AVAHO

Chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy, described as a “living drug,” is now available for patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma who have been treated with four or more prior lines of therapy.

The Food and Drug Administration said these patients represent an “unmet medical need” when it granted approval for the new product – idecabtagene vicleucel (ide-cel; Abecma), developed by bluebird bio and Bristol-Myers Squibb.

Ide-cel is the first CAR T-cell therapy to gain approval for use in multiple myeloma. It is also the first CAR T-cell therapy to target B-cell maturation antigen.

Previously approved CAR T-cell products target CD19 and have been approved for use in certain types of leukemia and lymphoma.

All the CAR T-cell therapies are customized treatments that are created specifically for each individual patient from their own blood. The patient’s own T cells are removed from the blood, are genetically modified and expanded, and are then infused back into the patient. These modified T cells then seek out and destroy blood cancer cells, and they continue to do so long term.

In some patients, this has led to eradication of disease that had previously progressed with every other treatment that had been tried – results that have been described as “absolutely remarkable” and “one-shot therapy that looks to be curative.”

However, this cell therapy comes with serious adverse effects, including neurologic toxicity and cytokine release syndrome (CRS), which can be life threatening. For this reason, all these products have a risk evaluation and mitigation strategy, and the use of CAR T-cell therapies is limited to designated centers.

In addition, these CAR T-cells products are phenomenally expensive; hospitals have reported heavy financial losses with their use, and patients have turned to crowdfunding to pay for these therapies.
 

‘Phenomenal’ results in MM

The FDA noted that approval of ide-cel for multiple myeloma is based on data from a multicenter study that involved 127 patients with relapsed/refractory disease who had received at least three prior lines of treatment.

The results from this trial were published Feb. 25 in the New England Journal of Medicine.

An expert not involved in the trial described the results as “phenomenal.”

Krina Patel, MD, an associate professor in the department of lymphoma/myeloma at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, said that “the response rate of 73% in a patient population with a median of six lines of therapy, and with one-third of those patients achieving a deep response of complete response or better, is phenomenal.

“We are very excited as a myeloma community for this study of idecabtagene vicleucel for relapsed/refractory patients,” Dr. Patel told this news organization at the time.

The lead investigator of the study, Nikhil Munshi, MD, of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, commented: “The results of this trial represent a true turning point in the treatment of this disease. In my 30 years of treating myeloma, I have not seen any other therapy as effective in this group of patients.”

Both experts highlighted the poor prognosis for patients with relapsed/refractory disease. Recent decades have seen a flurry of new agents for myeloma, and there are now three main classes of agents: immunomodulatory agents, proteasome inhibitors, and anti-CD38 antibodies.

Nevertheless, in some patients, the disease continues to progress. For patients for whom treatments with all three classes of drugs have failed, the median progression-free survival is 3-4 months, and the median overall survival is 9 months.

In contrast, the results reported in the NEJM article showed that overall median progression-free survival was 8.8 months, but it was more than double that (20.2 months) for patients who achieved a complete or stringent complete response.

Estimated median overall survival was 19.4 months, and the overall survival was 78% at 12 months. The authors note that overall survival data are not yet mature.

The patients who were enrolled in the CAR T-cell trial had undergone many previous treatments. They had undergone a median of six prior drug therapies (range, 3-16), and most of the patients (120, 94%) had also undergone autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplant.

In addition, the majority of patients (84%) had disease that was triple refractory (to an immunomodulatory agent, a proteasome inhibitor, and an anti-CD38 antibody), 60% had disease that was penta-exposed (to bortezomib, carfilzomib, lenalidomide, pomalidomide, and daratumumab), and 26% had disease that was penta-refractory.

In the NEJM article, the authors report that about a third of patients had a complete response to CAR T-cell therapy.

At a median follow-up of 13.3 months, 94 of 128 patients (73%) showed a response to therapy (P < .001); 42 (33%) showed a complete or stringent complete response; and 67 patients (52%) showed a “very good partial response or better,” they write.

In the FDA announcement of the product approval, the figures for complete response were slightly lower. “Of those studied, 28% of patients showed complete response – or disappearance of all signs of multiple myeloma – to Abecma, and 65% of this group remained in complete response to the treatment for at least 12 months,” the agency noted.

The FDA also noted that treatment with Abecma can cause severe side effects. The label carries a boxed warning regarding CRS, hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis/macrophage activation syndrome, neurologic toxicity, and prolonged cytopenia, all of which can be fatal or life threatening.

The most common side effects of Abecma are CRS, infections, fatigue, musculoskeletal pain, and a weakened immune system. Side effects from treatment usually appear within the first 1-2 weeks after treatment, but some side effects may occur later.

The agency also noted that, to further evaluate the long-term safety of the drug, it is requiring the manufacturer to conduct a postmarketing observational study.

“The FDA remains committed to advancing novel treatment options for areas of unmet patient need,” said Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research.

“While there is no cure for multiple myeloma, the long-term outlook can vary based on the individual’s age and the stage of the condition at the time of diagnosis. Today’s approval provides a new treatment option for patients who have this uncommon type of cancer.”

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

Chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy, described as a “living drug,” is now available for patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma who have been treated with four or more prior lines of therapy.

The Food and Drug Administration said these patients represent an “unmet medical need” when it granted approval for the new product – idecabtagene vicleucel (ide-cel; Abecma), developed by bluebird bio and Bristol-Myers Squibb.

Ide-cel is the first CAR T-cell therapy to gain approval for use in multiple myeloma. It is also the first CAR T-cell therapy to target B-cell maturation antigen.

Previously approved CAR T-cell products target CD19 and have been approved for use in certain types of leukemia and lymphoma.

All the CAR T-cell therapies are customized treatments that are created specifically for each individual patient from their own blood. The patient’s own T cells are removed from the blood, are genetically modified and expanded, and are then infused back into the patient. These modified T cells then seek out and destroy blood cancer cells, and they continue to do so long term.

In some patients, this has led to eradication of disease that had previously progressed with every other treatment that had been tried – results that have been described as “absolutely remarkable” and “one-shot therapy that looks to be curative.”

However, this cell therapy comes with serious adverse effects, including neurologic toxicity and cytokine release syndrome (CRS), which can be life threatening. For this reason, all these products have a risk evaluation and mitigation strategy, and the use of CAR T-cell therapies is limited to designated centers.

In addition, these CAR T-cells products are phenomenally expensive; hospitals have reported heavy financial losses with their use, and patients have turned to crowdfunding to pay for these therapies.
 

‘Phenomenal’ results in MM

The FDA noted that approval of ide-cel for multiple myeloma is based on data from a multicenter study that involved 127 patients with relapsed/refractory disease who had received at least three prior lines of treatment.

The results from this trial were published Feb. 25 in the New England Journal of Medicine.

An expert not involved in the trial described the results as “phenomenal.”

Krina Patel, MD, an associate professor in the department of lymphoma/myeloma at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, said that “the response rate of 73% in a patient population with a median of six lines of therapy, and with one-third of those patients achieving a deep response of complete response or better, is phenomenal.

“We are very excited as a myeloma community for this study of idecabtagene vicleucel for relapsed/refractory patients,” Dr. Patel told this news organization at the time.

The lead investigator of the study, Nikhil Munshi, MD, of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, commented: “The results of this trial represent a true turning point in the treatment of this disease. In my 30 years of treating myeloma, I have not seen any other therapy as effective in this group of patients.”

Both experts highlighted the poor prognosis for patients with relapsed/refractory disease. Recent decades have seen a flurry of new agents for myeloma, and there are now three main classes of agents: immunomodulatory agents, proteasome inhibitors, and anti-CD38 antibodies.

Nevertheless, in some patients, the disease continues to progress. For patients for whom treatments with all three classes of drugs have failed, the median progression-free survival is 3-4 months, and the median overall survival is 9 months.

In contrast, the results reported in the NEJM article showed that overall median progression-free survival was 8.8 months, but it was more than double that (20.2 months) for patients who achieved a complete or stringent complete response.

Estimated median overall survival was 19.4 months, and the overall survival was 78% at 12 months. The authors note that overall survival data are not yet mature.

The patients who were enrolled in the CAR T-cell trial had undergone many previous treatments. They had undergone a median of six prior drug therapies (range, 3-16), and most of the patients (120, 94%) had also undergone autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplant.

In addition, the majority of patients (84%) had disease that was triple refractory (to an immunomodulatory agent, a proteasome inhibitor, and an anti-CD38 antibody), 60% had disease that was penta-exposed (to bortezomib, carfilzomib, lenalidomide, pomalidomide, and daratumumab), and 26% had disease that was penta-refractory.

In the NEJM article, the authors report that about a third of patients had a complete response to CAR T-cell therapy.

At a median follow-up of 13.3 months, 94 of 128 patients (73%) showed a response to therapy (P < .001); 42 (33%) showed a complete or stringent complete response; and 67 patients (52%) showed a “very good partial response or better,” they write.

In the FDA announcement of the product approval, the figures for complete response were slightly lower. “Of those studied, 28% of patients showed complete response – or disappearance of all signs of multiple myeloma – to Abecma, and 65% of this group remained in complete response to the treatment for at least 12 months,” the agency noted.

The FDA also noted that treatment with Abecma can cause severe side effects. The label carries a boxed warning regarding CRS, hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis/macrophage activation syndrome, neurologic toxicity, and prolonged cytopenia, all of which can be fatal or life threatening.

The most common side effects of Abecma are CRS, infections, fatigue, musculoskeletal pain, and a weakened immune system. Side effects from treatment usually appear within the first 1-2 weeks after treatment, but some side effects may occur later.

The agency also noted that, to further evaluate the long-term safety of the drug, it is requiring the manufacturer to conduct a postmarketing observational study.

“The FDA remains committed to advancing novel treatment options for areas of unmet patient need,” said Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research.

“While there is no cure for multiple myeloma, the long-term outlook can vary based on the individual’s age and the stage of the condition at the time of diagnosis. Today’s approval provides a new treatment option for patients who have this uncommon type of cancer.”

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

Chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy, described as a “living drug,” is now available for patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma who have been treated with four or more prior lines of therapy.

The Food and Drug Administration said these patients represent an “unmet medical need” when it granted approval for the new product – idecabtagene vicleucel (ide-cel; Abecma), developed by bluebird bio and Bristol-Myers Squibb.

Ide-cel is the first CAR T-cell therapy to gain approval for use in multiple myeloma. It is also the first CAR T-cell therapy to target B-cell maturation antigen.

Previously approved CAR T-cell products target CD19 and have been approved for use in certain types of leukemia and lymphoma.

All the CAR T-cell therapies are customized treatments that are created specifically for each individual patient from their own blood. The patient’s own T cells are removed from the blood, are genetically modified and expanded, and are then infused back into the patient. These modified T cells then seek out and destroy blood cancer cells, and they continue to do so long term.

In some patients, this has led to eradication of disease that had previously progressed with every other treatment that had been tried – results that have been described as “absolutely remarkable” and “one-shot therapy that looks to be curative.”

However, this cell therapy comes with serious adverse effects, including neurologic toxicity and cytokine release syndrome (CRS), which can be life threatening. For this reason, all these products have a risk evaluation and mitigation strategy, and the use of CAR T-cell therapies is limited to designated centers.

In addition, these CAR T-cells products are phenomenally expensive; hospitals have reported heavy financial losses with their use, and patients have turned to crowdfunding to pay for these therapies.
 

‘Phenomenal’ results in MM

The FDA noted that approval of ide-cel for multiple myeloma is based on data from a multicenter study that involved 127 patients with relapsed/refractory disease who had received at least three prior lines of treatment.

The results from this trial were published Feb. 25 in the New England Journal of Medicine.

An expert not involved in the trial described the results as “phenomenal.”

Krina Patel, MD, an associate professor in the department of lymphoma/myeloma at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, said that “the response rate of 73% in a patient population with a median of six lines of therapy, and with one-third of those patients achieving a deep response of complete response or better, is phenomenal.

“We are very excited as a myeloma community for this study of idecabtagene vicleucel for relapsed/refractory patients,” Dr. Patel told this news organization at the time.

The lead investigator of the study, Nikhil Munshi, MD, of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, commented: “The results of this trial represent a true turning point in the treatment of this disease. In my 30 years of treating myeloma, I have not seen any other therapy as effective in this group of patients.”

Both experts highlighted the poor prognosis for patients with relapsed/refractory disease. Recent decades have seen a flurry of new agents for myeloma, and there are now three main classes of agents: immunomodulatory agents, proteasome inhibitors, and anti-CD38 antibodies.

Nevertheless, in some patients, the disease continues to progress. For patients for whom treatments with all three classes of drugs have failed, the median progression-free survival is 3-4 months, and the median overall survival is 9 months.

In contrast, the results reported in the NEJM article showed that overall median progression-free survival was 8.8 months, but it was more than double that (20.2 months) for patients who achieved a complete or stringent complete response.

Estimated median overall survival was 19.4 months, and the overall survival was 78% at 12 months. The authors note that overall survival data are not yet mature.

The patients who were enrolled in the CAR T-cell trial had undergone many previous treatments. They had undergone a median of six prior drug therapies (range, 3-16), and most of the patients (120, 94%) had also undergone autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplant.

In addition, the majority of patients (84%) had disease that was triple refractory (to an immunomodulatory agent, a proteasome inhibitor, and an anti-CD38 antibody), 60% had disease that was penta-exposed (to bortezomib, carfilzomib, lenalidomide, pomalidomide, and daratumumab), and 26% had disease that was penta-refractory.

In the NEJM article, the authors report that about a third of patients had a complete response to CAR T-cell therapy.

At a median follow-up of 13.3 months, 94 of 128 patients (73%) showed a response to therapy (P < .001); 42 (33%) showed a complete or stringent complete response; and 67 patients (52%) showed a “very good partial response or better,” they write.

In the FDA announcement of the product approval, the figures for complete response were slightly lower. “Of those studied, 28% of patients showed complete response – or disappearance of all signs of multiple myeloma – to Abecma, and 65% of this group remained in complete response to the treatment for at least 12 months,” the agency noted.

The FDA also noted that treatment with Abecma can cause severe side effects. The label carries a boxed warning regarding CRS, hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis/macrophage activation syndrome, neurologic toxicity, and prolonged cytopenia, all of which can be fatal or life threatening.

The most common side effects of Abecma are CRS, infections, fatigue, musculoskeletal pain, and a weakened immune system. Side effects from treatment usually appear within the first 1-2 weeks after treatment, but some side effects may occur later.

The agency also noted that, to further evaluate the long-term safety of the drug, it is requiring the manufacturer to conduct a postmarketing observational study.

“The FDA remains committed to advancing novel treatment options for areas of unmet patient need,” said Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research.

“While there is no cure for multiple myeloma, the long-term outlook can vary based on the individual’s age and the stage of the condition at the time of diagnosis. Today’s approval provides a new treatment option for patients who have this uncommon type of cancer.”

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

Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) produced high disease control rates but serious toxicity in a retrospective study of patients with ultra-central lung tumors.

Of the 72 patients studied, 15 (21%) experienced grade 3 or higher toxicity and 10 (14%) died of bronchopulmonary hemorrhage.

This doesn’t completely write off the use of SBRT for ultra-central lung tumors, according to Joyce Lodeweges, MD, of University Medical Center (UMC) Utrecht in the Netherlands.

“We have to inform the patient very well that there are some high risks to this treatment,” she said at the European Lung Cancer Virtual Congress 2021 (Abstract 61M0).

Dr. Lodeweges noted that keeping the biologically effective dose of radiation to the main bronchus below a certain threshold (< 90 Gy) could reduce the risk of toxicity significantly, making SBRT a viable option for some patients. In addition, MRI-guided daily adaptation of the radiation treatment to organs at risk may make the treatment safer.
 

Varying definitions, regimens spur debate

SBRT is standard care in peripherally located, stage I non–small cell lung cancer that is inoperable or if the patient refuses surgery, noted study discussant Yolande Lievens, MD, PhD, of Ghent University Hospital in Belgium.

“[SBRT] has good local control rates with low toxicity even in patients with COPD or being elderly,” Dr. Lievens said.

“In more moderately central tumors, there is quite some evidence that risk-adapted fractionation schemes can be delivered in a safe way and lead to high local control rates,” she added. “For ultra-central legions, there’s still not a recommendation to treat with SBRT because we see a lot of increased toxicity.”

“For ultra-central tumors, SBRT is still under debate,” agreed Dr. Lodeweges. “This is because of the varying definitions in the literature and the varying fractionation schemes used.”

How the location of tumors is defined is important. Central tumors are those that are at least 2 cm away from the main bronchial tree, whereas ultra-central tumors are those that butt onto it or overlap it.

In Dr. Lodeweges’s study, ultra-central tumors were defined as those with a planning target volume (PTV) abutting or overlapping the main bronchi, trachea, and/or esophagus.
 

Study details

Between 2012 and 2020, there were 72 patients with ultra-central lung tumors treated at UMC Utrecht. Most patients (78%) had a PTV covering the main bronchus, with 21% each having PTVs overlapping the trachea or esophagus.

Patients received a protracted SBRT regimen of 60 Gy given in 12 fractions. The median follow-up was 19 months.

The local failure-free survival rate was 98% at 1 year and 85% at 2 years. Overall survival rates were 77% and 52%, respectively.

Receiving a biologically effective dose of more than 90 Gy to the main bronchus increased the risk of grade 3 or higher toxicity. On the other hand, patient age and tumor histology did not affect the risk of adverse events.

The use of antithrombotic therapy didn’t have any bearing on toxicity either, but it’s a possible risk factor to consider, Dr. Lodeweges said. Peri- or endobronchial tumor location is another consideration.
 

Findings in context

How do the results of the current study sit with other studies of SBRT in non–small cell lung cancer? Dr. Lievens pointed out that overall survival at 2 years was lower in the current trial (52%) than in patients with central tumors treated in the RTOG 0813 trial (68%-73%) or those with peripheral tumors in the CHISEL trial (77%).

There were, of course, different fractions and doses of radiotherapy used in these trials, with lower doses and more fractions in the UMC Utrecht study, and there was higher toxicity when ultra-central lesions were treated.

“Optimized radiotherapy dose fractionation regimens are investigated quite intensively to improve the clinical benefit. This is an important area of research,” Dr. Lievens said.

The high local control rates but serious risk of bronchopulmonary hemorrhage seen in the current study “calls for further investigation of dose/volume parameters in the context of the location of the tumor but also in the context of other treatment modalities,” she added. “Advanced technologies in radiotherapy, which allow better imaging and daily adaptation, such as the MR-Linac, can optimize clinical benefits.”

The study was supported by UMC Utrecht and received no commercial funding. Dr. Lodeweges and Dr. Lievens had no relevant conflicts of interest.

Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) produced high disease control rates but serious toxicity in a retrospective study of patients with ultra-central lung tumors.

Of the 72 patients studied, 15 (21%) experienced grade 3 or higher toxicity and 10 (14%) died of bronchopulmonary hemorrhage.

This doesn’t completely write off the use of SBRT for ultra-central lung tumors, according to Joyce Lodeweges, MD, of University Medical Center (UMC) Utrecht in the Netherlands.

“We have to inform the patient very well that there are some high risks to this treatment,” she said at the European Lung Cancer Virtual Congress 2021 (Abstract 61M0).

Dr. Lodeweges noted that keeping the biologically effective dose of radiation to the main bronchus below a certain threshold (< 90 Gy) could reduce the risk of toxicity significantly, making SBRT a viable option for some patients. In addition, MRI-guided daily adaptation of the radiation treatment to organs at risk may make the treatment safer.
 

Varying definitions, regimens spur debate

SBRT is standard care in peripherally located, stage I non–small cell lung cancer that is inoperable or if the patient refuses surgery, noted study discussant Yolande Lievens, MD, PhD, of Ghent University Hospital in Belgium.

“[SBRT] has good local control rates with low toxicity even in patients with COPD or being elderly,” Dr. Lievens said.

“In more moderately central tumors, there is quite some evidence that risk-adapted fractionation schemes can be delivered in a safe way and lead to high local control rates,” she added. “For ultra-central legions, there’s still not a recommendation to treat with SBRT because we see a lot of increased toxicity.”

“For ultra-central tumors, SBRT is still under debate,” agreed Dr. Lodeweges. “This is because of the varying definitions in the literature and the varying fractionation schemes used.”

How the location of tumors is defined is important. Central tumors are those that are at least 2 cm away from the main bronchial tree, whereas ultra-central tumors are those that butt onto it or overlap it.

In Dr. Lodeweges’s study, ultra-central tumors were defined as those with a planning target volume (PTV) abutting or overlapping the main bronchi, trachea, and/or esophagus.
 

Study details

Between 2012 and 2020, there were 72 patients with ultra-central lung tumors treated at UMC Utrecht. Most patients (78%) had a PTV covering the main bronchus, with 21% each having PTVs overlapping the trachea or esophagus.

