AVAHO

Exposure to Agent Orange and depleted urology are associated with increased risk of bladder cancer, according to a recent Urology meta-analysis. About 3200 US veterans are diagnosed with bladder cancer each year, which is the fourth most diagnosed cancer among veterans. “Identifying veterans exposed to these risk factors is crucial for implementing screening protocols and connecting them with preventive healthcare measures when possible,” the authors said. 

A meta-analysis using narrative synthesis to incorporate diverse studies examined the impact of exposure to Agent Orange, depleted uranium exposure, contaminated drinking water, and other environmental contaminants. The researchers found 7 studies of Agent Orange exposure that in total showed a statistically significant increase in bladder cancer risk (hazard ratio [HR], 1.17; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.01-1.36; P < .001) among 2,705,283 veterans. Six studies revealed that depleted uranium exposure caused a statistically significant association with bladder cancer as well (HR, 2.13; 95% CI, 1.31-3.48; P = .002) among 28,899 patients. Exposure to contaminated drinking water exposure in 4 studies also suggested an increased bladder cancer risk (HR, 1.25; 95% CI, 0.97-1.61; P = .08) among 370,408 veterans. 

The authors identified other factors that also contributed to increased bladder cancer risk, including smoking, occupational exposures to substances like asbestos and diesel fumes, and exposure to ionizing radiation from nuclear tests. “These findings emphasize the urgent need for enhanced clinical management strategies and preventive measures for veterans exposed to these carcinogenic agents,” the authors asserted. 

The authors report no relevant conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

Exposure to Agent Orange and depleted urology are associated with increased risk of bladder cancer, according to a recent Urology meta-analysis. About 3200 US veterans are diagnosed with bladder cancer each year, which is the fourth most diagnosed cancer among veterans. “Identifying veterans exposed to these risk factors is crucial for implementing screening protocols and connecting them with preventive healthcare measures when possible,” the authors said. 

A meta-analysis using narrative synthesis to incorporate diverse studies examined the impact of exposure to Agent Orange, depleted uranium exposure, contaminated drinking water, and other environmental contaminants. The researchers found 7 studies of Agent Orange exposure that in total showed a statistically significant increase in bladder cancer risk (hazard ratio [HR], 1.17; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.01-1.36; P < .001) among 2,705,283 veterans. Six studies revealed that depleted uranium exposure caused a statistically significant association with bladder cancer as well (HR, 2.13; 95% CI, 1.31-3.48; P = .002) among 28,899 patients. Exposure to contaminated drinking water exposure in 4 studies also suggested an increased bladder cancer risk (HR, 1.25; 95% CI, 0.97-1.61; P = .08) among 370,408 veterans. 

The authors identified other factors that also contributed to increased bladder cancer risk, including smoking, occupational exposures to substances like asbestos and diesel fumes, and exposure to ionizing radiation from nuclear tests. “These findings emphasize the urgent need for enhanced clinical management strategies and preventive measures for veterans exposed to these carcinogenic agents,” the authors asserted. 

The authors report no relevant conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

Exposure to Agent Orange and depleted urology are associated with increased risk of bladder cancer, according to a recent Urology meta-analysis. About 3200 US veterans are diagnosed with bladder cancer each year, which is the fourth most diagnosed cancer among veterans. “Identifying veterans exposed to these risk factors is crucial for implementing screening protocols and connecting them with preventive healthcare measures when possible,” the authors said. 

A meta-analysis using narrative synthesis to incorporate diverse studies examined the impact of exposure to Agent Orange, depleted uranium exposure, contaminated drinking water, and other environmental contaminants. The researchers found 7 studies of Agent Orange exposure that in total showed a statistically significant increase in bladder cancer risk (hazard ratio [HR], 1.17; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.01-1.36; P < .001) among 2,705,283 veterans. Six studies revealed that depleted uranium exposure caused a statistically significant association with bladder cancer as well (HR, 2.13; 95% CI, 1.31-3.48; P = .002) among 28,899 patients. Exposure to contaminated drinking water exposure in 4 studies also suggested an increased bladder cancer risk (HR, 1.25; 95% CI, 0.97-1.61; P = .08) among 370,408 veterans. 

The authors identified other factors that also contributed to increased bladder cancer risk, including smoking, occupational exposures to substances like asbestos and diesel fumes, and exposure to ionizing radiation from nuclear tests. “These findings emphasize the urgent need for enhanced clinical management strategies and preventive measures for veterans exposed to these carcinogenic agents,” the authors asserted. 

