AVAHO

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

As bleeding disorders are increasingly recognized as a national health priority, hematologists are focusing on how the patient-centered medical home – a widely accepted concept in primary care and in some specialties – can improve outcomes and quality life for their patients.

Courtesy of Dr. Shapiro

The patient-centered medical home is a model of health care delivery in which patients receive comprehensive, accessible care that is fully integrated across all providers and elements of a healthcare system.¹ The concept emerged in the 1960s among pediatricians seeking to better coordinate care for children with complex medical needs. Since then, the patient-centered medical home has become a globally recognized standard – not only in primary care, but also in specialties such as endocrinology, oncology, and geriatric medicine. The movement to establish medical homes for patients with bleeding disorders is more recent and is receiving national attention.

Why a medical home?

The advent of prophylactic therapies for bleeding disorders has vastly improved the outlook for many patients compared to just a few decades ago. However, treatment options remain limited, and patients who have severe disease or complications – such as an inadequate treatment response or the development of inhibitory antibodies to replacement clotting factors – are at risk for recurrent breakthrough bleeding that can lead to synovitis and ultimately culminate in progressive, irreversible joint damage. The resulting pain and limitation of motion greatly compromises patients’ quality of life across physical, psychological, and social domains, undermines their ability to live and work independently, and greatly increases treatment costs.^2-4 Family members, too, face high stress and lower quality of life when they struggle to obtain and manage treatment while caring for loved ones with bleeding disorders.⁵

For patients with bleeding disorders, a patient-centered medical home can help address or surmount these challenges, said Amy Shapiro, MD, medical director of the Indiana Hemophilia and Thrombosis Center in Indianapolis, Ind., which was the first hemophilia treatment center in the country to be formally certified as a medical home.

Dr. Shapiro explained that a patient-centered medical home leverages the care of an integrated multidisciplinary team to help optimize therapies and patient outcomes across all domains of life. She sees the medical home concept as a natural fit for patients with bleeding disorders, given the complexity of their needs and the number of specialties involved. “When you have hemophilia, you don’t just need a hematologist to manage your care. You need nurses, physical therapists, and social workers. You need coordinated care for genetic counseling. You also need to coordinate dental hygiene and surgical interventions, if these are required. Patients need nutrition counseling, and they may need assistance with education or career options if too many days are missed from work or school. Patients or their families may need counseling on choosing the right insurance program so they don’t choose a plan that may create more hardships for them because of their chronic disorder.”

Meeting these needs requires the help of an integrated care team, which many individuals with bleeding disorders lack. “If you are just out there in the community and you have medical issues that need to be dealt with, often the individuals themselves have to coordinate their own care, including their medications and their appointments with different specialists,” said Dr. Shapiro. “For example, a care provider may tell a patient that they need a physical therapist and give them some names, and then the patient has to take it from there and not only find the provider, but also determine if their insurance provides coverage.”

A medical home takes a completely different approach, she explained. “At my center, when we say you need a physical therapist, we have a physical therapist on staff. Our therapist provides an assessment and determines the need for ongoing PT and whether that can be done at home with a plan and intermittent oversight, or whether the patient needs a referral, and whether the person the patient is referred to needs education on how to provide PT for someone with hemophilia. A medical home provides all this in one place. It is a place where patients know they will receive either direct services, or support to shepherd their care and outcomes, and oversight of that support as well.”

Few studies have directly assessed the medical home model in the setting of bleeding disorders, but a number have evaluated the impact of integrated care, a more general term for the practice of coordinating multidisciplinary care to improve access and outcomes while eliminating redundancies and unnecessary costs. In a recent systematic review and meta-analysis of 27 nonrandomized studies of patients with hemophilia, integrated care was linked to lower mortality, fewer emergency room visits and hospitalizations, shorter lengths of stay in the hospital, and fewer missed days of school and work.⁶ Such findings, combined with promising outcomes data from studies of patient-centered medical homes in other disease settings, suggest that the patient-centered medical home can significantly benefit patients with bleeding disorders and their families and caregivers.
 

Creating a medical home

Establishing a patient-centered medical home can be challenging, involving a plethora of stakeholders and a considerable investment of time, energy, and resources. Organizations such as the National Committee for Quality Assurance and the Accreditation Association for Ambulatory Health Care have formal certification programs to help ensure that an inpatient or outpatient center that calls itself a medical home truly is one.^7-8

The certification process requires centers to document activities in areas such as patients’ rights and responsibilities, administration and governance, patient and care team relationships, clinical records and other health information, and quality, comprehensiveness, continuity, and accessibility.⁷ Achieving certification is rigorous, often requiring centers to document compliance with more than 100 policies, procedures, and standards.

For the Indiana Hemophilia and Thrombosis Center, becoming certified as a medical home “was a multiyear process and an ongoing process,” said Dr. Shapiro. “It involves documentation of quality improvement initiatives, obtaining input from patients to document their satisfaction, and looking at all types of systems within our center and how we integrate care so that all those systems function together. It’s a difficult process, but treatment centers are a medical home for patients with bleeding disorders, and this is an effort to provide some documentation on a national level of how we’re doing everything that we are doing.”

She noted that the process of obtaining medical home certification may require an even higher level of commitment if a bleeding disorder (hemophilia) treatment center is embedded in a university or academic medical center. In this case, more stakeholders are involved, and more hoops may need to be jumped through to implement processes that meet medical home standards while still adhering to any requirements at the organizational level.

Certification programs for patient-centered medical homes are not designed around specific disorders or diseases, but a closer look at their compliance metrics underscores how medical homes can benefit patients with bleeding disorders. For example, to receive medical home certification from the Accreditation Association for Ambulatory Health Care, a center needs to be able to document that patients’ care is not transferred without first making arrangements with a receiving health care provider, that the quality improvement programs are peer-led, and that these programs assess and address diverse measures of clinical performance, cost-effectiveness, and administrative functioning.^7-9

Medical homes, the NHPCC, and Healthy People 2030

Creating patient-centered medical homes for patients with bleeding disorders is now a quality improvement objective of the National Hemophilia Program Coordinating Center, or NHPCC. Established in 2012 and funded by the federal Health Resources and Services Administration, the NHPCC partners with the eight regional hemophilia networks and more than 140 federally funded hemophilia treatment centers across the United States to identify gaps, standardize and improve access to care, and share and promote best practices for the treatment and management of blood disorders.¹⁰

In the United States, receiving care in a hemophilia treatment center (which, despite its name, typically offers care for other disorders such as von Willebrand disease) has been linked to lower mortality and fewer hospitalizations related to bleeding complications.¹¹ To continue to improve on these outcomes, the NHPCC, regional networks, and hemophilia treatment centers are prioritizing medical homes and ranking their establishments alongside core objectives such as bettering patient and family engagement and improving the transition from pediatric to adult care.¹²

As part of this quality improvement work, the NHPCC, regional leadership, and hemophilia treatment centers meet regularly to identify needs and priorities, plan programs, and ensure that each center is meeting the goals and objectives set out by its federal grant.¹³ Such partnerships help improve and integrate care within a coordinated national framework, Dr. Shapiro said. “We all are charged with this same mission,” she added. “That doesn’t mean that every treatment center looks exactly the same, has the same number of staff, or does everything the same way, but we all have the same mission, and we know what that is. That is the work of the NHPCC, to determine and document that and help level and improve care throughout the country.”

The NHPCC also engages other stakeholders, including consumer agencies and professional organizations. Recent achievements have included a first-ever national patient needs assessment, a tandem technical needs assessment of hemophilia treatment centers, an educational outreach program for genetic counselors, a webinar on transitioning care for adolescents, a national survey of the federal 340B Drug Pricing Program, and a survey of minority patients to identify and characterize problems such as language and insurance barriers, the lack of culturally appropriate educational materials on blood disorders, and difficulties getting transportation to treatment centers or educational programs.¹⁴

In part because of this advocacy work, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services recently included hemophilia for the first time in Healthy People, its evidence-based set of decade-long objectives aimed at improving the health of all Americans. In Healthy People 2030, the specific objective for hemophilia is to reduce the proportion of patients with severe disease who experience more than four joint bleeds per year to 13.3% (the current estimate is 16.9%).¹⁵

For Healthy People to prioritize hemophilia for the first time alongside much more common conditions such as diabetes and heart disease reflects the challenges of managing bleeding disorders and the efforts by the NHPCC and other stakeholders to raise awareness about current needs. To track progress in meeting the Healthy People 2030 objective, the NHPCC will work with federal partners to analyze patient-level data gathered through the Centers for Disease Control’s Community Counts Registry for Bleeding Disorders Surveillance program, which collects data from hemophilia treatment centers across the United States and includes patients with all levels of disease severity.