Patients received a protracted SBRT regimen of 60 Gy given in 12 fractions. The median follow-up was 19 months.

The local failure-free survival rate was 98% at 1 year and 85% at 2 years. Overall survival rates were 77% and 52%, respectively.

Receiving a biologically effective dose of more than 90 Gy to the main bronchus increased the risk of grade 3 or higher toxicity. On the other hand, patient age and tumor histology did not affect the risk of adverse events.

The use of antithrombotic therapy didn’t have any bearing on toxicity either, but it’s a possible risk factor to consider, Dr. Lodeweges said. Peri- or endobronchial tumor location is another consideration.
 

Findings in context

How do the results of the current study sit with other studies of SBRT in non–small cell lung cancer? Dr. Lievens pointed out that overall survival at 2 years was lower in the current trial (52%) than in patients with central tumors treated in the RTOG 0813 trial (68%-73%) or those with peripheral tumors in the CHISEL trial (77%).

There were, of course, different fractions and doses of radiotherapy used in these trials, with lower doses and more fractions in the UMC Utrecht study, and there was higher toxicity when ultra-central lesions were treated.

“Optimized radiotherapy dose fractionation regimens are investigated quite intensively to improve the clinical benefit. This is an important area of research,” Dr. Lievens said.

The high local control rates but serious risk of bronchopulmonary hemorrhage seen in the current study “calls for further investigation of dose/volume parameters in the context of the location of the tumor but also in the context of other treatment modalities,” she added. “Advanced technologies in radiotherapy, which allow better imaging and daily adaptation, such as the MR-Linac, can optimize clinical benefits.”

The study was supported by UMC Utrecht and received no commercial funding. Dr. Lodeweges and Dr. Lievens had no relevant conflicts of interest.

Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) produced high disease control rates but serious toxicity in a retrospective study of patients with ultra-central lung tumors.

Of the 72 patients studied, 15 (21%) experienced grade 3 or higher toxicity and 10 (14%) died of bronchopulmonary hemorrhage.

This doesn’t completely write off the use of SBRT for ultra-central lung tumors, according to Joyce Lodeweges, MD, of University Medical Center (UMC) Utrecht in the Netherlands.

“We have to inform the patient very well that there are some high risks to this treatment,” she said at the European Lung Cancer Virtual Congress 2021 (Abstract 61M0).

Dr. Lodeweges noted that keeping the biologically effective dose of radiation to the main bronchus below a certain threshold (< 90 Gy) could reduce the risk of toxicity significantly, making SBRT a viable option for some patients. In addition, MRI-guided daily adaptation of the radiation treatment to organs at risk may make the treatment safer.
 

Varying definitions, regimens spur debate

SBRT is standard care in peripherally located, stage I non–small cell lung cancer that is inoperable or if the patient refuses surgery, noted study discussant Yolande Lievens, MD, PhD, of Ghent University Hospital in Belgium.

“[SBRT] has good local control rates with low toxicity even in patients with COPD or being elderly,” Dr. Lievens said.

“In more moderately central tumors, there is quite some evidence that risk-adapted fractionation schemes can be delivered in a safe way and lead to high local control rates,” she added. “For ultra-central legions, there’s still not a recommendation to treat with SBRT because we see a lot of increased toxicity.”

“For ultra-central tumors, SBRT is still under debate,” agreed Dr. Lodeweges. “This is because of the varying definitions in the literature and the varying fractionation schemes used.”

How the location of tumors is defined is important. Central tumors are those that are at least 2 cm away from the main bronchial tree, whereas ultra-central tumors are those that butt onto it or overlap it.

In Dr. Lodeweges’s study, ultra-central tumors were defined as those with a planning target volume (PTV) abutting or overlapping the main bronchi, trachea, and/or esophagus.
 

Study details

Between 2012 and 2020, there were 72 patients with ultra-central lung tumors treated at UMC Utrecht. Most patients (78%) had a PTV covering the main bronchus, with 21% each having PTVs overlapping the trachea or esophagus.

Patients received a protracted SBRT regimen of 60 Gy given in 12 fractions. The median follow-up was 19 months.

The local failure-free survival rate was 98% at 1 year and 85% at 2 years. Overall survival rates were 77% and 52%, respectively.

Receiving a biologically effective dose of more than 90 Gy to the main bronchus increased the risk of grade 3 or higher toxicity. On the other hand, patient age and tumor histology did not affect the risk of adverse events.

The use of antithrombotic therapy didn’t have any bearing on toxicity either, but it’s a possible risk factor to consider, Dr. Lodeweges said. Peri- or endobronchial tumor location is another consideration.
 

Findings in context

How do the results of the current study sit with other studies of SBRT in non–small cell lung cancer? Dr. Lievens pointed out that overall survival at 2 years was lower in the current trial (52%) than in patients with central tumors treated in the RTOG 0813 trial (68%-73%) or those with peripheral tumors in the CHISEL trial (77%).

There were, of course, different fractions and doses of radiotherapy used in these trials, with lower doses and more fractions in the UMC Utrecht study, and there was higher toxicity when ultra-central lesions were treated.

“Optimized radiotherapy dose fractionation regimens are investigated quite intensively to improve the clinical benefit. This is an important area of research,” Dr. Lievens said.

The high local control rates but serious risk of bronchopulmonary hemorrhage seen in the current study “calls for further investigation of dose/volume parameters in the context of the location of the tumor but also in the context of other treatment modalities,” she added. “Advanced technologies in radiotherapy, which allow better imaging and daily adaptation, such as the MR-Linac, can optimize clinical benefits.”

The study was supported by UMC Utrecht and received no commercial funding. Dr. Lodeweges and Dr. Lievens had no relevant conflicts of interest.

A controversial, big-budget breast cancer screening trial that has been chronically unable to attract enough female participants since its debut in 2017 got a vote of confidence from a special working group of the National Cancer Institute (NCI) on March 17.

The Tomosynthesis Mammography Imaging Screening Trial (TMIST) should continue, but with modification, the expert group concluded in its report.

The randomized trial, with an estimated cost of $100 million, compares two kinds of mammography screenings for breast cancer in healthy women. One group of patients is screened with digital breast tomosynthesis, also known as 3-D mammography; the other is screened with the older, less expensive 2-D digital technology.

Tomosynthesis is already considered superior in detecting small cancers and reducing callbacks and is increasingly being used in the real world, leading some experts in the field to say that TMIST is critically hampered by women’s and radiologists’ preference for 3-D mammography.

At a meeting of an NCI advisory board in September 2020, there was a suggestion that the federal agency may kill the trial.

But at the latest meeting, the working group proposed that the trial should live on.

One of the main problems with the trial has been recruitment; the recommended changes discussed at the meeting include reducing the number of women needed in the study (from 165,000 to 102,000), which would allow patient “accrual to be completed more quickly,” the working group noted. In addition, the target date for completing patient accrual would be moved to 2023, 3 years after the original completion date of 2020.

The group’s recommendations now go to NCI staff for scientific review. The NCI will then decide about implementing the proposed changes.

The trial, which is the NCI’s largest and most expensive screening study, has never come close to targeted monthly enrollment. It was enrolling fewer than 1,500 patients per month over a 2-year period, instead of the projected 5,500 per month, Philip Castle, PhD, MPH, director of the NCI’s Division of Cancer Prevention, said last year. He called for a review of TMIST’s “feasibility and relevance” in view of the increasing use of tomosynthesis in the United States, as well as other factors.

The new technology has been “rapidly adopted” by facilities in North America, the working group noted. As of December 2020, approximately 74% of breast cancer screening clinics in the United States had at least one tomosynthesis or 3-D system; 42% of the mammography machines were 3-D.

This trend of increasing use of 3-D machines might be too much for TMIST to surmount, said Nancy Davidson, MD, of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, in Seattle, who chaired the working group.

“We are worried the challenges [to patient accrual] may persist due to the increasing adoption of three-dimensional breast tomosynthesis in the United States over time,” she said during the working group’s virtual presentation of the report to the NCI’s Clinical Trials and Translational Research Advisory Committee.

Committee member Smita Bhatia, MD, PhD, of the University of Alabama at Birmingham, wondered, “What are the ongoing barriers that [TMIST investigators] are going to face beside recruitment?”

Dr. Davidson answered by speaking, again, about market penetration of tomosynthesis machines and suggested that the recruitment problems and the availability of 3-D mammography are intertwined.

“Is this a technology that has or will arrive, at which point it may not be very easy to put the genie back in the bottle?” she asked.

That question has already been answered – widespread use of tomosynthesis is here to stay, argued Daniel Kopans, MD, of Harvard Medical School, Boston, who invented digital breast tomosynthesis but no longer benefits financially from his invention because the patent has expired.

“The horse is out of the barn,” Dr. Kopans said in an interview. By the time the study results are available, digital mammography will be a tool of the past, he said.

TMIST is a trial “that should never have been started in the first place, and it’s failing,” he said. “I was hoping they [the NCI] would say, ‘Let’s stop this because there’s not enough accrual.’ But it looks like they’re not.”

“TMIST is a waste of money,” said Dr. Kopans, repeating a criticism he has made in the past.
 

A drop in study power

The new recommendations for TMIST come about 1 year after Medscape Medical News reported that the study was lagging in enrollment of both patients and participating sites/physicians.

Last year, two TMIST study investigators said it had been difficult enlisting sites, in part because many radiologists and facilities – informed by their experience and previous research results – already believe that the 3-D technology is superior.

Currently, most 3-D systems are used in conjunction with 2-D. First, two static images of the breast are taken (2-D), and then the unit moves in an arc, taking multiple images of the breast (3-D). Thus, 3-D is widely described as allowing clinicians to flip through the images like “pages in a book” and as offering a superior read of the breast.

The NCI working group concedes that “there is evidence that screening utilizing tomosynthesis may reduce recall rates and improve cancer detection,” but it says the trial is needed to address “questions that still remain regarding the overall benefit to patients.”

Furthermore, tomosynthesis “may carry higher out-of-pocket costs for women and is more labor intensive and costly for health care systems in that it requires about twice as much reader time for interpretation,” the working group said.

The “main hypothesis of TMIST” is that “tomosynthesis will decrease the cumulative incidence of advanced breast cancers, a surrogate for mortality, compared to standard digital mammography,” posits the group.

Advanced breast cancer is defined in TMIST as invasive breast cancers that meet any of the following criteria:

• Distant metastases
• At least one lymph node macrometastasis
• Tumor size >1 cm and triple-negative or positive for human epidermal growth factor receptor
• Tumor size ≥ 20 mm unless of pure mucinous or other favorable histologies.

In the original study design, the sample size was estimated to be sufficient to provide 90% power to detect a 20% relative reduction in the proportion of advanced cancers in the intervention arm (tomosynthesis, or 3-D) compared to the control arm (digital mammography, or 2-D) 4.5 years from randomization.

Now, with fewer patients and a revised analytic approach, the study’s statistical power will be decreased to 80% from the original 90%.

Also, an advanced cancer is counted “if it occurs at any time while the participant is on study.”

Dr. Kopans says that is a problem.

“That is a huge mistake, since digital breast tomosynthesis cannot impact prevalent cancers. They are already there. This means that their ‘power calculation’ is wrong, and they won’t have the power that they are claiming,” he said.

Dr. Kopans explained that the first screen in TMIST will have “no effect on the number of advanced cancers.” That’s because the cancers will have already grown enough to become advanced, he said.

On the other hand, an initial screening might detect and thus lead to the removal of nonadvanced, smaller cancers, which, had they not been detected and removed, would have grown to become advanced cancers by the next year. Thus, the screenings done after the first year are the ones that potentially prove the effect of the intervention.

However, the working group report says that changes to the study will not affect anything other than a 10% reduction in the study’s power.

The working group is concerned about TMIST going on for years and years. For that reason, they recommended that the NCI establish “strict criteria for termination of the study” if accrual goals are not met. However, those parameters have not been developed, and it was not part of the study group’s mission to establish them.

The working group was sponsored by the NCI. Dr. Kopans reports consulting with DART Imaging in China.

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

A controversial, big-budget breast cancer screening trial that has been chronically unable to attract enough female participants since its debut in 2017 got a vote of confidence from a special working group of the National Cancer Institute (NCI) on March 17.

The Tomosynthesis Mammography Imaging Screening Trial (TMIST) should continue, but with modification, the expert group concluded in its report.

The randomized trial, with an estimated cost of $100 million, compares two kinds of mammography screenings for breast cancer in healthy women. One group of patients is screened with digital breast tomosynthesis, also known as 3-D mammography; the other is screened with the older, less expensive 2-D digital technology.

Tomosynthesis is already considered superior in detecting small cancers and reducing callbacks and is increasingly being used in the real world, leading some experts in the field to say that TMIST is critically hampered by women’s and radiologists’ preference for 3-D mammography.

At a meeting of an NCI advisory board in September 2020, there was a suggestion that the federal agency may kill the trial.

But at the latest meeting, the working group proposed that the trial should live on.

One of the main problems with the trial has been recruitment; the recommended changes discussed at the meeting include reducing the number of women needed in the study (from 165,000 to 102,000), which would allow patient “accrual to be completed more quickly,” the working group noted. In addition, the target date for completing patient accrual would be moved to 2023, 3 years after the original completion date of 2020.

The group’s recommendations now go to NCI staff for scientific review. The NCI will then decide about implementing the proposed changes.

The trial, which is the NCI’s largest and most expensive screening study, has never come close to targeted monthly enrollment. It was enrolling fewer than 1,500 patients per month over a 2-year period, instead of the projected 5,500 per month, Philip Castle, PhD, MPH, director of the NCI’s Division of Cancer Prevention, said last year. He called for a review of TMIST’s “feasibility and relevance” in view of the increasing use of tomosynthesis in the United States, as well as other factors.

The new technology has been “rapidly adopted” by facilities in North America, the working group noted. As of December 2020, approximately 74% of breast cancer screening clinics in the United States had at least one tomosynthesis or 3-D system; 42% of the mammography machines were 3-D.

This trend of increasing use of 3-D machines might be too much for TMIST to surmount, said Nancy Davidson, MD, of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, in Seattle, who chaired the working group.

“We are worried the challenges [to patient accrual] may persist due to the increasing adoption of three-dimensional breast tomosynthesis in the United States over time,” she said during the working group’s virtual presentation of the report to the NCI’s Clinical Trials and Translational Research Advisory Committee.

Committee member Smita Bhatia, MD, PhD, of the University of Alabama at Birmingham, wondered, “What are the ongoing barriers that [TMIST investigators] are going to face beside recruitment?”

Dr. Davidson answered by speaking, again, about market penetration of tomosynthesis machines and suggested that the recruitment problems and the availability of 3-D mammography are intertwined.

“Is this a technology that has or will arrive, at which point it may not be very easy to put the genie back in the bottle?” she asked.

That question has already been answered – widespread use of tomosynthesis is here to stay, argued Daniel Kopans, MD, of Harvard Medical School, Boston, who invented digital breast tomosynthesis but no longer benefits financially from his invention because the patent has expired.

“The horse is out of the barn,” Dr. Kopans said in an interview. By the time the study results are available, digital mammography will be a tool of the past, he said.

TMIST is a trial “that should never have been started in the first place, and it’s failing,” he said. “I was hoping they [the NCI] would say, ‘Let’s stop this because there’s not enough accrual.’ But it looks like they’re not.”

“TMIST is a waste of money,” said Dr. Kopans, repeating a criticism he has made in the past.
 

A drop in study power

The new recommendations for TMIST come about 1 year after Medscape Medical News reported that the study was lagging in enrollment of both patients and participating sites/physicians.

Last year, two TMIST study investigators said it had been difficult enlisting sites, in part because many radiologists and facilities – informed by their experience and previous research results – already believe that the 3-D technology is superior.

Currently, most 3-D systems are used in conjunction with 2-D. First, two static images of the breast are taken (2-D), and then the unit moves in an arc, taking multiple images of the breast (3-D). Thus, 3-D is widely described as allowing clinicians to flip through the images like “pages in a book” and as offering a superior read of the breast.

The NCI working group concedes that “there is evidence that screening utilizing tomosynthesis may reduce recall rates and improve cancer detection,” but it says the trial is needed to address “questions that still remain regarding the overall benefit to patients.”

Furthermore, tomosynthesis “may carry higher out-of-pocket costs for women and is more labor intensive and costly for health care systems in that it requires about twice as much reader time for interpretation,” the working group said.

The “main hypothesis of TMIST” is that “tomosynthesis will decrease the cumulative incidence of advanced breast cancers, a surrogate for mortality, compared to standard digital mammography,” posits the group.

Advanced breast cancer is defined in TMIST as invasive breast cancers that meet any of the following criteria:

• Distant metastases
• At least one lymph node macrometastasis
• Tumor size >1 cm and triple-negative or positive for human epidermal growth factor receptor
• Tumor size ≥ 20 mm unless of pure mucinous or other favorable histologies.

In the original study design, the sample size was estimated to be sufficient to provide 90% power to detect a 20% relative reduction in the proportion of advanced cancers in the intervention arm (tomosynthesis, or 3-D) compared to the control arm (digital mammography, or 2-D) 4.5 years from randomization.

Now, with fewer patients and a revised analytic approach, the study’s statistical power will be decreased to 80% from the original 90%.

Also, an advanced cancer is counted “if it occurs at any time while the participant is on study.”

Dr. Kopans says that is a problem.

“That is a huge mistake, since digital breast tomosynthesis cannot impact prevalent cancers. They are already there. This means that their ‘power calculation’ is wrong, and they won’t have the power that they are claiming,” he said.

Dr. Kopans explained that the first screen in TMIST will have “no effect on the number of advanced cancers.” That’s because the cancers will have already grown enough to become advanced, he said.

On the other hand, an initial screening might detect and thus lead to the removal of nonadvanced, smaller cancers, which, had they not been detected and removed, would have grown to become advanced cancers by the next year. Thus, the screenings done after the first year are the ones that potentially prove the effect of the intervention.

However, the working group report says that changes to the study will not affect anything other than a 10% reduction in the study’s power.

The working group is concerned about TMIST going on for years and years. For that reason, they recommended that the NCI establish “strict criteria for termination of the study” if accrual goals are not met. However, those parameters have not been developed, and it was not part of the study group’s mission to establish them.

The working group was sponsored by the NCI. Dr. Kopans reports consulting with DART Imaging in China.

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

A controversial, big-budget breast cancer screening trial that has been chronically unable to attract enough female participants since its debut in 2017 got a vote of confidence from a special working group of the National Cancer Institute (NCI) on March 17.

The Tomosynthesis Mammography Imaging Screening Trial (TMIST) should continue, but with modification, the expert group concluded in its report.

The randomized trial, with an estimated cost of $100 million, compares two kinds of mammography screenings for breast cancer in healthy women. One group of patients is screened with digital breast tomosynthesis, also known as 3-D mammography; the other is screened with the older, less expensive 2-D digital technology.

Tomosynthesis is already considered superior in detecting small cancers and reducing callbacks and is increasingly being used in the real world, leading some experts in the field to say that TMIST is critically hampered by women’s and radiologists’ preference for 3-D mammography.

At a meeting of an NCI advisory board in September 2020, there was a suggestion that the federal agency may kill the trial.

But at the latest meeting, the working group proposed that the trial should live on.

One of the main problems with the trial has been recruitment; the recommended changes discussed at the meeting include reducing the number of women needed in the study (from 165,000 to 102,000), which would allow patient “accrual to be completed more quickly,” the working group noted. In addition, the target date for completing patient accrual would be moved to 2023, 3 years after the original completion date of 2020.

The group’s recommendations now go to NCI staff for scientific review. The NCI will then decide about implementing the proposed changes.

The trial, which is the NCI’s largest and most expensive screening study, has never come close to targeted monthly enrollment. It was enrolling fewer than 1,500 patients per month over a 2-year period, instead of the projected 5,500 per month, Philip Castle, PhD, MPH, director of the NCI’s Division of Cancer Prevention, said last year. He called for a review of TMIST’s “feasibility and relevance” in view of the increasing use of tomosynthesis in the United States, as well as other factors.

The new technology has been “rapidly adopted” by facilities in North America, the working group noted. As of December 2020, approximately 74% of breast cancer screening clinics in the United States had at least one tomosynthesis or 3-D system; 42% of the mammography machines were 3-D.

This trend of increasing use of 3-D machines might be too much for TMIST to surmount, said Nancy Davidson, MD, of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, in Seattle, who chaired the working group.

“We are worried the challenges [to patient accrual] may persist due to the increasing adoption of three-dimensional breast tomosynthesis in the United States over time,” she said during the working group’s virtual presentation of the report to the NCI’s Clinical Trials and Translational Research Advisory Committee.

Committee member Smita Bhatia, MD, PhD, of the University of Alabama at Birmingham, wondered, “What are the ongoing barriers that [TMIST investigators] are going to face beside recruitment?”

