is only 4 months, so we really need to take into account how we affect patients in clinical trials,” she added.

Dr. van der Graaf emphasized that clinical trial investigators need to more routinely incorporate quality of life measures and other patient-reported outcomes in clinical trial results to help regulators and clinicians in practice get a better sense of the true clinical benefit of a new drug.

Dr. Gyawali did not disclose a funding source for his presentation. He reported consulting fees from Vivio Health and research grants from the American Society of Clinical Oncology. Dr. van der Graaf reported no conflicts of interest.

There’s big buzz about the hot prospects for blood tests designed to detect multiple kinds of cancer. President Biden highlighted them in a speech about the Cancer Moonshot program on Sept. 12, just a day after study results touted an experimental test’s ability to detect dozens of kinds of cancer. Meanwhile, the federal government is heralding an upcoming trial that will eventually enroll as many as 225,000 subjects.

There are plenty of reasons to be cautious, however. While the future looks promising, experts say that much more research is needed into multicancer early-detection assays. And if these tests become standard, the oncology field will need to figure out how to navigate a thicket of new challenges.

“Our friends in internal medicine and primary care will be looking to us for guidance. We need to make sure that we’re coming at this without too much optimism before we really have the data,” said Jyoti D. Patel, MD, medical director of thoracic oncology and assistant director for clinical research at the Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center of Northwestern University, Chicago.

Dr. Patel is a member of the communications workgroup of the Multicancer Early Detection Consortium, a nonprofit, public-private organization that’s providing insight and guidance into the development of screening tests. The consortium published a position paper earlier this year.

According to Dr. Patel, early cancer screening today can detect only five types of cancer: prostate, breast, lung, cervical, and colon. The Cancer Moonshot program has prioritized research into greatly expanding this number. President Biden referred to this goal in his Sept. 12 speech: “Imagine a simple blood test during an annual physical that could detect cancer early, where the chances of a cure are best.”

Biden said the National Cancer Institute is launching a major trial as part of the Cancer Moonshot program. The Vanguard Study on Multi-Cancer Detection plans to enlist 25,000 healthy women and men between 45 and 70 years old in 2024, then later enroll as many as 225,000 people.

Meanwhile, researchers reported on Sept. 11 that the Galleri multicancer detection blood test found positive cancer signals in 1.4% of 6,621 healthy subjects, and cancer was ultimately confirmed in 38% of those in that group. Nineteen solid tumors and 17 hematologic cancers were diagnosed; 26 of these were cancer types that don’t have routine screening available.

The Galleri test is widely available in the United States, although the $950 cost is not covered by insurance.

While the data is exciting, the high false-positive rate is worrisome, Dr. Patel said. “Are there ways that we can further define that by cancer-risk assessment or by having better captures in our technology that reflect RNA methylation or epigenetic changes that may lead to susceptibility to cancers?”
 

Additional research is essential

Ernest Hawk, MD, vice president and division head of cancer prevention and population sciences at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, said it’s “absolutely essential” that research into screening tests clearly demonstrates improved patient outcomes over time.

“We need to have much longer follow-up of all participants – whether the screening results are positive or negative – and mitigate the potential risks of such testing,” said Dr. Hawk, who’s worked with the Multicancer Early Detection Consortium.

On another front, Northwestern University’s Dr. Patel highlighted that while easy-to-access cancer screening could create tremendous opportunities to treat early cancer and shrink disparities in care, it may produce “an onslaught of patients with early-stage disease. Do we have the workforce to help us?” Also, she said, “if we find a patient with early-stage disease, how are we going to risk-stratify their follow-up and adjuvant therapy? Are there ways to prognosticate with more granularity than we do now?”

What’s next? “Multicancer early-detection tests could truly revolutionize cancer care if they work as we hope they will, but only time, extensive participation in research, and hard work will prove whether that is true or not,” said MD Anderson’s Dr. Hawk. “I anticipate that we’ll have reasonable answers within the next decade, given the pace of existing company-sponsored research and NCI’s planned involvement in testing various technologies available.”

For her part, Dr. Patel said oncologists should be aware that multicancer screening tests are available and be ready to address questions about them. “Think about how you can advise patients in the absence of data,” she said.

Dr. Patel and Dr. Hawk have no relevant disclosures.

There’s big buzz about the hot prospects for blood tests designed to detect multiple kinds of cancer. President Biden highlighted them in a speech about the Cancer Moonshot program on Sept. 12, just a day after study results touted an experimental test’s ability to detect dozens of kinds of cancer. Meanwhile, the federal government is heralding an upcoming trial that will eventually enroll as many as 225,000 subjects.

There are plenty of reasons to be cautious, however. While the future looks promising, experts say that much more research is needed into multicancer early-detection assays. And if these tests become standard, the oncology field will need to figure out how to navigate a thicket of new challenges.

“Our friends in internal medicine and primary care will be looking to us for guidance. We need to make sure that we’re coming at this without too much optimism before we really have the data,” said Jyoti D. Patel, MD, medical director of thoracic oncology and assistant director for clinical research at the Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center of Northwestern University, Chicago.

Dr. Patel is a member of the communications workgroup of the Multicancer Early Detection Consortium, a nonprofit, public-private organization that’s providing insight and guidance into the development of screening tests. The consortium published a position paper earlier this year.

According to Dr. Patel, early cancer screening today can detect only five types of cancer: prostate, breast, lung, cervical, and colon. The Cancer Moonshot program has prioritized research into greatly expanding this number. President Biden referred to this goal in his Sept. 12 speech: “Imagine a simple blood test during an annual physical that could detect cancer early, where the chances of a cure are best.”

Biden said the National Cancer Institute is launching a major trial as part of the Cancer Moonshot program. The Vanguard Study on Multi-Cancer Detection plans to enlist 25,000 healthy women and men between 45 and 70 years old in 2024, then later enroll as many as 225,000 people.

Meanwhile, researchers reported on Sept. 11 that the Galleri multicancer detection blood test found positive cancer signals in 1.4% of 6,621 healthy subjects, and cancer was ultimately confirmed in 38% of those in that group. Nineteen solid tumors and 17 hematologic cancers were diagnosed; 26 of these were cancer types that don’t have routine screening available.

