AVAHO

CHICAGO -- Breast cancer patients with low levels of HER2 expression, previously considered untreatable with HER2-targeted therapies, benefited from the anti-HER2 antibody drug conjugate trastuzumab deruxtecan. The therapy doubled progression-free survival versus chemotherapy in patients with hormone receptor positive (HR+) and low levels of HER2.

“Overall, these results establish HER2 low metastatic breast cancer as a targetable population of breast cancer with trastuzumab deruxtecan as a new standard of care in this setting,” said Shanu Modi, MD, during a press conference held in Chicago at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, where she presented the results.

“I think the results of this trial clearly will be practice changing,” said ASCO spokesperson and breast cancer expert Jane Lowe Meisel, MD, during the press conference. “I think what this trial does is really extend the benefits of this agent to a whole new group of patients that traditionally is really quite difficult to treat. I think this will offer a wonderful new option for patients and also will really fundamentally change the way we think about HER2 status and how we classify this in our metastatic patients,” Dr. Meisel added.

The conjugate includes the anti-HER2 antibody trastuzumab and the topoisomerase I inhibitor deruxtecan, which interferes with DNA replication. Trastuzumab has demonstrated efficacy in patients with high levels of HER2 expression, and trastuzumab-deruxtecan received FDA approval in May 2022 for the treatment of HER2-positive breast cancer in patients who had previously received an anti-HER2 regimen.

However, anti-HER2 agents had not been shown to benefit HER2-low patients, defined as immunohistochemistry (IHC) 1+ or 2+. About 60% of breast cancer patients traditionally thought of HER2 negative could be classified as HER2 low, according to Dr. Modi, who is a medical oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York.

Asked why she thought trastuzumab deruxtecan succeeded where other anti-HER2 therapies failed in this population, Dr. Modi highlighted the nature of the drug conjugate, including a high drug payload and the use of a topoisomerase inhibitor, which is rarely employed against breast cancer. Once released from the antibody, the drug retains its ability to cross cell membranes and enter the tumor microenvironment. That ‘knock on’ effect might allow it to reach neighboring cells that don’t express HER2. “We know HER2 expression is very heterogeneous. I think that’s why, for the first time, we’re seeing activity for a targeted agent,” Dr. Modi said.

The DESTINY-Breast04 study included 557 patients in Asia, Europe, and North America with HR-negative or HR-positive, HER2-low, unresectable, and/or metastatic breast cancer. Patients were randomized to trastuzumab deruxtecan or physician’s choice of several standard chemotherapy drugs. After a median follow-up of 18.4 months, compared with the chemotherapy group, patients in the trastuzumab deruxtecan arm had a 49% reduction in risk of progression and a 36% reduction in mortality. The group also had longer progression-free survival (10.1 months vs. 5.4 months) and overall survival (23.9 months vs. 17.5 months).

Although adverse events were similar between the two groups (52.6% in trastuzumab deruxtecan, 67.4% in chemotherapy), lung toxicity occurred in 12% of the group, and there were 3 fatalities as a result (0.8%). Interstitial lung disease/pneumonitis has been linked to trastuzumab treatment in the past, with one meta-analysis finding a frequency of 2.4% and fatality rate of 0.2%.

Additional studies are in progress to determine the minimum threshold of HER2 expression needed to gain a benefit from trastuzumab deruxtecan treatment.

The study was funded by Daiichi Sankyo, and AstraZeneca. Dr. Modi has advised, consulted for, or received honoraria from Daiichi Sankyo, and AstraZeneca. Dr. Meisel has advised or consulted for Medscape and AstraZeneca.

CHICAGO -- Breast cancer patients with low levels of HER2 expression, previously considered untreatable with HER2-targeted therapies, benefited from the anti-HER2 antibody drug conjugate trastuzumab deruxtecan. The therapy doubled progression-free survival versus chemotherapy in patients with hormone receptor positive (HR+) and low levels of HER2.

“Overall, these results establish HER2 low metastatic breast cancer as a targetable population of breast cancer with trastuzumab deruxtecan as a new standard of care in this setting,” said Shanu Modi, MD, during a press conference held in Chicago at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, where she presented the results.

“I think the results of this trial clearly will be practice changing,” said ASCO spokesperson and breast cancer expert Jane Lowe Meisel, MD, during the press conference. “I think what this trial does is really extend the benefits of this agent to a whole new group of patients that traditionally is really quite difficult to treat. I think this will offer a wonderful new option for patients and also will really fundamentally change the way we think about HER2 status and how we classify this in our metastatic patients,” Dr. Meisel added.

The conjugate includes the anti-HER2 antibody trastuzumab and the topoisomerase I inhibitor deruxtecan, which interferes with DNA replication. Trastuzumab has demonstrated efficacy in patients with high levels of HER2 expression, and trastuzumab-deruxtecan received FDA approval in May 2022 for the treatment of HER2-positive breast cancer in patients who had previously received an anti-HER2 regimen.

However, anti-HER2 agents had not been shown to benefit HER2-low patients, defined as immunohistochemistry (IHC) 1+ or 2+. About 60% of breast cancer patients traditionally thought of HER2 negative could be classified as HER2 low, according to Dr. Modi, who is a medical oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York.

Asked why she thought trastuzumab deruxtecan succeeded where other anti-HER2 therapies failed in this population, Dr. Modi highlighted the nature of the drug conjugate, including a high drug payload and the use of a topoisomerase inhibitor, which is rarely employed against breast cancer. Once released from the antibody, the drug retains its ability to cross cell membranes and enter the tumor microenvironment. That ‘knock on’ effect might allow it to reach neighboring cells that don’t express HER2. “We know HER2 expression is very heterogeneous. I think that’s why, for the first time, we’re seeing activity for a targeted agent,” Dr. Modi said.

The DESTINY-Breast04 study included 557 patients in Asia, Europe, and North America with HR-negative or HR-positive, HER2-low, unresectable, and/or metastatic breast cancer. Patients were randomized to trastuzumab deruxtecan or physician’s choice of several standard chemotherapy drugs. After a median follow-up of 18.4 months, compared with the chemotherapy group, patients in the trastuzumab deruxtecan arm had a 49% reduction in risk of progression and a 36% reduction in mortality. The group also had longer progression-free survival (10.1 months vs. 5.4 months) and overall survival (23.9 months vs. 17.5 months).

Although adverse events were similar between the two groups (52.6% in trastuzumab deruxtecan, 67.4% in chemotherapy), lung toxicity occurred in 12% of the group, and there were 3 fatalities as a result (0.8%). Interstitial lung disease/pneumonitis has been linked to trastuzumab treatment in the past, with one meta-analysis finding a frequency of 2.4% and fatality rate of 0.2%.

Additional studies are in progress to determine the minimum threshold of HER2 expression needed to gain a benefit from trastuzumab deruxtecan treatment.

The study was funded by Daiichi Sankyo, and AstraZeneca. Dr. Modi has advised, consulted for, or received honoraria from Daiichi Sankyo, and AstraZeneca. Dr. Meisel has advised or consulted for Medscape and AstraZeneca.

CHICAGO -- Breast cancer patients with low levels of HER2 expression, previously considered untreatable with HER2-targeted therapies, benefited from the anti-HER2 antibody drug conjugate trastuzumab deruxtecan. The therapy doubled progression-free survival versus chemotherapy in patients with hormone receptor positive (HR+) and low levels of HER2.

“Overall, these results establish HER2 low metastatic breast cancer as a targetable population of breast cancer with trastuzumab deruxtecan as a new standard of care in this setting,” said Shanu Modi, MD, during a press conference held in Chicago at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, where she presented the results.

“I think the results of this trial clearly will be practice changing,” said ASCO spokesperson and breast cancer expert Jane Lowe Meisel, MD, during the press conference. “I think what this trial does is really extend the benefits of this agent to a whole new group of patients that traditionally is really quite difficult to treat. I think this will offer a wonderful new option for patients and also will really fundamentally change the way we think about HER2 status and how we classify this in our metastatic patients,” Dr. Meisel added.

The conjugate includes the anti-HER2 antibody trastuzumab and the topoisomerase I inhibitor deruxtecan, which interferes with DNA replication. Trastuzumab has demonstrated efficacy in patients with high levels of HER2 expression, and trastuzumab-deruxtecan received FDA approval in May 2022 for the treatment of HER2-positive breast cancer in patients who had previously received an anti-HER2 regimen.

However, anti-HER2 agents had not been shown to benefit HER2-low patients, defined as immunohistochemistry (IHC) 1+ or 2+. About 60% of breast cancer patients traditionally thought of HER2 negative could be classified as HER2 low, according to Dr. Modi, who is a medical oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York.

Asked why she thought trastuzumab deruxtecan succeeded where other anti-HER2 therapies failed in this population, Dr. Modi highlighted the nature of the drug conjugate, including a high drug payload and the use of a topoisomerase inhibitor, which is rarely employed against breast cancer. Once released from the antibody, the drug retains its ability to cross cell membranes and enter the tumor microenvironment. That ‘knock on’ effect might allow it to reach neighboring cells that don’t express HER2. “We know HER2 expression is very heterogeneous. I think that’s why, for the first time, we’re seeing activity for a targeted agent,” Dr. Modi said.

The DESTINY-Breast04 study included 557 patients in Asia, Europe, and North America with HR-negative or HR-positive, HER2-low, unresectable, and/or metastatic breast cancer. Patients were randomized to trastuzumab deruxtecan or physician’s choice of several standard chemotherapy drugs. After a median follow-up of 18.4 months, compared with the chemotherapy group, patients in the trastuzumab deruxtecan arm had a 49% reduction in risk of progression and a 36% reduction in mortality. The group also had longer progression-free survival (10.1 months vs. 5.4 months) and overall survival (23.9 months vs. 17.5 months).

Although adverse events were similar between the two groups (52.6% in trastuzumab deruxtecan, 67.4% in chemotherapy), lung toxicity occurred in 12% of the group, and there were 3 fatalities as a result (0.8%). Interstitial lung disease/pneumonitis has been linked to trastuzumab treatment in the past, with one meta-analysis finding a frequency of 2.4% and fatality rate of 0.2%.

Additional studies are in progress to determine the minimum threshold of HER2 expression needed to gain a benefit from trastuzumab deruxtecan treatment.

The study was funded by Daiichi Sankyo, and AstraZeneca. Dr. Modi has advised, consulted for, or received honoraria from Daiichi Sankyo, and AstraZeneca. Dr. Meisel has advised or consulted for Medscape and AstraZeneca.

Adagrasib, an investigational drug that acts as a KRASG12C inhibitor, has shown durable clinical benefit in patients with previously treated, advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with tumors with KRAS G12C mutations.

“KRAS G12C mutations occur in over 10% of patients with NSCL [and] remain difficult to target, and outcomes for this patient population have remained poor,” co-investigator Joshua Sabari, MD, assistant professor of medicine, Perlmutter Cancer Center at NYU Langone, said in a statement.

“Our patients benefited clinically from this agent, and it appears to have improved overall survival (OS), compared with historical outcomes with docetaxel, a standard-of-care chemotherapy regimen, in the second-line setting,” he added.

New data on adagrasib were presented at the annual meeting of the American Society for Clinical Oncology and simultaneously published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Adagrasib (developed by Mirati) is currently awaiting approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration as a treatment for patients with NSCLC harboring the KRAS G12C mutation who have received at least one prior systemic therapy. This would be an accelerated approval based on overall response data from the KRYSTAL-1 study detailed below. The company has an ongoing confirmatory Phase 3 trial, KRYSTAL-12, evaluating adagrasib versus docetaxel in patients previously treated for metastatic NSCLC with a KRAS G12C mutation.

If approved, adagrasib would be the second in this class of agents. The first KRASG12C inhibitor for use in lung cancer was sotorasib (Lumakras), approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in May 2021.  

Dr. Sabari noted that there are several differences between the two drugs. Adagrasib has CNS penetration and is the first KRASG12C inhibitor to demonstrate clinical activity in patients with KRAS G12C-mutated NSCLC with untreated active CNS metastases.
 

Published clinical data

The results published in the New England Journal of Medicine are from the company-funded KRYSTAL-1 clinical trial, which had the primary endpoint of objective response rate.

It was conducted in patients with KRAS G12C-mutated NSCLC who had previously received treatment with at least one platinum-containing chemotherapy regimen and checkpoint inhibitor therapy either sequentially or concurrently.

Patients were treated with oral adagrasib 600 mg twice a day until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or death.

On Oct. 15, 2021, the data cutoff date, a total of 116 patients had received at least one dose of adagrasib. At a median follow-up of 12.9 months, the confirmed objective response rate was 42.9% among 112 patients with measurable disease at baseline. One patient achieved a complete response: 42% achieved a partial response, and disease stabilized for a minimum of 6 weeks in over 36% of the group.

Only 5.4% of patients had progressive disease as their best overall response, investigators note. Among those patients who responded to twice-daily KRASG12C inhibition, the median time to response was 1.4 months and the median duration of response was 8.5 months. As of the data cutoff date, one-third of the group were still receiving treatment, the authors note.

Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 6.5 months and median OS was 11.7 months. With a longer median follow-up of 15.6 months, median OS was 12.6 months, and the estimated OS at 1 year was close to 51%.