Dr. Davidson answered by speaking, again, about market penetration of tomosynthesis machines and suggested that the recruitment problems and the availability of 3-D mammography are intertwined.

“Is this a technology that has or will arrive, at which point it may not be very easy to put the genie back in the bottle?” she asked.

That question has already been answered – widespread use of tomosynthesis is here to stay, argued Daniel Kopans, MD, of Harvard Medical School, Boston, who invented digital breast tomosynthesis but no longer benefits financially from his invention because the patent has expired.

“The horse is out of the barn,” Dr. Kopans said in an interview. By the time the study results are available, digital mammography will be a tool of the past, he said.

TMIST is a trial “that should never have been started in the first place, and it’s failing,” he said. “I was hoping they [the NCI] would say, ‘Let’s stop this because there’s not enough accrual.’ But it looks like they’re not.”

“TMIST is a waste of money,” said Dr. Kopans, repeating a criticism he has made in the past.
 

A drop in study power

The new recommendations for TMIST come about 1 year after Medscape Medical News reported that the study was lagging in enrollment of both patients and participating sites/physicians.

Last year, two TMIST study investigators said it had been difficult enlisting sites, in part because many radiologists and facilities – informed by their experience and previous research results – already believe that the 3-D technology is superior.

Currently, most 3-D systems are used in conjunction with 2-D. First, two static images of the breast are taken (2-D), and then the unit moves in an arc, taking multiple images of the breast (3-D). Thus, 3-D is widely described as allowing clinicians to flip through the images like “pages in a book” and as offering a superior read of the breast.

The NCI working group concedes that “there is evidence that screening utilizing tomosynthesis may reduce recall rates and improve cancer detection,” but it says the trial is needed to address “questions that still remain regarding the overall benefit to patients.”

Furthermore, tomosynthesis “may carry higher out-of-pocket costs for women and is more labor intensive and costly for health care systems in that it requires about twice as much reader time for interpretation,” the working group said.

The “main hypothesis of TMIST” is that “tomosynthesis will decrease the cumulative incidence of advanced breast cancers, a surrogate for mortality, compared to standard digital mammography,” posits the group.

Advanced breast cancer is defined in TMIST as invasive breast cancers that meet any of the following criteria:

• Distant metastases
• At least one lymph node macrometastasis
• Tumor size >1 cm and triple-negative or positive for human epidermal growth factor receptor
• Tumor size ≥ 20 mm unless of pure mucinous or other favorable histologies.

In the original study design, the sample size was estimated to be sufficient to provide 90% power to detect a 20% relative reduction in the proportion of advanced cancers in the intervention arm (tomosynthesis, or 3-D) compared to the control arm (digital mammography, or 2-D) 4.5 years from randomization.

Now, with fewer patients and a revised analytic approach, the study’s statistical power will be decreased to 80% from the original 90%.

Also, an advanced cancer is counted “if it occurs at any time while the participant is on study.”

Dr. Kopans says that is a problem.

“That is a huge mistake, since digital breast tomosynthesis cannot impact prevalent cancers. They are already there. This means that their ‘power calculation’ is wrong, and they won’t have the power that they are claiming,” he said.

Dr. Kopans explained that the first screen in TMIST will have “no effect on the number of advanced cancers.” That’s because the cancers will have already grown enough to become advanced, he said.

On the other hand, an initial screening might detect and thus lead to the removal of nonadvanced, smaller cancers, which, had they not been detected and removed, would have grown to become advanced cancers by the next year. Thus, the screenings done after the first year are the ones that potentially prove the effect of the intervention.

However, the working group report says that changes to the study will not affect anything other than a 10% reduction in the study’s power.

The working group is concerned about TMIST going on for years and years. For that reason, they recommended that the NCI establish “strict criteria for termination of the study” if accrual goals are not met. However, those parameters have not been developed, and it was not part of the study group’s mission to establish them.

The working group was sponsored by the NCI. Dr. Kopans reports consulting with DART Imaging in China.

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

Among individuals who have received a hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT), often used in the treatment of blood cancers, rates of survival are poor for those who develop COVID-19.

The probability of survival 30 days after being diagnosed with COVID-19 is only 68% for persons who have received an allogeneic HSCT and 67% for autologous HSCT recipients, according to new data from the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research.

These findings underscore the need for “stringent surveillance and aggressive treatment measures” in this population, Akshay Sharma, MBBS, of St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital, Memphis, and colleagues wrote.

The findings were published online March 1, 2021, in The Lancet Haematology.

The study is “of importance for physicians caring for HSCT recipients worldwide,” Mathieu Leclerc, MD, and Sébastien Maury, MD, Hôpital Henri Mondor, Créteil, France, commented in an accompanying editorial.
 

Study details

For their study, Dr. Sharma and colleagues analyzed outcomes for all HSCT recipients who developed COVID-19 and whose cases were reported to the CIBMTR. Of 318 such patients, 184 had undergone allogeneic HSCT, and 134 had undergone autologous HSCT.

Overall, about half of these patients (49%) had mild COVID-19.

Severe COVID-19 that required mechanical ventilation developed in 15% and 13% of the allogeneic and autologous HSCT recipients, respectively.

About one-fifth of patients died: 22% and 19% of allogeneic and autologous HSCT recipients, respectively.

Factors associated with greater mortality risk included age of 50 years or older (hazard ratio, 2.53), male sex (HR, 3.53), and development of COVID-19 within 12 months of undergoing HSCT (HR, 2.67).

Among autologous HSCT recipients, lymphoma was associated with higher mortality risk in comparison with a plasma cell disorder or myeloma (HR, 2.41), the authors noted.

“Two important messages can be drawn from the results reported by Sharma and colleagues,” Dr. Leclerc and Dr. Maury wrote in their editorial. “The first is the confirmation that the prognosis of COVID-19 is particularly poor in HSCT recipients, and that its prevention, in the absence of any specific curative treatment with sufficient efficacy, should be at the forefront of concerns.”

The second relates to the risk factors for death among HSCT recipients who develop COVID-19. In addition to previously known risk factors, such as age and gender, the investigators identified transplant-specific factors potentially associated with prognosis – namely, the nearly threefold increase in death among allogeneic HSCT recipients who develop COVID-19 within 12 months of transplant, they explained.

However, the findings are limited by a substantial amount of missing data, short follow-up, and the possibility of selection bias, they noted.

“Further large and well-designed studies with longer follow-up are needed to confirm and refine the results,” the editorialists wrote.

“[A] better understanding of the distinctive features of COVID-19 infection in HSCT recipients will be a necessary and essential step toward improvement of the remarkably poor prognosis observed in this setting,” they added.

The study was funded by the American Society of Hematology; the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society; the National Cancer Institute; the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute; the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; the National Institutes of Health; the Health Resources and Services Administration; and the Office of Naval Research. Dr. Sharma receives support for the conduct of industry-sponsored trials from Vertex Pharmaceuticals, CRISPR Therapeutics, and Novartis and consulting fees from Spotlight Therapeutics. Dr. Leclerc and Dr. Maury disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Among individuals who have received a hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT), often used in the treatment of blood cancers, rates of survival are poor for those who develop COVID-19.

The probability of survival 30 days after being diagnosed with COVID-19 is only 68% for persons who have received an allogeneic HSCT and 67% for autologous HSCT recipients, according to new data from the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research.

These findings underscore the need for “stringent surveillance and aggressive treatment measures” in this population, Akshay Sharma, MBBS, of St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital, Memphis, and colleagues wrote.

The findings were published online March 1, 2021, in The Lancet Haematology.

The study is “of importance for physicians caring for HSCT recipients worldwide,” Mathieu Leclerc, MD, and Sébastien Maury, MD, Hôpital Henri Mondor, Créteil, France, commented in an accompanying editorial.
 

Study details

For their study, Dr. Sharma and colleagues analyzed outcomes for all HSCT recipients who developed COVID-19 and whose cases were reported to the CIBMTR. Of 318 such patients, 184 had undergone allogeneic HSCT, and 134 had undergone autologous HSCT.

Overall, about half of these patients (49%) had mild COVID-19.

Severe COVID-19 that required mechanical ventilation developed in 15% and 13% of the allogeneic and autologous HSCT recipients, respectively.

About one-fifth of patients died: 22% and 19% of allogeneic and autologous HSCT recipients, respectively.

Factors associated with greater mortality risk included age of 50 years or older (hazard ratio, 2.53), male sex (HR, 3.53), and development of COVID-19 within 12 months of undergoing HSCT (HR, 2.67).

Among autologous HSCT recipients, lymphoma was associated with higher mortality risk in comparison with a plasma cell disorder or myeloma (HR, 2.41), the authors noted.

“Two important messages can be drawn from the results reported by Sharma and colleagues,” Dr. Leclerc and Dr. Maury wrote in their editorial. “The first is the confirmation that the prognosis of COVID-19 is particularly poor in HSCT recipients, and that its prevention, in the absence of any specific curative treatment with sufficient efficacy, should be at the forefront of concerns.”

The second relates to the risk factors for death among HSCT recipients who develop COVID-19. In addition to previously known risk factors, such as age and gender, the investigators identified transplant-specific factors potentially associated with prognosis – namely, the nearly threefold increase in death among allogeneic HSCT recipients who develop COVID-19 within 12 months of transplant, they explained.

However, the findings are limited by a substantial amount of missing data, short follow-up, and the possibility of selection bias, they noted.

“Further large and well-designed studies with longer follow-up are needed to confirm and refine the results,” the editorialists wrote.

“[A] better understanding of the distinctive features of COVID-19 infection in HSCT recipients will be a necessary and essential step toward improvement of the remarkably poor prognosis observed in this setting,” they added.

The study was funded by the American Society of Hematology; the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society; the National Cancer Institute; the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute; the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; the National Institutes of Health; the Health Resources and Services Administration; and the Office of Naval Research. Dr. Sharma receives support for the conduct of industry-sponsored trials from Vertex Pharmaceuticals, CRISPR Therapeutics, and Novartis and consulting fees from Spotlight Therapeutics. Dr. Leclerc and Dr. Maury disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Among individuals who have received a hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT), often used in the treatment of blood cancers, rates of survival are poor for those who develop COVID-19.

The probability of survival 30 days after being diagnosed with COVID-19 is only 68% for persons who have received an allogeneic HSCT and 67% for autologous HSCT recipients, according to new data from the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research.

These findings underscore the need for “stringent surveillance and aggressive treatment measures” in this population, Akshay Sharma, MBBS, of St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital, Memphis, and colleagues wrote.

The findings were published online March 1, 2021, in The Lancet Haematology.

The study is “of importance for physicians caring for HSCT recipients worldwide,” Mathieu Leclerc, MD, and Sébastien Maury, MD, Hôpital Henri Mondor, Créteil, France, commented in an accompanying editorial.
 

Study details

For their study, Dr. Sharma and colleagues analyzed outcomes for all HSCT recipients who developed COVID-19 and whose cases were reported to the CIBMTR. Of 318 such patients, 184 had undergone allogeneic HSCT, and 134 had undergone autologous HSCT.

Overall, about half of these patients (49%) had mild COVID-19.

Severe COVID-19 that required mechanical ventilation developed in 15% and 13% of the allogeneic and autologous HSCT recipients, respectively.

About one-fifth of patients died: 22% and 19% of allogeneic and autologous HSCT recipients, respectively.

Factors associated with greater mortality risk included age of 50 years or older (hazard ratio, 2.53), male sex (HR, 3.53), and development of COVID-19 within 12 months of undergoing HSCT (HR, 2.67).

Among autologous HSCT recipients, lymphoma was associated with higher mortality risk in comparison with a plasma cell disorder or myeloma (HR, 2.41), the authors noted.

“Two important messages can be drawn from the results reported by Sharma and colleagues,” Dr. Leclerc and Dr. Maury wrote in their editorial. “The first is the confirmation that the prognosis of COVID-19 is particularly poor in HSCT recipients, and that its prevention, in the absence of any specific curative treatment with sufficient efficacy, should be at the forefront of concerns.”

The second relates to the risk factors for death among HSCT recipients who develop COVID-19. In addition to previously known risk factors, such as age and gender, the investigators identified transplant-specific factors potentially associated with prognosis – namely, the nearly threefold increase in death among allogeneic HSCT recipients who develop COVID-19 within 12 months of transplant, they explained.

However, the findings are limited by a substantial amount of missing data, short follow-up, and the possibility of selection bias, they noted.

“Further large and well-designed studies with longer follow-up are needed to confirm and refine the results,” the editorialists wrote.

“[A] better understanding of the distinctive features of COVID-19 infection in HSCT recipients will be a necessary and essential step toward improvement of the remarkably poor prognosis observed in this setting,” they added.

The study was funded by the American Society of Hematology; the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society; the National Cancer Institute; the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute; the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; the National Institutes of Health; the Health Resources and Services Administration; and the Office of Naval Research. Dr. Sharma receives support for the conduct of industry-sponsored trials from Vertex Pharmaceuticals, CRISPR Therapeutics, and Novartis and consulting fees from Spotlight Therapeutics. Dr. Leclerc and Dr. Maury disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Amid a substantial expansion of therapies in several drug classes for the treatment of osteoporosis, there has been a notable increase in the prescription of denosumab for patients with a cancer-related indication.

ogichobanov/iStock/Getty Images Plus

In an analysis of claims data from January 2009 to March 2020, the bisphosphonate alendronate represented more than 50% of all prescriptions for bone-directed therapies, but growth in the use of the monoclonal antibody denosumab overall and in cancer-related indications particularly was steady throughout the study period.

“In the malignancy cohort, alendronate and zoledronic acid were each used in approximately 30% of individuals at the onset of the study, but use of both then declined,” Sara Cromer, MD, reported at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society.

For malignancy-based prescriptions, denosumab surpassed either bisphosphonate by 2013 and then continued to rise.

Denosumab use “reached approximately 50% of all bone-directed medication use in the malignancy cohort” by the end of the study period, said Dr. Cromer, a clinical research fellow in endocrinology at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

The claims data for this analysis was drawn from the Clinformatics Data Mart. The analysis was restricted to individuals aged older than 50 years who received a prescription for a bone-directed therapy. The 15.48 million prescriptions evaluated were drawn from 1.46 million unique individuals. The mean age was 69 years, and 89% of those prescribed a drug were women.
 

Oncologic indications one of two tracked cohorts

In the context of a large expansion of treatment options in several drug classes for osteoporosis, the objective of this claims analysis was to document trends in treatment choice, according to Dr. Cromer. She and her coinvestigators looked at prescriptions overall as well as in two cohorts defined by ICD codes. One included patients prescribed a prescription by an oncologist. The other included everyone else.

When all prescriptions for bone-directed therapy were evaluated over the study period, alendronate was the most commonly prescribed therapy, and its use increased over time. Prescriptions of zoledronic acid also rose, doubling over the study period, but use was very low in the beginning and it never climbed above 5%.

The proportion of prescriptions written for bisphosphonates other than alendronate and zoledronic acid “declined steadily” over the study period, Dr. Cromer reported.

Denosumab, a monoclonal antibody that targets a step in the process important to maturation of osteoclasts, was approved in 2010. It accounted for 10% of all prescriptions for osteoporosis by 2015 and 15% by 2018. It was still rising through the end of the study period.

In contrast, prescriptions of raloxifene, a selective estrogen receptor modulator, began to decline after 2013. In general, the rates of prescriptions for other agents, including some of the more recently approved drugs, such as teriparatide, abaloparatide, and romosozumab, changed very little over the study period. None of these therapies ever represented more than 2% of prescriptions.

When looking at the cohort of patients who received a bone-directed reason for a noncancer indication, the trends “paralleled those in the all-user analysis,” Dr. Cromer reported.
 

Denosumab use greater in privately insured

In the malignancy cohort, the decline in the use of bisphosphonates and the rise in the use of denosumab were most pronounced in patients who were privately insured. The increased use of denosumab over the study period “outpaced gains in use of other agents despite guidelines,” said Dr. Cromer, referring to the those issued by the Endocrine Society in 2019 .

In those guidelines, written for management of postmenopausal women at high risk of fractures, bisphosphonates are recommended for initial treatment while denosumab is recommended as an alternative. However, those guidelines do not provide specific recommendations for therapies directed at osteoporosis associated with cancer.

Guidelines for this population exist, including one published by the American Society of Clinical Oncology in 2019.

In the ASCO guidelines, oral bisphosphonates, intravenous bisphosphonates, and subcutaneous denosumab were all identified as “efficacious options,” according to Charles L. Shapiro, MD, director of breast cancer translational research, Mount Sinai Health System, New York.

Specifically, “all three of them work to reduce fractures and improve bone density in women with breast cancer in whom you are trying to prevent or treat osteoporosis,” Dr. Shapiro said in an interview.

There might be relative advantages for one therapy over another in specific subgroups defined by type of cancer or stage of cancer, but trials are not definitive for such outcomes as overall survival. Citing one comparative study associating denosumab with an 18% delay to first skeletal event in women with metastatic breast cancer, Dr. Shapiro observed, “I personally don’t consider an 18% delay [for this outcome] to be that clinically meaningful.”

Although major guidelines from ASCO have not so far favored denosumab over any bisphosphonate in routine care, Dr. Shapiro did not rule out the possibility that future studies will show differences.

Dr. Comer and Dr. Shapiro reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

Amid a substantial expansion of therapies in several drug classes for the treatment of osteoporosis, there has been a notable increase in the prescription of denosumab for patients with a cancer-related indication.

ogichobanov/iStock/Getty Images Plus

In an analysis of claims data from January 2009 to March 2020, the bisphosphonate alendronate represented more than 50% of all prescriptions for bone-directed therapies, but growth in the use of the monoclonal antibody denosumab overall and in cancer-related indications particularly was steady throughout the study period.

“In the malignancy cohort, alendronate and zoledronic acid were each used in approximately 30% of individuals at the onset of the study, but use of both then declined,” Sara Cromer, MD, reported at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society.

For malignancy-based prescriptions, denosumab surpassed either bisphosphonate by 2013 and then continued to rise.

Denosumab use “reached approximately 50% of all bone-directed medication use in the malignancy cohort” by the end of the study period, said Dr. Cromer, a clinical research fellow in endocrinology at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

The claims data for this analysis was drawn from the Clinformatics Data Mart. The analysis was restricted to individuals aged older than 50 years who received a prescription for a bone-directed therapy. The 15.48 million prescriptions evaluated were drawn from 1.46 million unique individuals. The mean age was 69 years, and 89% of those prescribed a drug were women.
 

Oncologic indications one of two tracked cohorts

In the context of a large expansion of treatment options in several drug classes for osteoporosis, the objective of this claims analysis was to document trends in treatment choice, according to Dr. Cromer. She and her coinvestigators looked at prescriptions overall as well as in two cohorts defined by ICD codes. One included patients prescribed a prescription by an oncologist. The other included everyone else.

When all prescriptions for bone-directed therapy were evaluated over the study period, alendronate was the most commonly prescribed therapy, and its use increased over time. Prescriptions of zoledronic acid also rose, doubling over the study period, but use was very low in the beginning and it never climbed above 5%.

The proportion of prescriptions written for bisphosphonates other than alendronate and zoledronic acid “declined steadily” over the study period, Dr. Cromer reported.

Denosumab, a monoclonal antibody that targets a step in the process important to maturation of osteoclasts, was approved in 2010. It accounted for 10% of all prescriptions for osteoporosis by 2015 and 15% by 2018. It was still rising through the end of the study period.

In contrast, prescriptions of raloxifene, a selective estrogen receptor modulator, began to decline after 2013. In general, the rates of prescriptions for other agents, including some of the more recently approved drugs, such as teriparatide, abaloparatide, and romosozumab, changed very little over the study period. None of these therapies ever represented more than 2% of prescriptions.

When looking at the cohort of patients who received a bone-directed reason for a noncancer indication, the trends “paralleled those in the all-user analysis,” Dr. Cromer reported.
 

Denosumab use greater in privately insured

In the malignancy cohort, the decline in the use of bisphosphonates and the rise in the use of denosumab were most pronounced in patients who were privately insured. The increased use of denosumab over the study period “outpaced gains in use of other agents despite guidelines,” said Dr. Cromer, referring to the those issued by the Endocrine Society in 2019 .

In those guidelines, written for management of postmenopausal women at high risk of fractures, bisphosphonates are recommended for initial treatment while denosumab is recommended as an alternative. However, those guidelines do not provide specific recommendations for therapies directed at osteoporosis associated with cancer.

Guidelines for this population exist, including one published by the American Society of Clinical Oncology in 2019.

In the ASCO guidelines, oral bisphosphonates, intravenous bisphosphonates, and subcutaneous denosumab were all identified as “efficacious options,” according to Charles L. Shapiro, MD, director of breast cancer translational research, Mount Sinai Health System, New York.

