AVAHO

Phase 3 trial results suggest durvalumab (Imfinzi) does not improve overall survival in unresectable metastatic bladder cancer, so the drug will no longer be approved to treat this patient population in the United States, according to an announcement from AstraZeneca.

The change does not affect this indication outside the United States, nor does it affect other approved durvalumab indications within the United States.

For example, durvalumab remains approved by the Food and Drug Administration in the curative-intent setting of unresectable, stage III non–small cell lung cancer after chemoradiotherapy and for the treatment of extensive-stage small cell lung cancer.

AstraZeneca is continuing with clinical trials of durvalumab in various combinations for the treatment of bladder cancer.
 

Granted accelerated approval

Durvalumab was granted accelerated approval in May 2017 by the FDA specifically for the treatment of patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma who experience disease progression during or following platinum-containing chemotherapy or who experience disease progression within 12 months of neoadjuvant or adjuvant treatment with that chemotherapy.

That accelerated approval was based on the surrogate markers of tumor response rate and duration of response from Study 1108, a phase 1/2 trial. In this trial, the overall response rate was 17.8% in a cohort of 191 patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer that had progressed during or after a platinum-based regimen.

However, in the confirmatory phase 3 DANUBE trial in patients with unresectable metastatic bladder cancer, neither durvalumab nor durvalumab plus tremelimumab met the primary endpoint of improving overall survival in comparison with standard-of-care chemotherapy.

“While the withdrawal in previously treated metastatic bladder cancer is disappointing, we respect the principles FDA set out when the accelerated approval pathway was founded,” Dave Fredrickson, executive vice president, Oncology Business Unit, AstraZeneca, said in a company press statement.

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

Phase 3 trial results suggest durvalumab (Imfinzi) does not improve overall survival in unresectable metastatic bladder cancer, so the drug will no longer be approved to treat this patient population in the United States, according to an announcement from AstraZeneca.

The change does not affect this indication outside the United States, nor does it affect other approved durvalumab indications within the United States.

For example, durvalumab remains approved by the Food and Drug Administration in the curative-intent setting of unresectable, stage III non–small cell lung cancer after chemoradiotherapy and for the treatment of extensive-stage small cell lung cancer.

AstraZeneca is continuing with clinical trials of durvalumab in various combinations for the treatment of bladder cancer.
 

Granted accelerated approval

Durvalumab was granted accelerated approval in May 2017 by the FDA specifically for the treatment of patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma who experience disease progression during or following platinum-containing chemotherapy or who experience disease progression within 12 months of neoadjuvant or adjuvant treatment with that chemotherapy.

That accelerated approval was based on the surrogate markers of tumor response rate and duration of response from Study 1108, a phase 1/2 trial. In this trial, the overall response rate was 17.8% in a cohort of 191 patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer that had progressed during or after a platinum-based regimen.

However, in the confirmatory phase 3 DANUBE trial in patients with unresectable metastatic bladder cancer, neither durvalumab nor durvalumab plus tremelimumab met the primary endpoint of improving overall survival in comparison with standard-of-care chemotherapy.

“While the withdrawal in previously treated metastatic bladder cancer is disappointing, we respect the principles FDA set out when the accelerated approval pathway was founded,” Dave Fredrickson, executive vice president, Oncology Business Unit, AstraZeneca, said in a company press statement.

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

Phase 3 trial results suggest durvalumab (Imfinzi) does not improve overall survival in unresectable metastatic bladder cancer, so the drug will no longer be approved to treat this patient population in the United States, according to an announcement from AstraZeneca.

The change does not affect this indication outside the United States, nor does it affect other approved durvalumab indications within the United States.

For example, durvalumab remains approved by the Food and Drug Administration in the curative-intent setting of unresectable, stage III non–small cell lung cancer after chemoradiotherapy and for the treatment of extensive-stage small cell lung cancer.

AstraZeneca is continuing with clinical trials of durvalumab in various combinations for the treatment of bladder cancer.
 

Granted accelerated approval

Durvalumab was granted accelerated approval in May 2017 by the FDA specifically for the treatment of patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma who experience disease progression during or following platinum-containing chemotherapy or who experience disease progression within 12 months of neoadjuvant or adjuvant treatment with that chemotherapy.

That accelerated approval was based on the surrogate markers of tumor response rate and duration of response from Study 1108, a phase 1/2 trial. In this trial, the overall response rate was 17.8% in a cohort of 191 patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer that had progressed during or after a platinum-based regimen.

However, in the confirmatory phase 3 DANUBE trial in patients with unresectable metastatic bladder cancer, neither durvalumab nor durvalumab plus tremelimumab met the primary endpoint of improving overall survival in comparison with standard-of-care chemotherapy.

“While the withdrawal in previously treated metastatic bladder cancer is disappointing, we respect the principles FDA set out when the accelerated approval pathway was founded,” Dave Fredrickson, executive vice president, Oncology Business Unit, AstraZeneca, said in a company press statement.

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

A new artificial intelligence (AI) program can effectively identify potential melanoma in wide-field photos, researchers say.

The system could use photographs of large areas of patients’ bodies taken with ordinary cameras in primary care or by the patients themselves to screen for early-stage melanoma, said Luis R. Soenksen, PhD, a postdoctoral associate and venture builder at Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge, Mass.

“We believe we’re providing technology for that to happen at a massive scale, which is what is needed to reduce mortality rates,” he said in an interview.

He and his colleagues published their findings in Science Translational Medicine.

Diagnosing skin lesions has already proved one of the most promising medical applications of AI. In a 2017 paper, researchers reported that a deep neural network had classified skin lesions more accurately than did dermatologists. But so far, most such programs depend on experts to preselect the lesions worthy of analysis. And they use images from dermoscopy or single-lesion near-field photography.

Dr. Soenksen and colleagues wanted a system that could use a variety of cameras such as those in smartphones under a variety of conditions to assess lesions over wide areas of anatomy.

So they programmed their convolutional neural network to simultaneously use two approaches for screening lesions. Like the earlier systems, theirs looks for characteristics of individual lesions, such as asymmetry, border unevenness, color distribution, diameter, and evolution (ABCDE.) But it also looks for lesion saliency, a comparison of the lesions on the skin of one individual to identify the “ugly ducklings” that stand out from the rest.

They trained the system using 20,388 wide-field images from 133 patients at the Hospital Gregorio Marañón in Madrid, as well as publicly available images. The images were taken with a variety of consumer-grade cameras, about half of them nondermoscopy, and included backgrounds, skin edges, bare skin sections, nonsuspicious pigmented lesions, and suspicious pigmented lesions. The lesions in the images were visually classified by a consensus of three board-certified dermatologists.

Once they trained the system, the researchers tested it on another 6,796 images from the same patients, using the dermatologists’ classification as the gold standard. The system distinguished the suspicious lesions with 90.3% sensitivity (true positive), 89.9% specificity (true negative), and 86.56% accuracy.

Dr. Soenksen said he could envision photos acquired for screening in three scenarios. First, people could photograph themselves, or someone else at their homes could photograph them. These photos could even include whole nude bodies.

Second, clinicians could photograph patients’ body parts during medical visits for other purposes. “It makes sense to do these evaluations in the point of care where a referral can actually happen, like the primary care office,” said Dr. Soenksen.

Third, photos could be taken at places where people show up in bathing suits.

In each scenario, the system would then tell patients whether any lesions needed evaluation by a dermatologist.

To ensure privacy, Dr. Soenksen envisions using devices that do not transmit all the data to the cloud but instead do at least some of the calculations on their own. High-end smartphones have sufficient computing capacity for that, he said.

In their next phase of this work, the researchers would like to test the system on more skin of color cases and in more varied conditions, said Dr. Soenksen. And they would like to put it through randomized clinical trials, potentially using biopsies to validate the results.

That’s a key step, said Veronica Rotemberg, MD, PhD, director of the dermatology imaging informatics program at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York.

“Usually when we think about melanoma, we think of histology as the gold standard, or specific subtypes of melanoma as a gold standard,” she said in an interview.

The technology also raises the question of excessive screening, she said. “Identifying the ugly duckling could be extremely important in finding more melanoma,” she said. “But in a patient who doesn’t have melanoma, it could lead to a lot of unnecessary biopsies.”

The sheer number of referrals generated by such a system could overwhelm the dermatologists assigned to follow up on them, she added.

Still, Dr. Rotemberg said, the study is “a good proof of concept.” Ugly duckling analysis is a very active area of AI research with thousands of teams of researchers worldwide working on systems similar to this one, she added. “I’m so excited for the authors.”

Neither Dr. Soenksen nor Dr. Rotemberg disclosed any relevant financial interests.
 

A new artificial intelligence (AI) program can effectively identify potential melanoma in wide-field photos, researchers say.

The system could use photographs of large areas of patients’ bodies taken with ordinary cameras in primary care or by the patients themselves to screen for early-stage melanoma, said Luis R. Soenksen, PhD, a postdoctoral associate and venture builder at Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge, Mass.

“We believe we’re providing technology for that to happen at a massive scale, which is what is needed to reduce mortality rates,” he said in an interview.

He and his colleagues published their findings in Science Translational Medicine.

Diagnosing skin lesions has already proved one of the most promising medical applications of AI. In a 2017 paper, researchers reported that a deep neural network had classified skin lesions more accurately than did dermatologists. But so far, most such programs depend on experts to preselect the lesions worthy of analysis. And they use images from dermoscopy or single-lesion near-field photography.

Dr. Soenksen and colleagues wanted a system that could use a variety of cameras such as those in smartphones under a variety of conditions to assess lesions over wide areas of anatomy.

So they programmed their convolutional neural network to simultaneously use two approaches for screening lesions. Like the earlier systems, theirs looks for characteristics of individual lesions, such as asymmetry, border unevenness, color distribution, diameter, and evolution (ABCDE.) But it also looks for lesion saliency, a comparison of the lesions on the skin of one individual to identify the “ugly ducklings” that stand out from the rest.

They trained the system using 20,388 wide-field images from 133 patients at the Hospital Gregorio Marañón in Madrid, as well as publicly available images. The images were taken with a variety of consumer-grade cameras, about half of them nondermoscopy, and included backgrounds, skin edges, bare skin sections, nonsuspicious pigmented lesions, and suspicious pigmented lesions. The lesions in the images were visually classified by a consensus of three board-certified dermatologists.

Once they trained the system, the researchers tested it on another 6,796 images from the same patients, using the dermatologists’ classification as the gold standard. The system distinguished the suspicious lesions with 90.3% sensitivity (true positive), 89.9% specificity (true negative), and 86.56% accuracy.

Dr. Soenksen said he could envision photos acquired for screening in three scenarios. First, people could photograph themselves, or someone else at their homes could photograph them. These photos could even include whole nude bodies.

Second, clinicians could photograph patients’ body parts during medical visits for other purposes. “It makes sense to do these evaluations in the point of care where a referral can actually happen, like the primary care office,” said Dr. Soenksen.

Third, photos could be taken at places where people show up in bathing suits.

In each scenario, the system would then tell patients whether any lesions needed evaluation by a dermatologist.

To ensure privacy, Dr. Soenksen envisions using devices that do not transmit all the data to the cloud but instead do at least some of the calculations on their own. High-end smartphones have sufficient computing capacity for that, he said.

In their next phase of this work, the researchers would like to test the system on more skin of color cases and in more varied conditions, said Dr. Soenksen. And they would like to put it through randomized clinical trials, potentially using biopsies to validate the results.

That’s a key step, said Veronica Rotemberg, MD, PhD, director of the dermatology imaging informatics program at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York.

“Usually when we think about melanoma, we think of histology as the gold standard, or specific subtypes of melanoma as a gold standard,” she said in an interview.

The technology also raises the question of excessive screening, she said. “Identifying the ugly duckling could be extremely important in finding more melanoma,” she said. “But in a patient who doesn’t have melanoma, it could lead to a lot of unnecessary biopsies.”

The sheer number of referrals generated by such a system could overwhelm the dermatologists assigned to follow up on them, she added.

Still, Dr. Rotemberg said, the study is “a good proof of concept.” Ugly duckling analysis is a very active area of AI research with thousands of teams of researchers worldwide working on systems similar to this one, she added. “I’m so excited for the authors.”

Neither Dr. Soenksen nor Dr. Rotemberg disclosed any relevant financial interests.
 

A new artificial intelligence (AI) program can effectively identify potential melanoma in wide-field photos, researchers say.

The system could use photographs of large areas of patients’ bodies taken with ordinary cameras in primary care or by the patients themselves to screen for early-stage melanoma, said Luis R. Soenksen, PhD, a postdoctoral associate and venture builder at Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge, Mass.

“We believe we’re providing technology for that to happen at a massive scale, which is what is needed to reduce mortality rates,” he said in an interview.

He and his colleagues published their findings in Science Translational Medicine.

Diagnosing skin lesions has already proved one of the most promising medical applications of AI. In a 2017 paper, researchers reported that a deep neural network had classified skin lesions more accurately than did dermatologists. But so far, most such programs depend on experts to preselect the lesions worthy of analysis. And they use images from dermoscopy or single-lesion near-field photography.

Dr. Soenksen and colleagues wanted a system that could use a variety of cameras such as those in smartphones under a variety of conditions to assess lesions over wide areas of anatomy.

So they programmed their convolutional neural network to simultaneously use two approaches for screening lesions. Like the earlier systems, theirs looks for characteristics of individual lesions, such as asymmetry, border unevenness, color distribution, diameter, and evolution (ABCDE.) But it also looks for lesion saliency, a comparison of the lesions on the skin of one individual to identify the “ugly ducklings” that stand out from the rest.

They trained the system using 20,388 wide-field images from 133 patients at the Hospital Gregorio Marañón in Madrid, as well as publicly available images. The images were taken with a variety of consumer-grade cameras, about half of them nondermoscopy, and included backgrounds, skin edges, bare skin sections, nonsuspicious pigmented lesions, and suspicious pigmented lesions. The lesions in the images were visually classified by a consensus of three board-certified dermatologists.

Once they trained the system, the researchers tested it on another 6,796 images from the same patients, using the dermatologists’ classification as the gold standard. The system distinguished the suspicious lesions with 90.3% sensitivity (true positive), 89.9% specificity (true negative), and 86.56% accuracy.

Dr. Soenksen said he could envision photos acquired for screening in three scenarios. First, people could photograph themselves, or someone else at their homes could photograph them. These photos could even include whole nude bodies.

Second, clinicians could photograph patients’ body parts during medical visits for other purposes. “It makes sense to do these evaluations in the point of care where a referral can actually happen, like the primary care office,” said Dr. Soenksen.

Third, photos could be taken at places where people show up in bathing suits.

In each scenario, the system would then tell patients whether any lesions needed evaluation by a dermatologist.

To ensure privacy, Dr. Soenksen envisions using devices that do not transmit all the data to the cloud but instead do at least some of the calculations on their own. High-end smartphones have sufficient computing capacity for that, he said.

In their next phase of this work, the researchers would like to test the system on more skin of color cases and in more varied conditions, said Dr. Soenksen. And they would like to put it through randomized clinical trials, potentially using biopsies to validate the results.

That’s a key step, said Veronica Rotemberg, MD, PhD, director of the dermatology imaging informatics program at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York.

“Usually when we think about melanoma, we think of histology as the gold standard, or specific subtypes of melanoma as a gold standard,” she said in an interview.

The technology also raises the question of excessive screening, she said. “Identifying the ugly duckling could be extremely important in finding more melanoma,” she said. “But in a patient who doesn’t have melanoma, it could lead to a lot of unnecessary biopsies.”

The sheer number of referrals generated by such a system could overwhelm the dermatologists assigned to follow up on them, she added.

Still, Dr. Rotemberg said, the study is “a good proof of concept.” Ugly duckling analysis is a very active area of AI research with thousands of teams of researchers worldwide working on systems similar to this one, she added. “I’m so excited for the authors.”