The Galleri test is widely available in the United States, although the $950 cost is not covered by insurance.

While the data is exciting, the high false-positive rate is worrisome, Dr. Patel said. “Are there ways that we can further define that by cancer-risk assessment or by having better captures in our technology that reflect RNA methylation or epigenetic changes that may lead to susceptibility to cancers?”
 

Additional research is essential

Ernest Hawk, MD, vice president and division head of cancer prevention and population sciences at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, said it’s “absolutely essential” that research into screening tests clearly demonstrates improved patient outcomes over time.

“We need to have much longer follow-up of all participants – whether the screening results are positive or negative – and mitigate the potential risks of such testing,” said Dr. Hawk, who’s worked with the Multicancer Early Detection Consortium.

On another front, Northwestern University’s Dr. Patel highlighted that while easy-to-access cancer screening could create tremendous opportunities to treat early cancer and shrink disparities in care, it may produce “an onslaught of patients with early-stage disease. Do we have the workforce to help us?” Also, she said, “if we find a patient with early-stage disease, how are we going to risk-stratify their follow-up and adjuvant therapy? Are there ways to prognosticate with more granularity than we do now?”

What’s next? “Multicancer early-detection tests could truly revolutionize cancer care if they work as we hope they will, but only time, extensive participation in research, and hard work will prove whether that is true or not,” said MD Anderson’s Dr. Hawk. “I anticipate that we’ll have reasonable answers within the next decade, given the pace of existing company-sponsored research and NCI’s planned involvement in testing various technologies available.”

For her part, Dr. Patel said oncologists should be aware that multicancer screening tests are available and be ready to address questions about them. “Think about how you can advise patients in the absence of data,” she said.

Dr. Patel and Dr. Hawk have no relevant disclosures.

There’s big buzz about the hot prospects for blood tests designed to detect multiple kinds of cancer. President Biden highlighted them in a speech about the Cancer Moonshot program on Sept. 12, just a day after study results touted an experimental test’s ability to detect dozens of kinds of cancer. Meanwhile, the federal government is heralding an upcoming trial that will eventually enroll as many as 225,000 subjects.

There are plenty of reasons to be cautious, however. While the future looks promising, experts say that much more research is needed into multicancer early-detection assays. And if these tests become standard, the oncology field will need to figure out how to navigate a thicket of new challenges.

“Our friends in internal medicine and primary care will be looking to us for guidance. We need to make sure that we’re coming at this without too much optimism before we really have the data,” said Jyoti D. Patel, MD, medical director of thoracic oncology and assistant director for clinical research at the Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center of Northwestern University, Chicago.

Dr. Patel is a member of the communications workgroup of the Multicancer Early Detection Consortium, a nonprofit, public-private organization that’s providing insight and guidance into the development of screening tests. The consortium published a position paper earlier this year.

According to Dr. Patel, early cancer screening today can detect only five types of cancer: prostate, breast, lung, cervical, and colon. The Cancer Moonshot program has prioritized research into greatly expanding this number. President Biden referred to this goal in his Sept. 12 speech: “Imagine a simple blood test during an annual physical that could detect cancer early, where the chances of a cure are best.”

Biden said the National Cancer Institute is launching a major trial as part of the Cancer Moonshot program. The Vanguard Study on Multi-Cancer Detection plans to enlist 25,000 healthy women and men between 45 and 70 years old in 2024, then later enroll as many as 225,000 people.

Meanwhile, researchers reported on Sept. 11 that the Galleri multicancer detection blood test found positive cancer signals in 1.4% of 6,621 healthy subjects, and cancer was ultimately confirmed in 38% of those in that group. Nineteen solid tumors and 17 hematologic cancers were diagnosed; 26 of these were cancer types that don’t have routine screening available.

The Galleri test is widely available in the United States, although the $950 cost is not covered by insurance.

While the data is exciting, the high false-positive rate is worrisome, Dr. Patel said. “Are there ways that we can further define that by cancer-risk assessment or by having better captures in our technology that reflect RNA methylation or epigenetic changes that may lead to susceptibility to cancers?”
 

Additional research is essential

Ernest Hawk, MD, vice president and division head of cancer prevention and population sciences at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, said it’s “absolutely essential” that research into screening tests clearly demonstrates improved patient outcomes over time.

“We need to have much longer follow-up of all participants – whether the screening results are positive or negative – and mitigate the potential risks of such testing,” said Dr. Hawk, who’s worked with the Multicancer Early Detection Consortium.

On another front, Northwestern University’s Dr. Patel highlighted that while easy-to-access cancer screening could create tremendous opportunities to treat early cancer and shrink disparities in care, it may produce “an onslaught of patients with early-stage disease. Do we have the workforce to help us?” Also, she said, “if we find a patient with early-stage disease, how are we going to risk-stratify their follow-up and adjuvant therapy? Are there ways to prognosticate with more granularity than we do now?”

What’s next? “Multicancer early-detection tests could truly revolutionize cancer care if they work as we hope they will, but only time, extensive participation in research, and hard work will prove whether that is true or not,” said MD Anderson’s Dr. Hawk. “I anticipate that we’ll have reasonable answers within the next decade, given the pace of existing company-sponsored research and NCI’s planned involvement in testing various technologies available.”

For her part, Dr. Patel said oncologists should be aware that multicancer screening tests are available and be ready to address questions about them. “Think about how you can advise patients in the absence of data,” she said.

Dr. Patel and Dr. Hawk have no relevant disclosures.

SAN DIEGO – The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) TeleOncology program has rolled out a virtual tumor board that brings medical professionals together to offer insight and guidance about challenging hematology cases. Over the past 6 months the board has held 10 sessions and reviewed about 20 cases. A small survey found that participants think the meetings are beneficial. 

“Virtual tumor boards help to connect experts across the country to leverage the expertise within the VA,” he-matologist/oncologist Thomas Rodgers, MD, of the Duke Cancer Institute and Durham Veterans Affairs Medical Center, told Federal Practitioner in an interview. He is the lead author of a poster about the program that was pre-sented here at the annual meeting of the Association of VA Hematology/Oncology (AVAHO).

