AVAHO

Sleep apnea and other types of sleep disorders appear to elevate the risk for some types of cancer, specifically prostate cancer, more so than others. But the overall risk can be highly variable, and some sleep problems were found to be associated with a lower risk for cancer and cancer-related death, an analysis of a large observational cohort study of cardiovascular patients found.

Results of the analysis were published online in the journal Cancer Epidemiology. Investigators analyzed the presence of sleep apnea and insomnia and cancer risk in more than 8,500 patients in the Cardiovascular Health Study (CHS). “The fact that we observed certain sleep problems, like apneas, to be associated with elevated risk of some cancers but not others reflects the fact that cancer is a heterogeneous disease,” senior author Amanda Phipps, PhD, said in an interview. Dr. Phipps is an associate professor of epidemiology at the University of Washington and the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, both in Seattle.
 

Variable cancer links

The researchers assessed sleep problems in two groups in the CHS: an incident cancer group of 3,930 patients and a cancer mortality group of 4,580 patients. Within those respective groups, the investigators identified 885 first-incident cancers and 804 cancer deaths with a median follow-up of 12 and 14 years. The average age of the study population was 73 years, and 57% were women.

Sleep apnea symptoms (SAS) were associated with a lower risk for incident cancers – a 16% lower baseline risk and a 24% lower time-dependent risk. The study showed no association between cancer incidence and daytime sleepiness and apneas.

However, there was a significantly elevated risk relationship between sleep problems and prostate cancer. A time-dependent analysis of apnea showed more than double the risk (hazard ratio, 2.34), and baseline snoring carried a 69% greater risk. There was also a dose-response relationship for baseline cumulative SAS, compared with not having symptoms: an HR of 1.30 for one symptom, and 2.22 for two or more symptoms.

Risks for lymphatic or hematopoietic cancers were also associated with baseline daytime sleepiness (HR, 1.81), but not with insomnia (HR, 0.54).

With regard to cancer mortality, the study found no relationship between sleep problems and cancer death. In fact, it found an overall inverse relationship with snoring (time-dependent HR, 0.73; cumulative average HR, 0.67) and baseline apnea (HR, 0.69). Likewise, patients reporting SAS had lower risks than those having no SAS: an HR of 0.90 for one symptom and 0.75 for multiple symptoms. No relationships were found between any insomnia symptom and cancer death.

“We know the pathways that lead to prostate cancer can be very different than the pathways that lead to colorectal cancer,” Dr. Phipps said. “What we don’t yet understand is why these associations differ or what mechanisms are responsible for these cancer site-specific associations.”
 

Need for sleep assessment

The findings don’t change much for how clinicians should evaluate cancer risks in patients with sleep problems, Dr. Phipps said. “Other studies have clearly demonstrated the implications that sleep apnea has for a variety of other important health conditions – such as cardiovascular disease – so there are already plenty of good reasons for clinicians to ask their patients about their sleep and to connect patients with resources for the diagnosis and treatment of sleep apnea,” she added. “This study provides another possible reason.”

These findings provide context for future studies of the relationship between sleep problems and cancer. “But, given that sleep is something we all do and given that sleep problems are so pervasive, it’s important that we keep trying to better understand this relationship,” Dr. Phipps said.

“My hope is that future cancer studies will build in more detailed, longitudinal information on sleep patterns to help us fill current gaps in knowledge.”

Dr. Phipps has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Sleep apnea and other types of sleep disorders appear to elevate the risk for some types of cancer, specifically prostate cancer, more so than others. But the overall risk can be highly variable, and some sleep problems were found to be associated with a lower risk for cancer and cancer-related death, an analysis of a large observational cohort study of cardiovascular patients found.

Results of the analysis were published online in the journal Cancer Epidemiology. Investigators analyzed the presence of sleep apnea and insomnia and cancer risk in more than 8,500 patients in the Cardiovascular Health Study (CHS). “The fact that we observed certain sleep problems, like apneas, to be associated with elevated risk of some cancers but not others reflects the fact that cancer is a heterogeneous disease,” senior author Amanda Phipps, PhD, said in an interview. Dr. Phipps is an associate professor of epidemiology at the University of Washington and the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, both in Seattle.
 

Variable cancer links

The researchers assessed sleep problems in two groups in the CHS: an incident cancer group of 3,930 patients and a cancer mortality group of 4,580 patients. Within those respective groups, the investigators identified 885 first-incident cancers and 804 cancer deaths with a median follow-up of 12 and 14 years. The average age of the study population was 73 years, and 57% were women.

Sleep apnea symptoms (SAS) were associated with a lower risk for incident cancers – a 16% lower baseline risk and a 24% lower time-dependent risk. The study showed no association between cancer incidence and daytime sleepiness and apneas.

However, there was a significantly elevated risk relationship between sleep problems and prostate cancer. A time-dependent analysis of apnea showed more than double the risk (hazard ratio, 2.34), and baseline snoring carried a 69% greater risk. There was also a dose-response relationship for baseline cumulative SAS, compared with not having symptoms: an HR of 1.30 for one symptom, and 2.22 for two or more symptoms.

Risks for lymphatic or hematopoietic cancers were also associated with baseline daytime sleepiness (HR, 1.81), but not with insomnia (HR, 0.54).

With regard to cancer mortality, the study found no relationship between sleep problems and cancer death. In fact, it found an overall inverse relationship with snoring (time-dependent HR, 0.73; cumulative average HR, 0.67) and baseline apnea (HR, 0.69). Likewise, patients reporting SAS had lower risks than those having no SAS: an HR of 0.90 for one symptom and 0.75 for multiple symptoms. No relationships were found between any insomnia symptom and cancer death.

“We know the pathways that lead to prostate cancer can be very different than the pathways that lead to colorectal cancer,” Dr. Phipps said. “What we don’t yet understand is why these associations differ or what mechanisms are responsible for these cancer site-specific associations.”
 

Need for sleep assessment

The findings don’t change much for how clinicians should evaluate cancer risks in patients with sleep problems, Dr. Phipps said. “Other studies have clearly demonstrated the implications that sleep apnea has for a variety of other important health conditions – such as cardiovascular disease – so there are already plenty of good reasons for clinicians to ask their patients about their sleep and to connect patients with resources for the diagnosis and treatment of sleep apnea,” she added. “This study provides another possible reason.”

These findings provide context for future studies of the relationship between sleep problems and cancer. “But, given that sleep is something we all do and given that sleep problems are so pervasive, it’s important that we keep trying to better understand this relationship,” Dr. Phipps said.

“My hope is that future cancer studies will build in more detailed, longitudinal information on sleep patterns to help us fill current gaps in knowledge.”

Dr. Phipps has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Sleep apnea and other types of sleep disorders appear to elevate the risk for some types of cancer, specifically prostate cancer, more so than others. But the overall risk can be highly variable, and some sleep problems were found to be associated with a lower risk for cancer and cancer-related death, an analysis of a large observational cohort study of cardiovascular patients found.

Results of the analysis were published online in the journal Cancer Epidemiology. Investigators analyzed the presence of sleep apnea and insomnia and cancer risk in more than 8,500 patients in the Cardiovascular Health Study (CHS). “The fact that we observed certain sleep problems, like apneas, to be associated with elevated risk of some cancers but not others reflects the fact that cancer is a heterogeneous disease,” senior author Amanda Phipps, PhD, said in an interview. Dr. Phipps is an associate professor of epidemiology at the University of Washington and the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, both in Seattle.
 

Variable cancer links

The researchers assessed sleep problems in two groups in the CHS: an incident cancer group of 3,930 patients and a cancer mortality group of 4,580 patients. Within those respective groups, the investigators identified 885 first-incident cancers and 804 cancer deaths with a median follow-up of 12 and 14 years. The average age of the study population was 73 years, and 57% were women.

Sleep apnea symptoms (SAS) were associated with a lower risk for incident cancers – a 16% lower baseline risk and a 24% lower time-dependent risk. The study showed no association between cancer incidence and daytime sleepiness and apneas.

However, there was a significantly elevated risk relationship between sleep problems and prostate cancer. A time-dependent analysis of apnea showed more than double the risk (hazard ratio, 2.34), and baseline snoring carried a 69% greater risk. There was also a dose-response relationship for baseline cumulative SAS, compared with not having symptoms: an HR of 1.30 for one symptom, and 2.22 for two or more symptoms.

Risks for lymphatic or hematopoietic cancers were also associated with baseline daytime sleepiness (HR, 1.81), but not with insomnia (HR, 0.54).

With regard to cancer mortality, the study found no relationship between sleep problems and cancer death. In fact, it found an overall inverse relationship with snoring (time-dependent HR, 0.73; cumulative average HR, 0.67) and baseline apnea (HR, 0.69). Likewise, patients reporting SAS had lower risks than those having no SAS: an HR of 0.90 for one symptom and 0.75 for multiple symptoms. No relationships were found between any insomnia symptom and cancer death.

“We know the pathways that lead to prostate cancer can be very different than the pathways that lead to colorectal cancer,” Dr. Phipps said. “What we don’t yet understand is why these associations differ or what mechanisms are responsible for these cancer site-specific associations.”
 

Need for sleep assessment

The findings don’t change much for how clinicians should evaluate cancer risks in patients with sleep problems, Dr. Phipps said. “Other studies have clearly demonstrated the implications that sleep apnea has for a variety of other important health conditions – such as cardiovascular disease – so there are already plenty of good reasons for clinicians to ask their patients about their sleep and to connect patients with resources for the diagnosis and treatment of sleep apnea,” she added. “This study provides another possible reason.”

These findings provide context for future studies of the relationship between sleep problems and cancer. “But, given that sleep is something we all do and given that sleep problems are so pervasive, it’s important that we keep trying to better understand this relationship,” Dr. Phipps said.

“My hope is that future cancer studies will build in more detailed, longitudinal information on sleep patterns to help us fill current gaps in knowledge.”

Dr. Phipps has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A new analysis of over 22,000 mastectomy patients confirms what smaller studies have indicated: Patients who undergo nipple-sparing mastectomy have overall and disease-free survival similar to that of those who receive a total mastectomy.

When nipple-sparing mastectomy was introduced, many experts felt uneasy about opting for the less invasive procedure, recalled Rosa Hwang, MD, associate medical director for breast surgery at MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston. “The concern was leaving all this skin,” said Dr. Hwang. “Are you going to leave cancer behind” and increase the risk of local recurrence?

Over the past 2 decades, the number of patients undergoing nipple-sparing mastectomy increased and, in turn, studies began to demonstrate the safety of the procedure.

However, large analyses evaluating long-term outcomes – namely, overall survival and breast cancer-specific survival – of nipple-sparing mastectomy were still lacking.

The latest study, published online Nov. 20 in Annals of Surgical Oncology, compared the long-term prognosis and survival benefits of nipple-sparing to total mastectomy in thousands of women. The analysis, which pulled data from the SEER cancer database, included 5,765 patients who underwent the nipple-sparing procedure and 17,289 patients who had a total mastectomy.

The authors found that overall survival and breast cancer–specific survival were similar for women undergoing nipple-sparing mastectomy and those receiving a total mastectomy. In fact, over the long-term, the nipple-sparing group slightly edged out the total mastectomy group in overall survival (94.61% vs. 93% at 5 years and 86.34% vs. 83.48% at 10 years, respectively) and in breast cancer-specific survival rates (96.16% vs. 95.74% at 5 years, and 92.2% vs. 91.37% at 10 years). The differences, however, were not significant.