Neither Dr. Soenksen nor Dr. Rotemberg disclosed any relevant financial interests.
 

Two new approaches to surveillance imaging after treatment of stage I testicular seminoma sharply reduce or eliminate radiation exposure relative to the standard approach, without substantially compromising relapse detection, the phase 3 TRISST study suggests.

Results were reported at the 2021 Genitourinary Cancers Symposium (Abstract 374).

“Stage I seminoma has a survival that approaches 100%. Over recent years, CT surveillance has become an international standard of care and has largely replaced the use of adjuvant treatment,” said investigator Robert A. Huddart, MRCP, FRCR, PhD, of The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London.

“A typical surveillance protocol, however, consists of multiple CT scans taken over a period of a few years and results in quite a high diagnostic radiation dose, which has raised questions about the long-term risk of second malignancies related to this program,” he noted. “At the moment, there is no evidence base to inform how frequently imaging should be undertaken and the type of imaging that should be used.”

Results of TRISST showed that, with a median 6-year follow-up during which men were monitored with various surveillance protocols, 1.5% experienced a relapse that was advanced (stage IIC or higher) at detection.

The incidence of relapse was 0.3% with the standard schedule of seven abdominal surveillance scans and a statistically noninferior 2.8% with three more widely spaced scans. Also, compared with the standard CT scans, which yielded an incidence of 2.6%, MRI scans were noninferior, yielding an incidence of 0.6%.

“The three-scan schedule was noninferior to seven scans in our protocol, and in fact, with the three-scan schedule, we would use over 1,000 fewer scans at a cost of perhaps having four relapses that could have been avoided,” Dr. Huddart pointed out. “We can conclude that MRI is noninferior to CT and should be recommended to avoid irradiation. This study will provide an evidence base for making the transition to MRI, which is important. The MRI scan is more complex – it takes longer and is more resource heavy. So we do need to supply the evidence that it is the right thing to do for patients.”

Need for expertise in interpreting MRI scans is a valid concern, he acknowledged. “There is a degree of specialization in the UK for testis cancer management, and clearly, you had to be specialist to take part in the study. So I can’t say it is your everyday radiologist, but the data would suggest we actually saw less errors in terms of pickup with the MRI scan than with the CT scan,” he said. “You do need to have a level of expertise, but it doesn’t require super-specialist expertise. I suppose that will be a learning lesson for all of us, to learn better MRI interpretation if we are using MRI.”
 

Trial details

The 669 men randomized in TRISST (NCT00589537), a multicenter trial with a factorial and noninferiority design, had undergone orchiectomy for stage I seminoma and did not have any adjuvant therapy planned.

They were randomized once on number of surveillance scans: seven scans (at 6, 12, 18, 24, 36, 48, and 60 months) vs. three scans (at 6, 18, and 36 months). And they were randomized again on scan modality: CT versus MRI. All groups had similar follow-up otherwise, consisting of periodic chest radiographs, tumor marker tests, and clinical assessments.

The primary outcome, 6-year incidence of advanced relapse defined as stage IIC or higher (i.e., measuring 5 cm or greater) by Royal Marsden Hospital criteria, was chosen because, when the study began, this was the dividing point between using local therapy and using systemic multiagent chemotherapy to treat a relapse, Dr. Huddart explained.

Among men remaining on surveillance, compliance was good, with 94% of all scans attended and 79% performed on time, he reported.

Overall, 12% of the randomized population experienced a relapse of any stage during follow-up, with nearly all relapses occurring within the first 3 years.

The 6-year incidence of advanced relapse was just 1.5% in the entire trial population, lower than the 5.7% expected in trial planning, according to Dr. Huddart.

In intention-to-treat analyses, the incidence was 2.8% with the three-scan schedule and 0.3% with the seven-scan schedule, with the difference of 2.6% and the bounds of the 90% confidence interval falling within the predefined noninferiority margin of 5.7%.

Using three scans instead of seven scans increased the proportion of patients with relapse who had advanced stage from 3% to 20%. Four of the nine advanced relapses occurring with the three-scan schedule could possibly have been detected earlier with the seven-scan schedule.

The 6-year incidence of advanced relapse was 0.6% with MRI scans and 2.6% with CT scans. The difference of –1.9% and the bounds of the 90% confidence interval fell within the noninferiority margin. Use of MRI instead of CT reduced the proportion of patients with relapse who had advanced stage from 20% to 5%.

For both the scan frequency comparison and the scan modality comparison, findings were essentially the same in per protocol analyses and in analyses that instead looked at relapses measuring 3 cm or greater, according to Dr. Huddart.

Fully 89% of patients with advanced relapses were treated with chemotherapy only, and 56% of all patients with advanced relapse had a response to their treatment.

Most patients experiencing a relapse of any stage, 93%, were alive and free of disease at their most recent follow-up, Dr. Huddart reported. Overall survival for the trial population was 99% and similar across surveillance groups, with no deaths due to testicular cancer.
 

Risk-tailored surveillance

“Noninferiority trials are much more challenging than equivalence or superiority trials,” observed invited discussant Pilar Laguna, MD, PhD, of Istanbul Medipol University, Turkey.

She expressed some reservations about TRISST results, including the much lower than expected incidence of advanced relapse, which may have affected comparisons, and problematic compliance, as about one-quarter of patients stopped surveillance before relapse or withdrew from the trial before 6 years of follow-up.

Recurrence after treatment of stage I seminoma is largely driven by the risk factors of tumor size exceeding 4 cm and presence of rete testis invasion, and 54% of TRISST patients did not have either of these factors, Dr. Laguna noted.

“While a more relaxed schedule may well suit those patients at low risk, more intense schedules will be appropriate for patients with risk factors,” she maintained. “I am pretty sure that the TRISST trial will impact future guideline recommendations, although still I think that one approach may not fit all.”

TRISST was funded by Cancer Research UK and the MRC Clinical Trials Unit. Dr. Huddart disclosed relationships with Janssen Oncology, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Nektar, and Roche. Dr. Laguna disclosed that she is chair of the EAU Testicular Cancer Guidelines Panel.

Two new approaches to surveillance imaging after treatment of stage I testicular seminoma sharply reduce or eliminate radiation exposure relative to the standard approach, without substantially compromising relapse detection, the phase 3 TRISST study suggests.

Results were reported at the 2021 Genitourinary Cancers Symposium (Abstract 374).

“Stage I seminoma has a survival that approaches 100%. Over recent years, CT surveillance has become an international standard of care and has largely replaced the use of adjuvant treatment,” said investigator Robert A. Huddart, MRCP, FRCR, PhD, of The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London.

“A typical surveillance protocol, however, consists of multiple CT scans taken over a period of a few years and results in quite a high diagnostic radiation dose, which has raised questions about the long-term risk of second malignancies related to this program,” he noted. “At the moment, there is no evidence base to inform how frequently imaging should be undertaken and the type of imaging that should be used.”

Results of TRISST showed that, with a median 6-year follow-up during which men were monitored with various surveillance protocols, 1.5% experienced a relapse that was advanced (stage IIC or higher) at detection.

The incidence of relapse was 0.3% with the standard schedule of seven abdominal surveillance scans and a statistically noninferior 2.8% with three more widely spaced scans. Also, compared with the standard CT scans, which yielded an incidence of 2.6%, MRI scans were noninferior, yielding an incidence of 0.6%.

“The three-scan schedule was noninferior to seven scans in our protocol, and in fact, with the three-scan schedule, we would use over 1,000 fewer scans at a cost of perhaps having four relapses that could have been avoided,” Dr. Huddart pointed out. “We can conclude that MRI is noninferior to CT and should be recommended to avoid irradiation. This study will provide an evidence base for making the transition to MRI, which is important. The MRI scan is more complex – it takes longer and is more resource heavy. So we do need to supply the evidence that it is the right thing to do for patients.”

Need for expertise in interpreting MRI scans is a valid concern, he acknowledged. “There is a degree of specialization in the UK for testis cancer management, and clearly, you had to be specialist to take part in the study. So I can’t say it is your everyday radiologist, but the data would suggest we actually saw less errors in terms of pickup with the MRI scan than with the CT scan,” he said. “You do need to have a level of expertise, but it doesn’t require super-specialist expertise. I suppose that will be a learning lesson for all of us, to learn better MRI interpretation if we are using MRI.”
 

Trial details

The 669 men randomized in TRISST (NCT00589537), a multicenter trial with a factorial and noninferiority design, had undergone orchiectomy for stage I seminoma and did not have any adjuvant therapy planned.

They were randomized once on number of surveillance scans: seven scans (at 6, 12, 18, 24, 36, 48, and 60 months) vs. three scans (at 6, 18, and 36 months). And they were randomized again on scan modality: CT versus MRI. All groups had similar follow-up otherwise, consisting of periodic chest radiographs, tumor marker tests, and clinical assessments.

The primary outcome, 6-year incidence of advanced relapse defined as stage IIC or higher (i.e., measuring 5 cm or greater) by Royal Marsden Hospital criteria, was chosen because, when the study began, this was the dividing point between using local therapy and using systemic multiagent chemotherapy to treat a relapse, Dr. Huddart explained.

Among men remaining on surveillance, compliance was good, with 94% of all scans attended and 79% performed on time, he reported.

Overall, 12% of the randomized population experienced a relapse of any stage during follow-up, with nearly all relapses occurring within the first 3 years.

The 6-year incidence of advanced relapse was just 1.5% in the entire trial population, lower than the 5.7% expected in trial planning, according to Dr. Huddart.

In intention-to-treat analyses, the incidence was 2.8% with the three-scan schedule and 0.3% with the seven-scan schedule, with the difference of 2.6% and the bounds of the 90% confidence interval falling within the predefined noninferiority margin of 5.7%.

Using three scans instead of seven scans increased the proportion of patients with relapse who had advanced stage from 3% to 20%. Four of the nine advanced relapses occurring with the three-scan schedule could possibly have been detected earlier with the seven-scan schedule.

The 6-year incidence of advanced relapse was 0.6% with MRI scans and 2.6% with CT scans. The difference of –1.9% and the bounds of the 90% confidence interval fell within the noninferiority margin. Use of MRI instead of CT reduced the proportion of patients with relapse who had advanced stage from 20% to 5%.

For both the scan frequency comparison and the scan modality comparison, findings were essentially the same in per protocol analyses and in analyses that instead looked at relapses measuring 3 cm or greater, according to Dr. Huddart.

Fully 89% of patients with advanced relapses were treated with chemotherapy only, and 56% of all patients with advanced relapse had a response to their treatment.

Most patients experiencing a relapse of any stage, 93%, were alive and free of disease at their most recent follow-up, Dr. Huddart reported. Overall survival for the trial population was 99% and similar across surveillance groups, with no deaths due to testicular cancer.
 

Risk-tailored surveillance

“Noninferiority trials are much more challenging than equivalence or superiority trials,” observed invited discussant Pilar Laguna, MD, PhD, of Istanbul Medipol University, Turkey.

She expressed some reservations about TRISST results, including the much lower than expected incidence of advanced relapse, which may have affected comparisons, and problematic compliance, as about one-quarter of patients stopped surveillance before relapse or withdrew from the trial before 6 years of follow-up.

Recurrence after treatment of stage I seminoma is largely driven by the risk factors of tumor size exceeding 4 cm and presence of rete testis invasion, and 54% of TRISST patients did not have either of these factors, Dr. Laguna noted.

“While a more relaxed schedule may well suit those patients at low risk, more intense schedules will be appropriate for patients with risk factors,” she maintained. “I am pretty sure that the TRISST trial will impact future guideline recommendations, although still I think that one approach may not fit all.”

TRISST was funded by Cancer Research UK and the MRC Clinical Trials Unit. Dr. Huddart disclosed relationships with Janssen Oncology, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Nektar, and Roche. Dr. Laguna disclosed that she is chair of the EAU Testicular Cancer Guidelines Panel.

Two new approaches to surveillance imaging after treatment of stage I testicular seminoma sharply reduce or eliminate radiation exposure relative to the standard approach, without substantially compromising relapse detection, the phase 3 TRISST study suggests.

Results were reported at the 2021 Genitourinary Cancers Symposium (Abstract 374).

“Stage I seminoma has a survival that approaches 100%. Over recent years, CT surveillance has become an international standard of care and has largely replaced the use of adjuvant treatment,” said investigator Robert A. Huddart, MRCP, FRCR, PhD, of The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London.

“A typical surveillance protocol, however, consists of multiple CT scans taken over a period of a few years and results in quite a high diagnostic radiation dose, which has raised questions about the long-term risk of second malignancies related to this program,” he noted. “At the moment, there is no evidence base to inform how frequently imaging should be undertaken and the type of imaging that should be used.”

Results of TRISST showed that, with a median 6-year follow-up during which men were monitored with various surveillance protocols, 1.5% experienced a relapse that was advanced (stage IIC or higher) at detection.

The incidence of relapse was 0.3% with the standard schedule of seven abdominal surveillance scans and a statistically noninferior 2.8% with three more widely spaced scans. Also, compared with the standard CT scans, which yielded an incidence of 2.6%, MRI scans were noninferior, yielding an incidence of 0.6%.

“The three-scan schedule was noninferior to seven scans in our protocol, and in fact, with the three-scan schedule, we would use over 1,000 fewer scans at a cost of perhaps having four relapses that could have been avoided,” Dr. Huddart pointed out. “We can conclude that MRI is noninferior to CT and should be recommended to avoid irradiation. This study will provide an evidence base for making the transition to MRI, which is important. The MRI scan is more complex – it takes longer and is more resource heavy. So we do need to supply the evidence that it is the right thing to do for patients.”

Need for expertise in interpreting MRI scans is a valid concern, he acknowledged. “There is a degree of specialization in the UK for testis cancer management, and clearly, you had to be specialist to take part in the study. So I can’t say it is your everyday radiologist, but the data would suggest we actually saw less errors in terms of pickup with the MRI scan than with the CT scan,” he said. “You do need to have a level of expertise, but it doesn’t require super-specialist expertise. I suppose that will be a learning lesson for all of us, to learn better MRI interpretation if we are using MRI.”
 

Trial details

The 669 men randomized in TRISST (NCT00589537), a multicenter trial with a factorial and noninferiority design, had undergone orchiectomy for stage I seminoma and did not have any adjuvant therapy planned.

They were randomized once on number of surveillance scans: seven scans (at 6, 12, 18, 24, 36, 48, and 60 months) vs. three scans (at 6, 18, and 36 months). And they were randomized again on scan modality: CT versus MRI. All groups had similar follow-up otherwise, consisting of periodic chest radiographs, tumor marker tests, and clinical assessments.

The primary outcome, 6-year incidence of advanced relapse defined as stage IIC or higher (i.e., measuring 5 cm or greater) by Royal Marsden Hospital criteria, was chosen because, when the study began, this was the dividing point between using local therapy and using systemic multiagent chemotherapy to treat a relapse, Dr. Huddart explained.

Among men remaining on surveillance, compliance was good, with 94% of all scans attended and 79% performed on time, he reported.

Overall, 12% of the randomized population experienced a relapse of any stage during follow-up, with nearly all relapses occurring within the first 3 years.

The 6-year incidence of advanced relapse was just 1.5% in the entire trial population, lower than the 5.7% expected in trial planning, according to Dr. Huddart.

In intention-to-treat analyses, the incidence was 2.8% with the three-scan schedule and 0.3% with the seven-scan schedule, with the difference of 2.6% and the bounds of the 90% confidence interval falling within the predefined noninferiority margin of 5.7%.

Using three scans instead of seven scans increased the proportion of patients with relapse who had advanced stage from 3% to 20%. Four of the nine advanced relapses occurring with the three-scan schedule could possibly have been detected earlier with the seven-scan schedule.