The authors report no relevant conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

TOPLINE:

Patients with rectal cancer managed by watch and wait and subsequent local regrowth have a higher risk for distant metastases than those undergoing immediate surgery. The new study highlights the importance of timely surgical intervention to improve distant metastases–free survival rates.

METHODOLOGY:

• Organ preservation has become an attractive alternative to surgery for patients with rectal cancer who achieve a clinical complete response after neoadjuvant therapy, with the risk for local regrowth after initial clinical complete response being around 25%-30%.
• The new study aimed to compare the risk for distant metastases between patients with local regrowth after watch and wait and patients with near-complete pathologic response managed by total mesorectal excision.
• A total of 508 patients with local regrowth were included from the International Watch & Wait Database, and 893 patients with near-complete pathologic response were included from the Spanish Rectal Cancer Project.
• The primary endpoint was distant metastases–free survival at 3 years from the decision to watch and wait or total mesorectal excision, and the secondary endpoints included possible risk factors associated with distant metastases.

TAKEAWAY:

• Patients with local regrowth had a significantly higher rate of distant metastases (rate, 22.8% vs 10.2%; P ≤.001) than those with near-complete pathologic response managed by total mesorectal excision.
• Distant metastases–free survival at 3 years was significantly worse for patients with local regrowth (rate, 75% vs 87%; P < .001).
• Independent risk factors for distant metastases included local regrowth (vs total mesorectal excision at reassessment; P = .001), ypT3-4 status (P = .016), and ypN+ status (P = .001) at the time of surgery.
• Patients with local regrowth had worse distant metastases–free survival across all pathologic stages than those managed by total mesorectal excision.

IN PRACTICE:

“Patients with local regrowth appear to have a higher risk for subsequent distant metastases development than patients with near-complete pathologic response managed by total mesorectal excision at restaging irrespective of final pathology,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Laura M. Fernandez, MD, of the Champalimaud Foundation in Lisbon, Portugal. It was published online in Journal of Clinical Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

This study’s limitations included the heterogeneity in defining clinical complete response and the decision to watch and wait across different institutions. The majority of patients did not receive total neoadjuvant therapy regimens, which may have affected the generalizability of the findings. The study had a considerable amount of follow-up losses, which could have introduced bias.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by the European Society of Surgical Oncology, the Champalimaud Foundation, the Bas Mulder Award, the Alpe d’HuZes Foundation, the Dutch Cancer Society, the European Research Council Advanced Grant, and the National Institute of Health and Research Manchester Biomedical Research Centre. Fernandez disclosed receiving grants from Johnson & Johnson. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Patients with rectal cancer managed by watch and wait and subsequent local regrowth have a higher risk for distant metastases than those undergoing immediate surgery. The new study highlights the importance of timely surgical intervention to improve distant metastases–free survival rates.

METHODOLOGY:

• Organ preservation has become an attractive alternative to surgery for patients with rectal cancer who achieve a clinical complete response after neoadjuvant therapy, with the risk for local regrowth after initial clinical complete response being around 25%-30%.
• The new study aimed to compare the risk for distant metastases between patients with local regrowth after watch and wait and patients with near-complete pathologic response managed by total mesorectal excision.
• A total of 508 patients with local regrowth were included from the International Watch & Wait Database, and 893 patients with near-complete pathologic response were included from the Spanish Rectal Cancer Project.
• The primary endpoint was distant metastases–free survival at 3 years from the decision to watch and wait or total mesorectal excision, and the secondary endpoints included possible risk factors associated with distant metastases.

TAKEAWAY:

• Patients with local regrowth had a significantly higher rate of distant metastases (rate, 22.8% vs 10.2%; P ≤.001) than those with near-complete pathologic response managed by total mesorectal excision.
• Distant metastases–free survival at 3 years was significantly worse for patients with local regrowth (rate, 75% vs 87%; P < .001).
• Independent risk factors for distant metastases included local regrowth (vs total mesorectal excision at reassessment; P = .001), ypT3-4 status (P = .016), and ypN+ status (P = .001) at the time of surgery.
• Patients with local regrowth had worse distant metastases–free survival across all pathologic stages than those managed by total mesorectal excision.