The study also found that certain subgroups – including White women, women over age 46, those with a median household income of $70,000 or more, hormone receptor-positive, and HER2 negative – had significantly better overall survival rate with the nipple-sparing procedure (P < .05). However, the authors noted, the survival advantage in the nipple-sparing group did not extend to breast cancer–specific survival.

Dr. Hwang, who was not involved in the current analysis, said the significant overall survival result in the subgroup analysis was surprising because “there’s no biological reason why one would expect that to be true.”  

Given that the subgroups did not demonstrate better breast cancer–specific survival, Dr. Hwang believes the overall survival finding may have more to do with comorbidities, which the study did not account for, than type of mastectomy.

When choosing who is eligible for a nipple-sparing mastectomy, “We’re more selective,” Dr. Hwang said. For instance, patients with uncontrolled diabetes or who smoke are unlikely to be candidates. “So, I think it’s possible that medical comorbidities and medical conditions between these groups [were] different.”

According to the authors, coding inconsistencies represent another possible weakness of the study. From 1998 to 2010, “the term ‘nipple-sparing mastectomy’ was coded as a [total mastectomy] with the ‘subcutaneous mastectomy’ code.” It’s possible that some patients receiving the nipple-sparing procedure before 2011 were not appropriately coded in the current study.

Moving forward, a large prospective study that includes comorbidities would be helpful, but overall the study helps validate that “nipple-sparing mastectomy is a safe operation for selected patients,” Dr. Hwang said. 

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

A new analysis of over 22,000 mastectomy patients confirms what smaller studies have indicated: Patients who undergo nipple-sparing mastectomy have overall and disease-free survival similar to that of those who receive a total mastectomy.

When nipple-sparing mastectomy was introduced, many experts felt uneasy about opting for the less invasive procedure, recalled Rosa Hwang, MD, associate medical director for breast surgery at MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston. “The concern was leaving all this skin,” said Dr. Hwang. “Are you going to leave cancer behind” and increase the risk of local recurrence?

Over the past 2 decades, the number of patients undergoing nipple-sparing mastectomy increased and, in turn, studies began to demonstrate the safety of the procedure.

However, large analyses evaluating long-term outcomes – namely, overall survival and breast cancer-specific survival – of nipple-sparing mastectomy were still lacking.

The latest study, published online Nov. 20 in Annals of Surgical Oncology, compared the long-term prognosis and survival benefits of nipple-sparing to total mastectomy in thousands of women. The analysis, which pulled data from the SEER cancer database, included 5,765 patients who underwent the nipple-sparing procedure and 17,289 patients who had a total mastectomy.

The authors found that overall survival and breast cancer–specific survival were similar for women undergoing nipple-sparing mastectomy and those receiving a total mastectomy. In fact, over the long-term, the nipple-sparing group slightly edged out the total mastectomy group in overall survival (94.61% vs. 93% at 5 years and 86.34% vs. 83.48% at 10 years, respectively) and in breast cancer-specific survival rates (96.16% vs. 95.74% at 5 years, and 92.2% vs. 91.37% at 10 years). The differences, however, were not significant.

The study also found that certain subgroups – including White women, women over age 46, those with a median household income of $70,000 or more, hormone receptor-positive, and HER2 negative – had significantly better overall survival rate with the nipple-sparing procedure (P < .05). However, the authors noted, the survival advantage in the nipple-sparing group did not extend to breast cancer–specific survival.

Dr. Hwang, who was not involved in the current analysis, said the significant overall survival result in the subgroup analysis was surprising because “there’s no biological reason why one would expect that to be true.”  

Given that the subgroups did not demonstrate better breast cancer–specific survival, Dr. Hwang believes the overall survival finding may have more to do with comorbidities, which the study did not account for, than type of mastectomy.

When choosing who is eligible for a nipple-sparing mastectomy, “We’re more selective,” Dr. Hwang said. For instance, patients with uncontrolled diabetes or who smoke are unlikely to be candidates. “So, I think it’s possible that medical comorbidities and medical conditions between these groups [were] different.”

According to the authors, coding inconsistencies represent another possible weakness of the study. From 1998 to 2010, “the term ‘nipple-sparing mastectomy’ was coded as a [total mastectomy] with the ‘subcutaneous mastectomy’ code.” It’s possible that some patients receiving the nipple-sparing procedure before 2011 were not appropriately coded in the current study.

Moving forward, a large prospective study that includes comorbidities would be helpful, but overall the study helps validate that “nipple-sparing mastectomy is a safe operation for selected patients,” Dr. Hwang said. 

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

A new analysis of over 22,000 mastectomy patients confirms what smaller studies have indicated: Patients who undergo nipple-sparing mastectomy have overall and disease-free survival similar to that of those who receive a total mastectomy.

When nipple-sparing mastectomy was introduced, many experts felt uneasy about opting for the less invasive procedure, recalled Rosa Hwang, MD, associate medical director for breast surgery at MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston. “The concern was leaving all this skin,” said Dr. Hwang. “Are you going to leave cancer behind” and increase the risk of local recurrence?

Over the past 2 decades, the number of patients undergoing nipple-sparing mastectomy increased and, in turn, studies began to demonstrate the safety of the procedure.

However, large analyses evaluating long-term outcomes – namely, overall survival and breast cancer-specific survival – of nipple-sparing mastectomy were still lacking.

The latest study, published online Nov. 20 in Annals of Surgical Oncology, compared the long-term prognosis and survival benefits of nipple-sparing to total mastectomy in thousands of women. The analysis, which pulled data from the SEER cancer database, included 5,765 patients who underwent the nipple-sparing procedure and 17,289 patients who had a total mastectomy.

The authors found that overall survival and breast cancer–specific survival were similar for women undergoing nipple-sparing mastectomy and those receiving a total mastectomy. In fact, over the long-term, the nipple-sparing group slightly edged out the total mastectomy group in overall survival (94.61% vs. 93% at 5 years and 86.34% vs. 83.48% at 10 years, respectively) and in breast cancer-specific survival rates (96.16% vs. 95.74% at 5 years, and 92.2% vs. 91.37% at 10 years). The differences, however, were not significant.

The study also found that certain subgroups – including White women, women over age 46, those with a median household income of $70,000 or more, hormone receptor-positive, and HER2 negative – had significantly better overall survival rate with the nipple-sparing procedure (P < .05). However, the authors noted, the survival advantage in the nipple-sparing group did not extend to breast cancer–specific survival.

Dr. Hwang, who was not involved in the current analysis, said the significant overall survival result in the subgroup analysis was surprising because “there’s no biological reason why one would expect that to be true.”  

Given that the subgroups did not demonstrate better breast cancer–specific survival, Dr. Hwang believes the overall survival finding may have more to do with comorbidities, which the study did not account for, than type of mastectomy.

When choosing who is eligible for a nipple-sparing mastectomy, “We’re more selective,” Dr. Hwang said. For instance, patients with uncontrolled diabetes or who smoke are unlikely to be candidates. “So, I think it’s possible that medical comorbidities and medical conditions between these groups [were] different.”

According to the authors, coding inconsistencies represent another possible weakness of the study. From 1998 to 2010, “the term ‘nipple-sparing mastectomy’ was coded as a [total mastectomy] with the ‘subcutaneous mastectomy’ code.” It’s possible that some patients receiving the nipple-sparing procedure before 2011 were not appropriately coded in the current study.

Moving forward, a large prospective study that includes comorbidities would be helpful, but overall the study helps validate that “nipple-sparing mastectomy is a safe operation for selected patients,” Dr. Hwang said. 

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved daratumumab + hyaluronidase-fihj (Darzalex Faspro) and carfilzomib (Kyprolis) plus dexamethasone (Kd) for patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma who have had one to three prior lines of therapy.

Using the newly approved combination in this setting is a time-saver for patients and clinics, observed an investigator.

“The approval of subcutaneous daratumumab in combination with Kd will help clinicians address unmet patient needs by reducing the administration time from hours to just minutes and reducing the frequency of infusion-related reactions, as compared to the intravenous daratumumab formulation in combination with Kd,” said Ajai Chari, MD, of Mount Sinai Cancer Clinical Trials Office in New York City in a Janssen press statement.

Efficacy data for the new approval come from a single-arm cohort of PLEIADES, a multicohort, open-label trial. The cohort included 66 patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma who had received one or more prior lines of therapy. Patients received daratumumab + hyaluronidase-fihj subcutaneously in combination with carfilzomib and dexamethasone.

The main efficacy outcome measure was overall response rate, which was 84.8%. At a median follow-up of 9.2 months, the median duration of response had not been reached.

The response rate with the new combination, which features a subcutaneous injection, was akin to those with the older combination, which features the more time-consuming IV administration and was FDA approved, according to the company press release.

The most common adverse reactions (≥20%) occurring in patients treated with Darzalex Faspro, Kyprolis, and dexamethasone were upper respiratory tract infections, fatigue, insomnia, hypertension, diarrhea, cough, dyspnea, headache, pyrexia, nausea, and edema peripheral.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved daratumumab + hyaluronidase-fihj (Darzalex Faspro) and carfilzomib (Kyprolis) plus dexamethasone (Kd) for patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma who have had one to three prior lines of therapy.

Using the newly approved combination in this setting is a time-saver for patients and clinics, observed an investigator.

“The approval of subcutaneous daratumumab in combination with Kd will help clinicians address unmet patient needs by reducing the administration time from hours to just minutes and reducing the frequency of infusion-related reactions, as compared to the intravenous daratumumab formulation in combination with Kd,” said Ajai Chari, MD, of Mount Sinai Cancer Clinical Trials Office in New York City in a Janssen press statement.

Efficacy data for the new approval come from a single-arm cohort of PLEIADES, a multicohort, open-label trial. The cohort included 66 patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma who had received one or more prior lines of therapy. Patients received daratumumab + hyaluronidase-fihj subcutaneously in combination with carfilzomib and dexamethasone.

The main efficacy outcome measure was overall response rate, which was 84.8%. At a median follow-up of 9.2 months, the median duration of response had not been reached.

The response rate with the new combination, which features a subcutaneous injection, was akin to those with the older combination, which features the more time-consuming IV administration and was FDA approved, according to the company press release.

The most common adverse reactions (≥20%) occurring in patients treated with Darzalex Faspro, Kyprolis, and dexamethasone were upper respiratory tract infections, fatigue, insomnia, hypertension, diarrhea, cough, dyspnea, headache, pyrexia, nausea, and edema peripheral.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved daratumumab + hyaluronidase-fihj (Darzalex Faspro) and carfilzomib (Kyprolis) plus dexamethasone (Kd) for patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma who have had one to three prior lines of therapy.

Using the newly approved combination in this setting is a time-saver for patients and clinics, observed an investigator.

“The approval of subcutaneous daratumumab in combination with Kd will help clinicians address unmet patient needs by reducing the administration time from hours to just minutes and reducing the frequency of infusion-related reactions, as compared to the intravenous daratumumab formulation in combination with Kd,” said Ajai Chari, MD, of Mount Sinai Cancer Clinical Trials Office in New York City in a Janssen press statement.

Efficacy data for the new approval come from a single-arm cohort of PLEIADES, a multicohort, open-label trial. The cohort included 66 patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma who had received one or more prior lines of therapy. Patients received daratumumab + hyaluronidase-fihj subcutaneously in combination with carfilzomib and dexamethasone.

