AVAHO

Cancer loses … by a nose

Since the human nose is unpredictable at best, we’ve learned to rely on animals for our detailed nozzle needs. But researchers have found the next best thing to man’s best friend to accurately identify cancers.

A team at the University of Pennsylvania has developed an electronic olfaction, or “e-nose,” that has a 95% accuracy rate in distinguishing benign and malignant pancreatic and ovarian cancer cells from a single blood sample. How?

The e-nose system is equipped with nanosensors that are able to detect the volatile organic compounds (VOCs) emitted by cells in a blood sample. Not only does this create an opportunity for an easier, noninvasive screening practice, but it’s fast. The e-nose can distinguish VOCs from healthy to cancerous blood cells in 20 minutes or less and is just as effective in picking up on early- and late-stage cancers. 

Lonely/Thinkstock

Do you think this is a (food) game?

Dieting and eating healthy is tough, even during the best of times, and it has not been the best of times. With all respect to Charles Dickens, it’s been the worst of times, full stop. Millions of people have spent the past year sitting around their homes doing nothing, and it’s only natural that many would let their discipline slide.

Naturally, the solution to unhealthy eating habits is to sit down and play with your phone. No, that’s not the joke, the Food Trainer app, available on all cellular devices near you, is designed to encourage healthy eating by turning it into a game of sorts. When users open the app, they’re presented with images of food, and they’re trained to tap on images of healthy food and pass on images of unhealthy ones. The process takes less than 5 minutes.

It sounds really simple, but in a study of more than 1,000 people, consumption of junk food fell by 1 point on an 8-point scale (ranging from four times per day to zero to one time per month), participants lost about half a kilogram (a little over one pound), and more healthy food was eaten. Those who used the app more regularly, along the lines of 10 times per month or more, saw greater benefits.

PxHere

It’s time for a little mass kickin’

The universe, scientists tell us, is a big place. Really big. Chromosomes, scientists tell us, are small. Really small. But despite this very fundamental difference, the universe and chromosomes share a deep, dark secret: unexplained mass.

This being a medical publication, we’ll start with chromosomes. A group of researchers measured their mass with x-rays for the first time and found that “the 46 chromosomes in each of our cells weigh 242 picograms (trillionths of a gram). This is heavier than we would expect, and, if replicated, points to unexplained excess mass in chromosomes,” Ian K. Robinson, PhD, said in a written statement.

Archana Bhatiya et al.

A photo finish for the Smart Toilet

We know that poop can tell us a lot about our health, but new research by scientists at Duke University is really on a roll. Their Smart Toilet has been created to help people keep an eye on their bowel health. The device takes pictures of poop after it is flushed and can tell whether the consistency is loose, bloody, or normal.

The Smart Toilet can really help people with issues such as irritable bowel syndrome and inflammatory bowel disease by helping them, and their doctors, keep tabs on their poop. “Typically, gastroenterologists have to rely on patient self-reported information about their stool to help determine the cause of their gastrointestinal health issues, which can be very unreliable,” study lead author Deborah Fisher said.

SutidaS/iStock/Getty Images Plus

Cancer loses … by a nose

Since the human nose is unpredictable at best, we’ve learned to rely on animals for our detailed nozzle needs. But researchers have found the next best thing to man’s best friend to accurately identify cancers.

A team at the University of Pennsylvania has developed an electronic olfaction, or “e-nose,” that has a 95% accuracy rate in distinguishing benign and malignant pancreatic and ovarian cancer cells from a single blood sample. How?

The e-nose system is equipped with nanosensors that are able to detect the volatile organic compounds (VOCs) emitted by cells in a blood sample. Not only does this create an opportunity for an easier, noninvasive screening practice, but it’s fast. The e-nose can distinguish VOCs from healthy to cancerous blood cells in 20 minutes or less and is just as effective in picking up on early- and late-stage cancers. 

Lonely/Thinkstock

Do you think this is a (food) game?

Dieting and eating healthy is tough, even during the best of times, and it has not been the best of times. With all respect to Charles Dickens, it’s been the worst of times, full stop. Millions of people have spent the past year sitting around their homes doing nothing, and it’s only natural that many would let their discipline slide.

Naturally, the solution to unhealthy eating habits is to sit down and play with your phone. No, that’s not the joke, the Food Trainer app, available on all cellular devices near you, is designed to encourage healthy eating by turning it into a game of sorts. When users open the app, they’re presented with images of food, and they’re trained to tap on images of healthy food and pass on images of unhealthy ones. The process takes less than 5 minutes.

It sounds really simple, but in a study of more than 1,000 people, consumption of junk food fell by 1 point on an 8-point scale (ranging from four times per day to zero to one time per month), participants lost about half a kilogram (a little over one pound), and more healthy food was eaten. Those who used the app more regularly, along the lines of 10 times per month or more, saw greater benefits.

PxHere

It’s time for a little mass kickin’

The universe, scientists tell us, is a big place. Really big. Chromosomes, scientists tell us, are small. Really small. But despite this very fundamental difference, the universe and chromosomes share a deep, dark secret: unexplained mass.

This being a medical publication, we’ll start with chromosomes. A group of researchers measured their mass with x-rays for the first time and found that “the 46 chromosomes in each of our cells weigh 242 picograms (trillionths of a gram). This is heavier than we would expect, and, if replicated, points to unexplained excess mass in chromosomes,” Ian K. Robinson, PhD, said in a written statement.

Archana Bhatiya et al.

A photo finish for the Smart Toilet

We know that poop can tell us a lot about our health, but new research by scientists at Duke University is really on a roll. Their Smart Toilet has been created to help people keep an eye on their bowel health. The device takes pictures of poop after it is flushed and can tell whether the consistency is loose, bloody, or normal.

The Smart Toilet can really help people with issues such as irritable bowel syndrome and inflammatory bowel disease by helping them, and their doctors, keep tabs on their poop. “Typically, gastroenterologists have to rely on patient self-reported information about their stool to help determine the cause of their gastrointestinal health issues, which can be very unreliable,” study lead author Deborah Fisher said.

SutidaS/iStock/Getty Images Plus

Cancer loses … by a nose

Since the human nose is unpredictable at best, we’ve learned to rely on animals for our detailed nozzle needs. But researchers have found the next best thing to man’s best friend to accurately identify cancers.

A team at the University of Pennsylvania has developed an electronic olfaction, or “e-nose,” that has a 95% accuracy rate in distinguishing benign and malignant pancreatic and ovarian cancer cells from a single blood sample. How?

The e-nose system is equipped with nanosensors that are able to detect the volatile organic compounds (VOCs) emitted by cells in a blood sample. Not only does this create an opportunity for an easier, noninvasive screening practice, but it’s fast. The e-nose can distinguish VOCs from healthy to cancerous blood cells in 20 minutes or less and is just as effective in picking up on early- and late-stage cancers. 

Lonely/Thinkstock

Do you think this is a (food) game?

Dieting and eating healthy is tough, even during the best of times, and it has not been the best of times. With all respect to Charles Dickens, it’s been the worst of times, full stop. Millions of people have spent the past year sitting around their homes doing nothing, and it’s only natural that many would let their discipline slide.

Naturally, the solution to unhealthy eating habits is to sit down and play with your phone. No, that’s not the joke, the Food Trainer app, available on all cellular devices near you, is designed to encourage healthy eating by turning it into a game of sorts. When users open the app, they’re presented with images of food, and they’re trained to tap on images of healthy food and pass on images of unhealthy ones. The process takes less than 5 minutes.

It sounds really simple, but in a study of more than 1,000 people, consumption of junk food fell by 1 point on an 8-point scale (ranging from four times per day to zero to one time per month), participants lost about half a kilogram (a little over one pound), and more healthy food was eaten. Those who used the app more regularly, along the lines of 10 times per month or more, saw greater benefits.

PxHere

It’s time for a little mass kickin’

The universe, scientists tell us, is a big place. Really big. Chromosomes, scientists tell us, are small. Really small. But despite this very fundamental difference, the universe and chromosomes share a deep, dark secret: unexplained mass.

This being a medical publication, we’ll start with chromosomes. A group of researchers measured their mass with x-rays for the first time and found that “the 46 chromosomes in each of our cells weigh 242 picograms (trillionths of a gram). This is heavier than we would expect, and, if replicated, points to unexplained excess mass in chromosomes,” Ian K. Robinson, PhD, said in a written statement.

Archana Bhatiya et al.

A photo finish for the Smart Toilet

We know that poop can tell us a lot about our health, but new research by scientists at Duke University is really on a roll. Their Smart Toilet has been created to help people keep an eye on their bowel health. The device takes pictures of poop after it is flushed and can tell whether the consistency is loose, bloody, or normal.

The Smart Toilet can really help people with issues such as irritable bowel syndrome and inflammatory bowel disease by helping them, and their doctors, keep tabs on their poop. “Typically, gastroenterologists have to rely on patient self-reported information about their stool to help determine the cause of their gastrointestinal health issues, which can be very unreliable,” study lead author Deborah Fisher said.

SutidaS/iStock/Getty Images Plus

Rurioctocog alfa pegol prophylaxis was linked to fewer bleeding episodes in people with hemophilia A when it targeted higher levels of factor VIII (FVIII) troughs, according to a report published in Blood (2021;137[13]:1818-27).

Earlier studies demonstrated that the treatment effectively prevented bleeds with an acceptable safety profile in people with hemophilia A. The current prospective, randomized, open label PROPEL trial compared safety and efficacy of two target FVIII troughs in this population. Targeting 1%-3% and 8%-12% FVIII troughs was efficacious, with fewer bleeds in the latter arm and acceptable safety across both, according to Robert Klamroth, MD, of Vivantes Klinikum Friedrichshain, Berlin, and colleagues.

The PROPEL trial (NCT02585960) population comprised 155 patients with hepatitis A, aged 12-65 years, with severe disease and an annualized bleeding rate of at least 2 during the 12 months before enrollment in the study. All had previous FVIII treatment. Patients were randomized to 12 months’ pharmacokinetic rurioctocog alfa pegol prophylaxis targeting FVIII troughs of 1%-3% (reference arm) or 8%-12%.

The primary endpoint was absence of bleeds during the second 6-month period. A total of 95 patients completed the protocol.
 

Promising results

In the 1%-3% and 8%-12% arms, the proportions of patients who completed the protocol and had no bleeds were 40% and 67% respectively (P = .015). Serious adverse events occurred in 7 of 115 (6%) patients, including one treatment-related event in the 8%-12% arm. There were no deaths, serious thrombotic events, or adverse event-related discontinuations.

“Targeting 8% to 12% FVIII troughs resulted in a higher proportion of [patients] with no bleeds than prophylaxis that targeted 1% to 3% FVIII troughs. These results support the hypothesis that an elevated FVIII trough can benefit [patients]without changing the safety profile,” the researchers reported. Personalized treatment in this patient population should be considered, they added.
 

Problems remain

In an invited commentary, Christine L. Kempton, MD, of Emory University, Atlanta, pointed out that the study did not answer the question of what trough level is best, and that the target trough level may be up to a patient’s individual clinician to decide. “Many participants (42%) treated with the target trough level of 1% to 3% had no bleeding events during the study period, but some (38%) continued to have bleeding events despite higher target trough levels,” Dr. Kempton wrote. She added that, beyond this concern, the presence of subclinical bleeding is difficult to study and quantify, but its presence is supported in the literature by magnetic resonance imaging that demonstrated joint damage despite a lack of clinically evident bleeding.

“Thus, targeting zero clinical bleeding events does not mean that all joint disease, dysfunction, and pain will be eliminated. This reality underscores the need for better, not just more convenient, therapies,” she concluded.

The authors reported numerous relationships with a variety of pharmaceutical companies including grants, honoraria, and participation in speakers bureaus. Dr. Kempton reported honoraria from Takeda, Spark, Octapharma, and Pfizer, and research grants from Novo Nordisk.

[email protected]

Rurioctocog alfa pegol prophylaxis was linked to fewer bleeding episodes in people with hemophilia A when it targeted higher levels of factor VIII (FVIII) troughs, according to a report published in Blood (2021;137[13]:1818-27).

Earlier studies demonstrated that the treatment effectively prevented bleeds with an acceptable safety profile in people with hemophilia A. The current prospective, randomized, open label PROPEL trial compared safety and efficacy of two target FVIII troughs in this population. Targeting 1%-3% and 8%-12% FVIII troughs was efficacious, with fewer bleeds in the latter arm and acceptable safety across both, according to Robert Klamroth, MD, of Vivantes Klinikum Friedrichshain, Berlin, and colleagues.

The PROPEL trial (NCT02585960) population comprised 155 patients with hepatitis A, aged 12-65 years, with severe disease and an annualized bleeding rate of at least 2 during the 12 months before enrollment in the study. All had previous FVIII treatment. Patients were randomized to 12 months’ pharmacokinetic rurioctocog alfa pegol prophylaxis targeting FVIII troughs of 1%-3% (reference arm) or 8%-12%.

The primary endpoint was absence of bleeds during the second 6-month period. A total of 95 patients completed the protocol.
 

Promising results

In the 1%-3% and 8%-12% arms, the proportions of patients who completed the protocol and had no bleeds were 40% and 67% respectively (P = .015). Serious adverse events occurred in 7 of 115 (6%) patients, including one treatment-related event in the 8%-12% arm. There were no deaths, serious thrombotic events, or adverse event-related discontinuations.

“Targeting 8% to 12% FVIII troughs resulted in a higher proportion of [patients] with no bleeds than prophylaxis that targeted 1% to 3% FVIII troughs. These results support the hypothesis that an elevated FVIII trough can benefit [patients]without changing the safety profile,” the researchers reported. Personalized treatment in this patient population should be considered, they added.
 

Problems remain

In an invited commentary, Christine L. Kempton, MD, of Emory University, Atlanta, pointed out that the study did not answer the question of what trough level is best, and that the target trough level may be up to a patient’s individual clinician to decide. “Many participants (42%) treated with the target trough level of 1% to 3% had no bleeding events during the study period, but some (38%) continued to have bleeding events despite higher target trough levels,” Dr. Kempton wrote. She added that, beyond this concern, the presence of subclinical bleeding is difficult to study and quantify, but its presence is supported in the literature by magnetic resonance imaging that demonstrated joint damage despite a lack of clinically evident bleeding.