The 6-year incidence of advanced relapse was 0.6% with MRI scans and 2.6% with CT scans. The difference of –1.9% and the bounds of the 90% confidence interval fell within the noninferiority margin. Use of MRI instead of CT reduced the proportion of patients with relapse who had advanced stage from 20% to 5%.

For both the scan frequency comparison and the scan modality comparison, findings were essentially the same in per protocol analyses and in analyses that instead looked at relapses measuring 3 cm or greater, according to Dr. Huddart.

Fully 89% of patients with advanced relapses were treated with chemotherapy only, and 56% of all patients with advanced relapse had a response to their treatment.

Most patients experiencing a relapse of any stage, 93%, were alive and free of disease at their most recent follow-up, Dr. Huddart reported. Overall survival for the trial population was 99% and similar across surveillance groups, with no deaths due to testicular cancer.
 

Risk-tailored surveillance

“Noninferiority trials are much more challenging than equivalence or superiority trials,” observed invited discussant Pilar Laguna, MD, PhD, of Istanbul Medipol University, Turkey.

She expressed some reservations about TRISST results, including the much lower than expected incidence of advanced relapse, which may have affected comparisons, and problematic compliance, as about one-quarter of patients stopped surveillance before relapse or withdrew from the trial before 6 years of follow-up.

Recurrence after treatment of stage I seminoma is largely driven by the risk factors of tumor size exceeding 4 cm and presence of rete testis invasion, and 54% of TRISST patients did not have either of these factors, Dr. Laguna noted.

“While a more relaxed schedule may well suit those patients at low risk, more intense schedules will be appropriate for patients with risk factors,” she maintained. “I am pretty sure that the TRISST trial will impact future guideline recommendations, although still I think that one approach may not fit all.”

TRISST was funded by Cancer Research UK and the MRC Clinical Trials Unit. Dr. Huddart disclosed relationships with Janssen Oncology, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Nektar, and Roche. Dr. Laguna disclosed that she is chair of the EAU Testicular Cancer Guidelines Panel.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved cemiplimab-rwlc (Libtayo) for the treatment of advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

Specifically, the indication is for first-line treatment as monotherapy for patients with locally advanced or metastatic disease who are not candidates for surgical resection or definitive chemoradiotherapy and whose tumors have a high expression of programmed death–ligand 1 (PD-L1) (Tumor Proportion Score >50%), as determined by an FDA-approved test, with no EGFR, ALK, or ROS1 aberrations.

This is the third indication for cemiplimab-rlwc, a monoclonal antibody and PD-1 inhibitor.

In February, it was approved as the first immunotherapy to treat patients with locally advanced or metastatic basal cell carcinoma that was previously treated with a hedgehog pathway inhibitor or for whom a hedgehog inhibitor is inappropriate.

Cemiplimab-rlwc previously received FDA approval in 2018 for locally advanced or metastatic cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma for patients who were not eligible for curative surgery or radiotherapy. At the time, Karl Lewis, MD, a professor at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, and a trial investigator, predicted that the drug “will change the treatment paradigm for patients with advanced basal cell carcinoma.”
 

Outperforms chemotherapy

The approval for use in NSCLC is based on results from the phase 3, open-label EMPOWER-Lung 1 trial, which randomly assigned 710 patients in a 1:1 ratio to receive either cemiplimab-rwlc or platinum-doublet chemotherapy. Patients had either locally advanced NSCLC and were not candidates for surgical resection or definitive chemoradiotherapy, or they had metastatic NSCLC.

Patients in the experimental arm received cemiplimab-rwlc 350 mg intravenously every 3 weeks. The primary efficacy outcome measures were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS), determined on the basis of blinded independent central review.

Results showed statistically significant improvements in both outcomes. Median OS was 22.1 months with cemiplimab-rwlc versus 14.3 months with chemotherapy (hazard ratio, 0.68; P = .0022). Median PFS was 6.2 months versus 5.6 months (HR, 0.59; P < .0001).

The confirmed overall response rate was 37% for the cemiplimab arm versus 21% for the chemotherapy arm.

The most common adverse reactions (>10%) with cemiplimab-rlwc were musculoskeletal pain, rash, anemia, fatigue, decreased appetite, pneumonia, and cough.

This approval “means physicians and patients have a potent new treatment option against this deadly disease,” said Naiyer Rizvi, MD, Price Family Professor of Medicine, director of thoracic oncology, and codirector of cancer immunotherapy at Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, in a statement. He was a steering committee member on the EMPOWER-Lung-1 Trial.

“Notably, Libtayo was approved based on a pivotal trial where most chemotherapy patients crossed over to Libtayo following disease progression, and that allowed for frequently underrepresented patients who had pretreated and clinically stable brain metastases or who had locally advanced disease and were not candidates for definitive chemoradiation,” said Dr. Rizvi. “This gives doctors important new data when considering Libtayo for the varied patients and situations they treat in daily clinical practice.”

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved cemiplimab-rwlc (Libtayo) for the treatment of advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

Specifically, the indication is for first-line treatment as monotherapy for patients with locally advanced or metastatic disease who are not candidates for surgical resection or definitive chemoradiotherapy and whose tumors have a high expression of programmed death–ligand 1 (PD-L1) (Tumor Proportion Score >50%), as determined by an FDA-approved test, with no EGFR, ALK, or ROS1 aberrations.

This is the third indication for cemiplimab-rlwc, a monoclonal antibody and PD-1 inhibitor.

In February, it was approved as the first immunotherapy to treat patients with locally advanced or metastatic basal cell carcinoma that was previously treated with a hedgehog pathway inhibitor or for whom a hedgehog inhibitor is inappropriate.

Cemiplimab-rlwc previously received FDA approval in 2018 for locally advanced or metastatic cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma for patients who were not eligible for curative surgery or radiotherapy. At the time, Karl Lewis, MD, a professor at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, and a trial investigator, predicted that the drug “will change the treatment paradigm for patients with advanced basal cell carcinoma.”
 

Outperforms chemotherapy

The approval for use in NSCLC is based on results from the phase 3, open-label EMPOWER-Lung 1 trial, which randomly assigned 710 patients in a 1:1 ratio to receive either cemiplimab-rwlc or platinum-doublet chemotherapy. Patients had either locally advanced NSCLC and were not candidates for surgical resection or definitive chemoradiotherapy, or they had metastatic NSCLC.

Patients in the experimental arm received cemiplimab-rwlc 350 mg intravenously every 3 weeks. The primary efficacy outcome measures were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS), determined on the basis of blinded independent central review.

Results showed statistically significant improvements in both outcomes. Median OS was 22.1 months with cemiplimab-rwlc versus 14.3 months with chemotherapy (hazard ratio, 0.68; P = .0022). Median PFS was 6.2 months versus 5.6 months (HR, 0.59; P < .0001).

The confirmed overall response rate was 37% for the cemiplimab arm versus 21% for the chemotherapy arm.

The most common adverse reactions (>10%) with cemiplimab-rlwc were musculoskeletal pain, rash, anemia, fatigue, decreased appetite, pneumonia, and cough.

This approval “means physicians and patients have a potent new treatment option against this deadly disease,” said Naiyer Rizvi, MD, Price Family Professor of Medicine, director of thoracic oncology, and codirector of cancer immunotherapy at Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, in a statement. He was a steering committee member on the EMPOWER-Lung-1 Trial.

“Notably, Libtayo was approved based on a pivotal trial where most chemotherapy patients crossed over to Libtayo following disease progression, and that allowed for frequently underrepresented patients who had pretreated and clinically stable brain metastases or who had locally advanced disease and were not candidates for definitive chemoradiation,” said Dr. Rizvi. “This gives doctors important new data when considering Libtayo for the varied patients and situations they treat in daily clinical practice.”

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved cemiplimab-rwlc (Libtayo) for the treatment of advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

Specifically, the indication is for first-line treatment as monotherapy for patients with locally advanced or metastatic disease who are not candidates for surgical resection or definitive chemoradiotherapy and whose tumors have a high expression of programmed death–ligand 1 (PD-L1) (Tumor Proportion Score >50%), as determined by an FDA-approved test, with no EGFR, ALK, or ROS1 aberrations.

This is the third indication for cemiplimab-rlwc, a monoclonal antibody and PD-1 inhibitor.

In February, it was approved as the first immunotherapy to treat patients with locally advanced or metastatic basal cell carcinoma that was previously treated with a hedgehog pathway inhibitor or for whom a hedgehog inhibitor is inappropriate.

Cemiplimab-rlwc previously received FDA approval in 2018 for locally advanced or metastatic cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma for patients who were not eligible for curative surgery or radiotherapy. At the time, Karl Lewis, MD, a professor at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, and a trial investigator, predicted that the drug “will change the treatment paradigm for patients with advanced basal cell carcinoma.”
 

Outperforms chemotherapy

The approval for use in NSCLC is based on results from the phase 3, open-label EMPOWER-Lung 1 trial, which randomly assigned 710 patients in a 1:1 ratio to receive either cemiplimab-rwlc or platinum-doublet chemotherapy. Patients had either locally advanced NSCLC and were not candidates for surgical resection or definitive chemoradiotherapy, or they had metastatic NSCLC.

Patients in the experimental arm received cemiplimab-rwlc 350 mg intravenously every 3 weeks. The primary efficacy outcome measures were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS), determined on the basis of blinded independent central review.

Results showed statistically significant improvements in both outcomes. Median OS was 22.1 months with cemiplimab-rwlc versus 14.3 months with chemotherapy (hazard ratio, 0.68; P = .0022). Median PFS was 6.2 months versus 5.6 months (HR, 0.59; P < .0001).

The confirmed overall response rate was 37% for the cemiplimab arm versus 21% for the chemotherapy arm.

The most common adverse reactions (>10%) with cemiplimab-rlwc were musculoskeletal pain, rash, anemia, fatigue, decreased appetite, pneumonia, and cough.

This approval “means physicians and patients have a potent new treatment option against this deadly disease,” said Naiyer Rizvi, MD, Price Family Professor of Medicine, director of thoracic oncology, and codirector of cancer immunotherapy at Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, in a statement. He was a steering committee member on the EMPOWER-Lung-1 Trial.

“Notably, Libtayo was approved based on a pivotal trial where most chemotherapy patients crossed over to Libtayo following disease progression, and that allowed for frequently underrepresented patients who had pretreated and clinically stable brain metastases or who had locally advanced disease and were not candidates for definitive chemoradiation,” said Dr. Rizvi. “This gives doctors important new data when considering Libtayo for the varied patients and situations they treat in daily clinical practice.”

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

Endometriosis, which affects 1 in 10 women, is one of the most common conditions that gynecologists treat. It is known to cause pain, pelvic adhesive disease, endometriotic cyst formation, and infertility. However, even more sinister, it also increases a woman’s risk for the development of epithelial ovarian cancer (known as endometriosis-associated ovarian cancer or EAOC). A woman with endometriosis has a two- to threefold increased risk of developing epithelial ovarian cancer, compared with nonaffected women.¹ This risk appears to be concentrated in the premenopausal age group, particularly the fifth decade of life. After menopause their risk of developing cancer returns to a baseline level.

EAOC classically presents as clear cell or endometrioid adenocarcinomas, rather than high-grade serous carcinomas. However, low-grade serous carcinomas are also frequently observed in this cohort.^2,3 Unlike high-grade serous carcinoma, EAOC is more likely to be diagnosed at an early stage, with the majority at stage I or II, and prognosis is better. After matching for age and stage with cases of high-grade serous carcinoma, there is improved disease-free and overall survival observed among cases of EAOC of clear cell and endometrioid histologic cell types.⁴ The phenomenon of dual primaries (synchronous endometrial and ovarian cancer) occurs more frequently in EAOC than it does in patients with nonendometriosis-related high-grade serous cancer (25% vs. 4%).

The genomics of these endometriosis-associated cancers are quite distinct. Similar to benign endometriosis implants, EAOC is associated with genomic mutations in ARID1A, PIK3CA, and PTEN, as well as progesterone resistance.^1,2 Multiple studies have shown that the adjacent eutopic endometrium carries similar gene mutations as those found in both benign endometriotic implants and EAOC.² This may explain the higher incidence (twofold) of endometrial cancer in patients with endometriosis as well as the increased incidence of dual ovarian and endometrial cancer primaries.

Just as there are multiple theories regarding the mechanism of benign endometriosis, we have theories rather than conclusions regarding the origins of EAOC. One such theory is that it develops from malignant transformation in an existing endometriotic cyst.⁵ Endometriotic cysts provide an iron-rich environment which promotes reactive oxygen species that promote carcinogenesis by inducing gene mutations and epigenetic alterations. However, if prolonged exposure to oxidative stress within endometriotic cysts were to be the cause for EAOC, we would expect to see a progressively increasing incidence of ovarian cancer over time in patients with expectantly managed cysts. However, in cases of expectant management, an initial, early, increased risk for cancer within the first 5 years is followed by a subsequent decreasing incidence over time.⁶ This early incidence spike suggests that some endometriotic cysts may have been misclassified as benign, then rapidly declare themselves as malignant during the observation period rather than a transformation into malignancy from a benign endometrioma over time.

An alternative, and favored, theory for the origins of EAOC are that endometrial cells with carcinogenic genomic alterations reflux through the fallopian tubes during menstruation and settle onto the ovarian epithelium which itself is damaged from recent ovulation thus providing an environment that is highly suitable for oncogenesis.² Genomic analyses of both the eutopic endometrium and malignant cells in patients with EAOC have shown that both tissues contain the same genomic alterations.¹ Given that menstruation, including retrograde menstruation, ends after menopause, this mechanism supports the observation that EAOC is predominantly a malignancy of premenopausal women. Additionally, salpingectomy and hysterectomy confers a protective effect on the development of EAOC, theoretically by preventing the retrograde transfer of these mutant progenitor endometrial cells. Furthermore, the factors that increase the number of menstrual cycles (such as an early age of menarche and delayed or nonchildbearing states) increases the risk for EAOC and factors that inhibit menstruation, such as oral contraceptive pill use, appear to decrease its risk.

EAOC most commonly arises in the ovary, and not in the deep endometriosis implants of adjacent pelvic structures (such as the anterior and posterior cul de sac and pelvic peritoneum). It is suggested that the ovary itself provides a uniquely favorable environment for carcinogenesis. As stated above, it is hypothesized that refluxed endometrial cells, carrying important progenitor mutations, may become trapped in the tissues of traumatized ovarian epithelium, ripe with inflammatory changes, post ovulation.² This microenvironment may promote the development of malignancy.

Given these theories and their supporting evidence, how can we attempt to reduce the incidence of this cancer for our patients with endometriosis? Despite their increased risk for ovarian and endometrial cancers, current recommendations do not support routine cancer screening in women with endometriosis.⁷ However, risk-mitigation strategies can still be pursued. Hormonal contraceptives to decrease ovulation and menstrual cycling are protective against ovarian cancer and are also helpful in mitigating the symptoms of endometriosis. While removal of endometriotic cysts may not, in and of itself, be a strategy to prevent EAOC, it is still generally recommended because these cysts are commonly a source of pain and infertility. While they do not appear to undergo malignant transformation, it can be difficult to definitively rule out an early ovarian cancer in these complex ovarian cysts, particularly as they are often associated with tumor marker abnormalities such as elevations in CA 125. Therefore, if surgical excision of an endometriotic cyst is not performed, it should be closely followed for at least 5 years to ensure it is a benign structure. If surgery is pursued and ovarian preservation is desired, removal of the fallopian tubes and uterus can help mitigate the risk for EAOC.⁸

Endometriosis is a morbid condition for many young women. In addition to causing pain and infertility it increases a woman’s risk for ovarian and endometrial cancer, particularly ovarian clear cell, endometrioid, and low-grade serous cancers and synchronous endometrial and ovarian cancers. Endometriotic cysts should be removed or closely monitored, and clinicians should discuss treatment options that minimize frequency of ovulation and menstruation events as a preventative strategy.