As Dr. Rodgers noted, tumor boards are already in place at some VA centers. However, “they are not available at every VA and often are not set up to cover every cancer type.”

The VA National TeleOncology program created the virtual tumor board program as part of its mission to ex-tend hematology/oncology services across the system. “Cancer care has become increasingly complex. Beyond ad-vancing therapeutics, patient care often involves multiple specialties and medical disciplines,” Dr. Rodgers said. “A tumor board offers a forum for these specialists to communicate with each other in real time, not only to help estab-lish the correct diagnosis and stage of cancer but also to form a consensus on the most fitting treatment option. Think of it as getting all of the people involved in a person’s care in the same room.”

Currently, he said, the virtual tumor boards cover patients with malignant hematology diagnoses such as leuke-mia, multiple myeloma, and lymphomas. “We welcome submissions. If a provider is interested in submitting a case, they can email us and will be provided with a short intake form. Once submitted, we will collect necessary imaging and pathology for review. The provider will then present the patient case on the day of the tumor board.”

Typically, more than 30 medical professionals participate in the virtual tumor boards, Dr. Rodgers said, repre-senting medical oncology/hematology, pathology, radiology, palliative care, pharmacy, social work, and die-tary/nutrition. 

According to the poster presented at AVAHO, 9 participants responded to a survey after 4 tumor board sessions. All found the boards to be beneficial or somewhat beneficial, and 55% reported that they were “highly applicable” to their practice. 

Pathologist Claudio A. Mosse, MD, PhD, of Vanderbilt University Medical Center and VA Tennessee Valley Healthcare System, praised the virtual tumor board program. “It’s been incredibly useful from my end as a pathologist as it shows me which diagnoses are most challenging for my colleagues,” Dr. Mosse said in an inter-view. “Reviewing and then presenting these challenging cases forces me to go into the published literature to come to a unitary diagnosis based on the patient history, radiology, various laboratory tests, and the biopsy I was asked to review.”

He added that “as a pathologist, I learn so much from the hematologists as they discuss the possible therapeutic options, and that strengthens my ability as a pathologist because I have to understand how one diagnosis versus an-other affects their therapeutic decision tree.”

What’s next for the virtual tumor board program? The next step is to expand to solid tumors, said VA Pittsburgh Healthcare System hematologist/oncologist Vida Almario Passero, MD, MBA, chief medical officer of National TeleOncology, in an interview. 

No disclosures were reported.

SAN DIEGO – The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) TeleOncology program has rolled out a virtual tumor board that brings medical professionals together to offer insight and guidance about challenging hematology cases. Over the past 6 months the board has held 10 sessions and reviewed about 20 cases. A small survey found that participants think the meetings are beneficial. 

“Virtual tumor boards help to connect experts across the country to leverage the expertise within the VA,” he-matologist/oncologist Thomas Rodgers, MD, of the Duke Cancer Institute and Durham Veterans Affairs Medical Center, told Federal Practitioner in an interview. He is the lead author of a poster about the program that was pre-sented here at the annual meeting of the Association of VA Hematology/Oncology (AVAHO).

As Dr. Rodgers noted, tumor boards are already in place at some VA centers. However, “they are not available at every VA and often are not set up to cover every cancer type.”

The VA National TeleOncology program created the virtual tumor board program as part of its mission to ex-tend hematology/oncology services across the system. “Cancer care has become increasingly complex. Beyond ad-vancing therapeutics, patient care often involves multiple specialties and medical disciplines,” Dr. Rodgers said. “A tumor board offers a forum for these specialists to communicate with each other in real time, not only to help estab-lish the correct diagnosis and stage of cancer but also to form a consensus on the most fitting treatment option. Think of it as getting all of the people involved in a person’s care in the same room.”

Currently, he said, the virtual tumor boards cover patients with malignant hematology diagnoses such as leuke-mia, multiple myeloma, and lymphomas. “We welcome submissions. If a provider is interested in submitting a case, they can email us and will be provided with a short intake form. Once submitted, we will collect necessary imaging and pathology for review. The provider will then present the patient case on the day of the tumor board.”

Typically, more than 30 medical professionals participate in the virtual tumor boards, Dr. Rodgers said, repre-senting medical oncology/hematology, pathology, radiology, palliative care, pharmacy, social work, and die-tary/nutrition. 

According to the poster presented at AVAHO, 9 participants responded to a survey after 4 tumor board sessions. All found the boards to be beneficial or somewhat beneficial, and 55% reported that they were “highly applicable” to their practice. 

Pathologist Claudio A. Mosse, MD, PhD, of Vanderbilt University Medical Center and VA Tennessee Valley Healthcare System, praised the virtual tumor board program. “It’s been incredibly useful from my end as a pathologist as it shows me which diagnoses are most challenging for my colleagues,” Dr. Mosse said in an inter-view. “Reviewing and then presenting these challenging cases forces me to go into the published literature to come to a unitary diagnosis based on the patient history, radiology, various laboratory tests, and the biopsy I was asked to review.”

He added that “as a pathologist, I learn so much from the hematologists as they discuss the possible therapeutic options, and that strengthens my ability as a pathologist because I have to understand how one diagnosis versus an-other affects their therapeutic decision tree.”

What’s next for the virtual tumor board program? The next step is to expand to solid tumors, said VA Pittsburgh Healthcare System hematologist/oncologist Vida Almario Passero, MD, MBA, chief medical officer of National TeleOncology, in an interview. 

No disclosures were reported.

SAN DIEGO – The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) TeleOncology program has rolled out a virtual tumor board that brings medical professionals together to offer insight and guidance about challenging hematology cases. Over the past 6 months the board has held 10 sessions and reviewed about 20 cases. A small survey found that participants think the meetings are beneficial. 

“Virtual tumor boards help to connect experts across the country to leverage the expertise within the VA,” he-matologist/oncologist Thomas Rodgers, MD, of the Duke Cancer Institute and Durham Veterans Affairs Medical Center, told Federal Practitioner in an interview. He is the lead author of a poster about the program that was pre-sented here at the annual meeting of the Association of VA Hematology/Oncology (AVAHO).