“The majority of treatment-related adverse events were low-grade, started early in treatment, and quickly resolved after occurrence,” Dr. Sabari noted.

Grade 1-2 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 53% of patients while 45% had grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events, and there were two fatal grade 5 treatment-related adverse events. The same events led to a dose reduction in 52% of the group overall and dose interruption in 61%, while in 7% of patients, treatment-related adverse events led to discontinuation of the drug.
 

CNS metastases

At baseline, some 42 patients had evidence of central nervous system (CNS) metastases. At a median follow-up of 15.4 months, an intracranial-confirmed objective response was achieved in one-third of this subgroup overall while median duration of the intracranial response was 11.2 months. Again, within the same subgroup, the median PFS was 5.4 months.

As Dr. Sabari noted, CNS metastases from KRAS mutant NSCLC are common. “Adagrasib demonstrated encouraging and durable CNS-specific activity in patients with KRAS G12C-mutant NSCLC and active, untreated CNS metastases,” he said.

The study was funded by Mirati Therapeutics.

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

Adagrasib, an investigational drug that acts as a KRASG12C inhibitor, has shown durable clinical benefit in patients with previously treated, advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with tumors with KRAS G12C mutations.

“KRAS G12C mutations occur in over 10% of patients with NSCL [and] remain difficult to target, and outcomes for this patient population have remained poor,” co-investigator Joshua Sabari, MD, assistant professor of medicine, Perlmutter Cancer Center at NYU Langone, said in a statement.

“Our patients benefited clinically from this agent, and it appears to have improved overall survival (OS), compared with historical outcomes with docetaxel, a standard-of-care chemotherapy regimen, in the second-line setting,” he added.

New data on adagrasib were presented at the annual meeting of the American Society for Clinical Oncology and simultaneously published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Adagrasib (developed by Mirati) is currently awaiting approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration as a treatment for patients with NSCLC harboring the KRAS G12C mutation who have received at least one prior systemic therapy. This would be an accelerated approval based on overall response data from the KRYSTAL-1 study detailed below. The company has an ongoing confirmatory Phase 3 trial, KRYSTAL-12, evaluating adagrasib versus docetaxel in patients previously treated for metastatic NSCLC with a KRAS G12C mutation.

If approved, adagrasib would be the second in this class of agents. The first KRASG12C inhibitor for use in lung cancer was sotorasib (Lumakras), approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in May 2021.  

Dr. Sabari noted that there are several differences between the two drugs. Adagrasib has CNS penetration and is the first KRASG12C inhibitor to demonstrate clinical activity in patients with KRAS G12C-mutated NSCLC with untreated active CNS metastases.
 

Published clinical data

The results published in the New England Journal of Medicine are from the company-funded KRYSTAL-1 clinical trial, which had the primary endpoint of objective response rate.

It was conducted in patients with KRAS G12C-mutated NSCLC who had previously received treatment with at least one platinum-containing chemotherapy regimen and checkpoint inhibitor therapy either sequentially or concurrently.

Patients were treated with oral adagrasib 600 mg twice a day until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or death.

On Oct. 15, 2021, the data cutoff date, a total of 116 patients had received at least one dose of adagrasib. At a median follow-up of 12.9 months, the confirmed objective response rate was 42.9% among 112 patients with measurable disease at baseline. One patient achieved a complete response: 42% achieved a partial response, and disease stabilized for a minimum of 6 weeks in over 36% of the group.

Only 5.4% of patients had progressive disease as their best overall response, investigators note. Among those patients who responded to twice-daily KRASG12C inhibition, the median time to response was 1.4 months and the median duration of response was 8.5 months. As of the data cutoff date, one-third of the group were still receiving treatment, the authors note.

Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 6.5 months and median OS was 11.7 months. With a longer median follow-up of 15.6 months, median OS was 12.6 months, and the estimated OS at 1 year was close to 51%.

“The majority of treatment-related adverse events were low-grade, started early in treatment, and quickly resolved after occurrence,” Dr. Sabari noted.

Grade 1-2 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 53% of patients while 45% had grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events, and there were two fatal grade 5 treatment-related adverse events. The same events led to a dose reduction in 52% of the group overall and dose interruption in 61%, while in 7% of patients, treatment-related adverse events led to discontinuation of the drug.
 

CNS metastases

At baseline, some 42 patients had evidence of central nervous system (CNS) metastases. At a median follow-up of 15.4 months, an intracranial-confirmed objective response was achieved in one-third of this subgroup overall while median duration of the intracranial response was 11.2 months. Again, within the same subgroup, the median PFS was 5.4 months.

As Dr. Sabari noted, CNS metastases from KRAS mutant NSCLC are common. “Adagrasib demonstrated encouraging and durable CNS-specific activity in patients with KRAS G12C-mutant NSCLC and active, untreated CNS metastases,” he said.

The study was funded by Mirati Therapeutics.

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

Adagrasib, an investigational drug that acts as a KRASG12C inhibitor, has shown durable clinical benefit in patients with previously treated, advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with tumors with KRAS G12C mutations.

“KRAS G12C mutations occur in over 10% of patients with NSCL [and] remain difficult to target, and outcomes for this patient population have remained poor,” co-investigator Joshua Sabari, MD, assistant professor of medicine, Perlmutter Cancer Center at NYU Langone, said in a statement.

“Our patients benefited clinically from this agent, and it appears to have improved overall survival (OS), compared with historical outcomes with docetaxel, a standard-of-care chemotherapy regimen, in the second-line setting,” he added.

New data on adagrasib were presented at the annual meeting of the American Society for Clinical Oncology and simultaneously published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Adagrasib (developed by Mirati) is currently awaiting approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration as a treatment for patients with NSCLC harboring the KRAS G12C mutation who have received at least one prior systemic therapy. This would be an accelerated approval based on overall response data from the KRYSTAL-1 study detailed below. The company has an ongoing confirmatory Phase 3 trial, KRYSTAL-12, evaluating adagrasib versus docetaxel in patients previously treated for metastatic NSCLC with a KRAS G12C mutation.

If approved, adagrasib would be the second in this class of agents. The first KRASG12C inhibitor for use in lung cancer was sotorasib (Lumakras), approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in May 2021.  

Dr. Sabari noted that there are several differences between the two drugs. Adagrasib has CNS penetration and is the first KRASG12C inhibitor to demonstrate clinical activity in patients with KRAS G12C-mutated NSCLC with untreated active CNS metastases.
 

Published clinical data

The results published in the New England Journal of Medicine are from the company-funded KRYSTAL-1 clinical trial, which had the primary endpoint of objective response rate.

It was conducted in patients with KRAS G12C-mutated NSCLC who had previously received treatment with at least one platinum-containing chemotherapy regimen and checkpoint inhibitor therapy either sequentially or concurrently.

Patients were treated with oral adagrasib 600 mg twice a day until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or death.

On Oct. 15, 2021, the data cutoff date, a total of 116 patients had received at least one dose of adagrasib. At a median follow-up of 12.9 months, the confirmed objective response rate was 42.9% among 112 patients with measurable disease at baseline. One patient achieved a complete response: 42% achieved a partial response, and disease stabilized for a minimum of 6 weeks in over 36% of the group.

Only 5.4% of patients had progressive disease as their best overall response, investigators note. Among those patients who responded to twice-daily KRASG12C inhibition, the median time to response was 1.4 months and the median duration of response was 8.5 months. As of the data cutoff date, one-third of the group were still receiving treatment, the authors note.

Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 6.5 months and median OS was 11.7 months. With a longer median follow-up of 15.6 months, median OS was 12.6 months, and the estimated OS at 1 year was close to 51%.

“The majority of treatment-related adverse events were low-grade, started early in treatment, and quickly resolved after occurrence,” Dr. Sabari noted.

Grade 1-2 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 53% of patients while 45% had grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events, and there were two fatal grade 5 treatment-related adverse events. The same events led to a dose reduction in 52% of the group overall and dose interruption in 61%, while in 7% of patients, treatment-related adverse events led to discontinuation of the drug.
 

CNS metastases

At baseline, some 42 patients had evidence of central nervous system (CNS) metastases. At a median follow-up of 15.4 months, an intracranial-confirmed objective response was achieved in one-third of this subgroup overall while median duration of the intracranial response was 11.2 months. Again, within the same subgroup, the median PFS was 5.4 months.

As Dr. Sabari noted, CNS metastases from KRAS mutant NSCLC are common. “Adagrasib demonstrated encouraging and durable CNS-specific activity in patients with KRAS G12C-mutant NSCLC and active, untreated CNS metastases,” he said.

The study was funded by Mirati Therapeutics.

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

Increasing social services spending by 10% led to improved survival for non-Hispanic Black adults with cancer, according to new research.

Five-year overall survival increased among non-Hispanic Black patients by 2.02% in conjunction with a 10% increase in spending. In addition, there was a decrease in racial disparities in survival between non-Hispanic Black patients and White patients for many types of cancers.

However, public welfare spending had no real impact on the overall 5-year survival for the entire cohort (0.25 % per 10% increase in spending; P = .78) or for non-Hispanic White patients (0.52% per 10% increase in spending, P = .58).

“We know from prior research that outcomes are worse for minorities,” said lead author Justin Michael Barnes, MD, from the department of radiation oncology at Washington University in St. Louis, Mo. “It’s thought that some of the differences are related to impaired access to health care for minorities, which is related to social determinants of health. This includes socioeconomic factors, educational attainment, place of residence, as well as environmental stressors.

“Our data show that greater state welfare expenditures were associated with greater 5-year survival among Black patients and decreased Black–White disparities,” said Dr. Barnes. “I think these data are thought provoking, but they certainly aren’t the end. I see these data as a proof-of-concept project.”

Dr. Barnes reported the findings at a press conference held in advance of the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, during which the study will be presented (Abstract 6509).
 

Improved 5-year survival in Black patients

For the study, Dr. Barnes and colleagues evaluated the association of 5-year overall survival and public welfare spending in 2,925,550 individuals aged 18 years and older who were diagnosed with cancer during the period 2007-2016. The cohort was drawn from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program. In addition, annual state spending data were obtained from the U.S. Census Bureau. The team examined survival outcomes by race and ethnicity as well as by cancer site. The investigators accounted for factors such as age, sex, metropolitan residence, state, county-level income and education, insurance status, cancer site, stage at diagnosis, and year of diagnosis.

Much of public welfare spending was related to Medicaid but also included programs that provide subsidy assistance for individuals, such as Supplemental Security Income.

As compared with White patients, the 5-year overall survival rate was 10.8% lower among non-Hispanic Black patients. But there was a 4.46% (P for interaction <.001) narrowing of the 5-year overall survival disparity in non-Hispanic Black patients in comparison with White patients per 10% increase in spending, or a 42% closure of the 10.8% disparity.

Regarding specific cancer types, increased public welfare spending was associated with a narrowing of the 5-year overall survival disparity between Black patients and non-Hispanic White patients for the following cancers: breast (a 6.15% survival increase for Black patients led to a 39% closing of the disparity), cervix (a 11.9% survival increase led to a 46% closing of the disparity), colorectum (a 4.42% survival increase led to a 48% closing of the disparity), head and neck (a 9.41% survival increase led to a 38% closing of the disparity), liver (a 7.02% survival increase led to a 49% closing of the disparity), ovary (an 8.95% survival increase led to a 41% closing of the disparity), bladder (an 8.18% survival increase led to a 44% closing of the disparity), and uterus (a 14.1% survival increase led to a 40% closing of the disparity).

“Some type of public welfare seems to be helping improve oncologic outcomes for some of our most socioeconomically at-risk patients, but we don’t know the specifics,” Dr. Barnes concluded. “Additional work is needed to identify the most influential public health expenditures. If we can do this, we can more rigorously evaluate state-level policies and their association with cancer outcomes.”
 

Public welfare improves outcomes

Weighing in on the data, Sarah P. Cate, MD, director, Special Surveillance and Breast Program, Mount Sinai Health System, New York, noted that racial disparities have been identified in many areas of health care and with respect to many diseases. “In the world of oncology, time to diagnosis and treatment significantly impacts overall survival,” she told this news organization. “Many studies are currently underway to investigate why certain ethnic groups have worse cancer outcomes.”

This study is important, she noted, in that it “highlights a discrete source of correcting these disparities in a large group of patients. Obviously there are multiple barriers to care, but increased public welfare spending in oncology should decrease some of these disparities.”

Julie R. Gralow, MD, ASCO’s chief medical officer and executive vice president, commented that it is known that state public welfare spending can mitigate structural racism and at least partially address social determinants of health, such as financial stability, education, place of residence, and insurance status. “This research found that states that increased their public health spending improved overall survival in Black patients with a variety of solid tumors and also resulted in a decrease in racial disparities in survival,” she said. “This important data provides clear support for the benefits of investment in public welfare spending at the state level, including Medicaid expansion.”

The study did not receive funding. Dr. Barnes and Dr. Cate have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Gralow has relationships with Genentech, AstraZeneca Hexal, Puma BioTechnology, Roche, Novartis, Seagen, and Genomic Health.

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

Increasing social services spending by 10% led to improved survival for non-Hispanic Black adults with cancer, according to new research.