Specifically, “all three of them work to reduce fractures and improve bone density in women with breast cancer in whom you are trying to prevent or treat osteoporosis,” Dr. Shapiro said in an interview.

There might be relative advantages for one therapy over another in specific subgroups defined by type of cancer or stage of cancer, but trials are not definitive for such outcomes as overall survival. Citing one comparative study associating denosumab with an 18% delay to first skeletal event in women with metastatic breast cancer, Dr. Shapiro observed, “I personally don’t consider an 18% delay [for this outcome] to be that clinically meaningful.”

Although major guidelines from ASCO have not so far favored denosumab over any bisphosphonate in routine care, Dr. Shapiro did not rule out the possibility that future studies will show differences.

Dr. Comer and Dr. Shapiro reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

Amid a substantial expansion of therapies in several drug classes for the treatment of osteoporosis, there has been a notable increase in the prescription of denosumab for patients with a cancer-related indication.

ogichobanov/iStock/Getty Images Plus

In an analysis of claims data from January 2009 to March 2020, the bisphosphonate alendronate represented more than 50% of all prescriptions for bone-directed therapies, but growth in the use of the monoclonal antibody denosumab overall and in cancer-related indications particularly was steady throughout the study period.

“In the malignancy cohort, alendronate and zoledronic acid were each used in approximately 30% of individuals at the onset of the study, but use of both then declined,” Sara Cromer, MD, reported at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society.

For malignancy-based prescriptions, denosumab surpassed either bisphosphonate by 2013 and then continued to rise.

Denosumab use “reached approximately 50% of all bone-directed medication use in the malignancy cohort” by the end of the study period, said Dr. Cromer, a clinical research fellow in endocrinology at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

The claims data for this analysis was drawn from the Clinformatics Data Mart. The analysis was restricted to individuals aged older than 50 years who received a prescription for a bone-directed therapy. The 15.48 million prescriptions evaluated were drawn from 1.46 million unique individuals. The mean age was 69 years, and 89% of those prescribed a drug were women.
 

Oncologic indications one of two tracked cohorts

In the context of a large expansion of treatment options in several drug classes for osteoporosis, the objective of this claims analysis was to document trends in treatment choice, according to Dr. Cromer. She and her coinvestigators looked at prescriptions overall as well as in two cohorts defined by ICD codes. One included patients prescribed a prescription by an oncologist. The other included everyone else.

When all prescriptions for bone-directed therapy were evaluated over the study period, alendronate was the most commonly prescribed therapy, and its use increased over time. Prescriptions of zoledronic acid also rose, doubling over the study period, but use was very low in the beginning and it never climbed above 5%.

The proportion of prescriptions written for bisphosphonates other than alendronate and zoledronic acid “declined steadily” over the study period, Dr. Cromer reported.

Denosumab, a monoclonal antibody that targets a step in the process important to maturation of osteoclasts, was approved in 2010. It accounted for 10% of all prescriptions for osteoporosis by 2015 and 15% by 2018. It was still rising through the end of the study period.

In contrast, prescriptions of raloxifene, a selective estrogen receptor modulator, began to decline after 2013. In general, the rates of prescriptions for other agents, including some of the more recently approved drugs, such as teriparatide, abaloparatide, and romosozumab, changed very little over the study period. None of these therapies ever represented more than 2% of prescriptions.

When looking at the cohort of patients who received a bone-directed reason for a noncancer indication, the trends “paralleled those in the all-user analysis,” Dr. Cromer reported.
 

Denosumab use greater in privately insured

In the malignancy cohort, the decline in the use of bisphosphonates and the rise in the use of denosumab were most pronounced in patients who were privately insured. The increased use of denosumab over the study period “outpaced gains in use of other agents despite guidelines,” said Dr. Cromer, referring to the those issued by the Endocrine Society in 2019 .

In those guidelines, written for management of postmenopausal women at high risk of fractures, bisphosphonates are recommended for initial treatment while denosumab is recommended as an alternative. However, those guidelines do not provide specific recommendations for therapies directed at osteoporosis associated with cancer.

Guidelines for this population exist, including one published by the American Society of Clinical Oncology in 2019.

In the ASCO guidelines, oral bisphosphonates, intravenous bisphosphonates, and subcutaneous denosumab were all identified as “efficacious options,” according to Charles L. Shapiro, MD, director of breast cancer translational research, Mount Sinai Health System, New York.

Specifically, “all three of them work to reduce fractures and improve bone density in women with breast cancer in whom you are trying to prevent or treat osteoporosis,” Dr. Shapiro said in an interview.

There might be relative advantages for one therapy over another in specific subgroups defined by type of cancer or stage of cancer, but trials are not definitive for such outcomes as overall survival. Citing one comparative study associating denosumab with an 18% delay to first skeletal event in women with metastatic breast cancer, Dr. Shapiro observed, “I personally don’t consider an 18% delay [for this outcome] to be that clinically meaningful.”

Although major guidelines from ASCO have not so far favored denosumab over any bisphosphonate in routine care, Dr. Shapiro did not rule out the possibility that future studies will show differences.

Dr. Comer and Dr. Shapiro reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

“I’m the first person in my circle of family and friends to participate in a clinical trial.”

Five years ago, Rhonda Long was diagnosed with cholangiocarcinoma, a rare bile duct cancer that’s seen in only about 8,000 Americans each year.

At the time, Mrs. Long, who is Black, said her doctor in Dayton, Ohio, told her she was not a candidate for surgery and suggested palliative care. After seeking a second opinion at Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C., where her sister worked, the 51-year-old wife and mother of two had surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy there in North Carolina. When the chemo stopped working after 3 months, her oncologist at Duke referred her to a colleague at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, where she was accepted into a clinical trial.

“In 2019, I traveled to Boston from Dayton, Ohio, every 3 weeks for labs and scans, to make sure that the drug wasn’t doing more harm than good, making sure that the drug as developed was maintaining, shrinking, or even eliminating the disease. Physically and financially, it takes a toll on you and loved ones.”

Her medical insurance did not cover the direct expenses from the clinical trial, and she was spending $1,000-$1,500 each trip. Sometimes they drove the 15 hours to Boston, and sometimes they flew on the cheapest flight they could find.

It’s not an unfamiliar story: people traveling, often long distances, to take part in clinical trials they hope will save their lives.

The Lazarex Cancer Foundation of Danville, Calif., helped Mrs. Long do just that.

Marya Shegog, PhD, health equity and diversity coordinator at Lazarex, said that a patient travels an average of 500 miles to participate in a trial.

The financial hurdles often prevent patients from taking part in clinical trials, Dr. Shegog said. “When you are sick, and you have a disease that may be terminal, you start thinking about setting your things in order.”

Many patients have to make a decision.

“Do I bankrupt my family on trying and hoping that this drug works and helps me live longer, or do I start setting things in order so that when I’m gone, they’re okay or at least better than if I wouldn’t have spent all the money traveling back and forth.”

Dr. Shegog, a 17-year cancer survivor, says when she was battling cervical cancer, a clinical trial was never offered or explored.

Lazarex has been helping cancer patients who have run out of options for 15 years. It identifies clinical trial opportunities and reimburses patients for all travel costs. Last year, Lazarex reimbursed more than 1,000 cancer patients. And it has supported more than 6,000 people since opening its doors.

“Lazarex exists to help remove the barriers of people not being able to participate in trials,” Dr. Shegog said. “It’s systemic that the medical system does not treat patients the same and oftentimes does not offer or make aware the opportunities for African Americans to participate.”

But now, thanks in part to COVID-19, new possibilities are taking shape. The pandemic has changed the landscape for trials, forcing many of them to go virtual, which allows patients to schedule telehealth visits and get some services like bloodwork and CT or MRI scans closer to home. Mrs. Long’s trial eventually went virtual.

“It was absolutely fantastic,” she said. “Having the trial locally, it saves us money, it saves wear and tear on my body. Being in the car, being in an airport or in a plane and in a hotel, all of that wears on you physically.”

The move to virtual studies may have lasting effects on research and treatment.

“The current pandemic has forced us to reexamine all of the traditional burdens we place on patients as it relates to receiving cancer treatment,” said Hala Borno, MD, an assistant professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco. “Whether they’re coming to our health care facility to see a clinician, for diagnostics such as blood draws and scans, or to receive therapy, this pandemic has challenged us to explore other possibilities that minimize the risk of exposure to SARS-CoV-2. What I find striking is that it has helped us operationalize use of telemedicine and the delivery of care closer to home.”

This is especially encouraging news for minority patients whose participation in trials has for years lagged well behind that of Whites.

But travel is not the only reason. Racial disparities in clinical trials have long been an issue that’s just another part of the implicit bias in health care.

Compared with White people, Black people are largely at higher risk for heart disease, cancer, stroke, diabetes, asthma, and even mental health problems.

And it’s not just African Americans. Asians, Hispanics, Native Americans, and Alaska Natives are all underrepresented in trials at a time when there is growing evidence that drugs may have different effects on different populations.

Dr. Borno is an oncologist who specializes in prostate cancer, a disease that she says shows a “significant disparity,” where Black men are two times more likely to die from advanced prostate cancer, compared with white men. Yet Black men make up just 3% of advanced therapeutic trials.

“A lack of diversity and inclusion in clinical trials is unacceptable,” she said. “If we continue to underrecruit racial/ethnic minorities and older adults to therapeutic clinical trials, we will not be powered to make valid conclusions regarding safety and efficacy in those patient populations. As a result, we can do harm.”

Dr. Borno said that telehealth and telemedicine are not cure-alls, and digital health solutions don’t work for all patients. Approaches, she says, must be tailored to the individual, or disparities could worsen.

In 2020, the Food and Drug Administration approved 53 new drugs. Overall, 32,000 patients took part in these trials. On average, 75% were White, 8% were Black, 6% were Asian, and 11% were Hispanic.

Here’s one stark example of the issue. In 2015, the FDA approved ixazomib (Ninlaro), a promising new drug for multiple myeloma, a blood cancer that affects Black people at disproportionately higher rates than White people. In the United States, one in five people diagnosed with multiple myeloma are Black people. They are more than twice as likely to get the disease as White people. Yet during the clinical trial of 722 participants, only 13 patients, or 1.8%, were Black.

The American Cancer Society estimates that more than 600,000 Americans will die from cancer this year. Historically, Black Americans have the highest death rate and the shortest survival of any racial or ethnic group, stemming largely, it concluded, from centuries of structural racism.

According to Jamie Freedman, MD, head of U.S. medical affairs at Genentech, a global pharmaceutical company, the lack of diversity is often tied to where studies are run.

“Companies tend to choose major academic medical centers where there is a high volume of clinical trial work. When you go to the same tried and true hospitals repeatedly, the pool of patients becomes very homogeneous and tends to be primarily white,” he said. “It’s critical to bring more trials into the community setting by including new sites that can reach underrepresented groups, and Genentech is making significant progress in that area.”

Dr. Freedman believes that, while access is a big hurdle, it doesn’t end there.

“Many patients have a lack of trust in the health care system,” he said. “There are also issues around underserved communities being able to afford quality care, so it’s important to keep time and financial burdens in mind when designing trials to help mitigate barriers such as travel, parking, time off work, and child care.”

Genentech started its diversity and inclusion effort several years ago. Dr. Freeman said that, until more trials become diverse, Black Americans will continue to pay the price. “I think they’re losing their lives in part due to lack of access to these trials. And that is why Genentech and all of us in the health care industry need to change how we design and enroll these studies. We have a long way to go, but I think the steps we’re taking are leading us in the right direction.”

Jennifer Jones-McMeans, PhD, director of global clinical affairs at Abbott Pharmaceuticals, is a clinical research scientist who has designed and led many clinical trials.

She said that Abbott is actively working on solutions.

“We have designed our trials to reduce the barriers to participation and expand access,” she said. “This can be as simple as providing transportation services or home visits for those who are housebound. We’re taking it a step further and providing home health services where someone comes to the home and provides follow-up visits there.”

They also provide interpretation services to address any language barriers.

“We are reaching out to a new set of talented investigators who work closely with underrepresented communities. They are very much wedded and supportive of the communities they treat. By working with doctors within these communities, it expands access to new therapies.”

Spokesperson Keanna Ghazvini said that Pfizer Pharmaceuticals is also committed to increasing minority participation in trials.

“We know that if historically underserved populations are left out of clinical trials, they risk not benefiting from medical breakthroughs down the line,” she said.

The National Institutes of Health’s National Library of Medicine maintains the clinicaltrials.gov database.

There, you can find information on nearly 372,000 publicly and privately supported clinical trials happening in all 50 states and 219 countries. Many are funded by the NIH, but not all of these studies have been evaluated by the U.S. government.

Andrea Denicoff, a nurse consultant at the National Cancer Institute and head of clinical trials operations for the NCI’s National Clinical Trials Network, has been involved in clinical research at the NIH for 35 years.

“It’s really important that our publicly funded trials represent the people of the country,” she said. “There are some cancers that we’re doing a good job in enrolling minorities, and other cancers we need to do a much better job in having a diverse representation in our trials.”

Ms. Denicoff believed opening trials in places where people live is key, but having a diverse clinical trials team is as important.

“We need to reinforce that cancer centers across the country have open doors, and anyone with cancer feels comfortable getting care at that center, and that also includes discussing the option to participate in clinical trials when one might be available. We know from research that when people are invited and asked about trial participation and educated about them, they’ll be much more interested in joining them.”

Ms. Denicoff said that, during the pandemic, the NCI quickly came up with guidance to allow trial sites to send patients their oral study drugs and set up virtual visits. She believes it may help increase future access.

‘Lola Fashoyin-Aje, MD, associate director for science and policy to address disparities in the Oncology Center of Excellence at the FDA, says the agency firmly believes clinical trials should represent the patients who will ultimately get the drug if it’s approved.

But the FDA’s power to require diversity in trials is limited.

“It is important to point out that there are legal constraints which limit’s FDA’s authority to require specific proportional representation in clinical trials by demographic factors,” Dr. Fashoyin-Aje said.

Still, some researchers feel the FDA should play a bigger role. The question is: Should diversity be mandated?

Rhonda Long is now back in Boston to start a new trial, with a new drug that targets her specific mutation. She will be there for 2 months. Once again, Lazarex will help cover some of the cost.

She wants people of color to understand that they are missing out on the promise of new cancer drugs and extended life.

“I feel like there’s not enough emphasis on clinical trials, I don’t believe there’s enough emphasis on second opinions, I don’t think there’s enough emphasis that medicine happens outside our borders, outside of our communities. Clinical trials that don’t have a broad range of participants, how do we know how effective they are if Black and brown people, Asian or Latin American people aren’t represented in the trial?”

And with more trials adopting virtual elements, she said it’s time for minorities to get on board.

Dr. Freedman believed the groundwork is being laid for that to happen. “I don’t think we’ll ever return back to the way we used to do things, where everything has to be done at the clinical trial site. I just don’t think we’re ever going back.”

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

“I’m the first person in my circle of family and friends to participate in a clinical trial.”

Five years ago, Rhonda Long was diagnosed with cholangiocarcinoma, a rare bile duct cancer that’s seen in only about 8,000 Americans each year.

At the time, Mrs. Long, who is Black, said her doctor in Dayton, Ohio, told her she was not a candidate for surgery and suggested palliative care. After seeking a second opinion at Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C., where her sister worked, the 51-year-old wife and mother of two had surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy there in North Carolina. When the chemo stopped working after 3 months, her oncologist at Duke referred her to a colleague at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, where she was accepted into a clinical trial.

“In 2019, I traveled to Boston from Dayton, Ohio, every 3 weeks for labs and scans, to make sure that the drug wasn’t doing more harm than good, making sure that the drug as developed was maintaining, shrinking, or even eliminating the disease. Physically and financially, it takes a toll on you and loved ones.”

Her medical insurance did not cover the direct expenses from the clinical trial, and she was spending $1,000-$1,500 each trip. Sometimes they drove the 15 hours to Boston, and sometimes they flew on the cheapest flight they could find.

It’s not an unfamiliar story: people traveling, often long distances, to take part in clinical trials they hope will save their lives.

The Lazarex Cancer Foundation of Danville, Calif., helped Mrs. Long do just that.

Marya Shegog, PhD, health equity and diversity coordinator at Lazarex, said that a patient travels an average of 500 miles to participate in a trial.

The financial hurdles often prevent patients from taking part in clinical trials, Dr. Shegog said. “When you are sick, and you have a disease that may be terminal, you start thinking about setting your things in order.”

Many patients have to make a decision.

“Do I bankrupt my family on trying and hoping that this drug works and helps me live longer, or do I start setting things in order so that when I’m gone, they’re okay or at least better than if I wouldn’t have spent all the money traveling back and forth.”

Dr. Shegog, a 17-year cancer survivor, says when she was battling cervical cancer, a clinical trial was never offered or explored.

Lazarex has been helping cancer patients who have run out of options for 15 years. It identifies clinical trial opportunities and reimburses patients for all travel costs. Last year, Lazarex reimbursed more than 1,000 cancer patients. And it has supported more than 6,000 people since opening its doors.

“Lazarex exists to help remove the barriers of people not being able to participate in trials,” Dr. Shegog said. “It’s systemic that the medical system does not treat patients the same and oftentimes does not offer or make aware the opportunities for African Americans to participate.”

But now, thanks in part to COVID-19, new possibilities are taking shape. The pandemic has changed the landscape for trials, forcing many of them to go virtual, which allows patients to schedule telehealth visits and get some services like bloodwork and CT or MRI scans closer to home. Mrs. Long’s trial eventually went virtual.

“It was absolutely fantastic,” she said. “Having the trial locally, it saves us money, it saves wear and tear on my body. Being in the car, being in an airport or in a plane and in a hotel, all of that wears on you physically.”

The move to virtual studies may have lasting effects on research and treatment.

“The current pandemic has forced us to reexamine all of the traditional burdens we place on patients as it relates to receiving cancer treatment,” said Hala Borno, MD, an assistant professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco. “Whether they’re coming to our health care facility to see a clinician, for diagnostics such as blood draws and scans, or to receive therapy, this pandemic has challenged us to explore other possibilities that minimize the risk of exposure to SARS-CoV-2. What I find striking is that it has helped us operationalize use of telemedicine and the delivery of care closer to home.”

This is especially encouraging news for minority patients whose participation in trials has for years lagged well behind that of Whites.

But travel is not the only reason. Racial disparities in clinical trials have long been an issue that’s just another part of the implicit bias in health care.

Compared with White people, Black people are largely at higher risk for heart disease, cancer, stroke, diabetes, asthma, and even mental health problems.

And it’s not just African Americans. Asians, Hispanics, Native Americans, and Alaska Natives are all underrepresented in trials at a time when there is growing evidence that drugs may have different effects on different populations.

Dr. Borno is an oncologist who specializes in prostate cancer, a disease that she says shows a “significant disparity,” where Black men are two times more likely to die from advanced prostate cancer, compared with white men. Yet Black men make up just 3% of advanced therapeutic trials.

“A lack of diversity and inclusion in clinical trials is unacceptable,” she said. “If we continue to underrecruit racial/ethnic minorities and older adults to therapeutic clinical trials, we will not be powered to make valid conclusions regarding safety and efficacy in those patient populations. As a result, we can do harm.”

Dr. Borno said that telehealth and telemedicine are not cure-alls, and digital health solutions don’t work for all patients. Approaches, she says, must be tailored to the individual, or disparities could worsen.

In 2020, the Food and Drug Administration approved 53 new drugs. Overall, 32,000 patients took part in these trials. On average, 75% were White, 8% were Black, 6% were Asian, and 11% were Hispanic.

Here’s one stark example of the issue. In 2015, the FDA approved ixazomib (Ninlaro), a promising new drug for multiple myeloma, a blood cancer that affects Black people at disproportionately higher rates than White people. In the United States, one in five people diagnosed with multiple myeloma are Black people. They are more than twice as likely to get the disease as White people. Yet during the clinical trial of 722 participants, only 13 patients, or 1.8%, were Black.

The American Cancer Society estimates that more than 600,000 Americans will die from cancer this year. Historically, Black Americans have the highest death rate and the shortest survival of any racial or ethnic group, stemming largely, it concluded, from centuries of structural racism.

According to Jamie Freedman, MD, head of U.S. medical affairs at Genentech, a global pharmaceutical company, the lack of diversity is often tied to where studies are run.

“Companies tend to choose major academic medical centers where there is a high volume of clinical trial work. When you go to the same tried and true hospitals repeatedly, the pool of patients becomes very homogeneous and tends to be primarily white,” he said. “It’s critical to bring more trials into the community setting by including new sites that can reach underrepresented groups, and Genentech is making significant progress in that area.”

Dr. Freedman believes that, while access is a big hurdle, it doesn’t end there.

“Many patients have a lack of trust in the health care system,” he said. “There are also issues around underserved communities being able to afford quality care, so it’s important to keep time and financial burdens in mind when designing trials to help mitigate barriers such as travel, parking, time off work, and child care.”