As Dr. Rodgers noted, tumor boards are already in place at some VA centers. However, “they are not available at every VA and often are not set up to cover every cancer type.”

The VA National TeleOncology program created the virtual tumor board program as part of its mission to ex-tend hematology/oncology services across the system. “Cancer care has become increasingly complex. Beyond ad-vancing therapeutics, patient care often involves multiple specialties and medical disciplines,” Dr. Rodgers said. “A tumor board offers a forum for these specialists to communicate with each other in real time, not only to help estab-lish the correct diagnosis and stage of cancer but also to form a consensus on the most fitting treatment option. Think of it as getting all of the people involved in a person’s care in the same room.”

Currently, he said, the virtual tumor boards cover patients with malignant hematology diagnoses such as leuke-mia, multiple myeloma, and lymphomas. “We welcome submissions. If a provider is interested in submitting a case, they can email us and will be provided with a short intake form. Once submitted, we will collect necessary imaging and pathology for review. The provider will then present the patient case on the day of the tumor board.”

Typically, more than 30 medical professionals participate in the virtual tumor boards, Dr. Rodgers said, repre-senting medical oncology/hematology, pathology, radiology, palliative care, pharmacy, social work, and die-tary/nutrition. 

According to the poster presented at AVAHO, 9 participants responded to a survey after 4 tumor board sessions. All found the boards to be beneficial or somewhat beneficial, and 55% reported that they were “highly applicable” to their practice. 

Pathologist Claudio A. Mosse, MD, PhD, of Vanderbilt University Medical Center and VA Tennessee Valley Healthcare System, praised the virtual tumor board program. “It’s been incredibly useful from my end as a pathologist as it shows me which diagnoses are most challenging for my colleagues,” Dr. Mosse said in an inter-view. “Reviewing and then presenting these challenging cases forces me to go into the published literature to come to a unitary diagnosis based on the patient history, radiology, various laboratory tests, and the biopsy I was asked to review.”

He added that “as a pathologist, I learn so much from the hematologists as they discuss the possible therapeutic options, and that strengthens my ability as a pathologist because I have to understand how one diagnosis versus an-other affects their therapeutic decision tree.”

What’s next for the virtual tumor board program? The next step is to expand to solid tumors, said VA Pittsburgh Healthcare System hematologist/oncologist Vida Almario Passero, MD, MBA, chief medical officer of National TeleOncology, in an interview. 

No disclosures were reported.

Time to diagnosis is a crucial factor in cancer. Delays can lead to diagnosis at later stages and prevent optimal therapeutic strategies, both of which have the potential to reduce survival. An estimated 63%-82% of cancers get diagnosed as a result of symptom presentation, and delays in diagnosis can hamper treatment efforts. Diagnosis can be challenging because common symptoms – such as weight loss, weakness, poor appetite, and shortness of breath – are nonspecific.

A new analysis of U.S.-based data shows that the average time to diagnosis is 5.2 months for patients with solid tumors. The authors of the study call for better cancer diagnosis pathways in the U.S.

“Several countries, including the UK, Denmark, Sweden, Canada and Australia, have identified the importance and potential impact of more timely diagnosis by establishing national guidelines, special programs, and treatment pathways. However, in the U.S., there’s relatively little research and effort focused on streamlining the diagnostic pathway. Currently, the U.S. does not have established cancer diagnostic pathways that are used consistently,” Matthew Gitlin, PharmD, said during a presentation at the annual meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

Diagnostic delays can lead to diagnosis at more advanced stages. “That is often associated with worse clinical outcomes, increased economic burden, and decreased health related quality of life,” said Dr. Gitlin, founder and managing director of the health economics consulting firm BluePath Solutions, which conducted the analysis.

The study retrospectively examined administrative billing data drawn from the Clinformatics for Managed Markets longitudinal database. The data represent individuals in Medicare Advantage and a large, U.S.-based private insurance plan. Between 2018 and 2019, there were 458,818 cancer diagnoses. The mean age was 70.6 years and 49.6% of the patients were female. Sixty-five percent were White, 11.1% Black, 8.3% Hispanic, and 2.5% Asian. No race data were available for 13.2%. Medicare Advantage was the primary insurance carrier for 74.0%, and 24.0% had a commercial plan.

The mean time to diagnosis across all tumors was 5.2 months (standard deviation, 5.5 months). There was significant variation across different tumor types, as well as within the same tumor type. The median value was 3.9 months (interquartile range, 1.1-7.2 months).

Mean time to diagnosis ranged from 121.6 days for bladder cancer to as high as 229 days for multiple myeloma. Standard deviations were nearly as large or even larger than the mean values. The study showed that 15.8% of patients waited 6 months or longer for a diagnosis. Delays were most common in kidney cancer, colorectal cancer, gallbladder cancer, esophageal cancer, stomach cancer, lymphoma, and multiple myeloma: More than 25% of patients had a time to diagnosis of at least 6 months in these tumors.

“Although there is limited research in the published literature, our findings are consistent with that literature that does exist. Development or modification of policies, guidelines or medical interventions that streamline the diagnostic pathway are needed to optimize patient outcomes and reduce resource burden and cost to the health care system,” Dr. Gitlin said.

Previous literature on this topic has seen wide variation in how time to diagnosis is defined, and most research is conducted in high-income countries, according to Felipe Roitberg, PhD, who served as a discussant during the session. “Most of the countries and patients in need are localized in low- and middle-income countries, so that is a call to action (for more research),” said Dr. Roitberg, a clinical oncologist at Hospital Sírio Libanês in São Paulo, Brazil.

The study did not look at the associations between race and time to diagnosis. “This is a source of analysis could further be explored,” said Dr. Roitberg.

He noted that the ABC-DO prospective cohort study in sub-Saharan Africa found large variations in breast cancer survival by country, and its authors predicted that downstaging and improvements in treatment could prevent up to one-third of projected breast cancer deaths over the next decade. “So these are the drivers of populational gain in terms of overall survival – not more drugs, not more services available, but coordination of services and making sure the patient has a right pathway (to diagnosis and treatment),” Dr. Roitberg said.

