AVAHO

Patients at very high risk for melanoma, including those with a family history or with inherited pathogenic variants of genes that increase the risk, likely benefit from routine whole-body screening for melanoma and education about UV protection.

Those are key findings from the first prospective cohort study to quantify the benefit of screening in melanoma-prone families, which was published online April 2 in Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention.

“Whole-body screening for melanoma is currently routine for individuals at high risk for melanoma, which includes people from melanoma-prone families (at least two relatives who have had melanoma) and those with inherited pathogenic gene variants of the CDKN2A or CDK4 genes, which increase risk for melanoma,” lead author Michael R. Sargen, MD, said in an interview. “In our study, we investigated whether screening and educational interventions, including education about the appearance of melanoma and strategies for protecting skin from ultraviolet damage, contributed to early diagnosis of melanoma in individuals from melanoma-prone families.”

Of the 293 individuals who enrolled in the study between 1976 and 2014, 246 were diagnosed with melanoma before enrollment (the prestudy cohort) and 47 were diagnosed after enrollment (the prospective cohort). The researchers compared differences in melanoma thickness and tumor stage between participants in the prestudy and prospective cohorts, and compared tumor-thickness trends between participants in their study and cases in the general population using data from Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) registries between 1973 and 2016. Because information on melanoma thickness was missing for 24% of melanoma cases in the NCI Familial Melanoma Study and 8.7% of melanoma cases found in the SEER registry, the researchers imputed the missing data.

After adjusting for gender and age, Dr. Sargen and his colleagues found that participants in the prospective cohort had significantly thinner melanomas, compared with those in the prestudy cohort (0.6 mm vs. 1.1 mm, respectively; P < .001). In addition, 83% of those in the prospective cohort were significantly more likely to be diagnosed at the early T1 stage, compared with 40% of those in the prestudy cohort (P < .001).

In their analysis, they also determined that after adjusting for gender and age, “all NCI family cases had systematically lower thickness than SEER cases during the study period.” The reductions in melanoma thickness and tumor stage, they concluded, “were not fully explained by calendar period effects of decreasing thickness in the general population and point to the potential benefit of skin cancer screening for patients with a family history of melanoma and those with pathogenic germline variants of melanoma-susceptibility genes.”

“Our data provide reassuring evidence that screening, alongside education about proper UV protection and the appearance of melanoma, is likely benefiting patients with a significantly elevated risk for melanoma,” Dr. Sargen said in the interview “Further studies are needed to determine whether individuals without a family history of melanoma may benefit from whole-body screening, and whether the benefits vary by ethnicity.”

He acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including the relatively small sample size of melanoma cases in the NCI Familial Melanoma Study and the imputation of missing melanoma-thickness data. “Additionally, since this was a prospective cohort study, we were not able to distinguish the independent effect of each intervention,” he said. “Randomized controlled studies are needed to understand the impact of each aspect of the intervention, such as whole-body screening, melanoma education, or strategies for skin protection.”

In an interview, Maryam M. Asgari, MD, professor of dermatology at Harvard University, Boston, called the analysis “well done,” but commented on the potential role of selection bias impacting the findings. “People who have a strong family history of melanoma and who are opting to engage in an NCI study and come in for full-body skin checks and go through that education process may have very different health-seeking behaviors than individuals in the general population that would be reported to SEER,” she said.

She also raised the question of whether the results were driven by the early detection through the NCI’s program of provider screening or through the educational component that enables earlier self-detection. “If you’re an individual involved in a study and that brings attention to your moles and you have a strong family history of melanoma to begin with, it is not surprising that you are going to have heightened awareness of any changing mole and therefore are more likely to have melanoma detected at an earlier stage,” Dr. Asgari said.

The study was supported by the Intramural Research Program of the Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics at the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Sargen reported having no financial disclosures.
Dr. Asgari disclosed that she has received research support from the Melanoma Research Alliance.
 

[email protected]

Patients at very high risk for melanoma, including those with a family history or with inherited pathogenic variants of genes that increase the risk, likely benefit from routine whole-body screening for melanoma and education about UV protection.

Those are key findings from the first prospective cohort study to quantify the benefit of screening in melanoma-prone families, which was published online April 2 in Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention.

“Whole-body screening for melanoma is currently routine for individuals at high risk for melanoma, which includes people from melanoma-prone families (at least two relatives who have had melanoma) and those with inherited pathogenic gene variants of the CDKN2A or CDK4 genes, which increase risk for melanoma,” lead author Michael R. Sargen, MD, said in an interview. “In our study, we investigated whether screening and educational interventions, including education about the appearance of melanoma and strategies for protecting skin from ultraviolet damage, contributed to early diagnosis of melanoma in individuals from melanoma-prone families.”

Of the 293 individuals who enrolled in the study between 1976 and 2014, 246 were diagnosed with melanoma before enrollment (the prestudy cohort) and 47 were diagnosed after enrollment (the prospective cohort). The researchers compared differences in melanoma thickness and tumor stage between participants in the prestudy and prospective cohorts, and compared tumor-thickness trends between participants in their study and cases in the general population using data from Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) registries between 1973 and 2016. Because information on melanoma thickness was missing for 24% of melanoma cases in the NCI Familial Melanoma Study and 8.7% of melanoma cases found in the SEER registry, the researchers imputed the missing data.

After adjusting for gender and age, Dr. Sargen and his colleagues found that participants in the prospective cohort had significantly thinner melanomas, compared with those in the prestudy cohort (0.6 mm vs. 1.1 mm, respectively; P < .001). In addition, 83% of those in the prospective cohort were significantly more likely to be diagnosed at the early T1 stage, compared with 40% of those in the prestudy cohort (P < .001).

In their analysis, they also determined that after adjusting for gender and age, “all NCI family cases had systematically lower thickness than SEER cases during the study period.” The reductions in melanoma thickness and tumor stage, they concluded, “were not fully explained by calendar period effects of decreasing thickness in the general population and point to the potential benefit of skin cancer screening for patients with a family history of melanoma and those with pathogenic germline variants of melanoma-susceptibility genes.”

“Our data provide reassuring evidence that screening, alongside education about proper UV protection and the appearance of melanoma, is likely benefiting patients with a significantly elevated risk for melanoma,” Dr. Sargen said in the interview “Further studies are needed to determine whether individuals without a family history of melanoma may benefit from whole-body screening, and whether the benefits vary by ethnicity.”

He acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including the relatively small sample size of melanoma cases in the NCI Familial Melanoma Study and the imputation of missing melanoma-thickness data. “Additionally, since this was a prospective cohort study, we were not able to distinguish the independent effect of each intervention,” he said. “Randomized controlled studies are needed to understand the impact of each aspect of the intervention, such as whole-body screening, melanoma education, or strategies for skin protection.”

In an interview, Maryam M. Asgari, MD, professor of dermatology at Harvard University, Boston, called the analysis “well done,” but commented on the potential role of selection bias impacting the findings. “People who have a strong family history of melanoma and who are opting to engage in an NCI study and come in for full-body skin checks and go through that education process may have very different health-seeking behaviors than individuals in the general population that would be reported to SEER,” she said.

She also raised the question of whether the results were driven by the early detection through the NCI’s program of provider screening or through the educational component that enables earlier self-detection. “If you’re an individual involved in a study and that brings attention to your moles and you have a strong family history of melanoma to begin with, it is not surprising that you are going to have heightened awareness of any changing mole and therefore are more likely to have melanoma detected at an earlier stage,” Dr. Asgari said.

The study was supported by the Intramural Research Program of the Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics at the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Sargen reported having no financial disclosures.
Dr. Asgari disclosed that she has received research support from the Melanoma Research Alliance.
 

[email protected]

Patients at very high risk for melanoma, including those with a family history or with inherited pathogenic variants of genes that increase the risk, likely benefit from routine whole-body screening for melanoma and education about UV protection.

Those are key findings from the first prospective cohort study to quantify the benefit of screening in melanoma-prone families, which was published online April 2 in Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention.

“Whole-body screening for melanoma is currently routine for individuals at high risk for melanoma, which includes people from melanoma-prone families (at least two relatives who have had melanoma) and those with inherited pathogenic gene variants of the CDKN2A or CDK4 genes, which increase risk for melanoma,” lead author Michael R. Sargen, MD, said in an interview. “In our study, we investigated whether screening and educational interventions, including education about the appearance of melanoma and strategies for protecting skin from ultraviolet damage, contributed to early diagnosis of melanoma in individuals from melanoma-prone families.”

Of the 293 individuals who enrolled in the study between 1976 and 2014, 246 were diagnosed with melanoma before enrollment (the prestudy cohort) and 47 were diagnosed after enrollment (the prospective cohort). The researchers compared differences in melanoma thickness and tumor stage between participants in the prestudy and prospective cohorts, and compared tumor-thickness trends between participants in their study and cases in the general population using data from Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) registries between 1973 and 2016. Because information on melanoma thickness was missing for 24% of melanoma cases in the NCI Familial Melanoma Study and 8.7% of melanoma cases found in the SEER registry, the researchers imputed the missing data.

After adjusting for gender and age, Dr. Sargen and his colleagues found that participants in the prospective cohort had significantly thinner melanomas, compared with those in the prestudy cohort (0.6 mm vs. 1.1 mm, respectively; P < .001). In addition, 83% of those in the prospective cohort were significantly more likely to be diagnosed at the early T1 stage, compared with 40% of those in the prestudy cohort (P < .001).

In their analysis, they also determined that after adjusting for gender and age, “all NCI family cases had systematically lower thickness than SEER cases during the study period.” The reductions in melanoma thickness and tumor stage, they concluded, “were not fully explained by calendar period effects of decreasing thickness in the general population and point to the potential benefit of skin cancer screening for patients with a family history of melanoma and those with pathogenic germline variants of melanoma-susceptibility genes.”

“Our data provide reassuring evidence that screening, alongside education about proper UV protection and the appearance of melanoma, is likely benefiting patients with a significantly elevated risk for melanoma,” Dr. Sargen said in the interview “Further studies are needed to determine whether individuals without a family history of melanoma may benefit from whole-body screening, and whether the benefits vary by ethnicity.”

He acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including the relatively small sample size of melanoma cases in the NCI Familial Melanoma Study and the imputation of missing melanoma-thickness data. “Additionally, since this was a prospective cohort study, we were not able to distinguish the independent effect of each intervention,” he said. “Randomized controlled studies are needed to understand the impact of each aspect of the intervention, such as whole-body screening, melanoma education, or strategies for skin protection.”

In an interview, Maryam M. Asgari, MD, professor of dermatology at Harvard University, Boston, called the analysis “well done,” but commented on the potential role of selection bias impacting the findings. “People who have a strong family history of melanoma and who are opting to engage in an NCI study and come in for full-body skin checks and go through that education process may have very different health-seeking behaviors than individuals in the general population that would be reported to SEER,” she said.