“The inclusion of bleeding disorders in Healthy People 2030 is really very significant,” said Dr. Shapiro. “These are disorders that affect less than 200,000 Americans, which is the definition of a rare disease in this context. To have hemophilia considered as a national priority is very important, not only for hemophilia, but also for other rare diseases that may in the future also be considered as being as of national importance in this way.”
 

References

1. Rodriguez-Saldana J. 2019. The Patient-Centered Medical Home, Primary Care, and Diabetes. In: Rodriguez-Saldana J. (eds) The Diabetes Textbook. Springer, Cham.

2. J Comorb. 2011;1:51-59.

3. Eur J Haematol. 2018 Apr;100 Suppl 1:5-13.

4. Blood. 2003;102(7):2358-63.

5. Haemophilia. 2014 Jul;20(4):541-9.

6. Haemophilia. 2016;22(Suppl 3):31-40.

7. AAAHC. Medical Home.

8. NCQA. Patient-centered medical home (PCMH).

9. AAAHC, 2013. Medical Home On-Site Certification Handbook.

10. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. HTC Population Profile.

11. Blood Transfus. 2014;12 Suppl 3(Suppl 3):e542-e548.

12. American Thrombosis and Hemostasis Network.

13. The Great Lakes Regional Hemophilia Network.

14. American Thrombosis and Hemostasis Network. What the NHPCC does.

15. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Healthy People 2030: Blood Disorders.

As bleeding disorders are increasingly recognized as a national health priority, hematologists are focusing on how the patient-centered medical home – a widely accepted concept in primary care and in some specialties – can improve outcomes and quality life for their patients.

Courtesy of Dr. Shapiro

The patient-centered medical home is a model of health care delivery in which patients receive comprehensive, accessible care that is fully integrated across all providers and elements of a healthcare system.¹ The concept emerged in the 1960s among pediatricians seeking to better coordinate care for children with complex medical needs. Since then, the patient-centered medical home has become a globally recognized standard – not only in primary care, but also in specialties such as endocrinology, oncology, and geriatric medicine. The movement to establish medical homes for patients with bleeding disorders is more recent and is receiving national attention.

Why a medical home?

The advent of prophylactic therapies for bleeding disorders has vastly improved the outlook for many patients compared to just a few decades ago. However, treatment options remain limited, and patients who have severe disease or complications – such as an inadequate treatment response or the development of inhibitory antibodies to replacement clotting factors – are at risk for recurrent breakthrough bleeding that can lead to synovitis and ultimately culminate in progressive, irreversible joint damage. The resulting pain and limitation of motion greatly compromises patients’ quality of life across physical, psychological, and social domains, undermines their ability to live and work independently, and greatly increases treatment costs.^2-4 Family members, too, face high stress and lower quality of life when they struggle to obtain and manage treatment while caring for loved ones with bleeding disorders.⁵

For patients with bleeding disorders, a patient-centered medical home can help address or surmount these challenges, said Amy Shapiro, MD, medical director of the Indiana Hemophilia and Thrombosis Center in Indianapolis, Ind., which was the first hemophilia treatment center in the country to be formally certified as a medical home.

Dr. Shapiro explained that a patient-centered medical home leverages the care of an integrated multidisciplinary team to help optimize therapies and patient outcomes across all domains of life. She sees the medical home concept as a natural fit for patients with bleeding disorders, given the complexity of their needs and the number of specialties involved. “When you have hemophilia, you don’t just need a hematologist to manage your care. You need nurses, physical therapists, and social workers. You need coordinated care for genetic counseling. You also need to coordinate dental hygiene and surgical interventions, if these are required. Patients need nutrition counseling, and they may need assistance with education or career options if too many days are missed from work or school. Patients or their families may need counseling on choosing the right insurance program so they don’t choose a plan that may create more hardships for them because of their chronic disorder.”

Meeting these needs requires the help of an integrated care team, which many individuals with bleeding disorders lack. “If you are just out there in the community and you have medical issues that need to be dealt with, often the individuals themselves have to coordinate their own care, including their medications and their appointments with different specialists,” said Dr. Shapiro. “For example, a care provider may tell a patient that they need a physical therapist and give them some names, and then the patient has to take it from there and not only find the provider, but also determine if their insurance provides coverage.”

A medical home takes a completely different approach, she explained. “At my center, when we say you need a physical therapist, we have a physical therapist on staff. Our therapist provides an assessment and determines the need for ongoing PT and whether that can be done at home with a plan and intermittent oversight, or whether the patient needs a referral, and whether the person the patient is referred to needs education on how to provide PT for someone with hemophilia. A medical home provides all this in one place. It is a place where patients know they will receive either direct services, or support to shepherd their care and outcomes, and oversight of that support as well.”

Few studies have directly assessed the medical home model in the setting of bleeding disorders, but a number have evaluated the impact of integrated care, a more general term for the practice of coordinating multidisciplinary care to improve access and outcomes while eliminating redundancies and unnecessary costs. In a recent systematic review and meta-analysis of 27 nonrandomized studies of patients with hemophilia, integrated care was linked to lower mortality, fewer emergency room visits and hospitalizations, shorter lengths of stay in the hospital, and fewer missed days of school and work.⁶ Such findings, combined with promising outcomes data from studies of patient-centered medical homes in other disease settings, suggest that the patient-centered medical home can significantly benefit patients with bleeding disorders and their families and caregivers.
 

Creating a medical home

Establishing a patient-centered medical home can be challenging, involving a plethora of stakeholders and a considerable investment of time, energy, and resources. Organizations such as the National Committee for Quality Assurance and the Accreditation Association for Ambulatory Health Care have formal certification programs to help ensure that an inpatient or outpatient center that calls itself a medical home truly is one.^7-8

The certification process requires centers to document activities in areas such as patients’ rights and responsibilities, administration and governance, patient and care team relationships, clinical records and other health information, and quality, comprehensiveness, continuity, and accessibility.⁷ Achieving certification is rigorous, often requiring centers to document compliance with more than 100 policies, procedures, and standards.

For the Indiana Hemophilia and Thrombosis Center, becoming certified as a medical home “was a multiyear process and an ongoing process,” said Dr. Shapiro. “It involves documentation of quality improvement initiatives, obtaining input from patients to document their satisfaction, and looking at all types of systems within our center and how we integrate care so that all those systems function together. It’s a difficult process, but treatment centers are a medical home for patients with bleeding disorders, and this is an effort to provide some documentation on a national level of how we’re doing everything that we are doing.”

She noted that the process of obtaining medical home certification may require an even higher level of commitment if a bleeding disorder (hemophilia) treatment center is embedded in a university or academic medical center. In this case, more stakeholders are involved, and more hoops may need to be jumped through to implement processes that meet medical home standards while still adhering to any requirements at the organizational level.

Certification programs for patient-centered medical homes are not designed around specific disorders or diseases, but a closer look at their compliance metrics underscores how medical homes can benefit patients with bleeding disorders. For example, to receive medical home certification from the Accreditation Association for Ambulatory Health Care, a center needs to be able to document that patients’ care is not transferred without first making arrangements with a receiving health care provider, that the quality improvement programs are peer-led, and that these programs assess and address diverse measures of clinical performance, cost-effectiveness, and administrative functioning.^7-9

Medical homes, the NHPCC, and Healthy People 2030

Creating patient-centered medical homes for patients with bleeding disorders is now a quality improvement objective of the National Hemophilia Program Coordinating Center, or NHPCC. Established in 2012 and funded by the federal Health Resources and Services Administration, the NHPCC partners with the eight regional hemophilia networks and more than 140 federally funded hemophilia treatment centers across the United States to identify gaps, standardize and improve access to care, and share and promote best practices for the treatment and management of blood disorders.¹⁰

In the United States, receiving care in a hemophilia treatment center (which, despite its name, typically offers care for other disorders such as von Willebrand disease) has been linked to lower mortality and fewer hospitalizations related to bleeding complications.¹¹ To continue to improve on these outcomes, the NHPCC, regional networks, and hemophilia treatment centers are prioritizing medical homes and ranking their establishments alongside core objectives such as bettering patient and family engagement and improving the transition from pediatric to adult care.¹²

As part of this quality improvement work, the NHPCC, regional leadership, and hemophilia treatment centers meet regularly to identify needs and priorities, plan programs, and ensure that each center is meeting the goals and objectives set out by its federal grant.¹³ Such partnerships help improve and integrate care within a coordinated national framework, Dr. Shapiro said. “We all are charged with this same mission,” she added. “That doesn’t mean that every treatment center looks exactly the same, has the same number of staff, or does everything the same way, but we all have the same mission, and we know what that is. That is the work of the NHPCC, to determine and document that and help level and improve care throughout the country.”