Genentech started its diversity and inclusion effort several years ago. Dr. Freeman said that, until more trials become diverse, Black Americans will continue to pay the price. “I think they’re losing their lives in part due to lack of access to these trials. And that is why Genentech and all of us in the health care industry need to change how we design and enroll these studies. We have a long way to go, but I think the steps we’re taking are leading us in the right direction.”

Jennifer Jones-McMeans, PhD, director of global clinical affairs at Abbott Pharmaceuticals, is a clinical research scientist who has designed and led many clinical trials.

She said that Abbott is actively working on solutions.

“We have designed our trials to reduce the barriers to participation and expand access,” she said. “This can be as simple as providing transportation services or home visits for those who are housebound. We’re taking it a step further and providing home health services where someone comes to the home and provides follow-up visits there.”

They also provide interpretation services to address any language barriers.

“We are reaching out to a new set of talented investigators who work closely with underrepresented communities. They are very much wedded and supportive of the communities they treat. By working with doctors within these communities, it expands access to new therapies.”

Spokesperson Keanna Ghazvini said that Pfizer Pharmaceuticals is also committed to increasing minority participation in trials.

“We know that if historically underserved populations are left out of clinical trials, they risk not benefiting from medical breakthroughs down the line,” she said.

The National Institutes of Health’s National Library of Medicine maintains the clinicaltrials.gov database.

There, you can find information on nearly 372,000 publicly and privately supported clinical trials happening in all 50 states and 219 countries. Many are funded by the NIH, but not all of these studies have been evaluated by the U.S. government.

Andrea Denicoff, a nurse consultant at the National Cancer Institute and head of clinical trials operations for the NCI’s National Clinical Trials Network, has been involved in clinical research at the NIH for 35 years.

“It’s really important that our publicly funded trials represent the people of the country,” she said. “There are some cancers that we’re doing a good job in enrolling minorities, and other cancers we need to do a much better job in having a diverse representation in our trials.”

Ms. Denicoff believed opening trials in places where people live is key, but having a diverse clinical trials team is as important.

“We need to reinforce that cancer centers across the country have open doors, and anyone with cancer feels comfortable getting care at that center, and that also includes discussing the option to participate in clinical trials when one might be available. We know from research that when people are invited and asked about trial participation and educated about them, they’ll be much more interested in joining them.”

Ms. Denicoff said that, during the pandemic, the NCI quickly came up with guidance to allow trial sites to send patients their oral study drugs and set up virtual visits. She believes it may help increase future access.

‘Lola Fashoyin-Aje, MD, associate director for science and policy to address disparities in the Oncology Center of Excellence at the FDA, says the agency firmly believes clinical trials should represent the patients who will ultimately get the drug if it’s approved.

But the FDA’s power to require diversity in trials is limited.

“It is important to point out that there are legal constraints which limit’s FDA’s authority to require specific proportional representation in clinical trials by demographic factors,” Dr. Fashoyin-Aje said.

Still, some researchers feel the FDA should play a bigger role. The question is: Should diversity be mandated?

Rhonda Long is now back in Boston to start a new trial, with a new drug that targets her specific mutation. She will be there for 2 months. Once again, Lazarex will help cover some of the cost.

She wants people of color to understand that they are missing out on the promise of new cancer drugs and extended life.

“I feel like there’s not enough emphasis on clinical trials, I don’t believe there’s enough emphasis on second opinions, I don’t think there’s enough emphasis that medicine happens outside our borders, outside of our communities. Clinical trials that don’t have a broad range of participants, how do we know how effective they are if Black and brown people, Asian or Latin American people aren’t represented in the trial?”

And with more trials adopting virtual elements, she said it’s time for minorities to get on board.

Dr. Freedman believed the groundwork is being laid for that to happen. “I don’t think we’ll ever return back to the way we used to do things, where everything has to be done at the clinical trial site. I just don’t think we’re ever going back.”

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

“I’m the first person in my circle of family and friends to participate in a clinical trial.”

Five years ago, Rhonda Long was diagnosed with cholangiocarcinoma, a rare bile duct cancer that’s seen in only about 8,000 Americans each year.

At the time, Mrs. Long, who is Black, said her doctor in Dayton, Ohio, told her she was not a candidate for surgery and suggested palliative care. After seeking a second opinion at Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C., where her sister worked, the 51-year-old wife and mother of two had surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy there in North Carolina. When the chemo stopped working after 3 months, her oncologist at Duke referred her to a colleague at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, where she was accepted into a clinical trial.

“In 2019, I traveled to Boston from Dayton, Ohio, every 3 weeks for labs and scans, to make sure that the drug wasn’t doing more harm than good, making sure that the drug as developed was maintaining, shrinking, or even eliminating the disease. Physically and financially, it takes a toll on you and loved ones.”

Her medical insurance did not cover the direct expenses from the clinical trial, and she was spending $1,000-$1,500 each trip. Sometimes they drove the 15 hours to Boston, and sometimes they flew on the cheapest flight they could find.

It’s not an unfamiliar story: people traveling, often long distances, to take part in clinical trials they hope will save their lives.

The Lazarex Cancer Foundation of Danville, Calif., helped Mrs. Long do just that.

Marya Shegog, PhD, health equity and diversity coordinator at Lazarex, said that a patient travels an average of 500 miles to participate in a trial.

The financial hurdles often prevent patients from taking part in clinical trials, Dr. Shegog said. “When you are sick, and you have a disease that may be terminal, you start thinking about setting your things in order.”

Many patients have to make a decision.

“Do I bankrupt my family on trying and hoping that this drug works and helps me live longer, or do I start setting things in order so that when I’m gone, they’re okay or at least better than if I wouldn’t have spent all the money traveling back and forth.”

Dr. Shegog, a 17-year cancer survivor, says when she was battling cervical cancer, a clinical trial was never offered or explored.

Lazarex has been helping cancer patients who have run out of options for 15 years. It identifies clinical trial opportunities and reimburses patients for all travel costs. Last year, Lazarex reimbursed more than 1,000 cancer patients. And it has supported more than 6,000 people since opening its doors.

“Lazarex exists to help remove the barriers of people not being able to participate in trials,” Dr. Shegog said. “It’s systemic that the medical system does not treat patients the same and oftentimes does not offer or make aware the opportunities for African Americans to participate.”

But now, thanks in part to COVID-19, new possibilities are taking shape. The pandemic has changed the landscape for trials, forcing many of them to go virtual, which allows patients to schedule telehealth visits and get some services like bloodwork and CT or MRI scans closer to home. Mrs. Long’s trial eventually went virtual.

“It was absolutely fantastic,” she said. “Having the trial locally, it saves us money, it saves wear and tear on my body. Being in the car, being in an airport or in a plane and in a hotel, all of that wears on you physically.”

The move to virtual studies may have lasting effects on research and treatment.

“The current pandemic has forced us to reexamine all of the traditional burdens we place on patients as it relates to receiving cancer treatment,” said Hala Borno, MD, an assistant professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco. “Whether they’re coming to our health care facility to see a clinician, for diagnostics such as blood draws and scans, or to receive therapy, this pandemic has challenged us to explore other possibilities that minimize the risk of exposure to SARS-CoV-2. What I find striking is that it has helped us operationalize use of telemedicine and the delivery of care closer to home.”

This is especially encouraging news for minority patients whose participation in trials has for years lagged well behind that of Whites.

But travel is not the only reason. Racial disparities in clinical trials have long been an issue that’s just another part of the implicit bias in health care.

Compared with White people, Black people are largely at higher risk for heart disease, cancer, stroke, diabetes, asthma, and even mental health problems.

And it’s not just African Americans. Asians, Hispanics, Native Americans, and Alaska Natives are all underrepresented in trials at a time when there is growing evidence that drugs may have different effects on different populations.

Dr. Borno is an oncologist who specializes in prostate cancer, a disease that she says shows a “significant disparity,” where Black men are two times more likely to die from advanced prostate cancer, compared with white men. Yet Black men make up just 3% of advanced therapeutic trials.

“A lack of diversity and inclusion in clinical trials is unacceptable,” she said. “If we continue to underrecruit racial/ethnic minorities and older adults to therapeutic clinical trials, we will not be powered to make valid conclusions regarding safety and efficacy in those patient populations. As a result, we can do harm.”

Dr. Borno said that telehealth and telemedicine are not cure-alls, and digital health solutions don’t work for all patients. Approaches, she says, must be tailored to the individual, or disparities could worsen.

In 2020, the Food and Drug Administration approved 53 new drugs. Overall, 32,000 patients took part in these trials. On average, 75% were White, 8% were Black, 6% were Asian, and 11% were Hispanic.

Here’s one stark example of the issue. In 2015, the FDA approved ixazomib (Ninlaro), a promising new drug for multiple myeloma, a blood cancer that affects Black people at disproportionately higher rates than White people. In the United States, one in five people diagnosed with multiple myeloma are Black people. They are more than twice as likely to get the disease as White people. Yet during the clinical trial of 722 participants, only 13 patients, or 1.8%, were Black.

The American Cancer Society estimates that more than 600,000 Americans will die from cancer this year. Historically, Black Americans have the highest death rate and the shortest survival of any racial or ethnic group, stemming largely, it concluded, from centuries of structural racism.

According to Jamie Freedman, MD, head of U.S. medical affairs at Genentech, a global pharmaceutical company, the lack of diversity is often tied to where studies are run.

“Companies tend to choose major academic medical centers where there is a high volume of clinical trial work. When you go to the same tried and true hospitals repeatedly, the pool of patients becomes very homogeneous and tends to be primarily white,” he said. “It’s critical to bring more trials into the community setting by including new sites that can reach underrepresented groups, and Genentech is making significant progress in that area.”

Dr. Freedman believes that, while access is a big hurdle, it doesn’t end there.

“Many patients have a lack of trust in the health care system,” he said. “There are also issues around underserved communities being able to afford quality care, so it’s important to keep time and financial burdens in mind when designing trials to help mitigate barriers such as travel, parking, time off work, and child care.”

Genentech started its diversity and inclusion effort several years ago. Dr. Freeman said that, until more trials become diverse, Black Americans will continue to pay the price. “I think they’re losing their lives in part due to lack of access to these trials. And that is why Genentech and all of us in the health care industry need to change how we design and enroll these studies. We have a long way to go, but I think the steps we’re taking are leading us in the right direction.”

Jennifer Jones-McMeans, PhD, director of global clinical affairs at Abbott Pharmaceuticals, is a clinical research scientist who has designed and led many clinical trials.

She said that Abbott is actively working on solutions.

“We have designed our trials to reduce the barriers to participation and expand access,” she said. “This can be as simple as providing transportation services or home visits for those who are housebound. We’re taking it a step further and providing home health services where someone comes to the home and provides follow-up visits there.”

They also provide interpretation services to address any language barriers.

“We are reaching out to a new set of talented investigators who work closely with underrepresented communities. They are very much wedded and supportive of the communities they treat. By working with doctors within these communities, it expands access to new therapies.”

Spokesperson Keanna Ghazvini said that Pfizer Pharmaceuticals is also committed to increasing minority participation in trials.

“We know that if historically underserved populations are left out of clinical trials, they risk not benefiting from medical breakthroughs down the line,” she said.

The National Institutes of Health’s National Library of Medicine maintains the clinicaltrials.gov database.

There, you can find information on nearly 372,000 publicly and privately supported clinical trials happening in all 50 states and 219 countries. Many are funded by the NIH, but not all of these studies have been evaluated by the U.S. government.

Andrea Denicoff, a nurse consultant at the National Cancer Institute and head of clinical trials operations for the NCI’s National Clinical Trials Network, has been involved in clinical research at the NIH for 35 years.

“It’s really important that our publicly funded trials represent the people of the country,” she said. “There are some cancers that we’re doing a good job in enrolling minorities, and other cancers we need to do a much better job in having a diverse representation in our trials.”

Ms. Denicoff believed opening trials in places where people live is key, but having a diverse clinical trials team is as important.

“We need to reinforce that cancer centers across the country have open doors, and anyone with cancer feels comfortable getting care at that center, and that also includes discussing the option to participate in clinical trials when one might be available. We know from research that when people are invited and asked about trial participation and educated about them, they’ll be much more interested in joining them.”

Ms. Denicoff said that, during the pandemic, the NCI quickly came up with guidance to allow trial sites to send patients their oral study drugs and set up virtual visits. She believes it may help increase future access.

‘Lola Fashoyin-Aje, MD, associate director for science and policy to address disparities in the Oncology Center of Excellence at the FDA, says the agency firmly believes clinical trials should represent the patients who will ultimately get the drug if it’s approved.

But the FDA’s power to require diversity in trials is limited.

“It is important to point out that there are legal constraints which limit’s FDA’s authority to require specific proportional representation in clinical trials by demographic factors,” Dr. Fashoyin-Aje said.

Still, some researchers feel the FDA should play a bigger role. The question is: Should diversity be mandated?

Rhonda Long is now back in Boston to start a new trial, with a new drug that targets her specific mutation. She will be there for 2 months. Once again, Lazarex will help cover some of the cost.

She wants people of color to understand that they are missing out on the promise of new cancer drugs and extended life.

“I feel like there’s not enough emphasis on clinical trials, I don’t believe there’s enough emphasis on second opinions, I don’t think there’s enough emphasis that medicine happens outside our borders, outside of our communities. Clinical trials that don’t have a broad range of participants, how do we know how effective they are if Black and brown people, Asian or Latin American people aren’t represented in the trial?”

And with more trials adopting virtual elements, she said it’s time for minorities to get on board.

Dr. Freedman believed the groundwork is being laid for that to happen. “I don’t think we’ll ever return back to the way we used to do things, where everything has to be done at the clinical trial site. I just don’t think we’re ever going back.”

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

Gynecologic cancer patients in the United States have higher rates of insurance loss and “catastrophic” health expenses – more than 10% of their family income – compared with the general population, even in the age of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), new research suggests.

A retrospective study of respondents to the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey showed that more than one in five gynecologic cancer patients reported losing health insurance for at least 1 month every year, and more than one in four reported having catastrophic health expenses annually.

Benjamin Albright, MD, of Duke University Medical Center in Durham, N.C., presented these results at the Society of Gynecologic Oncology’s Virtual Annual Meeting on Women’s Cancer (Abstract 10303).

“We found gynecologic cancer patients to have high rates of insurance churn and catastrophic health expenditures, particularly among the poor,” Dr. Albright said. “Traditional static measurements clearly underestimate the impact of uninsurance, with over 20% of patients reporting some period of uninsurance annually.”

There was no evidence of improvement in any outcome after the implementation of the ACA, compared with the pre-ACA period, “though our assessment was limited in estimate precision by small sample size,” Dr. Albright acknowledged.
 

Dynamic, not static

Oncology researchers who study access to care and financial toxicities often consider insurance status as a static characteristic, but in the U.S. health care system, the reality is quite different, with insurance status fluctuating by employment or ability to pay, sometimes on a month-to-month basis, according to Dr. Albright.

Citing the Commonwealth Fund’s definition of catastrophic health expenditures as “spending over 10% of income on health care,” Dr. Albright noted that the prevalence of catastrophic out-of-pocket costs “is also relatively poorly described among cancer patients, particularly in accounting for family spending and income dynamics.

“The Affordable Care Act contained measures to address both of these concerns, including coverage protections and expansions, and spending regulations,” he said.

Dr. Albright and colleagues at Duke and Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York assessed insurance churn and catastrophic health expenditures among gynecologic cancer patients, attempting to determine whether the ACA had helped to limit insurance churn and keep costs manageable.
 

Representative sample

The investigators conducted a retrospective study of data from Medical Expenditure Panel Survey respondents from 2006 through 2017, a period that spanned the implementation of the ACA in 2010.

The sample included 684 women younger than 65 years reporting care in the given year related to a gynecologic cancer diagnosis. The civilian, noninstitutionalized sample was weighted to represent an estimated average annual population of 533,000 persons. The population was majority White (87%) and non-Hispanic (85.5%).

The investigators found that, compared with the overall U.S. population of people under 65, gynecologic cancer patients were more likely to have incomes of 250% or less of the federal poverty line (45.1% vs. 32.2%, P < .001).

The cancer patients were more likely than was the general population to have less than full-time employment, with 15.2% and 10.5%, respectively, reporting a job change or job loss; 55.3% and 44.1%, respectively, being employed only part of a given year; and 38.6% and 32.4%, respectively, being unemployed for a full year (P < .05 for each comparison).

Gynecologic cancer patients continued to experience insurance troubles and financial hardships after the ACA went into effect, with 8.8% reporting loss of insurance, 18.7% reporting a change in insurance, 21.7% being uninsured for at least 1 month, and 8.4% being uninsured for an entire year.

In addition, 12.8% of gynecologic cancer patients reported catastrophic health expenditures in out-of-pocket costs alone, and 28.0% spent more than 10% of their income on health care when the cost of premiums was factored in.

The numbers were even worse for non-White and Hispanic patients, with 25.9% reporting an insurance change (vs. 16.3% for non-Hispanic Whites) and 30.2% reporting a period of not being insured (vs. 18.7% for non-Hispanic Whites). There were no differences in catastrophic health expenditures by race/ethnicity, however.

Not surprisingly, patients from low-income families had significantly higher probability of having catastrophic expenditures, at 22.7% vs. 3.0% for higher-income families for out-of-pocket expenses alone (P < .001), and 35.3% vs. 20.8%, respectively, when the cost of premiums was included (P = .01).

On the other hand, patients with full-year Medicaid coverage were less likely to suffer from catastrophic costs than were privately-insured patients, at 15.3% vs. 31.3% in the overall sample (P = .02), and 11.5% vs. 62.1% of low-income vs. higher-income patients (P < .001).

There was a trend toward lower catastrophic health expenditures among low-income patients after full implementation of the ACA – 2014-2017 – compared with 2006-2009, but this difference was not statistically significant.
 

How to change it

In a panel discussion following the presentation, comoderator Eloise Chapman-Davis, MD, of Weill Cornell Medicine in New York, said to Dr. Albright, “As we look to improve equity within our subspecialty, I would like to ask you to comment on how you believe your abstract will inform our gyn-oncology culture and speak to what changes that you believe are needed to better advocate for our patients.”

“I think that our abstract really shows the prevalence of the problems of financial toxicity and of instability in the insurance market in the U.S.,” he replied. “I think it points out that we need to be more proactive about identifying patients and seeking out patients who may be having issues related to financial toxicity, to try to refer people to resources sooner and upfront.”

The investigators did not list a funding source for the study. Dr. Albright and Dr. Chapman-Davis reported having no conflicts of interest.

Gynecologic cancer patients in the United States have higher rates of insurance loss and “catastrophic” health expenses – more than 10% of their family income – compared with the general population, even in the age of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), new research suggests.

A retrospective study of respondents to the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey showed that more than one in five gynecologic cancer patients reported losing health insurance for at least 1 month every year, and more than one in four reported having catastrophic health expenses annually.

Benjamin Albright, MD, of Duke University Medical Center in Durham, N.C., presented these results at the Society of Gynecologic Oncology’s Virtual Annual Meeting on Women’s Cancer (Abstract 10303).

“We found gynecologic cancer patients to have high rates of insurance churn and catastrophic health expenditures, particularly among the poor,” Dr. Albright said. “Traditional static measurements clearly underestimate the impact of uninsurance, with over 20% of patients reporting some period of uninsurance annually.”

There was no evidence of improvement in any outcome after the implementation of the ACA, compared with the pre-ACA period, “though our assessment was limited in estimate precision by small sample size,” Dr. Albright acknowledged.
 

Dynamic, not static

Oncology researchers who study access to care and financial toxicities often consider insurance status as a static characteristic, but in the U.S. health care system, the reality is quite different, with insurance status fluctuating by employment or ability to pay, sometimes on a month-to-month basis, according to Dr. Albright.

Citing the Commonwealth Fund’s definition of catastrophic health expenditures as “spending over 10% of income on health care,” Dr. Albright noted that the prevalence of catastrophic out-of-pocket costs “is also relatively poorly described among cancer patients, particularly in accounting for family spending and income dynamics.

“The Affordable Care Act contained measures to address both of these concerns, including coverage protections and expansions, and spending regulations,” he said.

Dr. Albright and colleagues at Duke and Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York assessed insurance churn and catastrophic health expenditures among gynecologic cancer patients, attempting to determine whether the ACA had helped to limit insurance churn and keep costs manageable.
 

Representative sample

The investigators conducted a retrospective study of data from Medical Expenditure Panel Survey respondents from 2006 through 2017, a period that spanned the implementation of the ACA in 2010.

The sample included 684 women younger than 65 years reporting care in the given year related to a gynecologic cancer diagnosis. The civilian, noninstitutionalized sample was weighted to represent an estimated average annual population of 533,000 persons. The population was majority White (87%) and non-Hispanic (85.5%).