Five-year overall survival increased among non-Hispanic Black patients by 2.02% in conjunction with a 10% increase in spending. In addition, there was a decrease in racial disparities in survival between non-Hispanic Black patients and White patients for many types of cancers.

However, public welfare spending had no real impact on the overall 5-year survival for the entire cohort (0.25 % per 10% increase in spending; P = .78) or for non-Hispanic White patients (0.52% per 10% increase in spending, P = .58).

“We know from prior research that outcomes are worse for minorities,” said lead author Justin Michael Barnes, MD, from the department of radiation oncology at Washington University in St. Louis, Mo. “It’s thought that some of the differences are related to impaired access to health care for minorities, which is related to social determinants of health. This includes socioeconomic factors, educational attainment, place of residence, as well as environmental stressors.

“Our data show that greater state welfare expenditures were associated with greater 5-year survival among Black patients and decreased Black–White disparities,” said Dr. Barnes. “I think these data are thought provoking, but they certainly aren’t the end. I see these data as a proof-of-concept project.”

Dr. Barnes reported the findings at a press conference held in advance of the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, during which the study will be presented (Abstract 6509).
 

Improved 5-year survival in Black patients

For the study, Dr. Barnes and colleagues evaluated the association of 5-year overall survival and public welfare spending in 2,925,550 individuals aged 18 years and older who were diagnosed with cancer during the period 2007-2016. The cohort was drawn from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program. In addition, annual state spending data were obtained from the U.S. Census Bureau. The team examined survival outcomes by race and ethnicity as well as by cancer site. The investigators accounted for factors such as age, sex, metropolitan residence, state, county-level income and education, insurance status, cancer site, stage at diagnosis, and year of diagnosis.

Much of public welfare spending was related to Medicaid but also included programs that provide subsidy assistance for individuals, such as Supplemental Security Income.

As compared with White patients, the 5-year overall survival rate was 10.8% lower among non-Hispanic Black patients. But there was a 4.46% (P for interaction <.001) narrowing of the 5-year overall survival disparity in non-Hispanic Black patients in comparison with White patients per 10% increase in spending, or a 42% closure of the 10.8% disparity.

Regarding specific cancer types, increased public welfare spending was associated with a narrowing of the 5-year overall survival disparity between Black patients and non-Hispanic White patients for the following cancers: breast (a 6.15% survival increase for Black patients led to a 39% closing of the disparity), cervix (a 11.9% survival increase led to a 46% closing of the disparity), colorectum (a 4.42% survival increase led to a 48% closing of the disparity), head and neck (a 9.41% survival increase led to a 38% closing of the disparity), liver (a 7.02% survival increase led to a 49% closing of the disparity), ovary (an 8.95% survival increase led to a 41% closing of the disparity), bladder (an 8.18% survival increase led to a 44% closing of the disparity), and uterus (a 14.1% survival increase led to a 40% closing of the disparity).

“Some type of public welfare seems to be helping improve oncologic outcomes for some of our most socioeconomically at-risk patients, but we don’t know the specifics,” Dr. Barnes concluded. “Additional work is needed to identify the most influential public health expenditures. If we can do this, we can more rigorously evaluate state-level policies and their association with cancer outcomes.”
 

Public welfare improves outcomes

Weighing in on the data, Sarah P. Cate, MD, director, Special Surveillance and Breast Program, Mount Sinai Health System, New York, noted that racial disparities have been identified in many areas of health care and with respect to many diseases. “In the world of oncology, time to diagnosis and treatment significantly impacts overall survival,” she told this news organization. “Many studies are currently underway to investigate why certain ethnic groups have worse cancer outcomes.”

This study is important, she noted, in that it “highlights a discrete source of correcting these disparities in a large group of patients. Obviously there are multiple barriers to care, but increased public welfare spending in oncology should decrease some of these disparities.”

Julie R. Gralow, MD, ASCO’s chief medical officer and executive vice president, commented that it is known that state public welfare spending can mitigate structural racism and at least partially address social determinants of health, such as financial stability, education, place of residence, and insurance status. “This research found that states that increased their public health spending improved overall survival in Black patients with a variety of solid tumors and also resulted in a decrease in racial disparities in survival,” she said. “This important data provides clear support for the benefits of investment in public welfare spending at the state level, including Medicaid expansion.”

The study did not receive funding. Dr. Barnes and Dr. Cate have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Gralow has relationships with Genentech, AstraZeneca Hexal, Puma BioTechnology, Roche, Novartis, Seagen, and Genomic Health.

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

Increasing social services spending by 10% led to improved survival for non-Hispanic Black adults with cancer, according to new research.

Five-year overall survival increased among non-Hispanic Black patients by 2.02% in conjunction with a 10% increase in spending. In addition, there was a decrease in racial disparities in survival between non-Hispanic Black patients and White patients for many types of cancers.

However, public welfare spending had no real impact on the overall 5-year survival for the entire cohort (0.25 % per 10% increase in spending; P = .78) or for non-Hispanic White patients (0.52% per 10% increase in spending, P = .58).

“We know from prior research that outcomes are worse for minorities,” said lead author Justin Michael Barnes, MD, from the department of radiation oncology at Washington University in St. Louis, Mo. “It’s thought that some of the differences are related to impaired access to health care for minorities, which is related to social determinants of health. This includes socioeconomic factors, educational attainment, place of residence, as well as environmental stressors.

“Our data show that greater state welfare expenditures were associated with greater 5-year survival among Black patients and decreased Black–White disparities,” said Dr. Barnes. “I think these data are thought provoking, but they certainly aren’t the end. I see these data as a proof-of-concept project.”

Dr. Barnes reported the findings at a press conference held in advance of the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, during which the study will be presented (Abstract 6509).
 

Improved 5-year survival in Black patients

For the study, Dr. Barnes and colleagues evaluated the association of 5-year overall survival and public welfare spending in 2,925,550 individuals aged 18 years and older who were diagnosed with cancer during the period 2007-2016. The cohort was drawn from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program. In addition, annual state spending data were obtained from the U.S. Census Bureau. The team examined survival outcomes by race and ethnicity as well as by cancer site. The investigators accounted for factors such as age, sex, metropolitan residence, state, county-level income and education, insurance status, cancer site, stage at diagnosis, and year of diagnosis.

Much of public welfare spending was related to Medicaid but also included programs that provide subsidy assistance for individuals, such as Supplemental Security Income.

As compared with White patients, the 5-year overall survival rate was 10.8% lower among non-Hispanic Black patients. But there was a 4.46% (P for interaction <.001) narrowing of the 5-year overall survival disparity in non-Hispanic Black patients in comparison with White patients per 10% increase in spending, or a 42% closure of the 10.8% disparity.

Regarding specific cancer types, increased public welfare spending was associated with a narrowing of the 5-year overall survival disparity between Black patients and non-Hispanic White patients for the following cancers: breast (a 6.15% survival increase for Black patients led to a 39% closing of the disparity), cervix (a 11.9% survival increase led to a 46% closing of the disparity), colorectum (a 4.42% survival increase led to a 48% closing of the disparity), head and neck (a 9.41% survival increase led to a 38% closing of the disparity), liver (a 7.02% survival increase led to a 49% closing of the disparity), ovary (an 8.95% survival increase led to a 41% closing of the disparity), bladder (an 8.18% survival increase led to a 44% closing of the disparity), and uterus (a 14.1% survival increase led to a 40% closing of the disparity).

“Some type of public welfare seems to be helping improve oncologic outcomes for some of our most socioeconomically at-risk patients, but we don’t know the specifics,” Dr. Barnes concluded. “Additional work is needed to identify the most influential public health expenditures. If we can do this, we can more rigorously evaluate state-level policies and their association with cancer outcomes.”
 

Public welfare improves outcomes

Weighing in on the data, Sarah P. Cate, MD, director, Special Surveillance and Breast Program, Mount Sinai Health System, New York, noted that racial disparities have been identified in many areas of health care and with respect to many diseases. “In the world of oncology, time to diagnosis and treatment significantly impacts overall survival,” she told this news organization. “Many studies are currently underway to investigate why certain ethnic groups have worse cancer outcomes.”

This study is important, she noted, in that it “highlights a discrete source of correcting these disparities in a large group of patients. Obviously there are multiple barriers to care, but increased public welfare spending in oncology should decrease some of these disparities.”

Julie R. Gralow, MD, ASCO’s chief medical officer and executive vice president, commented that it is known that state public welfare spending can mitigate structural racism and at least partially address social determinants of health, such as financial stability, education, place of residence, and insurance status. “This research found that states that increased their public health spending improved overall survival in Black patients with a variety of solid tumors and also resulted in a decrease in racial disparities in survival,” she said. “This important data provides clear support for the benefits of investment in public welfare spending at the state level, including Medicaid expansion.”

The study did not receive funding. Dr. Barnes and Dr. Cate have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Gralow has relationships with Genentech, AstraZeneca Hexal, Puma BioTechnology, Roche, Novartis, Seagen, and Genomic Health.

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

Among patients with resectable non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), neoadjuvant nivolumab combined with chemotherapy led to significantly longer event-free survival and more frequent pathological complete response in patients than chemotherapy alone.

“Our data show that three cycles of neoadjuvant nivolumab plus chemotherapy improved long-term clinical outcomes in patients with resectable stage IB-IIIA NSCLC without impeding the feasibility of surgery or increasing the incidence of adverse events as compared with chemotherapy alone,” wrote the investigators, who were led by Patrick M. Forde, MB, BCh, Johns Hopkins Kimmel Cancer Center, Baltimore. The study was published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Nivolumab (Opdivo, Bristol-Myers Squibb), in combination with platinum-doublet chemotherapy, was approved in March by the Food and Drug Administration as a treatment for adults with early-stage, resectable NSCLC. It is the first approval of a neoadjuvant therapy for this patient population. The results of the study, called CheckMate 816, formed the basis of the approval.

About one in four NSCLC patients have resectable disease at diagnosis, but their mortality rate is 30%-55% even after surgery. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy improves survival in this group, but 5-year recurrence rates improve by just 5%-6%, and rates of pathological complete response are low.

In the neoadjuvant setting, the anti–programmed death 1 (PD-1) antibody nivolumab could reduce micrometastases and boost immune response against bulk tumor and tumor antigens. A phase 2 study published in the Journal of Thoracic Oncology showed that neoadjuvant nivolumab combined with chemotherapy conferred good 3-year overall survival (81.9%) and progression-free survival (69.6%) among patients with stage IIIA NSCLC.
 

Results from CheckMate 816

CheckMate 816 is an open-label, phase 3 trial in which 358 patients were randomized to a neoadjuvant course of 360 mg nivolumab and platinum-doublet chemotherapy or platinum-doublet chemotherapy alone. Treatments occurred every 3 weeks for three cycles.

Definitive surgery was performed in 83.2% of the combination group (R0, 83.2%) and 75.4% in the chemotherapy-only group (R0, 77.8%). 93.8% in the combined group and 84.7% in the chemotherapy-only group completed neoadjuvant treatment. 11.9% of the combination group and 22.2% in the chemotherapy-only group underwent adjuvant therapy. A total of 21.2% in the combination group had cancer therapy versus 43.6% of the chemotherapy-only group.

After a minimum follow-up of 21 months, the combination group had a median event-free survival of 31.6 months versus 20.8 months in the chemotherapy-only group (hazard ratio for disease progression, disease recurrence, or death, 0.63; P = .005). The interim analysis for overall survival showed a possible trend towards improved overall survival in the combination group (HR, 0.57; 99.67% confidence interval, 0.30-1.07; P = .0008).

A total of 24.0% of the combination therapy achieved a pathological complete response versus 2.2% in the chemotherapy-only group (odds ratio, 13.94; P < .001).

Grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 33.5% of the combination group and 36.9% of the chemotherapy-only group.

The researchers noted that 63.1% of patients in the study had stage IIIA tumors, which has a poor prognosis.

There were benefits to the combination treatment across PD-1–status subgroups, but event-free survival was higher where PD-L1 expression level was 1% or more.

The study is limited by its open-label nature. It was funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb.

Among patients with resectable non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), neoadjuvant nivolumab combined with chemotherapy led to significantly longer event-free survival and more frequent pathological complete response in patients than chemotherapy alone.

“Our data show that three cycles of neoadjuvant nivolumab plus chemotherapy improved long-term clinical outcomes in patients with resectable stage IB-IIIA NSCLC without impeding the feasibility of surgery or increasing the incidence of adverse events as compared with chemotherapy alone,” wrote the investigators, who were led by Patrick M. Forde, MB, BCh, Johns Hopkins Kimmel Cancer Center, Baltimore. The study was published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Nivolumab (Opdivo, Bristol-Myers Squibb), in combination with platinum-doublet chemotherapy, was approved in March by the Food and Drug Administration as a treatment for adults with early-stage, resectable NSCLC. It is the first approval of a neoadjuvant therapy for this patient population. The results of the study, called CheckMate 816, formed the basis of the approval.

About one in four NSCLC patients have resectable disease at diagnosis, but their mortality rate is 30%-55% even after surgery. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy improves survival in this group, but 5-year recurrence rates improve by just 5%-6%, and rates of pathological complete response are low.