Dr. Gitlin has received consulting fees from GRAIL LLC, which is a subsidiary of Illumina. Dr. Roitberg has received honoraria from Boehringer Ingelheim, Sanofi, Roche, MSD Oncology, AstraZeneca, Nestle Health Science, Dr Reddy’s, and Oncologia Brazil. He has consulted for MSD Oncology. He has received research funding from Roche, Boehringer Ingelheim, MSD, Bayer, AstraZeneca, and Takeda.

Time to diagnosis is a crucial factor in cancer. Delays can lead to diagnosis at later stages and prevent optimal therapeutic strategies, both of which have the potential to reduce survival. An estimated 63%-82% of cancers get diagnosed as a result of symptom presentation, and delays in diagnosis can hamper treatment efforts. Diagnosis can be challenging because common symptoms – such as weight loss, weakness, poor appetite, and shortness of breath – are nonspecific.

A new analysis of U.S.-based data shows that the average time to diagnosis is 5.2 months for patients with solid tumors. The authors of the study call for better cancer diagnosis pathways in the U.S.

“Several countries, including the UK, Denmark, Sweden, Canada and Australia, have identified the importance and potential impact of more timely diagnosis by establishing national guidelines, special programs, and treatment pathways. However, in the U.S., there’s relatively little research and effort focused on streamlining the diagnostic pathway. Currently, the U.S. does not have established cancer diagnostic pathways that are used consistently,” Matthew Gitlin, PharmD, said during a presentation at the annual meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

Diagnostic delays can lead to diagnosis at more advanced stages. “That is often associated with worse clinical outcomes, increased economic burden, and decreased health related quality of life,” said Dr. Gitlin, founder and managing director of the health economics consulting firm BluePath Solutions, which conducted the analysis.

The study retrospectively examined administrative billing data drawn from the Clinformatics for Managed Markets longitudinal database. The data represent individuals in Medicare Advantage and a large, U.S.-based private insurance plan. Between 2018 and 2019, there were 458,818 cancer diagnoses. The mean age was 70.6 years and 49.6% of the patients were female. Sixty-five percent were White, 11.1% Black, 8.3% Hispanic, and 2.5% Asian. No race data were available for 13.2%. Medicare Advantage was the primary insurance carrier for 74.0%, and 24.0% had a commercial plan.

The mean time to diagnosis across all tumors was 5.2 months (standard deviation, 5.5 months). There was significant variation across different tumor types, as well as within the same tumor type. The median value was 3.9 months (interquartile range, 1.1-7.2 months).

Mean time to diagnosis ranged from 121.6 days for bladder cancer to as high as 229 days for multiple myeloma. Standard deviations were nearly as large or even larger than the mean values. The study showed that 15.8% of patients waited 6 months or longer for a diagnosis. Delays were most common in kidney cancer, colorectal cancer, gallbladder cancer, esophageal cancer, stomach cancer, lymphoma, and multiple myeloma: More than 25% of patients had a time to diagnosis of at least 6 months in these tumors.

“Although there is limited research in the published literature, our findings are consistent with that literature that does exist. Development or modification of policies, guidelines or medical interventions that streamline the diagnostic pathway are needed to optimize patient outcomes and reduce resource burden and cost to the health care system,” Dr. Gitlin said.

Previous literature on this topic has seen wide variation in how time to diagnosis is defined, and most research is conducted in high-income countries, according to Felipe Roitberg, PhD, who served as a discussant during the session. “Most of the countries and patients in need are localized in low- and middle-income countries, so that is a call to action (for more research),” said Dr. Roitberg, a clinical oncologist at Hospital Sírio Libanês in São Paulo, Brazil.

The study did not look at the associations between race and time to diagnosis. “This is a source of analysis could further be explored,” said Dr. Roitberg.

He noted that the ABC-DO prospective cohort study in sub-Saharan Africa found large variations in breast cancer survival by country, and its authors predicted that downstaging and improvements in treatment could prevent up to one-third of projected breast cancer deaths over the next decade. “So these are the drivers of populational gain in terms of overall survival – not more drugs, not more services available, but coordination of services and making sure the patient has a right pathway (to diagnosis and treatment),” Dr. Roitberg said.

Dr. Gitlin has received consulting fees from GRAIL LLC, which is a subsidiary of Illumina. Dr. Roitberg has received honoraria from Boehringer Ingelheim, Sanofi, Roche, MSD Oncology, AstraZeneca, Nestle Health Science, Dr Reddy’s, and Oncologia Brazil. He has consulted for MSD Oncology. He has received research funding from Roche, Boehringer Ingelheim, MSD, Bayer, AstraZeneca, and Takeda.

Time to diagnosis is a crucial factor in cancer. Delays can lead to diagnosis at later stages and prevent optimal therapeutic strategies, both of which have the potential to reduce survival. An estimated 63%-82% of cancers get diagnosed as a result of symptom presentation, and delays in diagnosis can hamper treatment efforts. Diagnosis can be challenging because common symptoms – such as weight loss, weakness, poor appetite, and shortness of breath – are nonspecific.

A new analysis of U.S.-based data shows that the average time to diagnosis is 5.2 months for patients with solid tumors. The authors of the study call for better cancer diagnosis pathways in the U.S.

“Several countries, including the UK, Denmark, Sweden, Canada and Australia, have identified the importance and potential impact of more timely diagnosis by establishing national guidelines, special programs, and treatment pathways. However, in the U.S., there’s relatively little research and effort focused on streamlining the diagnostic pathway. Currently, the U.S. does not have established cancer diagnostic pathways that are used consistently,” Matthew Gitlin, PharmD, said during a presentation at the annual meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

Diagnostic delays can lead to diagnosis at more advanced stages. “That is often associated with worse clinical outcomes, increased economic burden, and decreased health related quality of life,” said Dr. Gitlin, founder and managing director of the health economics consulting firm BluePath Solutions, which conducted the analysis.

The study retrospectively examined administrative billing data drawn from the Clinformatics for Managed Markets longitudinal database. The data represent individuals in Medicare Advantage and a large, U.S.-based private insurance plan. Between 2018 and 2019, there were 458,818 cancer diagnoses. The mean age was 70.6 years and 49.6% of the patients were female. Sixty-five percent were White, 11.1% Black, 8.3% Hispanic, and 2.5% Asian. No race data were available for 13.2%. Medicare Advantage was the primary insurance carrier for 74.0%, and 24.0% had a commercial plan.