She also raised the question of whether the results were driven by the early detection through the NCI’s program of provider screening or through the educational component that enables earlier self-detection. “If you’re an individual involved in a study and that brings attention to your moles and you have a strong family history of melanoma to begin with, it is not surprising that you are going to have heightened awareness of any changing mole and therefore are more likely to have melanoma detected at an earlier stage,” Dr. Asgari said.

The study was supported by the Intramural Research Program of the Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics at the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Sargen reported having no financial disclosures.
Dr. Asgari disclosed that she has received research support from the Melanoma Research Alliance.
 

[email protected]

April 5 is the official start date of a U.S. law requiring health care organizations to provide patients with free, full, and immediate electronic access to their doctor’s clinical notes as well as test results and reports from pathology and imaging.

The mandate, called “open notes” by many, is part of the 21st Century Cures Act, a wide-ranging piece of federal health care legislation. The previous deadline of Nov. 2, 2020, for enacting open notes was extended last year because of the exigencies of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Organizations must provide access via patient portals to the following types of notes: consultations, discharge summaries, histories, physical examination findings, imaging narratives, laboratory and pathology report narratives, and procedure and progress notes. Noncompliant organizations will eventually be subject to fines from the Department of Health & Human Services for “information blocking.”

This news organization reported on the mandate in 2020, and some readers said it was an unwelcome intrusion into practice. Since then, this news organization has run additional open notes stories about physician concerns, a perspective essay addressing those fears, and a reader poll about the phenomenon.

Now, as the legislation turns into a practical clinical matter, there are five key points clinicians should consider.
 

Clinicians don’t have to change writing style.

The new law mandates timely patient access to notes and test results, but it doesn’t require that clinicians alter their writing, said Scott MacDonald, MD, an internist and electronic health record medical director at University of California Davis Health in Sacramento.

“You don’t have to change your notes,” he said. However, patients are now part of the note audience and some health care systems are directing clinicians to make patient-friendly style changes.

Everyday experience should guide clinicians when writing notes, said one expert.

“When you’re not sure [of how to write a note], just mirror the way you would speak in the office – that’s going to get you right, including for mental health issues,” advised Leonor Fernandez, MD, an internist at Beth Deaconess Israel Medical Center, Boston, in her “take-away” comments in the online video, How to Write an Open Note.

According to a 2020 Medscape poll of 1,050 physicians, a majority (56%) anticipate that they will write notes differently, knowing that patients can read them via open notes. Nearly two-thirds (64%) believe that this new wrinkle in medical records will increase their workload. However, actual practice suggests that this is true for a minority of practitioners, according to the results from a recent study of more than 1,000 physicians in Boston, Seattle, and rural Pennsylvania, who already work in open notes settings. Only about one-third (37%) reported “spending more time on documentation.”

Note writing is going to change because of the addition of the patient reader, and something will be lost, argued Steven Reidbord, MD, a psychiatrist in private practice in San Francisco. By watering down the language for patients, “you are trading away the technical precision and other advantages of having a professional language,” commented Dr. Reidbord, who blogs for Psychology Today and has criticized the open notes movement in the past.

However, years of investigation from OpenNotes, the Boston-based advocacy and research organization, indicates that there are many gains with patient-accessible notes, including improved medical record accuracy, greater medication adherence, and potentially improved health care disparities among a range of patient types. In a 2019 study, researchers said that worry and confusion among note-reading patients are uncommon (5% and 3%, respectively), which addresses two criticisms voiced by multiple people last year.
 

Some clinical notes can be withheld. 

The new rules from the federal government permit information blocking if there is clear evidence that doing so “will substantially reduce the risk of harm” to patients or to other third parties, Tom Delbanco, MD, and Charlotte Blease, PhD, of OpenNotes in Boston wrote in a commentary in February 2021.

There are also state-level laws that can supersede the new U.S. law and block access to notes, points out MacDonald. For example, California law dictates that providers cannot post cancer test results without talking with the patient first.

The OpenNotes organization also points out that, with regard to sensitive psychotherapy notes that are separated from the rest of a medical record, those notes “can be kept from patients without their permission, and such rules vary state by state.”
 

Some patients are more likely readers. 

Some patients are more likely to peer into their files than others, said Liz Salmi, senior strategist at OpenNotes, who is also a brain cancer patient.

“Those patients who have more serious or chronic conditions ... are more likely to read their notes,” she said in an interview.

A new study of nearly 6,000 medical oncology patients at the University of Wisconsin confirmed that opinion. Patients with incurable metastatic disease were much more likely than those with early-stage, curable disease to read notes. Notably, younger patients were more likely than older ones to access notes, likely the result of generational tech savvy.

Despite the unpredictability of serious disease such as cancer, oncology patients find satisfaction in reading their notes, say experts. “We’ve overwhelmingly heard that patients like it,” Thomas LeBlanc, MD, medical oncologist at Duke University, Durham, N.C., where all patients already have access to clinicians’ notes, told this news organization in 2018.
 

You are part of the avant garde. 

The United States and Scandinavian countries are the world leaders in implementing open notes in clinical practice, Dr. Blease said in an interview.

“It’s a phenomenal achievement” to have enacted open notes nationally, she said. For example, there are no open notes in Northern Ireland, Dr. Blease’s home country, or most of Europe.

In the United States, there are more than 200 medical organizations, including at least one in every state, that were voluntarily providing open notes before April 5, including interstate giants such as Banner Health and big-name medical centers such as Cleveland Clinic.

It may be hard for the United States to top Sweden’s embrace of the practice. The national open notes program now has 7.2 million patient accounts in a country of 10 million people, noted Maria Häggland, PhD, of Uppsala (Sweden) MedTech Science Innovation Center during a webinar last year.
 

The start day will come, and you may not notice. 

“When April 5 happens, something brand new is going to happen symbolically,” Ms. Salmi said. Its importance is hard to measure.

“Patients say they trust their doctor more because they understand their thinking with open notes. How do you value that? We don’t have metrics for that,” she said.

Dr. MacDonald suggested that open notes are both new and not new. In the fall of 2020, he predicted that the launch day would come, and few clinicians would notice, in part because many patients already access truncated information via patient portals.

However, there are “sensitive issues,” such as with adolescents and reproductive health, where “we know that some parents have sign-in information for their teen’s portal,” he commented. With clinical notes now on full display, potential problems “may be out of our control.”

Still, the Sacramento-based physician and IT officer acknowledged that concerns about open notes may be a bit inflated. “I’ve been more worried about reassuring physicians that everything will be okay than what’s actually going to happen [as the law takes effect],” Dr. MacDonald said.

The OpenNotes organization is grant funded, and staff disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

April 5 is the official start date of a U.S. law requiring health care organizations to provide patients with free, full, and immediate electronic access to their doctor’s clinical notes as well as test results and reports from pathology and imaging.

The mandate, called “open notes” by many, is part of the 21st Century Cures Act, a wide-ranging piece of federal health care legislation. The previous deadline of Nov. 2, 2020, for enacting open notes was extended last year because of the exigencies of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Organizations must provide access via patient portals to the following types of notes: consultations, discharge summaries, histories, physical examination findings, imaging narratives, laboratory and pathology report narratives, and procedure and progress notes. Noncompliant organizations will eventually be subject to fines from the Department of Health & Human Services for “information blocking.”

This news organization reported on the mandate in 2020, and some readers said it was an unwelcome intrusion into practice. Since then, this news organization has run additional open notes stories about physician concerns, a perspective essay addressing those fears, and a reader poll about the phenomenon.

Now, as the legislation turns into a practical clinical matter, there are five key points clinicians should consider.
 

Clinicians don’t have to change writing style.

The new law mandates timely patient access to notes and test results, but it doesn’t require that clinicians alter their writing, said Scott MacDonald, MD, an internist and electronic health record medical director at University of California Davis Health in Sacramento.

“You don’t have to change your notes,” he said. However, patients are now part of the note audience and some health care systems are directing clinicians to make patient-friendly style changes.

Everyday experience should guide clinicians when writing notes, said one expert.

“When you’re not sure [of how to write a note], just mirror the way you would speak in the office – that’s going to get you right, including for mental health issues,” advised Leonor Fernandez, MD, an internist at Beth Deaconess Israel Medical Center, Boston, in her “take-away” comments in the online video, How to Write an Open Note.

According to a 2020 Medscape poll of 1,050 physicians, a majority (56%) anticipate that they will write notes differently, knowing that patients can read them via open notes. Nearly two-thirds (64%) believe that this new wrinkle in medical records will increase their workload. However, actual practice suggests that this is true for a minority of practitioners, according to the results from a recent study of more than 1,000 physicians in Boston, Seattle, and rural Pennsylvania, who already work in open notes settings. Only about one-third (37%) reported “spending more time on documentation.”

Note writing is going to change because of the addition of the patient reader, and something will be lost, argued Steven Reidbord, MD, a psychiatrist in private practice in San Francisco. By watering down the language for patients, “you are trading away the technical precision and other advantages of having a professional language,” commented Dr. Reidbord, who blogs for Psychology Today and has criticized the open notes movement in the past.

However, years of investigation from OpenNotes, the Boston-based advocacy and research organization, indicates that there are many gains with patient-accessible notes, including improved medical record accuracy, greater medication adherence, and potentially improved health care disparities among a range of patient types. In a 2019 study, researchers said that worry and confusion among note-reading patients are uncommon (5% and 3%, respectively), which addresses two criticisms voiced by multiple people last year.
 

Some clinical notes can be withheld. 

The new rules from the federal government permit information blocking if there is clear evidence that doing so “will substantially reduce the risk of harm” to patients or to other third parties, Tom Delbanco, MD, and Charlotte Blease, PhD, of OpenNotes in Boston wrote in a commentary in February 2021.

There are also state-level laws that can supersede the new U.S. law and block access to notes, points out MacDonald. For example, California law dictates that providers cannot post cancer test results without talking with the patient first.

The OpenNotes organization also points out that, with regard to sensitive psychotherapy notes that are separated from the rest of a medical record, those notes “can be kept from patients without their permission, and such rules vary state by state.”
 

Some patients are more likely readers. 

Some patients are more likely to peer into their files than others, said Liz Salmi, senior strategist at OpenNotes, who is also a brain cancer patient.

“Those patients who have more serious or chronic conditions ... are more likely to read their notes,” she said in an interview.

A new study of nearly 6,000 medical oncology patients at the University of Wisconsin confirmed that opinion. Patients with incurable metastatic disease were much more likely than those with early-stage, curable disease to read notes. Notably, younger patients were more likely than older ones to access notes, likely the result of generational tech savvy.