The main efficacy outcome measure was overall response rate, which was 84.8%. At a median follow-up of 9.2 months, the median duration of response had not been reached.

The response rate with the new combination, which features a subcutaneous injection, was akin to those with the older combination, which features the more time-consuming IV administration and was FDA approved, according to the company press release.

The most common adverse reactions (≥20%) occurring in patients treated with Darzalex Faspro, Kyprolis, and dexamethasone were upper respiratory tract infections, fatigue, insomnia, hypertension, diarrhea, cough, dyspnea, headache, pyrexia, nausea, and edema peripheral.

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

Aspirin use was associated with longer overall survival in people with inoperable non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), according to a new study from Taiwan.

copyright Darren Hester/Fotolia.com

The analysis, published online Nov. 22 in BMC Cancer , adds another data point to a small and inconsistent evidence base.

“Despite the need for future prospective randomized clinical trials, aspirin may be considered as an additional treatment for inoperable NSCLC patients,” Ming-Szu Hung, MD, of Chang-Gung University, Taoyuan City, and colleagues write.

The current literature suggests that the over-the-counter medication may help ward off various types of cancer, including lung cancer, but the various study findings do not always align. For lung-cancer survival, in particular, a few observational studies have found increased survival among aspirin users while others have not.

To help bring clarity to the literature, Dr. Hung’s team examined data from Taiwan’s National Health Insurance Research Database on more than 38,000 patients diagnosed with NSCLC between 2000 and 2012, almost 5,000 of whom were taking aspirin at the time of diagnosis.

The researchers found that aspirin users survived for a median of 1.73 years, compared with 1.30 years for nonusers. Taking the drug was associated with longer overall survival in time-varying covariate analysis (hazard ratio, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.80-0.86). This finding was confirmed in a propensity-score analysis of 4,932 matched pairs (HR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.75-0.83).

“These results warrant further randomized clinical trials to evaluate the actual role of aspirin in the treatment of NSCLC patients,” the researchers conclude.

But Úna McMenamin, PhD, a cancer epidemiologist at Queen’s University Belfast, Ireland, was not convinced by the study’s methods.

While she praised its large size and use of population-based health registers, she expressed concern about the potential for reverse causation, “as it is unclear whether authors lagged the aspirin exposure in the cohort of lung cancer patients.”

There is evidence that common medications such as aspirin may be withdrawn from patients who are thought to be near the end of their life, Dr. McMenamin told this news organization. When not factored into the statistical analysis, aspirin may appear “to be spuriously associated with a reduced risk of death when, in fact, no association may be present.”

Previous studies of aspirin use in lung cancer patients that have included a lag, such as one Dr. McMenamin and colleagues conducted in 2015, have found no evidence of a protective effect.

That is why, according to Dr. McMenamin, “additional population-based studies, in diverse populations, are required to investigate the association between aspirin use and survival outcomes in lung-cancer patients to determine whether randomized controlled trials are warranted in this patient group.”

In addition, she noted, “any potential benefit of aspirin in lung cancer patients needs to be balanced against known adverse events associated with prolonged aspirin use, such as gastrointestinal bleeding.”

Dr. Hung did not reply to requests for comment.

The study had no funding, and the researchers report no conflicts of interest.

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

Aspirin use was associated with longer overall survival in people with inoperable non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), according to a new study from Taiwan.

copyright Darren Hester/Fotolia.com

The analysis, published online Nov. 22 in BMC Cancer , adds another data point to a small and inconsistent evidence base.

“Despite the need for future prospective randomized clinical trials, aspirin may be considered as an additional treatment for inoperable NSCLC patients,” Ming-Szu Hung, MD, of Chang-Gung University, Taoyuan City, and colleagues write.

The current literature suggests that the over-the-counter medication may help ward off various types of cancer, including lung cancer, but the various study findings do not always align. For lung-cancer survival, in particular, a few observational studies have found increased survival among aspirin users while others have not.

To help bring clarity to the literature, Dr. Hung’s team examined data from Taiwan’s National Health Insurance Research Database on more than 38,000 patients diagnosed with NSCLC between 2000 and 2012, almost 5,000 of whom were taking aspirin at the time of diagnosis.

The researchers found that aspirin users survived for a median of 1.73 years, compared with 1.30 years for nonusers. Taking the drug was associated with longer overall survival in time-varying covariate analysis (hazard ratio, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.80-0.86). This finding was confirmed in a propensity-score analysis of 4,932 matched pairs (HR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.75-0.83).

“These results warrant further randomized clinical trials to evaluate the actual role of aspirin in the treatment of NSCLC patients,” the researchers conclude.

But Úna McMenamin, PhD, a cancer epidemiologist at Queen’s University Belfast, Ireland, was not convinced by the study’s methods.

While she praised its large size and use of population-based health registers, she expressed concern about the potential for reverse causation, “as it is unclear whether authors lagged the aspirin exposure in the cohort of lung cancer patients.”

There is evidence that common medications such as aspirin may be withdrawn from patients who are thought to be near the end of their life, Dr. McMenamin told this news organization. When not factored into the statistical analysis, aspirin may appear “to be spuriously associated with a reduced risk of death when, in fact, no association may be present.”

Previous studies of aspirin use in lung cancer patients that have included a lag, such as one Dr. McMenamin and colleagues conducted in 2015, have found no evidence of a protective effect.

That is why, according to Dr. McMenamin, “additional population-based studies, in diverse populations, are required to investigate the association between aspirin use and survival outcomes in lung-cancer patients to determine whether randomized controlled trials are warranted in this patient group.”

In addition, she noted, “any potential benefit of aspirin in lung cancer patients needs to be balanced against known adverse events associated with prolonged aspirin use, such as gastrointestinal bleeding.”

Dr. Hung did not reply to requests for comment.

The study had no funding, and the researchers report no conflicts of interest.

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

Aspirin use was associated with longer overall survival in people with inoperable non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), according to a new study from Taiwan.

copyright Darren Hester/Fotolia.com

The analysis, published online Nov. 22 in BMC Cancer , adds another data point to a small and inconsistent evidence base.

“Despite the need for future prospective randomized clinical trials, aspirin may be considered as an additional treatment for inoperable NSCLC patients,” Ming-Szu Hung, MD, of Chang-Gung University, Taoyuan City, and colleagues write.

The current literature suggests that the over-the-counter medication may help ward off various types of cancer, including lung cancer, but the various study findings do not always align. For lung-cancer survival, in particular, a few observational studies have found increased survival among aspirin users while others have not.

To help bring clarity to the literature, Dr. Hung’s team examined data from Taiwan’s National Health Insurance Research Database on more than 38,000 patients diagnosed with NSCLC between 2000 and 2012, almost 5,000 of whom were taking aspirin at the time of diagnosis.

The researchers found that aspirin users survived for a median of 1.73 years, compared with 1.30 years for nonusers. Taking the drug was associated with longer overall survival in time-varying covariate analysis (hazard ratio, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.80-0.86). This finding was confirmed in a propensity-score analysis of 4,932 matched pairs (HR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.75-0.83).

“These results warrant further randomized clinical trials to evaluate the actual role of aspirin in the treatment of NSCLC patients,” the researchers conclude.

But Úna McMenamin, PhD, a cancer epidemiologist at Queen’s University Belfast, Ireland, was not convinced by the study’s methods.

While she praised its large size and use of population-based health registers, she expressed concern about the potential for reverse causation, “as it is unclear whether authors lagged the aspirin exposure in the cohort of lung cancer patients.”

There is evidence that common medications such as aspirin may be withdrawn from patients who are thought to be near the end of their life, Dr. McMenamin told this news organization. When not factored into the statistical analysis, aspirin may appear “to be spuriously associated with a reduced risk of death when, in fact, no association may be present.”

Previous studies of aspirin use in lung cancer patients that have included a lag, such as one Dr. McMenamin and colleagues conducted in 2015, have found no evidence of a protective effect.

That is why, according to Dr. McMenamin, “additional population-based studies, in diverse populations, are required to investigate the association between aspirin use and survival outcomes in lung-cancer patients to determine whether randomized controlled trials are warranted in this patient group.”

In addition, she noted, “any potential benefit of aspirin in lung cancer patients needs to be balanced against known adverse events associated with prolonged aspirin use, such as gastrointestinal bleeding.”

Dr. Hung did not reply to requests for comment.

The study had no funding, and the researchers report no conflicts of interest.

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

The San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium (SABCS) 2021 will “be a great meeting,” according to Carlos Arteaga, MD, director of Simmons Comprehensive Cancer Center at UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.

Dr. Arteaga, the meeting’s codirector, said the first-ever hybrid symposium will take place virtually from Dec. 7 to 10 as well as in person. Online availability appears to be a boon to attendance, with a record 9,325 registrants for the 2020 symposium, held only virtually because of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The meeting will have an app available, which can be accessed by searching “San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium” (Google Play for Android, Apple for iOS) and downloading, or by going to www.core-apps.com/dl/sabcs from a desktop computer.

Dr. Arteaga provided a sneak peek of the most exciting research being presented at the upcoming meeting.
 

On the horizon for advanced breast cancer

A “very important” study of an investigational oral agent employed in heavily pretreated postmenopausal women with estrogen receptor–positive (ER+) advanced breast cancer headlines the meeting.

This international, multicenter trial could have “practice-changing implications,” Dr. Arteaga said in an interview.

The phase 3 EMERALD trial (abstract GS2-02) pits elacestrant, a selective estrogen receptor degrader (SERD), against standard endocrine therapy (fulvestrant or an aromatase inhibitor) in patients with metastatic breast cancer whose disease has progressed after treatment with at least one endocrine therapy and a CDK4/6 inhibitor.

The trial is important because many patients with breast cancer have estrogen receptor mutations, which are a “major mechanism of [drug] resistance” and thus progression on earlier therapy, Dr. Arteaga said.

Elacestrant is in good company among a plethora of oral SERDs under investigation in advanced breast cancer; however, currently, fulvestrant – which requires an intramuscular injection in the buttocks every month – is the only approved SERD.

“There’s plenty of preclinical data that suggest that these drugs [SERDs] may have activity against these mutant forms of the receptor, which occur in up to 40% of patients with advanced ER+ breast cancer,” he explained.

Researchers will present data on two primary outcome measures from the phase 3 trial: progression-free survival (PFS) based on mutations of the estrogen receptor 1 gene (ESR1-mut) and PFS in all subjects regardless of ESR1 status.

In addition to the EMERALD trial, PADA-1 (abstract GS3-05) is another important randomized, phase 3 trial focused on treating estrogen receptor mutations in patients with metastatic disease, said Dr. Arteaga.

The trial has enrolled patients with ER+ metastatic breast cancer who received an aromatase inhibitor (letrozole, anastrozole, or exemestane) and the CDK4/6 inhibitor palbociclib as first-line therapy.

In step 1 of the trial, approximately 1,000 patients were screened for circulating blood ESR1 mutation detection at regular intervals while being treated with palbociclib and an aromatase inhibitor in a continuous scheme until tumor progression or ESR1 mutation detection.

In step 2, up to 200 patients with a rising circulating ESR1 mutation and no tumor progression were randomized 1:1 to no change in therapy until tumor progression or to receive palbociclib plus fulvestrant until tumor progression.

The trial examines the safety and efficacy of “a clinical conundrum that we face” in this setting: whether or not to switch treatment from an aromatase inhibitor to fulvestrant while continuing a CDK4/6 inhibitor at the sign of mutation detection, Dr. Arteaga explained.
 