In the neoadjuvant setting, the anti–programmed death 1 (PD-1) antibody nivolumab could reduce micrometastases and boost immune response against bulk tumor and tumor antigens. A phase 2 study published in the Journal of Thoracic Oncology showed that neoadjuvant nivolumab combined with chemotherapy conferred good 3-year overall survival (81.9%) and progression-free survival (69.6%) among patients with stage IIIA NSCLC.
 

Results from CheckMate 816

CheckMate 816 is an open-label, phase 3 trial in which 358 patients were randomized to a neoadjuvant course of 360 mg nivolumab and platinum-doublet chemotherapy or platinum-doublet chemotherapy alone. Treatments occurred every 3 weeks for three cycles.

Definitive surgery was performed in 83.2% of the combination group (R0, 83.2%) and 75.4% in the chemotherapy-only group (R0, 77.8%). 93.8% in the combined group and 84.7% in the chemotherapy-only group completed neoadjuvant treatment. 11.9% of the combination group and 22.2% in the chemotherapy-only group underwent adjuvant therapy. A total of 21.2% in the combination group had cancer therapy versus 43.6% of the chemotherapy-only group.

After a minimum follow-up of 21 months, the combination group had a median event-free survival of 31.6 months versus 20.8 months in the chemotherapy-only group (hazard ratio for disease progression, disease recurrence, or death, 0.63; P = .005). The interim analysis for overall survival showed a possible trend towards improved overall survival in the combination group (HR, 0.57; 99.67% confidence interval, 0.30-1.07; P = .0008).

A total of 24.0% of the combination therapy achieved a pathological complete response versus 2.2% in the chemotherapy-only group (odds ratio, 13.94; P < .001).

Grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 33.5% of the combination group and 36.9% of the chemotherapy-only group.

The researchers noted that 63.1% of patients in the study had stage IIIA tumors, which has a poor prognosis.

There were benefits to the combination treatment across PD-1–status subgroups, but event-free survival was higher where PD-L1 expression level was 1% or more.

The study is limited by its open-label nature. It was funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb.

Among patients with resectable non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), neoadjuvant nivolumab combined with chemotherapy led to significantly longer event-free survival and more frequent pathological complete response in patients than chemotherapy alone.

“Our data show that three cycles of neoadjuvant nivolumab plus chemotherapy improved long-term clinical outcomes in patients with resectable stage IB-IIIA NSCLC without impeding the feasibility of surgery or increasing the incidence of adverse events as compared with chemotherapy alone,” wrote the investigators, who were led by Patrick M. Forde, MB, BCh, Johns Hopkins Kimmel Cancer Center, Baltimore. The study was published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Nivolumab (Opdivo, Bristol-Myers Squibb), in combination with platinum-doublet chemotherapy, was approved in March by the Food and Drug Administration as a treatment for adults with early-stage, resectable NSCLC. It is the first approval of a neoadjuvant therapy for this patient population. The results of the study, called CheckMate 816, formed the basis of the approval.

About one in four NSCLC patients have resectable disease at diagnosis, but their mortality rate is 30%-55% even after surgery. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy improves survival in this group, but 5-year recurrence rates improve by just 5%-6%, and rates of pathological complete response are low.

In the neoadjuvant setting, the anti–programmed death 1 (PD-1) antibody nivolumab could reduce micrometastases and boost immune response against bulk tumor and tumor antigens. A phase 2 study published in the Journal of Thoracic Oncology showed that neoadjuvant nivolumab combined with chemotherapy conferred good 3-year overall survival (81.9%) and progression-free survival (69.6%) among patients with stage IIIA NSCLC.
 

Results from CheckMate 816

CheckMate 816 is an open-label, phase 3 trial in which 358 patients were randomized to a neoadjuvant course of 360 mg nivolumab and platinum-doublet chemotherapy or platinum-doublet chemotherapy alone. Treatments occurred every 3 weeks for three cycles.

Definitive surgery was performed in 83.2% of the combination group (R0, 83.2%) and 75.4% in the chemotherapy-only group (R0, 77.8%). 93.8% in the combined group and 84.7% in the chemotherapy-only group completed neoadjuvant treatment. 11.9% of the combination group and 22.2% in the chemotherapy-only group underwent adjuvant therapy. A total of 21.2% in the combination group had cancer therapy versus 43.6% of the chemotherapy-only group.

After a minimum follow-up of 21 months, the combination group had a median event-free survival of 31.6 months versus 20.8 months in the chemotherapy-only group (hazard ratio for disease progression, disease recurrence, or death, 0.63; P = .005). The interim analysis for overall survival showed a possible trend towards improved overall survival in the combination group (HR, 0.57; 99.67% confidence interval, 0.30-1.07; P = .0008).

A total of 24.0% of the combination therapy achieved a pathological complete response versus 2.2% in the chemotherapy-only group (odds ratio, 13.94; P < .001).

Grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 33.5% of the combination group and 36.9% of the chemotherapy-only group.

The researchers noted that 63.1% of patients in the study had stage IIIA tumors, which has a poor prognosis.

There were benefits to the combination treatment across PD-1–status subgroups, but event-free survival was higher where PD-L1 expression level was 1% or more.

The study is limited by its open-label nature. It was funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb.

A 5-year cervical screening interval is as safe and effective for women who test negative for human papillomavirus (HPV) as are 3-year intervals, according to a new ‘real life’ study led by King’s College London (KCL) with researchers from the University of Manchester, and the NHS, on behalf of the HPV pilot steering group.

The study, published in The BMJ, used data from the HPV screening pilot to assess rates of detection of high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN3+) and of cervical cancer following a negative HPV test. It confirmed that 5-yearly screening prevents as many cancers as screening at 3-year intervals, even in women who are not vaccinated against HPV.
 

Change to primary HPV testing since 2019 

Before 2019, the NHS cervical screening program conducted cytology testing first, testing for HPV only if abnormalities were found. In 2019, following reporting of early results of the HPV pilot by the same researchers, the program in England switched to testing for HPV first, on the grounds that since having HPV infection comes before having abnormal cells, HPV testing would detect more women at risk of cervical cancer.

Following the switch to primary HPV testing, the same screening intervals were retained, meaning 3-yearly screening for those aged 24-49 years and testing every 5 years for women aged 50-64 years, or 3 years if they tested positive. However, the National Screening Committee had recommended that invites should be changed from 3 to 5 years for those in the under-50 age group found not to have high-risk HPV at their routine screening test.

For the latest study, funded by Cancer Research UK, the steering group researchers analyzed details for more than 1.3 million women who had attended screening for two rounds of the HPV screening pilot, the first from 2013 to 2016, with a follow-up to the end of 2019. By this time, the data set had doubled in size from the pilot study, and results had been linked with the national cancer registry.

They confirmed that HPV testing was more accurate than a cytology test, irrespective of whether the HPV test assay was DNA- or mRNA-based. With HPV testing, the risk of subsequent cytological changes more than halved overall. Eligible women under 50 who had a negative HPV screen in the first round had a much lower risk of detection of CIN3+ in the second round, with a rate of 1.21 in 1,000, compared with 4.52 in 1,000 after a negative cytology test.
 

Data support extension of the testing interval

“The study confirms that women in this age group are much less likely to develop clinically relevant cervical lesions and cervical cancer, 3 years after a negative HPV screen, compared with a negative smear test,” the researchers said.

They suggested that most women do not need to be screened as frequently as the current program allows, and that the data support an extension of the screening intervals, regardless of the test assay used, to 5 years after a negative HPV test in women aged 25-49 years, and even longer for women aged 50 years and older.

However, the screening interval for HPV-positive women who have negative HPV tests at early recall should be kept at 3 years, they said.

“These results are very reassuring,” said lead author Matejka Rebolj, PhD, senior epidemiologist at KCL. “They build on previous research that shows that following the introduction of HPV testing for cervical screening, a 5-year interval is at least as safe as the previous 3-year interval. Changing to 5-yearly screening will mean we can prevent just as many cancers as before, while allowing for fewer screens.”

Michelle Mitchell, Cancer Research UK’s chief executive, said: “This large study shows that offering cervical screening using HPV testing effectively prevents cervical cancer, without having to be screened as often. This builds on findings from years of research showing HPV testing is more accurate at predicting who is at risk of developing cervical cancer compared to the previous way of testing. As changes to the screening [programs] are made, they will be monitored to help ensure that cervical screening is as effective as possible for all who take part.”
 

If HPV is present, testing interval should remain every 3 years

Responding to the study, Theresa Freeman-Wang, MBChB, consultant gynecologist, president of the British Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology, and spokesperson for the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, told this news organization: “England, Scotland, and Wales and many other countries now use HPV primary screening, which is much better at assessing risk than previous methods. HPV testing is more sensitive and accurate, so changes are picked up earlier.

“Studies have confirmed that if someone is HPV negative (i.e., HPV is not present in the screen test), intervals between tests can very safely be increased from 3 to 5 years. 

“If HPV is present, then the program will automatically look for any abnormal cells. If there are no abnormalities, the woman will be advised to have a repeat screen test in a year. If the HPV remains present over 3 successive years or if abnormal cells are detected at any stage, she will be referred for a more detailed screening examination called a colposcopy.

“It’s important that with any change like this, there is clear information available to explain what these changes mean.

“We have an effective cervical screening program in the UK that has significantly reduced the number of cases and deaths from this preventable cancer. 

“HPV screening every 5 years is safe and to be fully effective it is vital that women take up the invitation for cervical screening when called.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape UK.

A 5-year cervical screening interval is as safe and effective for women who test negative for human papillomavirus (HPV) as are 3-year intervals, according to a new ‘real life’ study led by King’s College London (KCL) with researchers from the University of Manchester, and the NHS, on behalf of the HPV pilot steering group.

The study, published in The BMJ, used data from the HPV screening pilot to assess rates of detection of high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN3+) and of cervical cancer following a negative HPV test. It confirmed that 5-yearly screening prevents as many cancers as screening at 3-year intervals, even in women who are not vaccinated against HPV.
 

Change to primary HPV testing since 2019 

Before 2019, the NHS cervical screening program conducted cytology testing first, testing for HPV only if abnormalities were found. In 2019, following reporting of early results of the HPV pilot by the same researchers, the program in England switched to testing for HPV first, on the grounds that since having HPV infection comes before having abnormal cells, HPV testing would detect more women at risk of cervical cancer.

Following the switch to primary HPV testing, the same screening intervals were retained, meaning 3-yearly screening for those aged 24-49 years and testing every 5 years for women aged 50-64 years, or 3 years if they tested positive. However, the National Screening Committee had recommended that invites should be changed from 3 to 5 years for those in the under-50 age group found not to have high-risk HPV at their routine screening test.

For the latest study, funded by Cancer Research UK, the steering group researchers analyzed details for more than 1.3 million women who had attended screening for two rounds of the HPV screening pilot, the first from 2013 to 2016, with a follow-up to the end of 2019. By this time, the data set had doubled in size from the pilot study, and results had been linked with the national cancer registry.

They confirmed that HPV testing was more accurate than a cytology test, irrespective of whether the HPV test assay was DNA- or mRNA-based. With HPV testing, the risk of subsequent cytological changes more than halved overall. Eligible women under 50 who had a negative HPV screen in the first round had a much lower risk of detection of CIN3+ in the second round, with a rate of 1.21 in 1,000, compared with 4.52 in 1,000 after a negative cytology test.
 

Data support extension of the testing interval

“The study confirms that women in this age group are much less likely to develop clinically relevant cervical lesions and cervical cancer, 3 years after a negative HPV screen, compared with a negative smear test,” the researchers said.

They suggested that most women do not need to be screened as frequently as the current program allows, and that the data support an extension of the screening intervals, regardless of the test assay used, to 5 years after a negative HPV test in women aged 25-49 years, and even longer for women aged 50 years and older.

However, the screening interval for HPV-positive women who have negative HPV tests at early recall should be kept at 3 years, they said.

“These results are very reassuring,” said lead author Matejka Rebolj, PhD, senior epidemiologist at KCL. “They build on previous research that shows that following the introduction of HPV testing for cervical screening, a 5-year interval is at least as safe as the previous 3-year interval. Changing to 5-yearly screening will mean we can prevent just as many cancers as before, while allowing for fewer screens.”

Michelle Mitchell, Cancer Research UK’s chief executive, said: “This large study shows that offering cervical screening using HPV testing effectively prevents cervical cancer, without having to be screened as often. This builds on findings from years of research showing HPV testing is more accurate at predicting who is at risk of developing cervical cancer compared to the previous way of testing. As changes to the screening [programs] are made, they will be monitored to help ensure that cervical screening is as effective as possible for all who take part.”
 

If HPV is present, testing interval should remain every 3 years

Responding to the study, Theresa Freeman-Wang, MBChB, consultant gynecologist, president of the British Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology, and spokesperson for the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, told this news organization: “England, Scotland, and Wales and many other countries now use HPV primary screening, which is much better at assessing risk than previous methods. HPV testing is more sensitive and accurate, so changes are picked up earlier.

“Studies have confirmed that if someone is HPV negative (i.e., HPV is not present in the screen test), intervals between tests can very safely be increased from 3 to 5 years. 