Despite the unpredictability of serious disease such as cancer, oncology patients find satisfaction in reading their notes, say experts. “We’ve overwhelmingly heard that patients like it,” Thomas LeBlanc, MD, medical oncologist at Duke University, Durham, N.C., where all patients already have access to clinicians’ notes, told this news organization in 2018.
 

You are part of the avant garde. 

The United States and Scandinavian countries are the world leaders in implementing open notes in clinical practice, Dr. Blease said in an interview.

“It’s a phenomenal achievement” to have enacted open notes nationally, she said. For example, there are no open notes in Northern Ireland, Dr. Blease’s home country, or most of Europe.

In the United States, there are more than 200 medical organizations, including at least one in every state, that were voluntarily providing open notes before April 5, including interstate giants such as Banner Health and big-name medical centers such as Cleveland Clinic.

It may be hard for the United States to top Sweden’s embrace of the practice. The national open notes program now has 7.2 million patient accounts in a country of 10 million people, noted Maria Häggland, PhD, of Uppsala (Sweden) MedTech Science Innovation Center during a webinar last year.
 

The start day will come, and you may not notice. 

“When April 5 happens, something brand new is going to happen symbolically,” Ms. Salmi said. Its importance is hard to measure.

“Patients say they trust their doctor more because they understand their thinking with open notes. How do you value that? We don’t have metrics for that,” she said.

Dr. MacDonald suggested that open notes are both new and not new. In the fall of 2020, he predicted that the launch day would come, and few clinicians would notice, in part because many patients already access truncated information via patient portals.

However, there are “sensitive issues,” such as with adolescents and reproductive health, where “we know that some parents have sign-in information for their teen’s portal,” he commented. With clinical notes now on full display, potential problems “may be out of our control.”

Still, the Sacramento-based physician and IT officer acknowledged that concerns about open notes may be a bit inflated. “I’ve been more worried about reassuring physicians that everything will be okay than what’s actually going to happen [as the law takes effect],” Dr. MacDonald said.

The OpenNotes organization is grant funded, and staff disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

April 5 is the official start date of a U.S. law requiring health care organizations to provide patients with free, full, and immediate electronic access to their doctor’s clinical notes as well as test results and reports from pathology and imaging.

The mandate, called “open notes” by many, is part of the 21st Century Cures Act, a wide-ranging piece of federal health care legislation. The previous deadline of Nov. 2, 2020, for enacting open notes was extended last year because of the exigencies of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Organizations must provide access via patient portals to the following types of notes: consultations, discharge summaries, histories, physical examination findings, imaging narratives, laboratory and pathology report narratives, and procedure and progress notes. Noncompliant organizations will eventually be subject to fines from the Department of Health & Human Services for “information blocking.”

This news organization reported on the mandate in 2020, and some readers said it was an unwelcome intrusion into practice. Since then, this news organization has run additional open notes stories about physician concerns, a perspective essay addressing those fears, and a reader poll about the phenomenon.

Now, as the legislation turns into a practical clinical matter, there are five key points clinicians should consider.
 

Clinicians don’t have to change writing style.

The new law mandates timely patient access to notes and test results, but it doesn’t require that clinicians alter their writing, said Scott MacDonald, MD, an internist and electronic health record medical director at University of California Davis Health in Sacramento.

“You don’t have to change your notes,” he said. However, patients are now part of the note audience and some health care systems are directing clinicians to make patient-friendly style changes.

Everyday experience should guide clinicians when writing notes, said one expert.

“When you’re not sure [of how to write a note], just mirror the way you would speak in the office – that’s going to get you right, including for mental health issues,” advised Leonor Fernandez, MD, an internist at Beth Deaconess Israel Medical Center, Boston, in her “take-away” comments in the online video, How to Write an Open Note.

According to a 2020 Medscape poll of 1,050 physicians, a majority (56%) anticipate that they will write notes differently, knowing that patients can read them via open notes. Nearly two-thirds (64%) believe that this new wrinkle in medical records will increase their workload. However, actual practice suggests that this is true for a minority of practitioners, according to the results from a recent study of more than 1,000 physicians in Boston, Seattle, and rural Pennsylvania, who already work in open notes settings. Only about one-third (37%) reported “spending more time on documentation.”

Note writing is going to change because of the addition of the patient reader, and something will be lost, argued Steven Reidbord, MD, a psychiatrist in private practice in San Francisco. By watering down the language for patients, “you are trading away the technical precision and other advantages of having a professional language,” commented Dr. Reidbord, who blogs for Psychology Today and has criticized the open notes movement in the past.

However, years of investigation from OpenNotes, the Boston-based advocacy and research organization, indicates that there are many gains with patient-accessible notes, including improved medical record accuracy, greater medication adherence, and potentially improved health care disparities among a range of patient types. In a 2019 study, researchers said that worry and confusion among note-reading patients are uncommon (5% and 3%, respectively), which addresses two criticisms voiced by multiple people last year.
 

Some clinical notes can be withheld. 

The new rules from the federal government permit information blocking if there is clear evidence that doing so “will substantially reduce the risk of harm” to patients or to other third parties, Tom Delbanco, MD, and Charlotte Blease, PhD, of OpenNotes in Boston wrote in a commentary in February 2021.

There are also state-level laws that can supersede the new U.S. law and block access to notes, points out MacDonald. For example, California law dictates that providers cannot post cancer test results without talking with the patient first.

The OpenNotes organization also points out that, with regard to sensitive psychotherapy notes that are separated from the rest of a medical record, those notes “can be kept from patients without their permission, and such rules vary state by state.”
 

Some patients are more likely readers. 

Some patients are more likely to peer into their files than others, said Liz Salmi, senior strategist at OpenNotes, who is also a brain cancer patient.

“Those patients who have more serious or chronic conditions ... are more likely to read their notes,” she said in an interview.

A new study of nearly 6,000 medical oncology patients at the University of Wisconsin confirmed that opinion. Patients with incurable metastatic disease were much more likely than those with early-stage, curable disease to read notes. Notably, younger patients were more likely than older ones to access notes, likely the result of generational tech savvy.

Despite the unpredictability of serious disease such as cancer, oncology patients find satisfaction in reading their notes, say experts. “We’ve overwhelmingly heard that patients like it,” Thomas LeBlanc, MD, medical oncologist at Duke University, Durham, N.C., where all patients already have access to clinicians’ notes, told this news organization in 2018.
 

You are part of the avant garde. 

The United States and Scandinavian countries are the world leaders in implementing open notes in clinical practice, Dr. Blease said in an interview.

“It’s a phenomenal achievement” to have enacted open notes nationally, she said. For example, there are no open notes in Northern Ireland, Dr. Blease’s home country, or most of Europe.

In the United States, there are more than 200 medical organizations, including at least one in every state, that were voluntarily providing open notes before April 5, including interstate giants such as Banner Health and big-name medical centers such as Cleveland Clinic.

It may be hard for the United States to top Sweden’s embrace of the practice. The national open notes program now has 7.2 million patient accounts in a country of 10 million people, noted Maria Häggland, PhD, of Uppsala (Sweden) MedTech Science Innovation Center during a webinar last year.
 

The start day will come, and you may not notice. 

“When April 5 happens, something brand new is going to happen symbolically,” Ms. Salmi said. Its importance is hard to measure.

“Patients say they trust their doctor more because they understand their thinking with open notes. How do you value that? We don’t have metrics for that,” she said.

Dr. MacDonald suggested that open notes are both new and not new. In the fall of 2020, he predicted that the launch day would come, and few clinicians would notice, in part because many patients already access truncated information via patient portals.

However, there are “sensitive issues,” such as with adolescents and reproductive health, where “we know that some parents have sign-in information for their teen’s portal,” he commented. With clinical notes now on full display, potential problems “may be out of our control.”

Still, the Sacramento-based physician and IT officer acknowledged that concerns about open notes may be a bit inflated. “I’ve been more worried about reassuring physicians that everything will be okay than what’s actually going to happen [as the law takes effect],” Dr. MacDonald said.

The OpenNotes organization is grant funded, and staff disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Significant survival gains were seen when the immune checkpoint inhibitor camrelizumab was added to standard chemotherapy for the first-line treatment of advanced squamous non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in a phase 3 trial conducted in China.

Results of the CAMEL-sq trial showed a progression-free survival (PFS) advantage of 3.6 months with camrelizumab plus chemotherapy, compared with chemotherapy plus placebo (P < .0001). The median overall survival (OS) was not reached in the camrelizumab arm, but it was significantly better than in the placebo arm (P < .0001).

Camrelizumab plus chemotherapy is already a standard of care in China for patients with advanced nonsquamous NSCLC who are negative for EGFR and ALK mutations, study investigator Caicun Zhou, MD, PhD, said when presenting the CAMEL-sq results at the European Lung Cancer Virtual Congress 2021 (Abstract 96O).

The CAMEL-sq findings now support the combination as a “standard first-line treatment for advanced squamous NSCLC,” said Dr. Zhou of Shanghai Pulmonary Hospital and Tongji University.

“The study has kind of changed our daily practice,” he said. “I do think we will have the label, camrelizumab plus chemo as first-line treatment for squamous [NSCLC] in China, maybe in a couple of months.”

“Camrelizumab will most likely be another brick in the wall for our Chinese patients and colleagues to use for patients with squamous histology, non–small cell lung cancer in addition to pembrolizumab,” said Julie Renee Brahmer, MD, of Johns Hopkins Medicine in Baltimore, who was the invited discussant for the trial.

Dr. Brahmer noted that the PFS hazard ratio in this trial – 0.37 – was “impressive.”
 

Patients and treatment

CAMEL-sq is a phase 3, double-blind, multicenter trial. The 390 patients enrolled had pathologically-confirmed stage IIIB or IV squamous NSCLC, and they had not received any prior treatment.

Patients received four to six cycles of chemotherapy, consisting of carboplatin and paclitaxel given every 3 weeks. Camrelizumab was added to one arm at a dose of 200 mg, and placebo was added to the other.

This was followed by a maintenance phase in which patients remained on active treatment with camrelizumab or placebo for up to 2 years. Patients in the placebo arm could cross over to camrelizumab at progression.

The median age of patients was similar in the camrelizumab and placebo arms (64 years and 62 years, respectively). The majority of study subjects in both arms were men (more than 90%), had a history of smoking (more than 80%), and had stage IV disease (more than 70%).
 

Efficacy and safety

The median PFS was 8.5 months in the camrelizumab arm and 4.9 months in the placebo arm (HR, 0.37; P < .0001). The median OS was not reached in the camrelizumab arm and was 14.5 months in the placebo arm (HR, 0.55, P < .0001).

The survival benefits were observed in spite of a crossover rate of 46.9%, Dr. Zhou noted.

