AVAHO

Compared with the standard 3-week regimen, a 1-week hypofractionated regimen of adjuvant whole-breast radiotherapy had similar efficacy and safety at 5 years of follow-up, according to the U.K. FAST-Forward trial.

The trial was designed to compare the standard regimen (40 Gy in 15 fractions over 3 weeks) with a higher-dose hypofractionated regimen (27 Gy in 5 fractions over 5 days) and a lower-dose hypofractionated regimen (26 Gy in 5 fractions over 5 days) in women who had undergone surgery for early invasive breast cancer.

The 5-year rate of ipsilateral breast tumor relapse was similar with all regimens – 2.1% with the 40-Gy regimen, 1.7% with the 27-Gy regimen, and 1.4% with the 26-Gy regimen. The 26-Gy regimen also had similar safety as the 40-Gy regimen.

These results were presented at the European Society for Radiology and Oncology 2020 Online Congress by Joanne S. Haviland, MSc, of the Institute of Cancer Research in London. Results were also published in The Lancet.

Ms. Haviland said that hypofractionated regimens are attractive because of their shorter overall treatment times, which translate to greater convenience and lower treatment costs.

The historic 5-week regimen (50 Gy in 25 fractions) has been replaced by a 3-week regimen (40 Gy in 15 fractions) in the United Kingdom and elsewhere, and ongoing efforts are exploring whether further hypofractionation can be achieved without compromising efficacy and safety.

“The FAST-Forward trial was the next step on from testing hypofractionated schedules evaluated in earlier trials, including the START trials in the early 2000s and the FAST trial, which published its 10-year results earlier this year,” Ms. Haviland explained.

FAST-Forward enrolled 4,096 women who had undergone breast-conserving surgery or mastectomy for early invasive breast cancer. The patients were randomized into the aforementioned groups for adjuvant whole-breast or chest-wall radiotherapy: 40 Gy in 15 fractions over 3 weeks, 27 Gy in 5 fractions over 5 days, or 26 Gy in 5 fractions over 5 days. Boosts were permitted for all regimens.
 

Relapse, safety, and patient reports

The median follow-up was 6 years. The 5-year rate of ipsilateral breast tumor relapse was 2.1% with the 40-Gy standard regimen, 1.7% with the 27-Gy hypofractionated regimen, and 1.4% with the 26-Gy hypofractionated regimen.

The upper bound of the 95% confidence interval for the difference comparing the hypofractionated regimens against the standard fell well within the 1.6% excess predefined for noninferiority for both the 27-Gy regimen and the 26-Gy regimen (0.9% and 0.3%, respectively).

The hazard ratio for ipsilateral breast tumor relapse, compared with the standard regimen, was 0.86 for the 27-Gy hypofractionated regimen and 0.67 for the 26-Gy hypofractionated regimen.

In terms of safety, the 5-year rate of late adverse effects of the breast or chest wall – distortion, shrinkage, induration, telangiectasia, or edema – rated as “moderate” or “marked” by clinicians was 10% with the standard regimen, 15% with the 27-Gy regimen (relative risk, 1.55 ; P < .001), and 12% with the 26-Gy regimen (RR, 1.19; P = .17).

Over the entire follow-up, women had significantly higher odds of all moderate or marked individual late adverse effects (except discomfort) with the 27-Gy regimen versus the standard regimen, whereas their odds were significantly higher only for induration and edema with the 26-Gy regimen.

However, absolute rates and risk differences between groups were small, Ms. Haviland pointed out. For example, the most common moderate or marked late adverse effect with the standard regimen was breast shrinkage, seen in 5% of patients, followed by discomfort, seen in 4%.

Patient-assessed change in breast appearance and shrinkage did not differ significantly across groups. But women in the 27-Gy group were more likely than peers in the standard regimen group to report a moderate or marked increase in breast hardness/firmness (21% vs. 14%; P = .008), and women in both the 27-Gy and 26-Gy groups were more likely to report moderate or marked breast swelling (5%; P = .007 and 4%; P = .02, respectively, vs. 2%).
 

A new standard

“We have shown noninferiority in terms of local tumor control for both 5-fraction schedules, compared with the control group of 40 Gy in 15 fractions,” Ms. Haviland summarized. “Late adverse effects in normal tissues were similar after 26 Gy in 5 fractions to 40 Gy in 15 fractions, and although rates were higher for the 27-Gy schedule, we noted that these are consistent with the historic standard of 50 Gy in 25 fractions.”

“There are obvious benefits to patients and health care systems of shorter radiotherapy treatments, particularly at the current time, and in fact, the COVID pandemic has accelerated uptake of the 26-Gy schedule around the world,” she added. “At a recent consensus meeting organized by the Royal College of Radiologists, the U.K. adopted the 26-Gy schedule as a new standard, also integrating this with partial breast irradiation, in close collaboration with the U.K. IMPORT Low trial.”

“This is very important work. I think this is one of the most important trials in the past few years. It has really changed practice,” commented session co-chair Ben Slotman, MD, PhD, of Vrije Universiteit Medical Center, Amsterdam, and AMC Amsterdam, who was not involved the trial.

Dr. Slotman wondered how extensive uptake of the new hypofractionated regimen has been. “I know it’s being used in the U.K. and the Netherlands, but do you have any idea about the rest of Europe? What do we need to make it the new standard?”

“I think there has been uptake in other countries in Europe and elsewhere around the world as well,” Ms. Haviland replied. But feedback suggests adoption has been tempered because of reservations related to the regimen’s safety in certain patient subgroups.

“We haven’t found any cause for concern in the subgroups, and also backed up by meta-analysis in the many patients randomized in the START trials,” she noted. “So I think there is very convincing evidence that it is safe as a new standard.”

FAST-Forward was sponsored by the Institute of Cancer Research and funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme. Ms. Haviland disclosed no conflicts of interest. Dr. Slotman has relationships with ViewRay and Varian Medical Systems.

SOURCE: Haviland J et al. ESTRO 2020, Abstract OC-0610.

Compared with the standard 3-week regimen, a 1-week hypofractionated regimen of adjuvant whole-breast radiotherapy had similar efficacy and safety at 5 years of follow-up, according to the U.K. FAST-Forward trial.

The trial was designed to compare the standard regimen (40 Gy in 15 fractions over 3 weeks) with a higher-dose hypofractionated regimen (27 Gy in 5 fractions over 5 days) and a lower-dose hypofractionated regimen (26 Gy in 5 fractions over 5 days) in women who had undergone surgery for early invasive breast cancer.

The 5-year rate of ipsilateral breast tumor relapse was similar with all regimens – 2.1% with the 40-Gy regimen, 1.7% with the 27-Gy regimen, and 1.4% with the 26-Gy regimen. The 26-Gy regimen also had similar safety as the 40-Gy regimen.

These results were presented at the European Society for Radiology and Oncology 2020 Online Congress by Joanne S. Haviland, MSc, of the Institute of Cancer Research in London. Results were also published in The Lancet.

Ms. Haviland said that hypofractionated regimens are attractive because of their shorter overall treatment times, which translate to greater convenience and lower treatment costs.

The historic 5-week regimen (50 Gy in 25 fractions) has been replaced by a 3-week regimen (40 Gy in 15 fractions) in the United Kingdom and elsewhere, and ongoing efforts are exploring whether further hypofractionation can be achieved without compromising efficacy and safety.

“The FAST-Forward trial was the next step on from testing hypofractionated schedules evaluated in earlier trials, including the START trials in the early 2000s and the FAST trial, which published its 10-year results earlier this year,” Ms. Haviland explained.

FAST-Forward enrolled 4,096 women who had undergone breast-conserving surgery or mastectomy for early invasive breast cancer. The patients were randomized into the aforementioned groups for adjuvant whole-breast or chest-wall radiotherapy: 40 Gy in 15 fractions over 3 weeks, 27 Gy in 5 fractions over 5 days, or 26 Gy in 5 fractions over 5 days. Boosts were permitted for all regimens.
 

Relapse, safety, and patient reports

The median follow-up was 6 years. The 5-year rate of ipsilateral breast tumor relapse was 2.1% with the 40-Gy standard regimen, 1.7% with the 27-Gy hypofractionated regimen, and 1.4% with the 26-Gy hypofractionated regimen.

The upper bound of the 95% confidence interval for the difference comparing the hypofractionated regimens against the standard fell well within the 1.6% excess predefined for noninferiority for both the 27-Gy regimen and the 26-Gy regimen (0.9% and 0.3%, respectively).

The hazard ratio for ipsilateral breast tumor relapse, compared with the standard regimen, was 0.86 for the 27-Gy hypofractionated regimen and 0.67 for the 26-Gy hypofractionated regimen.

In terms of safety, the 5-year rate of late adverse effects of the breast or chest wall – distortion, shrinkage, induration, telangiectasia, or edema – rated as “moderate” or “marked” by clinicians was 10% with the standard regimen, 15% with the 27-Gy regimen (relative risk, 1.55 ; P < .001), and 12% with the 26-Gy regimen (RR, 1.19; P = .17).

Over the entire follow-up, women had significantly higher odds of all moderate or marked individual late adverse effects (except discomfort) with the 27-Gy regimen versus the standard regimen, whereas their odds were significantly higher only for induration and edema with the 26-Gy regimen.

However, absolute rates and risk differences between groups were small, Ms. Haviland pointed out. For example, the most common moderate or marked late adverse effect with the standard regimen was breast shrinkage, seen in 5% of patients, followed by discomfort, seen in 4%.

Patient-assessed change in breast appearance and shrinkage did not differ significantly across groups. But women in the 27-Gy group were more likely than peers in the standard regimen group to report a moderate or marked increase in breast hardness/firmness (21% vs. 14%; P = .008), and women in both the 27-Gy and 26-Gy groups were more likely to report moderate or marked breast swelling (5%; P = .007 and 4%; P = .02, respectively, vs. 2%).
 

A new standard

“We have shown noninferiority in terms of local tumor control for both 5-fraction schedules, compared with the control group of 40 Gy in 15 fractions,” Ms. Haviland summarized. “Late adverse effects in normal tissues were similar after 26 Gy in 5 fractions to 40 Gy in 15 fractions, and although rates were higher for the 27-Gy schedule, we noted that these are consistent with the historic standard of 50 Gy in 25 fractions.”

“There are obvious benefits to patients and health care systems of shorter radiotherapy treatments, particularly at the current time, and in fact, the COVID pandemic has accelerated uptake of the 26-Gy schedule around the world,” she added. “At a recent consensus meeting organized by the Royal College of Radiologists, the U.K. adopted the 26-Gy schedule as a new standard, also integrating this with partial breast irradiation, in close collaboration with the U.K. IMPORT Low trial.”

“This is very important work. I think this is one of the most important trials in the past few years. It has really changed practice,” commented session co-chair Ben Slotman, MD, PhD, of Vrije Universiteit Medical Center, Amsterdam, and AMC Amsterdam, who was not involved the trial.

Dr. Slotman wondered how extensive uptake of the new hypofractionated regimen has been. “I know it’s being used in the U.K. and the Netherlands, but do you have any idea about the rest of Europe? What do we need to make it the new standard?”

“I think there has been uptake in other countries in Europe and elsewhere around the world as well,” Ms. Haviland replied. But feedback suggests adoption has been tempered because of reservations related to the regimen’s safety in certain patient subgroups.

“We haven’t found any cause for concern in the subgroups, and also backed up by meta-analysis in the many patients randomized in the START trials,” she noted. “So I think there is very convincing evidence that it is safe as a new standard.”

FAST-Forward was sponsored by the Institute of Cancer Research and funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme. Ms. Haviland disclosed no conflicts of interest. Dr. Slotman has relationships with ViewRay and Varian Medical Systems.

SOURCE: Haviland J et al. ESTRO 2020, Abstract OC-0610.

Compared with the standard 3-week regimen, a 1-week hypofractionated regimen of adjuvant whole-breast radiotherapy had similar efficacy and safety at 5 years of follow-up, according to the U.K. FAST-Forward trial.

The trial was designed to compare the standard regimen (40 Gy in 15 fractions over 3 weeks) with a higher-dose hypofractionated regimen (27 Gy in 5 fractions over 5 days) and a lower-dose hypofractionated regimen (26 Gy in 5 fractions over 5 days) in women who had undergone surgery for early invasive breast cancer.

The 5-year rate of ipsilateral breast tumor relapse was similar with all regimens – 2.1% with the 40-Gy regimen, 1.7% with the 27-Gy regimen, and 1.4% with the 26-Gy regimen. The 26-Gy regimen also had similar safety as the 40-Gy regimen.

These results were presented at the European Society for Radiology and Oncology 2020 Online Congress by Joanne S. Haviland, MSc, of the Institute of Cancer Research in London. Results were also published in The Lancet.

Ms. Haviland said that hypofractionated regimens are attractive because of their shorter overall treatment times, which translate to greater convenience and lower treatment costs.

The historic 5-week regimen (50 Gy in 25 fractions) has been replaced by a 3-week regimen (40 Gy in 15 fractions) in the United Kingdom and elsewhere, and ongoing efforts are exploring whether further hypofractionation can be achieved without compromising efficacy and safety.

“The FAST-Forward trial was the next step on from testing hypofractionated schedules evaluated in earlier trials, including the START trials in the early 2000s and the FAST trial, which published its 10-year results earlier this year,” Ms. Haviland explained.

FAST-Forward enrolled 4,096 women who had undergone breast-conserving surgery or mastectomy for early invasive breast cancer. The patients were randomized into the aforementioned groups for adjuvant whole-breast or chest-wall radiotherapy: 40 Gy in 15 fractions over 3 weeks, 27 Gy in 5 fractions over 5 days, or 26 Gy in 5 fractions over 5 days. Boosts were permitted for all regimens.
 

Relapse, safety, and patient reports

The median follow-up was 6 years. The 5-year rate of ipsilateral breast tumor relapse was 2.1% with the 40-Gy standard regimen, 1.7% with the 27-Gy hypofractionated regimen, and 1.4% with the 26-Gy hypofractionated regimen.

The upper bound of the 95% confidence interval for the difference comparing the hypofractionated regimens against the standard fell well within the 1.6% excess predefined for noninferiority for both the 27-Gy regimen and the 26-Gy regimen (0.9% and 0.3%, respectively).

The hazard ratio for ipsilateral breast tumor relapse, compared with the standard regimen, was 0.86 for the 27-Gy hypofractionated regimen and 0.67 for the 26-Gy hypofractionated regimen.

In terms of safety, the 5-year rate of late adverse effects of the breast or chest wall – distortion, shrinkage, induration, telangiectasia, or edema – rated as “moderate” or “marked” by clinicians was 10% with the standard regimen, 15% with the 27-Gy regimen (relative risk, 1.55 ; P < .001), and 12% with the 26-Gy regimen (RR, 1.19; P = .17).

Over the entire follow-up, women had significantly higher odds of all moderate or marked individual late adverse effects (except discomfort) with the 27-Gy regimen versus the standard regimen, whereas their odds were significantly higher only for induration and edema with the 26-Gy regimen.

However, absolute rates and risk differences between groups were small, Ms. Haviland pointed out. For example, the most common moderate or marked late adverse effect with the standard regimen was breast shrinkage, seen in 5% of patients, followed by discomfort, seen in 4%.

Patient-assessed change in breast appearance and shrinkage did not differ significantly across groups. But women in the 27-Gy group were more likely than peers in the standard regimen group to report a moderate or marked increase in breast hardness/firmness (21% vs. 14%; P = .008), and women in both the 27-Gy and 26-Gy groups were more likely to report moderate or marked breast swelling (5%; P = .007 and 4%; P = .02, respectively, vs. 2%).
 

A new standard

“We have shown noninferiority in terms of local tumor control for both 5-fraction schedules, compared with the control group of 40 Gy in 15 fractions,” Ms. Haviland summarized. “Late adverse effects in normal tissues were similar after 26 Gy in 5 fractions to 40 Gy in 15 fractions, and although rates were higher for the 27-Gy schedule, we noted that these are consistent with the historic standard of 50 Gy in 25 fractions.”

“There are obvious benefits to patients and health care systems of shorter radiotherapy treatments, particularly at the current time, and in fact, the COVID pandemic has accelerated uptake of the 26-Gy schedule around the world,” she added. “At a recent consensus meeting organized by the Royal College of Radiologists, the U.K. adopted the 26-Gy schedule as a new standard, also integrating this with partial breast irradiation, in close collaboration with the U.K. IMPORT Low trial.”

“This is very important work. I think this is one of the most important trials in the past few years. It has really changed practice,” commented session co-chair Ben Slotman, MD, PhD, of Vrije Universiteit Medical Center, Amsterdam, and AMC Amsterdam, who was not involved the trial.

Dr. Slotman wondered how extensive uptake of the new hypofractionated regimen has been. “I know it’s being used in the U.K. and the Netherlands, but do you have any idea about the rest of Europe? What do we need to make it the new standard?”

“I think there has been uptake in other countries in Europe and elsewhere around the world as well,” Ms. Haviland replied. But feedback suggests adoption has been tempered because of reservations related to the regimen’s safety in certain patient subgroups.

“We haven’t found any cause for concern in the subgroups, and also backed up by meta-analysis in the many patients randomized in the START trials,” she noted. “So I think there is very convincing evidence that it is safe as a new standard.”

FAST-Forward was sponsored by the Institute of Cancer Research and funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme. Ms. Haviland disclosed no conflicts of interest. Dr. Slotman has relationships with ViewRay and Varian Medical Systems.

SOURCE: Haviland J et al. ESTRO 2020, Abstract OC-0610.

The right colon appears to age faster in Black people than in White people, perhaps explaining the higher prevalence of right-side colon cancer among Black Americans, according to results from a biopsy study.

The findings were published online Dec. 30 in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

For the study, investigators analyzed colon biopsy specimens from 128 individuals who underwent routine colorectal screening.

The researchers compared DNA methylation levels in right and left colon biopsy samples from the same patient. They then assigned epigenetic ages to the tissue samples using the Hovarth clock, which estimates tissue age on the basis of DNA methylation.

DNA methylation is influenced by age and environmental exposures. Aberrant DNA methylation is a hallmark of colorectal cancer, the researchers explained.

The epigenetic age of the right colon of the 88 Black patients was 1.51 years ahead of their left colon; the right colon of the 44 White patients was epigenetically 1.93 years younger than their left colon.

The right colon was epigenetically older than the left colon in 60.2% of Black patients; it was younger in more than 70% of White patients.

A unique pattern of DNA hypermethylation was found in the right colon of Black patients.

“Our results provide biological plausibility for the observed relative preponderance of right colon cancer and younger age of onset in African Americans as compared to European Americans,” wrote the investigators, led by Matthew Devall, PhD, a research associate at the Center for Public Health Genomics at the University of Virginia, Charlottesville.

“Side-specific colonic epigenetic aging may be a promising marker to guide interventions to reduce CRC [colorectal cancer] burden,” they suggested.

If these findings are “corroborated in African Americans in future studies, these results could potentially explain racial differences in the site predilection of colorectal cancers,”  Amit Joshi, MBBS, PhD, and Andrew Chan, MD, gastrointestinal molecular epidemiologists at Harvard Medical School, Boston, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

However, “it is not clear if the higher epigenetic aging measured using the Horvath clock ... directly translates to a higher risk of colorectal cancer,” they noted.

Some differences between the Black patients and the White patients in the study could explain the methylation differences, they pointed out. A higher proportion of Black patients smoked (37.5% vs. 15%), and Black patients were younger (median age, 55.5 years, vs. 61.7 years). In addition, the study included more Black women than White women (67% vs. 58%), and body mass indexes were higher for Black patients than White patients (31.36 kg/m² vs 28.29 kg/m²).

“One or more of these factors, or others that were not measured, may be linked to differential methylation in the right compared with left colon,” the editorialists wrote.

Even so, among the Black patients, almost 70% of differentially methylated positions in the right colon were hypermethylated, compared to less than half in the left colon. These included positions previously associated with colorectal cancer, aging, and ancestry, “suggesting a role for genetic variation in contributing to DNA methylation differences in AA right colon,” the investigators said.

The work was supported the National Cancer Institute Cancer, the Case Comprehensive Cancer Center, and the University of Virginia Cancer Center. The authors and editorialists have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The right colon appears to age faster in Black people than in White people, perhaps explaining the higher prevalence of right-side colon cancer among Black Americans, according to results from a biopsy study.

The findings were published online Dec. 30 in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

For the study, investigators analyzed colon biopsy specimens from 128 individuals who underwent routine colorectal screening.