Refining who gets the ‘kitchen sink’

Dr. Arteaga highlighted two trials focused on the immune checkpoint inhibitor pembrolizumab.

The phase 3 KEYNOTE-522 study led to the approval of neoadjuvant pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy for early-stage triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) in July 2021. At this year’s SABCS, researchers will present new data from KEYNOTE-522 (abstract GS1-01), representing final results from the trial’s event-free survival (EFS) outcome.

Previously, investigators reported a statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in EFS. These data suggest “that deploying immunotherapy early before surgery ... may be curative in some patients,” Dr. Arteaga said. The new data will allow the “robustness and consistency” of the earlier findings to be assessed.

But, he added, this is a “tough” treatment, which includes five drugs. “It’s the kitchen sink, and not everybody needs the kitchen sink. It’s important to refine these findings. Some patients may not need pembrolizumab, but some do.”

The second trial exploring pembrolizumab – KEYNOTE-355 (abstract GS1-02) – mirrors KEYNOTE-522 but in patients with previously untreated locally recurrent inoperable or metastatic TNBC whose tumors expressed PD-L1.

Previously, investigators reported that pembrolizumab combined with chemotherapy showed statistically significant improvements in overall survival and PFS compared to placebo plus chemotherapy. At the 2021 SABCS, researchers will provide final study results, including outcomes in subgroups of patients by additional combined positive score cutoffs.
 

Metformin trial: ‘This is it’

Dr. Arteaga highlighted CCTGMA.32 (abstract GS1-08), a phase 3 randomized, placebo-controlled adjuvant trial of the diabetes drug metformin versus placebo in early breast cancer. Results of the primary efficacy analysis of the trial will be presented at the meeting.

The Canadian-led study seeks to determine if metformin can decrease breast cancer cell growth and work with cancer therapies to prevent disease recurrence. The study design calls for patients to take twice-daily oral metformin or placebo pills for up to 5 years in the absence of disease progression.

The primary outcome of the 3,500-plus patient trial is invasive disease-free survival in hormone receptor (ER and PgR) negative and positive (ER and/or PgR) subgroups.

“Metformin has actually been associated with improved survival [in breast cancer] in patients on chemotherapy. But we don’t know exactly how,” he said. “There’s never been a head-to-head comparison in the adjuvant setting [before]. This is it.”
 

TKI for breast cancer with brain mets

The SABCS codirector spotlighted an updated overall survival analysis of the randomized phase 3 PHOEBE trial (abstract GS3-02).

Previous research confirmed the superiority of pyrotinib, a novel TKI targeting HER1, HER2, and HER4, over lapatinib when given in combination with capecitabine in HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer.

In the United States, the lapatinib-capecitabine combination is “mostly used” in patients with HER2 metastatic disease and brain metastases who also undergo stereotactic radiation, Dr. Arteaga said.

This use has continued despite groundbreaking results from the HER2CLIMB trial, featuring the TKI tucatinib, he said.

As reported last year, adding tucatinib to trastuzumab and capecitabine in patients with HER2-positive breast cancer and brain metastases increased median overall survival from 12 months to 18.1 months. The results were called the first of their kind at that time.

The pyrotinib study may matter to American clinicians because pyrotinib is used mostly in China, not the United States, and this analysis suggests that pyrotinib could be part of the armamentarium in the United States, alongside tucatinib.

TKIs are like Coke and Pepsi, Dr. Arteaga said: “Similar but not identical.” Therefore, it is worth taking a look at the new study, he said. “There may be some benefit in having more than one [TKI] in the therapeutic armamentarium.”

Dr. Arteaga receives or has received grant support from Pfizer and Lilly and serves or has served in a scientific advisory role with Novartis, Lilly, TAIHO Oncology, Daiichi Sankyo, Merck, AstraZeneca, OrigiMed, Immunomedics, ARVINAS, Sanofi, Athenex, and the Susan G. Komen Foundation. He also holds minor stock options from Provista.

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

The San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium (SABCS) 2021 will “be a great meeting,” according to Carlos Arteaga, MD, director of Simmons Comprehensive Cancer Center at UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.

Dr. Arteaga, the meeting’s codirector, said the first-ever hybrid symposium will take place virtually from Dec. 7 to 10 as well as in person. Online availability appears to be a boon to attendance, with a record 9,325 registrants for the 2020 symposium, held only virtually because of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The meeting will have an app available, which can be accessed by searching “San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium” (Google Play for Android, Apple for iOS) and downloading, or by going to www.core-apps.com/dl/sabcs from a desktop computer.

Dr. Arteaga provided a sneak peek of the most exciting research being presented at the upcoming meeting.
 

On the horizon for advanced breast cancer

A “very important” study of an investigational oral agent employed in heavily pretreated postmenopausal women with estrogen receptor–positive (ER+) advanced breast cancer headlines the meeting.

This international, multicenter trial could have “practice-changing implications,” Dr. Arteaga said in an interview.

The phase 3 EMERALD trial (abstract GS2-02) pits elacestrant, a selective estrogen receptor degrader (SERD), against standard endocrine therapy (fulvestrant or an aromatase inhibitor) in patients with metastatic breast cancer whose disease has progressed after treatment with at least one endocrine therapy and a CDK4/6 inhibitor.

The trial is important because many patients with breast cancer have estrogen receptor mutations, which are a “major mechanism of [drug] resistance” and thus progression on earlier therapy, Dr. Arteaga said.

Elacestrant is in good company among a plethora of oral SERDs under investigation in advanced breast cancer; however, currently, fulvestrant – which requires an intramuscular injection in the buttocks every month – is the only approved SERD.

“There’s plenty of preclinical data that suggest that these drugs [SERDs] may have activity against these mutant forms of the receptor, which occur in up to 40% of patients with advanced ER+ breast cancer,” he explained.

Researchers will present data on two primary outcome measures from the phase 3 trial: progression-free survival (PFS) based on mutations of the estrogen receptor 1 gene (ESR1-mut) and PFS in all subjects regardless of ESR1 status.

In addition to the EMERALD trial, PADA-1 (abstract GS3-05) is another important randomized, phase 3 trial focused on treating estrogen receptor mutations in patients with metastatic disease, said Dr. Arteaga.

The trial has enrolled patients with ER+ metastatic breast cancer who received an aromatase inhibitor (letrozole, anastrozole, or exemestane) and the CDK4/6 inhibitor palbociclib as first-line therapy.

In step 1 of the trial, approximately 1,000 patients were screened for circulating blood ESR1 mutation detection at regular intervals while being treated with palbociclib and an aromatase inhibitor in a continuous scheme until tumor progression or ESR1 mutation detection.

In step 2, up to 200 patients with a rising circulating ESR1 mutation and no tumor progression were randomized 1:1 to no change in therapy until tumor progression or to receive palbociclib plus fulvestrant until tumor progression.

The trial examines the safety and efficacy of “a clinical conundrum that we face” in this setting: whether or not to switch treatment from an aromatase inhibitor to fulvestrant while continuing a CDK4/6 inhibitor at the sign of mutation detection, Dr. Arteaga explained.
 

Refining who gets the ‘kitchen sink’

Dr. Arteaga highlighted two trials focused on the immune checkpoint inhibitor pembrolizumab.

The phase 3 KEYNOTE-522 study led to the approval of neoadjuvant pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy for early-stage triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) in July 2021. At this year’s SABCS, researchers will present new data from KEYNOTE-522 (abstract GS1-01), representing final results from the trial’s event-free survival (EFS) outcome.

Previously, investigators reported a statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in EFS. These data suggest “that deploying immunotherapy early before surgery ... may be curative in some patients,” Dr. Arteaga said. The new data will allow the “robustness and consistency” of the earlier findings to be assessed.

But, he added, this is a “tough” treatment, which includes five drugs. “It’s the kitchen sink, and not everybody needs the kitchen sink. It’s important to refine these findings. Some patients may not need pembrolizumab, but some do.”

The second trial exploring pembrolizumab – KEYNOTE-355 (abstract GS1-02) – mirrors KEYNOTE-522 but in patients with previously untreated locally recurrent inoperable or metastatic TNBC whose tumors expressed PD-L1.

Previously, investigators reported that pembrolizumab combined with chemotherapy showed statistically significant improvements in overall survival and PFS compared to placebo plus chemotherapy. At the 2021 SABCS, researchers will provide final study results, including outcomes in subgroups of patients by additional combined positive score cutoffs.
 

Metformin trial: ‘This is it’

Dr. Arteaga highlighted CCTGMA.32 (abstract GS1-08), a phase 3 randomized, placebo-controlled adjuvant trial of the diabetes drug metformin versus placebo in early breast cancer. Results of the primary efficacy analysis of the trial will be presented at the meeting.

The Canadian-led study seeks to determine if metformin can decrease breast cancer cell growth and work with cancer therapies to prevent disease recurrence. The study design calls for patients to take twice-daily oral metformin or placebo pills for up to 5 years in the absence of disease progression.

The primary outcome of the 3,500-plus patient trial is invasive disease-free survival in hormone receptor (ER and PgR) negative and positive (ER and/or PgR) subgroups.

“Metformin has actually been associated with improved survival [in breast cancer] in patients on chemotherapy. But we don’t know exactly how,” he said. “There’s never been a head-to-head comparison in the adjuvant setting [before]. This is it.”
 

TKI for breast cancer with brain mets

The SABCS codirector spotlighted an updated overall survival analysis of the randomized phase 3 PHOEBE trial (abstract GS3-02).

Previous research confirmed the superiority of pyrotinib, a novel TKI targeting HER1, HER2, and HER4, over lapatinib when given in combination with capecitabine in HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer.

In the United States, the lapatinib-capecitabine combination is “mostly used” in patients with HER2 metastatic disease and brain metastases who also undergo stereotactic radiation, Dr. Arteaga said.

This use has continued despite groundbreaking results from the HER2CLIMB trial, featuring the TKI tucatinib, he said.

As reported last year, adding tucatinib to trastuzumab and capecitabine in patients with HER2-positive breast cancer and brain metastases increased median overall survival from 12 months to 18.1 months. The results were called the first of their kind at that time.

The pyrotinib study may matter to American clinicians because pyrotinib is used mostly in China, not the United States, and this analysis suggests that pyrotinib could be part of the armamentarium in the United States, alongside tucatinib.

TKIs are like Coke and Pepsi, Dr. Arteaga said: “Similar but not identical.” Therefore, it is worth taking a look at the new study, he said. “There may be some benefit in having more than one [TKI] in the therapeutic armamentarium.”

Dr. Arteaga receives or has received grant support from Pfizer and Lilly and serves or has served in a scientific advisory role with Novartis, Lilly, TAIHO Oncology, Daiichi Sankyo, Merck, AstraZeneca, OrigiMed, Immunomedics, ARVINAS, Sanofi, Athenex, and the Susan G. Komen Foundation. He also holds minor stock options from Provista.

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

The San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium (SABCS) 2021 will “be a great meeting,” according to Carlos Arteaga, MD, director of Simmons Comprehensive Cancer Center at UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.

Dr. Arteaga, the meeting’s codirector, said the first-ever hybrid symposium will take place virtually from Dec. 7 to 10 as well as in person. Online availability appears to be a boon to attendance, with a record 9,325 registrants for the 2020 symposium, held only virtually because of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The meeting will have an app available, which can be accessed by searching “San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium” (Google Play for Android, Apple for iOS) and downloading, or by going to www.core-apps.com/dl/sabcs from a desktop computer.