Furthermore, survival benefits were consistent across all the subgroups tested. Regardless of age, sex, performance status, smoking history, disease stage, presence of liver or brain metastases, or PD-L1 expression, there was an apparent advantage of camrelizumab over placebo.

The objective response rate was higher in the camrelizumab arm than in the placebo arm, at 64.8% and 36.7%, respectively (P < .0001).

The clinical response seen with camrelizumab was “robust and durable,” Dr. Zhou said. Indeed, the duration of response was 13.1 months in the camrelizumab arm and 4.4 months in the placebo arm.

Grade 3/4 treatment-related adverse events (AEs) were reported in a similar percentage of camrelizumab- or placebo-treated patients (73.6% and 71.4%, respectively). However, “the majority of treatment-related adverse effects were chemotherapy related,” Dr. Zhou pointed out. This included decreased total white blood cell, neutrophil, red blood cell, and platelet counts as well as alopecia and increased liver enzymes.

Immune-related AEs occurred in 76.7% of patients in the camrelizumab arm and 20.4% of those in the placebo arm.

“The majority of immune-related adverse events were grade 1 or grade 2; easily manageable in our daily practice,” Dr. Zhou noted.
 

Putting CAMEL-sq into perspective

Data from other trials of immunotherapy-chemotherapy combinations in squamous NSCLC have been presented recently but with less impressive results, Dr. Brahmer said.

In one trial – ORIENT-12 – sintilimab was combined with gemcitabine and cisplatin (ESMO 2020, Abstract LBA56). The median PFS, per investigators, was 5.5 months with sintilimab and 4.9 months without it, both of which are lower than the 8.5 months seen with camrelizumab plus chemotherapy in the CAMEL-sq trial.

Another trial is KEYNOTE-407, in which patients received pembrolizumab or placebo plus a carboplatin-paclitaxel (or nab-paclitaxel) regimen. Three-year follow-up data from the trial were presented at ELCC 2021 (Abstract 97O). Continued improvements in second PFS (HR, 0.59) and OS (HR, 0.71) were observed with pembrolizumab-chemotherapy versus placebo-chemotherapy.

“We have to remember the high PD-L1-negative disease rate in the CAMEL-sq study, compared to the KEYNOTE-407 rate,” before stacking the two studies against each other, Dr. Brahmer noted. In KEYNOTE-407, almost 35% of patients had PD-L1 expression of less than 1%, compared with nearly 50% in the CAMEL-sq study.

That aside, “very similar impressive 1-year progression-free survival rates are seen on both studies,” Dr. Brahmer said. “I hope that camrelizumab has continued follow-up so we can see how these patients will do long-term.

“My eyebrows were raised a little bit at the camrelizumab immune-related AE rate of almost 76%, compared to the immune-related AE rate of about 36% in the KEYNOTE-407 study,” Dr. Brahmer said.

She noted, however, that almost two-thirds of the immune-related AEs in CAMEL-sq were due to reactive cutaneous capillary endothelial proliferation, which doesn’t appear to have been previously reported with PD-1 or PD-L1 inhibitors. This is a side effect seen in studies of liver cancer and may be linked to PFS, Dr. Brahmer said.

CAMEL-sq is funded by Jiangsu Hengrui Medicine Co. Ltd. Dr. Zhou disclosed honoraria from multiple pharmaceutical companies, including the study sponsor. Two of Dr. Zhou’s coauthors are employees of the company. Dr. Brahmer disclosed relationships with Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lily, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Sanofi, Easi, AstraZeneca, Genentech, Regeneron, and RAPT Therapeutics Inc.

Significant survival gains were seen when the immune checkpoint inhibitor camrelizumab was added to standard chemotherapy for the first-line treatment of advanced squamous non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in a phase 3 trial conducted in China.

Results of the CAMEL-sq trial showed a progression-free survival (PFS) advantage of 3.6 months with camrelizumab plus chemotherapy, compared with chemotherapy plus placebo (P < .0001). The median overall survival (OS) was not reached in the camrelizumab arm, but it was significantly better than in the placebo arm (P < .0001).

Camrelizumab plus chemotherapy is already a standard of care in China for patients with advanced nonsquamous NSCLC who are negative for EGFR and ALK mutations, study investigator Caicun Zhou, MD, PhD, said when presenting the CAMEL-sq results at the European Lung Cancer Virtual Congress 2021 (Abstract 96O).

The CAMEL-sq findings now support the combination as a “standard first-line treatment for advanced squamous NSCLC,” said Dr. Zhou of Shanghai Pulmonary Hospital and Tongji University.

“The study has kind of changed our daily practice,” he said. “I do think we will have the label, camrelizumab plus chemo as first-line treatment for squamous [NSCLC] in China, maybe in a couple of months.”

“Camrelizumab will most likely be another brick in the wall for our Chinese patients and colleagues to use for patients with squamous histology, non–small cell lung cancer in addition to pembrolizumab,” said Julie Renee Brahmer, MD, of Johns Hopkins Medicine in Baltimore, who was the invited discussant for the trial.

Dr. Brahmer noted that the PFS hazard ratio in this trial – 0.37 – was “impressive.”
 

Patients and treatment

CAMEL-sq is a phase 3, double-blind, multicenter trial. The 390 patients enrolled had pathologically-confirmed stage IIIB or IV squamous NSCLC, and they had not received any prior treatment.

Patients received four to six cycles of chemotherapy, consisting of carboplatin and paclitaxel given every 3 weeks. Camrelizumab was added to one arm at a dose of 200 mg, and placebo was added to the other.

This was followed by a maintenance phase in which patients remained on active treatment with camrelizumab or placebo for up to 2 years. Patients in the placebo arm could cross over to camrelizumab at progression.

The median age of patients was similar in the camrelizumab and placebo arms (64 years and 62 years, respectively). The majority of study subjects in both arms were men (more than 90%), had a history of smoking (more than 80%), and had stage IV disease (more than 70%).
 

Efficacy and safety

The median PFS was 8.5 months in the camrelizumab arm and 4.9 months in the placebo arm (HR, 0.37; P < .0001). The median OS was not reached in the camrelizumab arm and was 14.5 months in the placebo arm (HR, 0.55, P < .0001).

The survival benefits were observed in spite of a crossover rate of 46.9%, Dr. Zhou noted.

Furthermore, survival benefits were consistent across all the subgroups tested. Regardless of age, sex, performance status, smoking history, disease stage, presence of liver or brain metastases, or PD-L1 expression, there was an apparent advantage of camrelizumab over placebo.

The objective response rate was higher in the camrelizumab arm than in the placebo arm, at 64.8% and 36.7%, respectively (P < .0001).

The clinical response seen with camrelizumab was “robust and durable,” Dr. Zhou said. Indeed, the duration of response was 13.1 months in the camrelizumab arm and 4.4 months in the placebo arm.

Grade 3/4 treatment-related adverse events (AEs) were reported in a similar percentage of camrelizumab- or placebo-treated patients (73.6% and 71.4%, respectively). However, “the majority of treatment-related adverse effects were chemotherapy related,” Dr. Zhou pointed out. This included decreased total white blood cell, neutrophil, red blood cell, and platelet counts as well as alopecia and increased liver enzymes.

Immune-related AEs occurred in 76.7% of patients in the camrelizumab arm and 20.4% of those in the placebo arm.

“The majority of immune-related adverse events were grade 1 or grade 2; easily manageable in our daily practice,” Dr. Zhou noted.
 

Putting CAMEL-sq into perspective

Data from other trials of immunotherapy-chemotherapy combinations in squamous NSCLC have been presented recently but with less impressive results, Dr. Brahmer said.

In one trial – ORIENT-12 – sintilimab was combined with gemcitabine and cisplatin (ESMO 2020, Abstract LBA56). The median PFS, per investigators, was 5.5 months with sintilimab and 4.9 months without it, both of which are lower than the 8.5 months seen with camrelizumab plus chemotherapy in the CAMEL-sq trial.

Another trial is KEYNOTE-407, in which patients received pembrolizumab or placebo plus a carboplatin-paclitaxel (or nab-paclitaxel) regimen. Three-year follow-up data from the trial were presented at ELCC 2021 (Abstract 97O). Continued improvements in second PFS (HR, 0.59) and OS (HR, 0.71) were observed with pembrolizumab-chemotherapy versus placebo-chemotherapy.

“We have to remember the high PD-L1-negative disease rate in the CAMEL-sq study, compared to the KEYNOTE-407 rate,” before stacking the two studies against each other, Dr. Brahmer noted. In KEYNOTE-407, almost 35% of patients had PD-L1 expression of less than 1%, compared with nearly 50% in the CAMEL-sq study.

That aside, “very similar impressive 1-year progression-free survival rates are seen on both studies,” Dr. Brahmer said. “I hope that camrelizumab has continued follow-up so we can see how these patients will do long-term.

“My eyebrows were raised a little bit at the camrelizumab immune-related AE rate of almost 76%, compared to the immune-related AE rate of about 36% in the KEYNOTE-407 study,” Dr. Brahmer said.

She noted, however, that almost two-thirds of the immune-related AEs in CAMEL-sq were due to reactive cutaneous capillary endothelial proliferation, which doesn’t appear to have been previously reported with PD-1 or PD-L1 inhibitors. This is a side effect seen in studies of liver cancer and may be linked to PFS, Dr. Brahmer said.

CAMEL-sq is funded by Jiangsu Hengrui Medicine Co. Ltd. Dr. Zhou disclosed honoraria from multiple pharmaceutical companies, including the study sponsor. Two of Dr. Zhou’s coauthors are employees of the company. Dr. Brahmer disclosed relationships with Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lily, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Sanofi, Easi, AstraZeneca, Genentech, Regeneron, and RAPT Therapeutics Inc.

Significant survival gains were seen when the immune checkpoint inhibitor camrelizumab was added to standard chemotherapy for the first-line treatment of advanced squamous non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in a phase 3 trial conducted in China.

Results of the CAMEL-sq trial showed a progression-free survival (PFS) advantage of 3.6 months with camrelizumab plus chemotherapy, compared with chemotherapy plus placebo (P < .0001). The median overall survival (OS) was not reached in the camrelizumab arm, but it was significantly better than in the placebo arm (P < .0001).

Camrelizumab plus chemotherapy is already a standard of care in China for patients with advanced nonsquamous NSCLC who are negative for EGFR and ALK mutations, study investigator Caicun Zhou, MD, PhD, said when presenting the CAMEL-sq results at the European Lung Cancer Virtual Congress 2021 (Abstract 96O).

The CAMEL-sq findings now support the combination as a “standard first-line treatment for advanced squamous NSCLC,” said Dr. Zhou of Shanghai Pulmonary Hospital and Tongji University.

“The study has kind of changed our daily practice,” he said. “I do think we will have the label, camrelizumab plus chemo as first-line treatment for squamous [NSCLC] in China, maybe in a couple of months.”