The researchers compared DNA methylation levels in right and left colon biopsy samples from the same patient. They then assigned epigenetic ages to the tissue samples using the Hovarth clock, which estimates tissue age on the basis of DNA methylation.

DNA methylation is influenced by age and environmental exposures. Aberrant DNA methylation is a hallmark of colorectal cancer, the researchers explained.

The epigenetic age of the right colon of the 88 Black patients was 1.51 years ahead of their left colon; the right colon of the 44 White patients was epigenetically 1.93 years younger than their left colon.

The right colon was epigenetically older than the left colon in 60.2% of Black patients; it was younger in more than 70% of White patients.

A unique pattern of DNA hypermethylation was found in the right colon of Black patients.

“Our results provide biological plausibility for the observed relative preponderance of right colon cancer and younger age of onset in African Americans as compared to European Americans,” wrote the investigators, led by Matthew Devall, PhD, a research associate at the Center for Public Health Genomics at the University of Virginia, Charlottesville.

“Side-specific colonic epigenetic aging may be a promising marker to guide interventions to reduce CRC [colorectal cancer] burden,” they suggested.

If these findings are “corroborated in African Americans in future studies, these results could potentially explain racial differences in the site predilection of colorectal cancers,”  Amit Joshi, MBBS, PhD, and Andrew Chan, MD, gastrointestinal molecular epidemiologists at Harvard Medical School, Boston, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

However, “it is not clear if the higher epigenetic aging measured using the Horvath clock ... directly translates to a higher risk of colorectal cancer,” they noted.

Some differences between the Black patients and the White patients in the study could explain the methylation differences, they pointed out. A higher proportion of Black patients smoked (37.5% vs. 15%), and Black patients were younger (median age, 55.5 years, vs. 61.7 years). In addition, the study included more Black women than White women (67% vs. 58%), and body mass indexes were higher for Black patients than White patients (31.36 kg/m² vs 28.29 kg/m²).

“One or more of these factors, or others that were not measured, may be linked to differential methylation in the right compared with left colon,” the editorialists wrote.

Even so, among the Black patients, almost 70% of differentially methylated positions in the right colon were hypermethylated, compared to less than half in the left colon. These included positions previously associated with colorectal cancer, aging, and ancestry, “suggesting a role for genetic variation in contributing to DNA methylation differences in AA right colon,” the investigators said.

The work was supported the National Cancer Institute Cancer, the Case Comprehensive Cancer Center, and the University of Virginia Cancer Center. The authors and editorialists have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The right colon appears to age faster in Black people than in White people, perhaps explaining the higher prevalence of right-side colon cancer among Black Americans, according to results from a biopsy study.

The findings were published online Dec. 30 in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

For the study, investigators analyzed colon biopsy specimens from 128 individuals who underwent routine colorectal screening.

The researchers compared DNA methylation levels in right and left colon biopsy samples from the same patient. They then assigned epigenetic ages to the tissue samples using the Hovarth clock, which estimates tissue age on the basis of DNA methylation.

DNA methylation is influenced by age and environmental exposures. Aberrant DNA methylation is a hallmark of colorectal cancer, the researchers explained.

The epigenetic age of the right colon of the 88 Black patients was 1.51 years ahead of their left colon; the right colon of the 44 White patients was epigenetically 1.93 years younger than their left colon.

The right colon was epigenetically older than the left colon in 60.2% of Black patients; it was younger in more than 70% of White patients.

A unique pattern of DNA hypermethylation was found in the right colon of Black patients.

“Our results provide biological plausibility for the observed relative preponderance of right colon cancer and younger age of onset in African Americans as compared to European Americans,” wrote the investigators, led by Matthew Devall, PhD, a research associate at the Center for Public Health Genomics at the University of Virginia, Charlottesville.

“Side-specific colonic epigenetic aging may be a promising marker to guide interventions to reduce CRC [colorectal cancer] burden,” they suggested.

If these findings are “corroborated in African Americans in future studies, these results could potentially explain racial differences in the site predilection of colorectal cancers,”  Amit Joshi, MBBS, PhD, and Andrew Chan, MD, gastrointestinal molecular epidemiologists at Harvard Medical School, Boston, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

However, “it is not clear if the higher epigenetic aging measured using the Horvath clock ... directly translates to a higher risk of colorectal cancer,” they noted.

Some differences between the Black patients and the White patients in the study could explain the methylation differences, they pointed out. A higher proportion of Black patients smoked (37.5% vs. 15%), and Black patients were younger (median age, 55.5 years, vs. 61.7 years). In addition, the study included more Black women than White women (67% vs. 58%), and body mass indexes were higher for Black patients than White patients (31.36 kg/m² vs 28.29 kg/m²).

“One or more of these factors, or others that were not measured, may be linked to differential methylation in the right compared with left colon,” the editorialists wrote.

Even so, among the Black patients, almost 70% of differentially methylated positions in the right colon were hypermethylated, compared to less than half in the left colon. These included positions previously associated with colorectal cancer, aging, and ancestry, “suggesting a role for genetic variation in contributing to DNA methylation differences in AA right colon,” the investigators said.

The work was supported the National Cancer Institute Cancer, the Case Comprehensive Cancer Center, and the University of Virginia Cancer Center. The authors and editorialists have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The advent of liquid biopsies targeting genetic mutations in solid tumors is a major milestone in the field of precision oncology.¹ Conventional methods of obtaining tissue for molecular studies are limited by sample size and often do not represent the entire bulk of the tumor.² This newer minimally invasive, revolutionary technique analyzes circulating cell-free DNA carrying tumor-specific alterations (circulating tumor DNA [ctDNA]) in peripheral blood and detects signature genomic alterations.¹ Tp53 mutations have been reported in 25 to 40% of prostatic cancers and > 50% of non-small cell lung cancers (NSCLC), being more common in late-stage and hormone refractory prostate cancers.^3,4 Tp53 mutation has been found to be associated with poor prognosis and increased germline mutations.⁵

The veteran patient population has distinct demographic characteristics that make veterans more vulnerable to genetic mutations and malignancies, including risk of exposure to Agent Orange, smoking, substance abuse, and asbestos. This area is understudied and extremely sparse in the literature for frequency of genetic mutations, risk factors in solid malignancies occurring in the veteran patient population, and the clinical impact of these risk factors. We herein present a quality assurance study for the utility of liquid biopsies regarding the frequency of DNA damage repair (DDR) gene, Tp53, and androgen receptor (AR) mutations. The clinical impact in advanced lung and prostate cancers in the veteran patient population and frequency are the quality assurance observations that are the study endpoints.

Methods

We reviewed for quality assurance documentation from the Foundation Medicine (www.foundationmedicine.com) cancer biomarker tests on liquid biopsies performed at the Corporal Michael J. Crescenz Veteran Affairs Medical Center in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania from May 2019 to April 15, 2020. All biopsies were performed on cancers with biochemical, imaging or tissue evidence of advanced tumor progression. The testing was performed on advanced solid malignancies, including NSCLC, prostate adenocarcinoma, and metastatic colon cancer. Statistical data for adequacy; cases with notable mutations; frequency; and type of mutations of AR, DDR, and Tp53 were noted. General and specific risk factors associated with the veteran patient population were studied and matched with the type of mutations (Table 1).

Results

Thirty-one liquid biopsies were performed over this period—23 for prostate cancer, 7 for patients with lung cancer patients, and 1 for a patient with colon cancer. Of 31 cases, sensitivity/adequacy of liquid biopsy for genetic mutation was detected in 29 (93.5%) cases (Figure 1). Two inadequate biopsies (both from patients with prostate cancer) were excluded from the study, leaving 29 liquid biopsies with adequate ctDNA for analysis that were considered for further statistical purpose—21 prostate, 7 lung, and 1 colon cancer.

Multiple (common and different) genetic mutations were identified; however, our study subcategorized the mutations into the those that were related to prostate cancer, lung cancer, and some common mutations that occur in both cancers. Only the significant ones will be discussed in this review and equivocal result for AR is excluded from this study. Of the 21 prostate cancers, 4 (19.0%) had directed the targeted therapy to driver mutation (AR being most common in prostate cancer), while KRAS mutation, which was more common in lung cancer, was detected in 2/7 (28.6%) lung cancers. Mutations common to both cancer types were DDR gene mutations, which is a broad name for numerous genes including CDK12, ATM, and CHEK2.

Of all cases irrespective of the cancer type, 23/29 (79.3%) showed notable mutations. DDR gene mutations were found in 6 of 21 (28.5%) patients with prostate cancer and 8 of 23 (34.7%) patients with advanced prostate and lung cancers, indicating poor outcome and possible resistance to the current therapy. Of 23 patients showing mutations irrespective of the cancer type, 15 (65.2%) harbored Tp53 mutations, which is much more frequent in veteran patient population when compared with the literature. Fifteen of the 31 (48.4%) total patients were Vietnam War-era veterans who were potentially exposed to Agent Orange and 20 (64.5%) patients who were not Vietnam War-era veterans had a history that included smoking (Figure 2).

Discussion

The veteran patient population is a unique cohort due to its distinct demographic characteristics with a high volume of cancer cases diagnosed each year. According to data from VA Central Cancer Registry (VACCR), the most frequently diagnosed cancers are prostate (29%) and lung (18%).⁶

Liquid biopsy is a novel, promising technology that uses ctDNA and circulating tumor cells in peripheral blood for detecting genetic alterations through next generation sequencing.^7-9 The advent of this minimally invasive, revolutionary technology has been a breakthrough in the field of precision oncology for prognosis, to monitor treatment response or resistance to therapy and further personalize cancer therapy.^9,10

Comprehensive genomic profiling by liquid biopsy has many advantages over the molecular studies performed on tissue biopsy. Due to the tumor heterogeneity, tissue samples may not represent the full profile of the tumor genomics of cancer, while liquid biopsy has full presentation of the disease.^11,12 Many times, tissue biopsy may be limited by a sample size that precludes full genetic profiling in addition to higher total cost, potential technical issues during processing, and possible side effects of the biopsy procedure.^7,13 Additionally, as the tumor progresses, new driver mutations other than the ones previously detected on the primary tissue may emerge, which can confer resistance to the existing therapy.^7,13

Advanced prostatic and lung carcinomas with biochemical, distant organ, or bony progression harbor unique signature genetic mutations indicating poor prognosis, lack of response or resistance to the existing therapy, and high risk of relapse.^14,15 Some of the unique characteristics of the veteran patient population include a more aged patient population multiple comorbidities, higher frequency of > 1 type of cancer, advanced cancer stage at presentation, and specific risks factors such as exposure to Agent Orange in veterans who served during the Vietnam War era.^16,17 We studied the utility of liquid biopsy in cancer care, including type and incidence of genomic alterations associated with advanced prostate and lung cancers, in this unique patient population.

The amount of cell-free DNA (cfDNA), also known as ctDNA varies widely in cancer patients. Some of the factors associated with low concentration of cfDNA are disease stage, intervening therapy, proliferation rates, and tumor vascularization.^18,19 In the peripheral blood, of the total cfDNA, fractions of cfDNA varies from 0.01 to 90%.^18,19 All samples containing ≥ 20 ng cfDNA (20 - 100 ng) were subjected to the hybrid capture-based NGS FoundationACT assay.²⁰ In our study, 2 specimens did not meet the minimum criteria of adequacy (20 ng cfDNA); however, the overall adequacy rate for the detection of mutation, irrespective of the cancer type was 29 of 31 (93.5%) with only 2 inadequate samples. This rate is higher than the rate reported in the literature, which is about 70%.²⁰

Significant differences were encountered in the incidence of DNA damage repair genes including Tp53 mutations when compared with those in the general patient population (Table 2). According to recent National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines, all prostate cancers should be screened for DDR gene mutations as these genes are common in aggressive prostate cancers and strongly associated with poor outcomes and shortened survival. Due to relatively high frequency of DDR gene mutations in advanced prostatic cancers, liquid biopsy in patients with these advanced stage prostate cancers may be a useful tool in clinical decision making and exploring targeted therapy.²⁰

We also evaluated the frequency of the most commonly occurring genetic mutations, Tp53 in advanced solid malignancies, especially advanced prostate and NSCLC. Previous studies have reported Tp53 mutation in association with risk factors (carcinogens) of cancer and have been a surrogate marker of poor survival or lack of response of therapy.²⁵ Knowledge of Tp53 mutation is crucial for closer disease monitoring, preparing the patient for rapid progression, and encouraging the physician to prepare future lines of therapy.^25-27 Although Tp53 mutation varies with histologic type and tissue of origin, Beltran and colleagues reported it in 30 to 40% of tumors, while Robles and colleagues reported about 40 to 42% incidence.^25,27

Our study showed notable mutations in 23 of 29 adequate cases. Further, our study showed a high frequency of mutated Tp53 in 65.2% of combined advanced prostate and NSCLC cases. We then correlated cases of Vietnam War-era veterans with risk potential of Agent Orange exposure and Tp53 mutation. We found 7 of 15 Vietnam War-era veterans were positive for Tp53 mutations irrespective of the cancer type. The high incidence of Tp53 mutations in advanced prostate and lung carcinomas in the veteran patient population makes this tumor marker an aspiration not only as a surrogate of aggressive disease and tumor progression, but also as a key marker for targeted therapy in advanced prostate and lung cancers with loss of Tp53 function (Figure 3).

Conclusions

Liquid biopsy successfully provides precision-based oncology and information for decision making in this unique population of veterans. Difference in frequency of the genetic mutations in this cohort can provide future insight into disease progression, lack of response, and mechanism of resistance to the implemented therapy. Future studies focused on this veteran patient population are needed for developing targeted therapies and patient tailored oncologic therapy. ctDNA has a high potential for monitoring clinically relevant cancer-related genetic and epigenetic modifications for discovering more detailed information on the tumor characterization. Although larger cohort trial with longitudinal analyses are needed, high prevalence of DDR gene and Tp53 mutation in our study instills promising hope for therapeutic interventions in this unique cohort.

The minimally invasive liquid biopsy shows a great promise as both diagnostic and prognostic tool in the personalized clinical management of advanced prostate, and NSCLC in the veteran patient population with unique demographic characteristics. De novo metastatic prostate cancer is more common in veterans when compared with the general population, and therefore veterans may benefit by liquid biopsy. Differences in the frequency of genetic mutations (DDR, TP53, AR) in this cohort provides valuable information for disease progression, lack of response, mechanism of resistance to the implemented therapy and clinical decision making. Precision oncology can be further tailored for this cohort by focusing on DNA repair genes and Tp53 mutations for future targeted therapy.

The advent of liquid biopsies targeting genetic mutations in solid tumors is a major milestone in the field of precision oncology.¹ Conventional methods of obtaining tissue for molecular studies are limited by sample size and often do not represent the entire bulk of the tumor.² This newer minimally invasive, revolutionary technique analyzes circulating cell-free DNA carrying tumor-specific alterations (circulating tumor DNA [ctDNA]) in peripheral blood and detects signature genomic alterations.¹ Tp53 mutations have been reported in 25 to 40% of prostatic cancers and > 50% of non-small cell lung cancers (NSCLC), being more common in late-stage and hormone refractory prostate cancers.^3,4 Tp53 mutation has been found to be associated with poor prognosis and increased germline mutations.⁵

The veteran patient population has distinct demographic characteristics that make veterans more vulnerable to genetic mutations and malignancies, including risk of exposure to Agent Orange, smoking, substance abuse, and asbestos. This area is understudied and extremely sparse in the literature for frequency of genetic mutations, risk factors in solid malignancies occurring in the veteran patient population, and the clinical impact of these risk factors. We herein present a quality assurance study for the utility of liquid biopsies regarding the frequency of DNA damage repair (DDR) gene, Tp53, and androgen receptor (AR) mutations. The clinical impact in advanced lung and prostate cancers in the veteran patient population and frequency are the quality assurance observations that are the study endpoints.

Methods

We reviewed for quality assurance documentation from the Foundation Medicine (www.foundationmedicine.com) cancer biomarker tests on liquid biopsies performed at the Corporal Michael J. Crescenz Veteran Affairs Medical Center in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania from May 2019 to April 15, 2020. All biopsies were performed on cancers with biochemical, imaging or tissue evidence of advanced tumor progression. The testing was performed on advanced solid malignancies, including NSCLC, prostate adenocarcinoma, and metastatic colon cancer. Statistical data for adequacy; cases with notable mutations; frequency; and type of mutations of AR, DDR, and Tp53 were noted. General and specific risk factors associated with the veteran patient population were studied and matched with the type of mutations (Table 1).

Results

Thirty-one liquid biopsies were performed over this period—23 for prostate cancer, 7 for patients with lung cancer patients, and 1 for a patient with colon cancer. Of 31 cases, sensitivity/adequacy of liquid biopsy for genetic mutation was detected in 29 (93.5%) cases (Figure 1). Two inadequate biopsies (both from patients with prostate cancer) were excluded from the study, leaving 29 liquid biopsies with adequate ctDNA for analysis that were considered for further statistical purpose—21 prostate, 7 lung, and 1 colon cancer.

Multiple (common and different) genetic mutations were identified; however, our study subcategorized the mutations into the those that were related to prostate cancer, lung cancer, and some common mutations that occur in both cancers. Only the significant ones will be discussed in this review and equivocal result for AR is excluded from this study. Of the 21 prostate cancers, 4 (19.0%) had directed the targeted therapy to driver mutation (AR being most common in prostate cancer), while KRAS mutation, which was more common in lung cancer, was detected in 2/7 (28.6%) lung cancers. Mutations common to both cancer types were DDR gene mutations, which is a broad name for numerous genes including CDK12, ATM, and CHEK2.

Of all cases irrespective of the cancer type, 23/29 (79.3%) showed notable mutations. DDR gene mutations were found in 6 of 21 (28.5%) patients with prostate cancer and 8 of 23 (34.7%) patients with advanced prostate and lung cancers, indicating poor outcome and possible resistance to the current therapy. Of 23 patients showing mutations irrespective of the cancer type, 15 (65.2%) harbored Tp53 mutations, which is much more frequent in veteran patient population when compared with the literature. Fifteen of the 31 (48.4%) total patients were Vietnam War-era veterans who were potentially exposed to Agent Orange and 20 (64.5%) patients who were not Vietnam War-era veterans had a history that included smoking (Figure 2).

Discussion

The veteran patient population is a unique cohort due to its distinct demographic characteristics with a high volume of cancer cases diagnosed each year. According to data from VA Central Cancer Registry (VACCR), the most frequently diagnosed cancers are prostate (29%) and lung (18%).⁶

Liquid biopsy is a novel, promising technology that uses ctDNA and circulating tumor cells in peripheral blood for detecting genetic alterations through next generation sequencing.^7-9 The advent of this minimally invasive, revolutionary technology has been a breakthrough in the field of precision oncology for prognosis, to monitor treatment response or resistance to therapy and further personalize cancer therapy.^9,10

Comprehensive genomic profiling by liquid biopsy has many advantages over the molecular studies performed on tissue biopsy. Due to the tumor heterogeneity, tissue samples may not represent the full profile of the tumor genomics of cancer, while liquid biopsy has full presentation of the disease.^11,12 Many times, tissue biopsy may be limited by a sample size that precludes full genetic profiling in addition to higher total cost, potential technical issues during processing, and possible side effects of the biopsy procedure.^7,13 Additionally, as the tumor progresses, new driver mutations other than the ones previously detected on the primary tissue may emerge, which can confer resistance to the existing therapy.^7,13

Advanced prostatic and lung carcinomas with biochemical, distant organ, or bony progression harbor unique signature genetic mutations indicating poor prognosis, lack of response or resistance to the existing therapy, and high risk of relapse.^14,15 Some of the unique characteristics of the veteran patient population include a more aged patient population multiple comorbidities, higher frequency of > 1 type of cancer, advanced cancer stage at presentation, and specific risks factors such as exposure to Agent Orange in veterans who served during the Vietnam War era.^16,17 We studied the utility of liquid biopsy in cancer care, including type and incidence of genomic alterations associated with advanced prostate and lung cancers, in this unique patient population.