The NHPCC also engages other stakeholders, including consumer agencies and professional organizations. Recent achievements have included a first-ever national patient needs assessment, a tandem technical needs assessment of hemophilia treatment centers, an educational outreach program for genetic counselors, a webinar on transitioning care for adolescents, a national survey of the federal 340B Drug Pricing Program, and a survey of minority patients to identify and characterize problems such as language and insurance barriers, the lack of culturally appropriate educational materials on blood disorders, and difficulties getting transportation to treatment centers or educational programs.¹⁴

In part because of this advocacy work, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services recently included hemophilia for the first time in Healthy People, its evidence-based set of decade-long objectives aimed at improving the health of all Americans. In Healthy People 2030, the specific objective for hemophilia is to reduce the proportion of patients with severe disease who experience more than four joint bleeds per year to 13.3% (the current estimate is 16.9%).¹⁵

For Healthy People to prioritize hemophilia for the first time alongside much more common conditions such as diabetes and heart disease reflects the challenges of managing bleeding disorders and the efforts by the NHPCC and other stakeholders to raise awareness about current needs. To track progress in meeting the Healthy People 2030 objective, the NHPCC will work with federal partners to analyze patient-level data gathered through the Centers for Disease Control’s Community Counts Registry for Bleeding Disorders Surveillance program, which collects data from hemophilia treatment centers across the United States and includes patients with all levels of disease severity.

“The inclusion of bleeding disorders in Healthy People 2030 is really very significant,” said Dr. Shapiro. “These are disorders that affect less than 200,000 Americans, which is the definition of a rare disease in this context. To have hemophilia considered as a national priority is very important, not only for hemophilia, but also for other rare diseases that may in the future also be considered as being as of national importance in this way.”
 

References

1. Rodriguez-Saldana J. 2019. The Patient-Centered Medical Home, Primary Care, and Diabetes. In: Rodriguez-Saldana J. (eds) The Diabetes Textbook. Springer, Cham.

2. J Comorb. 2011;1:51-59.

3. Eur J Haematol. 2018 Apr;100 Suppl 1:5-13.

4. Blood. 2003;102(7):2358-63.

5. Haemophilia. 2014 Jul;20(4):541-9.

6. Haemophilia. 2016;22(Suppl 3):31-40.

7. AAAHC. Medical Home.

8. NCQA. Patient-centered medical home (PCMH).

9. AAAHC, 2013. Medical Home On-Site Certification Handbook.

10. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. HTC Population Profile.

11. Blood Transfus. 2014;12 Suppl 3(Suppl 3):e542-e548.

12. American Thrombosis and Hemostasis Network.

13. The Great Lakes Regional Hemophilia Network.

14. American Thrombosis and Hemostasis Network. What the NHPCC does.

15. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Healthy People 2030: Blood Disorders.

As bleeding disorders are increasingly recognized as a national health priority, hematologists are focusing on how the patient-centered medical home – a widely accepted concept in primary care and in some specialties – can improve outcomes and quality life for their patients.

Courtesy of Dr. Shapiro

The patient-centered medical home is a model of health care delivery in which patients receive comprehensive, accessible care that is fully integrated across all providers and elements of a healthcare system.¹ The concept emerged in the 1960s among pediatricians seeking to better coordinate care for children with complex medical needs. Since then, the patient-centered medical home has become a globally recognized standard – not only in primary care, but also in specialties such as endocrinology, oncology, and geriatric medicine. The movement to establish medical homes for patients with bleeding disorders is more recent and is receiving national attention.

Why a medical home?

The advent of prophylactic therapies for bleeding disorders has vastly improved the outlook for many patients compared to just a few decades ago. However, treatment options remain limited, and patients who have severe disease or complications – such as an inadequate treatment response or the development of inhibitory antibodies to replacement clotting factors – are at risk for recurrent breakthrough bleeding that can lead to synovitis and ultimately culminate in progressive, irreversible joint damage. The resulting pain and limitation of motion greatly compromises patients’ quality of life across physical, psychological, and social domains, undermines their ability to live and work independently, and greatly increases treatment costs.^2-4 Family members, too, face high stress and lower quality of life when they struggle to obtain and manage treatment while caring for loved ones with bleeding disorders.⁵

For patients with bleeding disorders, a patient-centered medical home can help address or surmount these challenges, said Amy Shapiro, MD, medical director of the Indiana Hemophilia and Thrombosis Center in Indianapolis, Ind., which was the first hemophilia treatment center in the country to be formally certified as a medical home.

Dr. Shapiro explained that a patient-centered medical home leverages the care of an integrated multidisciplinary team to help optimize therapies and patient outcomes across all domains of life. She sees the medical home concept as a natural fit for patients with bleeding disorders, given the complexity of their needs and the number of specialties involved. “When you have hemophilia, you don’t just need a hematologist to manage your care. You need nurses, physical therapists, and social workers. You need coordinated care for genetic counseling. You also need to coordinate dental hygiene and surgical interventions, if these are required. Patients need nutrition counseling, and they may need assistance with education or career options if too many days are missed from work or school. Patients or their families may need counseling on choosing the right insurance program so they don’t choose a plan that may create more hardships for them because of their chronic disorder.”

Meeting these needs requires the help of an integrated care team, which many individuals with bleeding disorders lack. “If you are just out there in the community and you have medical issues that need to be dealt with, often the individuals themselves have to coordinate their own care, including their medications and their appointments with different specialists,” said Dr. Shapiro. “For example, a care provider may tell a patient that they need a physical therapist and give them some names, and then the patient has to take it from there and not only find the provider, but also determine if their insurance provides coverage.”

A medical home takes a completely different approach, she explained. “At my center, when we say you need a physical therapist, we have a physical therapist on staff. Our therapist provides an assessment and determines the need for ongoing PT and whether that can be done at home with a plan and intermittent oversight, or whether the patient needs a referral, and whether the person the patient is referred to needs education on how to provide PT for someone with hemophilia. A medical home provides all this in one place. It is a place where patients know they will receive either direct services, or support to shepherd their care and outcomes, and oversight of that support as well.”

Few studies have directly assessed the medical home model in the setting of bleeding disorders, but a number have evaluated the impact of integrated care, a more general term for the practice of coordinating multidisciplinary care to improve access and outcomes while eliminating redundancies and unnecessary costs. In a recent systematic review and meta-analysis of 27 nonrandomized studies of patients with hemophilia, integrated care was linked to lower mortality, fewer emergency room visits and hospitalizations, shorter lengths of stay in the hospital, and fewer missed days of school and work.⁶ Such findings, combined with promising outcomes data from studies of patient-centered medical homes in other disease settings, suggest that the patient-centered medical home can significantly benefit patients with bleeding disorders and their families and caregivers.
 

Creating a medical home

Establishing a patient-centered medical home can be challenging, involving a plethora of stakeholders and a considerable investment of time, energy, and resources. Organizations such as the National Committee for Quality Assurance and the Accreditation Association for Ambulatory Health Care have formal certification programs to help ensure that an inpatient or outpatient center that calls itself a medical home truly is one.^7-8

The certification process requires centers to document activities in areas such as patients’ rights and responsibilities, administration and governance, patient and care team relationships, clinical records and other health information, and quality, comprehensiveness, continuity, and accessibility.⁷ Achieving certification is rigorous, often requiring centers to document compliance with more than 100 policies, procedures, and standards.