The mean time to diagnosis across all tumors was 5.2 months (standard deviation, 5.5 months). There was significant variation across different tumor types, as well as within the same tumor type. The median value was 3.9 months (interquartile range, 1.1-7.2 months).

Mean time to diagnosis ranged from 121.6 days for bladder cancer to as high as 229 days for multiple myeloma. Standard deviations were nearly as large or even larger than the mean values. The study showed that 15.8% of patients waited 6 months or longer for a diagnosis. Delays were most common in kidney cancer, colorectal cancer, gallbladder cancer, esophageal cancer, stomach cancer, lymphoma, and multiple myeloma: More than 25% of patients had a time to diagnosis of at least 6 months in these tumors.

“Although there is limited research in the published literature, our findings are consistent with that literature that does exist. Development or modification of policies, guidelines or medical interventions that streamline the diagnostic pathway are needed to optimize patient outcomes and reduce resource burden and cost to the health care system,” Dr. Gitlin said.

Previous literature on this topic has seen wide variation in how time to diagnosis is defined, and most research is conducted in high-income countries, according to Felipe Roitberg, PhD, who served as a discussant during the session. “Most of the countries and patients in need are localized in low- and middle-income countries, so that is a call to action (for more research),” said Dr. Roitberg, a clinical oncologist at Hospital Sírio Libanês in São Paulo, Brazil.

The study did not look at the associations between race and time to diagnosis. “This is a source of analysis could further be explored,” said Dr. Roitberg.

He noted that the ABC-DO prospective cohort study in sub-Saharan Africa found large variations in breast cancer survival by country, and its authors predicted that downstaging and improvements in treatment could prevent up to one-third of projected breast cancer deaths over the next decade. “So these are the drivers of populational gain in terms of overall survival – not more drugs, not more services available, but coordination of services and making sure the patient has a right pathway (to diagnosis and treatment),” Dr. Roitberg said.

Dr. Gitlin has received consulting fees from GRAIL LLC, which is a subsidiary of Illumina. Dr. Roitberg has received honoraria from Boehringer Ingelheim, Sanofi, Roche, MSD Oncology, AstraZeneca, Nestle Health Science, Dr Reddy’s, and Oncologia Brazil. He has consulted for MSD Oncology. He has received research funding from Roche, Boehringer Ingelheim, MSD, Bayer, AstraZeneca, and Takeda.

In melanoma patients with the BRAFV600 mutation, a combination of BRAF and MEK inhibitors are highly effective over the long term, according to 5-year follow-up data from the COLUMBUS trial. Among patients with advanced unresectable or metastatic disease who were untreated or who had progressed following immunotherapy, the regimen of encorafenib plus binimetinib produced impressive gains in progression-free and overall survival, compared with historical controls, and are in line with other BRAF/MEK inhibitor combinations. It also outperformed encorafenib and vemurafenib monotherapy regimens.

The findings present good news, but the combination still doesn’t represent the best first-line option, according to Ryan Sullivan, MD, who wrote an accompanying editorial. He pointed out that the previously published DREAMSeq trial showed that a combination of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) ipilimumab and nivolumab produced a 2-year survival of 72%, compared with 52% for a BRAF inhibitor combination of dabrafenib plus trametinib (P = .0095).

There are three combinations of BRAF and MEK inhibitors that are approved for BRAF mutant melanoma, and any of the seven individual agents and six combinations that are approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration- for melanoma can be used in BRAFV600 patients. “The standard of care for most patients with newly diagnosed BRAF mutant melanoma is ... immune checkpoint inhibition, either with anti–PD-1 inhibitor or a combination of immunotherapy with an anti–PD-1 inhibitor. The optimal use of BRAF targeted therapy is unknown but some data supports its use earlier in the disease course (adjuvant setting) or after progression following anti–PD-1 therapy in the advanced disease setting,” wrote Dr. Sullivan in an email. He is associate director of the melanoma program at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

The new study was published online in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

In his editorial, Dr. Sullivan wrote that anti–PD-1 monoclonal antibodies alone or in combination with anti-CTLA4 receptor therapies is likely the best front-line therapy for BRAFV600 mutant advanced melanoma, with long-term survival ranging from 40% to 50%.

Still, the efficacy of BRAF-targeted therapy makes it important to explore ways to strengthen it further. One possibility is to use it in the front-line setting when a patient is at high risk of rapid progression and death, since analysis from DREAMSeq showed that BRAF-targeted therapy had a better overall survival than immunotherapy during the first 10 months after random assignment. It was only after this time point that the curves reversed and pointed to greater efficacy for immunotherapy. An option would be to treat to maximum tumor regression with BRAF-targeted therapy and then switch to immunotherapy, according to Dr. Sullivan. That point was echoed by study author Paolo Ascierto, MD, in an email exchange. “For patients with symptomatic disease or very high tumor burden, BRAF/MEK inhibitor should be used first,” said Dr. Ascierto, who is director of the melanoma cancer immunotherapy innovative therapy unit of the National Tumor Institute in Naples, Italy.
 

BRAF inhibitors as second- or later-line therapy

Aside from that exception, BRAF inhibitors should generally be reserved for second- or later-line therapy, according to Dr. Sullivan. Retrospective data indicate that response to BRAF inhibitors is preserved following immunotherapy, although the duration of benefit is reduced. Unfortunately, that strategy limits BRAF inhibitors to a setting in which they’re less likely to be maximally effective.

To improve matters, Dr. Sullivan suggested that they could be used in the adjuvant setting, where disease burden is lower. He noted that dabrafenib and trametinib are approved for resected stage 3 melanoma and showed similar efficacy to immunotherapy in that setting. Immunotherapy retains efficacy after BRAF-targeted therapy.

Another potential strategy is to come up with 3- or even 4-drug combinations employing BRAF/MEK inhibitors in the second-line setting. A few trials have already begun to investigate this possibility.