“Thus, targeting zero clinical bleeding events does not mean that all joint disease, dysfunction, and pain will be eliminated. This reality underscores the need for better, not just more convenient, therapies,” she concluded.

The authors reported numerous relationships with a variety of pharmaceutical companies including grants, honoraria, and participation in speakers bureaus. Dr. Kempton reported honoraria from Takeda, Spark, Octapharma, and Pfizer, and research grants from Novo Nordisk.

[email protected]

Rurioctocog alfa pegol prophylaxis was linked to fewer bleeding episodes in people with hemophilia A when it targeted higher levels of factor VIII (FVIII) troughs, according to a report published in Blood (2021;137[13]:1818-27).

Earlier studies demonstrated that the treatment effectively prevented bleeds with an acceptable safety profile in people with hemophilia A. The current prospective, randomized, open label PROPEL trial compared safety and efficacy of two target FVIII troughs in this population. Targeting 1%-3% and 8%-12% FVIII troughs was efficacious, with fewer bleeds in the latter arm and acceptable safety across both, according to Robert Klamroth, MD, of Vivantes Klinikum Friedrichshain, Berlin, and colleagues.

The PROPEL trial (NCT02585960) population comprised 155 patients with hepatitis A, aged 12-65 years, with severe disease and an annualized bleeding rate of at least 2 during the 12 months before enrollment in the study. All had previous FVIII treatment. Patients were randomized to 12 months’ pharmacokinetic rurioctocog alfa pegol prophylaxis targeting FVIII troughs of 1%-3% (reference arm) or 8%-12%.

The primary endpoint was absence of bleeds during the second 6-month period. A total of 95 patients completed the protocol.
 

Promising results

In the 1%-3% and 8%-12% arms, the proportions of patients who completed the protocol and had no bleeds were 40% and 67% respectively (P = .015). Serious adverse events occurred in 7 of 115 (6%) patients, including one treatment-related event in the 8%-12% arm. There were no deaths, serious thrombotic events, or adverse event-related discontinuations.

“Targeting 8% to 12% FVIII troughs resulted in a higher proportion of [patients] with no bleeds than prophylaxis that targeted 1% to 3% FVIII troughs. These results support the hypothesis that an elevated FVIII trough can benefit [patients]without changing the safety profile,” the researchers reported. Personalized treatment in this patient population should be considered, they added.
 

Problems remain

In an invited commentary, Christine L. Kempton, MD, of Emory University, Atlanta, pointed out that the study did not answer the question of what trough level is best, and that the target trough level may be up to a patient’s individual clinician to decide. “Many participants (42%) treated with the target trough level of 1% to 3% had no bleeding events during the study period, but some (38%) continued to have bleeding events despite higher target trough levels,” Dr. Kempton wrote. She added that, beyond this concern, the presence of subclinical bleeding is difficult to study and quantify, but its presence is supported in the literature by magnetic resonance imaging that demonstrated joint damage despite a lack of clinically evident bleeding.

“Thus, targeting zero clinical bleeding events does not mean that all joint disease, dysfunction, and pain will be eliminated. This reality underscores the need for better, not just more convenient, therapies,” she concluded.

The authors reported numerous relationships with a variety of pharmaceutical companies including grants, honoraria, and participation in speakers bureaus. Dr. Kempton reported honoraria from Takeda, Spark, Octapharma, and Pfizer, and research grants from Novo Nordisk.

[email protected]

Cancer surgery is filled with moments of fear, even for doctors. Our cameras follow as an oncologist confronts this anxiety in the second episode of our video series The Oncologists.

Medscape Oncology © 2021 WebMD, LLC

Any views expressed above are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect the views of WebMD or Medscape.

Cite this: A Pivotal Moment in Cancer Surgery, Captured on Film - Medscape - Feb 18, 2021.

Cancer surgery is filled with moments of fear, even for doctors. Our cameras follow as an oncologist confronts this anxiety in the second episode of our video series The Oncologists.

Medscape Oncology © 2021 WebMD, LLC

Any views expressed above are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect the views of WebMD or Medscape.

Cite this: A Pivotal Moment in Cancer Surgery, Captured on Film - Medscape - Feb 18, 2021.

Cancer surgery is filled with moments of fear, even for doctors. Our cameras follow as an oncologist confronts this anxiety in the second episode of our video series The Oncologists.

Medscape Oncology © 2021 WebMD, LLC

Any views expressed above are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect the views of WebMD or Medscape.

Cite this: A Pivotal Moment in Cancer Surgery, Captured on Film - Medscape - Feb 18, 2021.

The first drug to target KRAS mutations in non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration.

KRAS mutations are the most common mutations to occur in NSCLC tumors, accounting for about 25% of them, but for a long time they appeared to be resistant to drug therapy.  

The new drug, sotorasib (Lumakras), specifically targets the KRAS G12C mutation, which accounts for about 13% of NSCLC mutations.

It is considered to be something of a breakthrough in cancer research. When clinical data on the new drug (from 126 patients) were presented last year at the World Conference on Lung Cancer, lung cancer experts greeted the results enthusiastically, as reported by Medscape Medical News at the time.

“This is a historic milestone in lung cancer therapy. After four decades of scientific efforts in targeting KRAS, sotorasib has potential to be the first targeted treatment option for this patient population with a high unmet need,” Bob T. Li, MD, PhD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, said at the time.

Now, in a press release from the manufacturer, Amgen, he said: “Sotorasib represents a major advancement in oncology and changes the treatment paradigm for patients with KRAS G12C-mutated non–small cell lung cancer.

“Patients with non–small cell lung cancer who have progressed beyond first-line treatment face a poor prognosis and have limited treatment options available to them. Sotorasib delivers a new option for these patients, and it is the first KRAS-targeted therapy to be approved after nearly four decades of research,” he added.
 

Details of clinical data

This is an accelerated approval based on response rate data.

The FDA notes that the clinical data come from a study of 124 patients with locally advanced or metastatic KRAS G12C-mutated NSCLC with disease progression after receiving an immune checkpoint inhibitor and/or platinum-based chemotherapy.

The major outcome measured was overall response rate (ORR), which was 36%. Of the patients who responded, 58% had a duration of response of 6 months or longer.

Sotorasib was approved at a dose of 960 mg, and this dose was based on available clinical data as well as pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic modeling, the FDA noted. As part of the evaluation for this accelerated approval, the agency is requiring a postmarketing trial to investigate whether a lower dose will have a similar clinical effect.

The most common side effects include diarrhea, musculoskeletal pain, nausea, fatigue, liver damage, and cough. Sotorasib should not be used if patients develop symptoms of interstitial lung disease, and should be permanently discontinued if interstitial lung disease is confirmed.

Patients on sotorasib should have liver function tests prior to starting and while taking the drug; if liver damage develops, the drug should be stopped or the dose reduced. Patients should avoid taking acid-reducing agents, drugs that induce or are substrates for certain enzymes in the liver, and drugs that are substrates of P-glycoprotein (P-gp).
 

Companion diagnostic tests also approved

Along with the new drug, the FDA approved two companion diagnostic tests – the QIAGEN therascreen KRAS RGQ PCR kit (approval granted to QIAGEN GmbH) for analyzing tumor tissue and the Guardant360 CDx (approval granted to Guardant Health) for analyzing plasma specimens to determine if the KRAS G12C mutation is present. The agency notes that if the plasma test comes back negative, the patient’s tumor tissue should be tested.

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

The first drug to target KRAS mutations in non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration.

KRAS mutations are the most common mutations to occur in NSCLC tumors, accounting for about 25% of them, but for a long time they appeared to be resistant to drug therapy.  

The new drug, sotorasib (Lumakras), specifically targets the KRAS G12C mutation, which accounts for about 13% of NSCLC mutations.

It is considered to be something of a breakthrough in cancer research. When clinical data on the new drug (from 126 patients) were presented last year at the World Conference on Lung Cancer, lung cancer experts greeted the results enthusiastically, as reported by Medscape Medical News at the time.

“This is a historic milestone in lung cancer therapy. After four decades of scientific efforts in targeting KRAS, sotorasib has potential to be the first targeted treatment option for this patient population with a high unmet need,” Bob T. Li, MD, PhD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, said at the time.

Now, in a press release from the manufacturer, Amgen, he said: “Sotorasib represents a major advancement in oncology and changes the treatment paradigm for patients with KRAS G12C-mutated non–small cell lung cancer.

“Patients with non–small cell lung cancer who have progressed beyond first-line treatment face a poor prognosis and have limited treatment options available to them. Sotorasib delivers a new option for these patients, and it is the first KRAS-targeted therapy to be approved after nearly four decades of research,” he added.
 

Details of clinical data

This is an accelerated approval based on response rate data.

The FDA notes that the clinical data come from a study of 124 patients with locally advanced or metastatic KRAS G12C-mutated NSCLC with disease progression after receiving an immune checkpoint inhibitor and/or platinum-based chemotherapy.

The major outcome measured was overall response rate (ORR), which was 36%. Of the patients who responded, 58% had a duration of response of 6 months or longer.

Sotorasib was approved at a dose of 960 mg, and this dose was based on available clinical data as well as pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic modeling, the FDA noted. As part of the evaluation for this accelerated approval, the agency is requiring a postmarketing trial to investigate whether a lower dose will have a similar clinical effect.

The most common side effects include diarrhea, musculoskeletal pain, nausea, fatigue, liver damage, and cough. Sotorasib should not be used if patients develop symptoms of interstitial lung disease, and should be permanently discontinued if interstitial lung disease is confirmed.

Patients on sotorasib should have liver function tests prior to starting and while taking the drug; if liver damage develops, the drug should be stopped or the dose reduced. Patients should avoid taking acid-reducing agents, drugs that induce or are substrates for certain enzymes in the liver, and drugs that are substrates of P-glycoprotein (P-gp).
 

Companion diagnostic tests also approved

Along with the new drug, the FDA approved two companion diagnostic tests – the QIAGEN therascreen KRAS RGQ PCR kit (approval granted to QIAGEN GmbH) for analyzing tumor tissue and the Guardant360 CDx (approval granted to Guardant Health) for analyzing plasma specimens to determine if the KRAS G12C mutation is present. The agency notes that if the plasma test comes back negative, the patient’s tumor tissue should be tested.

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

The first drug to target KRAS mutations in non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration.

KRAS mutations are the most common mutations to occur in NSCLC tumors, accounting for about 25% of them, but for a long time they appeared to be resistant to drug therapy.  

The new drug, sotorasib (Lumakras), specifically targets the KRAS G12C mutation, which accounts for about 13% of NSCLC mutations.

It is considered to be something of a breakthrough in cancer research. When clinical data on the new drug (from 126 patients) were presented last year at the World Conference on Lung Cancer, lung cancer experts greeted the results enthusiastically, as reported by Medscape Medical News at the time.

“This is a historic milestone in lung cancer therapy. After four decades of scientific efforts in targeting KRAS, sotorasib has potential to be the first targeted treatment option for this patient population with a high unmet need,” Bob T. Li, MD, PhD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, said at the time.

Now, in a press release from the manufacturer, Amgen, he said: “Sotorasib represents a major advancement in oncology and changes the treatment paradigm for patients with KRAS G12C-mutated non–small cell lung cancer.

“Patients with non–small cell lung cancer who have progressed beyond first-line treatment face a poor prognosis and have limited treatment options available to them. Sotorasib delivers a new option for these patients, and it is the first KRAS-targeted therapy to be approved after nearly four decades of research,” he added.
 

Details of clinical data

This is an accelerated approval based on response rate data.

The FDA notes that the clinical data come from a study of 124 patients with locally advanced or metastatic KRAS G12C-mutated NSCLC with disease progression after receiving an immune checkpoint inhibitor and/or platinum-based chemotherapy.

The major outcome measured was overall response rate (ORR), which was 36%. Of the patients who responded, 58% had a duration of response of 6 months or longer.

Sotorasib was approved at a dose of 960 mg, and this dose was based on available clinical data as well as pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic modeling, the FDA noted. As part of the evaluation for this accelerated approval, the agency is requiring a postmarketing trial to investigate whether a lower dose will have a similar clinical effect.

The most common side effects include diarrhea, musculoskeletal pain, nausea, fatigue, liver damage, and cough. Sotorasib should not be used if patients develop symptoms of interstitial lung disease, and should be permanently discontinued if interstitial lung disease is confirmed.

Patients on sotorasib should have liver function tests prior to starting and while taking the drug; if liver damage develops, the drug should be stopped or the dose reduced. Patients should avoid taking acid-reducing agents, drugs that induce or are substrates for certain enzymes in the liver, and drugs that are substrates of P-glycoprotein (P-gp).
 

Companion diagnostic tests also approved

Along with the new drug, the FDA approved two companion diagnostic tests – the QIAGEN therascreen KRAS RGQ PCR kit (approval granted to QIAGEN GmbH) for analyzing tumor tissue and the Guardant360 CDx (approval granted to Guardant Health) for analyzing plasma specimens to determine if the KRAS G12C mutation is present. The agency notes that if the plasma test comes back negative, the patient’s tumor tissue should be tested.

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

Pancreatic cancer clinical trials conducted in the United States over the past few decades have not adequately reported or included racial and ethnic minority populations, results of a recent study suggest.

Adequate inclusion of underrepresented minorities in clinical trials is critical to reducing health care disparities and improving patient outcomes, according to investigator Kelly M. Herremans, MD, a surgical research fellow at the University of Florida in Gainesville. For the trials that did report race and ethnicity, Black, Asian/Pacific Islander, American Indian/Alaskan Native, and Hispanic patients were significantly underrepresented, according to the study, which was reported at the annual Digestive Disease Week® (DDW).

“It is unfortunate that we still have not made much headway regarding diversity in clinical trials in order to truly understand the impact that therapeutics may have on the population as a whole,” Dr. Herremans said in a media briefing. “We need to have an accurate representation of the entire population reflected in these studies.”

Only about half of the U.S. pancreatic cancer studies reported the race of participants, and slightly more than one-third reported ethnicity, Dr. Herremans said. She noted that certain racial and ethnic minorities, and in particular Black Americans, have a higher incidence of pancreatic cancer, are diagnosed at younger ages, and die sooner.