For the Indiana Hemophilia and Thrombosis Center, becoming certified as a medical home “was a multiyear process and an ongoing process,” said Dr. Shapiro. “It involves documentation of quality improvement initiatives, obtaining input from patients to document their satisfaction, and looking at all types of systems within our center and how we integrate care so that all those systems function together. It’s a difficult process, but treatment centers are a medical home for patients with bleeding disorders, and this is an effort to provide some documentation on a national level of how we’re doing everything that we are doing.”

She noted that the process of obtaining medical home certification may require an even higher level of commitment if a bleeding disorder (hemophilia) treatment center is embedded in a university or academic medical center. In this case, more stakeholders are involved, and more hoops may need to be jumped through to implement processes that meet medical home standards while still adhering to any requirements at the organizational level.

Certification programs for patient-centered medical homes are not designed around specific disorders or diseases, but a closer look at their compliance metrics underscores how medical homes can benefit patients with bleeding disorders. For example, to receive medical home certification from the Accreditation Association for Ambulatory Health Care, a center needs to be able to document that patients’ care is not transferred without first making arrangements with a receiving health care provider, that the quality improvement programs are peer-led, and that these programs assess and address diverse measures of clinical performance, cost-effectiveness, and administrative functioning.^7-9

Medical homes, the NHPCC, and Healthy People 2030

Creating patient-centered medical homes for patients with bleeding disorders is now a quality improvement objective of the National Hemophilia Program Coordinating Center, or NHPCC. Established in 2012 and funded by the federal Health Resources and Services Administration, the NHPCC partners with the eight regional hemophilia networks and more than 140 federally funded hemophilia treatment centers across the United States to identify gaps, standardize and improve access to care, and share and promote best practices for the treatment and management of blood disorders.¹⁰

In the United States, receiving care in a hemophilia treatment center (which, despite its name, typically offers care for other disorders such as von Willebrand disease) has been linked to lower mortality and fewer hospitalizations related to bleeding complications.¹¹ To continue to improve on these outcomes, the NHPCC, regional networks, and hemophilia treatment centers are prioritizing medical homes and ranking their establishments alongside core objectives such as bettering patient and family engagement and improving the transition from pediatric to adult care.¹²

As part of this quality improvement work, the NHPCC, regional leadership, and hemophilia treatment centers meet regularly to identify needs and priorities, plan programs, and ensure that each center is meeting the goals and objectives set out by its federal grant.¹³ Such partnerships help improve and integrate care within a coordinated national framework, Dr. Shapiro said. “We all are charged with this same mission,” she added. “That doesn’t mean that every treatment center looks exactly the same, has the same number of staff, or does everything the same way, but we all have the same mission, and we know what that is. That is the work of the NHPCC, to determine and document that and help level and improve care throughout the country.”

The NHPCC also engages other stakeholders, including consumer agencies and professional organizations. Recent achievements have included a first-ever national patient needs assessment, a tandem technical needs assessment of hemophilia treatment centers, an educational outreach program for genetic counselors, a webinar on transitioning care for adolescents, a national survey of the federal 340B Drug Pricing Program, and a survey of minority patients to identify and characterize problems such as language and insurance barriers, the lack of culturally appropriate educational materials on blood disorders, and difficulties getting transportation to treatment centers or educational programs.¹⁴

In part because of this advocacy work, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services recently included hemophilia for the first time in Healthy People, its evidence-based set of decade-long objectives aimed at improving the health of all Americans. In Healthy People 2030, the specific objective for hemophilia is to reduce the proportion of patients with severe disease who experience more than four joint bleeds per year to 13.3% (the current estimate is 16.9%).¹⁵

For Healthy People to prioritize hemophilia for the first time alongside much more common conditions such as diabetes and heart disease reflects the challenges of managing bleeding disorders and the efforts by the NHPCC and other stakeholders to raise awareness about current needs. To track progress in meeting the Healthy People 2030 objective, the NHPCC will work with federal partners to analyze patient-level data gathered through the Centers for Disease Control’s Community Counts Registry for Bleeding Disorders Surveillance program, which collects data from hemophilia treatment centers across the United States and includes patients with all levels of disease severity.

“The inclusion of bleeding disorders in Healthy People 2030 is really very significant,” said Dr. Shapiro. “These are disorders that affect less than 200,000 Americans, which is the definition of a rare disease in this context. To have hemophilia considered as a national priority is very important, not only for hemophilia, but also for other rare diseases that may in the future also be considered as being as of national importance in this way.”
 

References

1. Rodriguez-Saldana J. 2019. The Patient-Centered Medical Home, Primary Care, and Diabetes. In: Rodriguez-Saldana J. (eds) The Diabetes Textbook. Springer, Cham.

2. J Comorb. 2011;1:51-59.

3. Eur J Haematol. 2018 Apr;100 Suppl 1:5-13.

4. Blood. 2003;102(7):2358-63.

5. Haemophilia. 2014 Jul;20(4):541-9.

6. Haemophilia. 2016;22(Suppl 3):31-40.

7. AAAHC. Medical Home.

8. NCQA. Patient-centered medical home (PCMH).

9. AAAHC, 2013. Medical Home On-Site Certification Handbook.

10. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. HTC Population Profile.

11. Blood Transfus. 2014;12 Suppl 3(Suppl 3):e542-e548.

12. American Thrombosis and Hemostasis Network.

13. The Great Lakes Regional Hemophilia Network.

14. American Thrombosis and Hemostasis Network. What the NHPCC does.

15. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Healthy People 2030: Blood Disorders.

A rare, life-threatening anemia now has a new treatment option. The Food and Drug Administration announced the approval of pegcetacoplan (Empaveli) injection to treat adults with paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria (PNH). Pegcetacoplan is the first PNH treatment that binds to complement protein C3, according to the FDA announcement. Complement protein C3 is a key component of host immunity and defense.

Special concern

Because of the risk of severe side effects, the drug is available only through a restricted program under a risk evaluation and mitigation strategy (REMS). Serious infections can occur in patients taking pegcetacoplan that can become life-threatening or fatal if not treated early. According to the FDA, REMS are designed to reinforce medication use behaviors and actions that support the safe use of that medication, and only a few drugs require a REMS.

The most common other side effects are injection site reactions, diarrhea, abdominal pain, and fatigue.

Pegcetacoplan was approved based upon a study of 80 patients with PNH and anemia who had been taking eculizumab, a previously approved treatment. During 16 weeks of treatment, patients in the pegcetacoplan group had an average increase in their hemoglobin of 2.4 g/dL, while patients in the eculizumab group had an average decrease in their hemoglobin of 1.5 g/dL.
 

About the disease

PNH is caused by gene mutations that affect red blood cells, causing them to be defective and susceptible to destruction by a patient’s own immune system. Red blood cells in people with these mutations are defective and can be destroyed by the immune system, causing anemia.

Other symptoms include blood clots and destruction of bone marrow. The disease affects 1-1.5 people per million, with diagnosis typically occurring around ages 35-40, and a median survival of only 10 years after diagnosis, according to the FDA.

[email protected]

A rare, life-threatening anemia now has a new treatment option. The Food and Drug Administration announced the approval of pegcetacoplan (Empaveli) injection to treat adults with paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria (PNH). Pegcetacoplan is the first PNH treatment that binds to complement protein C3, according to the FDA announcement. Complement protein C3 is a key component of host immunity and defense.

Special concern

Because of the risk of severe side effects, the drug is available only through a restricted program under a risk evaluation and mitigation strategy (REMS). Serious infections can occur in patients taking pegcetacoplan that can become life-threatening or fatal if not treated early. According to the FDA, REMS are designed to reinforce medication use behaviors and actions that support the safe use of that medication, and only a few drugs require a REMS.

The most common other side effects are injection site reactions, diarrhea, abdominal pain, and fatigue.

Pegcetacoplan was approved based upon a study of 80 patients with PNH and anemia who had been taking eculizumab, a previously approved treatment. During 16 weeks of treatment, patients in the pegcetacoplan group had an average increase in their hemoglobin of 2.4 g/dL, while patients in the eculizumab group had an average decrease in their hemoglobin of 1.5 g/dL.
 

About the disease

PNH is caused by gene mutations that affect red blood cells, causing them to be defective and susceptible to destruction by a patient’s own immune system. Red blood cells in people with these mutations are defective and can be destroyed by the immune system, causing anemia.