“Camrelizumab will most likely be another brick in the wall for our Chinese patients and colleagues to use for patients with squamous histology, non–small cell lung cancer in addition to pembrolizumab,” said Julie Renee Brahmer, MD, of Johns Hopkins Medicine in Baltimore, who was the invited discussant for the trial.

Dr. Brahmer noted that the PFS hazard ratio in this trial – 0.37 – was “impressive.”
 

Patients and treatment

CAMEL-sq is a phase 3, double-blind, multicenter trial. The 390 patients enrolled had pathologically-confirmed stage IIIB or IV squamous NSCLC, and they had not received any prior treatment.

Patients received four to six cycles of chemotherapy, consisting of carboplatin and paclitaxel given every 3 weeks. Camrelizumab was added to one arm at a dose of 200 mg, and placebo was added to the other.

This was followed by a maintenance phase in which patients remained on active treatment with camrelizumab or placebo for up to 2 years. Patients in the placebo arm could cross over to camrelizumab at progression.

The median age of patients was similar in the camrelizumab and placebo arms (64 years and 62 years, respectively). The majority of study subjects in both arms were men (more than 90%), had a history of smoking (more than 80%), and had stage IV disease (more than 70%).
 

Efficacy and safety

The median PFS was 8.5 months in the camrelizumab arm and 4.9 months in the placebo arm (HR, 0.37; P < .0001). The median OS was not reached in the camrelizumab arm and was 14.5 months in the placebo arm (HR, 0.55, P < .0001).

The survival benefits were observed in spite of a crossover rate of 46.9%, Dr. Zhou noted.

Furthermore, survival benefits were consistent across all the subgroups tested. Regardless of age, sex, performance status, smoking history, disease stage, presence of liver or brain metastases, or PD-L1 expression, there was an apparent advantage of camrelizumab over placebo.

The objective response rate was higher in the camrelizumab arm than in the placebo arm, at 64.8% and 36.7%, respectively (P < .0001).

The clinical response seen with camrelizumab was “robust and durable,” Dr. Zhou said. Indeed, the duration of response was 13.1 months in the camrelizumab arm and 4.4 months in the placebo arm.

Grade 3/4 treatment-related adverse events (AEs) were reported in a similar percentage of camrelizumab- or placebo-treated patients (73.6% and 71.4%, respectively). However, “the majority of treatment-related adverse effects were chemotherapy related,” Dr. Zhou pointed out. This included decreased total white blood cell, neutrophil, red blood cell, and platelet counts as well as alopecia and increased liver enzymes.

Immune-related AEs occurred in 76.7% of patients in the camrelizumab arm and 20.4% of those in the placebo arm.

“The majority of immune-related adverse events were grade 1 or grade 2; easily manageable in our daily practice,” Dr. Zhou noted.
 

Putting CAMEL-sq into perspective

Data from other trials of immunotherapy-chemotherapy combinations in squamous NSCLC have been presented recently but with less impressive results, Dr. Brahmer said.

In one trial – ORIENT-12 – sintilimab was combined with gemcitabine and cisplatin (ESMO 2020, Abstract LBA56). The median PFS, per investigators, was 5.5 months with sintilimab and 4.9 months without it, both of which are lower than the 8.5 months seen with camrelizumab plus chemotherapy in the CAMEL-sq trial.

Another trial is KEYNOTE-407, in which patients received pembrolizumab or placebo plus a carboplatin-paclitaxel (or nab-paclitaxel) regimen. Three-year follow-up data from the trial were presented at ELCC 2021 (Abstract 97O). Continued improvements in second PFS (HR, 0.59) and OS (HR, 0.71) were observed with pembrolizumab-chemotherapy versus placebo-chemotherapy.

“We have to remember the high PD-L1-negative disease rate in the CAMEL-sq study, compared to the KEYNOTE-407 rate,” before stacking the two studies against each other, Dr. Brahmer noted. In KEYNOTE-407, almost 35% of patients had PD-L1 expression of less than 1%, compared with nearly 50% in the CAMEL-sq study.

That aside, “very similar impressive 1-year progression-free survival rates are seen on both studies,” Dr. Brahmer said. “I hope that camrelizumab has continued follow-up so we can see how these patients will do long-term.

“My eyebrows were raised a little bit at the camrelizumab immune-related AE rate of almost 76%, compared to the immune-related AE rate of about 36% in the KEYNOTE-407 study,” Dr. Brahmer said.

She noted, however, that almost two-thirds of the immune-related AEs in CAMEL-sq were due to reactive cutaneous capillary endothelial proliferation, which doesn’t appear to have been previously reported with PD-1 or PD-L1 inhibitors. This is a side effect seen in studies of liver cancer and may be linked to PFS, Dr. Brahmer said.

CAMEL-sq is funded by Jiangsu Hengrui Medicine Co. Ltd. Dr. Zhou disclosed honoraria from multiple pharmaceutical companies, including the study sponsor. Two of Dr. Zhou’s coauthors are employees of the company. Dr. Brahmer disclosed relationships with Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lily, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Sanofi, Easi, AstraZeneca, Genentech, Regeneron, and RAPT Therapeutics Inc.

Judicious organ matching for older liver transplant candidates with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) leads to survival outcomes similar to those in younger recipients, a case review suggests.

Overall survival (OS) rates among transplant recipients included in a prospective institutional database were 85.5% and 84% at 3 years after liver transplant in patients aged 65 years and under and those over 65 years, respectively. The 5-year survival rates were 73.9% and 77%, respectively (P = .26), Ola Ahmed, MD, of the department of abdominal organ transplantation surgery at Washington University, St. Louis, and colleagues found.

The investigators looked at 1,629 patients diagnosed with HCC between Jan. 1, 2002, and Dec. 31, 2019 of whom 700 were considered for curative surgery, including transplant in 538, and resection in 162.

The patients had a mean age of 62.8 years. Those older than 65 years were less likely to be considered or listed for transplant (27% vs. 73%, P < .01), although oncologic staging and delisting rates were similar in both groups. “This observation still holds true after controlling for other variables, including viral hepatitis and gender in the multivariable analysis (adjusted odds ratio, 0.365),” the investigators reported in the Journal of the American College of Surgeons.

The findings were also reported at the 2020 virtual Western Surgical Association 128th Scientific Session in November.
 

The issue of resection

Surgical intervention occurred in 597 patients, including 392 and 205 aged 65 years and younger and over 65 years, respectively.

OS was lower among patients who underwent resection, compared with the liver transplant recipients, but was similar in the older and younger age groups (3-year OS, 59% vs. 64.8% and 5-year OS, 44.8% vs. 49%; P = .13). No differences were noted in the development of local or distant metastatic disease after transplant or resection.

The two age groups had comparable ICU stays (2 days) and total hospital length of stay (6 days). There were no differences in 30- and 90-day hospital readmissions, they noted.

“On additional age analysis, 65% of transplanted patients over 65 years are currently alive and were disease free at the end of the study period, compared to only 18% of their resected counterparts (P < .01),” they wrote.

Justifying transplant

The findings are notable because despite the effectiveness of transplant as an alternative treatment for unresectable HCC, older patients are often excluded from consideration for transplant. Most studies over the past 15 years have focused on patients aged under 60 years and the ability to extrapolate results to older patients has been limited. Further, results have been conflicting in older patients, the authors explained.

“This is particularly apposite at this time with prolonged life expectancy and the growing interest in improving cancer survivorship,” they noted, adding that “there is logic in challenging existing gold standards and traditional norms with real-life medical practice.

Indeed, the current findings suggest – perhaps contrary to common perceptions – that transplant in carefully selected patients “can be justified in older age groups and provide clinically meaningful and longer survival benefits,” they said, adding that “discussions should be guided by the potential for unfair age discriminations and precise terminology of physiologic rather than actual age.

“Such insights highlight the continued need for quality improvement in the surgical management of older patients, raising questions regarding current resource utilization among different age groups and how age can influence patterns of cancer care,” they concluded.

The authors reported having no disclosures.

[email protected]

Judicious organ matching for older liver transplant candidates with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) leads to survival outcomes similar to those in younger recipients, a case review suggests.

Overall survival (OS) rates among transplant recipients included in a prospective institutional database were 85.5% and 84% at 3 years after liver transplant in patients aged 65 years and under and those over 65 years, respectively. The 5-year survival rates were 73.9% and 77%, respectively (P = .26), Ola Ahmed, MD, of the department of abdominal organ transplantation surgery at Washington University, St. Louis, and colleagues found.

The investigators looked at 1,629 patients diagnosed with HCC between Jan. 1, 2002, and Dec. 31, 2019 of whom 700 were considered for curative surgery, including transplant in 538, and resection in 162.

The patients had a mean age of 62.8 years. Those older than 65 years were less likely to be considered or listed for transplant (27% vs. 73%, P < .01), although oncologic staging and delisting rates were similar in both groups. “This observation still holds true after controlling for other variables, including viral hepatitis and gender in the multivariable analysis (adjusted odds ratio, 0.365),” the investigators reported in the Journal of the American College of Surgeons.

The findings were also reported at the 2020 virtual Western Surgical Association 128th Scientific Session in November.
 

The issue of resection

Surgical intervention occurred in 597 patients, including 392 and 205 aged 65 years and younger and over 65 years, respectively.

OS was lower among patients who underwent resection, compared with the liver transplant recipients, but was similar in the older and younger age groups (3-year OS, 59% vs. 64.8% and 5-year OS, 44.8% vs. 49%; P = .13). No differences were noted in the development of local or distant metastatic disease after transplant or resection.

The two age groups had comparable ICU stays (2 days) and total hospital length of stay (6 days). There were no differences in 30- and 90-day hospital readmissions, they noted.

“On additional age analysis, 65% of transplanted patients over 65 years are currently alive and were disease free at the end of the study period, compared to only 18% of their resected counterparts (P < .01),” they wrote.

Justifying transplant

The findings are notable because despite the effectiveness of transplant as an alternative treatment for unresectable HCC, older patients are often excluded from consideration for transplant. Most studies over the past 15 years have focused on patients aged under 60 years and the ability to extrapolate results to older patients has been limited. Further, results have been conflicting in older patients, the authors explained.

“This is particularly apposite at this time with prolonged life expectancy and the growing interest in improving cancer survivorship,” they noted, adding that “there is logic in challenging existing gold standards and traditional norms with real-life medical practice.

Indeed, the current findings suggest – perhaps contrary to common perceptions – that transplant in carefully selected patients “can be justified in older age groups and provide clinically meaningful and longer survival benefits,” they said, adding that “discussions should be guided by the potential for unfair age discriminations and precise terminology of physiologic rather than actual age.