“If HPV is present, then the program will automatically look for any abnormal cells. If there are no abnormalities, the woman will be advised to have a repeat screen test in a year. If the HPV remains present over 3 successive years or if abnormal cells are detected at any stage, she will be referred for a more detailed screening examination called a colposcopy.

“It’s important that with any change like this, there is clear information available to explain what these changes mean.

“We have an effective cervical screening program in the UK that has significantly reduced the number of cases and deaths from this preventable cancer. 

“HPV screening every 5 years is safe and to be fully effective it is vital that women take up the invitation for cervical screening when called.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape UK.

A 5-year cervical screening interval is as safe and effective for women who test negative for human papillomavirus (HPV) as are 3-year intervals, according to a new ‘real life’ study led by King’s College London (KCL) with researchers from the University of Manchester, and the NHS, on behalf of the HPV pilot steering group.

The study, published in The BMJ, used data from the HPV screening pilot to assess rates of detection of high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN3+) and of cervical cancer following a negative HPV test. It confirmed that 5-yearly screening prevents as many cancers as screening at 3-year intervals, even in women who are not vaccinated against HPV.
 

Change to primary HPV testing since 2019 

Before 2019, the NHS cervical screening program conducted cytology testing first, testing for HPV only if abnormalities were found. In 2019, following reporting of early results of the HPV pilot by the same researchers, the program in England switched to testing for HPV first, on the grounds that since having HPV infection comes before having abnormal cells, HPV testing would detect more women at risk of cervical cancer.

Following the switch to primary HPV testing, the same screening intervals were retained, meaning 3-yearly screening for those aged 24-49 years and testing every 5 years for women aged 50-64 years, or 3 years if they tested positive. However, the National Screening Committee had recommended that invites should be changed from 3 to 5 years for those in the under-50 age group found not to have high-risk HPV at their routine screening test.

For the latest study, funded by Cancer Research UK, the steering group researchers analyzed details for more than 1.3 million women who had attended screening for two rounds of the HPV screening pilot, the first from 2013 to 2016, with a follow-up to the end of 2019. By this time, the data set had doubled in size from the pilot study, and results had been linked with the national cancer registry.

They confirmed that HPV testing was more accurate than a cytology test, irrespective of whether the HPV test assay was DNA- or mRNA-based. With HPV testing, the risk of subsequent cytological changes more than halved overall. Eligible women under 50 who had a negative HPV screen in the first round had a much lower risk of detection of CIN3+ in the second round, with a rate of 1.21 in 1,000, compared with 4.52 in 1,000 after a negative cytology test.
 

Data support extension of the testing interval

“The study confirms that women in this age group are much less likely to develop clinically relevant cervical lesions and cervical cancer, 3 years after a negative HPV screen, compared with a negative smear test,” the researchers said.

They suggested that most women do not need to be screened as frequently as the current program allows, and that the data support an extension of the screening intervals, regardless of the test assay used, to 5 years after a negative HPV test in women aged 25-49 years, and even longer for women aged 50 years and older.

However, the screening interval for HPV-positive women who have negative HPV tests at early recall should be kept at 3 years, they said.

“These results are very reassuring,” said lead author Matejka Rebolj, PhD, senior epidemiologist at KCL. “They build on previous research that shows that following the introduction of HPV testing for cervical screening, a 5-year interval is at least as safe as the previous 3-year interval. Changing to 5-yearly screening will mean we can prevent just as many cancers as before, while allowing for fewer screens.”

Michelle Mitchell, Cancer Research UK’s chief executive, said: “This large study shows that offering cervical screening using HPV testing effectively prevents cervical cancer, without having to be screened as often. This builds on findings from years of research showing HPV testing is more accurate at predicting who is at risk of developing cervical cancer compared to the previous way of testing. As changes to the screening [programs] are made, they will be monitored to help ensure that cervical screening is as effective as possible for all who take part.”
 

If HPV is present, testing interval should remain every 3 years

Responding to the study, Theresa Freeman-Wang, MBChB, consultant gynecologist, president of the British Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology, and spokesperson for the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, told this news organization: “England, Scotland, and Wales and many other countries now use HPV primary screening, which is much better at assessing risk than previous methods. HPV testing is more sensitive and accurate, so changes are picked up earlier.

“Studies have confirmed that if someone is HPV negative (i.e., HPV is not present in the screen test), intervals between tests can very safely be increased from 3 to 5 years. 

“If HPV is present, then the program will automatically look for any abnormal cells. If there are no abnormalities, the woman will be advised to have a repeat screen test in a year. If the HPV remains present over 3 successive years or if abnormal cells are detected at any stage, she will be referred for a more detailed screening examination called a colposcopy.

“It’s important that with any change like this, there is clear information available to explain what these changes mean.

“We have an effective cervical screening program in the UK that has significantly reduced the number of cases and deaths from this preventable cancer. 

“HPV screening every 5 years is safe and to be fully effective it is vital that women take up the invitation for cervical screening when called.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape UK.

The Food and Drug Administration announced on June 1 it has withdrawn approval of the lymphoma drug umbralisib (Ukoniq) following an investigation into a “possible increased risk of death.”

Umbralisib had received accelerated approval in February 2021 to treat adults with relapsed or refractory marginal zone lymphoma following at least one prior therapy and those with relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma who had received at least three prior therapies.

But safety concerns began to emerge in the phase 3 UNITY-CLL trial, which evaluated the drug in a related cancer type: chronic lymphocytic leukemia.

Last February, the FDA said it was investigating a possible increased risk of death associated with umbralisib.

Five months later, the results are in.

“Updated findings from the UNITY-CLL clinical trial continued to show a possible increased risk of death in patients receiving Ukoniq. As a result, we determined the risks of treatment with Ukoniq outweigh its benefits,” the FDA wrote in a drug safety communication published June 1.

In April, the drug manufacturer, TG Therapeutics, announced it was voluntarily withdrawing umbralisib from the market for its approved uses in marginal zone lymphoma and follicular lymphoma.

The FDA’s safety notice includes instructions for physicians and patients. The FDA urges health care professionals to “stop prescribing Ukoniq and switch patients to alternative treatments” and to “inform patients currently taking Ukoniq of the increased risk of death seen in the clinical trial and advise them to stop taking the medicine.”

In special instances in which a patient may be benefiting from the drug, the company plans to make umbralisib available under expanded access.

The FDA also recommends that patients who discontinue taking the drug dispose of unused umbralisib using a drug take-back location, such as a pharmacy, or throwing it away in the household trash after placing it in a sealed bag mixed with dirt or cat litter and removing personal identification information.

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

The Food and Drug Administration announced on June 1 it has withdrawn approval of the lymphoma drug umbralisib (Ukoniq) following an investigation into a “possible increased risk of death.”

Umbralisib had received accelerated approval in February 2021 to treat adults with relapsed or refractory marginal zone lymphoma following at least one prior therapy and those with relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma who had received at least three prior therapies.

But safety concerns began to emerge in the phase 3 UNITY-CLL trial, which evaluated the drug in a related cancer type: chronic lymphocytic leukemia.

Last February, the FDA said it was investigating a possible increased risk of death associated with umbralisib.

Five months later, the results are in.

“Updated findings from the UNITY-CLL clinical trial continued to show a possible increased risk of death in patients receiving Ukoniq. As a result, we determined the risks of treatment with Ukoniq outweigh its benefits,” the FDA wrote in a drug safety communication published June 1.

In April, the drug manufacturer, TG Therapeutics, announced it was voluntarily withdrawing umbralisib from the market for its approved uses in marginal zone lymphoma and follicular lymphoma.

The FDA’s safety notice includes instructions for physicians and patients. The FDA urges health care professionals to “stop prescribing Ukoniq and switch patients to alternative treatments” and to “inform patients currently taking Ukoniq of the increased risk of death seen in the clinical trial and advise them to stop taking the medicine.”

In special instances in which a patient may be benefiting from the drug, the company plans to make umbralisib available under expanded access.

The FDA also recommends that patients who discontinue taking the drug dispose of unused umbralisib using a drug take-back location, such as a pharmacy, or throwing it away in the household trash after placing it in a sealed bag mixed with dirt or cat litter and removing personal identification information.

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

The Food and Drug Administration announced on June 1 it has withdrawn approval of the lymphoma drug umbralisib (Ukoniq) following an investigation into a “possible increased risk of death.”

Umbralisib had received accelerated approval in February 2021 to treat adults with relapsed or refractory marginal zone lymphoma following at least one prior therapy and those with relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma who had received at least three prior therapies.

But safety concerns began to emerge in the phase 3 UNITY-CLL trial, which evaluated the drug in a related cancer type: chronic lymphocytic leukemia.

Last February, the FDA said it was investigating a possible increased risk of death associated with umbralisib.

Five months later, the results are in.

“Updated findings from the UNITY-CLL clinical trial continued to show a possible increased risk of death in patients receiving Ukoniq. As a result, we determined the risks of treatment with Ukoniq outweigh its benefits,” the FDA wrote in a drug safety communication published June 1.

In April, the drug manufacturer, TG Therapeutics, announced it was voluntarily withdrawing umbralisib from the market for its approved uses in marginal zone lymphoma and follicular lymphoma.

The FDA’s safety notice includes instructions for physicians and patients. The FDA urges health care professionals to “stop prescribing Ukoniq and switch patients to alternative treatments” and to “inform patients currently taking Ukoniq of the increased risk of death seen in the clinical trial and advise them to stop taking the medicine.”

In special instances in which a patient may be benefiting from the drug, the company plans to make umbralisib available under expanded access.

The FDA also recommends that patients who discontinue taking the drug dispose of unused umbralisib using a drug take-back location, such as a pharmacy, or throwing it away in the household trash after placing it in a sealed bag mixed with dirt or cat litter and removing personal identification information.

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

A study published in May in The Lancet journal eClinicalMedicine reports that breathomics testing is one step closer to becoming a reality as a lung cancer screening tool.

The tool was successfully used to identify, in 84 patients, 16 lung cancer–related carcinogenic volatile compounds (VOCs), such as aldehydes, hydrocarbons, ketones, carboxylic acids, and furan – some of which are compounds used in the production of common household goods, such as furniture, carpeting, and wood floors.

“The test is anticipated to be highlighted for primary screening of lung cancer but not the final diagnosis,” according to study authors who were led by Peiyu Wang, MD, PhD, chair of social medicine and health at Peking (China) University.

While early diagnosis and treatment are critical for improving lung cancer survival, early detection of lung cancer is challenging because of the lack of clinical manifestations and specific biomarkers. Annual CT scans are costly and include radiation exposure, Dr. Wang and his associates wrote.

Breathomics testing is considered a promising method for detection and screening for lung cancer. It has been under study for years and in 2014, researchers from Belgium published a review in Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers and Prevention documenting the use of VOCs as early diagnostic or prognostic biomarkers for mesothelioma.

Lung cancer breath biomarkers identified in various studies have been highly heterogeneous because of differing sample collection methods, varying patient conditions, testing environments, and analysis methods. As a result, there currently is no breathomics test for lung cancer screening, Dr. Wang said in an interview.

In terms of its potential as a lung cancer screening tool, “Clinicians may introduce this test for people with high risk for lung cancer, such as elderly smokers, or people with suspected symptoms. It may also be introduced for young populations with subjective or objective needs to screen for lung cancer. As the proportion of lung adenocarcinoma in nonsmoking young women is increasing, the test may be a good method for lung cancer screening in this population,” Dr. Wang said.

After adjusting for age, sex, smoking, and comorbidities, researchers found elevated levels for 16 VOCs in patients with lung cancer. A diagnostic model including the 16 VOCs achieved an area under the curve of 0.952, sensitivity of 89.2%, specificity of 89.1%, and accuracy of 89.1% in lung cancer diagnosis. A model including the top eight VOCs achieved an area under the curve of 0.931, sensitivity of 86.0%, specificity of 87.2%, and accuracy of 86.9%.

After selecting 28 VOCs as candidates through a literature review, Dr. Wang and associates conducted a prospective discovery study from Sept. 1 to Dec. 31, 2020, using high-pressure photon ionization time-of-flight mass spectrometry to evaluate their performance for lung cancer diagnosis. The validation study included 157 lung cancer patients (mean age 57.0 years; 54.1 percent female) and 368 volunteers (mean age 44.5 years; 31.3% female).

“The external validation confirmed good performance of these biomarkers in lung cancer detection,” the researchers stated. It helped, they added, to solve the heterogeneity among published studies, establishing both 16 VOCs and 8 VOCS for lung cancer screening.

The authors stated that a large gap exists between breathomics research and clinical practices in lung cancer detection and screening. While the validated 16 VOCs, mainly aldehydes and hydrocarbon, showed potential for promoting this lung cancer screening strategy, more scientific studies are warranted to investigate the underlying mechanisms of identified lung cancer VOCs.

Dr. Wang declared no competing interests.

A study published in May in The Lancet journal eClinicalMedicine reports that breathomics testing is one step closer to becoming a reality as a lung cancer screening tool.

The tool was successfully used to identify, in 84 patients, 16 lung cancer–related carcinogenic volatile compounds (VOCs), such as aldehydes, hydrocarbons, ketones, carboxylic acids, and furan – some of which are compounds used in the production of common household goods, such as furniture, carpeting, and wood floors.