Other symptoms include blood clots and destruction of bone marrow. The disease affects 1-1.5 people per million, with diagnosis typically occurring around ages 35-40, and a median survival of only 10 years after diagnosis, according to the FDA.

[email protected]

A rare, life-threatening anemia now has a new treatment option. The Food and Drug Administration announced the approval of pegcetacoplan (Empaveli) injection to treat adults with paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria (PNH). Pegcetacoplan is the first PNH treatment that binds to complement protein C3, according to the FDA announcement. Complement protein C3 is a key component of host immunity and defense.

Special concern

Because of the risk of severe side effects, the drug is available only through a restricted program under a risk evaluation and mitigation strategy (REMS). Serious infections can occur in patients taking pegcetacoplan that can become life-threatening or fatal if not treated early. According to the FDA, REMS are designed to reinforce medication use behaviors and actions that support the safe use of that medication, and only a few drugs require a REMS.

The most common other side effects are injection site reactions, diarrhea, abdominal pain, and fatigue.

Pegcetacoplan was approved based upon a study of 80 patients with PNH and anemia who had been taking eculizumab, a previously approved treatment. During 16 weeks of treatment, patients in the pegcetacoplan group had an average increase in their hemoglobin of 2.4 g/dL, while patients in the eculizumab group had an average decrease in their hemoglobin of 1.5 g/dL.
 

About the disease

PNH is caused by gene mutations that affect red blood cells, causing them to be defective and susceptible to destruction by a patient’s own immune system. Red blood cells in people with these mutations are defective and can be destroyed by the immune system, causing anemia.

Other symptoms include blood clots and destruction of bone marrow. The disease affects 1-1.5 people per million, with diagnosis typically occurring around ages 35-40, and a median survival of only 10 years after diagnosis, according to the FDA.

[email protected]

A majority of Mohs surgeons have adopted telemedicine during the COVID-19 pandemic, a new survey finds, but only half expressed interest in making it a permanent part of their practices.

A variety of factors combine to make it “very difficult for surgeons to make long-term plans for implementing telemedicine in their practices,” said Mario Maruthur, MD, who presented the findings at the annual meeting of the American College of Mohs Surgery. “Telemedicine likely has a role in Mohs practices, particularly with postop follow-up visits. However, postpandemic reimbursement and regulatory issues need to be formally laid out before Mohs surgeons are able to incorporate it into their permanent work flow.”

Dr. Maruthur, a Mohs surgery and dermatologic oncology fellow at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, and colleagues sent a survey to ACMS members in September and October 2020. “We saw first-hand in our surgical practice that telemedicine quickly became an important tool when the pandemic surged in the spring of 2020,” he said. Considering that surgical practices are highly dependent on in-person visits, the impetus for this study was to assess to what degree Mohs practices from across the spectrum, including academic and private practices, embraced telemedicine during the pandemic, and “what these surgical practices used telemedicine for, how it was received by their patients, which telemedicine platforms were most often utilized, and lastly, what are their plans if any for incorporating telemedicine into their surgical practices after the pandemic subsides.”

The researchers received responses from 115 surgeons representing all regions of the country (40% Northeast, 21% South, 21% Midwest, and 18% West). Half practiced in urban areas (37%) and large cities (13%), and 40% were in an academic setting versus 36% in a single-specialty private practice.

More than 70% of the respondents said their case load fell by at least 75% during the initial surge of the pandemic; 80% turned to telemedicine, compared with just 23% who relied on the technology prior to the pandemic. The most commonly used telemedicine technologies were FaceTime, Zoom, Doximity, and Epic.

Mohs surgeons reported most commonly using telemedicine for postsurgery management (77% of the total 115 responses). “Telemedicine is a great fit for this category of visits as they allow the surgeon to view the surgical site and answer any questions they patient may have,” Dr. Maruthur said. “If the surgeon does suspect a postop infection or other concern based on a patient’s signs or symptoms, they can easily schedule the patient for an in-person assessment. We suspect that postop follow-up visits may be the best candidate for long-term use of telemedicine in Mohs surgery practices.”

Surgeons also reported using telemedicine for “spot checks” (61%) and surgical consultations (59%).

However, Dr. Maruther noted that preoperative assessments and spot checks can be difficult to perform using telemedicine. “The quality of the video image is not always great, patients can have a difficult time pointing the camera at the right spot and at the right distance. Even appreciating the actual size of the lesion are all difficult over a video encounter. And there is a lot of information gleaned from in-person physical examination, such as whether the lesion is fixed to a deeper structure and whether there are any nearby scars or other suspicious lesions.”

Nearly three-quarters of the surgeons using the technology said most or all patients were receptive to telemedicine.

However, the surgeons reported multiple barriers to the use of telemedicine: Limitations when compared with physical exams (88%), fitting it into the work flow (58%), patient response and training (57%), reimbursement concerns (50%), implementation of the technology (37%), regulations such as HIPAA (24%), training of staff (17%), and licensing (8%).

In an interview, Sumaira Z. Aasi, MD, director of Mohs and dermatologic surgery, Stanford University, agreed that there are many obstacles to routine use of telemedicine by Mohs surgeons. “As surgeons, we rely on the physical and tactile exam to get a sense of the size and extent of the cancer and characteristics such as the laxity of the surrounding tissue whether the tumor is fixed,” she said. “It is very difficult to access this on a telemedicine visit.”

In addition, she said, “many of our patients are in the elderly population, and some may not be comfortable using this technology. Also, it’s not a work flow that we are comfortable or familiar with. And I think that the technology has to improve to allow for better resolution of images as we ‘examine’ patients through a telemedicine visit.”

She added that “another con is there is a reliance on having the patient point out lesions of concern. Many cancers are picked by a careful in-person examination by a qualified physician/dermatologist/Mohs surgeon when the lesion is quite small or subtle and not even noticed by the patient themselves. This approach invariably leads to earlier biopsies and earlier treatments that can prevent morbidity and save health care money.”

On the other hand, she said, telemedicine “may save patients some time and money in terms of the effort and cost of transportation to come in for simpler postoperative medical visits that are often short in their very nature, such as postop check-ups.”

Most of the surgeons surveyed (69%) said telemedicine probably or definitely deserves a place in the practice Mohs surgery, but only 50% said they’d like to or would definitely pursue giving telemedicine a role in their practices once the pandemic is over.

“At the start of the pandemic, many regulations in areas such as HIPAA were eased, and reimbursements were increased, which allowed telemedicine to be quickly adopted,” Dr. Maruther said. “The government and payers have yet to decide which regulations and reimbursements will be in place after the pandemic. That makes it very difficult for surgeons to make long-term plans for implementing telemedicine in their practices.”

Dr. Aasi predicted that telemedicine will become more appealing to patients and physicians as it its technology and usability improves. More familiarity with its use will also be helpful, she said, and surgeons will be more receptive as it’s incorporated into efficient daily work flow.

The study was funded in part by the National Institutes of Health.

A majority of Mohs surgeons have adopted telemedicine during the COVID-19 pandemic, a new survey finds, but only half expressed interest in making it a permanent part of their practices.

A variety of factors combine to make it “very difficult for surgeons to make long-term plans for implementing telemedicine in their practices,” said Mario Maruthur, MD, who presented the findings at the annual meeting of the American College of Mohs Surgery. “Telemedicine likely has a role in Mohs practices, particularly with postop follow-up visits. However, postpandemic reimbursement and regulatory issues need to be formally laid out before Mohs surgeons are able to incorporate it into their permanent work flow.”

Dr. Maruthur, a Mohs surgery and dermatologic oncology fellow at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, and colleagues sent a survey to ACMS members in September and October 2020. “We saw first-hand in our surgical practice that telemedicine quickly became an important tool when the pandemic surged in the spring of 2020,” he said. Considering that surgical practices are highly dependent on in-person visits, the impetus for this study was to assess to what degree Mohs practices from across the spectrum, including academic and private practices, embraced telemedicine during the pandemic, and “what these surgical practices used telemedicine for, how it was received by their patients, which telemedicine platforms were most often utilized, and lastly, what are their plans if any for incorporating telemedicine into their surgical practices after the pandemic subsides.”

The researchers received responses from 115 surgeons representing all regions of the country (40% Northeast, 21% South, 21% Midwest, and 18% West). Half practiced in urban areas (37%) and large cities (13%), and 40% were in an academic setting versus 36% in a single-specialty private practice.