Racial and ethnic differences in pancreatic tumor biology have also been reported. Dr. Herremans said patients of African ancestry have both somatic and germline mutations when compared with other subgroups, meaning they may potentially respond differently to specific treatments. “Having diversity in trial participants is critical to ensuring that these differences can be clinically tested,” she said.
 

Objective data on an uncomfortable truth

This review of pancreatic cancer trials is an “excellent and much needed study,” said Antonio H. Mendoza-Ladd, MD, of the division of gastroenterology at Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, El Paso. “It contributes objective data that brings to the mainstream an unspoken and uncomfortable truth: Systemic racism, bias, and discrimination exist in the medical system,” Dr. Mendoza-Ladd said in an interview.

Pancreatic cancer is one of deadliest malignancies in the world, and underrepresented minorities bear the brunt of its lethality, according to Dr. Mendoza-Ladd. He said researchers should follow the recommendations of the study authors to ensure that underrepresented minorities are enrolled in clinical trials in sufficient numbers. “Pancreatic cancer does not discriminate by ethnicity or socioeconomic status, even if the medical system does,” he said.
 

Pancreatic cancer trial disparities

In their study, Dr. Herremans and colleagues analyzed 207 clinical trials in the United States for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma between 2008 and 2020. They identified the studies using ClinicalTrials.gov, a national registry of clinical trial data, then gathered trial data and demographics on 8,429 participants from reported study results and related publications. Using that data, they were able to evaluate the rates at which race, ethnicity, and gender have been reported over the past few decades, as well as the rates of inclusion of racial and ethnic minorities in the studies.

Fewer than half of the trials (49.3%) reported race, and only about one-third (34.7%) reported ethnicity. By comparison, 99% of the studies reported gender. Results did suggest an increase over time in reporting of race and ethnicity, according to Dr. Herremans, particularly since October 2016, when the Food and Drug Administration clarified its expectations on the collection and reporting of race and ethnicity data in clinical trials. However, the clinical trial data suggest minorities were substantially underrepresented in clinical trials during the study period. “Despite this change, we’re not seeing the actual diversity improve in these clinical trials,” Dr Herremans said in an interview.

Black patients represented 8.2% of clinical trial participants despite constituting 12.4% of U.S. incident pancreatic cancer cases (P < .0001), according to data presented by Dr. Herremans. Likewise, the data show that Hispanic patients account for 8.5% of incident cases but made up 6.0% of clinical trial participants; Asian/Pacific Islanders total 3.3% of U.S. incident pancreatic cancer cases but represented 2.4% of trial participants; and American Indian/Alaskan Native patients constitute 0.4% of incident cases versus being 0.3% of participants (P < .0001 for all). Conversely, Dr. Herremans noted that White patients account for 82.3% of the incident cases but made up 84.7% of total trial participants (P = .002).

Dr. Herremans reported no financial disclosures related to the research. Dr. Mendoza-Ladd reported a relationship with ConMed.

Pancreatic cancer clinical trials conducted in the United States over the past few decades have not adequately reported or included racial and ethnic minority populations, results of a recent study suggest.

Adequate inclusion of underrepresented minorities in clinical trials is critical to reducing health care disparities and improving patient outcomes, according to investigator Kelly M. Herremans, MD, a surgical research fellow at the University of Florida in Gainesville. For the trials that did report race and ethnicity, Black, Asian/Pacific Islander, American Indian/Alaskan Native, and Hispanic patients were significantly underrepresented, according to the study, which was reported at the annual Digestive Disease Week® (DDW).

“It is unfortunate that we still have not made much headway regarding diversity in clinical trials in order to truly understand the impact that therapeutics may have on the population as a whole,” Dr. Herremans said in a media briefing. “We need to have an accurate representation of the entire population reflected in these studies.”

Only about half of the U.S. pancreatic cancer studies reported the race of participants, and slightly more than one-third reported ethnicity, Dr. Herremans said. She noted that certain racial and ethnic minorities, and in particular Black Americans, have a higher incidence of pancreatic cancer, are diagnosed at younger ages, and die sooner.

Racial and ethnic differences in pancreatic tumor biology have also been reported. Dr. Herremans said patients of African ancestry have both somatic and germline mutations when compared with other subgroups, meaning they may potentially respond differently to specific treatments. “Having diversity in trial participants is critical to ensuring that these differences can be clinically tested,” she said.
 

Objective data on an uncomfortable truth

This review of pancreatic cancer trials is an “excellent and much needed study,” said Antonio H. Mendoza-Ladd, MD, of the division of gastroenterology at Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, El Paso. “It contributes objective data that brings to the mainstream an unspoken and uncomfortable truth: Systemic racism, bias, and discrimination exist in the medical system,” Dr. Mendoza-Ladd said in an interview.

Pancreatic cancer is one of deadliest malignancies in the world, and underrepresented minorities bear the brunt of its lethality, according to Dr. Mendoza-Ladd. He said researchers should follow the recommendations of the study authors to ensure that underrepresented minorities are enrolled in clinical trials in sufficient numbers. “Pancreatic cancer does not discriminate by ethnicity or socioeconomic status, even if the medical system does,” he said.
 

Pancreatic cancer trial disparities

In their study, Dr. Herremans and colleagues analyzed 207 clinical trials in the United States for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma between 2008 and 2020. They identified the studies using ClinicalTrials.gov, a national registry of clinical trial data, then gathered trial data and demographics on 8,429 participants from reported study results and related publications. Using that data, they were able to evaluate the rates at which race, ethnicity, and gender have been reported over the past few decades, as well as the rates of inclusion of racial and ethnic minorities in the studies.

Fewer than half of the trials (49.3%) reported race, and only about one-third (34.7%) reported ethnicity. By comparison, 99% of the studies reported gender. Results did suggest an increase over time in reporting of race and ethnicity, according to Dr. Herremans, particularly since October 2016, when the Food and Drug Administration clarified its expectations on the collection and reporting of race and ethnicity data in clinical trials. However, the clinical trial data suggest minorities were substantially underrepresented in clinical trials during the study period. “Despite this change, we’re not seeing the actual diversity improve in these clinical trials,” Dr Herremans said in an interview.

Black patients represented 8.2% of clinical trial participants despite constituting 12.4% of U.S. incident pancreatic cancer cases (P < .0001), according to data presented by Dr. Herremans. Likewise, the data show that Hispanic patients account for 8.5% of incident cases but made up 6.0% of clinical trial participants; Asian/Pacific Islanders total 3.3% of U.S. incident pancreatic cancer cases but represented 2.4% of trial participants; and American Indian/Alaskan Native patients constitute 0.4% of incident cases versus being 0.3% of participants (P < .0001 for all). Conversely, Dr. Herremans noted that White patients account for 82.3% of the incident cases but made up 84.7% of total trial participants (P = .002).

Dr. Herremans reported no financial disclosures related to the research. Dr. Mendoza-Ladd reported a relationship with ConMed.

Pancreatic cancer clinical trials conducted in the United States over the past few decades have not adequately reported or included racial and ethnic minority populations, results of a recent study suggest.

Adequate inclusion of underrepresented minorities in clinical trials is critical to reducing health care disparities and improving patient outcomes, according to investigator Kelly M. Herremans, MD, a surgical research fellow at the University of Florida in Gainesville. For the trials that did report race and ethnicity, Black, Asian/Pacific Islander, American Indian/Alaskan Native, and Hispanic patients were significantly underrepresented, according to the study, which was reported at the annual Digestive Disease Week® (DDW).

“It is unfortunate that we still have not made much headway regarding diversity in clinical trials in order to truly understand the impact that therapeutics may have on the population as a whole,” Dr. Herremans said in a media briefing. “We need to have an accurate representation of the entire population reflected in these studies.”

Only about half of the U.S. pancreatic cancer studies reported the race of participants, and slightly more than one-third reported ethnicity, Dr. Herremans said. She noted that certain racial and ethnic minorities, and in particular Black Americans, have a higher incidence of pancreatic cancer, are diagnosed at younger ages, and die sooner.

Racial and ethnic differences in pancreatic tumor biology have also been reported. Dr. Herremans said patients of African ancestry have both somatic and germline mutations when compared with other subgroups, meaning they may potentially respond differently to specific treatments. “Having diversity in trial participants is critical to ensuring that these differences can be clinically tested,” she said.
 

Objective data on an uncomfortable truth

This review of pancreatic cancer trials is an “excellent and much needed study,” said Antonio H. Mendoza-Ladd, MD, of the division of gastroenterology at Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, El Paso. “It contributes objective data that brings to the mainstream an unspoken and uncomfortable truth: Systemic racism, bias, and discrimination exist in the medical system,” Dr. Mendoza-Ladd said in an interview.

Pancreatic cancer is one of deadliest malignancies in the world, and underrepresented minorities bear the brunt of its lethality, according to Dr. Mendoza-Ladd. He said researchers should follow the recommendations of the study authors to ensure that underrepresented minorities are enrolled in clinical trials in sufficient numbers. “Pancreatic cancer does not discriminate by ethnicity or socioeconomic status, even if the medical system does,” he said.
 

Pancreatic cancer trial disparities

In their study, Dr. Herremans and colleagues analyzed 207 clinical trials in the United States for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma between 2008 and 2020. They identified the studies using ClinicalTrials.gov, a national registry of clinical trial data, then gathered trial data and demographics on 8,429 participants from reported study results and related publications. Using that data, they were able to evaluate the rates at which race, ethnicity, and gender have been reported over the past few decades, as well as the rates of inclusion of racial and ethnic minorities in the studies.

Fewer than half of the trials (49.3%) reported race, and only about one-third (34.7%) reported ethnicity. By comparison, 99% of the studies reported gender. Results did suggest an increase over time in reporting of race and ethnicity, according to Dr. Herremans, particularly since October 2016, when the Food and Drug Administration clarified its expectations on the collection and reporting of race and ethnicity data in clinical trials. However, the clinical trial data suggest minorities were substantially underrepresented in clinical trials during the study period. “Despite this change, we’re not seeing the actual diversity improve in these clinical trials,” Dr Herremans said in an interview.

Black patients represented 8.2% of clinical trial participants despite constituting 12.4% of U.S. incident pancreatic cancer cases (P < .0001), according to data presented by Dr. Herremans. Likewise, the data show that Hispanic patients account for 8.5% of incident cases but made up 6.0% of clinical trial participants; Asian/Pacific Islanders total 3.3% of U.S. incident pancreatic cancer cases but represented 2.4% of trial participants; and American Indian/Alaskan Native patients constitute 0.4% of incident cases versus being 0.3% of participants (P < .0001 for all). Conversely, Dr. Herremans noted that White patients account for 82.3% of the incident cases but made up 84.7% of total trial participants (P = .002).

Dr. Herremans reported no financial disclosures related to the research. Dr. Mendoza-Ladd reported a relationship with ConMed.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved the adjuvant use of nivolumab (Opdivo) in patients with resected esophageal or gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) cancer who have received neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and have residual pathological disease following surgery.

The approval addresses an unmet need among these patients, who have a high risk of recurrence but for whom surveillance is the only current management option after the above-described standard treatment, according to experts.

The FDA’s approval is based on results from the CheckMate 577 study, which showed a significant improvement in disease-free survival compared with placebo.

This was described as “a practice-changing trial in the treatment of esophageal cancer” by David H. Ilson, MD, PhD, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, in an editorial in The New England Journal of Medicine that accompanied the published study results.

“The trial shows the first true advance in the adjuvant therapy of esophageal cancer in recent years,” wrote Dr. Ilson.

In the randomized, double-blind, phase 3 trial, patients with resected stage II or III esophageal or GEJ cancer were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive nivolumab (at a dose of 240 mg every 2 weeks for 16 weeks, followed by a dose of 480 mg every 4 weeks) or placebo. The maximum duration of the intervention period was 1 year.

All of these patients had received neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and had residual pathological disease, as noted in the new indication. Patients were enrolled regardless of programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression.

For the primary endpoint of disease-free survival, the median was 22.4 months for the nivolumab group (n = 532) versus 11.0 months for the placebo group (n = 262; hazard ratio [HR] for disease recurrence or death, 0.69; 96.4% confidence interval [CI], 0.56-0.86; P < .001).

The median follow-up was 24.4 months.

Disease-free survival favored nivolumab across multiple preplanned subgroups.

However, as Dr. Ilson noted in the editorial, the efficacy of nivolumab varied, with more benefit seen for patients with squamous cell cancer (HR, 0.61) than for those with adenocarcinoma (HR, 0.75). Patients with esophageal tumors also had greater benefit (HR, 0.61) than did those with GEJ tumors (HR, 0.87).

There was benefit in patients with node-negative disease (HR, 0.74) and node-positive disease (HR, 0.67) and benefit in patients with tumors that were PD-L1–negative (HR, 0.73) and PD-L1–positive (HR, 0.75).

There were fewer distant recurrences in the nivolumab group than in the placebo group (29% vs. 39%) and fewer locoregional recurrences (12% vs. 17%).

No new safety signals were observed, and 9% of the nivolumab patients discontinued the drug because of treatment-related adverse events versus 3% of placebo patients. In addition, a 1-year course of adjuvant nivolumab did not negatively impact patient-reported quality of life, the trialists reported.

Grade 3 or 4 adverse events of any cause were more frequent in the nivolumab group versus the placebo group (34% vs. 32%) as were those related to the intervention (13% vs. 6%).

Although overall survival data are not mature, “the doubling of median disease-free survival will almost certainly translate into an overall survival benefit,” Dr. Ilson wrote.

Notably, the trial’s original co-primary endpoint was overall survival, but was dropped to a secondary endpoint after enrollment “challenges.”

When the now-published data were first presented at the 2020 annual meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology, the invited discussant, Andrés Cervantes, MD, PhD, University of Valencia, Spain, raised several issues with the trial.

Preoperative chemoradiation is not “universally accepted” as the standard of care in this setting, said Dr. Cervantes, president-elect of ESMO.

Dr. Ilson acknowledged as much. “A debate is ongoing about whether chemotherapy alone or combined chemoradiotherapy is the preferred treatment for esophageal cancer before surgery,” he wrote.