The investigators found that, compared with the overall U.S. population of people under 65, gynecologic cancer patients were more likely to have incomes of 250% or less of the federal poverty line (45.1% vs. 32.2%, P < .001).

The cancer patients were more likely than was the general population to have less than full-time employment, with 15.2% and 10.5%, respectively, reporting a job change or job loss; 55.3% and 44.1%, respectively, being employed only part of a given year; and 38.6% and 32.4%, respectively, being unemployed for a full year (P < .05 for each comparison).

Gynecologic cancer patients continued to experience insurance troubles and financial hardships after the ACA went into effect, with 8.8% reporting loss of insurance, 18.7% reporting a change in insurance, 21.7% being uninsured for at least 1 month, and 8.4% being uninsured for an entire year.

In addition, 12.8% of gynecologic cancer patients reported catastrophic health expenditures in out-of-pocket costs alone, and 28.0% spent more than 10% of their income on health care when the cost of premiums was factored in.

The numbers were even worse for non-White and Hispanic patients, with 25.9% reporting an insurance change (vs. 16.3% for non-Hispanic Whites) and 30.2% reporting a period of not being insured (vs. 18.7% for non-Hispanic Whites). There were no differences in catastrophic health expenditures by race/ethnicity, however.

Not surprisingly, patients from low-income families had significantly higher probability of having catastrophic expenditures, at 22.7% vs. 3.0% for higher-income families for out-of-pocket expenses alone (P < .001), and 35.3% vs. 20.8%, respectively, when the cost of premiums was included (P = .01).

On the other hand, patients with full-year Medicaid coverage were less likely to suffer from catastrophic costs than were privately-insured patients, at 15.3% vs. 31.3% in the overall sample (P = .02), and 11.5% vs. 62.1% of low-income vs. higher-income patients (P < .001).

There was a trend toward lower catastrophic health expenditures among low-income patients after full implementation of the ACA – 2014-2017 – compared with 2006-2009, but this difference was not statistically significant.
 

How to change it

In a panel discussion following the presentation, comoderator Eloise Chapman-Davis, MD, of Weill Cornell Medicine in New York, said to Dr. Albright, “As we look to improve equity within our subspecialty, I would like to ask you to comment on how you believe your abstract will inform our gyn-oncology culture and speak to what changes that you believe are needed to better advocate for our patients.”

“I think that our abstract really shows the prevalence of the problems of financial toxicity and of instability in the insurance market in the U.S.,” he replied. “I think it points out that we need to be more proactive about identifying patients and seeking out patients who may be having issues related to financial toxicity, to try to refer people to resources sooner and upfront.”

The investigators did not list a funding source for the study. Dr. Albright and Dr. Chapman-Davis reported having no conflicts of interest.

Gynecologic cancer patients in the United States have higher rates of insurance loss and “catastrophic” health expenses – more than 10% of their family income – compared with the general population, even in the age of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), new research suggests.

A retrospective study of respondents to the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey showed that more than one in five gynecologic cancer patients reported losing health insurance for at least 1 month every year, and more than one in four reported having catastrophic health expenses annually.

Benjamin Albright, MD, of Duke University Medical Center in Durham, N.C., presented these results at the Society of Gynecologic Oncology’s Virtual Annual Meeting on Women’s Cancer (Abstract 10303).

“We found gynecologic cancer patients to have high rates of insurance churn and catastrophic health expenditures, particularly among the poor,” Dr. Albright said. “Traditional static measurements clearly underestimate the impact of uninsurance, with over 20% of patients reporting some period of uninsurance annually.”

There was no evidence of improvement in any outcome after the implementation of the ACA, compared with the pre-ACA period, “though our assessment was limited in estimate precision by small sample size,” Dr. Albright acknowledged.
 

Dynamic, not static

Oncology researchers who study access to care and financial toxicities often consider insurance status as a static characteristic, but in the U.S. health care system, the reality is quite different, with insurance status fluctuating by employment or ability to pay, sometimes on a month-to-month basis, according to Dr. Albright.

Citing the Commonwealth Fund’s definition of catastrophic health expenditures as “spending over 10% of income on health care,” Dr. Albright noted that the prevalence of catastrophic out-of-pocket costs “is also relatively poorly described among cancer patients, particularly in accounting for family spending and income dynamics.

“The Affordable Care Act contained measures to address both of these concerns, including coverage protections and expansions, and spending regulations,” he said.

Dr. Albright and colleagues at Duke and Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York assessed insurance churn and catastrophic health expenditures among gynecologic cancer patients, attempting to determine whether the ACA had helped to limit insurance churn and keep costs manageable.
 

Representative sample

The investigators conducted a retrospective study of data from Medical Expenditure Panel Survey respondents from 2006 through 2017, a period that spanned the implementation of the ACA in 2010.

The sample included 684 women younger than 65 years reporting care in the given year related to a gynecologic cancer diagnosis. The civilian, noninstitutionalized sample was weighted to represent an estimated average annual population of 533,000 persons. The population was majority White (87%) and non-Hispanic (85.5%).

The investigators found that, compared with the overall U.S. population of people under 65, gynecologic cancer patients were more likely to have incomes of 250% or less of the federal poverty line (45.1% vs. 32.2%, P < .001).

The cancer patients were more likely than was the general population to have less than full-time employment, with 15.2% and 10.5%, respectively, reporting a job change or job loss; 55.3% and 44.1%, respectively, being employed only part of a given year; and 38.6% and 32.4%, respectively, being unemployed for a full year (P < .05 for each comparison).

Gynecologic cancer patients continued to experience insurance troubles and financial hardships after the ACA went into effect, with 8.8% reporting loss of insurance, 18.7% reporting a change in insurance, 21.7% being uninsured for at least 1 month, and 8.4% being uninsured for an entire year.

In addition, 12.8% of gynecologic cancer patients reported catastrophic health expenditures in out-of-pocket costs alone, and 28.0% spent more than 10% of their income on health care when the cost of premiums was factored in.

The numbers were even worse for non-White and Hispanic patients, with 25.9% reporting an insurance change (vs. 16.3% for non-Hispanic Whites) and 30.2% reporting a period of not being insured (vs. 18.7% for non-Hispanic Whites). There were no differences in catastrophic health expenditures by race/ethnicity, however.

Not surprisingly, patients from low-income families had significantly higher probability of having catastrophic expenditures, at 22.7% vs. 3.0% for higher-income families for out-of-pocket expenses alone (P < .001), and 35.3% vs. 20.8%, respectively, when the cost of premiums was included (P = .01).

On the other hand, patients with full-year Medicaid coverage were less likely to suffer from catastrophic costs than were privately-insured patients, at 15.3% vs. 31.3% in the overall sample (P = .02), and 11.5% vs. 62.1% of low-income vs. higher-income patients (P < .001).

There was a trend toward lower catastrophic health expenditures among low-income patients after full implementation of the ACA – 2014-2017 – compared with 2006-2009, but this difference was not statistically significant.
 

How to change it

In a panel discussion following the presentation, comoderator Eloise Chapman-Davis, MD, of Weill Cornell Medicine in New York, said to Dr. Albright, “As we look to improve equity within our subspecialty, I would like to ask you to comment on how you believe your abstract will inform our gyn-oncology culture and speak to what changes that you believe are needed to better advocate for our patients.”

“I think that our abstract really shows the prevalence of the problems of financial toxicity and of instability in the insurance market in the U.S.,” he replied. “I think it points out that we need to be more proactive about identifying patients and seeking out patients who may be having issues related to financial toxicity, to try to refer people to resources sooner and upfront.”

The investigators did not list a funding source for the study. Dr. Albright and Dr. Chapman-Davis reported having no conflicts of interest.

One year of melatonin, given at 20 mg nightly, after complete resection of non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) did not improve disease-free survival (DFS) in a phase 3 trial.

There was a hint of benefit with melatonin among patients with stage III/IV NSCLC. These patients had a hazard reduction of 25% in 5-year DFS. However, the median DFS for patients with advanced disease was the same whether they received melatonin or placebo – 18 months.

In the overall study population, melatonin had no beneficial effects on quality of life, sleep, anxiety, depression, pain, or fatigue, and it did not reduce adverse events from chemotherapy or radiation.

These results were reported in EClinicalMedicine.

“In light of the results, we do not recommend the inclusion of adjuvant melatonin for patients with early-stage NSCLC. Evidence suggests there may be a benefit for those with late-stage disease,” the authors wrote. “However, because of the mixed findings observed, we recommend a follow-up randomized, controlled trial involving a larger population focusing on later-stage resected lung cancer to clarify these results.”

“I would very much like to pursue another controlled study of melatonin specifically in a group of late-stage lung cancer and possibly in other more advanced cancer types,” said lead author Dugald Seely, ND, of the Canadian College of Naturopathic Medicine in Toronto.
 

Study rationale and design

Melatonin has shown promise for treating patients with lung cancer, Dr. Seely and colleagues noted. Melatonin is often recommended by naturopathic doctors following lung cancer surgery, but until now there was no high-level evidence regarding the practice.

For their study, Dr. Seely and colleagues evaluated 709 patients who had undergone NSCLC resection. The patients were randomized to receive placebo (n = 353) or melatonin (n = 356) 1 hour before bedtime for 1 year. A 20-mg melatonin dose was used, which is common in clinical practice and research.

The study arms were well matched, with no “clinically meaningful” differences in demographics, surgery type, cancer type, stage of cancer, or preoperative comorbidities, according to the researchers.

The mean age in both treatment arms was 67 years. Overall, 134 participants received adjuvant chemotherapy (66 melatonin, 68 placebo), and 43 had adjuvant radiation (22 melatonin, 21 placebo).
 

Results

For 2-year DFS, melatonin showed an adjusted relative risk of 1.01 (95% confidence interval, 0.83-1.22; P = .94) versus placebo. The adjusted relative risk in the per-protocol analysis was 1.12 (95% CI, 0.96-1.32; P = .14.)

At 5 years, the median DFS was not reached in either treatment arm. Melatonin showed a hazard ratio of 0.97 (95% CI, 0.86-1.09; P = .84) for 5-year DFS.

Among patients with stage I-II NSCLC, the median DFS was not reached at 5 years in either treatment arm. Among patients with stage III-IV NSCLC, the median DFS was 18 months in both arms.

Melatonin showed a hazard ratio of 0.97 (95% CI, 0.85-1.11; P = .66) in patients with early-stage NSCLC and a hazard reduction of 25% (HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.61-0.92; P = .005) in patients with late-stage NSCLC.

For the entire cohort, there were no significant differences between treatment arms in the number, severity, or seriousness of adverse events. Likewise, there were no significant differences between the treatment arms with regard to fatigue, quality of life, or sleep at 1 or 2 years.

Dr. Seely said the most surprising thing about this study was that melatonin didn’t help with sleep.

“Since initiation of the trial, my thinking on the right dose of melatonin to support sleep has changed. Clinically, I see extended-release and, indeed, lower doses to be more effective than 20 mg nightly,” he noted.

Dr. Seely and colleagues also assessed proposed mechanisms for melatonin’s possible benefit in NSCLC but found no effect on natural killer cell cytotoxicity or phenotype and no effect on blood levels of inflammatory cytokines in a substudy of 92 patients.

This research was funded by the Lotte and John Hecht Memorial Foundation and the Gateway for Cancer Research Foundation. The researchers had no relevant disclosures.

[email protected]

One year of melatonin, given at 20 mg nightly, after complete resection of non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) did not improve disease-free survival (DFS) in a phase 3 trial.

There was a hint of benefit with melatonin among patients with stage III/IV NSCLC. These patients had a hazard reduction of 25% in 5-year DFS. However, the median DFS for patients with advanced disease was the same whether they received melatonin or placebo – 18 months.

In the overall study population, melatonin had no beneficial effects on quality of life, sleep, anxiety, depression, pain, or fatigue, and it did not reduce adverse events from chemotherapy or radiation.

These results were reported in EClinicalMedicine.

“In light of the results, we do not recommend the inclusion of adjuvant melatonin for patients with early-stage NSCLC. Evidence suggests there may be a benefit for those with late-stage disease,” the authors wrote. “However, because of the mixed findings observed, we recommend a follow-up randomized, controlled trial involving a larger population focusing on later-stage resected lung cancer to clarify these results.”

“I would very much like to pursue another controlled study of melatonin specifically in a group of late-stage lung cancer and possibly in other more advanced cancer types,” said lead author Dugald Seely, ND, of the Canadian College of Naturopathic Medicine in Toronto.
 

Study rationale and design

Melatonin has shown promise for treating patients with lung cancer, Dr. Seely and colleagues noted. Melatonin is often recommended by naturopathic doctors following lung cancer surgery, but until now there was no high-level evidence regarding the practice.

For their study, Dr. Seely and colleagues evaluated 709 patients who had undergone NSCLC resection. The patients were randomized to receive placebo (n = 353) or melatonin (n = 356) 1 hour before bedtime for 1 year. A 20-mg melatonin dose was used, which is common in clinical practice and research.

The study arms were well matched, with no “clinically meaningful” differences in demographics, surgery type, cancer type, stage of cancer, or preoperative comorbidities, according to the researchers.

The mean age in both treatment arms was 67 years. Overall, 134 participants received adjuvant chemotherapy (66 melatonin, 68 placebo), and 43 had adjuvant radiation (22 melatonin, 21 placebo).
 

Results

For 2-year DFS, melatonin showed an adjusted relative risk of 1.01 (95% confidence interval, 0.83-1.22; P = .94) versus placebo. The adjusted relative risk in the per-protocol analysis was 1.12 (95% CI, 0.96-1.32; P = .14.)

At 5 years, the median DFS was not reached in either treatment arm. Melatonin showed a hazard ratio of 0.97 (95% CI, 0.86-1.09; P = .84) for 5-year DFS.

Among patients with stage I-II NSCLC, the median DFS was not reached at 5 years in either treatment arm. Among patients with stage III-IV NSCLC, the median DFS was 18 months in both arms.

Melatonin showed a hazard ratio of 0.97 (95% CI, 0.85-1.11; P = .66) in patients with early-stage NSCLC and a hazard reduction of 25% (HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.61-0.92; P = .005) in patients with late-stage NSCLC.

For the entire cohort, there were no significant differences between treatment arms in the number, severity, or seriousness of adverse events. Likewise, there were no significant differences between the treatment arms with regard to fatigue, quality of life, or sleep at 1 or 2 years.

Dr. Seely said the most surprising thing about this study was that melatonin didn’t help with sleep.

“Since initiation of the trial, my thinking on the right dose of melatonin to support sleep has changed. Clinically, I see extended-release and, indeed, lower doses to be more effective than 20 mg nightly,” he noted.

Dr. Seely and colleagues also assessed proposed mechanisms for melatonin’s possible benefit in NSCLC but found no effect on natural killer cell cytotoxicity or phenotype and no effect on blood levels of inflammatory cytokines in a substudy of 92 patients.

This research was funded by the Lotte and John Hecht Memorial Foundation and the Gateway for Cancer Research Foundation. The researchers had no relevant disclosures.

[email protected]

One year of melatonin, given at 20 mg nightly, after complete resection of non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) did not improve disease-free survival (DFS) in a phase 3 trial.

There was a hint of benefit with melatonin among patients with stage III/IV NSCLC. These patients had a hazard reduction of 25% in 5-year DFS. However, the median DFS for patients with advanced disease was the same whether they received melatonin or placebo – 18 months.

In the overall study population, melatonin had no beneficial effects on quality of life, sleep, anxiety, depression, pain, or fatigue, and it did not reduce adverse events from chemotherapy or radiation.

These results were reported in EClinicalMedicine.

“In light of the results, we do not recommend the inclusion of adjuvant melatonin for patients with early-stage NSCLC. Evidence suggests there may be a benefit for those with late-stage disease,” the authors wrote. “However, because of the mixed findings observed, we recommend a follow-up randomized, controlled trial involving a larger population focusing on later-stage resected lung cancer to clarify these results.”

“I would very much like to pursue another controlled study of melatonin specifically in a group of late-stage lung cancer and possibly in other more advanced cancer types,” said lead author Dugald Seely, ND, of the Canadian College of Naturopathic Medicine in Toronto.
 

Study rationale and design

Melatonin has shown promise for treating patients with lung cancer, Dr. Seely and colleagues noted. Melatonin is often recommended by naturopathic doctors following lung cancer surgery, but until now there was no high-level evidence regarding the practice.

For their study, Dr. Seely and colleagues evaluated 709 patients who had undergone NSCLC resection. The patients were randomized to receive placebo (n = 353) or melatonin (n = 356) 1 hour before bedtime for 1 year. A 20-mg melatonin dose was used, which is common in clinical practice and research.

The study arms were well matched, with no “clinically meaningful” differences in demographics, surgery type, cancer type, stage of cancer, or preoperative comorbidities, according to the researchers.

The mean age in both treatment arms was 67 years. Overall, 134 participants received adjuvant chemotherapy (66 melatonin, 68 placebo), and 43 had adjuvant radiation (22 melatonin, 21 placebo).
 

Results

For 2-year DFS, melatonin showed an adjusted relative risk of 1.01 (95% confidence interval, 0.83-1.22; P = .94) versus placebo. The adjusted relative risk in the per-protocol analysis was 1.12 (95% CI, 0.96-1.32; P = .14.)

At 5 years, the median DFS was not reached in either treatment arm. Melatonin showed a hazard ratio of 0.97 (95% CI, 0.86-1.09; P = .84) for 5-year DFS.

Among patients with stage I-II NSCLC, the median DFS was not reached at 5 years in either treatment arm. Among patients with stage III-IV NSCLC, the median DFS was 18 months in both arms.

Melatonin showed a hazard ratio of 0.97 (95% CI, 0.85-1.11; P = .66) in patients with early-stage NSCLC and a hazard reduction of 25% (HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.61-0.92; P = .005) in patients with late-stage NSCLC.

For the entire cohort, there were no significant differences between treatment arms in the number, severity, or seriousness of adverse events. Likewise, there were no significant differences between the treatment arms with regard to fatigue, quality of life, or sleep at 1 or 2 years.

Dr. Seely said the most surprising thing about this study was that melatonin didn’t help with sleep.

“Since initiation of the trial, my thinking on the right dose of melatonin to support sleep has changed. Clinically, I see extended-release and, indeed, lower doses to be more effective than 20 mg nightly,” he noted.

Dr. Seely and colleagues also assessed proposed mechanisms for melatonin’s possible benefit in NSCLC but found no effect on natural killer cell cytotoxicity or phenotype and no effect on blood levels of inflammatory cytokines in a substudy of 92 patients.

This research was funded by the Lotte and John Hecht Memorial Foundation and the Gateway for Cancer Research Foundation. The researchers had no relevant disclosures.

[email protected]

U.S. regulators are stepping up scrutiny of therapies that were granted an accelerated approval to treat cancers on the basis of surrogate endpoints but have failed to show clinical or survival benefits upon more extensive testing.

At issue are a number of cancer indications for immunotherapies. Four have already been withdrawn (voluntarily by the manufacturer), and six more will be reviewed at an upcoming meeting.

In recent years, the US Food and Drug Administration has granted accelerated approvals to oncology medicines on the basis of evidence that suggests a benefit for patients. Examples of such evidence relate to response rates and estimates of tumor shrinkage. But these approvals are granted on the condition that the manufacturer conducts larger clinical trials that show clinical benefit, including benefit in overall survival.

Richard Pazdur, MD, director of the FDA’s Oncology Center of Excellence, has argued that the point of these conditional approvals is to find acceptable surrogate markers to allow people with “desperate illnesses” to have access to potentially helpful drugs while work continues to determine the drug’s actual benefit to patients.

Oncologists are now questioning whether the FDA has become too lenient in its approach, Daniel A. Goldstein, MD, a senior physician in medical oncology and internal medicine at the Rabin Medical Center, Petah Tikva, Israel, told this news organization.

“The main two things you want from a cancer drug is to live longer and live a higher quality of life,” said Goldstein. “But these endpoints that they’ve been using over the past few years are not really giving us confidence that these drugs are actually going to help to live longer or better.”

Dr. Pazdur said the FDA will consider withdrawing its accelerated approvals when results of further studies do not confirm expected benefit for patients.

“This is like the pendulum has swung as far as it was going to swing and now is on the backswing,” said Dr. Goldstein, also of the department of health policy and management at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. “You could call this a watershed moment.”

Although there’s near universal interest in allowing people with advanced cancer access to promising medicines, there’s also rising concern about exposing patients needlessly to costly drugs with potentially tough side effects. That may prompt a shift in the standards U.S. regulators apply to cancer medicines, Dr. Goldstein said.
 

Indications withdrawn and under review

In a meeting scheduled for April 27-29, the FDA’s Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee will review indications granted through the accelerated approval process for three immunotherapies: pembrolizumab (Keytruda), atezolizumab (Tecentriq), and nivolumab (Opdivo).