“The test is anticipated to be highlighted for primary screening of lung cancer but not the final diagnosis,” according to study authors who were led by Peiyu Wang, MD, PhD, chair of social medicine and health at Peking (China) University.

While early diagnosis and treatment are critical for improving lung cancer survival, early detection of lung cancer is challenging because of the lack of clinical manifestations and specific biomarkers. Annual CT scans are costly and include radiation exposure, Dr. Wang and his associates wrote.

Breathomics testing is considered a promising method for detection and screening for lung cancer. It has been under study for years and in 2014, researchers from Belgium published a review in Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers and Prevention documenting the use of VOCs as early diagnostic or prognostic biomarkers for mesothelioma.

Lung cancer breath biomarkers identified in various studies have been highly heterogeneous because of differing sample collection methods, varying patient conditions, testing environments, and analysis methods. As a result, there currently is no breathomics test for lung cancer screening, Dr. Wang said in an interview.

In terms of its potential as a lung cancer screening tool, “Clinicians may introduce this test for people with high risk for lung cancer, such as elderly smokers, or people with suspected symptoms. It may also be introduced for young populations with subjective or objective needs to screen for lung cancer. As the proportion of lung adenocarcinoma in nonsmoking young women is increasing, the test may be a good method for lung cancer screening in this population,” Dr. Wang said.

After adjusting for age, sex, smoking, and comorbidities, researchers found elevated levels for 16 VOCs in patients with lung cancer. A diagnostic model including the 16 VOCs achieved an area under the curve of 0.952, sensitivity of 89.2%, specificity of 89.1%, and accuracy of 89.1% in lung cancer diagnosis. A model including the top eight VOCs achieved an area under the curve of 0.931, sensitivity of 86.0%, specificity of 87.2%, and accuracy of 86.9%.

After selecting 28 VOCs as candidates through a literature review, Dr. Wang and associates conducted a prospective discovery study from Sept. 1 to Dec. 31, 2020, using high-pressure photon ionization time-of-flight mass spectrometry to evaluate their performance for lung cancer diagnosis. The validation study included 157 lung cancer patients (mean age 57.0 years; 54.1 percent female) and 368 volunteers (mean age 44.5 years; 31.3% female).

“The external validation confirmed good performance of these biomarkers in lung cancer detection,” the researchers stated. It helped, they added, to solve the heterogeneity among published studies, establishing both 16 VOCs and 8 VOCS for lung cancer screening.

The authors stated that a large gap exists between breathomics research and clinical practices in lung cancer detection and screening. While the validated 16 VOCs, mainly aldehydes and hydrocarbon, showed potential for promoting this lung cancer screening strategy, more scientific studies are warranted to investigate the underlying mechanisms of identified lung cancer VOCs.

Dr. Wang declared no competing interests.

A study published in May in The Lancet journal eClinicalMedicine reports that breathomics testing is one step closer to becoming a reality as a lung cancer screening tool.

The tool was successfully used to identify, in 84 patients, 16 lung cancer–related carcinogenic volatile compounds (VOCs), such as aldehydes, hydrocarbons, ketones, carboxylic acids, and furan – some of which are compounds used in the production of common household goods, such as furniture, carpeting, and wood floors.

“The test is anticipated to be highlighted for primary screening of lung cancer but not the final diagnosis,” according to study authors who were led by Peiyu Wang, MD, PhD, chair of social medicine and health at Peking (China) University.

While early diagnosis and treatment are critical for improving lung cancer survival, early detection of lung cancer is challenging because of the lack of clinical manifestations and specific biomarkers. Annual CT scans are costly and include radiation exposure, Dr. Wang and his associates wrote.

Breathomics testing is considered a promising method for detection and screening for lung cancer. It has been under study for years and in 2014, researchers from Belgium published a review in Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers and Prevention documenting the use of VOCs as early diagnostic or prognostic biomarkers for mesothelioma.

Lung cancer breath biomarkers identified in various studies have been highly heterogeneous because of differing sample collection methods, varying patient conditions, testing environments, and analysis methods. As a result, there currently is no breathomics test for lung cancer screening, Dr. Wang said in an interview.

In terms of its potential as a lung cancer screening tool, “Clinicians may introduce this test for people with high risk for lung cancer, such as elderly smokers, or people with suspected symptoms. It may also be introduced for young populations with subjective or objective needs to screen for lung cancer. As the proportion of lung adenocarcinoma in nonsmoking young women is increasing, the test may be a good method for lung cancer screening in this population,” Dr. Wang said.

After adjusting for age, sex, smoking, and comorbidities, researchers found elevated levels for 16 VOCs in patients with lung cancer. A diagnostic model including the 16 VOCs achieved an area under the curve of 0.952, sensitivity of 89.2%, specificity of 89.1%, and accuracy of 89.1% in lung cancer diagnosis. A model including the top eight VOCs achieved an area under the curve of 0.931, sensitivity of 86.0%, specificity of 87.2%, and accuracy of 86.9%.

After selecting 28 VOCs as candidates through a literature review, Dr. Wang and associates conducted a prospective discovery study from Sept. 1 to Dec. 31, 2020, using high-pressure photon ionization time-of-flight mass spectrometry to evaluate their performance for lung cancer diagnosis. The validation study included 157 lung cancer patients (mean age 57.0 years; 54.1 percent female) and 368 volunteers (mean age 44.5 years; 31.3% female).

“The external validation confirmed good performance of these biomarkers in lung cancer detection,” the researchers stated. It helped, they added, to solve the heterogeneity among published studies, establishing both 16 VOCs and 8 VOCS for lung cancer screening.

The authors stated that a large gap exists between breathomics research and clinical practices in lung cancer detection and screening. While the validated 16 VOCs, mainly aldehydes and hydrocarbon, showed potential for promoting this lung cancer screening strategy, more scientific studies are warranted to investigate the underlying mechanisms of identified lung cancer VOCs.

Dr. Wang declared no competing interests.

Immunotherapy with nivolumab (Opdivo) is now approved in the United States for first-line use in the treatment of unresectable advanced or metastatic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC).

The new approval for the drug, a programmed cell death–ligand-1 inhibitor, is for use in this patient population regardless of PD-L1 status.

The indication also specifies that nivolumab is to be used together with chemotherapy (with a fluoropyrimidine- and platinum-containing regimen) or in combination with ipilimumab (Yervoy), an immunotherapy with a different mechanism of action.

“Today’s approvals bring two first-line immunotherapy-based treatment options at once ... to newly diagnosed patients with unresectable advanced or metastatic ESCC,” commented Adam Lenkowsky, a senior vice president at Bristol-Myers Squibb, which makes both nivolumab and ipilimumab.

The approval of the new indication by the Food and Drug Administration was based on improved survival shown in the phase 3 CheckMate-648 trial, which involved nearly 1,000 patients. The trial had three arms and compared nivolumab plus chemotherapy (n = 321) and nivolumab plus ipilimumab (n = 324) with chemotherapy alone (n = 324).

The results showed improved survival with both nivolumab combinations compared with chemotherapy (fluorouracil and cisplatin) alone. Overall survival was improved both in all randomized patients (a secondary endpoint) and in patients whose tumors expressed PD-L1 (≥ 1%), the primary endpoint.

For the combination of nivolumab plus chemotherapy, median overall survival was 13.2 versus 10.7 months, compared with chemotherapy alone in all randomized patients, and 15.4 versus 9.1 months in patients whose tumors express PD-L1 (≥ 1%).

For the combination of nivolumab plus ipilimumab, median overall survival was 12.8 versus 10.7 months with chemotherapy alone in all randomized patients and 13.7 versus 9.1 months in patients whose tumors express PD-L1 (≥ 1%).

However, progression-free survival did not reach statistical significance in any group.

“Unresectable advanced or metastatic ESCC is a challenging disease, and there’s a need for additional treatment options that may extend survival in the first-line setting,” commented Jaffer A. Ajani, MD, professor of gastrointestinal medical oncology at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston. He was also the lead U.S. investigator for CheckMate-648 and, in a company press release, said the “two nivolumab-based combinations showed a survival benefit compared to chemotherapy alone, offering new treatment options regardless of PD-L1 status.”

Results from the trial were presented at the 2021 annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. At that time, trial investigator Ian Chau, MD, a consultant medical oncologist at the Royal Marsden Hospital in Sutton, England, told attendees that “nivolumab plus chemotherapy and nivolumab plus ipilimumab each represent a new potential first-line standard of care for patients with advanced ESCC.”

Commenting on that presentation, Samuel J. Klempner, MD, a gastrointestinal medical oncologist at the Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center, Boston, noted that the “prospect of a chemo-free regimen for advanced ESCC with the well-studied combination of ipilimumab and nivolumab would represent a welcome addition to our treatment armamentarium.”
 

No new safety signals

Dr. Chau noted there were no new safety signals with either of the immunotherapies.

Nivolumab and/or chemotherapy were discontinued in 39% of patients and delayed in 71% of patients for an adverse reaction.

Nivolumab and/or ipilimumab were discontinued in 23% of patients and delayed in 46% of patients for an adverse reaction.

The manufacturer cautioned that immunotherapy with nivolumab with or without ipilimumab has been associated with severe and fatal immune-mediated adverse reactions including pneumonitis, colitis, hepatitis and hepatotoxicity, endocrinopathies, nephritis and renal dysfunction, dermatologic adverse reactions, and infusion-related reactions.

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

Immunotherapy with nivolumab (Opdivo) is now approved in the United States for first-line use in the treatment of unresectable advanced or metastatic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC).

The new approval for the drug, a programmed cell death–ligand-1 inhibitor, is for use in this patient population regardless of PD-L1 status.

The indication also specifies that nivolumab is to be used together with chemotherapy (with a fluoropyrimidine- and platinum-containing regimen) or in combination with ipilimumab (Yervoy), an immunotherapy with a different mechanism of action.

“Today’s approvals bring two first-line immunotherapy-based treatment options at once ... to newly diagnosed patients with unresectable advanced or metastatic ESCC,” commented Adam Lenkowsky, a senior vice president at Bristol-Myers Squibb, which makes both nivolumab and ipilimumab.

The approval of the new indication by the Food and Drug Administration was based on improved survival shown in the phase 3 CheckMate-648 trial, which involved nearly 1,000 patients. The trial had three arms and compared nivolumab plus chemotherapy (n = 321) and nivolumab plus ipilimumab (n = 324) with chemotherapy alone (n = 324).

The results showed improved survival with both nivolumab combinations compared with chemotherapy (fluorouracil and cisplatin) alone. Overall survival was improved both in all randomized patients (a secondary endpoint) and in patients whose tumors expressed PD-L1 (≥ 1%), the primary endpoint.

For the combination of nivolumab plus chemotherapy, median overall survival was 13.2 versus 10.7 months, compared with chemotherapy alone in all randomized patients, and 15.4 versus 9.1 months in patients whose tumors express PD-L1 (≥ 1%).

For the combination of nivolumab plus ipilimumab, median overall survival was 12.8 versus 10.7 months with chemotherapy alone in all randomized patients and 13.7 versus 9.1 months in patients whose tumors express PD-L1 (≥ 1%).

However, progression-free survival did not reach statistical significance in any group.

“Unresectable advanced or metastatic ESCC is a challenging disease, and there’s a need for additional treatment options that may extend survival in the first-line setting,” commented Jaffer A. Ajani, MD, professor of gastrointestinal medical oncology at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston. He was also the lead U.S. investigator for CheckMate-648 and, in a company press release, said the “two nivolumab-based combinations showed a survival benefit compared to chemotherapy alone, offering new treatment options regardless of PD-L1 status.”

Results from the trial were presented at the 2021 annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. At that time, trial investigator Ian Chau, MD, a consultant medical oncologist at the Royal Marsden Hospital in Sutton, England, told attendees that “nivolumab plus chemotherapy and nivolumab plus ipilimumab each represent a new potential first-line standard of care for patients with advanced ESCC.”

Commenting on that presentation, Samuel J. Klempner, MD, a gastrointestinal medical oncologist at the Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center, Boston, noted that the “prospect of a chemo-free regimen for advanced ESCC with the well-studied combination of ipilimumab and nivolumab would represent a welcome addition to our treatment armamentarium.”
 

No new safety signals

Dr. Chau noted there were no new safety signals with either of the immunotherapies.

Nivolumab and/or chemotherapy were discontinued in 39% of patients and delayed in 71% of patients for an adverse reaction.

Nivolumab and/or ipilimumab were discontinued in 23% of patients and delayed in 46% of patients for an adverse reaction.

The manufacturer cautioned that immunotherapy with nivolumab with or without ipilimumab has been associated with severe and fatal immune-mediated adverse reactions including pneumonitis, colitis, hepatitis and hepatotoxicity, endocrinopathies, nephritis and renal dysfunction, dermatologic adverse reactions, and infusion-related reactions.

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

Immunotherapy with nivolumab (Opdivo) is now approved in the United States for first-line use in the treatment of unresectable advanced or metastatic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC).

The new approval for the drug, a programmed cell death–ligand-1 inhibitor, is for use in this patient population regardless of PD-L1 status.