The amount of cell-free DNA (cfDNA), also known as ctDNA varies widely in cancer patients. Some of the factors associated with low concentration of cfDNA are disease stage, intervening therapy, proliferation rates, and tumor vascularization.^18,19 In the peripheral blood, of the total cfDNA, fractions of cfDNA varies from 0.01 to 90%.^18,19 All samples containing ≥ 20 ng cfDNA (20 - 100 ng) were subjected to the hybrid capture-based NGS FoundationACT assay.²⁰ In our study, 2 specimens did not meet the minimum criteria of adequacy (20 ng cfDNA); however, the overall adequacy rate for the detection of mutation, irrespective of the cancer type was 29 of 31 (93.5%) with only 2 inadequate samples. This rate is higher than the rate reported in the literature, which is about 70%.²⁰

Significant differences were encountered in the incidence of DNA damage repair genes including Tp53 mutations when compared with those in the general patient population (Table 2). According to recent National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines, all prostate cancers should be screened for DDR gene mutations as these genes are common in aggressive prostate cancers and strongly associated with poor outcomes and shortened survival. Due to relatively high frequency of DDR gene mutations in advanced prostatic cancers, liquid biopsy in patients with these advanced stage prostate cancers may be a useful tool in clinical decision making and exploring targeted therapy.²⁰

We also evaluated the frequency of the most commonly occurring genetic mutations, Tp53 in advanced solid malignancies, especially advanced prostate and NSCLC. Previous studies have reported Tp53 mutation in association with risk factors (carcinogens) of cancer and have been a surrogate marker of poor survival or lack of response of therapy.²⁵ Knowledge of Tp53 mutation is crucial for closer disease monitoring, preparing the patient for rapid progression, and encouraging the physician to prepare future lines of therapy.^25-27 Although Tp53 mutation varies with histologic type and tissue of origin, Beltran and colleagues reported it in 30 to 40% of tumors, while Robles and colleagues reported about 40 to 42% incidence.^25,27

Our study showed notable mutations in 23 of 29 adequate cases. Further, our study showed a high frequency of mutated Tp53 in 65.2% of combined advanced prostate and NSCLC cases. We then correlated cases of Vietnam War-era veterans with risk potential of Agent Orange exposure and Tp53 mutation. We found 7 of 15 Vietnam War-era veterans were positive for Tp53 mutations irrespective of the cancer type. The high incidence of Tp53 mutations in advanced prostate and lung carcinomas in the veteran patient population makes this tumor marker an aspiration not only as a surrogate of aggressive disease and tumor progression, but also as a key marker for targeted therapy in advanced prostate and lung cancers with loss of Tp53 function (Figure 3).

Conclusions

Liquid biopsy successfully provides precision-based oncology and information for decision making in this unique population of veterans. Difference in frequency of the genetic mutations in this cohort can provide future insight into disease progression, lack of response, and mechanism of resistance to the implemented therapy. Future studies focused on this veteran patient population are needed for developing targeted therapies and patient tailored oncologic therapy. ctDNA has a high potential for monitoring clinically relevant cancer-related genetic and epigenetic modifications for discovering more detailed information on the tumor characterization. Although larger cohort trial with longitudinal analyses are needed, high prevalence of DDR gene and Tp53 mutation in our study instills promising hope for therapeutic interventions in this unique cohort.

The minimally invasive liquid biopsy shows a great promise as both diagnostic and prognostic tool in the personalized clinical management of advanced prostate, and NSCLC in the veteran patient population with unique demographic characteristics. De novo metastatic prostate cancer is more common in veterans when compared with the general population, and therefore veterans may benefit by liquid biopsy. Differences in the frequency of genetic mutations (DDR, TP53, AR) in this cohort provides valuable information for disease progression, lack of response, mechanism of resistance to the implemented therapy and clinical decision making. Precision oncology can be further tailored for this cohort by focusing on DNA repair genes and Tp53 mutations for future targeted therapy.

The advent of liquid biopsies targeting genetic mutations in solid tumors is a major milestone in the field of precision oncology.¹ Conventional methods of obtaining tissue for molecular studies are limited by sample size and often do not represent the entire bulk of the tumor.² This newer minimally invasive, revolutionary technique analyzes circulating cell-free DNA carrying tumor-specific alterations (circulating tumor DNA [ctDNA]) in peripheral blood and detects signature genomic alterations.¹ Tp53 mutations have been reported in 25 to 40% of prostatic cancers and > 50% of non-small cell lung cancers (NSCLC), being more common in late-stage and hormone refractory prostate cancers.^3,4 Tp53 mutation has been found to be associated with poor prognosis and increased germline mutations.⁵

The veteran patient population has distinct demographic characteristics that make veterans more vulnerable to genetic mutations and malignancies, including risk of exposure to Agent Orange, smoking, substance abuse, and asbestos. This area is understudied and extremely sparse in the literature for frequency of genetic mutations, risk factors in solid malignancies occurring in the veteran patient population, and the clinical impact of these risk factors. We herein present a quality assurance study for the utility of liquid biopsies regarding the frequency of DNA damage repair (DDR) gene, Tp53, and androgen receptor (AR) mutations. The clinical impact in advanced lung and prostate cancers in the veteran patient population and frequency are the quality assurance observations that are the study endpoints.

Methods

We reviewed for quality assurance documentation from the Foundation Medicine (www.foundationmedicine.com) cancer biomarker tests on liquid biopsies performed at the Corporal Michael J. Crescenz Veteran Affairs Medical Center in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania from May 2019 to April 15, 2020. All biopsies were performed on cancers with biochemical, imaging or tissue evidence of advanced tumor progression. The testing was performed on advanced solid malignancies, including NSCLC, prostate adenocarcinoma, and metastatic colon cancer. Statistical data for adequacy; cases with notable mutations; frequency; and type of mutations of AR, DDR, and Tp53 were noted. General and specific risk factors associated with the veteran patient population were studied and matched with the type of mutations (Table 1).

Results

Thirty-one liquid biopsies were performed over this period—23 for prostate cancer, 7 for patients with lung cancer patients, and 1 for a patient with colon cancer. Of 31 cases, sensitivity/adequacy of liquid biopsy for genetic mutation was detected in 29 (93.5%) cases (Figure 1). Two inadequate biopsies (both from patients with prostate cancer) were excluded from the study, leaving 29 liquid biopsies with adequate ctDNA for analysis that were considered for further statistical purpose—21 prostate, 7 lung, and 1 colon cancer.

Multiple (common and different) genetic mutations were identified; however, our study subcategorized the mutations into the those that were related to prostate cancer, lung cancer, and some common mutations that occur in both cancers. Only the significant ones will be discussed in this review and equivocal result for AR is excluded from this study. Of the 21 prostate cancers, 4 (19.0%) had directed the targeted therapy to driver mutation (AR being most common in prostate cancer), while KRAS mutation, which was more common in lung cancer, was detected in 2/7 (28.6%) lung cancers. Mutations common to both cancer types were DDR gene mutations, which is a broad name for numerous genes including CDK12, ATM, and CHEK2.

Of all cases irrespective of the cancer type, 23/29 (79.3%) showed notable mutations. DDR gene mutations were found in 6 of 21 (28.5%) patients with prostate cancer and 8 of 23 (34.7%) patients with advanced prostate and lung cancers, indicating poor outcome and possible resistance to the current therapy. Of 23 patients showing mutations irrespective of the cancer type, 15 (65.2%) harbored Tp53 mutations, which is much more frequent in veteran patient population when compared with the literature. Fifteen of the 31 (48.4%) total patients were Vietnam War-era veterans who were potentially exposed to Agent Orange and 20 (64.5%) patients who were not Vietnam War-era veterans had a history that included smoking (Figure 2).

Discussion

The veteran patient population is a unique cohort due to its distinct demographic characteristics with a high volume of cancer cases diagnosed each year. According to data from VA Central Cancer Registry (VACCR), the most frequently diagnosed cancers are prostate (29%) and lung (18%).⁶

Liquid biopsy is a novel, promising technology that uses ctDNA and circulating tumor cells in peripheral blood for detecting genetic alterations through next generation sequencing.^7-9 The advent of this minimally invasive, revolutionary technology has been a breakthrough in the field of precision oncology for prognosis, to monitor treatment response or resistance to therapy and further personalize cancer therapy.^9,10

Comprehensive genomic profiling by liquid biopsy has many advantages over the molecular studies performed on tissue biopsy. Due to the tumor heterogeneity, tissue samples may not represent the full profile of the tumor genomics of cancer, while liquid biopsy has full presentation of the disease.^11,12 Many times, tissue biopsy may be limited by a sample size that precludes full genetic profiling in addition to higher total cost, potential technical issues during processing, and possible side effects of the biopsy procedure.^7,13 Additionally, as the tumor progresses, new driver mutations other than the ones previously detected on the primary tissue may emerge, which can confer resistance to the existing therapy.^7,13

Advanced prostatic and lung carcinomas with biochemical, distant organ, or bony progression harbor unique signature genetic mutations indicating poor prognosis, lack of response or resistance to the existing therapy, and high risk of relapse.^14,15 Some of the unique characteristics of the veteran patient population include a more aged patient population multiple comorbidities, higher frequency of > 1 type of cancer, advanced cancer stage at presentation, and specific risks factors such as exposure to Agent Orange in veterans who served during the Vietnam War era.^16,17 We studied the utility of liquid biopsy in cancer care, including type and incidence of genomic alterations associated with advanced prostate and lung cancers, in this unique patient population.

The amount of cell-free DNA (cfDNA), also known as ctDNA varies widely in cancer patients. Some of the factors associated with low concentration of cfDNA are disease stage, intervening therapy, proliferation rates, and tumor vascularization.^18,19 In the peripheral blood, of the total cfDNA, fractions of cfDNA varies from 0.01 to 90%.^18,19 All samples containing ≥ 20 ng cfDNA (20 - 100 ng) were subjected to the hybrid capture-based NGS FoundationACT assay.²⁰ In our study, 2 specimens did not meet the minimum criteria of adequacy (20 ng cfDNA); however, the overall adequacy rate for the detection of mutation, irrespective of the cancer type was 29 of 31 (93.5%) with only 2 inadequate samples. This rate is higher than the rate reported in the literature, which is about 70%.²⁰

Significant differences were encountered in the incidence of DNA damage repair genes including Tp53 mutations when compared with those in the general patient population (Table 2). According to recent National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines, all prostate cancers should be screened for DDR gene mutations as these genes are common in aggressive prostate cancers and strongly associated with poor outcomes and shortened survival. Due to relatively high frequency of DDR gene mutations in advanced prostatic cancers, liquid biopsy in patients with these advanced stage prostate cancers may be a useful tool in clinical decision making and exploring targeted therapy.²⁰

We also evaluated the frequency of the most commonly occurring genetic mutations, Tp53 in advanced solid malignancies, especially advanced prostate and NSCLC. Previous studies have reported Tp53 mutation in association with risk factors (carcinogens) of cancer and have been a surrogate marker of poor survival or lack of response of therapy.²⁵ Knowledge of Tp53 mutation is crucial for closer disease monitoring, preparing the patient for rapid progression, and encouraging the physician to prepare future lines of therapy.^25-27 Although Tp53 mutation varies with histologic type and tissue of origin, Beltran and colleagues reported it in 30 to 40% of tumors, while Robles and colleagues reported about 40 to 42% incidence.^25,27

Our study showed notable mutations in 23 of 29 adequate cases. Further, our study showed a high frequency of mutated Tp53 in 65.2% of combined advanced prostate and NSCLC cases. We then correlated cases of Vietnam War-era veterans with risk potential of Agent Orange exposure and Tp53 mutation. We found 7 of 15 Vietnam War-era veterans were positive for Tp53 mutations irrespective of the cancer type. The high incidence of Tp53 mutations in advanced prostate and lung carcinomas in the veteran patient population makes this tumor marker an aspiration not only as a surrogate of aggressive disease and tumor progression, but also as a key marker for targeted therapy in advanced prostate and lung cancers with loss of Tp53 function (Figure 3).

Conclusions

Liquid biopsy successfully provides precision-based oncology and information for decision making in this unique population of veterans. Difference in frequency of the genetic mutations in this cohort can provide future insight into disease progression, lack of response, and mechanism of resistance to the implemented therapy. Future studies focused on this veteran patient population are needed for developing targeted therapies and patient tailored oncologic therapy. ctDNA has a high potential for monitoring clinically relevant cancer-related genetic and epigenetic modifications for discovering more detailed information on the tumor characterization. Although larger cohort trial with longitudinal analyses are needed, high prevalence of DDR gene and Tp53 mutation in our study instills promising hope for therapeutic interventions in this unique cohort.

The minimally invasive liquid biopsy shows a great promise as both diagnostic and prognostic tool in the personalized clinical management of advanced prostate, and NSCLC in the veteran patient population with unique demographic characteristics. De novo metastatic prostate cancer is more common in veterans when compared with the general population, and therefore veterans may benefit by liquid biopsy. Differences in the frequency of genetic mutations (DDR, TP53, AR) in this cohort provides valuable information for disease progression, lack of response, mechanism of resistance to the implemented therapy and clinical decision making. Precision oncology can be further tailored for this cohort by focusing on DNA repair genes and Tp53 mutations for future targeted therapy.

Nearly 20,000 patients are diagnosed with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) in the US annually.¹ Despite the use of aggressive chemotherapeutic agents, the prognosis remains poor, with a mean 5-year survival of 28.3%.² Fortunately, with the refinement of next-generation sequencing (NGS) hematology panels and development of systemic targeted therapies, the treatment landscape for eligible patients has improved, both in frontline and relapsed or refractory (R/R) patients.

Specifically, investigations into alterations within the FMS-like tyrosine kinase (FLT3) and isocitrate dehydrogenase (IDH) genes have led to the discovery of a number of targeted treatments. Midostaurin is US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved for use in combination with induction chemotherapy for patients with internal tandem duplication of the FLT3 (FLT3-ITD) gene or mutations within the tyrosine kinase domain (FLT3-TKD).³ Ivosidenib is indicated for frontline treatment for those who are poor candidates for induction chemotherapy, and R/R patients who have an R132H mutation in IDH1.^4,5 Enasidenib is FDA-approved for R/R patients with R140Q, R172S, and R172K mutations in IDH2.⁶

The optimal treatment for patients with AML with ≥ 2 clinically actionable mutations has not been established. In this article we describe a geriatric patient who initially was diagnosed with AML with concurrent FLT3-TKD and IDH1 mutations and received targeted, sequential management. We detail changes in disease phenotype and mutational status by repeating an NGS hematology panel and cytogenetic studies after each stage of therapy. Lastly, we discuss the clonal evolution apparent within leukemic cells with use of ≥ 1 or more targeted agents.

Case Presentation

A 68-year-old man presented to the Emergency Department at The Durham Veterans Affairs Medical Center in North Carolina with fatigue and light-headedness. Because of his symptoms and pancytopenia, a bone marrow aspiration and trephine biopsy were performed, which showed 57% myeloblasts, 12% promyelocytes/myelocytes, and 2% metamyelocytes in 20 to 30% cellular bone marrow. Flow cytometry confirmed a blast population consistent with AML. A LeukoVantage (Quest Diagnostics) hematologic NGS panel revealed the presence of FLT3-TKD, IDH1, RUNX1, BCOR-E1477, and SF3B1 mutations (Table). Initial fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) results showed a normal pattern of hybridization with no translocations. His disease was deemed to be intermediate-high risk because of the presence of FLT3-TKD and RUNX1 mutations, despite the normal cytogenetic profile and absence of additional clinical features.

Induction chemotherapy was started with idarubicin, 12 mg/m², on days 1 to 3 and cytarabine, 200 mg/m², on days 1 to 7. Because of the presence of a FLT3-TKD mutation, midostaurin was planned for days 8 to 21. After induction chemotherapy, a bone marrow biopsy on day 14 revealed an acellular marrow with no observed myeloblasts. A bone marrow biopsy conducted before initiating consolidation therapy, revealed 30% cellularity with morphologic remission. However, flow cytometry found 5% myeloblasts expressing CD34, CD117, CD13, CD38, and HLA-DR, consistent with measurable residual disease. He received 2 cycles of consolidation therapy with high-dose cytarabine combined with midostaurin. After the patient's second cycle of consolidation, he continued to experience transfusion-dependent cytopenias. Another bone marrow evaluation demonstrated 10% cellularity with nearly all cells appearing to be myeloblasts. A repeat LeukoVantage NGS panel demonstrated undetectable FLT3-TKD mutation and persistent IDH1-R123C mutation. FISH studies revealed a complex karyotype with monosomy of chromosomes 5 and 7 and trisomy of chromosome 8.

We discussed with the patient and his family the options available, which included initiating targeted therapy for his IDH1 mutation, administering hypomethylation therapy with or without venetoclax, or pursuing palliative measures. We collectively decided to pursue therapy with single-agent oral ivosidenib, 500 mg daily. After 1 month of treatment, our patient developed worsening fatigue. His white blood cell count had increased to > 43 k/cm², raising concern for differentiation syndrome.

A review of the peripheral smear showed a wide-spectrum of maturing granulocytes, with a large percentage of blasts. Peripheral flow cytometry confirmed a blast population of 15%. After a short period of symptom improvement with steroids, the patient developed worsening confusion. Brain imaging identified 2 subdural hemorrhages. Because of a significant peripheral blast population and the development of these hemorrhages, palliative measures were pursued, and the patient was discharged to an inpatient hospice facility. A final NGS panel performed from peripheral blood detected mutations in IDH1, RUNX1, PTPN11, NRAS, BCOR-E1443, and SF3B1 genes.

Discussion

To our knowledge, this is the first reported case of a patient who sequentially received targeted treatments directed against both FLT3 and IDH1 mutations. Initial management with midostaurin and cytarabine resulted in sustained remission of his FLT3-TKD mutation. However, despite receiving prompt standard of care with combination induction chemotherapy and targeted therapy, the patient experienced unfavorable clonal evolution based upon his molecular and cytogenetic testing. Addition of ivosidenib as a second targeting agent for his IDH1 mutation did not achieve a second remission.

Clonal evolution is a well-described phenomenon in hematology. Indolent conditions, such as clonal hematopoiesis of intermediate potential, or malignancies, such as myelodysplastic syndromes and myeloproliferative neoplasms, could transform into acute leukemia through the accumulation of driver mutations and/or cytogenetic abnormalities. Clonal evolution often is viewed as the culprit in patients with AML whose disease relapses after remission with initial chemotherapy.^7-10 With the increasing availability of commercial NGS panels designed to assess mutations among patients experiencing hematologic malignancies, patterns of relapse, and, models of clonal evolution could be observed closely in patients with AML.

We were able to monitor molecular changes within our patient’s predominant clonal populations by repeating peripheral comprehensive NGS panels after lines of targeted therapies. The repeated sequencing revealed that clones with FLT3-TKD mutations responded to midostaurin with first-line chemotherapy whereas it was unclear whether clones with IDH1 mutation responded to ivosidenib. Development of complex cytogenetic findings along with the clonal expansion of BCOR mutation-harboring cells likely contributed to our patient’s acutely worsening condition. Several studies have found that the presence of a BCOR mutation in adults with AML leads to lower overall survival and relapse-free survival.^11,12 As of now, there are no treatments specifically targeting BCOR mutations.

Conclusions

For our patient with AML, sequential targeted management of FLT3-TKD and IDH1 mutations was not beneficial. Higher-risk disease features, such as the development of a complex karyotype, likely contributed to our patient’s poor response to second-line ivosidenib. The sequential NGS malignant hematology panels allowed us to closely monitor changes to the molecular structure of our patient’s AML after each line of targeted therapy. Future investigations of combining targeted agents for patients with AML with concurrent actionable mutations would provide insight into outcomes of treating multiple clonal populations simultaneously.

Nearly 20,000 patients are diagnosed with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) in the US annually.¹ Despite the use of aggressive chemotherapeutic agents, the prognosis remains poor, with a mean 5-year survival of 28.3%.² Fortunately, with the refinement of next-generation sequencing (NGS) hematology panels and development of systemic targeted therapies, the treatment landscape for eligible patients has improved, both in frontline and relapsed or refractory (R/R) patients.

Specifically, investigations into alterations within the FMS-like tyrosine kinase (FLT3) and isocitrate dehydrogenase (IDH) genes have led to the discovery of a number of targeted treatments. Midostaurin is US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved for use in combination with induction chemotherapy for patients with internal tandem duplication of the FLT3 (FLT3-ITD) gene or mutations within the tyrosine kinase domain (FLT3-TKD).³ Ivosidenib is indicated for frontline treatment for those who are poor candidates for induction chemotherapy, and R/R patients who have an R132H mutation in IDH1.^4,5 Enasidenib is FDA-approved for R/R patients with R140Q, R172S, and R172K mutations in IDH2.⁶

The optimal treatment for patients with AML with ≥ 2 clinically actionable mutations has not been established. In this article we describe a geriatric patient who initially was diagnosed with AML with concurrent FLT3-TKD and IDH1 mutations and received targeted, sequential management. We detail changes in disease phenotype and mutational status by repeating an NGS hematology panel and cytogenetic studies after each stage of therapy. Lastly, we discuss the clonal evolution apparent within leukemic cells with use of ≥ 1 or more targeted agents.