Dr. Rossi is assistant professor in the division of gynecologic oncology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

References

1. Endocrinology. 2019;160(3):626-38.

2. Cancers. 2020;12(6):1676.

3. Lancet Oncol. 2012;13:385-94.

4. Gynecol Oncol. 2014;132(3):760-6.

5. Redox Rep. 2016;21:119-26.

6. Int. J Clin Oncol. 2020;25:51-8.

7. Hum Reprod. 2013;28:1552-68.

8. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2019;111:1097-103.

Endometriosis, which affects 1 in 10 women, is one of the most common conditions that gynecologists treat. It is known to cause pain, pelvic adhesive disease, endometriotic cyst formation, and infertility. However, even more sinister, it also increases a woman’s risk for the development of epithelial ovarian cancer (known as endometriosis-associated ovarian cancer or EAOC). A woman with endometriosis has a two- to threefold increased risk of developing epithelial ovarian cancer, compared with nonaffected women.¹ This risk appears to be concentrated in the premenopausal age group, particularly the fifth decade of life. After menopause their risk of developing cancer returns to a baseline level.

EAOC classically presents as clear cell or endometrioid adenocarcinomas, rather than high-grade serous carcinomas. However, low-grade serous carcinomas are also frequently observed in this cohort.^2,3 Unlike high-grade serous carcinoma, EAOC is more likely to be diagnosed at an early stage, with the majority at stage I or II, and prognosis is better. After matching for age and stage with cases of high-grade serous carcinoma, there is improved disease-free and overall survival observed among cases of EAOC of clear cell and endometrioid histologic cell types.⁴ The phenomenon of dual primaries (synchronous endometrial and ovarian cancer) occurs more frequently in EAOC than it does in patients with nonendometriosis-related high-grade serous cancer (25% vs. 4%).

The genomics of these endometriosis-associated cancers are quite distinct. Similar to benign endometriosis implants, EAOC is associated with genomic mutations in ARID1A, PIK3CA, and PTEN, as well as progesterone resistance.^1,2 Multiple studies have shown that the adjacent eutopic endometrium carries similar gene mutations as those found in both benign endometriotic implants and EAOC.² This may explain the higher incidence (twofold) of endometrial cancer in patients with endometriosis as well as the increased incidence of dual ovarian and endometrial cancer primaries.

Just as there are multiple theories regarding the mechanism of benign endometriosis, we have theories rather than conclusions regarding the origins of EAOC. One such theory is that it develops from malignant transformation in an existing endometriotic cyst.⁵ Endometriotic cysts provide an iron-rich environment which promotes reactive oxygen species that promote carcinogenesis by inducing gene mutations and epigenetic alterations. However, if prolonged exposure to oxidative stress within endometriotic cysts were to be the cause for EAOC, we would expect to see a progressively increasing incidence of ovarian cancer over time in patients with expectantly managed cysts. However, in cases of expectant management, an initial, early, increased risk for cancer within the first 5 years is followed by a subsequent decreasing incidence over time.⁶ This early incidence spike suggests that some endometriotic cysts may have been misclassified as benign, then rapidly declare themselves as malignant during the observation period rather than a transformation into malignancy from a benign endometrioma over time.

An alternative, and favored, theory for the origins of EAOC are that endometrial cells with carcinogenic genomic alterations reflux through the fallopian tubes during menstruation and settle onto the ovarian epithelium which itself is damaged from recent ovulation thus providing an environment that is highly suitable for oncogenesis.² Genomic analyses of both the eutopic endometrium and malignant cells in patients with EAOC have shown that both tissues contain the same genomic alterations.¹ Given that menstruation, including retrograde menstruation, ends after menopause, this mechanism supports the observation that EAOC is predominantly a malignancy of premenopausal women. Additionally, salpingectomy and hysterectomy confers a protective effect on the development of EAOC, theoretically by preventing the retrograde transfer of these mutant progenitor endometrial cells. Furthermore, the factors that increase the number of menstrual cycles (such as an early age of menarche and delayed or nonchildbearing states) increases the risk for EAOC and factors that inhibit menstruation, such as oral contraceptive pill use, appear to decrease its risk.

EAOC most commonly arises in the ovary, and not in the deep endometriosis implants of adjacent pelvic structures (such as the anterior and posterior cul de sac and pelvic peritoneum). It is suggested that the ovary itself provides a uniquely favorable environment for carcinogenesis. As stated above, it is hypothesized that refluxed endometrial cells, carrying important progenitor mutations, may become trapped in the tissues of traumatized ovarian epithelium, ripe with inflammatory changes, post ovulation.² This microenvironment may promote the development of malignancy.

Given these theories and their supporting evidence, how can we attempt to reduce the incidence of this cancer for our patients with endometriosis? Despite their increased risk for ovarian and endometrial cancers, current recommendations do not support routine cancer screening in women with endometriosis.⁷ However, risk-mitigation strategies can still be pursued. Hormonal contraceptives to decrease ovulation and menstrual cycling are protective against ovarian cancer and are also helpful in mitigating the symptoms of endometriosis. While removal of endometriotic cysts may not, in and of itself, be a strategy to prevent EAOC, it is still generally recommended because these cysts are commonly a source of pain and infertility. While they do not appear to undergo malignant transformation, it can be difficult to definitively rule out an early ovarian cancer in these complex ovarian cysts, particularly as they are often associated with tumor marker abnormalities such as elevations in CA 125. Therefore, if surgical excision of an endometriotic cyst is not performed, it should be closely followed for at least 5 years to ensure it is a benign structure. If surgery is pursued and ovarian preservation is desired, removal of the fallopian tubes and uterus can help mitigate the risk for EAOC.⁸

Endometriosis is a morbid condition for many young women. In addition to causing pain and infertility it increases a woman’s risk for ovarian and endometrial cancer, particularly ovarian clear cell, endometrioid, and low-grade serous cancers and synchronous endometrial and ovarian cancers. Endometriotic cysts should be removed or closely monitored, and clinicians should discuss treatment options that minimize frequency of ovulation and menstruation events as a preventative strategy.

Dr. Rossi is assistant professor in the division of gynecologic oncology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

References

1. Endocrinology. 2019;160(3):626-38.

2. Cancers. 2020;12(6):1676.

3. Lancet Oncol. 2012;13:385-94.

4. Gynecol Oncol. 2014;132(3):760-6.

5. Redox Rep. 2016;21:119-26.

6. Int. J Clin Oncol. 2020;25:51-8.

7. Hum Reprod. 2013;28:1552-68.

8. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2019;111:1097-103.

Endometriosis, which affects 1 in 10 women, is one of the most common conditions that gynecologists treat. It is known to cause pain, pelvic adhesive disease, endometriotic cyst formation, and infertility. However, even more sinister, it also increases a woman’s risk for the development of epithelial ovarian cancer (known as endometriosis-associated ovarian cancer or EAOC). A woman with endometriosis has a two- to threefold increased risk of developing epithelial ovarian cancer, compared with nonaffected women.¹ This risk appears to be concentrated in the premenopausal age group, particularly the fifth decade of life. After menopause their risk of developing cancer returns to a baseline level.

EAOC classically presents as clear cell or endometrioid adenocarcinomas, rather than high-grade serous carcinomas. However, low-grade serous carcinomas are also frequently observed in this cohort.^2,3 Unlike high-grade serous carcinoma, EAOC is more likely to be diagnosed at an early stage, with the majority at stage I or II, and prognosis is better. After matching for age and stage with cases of high-grade serous carcinoma, there is improved disease-free and overall survival observed among cases of EAOC of clear cell and endometrioid histologic cell types.⁴ The phenomenon of dual primaries (synchronous endometrial and ovarian cancer) occurs more frequently in EAOC than it does in patients with nonendometriosis-related high-grade serous cancer (25% vs. 4%).

The genomics of these endometriosis-associated cancers are quite distinct. Similar to benign endometriosis implants, EAOC is associated with genomic mutations in ARID1A, PIK3CA, and PTEN, as well as progesterone resistance.^1,2 Multiple studies have shown that the adjacent eutopic endometrium carries similar gene mutations as those found in both benign endometriotic implants and EAOC.² This may explain the higher incidence (twofold) of endometrial cancer in patients with endometriosis as well as the increased incidence of dual ovarian and endometrial cancer primaries.

Just as there are multiple theories regarding the mechanism of benign endometriosis, we have theories rather than conclusions regarding the origins of EAOC. One such theory is that it develops from malignant transformation in an existing endometriotic cyst.⁵ Endometriotic cysts provide an iron-rich environment which promotes reactive oxygen species that promote carcinogenesis by inducing gene mutations and epigenetic alterations. However, if prolonged exposure to oxidative stress within endometriotic cysts were to be the cause for EAOC, we would expect to see a progressively increasing incidence of ovarian cancer over time in patients with expectantly managed cysts. However, in cases of expectant management, an initial, early, increased risk for cancer within the first 5 years is followed by a subsequent decreasing incidence over time.⁶ This early incidence spike suggests that some endometriotic cysts may have been misclassified as benign, then rapidly declare themselves as malignant during the observation period rather than a transformation into malignancy from a benign endometrioma over time.

An alternative, and favored, theory for the origins of EAOC are that endometrial cells with carcinogenic genomic alterations reflux through the fallopian tubes during menstruation and settle onto the ovarian epithelium which itself is damaged from recent ovulation thus providing an environment that is highly suitable for oncogenesis.² Genomic analyses of both the eutopic endometrium and malignant cells in patients with EAOC have shown that both tissues contain the same genomic alterations.¹ Given that menstruation, including retrograde menstruation, ends after menopause, this mechanism supports the observation that EAOC is predominantly a malignancy of premenopausal women. Additionally, salpingectomy and hysterectomy confers a protective effect on the development of EAOC, theoretically by preventing the retrograde transfer of these mutant progenitor endometrial cells. Furthermore, the factors that increase the number of menstrual cycles (such as an early age of menarche and delayed or nonchildbearing states) increases the risk for EAOC and factors that inhibit menstruation, such as oral contraceptive pill use, appear to decrease its risk.

EAOC most commonly arises in the ovary, and not in the deep endometriosis implants of adjacent pelvic structures (such as the anterior and posterior cul de sac and pelvic peritoneum). It is suggested that the ovary itself provides a uniquely favorable environment for carcinogenesis. As stated above, it is hypothesized that refluxed endometrial cells, carrying important progenitor mutations, may become trapped in the tissues of traumatized ovarian epithelium, ripe with inflammatory changes, post ovulation.² This microenvironment may promote the development of malignancy.

Given these theories and their supporting evidence, how can we attempt to reduce the incidence of this cancer for our patients with endometriosis? Despite their increased risk for ovarian and endometrial cancers, current recommendations do not support routine cancer screening in women with endometriosis.⁷ However, risk-mitigation strategies can still be pursued. Hormonal contraceptives to decrease ovulation and menstrual cycling are protective against ovarian cancer and are also helpful in mitigating the symptoms of endometriosis. While removal of endometriotic cysts may not, in and of itself, be a strategy to prevent EAOC, it is still generally recommended because these cysts are commonly a source of pain and infertility. While they do not appear to undergo malignant transformation, it can be difficult to definitively rule out an early ovarian cancer in these complex ovarian cysts, particularly as they are often associated with tumor marker abnormalities such as elevations in CA 125. Therefore, if surgical excision of an endometriotic cyst is not performed, it should be closely followed for at least 5 years to ensure it is a benign structure. If surgery is pursued and ovarian preservation is desired, removal of the fallopian tubes and uterus can help mitigate the risk for EAOC.⁸

Endometriosis is a morbid condition for many young women. In addition to causing pain and infertility it increases a woman’s risk for ovarian and endometrial cancer, particularly ovarian clear cell, endometrioid, and low-grade serous cancers and synchronous endometrial and ovarian cancers. Endometriotic cysts should be removed or closely monitored, and clinicians should discuss treatment options that minimize frequency of ovulation and menstruation events as a preventative strategy.

Dr. Rossi is assistant professor in the division of gynecologic oncology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

References

1. Endocrinology. 2019;160(3):626-38.

2. Cancers. 2020;12(6):1676.

3. Lancet Oncol. 2012;13:385-94.

4. Gynecol Oncol. 2014;132(3):760-6.

5. Redox Rep. 2016;21:119-26.

6. Int. J Clin Oncol. 2020;25:51-8.

7. Hum Reprod. 2013;28:1552-68.

8. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2019;111:1097-103.

An integrated analysis of data derived from 99 treatment-naive glioblastomas has identified characteristics that could help stratify patients for more effective treatment, according to the investigators.

The analysis provides a detailed map of genes, proteins, infiltrating cells, and signaling pathways that play key roles in driving glioblastoma, Liang-Bo Wang, MD, of Washington University in St. Louis, and colleagues reported in Cancer Cell.

For example, the team identified key phosphorylation events as potential mediators of oncogenic pathway activation and potential targets for EGFR-, TP53-, and RB1-altered tumors. Specifically, phosphorylated PTPN11 and PLCG1 represent a signaling hub in RTK-altered tumors, they found.

The investigators also identified four immune glioblastoma tumor subtypes characterized by distinct immune cell populations. Type 1 tumors have a high macrophage count and few T cells, type 2 tumors have a moderate macrophage count, type 3 tumors have a high T-cell count and few macrophages, and type 4 tumors have few or no immune cells of any type.

They also found that mesenchymal subtype EMT signature is specific to tumor cells but not to stroma, and histone H2B acetylation is enriched in classical glioblastomas with low macrophage content.

“To improve therapies for this deadly cancer, understanding the tumor cells themselves is important but not enough,” senior author Li Ding, PhD, a professor of medicine and genetics and director of computational biology in the division of oncology at Washington University stated in a press release. “We also must understand the tumor cells’ interactions with the surrounding environment, including immune cells and the connective tissues and blood vessels.”

The investigators, including researchers from Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Case Western Reserve University, and the National Cancer Institute, performed high-resolution and high-depth analyses on 99 tumors.

“Harnessing new technologies, including proteomics, metabolomics, and single-cell sequencing, this study is an extremely deep dive into glioblastoma tumor biology, revealing new possibilities for therapy,” Dr. Ding said.

The study, which is part of the NCI’s Clinical Proteomic Tumor Analysis Consortium (CPTAC), is the largest and most detailed schematic of glioblastoma tumors to date, according to the press release.

The most immediate implication of the findings is better clinical trial design, study coauthor Milan G. Chheda, MD, stated in the press release.

Stratifying patients by tumor type, as identified in the current analysis, could allow researchers to test targeted therapies in the tumors most likely to respond to those therapies, explained Dr. Chheda, of Siteman Cancer Center at Barnes Jewish Hospital and Washington University.

The findings, particularly of multiple glioblastoma tumor subtypes, may explain the negative findings of trials looking at various immunotherapies for treating glioblastoma. Investigators for those trials haven’t considered the possibility of immune subgroups that may respond differently, the authors note, adding that research is underway to identify the best drugs to assess for the newly identified glioblastoma tumor types.

The study was supported by grants from the National Cancer Institute’s Clinical Proteomic Tumor Analysis Consortium, the National Human Genome Research Institute, and the National Institutes of Health.

Dr. Wang and Dr. Ding reported having no disclosures. Dr. Chheda receives research support from NeoimmuneTech and Orbus Therapeutics, and royalties from UpToDate.

[email protected]

An integrated analysis of data derived from 99 treatment-naive glioblastomas has identified characteristics that could help stratify patients for more effective treatment, according to the investigators.

The analysis provides a detailed map of genes, proteins, infiltrating cells, and signaling pathways that play key roles in driving glioblastoma, Liang-Bo Wang, MD, of Washington University in St. Louis, and colleagues reported in Cancer Cell.