In addition, Dr. Cervantes noted that disease-free survival is not currently validated as a major endpoint in gastroesophageal cancers, and the median follow-up was short.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved the adjuvant use of nivolumab (Opdivo) in patients with resected esophageal or gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) cancer who have received neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and have residual pathological disease following surgery.

The approval addresses an unmet need among these patients, who have a high risk of recurrence but for whom surveillance is the only current management option after the above-described standard treatment, according to experts.

The FDA’s approval is based on results from the CheckMate 577 study, which showed a significant improvement in disease-free survival compared with placebo.

This was described as “a practice-changing trial in the treatment of esophageal cancer” by David H. Ilson, MD, PhD, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, in an editorial in The New England Journal of Medicine that accompanied the published study results.

“The trial shows the first true advance in the adjuvant therapy of esophageal cancer in recent years,” wrote Dr. Ilson.

In the randomized, double-blind, phase 3 trial, patients with resected stage II or III esophageal or GEJ cancer were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive nivolumab (at a dose of 240 mg every 2 weeks for 16 weeks, followed by a dose of 480 mg every 4 weeks) or placebo. The maximum duration of the intervention period was 1 year.

All of these patients had received neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and had residual pathological disease, as noted in the new indication. Patients were enrolled regardless of programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression.

For the primary endpoint of disease-free survival, the median was 22.4 months for the nivolumab group (n = 532) versus 11.0 months for the placebo group (n = 262; hazard ratio [HR] for disease recurrence or death, 0.69; 96.4% confidence interval [CI], 0.56-0.86; P < .001).

The median follow-up was 24.4 months.

Disease-free survival favored nivolumab across multiple preplanned subgroups.

However, as Dr. Ilson noted in the editorial, the efficacy of nivolumab varied, with more benefit seen for patients with squamous cell cancer (HR, 0.61) than for those with adenocarcinoma (HR, 0.75). Patients with esophageal tumors also had greater benefit (HR, 0.61) than did those with GEJ tumors (HR, 0.87).

There was benefit in patients with node-negative disease (HR, 0.74) and node-positive disease (HR, 0.67) and benefit in patients with tumors that were PD-L1–negative (HR, 0.73) and PD-L1–positive (HR, 0.75).

There were fewer distant recurrences in the nivolumab group than in the placebo group (29% vs. 39%) and fewer locoregional recurrences (12% vs. 17%).

No new safety signals were observed, and 9% of the nivolumab patients discontinued the drug because of treatment-related adverse events versus 3% of placebo patients. In addition, a 1-year course of adjuvant nivolumab did not negatively impact patient-reported quality of life, the trialists reported.

Grade 3 or 4 adverse events of any cause were more frequent in the nivolumab group versus the placebo group (34% vs. 32%) as were those related to the intervention (13% vs. 6%).

Although overall survival data are not mature, “the doubling of median disease-free survival will almost certainly translate into an overall survival benefit,” Dr. Ilson wrote.

Notably, the trial’s original co-primary endpoint was overall survival, but was dropped to a secondary endpoint after enrollment “challenges.”

When the now-published data were first presented at the 2020 annual meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology, the invited discussant, Andrés Cervantes, MD, PhD, University of Valencia, Spain, raised several issues with the trial.

Preoperative chemoradiation is not “universally accepted” as the standard of care in this setting, said Dr. Cervantes, president-elect of ESMO.

Dr. Ilson acknowledged as much. “A debate is ongoing about whether chemotherapy alone or combined chemoradiotherapy is the preferred treatment for esophageal cancer before surgery,” he wrote.

In addition, Dr. Cervantes noted that disease-free survival is not currently validated as a major endpoint in gastroesophageal cancers, and the median follow-up was short.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved the adjuvant use of nivolumab (Opdivo) in patients with resected esophageal or gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) cancer who have received neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and have residual pathological disease following surgery.

The approval addresses an unmet need among these patients, who have a high risk of recurrence but for whom surveillance is the only current management option after the above-described standard treatment, according to experts.

The FDA’s approval is based on results from the CheckMate 577 study, which showed a significant improvement in disease-free survival compared with placebo.

This was described as “a practice-changing trial in the treatment of esophageal cancer” by David H. Ilson, MD, PhD, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, in an editorial in The New England Journal of Medicine that accompanied the published study results.

“The trial shows the first true advance in the adjuvant therapy of esophageal cancer in recent years,” wrote Dr. Ilson.

In the randomized, double-blind, phase 3 trial, patients with resected stage II or III esophageal or GEJ cancer were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive nivolumab (at a dose of 240 mg every 2 weeks for 16 weeks, followed by a dose of 480 mg every 4 weeks) or placebo. The maximum duration of the intervention period was 1 year.

All of these patients had received neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and had residual pathological disease, as noted in the new indication. Patients were enrolled regardless of programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression.

For the primary endpoint of disease-free survival, the median was 22.4 months for the nivolumab group (n = 532) versus 11.0 months for the placebo group (n = 262; hazard ratio [HR] for disease recurrence or death, 0.69; 96.4% confidence interval [CI], 0.56-0.86; P < .001).

The median follow-up was 24.4 months.

Disease-free survival favored nivolumab across multiple preplanned subgroups.

However, as Dr. Ilson noted in the editorial, the efficacy of nivolumab varied, with more benefit seen for patients with squamous cell cancer (HR, 0.61) than for those with adenocarcinoma (HR, 0.75). Patients with esophageal tumors also had greater benefit (HR, 0.61) than did those with GEJ tumors (HR, 0.87).

There was benefit in patients with node-negative disease (HR, 0.74) and node-positive disease (HR, 0.67) and benefit in patients with tumors that were PD-L1–negative (HR, 0.73) and PD-L1–positive (HR, 0.75).

There were fewer distant recurrences in the nivolumab group than in the placebo group (29% vs. 39%) and fewer locoregional recurrences (12% vs. 17%).

No new safety signals were observed, and 9% of the nivolumab patients discontinued the drug because of treatment-related adverse events versus 3% of placebo patients. In addition, a 1-year course of adjuvant nivolumab did not negatively impact patient-reported quality of life, the trialists reported.

Grade 3 or 4 adverse events of any cause were more frequent in the nivolumab group versus the placebo group (34% vs. 32%) as were those related to the intervention (13% vs. 6%).

Although overall survival data are not mature, “the doubling of median disease-free survival will almost certainly translate into an overall survival benefit,” Dr. Ilson wrote.

Notably, the trial’s original co-primary endpoint was overall survival, but was dropped to a secondary endpoint after enrollment “challenges.”

When the now-published data were first presented at the 2020 annual meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology, the invited discussant, Andrés Cervantes, MD, PhD, University of Valencia, Spain, raised several issues with the trial.

Preoperative chemoradiation is not “universally accepted” as the standard of care in this setting, said Dr. Cervantes, president-elect of ESMO.

Dr. Ilson acknowledged as much. “A debate is ongoing about whether chemotherapy alone or combined chemoradiotherapy is the preferred treatment for esophageal cancer before surgery,” he wrote.

In addition, Dr. Cervantes noted that disease-free survival is not currently validated as a major endpoint in gastroesophageal cancers, and the median follow-up was short.

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

Adding the novel immune checkpoint inhibitor relatlimab to the more established nivolumab (Opdivo) significantly extended the progression-free survival (PFS) of patients with previously untreated advanced melanoma in comparison with nivolumab alone in the phase 3 RELATIVITY-047 trial.

Both drugs are from Bristol-Myers Squibb, which funded the study.

“Our findings demonstrate that relatlimab plus nivolumab is a potential novel treatment option for this patient population,” said lead researcher Evan J. Lipson, MD, Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

Relatlimab has a different mechanism of action from currently available immune checkpoint inhibitors, such as nivolumab and similar agents, which act as inhibitors of the programmed cell death protein–1 (PD-1) or programmed cell death–ligand-1 (PD-L1). In contrast, relatlimab acts as an antibody that targets lymphocyte-activation gene 3 (LAG-3), which inhibits T cells and thus helps cancer cells evade immune attack.

“This is the first phase 3 study to validate inhibition of the LAG-3 immune checkpoint as a therapeutic strategy for patients with cancer, and it establishes the LAG-3 pathway as the third immune checkpoint pathway in history, after CLTA-4 and PD-1, for which blockade appears to have clinical benefit,” Dr. Lipson said at a press briefing ahead of the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), where this study will be presented (abstract 9503).

Commenting for ASCO, Julie R. Gralow, MD, chief medical officer and executive vice president, agreed that “these results provide validation of the LAG-3 immune checkpoint as a therapeutic target ... and they also support combination treatment with immunotherapies that act on different parts of the immune system.”

When Dr. Lipson was asked whether he would recommend the combination of relatlimab plus nivolumab as a first-line treatment for this patient population, he said that “for many patients,” the first-line treatment choice is made on a “case-by-case” basis.

“We are fortunate in melanoma that we have an ever-expanding list of seemingly effective options, and I think we’ll find at some point this will be added to that list,” he said. “Whether this is the first-line choice for any given patient really depends on a lot of factors,” he added.

Dr. Gralow added a note of caution. “The combination was clearly more toxic, and so I think there will be a lot of discussion” as to when it would be used and for which patients, she said.

In the absence of head-to-head comparisons, “I’m not sure that we have one answer” as to which treatment to choose, she added. With the ever-increasing number of options available in melanoma, the individual treatment choice is “getting more complicated,” she said.
 

Study details

The global RELATIVITY-047 study was conducted in 714 patients with previously untreated unresectable or metastatic melanoma. The participants were randomly assigned to receive either relatlimab plus nivolumab or nivolumab alone.

Dr. Lipson explained that the treatments were given as a fixed-dosed combination, meaning the preparation of relatlimab and nivolumab was given in the “same medication phial and administered as a single intravenous infusion in order to reduce preparation and infusion times and minimize the risk of administration errors.”

PFS, as determined on blinded independent central review, was significantly longer with the combination therapy than with nivolumab alone, at a median of 10.12 months vs. 4.63 months (hazard ratio, 0.75; P = .0055).

At 12 months, the PFS rate among patients given relatlimab plus nivolumab was 47.7%, versus 36.0% among those given nivolumab alone.

“This significant improvement meant that the study met its primary endpoint,” Dr. Lipson said, adding that the PFS benefit “appeared relatively early in the course of therapy.” The curves separated at 12 weeks, and benefit was “sustained” over the course of follow-up.

He added that the performance of nivolumab alone was “in the range” of that seen in previous studies, although he underlined that cross-trial comparison is difficult, given the differences in study design.

“In general, treatment-related adverse events” associated with the combination therapy were “manageable and reflected the safety profile that we typically see with immune checkpoint inhibitors,” he noted.

The results showed that 40.3% of patients who received the combination therapy experienced a grade 3-4 adverse event, compared with 33.4% of those given nivolumab alone. Grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events leading to discontinuation occurred in 8.5% and 3.1% of patients, respectively.

Three treatment-related deaths occurred in the relatlimab and nivolumab arm. Two such deaths occurred in the nivolumab-alone group.

The study was funded by Bristol Myers Squibb. Dr. Lipson has relationships with Array BioPharma, Bristol Myers Squibb, EMD Serono, Genentech, Macrogenics, Merck, Millennium, Novartis, Sanofi/Regeneron, and Sysmex (inst). Dr. Gralow has relationships with AstraZeneca, Genentech, Sandoz, and Immunomedics.

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

Adding the novel immune checkpoint inhibitor relatlimab to the more established nivolumab (Opdivo) significantly extended the progression-free survival (PFS) of patients with previously untreated advanced melanoma in comparison with nivolumab alone in the phase 3 RELATIVITY-047 trial.

Both drugs are from Bristol-Myers Squibb, which funded the study.

“Our findings demonstrate that relatlimab plus nivolumab is a potential novel treatment option for this patient population,” said lead researcher Evan J. Lipson, MD, Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

Relatlimab has a different mechanism of action from currently available immune checkpoint inhibitors, such as nivolumab and similar agents, which act as inhibitors of the programmed cell death protein–1 (PD-1) or programmed cell death–ligand-1 (PD-L1). In contrast, relatlimab acts as an antibody that targets lymphocyte-activation gene 3 (LAG-3), which inhibits T cells and thus helps cancer cells evade immune attack.

“This is the first phase 3 study to validate inhibition of the LAG-3 immune checkpoint as a therapeutic strategy for patients with cancer, and it establishes the LAG-3 pathway as the third immune checkpoint pathway in history, after CLTA-4 and PD-1, for which blockade appears to have clinical benefit,” Dr. Lipson said at a press briefing ahead of the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), where this study will be presented (abstract 9503).

Commenting for ASCO, Julie R. Gralow, MD, chief medical officer and executive vice president, agreed that “these results provide validation of the LAG-3 immune checkpoint as a therapeutic target ... and they also support combination treatment with immunotherapies that act on different parts of the immune system.”

When Dr. Lipson was asked whether he would recommend the combination of relatlimab plus nivolumab as a first-line treatment for this patient population, he said that “for many patients,” the first-line treatment choice is made on a “case-by-case” basis.

“We are fortunate in melanoma that we have an ever-expanding list of seemingly effective options, and I think we’ll find at some point this will be added to that list,” he said. “Whether this is the first-line choice for any given patient really depends on a lot of factors,” he added.

Dr. Gralow added a note of caution. “The combination was clearly more toxic, and so I think there will be a lot of discussion” as to when it would be used and for which patients, she said.

In the absence of head-to-head comparisons, “I’m not sure that we have one answer” as to which treatment to choose, she added. With the ever-increasing number of options available in melanoma, the individual treatment choice is “getting more complicated,” she said.
 

Study details

The global RELATIVITY-047 study was conducted in 714 patients with previously untreated unresectable or metastatic melanoma. The participants were randomly assigned to receive either relatlimab plus nivolumab or nivolumab alone.

Dr. Lipson explained that the treatments were given as a fixed-dosed combination, meaning the preparation of relatlimab and nivolumab was given in the “same medication phial and administered as a single intravenous infusion in order to reduce preparation and infusion times and minimize the risk of administration errors.”

PFS, as determined on blinded independent central review, was significantly longer with the combination therapy than with nivolumab alone, at a median of 10.12 months vs. 4.63 months (hazard ratio, 0.75; P = .0055).