Case Presentation

A 68-year-old man presented to the Emergency Department at The Durham Veterans Affairs Medical Center in North Carolina with fatigue and light-headedness. Because of his symptoms and pancytopenia, a bone marrow aspiration and trephine biopsy were performed, which showed 57% myeloblasts, 12% promyelocytes/myelocytes, and 2% metamyelocytes in 20 to 30% cellular bone marrow. Flow cytometry confirmed a blast population consistent with AML. A LeukoVantage (Quest Diagnostics) hematologic NGS panel revealed the presence of FLT3-TKD, IDH1, RUNX1, BCOR-E1477, and SF3B1 mutations (Table). Initial fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) results showed a normal pattern of hybridization with no translocations. His disease was deemed to be intermediate-high risk because of the presence of FLT3-TKD and RUNX1 mutations, despite the normal cytogenetic profile and absence of additional clinical features.

Induction chemotherapy was started with idarubicin, 12 mg/m², on days 1 to 3 and cytarabine, 200 mg/m², on days 1 to 7. Because of the presence of a FLT3-TKD mutation, midostaurin was planned for days 8 to 21. After induction chemotherapy, a bone marrow biopsy on day 14 revealed an acellular marrow with no observed myeloblasts. A bone marrow biopsy conducted before initiating consolidation therapy, revealed 30% cellularity with morphologic remission. However, flow cytometry found 5% myeloblasts expressing CD34, CD117, CD13, CD38, and HLA-DR, consistent with measurable residual disease. He received 2 cycles of consolidation therapy with high-dose cytarabine combined with midostaurin. After the patient's second cycle of consolidation, he continued to experience transfusion-dependent cytopenias. Another bone marrow evaluation demonstrated 10% cellularity with nearly all cells appearing to be myeloblasts. A repeat LeukoVantage NGS panel demonstrated undetectable FLT3-TKD mutation and persistent IDH1-R123C mutation. FISH studies revealed a complex karyotype with monosomy of chromosomes 5 and 7 and trisomy of chromosome 8.

We discussed with the patient and his family the options available, which included initiating targeted therapy for his IDH1 mutation, administering hypomethylation therapy with or without venetoclax, or pursuing palliative measures. We collectively decided to pursue therapy with single-agent oral ivosidenib, 500 mg daily. After 1 month of treatment, our patient developed worsening fatigue. His white blood cell count had increased to > 43 k/cm², raising concern for differentiation syndrome.

A review of the peripheral smear showed a wide-spectrum of maturing granulocytes, with a large percentage of blasts. Peripheral flow cytometry confirmed a blast population of 15%. After a short period of symptom improvement with steroids, the patient developed worsening confusion. Brain imaging identified 2 subdural hemorrhages. Because of a significant peripheral blast population and the development of these hemorrhages, palliative measures were pursued, and the patient was discharged to an inpatient hospice facility. A final NGS panel performed from peripheral blood detected mutations in IDH1, RUNX1, PTPN11, NRAS, BCOR-E1443, and SF3B1 genes.

Discussion

To our knowledge, this is the first reported case of a patient who sequentially received targeted treatments directed against both FLT3 and IDH1 mutations. Initial management with midostaurin and cytarabine resulted in sustained remission of his FLT3-TKD mutation. However, despite receiving prompt standard of care with combination induction chemotherapy and targeted therapy, the patient experienced unfavorable clonal evolution based upon his molecular and cytogenetic testing. Addition of ivosidenib as a second targeting agent for his IDH1 mutation did not achieve a second remission.

Clonal evolution is a well-described phenomenon in hematology. Indolent conditions, such as clonal hematopoiesis of intermediate potential, or malignancies, such as myelodysplastic syndromes and myeloproliferative neoplasms, could transform into acute leukemia through the accumulation of driver mutations and/or cytogenetic abnormalities. Clonal evolution often is viewed as the culprit in patients with AML whose disease relapses after remission with initial chemotherapy.^7-10 With the increasing availability of commercial NGS panels designed to assess mutations among patients experiencing hematologic malignancies, patterns of relapse, and, models of clonal evolution could be observed closely in patients with AML.

We were able to monitor molecular changes within our patient’s predominant clonal populations by repeating peripheral comprehensive NGS panels after lines of targeted therapies. The repeated sequencing revealed that clones with FLT3-TKD mutations responded to midostaurin with first-line chemotherapy whereas it was unclear whether clones with IDH1 mutation responded to ivosidenib. Development of complex cytogenetic findings along with the clonal expansion of BCOR mutation-harboring cells likely contributed to our patient’s acutely worsening condition. Several studies have found that the presence of a BCOR mutation in adults with AML leads to lower overall survival and relapse-free survival.^11,12 As of now, there are no treatments specifically targeting BCOR mutations.

Conclusions

For our patient with AML, sequential targeted management of FLT3-TKD and IDH1 mutations was not beneficial. Higher-risk disease features, such as the development of a complex karyotype, likely contributed to our patient’s poor response to second-line ivosidenib. The sequential NGS malignant hematology panels allowed us to closely monitor changes to the molecular structure of our patient’s AML after each line of targeted therapy. Future investigations of combining targeted agents for patients with AML with concurrent actionable mutations would provide insight into outcomes of treating multiple clonal populations simultaneously.

Nearly 20,000 patients are diagnosed with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) in the US annually.¹ Despite the use of aggressive chemotherapeutic agents, the prognosis remains poor, with a mean 5-year survival of 28.3%.² Fortunately, with the refinement of next-generation sequencing (NGS) hematology panels and development of systemic targeted therapies, the treatment landscape for eligible patients has improved, both in frontline and relapsed or refractory (R/R) patients.

Specifically, investigations into alterations within the FMS-like tyrosine kinase (FLT3) and isocitrate dehydrogenase (IDH) genes have led to the discovery of a number of targeted treatments. Midostaurin is US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved for use in combination with induction chemotherapy for patients with internal tandem duplication of the FLT3 (FLT3-ITD) gene or mutations within the tyrosine kinase domain (FLT3-TKD).³ Ivosidenib is indicated for frontline treatment for those who are poor candidates for induction chemotherapy, and R/R patients who have an R132H mutation in IDH1.^4,5 Enasidenib is FDA-approved for R/R patients with R140Q, R172S, and R172K mutations in IDH2.⁶

The optimal treatment for patients with AML with ≥ 2 clinically actionable mutations has not been established. In this article we describe a geriatric patient who initially was diagnosed with AML with concurrent FLT3-TKD and IDH1 mutations and received targeted, sequential management. We detail changes in disease phenotype and mutational status by repeating an NGS hematology panel and cytogenetic studies after each stage of therapy. Lastly, we discuss the clonal evolution apparent within leukemic cells with use of ≥ 1 or more targeted agents.

Case Presentation

A 68-year-old man presented to the Emergency Department at The Durham Veterans Affairs Medical Center in North Carolina with fatigue and light-headedness. Because of his symptoms and pancytopenia, a bone marrow aspiration and trephine biopsy were performed, which showed 57% myeloblasts, 12% promyelocytes/myelocytes, and 2% metamyelocytes in 20 to 30% cellular bone marrow. Flow cytometry confirmed a blast population consistent with AML. A LeukoVantage (Quest Diagnostics) hematologic NGS panel revealed the presence of FLT3-TKD, IDH1, RUNX1, BCOR-E1477, and SF3B1 mutations (Table). Initial fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) results showed a normal pattern of hybridization with no translocations. His disease was deemed to be intermediate-high risk because of the presence of FLT3-TKD and RUNX1 mutations, despite the normal cytogenetic profile and absence of additional clinical features.

Induction chemotherapy was started with idarubicin, 12 mg/m², on days 1 to 3 and cytarabine, 200 mg/m², on days 1 to 7. Because of the presence of a FLT3-TKD mutation, midostaurin was planned for days 8 to 21. After induction chemotherapy, a bone marrow biopsy on day 14 revealed an acellular marrow with no observed myeloblasts. A bone marrow biopsy conducted before initiating consolidation therapy, revealed 30% cellularity with morphologic remission. However, flow cytometry found 5% myeloblasts expressing CD34, CD117, CD13, CD38, and HLA-DR, consistent with measurable residual disease. He received 2 cycles of consolidation therapy with high-dose cytarabine combined with midostaurin. After the patient's second cycle of consolidation, he continued to experience transfusion-dependent cytopenias. Another bone marrow evaluation demonstrated 10% cellularity with nearly all cells appearing to be myeloblasts. A repeat LeukoVantage NGS panel demonstrated undetectable FLT3-TKD mutation and persistent IDH1-R123C mutation. FISH studies revealed a complex karyotype with monosomy of chromosomes 5 and 7 and trisomy of chromosome 8.

We discussed with the patient and his family the options available, which included initiating targeted therapy for his IDH1 mutation, administering hypomethylation therapy with or without venetoclax, or pursuing palliative measures. We collectively decided to pursue therapy with single-agent oral ivosidenib, 500 mg daily. After 1 month of treatment, our patient developed worsening fatigue. His white blood cell count had increased to > 43 k/cm², raising concern for differentiation syndrome.

A review of the peripheral smear showed a wide-spectrum of maturing granulocytes, with a large percentage of blasts. Peripheral flow cytometry confirmed a blast population of 15%. After a short period of symptom improvement with steroids, the patient developed worsening confusion. Brain imaging identified 2 subdural hemorrhages. Because of a significant peripheral blast population and the development of these hemorrhages, palliative measures were pursued, and the patient was discharged to an inpatient hospice facility. A final NGS panel performed from peripheral blood detected mutations in IDH1, RUNX1, PTPN11, NRAS, BCOR-E1443, and SF3B1 genes.

Discussion

To our knowledge, this is the first reported case of a patient who sequentially received targeted treatments directed against both FLT3 and IDH1 mutations. Initial management with midostaurin and cytarabine resulted in sustained remission of his FLT3-TKD mutation. However, despite receiving prompt standard of care with combination induction chemotherapy and targeted therapy, the patient experienced unfavorable clonal evolution based upon his molecular and cytogenetic testing. Addition of ivosidenib as a second targeting agent for his IDH1 mutation did not achieve a second remission.

Clonal evolution is a well-described phenomenon in hematology. Indolent conditions, such as clonal hematopoiesis of intermediate potential, or malignancies, such as myelodysplastic syndromes and myeloproliferative neoplasms, could transform into acute leukemia through the accumulation of driver mutations and/or cytogenetic abnormalities. Clonal evolution often is viewed as the culprit in patients with AML whose disease relapses after remission with initial chemotherapy.^7-10 With the increasing availability of commercial NGS panels designed to assess mutations among patients experiencing hematologic malignancies, patterns of relapse, and, models of clonal evolution could be observed closely in patients with AML.

We were able to monitor molecular changes within our patient’s predominant clonal populations by repeating peripheral comprehensive NGS panels after lines of targeted therapies. The repeated sequencing revealed that clones with FLT3-TKD mutations responded to midostaurin with first-line chemotherapy whereas it was unclear whether clones with IDH1 mutation responded to ivosidenib. Development of complex cytogenetic findings along with the clonal expansion of BCOR mutation-harboring cells likely contributed to our patient’s acutely worsening condition. Several studies have found that the presence of a BCOR mutation in adults with AML leads to lower overall survival and relapse-free survival.^11,12 As of now, there are no treatments specifically targeting BCOR mutations.

Conclusions

For our patient with AML, sequential targeted management of FLT3-TKD and IDH1 mutations was not beneficial. Higher-risk disease features, such as the development of a complex karyotype, likely contributed to our patient’s poor response to second-line ivosidenib. The sequential NGS malignant hematology panels allowed us to closely monitor changes to the molecular structure of our patient’s AML after each line of targeted therapy. Future investigations of combining targeted agents for patients with AML with concurrent actionable mutations would provide insight into outcomes of treating multiple clonal populations simultaneously.

There was no evidence of an abscopal effect with the addition of limited radiation therapy to nivolumab in patients with metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma, according to new results from a randomized trial. 

The phase 2, single-center study was conducted in 62 patients with head and neck cancer and at least two metastatic lesions. They were randomly assigned to receive nivolumab with or without additional radiation, delivered as stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT), but directed at only one of the metastatic lesions.

The results showed a similar rate of tumor shrinkage and disappearance in both groups (34.5% for nivolumab vs. 29.0% for the combination; P = .86) reported Sean McBride, MD, MPH, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, and colleagues in a paper published online in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

The finding indicates that there was no abscopal effect, the team concluded.

The abscopal (from the Latin ab “away from” and scopus “target”) effect, first described in the 1950s, is a hypothetical result of radiation, whereby tumors situated outside the radiation field are reduced or eliminated by an assumed reaction mediated by the immune system.

This study is only the second randomized controlled trial to look at this effect. A previous trial in lung cancer (JAMA Oncol. 2019;5:1276) also failed to show a significant difference in objective response rate, the primary outcome.

In both studies, there was also no improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) or overall survival (OS) with the addition of radiation.

“There are still die-hard proponents of the existence of an abscopal response, but it is clear from our data – there is no abscopal response,” lead study author Nancy Lee, MD, said in an interview.

Dr. Lee, also from Memorial Sloan Kettering, was referring to this trial in head and neck cancer specifically. But previous nonrandomized studies have also reported response rates for the combination of SBRT and immunotherapy that are similar to monotherapy, the authors point out. Overall, the collective data in oncology suggest that the abscopal response is “relatively rare,” the team comments.

A more emphatic statement comes from a pair of oncologists in an accompanying editorial.

The new study “provides the clearest evidence so far that the abscopal effect, contrary to widely held perception in the field, remains exceedingly rare,” wrote Tanguy Seiwert, MD, medical oncologist, and Ana Kiess, MD, PhD, radiation oncologist, both at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

This is a “well-executed study that has broader implications beyond head and neck cancer and speaks to larger issues of combination therapies in the era of cancer immunotherapy,” they also wrote.

The practice of using limited SBRT on any tumor type – along with anti–PD-1/PD-L1 therapy – “should not be pursued for the sole purpose of induction of an abscopal effect until we have better data to support any benefit,” the editorialists added.

It’s time to put the abscopal effect to rest, suggested Dr. Lee.

“Instead of focusing on whether an abscopal response exists or not, as it clearly did not in our phase 2 study, our focus should shift to the broader picture. What is the optimal timing of PD-1 or PD-L1 therapy in relation to radiotherapy?” she said.

The answer appears to be sequentially – and not concurrently, which is how radiation has been used to induce the would-be abscopal effect, she explained. “I personally feel that immunotherapy should not be given concurrently with radiation therapy.”

Damning data for the concurrent approach come from the phase 3 Javelin Head and Neck 100 trial, she said. In March, trial sponsors announced that the trial was terminated as it was unlikely to meet its primary endpoint. Specifically, adding an anti–PD-L1 therapy to chemoradiotherapy was not superior to chemoradiotherapy alone.

On the other hand, in the phase 3 lung cancer study known as PACIFIC, chemoradiotherapy followed by sequential anti–PD-L1 therapy showed “dramatic” improvements in PFS and OS, the editorialists pointed out.
 

Radiation and immunotherapy combinations

Despite the failure of this trial, radiation has “significant potential for combination with immunotherapy,” observed Dr. Seiwert and Dr. Kiess.

There are at least three potential roles of radiation therapy in combination with anti–PD-1/PD-L1 therapy, they wrote.

They explained that the first is single-site palliative radiation therapy/SBRT, which can control local symptoms. The second is “consolidation” of all tumor sites with radiation therapy/SBRT, which may decrease tumor burden and heterogeneity. And the third potential role is definitive locoregional radiation therapy to achieve long-term locoregional tumor control.

Thus, the editorialists, like Dr. Lee, believed the question of concurrent versus sequential immunotherapy is “important.” But the field of oncology has an abundance of treatments that can now be aimed at a cancer, in a variety of potential combinations, they observed.

The editorialists concluded their commentary with a long list of needed work: “We should take this study to guide us to explore promising approaches in rigorous clinical trials, with a focus on sequential approaches such as definitive RT followed by immunotherapy, consolidative SBRT of all tumor sites in combination with immunotherapy, and trials that incorporate surrogate immunotherapy-relevant biomarkers to assess earlier and more efficiently the impact of an intervention.”

The study was partly supported by a grant from the National Cancer Institute. Bristol-Myers Squibb provided the study drug and funded tumor staining.

Multiple study authors have financial ties to industry, including two with ties to Bristol-Myers Squibb. Both editorialists have ties to industry, including Dr. Seiwert’s ties to Bristol-Myers Squibb.

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

There was no evidence of an abscopal effect with the addition of limited radiation therapy to nivolumab in patients with metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma, according to new results from a randomized trial. 

The phase 2, single-center study was conducted in 62 patients with head and neck cancer and at least two metastatic lesions. They were randomly assigned to receive nivolumab with or without additional radiation, delivered as stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT), but directed at only one of the metastatic lesions.

The results showed a similar rate of tumor shrinkage and disappearance in both groups (34.5% for nivolumab vs. 29.0% for the combination; P = .86) reported Sean McBride, MD, MPH, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, and colleagues in a paper published online in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

The finding indicates that there was no abscopal effect, the team concluded.

The abscopal (from the Latin ab “away from” and scopus “target”) effect, first described in the 1950s, is a hypothetical result of radiation, whereby tumors situated outside the radiation field are reduced or eliminated by an assumed reaction mediated by the immune system.

This study is only the second randomized controlled trial to look at this effect. A previous trial in lung cancer (JAMA Oncol. 2019;5:1276) also failed to show a significant difference in objective response rate, the primary outcome.

In both studies, there was also no improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) or overall survival (OS) with the addition of radiation.

“There are still die-hard proponents of the existence of an abscopal response, but it is clear from our data – there is no abscopal response,” lead study author Nancy Lee, MD, said in an interview.

Dr. Lee, also from Memorial Sloan Kettering, was referring to this trial in head and neck cancer specifically. But previous nonrandomized studies have also reported response rates for the combination of SBRT and immunotherapy that are similar to monotherapy, the authors point out. Overall, the collective data in oncology suggest that the abscopal response is “relatively rare,” the team comments.

A more emphatic statement comes from a pair of oncologists in an accompanying editorial.

The new study “provides the clearest evidence so far that the abscopal effect, contrary to widely held perception in the field, remains exceedingly rare,” wrote Tanguy Seiwert, MD, medical oncologist, and Ana Kiess, MD, PhD, radiation oncologist, both at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

This is a “well-executed study that has broader implications beyond head and neck cancer and speaks to larger issues of combination therapies in the era of cancer immunotherapy,” they also wrote.

The practice of using limited SBRT on any tumor type – along with anti–PD-1/PD-L1 therapy – “should not be pursued for the sole purpose of induction of an abscopal effect until we have better data to support any benefit,” the editorialists added.

It’s time to put the abscopal effect to rest, suggested Dr. Lee.

“Instead of focusing on whether an abscopal response exists or not, as it clearly did not in our phase 2 study, our focus should shift to the broader picture. What is the optimal timing of PD-1 or PD-L1 therapy in relation to radiotherapy?” she said.

The answer appears to be sequentially – and not concurrently, which is how radiation has been used to induce the would-be abscopal effect, she explained. “I personally feel that immunotherapy should not be given concurrently with radiation therapy.”

Damning data for the concurrent approach come from the phase 3 Javelin Head and Neck 100 trial, she said. In March, trial sponsors announced that the trial was terminated as it was unlikely to meet its primary endpoint. Specifically, adding an anti–PD-L1 therapy to chemoradiotherapy was not superior to chemoradiotherapy alone.

On the other hand, in the phase 3 lung cancer study known as PACIFIC, chemoradiotherapy followed by sequential anti–PD-L1 therapy showed “dramatic” improvements in PFS and OS, the editorialists pointed out.
 

Radiation and immunotherapy combinations

Despite the failure of this trial, radiation has “significant potential for combination with immunotherapy,” observed Dr. Seiwert and Dr. Kiess.

There are at least three potential roles of radiation therapy in combination with anti–PD-1/PD-L1 therapy, they wrote.

They explained that the first is single-site palliative radiation therapy/SBRT, which can control local symptoms. The second is “consolidation” of all tumor sites with radiation therapy/SBRT, which may decrease tumor burden and heterogeneity. And the third potential role is definitive locoregional radiation therapy to achieve long-term locoregional tumor control.