For example, the team identified key phosphorylation events as potential mediators of oncogenic pathway activation and potential targets for EGFR-, TP53-, and RB1-altered tumors. Specifically, phosphorylated PTPN11 and PLCG1 represent a signaling hub in RTK-altered tumors, they found.

The investigators also identified four immune glioblastoma tumor subtypes characterized by distinct immune cell populations. Type 1 tumors have a high macrophage count and few T cells, type 2 tumors have a moderate macrophage count, type 3 tumors have a high T-cell count and few macrophages, and type 4 tumors have few or no immune cells of any type.

They also found that mesenchymal subtype EMT signature is specific to tumor cells but not to stroma, and histone H2B acetylation is enriched in classical glioblastomas with low macrophage content.

“To improve therapies for this deadly cancer, understanding the tumor cells themselves is important but not enough,” senior author Li Ding, PhD, a professor of medicine and genetics and director of computational biology in the division of oncology at Washington University stated in a press release. “We also must understand the tumor cells’ interactions with the surrounding environment, including immune cells and the connective tissues and blood vessels.”

The investigators, including researchers from Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Case Western Reserve University, and the National Cancer Institute, performed high-resolution and high-depth analyses on 99 tumors.

“Harnessing new technologies, including proteomics, metabolomics, and single-cell sequencing, this study is an extremely deep dive into glioblastoma tumor biology, revealing new possibilities for therapy,” Dr. Ding said.

The study, which is part of the NCI’s Clinical Proteomic Tumor Analysis Consortium (CPTAC), is the largest and most detailed schematic of glioblastoma tumors to date, according to the press release.

The most immediate implication of the findings is better clinical trial design, study coauthor Milan G. Chheda, MD, stated in the press release.

Stratifying patients by tumor type, as identified in the current analysis, could allow researchers to test targeted therapies in the tumors most likely to respond to those therapies, explained Dr. Chheda, of Siteman Cancer Center at Barnes Jewish Hospital and Washington University.

The findings, particularly of multiple glioblastoma tumor subtypes, may explain the negative findings of trials looking at various immunotherapies for treating glioblastoma. Investigators for those trials haven’t considered the possibility of immune subgroups that may respond differently, the authors note, adding that research is underway to identify the best drugs to assess for the newly identified glioblastoma tumor types.

The study was supported by grants from the National Cancer Institute’s Clinical Proteomic Tumor Analysis Consortium, the National Human Genome Research Institute, and the National Institutes of Health.

Dr. Wang and Dr. Ding reported having no disclosures. Dr. Chheda receives research support from NeoimmuneTech and Orbus Therapeutics, and royalties from UpToDate.

[email protected]

An integrated analysis of data derived from 99 treatment-naive glioblastomas has identified characteristics that could help stratify patients for more effective treatment, according to the investigators.

The analysis provides a detailed map of genes, proteins, infiltrating cells, and signaling pathways that play key roles in driving glioblastoma, Liang-Bo Wang, MD, of Washington University in St. Louis, and colleagues reported in Cancer Cell.

For example, the team identified key phosphorylation events as potential mediators of oncogenic pathway activation and potential targets for EGFR-, TP53-, and RB1-altered tumors. Specifically, phosphorylated PTPN11 and PLCG1 represent a signaling hub in RTK-altered tumors, they found.

The investigators also identified four immune glioblastoma tumor subtypes characterized by distinct immune cell populations. Type 1 tumors have a high macrophage count and few T cells, type 2 tumors have a moderate macrophage count, type 3 tumors have a high T-cell count and few macrophages, and type 4 tumors have few or no immune cells of any type.

They also found that mesenchymal subtype EMT signature is specific to tumor cells but not to stroma, and histone H2B acetylation is enriched in classical glioblastomas with low macrophage content.

“To improve therapies for this deadly cancer, understanding the tumor cells themselves is important but not enough,” senior author Li Ding, PhD, a professor of medicine and genetics and director of computational biology in the division of oncology at Washington University stated in a press release. “We also must understand the tumor cells’ interactions with the surrounding environment, including immune cells and the connective tissues and blood vessels.”

The investigators, including researchers from Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Case Western Reserve University, and the National Cancer Institute, performed high-resolution and high-depth analyses on 99 tumors.

“Harnessing new technologies, including proteomics, metabolomics, and single-cell sequencing, this study is an extremely deep dive into glioblastoma tumor biology, revealing new possibilities for therapy,” Dr. Ding said.

The study, which is part of the NCI’s Clinical Proteomic Tumor Analysis Consortium (CPTAC), is the largest and most detailed schematic of glioblastoma tumors to date, according to the press release.

The most immediate implication of the findings is better clinical trial design, study coauthor Milan G. Chheda, MD, stated in the press release.

Stratifying patients by tumor type, as identified in the current analysis, could allow researchers to test targeted therapies in the tumors most likely to respond to those therapies, explained Dr. Chheda, of Siteman Cancer Center at Barnes Jewish Hospital and Washington University.

The findings, particularly of multiple glioblastoma tumor subtypes, may explain the negative findings of trials looking at various immunotherapies for treating glioblastoma. Investigators for those trials haven’t considered the possibility of immune subgroups that may respond differently, the authors note, adding that research is underway to identify the best drugs to assess for the newly identified glioblastoma tumor types.

The study was supported by grants from the National Cancer Institute’s Clinical Proteomic Tumor Analysis Consortium, the National Human Genome Research Institute, and the National Institutes of Health.

Dr. Wang and Dr. Ding reported having no disclosures. Dr. Chheda receives research support from NeoimmuneTech and Orbus Therapeutics, and royalties from UpToDate.

[email protected]

There were no significant differences in COVID-19 outcomes between cases caught by routine screening and screening based on symptoms/exposure history among cancer outpatients treated at Mayo Clinic facilities, according to a review of 224 cases.

The finding led to a shift away from routine COVID-19 screening to screening based on symptoms and exposures, said lead investigator Zhuoer Xie, MD, a hematology/oncology fellow at Mayo’s Rochester, Minn., campus.

“We are so happy” to see these results and be able to move away from routine screening. It’s burdensome and uncomfortable for patients and expensive to administer, Dr. Xie said at the AACR Virtual Meeting: COVID-19 and Cancer (Abstract S06-03).

Also, “our results provide reassurance that cancer care may safely continue during the pandemic with appropriate precautions,” she said.

Like many institutions, Mayo instituted routine COVID-19 screening for cancer outpatients at the start of the pandemic, requiring patients be tested 24 hours before systemic treatment, radiation therapy, or surgery. People on multiday regimens were screened twice a week.

Among 5,452 patients at the Rochester campus and its surrounding satellites, plus Mayo’s facilities in Phoenix and Jacksonville, Fla., routine screening picked up 63 COVID-19 cases (1.2%) from March 18 to July 31, 2020.

The outcomes were compared with 161 COVID-19 cases screened due to symptoms and exposure history. Most of the patients were on cancer surveillance as opposed to active treatment with routine testing.

Overall, 17.5% of cases caught by routine screening (11/63) were hospitalized versus 26.7% of patients screened for risk factors (43/161).

There was one COVID-19-related ICU admission among the 63 routine screening cases (1.6%) and nine ICU admissions (5.6%) among the risk-factor screening group. Three people diagnosed by routine screening (4.8%) died, compared with six deaths in the risk factor screening group (3.7%). The differences were not statistically significant, and there was no difference in treatment delay based on screening method.

The mortality rate was substantially lower than previously reported for COVID-19 among cancer patients, perhaps in part because Mayo facilities were not overwhelmed with cases early in the pandemic, so there was never a shortage of hospital beds and other resources, Dr. Xie said.

“Many of us are glad to see your data. It’s comforting,” said presentation moderator Solange Peters, MD, PhD, head of medical oncology at the Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois in Lausanne, Switzerland.

With proper precautions, “we can firmly encourage patients to come” in for their “cancer treatment without any hesitation,” Dr. Peters said.

“We feel the same way. We tell our patients this might be the safest place for you to be. Everybody is masked; everybody is taking all the precautions,” said Sheena Bhalla, MD, a hematology/oncology fellow as the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.

“We are [also] reaching out to patients who have been hesitant” about the COVID-19 vaccine, Dr. Bhalla said, “and trying to get them vaccinated. We are still learning how cancer patients will do with the vaccine, but we think that some protection is better than no protection.”

Currently at Mayo’s main campus in Rochester and its surrounding clinics, COVID-19 screening is based on symptoms, exposure, and factors such as high risk for neutropenic fever.

Mayo’s Arizona and Florida campuses had a surge of cases a few months ago, so routine screening is still used there but only on a monthly basis for people on active treatment.

Consistent with previous reports, older age and lymphopenia increased the risk of COVID-19 hospitalization in Mayo’s study, but comorbidities and active cancer treatment did not.

COVID-19 patients were a median of 62 years old, and 42% were women. Breast, genitourinary, and gastrointestinal tumors were the most common cancers.

Respiratory failure and sepsis were the most common complications among the 54 hospital admissions; eight patients required intubation.

The funding source wasn’t reported. The speakers had no relevant disclosures.

[email protected]

There were no significant differences in COVID-19 outcomes between cases caught by routine screening and screening based on symptoms/exposure history among cancer outpatients treated at Mayo Clinic facilities, according to a review of 224 cases.

The finding led to a shift away from routine COVID-19 screening to screening based on symptoms and exposures, said lead investigator Zhuoer Xie, MD, a hematology/oncology fellow at Mayo’s Rochester, Minn., campus.

“We are so happy” to see these results and be able to move away from routine screening. It’s burdensome and uncomfortable for patients and expensive to administer, Dr. Xie said at the AACR Virtual Meeting: COVID-19 and Cancer (Abstract S06-03).

Also, “our results provide reassurance that cancer care may safely continue during the pandemic with appropriate precautions,” she said.

Like many institutions, Mayo instituted routine COVID-19 screening for cancer outpatients at the start of the pandemic, requiring patients be tested 24 hours before systemic treatment, radiation therapy, or surgery. People on multiday regimens were screened twice a week.

Among 5,452 patients at the Rochester campus and its surrounding satellites, plus Mayo’s facilities in Phoenix and Jacksonville, Fla., routine screening picked up 63 COVID-19 cases (1.2%) from March 18 to July 31, 2020.

The outcomes were compared with 161 COVID-19 cases screened due to symptoms and exposure history. Most of the patients were on cancer surveillance as opposed to active treatment with routine testing.

Overall, 17.5% of cases caught by routine screening (11/63) were hospitalized versus 26.7% of patients screened for risk factors (43/161).

There was one COVID-19-related ICU admission among the 63 routine screening cases (1.6%) and nine ICU admissions (5.6%) among the risk-factor screening group. Three people diagnosed by routine screening (4.8%) died, compared with six deaths in the risk factor screening group (3.7%). The differences were not statistically significant, and there was no difference in treatment delay based on screening method.

The mortality rate was substantially lower than previously reported for COVID-19 among cancer patients, perhaps in part because Mayo facilities were not overwhelmed with cases early in the pandemic, so there was never a shortage of hospital beds and other resources, Dr. Xie said.

“Many of us are glad to see your data. It’s comforting,” said presentation moderator Solange Peters, MD, PhD, head of medical oncology at the Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois in Lausanne, Switzerland.

With proper precautions, “we can firmly encourage patients to come” in for their “cancer treatment without any hesitation,” Dr. Peters said.

“We feel the same way. We tell our patients this might be the safest place for you to be. Everybody is masked; everybody is taking all the precautions,” said Sheena Bhalla, MD, a hematology/oncology fellow as the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.

“We are [also] reaching out to patients who have been hesitant” about the COVID-19 vaccine, Dr. Bhalla said, “and trying to get them vaccinated. We are still learning how cancer patients will do with the vaccine, but we think that some protection is better than no protection.”

Currently at Mayo’s main campus in Rochester and its surrounding clinics, COVID-19 screening is based on symptoms, exposure, and factors such as high risk for neutropenic fever.

Mayo’s Arizona and Florida campuses had a surge of cases a few months ago, so routine screening is still used there but only on a monthly basis for people on active treatment.

Consistent with previous reports, older age and lymphopenia increased the risk of COVID-19 hospitalization in Mayo’s study, but comorbidities and active cancer treatment did not.

COVID-19 patients were a median of 62 years old, and 42% were women. Breast, genitourinary, and gastrointestinal tumors were the most common cancers.

Respiratory failure and sepsis were the most common complications among the 54 hospital admissions; eight patients required intubation.

The funding source wasn’t reported. The speakers had no relevant disclosures.

[email protected]

There were no significant differences in COVID-19 outcomes between cases caught by routine screening and screening based on symptoms/exposure history among cancer outpatients treated at Mayo Clinic facilities, according to a review of 224 cases.

The finding led to a shift away from routine COVID-19 screening to screening based on symptoms and exposures, said lead investigator Zhuoer Xie, MD, a hematology/oncology fellow at Mayo’s Rochester, Minn., campus.

“We are so happy” to see these results and be able to move away from routine screening. It’s burdensome and uncomfortable for patients and expensive to administer, Dr. Xie said at the AACR Virtual Meeting: COVID-19 and Cancer (Abstract S06-03).

Also, “our results provide reassurance that cancer care may safely continue during the pandemic with appropriate precautions,” she said.

Like many institutions, Mayo instituted routine COVID-19 screening for cancer outpatients at the start of the pandemic, requiring patients be tested 24 hours before systemic treatment, radiation therapy, or surgery. People on multiday regimens were screened twice a week.

Among 5,452 patients at the Rochester campus and its surrounding satellites, plus Mayo’s facilities in Phoenix and Jacksonville, Fla., routine screening picked up 63 COVID-19 cases (1.2%) from March 18 to July 31, 2020.

The outcomes were compared with 161 COVID-19 cases screened due to symptoms and exposure history. Most of the patients were on cancer surveillance as opposed to active treatment with routine testing.

Overall, 17.5% of cases caught by routine screening (11/63) were hospitalized versus 26.7% of patients screened for risk factors (43/161).

There was one COVID-19-related ICU admission among the 63 routine screening cases (1.6%) and nine ICU admissions (5.6%) among the risk-factor screening group. Three people diagnosed by routine screening (4.8%) died, compared with six deaths in the risk factor screening group (3.7%). The differences were not statistically significant, and there was no difference in treatment delay based on screening method.

The mortality rate was substantially lower than previously reported for COVID-19 among cancer patients, perhaps in part because Mayo facilities were not overwhelmed with cases early in the pandemic, so there was never a shortage of hospital beds and other resources, Dr. Xie said.

“Many of us are glad to see your data. It’s comforting,” said presentation moderator Solange Peters, MD, PhD, head of medical oncology at the Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois in Lausanne, Switzerland.

With proper precautions, “we can firmly encourage patients to come” in for their “cancer treatment without any hesitation,” Dr. Peters said.

“We feel the same way. We tell our patients this might be the safest place for you to be. Everybody is masked; everybody is taking all the precautions,” said Sheena Bhalla, MD, a hematology/oncology fellow as the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.

“We are [also] reaching out to patients who have been hesitant” about the COVID-19 vaccine, Dr. Bhalla said, “and trying to get them vaccinated. We are still learning how cancer patients will do with the vaccine, but we think that some protection is better than no protection.”

Currently at Mayo’s main campus in Rochester and its surrounding clinics, COVID-19 screening is based on symptoms, exposure, and factors such as high risk for neutropenic fever.

Mayo’s Arizona and Florida campuses had a surge of cases a few months ago, so routine screening is still used there but only on a monthly basis for people on active treatment.

Consistent with previous reports, older age and lymphopenia increased the risk of COVID-19 hospitalization in Mayo’s study, but comorbidities and active cancer treatment did not.

COVID-19 patients were a median of 62 years old, and 42% were women. Breast, genitourinary, and gastrointestinal tumors were the most common cancers.