At 12 months, the PFS rate among patients given relatlimab plus nivolumab was 47.7%, versus 36.0% among those given nivolumab alone.

“This significant improvement meant that the study met its primary endpoint,” Dr. Lipson said, adding that the PFS benefit “appeared relatively early in the course of therapy.” The curves separated at 12 weeks, and benefit was “sustained” over the course of follow-up.

He added that the performance of nivolumab alone was “in the range” of that seen in previous studies, although he underlined that cross-trial comparison is difficult, given the differences in study design.

“In general, treatment-related adverse events” associated with the combination therapy were “manageable and reflected the safety profile that we typically see with immune checkpoint inhibitors,” he noted.

The results showed that 40.3% of patients who received the combination therapy experienced a grade 3-4 adverse event, compared with 33.4% of those given nivolumab alone. Grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events leading to discontinuation occurred in 8.5% and 3.1% of patients, respectively.

Three treatment-related deaths occurred in the relatlimab and nivolumab arm. Two such deaths occurred in the nivolumab-alone group.

The study was funded by Bristol Myers Squibb. Dr. Lipson has relationships with Array BioPharma, Bristol Myers Squibb, EMD Serono, Genentech, Macrogenics, Merck, Millennium, Novartis, Sanofi/Regeneron, and Sysmex (inst). Dr. Gralow has relationships with AstraZeneca, Genentech, Sandoz, and Immunomedics.

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

Adding the novel immune checkpoint inhibitor relatlimab to the more established nivolumab (Opdivo) significantly extended the progression-free survival (PFS) of patients with previously untreated advanced melanoma in comparison with nivolumab alone in the phase 3 RELATIVITY-047 trial.

Both drugs are from Bristol-Myers Squibb, which funded the study.

“Our findings demonstrate that relatlimab plus nivolumab is a potential novel treatment option for this patient population,” said lead researcher Evan J. Lipson, MD, Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

Relatlimab has a different mechanism of action from currently available immune checkpoint inhibitors, such as nivolumab and similar agents, which act as inhibitors of the programmed cell death protein–1 (PD-1) or programmed cell death–ligand-1 (PD-L1). In contrast, relatlimab acts as an antibody that targets lymphocyte-activation gene 3 (LAG-3), which inhibits T cells and thus helps cancer cells evade immune attack.

“This is the first phase 3 study to validate inhibition of the LAG-3 immune checkpoint as a therapeutic strategy for patients with cancer, and it establishes the LAG-3 pathway as the third immune checkpoint pathway in history, after CLTA-4 and PD-1, for which blockade appears to have clinical benefit,” Dr. Lipson said at a press briefing ahead of the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), where this study will be presented (abstract 9503).

Commenting for ASCO, Julie R. Gralow, MD, chief medical officer and executive vice president, agreed that “these results provide validation of the LAG-3 immune checkpoint as a therapeutic target ... and they also support combination treatment with immunotherapies that act on different parts of the immune system.”

When Dr. Lipson was asked whether he would recommend the combination of relatlimab plus nivolumab as a first-line treatment for this patient population, he said that “for many patients,” the first-line treatment choice is made on a “case-by-case” basis.

“We are fortunate in melanoma that we have an ever-expanding list of seemingly effective options, and I think we’ll find at some point this will be added to that list,” he said. “Whether this is the first-line choice for any given patient really depends on a lot of factors,” he added.

Dr. Gralow added a note of caution. “The combination was clearly more toxic, and so I think there will be a lot of discussion” as to when it would be used and for which patients, she said.

In the absence of head-to-head comparisons, “I’m not sure that we have one answer” as to which treatment to choose, she added. With the ever-increasing number of options available in melanoma, the individual treatment choice is “getting more complicated,” she said.
 

Study details

The global RELATIVITY-047 study was conducted in 714 patients with previously untreated unresectable or metastatic melanoma. The participants were randomly assigned to receive either relatlimab plus nivolumab or nivolumab alone.

Dr. Lipson explained that the treatments were given as a fixed-dosed combination, meaning the preparation of relatlimab and nivolumab was given in the “same medication phial and administered as a single intravenous infusion in order to reduce preparation and infusion times and minimize the risk of administration errors.”

PFS, as determined on blinded independent central review, was significantly longer with the combination therapy than with nivolumab alone, at a median of 10.12 months vs. 4.63 months (hazard ratio, 0.75; P = .0055).

At 12 months, the PFS rate among patients given relatlimab plus nivolumab was 47.7%, versus 36.0% among those given nivolumab alone.

“This significant improvement meant that the study met its primary endpoint,” Dr. Lipson said, adding that the PFS benefit “appeared relatively early in the course of therapy.” The curves separated at 12 weeks, and benefit was “sustained” over the course of follow-up.

He added that the performance of nivolumab alone was “in the range” of that seen in previous studies, although he underlined that cross-trial comparison is difficult, given the differences in study design.

“In general, treatment-related adverse events” associated with the combination therapy were “manageable and reflected the safety profile that we typically see with immune checkpoint inhibitors,” he noted.

The results showed that 40.3% of patients who received the combination therapy experienced a grade 3-4 adverse event, compared with 33.4% of those given nivolumab alone. Grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events leading to discontinuation occurred in 8.5% and 3.1% of patients, respectively.

Three treatment-related deaths occurred in the relatlimab and nivolumab arm. Two such deaths occurred in the nivolumab-alone group.

The study was funded by Bristol Myers Squibb. Dr. Lipson has relationships with Array BioPharma, Bristol Myers Squibb, EMD Serono, Genentech, Macrogenics, Merck, Millennium, Novartis, Sanofi/Regeneron, and Sysmex (inst). Dr. Gralow has relationships with AstraZeneca, Genentech, Sandoz, and Immunomedics.

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

Cervical cancer incidence in the United States decreased by about 1% per year from 2001 to 2017, but at the same time there was an increase in the incidence of other human papillomavirus (HPV)–related cancers, a new study reveals.

Over the same period, there was an overall 1.3% annual increase in oropharyngeal, anal, rectal, and vulvar cancers in women, and a 2.3% annual increase in these cancers in men.

HPV is associated with more than 90% of cervical cancers and between 60% and 75% of oropharyngeal, vulvar, vaginal, and penile cancer in the United States, the researchers noted.

Oropharyngeal cancer incidence increased by 2.3% overall, with a 2.7% increase in men and a 0.77% increase in women. The incidence of this cancer was nearly fivefold greater in men at 8.89 per 100,000 population versus 1.68 per 100,000 population for women, the study found.

In addition, among women over age 50 years, anal and rectal cancer incidence increased by 3.5% per year; at the same time, cervical cancer incidence decreased 1.5% per year.

The increase in the incidence of oropharyngeal cancer and in anal and rectal cancers is expected to continue, the authors said.

The data showing these new trends come from an analysis of 657,317 individuals obtained from the U.S. Cancer Statistics program, conducted by Cheng-I Liao, MD, of Kaohsiung (Taiwan) Veterans Hospital and colleagues.

The study was highlighted at a press briefing ahead of the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, where the study will be presented June 6.

These incidence trends may reflect the availability of clear guidelines for screening and vaccination for the prevention of HPV-related cervical cancer – and the dearth of guidelines and standardized screening and vaccination for the other HPV-related cancers, the authors said.

The team also found cervical cancer accounted for 52% of all HPV-related cancers during the study period. The decrease in the incidence of cervical cancer over time was greater among women aged 20-24 (4.6% per year), compared with those aged 25-29 years (1.6%) and 30-34 years (1.1%),

Dr. Liao speculated that this age-based difference suggests a potential effect of HPV vaccination, greater vaccine acceptance among younger women, and clear guidelines for screening and vaccination.

However, an expert approached for comment was not so sure. It is likely too soon to give HPV vaccination too much credit for lower cervical cancer rates, said Jennifer Young Pierce, MD, MPH, a gynecologic oncologist at the Mitchell Cancer Institute, University of South Alabama, Mobile.

The continued rise in HPV-related cancers other than cervical cancers supports the point that screening – rather than vaccination – accounts for much of the decline observed in cervical cancer incidence, Dr. Pierce said in an interview.

Vaccination in men lags behind that of women, and there is a lack of good screening methods for head and neck cancers, she explained.

“When we have both vaccination and screening in these other cancers at high rates, we’re going to see significant declines in those cancers also,” she said.

“I’m very excited by the data but I do not believe it is related to vaccination as a method of prevention,” said Dr. Pierce, a professor of interdisciplinary clinical oncology who has been involved in numerous HPV vaccine–related studies and initiatives to improve vaccine uptake since its approval in 2006.
 

HPV vaccination

The HPV vaccine was first approved for preventing HPV-related cervical cancer in 2006 with an indication for girls and women aged 9-26 years. The vaccine indication was expanded in 2011 to include boys aged 11-12 years and is now approved for those up to age 45 years.

However, neither standardized screening nor HPV vaccination is currently recommended for any HPV-related cancer other than cervical cancer, Dr. Liao said.

Vaccination during much of the current study time frame (2001-2017) didn’t apply to most of the people who got cancer, Dr. Pierce explained in an interview, noting that the vaccinated individuals “still aren’t old enough to be part of the group we’re talking about.”

Rather, the increased use of HPV screening along with Pap testing for cervical cancer was becoming much more widespread at the time and was likely picking up more precancerous lesions – and thereby helping to decrease cervical cancer incidence in women in their 40s, 50s, 60s, and 70s, she said.

Dr. Pierce does, however, credit the vaccine movement for improving awareness of HPV risk.

“It has done a great job of educating the population about the dangers of these cancers ... and that there’s more we can do to prevent them,” she said.

Like Dr. Liao, she stressed the need for research focused on finding more effective screening modalities and on vaccine efficacy.

Also commenting on the study, ASCO president Lori J. Pierce, MD, a radiation oncologist, professor, and vice provost for academic and faculty affairs at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said the findings underscore the need for ongoing exploration of potential strategies such as HPV screening for high-risk populations.

“We can pick out higher risk populations so it would make sense to do a screen,” she said.

“Clearly, this study shows that we still have a great deal of work to do in order to reverse the increasing incidence rates of other HPV-related cancers,” she added in a press statement.

In an interview prior to the press conference, Dr. Pierce said in an interview that the findings are important because the outcome “opens all of our eyes into the trends of HPV-related cancers in the United States.

“This is something that hasn’t been studied well over time,” she added, noting that, where guidelines do exist for HPV-related cancers other than cervical cancer, they are inconsistent.

Further, it is possible that the vaccine will “cover a significant portion of the etiologic viruses that cause these cancers,” thereby helping to prevent the other HPV-related cancers.

For that reason, additional research and strategies for overcoming vaccine hesitancy, increasing overall vaccination rates, and for developing consistent guidelines are needed.

“I think there needs to be further resources and research to address the lack of screening for these other HPV-related cancers and we need to have consistent vaccination guidelines, because these cancers are preventable,” she said

Dr. Liao and Dr. Pierce disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Cervical cancer incidence in the United States decreased by about 1% per year from 2001 to 2017, but at the same time there was an increase in the incidence of other human papillomavirus (HPV)–related cancers, a new study reveals.

Over the same period, there was an overall 1.3% annual increase in oropharyngeal, anal, rectal, and vulvar cancers in women, and a 2.3% annual increase in these cancers in men.

HPV is associated with more than 90% of cervical cancers and between 60% and 75% of oropharyngeal, vulvar, vaginal, and penile cancer in the United States, the researchers noted.

Oropharyngeal cancer incidence increased by 2.3% overall, with a 2.7% increase in men and a 0.77% increase in women. The incidence of this cancer was nearly fivefold greater in men at 8.89 per 100,000 population versus 1.68 per 100,000 population for women, the study found.

In addition, among women over age 50 years, anal and rectal cancer incidence increased by 3.5% per year; at the same time, cervical cancer incidence decreased 1.5% per year.

The increase in the incidence of oropharyngeal cancer and in anal and rectal cancers is expected to continue, the authors said.

The data showing these new trends come from an analysis of 657,317 individuals obtained from the U.S. Cancer Statistics program, conducted by Cheng-I Liao, MD, of Kaohsiung (Taiwan) Veterans Hospital and colleagues.

The study was highlighted at a press briefing ahead of the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, where the study will be presented June 6.

These incidence trends may reflect the availability of clear guidelines for screening and vaccination for the prevention of HPV-related cervical cancer – and the dearth of guidelines and standardized screening and vaccination for the other HPV-related cancers, the authors said.

The team also found cervical cancer accounted for 52% of all HPV-related cancers during the study period. The decrease in the incidence of cervical cancer over time was greater among women aged 20-24 (4.6% per year), compared with those aged 25-29 years (1.6%) and 30-34 years (1.1%),

Dr. Liao speculated that this age-based difference suggests a potential effect of HPV vaccination, greater vaccine acceptance among younger women, and clear guidelines for screening and vaccination.

However, an expert approached for comment was not so sure. It is likely too soon to give HPV vaccination too much credit for lower cervical cancer rates, said Jennifer Young Pierce, MD, MPH, a gynecologic oncologist at the Mitchell Cancer Institute, University of South Alabama, Mobile.

The continued rise in HPV-related cancers other than cervical cancers supports the point that screening – rather than vaccination – accounts for much of the decline observed in cervical cancer incidence, Dr. Pierce said in an interview.

Vaccination in men lags behind that of women, and there is a lack of good screening methods for head and neck cancers, she explained.

“When we have both vaccination and screening in these other cancers at high rates, we’re going to see significant declines in those cancers also,” she said.

“I’m very excited by the data but I do not believe it is related to vaccination as a method of prevention,” said Dr. Pierce, a professor of interdisciplinary clinical oncology who has been involved in numerous HPV vaccine–related studies and initiatives to improve vaccine uptake since its approval in 2006.
 

HPV vaccination

The HPV vaccine was first approved for preventing HPV-related cervical cancer in 2006 with an indication for girls and women aged 9-26 years. The vaccine indication was expanded in 2011 to include boys aged 11-12 years and is now approved for those up to age 45 years.

However, neither standardized screening nor HPV vaccination is currently recommended for any HPV-related cancer other than cervical cancer, Dr. Liao said.

Vaccination during much of the current study time frame (2001-2017) didn’t apply to most of the people who got cancer, Dr. Pierce explained in an interview, noting that the vaccinated individuals “still aren’t old enough to be part of the group we’re talking about.”