The COLUMBUS trial included 192 patients who received encorafenib plus binimetinib (E+B), 191 who received vemurafenib and 194 who received encorafenib. Five-year progression-free survival (PFS) was 23% in the E+B group, and 31% in those with normal lactate dehydrogenase levels. Five-year PFS was 10% with vemurafenib alone (12% with normal lactate dehydrogenase). Progression free survival (PFS) was 19% in the encorafenib group. Five-year overall survival (OS) followed a similar trend: 35% (45% with normal lactate dehydrogenase) in the E+B group, and 21% (28%) in the vemurafenib group. E+B had a median duration of response of 18.6 months, and a disease control rate of 92.2%, compared with 12.3 months and 81.2% with vemurafenib. Median duration of response was 15.5 months in the encorafenib monotherapy group.

The COLUMBUS trial was sponsored by Array BioPharma, which was acquired by Pfizer in July 2019.

Dr. Sullivan has consulted or advised Novartis, Merck, Replimune, Asana Biosciences, Alkermes, Eisai, Pfizer, Iovance Biotherapeutics, OncoSec, AstraZeneca, and Bristol Myers Squibb. Dr. Ascierto has stock or an ownership position in PrimeVax. He has consulted or advised for Bristol Myers Squibb, Roche/Genentech, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Array BioPharma, Merck Serono, Pierre Fabre, Incyte, MedImmune, AstraZeneca, Sun Pharma, Sanofi, Idera, Ultimovacs, Sandoz, Immunocore, 4SC, Alkermes, Italfarmaco, Nektar, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eisai, Regeneron, Daiichi Sankyo, Pfizer, OncoSec, Nouscom, Takis Biotech, Lunaphore Technologies, Seattle Genetics, ITeos Therapeutics, Medicenna, and Bio-Al Health.

In melanoma patients with the BRAFV600 mutation, a combination of BRAF and MEK inhibitors are highly effective over the long term, according to 5-year follow-up data from the COLUMBUS trial. Among patients with advanced unresectable or metastatic disease who were untreated or who had progressed following immunotherapy, the regimen of encorafenib plus binimetinib produced impressive gains in progression-free and overall survival, compared with historical controls, and are in line with other BRAF/MEK inhibitor combinations. It also outperformed encorafenib and vemurafenib monotherapy regimens.

The findings present good news, but the combination still doesn’t represent the best first-line option, according to Ryan Sullivan, MD, who wrote an accompanying editorial. He pointed out that the previously published DREAMSeq trial showed that a combination of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) ipilimumab and nivolumab produced a 2-year survival of 72%, compared with 52% for a BRAF inhibitor combination of dabrafenib plus trametinib (P = .0095).

There are three combinations of BRAF and MEK inhibitors that are approved for BRAF mutant melanoma, and any of the seven individual agents and six combinations that are approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration- for melanoma can be used in BRAFV600 patients. “The standard of care for most patients with newly diagnosed BRAF mutant melanoma is ... immune checkpoint inhibition, either with anti–PD-1 inhibitor or a combination of immunotherapy with an anti–PD-1 inhibitor. The optimal use of BRAF targeted therapy is unknown but some data supports its use earlier in the disease course (adjuvant setting) or after progression following anti–PD-1 therapy in the advanced disease setting,” wrote Dr. Sullivan in an email. He is associate director of the melanoma program at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

The new study was published online in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

In his editorial, Dr. Sullivan wrote that anti–PD-1 monoclonal antibodies alone or in combination with anti-CTLA4 receptor therapies is likely the best front-line therapy for BRAFV600 mutant advanced melanoma, with long-term survival ranging from 40% to 50%.

Still, the efficacy of BRAF-targeted therapy makes it important to explore ways to strengthen it further. One possibility is to use it in the front-line setting when a patient is at high risk of rapid progression and death, since analysis from DREAMSeq showed that BRAF-targeted therapy had a better overall survival than immunotherapy during the first 10 months after random assignment. It was only after this time point that the curves reversed and pointed to greater efficacy for immunotherapy. An option would be to treat to maximum tumor regression with BRAF-targeted therapy and then switch to immunotherapy, according to Dr. Sullivan. That point was echoed by study author Paolo Ascierto, MD, in an email exchange. “For patients with symptomatic disease or very high tumor burden, BRAF/MEK inhibitor should be used first,” said Dr. Ascierto, who is director of the melanoma cancer immunotherapy innovative therapy unit of the National Tumor Institute in Naples, Italy.
 

BRAF inhibitors as second- or later-line therapy

Aside from that exception, BRAF inhibitors should generally be reserved for second- or later-line therapy, according to Dr. Sullivan. Retrospective data indicate that response to BRAF inhibitors is preserved following immunotherapy, although the duration of benefit is reduced. Unfortunately, that strategy limits BRAF inhibitors to a setting in which they’re less likely to be maximally effective.

To improve matters, Dr. Sullivan suggested that they could be used in the adjuvant setting, where disease burden is lower. He noted that dabrafenib and trametinib are approved for resected stage 3 melanoma and showed similar efficacy to immunotherapy in that setting. Immunotherapy retains efficacy after BRAF-targeted therapy.

Another potential strategy is to come up with 3- or even 4-drug combinations employing BRAF/MEK inhibitors in the second-line setting. A few trials have already begun to investigate this possibility.

The COLUMBUS trial included 192 patients who received encorafenib plus binimetinib (E+B), 191 who received vemurafenib and 194 who received encorafenib. Five-year progression-free survival (PFS) was 23% in the E+B group, and 31% in those with normal lactate dehydrogenase levels. Five-year PFS was 10% with vemurafenib alone (12% with normal lactate dehydrogenase). Progression free survival (PFS) was 19% in the encorafenib group. Five-year overall survival (OS) followed a similar trend: 35% (45% with normal lactate dehydrogenase) in the E+B group, and 21% (28%) in the vemurafenib group. E+B had a median duration of response of 18.6 months, and a disease control rate of 92.2%, compared with 12.3 months and 81.2% with vemurafenib. Median duration of response was 15.5 months in the encorafenib monotherapy group.

The COLUMBUS trial was sponsored by Array BioPharma, which was acquired by Pfizer in July 2019.