Respiratory failure and sepsis were the most common complications among the 54 hospital admissions; eight patients required intubation.

The funding source wasn’t reported. The speakers had no relevant disclosures.

[email protected]

Real-world experience with chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapies for large B-cell lymphomas compares favorably with experience in commercial and trial settings and provides new insights for predicting outcomes, according to Paolo Corradini, MD.

The 12-month duration of response (DOR) and progression-free survival (PFS) rates in 152 real-world patients treated with tisagenlecleucel (tisa-cel; Kymriah) for an approved indication were 48.4% and 26.4%, respectively, data reported to the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR) and published in November 2020 in Blood Advances showed.

Those results are similar to the findings of the pivotal phase 2 JULIET trial evaluating tisa-cel in patients with DLBCL who relapsed or were refractory to at least two prior lines of therapy, Dr. Corradini said at the third European CAR T-cell Meeting, jointly sponsored by the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation and the European Hematology Association.

A clinical update of the JULIET trial, as presented by Dr. Corradini and colleagues in a poster at the 2020 annual conference of the American Society of Hematology, showed a relapse-free probability of 60.4% at 24 and 30 months among 61 patients with an initial response.

The 12- and 36-month PFS rates as of February 2020, with median follow-up of 40.3 months, were 33% and 31%, respectively, and no new safety signals were identified, said Dr. Corradini, chair of hematology at the University of Milan.

Similarly, real-world data from the U.S. Lymphoma CAR T Consortium showing median PFS of 8.3 months at median follow-up of 12.9 months in 275 patients treated with axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel; YESCARTA) were comparable with outcomes in the ZUMA-1 registrational trial, he noted.

An ongoing response was seen at 2 years in 39% of patients in ZUMA-1, and 3-year survival was 47%, according to an update reported at ASH 2019.

Of note, 43% of patients in the real-world study, which was published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology in September 2020, would not have met ZUMA-1 eligibility criteria because of comorbidities at the time of leukapheresis.
 

Predicting outcomes

The real-world data also demonstrated that performance status and lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) levels can predict outcomes: Patients with poor Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 2-4 versus less than 2, and elevated LDH had shorter PFS and overall survival (OS) on both univariate and multivariate analysis, Dr. Corradini noted.

A subsequent multicenter study showed similar response rates of 70% and 68% in ZUMA-1-eligible and noneligible patients, but significantly improved DOR, PFS, and OS outcomes among the ZUMA-1-eligible patients.

The authors also looked for “clinical predictive factors or some easy clinical biomarkers to predict the outcomes in our patients receiving CAR T-cells,” and found that C-reactive protein levels of more than 30 mg at infusion were associated with poorer DOR, PFS, and OS, he said.

In 60 patients in another U.S. study of both tisa-cel- and axi-cel-treated patients at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 1-year event-free survival and OS were 40% and 69%, and Dr. Corradini’s experience with 55 patients at the University of Milan similarly showed 1-year PFS and OS of 40% and 70%, respectively.

“So all these studies support the notion that the results of CAR T-cells in real-world practice are durable for our patients, and are very similar to results obtained in the studies,” he said.

Other factors that have been shown to be associated with poor outcomes after CAR T-cell therapy include systemic bridging therapy, high metabolic tumor volume, and extranodal involvement; patients with these characteristics, along with those who have poor ECOG performance status or elevated LDH or CRP levels, do not comprise “a group to exclude from CAR T-cell therapy, but rather ... a group for whom there is an unmet need with our currently available treatments,” he said, adding: “So, it’s a group for which we have to do clinical trials and studies to improve the outcomes of our patient with large B-cell lymphomas.”

“These are all real-world data with commercially available products, he noted.
 

Product selection

Tisa-cel received Food and Drug Administration approval in 2017 and is used to treat relapsed or refractory acute lymphoblastic leukemia in those aged up to 25 years, and non-Hodgkin lymphoma that has relapsed or is refractory after at least two prior lines of therapy.

Axi-cel was also approved in 2017 for relapsed/refractory non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and in February 2021, after Dr. Corradini’s meeting presentation, the FDA granted a third approval to lisocabtagene maraleucel (liso-cel; Breyanzi) for this indication.

The information to date from both the trial and real-world settings are limited with respect to showing any differences in outcomes between the CAR T-cell products, but provide “an initial suggestion” that outcomes with tisa-cel and axi-cel are comparable, he said, adding that decisions should be strictly based on product registration data given the absence of reliable data for choosing one product over another.

Dr. Corradini reported honoraria and/or payment for travel and accommodations from Abbvie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Daiichi Sankyo, and a number of other pharmaceutical companies.

[email protected]

Real-world experience with chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapies for large B-cell lymphomas compares favorably with experience in commercial and trial settings and provides new insights for predicting outcomes, according to Paolo Corradini, MD.

The 12-month duration of response (DOR) and progression-free survival (PFS) rates in 152 real-world patients treated with tisagenlecleucel (tisa-cel; Kymriah) for an approved indication were 48.4% and 26.4%, respectively, data reported to the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR) and published in November 2020 in Blood Advances showed.

Those results are similar to the findings of the pivotal phase 2 JULIET trial evaluating tisa-cel in patients with DLBCL who relapsed or were refractory to at least two prior lines of therapy, Dr. Corradini said at the third European CAR T-cell Meeting, jointly sponsored by the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation and the European Hematology Association.

A clinical update of the JULIET trial, as presented by Dr. Corradini and colleagues in a poster at the 2020 annual conference of the American Society of Hematology, showed a relapse-free probability of 60.4% at 24 and 30 months among 61 patients with an initial response.

The 12- and 36-month PFS rates as of February 2020, with median follow-up of 40.3 months, were 33% and 31%, respectively, and no new safety signals were identified, said Dr. Corradini, chair of hematology at the University of Milan.

Similarly, real-world data from the U.S. Lymphoma CAR T Consortium showing median PFS of 8.3 months at median follow-up of 12.9 months in 275 patients treated with axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel; YESCARTA) were comparable with outcomes in the ZUMA-1 registrational trial, he noted.

An ongoing response was seen at 2 years in 39% of patients in ZUMA-1, and 3-year survival was 47%, according to an update reported at ASH 2019.

Of note, 43% of patients in the real-world study, which was published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology in September 2020, would not have met ZUMA-1 eligibility criteria because of comorbidities at the time of leukapheresis.
 

Predicting outcomes

The real-world data also demonstrated that performance status and lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) levels can predict outcomes: Patients with poor Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 2-4 versus less than 2, and elevated LDH had shorter PFS and overall survival (OS) on both univariate and multivariate analysis, Dr. Corradini noted.

A subsequent multicenter study showed similar response rates of 70% and 68% in ZUMA-1-eligible and noneligible patients, but significantly improved DOR, PFS, and OS outcomes among the ZUMA-1-eligible patients.

The authors also looked for “clinical predictive factors or some easy clinical biomarkers to predict the outcomes in our patients receiving CAR T-cells,” and found that C-reactive protein levels of more than 30 mg at infusion were associated with poorer DOR, PFS, and OS, he said.

In 60 patients in another U.S. study of both tisa-cel- and axi-cel-treated patients at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 1-year event-free survival and OS were 40% and 69%, and Dr. Corradini’s experience with 55 patients at the University of Milan similarly showed 1-year PFS and OS of 40% and 70%, respectively.

“So all these studies support the notion that the results of CAR T-cells in real-world practice are durable for our patients, and are very similar to results obtained in the studies,” he said.

Other factors that have been shown to be associated with poor outcomes after CAR T-cell therapy include systemic bridging therapy, high metabolic tumor volume, and extranodal involvement; patients with these characteristics, along with those who have poor ECOG performance status or elevated LDH or CRP levels, do not comprise “a group to exclude from CAR T-cell therapy, but rather ... a group for whom there is an unmet need with our currently available treatments,” he said, adding: “So, it’s a group for which we have to do clinical trials and studies to improve the outcomes of our patient with large B-cell lymphomas.”

“These are all real-world data with commercially available products, he noted.
 

Product selection

Tisa-cel received Food and Drug Administration approval in 2017 and is used to treat relapsed or refractory acute lymphoblastic leukemia in those aged up to 25 years, and non-Hodgkin lymphoma that has relapsed or is refractory after at least two prior lines of therapy.

Axi-cel was also approved in 2017 for relapsed/refractory non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and in February 2021, after Dr. Corradini’s meeting presentation, the FDA granted a third approval to lisocabtagene maraleucel (liso-cel; Breyanzi) for this indication.

The information to date from both the trial and real-world settings are limited with respect to showing any differences in outcomes between the CAR T-cell products, but provide “an initial suggestion” that outcomes with tisa-cel and axi-cel are comparable, he said, adding that decisions should be strictly based on product registration data given the absence of reliable data for choosing one product over another.

Dr. Corradini reported honoraria and/or payment for travel and accommodations from Abbvie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Daiichi Sankyo, and a number of other pharmaceutical companies.

[email protected]

Real-world experience with chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapies for large B-cell lymphomas compares favorably with experience in commercial and trial settings and provides new insights for predicting outcomes, according to Paolo Corradini, MD.

The 12-month duration of response (DOR) and progression-free survival (PFS) rates in 152 real-world patients treated with tisagenlecleucel (tisa-cel; Kymriah) for an approved indication were 48.4% and 26.4%, respectively, data reported to the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR) and published in November 2020 in Blood Advances showed.

Those results are similar to the findings of the pivotal phase 2 JULIET trial evaluating tisa-cel in patients with DLBCL who relapsed or were refractory to at least two prior lines of therapy, Dr. Corradini said at the third European CAR T-cell Meeting, jointly sponsored by the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation and the European Hematology Association.

A clinical update of the JULIET trial, as presented by Dr. Corradini and colleagues in a poster at the 2020 annual conference of the American Society of Hematology, showed a relapse-free probability of 60.4% at 24 and 30 months among 61 patients with an initial response.

The 12- and 36-month PFS rates as of February 2020, with median follow-up of 40.3 months, were 33% and 31%, respectively, and no new safety signals were identified, said Dr. Corradini, chair of hematology at the University of Milan.

Similarly, real-world data from the U.S. Lymphoma CAR T Consortium showing median PFS of 8.3 months at median follow-up of 12.9 months in 275 patients treated with axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel; YESCARTA) were comparable with outcomes in the ZUMA-1 registrational trial, he noted.

An ongoing response was seen at 2 years in 39% of patients in ZUMA-1, and 3-year survival was 47%, according to an update reported at ASH 2019.

Of note, 43% of patients in the real-world study, which was published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology in September 2020, would not have met ZUMA-1 eligibility criteria because of comorbidities at the time of leukapheresis.
 

Predicting outcomes

The real-world data also demonstrated that performance status and lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) levels can predict outcomes: Patients with poor Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 2-4 versus less than 2, and elevated LDH had shorter PFS and overall survival (OS) on both univariate and multivariate analysis, Dr. Corradini noted.

A subsequent multicenter study showed similar response rates of 70% and 68% in ZUMA-1-eligible and noneligible patients, but significantly improved DOR, PFS, and OS outcomes among the ZUMA-1-eligible patients.

The authors also looked for “clinical predictive factors or some easy clinical biomarkers to predict the outcomes in our patients receiving CAR T-cells,” and found that C-reactive protein levels of more than 30 mg at infusion were associated with poorer DOR, PFS, and OS, he said.

In 60 patients in another U.S. study of both tisa-cel- and axi-cel-treated patients at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 1-year event-free survival and OS were 40% and 69%, and Dr. Corradini’s experience with 55 patients at the University of Milan similarly showed 1-year PFS and OS of 40% and 70%, respectively.

“So all these studies support the notion that the results of CAR T-cells in real-world practice are durable for our patients, and are very similar to results obtained in the studies,” he said.

Other factors that have been shown to be associated with poor outcomes after CAR T-cell therapy include systemic bridging therapy, high metabolic tumor volume, and extranodal involvement; patients with these characteristics, along with those who have poor ECOG performance status or elevated LDH or CRP levels, do not comprise “a group to exclude from CAR T-cell therapy, but rather ... a group for whom there is an unmet need with our currently available treatments,” he said, adding: “So, it’s a group for which we have to do clinical trials and studies to improve the outcomes of our patient with large B-cell lymphomas.”

“These are all real-world data with commercially available products, he noted.
 

Product selection

Tisa-cel received Food and Drug Administration approval in 2017 and is used to treat relapsed or refractory acute lymphoblastic leukemia in those aged up to 25 years, and non-Hodgkin lymphoma that has relapsed or is refractory after at least two prior lines of therapy.

Axi-cel was also approved in 2017 for relapsed/refractory non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and in February 2021, after Dr. Corradini’s meeting presentation, the FDA granted a third approval to lisocabtagene maraleucel (liso-cel; Breyanzi) for this indication.

The information to date from both the trial and real-world settings are limited with respect to showing any differences in outcomes between the CAR T-cell products, but provide “an initial suggestion” that outcomes with tisa-cel and axi-cel are comparable, he said, adding that decisions should be strictly based on product registration data given the absence of reliable data for choosing one product over another.

Dr. Corradini reported honoraria and/or payment for travel and accommodations from Abbvie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Daiichi Sankyo, and a number of other pharmaceutical companies.

[email protected]

Of four surgical procedures for breast cancer that have been determined to be of low value because they yield no meaningful clinical benefit, two continue to be utilized. In fact, the use of two of these procedures has increased in the United States, new research shows.

“This is the first study to [evaluate] all four of the low-value breast cancer procedures at the same time and try to draw some conclusions on practice patterns across facilities,” said senior author Lesly A. Dossett, MD, MPH, Center for Health Outcomes and Policy, the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

The two low-value procedures that have increased in use are contralateral prophylactic mastectomy for average-risk women with unilateral cancer and sentinel lymph node biopsy for clinically node-negative women aged 70 years and older with hormone receptor–positive (HR+) cancer.

“This suggests that formal efforts to reduce low value care through dissemination of guidelines, education of patients or providers, or alignment of incentives will be necessary to achieve full deimplementation,” she told this news organization.

The researchers emphasize that the providing of services that have no clinically meaningful benefit is a national epidemic, costing the United States more than $100 billion dollars annually.

These trends are notable and likely reflect a broad range of factors, commented Katharine Yao, MD, chief of the division of surgical oncology at the NorthShore University HealthSystem, Evanston, Ill.

“I think the better message here is not so much that facilities are doing too many low-value procedures but more that these procedures are still being performed, and the trends show increased rates over the years – why is that?”

“Perhaps there are other factors here we need to explore: why do these procedures persist, and why, despite the Choosing Wisely campaign, [do] they continue to increase?” she said in an interview. “Maybe there is something we can learn here about patient and physician preferences that perhaps we should be paying more attention to.”

The study was published on Feb. 3 in JAMA Surgery.

For the analysis, Dr. Dossett and her colleagues evaluated surgical data from the National Cancer Database. They examined data from more than 1,500 surgical facilities and from surgeries involving 920,256 women in the United States who were diagnosed with breast cancer between 2004 and 2016.

The team focused on four procedures that have been determined to be of low value by Choosing Wisely, a campaign of the American Board of Internal Medicine Foundation, on the basis of recommendations of the American College of Surgeons, the Society for Surgical Oncology, and the American Society for Breast Surgeons.

The results show that, for two of the four low-value procedures, use declined significantly over the study period. These two procedures were axillary lymph node dissection for limited nodal disease, for patients undergoing lumpectomy and radiotherapy, and lumpectomy re-excision for patients whose surgical margins were close but were negative for invasive cancer.

Axillary lymph node dissection declined from 63% in 2004 to 14% in 2016. The steepest reduction was seen soon after data from the Z0011 study were published in 2010. The rates for this procedure halved in the following year, from 62% in 2010 to 31% in 2011 (P < .001).