More than 70% of the respondents said their case load fell by at least 75% during the initial surge of the pandemic; 80% turned to telemedicine, compared with just 23% who relied on the technology prior to the pandemic. The most commonly used telemedicine technologies were FaceTime, Zoom, Doximity, and Epic.

Mohs surgeons reported most commonly using telemedicine for postsurgery management (77% of the total 115 responses). “Telemedicine is a great fit for this category of visits as they allow the surgeon to view the surgical site and answer any questions they patient may have,” Dr. Maruthur said. “If the surgeon does suspect a postop infection or other concern based on a patient’s signs or symptoms, they can easily schedule the patient for an in-person assessment. We suspect that postop follow-up visits may be the best candidate for long-term use of telemedicine in Mohs surgery practices.”

Surgeons also reported using telemedicine for “spot checks” (61%) and surgical consultations (59%).

However, Dr. Maruther noted that preoperative assessments and spot checks can be difficult to perform using telemedicine. “The quality of the video image is not always great, patients can have a difficult time pointing the camera at the right spot and at the right distance. Even appreciating the actual size of the lesion are all difficult over a video encounter. And there is a lot of information gleaned from in-person physical examination, such as whether the lesion is fixed to a deeper structure and whether there are any nearby scars or other suspicious lesions.”

Nearly three-quarters of the surgeons using the technology said most or all patients were receptive to telemedicine.

However, the surgeons reported multiple barriers to the use of telemedicine: Limitations when compared with physical exams (88%), fitting it into the work flow (58%), patient response and training (57%), reimbursement concerns (50%), implementation of the technology (37%), regulations such as HIPAA (24%), training of staff (17%), and licensing (8%).

In an interview, Sumaira Z. Aasi, MD, director of Mohs and dermatologic surgery, Stanford University, agreed that there are many obstacles to routine use of telemedicine by Mohs surgeons. “As surgeons, we rely on the physical and tactile exam to get a sense of the size and extent of the cancer and characteristics such as the laxity of the surrounding tissue whether the tumor is fixed,” she said. “It is very difficult to access this on a telemedicine visit.”

In addition, she said, “many of our patients are in the elderly population, and some may not be comfortable using this technology. Also, it’s not a work flow that we are comfortable or familiar with. And I think that the technology has to improve to allow for better resolution of images as we ‘examine’ patients through a telemedicine visit.”

She added that “another con is there is a reliance on having the patient point out lesions of concern. Many cancers are picked by a careful in-person examination by a qualified physician/dermatologist/Mohs surgeon when the lesion is quite small or subtle and not even noticed by the patient themselves. This approach invariably leads to earlier biopsies and earlier treatments that can prevent morbidity and save health care money.”

On the other hand, she said, telemedicine “may save patients some time and money in terms of the effort and cost of transportation to come in for simpler postoperative medical visits that are often short in their very nature, such as postop check-ups.”

Most of the surgeons surveyed (69%) said telemedicine probably or definitely deserves a place in the practice Mohs surgery, but only 50% said they’d like to or would definitely pursue giving telemedicine a role in their practices once the pandemic is over.

“At the start of the pandemic, many regulations in areas such as HIPAA were eased, and reimbursements were increased, which allowed telemedicine to be quickly adopted,” Dr. Maruther said. “The government and payers have yet to decide which regulations and reimbursements will be in place after the pandemic. That makes it very difficult for surgeons to make long-term plans for implementing telemedicine in their practices.”

Dr. Aasi predicted that telemedicine will become more appealing to patients and physicians as it its technology and usability improves. More familiarity with its use will also be helpful, she said, and surgeons will be more receptive as it’s incorporated into efficient daily work flow.

The study was funded in part by the National Institutes of Health.

A majority of Mohs surgeons have adopted telemedicine during the COVID-19 pandemic, a new survey finds, but only half expressed interest in making it a permanent part of their practices.

A variety of factors combine to make it “very difficult for surgeons to make long-term plans for implementing telemedicine in their practices,” said Mario Maruthur, MD, who presented the findings at the annual meeting of the American College of Mohs Surgery. “Telemedicine likely has a role in Mohs practices, particularly with postop follow-up visits. However, postpandemic reimbursement and regulatory issues need to be formally laid out before Mohs surgeons are able to incorporate it into their permanent work flow.”

Dr. Maruthur, a Mohs surgery and dermatologic oncology fellow at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, and colleagues sent a survey to ACMS members in September and October 2020. “We saw first-hand in our surgical practice that telemedicine quickly became an important tool when the pandemic surged in the spring of 2020,” he said. Considering that surgical practices are highly dependent on in-person visits, the impetus for this study was to assess to what degree Mohs practices from across the spectrum, including academic and private practices, embraced telemedicine during the pandemic, and “what these surgical practices used telemedicine for, how it was received by their patients, which telemedicine platforms were most often utilized, and lastly, what are their plans if any for incorporating telemedicine into their surgical practices after the pandemic subsides.”

The researchers received responses from 115 surgeons representing all regions of the country (40% Northeast, 21% South, 21% Midwest, and 18% West). Half practiced in urban areas (37%) and large cities (13%), and 40% were in an academic setting versus 36% in a single-specialty private practice.

More than 70% of the respondents said their case load fell by at least 75% during the initial surge of the pandemic; 80% turned to telemedicine, compared with just 23% who relied on the technology prior to the pandemic. The most commonly used telemedicine technologies were FaceTime, Zoom, Doximity, and Epic.

Mohs surgeons reported most commonly using telemedicine for postsurgery management (77% of the total 115 responses). “Telemedicine is a great fit for this category of visits as they allow the surgeon to view the surgical site and answer any questions they patient may have,” Dr. Maruthur said. “If the surgeon does suspect a postop infection or other concern based on a patient’s signs or symptoms, they can easily schedule the patient for an in-person assessment. We suspect that postop follow-up visits may be the best candidate for long-term use of telemedicine in Mohs surgery practices.”

Surgeons also reported using telemedicine for “spot checks” (61%) and surgical consultations (59%).

However, Dr. Maruther noted that preoperative assessments and spot checks can be difficult to perform using telemedicine. “The quality of the video image is not always great, patients can have a difficult time pointing the camera at the right spot and at the right distance. Even appreciating the actual size of the lesion are all difficult over a video encounter. And there is a lot of information gleaned from in-person physical examination, such as whether the lesion is fixed to a deeper structure and whether there are any nearby scars or other suspicious lesions.”

Nearly three-quarters of the surgeons using the technology said most or all patients were receptive to telemedicine.

However, the surgeons reported multiple barriers to the use of telemedicine: Limitations when compared with physical exams (88%), fitting it into the work flow (58%), patient response and training (57%), reimbursement concerns (50%), implementation of the technology (37%), regulations such as HIPAA (24%), training of staff (17%), and licensing (8%).

In an interview, Sumaira Z. Aasi, MD, director of Mohs and dermatologic surgery, Stanford University, agreed that there are many obstacles to routine use of telemedicine by Mohs surgeons. “As surgeons, we rely on the physical and tactile exam to get a sense of the size and extent of the cancer and characteristics such as the laxity of the surrounding tissue whether the tumor is fixed,” she said. “It is very difficult to access this on a telemedicine visit.”

In addition, she said, “many of our patients are in the elderly population, and some may not be comfortable using this technology. Also, it’s not a work flow that we are comfortable or familiar with. And I think that the technology has to improve to allow for better resolution of images as we ‘examine’ patients through a telemedicine visit.”

She added that “another con is there is a reliance on having the patient point out lesions of concern. Many cancers are picked by a careful in-person examination by a qualified physician/dermatologist/Mohs surgeon when the lesion is quite small or subtle and not even noticed by the patient themselves. This approach invariably leads to earlier biopsies and earlier treatments that can prevent morbidity and save health care money.”

On the other hand, she said, telemedicine “may save patients some time and money in terms of the effort and cost of transportation to come in for simpler postoperative medical visits that are often short in their very nature, such as postop check-ups.”

Most of the surgeons surveyed (69%) said telemedicine probably or definitely deserves a place in the practice Mohs surgery, but only 50% said they’d like to or would definitely pursue giving telemedicine a role in their practices once the pandemic is over.