Dr. Arteaga provided a sneak peek of the most exciting research being presented at the upcoming meeting.
 

On the horizon for advanced breast cancer

A “very important” study of an investigational oral agent employed in heavily pretreated postmenopausal women with estrogen receptor–positive (ER+) advanced breast cancer headlines the meeting.

This international, multicenter trial could have “practice-changing implications,” Dr. Arteaga said in an interview.

The phase 3 EMERALD trial (abstract GS2-02) pits elacestrant, a selective estrogen receptor degrader (SERD), against standard endocrine therapy (fulvestrant or an aromatase inhibitor) in patients with metastatic breast cancer whose disease has progressed after treatment with at least one endocrine therapy and a CDK4/6 inhibitor.

The trial is important because many patients with breast cancer have estrogen receptor mutations, which are a “major mechanism of [drug] resistance” and thus progression on earlier therapy, Dr. Arteaga said.

Elacestrant is in good company among a plethora of oral SERDs under investigation in advanced breast cancer; however, currently, fulvestrant – which requires an intramuscular injection in the buttocks every month – is the only approved SERD.

“There’s plenty of preclinical data that suggest that these drugs [SERDs] may have activity against these mutant forms of the receptor, which occur in up to 40% of patients with advanced ER+ breast cancer,” he explained.

Researchers will present data on two primary outcome measures from the phase 3 trial: progression-free survival (PFS) based on mutations of the estrogen receptor 1 gene (ESR1-mut) and PFS in all subjects regardless of ESR1 status.

In addition to the EMERALD trial, PADA-1 (abstract GS3-05) is another important randomized, phase 3 trial focused on treating estrogen receptor mutations in patients with metastatic disease, said Dr. Arteaga.

The trial has enrolled patients with ER+ metastatic breast cancer who received an aromatase inhibitor (letrozole, anastrozole, or exemestane) and the CDK4/6 inhibitor palbociclib as first-line therapy.

In step 1 of the trial, approximately 1,000 patients were screened for circulating blood ESR1 mutation detection at regular intervals while being treated with palbociclib and an aromatase inhibitor in a continuous scheme until tumor progression or ESR1 mutation detection.

In step 2, up to 200 patients with a rising circulating ESR1 mutation and no tumor progression were randomized 1:1 to no change in therapy until tumor progression or to receive palbociclib plus fulvestrant until tumor progression.

The trial examines the safety and efficacy of “a clinical conundrum that we face” in this setting: whether or not to switch treatment from an aromatase inhibitor to fulvestrant while continuing a CDK4/6 inhibitor at the sign of mutation detection, Dr. Arteaga explained.
 

Refining who gets the ‘kitchen sink’

Dr. Arteaga highlighted two trials focused on the immune checkpoint inhibitor pembrolizumab.

The phase 3 KEYNOTE-522 study led to the approval of neoadjuvant pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy for early-stage triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) in July 2021. At this year’s SABCS, researchers will present new data from KEYNOTE-522 (abstract GS1-01), representing final results from the trial’s event-free survival (EFS) outcome.

Previously, investigators reported a statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in EFS. These data suggest “that deploying immunotherapy early before surgery ... may be curative in some patients,” Dr. Arteaga said. The new data will allow the “robustness and consistency” of the earlier findings to be assessed.

But, he added, this is a “tough” treatment, which includes five drugs. “It’s the kitchen sink, and not everybody needs the kitchen sink. It’s important to refine these findings. Some patients may not need pembrolizumab, but some do.”

The second trial exploring pembrolizumab – KEYNOTE-355 (abstract GS1-02) – mirrors KEYNOTE-522 but in patients with previously untreated locally recurrent inoperable or metastatic TNBC whose tumors expressed PD-L1.

Previously, investigators reported that pembrolizumab combined with chemotherapy showed statistically significant improvements in overall survival and PFS compared to placebo plus chemotherapy. At the 2021 SABCS, researchers will provide final study results, including outcomes in subgroups of patients by additional combined positive score cutoffs.
 

Metformin trial: ‘This is it’

Dr. Arteaga highlighted CCTGMA.32 (abstract GS1-08), a phase 3 randomized, placebo-controlled adjuvant trial of the diabetes drug metformin versus placebo in early breast cancer. Results of the primary efficacy analysis of the trial will be presented at the meeting.

The Canadian-led study seeks to determine if metformin can decrease breast cancer cell growth and work with cancer therapies to prevent disease recurrence. The study design calls for patients to take twice-daily oral metformin or placebo pills for up to 5 years in the absence of disease progression.

The primary outcome of the 3,500-plus patient trial is invasive disease-free survival in hormone receptor (ER and PgR) negative and positive (ER and/or PgR) subgroups.

“Metformin has actually been associated with improved survival [in breast cancer] in patients on chemotherapy. But we don’t know exactly how,” he said. “There’s never been a head-to-head comparison in the adjuvant setting [before]. This is it.”
 

TKI for breast cancer with brain mets

The SABCS codirector spotlighted an updated overall survival analysis of the randomized phase 3 PHOEBE trial (abstract GS3-02).

Previous research confirmed the superiority of pyrotinib, a novel TKI targeting HER1, HER2, and HER4, over lapatinib when given in combination with capecitabine in HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer.

In the United States, the lapatinib-capecitabine combination is “mostly used” in patients with HER2 metastatic disease and brain metastases who also undergo stereotactic radiation, Dr. Arteaga said.

This use has continued despite groundbreaking results from the HER2CLIMB trial, featuring the TKI tucatinib, he said.

As reported last year, adding tucatinib to trastuzumab and capecitabine in patients with HER2-positive breast cancer and brain metastases increased median overall survival from 12 months to 18.1 months. The results were called the first of their kind at that time.

The pyrotinib study may matter to American clinicians because pyrotinib is used mostly in China, not the United States, and this analysis suggests that pyrotinib could be part of the armamentarium in the United States, alongside tucatinib.

TKIs are like Coke and Pepsi, Dr. Arteaga said: “Similar but not identical.” Therefore, it is worth taking a look at the new study, he said. “There may be some benefit in having more than one [TKI] in the therapeutic armamentarium.”

Dr. Arteaga receives or has received grant support from Pfizer and Lilly and serves or has served in a scientific advisory role with Novartis, Lilly, TAIHO Oncology, Daiichi Sankyo, Merck, AstraZeneca, OrigiMed, Immunomedics, ARVINAS, Sanofi, Athenex, and the Susan G. Komen Foundation. He also holds minor stock options from Provista.

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

After making a controversial change in September to a long-standing recommendation about the use of active surveillance in men with prostate cancer, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) has reversed course and reinstated its original advice, with a slight tweak.

The influential cancer organization, which is best known for its guidelines, now recommends that “most” men with low-risk prostate cancer be offered active surveillance as the lone “preferred” initial treatment option. This advice aligns closely with the group’s initial recommendation, published over a decade ago.

But controversy erupted in late September when the NCCN suddenly changed its tune on active surveillance, recommending that men with low-risk disease be managed with either active surveillance, radiation therapy, or surgery, with equal weight given to all three.

The new advice angered physicians who support the concept of active surveillance, which aims to avoid or delay treatment — and potentially life-changing side effects — until signs of disease progression.

The NCCN listened to the complaints.

On Nov. 30, the group largely reverted back to the original recommendation. In updated guidelines, active surveillance returned to its place as the sole “preferred” management option, but for “most” men with low-risk disease, not all.

In an email sent to this news organization, Edward Schaeffer, MD, PhD, chair of the prostate cancer treatment panel, said that “the NCCN Prostate Cancer Panel recently convened” and “extensively revised the Principles of Active Surveillance and Observation.”

Dr. Schaeffer, who is from the Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center of Northwestern University in Chicago, cited the heterogeneity across the low-risk disease group. Factors associated with an increased probability of near-term grade reclassification from low risk to higher risk include high PSA density, a high number of positive cores (≥ 3), high genomic risk (from tissue-based molecular tumor analysis), and/or a known BRCA2 germline mutation, he added.

Urologists cheered the NCCN’s reversal on Twitter.

“Big news! NCCN guidelines updated again — active surveillance is ‘preferred for most patients’ with low risk prostate cancer and life expectancy >=10 years,” tweeted Stacy Loeb of NYU Langone in New York City.

“Very exciting if true,” tweeted Matthew Cooperberg, MD, of University of California San Francisco, who was one of the most vocal critics of the NCCN’s change in September, calling that move a “step backward” that would likely lead to overtreatment.

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

After making a controversial change in September to a long-standing recommendation about the use of active surveillance in men with prostate cancer, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) has reversed course and reinstated its original advice, with a slight tweak.

The influential cancer organization, which is best known for its guidelines, now recommends that “most” men with low-risk prostate cancer be offered active surveillance as the lone “preferred” initial treatment option. This advice aligns closely with the group’s initial recommendation, published over a decade ago.

But controversy erupted in late September when the NCCN suddenly changed its tune on active surveillance, recommending that men with low-risk disease be managed with either active surveillance, radiation therapy, or surgery, with equal weight given to all three.

The new advice angered physicians who support the concept of active surveillance, which aims to avoid or delay treatment — and potentially life-changing side effects — until signs of disease progression.

The NCCN listened to the complaints.

On Nov. 30, the group largely reverted back to the original recommendation. In updated guidelines, active surveillance returned to its place as the sole “preferred” management option, but for “most” men with low-risk disease, not all.

In an email sent to this news organization, Edward Schaeffer, MD, PhD, chair of the prostate cancer treatment panel, said that “the NCCN Prostate Cancer Panel recently convened” and “extensively revised the Principles of Active Surveillance and Observation.”

Dr. Schaeffer, who is from the Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center of Northwestern University in Chicago, cited the heterogeneity across the low-risk disease group. Factors associated with an increased probability of near-term grade reclassification from low risk to higher risk include high PSA density, a high number of positive cores (≥ 3), high genomic risk (from tissue-based molecular tumor analysis), and/or a known BRCA2 germline mutation, he added.

Urologists cheered the NCCN’s reversal on Twitter.

“Big news! NCCN guidelines updated again — active surveillance is ‘preferred for most patients’ with low risk prostate cancer and life expectancy >=10 years,” tweeted Stacy Loeb of NYU Langone in New York City.

“Very exciting if true,” tweeted Matthew Cooperberg, MD, of University of California San Francisco, who was one of the most vocal critics of the NCCN’s change in September, calling that move a “step backward” that would likely lead to overtreatment.

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

After making a controversial change in September to a long-standing recommendation about the use of active surveillance in men with prostate cancer, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) has reversed course and reinstated its original advice, with a slight tweak.

The influential cancer organization, which is best known for its guidelines, now recommends that “most” men with low-risk prostate cancer be offered active surveillance as the lone “preferred” initial treatment option. This advice aligns closely with the group’s initial recommendation, published over a decade ago.

But controversy erupted in late September when the NCCN suddenly changed its tune on active surveillance, recommending that men with low-risk disease be managed with either active surveillance, radiation therapy, or surgery, with equal weight given to all three.

The new advice angered physicians who support the concept of active surveillance, which aims to avoid or delay treatment — and potentially life-changing side effects — until signs of disease progression.

The NCCN listened to the complaints.

On Nov. 30, the group largely reverted back to the original recommendation. In updated guidelines, active surveillance returned to its place as the sole “preferred” management option, but for “most” men with low-risk disease, not all.