Thus, the editorialists, like Dr. Lee, believed the question of concurrent versus sequential immunotherapy is “important.” But the field of oncology has an abundance of treatments that can now be aimed at a cancer, in a variety of potential combinations, they observed.

The editorialists concluded their commentary with a long list of needed work: “We should take this study to guide us to explore promising approaches in rigorous clinical trials, with a focus on sequential approaches such as definitive RT followed by immunotherapy, consolidative SBRT of all tumor sites in combination with immunotherapy, and trials that incorporate surrogate immunotherapy-relevant biomarkers to assess earlier and more efficiently the impact of an intervention.”

The study was partly supported by a grant from the National Cancer Institute. Bristol-Myers Squibb provided the study drug and funded tumor staining.

Multiple study authors have financial ties to industry, including two with ties to Bristol-Myers Squibb. Both editorialists have ties to industry, including Dr. Seiwert’s ties to Bristol-Myers Squibb.

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

There was no evidence of an abscopal effect with the addition of limited radiation therapy to nivolumab in patients with metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma, according to new results from a randomized trial. 

The phase 2, single-center study was conducted in 62 patients with head and neck cancer and at least two metastatic lesions. They were randomly assigned to receive nivolumab with or without additional radiation, delivered as stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT), but directed at only one of the metastatic lesions.

The results showed a similar rate of tumor shrinkage and disappearance in both groups (34.5% for nivolumab vs. 29.0% for the combination; P = .86) reported Sean McBride, MD, MPH, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, and colleagues in a paper published online in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

The finding indicates that there was no abscopal effect, the team concluded.

The abscopal (from the Latin ab “away from” and scopus “target”) effect, first described in the 1950s, is a hypothetical result of radiation, whereby tumors situated outside the radiation field are reduced or eliminated by an assumed reaction mediated by the immune system.

This study is only the second randomized controlled trial to look at this effect. A previous trial in lung cancer (JAMA Oncol. 2019;5:1276) also failed to show a significant difference in objective response rate, the primary outcome.

In both studies, there was also no improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) or overall survival (OS) with the addition of radiation.

“There are still die-hard proponents of the existence of an abscopal response, but it is clear from our data – there is no abscopal response,” lead study author Nancy Lee, MD, said in an interview.

Dr. Lee, also from Memorial Sloan Kettering, was referring to this trial in head and neck cancer specifically. But previous nonrandomized studies have also reported response rates for the combination of SBRT and immunotherapy that are similar to monotherapy, the authors point out. Overall, the collective data in oncology suggest that the abscopal response is “relatively rare,” the team comments.

A more emphatic statement comes from a pair of oncologists in an accompanying editorial.

The new study “provides the clearest evidence so far that the abscopal effect, contrary to widely held perception in the field, remains exceedingly rare,” wrote Tanguy Seiwert, MD, medical oncologist, and Ana Kiess, MD, PhD, radiation oncologist, both at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

This is a “well-executed study that has broader implications beyond head and neck cancer and speaks to larger issues of combination therapies in the era of cancer immunotherapy,” they also wrote.

The practice of using limited SBRT on any tumor type – along with anti–PD-1/PD-L1 therapy – “should not be pursued for the sole purpose of induction of an abscopal effect until we have better data to support any benefit,” the editorialists added.

It’s time to put the abscopal effect to rest, suggested Dr. Lee.

“Instead of focusing on whether an abscopal response exists or not, as it clearly did not in our phase 2 study, our focus should shift to the broader picture. What is the optimal timing of PD-1 or PD-L1 therapy in relation to radiotherapy?” she said.

The answer appears to be sequentially – and not concurrently, which is how radiation has been used to induce the would-be abscopal effect, she explained. “I personally feel that immunotherapy should not be given concurrently with radiation therapy.”

Damning data for the concurrent approach come from the phase 3 Javelin Head and Neck 100 trial, she said. In March, trial sponsors announced that the trial was terminated as it was unlikely to meet its primary endpoint. Specifically, adding an anti–PD-L1 therapy to chemoradiotherapy was not superior to chemoradiotherapy alone.

On the other hand, in the phase 3 lung cancer study known as PACIFIC, chemoradiotherapy followed by sequential anti–PD-L1 therapy showed “dramatic” improvements in PFS and OS, the editorialists pointed out.
 

Radiation and immunotherapy combinations

Despite the failure of this trial, radiation has “significant potential for combination with immunotherapy,” observed Dr. Seiwert and Dr. Kiess.

There are at least three potential roles of radiation therapy in combination with anti–PD-1/PD-L1 therapy, they wrote.

They explained that the first is single-site palliative radiation therapy/SBRT, which can control local symptoms. The second is “consolidation” of all tumor sites with radiation therapy/SBRT, which may decrease tumor burden and heterogeneity. And the third potential role is definitive locoregional radiation therapy to achieve long-term locoregional tumor control.

Thus, the editorialists, like Dr. Lee, believed the question of concurrent versus sequential immunotherapy is “important.” But the field of oncology has an abundance of treatments that can now be aimed at a cancer, in a variety of potential combinations, they observed.

The editorialists concluded their commentary with a long list of needed work: “We should take this study to guide us to explore promising approaches in rigorous clinical trials, with a focus on sequential approaches such as definitive RT followed by immunotherapy, consolidative SBRT of all tumor sites in combination with immunotherapy, and trials that incorporate surrogate immunotherapy-relevant biomarkers to assess earlier and more efficiently the impact of an intervention.”

The study was partly supported by a grant from the National Cancer Institute. Bristol-Myers Squibb provided the study drug and funded tumor staining.

Multiple study authors have financial ties to industry, including two with ties to Bristol-Myers Squibb. Both editorialists have ties to industry, including Dr. Seiwert’s ties to Bristol-Myers Squibb.

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

The incidence of esophageal adenocarcinoma in adults aged younger than 50 years increased threefold between 1975 and 2015, based on data from more than 34,000 cases.

Esophageal carcinoma rates overall have risen in the United States over the past 4 decades, but the average patient is in their 60s, wrote Don C. Codipilly, MD, of the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., and colleagues. Therefore, “data on the incidence, stage distribution, and outcomes of this segment of patients [younger than 50 years] with esophageal adenocarcinoma are relatively limited.”

In a study published in Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention, the researchers identified 34,443 cases of esophageal adenocarcinoma using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database for the periods of 1975-1989, 1990-1999, and 2000-2015. The cases were limited to histologically confirmed cases and were stratified according to age at diagnosis: younger than 50 years, 50-69 years, and 70 years and older

Overall, the annual incidence of esophageal adenocarcinoma among individuals younger than 50 years increased from 0.08 per 100,000 persons in 1975 to 0.27 per 100,000 persons in 2015.
 

Younger patients show more advanced illness

Although the incidence rose across all three age groups during the study period, the largest increase was seen in those aged 70 years and older. However, the younger group was significantly more likely to present at more-advanced stages, the researchers pointed out: Between 2000 and 2015, localized disease represented only 15.1% of cases in those younger than 50 years, compared with 22.4% in patients aged 50-69 years and 32.2% in those 70 years and older. The incidence of regional/distant disease among younger patients has increased over time, with 81.8% in 1975-1989, 75.5% in 1990-1999, and 84.9% in 2000-2015 (P < .01), and this increase has been faster than among older groups, the researches noted. For comparison, during 2000-2015 only 77.6% of patients aged 50-69 years and 67.8% of patients 70 years and older had regional/distant disease.

In addition, the majority of cases of young-onset esophageal adenocarcinoma occurred in men in a trend that persisted across the study periods; 90% of patients younger than 50 years were male in 1975, and 86% of the younger patients in 2015 were male.

“There is no clear explanation for the higher proportion of advanced disease in younger patients, and further study is required to identify biologic, genetic, and environmental factors that may underlie this observation,” the researchers wrote. “A potential hypothesis is that ‘young-onset esophageal adenocarcinoma’ may involve rapid transition from intestinal metaplasia to esophageal adenocarcinoma, driven by an increase in signaling molecules that are active in the intestine,” they suggested.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the inability to review individual case records to confirm disease stage and to compare outcomes across ethnicities, and the lack of data on comorbidities in the SEER database, the researchers noted.

However, the results were strengthened by overall quality of the SEER database and use of multivariate analysis, they added. The evidence of increased incidence and increased odds of advanced disease in younger adults suggest that “reevaluation of our diagnostic and treatment strategies in this age group might need to be considered.”
 

Reasons for increase remain unclear

“While esophageal adenocarcinoma is uncommon overall in younger patients, this study importantly highlights that not only has the incidence of esophageal adenocarcinoma increased more than threefold in patients under the age of 50 over the last 4 decades, but that younger patients are presenting with more advanced disease and have overall poorer survival, compared to older patients,” Rahul A. Shimpi, MD, of Duke University, Durham, N.C., said in an interview.

“The reasons for these findings are unclear, but the authors propose a number of potential factors that could explain them. These include differences in tumor biology, rising rates of obesity and [gastroesophageal reflux disease] in younger patients, decreased endoscopic screening for and surveillance of Barrett’s esophagus in this age group, and differing therapeutic approaches to management,” Dr. Shimpi said.

“The findings from this study underscore that, while uncommon, clinicians need to be aware of the rising incidence of esophageal cancer in younger patients. It is important that even younger patients presenting with esophageal symptoms, such as dysphagia, undergo investigation,” he emphasized.

“I would like to see further study into the potential factors driving the findings in this study, including whether trends in differential treatment modalities account for some of the survival differences found in different age groups,” Dr. Shimpi added. “Finally, further research will ideally clarify optimal Barrett’s screening and surveillance approaches in patients younger than age 50 in order to determine whether new strategies might impact esophageal adenocarcinoma incidence and outcomes in this group.”

The study was funded in part by the National Cancer Institute and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences. Two authors disclosed relationships outside the submitted work, but Dr. Codipilly and the remaining authors had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Shimpi had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Codipilly DC et al. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2020 Dec 11. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-20-0944.

The incidence of esophageal adenocarcinoma in adults aged younger than 50 years increased threefold between 1975 and 2015, based on data from more than 34,000 cases.

Esophageal carcinoma rates overall have risen in the United States over the past 4 decades, but the average patient is in their 60s, wrote Don C. Codipilly, MD, of the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., and colleagues. Therefore, “data on the incidence, stage distribution, and outcomes of this segment of patients [younger than 50 years] with esophageal adenocarcinoma are relatively limited.”

In a study published in Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention, the researchers identified 34,443 cases of esophageal adenocarcinoma using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database for the periods of 1975-1989, 1990-1999, and 2000-2015. The cases were limited to histologically confirmed cases and were stratified according to age at diagnosis: younger than 50 years, 50-69 years, and 70 years and older

Overall, the annual incidence of esophageal adenocarcinoma among individuals younger than 50 years increased from 0.08 per 100,000 persons in 1975 to 0.27 per 100,000 persons in 2015.
 

Younger patients show more advanced illness

Although the incidence rose across all three age groups during the study period, the largest increase was seen in those aged 70 years and older. However, the younger group was significantly more likely to present at more-advanced stages, the researchers pointed out: Between 2000 and 2015, localized disease represented only 15.1% of cases in those younger than 50 years, compared with 22.4% in patients aged 50-69 years and 32.2% in those 70 years and older. The incidence of regional/distant disease among younger patients has increased over time, with 81.8% in 1975-1989, 75.5% in 1990-1999, and 84.9% in 2000-2015 (P < .01), and this increase has been faster than among older groups, the researches noted. For comparison, during 2000-2015 only 77.6% of patients aged 50-69 years and 67.8% of patients 70 years and older had regional/distant disease.

In addition, the majority of cases of young-onset esophageal adenocarcinoma occurred in men in a trend that persisted across the study periods; 90% of patients younger than 50 years were male in 1975, and 86% of the younger patients in 2015 were male.

“There is no clear explanation for the higher proportion of advanced disease in younger patients, and further study is required to identify biologic, genetic, and environmental factors that may underlie this observation,” the researchers wrote. “A potential hypothesis is that ‘young-onset esophageal adenocarcinoma’ may involve rapid transition from intestinal metaplasia to esophageal adenocarcinoma, driven by an increase in signaling molecules that are active in the intestine,” they suggested.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the inability to review individual case records to confirm disease stage and to compare outcomes across ethnicities, and the lack of data on comorbidities in the SEER database, the researchers noted.

However, the results were strengthened by overall quality of the SEER database and use of multivariate analysis, they added. The evidence of increased incidence and increased odds of advanced disease in younger adults suggest that “reevaluation of our diagnostic and treatment strategies in this age group might need to be considered.”
 

Reasons for increase remain unclear

“While esophageal adenocarcinoma is uncommon overall in younger patients, this study importantly highlights that not only has the incidence of esophageal adenocarcinoma increased more than threefold in patients under the age of 50 over the last 4 decades, but that younger patients are presenting with more advanced disease and have overall poorer survival, compared to older patients,” Rahul A. Shimpi, MD, of Duke University, Durham, N.C., said in an interview.

“The reasons for these findings are unclear, but the authors propose a number of potential factors that could explain them. These include differences in tumor biology, rising rates of obesity and [gastroesophageal reflux disease] in younger patients, decreased endoscopic screening for and surveillance of Barrett’s esophagus in this age group, and differing therapeutic approaches to management,” Dr. Shimpi said.

“The findings from this study underscore that, while uncommon, clinicians need to be aware of the rising incidence of esophageal cancer in younger patients. It is important that even younger patients presenting with esophageal symptoms, such as dysphagia, undergo investigation,” he emphasized.

“I would like to see further study into the potential factors driving the findings in this study, including whether trends in differential treatment modalities account for some of the survival differences found in different age groups,” Dr. Shimpi added. “Finally, further research will ideally clarify optimal Barrett’s screening and surveillance approaches in patients younger than age 50 in order to determine whether new strategies might impact esophageal adenocarcinoma incidence and outcomes in this group.”

The study was funded in part by the National Cancer Institute and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences. Two authors disclosed relationships outside the submitted work, but Dr. Codipilly and the remaining authors had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Shimpi had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Codipilly DC et al. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2020 Dec 11. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-20-0944.

The incidence of esophageal adenocarcinoma in adults aged younger than 50 years increased threefold between 1975 and 2015, based on data from more than 34,000 cases.

Esophageal carcinoma rates overall have risen in the United States over the past 4 decades, but the average patient is in their 60s, wrote Don C. Codipilly, MD, of the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., and colleagues. Therefore, “data on the incidence, stage distribution, and outcomes of this segment of patients [younger than 50 years] with esophageal adenocarcinoma are relatively limited.”

In a study published in Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention, the researchers identified 34,443 cases of esophageal adenocarcinoma using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database for the periods of 1975-1989, 1990-1999, and 2000-2015. The cases were limited to histologically confirmed cases and were stratified according to age at diagnosis: younger than 50 years, 50-69 years, and 70 years and older

Overall, the annual incidence of esophageal adenocarcinoma among individuals younger than 50 years increased from 0.08 per 100,000 persons in 1975 to 0.27 per 100,000 persons in 2015.
 

Younger patients show more advanced illness

Although the incidence rose across all three age groups during the study period, the largest increase was seen in those aged 70 years and older. However, the younger group was significantly more likely to present at more-advanced stages, the researchers pointed out: Between 2000 and 2015, localized disease represented only 15.1% of cases in those younger than 50 years, compared with 22.4% in patients aged 50-69 years and 32.2% in those 70 years and older. The incidence of regional/distant disease among younger patients has increased over time, with 81.8% in 1975-1989, 75.5% in 1990-1999, and 84.9% in 2000-2015 (P < .01), and this increase has been faster than among older groups, the researches noted. For comparison, during 2000-2015 only 77.6% of patients aged 50-69 years and 67.8% of patients 70 years and older had regional/distant disease.

In addition, the majority of cases of young-onset esophageal adenocarcinoma occurred in men in a trend that persisted across the study periods; 90% of patients younger than 50 years were male in 1975, and 86% of the younger patients in 2015 were male.

“There is no clear explanation for the higher proportion of advanced disease in younger patients, and further study is required to identify biologic, genetic, and environmental factors that may underlie this observation,” the researchers wrote. “A potential hypothesis is that ‘young-onset esophageal adenocarcinoma’ may involve rapid transition from intestinal metaplasia to esophageal adenocarcinoma, driven by an increase in signaling molecules that are active in the intestine,” they suggested.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the inability to review individual case records to confirm disease stage and to compare outcomes across ethnicities, and the lack of data on comorbidities in the SEER database, the researchers noted.

However, the results were strengthened by overall quality of the SEER database and use of multivariate analysis, they added. The evidence of increased incidence and increased odds of advanced disease in younger adults suggest that “reevaluation of our diagnostic and treatment strategies in this age group might need to be considered.”
 

Reasons for increase remain unclear

“While esophageal adenocarcinoma is uncommon overall in younger patients, this study importantly highlights that not only has the incidence of esophageal adenocarcinoma increased more than threefold in patients under the age of 50 over the last 4 decades, but that younger patients are presenting with more advanced disease and have overall poorer survival, compared to older patients,” Rahul A. Shimpi, MD, of Duke University, Durham, N.C., said in an interview.

“The reasons for these findings are unclear, but the authors propose a number of potential factors that could explain them. These include differences in tumor biology, rising rates of obesity and [gastroesophageal reflux disease] in younger patients, decreased endoscopic screening for and surveillance of Barrett’s esophagus in this age group, and differing therapeutic approaches to management,” Dr. Shimpi said.

“The findings from this study underscore that, while uncommon, clinicians need to be aware of the rising incidence of esophageal cancer in younger patients. It is important that even younger patients presenting with esophageal symptoms, such as dysphagia, undergo investigation,” he emphasized.

“I would like to see further study into the potential factors driving the findings in this study, including whether trends in differential treatment modalities account for some of the survival differences found in different age groups,” Dr. Shimpi added. “Finally, further research will ideally clarify optimal Barrett’s screening and surveillance approaches in patients younger than age 50 in order to determine whether new strategies might impact esophageal adenocarcinoma incidence and outcomes in this group.”

The study was funded in part by the National Cancer Institute and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences. Two authors disclosed relationships outside the submitted work, but Dr. Codipilly and the remaining authors had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Shimpi had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Codipilly DC et al. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2020 Dec 11. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-20-0944.

Now that COVID-19 vaccines are being distributed, the American Association for Cancer Research has called for people with cancer to be considered as a high-priority group.

“The available evidence supports the conclusion that patients with cancer, in particular with hematologic malignancies, should be considered among the high-risk groups for priority COVID-19 vaccination,” according to the AACR’s COVID-19 and Cancer Task Force.

A review of literature suggested that COVID-19 fatality rates for patients with cancer were double that of individuals without cancer, the team noted. The higher mortality rates still trended upward, even after adjusting for confounders including age, sex, and comorbidities, indicating that there is a greater risk for severe disease and COVID-19–related mortality.

The new AACR position paper was published online Dec. 19 in Cancer Discovery.

“We conclude that patients with an active cancer should be considered for priority access to COVID-19 vaccination, along other particularly vulnerable populations with risk factors for adverse outcomes with COVID-19,” the team wrote.

However, the authors noted that “it is unclear whether this recommendation should be applicable to patients with a past diagnosis of cancer, as cancer survivors can be considered having the same risk as other persons with matched age and other risk factors. 

“Given that there are nearly 17 million people living with a history of cancer in the United States alone, it is critical to understand whether these individuals are at a higher risk to contract SARS-COV-2 and to experience severe outcomes from COVID-19,” they added.
 

Allocation of initial doses

There has already been much discussion on the allocation of the initial doses of COVID-19 vaccines that have become available in the United States. The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommended that the first wave of vaccinations, described as phase 1a, should be administered to health care workers (about 21 million people) and residents of long-term care facilities (about 3 million).

The next priority group, phase 1b, should consist of frontline essential workers, a group of about 30 million, and adults aged 75 years or older, a group of about 21 million. When overlap between the groups is taken into account, phase 1b covers about 49 million people, according to the CDC.

Finally, phase 1c, the third priority group, would include adults aged 65-74 years (a group of about 32 million), adults aged 16-64 years with high-risk medical conditions (a group of about 110 million), and essential workers who did not qualify for inclusion in phase 1b (a group of about 57 million). With the overlap, Phase 1c would cover about 129 million people.

The AACR task force, led by Antoni Ribas, MD, PhD, of the Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center at the University of California, Los Angeles, noted in their position paper that their recommendation is consistent with ACIP’s guidelines. Those guidelines concluded that patients with cancer are at a higher risk for severe COVID-19, and should be one of the groups considered for early COVID-19 vaccination.
 