“At the start of the pandemic, many regulations in areas such as HIPAA were eased, and reimbursements were increased, which allowed telemedicine to be quickly adopted,” Dr. Maruther said. “The government and payers have yet to decide which regulations and reimbursements will be in place after the pandemic. That makes it very difficult for surgeons to make long-term plans for implementing telemedicine in their practices.”

Dr. Aasi predicted that telemedicine will become more appealing to patients and physicians as it its technology and usability improves. More familiarity with its use will also be helpful, she said, and surgeons will be more receptive as it’s incorporated into efficient daily work flow.

The study was funded in part by the National Institutes of Health.

Dual HER2 blockade with pertuzumab (Perjeta) and trastuzumab (Herceptin) on top of anthracycline-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy for early-stage breast cancer was associated with a low rate of clinically relevant cardiac events in the final follow-up of the BERENICE study.

After more than 5 years, 1.0%-1.5% of patients who had locally advanced, inflammatory, or early-stage breast cancer developed heart failure, and around 12%-13% showed any significant changes in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF).

Importantly, “there were no new safety concerns that arose during long-term follow-up,” study investigator Chau Dang, MD, said in presenting the findings at the European Society for Medical Oncology: Breast Cancer virtual meeting.

Dr. Dang, a medical oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Centre in New York, reported that the most common cause of death was disease progression.

BERENICE was designed as a cardiac safety study and so not powered to look at long-term efficacy, which Dr. Dang was clear in reporting. Nevertheless event-free survival (EFS), invasive disease-free survival (IDFS), and overall survival (OS) rates at 5 years were all high, at least a respective 89.2%, 91%, and 93.8%, she said. “The medians have not been reached,” she observed.

“These data support the use of dual HER2 blockade with pertuzumab-trastuzumab–based regimens, including in combination with dose-dense, anthracycline-based chemotherapy, across the neoadjuvant and adjuvant treatment settings for the complete treatment of patients with HER2-positive early-stage breast cancer,” Dr. Dang said.

Evandro de Azambuja, MD, PhD, the invited discussant for the trial agreed that the regimens tested appeared “safe from a cardiac standpoint.” However, “you cannot forget that today we are using much less anthracyclines in our patient population.”

Patients in trials are also very different from those treated in clinical practice, often being younger and much fitter, he said. Therefore, it may be important to look at the baseline cardiac medications and comorbidities, Dr. de Azambuja, a medical oncologist at the Institut Jules Bordet in Brussels, Belgium, suggested.

That said, the BERENICE findings sit well with other trials that have been conducted, Dr. de Azambuja pointed out.

“If we look at other trials that have also tested dual HER2 blockade with anthracycline or nonanthracycline regimens, all of them reassure that dual blockade is not more cardiotoxic than single blockade,” he said. This includes trials such as TRYPHAENA, APHINITY, KRISTINE, NeoSphere and PEONY.

The 3-year IDFS rate of 91% in BERENICE also compares well to that seen in APHINITY (94%), Dr. de Azambuja said.
 

BERENICE study design

BERENICE was a multicenter, open-label, nonrandomized and noncomparative phase 2 trial that recruited 400 patients across 75 centers in 12 countries.

Eligibility criteria were that participants had to have been centrally confirmed HER2-positive locally advanced, inflammatory or early breast cancer, with the latter defined as tumors bigger than 2 cm or greater than 5 mm in size, and be node-positive. Patients also had to have a starting LVEF of 55% or higher.

Patients were allocated to one of two neoadjuvant chemotherapy regimens depending on the choice of their physician. One group received a regimen of dose-dense doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide (ddAC) given every 2 weeks for four cycles and then paclitaxel every week for 12 cycles. The other group received 5-fluorouracil, epirubicin, and cyclophosphamide (FEC) every 3 weeks for four cycles and then docetaxel every 3 weeks for four cycles.

Pertuzumab and trastuzumab were started at the same time as the taxanes in both groups and given every 3 weeks for four cycles. Patients then underwent surgery and continued pertuzumab/trastuzumab treatment alone for a further 13 cycles.

The co-primary endpoints were the incidence of New York Heart Association class III or IV heart failure and incidence of symptomatic and asymptomatic LVEF decline of 10% or more.

The primary analysis of the trial was published in 2018 and, at that time, it was reported that three patients in the ddAC cohort and none in the FEC cohort experienced heart failure. LVEF decline was observed in a respective 6.5% and 2% of patients.
 

Discussion points

Dr. de Azambuja noted that the contribution of the chemotherapy to the efficacy cannot be assessed because of the nonrandomized trial design. That should not matter, pointed out Sybille Loibl, MD, PhD, during discussion.

“I think it compares nicely to other trials that looked at dose-dense chemotherapy,” said Dr. Loibl, who is an associate professor at the University of Frankfurt in Germany. “It seems that, in the light of what we consider today probably one of the best anti-HER2 treatments, the chemotherapy is less relevant, and that’s why a dose-dense regimen doesn’t add so much on a standard anthracycline taxane-containing regimen.”

Dr. de Azambuja also commented on the assessment of cardiotoxicity and the use of reduced LVEF as a measure: LVEF decline is a late effect of cardiotoxicity, he observed, and he suggested a different approach in future trials.

“If you use Global Longitudinal Strain, this could be an optimal parameter to detect early subclinical LVEF dysfunction and you should consider it for the next trials looking for cardiac safety. Also, cardiac biomarkers. This was not implemented in this trial, and I strongly recommend this should be for the next trial.”

The BERENICE trial was funded by F. Hoffmann-La Roche. Dr. Dang disclosed receiving consultancy fees from F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Genentech, Daiichi Sankyo, Lilly, and Puma Biotechnology. Dr. de Azambuja was not involved in the study but disclosed receiving honoraria, travel grants, research grants from Roche and Genentech as well as from other companies. Dr. Loibl was one of the cochairs of the session and, among disclosures regarding many other companies, has been an invited speaker for Roche and received reimbursement via her institution for a writing engagement.

Dual HER2 blockade with pertuzumab (Perjeta) and trastuzumab (Herceptin) on top of anthracycline-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy for early-stage breast cancer was associated with a low rate of clinically relevant cardiac events in the final follow-up of the BERENICE study.

After more than 5 years, 1.0%-1.5% of patients who had locally advanced, inflammatory, or early-stage breast cancer developed heart failure, and around 12%-13% showed any significant changes in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF).

Importantly, “there were no new safety concerns that arose during long-term follow-up,” study investigator Chau Dang, MD, said in presenting the findings at the European Society for Medical Oncology: Breast Cancer virtual meeting.

Dr. Dang, a medical oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Centre in New York, reported that the most common cause of death was disease progression.

BERENICE was designed as a cardiac safety study and so not powered to look at long-term efficacy, which Dr. Dang was clear in reporting. Nevertheless event-free survival (EFS), invasive disease-free survival (IDFS), and overall survival (OS) rates at 5 years were all high, at least a respective 89.2%, 91%, and 93.8%, she said. “The medians have not been reached,” she observed.

“These data support the use of dual HER2 blockade with pertuzumab-trastuzumab–based regimens, including in combination with dose-dense, anthracycline-based chemotherapy, across the neoadjuvant and adjuvant treatment settings for the complete treatment of patients with HER2-positive early-stage breast cancer,” Dr. Dang said.

Evandro de Azambuja, MD, PhD, the invited discussant for the trial agreed that the regimens tested appeared “safe from a cardiac standpoint.” However, “you cannot forget that today we are using much less anthracyclines in our patient population.”

Patients in trials are also very different from those treated in clinical practice, often being younger and much fitter, he said. Therefore, it may be important to look at the baseline cardiac medications and comorbidities, Dr. de Azambuja, a medical oncologist at the Institut Jules Bordet in Brussels, Belgium, suggested.

That said, the BERENICE findings sit well with other trials that have been conducted, Dr. de Azambuja pointed out.

“If we look at other trials that have also tested dual HER2 blockade with anthracycline or nonanthracycline regimens, all of them reassure that dual blockade is not more cardiotoxic than single blockade,” he said. This includes trials such as TRYPHAENA, APHINITY, KRISTINE, NeoSphere and PEONY.

The 3-year IDFS rate of 91% in BERENICE also compares well to that seen in APHINITY (94%), Dr. de Azambuja said.
 