Dr. Sullivan has consulted or advised Novartis, Merck, Replimune, Asana Biosciences, Alkermes, Eisai, Pfizer, Iovance Biotherapeutics, OncoSec, AstraZeneca, and Bristol Myers Squibb. Dr. Ascierto has stock or an ownership position in PrimeVax. He has consulted or advised for Bristol Myers Squibb, Roche/Genentech, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Array BioPharma, Merck Serono, Pierre Fabre, Incyte, MedImmune, AstraZeneca, Sun Pharma, Sanofi, Idera, Ultimovacs, Sandoz, Immunocore, 4SC, Alkermes, Italfarmaco, Nektar, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eisai, Regeneron, Daiichi Sankyo, Pfizer, OncoSec, Nouscom, Takis Biotech, Lunaphore Technologies, Seattle Genetics, ITeos Therapeutics, Medicenna, and Bio-Al Health.

In melanoma patients with the BRAFV600 mutation, a combination of BRAF and MEK inhibitors are highly effective over the long term, according to 5-year follow-up data from the COLUMBUS trial. Among patients with advanced unresectable or metastatic disease who were untreated or who had progressed following immunotherapy, the regimen of encorafenib plus binimetinib produced impressive gains in progression-free and overall survival, compared with historical controls, and are in line with other BRAF/MEK inhibitor combinations. It also outperformed encorafenib and vemurafenib monotherapy regimens.

The findings present good news, but the combination still doesn’t represent the best first-line option, according to Ryan Sullivan, MD, who wrote an accompanying editorial. He pointed out that the previously published DREAMSeq trial showed that a combination of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) ipilimumab and nivolumab produced a 2-year survival of 72%, compared with 52% for a BRAF inhibitor combination of dabrafenib plus trametinib (P = .0095).

There are three combinations of BRAF and MEK inhibitors that are approved for BRAF mutant melanoma, and any of the seven individual agents and six combinations that are approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration- for melanoma can be used in BRAFV600 patients. “The standard of care for most patients with newly diagnosed BRAF mutant melanoma is ... immune checkpoint inhibition, either with anti–PD-1 inhibitor or a combination of immunotherapy with an anti–PD-1 inhibitor. The optimal use of BRAF targeted therapy is unknown but some data supports its use earlier in the disease course (adjuvant setting) or after progression following anti–PD-1 therapy in the advanced disease setting,” wrote Dr. Sullivan in an email. He is associate director of the melanoma program at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

The new study was published online in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

In his editorial, Dr. Sullivan wrote that anti–PD-1 monoclonal antibodies alone or in combination with anti-CTLA4 receptor therapies is likely the best front-line therapy for BRAFV600 mutant advanced melanoma, with long-term survival ranging from 40% to 50%.

Still, the efficacy of BRAF-targeted therapy makes it important to explore ways to strengthen it further. One possibility is to use it in the front-line setting when a patient is at high risk of rapid progression and death, since analysis from DREAMSeq showed that BRAF-targeted therapy had a better overall survival than immunotherapy during the first 10 months after random assignment. It was only after this time point that the curves reversed and pointed to greater efficacy for immunotherapy. An option would be to treat to maximum tumor regression with BRAF-targeted therapy and then switch to immunotherapy, according to Dr. Sullivan. That point was echoed by study author Paolo Ascierto, MD, in an email exchange. “For patients with symptomatic disease or very high tumor burden, BRAF/MEK inhibitor should be used first,” said Dr. Ascierto, who is director of the melanoma cancer immunotherapy innovative therapy unit of the National Tumor Institute in Naples, Italy.
 

BRAF inhibitors as second- or later-line therapy

Aside from that exception, BRAF inhibitors should generally be reserved for second- or later-line therapy, according to Dr. Sullivan. Retrospective data indicate that response to BRAF inhibitors is preserved following immunotherapy, although the duration of benefit is reduced. Unfortunately, that strategy limits BRAF inhibitors to a setting in which they’re less likely to be maximally effective.

To improve matters, Dr. Sullivan suggested that they could be used in the adjuvant setting, where disease burden is lower. He noted that dabrafenib and trametinib are approved for resected stage 3 melanoma and showed similar efficacy to immunotherapy in that setting. Immunotherapy retains efficacy after BRAF-targeted therapy.

Another potential strategy is to come up with 3- or even 4-drug combinations employing BRAF/MEK inhibitors in the second-line setting. A few trials have already begun to investigate this possibility.

The COLUMBUS trial included 192 patients who received encorafenib plus binimetinib (E+B), 191 who received vemurafenib and 194 who received encorafenib. Five-year progression-free survival (PFS) was 23% in the E+B group, and 31% in those with normal lactate dehydrogenase levels. Five-year PFS was 10% with vemurafenib alone (12% with normal lactate dehydrogenase). Progression free survival (PFS) was 19% in the encorafenib group. Five-year overall survival (OS) followed a similar trend: 35% (45% with normal lactate dehydrogenase) in the E+B group, and 21% (28%) in the vemurafenib group. E+B had a median duration of response of 18.6 months, and a disease control rate of 92.2%, compared with 12.3 months and 81.2% with vemurafenib. Median duration of response was 15.5 months in the encorafenib monotherapy group.

The COLUMBUS trial was sponsored by Array BioPharma, which was acquired by Pfizer in July 2019.

Dr. Sullivan has consulted or advised Novartis, Merck, Replimune, Asana Biosciences, Alkermes, Eisai, Pfizer, Iovance Biotherapeutics, OncoSec, AstraZeneca, and Bristol Myers Squibb. Dr. Ascierto has stock or an ownership position in PrimeVax. He has consulted or advised for Bristol Myers Squibb, Roche/Genentech, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Array BioPharma, Merck Serono, Pierre Fabre, Incyte, MedImmune, AstraZeneca, Sun Pharma, Sanofi, Idera, Ultimovacs, Sandoz, Immunocore, 4SC, Alkermes, Italfarmaco, Nektar, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eisai, Regeneron, Daiichi Sankyo, Pfizer, OncoSec, Nouscom, Takis Biotech, Lunaphore Technologies, Seattle Genetics, ITeos Therapeutics, Medicenna, and Bio-Al Health.