Rather, the increased use of HPV screening along with Pap testing for cervical cancer was becoming much more widespread at the time and was likely picking up more precancerous lesions – and thereby helping to decrease cervical cancer incidence in women in their 40s, 50s, 60s, and 70s, she said.

Dr. Pierce does, however, credit the vaccine movement for improving awareness of HPV risk.

“It has done a great job of educating the population about the dangers of these cancers ... and that there’s more we can do to prevent them,” she said.

Like Dr. Liao, she stressed the need for research focused on finding more effective screening modalities and on vaccine efficacy.

Also commenting on the study, ASCO president Lori J. Pierce, MD, a radiation oncologist, professor, and vice provost for academic and faculty affairs at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said the findings underscore the need for ongoing exploration of potential strategies such as HPV screening for high-risk populations.

“We can pick out higher risk populations so it would make sense to do a screen,” she said.

“Clearly, this study shows that we still have a great deal of work to do in order to reverse the increasing incidence rates of other HPV-related cancers,” she added in a press statement.

In an interview prior to the press conference, Dr. Pierce said in an interview that the findings are important because the outcome “opens all of our eyes into the trends of HPV-related cancers in the United States.

“This is something that hasn’t been studied well over time,” she added, noting that, where guidelines do exist for HPV-related cancers other than cervical cancer, they are inconsistent.

Further, it is possible that the vaccine will “cover a significant portion of the etiologic viruses that cause these cancers,” thereby helping to prevent the other HPV-related cancers.

For that reason, additional research and strategies for overcoming vaccine hesitancy, increasing overall vaccination rates, and for developing consistent guidelines are needed.

“I think there needs to be further resources and research to address the lack of screening for these other HPV-related cancers and we need to have consistent vaccination guidelines, because these cancers are preventable,” she said

Dr. Liao and Dr. Pierce disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Cervical cancer incidence in the United States decreased by about 1% per year from 2001 to 2017, but at the same time there was an increase in the incidence of other human papillomavirus (HPV)–related cancers, a new study reveals.

Over the same period, there was an overall 1.3% annual increase in oropharyngeal, anal, rectal, and vulvar cancers in women, and a 2.3% annual increase in these cancers in men.

HPV is associated with more than 90% of cervical cancers and between 60% and 75% of oropharyngeal, vulvar, vaginal, and penile cancer in the United States, the researchers noted.

Oropharyngeal cancer incidence increased by 2.3% overall, with a 2.7% increase in men and a 0.77% increase in women. The incidence of this cancer was nearly fivefold greater in men at 8.89 per 100,000 population versus 1.68 per 100,000 population for women, the study found.

In addition, among women over age 50 years, anal and rectal cancer incidence increased by 3.5% per year; at the same time, cervical cancer incidence decreased 1.5% per year.

The increase in the incidence of oropharyngeal cancer and in anal and rectal cancers is expected to continue, the authors said.

The data showing these new trends come from an analysis of 657,317 individuals obtained from the U.S. Cancer Statistics program, conducted by Cheng-I Liao, MD, of Kaohsiung (Taiwan) Veterans Hospital and colleagues.

The study was highlighted at a press briefing ahead of the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, where the study will be presented June 6.

These incidence trends may reflect the availability of clear guidelines for screening and vaccination for the prevention of HPV-related cervical cancer – and the dearth of guidelines and standardized screening and vaccination for the other HPV-related cancers, the authors said.

The team also found cervical cancer accounted for 52% of all HPV-related cancers during the study period. The decrease in the incidence of cervical cancer over time was greater among women aged 20-24 (4.6% per year), compared with those aged 25-29 years (1.6%) and 30-34 years (1.1%),

Dr. Liao speculated that this age-based difference suggests a potential effect of HPV vaccination, greater vaccine acceptance among younger women, and clear guidelines for screening and vaccination.

However, an expert approached for comment was not so sure. It is likely too soon to give HPV vaccination too much credit for lower cervical cancer rates, said Jennifer Young Pierce, MD, MPH, a gynecologic oncologist at the Mitchell Cancer Institute, University of South Alabama, Mobile.

The continued rise in HPV-related cancers other than cervical cancers supports the point that screening – rather than vaccination – accounts for much of the decline observed in cervical cancer incidence, Dr. Pierce said in an interview.

Vaccination in men lags behind that of women, and there is a lack of good screening methods for head and neck cancers, she explained.

“When we have both vaccination and screening in these other cancers at high rates, we’re going to see significant declines in those cancers also,” she said.

“I’m very excited by the data but I do not believe it is related to vaccination as a method of prevention,” said Dr. Pierce, a professor of interdisciplinary clinical oncology who has been involved in numerous HPV vaccine–related studies and initiatives to improve vaccine uptake since its approval in 2006.
 

HPV vaccination

The HPV vaccine was first approved for preventing HPV-related cervical cancer in 2006 with an indication for girls and women aged 9-26 years. The vaccine indication was expanded in 2011 to include boys aged 11-12 years and is now approved for those up to age 45 years.

However, neither standardized screening nor HPV vaccination is currently recommended for any HPV-related cancer other than cervical cancer, Dr. Liao said.

Vaccination during much of the current study time frame (2001-2017) didn’t apply to most of the people who got cancer, Dr. Pierce explained in an interview, noting that the vaccinated individuals “still aren’t old enough to be part of the group we’re talking about.”

Rather, the increased use of HPV screening along with Pap testing for cervical cancer was becoming much more widespread at the time and was likely picking up more precancerous lesions – and thereby helping to decrease cervical cancer incidence in women in their 40s, 50s, 60s, and 70s, she said.

Dr. Pierce does, however, credit the vaccine movement for improving awareness of HPV risk.

“It has done a great job of educating the population about the dangers of these cancers ... and that there’s more we can do to prevent them,” she said.

Like Dr. Liao, she stressed the need for research focused on finding more effective screening modalities and on vaccine efficacy.

Also commenting on the study, ASCO president Lori J. Pierce, MD, a radiation oncologist, professor, and vice provost for academic and faculty affairs at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said the findings underscore the need for ongoing exploration of potential strategies such as HPV screening for high-risk populations.

“We can pick out higher risk populations so it would make sense to do a screen,” she said.

“Clearly, this study shows that we still have a great deal of work to do in order to reverse the increasing incidence rates of other HPV-related cancers,” she added in a press statement.

In an interview prior to the press conference, Dr. Pierce said in an interview that the findings are important because the outcome “opens all of our eyes into the trends of HPV-related cancers in the United States.

“This is something that hasn’t been studied well over time,” she added, noting that, where guidelines do exist for HPV-related cancers other than cervical cancer, they are inconsistent.

Further, it is possible that the vaccine will “cover a significant portion of the etiologic viruses that cause these cancers,” thereby helping to prevent the other HPV-related cancers.

For that reason, additional research and strategies for overcoming vaccine hesitancy, increasing overall vaccination rates, and for developing consistent guidelines are needed.

“I think there needs to be further resources and research to address the lack of screening for these other HPV-related cancers and we need to have consistent vaccination guidelines, because these cancers are preventable,” she said

Dr. Liao and Dr. Pierce disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Before 2001, HER2/neu-positive breast cancer (HER2+) was one of the most dreaded diagnoses a woman could face, as treatment was largely ineffective. The discovery of trastuzumab changed that dramatically.

Over the next 20 years, two additional HER2-targeted therapies – lapatinib and trastuzumab emtansine (TDM-1) – earned approval from the Food and Drug Administration for selected patients with early and late HER2+ breast cancer.

Since 2019, four additional HER2-targeted therapies have been approved by the FDA for HER2+ metastatic breast cancer (MBC), changing the treatment paradigm for those patients substantially.

The new agents are especially useful in certain patient populations. The agents offer the promise of improved survival for patients with recurrent metastatic disease and the potential for further reductions in relapse rates in earlier settings.
 

Trastuzumab deruxtecan

Trastuzumab deruxtecan is an antibody-drug conjugate that links three components: an anti-HER2 monoclonal antibody, a highly potent topoisomerase I inhibitor payload, and a tetrapeptide-based cleavable linker.

Trastuzumab deruxtecan has a high drug-to-antibody ratio. A membrane-permeable payload offers the potential for activity against adjacent HER2-negative cells in heterogeneous tumors. It has a long half-life (6 days).

Trastuzumab deruxtecan received accelerated approval from the FDA in December 2019 to treat patients with HER2+ MBC who have received two or more prior HER2-targeted regimens, based on the results of the DESTINY-Breast 01 trial.
 

DESTINY-Breast 01 trial

In the phase 2 DESTINY-Breast 01 trial, 184 patients with a median of six previous treatments received trastuzumab deruxtecan (5.4 mg/kg) intravenously every 21 days. There were 24 patients with treated, asymptomatic brain metastases who participated. Patients with untreated or symptomatic brain metastases were excluded.

Overall, a response to therapy was reported in 112 patients (60.9%), with 6.0% complete and 54.9% partial responses. Most of the patients for whom both baseline and postbaseline data were available had a reduction in tumor size.

The median time until response was 1.6 months, an interval that corresponded to the time until the first scheduled imaging. Three patients (1.6%) had progressive disease, and two patients (1.1%) could not be evaluated.

The median duration of follow-up was 11.1 months, and the median response duration was 14.8 months.

The median progression-free survival (PFS) was 16.4 months, and the median overall survival (OS) was not reached. The median PFS in the patients with brain involvement was 18.1 months.

The most common adverse events of grade 3 or higher were a decreased neutrophil count (20.7%), anemia (8.7%), and nausea (7.6%). Most concerning was that trastuzumab deruxtecan was associated with interstitial lung disease in 13.6% of patients.
 

Tucatinib

Tucatinib is an oral, highly selective HER2 tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI). In April 2020, it was approved by the FDA, in combination with trastuzumab and capecitabine, for adult patients with advanced unresectable or metastatic HER2+ breast cancer who have received one or more prior anti-HER2–based regimens for MBC. The approval included patients with brain metastases.

The recommended tucatinib dose is 300 mg orally twice a day in combination with trastuzumab (at the standard dose) and capecitabine (1,000 mg/m² given orally twice daily on days 1-14) on a 21-day cycle, until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.
 

HER2CLIMB trial

The study that led to the approval of tucatinib was the HER2CLIMB trial. The trial enrolled 612 HER2+ MBC patients who had prior treatment with trastuzumab, pertuzumab, and T-DM1. Patients had received a median of 4 (range, 2-17) prior lines of HER2-targeted therapy.

The patients were randomized 2:1 to receive trastuzumab plus capecitabine and either tucatinib or an identical placebo twice daily.

The primary endpoint was PFS, evaluated in the initial 480 randomized patients. The median PFS was 7.8 months in the tucatinib arm and 5.6 months in the control arm (hazard ratio, 0.54; 95% confidence interval, 0.42-0.71; P < .001).

The confirmed overall response rate for patients with measurable disease was 40.6% in the tucatinib arm and 22.8% in the control arm (P = .001). The proportion of patients still in response at 12 months was 33.1% and 12.3%, respectively.

The median OS was 21.9 months in the tucatinib arm and 17.4 months in the placebo arm (HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.50-0.88; P = .005). At 24 months, 44.9% and 26.6% of patients, respectively, were still alive.

The most common grade 3 or higher adverse events (in the tucatinib and placebo arms, respectively) were palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia syndrome (13.1% vs. 9.1%), diarrhea (12.9% vs. 8.6%), elevations in ALT and AST (approximately 5% vs. 0.5% for each), and fatigue (4.7% vs. 4.1%).
 

Tucatinib in patients with brain involvement

A unique feature of the HER2CLIMB study was that patients with MBC and untreated, symptomatic brain metastases were eligible. Patients with active, untreated central nervous system disease are excluded from virtually all other trials, especially drug-approval trials.

There were 291 patients with brain metastases in HER2CLIMB, 198 (48%) in the tucatinib arm and 93 (46%) in the control arm.

The risk of intracranial progression or death was reduced by 68% in the tucatinib arm (HR, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.22 to 0.48; P  < .0001).

The 1-year CNS-PFS rate was 40.2% in the tucatinib arm and 0% in the placebo arm. The median duration of CNS-PFS was 9.9 months and 4.2 months, respectively.

The risk of death was reduced by 42% in the tucatinib arm (HR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.40-0.85; P = .005). The median OS was 18.1 months and 12.0 months, respectively.

There were more objective responses in the brain with tucatinib (47.3%) than with placebo (20.0%; P = .03). The median duration of response was 6.8 months and 3.0 months, respectively.

Particularly because of its CNS activity and lack of serious, long-term toxicity, tucatinib combination therapy represents an attractive new option for patients with HER2+ MBC.
 

Neratinib

Neratinib is an irreversible pan-HER TKI that was approved by the FDA in July 2017 for extended adjuvant therapy in patients with early-stage HER2+ breast cancer, following the use of trastuzumab-based therapy.

Long-term results of the ExteNet study led to the approval for use as extended adjuvant therapy.

In February 2020, neratinib was FDA approved in combination with capecitabine for patients with HER2+ MBC after two or more prior anti-HER2–based regimens. The more recent FDA approval was based on results of the NALA trial.
 

NALA trial

The phase 3 NALA trial included 621 patients with HER2+ MBC who had received at least two prior anti-HER2 based regimens.

Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive neratinib at 240 mg orally once daily on days 1-21 with capecitabine at 750 mg/m² orally twice daily on days 1-14 or lapatinib at 1,250 mg orally once daily on days 1-21 with capecitabine at 1,000 mg/m² orally twice daily on days 1-14 for each 21-day cycle. Patients were treated until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

The primary endpoints were PFS and OS by blinded, independent, central review.

The median PFS was 5.6 months in the neratinib arm and 5.5 months in the lapatinib arm (HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.63-0.93; P = .0059). The PFS rate at 12 months was 28.8% and 14.8%, respectively.

The median OS was 21.0 months in the neratinib arm and 18.7 months in the lapatinib arm (HR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.72-1.07; P = .2086). The ORR was 32.8% and 26.7%, respectively. The median response duration was 8.5 months and 5.6 months, respectively.

Fewer interventions for CNS disease were required in the neratinib arm than in the lapatinib arm (cumulative incidence, 22.8% vs. 29.2%; P = .043). 