In an email sent to this news organization, Edward Schaeffer, MD, PhD, chair of the prostate cancer treatment panel, said that “the NCCN Prostate Cancer Panel recently convened” and “extensively revised the Principles of Active Surveillance and Observation.”

Dr. Schaeffer, who is from the Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center of Northwestern University in Chicago, cited the heterogeneity across the low-risk disease group. Factors associated with an increased probability of near-term grade reclassification from low risk to higher risk include high PSA density, a high number of positive cores (≥ 3), high genomic risk (from tissue-based molecular tumor analysis), and/or a known BRCA2 germline mutation, he added.

Urologists cheered the NCCN’s reversal on Twitter.

“Big news! NCCN guidelines updated again — active surveillance is ‘preferred for most patients’ with low risk prostate cancer and life expectancy >=10 years,” tweeted Stacy Loeb of NYU Langone in New York City.

“Very exciting if true,” tweeted Matthew Cooperberg, MD, of University of California San Francisco, who was one of the most vocal critics of the NCCN’s change in September, calling that move a “step backward” that would likely lead to overtreatment.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved pafolacianine (Cytalux), an imaging drug indicated for use in adult patients with ovarian cancer undergoing surgery.

The new drug “is designed to improve the ability to locate additional ovarian cancerous tissue that is normally difficult to detect during surgery,” according to the agency.

Pafolacianine, administered via intravenous injection prior to surgery, is the first FDA-approved tumor-targeted fluorescent agent for ovarian cancer.

In a press statement, drug inventor Philip Low, PhD, of Purdue University in West Lafayette, Ind., said the agent causes ovarian cancer lesions to “light up like stars against a night sky.”

Improving detection of ovarian cancer lesions is critical given that ovarian cancer is one of the “deadliest of all female reproductive system cancers,” according to the American Cancer Society. The organization estimates that there will be more than 21,000 new cases and more than 13,000 deaths in 2021.

Currently, surgeons use preoperative imaging as well as visual inspection of tumors under normal light and examination by touch to identify ovarian cancer lesions.

Pafolacianine offers a new tool to enhance surgeons’ ability “to identify deadly ovarian tumors that may otherwise go undetected,” Alex Gorovets, MD, deputy director of the office of specialty medicine in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said in a press statement.

Ovarian cancer often causes the body to overproduce the folate receptor protein in cell membranes. Pafolacianine, employed with a near-infrared fluorescence imaging system cleared by the FDA for use alongside the drug, binds to and illuminates these proteins under fluorescent light, “boosting surgeons’ ability to identify the cancerous tissue,” the agency in a statement.

The safety and effectiveness of pafolacianine was evaluated in a randomized, multi-center, open-label study of women diagnosed with ovarian cancer or with high clinical suspicion of ovarian cancer. Of the 134 women undergoing surgery who received a dose of pafolacianine and were evaluated under both normal and fluorescent light, 26.9% had at least one cancerous lesion detected that was not observed by standard visual or tactile inspection.

The most common side effects of pafolacianine were infusion-related reactions, including nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, flushing, dyspepsia, chest discomfort, itching, and hypersensitivity.

Pafolacianine may cause fetal harm when administered to a pregnant woman. The use of folate, folic acid, or folate-containing supplements should be avoided within 48 hours before administration of pafolacianine. 

The FDA also cautioned about the possible risk of image interpretation errors, including false negatives and false positives, with the use of the new drug and near-infrared fluorescence imaging system.

The FDA previously granted pafolacianine orphan-drug, priority, and fast track designations.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved pafolacianine (Cytalux), an imaging drug indicated for use in adult patients with ovarian cancer undergoing surgery.

The new drug “is designed to improve the ability to locate additional ovarian cancerous tissue that is normally difficult to detect during surgery,” according to the agency.

Pafolacianine, administered via intravenous injection prior to surgery, is the first FDA-approved tumor-targeted fluorescent agent for ovarian cancer.

In a press statement, drug inventor Philip Low, PhD, of Purdue University in West Lafayette, Ind., said the agent causes ovarian cancer lesions to “light up like stars against a night sky.”

Improving detection of ovarian cancer lesions is critical given that ovarian cancer is one of the “deadliest of all female reproductive system cancers,” according to the American Cancer Society. The organization estimates that there will be more than 21,000 new cases and more than 13,000 deaths in 2021.

Currently, surgeons use preoperative imaging as well as visual inspection of tumors under normal light and examination by touch to identify ovarian cancer lesions.

Pafolacianine offers a new tool to enhance surgeons’ ability “to identify deadly ovarian tumors that may otherwise go undetected,” Alex Gorovets, MD, deputy director of the office of specialty medicine in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said in a press statement.

Ovarian cancer often causes the body to overproduce the folate receptor protein in cell membranes. Pafolacianine, employed with a near-infrared fluorescence imaging system cleared by the FDA for use alongside the drug, binds to and illuminates these proteins under fluorescent light, “boosting surgeons’ ability to identify the cancerous tissue,” the agency in a statement.

The safety and effectiveness of pafolacianine was evaluated in a randomized, multi-center, open-label study of women diagnosed with ovarian cancer or with high clinical suspicion of ovarian cancer. Of the 134 women undergoing surgery who received a dose of pafolacianine and were evaluated under both normal and fluorescent light, 26.9% had at least one cancerous lesion detected that was not observed by standard visual or tactile inspection.

The most common side effects of pafolacianine were infusion-related reactions, including nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, flushing, dyspepsia, chest discomfort, itching, and hypersensitivity.

Pafolacianine may cause fetal harm when administered to a pregnant woman. The use of folate, folic acid, or folate-containing supplements should be avoided within 48 hours before administration of pafolacianine. 

The FDA also cautioned about the possible risk of image interpretation errors, including false negatives and false positives, with the use of the new drug and near-infrared fluorescence imaging system.

The FDA previously granted pafolacianine orphan-drug, priority, and fast track designations.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved pafolacianine (Cytalux), an imaging drug indicated for use in adult patients with ovarian cancer undergoing surgery.

The new drug “is designed to improve the ability to locate additional ovarian cancerous tissue that is normally difficult to detect during surgery,” according to the agency.

Pafolacianine, administered via intravenous injection prior to surgery, is the first FDA-approved tumor-targeted fluorescent agent for ovarian cancer.

In a press statement, drug inventor Philip Low, PhD, of Purdue University in West Lafayette, Ind., said the agent causes ovarian cancer lesions to “light up like stars against a night sky.”

Improving detection of ovarian cancer lesions is critical given that ovarian cancer is one of the “deadliest of all female reproductive system cancers,” according to the American Cancer Society. The organization estimates that there will be more than 21,000 new cases and more than 13,000 deaths in 2021.

Currently, surgeons use preoperative imaging as well as visual inspection of tumors under normal light and examination by touch to identify ovarian cancer lesions.

Pafolacianine offers a new tool to enhance surgeons’ ability “to identify deadly ovarian tumors that may otherwise go undetected,” Alex Gorovets, MD, deputy director of the office of specialty medicine in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said in a press statement.

Ovarian cancer often causes the body to overproduce the folate receptor protein in cell membranes. Pafolacianine, employed with a near-infrared fluorescence imaging system cleared by the FDA for use alongside the drug, binds to and illuminates these proteins under fluorescent light, “boosting surgeons’ ability to identify the cancerous tissue,” the agency in a statement.

The safety and effectiveness of pafolacianine was evaluated in a randomized, multi-center, open-label study of women diagnosed with ovarian cancer or with high clinical suspicion of ovarian cancer. Of the 134 women undergoing surgery who received a dose of pafolacianine and were evaluated under both normal and fluorescent light, 26.9% had at least one cancerous lesion detected that was not observed by standard visual or tactile inspection.

The most common side effects of pafolacianine were infusion-related reactions, including nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, flushing, dyspepsia, chest discomfort, itching, and hypersensitivity.

Pafolacianine may cause fetal harm when administered to a pregnant woman. The use of folate, folic acid, or folate-containing supplements should be avoided within 48 hours before administration of pafolacianine. 

The FDA also cautioned about the possible risk of image interpretation errors, including false negatives and false positives, with the use of the new drug and near-infrared fluorescence imaging system.

The FDA previously granted pafolacianine orphan-drug, priority, and fast track designations.

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

Human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination helps prevent cervical cancer and saves lives, new nationwide data suggest.

The analysis adds to a growing body of evidence demonstrating vaccine-associated changes in cervical cancer incidence and mortality.

Previous data from the United Kingdom, published earlier in November, showed that cervical cancer rates were 87% lower among girls who received the HPV vaccine compared to previously unvaccinated generations. Based on the analysis, the authors concluded that the UK’s HPV immunization program “almost eliminated cervical cancer” in women born since September 1995.

The latest study, published Nov. 29 in JAMA Pediatrics , reports a 38% drop in cervical cancer incidence and a 43% decline in mortality among young women and girls after HPV vaccination was introduced in the United States.

“These results are encouraging,” Peter Sasieni, MD, of King’s College London, and senior author on the U.K. study, told this news organization in an email.

The difference in incidence rates between the U.K. and U.S. studies, Dr. Sasieni explained, is likely due to HPV vaccine coverage not expanding as significantly in the United States as it has in the United Kingdom, and “thus one would anticipate a lower impact on the population in the U.S.”

In the U.S. analysis, Justin Barnes, MD, a radiation oncology resident at Washington University, St. Louis, and colleagues examined cervical cancer incidence between January 2001 and December 2017 using Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results and National Program of Cancer Registries data as well as mortality data from the National Center for Health Statistics.

Dr. Barnes and colleagues then compared changes in cervical cancer incidence and mortality between prevaccination years (January 2001 to December 2005) and postvaccination years (January 2010 to December 2017) among three age cohorts – 15-24 years, 25-29 years, and 30-39 years.

“The older 2 groups were included as comparison, given their low vaccination rates,” Dr. Barnes and colleagues explained.

Results show that between the prevaccination and postvaccination periods, the incidence of cervical cancer dropped by 38% in the youngest cohort and by only 16% in the middle-aged group and 8% in the oldest cohort.

Women and girls in the youngest group saw a striking drop in mortality: a 43% decline, which translated to a mortality rate of 0.6 per 100,000.

On the other hand, the authors report a 4.7% decline in mortality in the oldest group and a 4.3% increase in mortality in the middle-aged group – translating to a mortality rate of 1.89 per 100,000 and 0.57 per 100,000, respectively.

Overall, “these nationwide data showed decreased cervical cancer incidence and mortality among women and girls aged 15-24 years after HPV vaccine introduction,” Dr. Barnes and colleagues wrote. The changes in cervical cancer incidence and mortality observed in the youngest age group “were greater than changes in those aged 25 to 29 years and 30 to 39 years, suggesting possible associations with HPV vaccination.”

This analysis lines up with previous evidence from U.S. epidemiologic data, which “have shown decreased cervical cancer incidence after vaccine implementation in women and girls aged 15 to 24 years but not older women.”

Although “the number of deaths and hence the number of potentially averted deaths in young women and girls was small,” the study adds to the current literature by “providing suggestive evidence for vaccine-associated decreases in cervical cancer mortality,” investigators concluded.

The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination helps prevent cervical cancer and saves lives, new nationwide data suggest.

The analysis adds to a growing body of evidence demonstrating vaccine-associated changes in cervical cancer incidence and mortality.