Questions remain

Approached for independent comment, Cardinale Smith, MD, PhD, chief quality officer for cancer services for the Mount Sinai Health System in New York, agreed with the AACR task force. “I share that they should be high priority,” she said, “But we don’t know that the efficacy will the same.”

Dr. Smith noted that the impact of cancer therapy on patient immune systems is more related to the type of treatment they’re receiving, and B- and T-cell responses. “But regardless, they should be getting the vaccine, and we just need to follow the guidelines.”

The AACR task force noted that information thus far is quite limited as to the effects of COVID-19 vaccination in patients with cancer. In the Pfizer-BioNTech BNT162b2 COVID vaccine trial, of 43,540 participants, only 3.7% were reported to have cancer. Other large COVID-19 vaccine trials will provide further follow-up information on the effectiveness of the vaccines in patients receiving different cancer treatments, they wrote, but for now, there is “currently not enough data to evaluate the interactions between active oncologic therapy with the ability to induce protective immunity” to COVID-19 with vaccination.

In a recent interview, Nora Disis, MD, a medical oncologist and director of both the Institute of Translational Health Sciences and the Cancer Vaccine Institute, University of Washington, Seattle, also discussed vaccinating cancer patients.

She pointed out that even though there are data suggesting that cancer patients are at higher risk, “they are a bit murky, in part because cancer patients are a heterogeneous group.”

“For example, there are data suggesting that lung and blood cancer patients fare worse,” said Dr. Disis, who is also editor in chief of JAMA Oncology. “There is also a suggestion that, like in the general population, COVID risk in cancer patients remains driven by comorbidities.”

She also pointed out the likelihood that individualized risk factors, including the type of cancer therapy, site of disease, and comorbidities, “will shape individual choices about vaccination among cancer patients.”

It is also reasonable to expect that patients with cancer will respond to the vaccines, even though historically some believed that they would be unable to mount an immune response. “Data on other viral vaccines have shown otherwise,” said Dr. Disis. “For example, there has been a long history of studies of flu vaccination in cancer patients, and in general, those vaccines confer protection.”

Several of the authors of the AACR position paper, including Dr. Ribas, reported relationships with industry as detailed in the paper. Dr. Smith has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Now that COVID-19 vaccines are being distributed, the American Association for Cancer Research has called for people with cancer to be considered as a high-priority group.

“The available evidence supports the conclusion that patients with cancer, in particular with hematologic malignancies, should be considered among the high-risk groups for priority COVID-19 vaccination,” according to the AACR’s COVID-19 and Cancer Task Force.

A review of literature suggested that COVID-19 fatality rates for patients with cancer were double that of individuals without cancer, the team noted. The higher mortality rates still trended upward, even after adjusting for confounders including age, sex, and comorbidities, indicating that there is a greater risk for severe disease and COVID-19–related mortality.

The new AACR position paper was published online Dec. 19 in Cancer Discovery.

“We conclude that patients with an active cancer should be considered for priority access to COVID-19 vaccination, along other particularly vulnerable populations with risk factors for adverse outcomes with COVID-19,” the team wrote.

However, the authors noted that “it is unclear whether this recommendation should be applicable to patients with a past diagnosis of cancer, as cancer survivors can be considered having the same risk as other persons with matched age and other risk factors. 

“Given that there are nearly 17 million people living with a history of cancer in the United States alone, it is critical to understand whether these individuals are at a higher risk to contract SARS-COV-2 and to experience severe outcomes from COVID-19,” they added.
 

Allocation of initial doses

There has already been much discussion on the allocation of the initial doses of COVID-19 vaccines that have become available in the United States. The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommended that the first wave of vaccinations, described as phase 1a, should be administered to health care workers (about 21 million people) and residents of long-term care facilities (about 3 million).

The next priority group, phase 1b, should consist of frontline essential workers, a group of about 30 million, and adults aged 75 years or older, a group of about 21 million. When overlap between the groups is taken into account, phase 1b covers about 49 million people, according to the CDC.

Finally, phase 1c, the third priority group, would include adults aged 65-74 years (a group of about 32 million), adults aged 16-64 years with high-risk medical conditions (a group of about 110 million), and essential workers who did not qualify for inclusion in phase 1b (a group of about 57 million). With the overlap, Phase 1c would cover about 129 million people.

The AACR task force, led by Antoni Ribas, MD, PhD, of the Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center at the University of California, Los Angeles, noted in their position paper that their recommendation is consistent with ACIP’s guidelines. Those guidelines concluded that patients with cancer are at a higher risk for severe COVID-19, and should be one of the groups considered for early COVID-19 vaccination.
 

Questions remain

Approached for independent comment, Cardinale Smith, MD, PhD, chief quality officer for cancer services for the Mount Sinai Health System in New York, agreed with the AACR task force. “I share that they should be high priority,” she said, “But we don’t know that the efficacy will the same.”

Dr. Smith noted that the impact of cancer therapy on patient immune systems is more related to the type of treatment they’re receiving, and B- and T-cell responses. “But regardless, they should be getting the vaccine, and we just need to follow the guidelines.”

The AACR task force noted that information thus far is quite limited as to the effects of COVID-19 vaccination in patients with cancer. In the Pfizer-BioNTech BNT162b2 COVID vaccine trial, of 43,540 participants, only 3.7% were reported to have cancer. Other large COVID-19 vaccine trials will provide further follow-up information on the effectiveness of the vaccines in patients receiving different cancer treatments, they wrote, but for now, there is “currently not enough data to evaluate the interactions between active oncologic therapy with the ability to induce protective immunity” to COVID-19 with vaccination.

In a recent interview, Nora Disis, MD, a medical oncologist and director of both the Institute of Translational Health Sciences and the Cancer Vaccine Institute, University of Washington, Seattle, also discussed vaccinating cancer patients.

She pointed out that even though there are data suggesting that cancer patients are at higher risk, “they are a bit murky, in part because cancer patients are a heterogeneous group.”

“For example, there are data suggesting that lung and blood cancer patients fare worse,” said Dr. Disis, who is also editor in chief of JAMA Oncology. “There is also a suggestion that, like in the general population, COVID risk in cancer patients remains driven by comorbidities.”

She also pointed out the likelihood that individualized risk factors, including the type of cancer therapy, site of disease, and comorbidities, “will shape individual choices about vaccination among cancer patients.”

It is also reasonable to expect that patients with cancer will respond to the vaccines, even though historically some believed that they would be unable to mount an immune response. “Data on other viral vaccines have shown otherwise,” said Dr. Disis. “For example, there has been a long history of studies of flu vaccination in cancer patients, and in general, those vaccines confer protection.”

Several of the authors of the AACR position paper, including Dr. Ribas, reported relationships with industry as detailed in the paper. Dr. Smith has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Now that COVID-19 vaccines are being distributed, the American Association for Cancer Research has called for people with cancer to be considered as a high-priority group.

“The available evidence supports the conclusion that patients with cancer, in particular with hematologic malignancies, should be considered among the high-risk groups for priority COVID-19 vaccination,” according to the AACR’s COVID-19 and Cancer Task Force.

A review of literature suggested that COVID-19 fatality rates for patients with cancer were double that of individuals without cancer, the team noted. The higher mortality rates still trended upward, even after adjusting for confounders including age, sex, and comorbidities, indicating that there is a greater risk for severe disease and COVID-19–related mortality.

The new AACR position paper was published online Dec. 19 in Cancer Discovery.

“We conclude that patients with an active cancer should be considered for priority access to COVID-19 vaccination, along other particularly vulnerable populations with risk factors for adverse outcomes with COVID-19,” the team wrote.

However, the authors noted that “it is unclear whether this recommendation should be applicable to patients with a past diagnosis of cancer, as cancer survivors can be considered having the same risk as other persons with matched age and other risk factors. 

“Given that there are nearly 17 million people living with a history of cancer in the United States alone, it is critical to understand whether these individuals are at a higher risk to contract SARS-COV-2 and to experience severe outcomes from COVID-19,” they added.
 

Allocation of initial doses

There has already been much discussion on the allocation of the initial doses of COVID-19 vaccines that have become available in the United States. The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommended that the first wave of vaccinations, described as phase 1a, should be administered to health care workers (about 21 million people) and residents of long-term care facilities (about 3 million).

The next priority group, phase 1b, should consist of frontline essential workers, a group of about 30 million, and adults aged 75 years or older, a group of about 21 million. When overlap between the groups is taken into account, phase 1b covers about 49 million people, according to the CDC.

Finally, phase 1c, the third priority group, would include adults aged 65-74 years (a group of about 32 million), adults aged 16-64 years with high-risk medical conditions (a group of about 110 million), and essential workers who did not qualify for inclusion in phase 1b (a group of about 57 million). With the overlap, Phase 1c would cover about 129 million people.

The AACR task force, led by Antoni Ribas, MD, PhD, of the Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center at the University of California, Los Angeles, noted in their position paper that their recommendation is consistent with ACIP’s guidelines. Those guidelines concluded that patients with cancer are at a higher risk for severe COVID-19, and should be one of the groups considered for early COVID-19 vaccination.
 

Questions remain

Approached for independent comment, Cardinale Smith, MD, PhD, chief quality officer for cancer services for the Mount Sinai Health System in New York, agreed with the AACR task force. “I share that they should be high priority,” she said, “But we don’t know that the efficacy will the same.”

Dr. Smith noted that the impact of cancer therapy on patient immune systems is more related to the type of treatment they’re receiving, and B- and T-cell responses. “But regardless, they should be getting the vaccine, and we just need to follow the guidelines.”

The AACR task force noted that information thus far is quite limited as to the effects of COVID-19 vaccination in patients with cancer. In the Pfizer-BioNTech BNT162b2 COVID vaccine trial, of 43,540 participants, only 3.7% were reported to have cancer. Other large COVID-19 vaccine trials will provide further follow-up information on the effectiveness of the vaccines in patients receiving different cancer treatments, they wrote, but for now, there is “currently not enough data to evaluate the interactions between active oncologic therapy with the ability to induce protective immunity” to COVID-19 with vaccination.

In a recent interview, Nora Disis, MD, a medical oncologist and director of both the Institute of Translational Health Sciences and the Cancer Vaccine Institute, University of Washington, Seattle, also discussed vaccinating cancer patients.

She pointed out that even though there are data suggesting that cancer patients are at higher risk, “they are a bit murky, in part because cancer patients are a heterogeneous group.”

“For example, there are data suggesting that lung and blood cancer patients fare worse,” said Dr. Disis, who is also editor in chief of JAMA Oncology. “There is also a suggestion that, like in the general population, COVID risk in cancer patients remains driven by comorbidities.”

She also pointed out the likelihood that individualized risk factors, including the type of cancer therapy, site of disease, and comorbidities, “will shape individual choices about vaccination among cancer patients.”

It is also reasonable to expect that patients with cancer will respond to the vaccines, even though historically some believed that they would be unable to mount an immune response. “Data on other viral vaccines have shown otherwise,” said Dr. Disis. “For example, there has been a long history of studies of flu vaccination in cancer patients, and in general, those vaccines confer protection.”

Several of the authors of the AACR position paper, including Dr. Ribas, reported relationships with industry as detailed in the paper. Dr. Smith has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The European PET-Boost trial finds that both of two strategies for delivering a radiation boost to locally advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) tumors improve local control relative to that seen historically. Results were reported at the European Society for Radiology and Oncology 2020 Online Congress. 

“From previous studies, we know that local recurrences have an important negative impact on survival,” said presenting author Saskia A. Cooke, an MD, PhD candidate in the department of Radiation Oncology Research, the Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam.

In addition, research shows that, despite advances in drug therapy, the most common site of progression in this population is intrathoracic.

“These results further underline the need to develop treatment strategies which effectively prevent intrathoracic and local recurrences,” Ms. Cooke said.

PET-Boost is a multicenter, randomized trial that enrolled patients with inoperable stage II or III NSCLC and a primary tumor measuring 4 cm or greater.

“The study was a phase 2 ‘pick the winner’ trial, which, by design, does not compare the two arms to one another but to a historic rate of outcome,” Ms. Cooke explained.

The patients were randomized evenly to receive the standard 66 Gy of radiotherapy given in 24 fractions of 2.75 Gy with one of two dose-escalation strategies: a boost to the whole primary tumor or a boost to only the tumor area having high metabolic activity, with a maximum standard uptake value (SUVmax) of at least 50% on the pretreatment FDG-PET scan.

For each patient, both plans were created before randomization, with the dose escalated as high as possible up to an organ-at-risk constraint, Ms. Cooke noted.

“A key element is that the two plans were made isotoxic by equaling the mean lung dose, and in both arms, the dose was delivered integrated into the 24 fractions, so without prolongation of the overall treatment time,” she said.

The trial’s goal was to improve the 1-year rate of freedom from local failure from the 70% seen historically with conventional chemoradiotherapy to 85%.

The trial was stopped early because of slow accrual, after enrollment of 107 patients, Ms. Cooke reported. The large majority received concurrent or sequential chemotherapy with their radiotherapy.

With a median follow-up of 12.6 months for the endpoint, the 1-year rate of freedom from local failure as determined on centrally reviewed CT scans was 97% with the whole-tumor boost and 91% with the PET-directed boost. The 2-year rates were 89% and 82%, respectively.

With a median follow-up of 61 months for the endpoint, the 1-year rate of overall survival was 77% with the whole-tumor boost and 62% with the PET-directed boost. The 2-year rates were 46% and 43%, respectively.

The two boost strategies increased acute and late toxicity over that seen historically, but not to unacceptable levels, as reported previously (Radiother Oncol. 2019;131:166-73).

“In this PET-Boost trial, using hypofractionated personalized dose escalation led to a very good local control rate, which, in both arms, was more than 90% at 1 year,” Ms. Cooke summarized.

In fact, values compare favorably with those seen in the phase 3 RTOG 0617 trial using conventional chemoradiotherapy and dose escalation, even though patients in that trial had smaller tumors.

“Survival, especially in the group treated with the homogeneous boost, was actually similar to the RTOG 0617 high-dose arm and also quite similar to the 1-year survival in the placebo arm of the PACIFIC trial,” she added. The somewhat poorer survival at 2 years in PET-Boost was likely related, in part, to the large tumor volumes and the mediastinal radiation dose, she speculated.

The investigators are now evaluating specific sites of failure and extrathoracic recurrences, as well as assessing associations of toxicity with organ-at-risk doses and quality of life.

“While further results of the trial are awaited, so far, we do believe that in selected patients with locally advanced NSCLC, hypofractionated dose escalation to the tumor is a very important subject for future research,” Ms. Cooke said.

The investigators plan to carry the whole-tumor boost strategy forward because it yields similar efficacy but is easier to plan.

Not ready for prime time

“Overall, this study conceptually is well designed as it is forward thinking and uses imaging to personalize radiation treatment, going to higher doses to active areas of disease based on FDG-PET imaging,” Arya Amini, MD, assistant clinical professor in the department of radiation oncology, City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center, Duarte, Calif., said in an interview.

SOURCE: Lalezari F et al. ESTRO 2020. Abstract OC-0609.

The European PET-Boost trial finds that both of two strategies for delivering a radiation boost to locally advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) tumors improve local control relative to that seen historically. Results were reported at the European Society for Radiology and Oncology 2020 Online Congress. 

“From previous studies, we know that local recurrences have an important negative impact on survival,” said presenting author Saskia A. Cooke, an MD, PhD candidate in the department of Radiation Oncology Research, the Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam.

In addition, research shows that, despite advances in drug therapy, the most common site of progression in this population is intrathoracic.

“These results further underline the need to develop treatment strategies which effectively prevent intrathoracic and local recurrences,” Ms. Cooke said.

PET-Boost is a multicenter, randomized trial that enrolled patients with inoperable stage II or III NSCLC and a primary tumor measuring 4 cm or greater.

“The study was a phase 2 ‘pick the winner’ trial, which, by design, does not compare the two arms to one another but to a historic rate of outcome,” Ms. Cooke explained.

The patients were randomized evenly to receive the standard 66 Gy of radiotherapy given in 24 fractions of 2.75 Gy with one of two dose-escalation strategies: a boost to the whole primary tumor or a boost to only the tumor area having high metabolic activity, with a maximum standard uptake value (SUVmax) of at least 50% on the pretreatment FDG-PET scan.

For each patient, both plans were created before randomization, with the dose escalated as high as possible up to an organ-at-risk constraint, Ms. Cooke noted.

“A key element is that the two plans were made isotoxic by equaling the mean lung dose, and in both arms, the dose was delivered integrated into the 24 fractions, so without prolongation of the overall treatment time,” she said.

The trial’s goal was to improve the 1-year rate of freedom from local failure from the 70% seen historically with conventional chemoradiotherapy to 85%.

The trial was stopped early because of slow accrual, after enrollment of 107 patients, Ms. Cooke reported. The large majority received concurrent or sequential chemotherapy with their radiotherapy.

With a median follow-up of 12.6 months for the endpoint, the 1-year rate of freedom from local failure as determined on centrally reviewed CT scans was 97% with the whole-tumor boost and 91% with the PET-directed boost. The 2-year rates were 89% and 82%, respectively.

With a median follow-up of 61 months for the endpoint, the 1-year rate of overall survival was 77% with the whole-tumor boost and 62% with the PET-directed boost. The 2-year rates were 46% and 43%, respectively.

The two boost strategies increased acute and late toxicity over that seen historically, but not to unacceptable levels, as reported previously (Radiother Oncol. 2019;131:166-73).

“In this PET-Boost trial, using hypofractionated personalized dose escalation led to a very good local control rate, which, in both arms, was more than 90% at 1 year,” Ms. Cooke summarized.

In fact, values compare favorably with those seen in the phase 3 RTOG 0617 trial using conventional chemoradiotherapy and dose escalation, even though patients in that trial had smaller tumors.

“Survival, especially in the group treated with the homogeneous boost, was actually similar to the RTOG 0617 high-dose arm and also quite similar to the 1-year survival in the placebo arm of the PACIFIC trial,” she added. The somewhat poorer survival at 2 years in PET-Boost was likely related, in part, to the large tumor volumes and the mediastinal radiation dose, she speculated.

The investigators are now evaluating specific sites of failure and extrathoracic recurrences, as well as assessing associations of toxicity with organ-at-risk doses and quality of life.

“While further results of the trial are awaited, so far, we do believe that in selected patients with locally advanced NSCLC, hypofractionated dose escalation to the tumor is a very important subject for future research,” Ms. Cooke said.

The investigators plan to carry the whole-tumor boost strategy forward because it yields similar efficacy but is easier to plan.

Not ready for prime time

“Overall, this study conceptually is well designed as it is forward thinking and uses imaging to personalize radiation treatment, going to higher doses to active areas of disease based on FDG-PET imaging,” Arya Amini, MD, assistant clinical professor in the department of radiation oncology, City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center, Duarte, Calif., said in an interview.

SOURCE: Lalezari F et al. ESTRO 2020. Abstract OC-0609.

The European PET-Boost trial finds that both of two strategies for delivering a radiation boost to locally advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) tumors improve local control relative to that seen historically. Results were reported at the European Society for Radiology and Oncology 2020 Online Congress. 

“From previous studies, we know that local recurrences have an important negative impact on survival,” said presenting author Saskia A. Cooke, an MD, PhD candidate in the department of Radiation Oncology Research, the Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam.

In addition, research shows that, despite advances in drug therapy, the most common site of progression in this population is intrathoracic.

“These results further underline the need to develop treatment strategies which effectively prevent intrathoracic and local recurrences,” Ms. Cooke said.

PET-Boost is a multicenter, randomized trial that enrolled patients with inoperable stage II or III NSCLC and a primary tumor measuring 4 cm or greater.

“The study was a phase 2 ‘pick the winner’ trial, which, by design, does not compare the two arms to one another but to a historic rate of outcome,” Ms. Cooke explained.

The patients were randomized evenly to receive the standard 66 Gy of radiotherapy given in 24 fractions of 2.75 Gy with one of two dose-escalation strategies: a boost to the whole primary tumor or a boost to only the tumor area having high metabolic activity, with a maximum standard uptake value (SUVmax) of at least 50% on the pretreatment FDG-PET scan.

For each patient, both plans were created before randomization, with the dose escalated as high as possible up to an organ-at-risk constraint, Ms. Cooke noted.

“A key element is that the two plans were made isotoxic by equaling the mean lung dose, and in both arms, the dose was delivered integrated into the 24 fractions, so without prolongation of the overall treatment time,” she said.