“Such insights highlight the continued need for quality improvement in the surgical management of older patients, raising questions regarding current resource utilization among different age groups and how age can influence patterns of cancer care,” they concluded.

The authors reported having no disclosures.

[email protected]

Judicious organ matching for older liver transplant candidates with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) leads to survival outcomes similar to those in younger recipients, a case review suggests.

Overall survival (OS) rates among transplant recipients included in a prospective institutional database were 85.5% and 84% at 3 years after liver transplant in patients aged 65 years and under and those over 65 years, respectively. The 5-year survival rates were 73.9% and 77%, respectively (P = .26), Ola Ahmed, MD, of the department of abdominal organ transplantation surgery at Washington University, St. Louis, and colleagues found.

The investigators looked at 1,629 patients diagnosed with HCC between Jan. 1, 2002, and Dec. 31, 2019 of whom 700 were considered for curative surgery, including transplant in 538, and resection in 162.

The patients had a mean age of 62.8 years. Those older than 65 years were less likely to be considered or listed for transplant (27% vs. 73%, P < .01), although oncologic staging and delisting rates were similar in both groups. “This observation still holds true after controlling for other variables, including viral hepatitis and gender in the multivariable analysis (adjusted odds ratio, 0.365),” the investigators reported in the Journal of the American College of Surgeons.

The findings were also reported at the 2020 virtual Western Surgical Association 128th Scientific Session in November.
 

The issue of resection

Surgical intervention occurred in 597 patients, including 392 and 205 aged 65 years and younger and over 65 years, respectively.

OS was lower among patients who underwent resection, compared with the liver transplant recipients, but was similar in the older and younger age groups (3-year OS, 59% vs. 64.8% and 5-year OS, 44.8% vs. 49%; P = .13). No differences were noted in the development of local or distant metastatic disease after transplant or resection.

The two age groups had comparable ICU stays (2 days) and total hospital length of stay (6 days). There were no differences in 30- and 90-day hospital readmissions, they noted.

“On additional age analysis, 65% of transplanted patients over 65 years are currently alive and were disease free at the end of the study period, compared to only 18% of their resected counterparts (P < .01),” they wrote.

Justifying transplant

The findings are notable because despite the effectiveness of transplant as an alternative treatment for unresectable HCC, older patients are often excluded from consideration for transplant. Most studies over the past 15 years have focused on patients aged under 60 years and the ability to extrapolate results to older patients has been limited. Further, results have been conflicting in older patients, the authors explained.

“This is particularly apposite at this time with prolonged life expectancy and the growing interest in improving cancer survivorship,” they noted, adding that “there is logic in challenging existing gold standards and traditional norms with real-life medical practice.

Indeed, the current findings suggest – perhaps contrary to common perceptions – that transplant in carefully selected patients “can be justified in older age groups and provide clinically meaningful and longer survival benefits,” they said, adding that “discussions should be guided by the potential for unfair age discriminations and precise terminology of physiologic rather than actual age.

“Such insights highlight the continued need for quality improvement in the surgical management of older patients, raising questions regarding current resource utilization among different age groups and how age can influence patterns of cancer care,” they concluded.

The authors reported having no disclosures.

[email protected]

For select older patients, it is safe to switch to a lower dose of lenalidomide maintenance therapy and discontinue dexamethasone after 9 months. The regimen is safe and yields outcomes similar to those of standard, continuous lenalidomide/dexamethasone (Rd), according to new findings.

At a median follow-up of 37 months, event-free survival was 10.4 months in the experimental arm in which dexamethasone therapy was stopped (Rd-R) versus 6.9 months for standard therapy. The tailored approach also resulted in fewer adverse effects.

The authors noted that there was no difference in progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival between the two groups.

“These results may be useful for the treatment of myeloma patients, since approximately one-third of patients not eligible for stem cell transplantation are intermediate fit, the population in our study,” said lead author Alessandra Larocca, MD, PhD, from the department of hematology-oncology of the University Hospital Città della Salute e della Scienza, Torino, Italy.

She said in an interview that they expect that these findings “may help to optimize the treatment of less-fit elderly patients by reducing the occurrence of adverse events and thus improving outcomes and preserving quality of life of these patients.”

This approach is a viable option for clinicians to consider for some patient subgroups. “This steroid-sparing approach can also be used in other combinations,” she said. “Ongoing trials are now evaluating steroid sparing in combination with monoclonal antibodies or the role of frailty-guided treatment.”

The study was published March 19, 2021, in Blood.
 

Curtailing steroids

Myeloma patients aged 75 years or older or who have comorbidities and functional impairments are an understudied population. They are more susceptible to adverse events that may negatively affect the duration of treatment and outcomes. Steroids are “scarcely tolerated” in the long term, even among younger patients, and “whether sparing dexamethasone is as effective as prolonged steroid exposure remains an open issue,” the authors wrote. There are still no clear data on the advantage of continuous steroid treatment as opposed to fixed-duration treatment for newly diagnosed patients.

In 2010, a study compared high-dose with low-dose dexamethasone. As expected, the rate of adverse events was lower among patients who received the low-dose steroid, but quite unexpectedly, deaths with high-dose dexamethasone were significantly higher than with low-dose dexamethasone.

The 1-year overall survival was 96% among patients who received the low dose of dexamethasone versus 87% with the standard high dose.

S. Vincent Rajkumar, MD, of the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., who was the lead author of the 2010 study, spoke with this new organization about the current study. “This is an important and practice-changing study,” he said. “We have already changed our practice and recommendations based on this study.”

He explained that, for transplant-ineligible patients, instead of initial therapy with bortezomib-lenalidomide-dexamethasone followed by Rd, they use lenalidomide alone without steroids.

“After 9 months of initial therapy, I now recommend we stop dexamethasone unless we are having problems controlling the myeloma, such as progressive disease,” Dr. Rajkumar said. “I congratulate the authors on a study that will improve the quality of life for our patients.”
 

Improved event-free survival

In this study, Dr. Larocca and colleagues investigated the efficacy and feasibility of a dose- and schedule-adjusted Rd regimen that was followed by maintenance Rd-R 10 mg/d and compared the regimen with continuous Rd in elderly, intermediate-fit patients who were newly diagnosed with multiple myeloma.

The primary endpoint was event-free survival, defined as progression/death from any cause, lenalidomide discontinuation, and any hematologic grade 4 or nonhematologic grade 3-4 adverse events.

The cohort consisted of 199 patients who were randomly assigned to receive either Rd-R (n = 101) or continuous Rd (n = 98). The median age was 75 years in the Rd-R arm and 76 years in the Rd arm; 52% of patients in the Rd-R group and 43% in the Rd group were classified as being intermediate fit not for age but for geriatric impairments.

With a median follow-up of 37 months, event-free survival was 10.4 months in the Rd-R arm versus 6.9 months in the Rd arm (hazard ratio, 0.70; P = .02). This benefit was maintained beyond nine cycles (median: 19.8 vs. 10.6 months for Rd-R vs. Rd; HR, 0.55; P = .03)

The median PFS was 20.2 months with Rd-R and 18.3 months with Rd (HR, 0.78; P = .16). The median overall survival was not reached. The 3-year overall survival was 74% with Rd-R and 63% with continuous Rd (HR, 0.62; P = .06). Among patients remaining on therapy after nine cycles, no difference in median PFS was observed between the two groups (24.3 vs. 18.7 months; HR, 0.73; P = .19).

Best response was similar for both groups, with an overall response rate of 78% versus 68% (P = .15). The very good partial response rate was 51% in the Rd-R arm versus 39% in the continuous Rd arm (P = .09).

Toxicities were similar between the two groups. Hematologic adverse events of at least grade 3 were reported in 26% of Rd-R patients versus 20% of Rd patients (P = .40). In both groups, the most frequent grade ≥3 hematologic toxicity was neutropenia (21% vs 18%). The most frequent grade ≥3 toxicities were nonhematologic. They occurred in 33% of Rd-R patients and 43% of Rd patients (P = .15). The most frequent nonhematologic toxicities were infections (10% vs. 12%), constitutional (3% vs. 12%), dermatologic (7% vs. 3%), and central nervous toxicities (2% vs. 6%).

The study was sponsored by Fondazione EMN Italy Onlus. Dr. Larocca has received honoraria from Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen, and GlaxoSmithKline, and has served on the advisory boards for Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen, and Takeda. Several coauthors also have disclosed relationships with industry. Dr. Rajkumar disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

For select older patients, it is safe to switch to a lower dose of lenalidomide maintenance therapy and discontinue dexamethasone after 9 months. The regimen is safe and yields outcomes similar to those of standard, continuous lenalidomide/dexamethasone (Rd), according to new findings.

At a median follow-up of 37 months, event-free survival was 10.4 months in the experimental arm in which dexamethasone therapy was stopped (Rd-R) versus 6.9 months for standard therapy. The tailored approach also resulted in fewer adverse effects.

The authors noted that there was no difference in progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival between the two groups.

“These results may be useful for the treatment of myeloma patients, since approximately one-third of patients not eligible for stem cell transplantation are intermediate fit, the population in our study,” said lead author Alessandra Larocca, MD, PhD, from the department of hematology-oncology of the University Hospital Città della Salute e della Scienza, Torino, Italy.

She said in an interview that they expect that these findings “may help to optimize the treatment of less-fit elderly patients by reducing the occurrence of adverse events and thus improving outcomes and preserving quality of life of these patients.”

This approach is a viable option for clinicians to consider for some patient subgroups. “This steroid-sparing approach can also be used in other combinations,” she said. “Ongoing trials are now evaluating steroid sparing in combination with monoclonal antibodies or the role of frailty-guided treatment.”

The study was published March 19, 2021, in Blood.
 

Curtailing steroids

Myeloma patients aged 75 years or older or who have comorbidities and functional impairments are an understudied population. They are more susceptible to adverse events that may negatively affect the duration of treatment and outcomes. Steroids are “scarcely tolerated” in the long term, even among younger patients, and “whether sparing dexamethasone is as effective as prolonged steroid exposure remains an open issue,” the authors wrote. There are still no clear data on the advantage of continuous steroid treatment as opposed to fixed-duration treatment for newly diagnosed patients.

In 2010, a study compared high-dose with low-dose dexamethasone. As expected, the rate of adverse events was lower among patients who received the low-dose steroid, but quite unexpectedly, deaths with high-dose dexamethasone were significantly higher than with low-dose dexamethasone.

The 1-year overall survival was 96% among patients who received the low dose of dexamethasone versus 87% with the standard high dose.

S. Vincent Rajkumar, MD, of the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., who was the lead author of the 2010 study, spoke with this new organization about the current study. “This is an important and practice-changing study,” he said. “We have already changed our practice and recommendations based on this study.”