The indication also specifies that nivolumab is to be used together with chemotherapy (with a fluoropyrimidine- and platinum-containing regimen) or in combination with ipilimumab (Yervoy), an immunotherapy with a different mechanism of action.

“Today’s approvals bring two first-line immunotherapy-based treatment options at once ... to newly diagnosed patients with unresectable advanced or metastatic ESCC,” commented Adam Lenkowsky, a senior vice president at Bristol-Myers Squibb, which makes both nivolumab and ipilimumab.

The approval of the new indication by the Food and Drug Administration was based on improved survival shown in the phase 3 CheckMate-648 trial, which involved nearly 1,000 patients. The trial had three arms and compared nivolumab plus chemotherapy (n = 321) and nivolumab plus ipilimumab (n = 324) with chemotherapy alone (n = 324).

The results showed improved survival with both nivolumab combinations compared with chemotherapy (fluorouracil and cisplatin) alone. Overall survival was improved both in all randomized patients (a secondary endpoint) and in patients whose tumors expressed PD-L1 (≥ 1%), the primary endpoint.

For the combination of nivolumab plus chemotherapy, median overall survival was 13.2 versus 10.7 months, compared with chemotherapy alone in all randomized patients, and 15.4 versus 9.1 months in patients whose tumors express PD-L1 (≥ 1%).

For the combination of nivolumab plus ipilimumab, median overall survival was 12.8 versus 10.7 months with chemotherapy alone in all randomized patients and 13.7 versus 9.1 months in patients whose tumors express PD-L1 (≥ 1%).

However, progression-free survival did not reach statistical significance in any group.

“Unresectable advanced or metastatic ESCC is a challenging disease, and there’s a need for additional treatment options that may extend survival in the first-line setting,” commented Jaffer A. Ajani, MD, professor of gastrointestinal medical oncology at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston. He was also the lead U.S. investigator for CheckMate-648 and, in a company press release, said the “two nivolumab-based combinations showed a survival benefit compared to chemotherapy alone, offering new treatment options regardless of PD-L1 status.”

Results from the trial were presented at the 2021 annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. At that time, trial investigator Ian Chau, MD, a consultant medical oncologist at the Royal Marsden Hospital in Sutton, England, told attendees that “nivolumab plus chemotherapy and nivolumab plus ipilimumab each represent a new potential first-line standard of care for patients with advanced ESCC.”

Commenting on that presentation, Samuel J. Klempner, MD, a gastrointestinal medical oncologist at the Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center, Boston, noted that the “prospect of a chemo-free regimen for advanced ESCC with the well-studied combination of ipilimumab and nivolumab would represent a welcome addition to our treatment armamentarium.”
 

No new safety signals

Dr. Chau noted there were no new safety signals with either of the immunotherapies.

Nivolumab and/or chemotherapy were discontinued in 39% of patients and delayed in 71% of patients for an adverse reaction.

Nivolumab and/or ipilimumab were discontinued in 23% of patients and delayed in 46% of patients for an adverse reaction.

The manufacturer cautioned that immunotherapy with nivolumab with or without ipilimumab has been associated with severe and fatal immune-mediated adverse reactions including pneumonitis, colitis, hepatitis and hepatotoxicity, endocrinopathies, nephritis and renal dysfunction, dermatologic adverse reactions, and infusion-related reactions.

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

Learning that a family member has cancer can be devastating enough. Waiting to find out whether a loved one can afford their treatment takes the concern to another level.

That was the case for health policy expert Stacie B. Dusetzina, PhD, when her mother was diagnosed with metastatic breast cancer.

“There is this period where you are waiting to learn more about the cancer type and treatment options, and, of course, what might be covered by your health plan,” Dr. Dusetzina, an associate professor at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., said in an interview. “Knowing as much as I do about coverage for prescription drugs in Medicare Part D, I was worried we would be in a situation where my mom had to spend over $15,000 out-of-pocket every year for one of these drugs.”

That $15,000 would have taken a large chunk of her retirement income and could make treatment unaffordable down the line.

This situation is hardly unique.

Many patients with cancer who rely on Medicare Part D face an impossible choice: “Your money or your life,” Dr. Dusetzina said.

In a recent perspective in the New England Journal of Medicine, Dr. Dusetzina detailed how subtle variations in people’s cancer type can have major implications for their out-of-pocket drug costs.

The difference in cost comes down to whether drugs are delivered as pills or infusions. Oral agents are almost always covered under a health plan’s pharmacy benefit (Medicare Part D), while physician-administered drugs are covered under the medical benefit (Medicare Part B).

According to Dr. Dusetzina, Medicare beneficiaries can face substantial, possibly “unlimited,” out-of-pocket costs for drugs covered under Part D if they don’t qualify for low-income subsidies. On the other hand, most beneficiaries receiving physician-administered drugs covered under Part B have supplemental coverage, which reduces or eliminates out-of-pocket costs.

Dr. Dusetzina broke down the expected first fill and yearly out-of-pocket costs associated with 10 oral cancer drugs covered under Part D. These costs ranged from $3,100 to $3,392 for a first fill and $10,592 to $14,067 for one year.

In a candid Twitter thread, Dr. Dusetzina opened up more about the issues highlighted in her piece: “This paper is about #PartD and Cancer. It is also about #pharmacoequity ... This is about how screwed you are if you need cancer treatment and your treatment happens to be covered by #PartD and not #PartB.”

“This is ARBITRARY and INEQUITABLE,” she added.

What’s “arbitrary,” Dr. Dusetzina explains, is that a rather small, chance distinction in cancer type or subtype can be the difference between affording and not affording treatment – and potentially between life and death.

Take the drug costs for two similar patients with breast cancer.

Patient A has hormone receptor–positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor type 2 (HER2)–negative breast cancer and thus would likely receive first-line therapy with two oral agents: an aromatase inhibitor and cyclin-dependent kinases 4 and 6 (CDK4/6) inhibitor, most often palbociclib (Ibrance).

For palbociclib alone, out-of-pocket costs would come to $3,100 for the first fill and nearly $10,600 over a year for a Part D beneficiary who doesn’t qualify for low-income subsidies.

Now take patient B who has HER2–positive metastatic breast cancer. This person would likely receive first-line treatment with trastuzumab (Herceptin), pertuzumab (Perjeta), and a taxane – a combination covered under Part B, which would be subject to an out-of-pocket cap or covered with limited or no cost sharing.

This difference in cancer subtype leaves some patients “paying substantially more for their cancer treatment than others, despite the same goal of extending or improving their lives,” Dr. Dusetzina writes.

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

Learning that a family member has cancer can be devastating enough. Waiting to find out whether a loved one can afford their treatment takes the concern to another level.

That was the case for health policy expert Stacie B. Dusetzina, PhD, when her mother was diagnosed with metastatic breast cancer.

“There is this period where you are waiting to learn more about the cancer type and treatment options, and, of course, what might be covered by your health plan,” Dr. Dusetzina, an associate professor at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., said in an interview. “Knowing as much as I do about coverage for prescription drugs in Medicare Part D, I was worried we would be in a situation where my mom had to spend over $15,000 out-of-pocket every year for one of these drugs.”

That $15,000 would have taken a large chunk of her retirement income and could make treatment unaffordable down the line.

This situation is hardly unique.

Many patients with cancer who rely on Medicare Part D face an impossible choice: “Your money or your life,” Dr. Dusetzina said.

In a recent perspective in the New England Journal of Medicine, Dr. Dusetzina detailed how subtle variations in people’s cancer type can have major implications for their out-of-pocket drug costs.

The difference in cost comes down to whether drugs are delivered as pills or infusions. Oral agents are almost always covered under a health plan’s pharmacy benefit (Medicare Part D), while physician-administered drugs are covered under the medical benefit (Medicare Part B).

According to Dr. Dusetzina, Medicare beneficiaries can face substantial, possibly “unlimited,” out-of-pocket costs for drugs covered under Part D if they don’t qualify for low-income subsidies. On the other hand, most beneficiaries receiving physician-administered drugs covered under Part B have supplemental coverage, which reduces or eliminates out-of-pocket costs.

Dr. Dusetzina broke down the expected first fill and yearly out-of-pocket costs associated with 10 oral cancer drugs covered under Part D. These costs ranged from $3,100 to $3,392 for a first fill and $10,592 to $14,067 for one year.

In a candid Twitter thread, Dr. Dusetzina opened up more about the issues highlighted in her piece: “This paper is about #PartD and Cancer. It is also about #pharmacoequity ... This is about how screwed you are if you need cancer treatment and your treatment happens to be covered by #PartD and not #PartB.”

“This is ARBITRARY and INEQUITABLE,” she added.

What’s “arbitrary,” Dr. Dusetzina explains, is that a rather small, chance distinction in cancer type or subtype can be the difference between affording and not affording treatment – and potentially between life and death.

Take the drug costs for two similar patients with breast cancer.

Patient A has hormone receptor–positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor type 2 (HER2)–negative breast cancer and thus would likely receive first-line therapy with two oral agents: an aromatase inhibitor and cyclin-dependent kinases 4 and 6 (CDK4/6) inhibitor, most often palbociclib (Ibrance).

For palbociclib alone, out-of-pocket costs would come to $3,100 for the first fill and nearly $10,600 over a year for a Part D beneficiary who doesn’t qualify for low-income subsidies.

Now take patient B who has HER2–positive metastatic breast cancer. This person would likely receive first-line treatment with trastuzumab (Herceptin), pertuzumab (Perjeta), and a taxane – a combination covered under Part B, which would be subject to an out-of-pocket cap or covered with limited or no cost sharing.

This difference in cancer subtype leaves some patients “paying substantially more for their cancer treatment than others, despite the same goal of extending or improving their lives,” Dr. Dusetzina writes.

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

Learning that a family member has cancer can be devastating enough. Waiting to find out whether a loved one can afford their treatment takes the concern to another level.

That was the case for health policy expert Stacie B. Dusetzina, PhD, when her mother was diagnosed with metastatic breast cancer.

“There is this period where you are waiting to learn more about the cancer type and treatment options, and, of course, what might be covered by your health plan,” Dr. Dusetzina, an associate professor at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., said in an interview. “Knowing as much as I do about coverage for prescription drugs in Medicare Part D, I was worried we would be in a situation where my mom had to spend over $15,000 out-of-pocket every year for one of these drugs.”

That $15,000 would have taken a large chunk of her retirement income and could make treatment unaffordable down the line.

This situation is hardly unique.

Many patients with cancer who rely on Medicare Part D face an impossible choice: “Your money or your life,” Dr. Dusetzina said.

In a recent perspective in the New England Journal of Medicine, Dr. Dusetzina detailed how subtle variations in people’s cancer type can have major implications for their out-of-pocket drug costs.

The difference in cost comes down to whether drugs are delivered as pills or infusions. Oral agents are almost always covered under a health plan’s pharmacy benefit (Medicare Part D), while physician-administered drugs are covered under the medical benefit (Medicare Part B).

According to Dr. Dusetzina, Medicare beneficiaries can face substantial, possibly “unlimited,” out-of-pocket costs for drugs covered under Part D if they don’t qualify for low-income subsidies. On the other hand, most beneficiaries receiving physician-administered drugs covered under Part B have supplemental coverage, which reduces or eliminates out-of-pocket costs.

Dr. Dusetzina broke down the expected first fill and yearly out-of-pocket costs associated with 10 oral cancer drugs covered under Part D. These costs ranged from $3,100 to $3,392 for a first fill and $10,592 to $14,067 for one year.

In a candid Twitter thread, Dr. Dusetzina opened up more about the issues highlighted in her piece: “This paper is about #PartD and Cancer. It is also about #pharmacoequity ... This is about how screwed you are if you need cancer treatment and your treatment happens to be covered by #PartD and not #PartB.”

“This is ARBITRARY and INEQUITABLE,” she added.

What’s “arbitrary,” Dr. Dusetzina explains, is that a rather small, chance distinction in cancer type or subtype can be the difference between affording and not affording treatment – and potentially between life and death.

Take the drug costs for two similar patients with breast cancer.

Patient A has hormone receptor–positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor type 2 (HER2)–negative breast cancer and thus would likely receive first-line therapy with two oral agents: an aromatase inhibitor and cyclin-dependent kinases 4 and 6 (CDK4/6) inhibitor, most often palbociclib (Ibrance).

For palbociclib alone, out-of-pocket costs would come to $3,100 for the first fill and nearly $10,600 over a year for a Part D beneficiary who doesn’t qualify for low-income subsidies.

Now take patient B who has HER2–positive metastatic breast cancer. This person would likely receive first-line treatment with trastuzumab (Herceptin), pertuzumab (Perjeta), and a taxane – a combination covered under Part B, which would be subject to an out-of-pocket cap or covered with limited or no cost sharing.

This difference in cancer subtype leaves some patients “paying substantially more for their cancer treatment than others, despite the same goal of extending or improving their lives,” Dr. Dusetzina writes.

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

Time-restricted eating reduced cardiovascular risk among older breast cancer survivors, a single-group feasibility study suggests.

The results show a 15% relative decline in cardiovascular risk, measured using the Framingham Risk Score, among at-risk breast cancer survivors (BCS) after only 8 weeks of following a time-restricted eating regimen, reported Amy A. Kirkham, PhD, assistant professor of kinesiology and physical education, University of Toronto, and colleagues.