The trial’s goal was to improve the 1-year rate of freedom from local failure from the 70% seen historically with conventional chemoradiotherapy to 85%.

The trial was stopped early because of slow accrual, after enrollment of 107 patients, Ms. Cooke reported. The large majority received concurrent or sequential chemotherapy with their radiotherapy.

With a median follow-up of 12.6 months for the endpoint, the 1-year rate of freedom from local failure as determined on centrally reviewed CT scans was 97% with the whole-tumor boost and 91% with the PET-directed boost. The 2-year rates were 89% and 82%, respectively.

With a median follow-up of 61 months for the endpoint, the 1-year rate of overall survival was 77% with the whole-tumor boost and 62% with the PET-directed boost. The 2-year rates were 46% and 43%, respectively.

The two boost strategies increased acute and late toxicity over that seen historically, but not to unacceptable levels, as reported previously (Radiother Oncol. 2019;131:166-73).

“In this PET-Boost trial, using hypofractionated personalized dose escalation led to a very good local control rate, which, in both arms, was more than 90% at 1 year,” Ms. Cooke summarized.

In fact, values compare favorably with those seen in the phase 3 RTOG 0617 trial using conventional chemoradiotherapy and dose escalation, even though patients in that trial had smaller tumors.

“Survival, especially in the group treated with the homogeneous boost, was actually similar to the RTOG 0617 high-dose arm and also quite similar to the 1-year survival in the placebo arm of the PACIFIC trial,” she added. The somewhat poorer survival at 2 years in PET-Boost was likely related, in part, to the large tumor volumes and the mediastinal radiation dose, she speculated.

The investigators are now evaluating specific sites of failure and extrathoracic recurrences, as well as assessing associations of toxicity with organ-at-risk doses and quality of life.

“While further results of the trial are awaited, so far, we do believe that in selected patients with locally advanced NSCLC, hypofractionated dose escalation to the tumor is a very important subject for future research,” Ms. Cooke said.

The investigators plan to carry the whole-tumor boost strategy forward because it yields similar efficacy but is easier to plan.

Not ready for prime time

“Overall, this study conceptually is well designed as it is forward thinking and uses imaging to personalize radiation treatment, going to higher doses to active areas of disease based on FDG-PET imaging,” Arya Amini, MD, assistant clinical professor in the department of radiation oncology, City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center, Duarte, Calif., said in an interview.

SOURCE: Lalezari F et al. ESTRO 2020. Abstract OC-0609.

Rare cancers comprise about 20% of all cancers in the United States and Europe, according to recent estimates, but patients with rare cancers are vastly underrepresented in clinical trials.

Recently, there has been a focus on immune checkpoint blockade (ICB) in common cancer types. Since several rare tumor types share similar biologic features with the more common tumors, there is a need to test ICB in rare tumors, particularly because remissions with ICB can be durable.

Enter the DART trial, a phase 2, single-arm study of combinatorial ICB with ipilimumab plus nivolumab in patients with unresectable or metastatic rare cancers.

Results from DART were recently presented at the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer’s 35th Anniversary Annual Meeting. Michael J. Wagner, MD, of the University of Washington, Seattle, reported results in patients with advanced or unresectable angiosarcoma, one of the rare tumor types included in DART.
 

About angiosarcomas

Angiosarcomas account for less than 3% of all adult soft-tissue sarcomas, according to a review published in The Lancet Oncology. Angiosarcomas may arise in any part of the body, especially the head and neck (27%), breast (19.7%), and extremities (15.3%). These cancers can be primary or secondary (i.e., associated with prior radiation therapy or chronic lymphedema).

Angiosarcomas are aggressive, difficult to treat, and confer high mortality. The tumors are responsive to chemotherapy, but responses are brief. The estimated 5-year survival rate for all patients with angiosarcoma, including those who present with localized disease, is 30%-40%.

According to Dr. Wagner, a subset of angiosarcomas are characterized by high tumor mutational burden (TMB) and COSMIC signature 7, a DNA mutational signature that is consistent with other cancers caused by ultraviolet light exposure.

The high TMB subset of angiosarcomas is comparable with other cancer types that are responsive to ICB. Indeed, patients with angiosarcoma treated with ICB have shown responses, according to research published in the Journal for Immunotherapy of Cancer. However, no prospective studies of ICB in angiosarcoma have been published.
 

About DART

The DART trial includes more than 50 cohorts of rare cancer subtypes. Patients receive IV ipilimumab at 1 mg/kg every 6 weeks and IV nivolumab at 240 mg every 2 weeks.

The primary endpoint is objective response rate, as assessed by RECIST v1.1. Secondary endpoints include progression-free survival, overall survival, stable disease at 6 months, and toxicity.

The trial has a two-stage design. Six patients are enrolled in the first stage, and, if at least one patient responds to treatment, an additional 10 patients are enrolled in the second stage.

If at least two responses are seen among the 16 patients enrolled, further study of ICB is considered warranted.
 

Results in angiosarcoma

Dr. Wagner reported on the 16 angiosarcoma patients enrolled in DART. Nine patients had cutaneous primary tumors, seven had noncutaneous primary tumors, and three patients had radiation-associated angiosarcoma of the breast or chest wall.

Patients had received a median of two (range, zero to five) prior lines of therapy.

Adverse events (AEs) were consistent with prior safety results of the ipilimumab-nivolumab combination. Three-quarters of patients experienced an AE of any grade. The most common AEs were transaminase elevation, anemia, diarrhea, fatigue, hypothyroidism, pneumonitis, pruritus, and rash.

A quarter of patients had a grade 3-4 AE, and 12.5% of AEs led to premature treatment discontinuation. There were no fatal AEs.

The ORR was 25%. Responses occurred in 4 of the 16 patients, including 3 of 5 patients with primary cutaneous tumors of the scalp or face and 1 of 3 patients with radiation-associated breast angiosarcoma.

Two of the four responses and one case of stable disease have persisted for almost a year, and these patients remain on treatment. To put these results into perspective, Dr. Wagner noted that responses to cytotoxic chemotherapy rarely last 6 months.

The 6-month progression-free survival rate was 38%. The median overall survival has not yet been reached.

Dr. Wagner concluded that the combinatorial ICB regimen employed in DART was well tolerated and had an ORR of 25% in angiosarcoma regardless of primary site. Per the criteria of the DART trial, further investigation of ICB in angiosarcoma is warranted.
 

Molecular insights

Although correlative analyses of tumor tissue and peripheral blood are embedded in the DART trial, those analyses have not yet been performed. Eight of the 16 angiosarcoma patients had diagnostic molecular studies performed at their parent institutions, utilizing a variety of commercial platforms.

All eight patients for whom molecular data were available had at least two deleterious genomic alterations detected, but each had a distinct molecular profile.

Seven patients had TMB analyzed, including two partial responders to ICB. One of the seven patients had a high TMB, and this patient was one of the two responders. The other responder had an intermediate TMB.

Three patients had programmed death–ligand 1 staining on their tumors. Two of the three had high expression of PD-L1, including the responder with an intermediate TMB.
 

The real impact of DART

The DART trial is a “basket trial,” employing a similar treatment regimen for multiple tumor types. It provides a uniform framework for studying tumors that have been neglected in clinical trials heretofore.

Although the cohort of angiosarcoma patients is small, central pathology review was not required, and the treatment regimen was not compared directly with other potential therapies, the reported results of the ipilimumab-nivolumab regimen justify further study.

The biospecimens collected in DART will provide a rich source of data to identify common themes among responders and nonresponders, among patients who experience durable remissions and those who do not.

Angiosarcoma is not the only rare cancer for which combinatorial ICB has been valuable under the auspices of the DART trial. In Clinical Cancer Research, investigators reported an ORR of 44% among patients with high-grade neuroendocrine cancers, independent of primary site of origin. Progression-free survival at 6 months was 31%.

The DART trial is available at more than 800 sites, providing access to potentially promising treatment in a rigorous, scientifically valuable study for geographically underserved populations, including patients who live in rural areas.

The key message for practicing oncologists and clinical investigators is that clinical trials in rare tumors are feasible and can yield hope for patients who might lack it otherwise.

DART is funded by the National Cancer Institute and Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Wagner disclosed relationships with Deciphera, Adaptimmune, GlaxoSmithKline, Athenex, and Incyte.

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

SOURCE: Wagner M et al. SITC 2020, Abstract 795.

Rare cancers comprise about 20% of all cancers in the United States and Europe, according to recent estimates, but patients with rare cancers are vastly underrepresented in clinical trials.

Recently, there has been a focus on immune checkpoint blockade (ICB) in common cancer types. Since several rare tumor types share similar biologic features with the more common tumors, there is a need to test ICB in rare tumors, particularly because remissions with ICB can be durable.

Enter the DART trial, a phase 2, single-arm study of combinatorial ICB with ipilimumab plus nivolumab in patients with unresectable or metastatic rare cancers.

Results from DART were recently presented at the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer’s 35th Anniversary Annual Meeting. Michael J. Wagner, MD, of the University of Washington, Seattle, reported results in patients with advanced or unresectable angiosarcoma, one of the rare tumor types included in DART.
 

About angiosarcomas

Angiosarcomas account for less than 3% of all adult soft-tissue sarcomas, according to a review published in The Lancet Oncology. Angiosarcomas may arise in any part of the body, especially the head and neck (27%), breast (19.7%), and extremities (15.3%). These cancers can be primary or secondary (i.e., associated with prior radiation therapy or chronic lymphedema).

Angiosarcomas are aggressive, difficult to treat, and confer high mortality. The tumors are responsive to chemotherapy, but responses are brief. The estimated 5-year survival rate for all patients with angiosarcoma, including those who present with localized disease, is 30%-40%.

According to Dr. Wagner, a subset of angiosarcomas are characterized by high tumor mutational burden (TMB) and COSMIC signature 7, a DNA mutational signature that is consistent with other cancers caused by ultraviolet light exposure.

The high TMB subset of angiosarcomas is comparable with other cancer types that are responsive to ICB. Indeed, patients with angiosarcoma treated with ICB have shown responses, according to research published in the Journal for Immunotherapy of Cancer. However, no prospective studies of ICB in angiosarcoma have been published.
 

About DART

The DART trial includes more than 50 cohorts of rare cancer subtypes. Patients receive IV ipilimumab at 1 mg/kg every 6 weeks and IV nivolumab at 240 mg every 2 weeks.

The primary endpoint is objective response rate, as assessed by RECIST v1.1. Secondary endpoints include progression-free survival, overall survival, stable disease at 6 months, and toxicity.

The trial has a two-stage design. Six patients are enrolled in the first stage, and, if at least one patient responds to treatment, an additional 10 patients are enrolled in the second stage.

If at least two responses are seen among the 16 patients enrolled, further study of ICB is considered warranted.
 

Results in angiosarcoma

Dr. Wagner reported on the 16 angiosarcoma patients enrolled in DART. Nine patients had cutaneous primary tumors, seven had noncutaneous primary tumors, and three patients had radiation-associated angiosarcoma of the breast or chest wall.

Patients had received a median of two (range, zero to five) prior lines of therapy.

Adverse events (AEs) were consistent with prior safety results of the ipilimumab-nivolumab combination. Three-quarters of patients experienced an AE of any grade. The most common AEs were transaminase elevation, anemia, diarrhea, fatigue, hypothyroidism, pneumonitis, pruritus, and rash.

A quarter of patients had a grade 3-4 AE, and 12.5% of AEs led to premature treatment discontinuation. There were no fatal AEs.

The ORR was 25%. Responses occurred in 4 of the 16 patients, including 3 of 5 patients with primary cutaneous tumors of the scalp or face and 1 of 3 patients with radiation-associated breast angiosarcoma.

Two of the four responses and one case of stable disease have persisted for almost a year, and these patients remain on treatment. To put these results into perspective, Dr. Wagner noted that responses to cytotoxic chemotherapy rarely last 6 months.

The 6-month progression-free survival rate was 38%. The median overall survival has not yet been reached.

Dr. Wagner concluded that the combinatorial ICB regimen employed in DART was well tolerated and had an ORR of 25% in angiosarcoma regardless of primary site. Per the criteria of the DART trial, further investigation of ICB in angiosarcoma is warranted.
 

Molecular insights

Although correlative analyses of tumor tissue and peripheral blood are embedded in the DART trial, those analyses have not yet been performed. Eight of the 16 angiosarcoma patients had diagnostic molecular studies performed at their parent institutions, utilizing a variety of commercial platforms.

All eight patients for whom molecular data were available had at least two deleterious genomic alterations detected, but each had a distinct molecular profile.

Seven patients had TMB analyzed, including two partial responders to ICB. One of the seven patients had a high TMB, and this patient was one of the two responders. The other responder had an intermediate TMB.

Three patients had programmed death–ligand 1 staining on their tumors. Two of the three had high expression of PD-L1, including the responder with an intermediate TMB.
 

The real impact of DART

The DART trial is a “basket trial,” employing a similar treatment regimen for multiple tumor types. It provides a uniform framework for studying tumors that have been neglected in clinical trials heretofore.

Although the cohort of angiosarcoma patients is small, central pathology review was not required, and the treatment regimen was not compared directly with other potential therapies, the reported results of the ipilimumab-nivolumab regimen justify further study.

The biospecimens collected in DART will provide a rich source of data to identify common themes among responders and nonresponders, among patients who experience durable remissions and those who do not.

Angiosarcoma is not the only rare cancer for which combinatorial ICB has been valuable under the auspices of the DART trial. In Clinical Cancer Research, investigators reported an ORR of 44% among patients with high-grade neuroendocrine cancers, independent of primary site of origin. Progression-free survival at 6 months was 31%.

The DART trial is available at more than 800 sites, providing access to potentially promising treatment in a rigorous, scientifically valuable study for geographically underserved populations, including patients who live in rural areas.

The key message for practicing oncologists and clinical investigators is that clinical trials in rare tumors are feasible and can yield hope for patients who might lack it otherwise.

DART is funded by the National Cancer Institute and Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Wagner disclosed relationships with Deciphera, Adaptimmune, GlaxoSmithKline, Athenex, and Incyte.

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

SOURCE: Wagner M et al. SITC 2020, Abstract 795.

Rare cancers comprise about 20% of all cancers in the United States and Europe, according to recent estimates, but patients with rare cancers are vastly underrepresented in clinical trials.

Recently, there has been a focus on immune checkpoint blockade (ICB) in common cancer types. Since several rare tumor types share similar biologic features with the more common tumors, there is a need to test ICB in rare tumors, particularly because remissions with ICB can be durable.

Enter the DART trial, a phase 2, single-arm study of combinatorial ICB with ipilimumab plus nivolumab in patients with unresectable or metastatic rare cancers.

Results from DART were recently presented at the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer’s 35th Anniversary Annual Meeting. Michael J. Wagner, MD, of the University of Washington, Seattle, reported results in patients with advanced or unresectable angiosarcoma, one of the rare tumor types included in DART.
 

About angiosarcomas

Angiosarcomas account for less than 3% of all adult soft-tissue sarcomas, according to a review published in The Lancet Oncology. Angiosarcomas may arise in any part of the body, especially the head and neck (27%), breast (19.7%), and extremities (15.3%). These cancers can be primary or secondary (i.e., associated with prior radiation therapy or chronic lymphedema).

Angiosarcomas are aggressive, difficult to treat, and confer high mortality. The tumors are responsive to chemotherapy, but responses are brief. The estimated 5-year survival rate for all patients with angiosarcoma, including those who present with localized disease, is 30%-40%.

According to Dr. Wagner, a subset of angiosarcomas are characterized by high tumor mutational burden (TMB) and COSMIC signature 7, a DNA mutational signature that is consistent with other cancers caused by ultraviolet light exposure.

The high TMB subset of angiosarcomas is comparable with other cancer types that are responsive to ICB. Indeed, patients with angiosarcoma treated with ICB have shown responses, according to research published in the Journal for Immunotherapy of Cancer. However, no prospective studies of ICB in angiosarcoma have been published.
 

About DART

The DART trial includes more than 50 cohorts of rare cancer subtypes. Patients receive IV ipilimumab at 1 mg/kg every 6 weeks and IV nivolumab at 240 mg every 2 weeks.

The primary endpoint is objective response rate, as assessed by RECIST v1.1. Secondary endpoints include progression-free survival, overall survival, stable disease at 6 months, and toxicity.

The trial has a two-stage design. Six patients are enrolled in the first stage, and, if at least one patient responds to treatment, an additional 10 patients are enrolled in the second stage.

If at least two responses are seen among the 16 patients enrolled, further study of ICB is considered warranted.
 

Results in angiosarcoma

Dr. Wagner reported on the 16 angiosarcoma patients enrolled in DART. Nine patients had cutaneous primary tumors, seven had noncutaneous primary tumors, and three patients had radiation-associated angiosarcoma of the breast or chest wall.

Patients had received a median of two (range, zero to five) prior lines of therapy.

Adverse events (AEs) were consistent with prior safety results of the ipilimumab-nivolumab combination. Three-quarters of patients experienced an AE of any grade. The most common AEs were transaminase elevation, anemia, diarrhea, fatigue, hypothyroidism, pneumonitis, pruritus, and rash.

A quarter of patients had a grade 3-4 AE, and 12.5% of AEs led to premature treatment discontinuation. There were no fatal AEs.

The ORR was 25%. Responses occurred in 4 of the 16 patients, including 3 of 5 patients with primary cutaneous tumors of the scalp or face and 1 of 3 patients with radiation-associated breast angiosarcoma.

Two of the four responses and one case of stable disease have persisted for almost a year, and these patients remain on treatment. To put these results into perspective, Dr. Wagner noted that responses to cytotoxic chemotherapy rarely last 6 months.

The 6-month progression-free survival rate was 38%. The median overall survival has not yet been reached.

Dr. Wagner concluded that the combinatorial ICB regimen employed in DART was well tolerated and had an ORR of 25% in angiosarcoma regardless of primary site. Per the criteria of the DART trial, further investigation of ICB in angiosarcoma is warranted.
 

Molecular insights

Although correlative analyses of tumor tissue and peripheral blood are embedded in the DART trial, those analyses have not yet been performed. Eight of the 16 angiosarcoma patients had diagnostic molecular studies performed at their parent institutions, utilizing a variety of commercial platforms.

All eight patients for whom molecular data were available had at least two deleterious genomic alterations detected, but each had a distinct molecular profile.

Seven patients had TMB analyzed, including two partial responders to ICB. One of the seven patients had a high TMB, and this patient was one of the two responders. The other responder had an intermediate TMB.

Three patients had programmed death–ligand 1 staining on their tumors. Two of the three had high expression of PD-L1, including the responder with an intermediate TMB.
 

The real impact of DART

The DART trial is a “basket trial,” employing a similar treatment regimen for multiple tumor types. It provides a uniform framework for studying tumors that have been neglected in clinical trials heretofore.

Although the cohort of angiosarcoma patients is small, central pathology review was not required, and the treatment regimen was not compared directly with other potential therapies, the reported results of the ipilimumab-nivolumab regimen justify further study.

The biospecimens collected in DART will provide a rich source of data to identify common themes among responders and nonresponders, among patients who experience durable remissions and those who do not.

Angiosarcoma is not the only rare cancer for which combinatorial ICB has been valuable under the auspices of the DART trial. In Clinical Cancer Research, investigators reported an ORR of 44% among patients with high-grade neuroendocrine cancers, independent of primary site of origin. Progression-free survival at 6 months was 31%.

The DART trial is available at more than 800 sites, providing access to potentially promising treatment in a rigorous, scientifically valuable study for geographically underserved populations, including patients who live in rural areas.

The key message for practicing oncologists and clinical investigators is that clinical trials in rare tumors are feasible and can yield hope for patients who might lack it otherwise.

DART is funded by the National Cancer Institute and Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Wagner disclosed relationships with Deciphera, Adaptimmune, GlaxoSmithKline, Athenex, and Incyte.

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

SOURCE: Wagner M et al. SITC 2020, Abstract 795.

COVID-19 has thrown a wrench in standard treatment protocols for patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). These patients already face a greater risk of dying from infections, and recent research suggests they tend to have risk factors that increase their likelihood of complications and death from COVID-19.

In August, a group of oncologists from the United States and Europe published a literature-informed expert opinion to help their colleagues navigate this new CLL treatment landscape. It offers a roadmap for balancing patients’ therapeutic needs against their risk for viral infection and outlines the safest course of action for patients who test positive for COVID-19.

Mazyar Shadman, MD, MPH, an associate professor in the Clinical Research Division of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center and the Division of Medical Oncology at the University of Washington School of Medicine, in Seattle, Washington, was contacted for comment to break down what clinicians need to know about treating CLL during the pandemic. This interview has been edited for length and clarity.
 