The most frequently reported grade 3-4 adverse reactions for the neratinib combination were diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, fatigue, and decreased appetite.

Grade 3 diarrhea occurred in 24.4% of those in the neratinib arm and 12.5% of those in the lapatinib arm. Antidiarrheal medication was used by 98.3% of patients receiving neratinib and 62.1% of patients receiving lapatinib.
 

Margetuximab-cmkb

Margetuximab is a chimeric Fc-engineered anti-HER2 monoclonal antibody that targets the same epitope as trastuzumab and exerts similar antiproliferative effects.

Compared with trastuzumab, margetuximab has higher affinity for both 158V (high-binding) and 158F (low-binding) alleles of the activating Fc receptor, CD16A. As a result, margetuximab enhances innate immunity, including CD16A-mediated antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity, more effectively than trastuzumab. Margetuximab also potentiates adaptive immunity, including enhanced clonality of the T-cell repertoire and induction of HER2-specific T- and B-cell responses.

In December 2020, margetuximab, in combination with chemotherapy, was approved by the FDA for patients with HER2+ MBC after two or more prior anti-HER2 regimens, at least one of which was for metastatic disease. The approved dose is 15 mg/kg IV every 3 weeks.

The study that led to margetuximab’s approval was the phase 3 SOPHIA trial.
 

SOPHIA trial

SOPHIA was a randomized trial of 536 patients with HER2+ MBC who had received prior treatment with other anti-HER2 therapies, including one to three lines of therapy for MBC.

Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive margetuximab plus chemotherapy or trastuzumab plus chemotherapy. Assignment was stratified by chemotherapy choice (capecitabine, eribulin, gemcitabine, or vinorelbine), the number of previous lines of therapy for MBC, and disease extent.

Co–primary outcome measures were PFS by blinded, independent, central review and OS.

At the second interim analysis, the median PFS was 5.8 months in the margetuximab arm and 4.9 months in the trastuzumab arm (HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.59-0.98; P = .033). Results were more impressive in patients with CD16A genotypes containing a 158F allele. In this group, the median PFS was 6.9 months with margetuximab and 5.1 months with trastuzumab (HR, 0.68, 95% CI, 0.52-0.90; P = .005).

At the second interim analysis, the median OS was 21.6 months in the margetuximab arm and 19.8 months in the trastuzumab arm (HR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.69-1.13; P = .33).

Subgroup data showed no differences in OS between the two arms for any subgroup except HER2+ MBC patients with an IHC score of 2 or higher. This is consistent with the postulated mechanism of action of margetuximab.

The confirmed ORR was 25% in the margetuximab arm and 14% in the trastuzumab arm, with similar durations of response between the study arms.

The most common adverse events in both arms (≥20%), regardless of causality, were fatigue, nausea, diarrhea, and neutropenia. Vomiting was common in the margetuximab arm, and anemia was common in the trastuzumab arm.

Grade 3 or higher adverse events occurred in 53.8% of patients receiving margetuximab and 52.6% of those receiving trastuzumab.

In view of margetuximab’s modest benefits in the SOPHIA trial, the ultimate role for margetuximab in HER2+ MBC may be restricted to patients with the CD16A-158F allele. A neoadjuvant trial is planned in that population.
 

Take-home messages

There are legitimate arguments regarding whether curing MBC is within reach for certain patient subsets, but there is no argument about whether the outlook for patients with HER2+ MBC has improved dramatically in recent years; it has.

The approval of four unique, new agents for the treatment of women with HER2+ MBC in relapse provides further improvements in outcome for these patients and distinctly different opportunities for tailoring treatment to the special circumstances of each patient (e.g., whether brain metastases are present, desire for oral therapy, comorbidities, experience with prior chemotherapy, etc).

When considered along with the potential for incorporating these drugs in earlier settings in well-designed clinical trials, these new drugs offer great promise to a group of patients who faced a dismal outcome just 2 decades ago.

Dr. Lyss was a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years before his recent retirement. His clinical and research interests were focused on breast and lung cancers, as well as expanding clinical trial access to medically underserved populations. He is based in St. Louis. He has no conflicts of interest.

Before 2001, HER2/neu-positive breast cancer (HER2+) was one of the most dreaded diagnoses a woman could face, as treatment was largely ineffective. The discovery of trastuzumab changed that dramatically.

Over the next 20 years, two additional HER2-targeted therapies – lapatinib and trastuzumab emtansine (TDM-1) – earned approval from the Food and Drug Administration for selected patients with early and late HER2+ breast cancer.

Since 2019, four additional HER2-targeted therapies have been approved by the FDA for HER2+ metastatic breast cancer (MBC), changing the treatment paradigm for those patients substantially.

The new agents are especially useful in certain patient populations. The agents offer the promise of improved survival for patients with recurrent metastatic disease and the potential for further reductions in relapse rates in earlier settings.
 

Trastuzumab deruxtecan

Trastuzumab deruxtecan is an antibody-drug conjugate that links three components: an anti-HER2 monoclonal antibody, a highly potent topoisomerase I inhibitor payload, and a tetrapeptide-based cleavable linker.

Trastuzumab deruxtecan has a high drug-to-antibody ratio. A membrane-permeable payload offers the potential for activity against adjacent HER2-negative cells in heterogeneous tumors. It has a long half-life (6 days).

Trastuzumab deruxtecan received accelerated approval from the FDA in December 2019 to treat patients with HER2+ MBC who have received two or more prior HER2-targeted regimens, based on the results of the DESTINY-Breast 01 trial.
 

DESTINY-Breast 01 trial

In the phase 2 DESTINY-Breast 01 trial, 184 patients with a median of six previous treatments received trastuzumab deruxtecan (5.4 mg/kg) intravenously every 21 days. There were 24 patients with treated, asymptomatic brain metastases who participated. Patients with untreated or symptomatic brain metastases were excluded.

Overall, a response to therapy was reported in 112 patients (60.9%), with 6.0% complete and 54.9% partial responses. Most of the patients for whom both baseline and postbaseline data were available had a reduction in tumor size.

The median time until response was 1.6 months, an interval that corresponded to the time until the first scheduled imaging. Three patients (1.6%) had progressive disease, and two patients (1.1%) could not be evaluated.

The median duration of follow-up was 11.1 months, and the median response duration was 14.8 months.

The median progression-free survival (PFS) was 16.4 months, and the median overall survival (OS) was not reached. The median PFS in the patients with brain involvement was 18.1 months.

The most common adverse events of grade 3 or higher were a decreased neutrophil count (20.7%), anemia (8.7%), and nausea (7.6%). Most concerning was that trastuzumab deruxtecan was associated with interstitial lung disease in 13.6% of patients.
 

Tucatinib

Tucatinib is an oral, highly selective HER2 tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI). In April 2020, it was approved by the FDA, in combination with trastuzumab and capecitabine, for adult patients with advanced unresectable or metastatic HER2+ breast cancer who have received one or more prior anti-HER2–based regimens for MBC. The approval included patients with brain metastases.

The recommended tucatinib dose is 300 mg orally twice a day in combination with trastuzumab (at the standard dose) and capecitabine (1,000 mg/m² given orally twice daily on days 1-14) on a 21-day cycle, until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.
 

HER2CLIMB trial

The study that led to the approval of tucatinib was the HER2CLIMB trial. The trial enrolled 612 HER2+ MBC patients who had prior treatment with trastuzumab, pertuzumab, and T-DM1. Patients had received a median of 4 (range, 2-17) prior lines of HER2-targeted therapy.

The patients were randomized 2:1 to receive trastuzumab plus capecitabine and either tucatinib or an identical placebo twice daily.

The primary endpoint was PFS, evaluated in the initial 480 randomized patients. The median PFS was 7.8 months in the tucatinib arm and 5.6 months in the control arm (hazard ratio, 0.54; 95% confidence interval, 0.42-0.71; P < .001).

The confirmed overall response rate for patients with measurable disease was 40.6% in the tucatinib arm and 22.8% in the control arm (P = .001). The proportion of patients still in response at 12 months was 33.1% and 12.3%, respectively.

The median OS was 21.9 months in the tucatinib arm and 17.4 months in the placebo arm (HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.50-0.88; P = .005). At 24 months, 44.9% and 26.6% of patients, respectively, were still alive.

The most common grade 3 or higher adverse events (in the tucatinib and placebo arms, respectively) were palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia syndrome (13.1% vs. 9.1%), diarrhea (12.9% vs. 8.6%), elevations in ALT and AST (approximately 5% vs. 0.5% for each), and fatigue (4.7% vs. 4.1%).
 

Tucatinib in patients with brain involvement

A unique feature of the HER2CLIMB study was that patients with MBC and untreated, symptomatic brain metastases were eligible. Patients with active, untreated central nervous system disease are excluded from virtually all other trials, especially drug-approval trials.

There were 291 patients with brain metastases in HER2CLIMB, 198 (48%) in the tucatinib arm and 93 (46%) in the control arm.

The risk of intracranial progression or death was reduced by 68% in the tucatinib arm (HR, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.22 to 0.48; P  < .0001).

The 1-year CNS-PFS rate was 40.2% in the tucatinib arm and 0% in the placebo arm. The median duration of CNS-PFS was 9.9 months and 4.2 months, respectively.

The risk of death was reduced by 42% in the tucatinib arm (HR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.40-0.85; P = .005). The median OS was 18.1 months and 12.0 months, respectively.

There were more objective responses in the brain with tucatinib (47.3%) than with placebo (20.0%; P = .03). The median duration of response was 6.8 months and 3.0 months, respectively.

Particularly because of its CNS activity and lack of serious, long-term toxicity, tucatinib combination therapy represents an attractive new option for patients with HER2+ MBC.
 

Neratinib

Neratinib is an irreversible pan-HER TKI that was approved by the FDA in July 2017 for extended adjuvant therapy in patients with early-stage HER2+ breast cancer, following the use of trastuzumab-based therapy.

Long-term results of the ExteNet study led to the approval for use as extended adjuvant therapy.

In February 2020, neratinib was FDA approved in combination with capecitabine for patients with HER2+ MBC after two or more prior anti-HER2–based regimens. The more recent FDA approval was based on results of the NALA trial.
 

NALA trial

The phase 3 NALA trial included 621 patients with HER2+ MBC who had received at least two prior anti-HER2 based regimens.

Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive neratinib at 240 mg orally once daily on days 1-21 with capecitabine at 750 mg/m² orally twice daily on days 1-14 or lapatinib at 1,250 mg orally once daily on days 1-21 with capecitabine at 1,000 mg/m² orally twice daily on days 1-14 for each 21-day cycle. Patients were treated until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

The primary endpoints were PFS and OS by blinded, independent, central review.

The median PFS was 5.6 months in the neratinib arm and 5.5 months in the lapatinib arm (HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.63-0.93; P = .0059). The PFS rate at 12 months was 28.8% and 14.8%, respectively.

The median OS was 21.0 months in the neratinib arm and 18.7 months in the lapatinib arm (HR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.72-1.07; P = .2086). The ORR was 32.8% and 26.7%, respectively. The median response duration was 8.5 months and 5.6 months, respectively.

Fewer interventions for CNS disease were required in the neratinib arm than in the lapatinib arm (cumulative incidence, 22.8% vs. 29.2%; P = .043). 

The most frequently reported grade 3-4 adverse reactions for the neratinib combination were diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, fatigue, and decreased appetite.

Grade 3 diarrhea occurred in 24.4% of those in the neratinib arm and 12.5% of those in the lapatinib arm. Antidiarrheal medication was used by 98.3% of patients receiving neratinib and 62.1% of patients receiving lapatinib.
 

Margetuximab-cmkb

Margetuximab is a chimeric Fc-engineered anti-HER2 monoclonal antibody that targets the same epitope as trastuzumab and exerts similar antiproliferative effects.

Compared with trastuzumab, margetuximab has higher affinity for both 158V (high-binding) and 158F (low-binding) alleles of the activating Fc receptor, CD16A. As a result, margetuximab enhances innate immunity, including CD16A-mediated antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity, more effectively than trastuzumab. Margetuximab also potentiates adaptive immunity, including enhanced clonality of the T-cell repertoire and induction of HER2-specific T- and B-cell responses.

In December 2020, margetuximab, in combination with chemotherapy, was approved by the FDA for patients with HER2+ MBC after two or more prior anti-HER2 regimens, at least one of which was for metastatic disease. The approved dose is 15 mg/kg IV every 3 weeks.

The study that led to margetuximab’s approval was the phase 3 SOPHIA trial.
 

SOPHIA trial

SOPHIA was a randomized trial of 536 patients with HER2+ MBC who had received prior treatment with other anti-HER2 therapies, including one to three lines of therapy for MBC.

Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive margetuximab plus chemotherapy or trastuzumab plus chemotherapy. Assignment was stratified by chemotherapy choice (capecitabine, eribulin, gemcitabine, or vinorelbine), the number of previous lines of therapy for MBC, and disease extent.

Co–primary outcome measures were PFS by blinded, independent, central review and OS.

At the second interim analysis, the median PFS was 5.8 months in the margetuximab arm and 4.9 months in the trastuzumab arm (HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.59-0.98; P = .033). Results were more impressive in patients with CD16A genotypes containing a 158F allele. In this group, the median PFS was 6.9 months with margetuximab and 5.1 months with trastuzumab (HR, 0.68, 95% CI, 0.52-0.90; P = .005).

At the second interim analysis, the median OS was 21.6 months in the margetuximab arm and 19.8 months in the trastuzumab arm (HR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.69-1.13; P = .33).

Subgroup data showed no differences in OS between the two arms for any subgroup except HER2+ MBC patients with an IHC score of 2 or higher. This is consistent with the postulated mechanism of action of margetuximab.

The confirmed ORR was 25% in the margetuximab arm and 14% in the trastuzumab arm, with similar durations of response between the study arms.

The most common adverse events in both arms (≥20%), regardless of causality, were fatigue, nausea, diarrhea, and neutropenia. Vomiting was common in the margetuximab arm, and anemia was common in the trastuzumab arm.

Grade 3 or higher adverse events occurred in 53.8% of patients receiving margetuximab and 52.6% of those receiving trastuzumab.