Previous data from the United Kingdom, published earlier in November, showed that cervical cancer rates were 87% lower among girls who received the HPV vaccine compared to previously unvaccinated generations. Based on the analysis, the authors concluded that the UK’s HPV immunization program “almost eliminated cervical cancer” in women born since September 1995.

The latest study, published Nov. 29 in JAMA Pediatrics , reports a 38% drop in cervical cancer incidence and a 43% decline in mortality among young women and girls after HPV vaccination was introduced in the United States.

“These results are encouraging,” Peter Sasieni, MD, of King’s College London, and senior author on the U.K. study, told this news organization in an email.

The difference in incidence rates between the U.K. and U.S. studies, Dr. Sasieni explained, is likely due to HPV vaccine coverage not expanding as significantly in the United States as it has in the United Kingdom, and “thus one would anticipate a lower impact on the population in the U.S.”

In the U.S. analysis, Justin Barnes, MD, a radiation oncology resident at Washington University, St. Louis, and colleagues examined cervical cancer incidence between January 2001 and December 2017 using Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results and National Program of Cancer Registries data as well as mortality data from the National Center for Health Statistics.

Dr. Barnes and colleagues then compared changes in cervical cancer incidence and mortality between prevaccination years (January 2001 to December 2005) and postvaccination years (January 2010 to December 2017) among three age cohorts – 15-24 years, 25-29 years, and 30-39 years.

“The older 2 groups were included as comparison, given their low vaccination rates,” Dr. Barnes and colleagues explained.

Results show that between the prevaccination and postvaccination periods, the incidence of cervical cancer dropped by 38% in the youngest cohort and by only 16% in the middle-aged group and 8% in the oldest cohort.

Women and girls in the youngest group saw a striking drop in mortality: a 43% decline, which translated to a mortality rate of 0.6 per 100,000.

On the other hand, the authors report a 4.7% decline in mortality in the oldest group and a 4.3% increase in mortality in the middle-aged group – translating to a mortality rate of 1.89 per 100,000 and 0.57 per 100,000, respectively.

Overall, “these nationwide data showed decreased cervical cancer incidence and mortality among women and girls aged 15-24 years after HPV vaccine introduction,” Dr. Barnes and colleagues wrote. The changes in cervical cancer incidence and mortality observed in the youngest age group “were greater than changes in those aged 25 to 29 years and 30 to 39 years, suggesting possible associations with HPV vaccination.”

This analysis lines up with previous evidence from U.S. epidemiologic data, which “have shown decreased cervical cancer incidence after vaccine implementation in women and girls aged 15 to 24 years but not older women.”

Although “the number of deaths and hence the number of potentially averted deaths in young women and girls was small,” the study adds to the current literature by “providing suggestive evidence for vaccine-associated decreases in cervical cancer mortality,” investigators concluded.

The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination helps prevent cervical cancer and saves lives, new nationwide data suggest.

The analysis adds to a growing body of evidence demonstrating vaccine-associated changes in cervical cancer incidence and mortality.

Previous data from the United Kingdom, published earlier in November, showed that cervical cancer rates were 87% lower among girls who received the HPV vaccine compared to previously unvaccinated generations. Based on the analysis, the authors concluded that the UK’s HPV immunization program “almost eliminated cervical cancer” in women born since September 1995.

The latest study, published Nov. 29 in JAMA Pediatrics , reports a 38% drop in cervical cancer incidence and a 43% decline in mortality among young women and girls after HPV vaccination was introduced in the United States.

“These results are encouraging,” Peter Sasieni, MD, of King’s College London, and senior author on the U.K. study, told this news organization in an email.

The difference in incidence rates between the U.K. and U.S. studies, Dr. Sasieni explained, is likely due to HPV vaccine coverage not expanding as significantly in the United States as it has in the United Kingdom, and “thus one would anticipate a lower impact on the population in the U.S.”

In the U.S. analysis, Justin Barnes, MD, a radiation oncology resident at Washington University, St. Louis, and colleagues examined cervical cancer incidence between January 2001 and December 2017 using Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results and National Program of Cancer Registries data as well as mortality data from the National Center for Health Statistics.

Dr. Barnes and colleagues then compared changes in cervical cancer incidence and mortality between prevaccination years (January 2001 to December 2005) and postvaccination years (January 2010 to December 2017) among three age cohorts – 15-24 years, 25-29 years, and 30-39 years.

“The older 2 groups were included as comparison, given their low vaccination rates,” Dr. Barnes and colleagues explained.

Results show that between the prevaccination and postvaccination periods, the incidence of cervical cancer dropped by 38% in the youngest cohort and by only 16% in the middle-aged group and 8% in the oldest cohort.

Women and girls in the youngest group saw a striking drop in mortality: a 43% decline, which translated to a mortality rate of 0.6 per 100,000.

On the other hand, the authors report a 4.7% decline in mortality in the oldest group and a 4.3% increase in mortality in the middle-aged group – translating to a mortality rate of 1.89 per 100,000 and 0.57 per 100,000, respectively.

Overall, “these nationwide data showed decreased cervical cancer incidence and mortality among women and girls aged 15-24 years after HPV vaccine introduction,” Dr. Barnes and colleagues wrote. The changes in cervical cancer incidence and mortality observed in the youngest age group “were greater than changes in those aged 25 to 29 years and 30 to 39 years, suggesting possible associations with HPV vaccination.”

This analysis lines up with previous evidence from U.S. epidemiologic data, which “have shown decreased cervical cancer incidence after vaccine implementation in women and girls aged 15 to 24 years but not older women.”

Although “the number of deaths and hence the number of potentially averted deaths in young women and girls was small,” the study adds to the current literature by “providing suggestive evidence for vaccine-associated decreases in cervical cancer mortality,” investigators concluded.

The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A head-to-head comparison of immune checkpoint inhibitors atezolizumab and nivolumab and the chemotherapy drug docetaxel in patients with advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), finds that atezolizumab was associated with a significantly longer overall survival than docetaxel and was on par with nivolumab.

The findings were reported in JAMA Network Open.

“Until recently, chemotherapy with platinum doublet was the standard first-line option for most patients with advanced NSCLC who did not have these genetic drivers or were not tested for them and remains the first choice in many parts of the world,” wrote the authors of the study which was led by Sreeram Ramagopalan, PhD, of F. Hoffmann-La Roche in Switzerland which funded the study.

Atezolizumab (Tecentriq, Genentech), which was approved in October by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, is a monoclonal antibody that targets programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1). It is also approved as monotherapy for patients with advanced NSCLC whose disease progressed despite treatment with platinum-based chemotherapy.

This is the first-known analysis that compares atezolizumab, nivolumab (Opdivo, Bristol Myers Squibb), and docetaxel (Taxotere, Sanofi) in patients outside of clinical trials, said Vivek Subbiah, MD, of MD Anderson Cancer Center and the study’s first author. “We have several new immune checkpoint inhibitors approved for treatment for NSCLC. Head-to-head comparison of the effectiveness of these agents in the real world are lacking,” he said.

Treatment with immune checkpoint inhibitors has shown improvement in the survival of patients with advanced NSCLC who failed chemotherapy treatment.

This study included 3,336 patients (mean age 67 years, 54.6% men) with advanced NSCLC who were treated with platinum-based chemotherapy. Data were collected from more than 1,000 clinics in the United States. Of the patients, 206 received atezolizumab, 500 received docetaxel, and 2,630 received nivolumab.

Patients were followed between May 2011 and March 2020. Atezolizumab and nivolumab showed a similar overall survival in these patients, but atezolizumab showed a longer overall survival, compared with docetaxel.

“Compared with docetaxel, atezolizumab was associated with significantly longer survival in the overall population and across all subgroups analyzed,” including patients with stage IIIB or IV cancer at diagnosis and nonsquamous NSCLC, the authors wrote. “Atezolizumab was associated with longer overall survival compared with docetaxel and was on par with nivolumab, supporting current clinical guidelines for systemic therapy for patients with advanced NSCLC in the U.S.”

Limitations of the study included its observational design and a small number of patients receiving atezolizumab. The authors suggested that studies using larger sample sizes are needed.

This study was funded by F. Hoffmann-La Roche. Genentech is a subsidiary of F. Hoffmann-La Roche.

A head-to-head comparison of immune checkpoint inhibitors atezolizumab and nivolumab and the chemotherapy drug docetaxel in patients with advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), finds that atezolizumab was associated with a significantly longer overall survival than docetaxel and was on par with nivolumab.

The findings were reported in JAMA Network Open.

“Until recently, chemotherapy with platinum doublet was the standard first-line option for most patients with advanced NSCLC who did not have these genetic drivers or were not tested for them and remains the first choice in many parts of the world,” wrote the authors of the study which was led by Sreeram Ramagopalan, PhD, of F. Hoffmann-La Roche in Switzerland which funded the study.

Atezolizumab (Tecentriq, Genentech), which was approved in October by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, is a monoclonal antibody that targets programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1). It is also approved as monotherapy for patients with advanced NSCLC whose disease progressed despite treatment with platinum-based chemotherapy.

This is the first-known analysis that compares atezolizumab, nivolumab (Opdivo, Bristol Myers Squibb), and docetaxel (Taxotere, Sanofi) in patients outside of clinical trials, said Vivek Subbiah, MD, of MD Anderson Cancer Center and the study’s first author. “We have several new immune checkpoint inhibitors approved for treatment for NSCLC. Head-to-head comparison of the effectiveness of these agents in the real world are lacking,” he said.

Treatment with immune checkpoint inhibitors has shown improvement in the survival of patients with advanced NSCLC who failed chemotherapy treatment.

This study included 3,336 patients (mean age 67 years, 54.6% men) with advanced NSCLC who were treated with platinum-based chemotherapy. Data were collected from more than 1,000 clinics in the United States. Of the patients, 206 received atezolizumab, 500 received docetaxel, and 2,630 received nivolumab.

Patients were followed between May 2011 and March 2020. Atezolizumab and nivolumab showed a similar overall survival in these patients, but atezolizumab showed a longer overall survival, compared with docetaxel.

“Compared with docetaxel, atezolizumab was associated with significantly longer survival in the overall population and across all subgroups analyzed,” including patients with stage IIIB or IV cancer at diagnosis and nonsquamous NSCLC, the authors wrote. “Atezolizumab was associated with longer overall survival compared with docetaxel and was on par with nivolumab, supporting current clinical guidelines for systemic therapy for patients with advanced NSCLC in the U.S.”

Limitations of the study included its observational design and a small number of patients receiving atezolizumab. The authors suggested that studies using larger sample sizes are needed.

This study was funded by F. Hoffmann-La Roche. Genentech is a subsidiary of F. Hoffmann-La Roche.

A head-to-head comparison of immune checkpoint inhibitors atezolizumab and nivolumab and the chemotherapy drug docetaxel in patients with advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), finds that atezolizumab was associated with a significantly longer overall survival than docetaxel and was on par with nivolumab.

The findings were reported in JAMA Network Open.

“Until recently, chemotherapy with platinum doublet was the standard first-line option for most patients with advanced NSCLC who did not have these genetic drivers or were not tested for them and remains the first choice in many parts of the world,” wrote the authors of the study which was led by Sreeram Ramagopalan, PhD, of F. Hoffmann-La Roche in Switzerland which funded the study.

Atezolizumab (Tecentriq, Genentech), which was approved in October by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, is a monoclonal antibody that targets programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1). It is also approved as monotherapy for patients with advanced NSCLC whose disease progressed despite treatment with platinum-based chemotherapy.