Question: What prompted you and colleagues from the United States and Europe to write these recommendations?

Dr. Shadman: When we began the collaboration earlier this year, our colleagues in Italy and the rest of Europe had more experience with COVID-19, so they led the effort. We wanted to help oncologists manage their patients with CLL during the pandemic based on the evidence we had at the time and the unknowns we faced.
 

What’s an example of how the available evidence informed your recommendations?

At the time, we didn’t know whether patients with CLL were more likely to get COVID-19, compared to the general population, but we did have evidence already that cancer increases patients’ risk of bad outcomes and death from COVID-19. CLL, for example, can increase risk factors for infection, including hypogammaglobulinemia, innate immune dysfunction, and neutropenia, which may be exacerbated by anticancer treatments. Patients’ existing immune suppression might prevent or delay their ability to react to or cope with the virus. And many patients with CLL have other conditions that increase their risk of a severe response to COVID-19, including older age (70% of CLL patients are older than 65 years), hypertension (21%), and diabetes (26%).

These factors informed our recommendations to limit patients’ exposure to COVID-19 by reducing or postponing the number of in-person visits and routine in-hospital follow-ups, especially if they could be substituted with virtual check-ins.
 

The expert opinion recommendations are divided into three main categories: patients who are newly diagnosed with CLL but have not begun receiving therapy, those already receiving therapy but are free of COVID-19, and those who test positive for COVID-19. Let’s start with the first category. What do the recommendations say about waiting versus proceeding for newly diagnosed patients?

Our priority was balancing the negative impacts of getting COVID-19 with the negative impacts of postponing cancer treatment. We suggested taking each new CLL case on a patient-by-patient basis to determine who needed treatment tomorrow and who could wait a few weeks or months. Fortunately, CLL rarely requires immediate therapy, so the preference was to postpone treatment a few weeks, depending on the local COVID-19 outbreak situation.

In my practice, for instance, we tried to postpone visits as much as we could. Before the pandemic, patients with CLL in the watch-and-wait phase – those diagnosed but who don’t require treatment immediately – would come in for bloodwork and exams every 3-6 months. But when the pandemic hit, we skipped 3-month visits for patients with stable lab results and switched to telehealth visits instead. For those who needed blood draws, we used local labs closer to the patient’s home to minimize their exposure and transportation requirements.

When treatment cannot be deferred, we’ve recommended starting patients on therapies that require fewer in-person visits and are less immune suppressive. We recommended oncologists consider Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitors, such as ibrutinib and acalabrutinib, as well as venetoclax. Some research suggests these inhibitors may be protective against COVID-19 by blunting a patient’s hyperinflammatory response to the virus. These drugs also require minimal routine treatment and lab visits, which helps limit patients’ potential exposure to COVID-19.

But there are risks to waiting. Even during the peak of the pandemic here in Seattle, if patients needed treatment immediately, we did not delay. Patients with significant drops in their platelet or neutrophil count or those with bulky disease, for instance, do require therapy.

It’s important to mention that we did have bad experiences with patients who needed immediate treatment and their treating physicians decided to wait because of COVID-19 risks. These patients who came in with aggressive CLL and experienced delays in care had much more complicated CLL treatment than if they had started treatment earlier.

When organ function became abnormal, for example, some patients could no longer receive certain therapies. If someone’s kidney function becomes abnormal, I wouldn’t recommend giving a drug like venetoclax. Although rare, some patients on venetoclax develop tumor lysis syndrome, which can lead to kidney failure.

Bottom line: Don’t just assume it’s a low-grade disease and that you can wait.



What about patients already receiving treatment for CLL who are free of COVID-19?

For patients on active treatment, we suggested stopping or holding treatment with monoclonal antibodies, such as rituximab and obinutuzumab, and chemotherapy regimens, such as idelalisib plus rituximab and duvelisib, when possible. We recommended oncologists consider continuing treatment for patients on BTK inhibitors.



What happens if a patient with CLL tests positive for COVID-19?

If a patient tests positive for COVID-19 but is not yet on CLL treatment, we recommend postponing CLL care until they’ve recovered from the infection. If a patient is already receiving treatment, the recommendations are similar to those above for COVID-19–negative patients: Delay care for those on chemotherapy and monoclonal antibodies, but consider continuing treatment for patients on BTK inhibitors.
 

The expert opinion was submitted in May and ultimately published in August. How has our understanding of treating CLL during the pandemic changed since then? Would you change any recommendations?

When we published this paper, it was still early on in the pandemic, and we didn’t know as much about COVID-19 and CLL as we do now. Since we published the recommendations, we have received confirmation from several studies that patients with cancer have a more complicated course of COVID-19 and have worse outcomes. But I believe the recommendations we devised early in the pandemic still hold now. Decisions about delivering treatment should be influenced by the local COVID-19 numbers and hospital resources as well as the patient’s specific situation – whether they have more stable disease and can delay or postpone care or whether they need more immediate attention.

With a further surge in cases predicted as we move even deeper into flu season, what would you recommend for initiating treatment in newly diagnosed patients?

The pandemic has created a very fluid situation for treating CLL. What’s happening now in Seattle may not be the same story in New York, California, or elsewhere. In early November [when Dr. Shadman was first contacted], in Seattle, we were not postponing care because our COVID-19 numbers were fairly good. But, as of mid December, that is starting to change as the COVID-19 numbers fluctuate.
 

If we do experience a second peak of COVID-19 cases, we would need to modify our practice as we did during the initial surge earlier this year. That would mean avoiding treatment with monoclonal antibodies and chemotherapy, as well as minimizing blood draws and drugs that require frequent in-person visits.
 

How important is it for patients to be vaccinated against COVID-19?

There are two key things to consider about a vaccine. Is the vaccine safe from the general safety standpoint that everyone is worried about? And if the vaccine is not harmful, will it work in patients will CLL?

Because we don’t yet know the complete side-effect profile of a COVID-19 vaccine, we would need to assess each patient’s condition to limit adverse reactions and to see whether the vaccine alters a patient’s immune response to the CLL drug they’re taking.

At the University of Washington, Seattle, we have a plan to start studying the effectiveness of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines in patients with CLL – carefully assessing patients’ response to the vaccine in terms of antibody response. We already know, based on small studies, that the antibody response to the flu vaccine, for instance, is not as strong in patients with CLL, compared to those without. But, overall, as long as the vaccine won’t cause harm, I would recommend my patients get it.

Dr. Shadman has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

COVID-19 has thrown a wrench in standard treatment protocols for patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). These patients already face a greater risk of dying from infections, and recent research suggests they tend to have risk factors that increase their likelihood of complications and death from COVID-19.

In August, a group of oncologists from the United States and Europe published a literature-informed expert opinion to help their colleagues navigate this new CLL treatment landscape. It offers a roadmap for balancing patients’ therapeutic needs against their risk for viral infection and outlines the safest course of action for patients who test positive for COVID-19.

Mazyar Shadman, MD, MPH, an associate professor in the Clinical Research Division of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center and the Division of Medical Oncology at the University of Washington School of Medicine, in Seattle, Washington, was contacted for comment to break down what clinicians need to know about treating CLL during the pandemic. This interview has been edited for length and clarity.
 

Question: What prompted you and colleagues from the United States and Europe to write these recommendations?

Dr. Shadman: When we began the collaboration earlier this year, our colleagues in Italy and the rest of Europe had more experience with COVID-19, so they led the effort. We wanted to help oncologists manage their patients with CLL during the pandemic based on the evidence we had at the time and the unknowns we faced.
 

What’s an example of how the available evidence informed your recommendations?

At the time, we didn’t know whether patients with CLL were more likely to get COVID-19, compared to the general population, but we did have evidence already that cancer increases patients’ risk of bad outcomes and death from COVID-19. CLL, for example, can increase risk factors for infection, including hypogammaglobulinemia, innate immune dysfunction, and neutropenia, which may be exacerbated by anticancer treatments. Patients’ existing immune suppression might prevent or delay their ability to react to or cope with the virus. And many patients with CLL have other conditions that increase their risk of a severe response to COVID-19, including older age (70% of CLL patients are older than 65 years), hypertension (21%), and diabetes (26%).

These factors informed our recommendations to limit patients’ exposure to COVID-19 by reducing or postponing the number of in-person visits and routine in-hospital follow-ups, especially if they could be substituted with virtual check-ins.
 

The expert opinion recommendations are divided into three main categories: patients who are newly diagnosed with CLL but have not begun receiving therapy, those already receiving therapy but are free of COVID-19, and those who test positive for COVID-19. Let’s start with the first category. What do the recommendations say about waiting versus proceeding for newly diagnosed patients?

Our priority was balancing the negative impacts of getting COVID-19 with the negative impacts of postponing cancer treatment. We suggested taking each new CLL case on a patient-by-patient basis to determine who needed treatment tomorrow and who could wait a few weeks or months. Fortunately, CLL rarely requires immediate therapy, so the preference was to postpone treatment a few weeks, depending on the local COVID-19 outbreak situation.

In my practice, for instance, we tried to postpone visits as much as we could. Before the pandemic, patients with CLL in the watch-and-wait phase – those diagnosed but who don’t require treatment immediately – would come in for bloodwork and exams every 3-6 months. But when the pandemic hit, we skipped 3-month visits for patients with stable lab results and switched to telehealth visits instead. For those who needed blood draws, we used local labs closer to the patient’s home to minimize their exposure and transportation requirements.

When treatment cannot be deferred, we’ve recommended starting patients on therapies that require fewer in-person visits and are less immune suppressive. We recommended oncologists consider Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitors, such as ibrutinib and acalabrutinib, as well as venetoclax. Some research suggests these inhibitors may be protective against COVID-19 by blunting a patient’s hyperinflammatory response to the virus. These drugs also require minimal routine treatment and lab visits, which helps limit patients’ potential exposure to COVID-19.

But there are risks to waiting. Even during the peak of the pandemic here in Seattle, if patients needed treatment immediately, we did not delay. Patients with significant drops in their platelet or neutrophil count or those with bulky disease, for instance, do require therapy.

It’s important to mention that we did have bad experiences with patients who needed immediate treatment and their treating physicians decided to wait because of COVID-19 risks. These patients who came in with aggressive CLL and experienced delays in care had much more complicated CLL treatment than if they had started treatment earlier.

When organ function became abnormal, for example, some patients could no longer receive certain therapies. If someone’s kidney function becomes abnormal, I wouldn’t recommend giving a drug like venetoclax. Although rare, some patients on venetoclax develop tumor lysis syndrome, which can lead to kidney failure.

Bottom line: Don’t just assume it’s a low-grade disease and that you can wait.



What about patients already receiving treatment for CLL who are free of COVID-19?

For patients on active treatment, we suggested stopping or holding treatment with monoclonal antibodies, such as rituximab and obinutuzumab, and chemotherapy regimens, such as idelalisib plus rituximab and duvelisib, when possible. We recommended oncologists consider continuing treatment for patients on BTK inhibitors.



What happens if a patient with CLL tests positive for COVID-19?

If a patient tests positive for COVID-19 but is not yet on CLL treatment, we recommend postponing CLL care until they’ve recovered from the infection. If a patient is already receiving treatment, the recommendations are similar to those above for COVID-19–negative patients: Delay care for those on chemotherapy and monoclonal antibodies, but consider continuing treatment for patients on BTK inhibitors.
 

The expert opinion was submitted in May and ultimately published in August. How has our understanding of treating CLL during the pandemic changed since then? Would you change any recommendations?

When we published this paper, it was still early on in the pandemic, and we didn’t know as much about COVID-19 and CLL as we do now. Since we published the recommendations, we have received confirmation from several studies that patients with cancer have a more complicated course of COVID-19 and have worse outcomes. But I believe the recommendations we devised early in the pandemic still hold now. Decisions about delivering treatment should be influenced by the local COVID-19 numbers and hospital resources as well as the patient’s specific situation – whether they have more stable disease and can delay or postpone care or whether they need more immediate attention.

With a further surge in cases predicted as we move even deeper into flu season, what would you recommend for initiating treatment in newly diagnosed patients?

The pandemic has created a very fluid situation for treating CLL. What’s happening now in Seattle may not be the same story in New York, California, or elsewhere. In early November [when Dr. Shadman was first contacted], in Seattle, we were not postponing care because our COVID-19 numbers were fairly good. But, as of mid December, that is starting to change as the COVID-19 numbers fluctuate.
 

If we do experience a second peak of COVID-19 cases, we would need to modify our practice as we did during the initial surge earlier this year. That would mean avoiding treatment with monoclonal antibodies and chemotherapy, as well as minimizing blood draws and drugs that require frequent in-person visits.
 

How important is it for patients to be vaccinated against COVID-19?

There are two key things to consider about a vaccine. Is the vaccine safe from the general safety standpoint that everyone is worried about? And if the vaccine is not harmful, will it work in patients will CLL?

Because we don’t yet know the complete side-effect profile of a COVID-19 vaccine, we would need to assess each patient’s condition to limit adverse reactions and to see whether the vaccine alters a patient’s immune response to the CLL drug they’re taking.

At the University of Washington, Seattle, we have a plan to start studying the effectiveness of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines in patients with CLL – carefully assessing patients’ response to the vaccine in terms of antibody response. We already know, based on small studies, that the antibody response to the flu vaccine, for instance, is not as strong in patients with CLL, compared to those without. But, overall, as long as the vaccine won’t cause harm, I would recommend my patients get it.

Dr. Shadman has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

COVID-19 has thrown a wrench in standard treatment protocols for patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). These patients already face a greater risk of dying from infections, and recent research suggests they tend to have risk factors that increase their likelihood of complications and death from COVID-19.

In August, a group of oncologists from the United States and Europe published a literature-informed expert opinion to help their colleagues navigate this new CLL treatment landscape. It offers a roadmap for balancing patients’ therapeutic needs against their risk for viral infection and outlines the safest course of action for patients who test positive for COVID-19.

Mazyar Shadman, MD, MPH, an associate professor in the Clinical Research Division of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center and the Division of Medical Oncology at the University of Washington School of Medicine, in Seattle, Washington, was contacted for comment to break down what clinicians need to know about treating CLL during the pandemic. This interview has been edited for length and clarity.
 

Question: What prompted you and colleagues from the United States and Europe to write these recommendations?

Dr. Shadman: When we began the collaboration earlier this year, our colleagues in Italy and the rest of Europe had more experience with COVID-19, so they led the effort. We wanted to help oncologists manage their patients with CLL during the pandemic based on the evidence we had at the time and the unknowns we faced.
 

What’s an example of how the available evidence informed your recommendations?

At the time, we didn’t know whether patients with CLL were more likely to get COVID-19, compared to the general population, but we did have evidence already that cancer increases patients’ risk of bad outcomes and death from COVID-19. CLL, for example, can increase risk factors for infection, including hypogammaglobulinemia, innate immune dysfunction, and neutropenia, which may be exacerbated by anticancer treatments. Patients’ existing immune suppression might prevent or delay their ability to react to or cope with the virus. And many patients with CLL have other conditions that increase their risk of a severe response to COVID-19, including older age (70% of CLL patients are older than 65 years), hypertension (21%), and diabetes (26%).

These factors informed our recommendations to limit patients’ exposure to COVID-19 by reducing or postponing the number of in-person visits and routine in-hospital follow-ups, especially if they could be substituted with virtual check-ins.
 

The expert opinion recommendations are divided into three main categories: patients who are newly diagnosed with CLL but have not begun receiving therapy, those already receiving therapy but are free of COVID-19, and those who test positive for COVID-19. Let’s start with the first category. What do the recommendations say about waiting versus proceeding for newly diagnosed patients?

Our priority was balancing the negative impacts of getting COVID-19 with the negative impacts of postponing cancer treatment. We suggested taking each new CLL case on a patient-by-patient basis to determine who needed treatment tomorrow and who could wait a few weeks or months. Fortunately, CLL rarely requires immediate therapy, so the preference was to postpone treatment a few weeks, depending on the local COVID-19 outbreak situation.

In my practice, for instance, we tried to postpone visits as much as we could. Before the pandemic, patients with CLL in the watch-and-wait phase – those diagnosed but who don’t require treatment immediately – would come in for bloodwork and exams every 3-6 months. But when the pandemic hit, we skipped 3-month visits for patients with stable lab results and switched to telehealth visits instead. For those who needed blood draws, we used local labs closer to the patient’s home to minimize their exposure and transportation requirements.

When treatment cannot be deferred, we’ve recommended starting patients on therapies that require fewer in-person visits and are less immune suppressive. We recommended oncologists consider Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitors, such as ibrutinib and acalabrutinib, as well as venetoclax. Some research suggests these inhibitors may be protective against COVID-19 by blunting a patient’s hyperinflammatory response to the virus. These drugs also require minimal routine treatment and lab visits, which helps limit patients’ potential exposure to COVID-19.

But there are risks to waiting. Even during the peak of the pandemic here in Seattle, if patients needed treatment immediately, we did not delay. Patients with significant drops in their platelet or neutrophil count or those with bulky disease, for instance, do require therapy.

It’s important to mention that we did have bad experiences with patients who needed immediate treatment and their treating physicians decided to wait because of COVID-19 risks. These patients who came in with aggressive CLL and experienced delays in care had much more complicated CLL treatment than if they had started treatment earlier.

When organ function became abnormal, for example, some patients could no longer receive certain therapies. If someone’s kidney function becomes abnormal, I wouldn’t recommend giving a drug like venetoclax. Although rare, some patients on venetoclax develop tumor lysis syndrome, which can lead to kidney failure.

Bottom line: Don’t just assume it’s a low-grade disease and that you can wait.



What about patients already receiving treatment for CLL who are free of COVID-19?

For patients on active treatment, we suggested stopping or holding treatment with monoclonal antibodies, such as rituximab and obinutuzumab, and chemotherapy regimens, such as idelalisib plus rituximab and duvelisib, when possible. We recommended oncologists consider continuing treatment for patients on BTK inhibitors.



What happens if a patient with CLL tests positive for COVID-19?

If a patient tests positive for COVID-19 but is not yet on CLL treatment, we recommend postponing CLL care until they’ve recovered from the infection. If a patient is already receiving treatment, the recommendations are similar to those above for COVID-19–negative patients: Delay care for those on chemotherapy and monoclonal antibodies, but consider continuing treatment for patients on BTK inhibitors.
 

The expert opinion was submitted in May and ultimately published in August. How has our understanding of treating CLL during the pandemic changed since then? Would you change any recommendations?

When we published this paper, it was still early on in the pandemic, and we didn’t know as much about COVID-19 and CLL as we do now. Since we published the recommendations, we have received confirmation from several studies that patients with cancer have a more complicated course of COVID-19 and have worse outcomes. But I believe the recommendations we devised early in the pandemic still hold now. Decisions about delivering treatment should be influenced by the local COVID-19 numbers and hospital resources as well as the patient’s specific situation – whether they have more stable disease and can delay or postpone care or whether they need more immediate attention.

With a further surge in cases predicted as we move even deeper into flu season, what would you recommend for initiating treatment in newly diagnosed patients?

The pandemic has created a very fluid situation for treating CLL. What’s happening now in Seattle may not be the same story in New York, California, or elsewhere. In early November [when Dr. Shadman was first contacted], in Seattle, we were not postponing care because our COVID-19 numbers were fairly good. But, as of mid December, that is starting to change as the COVID-19 numbers fluctuate.
 

If we do experience a second peak of COVID-19 cases, we would need to modify our practice as we did during the initial surge earlier this year. That would mean avoiding treatment with monoclonal antibodies and chemotherapy, as well as minimizing blood draws and drugs that require frequent in-person visits.
 

How important is it for patients to be vaccinated against COVID-19?

There are two key things to consider about a vaccine. Is the vaccine safe from the general safety standpoint that everyone is worried about? And if the vaccine is not harmful, will it work in patients will CLL?

Because we don’t yet know the complete side-effect profile of a COVID-19 vaccine, we would need to assess each patient’s condition to limit adverse reactions and to see whether the vaccine alters a patient’s immune response to the CLL drug they’re taking.

At the University of Washington, Seattle, we have a plan to start studying the effectiveness of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines in patients with CLL – carefully assessing patients’ response to the vaccine in terms of antibody response. We already know, based on small studies, that the antibody response to the flu vaccine, for instance, is not as strong in patients with CLL, compared to those without. But, overall, as long as the vaccine won’t cause harm, I would recommend my patients get it.

Dr. Shadman has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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