He explained that, for transplant-ineligible patients, instead of initial therapy with bortezomib-lenalidomide-dexamethasone followed by Rd, they use lenalidomide alone without steroids.

“After 9 months of initial therapy, I now recommend we stop dexamethasone unless we are having problems controlling the myeloma, such as progressive disease,” Dr. Rajkumar said. “I congratulate the authors on a study that will improve the quality of life for our patients.”
 

Improved event-free survival

In this study, Dr. Larocca and colleagues investigated the efficacy and feasibility of a dose- and schedule-adjusted Rd regimen that was followed by maintenance Rd-R 10 mg/d and compared the regimen with continuous Rd in elderly, intermediate-fit patients who were newly diagnosed with multiple myeloma.

The primary endpoint was event-free survival, defined as progression/death from any cause, lenalidomide discontinuation, and any hematologic grade 4 or nonhematologic grade 3-4 adverse events.

The cohort consisted of 199 patients who were randomly assigned to receive either Rd-R (n = 101) or continuous Rd (n = 98). The median age was 75 years in the Rd-R arm and 76 years in the Rd arm; 52% of patients in the Rd-R group and 43% in the Rd group were classified as being intermediate fit not for age but for geriatric impairments.

With a median follow-up of 37 months, event-free survival was 10.4 months in the Rd-R arm versus 6.9 months in the Rd arm (hazard ratio, 0.70; P = .02). This benefit was maintained beyond nine cycles (median: 19.8 vs. 10.6 months for Rd-R vs. Rd; HR, 0.55; P = .03)

The median PFS was 20.2 months with Rd-R and 18.3 months with Rd (HR, 0.78; P = .16). The median overall survival was not reached. The 3-year overall survival was 74% with Rd-R and 63% with continuous Rd (HR, 0.62; P = .06). Among patients remaining on therapy after nine cycles, no difference in median PFS was observed between the two groups (24.3 vs. 18.7 months; HR, 0.73; P = .19).

Best response was similar for both groups, with an overall response rate of 78% versus 68% (P = .15). The very good partial response rate was 51% in the Rd-R arm versus 39% in the continuous Rd arm (P = .09).

Toxicities were similar between the two groups. Hematologic adverse events of at least grade 3 were reported in 26% of Rd-R patients versus 20% of Rd patients (P = .40). In both groups, the most frequent grade ≥3 hematologic toxicity was neutropenia (21% vs 18%). The most frequent grade ≥3 toxicities were nonhematologic. They occurred in 33% of Rd-R patients and 43% of Rd patients (P = .15). The most frequent nonhematologic toxicities were infections (10% vs. 12%), constitutional (3% vs. 12%), dermatologic (7% vs. 3%), and central nervous toxicities (2% vs. 6%).

The study was sponsored by Fondazione EMN Italy Onlus. Dr. Larocca has received honoraria from Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen, and GlaxoSmithKline, and has served on the advisory boards for Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen, and Takeda. Several coauthors also have disclosed relationships with industry. Dr. Rajkumar disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

For select older patients, it is safe to switch to a lower dose of lenalidomide maintenance therapy and discontinue dexamethasone after 9 months. The regimen is safe and yields outcomes similar to those of standard, continuous lenalidomide/dexamethasone (Rd), according to new findings.

At a median follow-up of 37 months, event-free survival was 10.4 months in the experimental arm in which dexamethasone therapy was stopped (Rd-R) versus 6.9 months for standard therapy. The tailored approach also resulted in fewer adverse effects.

The authors noted that there was no difference in progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival between the two groups.

“These results may be useful for the treatment of myeloma patients, since approximately one-third of patients not eligible for stem cell transplantation are intermediate fit, the population in our study,” said lead author Alessandra Larocca, MD, PhD, from the department of hematology-oncology of the University Hospital Città della Salute e della Scienza, Torino, Italy.

She said in an interview that they expect that these findings “may help to optimize the treatment of less-fit elderly patients by reducing the occurrence of adverse events and thus improving outcomes and preserving quality of life of these patients.”

This approach is a viable option for clinicians to consider for some patient subgroups. “This steroid-sparing approach can also be used in other combinations,” she said. “Ongoing trials are now evaluating steroid sparing in combination with monoclonal antibodies or the role of frailty-guided treatment.”

The study was published March 19, 2021, in Blood.
 

Curtailing steroids

Myeloma patients aged 75 years or older or who have comorbidities and functional impairments are an understudied population. They are more susceptible to adverse events that may negatively affect the duration of treatment and outcomes. Steroids are “scarcely tolerated” in the long term, even among younger patients, and “whether sparing dexamethasone is as effective as prolonged steroid exposure remains an open issue,” the authors wrote. There are still no clear data on the advantage of continuous steroid treatment as opposed to fixed-duration treatment for newly diagnosed patients.

In 2010, a study compared high-dose with low-dose dexamethasone. As expected, the rate of adverse events was lower among patients who received the low-dose steroid, but quite unexpectedly, deaths with high-dose dexamethasone were significantly higher than with low-dose dexamethasone.

The 1-year overall survival was 96% among patients who received the low dose of dexamethasone versus 87% with the standard high dose.

S. Vincent Rajkumar, MD, of the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., who was the lead author of the 2010 study, spoke with this new organization about the current study. “This is an important and practice-changing study,” he said. “We have already changed our practice and recommendations based on this study.”

He explained that, for transplant-ineligible patients, instead of initial therapy with bortezomib-lenalidomide-dexamethasone followed by Rd, they use lenalidomide alone without steroids.

“After 9 months of initial therapy, I now recommend we stop dexamethasone unless we are having problems controlling the myeloma, such as progressive disease,” Dr. Rajkumar said. “I congratulate the authors on a study that will improve the quality of life for our patients.”
 

Improved event-free survival

In this study, Dr. Larocca and colleagues investigated the efficacy and feasibility of a dose- and schedule-adjusted Rd regimen that was followed by maintenance Rd-R 10 mg/d and compared the regimen with continuous Rd in elderly, intermediate-fit patients who were newly diagnosed with multiple myeloma.

The primary endpoint was event-free survival, defined as progression/death from any cause, lenalidomide discontinuation, and any hematologic grade 4 or nonhematologic grade 3-4 adverse events.

The cohort consisted of 199 patients who were randomly assigned to receive either Rd-R (n = 101) or continuous Rd (n = 98). The median age was 75 years in the Rd-R arm and 76 years in the Rd arm; 52% of patients in the Rd-R group and 43% in the Rd group were classified as being intermediate fit not for age but for geriatric impairments.

With a median follow-up of 37 months, event-free survival was 10.4 months in the Rd-R arm versus 6.9 months in the Rd arm (hazard ratio, 0.70; P = .02). This benefit was maintained beyond nine cycles (median: 19.8 vs. 10.6 months for Rd-R vs. Rd; HR, 0.55; P = .03)

The median PFS was 20.2 months with Rd-R and 18.3 months with Rd (HR, 0.78; P = .16). The median overall survival was not reached. The 3-year overall survival was 74% with Rd-R and 63% with continuous Rd (HR, 0.62; P = .06). Among patients remaining on therapy after nine cycles, no difference in median PFS was observed between the two groups (24.3 vs. 18.7 months; HR, 0.73; P = .19).

Best response was similar for both groups, with an overall response rate of 78% versus 68% (P = .15). The very good partial response rate was 51% in the Rd-R arm versus 39% in the continuous Rd arm (P = .09).

Toxicities were similar between the two groups. Hematologic adverse events of at least grade 3 were reported in 26% of Rd-R patients versus 20% of Rd patients (P = .40). In both groups, the most frequent grade ≥3 hematologic toxicity was neutropenia (21% vs 18%). The most frequent grade ≥3 toxicities were nonhematologic. They occurred in 33% of Rd-R patients and 43% of Rd patients (P = .15). The most frequent nonhematologic toxicities were infections (10% vs. 12%), constitutional (3% vs. 12%), dermatologic (7% vs. 3%), and central nervous toxicities (2% vs. 6%).

The study was sponsored by Fondazione EMN Italy Onlus. Dr. Larocca has received honoraria from Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen, and GlaxoSmithKline, and has served on the advisory boards for Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen, and Takeda. Several coauthors also have disclosed relationships with industry. Dr. Rajkumar disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Hematology-oncology patients who receive treatment in the intensive care unit often develop delirium, and according to new findings, mechanical ventilation, high-dose corticosteroid use, and brain metastases were identified as independent risk factors.

Roughly half of all hematology-oncology patients who were admitted to the ICU experienced delirium, explained lead author Rachel Klosko, PharmD, PGY-2 cardiology pharmacy resident at the Ohio State University, Columbus.

“Delirium was associated with increased mortality, an increase in hospital length of stay, and increased length of stay in the ICU,” she said.

Dr. Klosko presented the study results at the at the Critical Care Congress sponsored by the Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM), which was held virtually this year.

Delirium is an acute and fluctuating disturbance of consciousness and cognition and fluctuates in severity. Critically ill patients are subject to numerous risk factors for delirium. “It can occur in independently of any known neurological disorder,” said Dr. Klosko, adding that its occurrence has been associated with poorer outcomes in ICU patients.

In this study, Dr. Klosko and colleagues sought to determine the incidence of delirium in cancer patients who were admitted to the ICU, as well as identify the associated risk factors and recognize potential consequences of the development of delirium in this patient population.

They conducted a single center, retrospective, cohort study that evaluated patients between the ages of 18 and 89 years who were admitted to the hematology-oncology medical or surgical ICU between July 1, 2018, and June 30, 2019.

The study’s primary endpoint was the incidence of delirium within 7 days of ICU admission, defined as two positive Confusion Assessment Method for the ICU (CAM-ICU) assessments within 24 hours. Patients identified with delirium were compared to those without it, for the evaluation of secondary endpoints that included hospital mortality and ICU and hospital length of stay. The researchers also sought to identify independent risk factors for delirium in this population.

A total of 244 patients were included in the final analysis. Of this group, 125 (51.2%) experienced delirium during their stay in the ICU, and 119 (48.8%) did not.

Mortality in the delirium group was significantly higher at 32.8% vs. 15.1% (P = .001). In addition, the delirium group was associated with significantly higher ICU length of stay (6 days vs. 3 days, P < .001) and hospital length of stay (21 days vs. 12 days, P < .001).

“When comparing the baseline characteristics between the two groups, the delirium group had a longer hospital length prior to ICU admission, a higher SOFA score, a higher rate of brain metastases, a higher rate of shock, and higher receipt of high-dose steroids, benzodiazepines, and immunotherapy,” said Dr. Klosko.

After multivariable regression, four variables were included in the final model. Among patients with delirium, the SOFA score increased by 25% (odds ratio[OR] 1.25, P < .001), while the odds of delirium were almost four times higher among those treated with high-dose corticosteroids (OR 3.79, P = .004). Delirium was also eight times higher (OR 8.48, P < .001) among those who received mechanical ventilation and five times higher in (OR 5.38, P = .015) in patients with brain metastases.