It is part of an industry-wide evaluation of accelerated approvals for cancer indications in which confirmatory trials did not confirm clinical benefit, the FDA noted.

The process has already led to voluntary withdrawals of four cancer indications by the manufacturers, including one indication each for pembrolizumab, atezolizumab, and nivolumab, and one for durvalumab (Imfinzi).

All of these immunotherapies are approved for numerous cancer indications, and they all remain on the market. It is only the U.S. approvals for particular cancer indications that have been withdrawn.

In the past, olaratumab (Lartruvo) was withdrawn from the market altogether. The FDA granted accelerated approval of the drug for soft tissue sarcoma, but clinical benefit was not confirmed in a phase 3 trial.
 

Issue highlighted by Dr. Prasad and Dr. Gyawali

In recent years, much of the attention on accelerated approvals was spurred by the work of a few researchers, particularly Vinay Prasad, MD, MPH, associate professor in the department of epidemiology and biostatistics, University of California, San Francisco, and Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, from Queen’s University Cancer Research Institute, Kingston, Ont. (Both are regular contributors to the oncology section of this news organization.)

Dr. Goldstein made this point in a tweet about the FDA’s announcement of the April ODAC meetings:

“Well done to @oncology_bg and @VPrasadMDMPH among others for highlighting in their papers that the FDA wasn’t properly evaluating accelerated approval drugs.

FDA have listened.

And I thought that the impact of academia was limited!”

Dr. Prasad has made the case for closer scrutiny of accelerated approvals in a number of journal articles and in his 2020 book, “Malignant: How Bad Policy and Bad Evidence Harm People with Cancer,” published by Johns Hopkins University Press.

The book includes highlights of a 2016 article published in Mayo Clinic Proceedings that focused on surrogate endpoints used for FDA approvals. In the article, Dr. Prasad and his coauthor report that they did not find formal analyses of the strength of the surrogate-survival correlation in 14 of 25 cases of accelerated approvals (56%) and in 11 of 30 traditional approvals (37%).

“Our results were concerning. They imply that many surrogates are based on little more than a gut feeling. You might rationalize that and argue a gut feeling is the same as ‘reasonably likely to predict,’ but no reasonable person could think a gut feeling means established,” Dr. Prasad writes in his book. “Our result suggests the FDA is using surrogate endpoints far beyond what may be fair or reasonable.”

Dr. Gyawali has argued that the process by which the FDA assesses cancer drugs for approvals has undergone a profound shift. He has most recently remarked on this in an October 2020 commentary on Medscape.

“Until the recent floodgate of approvals based on response rates from single-arm trials, the majority of cancer therapy decisions were supported by evidence generated from randomized controlled trials (RCTs),” Dr. Gyawali wrote. “The evidence base to support clinical decisions in managing therapeutic side effects has been comparatively sparse.”
 

Accelerated approval to improve access

The FDA has struggled for about 2 decades with questions of where to set the bar on evidence for promising cancer drugs.

The agency’s accelerated approval program for drugs began in 1992. During the first decade, the focus was largely on medicines related to HIV.

In the early 2000s, oncology drugs began to dominate the program.

Dr. Pazdur has presided over the FDA’s marked changes regarding the use of surrogate markers when weighing whether to allow sales of cancer medicines. Formerly a professor at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Dr. Pazdur joined the FDA as director of the Division of Oncology Drug Products in 1999.

Soon after his appointment, he had to field inquiries from pharmaceutical companies about how much evidence they needed to receive accelerated approvals.

Early on, he publicly expressed impatience about the drugmakers’ approach. “The purpose of accelerated approval was not accelerated drug company profits,” Dr. Padzur said at a 2004 ODAC meeting.

Rather, the point is to allow access to potentially helpful drugs while work continues to determine their actual benefit to patients, he explained.

“It wasn’t a license to do less, less, less, and less to a point now that we may be getting companies that are coming in” intent on determining the minimum evidence the FDA will take, Dr. Pazdur said. “It shouldn’t be what is the lowest. It is what is a sufficient amount to give patients and physicians a real understanding of what their drug will do.”

In a 2016 interview with The New York Times, Dr. Pazdur said that his views on cancer drug approvals have evolved with time. He described himself as being “on a jihad to streamline the review process and get things out the door faster.”

“I have evolved from regulator to regulator-advocate,” Dr. Pazdur told the newspaper.

His attitude reflected his personal experience in losing his wife to ovarian cancer in 2015, as well as shifts in science and law. In 2012, Congress passed a law that gave the FDA new resources to speed medicines for life-threatening diseases to market. In addition, advances in genetics appeared to be making some medications more effective and easier to test, Dr. Pazdur said in The New York Times interview.
 

Withdrawals seen as sign of success

Since the program’s inception, only 6% of accelerated approvals for oncology indications have been withdrawn, the FDA said.

It would be a sign that the program is working if the April meetings lead to further withdrawals of indications that have been granted accelerated approval, Julie R. Gralow, MD, chief medical officer of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, said in an interview with this news organization.

“It shouldn’t be seen as a failure,” Dr. Gralow said.

In her own practice at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, she has seen the value of emerging therapies for patients fighting advanced cancers. During her 25 years of clinical practice in an academic setting, she has gained access to drugs through single-patient investigative new drug applications.

However, this path is not an option for many patients who undergo treatment in facilities other than academic centers, she commented. She noted that the accelerated approval process is a way to expand access to emerging medicines, but she sees a need for caution in the use of drugs that have been given only this conditional approval. She emphasizes that such drugs may be suitable only for certain patients.

“I would say that, for metastatic patients, patients with incurable disease, we are willing to take some risk,” Dr. Gralow said. “We don’t have other options. They can’t wait the years that it would take to get a drug approved.”

One such patient is David Mitchell, who serves as the consumer representative on ODAC. He told this news organization that he is taking three drugs for multiple myeloma that received accelerated approvals: pomalidomide, bortezomib, and daratumumab.

“I want the FDA to have the option to approve drugs in an accelerated pathway, because as a patient taking three drugs granted accelerated approval, I’m benefiting – I’ve lived the benefit,” Mr. Mitchell said, “and I want other patients to have the opportunity to have that benefit.”

He believes that the FDA’s approach regarding accelerated approvals serves to get potentially beneficial medicines to patients who have few options and also fulfills the FDA’s mandate to protect the public from treatments that have little benefit but can cause harm.

Accelerated approval also offers needed flexibility to drugmakers as they develop more specifically targeted drugs for diseases that affect relatively few people, such as multiple myeloma, he said. “As the targeting of your therapies gets tighter and for smaller groups of patients, you have a harder time following the traditional model,” such as conducting large, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials that may indicate increased overall survival, he said.

“To me, this is the way the FDA intended it to work,” he added. “It’s going to offer the accelerated approval based on a surrogate endpoint for a safe drug, but it’s going to require the confirmatory trial, and if the confirmatory trial fails, it will pull the drug off the market.”

Some medicines that have received accelerated approvals may ultimately be found not to benefit patients, Mr. Mitchell acknowledged. But people in his situation, whose disease has progressed despite treatments, may want to take that risk, he added.


 

Four cancer indications recently withdrawn voluntarily by the manufacturer

• December 2020: Nivolumab for the treatment of patients with metastatic small cell lung cancer with progression after platinum-based chemotherapy and at least one other line of therapy (Bristol Myers Squibb).
• February 2021: Durvalumab for the treatment of patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma whose disease has progressed during or following platinum-based chemotherapy or within 12 months of neoadjuvant or adjuvant platinum-containing chemotherapy (AstraZeneca).
• March 2021: Pembrolizumab for the treatment of patients with metastatic small cell lung cancer with disease progression on or after platinum-based chemotherapy and at least one other prior line of therapy (Merck).
• March 2021: Atezolizumab for treatment of patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma who experience disease progression during or following platinum-containing atezolizumab chemotherapy or disease progression within 12 months of neoadjuvant or adjuvant treatment with platinum-containing chemotherapy (Genentech).

Six cancer indications under review at the April 2021 ODAC meeting

• Atezolizumab indicated in combination with protein-bound  for the treatment of adults with unresectable locally advanced or metastatic triple-negative  whose tumors express PD-L1 (PD-L1 stained tumor-infiltrating immune cells of any intensity covering ≥1% of the tumor area), as determined by an FDA-approved test.
• Atezolizumab indicated for patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma who are not eligible for cisplatin-containing chemotherapy.
• Pembrolizumab indicated for the treatment of patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma who are not eligible for cisplatin-containing chemotherapy.
• Pembrolizumab indicated for the treatment of patients with recurrent locally advanced or metastatic gastric or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma whose tumors express PD-L1 (Combined Positive Score ≥1), as determined by an FDA-approved test, with disease progression on or after two or more prior lines of therapy including fluoropyrimidine- and platinum-containing chemotherapy and if appropriate, HER2/neu-targeted therapy.
• Pembrolizumab indicated for the treatment of patients with  who have been previously treated with .
• Nivolumab indicated as a single agent for the treatment of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma who have been previously treated with sorafenib.

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

U.S. regulators are stepping up scrutiny of therapies that were granted an accelerated approval to treat cancers on the basis of surrogate endpoints but have failed to show clinical or survival benefits upon more extensive testing.

At issue are a number of cancer indications for immunotherapies. Four have already been withdrawn (voluntarily by the manufacturer), and six more will be reviewed at an upcoming meeting.

In recent years, the US Food and Drug Administration has granted accelerated approvals to oncology medicines on the basis of evidence that suggests a benefit for patients. Examples of such evidence relate to response rates and estimates of tumor shrinkage. But these approvals are granted on the condition that the manufacturer conducts larger clinical trials that show clinical benefit, including benefit in overall survival.

Richard Pazdur, MD, director of the FDA’s Oncology Center of Excellence, has argued that the point of these conditional approvals is to find acceptable surrogate markers to allow people with “desperate illnesses” to have access to potentially helpful drugs while work continues to determine the drug’s actual benefit to patients.

Oncologists are now questioning whether the FDA has become too lenient in its approach, Daniel A. Goldstein, MD, a senior physician in medical oncology and internal medicine at the Rabin Medical Center, Petah Tikva, Israel, told this news organization.

“The main two things you want from a cancer drug is to live longer and live a higher quality of life,” said Goldstein. “But these endpoints that they’ve been using over the past few years are not really giving us confidence that these drugs are actually going to help to live longer or better.”

Dr. Pazdur said the FDA will consider withdrawing its accelerated approvals when results of further studies do not confirm expected benefit for patients.

“This is like the pendulum has swung as far as it was going to swing and now is on the backswing,” said Dr. Goldstein, also of the department of health policy and management at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. “You could call this a watershed moment.”

Although there’s near universal interest in allowing people with advanced cancer access to promising medicines, there’s also rising concern about exposing patients needlessly to costly drugs with potentially tough side effects. That may prompt a shift in the standards U.S. regulators apply to cancer medicines, Dr. Goldstein said.
 

Indications withdrawn and under review

In a meeting scheduled for April 27-29, the FDA’s Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee will review indications granted through the accelerated approval process for three immunotherapies: pembrolizumab (Keytruda), atezolizumab (Tecentriq), and nivolumab (Opdivo).

It is part of an industry-wide evaluation of accelerated approvals for cancer indications in which confirmatory trials did not confirm clinical benefit, the FDA noted.

The process has already led to voluntary withdrawals of four cancer indications by the manufacturers, including one indication each for pembrolizumab, atezolizumab, and nivolumab, and one for durvalumab (Imfinzi).

All of these immunotherapies are approved for numerous cancer indications, and they all remain on the market. It is only the U.S. approvals for particular cancer indications that have been withdrawn.

In the past, olaratumab (Lartruvo) was withdrawn from the market altogether. The FDA granted accelerated approval of the drug for soft tissue sarcoma, but clinical benefit was not confirmed in a phase 3 trial.
 

Issue highlighted by Dr. Prasad and Dr. Gyawali

In recent years, much of the attention on accelerated approvals was spurred by the work of a few researchers, particularly Vinay Prasad, MD, MPH, associate professor in the department of epidemiology and biostatistics, University of California, San Francisco, and Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, from Queen’s University Cancer Research Institute, Kingston, Ont. (Both are regular contributors to the oncology section of this news organization.)

Dr. Goldstein made this point in a tweet about the FDA’s announcement of the April ODAC meetings:

“Well done to @oncology_bg and @VPrasadMDMPH among others for highlighting in their papers that the FDA wasn’t properly evaluating accelerated approval drugs.

FDA have listened.

And I thought that the impact of academia was limited!”

Dr. Prasad has made the case for closer scrutiny of accelerated approvals in a number of journal articles and in his 2020 book, “Malignant: How Bad Policy and Bad Evidence Harm People with Cancer,” published by Johns Hopkins University Press.

The book includes highlights of a 2016 article published in Mayo Clinic Proceedings that focused on surrogate endpoints used for FDA approvals. In the article, Dr. Prasad and his coauthor report that they did not find formal analyses of the strength of the surrogate-survival correlation in 14 of 25 cases of accelerated approvals (56%) and in 11 of 30 traditional approvals (37%).

“Our results were concerning. They imply that many surrogates are based on little more than a gut feeling. You might rationalize that and argue a gut feeling is the same as ‘reasonably likely to predict,’ but no reasonable person could think a gut feeling means established,” Dr. Prasad writes in his book. “Our result suggests the FDA is using surrogate endpoints far beyond what may be fair or reasonable.”

Dr. Gyawali has argued that the process by which the FDA assesses cancer drugs for approvals has undergone a profound shift. He has most recently remarked on this in an October 2020 commentary on Medscape.

“Until the recent floodgate of approvals based on response rates from single-arm trials, the majority of cancer therapy decisions were supported by evidence generated from randomized controlled trials (RCTs),” Dr. Gyawali wrote. “The evidence base to support clinical decisions in managing therapeutic side effects has been comparatively sparse.”
 

Accelerated approval to improve access

The FDA has struggled for about 2 decades with questions of where to set the bar on evidence for promising cancer drugs.

The agency’s accelerated approval program for drugs began in 1992. During the first decade, the focus was largely on medicines related to HIV.

In the early 2000s, oncology drugs began to dominate the program.

Dr. Pazdur has presided over the FDA’s marked changes regarding the use of surrogate markers when weighing whether to allow sales of cancer medicines. Formerly a professor at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Dr. Pazdur joined the FDA as director of the Division of Oncology Drug Products in 1999.

Soon after his appointment, he had to field inquiries from pharmaceutical companies about how much evidence they needed to receive accelerated approvals.

Early on, he publicly expressed impatience about the drugmakers’ approach. “The purpose of accelerated approval was not accelerated drug company profits,” Dr. Padzur said at a 2004 ODAC meeting.

Rather, the point is to allow access to potentially helpful drugs while work continues to determine their actual benefit to patients, he explained.

“It wasn’t a license to do less, less, less, and less to a point now that we may be getting companies that are coming in” intent on determining the minimum evidence the FDA will take, Dr. Pazdur said. “It shouldn’t be what is the lowest. It is what is a sufficient amount to give patients and physicians a real understanding of what their drug will do.”

In a 2016 interview with The New York Times, Dr. Pazdur said that his views on cancer drug approvals have evolved with time. He described himself as being “on a jihad to streamline the review process and get things out the door faster.”

“I have evolved from regulator to regulator-advocate,” Dr. Pazdur told the newspaper.

His attitude reflected his personal experience in losing his wife to ovarian cancer in 2015, as well as shifts in science and law. In 2012, Congress passed a law that gave the FDA new resources to speed medicines for life-threatening diseases to market. In addition, advances in genetics appeared to be making some medications more effective and easier to test, Dr. Pazdur said in The New York Times interview.
 

Withdrawals seen as sign of success

Since the program’s inception, only 6% of accelerated approvals for oncology indications have been withdrawn, the FDA said.

It would be a sign that the program is working if the April meetings lead to further withdrawals of indications that have been granted accelerated approval, Julie R. Gralow, MD, chief medical officer of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, said in an interview with this news organization.

“It shouldn’t be seen as a failure,” Dr. Gralow said.

In her own practice at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, she has seen the value of emerging therapies for patients fighting advanced cancers. During her 25 years of clinical practice in an academic setting, she has gained access to drugs through single-patient investigative new drug applications.

However, this path is not an option for many patients who undergo treatment in facilities other than academic centers, she commented. She noted that the accelerated approval process is a way to expand access to emerging medicines, but she sees a need for caution in the use of drugs that have been given only this conditional approval. She emphasizes that such drugs may be suitable only for certain patients.

“I would say that, for metastatic patients, patients with incurable disease, we are willing to take some risk,” Dr. Gralow said. “We don’t have other options. They can’t wait the years that it would take to get a drug approved.”

One such patient is David Mitchell, who serves as the consumer representative on ODAC. He told this news organization that he is taking three drugs for multiple myeloma that received accelerated approvals: pomalidomide, bortezomib, and daratumumab.

“I want the FDA to have the option to approve drugs in an accelerated pathway, because as a patient taking three drugs granted accelerated approval, I’m benefiting – I’ve lived the benefit,” Mr. Mitchell said, “and I want other patients to have the opportunity to have that benefit.”

He believes that the FDA’s approach regarding accelerated approvals serves to get potentially beneficial medicines to patients who have few options and also fulfills the FDA’s mandate to protect the public from treatments that have little benefit but can cause harm.

Accelerated approval also offers needed flexibility to drugmakers as they develop more specifically targeted drugs for diseases that affect relatively few people, such as multiple myeloma, he said. “As the targeting of your therapies gets tighter and for smaller groups of patients, you have a harder time following the traditional model,” such as conducting large, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials that may indicate increased overall survival, he said.

“To me, this is the way the FDA intended it to work,” he added. “It’s going to offer the accelerated approval based on a surrogate endpoint for a safe drug, but it’s going to require the confirmatory trial, and if the confirmatory trial fails, it will pull the drug off the market.”

Some medicines that have received accelerated approvals may ultimately be found not to benefit patients, Mr. Mitchell acknowledged. But people in his situation, whose disease has progressed despite treatments, may want to take that risk, he added.


 

Four cancer indications recently withdrawn voluntarily by the manufacturer

• December 2020: Nivolumab for the treatment of patients with metastatic small cell lung cancer with progression after platinum-based chemotherapy and at least one other line of therapy (Bristol Myers Squibb).
• February 2021: Durvalumab for the treatment of patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma whose disease has progressed during or following platinum-based chemotherapy or within 12 months of neoadjuvant or adjuvant platinum-containing chemotherapy (AstraZeneca).
• March 2021: Pembrolizumab for the treatment of patients with metastatic small cell lung cancer with disease progression on or after platinum-based chemotherapy and at least one other prior line of therapy (Merck).
• March 2021: Atezolizumab for treatment of patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma who experience disease progression during or following platinum-containing atezolizumab chemotherapy or disease progression within 12 months of neoadjuvant or adjuvant treatment with platinum-containing chemotherapy (Genentech).

Six cancer indications under review at the April 2021 ODAC meeting

• Atezolizumab indicated in combination with protein-bound  for the treatment of adults with unresectable locally advanced or metastatic triple-negative  whose tumors express PD-L1 (PD-L1 stained tumor-infiltrating immune cells of any intensity covering ≥1% of the tumor area), as determined by an FDA-approved test.
• Atezolizumab indicated for patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma who are not eligible for cisplatin-containing chemotherapy.
• Pembrolizumab indicated for the treatment of patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma who are not eligible for cisplatin-containing chemotherapy.
• Pembrolizumab indicated for the treatment of patients with recurrent locally advanced or metastatic gastric or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma whose tumors express PD-L1 (Combined Positive Score ≥1), as determined by an FDA-approved test, with disease progression on or after two or more prior lines of therapy including fluoropyrimidine- and platinum-containing chemotherapy and if appropriate, HER2/neu-targeted therapy.
• Pembrolizumab indicated for the treatment of patients with  who have been previously treated with .
• Nivolumab indicated as a single agent for the treatment of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma who have been previously treated with sorafenib.

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

U.S. regulators are stepping up scrutiny of therapies that were granted an accelerated approval to treat cancers on the basis of surrogate endpoints but have failed to show clinical or survival benefits upon more extensive testing.

At issue are a number of cancer indications for immunotherapies. Four have already been withdrawn (voluntarily by the manufacturer), and six more will be reviewed at an upcoming meeting.

In recent years, the US Food and Drug Administration has granted accelerated approvals to oncology medicines on the basis of evidence that suggests a benefit for patients. Examples of such evidence relate to response rates and estimates of tumor shrinkage. But these approvals are granted on the condition that the manufacturer conducts larger clinical trials that show clinical benefit, including benefit in overall survival.

Richard Pazdur, MD, director of the FDA’s Oncology Center of Excellence, has argued that the point of these conditional approvals is to find acceptable surrogate markers to allow people with “desperate illnesses” to have access to potentially helpful drugs while work continues to determine the drug’s actual benefit to patients.