BERENICE study design

BERENICE was a multicenter, open-label, nonrandomized and noncomparative phase 2 trial that recruited 400 patients across 75 centers in 12 countries.

Eligibility criteria were that participants had to have been centrally confirmed HER2-positive locally advanced, inflammatory or early breast cancer, with the latter defined as tumors bigger than 2 cm or greater than 5 mm in size, and be node-positive. Patients also had to have a starting LVEF of 55% or higher.

Patients were allocated to one of two neoadjuvant chemotherapy regimens depending on the choice of their physician. One group received a regimen of dose-dense doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide (ddAC) given every 2 weeks for four cycles and then paclitaxel every week for 12 cycles. The other group received 5-fluorouracil, epirubicin, and cyclophosphamide (FEC) every 3 weeks for four cycles and then docetaxel every 3 weeks for four cycles.

Pertuzumab and trastuzumab were started at the same time as the taxanes in both groups and given every 3 weeks for four cycles. Patients then underwent surgery and continued pertuzumab/trastuzumab treatment alone for a further 13 cycles.

The co-primary endpoints were the incidence of New York Heart Association class III or IV heart failure and incidence of symptomatic and asymptomatic LVEF decline of 10% or more.

The primary analysis of the trial was published in 2018 and, at that time, it was reported that three patients in the ddAC cohort and none in the FEC cohort experienced heart failure. LVEF decline was observed in a respective 6.5% and 2% of patients.
 

Discussion points

Dr. de Azambuja noted that the contribution of the chemotherapy to the efficacy cannot be assessed because of the nonrandomized trial design. That should not matter, pointed out Sybille Loibl, MD, PhD, during discussion.

“I think it compares nicely to other trials that looked at dose-dense chemotherapy,” said Dr. Loibl, who is an associate professor at the University of Frankfurt in Germany. “It seems that, in the light of what we consider today probably one of the best anti-HER2 treatments, the chemotherapy is less relevant, and that’s why a dose-dense regimen doesn’t add so much on a standard anthracycline taxane-containing regimen.”

Dr. de Azambuja also commented on the assessment of cardiotoxicity and the use of reduced LVEF as a measure: LVEF decline is a late effect of cardiotoxicity, he observed, and he suggested a different approach in future trials.

“If you use Global Longitudinal Strain, this could be an optimal parameter to detect early subclinical LVEF dysfunction and you should consider it for the next trials looking for cardiac safety. Also, cardiac biomarkers. This was not implemented in this trial, and I strongly recommend this should be for the next trial.”

The BERENICE trial was funded by F. Hoffmann-La Roche. Dr. Dang disclosed receiving consultancy fees from F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Genentech, Daiichi Sankyo, Lilly, and Puma Biotechnology. Dr. de Azambuja was not involved in the study but disclosed receiving honoraria, travel grants, research grants from Roche and Genentech as well as from other companies. Dr. Loibl was one of the cochairs of the session and, among disclosures regarding many other companies, has been an invited speaker for Roche and received reimbursement via her institution for a writing engagement.

Dual HER2 blockade with pertuzumab (Perjeta) and trastuzumab (Herceptin) on top of anthracycline-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy for early-stage breast cancer was associated with a low rate of clinically relevant cardiac events in the final follow-up of the BERENICE study.

After more than 5 years, 1.0%-1.5% of patients who had locally advanced, inflammatory, or early-stage breast cancer developed heart failure, and around 12%-13% showed any significant changes in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF).

Importantly, “there were no new safety concerns that arose during long-term follow-up,” study investigator Chau Dang, MD, said in presenting the findings at the European Society for Medical Oncology: Breast Cancer virtual meeting.

Dr. Dang, a medical oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Centre in New York, reported that the most common cause of death was disease progression.

BERENICE was designed as a cardiac safety study and so not powered to look at long-term efficacy, which Dr. Dang was clear in reporting. Nevertheless event-free survival (EFS), invasive disease-free survival (IDFS), and overall survival (OS) rates at 5 years were all high, at least a respective 89.2%, 91%, and 93.8%, she said. “The medians have not been reached,” she observed.

“These data support the use of dual HER2 blockade with pertuzumab-trastuzumab–based regimens, including in combination with dose-dense, anthracycline-based chemotherapy, across the neoadjuvant and adjuvant treatment settings for the complete treatment of patients with HER2-positive early-stage breast cancer,” Dr. Dang said.

Evandro de Azambuja, MD, PhD, the invited discussant for the trial agreed that the regimens tested appeared “safe from a cardiac standpoint.” However, “you cannot forget that today we are using much less anthracyclines in our patient population.”

Patients in trials are also very different from those treated in clinical practice, often being younger and much fitter, he said. Therefore, it may be important to look at the baseline cardiac medications and comorbidities, Dr. de Azambuja, a medical oncologist at the Institut Jules Bordet in Brussels, Belgium, suggested.

That said, the BERENICE findings sit well with other trials that have been conducted, Dr. de Azambuja pointed out.

“If we look at other trials that have also tested dual HER2 blockade with anthracycline or nonanthracycline regimens, all of them reassure that dual blockade is not more cardiotoxic than single blockade,” he said. This includes trials such as TRYPHAENA, APHINITY, KRISTINE, NeoSphere and PEONY.

The 3-year IDFS rate of 91% in BERENICE also compares well to that seen in APHINITY (94%), Dr. de Azambuja said.
 

BERENICE study design

BERENICE was a multicenter, open-label, nonrandomized and noncomparative phase 2 trial that recruited 400 patients across 75 centers in 12 countries.

Eligibility criteria were that participants had to have been centrally confirmed HER2-positive locally advanced, inflammatory or early breast cancer, with the latter defined as tumors bigger than 2 cm or greater than 5 mm in size, and be node-positive. Patients also had to have a starting LVEF of 55% or higher.

Patients were allocated to one of two neoadjuvant chemotherapy regimens depending on the choice of their physician. One group received a regimen of dose-dense doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide (ddAC) given every 2 weeks for four cycles and then paclitaxel every week for 12 cycles. The other group received 5-fluorouracil, epirubicin, and cyclophosphamide (FEC) every 3 weeks for four cycles and then docetaxel every 3 weeks for four cycles.

Pertuzumab and trastuzumab were started at the same time as the taxanes in both groups and given every 3 weeks for four cycles. Patients then underwent surgery and continued pertuzumab/trastuzumab treatment alone for a further 13 cycles.

The co-primary endpoints were the incidence of New York Heart Association class III or IV heart failure and incidence of symptomatic and asymptomatic LVEF decline of 10% or more.

The primary analysis of the trial was published in 2018 and, at that time, it was reported that three patients in the ddAC cohort and none in the FEC cohort experienced heart failure. LVEF decline was observed in a respective 6.5% and 2% of patients.
 

Discussion points

Dr. de Azambuja noted that the contribution of the chemotherapy to the efficacy cannot be assessed because of the nonrandomized trial design. That should not matter, pointed out Sybille Loibl, MD, PhD, during discussion.

“I think it compares nicely to other trials that looked at dose-dense chemotherapy,” said Dr. Loibl, who is an associate professor at the University of Frankfurt in Germany. “It seems that, in the light of what we consider today probably one of the best anti-HER2 treatments, the chemotherapy is less relevant, and that’s why a dose-dense regimen doesn’t add so much on a standard anthracycline taxane-containing regimen.”

Dr. de Azambuja also commented on the assessment of cardiotoxicity and the use of reduced LVEF as a measure: LVEF decline is a late effect of cardiotoxicity, he observed, and he suggested a different approach in future trials.

“If you use Global Longitudinal Strain, this could be an optimal parameter to detect early subclinical LVEF dysfunction and you should consider it for the next trials looking for cardiac safety. Also, cardiac biomarkers. This was not implemented in this trial, and I strongly recommend this should be for the next trial.”

The BERENICE trial was funded by F. Hoffmann-La Roche. Dr. Dang disclosed receiving consultancy fees from F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Genentech, Daiichi Sankyo, Lilly, and Puma Biotechnology. Dr. de Azambuja was not involved in the study but disclosed receiving honoraria, travel grants, research grants from Roche and Genentech as well as from other companies. Dr. Loibl was one of the cochairs of the session and, among disclosures regarding many other companies, has been an invited speaker for Roche and received reimbursement via her institution for a writing engagement.