Likewise, reoperation rates after lumpectomy dropped from 19% in 2004 to 15% in 2016. The sharpest decline, from 18% in 2013 to 16% in 2014, corresponded to the publishing of the SSO/ASTRO consensus statement, which designated a negative margin as having “no tumor on ink.”

Two of the four low-value procedures increased in use during the study period.

Rates of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy increased nearly 2.5-fold among women with unilateral breast cancer undergoing mastectomy, from 11% in 2004 to 26% in 2016, despite SSO guidelines issued in 2007 recommending that the procedure not be used for women at average risk.

In addition, rates of sentinel lymph node biopsy among women aged 70 years and older with clinically node-negative HR+ breast cancer increased from 78% in 2004 to 87% in 2012. There was no significant decline in the use of this procedure, even after the CALGB 9343 trial from the Cancer and Leukemia Group B showed no survival benefit in 2013.
 

Patterns at hospitals vary

The authors of the study also examined hospital factors, which can heavily influence choice of procedure.

These results showed that the greatest reductions of the low-value breast cancer procedures occurred at academic research programs and high-volume surgical facilities. Elsewhere, the rates varied widely.

Interfacility rates of axillary lymph node dissection ranged from 7% to 47%; lumpectomy reoperation rates ranged from 3% to 62%; contralateral prophylactic mastectomy rates ranged from 9% to 67%; and sentinel lymph node biopsy rates ranged from 25% to 97%.

Being an outlier for use of one procedure did not necessarily translate to nonconformity for others. Factors such as a hospital’s volume of breast cancer cases or the type of facility did not appear to influence rates of axillary lymph node dissection or lumpectomy reoperation.

However, the rates of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy were significantly higher in high-volume centers and integrated network cancer programs, compared with community cancer programs (23% vs. 2%; P < .001).

Dr. Dossett said the lack of consistency was somewhat unexpected.

“We expected we would find some facilities were constantly good or bad at deimplementation or that there would be stronger associations between certain facility characteristics and performance,” she said. “That really wasn’t the case, and most facilities had mixed performance.”
 

Evidence may or may not influence trends

The authors speculate on why the low-value designation is in some cases being ignored.

The evidence regarding the risk for lymphedema related to axillary lymph node dissection procedure appears to have helped reduce its use, they note.

However, surgeons have been much less convinced of benefits in omitting sentinel lymph node biopsy, either because they are unfamiliar with the recommendations to avoid the procedure, or they may feel the procedure adds only minimal time and risk to a patient’s operation, the authors explain.

Patients may be convinced to opt to omit sentinel lymph node biopsy if they are properly counseled regarding the risks and benefits of the procedure, Dr. Dossett commented.

Dr. Yao added that, for elderly patients, age can play an important role in sentinel node biopsy.

“Patients’ life expectancy has increased over the years, and node status may impact adjuvant therapy decisions for these patients, even chemotherapy decisions,” she said.

Pressure to continue to perform contralateral prophylactic mastectomy is believed to be significantly patient driven, Dr. Dossett noted.

“I ultimately think the best way to reduce contralateral prophylactic mastectomy is to encourage women with small cancers to undergo breast-conserving surgery, i.e., lumpectomy, instead of mastectomy,” she explained.

“Once the decision for mastectomy is made, there is often a great deal of momentum towards a contralateral prophylactic mastectomy.”

“Contralateral prophylactic mastectomy is a personal preference that many surgeons are willing to do for their patients,” Dr. Yao explained.

“Although no survival benefit has been demonstrated for this procedure, patients find many other benefits that have nothing to do with survival.”

The authors and Dr. Yao have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Of four surgical procedures for breast cancer that have been determined to be of low value because they yield no meaningful clinical benefit, two continue to be utilized. In fact, the use of two of these procedures has increased in the United States, new research shows.

“This is the first study to [evaluate] all four of the low-value breast cancer procedures at the same time and try to draw some conclusions on practice patterns across facilities,” said senior author Lesly A. Dossett, MD, MPH, Center for Health Outcomes and Policy, the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

The two low-value procedures that have increased in use are contralateral prophylactic mastectomy for average-risk women with unilateral cancer and sentinel lymph node biopsy for clinically node-negative women aged 70 years and older with hormone receptor–positive (HR+) cancer.

“This suggests that formal efforts to reduce low value care through dissemination of guidelines, education of patients or providers, or alignment of incentives will be necessary to achieve full deimplementation,” she told this news organization.

The researchers emphasize that the providing of services that have no clinically meaningful benefit is a national epidemic, costing the United States more than $100 billion dollars annually.

These trends are notable and likely reflect a broad range of factors, commented Katharine Yao, MD, chief of the division of surgical oncology at the NorthShore University HealthSystem, Evanston, Ill.

“I think the better message here is not so much that facilities are doing too many low-value procedures but more that these procedures are still being performed, and the trends show increased rates over the years – why is that?”

“Perhaps there are other factors here we need to explore: why do these procedures persist, and why, despite the Choosing Wisely campaign, [do] they continue to increase?” she said in an interview. “Maybe there is something we can learn here about patient and physician preferences that perhaps we should be paying more attention to.”

The study was published on Feb. 3 in JAMA Surgery.

For the analysis, Dr. Dossett and her colleagues evaluated surgical data from the National Cancer Database. They examined data from more than 1,500 surgical facilities and from surgeries involving 920,256 women in the United States who were diagnosed with breast cancer between 2004 and 2016.

The team focused on four procedures that have been determined to be of low value by Choosing Wisely, a campaign of the American Board of Internal Medicine Foundation, on the basis of recommendations of the American College of Surgeons, the Society for Surgical Oncology, and the American Society for Breast Surgeons.

The results show that, for two of the four low-value procedures, use declined significantly over the study period. These two procedures were axillary lymph node dissection for limited nodal disease, for patients undergoing lumpectomy and radiotherapy, and lumpectomy re-excision for patients whose surgical margins were close but were negative for invasive cancer.

Axillary lymph node dissection declined from 63% in 2004 to 14% in 2016. The steepest reduction was seen soon after data from the Z0011 study were published in 2010. The rates for this procedure halved in the following year, from 62% in 2010 to 31% in 2011 (P < .001).

Likewise, reoperation rates after lumpectomy dropped from 19% in 2004 to 15% in 2016. The sharpest decline, from 18% in 2013 to 16% in 2014, corresponded to the publishing of the SSO/ASTRO consensus statement, which designated a negative margin as having “no tumor on ink.”

Two of the four low-value procedures increased in use during the study period.

Rates of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy increased nearly 2.5-fold among women with unilateral breast cancer undergoing mastectomy, from 11% in 2004 to 26% in 2016, despite SSO guidelines issued in 2007 recommending that the procedure not be used for women at average risk.

In addition, rates of sentinel lymph node biopsy among women aged 70 years and older with clinically node-negative HR+ breast cancer increased from 78% in 2004 to 87% in 2012. There was no significant decline in the use of this procedure, even after the CALGB 9343 trial from the Cancer and Leukemia Group B showed no survival benefit in 2013.
 

Patterns at hospitals vary

The authors of the study also examined hospital factors, which can heavily influence choice of procedure.

These results showed that the greatest reductions of the low-value breast cancer procedures occurred at academic research programs and high-volume surgical facilities. Elsewhere, the rates varied widely.

Interfacility rates of axillary lymph node dissection ranged from 7% to 47%; lumpectomy reoperation rates ranged from 3% to 62%; contralateral prophylactic mastectomy rates ranged from 9% to 67%; and sentinel lymph node biopsy rates ranged from 25% to 97%.

Being an outlier for use of one procedure did not necessarily translate to nonconformity for others. Factors such as a hospital’s volume of breast cancer cases or the type of facility did not appear to influence rates of axillary lymph node dissection or lumpectomy reoperation.

However, the rates of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy were significantly higher in high-volume centers and integrated network cancer programs, compared with community cancer programs (23% vs. 2%; P < .001).

Dr. Dossett said the lack of consistency was somewhat unexpected.

“We expected we would find some facilities were constantly good or bad at deimplementation or that there would be stronger associations between certain facility characteristics and performance,” she said. “That really wasn’t the case, and most facilities had mixed performance.”
 

Evidence may or may not influence trends

The authors speculate on why the low-value designation is in some cases being ignored.

The evidence regarding the risk for lymphedema related to axillary lymph node dissection procedure appears to have helped reduce its use, they note.

However, surgeons have been much less convinced of benefits in omitting sentinel lymph node biopsy, either because they are unfamiliar with the recommendations to avoid the procedure, or they may feel the procedure adds only minimal time and risk to a patient’s operation, the authors explain.

Patients may be convinced to opt to omit sentinel lymph node biopsy if they are properly counseled regarding the risks and benefits of the procedure, Dr. Dossett commented.

Dr. Yao added that, for elderly patients, age can play an important role in sentinel node biopsy.

“Patients’ life expectancy has increased over the years, and node status may impact adjuvant therapy decisions for these patients, even chemotherapy decisions,” she said.

Pressure to continue to perform contralateral prophylactic mastectomy is believed to be significantly patient driven, Dr. Dossett noted.

“I ultimately think the best way to reduce contralateral prophylactic mastectomy is to encourage women with small cancers to undergo breast-conserving surgery, i.e., lumpectomy, instead of mastectomy,” she explained.

“Once the decision for mastectomy is made, there is often a great deal of momentum towards a contralateral prophylactic mastectomy.”

“Contralateral prophylactic mastectomy is a personal preference that many surgeons are willing to do for their patients,” Dr. Yao explained.

“Although no survival benefit has been demonstrated for this procedure, patients find many other benefits that have nothing to do with survival.”

The authors and Dr. Yao have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Of four surgical procedures for breast cancer that have been determined to be of low value because they yield no meaningful clinical benefit, two continue to be utilized. In fact, the use of two of these procedures has increased in the United States, new research shows.

“This is the first study to [evaluate] all four of the low-value breast cancer procedures at the same time and try to draw some conclusions on practice patterns across facilities,” said senior author Lesly A. Dossett, MD, MPH, Center for Health Outcomes and Policy, the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

The two low-value procedures that have increased in use are contralateral prophylactic mastectomy for average-risk women with unilateral cancer and sentinel lymph node biopsy for clinically node-negative women aged 70 years and older with hormone receptor–positive (HR+) cancer.

“This suggests that formal efforts to reduce low value care through dissemination of guidelines, education of patients or providers, or alignment of incentives will be necessary to achieve full deimplementation,” she told this news organization.

The researchers emphasize that the providing of services that have no clinically meaningful benefit is a national epidemic, costing the United States more than $100 billion dollars annually.

These trends are notable and likely reflect a broad range of factors, commented Katharine Yao, MD, chief of the division of surgical oncology at the NorthShore University HealthSystem, Evanston, Ill.

“I think the better message here is not so much that facilities are doing too many low-value procedures but more that these procedures are still being performed, and the trends show increased rates over the years – why is that?”

“Perhaps there are other factors here we need to explore: why do these procedures persist, and why, despite the Choosing Wisely campaign, [do] they continue to increase?” she said in an interview. “Maybe there is something we can learn here about patient and physician preferences that perhaps we should be paying more attention to.”

The study was published on Feb. 3 in JAMA Surgery.

For the analysis, Dr. Dossett and her colleagues evaluated surgical data from the National Cancer Database. They examined data from more than 1,500 surgical facilities and from surgeries involving 920,256 women in the United States who were diagnosed with breast cancer between 2004 and 2016.

The team focused on four procedures that have been determined to be of low value by Choosing Wisely, a campaign of the American Board of Internal Medicine Foundation, on the basis of recommendations of the American College of Surgeons, the Society for Surgical Oncology, and the American Society for Breast Surgeons.

The results show that, for two of the four low-value procedures, use declined significantly over the study period. These two procedures were axillary lymph node dissection for limited nodal disease, for patients undergoing lumpectomy and radiotherapy, and lumpectomy re-excision for patients whose surgical margins were close but were negative for invasive cancer.

Axillary lymph node dissection declined from 63% in 2004 to 14% in 2016. The steepest reduction was seen soon after data from the Z0011 study were published in 2010. The rates for this procedure halved in the following year, from 62% in 2010 to 31% in 2011 (P < .001).

Likewise, reoperation rates after lumpectomy dropped from 19% in 2004 to 15% in 2016. The sharpest decline, from 18% in 2013 to 16% in 2014, corresponded to the publishing of the SSO/ASTRO consensus statement, which designated a negative margin as having “no tumor on ink.”

Two of the four low-value procedures increased in use during the study period.

Rates of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy increased nearly 2.5-fold among women with unilateral breast cancer undergoing mastectomy, from 11% in 2004 to 26% in 2016, despite SSO guidelines issued in 2007 recommending that the procedure not be used for women at average risk.

In addition, rates of sentinel lymph node biopsy among women aged 70 years and older with clinically node-negative HR+ breast cancer increased from 78% in 2004 to 87% in 2012. There was no significant decline in the use of this procedure, even after the CALGB 9343 trial from the Cancer and Leukemia Group B showed no survival benefit in 2013.
 

Patterns at hospitals vary

The authors of the study also examined hospital factors, which can heavily influence choice of procedure.

These results showed that the greatest reductions of the low-value breast cancer procedures occurred at academic research programs and high-volume surgical facilities. Elsewhere, the rates varied widely.

Interfacility rates of axillary lymph node dissection ranged from 7% to 47%; lumpectomy reoperation rates ranged from 3% to 62%; contralateral prophylactic mastectomy rates ranged from 9% to 67%; and sentinel lymph node biopsy rates ranged from 25% to 97%.

Being an outlier for use of one procedure did not necessarily translate to nonconformity for others. Factors such as a hospital’s volume of breast cancer cases or the type of facility did not appear to influence rates of axillary lymph node dissection or lumpectomy reoperation.

However, the rates of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy were significantly higher in high-volume centers and integrated network cancer programs, compared with community cancer programs (23% vs. 2%; P < .001).

Dr. Dossett said the lack of consistency was somewhat unexpected.

“We expected we would find some facilities were constantly good or bad at deimplementation or that there would be stronger associations between certain facility characteristics and performance,” she said. “That really wasn’t the case, and most facilities had mixed performance.”
 

Evidence may or may not influence trends

The authors speculate on why the low-value designation is in some cases being ignored.

The evidence regarding the risk for lymphedema related to axillary lymph node dissection procedure appears to have helped reduce its use, they note.

However, surgeons have been much less convinced of benefits in omitting sentinel lymph node biopsy, either because they are unfamiliar with the recommendations to avoid the procedure, or they may feel the procedure adds only minimal time and risk to a patient’s operation, the authors explain.

Patients may be convinced to opt to omit sentinel lymph node biopsy if they are properly counseled regarding the risks and benefits of the procedure, Dr. Dossett commented.

Dr. Yao added that, for elderly patients, age can play an important role in sentinel node biopsy.

“Patients’ life expectancy has increased over the years, and node status may impact adjuvant therapy decisions for these patients, even chemotherapy decisions,” she said.

Pressure to continue to perform contralateral prophylactic mastectomy is believed to be significantly patient driven, Dr. Dossett noted.

“I ultimately think the best way to reduce contralateral prophylactic mastectomy is to encourage women with small cancers to undergo breast-conserving surgery, i.e., lumpectomy, instead of mastectomy,” she explained.

“Once the decision for mastectomy is made, there is often a great deal of momentum towards a contralateral prophylactic mastectomy.”

“Contralateral prophylactic mastectomy is a personal preference that many surgeons are willing to do for their patients,” Dr. Yao explained.

“Although no survival benefit has been demonstrated for this procedure, patients find many other benefits that have nothing to do with survival.”

The authors and Dr. Yao have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Research has shown that, compared with their urban counterparts, rural cancer patients have higher cancer-related mortality and other negative treatment outcomes.