Oncologists are now questioning whether the FDA has become too lenient in its approach, Daniel A. Goldstein, MD, a senior physician in medical oncology and internal medicine at the Rabin Medical Center, Petah Tikva, Israel, told this news organization.

“The main two things you want from a cancer drug is to live longer and live a higher quality of life,” said Goldstein. “But these endpoints that they’ve been using over the past few years are not really giving us confidence that these drugs are actually going to help to live longer or better.”

Dr. Pazdur said the FDA will consider withdrawing its accelerated approvals when results of further studies do not confirm expected benefit for patients.

“This is like the pendulum has swung as far as it was going to swing and now is on the backswing,” said Dr. Goldstein, also of the department of health policy and management at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. “You could call this a watershed moment.”

Although there’s near universal interest in allowing people with advanced cancer access to promising medicines, there’s also rising concern about exposing patients needlessly to costly drugs with potentially tough side effects. That may prompt a shift in the standards U.S. regulators apply to cancer medicines, Dr. Goldstein said.
 

Indications withdrawn and under review

In a meeting scheduled for April 27-29, the FDA’s Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee will review indications granted through the accelerated approval process for three immunotherapies: pembrolizumab (Keytruda), atezolizumab (Tecentriq), and nivolumab (Opdivo).

It is part of an industry-wide evaluation of accelerated approvals for cancer indications in which confirmatory trials did not confirm clinical benefit, the FDA noted.

The process has already led to voluntary withdrawals of four cancer indications by the manufacturers, including one indication each for pembrolizumab, atezolizumab, and nivolumab, and one for durvalumab (Imfinzi).

All of these immunotherapies are approved for numerous cancer indications, and they all remain on the market. It is only the U.S. approvals for particular cancer indications that have been withdrawn.

In the past, olaratumab (Lartruvo) was withdrawn from the market altogether. The FDA granted accelerated approval of the drug for soft tissue sarcoma, but clinical benefit was not confirmed in a phase 3 trial.
 

Issue highlighted by Dr. Prasad and Dr. Gyawali

In recent years, much of the attention on accelerated approvals was spurred by the work of a few researchers, particularly Vinay Prasad, MD, MPH, associate professor in the department of epidemiology and biostatistics, University of California, San Francisco, and Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, from Queen’s University Cancer Research Institute, Kingston, Ont. (Both are regular contributors to the oncology section of this news organization.)

Dr. Goldstein made this point in a tweet about the FDA’s announcement of the April ODAC meetings:

“Well done to @oncology_bg and @VPrasadMDMPH among others for highlighting in their papers that the FDA wasn’t properly evaluating accelerated approval drugs.

FDA have listened.

And I thought that the impact of academia was limited!”

Dr. Prasad has made the case for closer scrutiny of accelerated approvals in a number of journal articles and in his 2020 book, “Malignant: How Bad Policy and Bad Evidence Harm People with Cancer,” published by Johns Hopkins University Press.

The book includes highlights of a 2016 article published in Mayo Clinic Proceedings that focused on surrogate endpoints used for FDA approvals. In the article, Dr. Prasad and his coauthor report that they did not find formal analyses of the strength of the surrogate-survival correlation in 14 of 25 cases of accelerated approvals (56%) and in 11 of 30 traditional approvals (37%).

“Our results were concerning. They imply that many surrogates are based on little more than a gut feeling. You might rationalize that and argue a gut feeling is the same as ‘reasonably likely to predict,’ but no reasonable person could think a gut feeling means established,” Dr. Prasad writes in his book. “Our result suggests the FDA is using surrogate endpoints far beyond what may be fair or reasonable.”

Dr. Gyawali has argued that the process by which the FDA assesses cancer drugs for approvals has undergone a profound shift. He has most recently remarked on this in an October 2020 commentary on Medscape.

“Until the recent floodgate of approvals based on response rates from single-arm trials, the majority of cancer therapy decisions were supported by evidence generated from randomized controlled trials (RCTs),” Dr. Gyawali wrote. “The evidence base to support clinical decisions in managing therapeutic side effects has been comparatively sparse.”
 

Accelerated approval to improve access

The FDA has struggled for about 2 decades with questions of where to set the bar on evidence for promising cancer drugs.

The agency’s accelerated approval program for drugs began in 1992. During the first decade, the focus was largely on medicines related to HIV.

In the early 2000s, oncology drugs began to dominate the program.

Dr. Pazdur has presided over the FDA’s marked changes regarding the use of surrogate markers when weighing whether to allow sales of cancer medicines. Formerly a professor at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Dr. Pazdur joined the FDA as director of the Division of Oncology Drug Products in 1999.

Soon after his appointment, he had to field inquiries from pharmaceutical companies about how much evidence they needed to receive accelerated approvals.

Early on, he publicly expressed impatience about the drugmakers’ approach. “The purpose of accelerated approval was not accelerated drug company profits,” Dr. Padzur said at a 2004 ODAC meeting.

Rather, the point is to allow access to potentially helpful drugs while work continues to determine their actual benefit to patients, he explained.

“It wasn’t a license to do less, less, less, and less to a point now that we may be getting companies that are coming in” intent on determining the minimum evidence the FDA will take, Dr. Pazdur said. “It shouldn’t be what is the lowest. It is what is a sufficient amount to give patients and physicians a real understanding of what their drug will do.”

In a 2016 interview with The New York Times, Dr. Pazdur said that his views on cancer drug approvals have evolved with time. He described himself as being “on a jihad to streamline the review process and get things out the door faster.”

“I have evolved from regulator to regulator-advocate,” Dr. Pazdur told the newspaper.

His attitude reflected his personal experience in losing his wife to ovarian cancer in 2015, as well as shifts in science and law. In 2012, Congress passed a law that gave the FDA new resources to speed medicines for life-threatening diseases to market. In addition, advances in genetics appeared to be making some medications more effective and easier to test, Dr. Pazdur said in The New York Times interview.
 

Withdrawals seen as sign of success

Since the program’s inception, only 6% of accelerated approvals for oncology indications have been withdrawn, the FDA said.

It would be a sign that the program is working if the April meetings lead to further withdrawals of indications that have been granted accelerated approval, Julie R. Gralow, MD, chief medical officer of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, said in an interview with this news organization.

“It shouldn’t be seen as a failure,” Dr. Gralow said.

In her own practice at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, she has seen the value of emerging therapies for patients fighting advanced cancers. During her 25 years of clinical practice in an academic setting, she has gained access to drugs through single-patient investigative new drug applications.

However, this path is not an option for many patients who undergo treatment in facilities other than academic centers, she commented. She noted that the accelerated approval process is a way to expand access to emerging medicines, but she sees a need for caution in the use of drugs that have been given only this conditional approval. She emphasizes that such drugs may be suitable only for certain patients.

“I would say that, for metastatic patients, patients with incurable disease, we are willing to take some risk,” Dr. Gralow said. “We don’t have other options. They can’t wait the years that it would take to get a drug approved.”

One such patient is David Mitchell, who serves as the consumer representative on ODAC. He told this news organization that he is taking three drugs for multiple myeloma that received accelerated approvals: pomalidomide, bortezomib, and daratumumab.

“I want the FDA to have the option to approve drugs in an accelerated pathway, because as a patient taking three drugs granted accelerated approval, I’m benefiting – I’ve lived the benefit,” Mr. Mitchell said, “and I want other patients to have the opportunity to have that benefit.”

He believes that the FDA’s approach regarding accelerated approvals serves to get potentially beneficial medicines to patients who have few options and also fulfills the FDA’s mandate to protect the public from treatments that have little benefit but can cause harm.

Accelerated approval also offers needed flexibility to drugmakers as they develop more specifically targeted drugs for diseases that affect relatively few people, such as multiple myeloma, he said. “As the targeting of your therapies gets tighter and for smaller groups of patients, you have a harder time following the traditional model,” such as conducting large, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials that may indicate increased overall survival, he said.

“To me, this is the way the FDA intended it to work,” he added. “It’s going to offer the accelerated approval based on a surrogate endpoint for a safe drug, but it’s going to require the confirmatory trial, and if the confirmatory trial fails, it will pull the drug off the market.”

Some medicines that have received accelerated approvals may ultimately be found not to benefit patients, Mr. Mitchell acknowledged. But people in his situation, whose disease has progressed despite treatments, may want to take that risk, he added.


 

Four cancer indications recently withdrawn voluntarily by the manufacturer

• December 2020: Nivolumab for the treatment of patients with metastatic small cell lung cancer with progression after platinum-based chemotherapy and at least one other line of therapy (Bristol Myers Squibb).
• February 2021: Durvalumab for the treatment of patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma whose disease has progressed during or following platinum-based chemotherapy or within 12 months of neoadjuvant or adjuvant platinum-containing chemotherapy (AstraZeneca).
• March 2021: Pembrolizumab for the treatment of patients with metastatic small cell lung cancer with disease progression on or after platinum-based chemotherapy and at least one other prior line of therapy (Merck).
• March 2021: Atezolizumab for treatment of patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma who experience disease progression during or following platinum-containing atezolizumab chemotherapy or disease progression within 12 months of neoadjuvant or adjuvant treatment with platinum-containing chemotherapy (Genentech).

Six cancer indications under review at the April 2021 ODAC meeting

• Atezolizumab indicated in combination with protein-bound  for the treatment of adults with unresectable locally advanced or metastatic triple-negative  whose tumors express PD-L1 (PD-L1 stained tumor-infiltrating immune cells of any intensity covering ≥1% of the tumor area), as determined by an FDA-approved test.
• Atezolizumab indicated for patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma who are not eligible for cisplatin-containing chemotherapy.
• Pembrolizumab indicated for the treatment of patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma who are not eligible for cisplatin-containing chemotherapy.
• Pembrolizumab indicated for the treatment of patients with recurrent locally advanced or metastatic gastric or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma whose tumors express PD-L1 (Combined Positive Score ≥1), as determined by an FDA-approved test, with disease progression on or after two or more prior lines of therapy including fluoropyrimidine- and platinum-containing chemotherapy and if appropriate, HER2/neu-targeted therapy.
• Pembrolizumab indicated for the treatment of patients with  who have been previously treated with .
• Nivolumab indicated as a single agent for the treatment of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma who have been previously treated with sorafenib.

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

After 10 years of follow-up, event-free survival and overall survival were similar between conventional chemotherapy treated patients with aggressive B-cell lymphoma and those receiving high-dose chemotherapy followed by autologous hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation (HSCT), according to a report published online in the Lancet Hematology.

Michael Bonert/WikimediaCommons/CC BY-SA 3.0

The open-label, randomized, phase 3 trial (NCT00129090) was conducted across 61 centers in Germany on patients aged 18-60 years who had newly diagnosed, high-risk, aggressive B-cell lymphoma, according to Fabian Frontzek, MD, of the University Hospital Münster (Germany) and colleagues.

Between March 2003 and April 2009, patients were randomly assigned to eight cycles of conventional chemotherapy (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, etoposide, and prednisolone) plus rituximab (R-CHOEP-14) or four cycles of high-dose chemotherapy plus rituximab followed by autologous HSCT (R-MegaCHOEP). The intention-to-treat population comprised 130 patients in the R-CHOEP-14 group and 132 patients in the R-MegaCHOEP group. The median follow-up was 9.3 years.
 

Similar outcomes

The 10-year event-free survival was 51% in the R-MegaCHOEP group and 57% in the R-CHOEP-14 group, a nonsignificant difference (P = .23). Similarly, the 10-year progression-free survival was 59% in the

R-MegaCHOEP group and 60% (P = .64). The 10-year overall survival was 66% in the R-MegaCHOEP group and 72% in the R-CHOEP-14 group (P = .26). Among the 190 patients who had complete remission or unconfirmed complete remission, relapse occurred in 30 (16%); 17 (17%) of 100 patients in the R-CHOEP-14 group and 13 (14%) of 90 patients in the R-MegaCHOEP group.

In terms of secondary malignancies, 22 were reported in the intention-to-treat population; comprising 12 (9%) of 127 patients in the R-CHOEP-14 group and 10 (8%) of 126 patients in the R-MegaCHOEP group.

Patients who relapsed with aggressive histology and with CNS involvement in particular had worse outcomes and “represent a group with an unmet medical need, for which new molecular and cellular therapies should be studied,” the authors stated.

“This study shows that, in the rituximab era, high-dose therapy and autologous HSCT in first-line treatment does not improve long-term survival of younger high-risk patients with aggressive B-cell lymphoma. The R-CHOEP-14 regimen led to favorable outcomes, supporting its continued use in such patients,” the researchers concluded.

In an accompanying commentary, Gita Thanarajasingam, MD, of the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., and colleagues added that the issue of long-term outcomes is critical to evaluating these new regimens.

They applauded the inclusion of secondary malignancies in the long-term follow-up, but regretted the lack of the, admittedly resource-intensive, information on long-term nonneoplastic adverse events. They added that “the burden of late adverse events such as cardiotoxicity, cumulative neuropathy, delayed infections, or lasting cognitive effects, among others that might drive substantial morbidity, does matter to lymphoma survivors.”

They also commented on the importance of considering effects on fertility in these patients, noting that R-MegaCHOEP patients would be unable to conceive naturally, but that the effect of R-CHOEP-14 was less clear.

“We encourage ongoing emphasis on this type of longitudinal follow-up of secondary malignancies and other nonneoplastic late toxicities in phase 3 studies as well as in the real world in hematological malignancies, so that after prioritizing cure in the front-line setting, we do not neglect the life we have helped survivors achieve for years and decades to come,” they concluded.

The study was sponsored by the German High-Grade Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma Study Group. The authors reported grants, personal fees, and non-financial support from multiple pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies. Dr. Thanarajasingam and her colleagues reported that they had no competing interests.

[email protected]

After 10 years of follow-up, event-free survival and overall survival were similar between conventional chemotherapy treated patients with aggressive B-cell lymphoma and those receiving high-dose chemotherapy followed by autologous hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation (HSCT), according to a report published online in the Lancet Hematology.

Michael Bonert/WikimediaCommons/CC BY-SA 3.0

The open-label, randomized, phase 3 trial (NCT00129090) was conducted across 61 centers in Germany on patients aged 18-60 years who had newly diagnosed, high-risk, aggressive B-cell lymphoma, according to Fabian Frontzek, MD, of the University Hospital Münster (Germany) and colleagues.

Between March 2003 and April 2009, patients were randomly assigned to eight cycles of conventional chemotherapy (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, etoposide, and prednisolone) plus rituximab (R-CHOEP-14) or four cycles of high-dose chemotherapy plus rituximab followed by autologous HSCT (R-MegaCHOEP). The intention-to-treat population comprised 130 patients in the R-CHOEP-14 group and 132 patients in the R-MegaCHOEP group. The median follow-up was 9.3 years.
 

Similar outcomes

The 10-year event-free survival was 51% in the R-MegaCHOEP group and 57% in the R-CHOEP-14 group, a nonsignificant difference (P = .23). Similarly, the 10-year progression-free survival was 59% in the

R-MegaCHOEP group and 60% (P = .64). The 10-year overall survival was 66% in the R-MegaCHOEP group and 72% in the R-CHOEP-14 group (P = .26). Among the 190 patients who had complete remission or unconfirmed complete remission, relapse occurred in 30 (16%); 17 (17%) of 100 patients in the R-CHOEP-14 group and 13 (14%) of 90 patients in the R-MegaCHOEP group.

In terms of secondary malignancies, 22 were reported in the intention-to-treat population; comprising 12 (9%) of 127 patients in the R-CHOEP-14 group and 10 (8%) of 126 patients in the R-MegaCHOEP group.

Patients who relapsed with aggressive histology and with CNS involvement in particular had worse outcomes and “represent a group with an unmet medical need, for which new molecular and cellular therapies should be studied,” the authors stated.

“This study shows that, in the rituximab era, high-dose therapy and autologous HSCT in first-line treatment does not improve long-term survival of younger high-risk patients with aggressive B-cell lymphoma. The R-CHOEP-14 regimen led to favorable outcomes, supporting its continued use in such patients,” the researchers concluded.

In an accompanying commentary, Gita Thanarajasingam, MD, of the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., and colleagues added that the issue of long-term outcomes is critical to evaluating these new regimens.

They applauded the inclusion of secondary malignancies in the long-term follow-up, but regretted the lack of the, admittedly resource-intensive, information on long-term nonneoplastic adverse events. They added that “the burden of late adverse events such as cardiotoxicity, cumulative neuropathy, delayed infections, or lasting cognitive effects, among others that might drive substantial morbidity, does matter to lymphoma survivors.”

They also commented on the importance of considering effects on fertility in these patients, noting that R-MegaCHOEP patients would be unable to conceive naturally, but that the effect of R-CHOEP-14 was less clear.

“We encourage ongoing emphasis on this type of longitudinal follow-up of secondary malignancies and other nonneoplastic late toxicities in phase 3 studies as well as in the real world in hematological malignancies, so that after prioritizing cure in the front-line setting, we do not neglect the life we have helped survivors achieve for years and decades to come,” they concluded.

The study was sponsored by the German High-Grade Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma Study Group. The authors reported grants, personal fees, and non-financial support from multiple pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies. Dr. Thanarajasingam and her colleagues reported that they had no competing interests.

[email protected]

After 10 years of follow-up, event-free survival and overall survival were similar between conventional chemotherapy treated patients with aggressive B-cell lymphoma and those receiving high-dose chemotherapy followed by autologous hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation (HSCT), according to a report published online in the Lancet Hematology.

Michael Bonert/WikimediaCommons/CC BY-SA 3.0

The open-label, randomized, phase 3 trial (NCT00129090) was conducted across 61 centers in Germany on patients aged 18-60 years who had newly diagnosed, high-risk, aggressive B-cell lymphoma, according to Fabian Frontzek, MD, of the University Hospital Münster (Germany) and colleagues.

Between March 2003 and April 2009, patients were randomly assigned to eight cycles of conventional chemotherapy (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, etoposide, and prednisolone) plus rituximab (R-CHOEP-14) or four cycles of high-dose chemotherapy plus rituximab followed by autologous HSCT (R-MegaCHOEP). The intention-to-treat population comprised 130 patients in the R-CHOEP-14 group and 132 patients in the R-MegaCHOEP group. The median follow-up was 9.3 years.
 

Similar outcomes

The 10-year event-free survival was 51% in the R-MegaCHOEP group and 57% in the R-CHOEP-14 group, a nonsignificant difference (P = .23). Similarly, the 10-year progression-free survival was 59% in the

R-MegaCHOEP group and 60% (P = .64). The 10-year overall survival was 66% in the R-MegaCHOEP group and 72% in the R-CHOEP-14 group (P = .26). Among the 190 patients who had complete remission or unconfirmed complete remission, relapse occurred in 30 (16%); 17 (17%) of 100 patients in the R-CHOEP-14 group and 13 (14%) of 90 patients in the R-MegaCHOEP group.

In terms of secondary malignancies, 22 were reported in the intention-to-treat population; comprising 12 (9%) of 127 patients in the R-CHOEP-14 group and 10 (8%) of 126 patients in the R-MegaCHOEP group.

Patients who relapsed with aggressive histology and with CNS involvement in particular had worse outcomes and “represent a group with an unmet medical need, for which new molecular and cellular therapies should be studied,” the authors stated.

“This study shows that, in the rituximab era, high-dose therapy and autologous HSCT in first-line treatment does not improve long-term survival of younger high-risk patients with aggressive B-cell lymphoma. The R-CHOEP-14 regimen led to favorable outcomes, supporting its continued use in such patients,” the researchers concluded.

In an accompanying commentary, Gita Thanarajasingam, MD, of the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., and colleagues added that the issue of long-term outcomes is critical to evaluating these new regimens.

They applauded the inclusion of secondary malignancies in the long-term follow-up, but regretted the lack of the, admittedly resource-intensive, information on long-term nonneoplastic adverse events. They added that “the burden of late adverse events such as cardiotoxicity, cumulative neuropathy, delayed infections, or lasting cognitive effects, among others that might drive substantial morbidity, does matter to lymphoma survivors.”

They also commented on the importance of considering effects on fertility in these patients, noting that R-MegaCHOEP patients would be unable to conceive naturally, but that the effect of R-CHOEP-14 was less clear.

“We encourage ongoing emphasis on this type of longitudinal follow-up of secondary malignancies and other nonneoplastic late toxicities in phase 3 studies as well as in the real world in hematological malignancies, so that after prioritizing cure in the front-line setting, we do not neglect the life we have helped survivors achieve for years and decades to come,” they concluded.

The study was sponsored by the German High-Grade Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma Study Group. The authors reported grants, personal fees, and non-financial support from multiple pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies. Dr. Thanarajasingam and her colleagues reported that they had no competing interests.

[email protected]