Dr. Klosko noted that the main limitations for this study were that it was a single center retrospective analysis, and that patients were reviewed within the first 7 days of ICU admission. “This potentially missed patients who developed delirium outside of this time frame,” she said. In addition, “too few patients received high-dose benzodiazepines,” and “none of the patients received continuous neuromuscular blockade.”

However, in “contrast to these limitations, this is the largest study to date that has analyzed delirium in this population,” Dr. Klosko said.

Commenting on the study, Brenda Pun, DNP, RN, director of data quality at the Vanderbilt Critical Illness, Brain Dysfunction, and Survivorship Center, Nashville, Tenn., pointed out that the goal of this study was to describe delirium in this specific population. “But I will take a step backward and say that they are just confirming that these patients look like other ICU patients in many regards,” she said.

She explained that the sicker patients are, the higher the rates of delirium. “We have implemented strategies to lower these rates, and they have improved,” Dr. Pun said. “Ten years ago, I would say that 80% of patients who were on a ventilator would have delirium but now the rates are around 50% and that’s what we are typically seeing now.”

Dr. Pun emphasized that this study shows that delirium is like the “canary in the coal mine” or a red flag. “It’s a sign that something is wrong and that we need to pay attention, because the patient’s outcome may be worse,” she said. “So this is saying that we need to see if there is something that can be changed or modified to decrease the incidence of delirium—these are important questions.”

There was no outside sponsor. The authors had no disclosures. Dr. Pun has no disclosures.

Hematology-oncology patients who receive treatment in the intensive care unit often develop delirium, and according to new findings, mechanical ventilation, high-dose corticosteroid use, and brain metastases were identified as independent risk factors.

Roughly half of all hematology-oncology patients who were admitted to the ICU experienced delirium, explained lead author Rachel Klosko, PharmD, PGY-2 cardiology pharmacy resident at the Ohio State University, Columbus.

“Delirium was associated with increased mortality, an increase in hospital length of stay, and increased length of stay in the ICU,” she said.

Dr. Klosko presented the study results at the at the Critical Care Congress sponsored by the Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM), which was held virtually this year.

Delirium is an acute and fluctuating disturbance of consciousness and cognition and fluctuates in severity. Critically ill patients are subject to numerous risk factors for delirium. “It can occur in independently of any known neurological disorder,” said Dr. Klosko, adding that its occurrence has been associated with poorer outcomes in ICU patients.

In this study, Dr. Klosko and colleagues sought to determine the incidence of delirium in cancer patients who were admitted to the ICU, as well as identify the associated risk factors and recognize potential consequences of the development of delirium in this patient population.

They conducted a single center, retrospective, cohort study that evaluated patients between the ages of 18 and 89 years who were admitted to the hematology-oncology medical or surgical ICU between July 1, 2018, and June 30, 2019.

The study’s primary endpoint was the incidence of delirium within 7 days of ICU admission, defined as two positive Confusion Assessment Method for the ICU (CAM-ICU) assessments within 24 hours. Patients identified with delirium were compared to those without it, for the evaluation of secondary endpoints that included hospital mortality and ICU and hospital length of stay. The researchers also sought to identify independent risk factors for delirium in this population.

A total of 244 patients were included in the final analysis. Of this group, 125 (51.2%) experienced delirium during their stay in the ICU, and 119 (48.8%) did not.

Mortality in the delirium group was significantly higher at 32.8% vs. 15.1% (P = .001). In addition, the delirium group was associated with significantly higher ICU length of stay (6 days vs. 3 days, P < .001) and hospital length of stay (21 days vs. 12 days, P < .001).

“When comparing the baseline characteristics between the two groups, the delirium group had a longer hospital length prior to ICU admission, a higher SOFA score, a higher rate of brain metastases, a higher rate of shock, and higher receipt of high-dose steroids, benzodiazepines, and immunotherapy,” said Dr. Klosko.

After multivariable regression, four variables were included in the final model. Among patients with delirium, the SOFA score increased by 25% (odds ratio[OR] 1.25, P < .001), while the odds of delirium were almost four times higher among those treated with high-dose corticosteroids (OR 3.79, P = .004). Delirium was also eight times higher (OR 8.48, P < .001) among those who received mechanical ventilation and five times higher in (OR 5.38, P = .015) in patients with brain metastases.

Dr. Klosko noted that the main limitations for this study were that it was a single center retrospective analysis, and that patients were reviewed within the first 7 days of ICU admission. “This potentially missed patients who developed delirium outside of this time frame,” she said. In addition, “too few patients received high-dose benzodiazepines,” and “none of the patients received continuous neuromuscular blockade.”

However, in “contrast to these limitations, this is the largest study to date that has analyzed delirium in this population,” Dr. Klosko said.

Commenting on the study, Brenda Pun, DNP, RN, director of data quality at the Vanderbilt Critical Illness, Brain Dysfunction, and Survivorship Center, Nashville, Tenn., pointed out that the goal of this study was to describe delirium in this specific population. “But I will take a step backward and say that they are just confirming that these patients look like other ICU patients in many regards,” she said.

She explained that the sicker patients are, the higher the rates of delirium. “We have implemented strategies to lower these rates, and they have improved,” Dr. Pun said. “Ten years ago, I would say that 80% of patients who were on a ventilator would have delirium but now the rates are around 50% and that’s what we are typically seeing now.”

Dr. Pun emphasized that this study shows that delirium is like the “canary in the coal mine” or a red flag. “It’s a sign that something is wrong and that we need to pay attention, because the patient’s outcome may be worse,” she said. “So this is saying that we need to see if there is something that can be changed or modified to decrease the incidence of delirium—these are important questions.”

There was no outside sponsor. The authors had no disclosures. Dr. Pun has no disclosures.

Hematology-oncology patients who receive treatment in the intensive care unit often develop delirium, and according to new findings, mechanical ventilation, high-dose corticosteroid use, and brain metastases were identified as independent risk factors.

Roughly half of all hematology-oncology patients who were admitted to the ICU experienced delirium, explained lead author Rachel Klosko, PharmD, PGY-2 cardiology pharmacy resident at the Ohio State University, Columbus.

“Delirium was associated with increased mortality, an increase in hospital length of stay, and increased length of stay in the ICU,” she said.

Dr. Klosko presented the study results at the at the Critical Care Congress sponsored by the Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM), which was held virtually this year.

Delirium is an acute and fluctuating disturbance of consciousness and cognition and fluctuates in severity. Critically ill patients are subject to numerous risk factors for delirium. “It can occur in independently of any known neurological disorder,” said Dr. Klosko, adding that its occurrence has been associated with poorer outcomes in ICU patients.

In this study, Dr. Klosko and colleagues sought to determine the incidence of delirium in cancer patients who were admitted to the ICU, as well as identify the associated risk factors and recognize potential consequences of the development of delirium in this patient population.

They conducted a single center, retrospective, cohort study that evaluated patients between the ages of 18 and 89 years who were admitted to the hematology-oncology medical or surgical ICU between July 1, 2018, and June 30, 2019.

The study’s primary endpoint was the incidence of delirium within 7 days of ICU admission, defined as two positive Confusion Assessment Method for the ICU (CAM-ICU) assessments within 24 hours. Patients identified with delirium were compared to those without it, for the evaluation of secondary endpoints that included hospital mortality and ICU and hospital length of stay. The researchers also sought to identify independent risk factors for delirium in this population.

A total of 244 patients were included in the final analysis. Of this group, 125 (51.2%) experienced delirium during their stay in the ICU, and 119 (48.8%) did not.

Mortality in the delirium group was significantly higher at 32.8% vs. 15.1% (P = .001). In addition, the delirium group was associated with significantly higher ICU length of stay (6 days vs. 3 days, P < .001) and hospital length of stay (21 days vs. 12 days, P < .001).

“When comparing the baseline characteristics between the two groups, the delirium group had a longer hospital length prior to ICU admission, a higher SOFA score, a higher rate of brain metastases, a higher rate of shock, and higher receipt of high-dose steroids, benzodiazepines, and immunotherapy,” said Dr. Klosko.

After multivariable regression, four variables were included in the final model. Among patients with delirium, the SOFA score increased by 25% (odds ratio[OR] 1.25, P < .001), while the odds of delirium were almost four times higher among those treated with high-dose corticosteroids (OR 3.79, P = .004). Delirium was also eight times higher (OR 8.48, P < .001) among those who received mechanical ventilation and five times higher in (OR 5.38, P = .015) in patients with brain metastases.

Dr. Klosko noted that the main limitations for this study were that it was a single center retrospective analysis, and that patients were reviewed within the first 7 days of ICU admission. “This potentially missed patients who developed delirium outside of this time frame,” she said. In addition, “too few patients received high-dose benzodiazepines,” and “none of the patients received continuous neuromuscular blockade.”

However, in “contrast to these limitations, this is the largest study to date that has analyzed delirium in this population,” Dr. Klosko said.

Commenting on the study, Brenda Pun, DNP, RN, director of data quality at the Vanderbilt Critical Illness, Brain Dysfunction, and Survivorship Center, Nashville, Tenn., pointed out that the goal of this study was to describe delirium in this specific population. “But I will take a step backward and say that they are just confirming that these patients look like other ICU patients in many regards,” she said.

She explained that the sicker patients are, the higher the rates of delirium. “We have implemented strategies to lower these rates, and they have improved,” Dr. Pun said. “Ten years ago, I would say that 80% of patients who were on a ventilator would have delirium but now the rates are around 50% and that’s what we are typically seeing now.”

Dr. Pun emphasized that this study shows that delirium is like the “canary in the coal mine” or a red flag. “It’s a sign that something is wrong and that we need to pay attention, because the patient’s outcome may be worse,” she said. “So this is saying that we need to see if there is something that can be changed or modified to decrease the incidence of delirium—these are important questions.”

There was no outside sponsor. The authors had no disclosures. Dr. Pun has no disclosures.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

‘Phenomenal’ results in MM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

‘Phenomenal’ results in MM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

‘Phenomenal’ results in MM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Varying definitions, regimens spur debate

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

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

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

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

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

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

Study details

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

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

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

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

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

Findings in context

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Varying definitions, regimens spur debate

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

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

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

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

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

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

Study details

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

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

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

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

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

Findings in context

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Varying definitions, regimens spur debate

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

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

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

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

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

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

Study details

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

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

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

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

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

Findings in context

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A drop in study power

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dr. Kopans says that is a problem.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A drop in study power

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dr. Kopans says that is a problem.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A drop in study power

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dr. Kopans says that is a problem.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Study details

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Study details

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Study details

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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