Among other explanations, the disparity has been attributed to lower education and income levels, medical and behavioral risk factors, differences in health literacy, and lower confidence in the medical system among rural residents (JCO Oncol Pract. 2020 Jul;16(7):422-30).

The COVID-19 and Oncology Patient Experience Consortium

Ms. Daniels explained that the COVID-19 and Oncology Patient Experience (COPES) Consortium was created to investigate various aspects of the patient experience during the pandemic. Three cancer centers – Moffitt Cancer Center, Huntsman Cancer Institute, and the Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center – participate in COPES.

At Huntsman, investigators studied social and health behaviors of cancer patients to assess whether there was a difference between those from rural and urban areas. The researchers looked at the impact of the pandemic on psychosocial outcomes, preventive measures patients implemented, and their perceptions of the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

The team’s hypothesis was that rural patients might be more vulnerable than urban patients to the effects of social isolation, emotional distress, and health-adverse behaviors, but the investigators noted that there has been no prior research on the topic.
 

Assessing behaviors, attitudes, and outcomes

Between August and September 2020, the researchers surveyed 1,328 adult cancer patients who had visited Huntsman in the previous 4 years and who were enrolled in Huntsman’s Total Cancer Care or Precision Exercise Prescription studies.

Patients completed questionnaires that encompassed demographic and clinical factors, employment status, health behaviors, and infection preventive measures. Questionnaires were provided in electronic, paper, or phone-based formats. Information regarding age, race, ethnicity, and tumor stage was abstracted from Huntsman’s electronic health record.

Modifications in daily life and social interaction were assessed on a 5-point scale. Changes in exercise habits and alcohol consumption were assessed on a 3-point scale. Infection mitigation measures (the use of face masks and hand sanitizer) and perceptions about the likelihood of SARS-CoV-2 infection were measured.

The rural-urban community area codes system, which classifies U.S. census tracts by measures of population density, urbanization, and daily commuting, was utilized to categorize patients into rural and urban residences.
 

Characteristics of urban and rural cancer patients

There were 997 urban and 331 rural participants. The mean age was 60.1 years in the urban population and 62.6 years in the rural population (P = .01). There were no urban-rural differences in sex, ethnicity, cancer stage, or body mass index.

More urban than rural participants were employed full- or part-time (45% vs. 37%; P = .045). The rural counties had more patients who were not currently employed, primarily due to retirement (77% vs. 69% urban; P < .001).

“No health insurance coverage” was reported by 2% of urban and 4% of rural participants (P = .009), and 85% of all patients reported “good” to “excellent” overall health. Cancer patients in rural counties were significantly more likely to have ever smoked (37% vs. 25% urban; P = .001). In addition, alcohol consumption in the previous year was higher in rural patients. “Every day to less than once monthly” alcohol usage was reported by 44% of urban and 60% of rural patients (P < .001).
 

Changes in daily life and health-related behavior during the pandemic

Urban patients were more likely to report changes in their daily lives due to the pandemic. Specifically, 35% of urban patients and 26% of rural patients said the pandemic had changed their daily life “a lot” (P = .001).

However, there were no major differences between urban and rural patients when it came to changes in social interaction in the past month or feeling lonely in the past month (P = .45 and P = .88, respectively). Similarly, there were no significant differences for changes in alcohol consumption between the groups (P = .90).

Changes in exercise habits due to the pandemic were more common among patients in urban counties (51% vs. 39% rural; P < .001), though similar percentages of patients reported exercising less (44% urban vs. 45% rural) or more frequently (24% urban vs. 20% rural).

In terms of infection mitigation measures, urban patients were more likely to use face masks “very often” (83% vs. 66% rural; P < .001), while hand sanitizer was used “very often” among 66% of urban and 57% of rural participants (P = .05).

Urban participants were more likely than were their rural counterparts to think themselves “somewhat” or “very” likely to develop COVID-19 (22% vs. 14%; P = .04).

It might be short-sighted for oncology and public health specialists to be dismissive of differences in infection mitigation behaviors and perceptions of vulnerability to SARS-CoV-2 infection. Those behaviors and perceptions of risk could lead to lower vaccination rates in rural areas. If that occurs, there would be major negative consequences for the long-term health of rural communities and their medically vulnerable residents.
 

Future directions

Although the first 6 months of the COVID-19 pandemic had disparate effects on cancer patients living in rural and urban counties, the reasons for the disparities are complex and not easily explained by this study.

It is possible that sequential administration of the survey during the pandemic would have uncovered greater variances in attitude and health-related behaviors.

As Ms. Daniels noted, when the survey was performed, Utah had not experienced a high frequency of COVID-19 cases. Furthermore, different levels of restrictions were implemented on a county-by-county basis, potentially influencing patients’ behaviors, psychosocial adjustment, and perceptions of risk.

In addition, there may have been differences in unmeasured endpoints (infection rates, medical care utilization via telemedicine, hospitalization rates, late effects, and mortality) between the urban and rural populations.

As the investigators concluded, further research is needed to better characterize the pandemic’s short- and long-term effects on cancer patients in rural and urban settings and appropriate interventions. Such studies may yield insights into the various facets of the well-documented “rural health gap” in cancer outcomes and interventions that could narrow the gap in spheres beyond the COVID-19 pandemic.

Ms. Daniels reported having no relevant disclosures.
 

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

Research has shown that, compared with their urban counterparts, rural cancer patients have higher cancer-related mortality and other negative treatment outcomes.

Among other explanations, the disparity has been attributed to lower education and income levels, medical and behavioral risk factors, differences in health literacy, and lower confidence in the medical system among rural residents (JCO Oncol Pract. 2020 Jul;16(7):422-30).

The COVID-19 and Oncology Patient Experience Consortium

Ms. Daniels explained that the COVID-19 and Oncology Patient Experience (COPES) Consortium was created to investigate various aspects of the patient experience during the pandemic. Three cancer centers – Moffitt Cancer Center, Huntsman Cancer Institute, and the Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center – participate in COPES.

At Huntsman, investigators studied social and health behaviors of cancer patients to assess whether there was a difference between those from rural and urban areas. The researchers looked at the impact of the pandemic on psychosocial outcomes, preventive measures patients implemented, and their perceptions of the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

The team’s hypothesis was that rural patients might be more vulnerable than urban patients to the effects of social isolation, emotional distress, and health-adverse behaviors, but the investigators noted that there has been no prior research on the topic.
 

Assessing behaviors, attitudes, and outcomes

Between August and September 2020, the researchers surveyed 1,328 adult cancer patients who had visited Huntsman in the previous 4 years and who were enrolled in Huntsman’s Total Cancer Care or Precision Exercise Prescription studies.

Patients completed questionnaires that encompassed demographic and clinical factors, employment status, health behaviors, and infection preventive measures. Questionnaires were provided in electronic, paper, or phone-based formats. Information regarding age, race, ethnicity, and tumor stage was abstracted from Huntsman’s electronic health record.

Modifications in daily life and social interaction were assessed on a 5-point scale. Changes in exercise habits and alcohol consumption were assessed on a 3-point scale. Infection mitigation measures (the use of face masks and hand sanitizer) and perceptions about the likelihood of SARS-CoV-2 infection were measured.

The rural-urban community area codes system, which classifies U.S. census tracts by measures of population density, urbanization, and daily commuting, was utilized to categorize patients into rural and urban residences.
 

Characteristics of urban and rural cancer patients

There were 997 urban and 331 rural participants. The mean age was 60.1 years in the urban population and 62.6 years in the rural population (P = .01). There were no urban-rural differences in sex, ethnicity, cancer stage, or body mass index.

More urban than rural participants were employed full- or part-time (45% vs. 37%; P = .045). The rural counties had more patients who were not currently employed, primarily due to retirement (77% vs. 69% urban; P < .001).

“No health insurance coverage” was reported by 2% of urban and 4% of rural participants (P = .009), and 85% of all patients reported “good” to “excellent” overall health. Cancer patients in rural counties were significantly more likely to have ever smoked (37% vs. 25% urban; P = .001). In addition, alcohol consumption in the previous year was higher in rural patients. “Every day to less than once monthly” alcohol usage was reported by 44% of urban and 60% of rural patients (P < .001).
 

Changes in daily life and health-related behavior during the pandemic

Urban patients were more likely to report changes in their daily lives due to the pandemic. Specifically, 35% of urban patients and 26% of rural patients said the pandemic had changed their daily life “a lot” (P = .001).

However, there were no major differences between urban and rural patients when it came to changes in social interaction in the past month or feeling lonely in the past month (P = .45 and P = .88, respectively). Similarly, there were no significant differences for changes in alcohol consumption between the groups (P = .90).

Changes in exercise habits due to the pandemic were more common among patients in urban counties (51% vs. 39% rural; P < .001), though similar percentages of patients reported exercising less (44% urban vs. 45% rural) or more frequently (24% urban vs. 20% rural).

In terms of infection mitigation measures, urban patients were more likely to use face masks “very often” (83% vs. 66% rural; P < .001), while hand sanitizer was used “very often” among 66% of urban and 57% of rural participants (P = .05).

Urban participants were more likely than were their rural counterparts to think themselves “somewhat” or “very” likely to develop COVID-19 (22% vs. 14%; P = .04).

It might be short-sighted for oncology and public health specialists to be dismissive of differences in infection mitigation behaviors and perceptions of vulnerability to SARS-CoV-2 infection. Those behaviors and perceptions of risk could lead to lower vaccination rates in rural areas. If that occurs, there would be major negative consequences for the long-term health of rural communities and their medically vulnerable residents.
 

Future directions

Although the first 6 months of the COVID-19 pandemic had disparate effects on cancer patients living in rural and urban counties, the reasons for the disparities are complex and not easily explained by this study.

It is possible that sequential administration of the survey during the pandemic would have uncovered greater variances in attitude and health-related behaviors.

As Ms. Daniels noted, when the survey was performed, Utah had not experienced a high frequency of COVID-19 cases. Furthermore, different levels of restrictions were implemented on a county-by-county basis, potentially influencing patients’ behaviors, psychosocial adjustment, and perceptions of risk.

In addition, there may have been differences in unmeasured endpoints (infection rates, medical care utilization via telemedicine, hospitalization rates, late effects, and mortality) between the urban and rural populations.

As the investigators concluded, further research is needed to better characterize the pandemic’s short- and long-term effects on cancer patients in rural and urban settings and appropriate interventions. Such studies may yield insights into the various facets of the well-documented “rural health gap” in cancer outcomes and interventions that could narrow the gap in spheres beyond the COVID-19 pandemic.

Ms. Daniels reported having no relevant disclosures.
 

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

Research has shown that, compared with their urban counterparts, rural cancer patients have higher cancer-related mortality and other negative treatment outcomes.

Among other explanations, the disparity has been attributed to lower education and income levels, medical and behavioral risk factors, differences in health literacy, and lower confidence in the medical system among rural residents (JCO Oncol Pract. 2020 Jul;16(7):422-30).

The COVID-19 and Oncology Patient Experience Consortium

Ms. Daniels explained that the COVID-19 and Oncology Patient Experience (COPES) Consortium was created to investigate various aspects of the patient experience during the pandemic. Three cancer centers – Moffitt Cancer Center, Huntsman Cancer Institute, and the Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center – participate in COPES.

At Huntsman, investigators studied social and health behaviors of cancer patients to assess whether there was a difference between those from rural and urban areas. The researchers looked at the impact of the pandemic on psychosocial outcomes, preventive measures patients implemented, and their perceptions of the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

The team’s hypothesis was that rural patients might be more vulnerable than urban patients to the effects of social isolation, emotional distress, and health-adverse behaviors, but the investigators noted that there has been no prior research on the topic.
 

Assessing behaviors, attitudes, and outcomes

Between August and September 2020, the researchers surveyed 1,328 adult cancer patients who had visited Huntsman in the previous 4 years and who were enrolled in Huntsman’s Total Cancer Care or Precision Exercise Prescription studies.

Patients completed questionnaires that encompassed demographic and clinical factors, employment status, health behaviors, and infection preventive measures. Questionnaires were provided in electronic, paper, or phone-based formats. Information regarding age, race, ethnicity, and tumor stage was abstracted from Huntsman’s electronic health record.

Modifications in daily life and social interaction were assessed on a 5-point scale. Changes in exercise habits and alcohol consumption were assessed on a 3-point scale. Infection mitigation measures (the use of face masks and hand sanitizer) and perceptions about the likelihood of SARS-CoV-2 infection were measured.

The rural-urban community area codes system, which classifies U.S. census tracts by measures of population density, urbanization, and daily commuting, was utilized to categorize patients into rural and urban residences.
 

Characteristics of urban and rural cancer patients

There were 997 urban and 331 rural participants. The mean age was 60.1 years in the urban population and 62.6 years in the rural population (P = .01). There were no urban-rural differences in sex, ethnicity, cancer stage, or body mass index.

More urban than rural participants were employed full- or part-time (45% vs. 37%; P = .045). The rural counties had more patients who were not currently employed, primarily due to retirement (77% vs. 69% urban; P < .001).

“No health insurance coverage” was reported by 2% of urban and 4% of rural participants (P = .009), and 85% of all patients reported “good” to “excellent” overall health. Cancer patients in rural counties were significantly more likely to have ever smoked (37% vs. 25% urban; P = .001). In addition, alcohol consumption in the previous year was higher in rural patients. “Every day to less than once monthly” alcohol usage was reported by 44% of urban and 60% of rural patients (P < .001).
 

Changes in daily life and health-related behavior during the pandemic

Urban patients were more likely to report changes in their daily lives due to the pandemic. Specifically, 35% of urban patients and 26% of rural patients said the pandemic had changed their daily life “a lot” (P = .001).

However, there were no major differences between urban and rural patients when it came to changes in social interaction in the past month or feeling lonely in the past month (P = .45 and P = .88, respectively). Similarly, there were no significant differences for changes in alcohol consumption between the groups (P = .90).

Changes in exercise habits due to the pandemic were more common among patients in urban counties (51% vs. 39% rural; P < .001), though similar percentages of patients reported exercising less (44% urban vs. 45% rural) or more frequently (24% urban vs. 20% rural).

In terms of infection mitigation measures, urban patients were more likely to use face masks “very often” (83% vs. 66% rural; P < .001), while hand sanitizer was used “very often” among 66% of urban and 57% of rural participants (P = .05).

Urban participants were more likely than were their rural counterparts to think themselves “somewhat” or “very” likely to develop COVID-19 (22% vs. 14%; P = .04).

It might be short-sighted for oncology and public health specialists to be dismissive of differences in infection mitigation behaviors and perceptions of vulnerability to SARS-CoV-2 infection. Those behaviors and perceptions of risk could lead to lower vaccination rates in rural areas. If that occurs, there would be major negative consequences for the long-term health of rural communities and their medically vulnerable residents.
 

Future directions

Although the first 6 months of the COVID-19 pandemic had disparate effects on cancer patients living in rural and urban counties, the reasons for the disparities are complex and not easily explained by this study.

It is possible that sequential administration of the survey during the pandemic would have uncovered greater variances in attitude and health-related behaviors.

As Ms. Daniels noted, when the survey was performed, Utah had not experienced a high frequency of COVID-19 cases. Furthermore, different levels of restrictions were implemented on a county-by-county basis, potentially influencing patients’ behaviors, psychosocial adjustment, and perceptions of risk.

In addition, there may have been differences in unmeasured endpoints (infection rates, medical care utilization via telemedicine, hospitalization rates, late effects, and mortality) between the urban and rural populations.

As the investigators concluded, further research is needed to better characterize the pandemic’s short- and long-term effects on cancer patients in rural and urban settings and appropriate interventions. Such studies may yield insights into the various facets of the well-documented “rural health gap” in cancer outcomes and interventions that could narrow the gap in spheres beyond the COVID-19 pandemic.

Ms. Daniels reported having no relevant disclosures.
 

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