This is the first-known analysis that compares atezolizumab, nivolumab (Opdivo, Bristol Myers Squibb), and docetaxel (Taxotere, Sanofi) in patients outside of clinical trials, said Vivek Subbiah, MD, of MD Anderson Cancer Center and the study’s first author. “We have several new immune checkpoint inhibitors approved for treatment for NSCLC. Head-to-head comparison of the effectiveness of these agents in the real world are lacking,” he said.

Treatment with immune checkpoint inhibitors has shown improvement in the survival of patients with advanced NSCLC who failed chemotherapy treatment.

This study included 3,336 patients (mean age 67 years, 54.6% men) with advanced NSCLC who were treated with platinum-based chemotherapy. Data were collected from more than 1,000 clinics in the United States. Of the patients, 206 received atezolizumab, 500 received docetaxel, and 2,630 received nivolumab.

Patients were followed between May 2011 and March 2020. Atezolizumab and nivolumab showed a similar overall survival in these patients, but atezolizumab showed a longer overall survival, compared with docetaxel.

“Compared with docetaxel, atezolizumab was associated with significantly longer survival in the overall population and across all subgroups analyzed,” including patients with stage IIIB or IV cancer at diagnosis and nonsquamous NSCLC, the authors wrote. “Atezolizumab was associated with longer overall survival compared with docetaxel and was on par with nivolumab, supporting current clinical guidelines for systemic therapy for patients with advanced NSCLC in the U.S.”

Limitations of the study included its observational design and a small number of patients receiving atezolizumab. The authors suggested that studies using larger sample sizes are needed.

This study was funded by F. Hoffmann-La Roche. Genentech is a subsidiary of F. Hoffmann-La Roche.

New U.S. data show that the incidence of colorectal cancer (CRC) is on the rise among people aged 50–54 years, mirroring the well-documented increases in early-onset CRC in persons younger than 50 years.

“It’s likely that the factors contributing to CRC at age 50–54 years are the same factors that contribute to early-onset CRC, which has increased in parallel,” Caitlin Murphy, PhD, MPH, with the University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, said in an interview.

“Many studies published in just the last year show that the well-known risk factors of CRC in older adults, such as obesity or sedentary lifestyle, are risk factors of CRC in younger adults. Growing evidence also suggests that early life exposures, or exposures in childhood, infancy, or even in the womb, play an important role,” Dr. Murphy said.

The study was published online October 28 in Gastroenterology .

Dr. Murphy and colleagues examined trends in age-specific CRC incidence rates for individuals aged 45–49, 50–54, and 55–59 years using the National Cancer Institute Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) program.

During the period 1992–2018, there were a total of 101,609 cases of CRC among adults aged 45–59 years.

Further analysis showed that the CRC incidence rates rose from 23.4 to 34.0 per 100,000 among people aged 45–49 years and from 46.4 to 63.8 per 100,000 among those aged 50–54 years.

Conversely, incidence rates decreased among individuals aged 55–59 years, from 81.7 to 63.7 per 100,000 persons.

“Because of this opposing trend, or decreasing rates for age 55–59 years and increasing rates for age 50–54 years, incidence rates for the two age groups were nearly identical in 2016–18,” the researchers write.

They also found a “clear pattern” of increasing CRC incidence among adults in their early 50s, supporting the hypothesis that incidence rates increase at older ages as higher-risk generations mature, the researchers note.

These data send a clear message, Dr. Murphy told this news organization.

“Don’t delay colorectal cancer screening. Encourage on-time screening by discussing screening with patients before they reach the recommended age to initiate screening. The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force now recommends initiating average-risk screening at age 45 years,” Dr. Murphy said.
 

Concerning but not surprising

Rebecca Siegel, MPH, scientific director of Surveillance Research at the American Cancer Society, in Atlanta, who wasn’t involved in the study, said the results are “not surprising” and mirror the results of a 2017 study that showed that the incidence of CRC was increasing among individuals aged 50–54 years, as reported.

What’s “concerning,” Ms. Siegel said, is that people in this age group “have been recommended to be screened for CRC for decades. Hopefully, because the age to begin screening has been lowered from 50 to 45 years, this uptick will eventually flatten.”

David Johnson, MD, professor of medicine and chief of gastroenterology at Eastern Virginia Medical School, in Norfolk, Va., who also wasn’t involved in the study, said the increasing incidence is “concerning in this younger population, and similar to what is seen recently for the 45- to 49-year-old population.

“Recent data have linked dietary influences in the early development of precancerous colon polyps and colon cancer. The increased ingestion of processed foods and sugary beverages, most of which contain high fructose corn syrup, is very likely involved in the pathogenesis to explain these striking epidemiologic shifts,” Dr. Johnson said in an interview.

“These concerns will likely be compounded by the COVID-related adverse effects on people [in terms of] appropriate, timely colorectal cancer screening,” Dr. Johnson added.

The study was supported by the National Cancer Institute at the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Murphy has consulted for Freenome. Ms. Siegel and Dr. Johnson have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

New U.S. data show that the incidence of colorectal cancer (CRC) is on the rise among people aged 50–54 years, mirroring the well-documented increases in early-onset CRC in persons younger than 50 years.

“It’s likely that the factors contributing to CRC at age 50–54 years are the same factors that contribute to early-onset CRC, which has increased in parallel,” Caitlin Murphy, PhD, MPH, with the University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, said in an interview.

“Many studies published in just the last year show that the well-known risk factors of CRC in older adults, such as obesity or sedentary lifestyle, are risk factors of CRC in younger adults. Growing evidence also suggests that early life exposures, or exposures in childhood, infancy, or even in the womb, play an important role,” Dr. Murphy said.

The study was published online October 28 in Gastroenterology .

Dr. Murphy and colleagues examined trends in age-specific CRC incidence rates for individuals aged 45–49, 50–54, and 55–59 years using the National Cancer Institute Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) program.

During the period 1992–2018, there were a total of 101,609 cases of CRC among adults aged 45–59 years.

Further analysis showed that the CRC incidence rates rose from 23.4 to 34.0 per 100,000 among people aged 45–49 years and from 46.4 to 63.8 per 100,000 among those aged 50–54 years.

Conversely, incidence rates decreased among individuals aged 55–59 years, from 81.7 to 63.7 per 100,000 persons.

“Because of this opposing trend, or decreasing rates for age 55–59 years and increasing rates for age 50–54 years, incidence rates for the two age groups were nearly identical in 2016–18,” the researchers write.

They also found a “clear pattern” of increasing CRC incidence among adults in their early 50s, supporting the hypothesis that incidence rates increase at older ages as higher-risk generations mature, the researchers note.

These data send a clear message, Dr. Murphy told this news organization.

“Don’t delay colorectal cancer screening. Encourage on-time screening by discussing screening with patients before they reach the recommended age to initiate screening. The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force now recommends initiating average-risk screening at age 45 years,” Dr. Murphy said.
 

Concerning but not surprising

Rebecca Siegel, MPH, scientific director of Surveillance Research at the American Cancer Society, in Atlanta, who wasn’t involved in the study, said the results are “not surprising” and mirror the results of a 2017 study that showed that the incidence of CRC was increasing among individuals aged 50–54 years, as reported.

What’s “concerning,” Ms. Siegel said, is that people in this age group “have been recommended to be screened for CRC for decades. Hopefully, because the age to begin screening has been lowered from 50 to 45 years, this uptick will eventually flatten.”

David Johnson, MD, professor of medicine and chief of gastroenterology at Eastern Virginia Medical School, in Norfolk, Va., who also wasn’t involved in the study, said the increasing incidence is “concerning in this younger population, and similar to what is seen recently for the 45- to 49-year-old population.

“Recent data have linked dietary influences in the early development of precancerous colon polyps and colon cancer. The increased ingestion of processed foods and sugary beverages, most of which contain high fructose corn syrup, is very likely involved in the pathogenesis to explain these striking epidemiologic shifts,” Dr. Johnson said in an interview.

“These concerns will likely be compounded by the COVID-related adverse effects on people [in terms of] appropriate, timely colorectal cancer screening,” Dr. Johnson added.

The study was supported by the National Cancer Institute at the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Murphy has consulted for Freenome. Ms. Siegel and Dr. Johnson have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

New U.S. data show that the incidence of colorectal cancer (CRC) is on the rise among people aged 50–54 years, mirroring the well-documented increases in early-onset CRC in persons younger than 50 years.

“It’s likely that the factors contributing to CRC at age 50–54 years are the same factors that contribute to early-onset CRC, which has increased in parallel,” Caitlin Murphy, PhD, MPH, with the University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, said in an interview.

“Many studies published in just the last year show that the well-known risk factors of CRC in older adults, such as obesity or sedentary lifestyle, are risk factors of CRC in younger adults. Growing evidence also suggests that early life exposures, or exposures in childhood, infancy, or even in the womb, play an important role,” Dr. Murphy said.

The study was published online October 28 in Gastroenterology .

Dr. Murphy and colleagues examined trends in age-specific CRC incidence rates for individuals aged 45–49, 50–54, and 55–59 years using the National Cancer Institute Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) program.

During the period 1992–2018, there were a total of 101,609 cases of CRC among adults aged 45–59 years.

Further analysis showed that the CRC incidence rates rose from 23.4 to 34.0 per 100,000 among people aged 45–49 years and from 46.4 to 63.8 per 100,000 among those aged 50–54 years.

Conversely, incidence rates decreased among individuals aged 55–59 years, from 81.7 to 63.7 per 100,000 persons.

“Because of this opposing trend, or decreasing rates for age 55–59 years and increasing rates for age 50–54 years, incidence rates for the two age groups were nearly identical in 2016–18,” the researchers write.

They also found a “clear pattern” of increasing CRC incidence among adults in their early 50s, supporting the hypothesis that incidence rates increase at older ages as higher-risk generations mature, the researchers note.

These data send a clear message, Dr. Murphy told this news organization.

“Don’t delay colorectal cancer screening. Encourage on-time screening by discussing screening with patients before they reach the recommended age to initiate screening. The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force now recommends initiating average-risk screening at age 45 years,” Dr. Murphy said.
 

Concerning but not surprising

Rebecca Siegel, MPH, scientific director of Surveillance Research at the American Cancer Society, in Atlanta, who wasn’t involved in the study, said the results are “not surprising” and mirror the results of a 2017 study that showed that the incidence of CRC was increasing among individuals aged 50–54 years, as reported.

What’s “concerning,” Ms. Siegel said, is that people in this age group “have been recommended to be screened for CRC for decades. Hopefully, because the age to begin screening has been lowered from 50 to 45 years, this uptick will eventually flatten.”

David Johnson, MD, professor of medicine and chief of gastroenterology at Eastern Virginia Medical School, in Norfolk, Va., who also wasn’t involved in the study, said the increasing incidence is “concerning in this younger population, and similar to what is seen recently for the 45- to 49-year-old population.

“Recent data have linked dietary influences in the early development of precancerous colon polyps and colon cancer. The increased ingestion of processed foods and sugary beverages, most of which contain high fructose corn syrup, is very likely involved in the pathogenesis to explain these striking epidemiologic shifts,” Dr. Johnson said in an interview.

“These concerns will likely be compounded by the COVID-related adverse effects on people [in terms of] appropriate, timely colorectal cancer screening,” Dr. Johnson added.

The study was supported by the National Cancer Institute at the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Murphy has consulted for Freenome. Ms. Siegel and Dr. Johnson have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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