“Time-restricted eating also significantly decreased visceral adipose tissue (VAT), which our team has previously found to accumulate rapidly with cardiotoxic treatment and predict later cardiac events among BCS,” the researchers add.

The findings were published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology: Cardiac Onco.

Physical activity is one of the main modalities for lowering cardiovascular risk, but it is not feasible for everyone because of physical limitations and other factors, noted Dr. Kirkham.

“I became interested in time-restricted eating when I came across the literature, which has really exploded in the last 5 years, showing that it can reduce the number of cardiovascular risk factors,” she said in an interview.

“However, most of these populations studied have had cardiometabolic conditions, like obesity, type 2 diabetes, prediabetes, and metabolic syndrome, and no one has looked at this” in either the population specifically at high risk for cardiovascular disease or in patients with overt cardiovascular disease, she said.

This approach is easy for patients to follow and is much simpler than many of the other dietary patterns, noted Dr. Kirkham. “It simply consists of having a start time or end time to your eating, so it is easy to prescribe,” she said. “You can see how that is much easier for a doctor to explain to a patient than trying to explain how to meet the physical activity guidelines each week.”

“This particular study definitely shows that time-restricted eating can decrease the calorie intake, and I think by decreasing the calorie intake you definitely would improve the body weight, which has numerous benefits irrespective of how we arrive at the end goal which is including the cardiovascular risk factors,” said Ajay Vallakati, MBBS, physician and clinical assistant professor of internal medicine, the Ohio State University, Columbus, commenting on the study.

“I think time-restricted eating is a tool we should look at, and a bigger study would help us to recommend this for our patients,” Dr. Vallakati told this news organization.

The study involved 22 participants. Mean age was 66 years. Mean body mass index was 31 ± 5 kg/m². In the cohort, 91% of participants were taking aromatase inhibitors and tamoxifen at the time of the study, and 50% underwent left-sided radiation.

The study group included breast cancer survivors who had risk factors for cardiovascular disease mortality, including completion of cardiotoxic therapy, like anthracyclines, within 1-6 years, obesity/overweight, and older age, defined as 60 years of age or older.

Participants were allowed to eat freely between 12 PM and 8 PM on weekdays and any time during weekends. Outside of the allotted hours, they could only drink black coffee, water, or black tea for the 8-week study period. They were not under any other physical activity or dietary restrictions.

All were provided with behavioral support, such as check-in phone calls with the research team at 1-, 3-, and 6-week follow-up and pre-interventional calls from a registered dietitian. During weekdays, they also received automated text messages twice a day asking what time they started and stopped eating.

Irritability and headaches were among the transient, minor symptoms reported, the researchers say. The study group responded to nearly all of the text messages that they received from the researchers. The participants also followed through with the fast for a median 98% of the prescribed days by fasting for 16 or more hours.

The results showed that after 8 weeks, median Framingham cardiovascular risk declined from 10.9% to 8.6%, a 15% relative reduction (P = .037). Modifiable aspects of Framingham, such as systolic blood pressure, total cholesterol, and high-density lipoprotein, remained relatively consistent overall, however, suggesting variation between individuals in the etiology of the risk decline.

Caloric intake fell by a median of 450 kcal, representing a relative reduction of about 22% (P < .001), they note.

The findings also showed a decline in median derived whole-body fat mass (–0.9 kg; P = .046), body mass (–1.0 kg; P = .025), and mean MRI-derived VAT (–5%; P = .009).

Other data showed that the average BMI remained the same (P = .10).

At the beginning of the study, 68% of the cohort was considered cardiometabolically unhealthy, given the benchmarks for pharmacologic preventive therapy of cardiovascular risk or metabolic syndrome based on Canadian Cardiovascular Society recommendations.

Notably, 53% of the cohort was no longer classified as meeting the criteria for metabolic syndrome or for the therapeutic treatment of cardiovascular risk after the intervention.

The study’s limitations include its short duration, selection bias, and that it did not involve a control group, the researchers acknowledge.

“Randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm these findings and to evaluate the health benefits, including potential health care cost savings and safety of longer-term time-restricted eating,” the researchers conclude.

Dr. Vallakati and Dr. Kirkham report no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

Time-restricted eating reduced cardiovascular risk among older breast cancer survivors, a single-group feasibility study suggests.

The results show a 15% relative decline in cardiovascular risk, measured using the Framingham Risk Score, among at-risk breast cancer survivors (BCS) after only 8 weeks of following a time-restricted eating regimen, reported Amy A. Kirkham, PhD, assistant professor of kinesiology and physical education, University of Toronto, and colleagues.

“Time-restricted eating also significantly decreased visceral adipose tissue (VAT), which our team has previously found to accumulate rapidly with cardiotoxic treatment and predict later cardiac events among BCS,” the researchers add.

The findings were published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology: Cardiac Onco.

Physical activity is one of the main modalities for lowering cardiovascular risk, but it is not feasible for everyone because of physical limitations and other factors, noted Dr. Kirkham.

“I became interested in time-restricted eating when I came across the literature, which has really exploded in the last 5 years, showing that it can reduce the number of cardiovascular risk factors,” she said in an interview.

“However, most of these populations studied have had cardiometabolic conditions, like obesity, type 2 diabetes, prediabetes, and metabolic syndrome, and no one has looked at this” in either the population specifically at high risk for cardiovascular disease or in patients with overt cardiovascular disease, she said.

This approach is easy for patients to follow and is much simpler than many of the other dietary patterns, noted Dr. Kirkham. “It simply consists of having a start time or end time to your eating, so it is easy to prescribe,” she said. “You can see how that is much easier for a doctor to explain to a patient than trying to explain how to meet the physical activity guidelines each week.”

“This particular study definitely shows that time-restricted eating can decrease the calorie intake, and I think by decreasing the calorie intake you definitely would improve the body weight, which has numerous benefits irrespective of how we arrive at the end goal which is including the cardiovascular risk factors,” said Ajay Vallakati, MBBS, physician and clinical assistant professor of internal medicine, the Ohio State University, Columbus, commenting on the study.

“I think time-restricted eating is a tool we should look at, and a bigger study would help us to recommend this for our patients,” Dr. Vallakati told this news organization.

The study involved 22 participants. Mean age was 66 years. Mean body mass index was 31 ± 5 kg/m². In the cohort, 91% of participants were taking aromatase inhibitors and tamoxifen at the time of the study, and 50% underwent left-sided radiation.

The study group included breast cancer survivors who had risk factors for cardiovascular disease mortality, including completion of cardiotoxic therapy, like anthracyclines, within 1-6 years, obesity/overweight, and older age, defined as 60 years of age or older.

Participants were allowed to eat freely between 12 PM and 8 PM on weekdays and any time during weekends. Outside of the allotted hours, they could only drink black coffee, water, or black tea for the 8-week study period. They were not under any other physical activity or dietary restrictions.

All were provided with behavioral support, such as check-in phone calls with the research team at 1-, 3-, and 6-week follow-up and pre-interventional calls from a registered dietitian. During weekdays, they also received automated text messages twice a day asking what time they started and stopped eating.

Irritability and headaches were among the transient, minor symptoms reported, the researchers say. The study group responded to nearly all of the text messages that they received from the researchers. The participants also followed through with the fast for a median 98% of the prescribed days by fasting for 16 or more hours.

The results showed that after 8 weeks, median Framingham cardiovascular risk declined from 10.9% to 8.6%, a 15% relative reduction (P = .037). Modifiable aspects of Framingham, such as systolic blood pressure, total cholesterol, and high-density lipoprotein, remained relatively consistent overall, however, suggesting variation between individuals in the etiology of the risk decline.

Caloric intake fell by a median of 450 kcal, representing a relative reduction of about 22% (P < .001), they note.

The findings also showed a decline in median derived whole-body fat mass (–0.9 kg; P = .046), body mass (–1.0 kg; P = .025), and mean MRI-derived VAT (–5%; P = .009).

Other data showed that the average BMI remained the same (P = .10).

At the beginning of the study, 68% of the cohort was considered cardiometabolically unhealthy, given the benchmarks for pharmacologic preventive therapy of cardiovascular risk or metabolic syndrome based on Canadian Cardiovascular Society recommendations.

Notably, 53% of the cohort was no longer classified as meeting the criteria for metabolic syndrome or for the therapeutic treatment of cardiovascular risk after the intervention.

The study’s limitations include its short duration, selection bias, and that it did not involve a control group, the researchers acknowledge.

“Randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm these findings and to evaluate the health benefits, including potential health care cost savings and safety of longer-term time-restricted eating,” the researchers conclude.

Dr. Vallakati and Dr. Kirkham report no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

Time-restricted eating reduced cardiovascular risk among older breast cancer survivors, a single-group feasibility study suggests.

The results show a 15% relative decline in cardiovascular risk, measured using the Framingham Risk Score, among at-risk breast cancer survivors (BCS) after only 8 weeks of following a time-restricted eating regimen, reported Amy A. Kirkham, PhD, assistant professor of kinesiology and physical education, University of Toronto, and colleagues.

“Time-restricted eating also significantly decreased visceral adipose tissue (VAT), which our team has previously found to accumulate rapidly with cardiotoxic treatment and predict later cardiac events among BCS,” the researchers add.

The findings were published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology: Cardiac Onco.

Physical activity is one of the main modalities for lowering cardiovascular risk, but it is not feasible for everyone because of physical limitations and other factors, noted Dr. Kirkham.

“I became interested in time-restricted eating when I came across the literature, which has really exploded in the last 5 years, showing that it can reduce the number of cardiovascular risk factors,” she said in an interview.

“However, most of these populations studied have had cardiometabolic conditions, like obesity, type 2 diabetes, prediabetes, and metabolic syndrome, and no one has looked at this” in either the population specifically at high risk for cardiovascular disease or in patients with overt cardiovascular disease, she said.

This approach is easy for patients to follow and is much simpler than many of the other dietary patterns, noted Dr. Kirkham. “It simply consists of having a start time or end time to your eating, so it is easy to prescribe,” she said. “You can see how that is much easier for a doctor to explain to a patient than trying to explain how to meet the physical activity guidelines each week.”

“This particular study definitely shows that time-restricted eating can decrease the calorie intake, and I think by decreasing the calorie intake you definitely would improve the body weight, which has numerous benefits irrespective of how we arrive at the end goal which is including the cardiovascular risk factors,” said Ajay Vallakati, MBBS, physician and clinical assistant professor of internal medicine, the Ohio State University, Columbus, commenting on the study.

“I think time-restricted eating is a tool we should look at, and a bigger study would help us to recommend this for our patients,” Dr. Vallakati told this news organization.

The study involved 22 participants. Mean age was 66 years. Mean body mass index was 31 ± 5 kg/m². In the cohort, 91% of participants were taking aromatase inhibitors and tamoxifen at the time of the study, and 50% underwent left-sided radiation.

The study group included breast cancer survivors who had risk factors for cardiovascular disease mortality, including completion of cardiotoxic therapy, like anthracyclines, within 1-6 years, obesity/overweight, and older age, defined as 60 years of age or older.

Participants were allowed to eat freely between 12 PM and 8 PM on weekdays and any time during weekends. Outside of the allotted hours, they could only drink black coffee, water, or black tea for the 8-week study period. They were not under any other physical activity or dietary restrictions.

All were provided with behavioral support, such as check-in phone calls with the research team at 1-, 3-, and 6-week follow-up and pre-interventional calls from a registered dietitian. During weekdays, they also received automated text messages twice a day asking what time they started and stopped eating.

Irritability and headaches were among the transient, minor symptoms reported, the researchers say. The study group responded to nearly all of the text messages that they received from the researchers. The participants also followed through with the fast for a median 98% of the prescribed days by fasting for 16 or more hours.

The results showed that after 8 weeks, median Framingham cardiovascular risk declined from 10.9% to 8.6%, a 15% relative reduction (P = .037). Modifiable aspects of Framingham, such as systolic blood pressure, total cholesterol, and high-density lipoprotein, remained relatively consistent overall, however, suggesting variation between individuals in the etiology of the risk decline.

Caloric intake fell by a median of 450 kcal, representing a relative reduction of about 22% (P < .001), they note.

The findings also showed a decline in median derived whole-body fat mass (–0.9 kg; P = .046), body mass (–1.0 kg; P = .025), and mean MRI-derived VAT (–5%; P = .009).

Other data showed that the average BMI remained the same (P = .10).

At the beginning of the study, 68% of the cohort was considered cardiometabolically unhealthy, given the benchmarks for pharmacologic preventive therapy of cardiovascular risk or metabolic syndrome based on Canadian Cardiovascular Society recommendations.

Notably, 53% of the cohort was no longer classified as meeting the criteria for metabolic syndrome or for the therapeutic treatment of cardiovascular risk after the intervention.

The study’s limitations include its short duration, selection bias, and that it did not involve a control group, the researchers acknowledge.

“Randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm these findings and to evaluate the health benefits, including potential health care cost savings and safety of longer-term time-restricted eating,” the researchers conclude.

Dr. Vallakati and Dr. Kirkham report no relevant conflicts of interest.

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