In view of margetuximab’s modest benefits in the SOPHIA trial, the ultimate role for margetuximab in HER2+ MBC may be restricted to patients with the CD16A-158F allele. A neoadjuvant trial is planned in that population.
 

Take-home messages

There are legitimate arguments regarding whether curing MBC is within reach for certain patient subsets, but there is no argument about whether the outlook for patients with HER2+ MBC has improved dramatically in recent years; it has.

The approval of four unique, new agents for the treatment of women with HER2+ MBC in relapse provides further improvements in outcome for these patients and distinctly different opportunities for tailoring treatment to the special circumstances of each patient (e.g., whether brain metastases are present, desire for oral therapy, comorbidities, experience with prior chemotherapy, etc).

When considered along with the potential for incorporating these drugs in earlier settings in well-designed clinical trials, these new drugs offer great promise to a group of patients who faced a dismal outcome just 2 decades ago.

Dr. Lyss was a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years before his recent retirement. His clinical and research interests were focused on breast and lung cancers, as well as expanding clinical trial access to medically underserved populations. He is based in St. Louis. He has no conflicts of interest.

Before 2001, HER2/neu-positive breast cancer (HER2+) was one of the most dreaded diagnoses a woman could face, as treatment was largely ineffective. The discovery of trastuzumab changed that dramatically.

Over the next 20 years, two additional HER2-targeted therapies – lapatinib and trastuzumab emtansine (TDM-1) – earned approval from the Food and Drug Administration for selected patients with early and late HER2+ breast cancer.

Since 2019, four additional HER2-targeted therapies have been approved by the FDA for HER2+ metastatic breast cancer (MBC), changing the treatment paradigm for those patients substantially.

The new agents are especially useful in certain patient populations. The agents offer the promise of improved survival for patients with recurrent metastatic disease and the potential for further reductions in relapse rates in earlier settings.
 

Trastuzumab deruxtecan

Trastuzumab deruxtecan is an antibody-drug conjugate that links three components: an anti-HER2 monoclonal antibody, a highly potent topoisomerase I inhibitor payload, and a tetrapeptide-based cleavable linker.

Trastuzumab deruxtecan has a high drug-to-antibody ratio. A membrane-permeable payload offers the potential for activity against adjacent HER2-negative cells in heterogeneous tumors. It has a long half-life (6 days).

Trastuzumab deruxtecan received accelerated approval from the FDA in December 2019 to treat patients with HER2+ MBC who have received two or more prior HER2-targeted regimens, based on the results of the DESTINY-Breast 01 trial.
 

DESTINY-Breast 01 trial

In the phase 2 DESTINY-Breast 01 trial, 184 patients with a median of six previous treatments received trastuzumab deruxtecan (5.4 mg/kg) intravenously every 21 days. There were 24 patients with treated, asymptomatic brain metastases who participated. Patients with untreated or symptomatic brain metastases were excluded.

Overall, a response to therapy was reported in 112 patients (60.9%), with 6.0% complete and 54.9% partial responses. Most of the patients for whom both baseline and postbaseline data were available had a reduction in tumor size.

The median time until response was 1.6 months, an interval that corresponded to the time until the first scheduled imaging. Three patients (1.6%) had progressive disease, and two patients (1.1%) could not be evaluated.

The median duration of follow-up was 11.1 months, and the median response duration was 14.8 months.

The median progression-free survival (PFS) was 16.4 months, and the median overall survival (OS) was not reached. The median PFS in the patients with brain involvement was 18.1 months.

The most common adverse events of grade 3 or higher were a decreased neutrophil count (20.7%), anemia (8.7%), and nausea (7.6%). Most concerning was that trastuzumab deruxtecan was associated with interstitial lung disease in 13.6% of patients.
 

Tucatinib

Tucatinib is an oral, highly selective HER2 tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI). In April 2020, it was approved by the FDA, in combination with trastuzumab and capecitabine, for adult patients with advanced unresectable or metastatic HER2+ breast cancer who have received one or more prior anti-HER2–based regimens for MBC. The approval included patients with brain metastases.

The recommended tucatinib dose is 300 mg orally twice a day in combination with trastuzumab (at the standard dose) and capecitabine (1,000 mg/m² given orally twice daily on days 1-14) on a 21-day cycle, until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.
 

HER2CLIMB trial

The study that led to the approval of tucatinib was the HER2CLIMB trial. The trial enrolled 612 HER2+ MBC patients who had prior treatment with trastuzumab, pertuzumab, and T-DM1. Patients had received a median of 4 (range, 2-17) prior lines of HER2-targeted therapy.

The patients were randomized 2:1 to receive trastuzumab plus capecitabine and either tucatinib or an identical placebo twice daily.

The primary endpoint was PFS, evaluated in the initial 480 randomized patients. The median PFS was 7.8 months in the tucatinib arm and 5.6 months in the control arm (hazard ratio, 0.54; 95% confidence interval, 0.42-0.71; P < .001).

The confirmed overall response rate for patients with measurable disease was 40.6% in the tucatinib arm and 22.8% in the control arm (P = .001). The proportion of patients still in response at 12 months was 33.1% and 12.3%, respectively.

The median OS was 21.9 months in the tucatinib arm and 17.4 months in the placebo arm (HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.50-0.88; P = .005). At 24 months, 44.9% and 26.6% of patients, respectively, were still alive.

The most common grade 3 or higher adverse events (in the tucatinib and placebo arms, respectively) were palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia syndrome (13.1% vs. 9.1%), diarrhea (12.9% vs. 8.6%), elevations in ALT and AST (approximately 5% vs. 0.5% for each), and fatigue (4.7% vs. 4.1%).
 

Tucatinib in patients with brain involvement

A unique feature of the HER2CLIMB study was that patients with MBC and untreated, symptomatic brain metastases were eligible. Patients with active, untreated central nervous system disease are excluded from virtually all other trials, especially drug-approval trials.

There were 291 patients with brain metastases in HER2CLIMB, 198 (48%) in the tucatinib arm and 93 (46%) in the control arm.

The risk of intracranial progression or death was reduced by 68% in the tucatinib arm (HR, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.22 to 0.48; P  < .0001).

The 1-year CNS-PFS rate was 40.2% in the tucatinib arm and 0% in the placebo arm. The median duration of CNS-PFS was 9.9 months and 4.2 months, respectively.

The risk of death was reduced by 42% in the tucatinib arm (HR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.40-0.85; P = .005). The median OS was 18.1 months and 12.0 months, respectively.

There were more objective responses in the brain with tucatinib (47.3%) than with placebo (20.0%; P = .03). The median duration of response was 6.8 months and 3.0 months, respectively.

Particularly because of its CNS activity and lack of serious, long-term toxicity, tucatinib combination therapy represents an attractive new option for patients with HER2+ MBC.
 

Neratinib

Neratinib is an irreversible pan-HER TKI that was approved by the FDA in July 2017 for extended adjuvant therapy in patients with early-stage HER2+ breast cancer, following the use of trastuzumab-based therapy.

Long-term results of the ExteNet study led to the approval for use as extended adjuvant therapy.

In February 2020, neratinib was FDA approved in combination with capecitabine for patients with HER2+ MBC after two or more prior anti-HER2–based regimens. The more recent FDA approval was based on results of the NALA trial.
 

NALA trial

The phase 3 NALA trial included 621 patients with HER2+ MBC who had received at least two prior anti-HER2 based regimens.

Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive neratinib at 240 mg orally once daily on days 1-21 with capecitabine at 750 mg/m² orally twice daily on days 1-14 or lapatinib at 1,250 mg orally once daily on days 1-21 with capecitabine at 1,000 mg/m² orally twice daily on days 1-14 for each 21-day cycle. Patients were treated until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

The primary endpoints were PFS and OS by blinded, independent, central review.

The median PFS was 5.6 months in the neratinib arm and 5.5 months in the lapatinib arm (HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.63-0.93; P = .0059). The PFS rate at 12 months was 28.8% and 14.8%, respectively.

The median OS was 21.0 months in the neratinib arm and 18.7 months in the lapatinib arm (HR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.72-1.07; P = .2086). The ORR was 32.8% and 26.7%, respectively. The median response duration was 8.5 months and 5.6 months, respectively.

Fewer interventions for CNS disease were required in the neratinib arm than in the lapatinib arm (cumulative incidence, 22.8% vs. 29.2%; P = .043). 

The most frequently reported grade 3-4 adverse reactions for the neratinib combination were diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, fatigue, and decreased appetite.

Grade 3 diarrhea occurred in 24.4% of those in the neratinib arm and 12.5% of those in the lapatinib arm. Antidiarrheal medication was used by 98.3% of patients receiving neratinib and 62.1% of patients receiving lapatinib.
 

Margetuximab-cmkb

Margetuximab is a chimeric Fc-engineered anti-HER2 monoclonal antibody that targets the same epitope as trastuzumab and exerts similar antiproliferative effects.

Compared with trastuzumab, margetuximab has higher affinity for both 158V (high-binding) and 158F (low-binding) alleles of the activating Fc receptor, CD16A. As a result, margetuximab enhances innate immunity, including CD16A-mediated antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity, more effectively than trastuzumab. Margetuximab also potentiates adaptive immunity, including enhanced clonality of the T-cell repertoire and induction of HER2-specific T- and B-cell responses.

In December 2020, margetuximab, in combination with chemotherapy, was approved by the FDA for patients with HER2+ MBC after two or more prior anti-HER2 regimens, at least one of which was for metastatic disease. The approved dose is 15 mg/kg IV every 3 weeks.

The study that led to margetuximab’s approval was the phase 3 SOPHIA trial.
 

SOPHIA trial

SOPHIA was a randomized trial of 536 patients with HER2+ MBC who had received prior treatment with other anti-HER2 therapies, including one to three lines of therapy for MBC.

Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive margetuximab plus chemotherapy or trastuzumab plus chemotherapy. Assignment was stratified by chemotherapy choice (capecitabine, eribulin, gemcitabine, or vinorelbine), the number of previous lines of therapy for MBC, and disease extent.

Co–primary outcome measures were PFS by blinded, independent, central review and OS.

At the second interim analysis, the median PFS was 5.8 months in the margetuximab arm and 4.9 months in the trastuzumab arm (HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.59-0.98; P = .033). Results were more impressive in patients with CD16A genotypes containing a 158F allele. In this group, the median PFS was 6.9 months with margetuximab and 5.1 months with trastuzumab (HR, 0.68, 95% CI, 0.52-0.90; P = .005).

At the second interim analysis, the median OS was 21.6 months in the margetuximab arm and 19.8 months in the trastuzumab arm (HR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.69-1.13; P = .33).

Subgroup data showed no differences in OS between the two arms for any subgroup except HER2+ MBC patients with an IHC score of 2 or higher. This is consistent with the postulated mechanism of action of margetuximab.

The confirmed ORR was 25% in the margetuximab arm and 14% in the trastuzumab arm, with similar durations of response between the study arms.

The most common adverse events in both arms (≥20%), regardless of causality, were fatigue, nausea, diarrhea, and neutropenia. Vomiting was common in the margetuximab arm, and anemia was common in the trastuzumab arm.

Grade 3 or higher adverse events occurred in 53.8% of patients receiving margetuximab and 52.6% of those receiving trastuzumab.

In view of margetuximab’s modest benefits in the SOPHIA trial, the ultimate role for margetuximab in HER2+ MBC may be restricted to patients with the CD16A-158F allele. A neoadjuvant trial is planned in that population.
 

Take-home messages

There are legitimate arguments regarding whether curing MBC is within reach for certain patient subsets, but there is no argument about whether the outlook for patients with HER2+ MBC has improved dramatically in recent years; it has.

The approval of four unique, new agents for the treatment of women with HER2+ MBC in relapse provides further improvements in outcome for these patients and distinctly different opportunities for tailoring treatment to the special circumstances of each patient (e.g., whether brain metastases are present, desire for oral therapy, comorbidities, experience with prior chemotherapy, etc).

When considered along with the potential for incorporating these drugs in earlier settings in well-designed clinical trials, these new drugs offer great promise to a group of patients who faced a dismal outcome just 2 decades ago.

Dr. Lyss was a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years before his recent retirement. His clinical and research interests were focused on breast and lung cancers, as well as expanding clinical trial access to medically underserved populations. He is based in St. Louis. He has no conflicts of interest.

Federal Practitioner Supplement: Advances in Hematology and Oncology

• Impact of an Oral Antineoplastic Renewal Clinic
• Implementing Comprehensive Geriatric Assessments for Oncology Patients
• Radiation Toxicity and Survival in Patients with Presumed Early-Stage NCSLC
• Screening High-Risk Women Veterans for Breast Cancer
• Standardizing the Discharge Process for Inpatient Hem/Onc
• Massive Retroperitoneal Liposarcoma Masquerading as Meralgia Paresthetica
• Delayed Coronary Vasospasm in Metastatic Gastric Cancer

THIS ISSUE WAS PRODUCED IN COLLABORATION WITH AVAHO

Federal Practitioner Supplement: Advances in Hematology and Oncology

• Impact of an Oral Antineoplastic Renewal Clinic
• Implementing Comprehensive Geriatric Assessments for Oncology Patients
• Radiation Toxicity and Survival in Patients with Presumed Early-Stage NCSLC
• Screening High-Risk Women Veterans for Breast Cancer
• Standardizing the Discharge Process for Inpatient Hem/Onc
• Massive Retroperitoneal Liposarcoma Masquerading as Meralgia Paresthetica
• Delayed Coronary Vasospasm in Metastatic Gastric Cancer

THIS ISSUE WAS PRODUCED IN COLLABORATION WITH AVAHO

Federal Practitioner Supplement: Advances in Hematology and Oncology

• Impact of an Oral Antineoplastic Renewal Clinic
• Implementing Comprehensive Geriatric Assessments for Oncology Patients
• Radiation Toxicity and Survival in Patients with Presumed Early-Stage NCSLC
• Screening High-Risk Women Veterans for Breast Cancer
• Standardizing the Discharge Process for Inpatient Hem/Onc
• Massive Retroperitoneal Liposarcoma Masquerading as Meralgia Paresthetica
• Delayed Coronary Vasospasm in Metastatic Gastric Cancer

THIS ISSUE WAS PRODUCED IN COLLABORATION WITH AVAHO