IN PRACTICE:

“Patients with local regrowth appear to have a higher risk for subsequent distant metastases development than patients with near-complete pathologic response managed by total mesorectal excision at restaging irrespective of final pathology,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Laura M. Fernandez, MD, of the Champalimaud Foundation in Lisbon, Portugal. It was published online in Journal of Clinical Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

This study’s limitations included the heterogeneity in defining clinical complete response and the decision to watch and wait across different institutions. The majority of patients did not receive total neoadjuvant therapy regimens, which may have affected the generalizability of the findings. The study had a considerable amount of follow-up losses, which could have introduced bias.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by the European Society of Surgical Oncology, the Champalimaud Foundation, the Bas Mulder Award, the Alpe d’HuZes Foundation, the Dutch Cancer Society, the European Research Council Advanced Grant, and the National Institute of Health and Research Manchester Biomedical Research Centre. Fernandez disclosed receiving grants from Johnson & Johnson. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Patients with rectal cancer managed by watch and wait and subsequent local regrowth have a higher risk for distant metastases than those undergoing immediate surgery. The new study highlights the importance of timely surgical intervention to improve distant metastases–free survival rates.

METHODOLOGY:

• Organ preservation has become an attractive alternative to surgery for patients with rectal cancer who achieve a clinical complete response after neoadjuvant therapy, with the risk for local regrowth after initial clinical complete response being around 25%-30%.
• The new study aimed to compare the risk for distant metastases between patients with local regrowth after watch and wait and patients with near-complete pathologic response managed by total mesorectal excision.
• A total of 508 patients with local regrowth were included from the International Watch & Wait Database, and 893 patients with near-complete pathologic response were included from the Spanish Rectal Cancer Project.
• The primary endpoint was distant metastases–free survival at 3 years from the decision to watch and wait or total mesorectal excision, and the secondary endpoints included possible risk factors associated with distant metastases.

TAKEAWAY:

• Patients with local regrowth had a significantly higher rate of distant metastases (rate, 22.8% vs 10.2%; P ≤.001) than those with near-complete pathologic response managed by total mesorectal excision.
• Distant metastases–free survival at 3 years was significantly worse for patients with local regrowth (rate, 75% vs 87%; P < .001).
• Independent risk factors for distant metastases included local regrowth (vs total mesorectal excision at reassessment; P = .001), ypT3-4 status (P = .016), and ypN+ status (P = .001) at the time of surgery.
• Patients with local regrowth had worse distant metastases–free survival across all pathologic stages than those managed by total mesorectal excision.

IN PRACTICE:

“Patients with local regrowth appear to have a higher risk for subsequent distant metastases development than patients with near-complete pathologic response managed by total mesorectal excision at restaging irrespective of final pathology,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Laura M. Fernandez, MD, of the Champalimaud Foundation in Lisbon, Portugal. It was published online in Journal of Clinical Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

This study’s limitations included the heterogeneity in defining clinical complete response and the decision to watch and wait across different institutions. The majority of patients did not receive total neoadjuvant therapy regimens, which may have affected the generalizability of the findings. The study had a considerable amount of follow-up losses, which could have introduced bias.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by the European Society of Surgical Oncology, the Champalimaud Foundation, the Bas Mulder Award, the Alpe d’HuZes Foundation, the Dutch Cancer Society, the European Research Council Advanced Grant, and the National Institute of Health and Research Manchester Biomedical Research Centre. Fernandez disclosed receiving grants from Johnson & Johnson. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Results from the British COLO-DETECT trial add to the growing body of evidence supporting the use of artificial intelligence (AI)–aided colonoscopy to increase premalignant colorectal polyp detection in routine colonoscopy practice.

Colin J. Rees, a professor of gastroenterology in the Faculty of Medical Sciences at Newcastle University in Newcastle upon Tyne, England, and colleagues compared the real-world clinical effectiveness of computer-aided detection (CADe)–assisted colonoscopy using an “intelligent” module with that of standard colonoscopy in a study in The Lancet Gastroenterology & Hepatology.

They found the GI Genius Intelligent Endoscopy Module (Medtronic) increased the mean number of adenomas detected per procedure and the adenoma detection rate, especially for small, flat (type 0-IIa) polyps, and sessile serrated lesions, which are more likely to be missed.

“Missed sessile serrated lesions disproportionately increase the risk of post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer, thus the adoption of GI Genius into routine colonoscopy practice could not only increase polyp detection but also reduce the incidence of post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer,” the investigators wrote.

“AI is going to have a major impact upon most aspects of healthcare. Some areas of medical practice are now well established, and some are still in evolution,” Rees, who is also president of the British Society of Gastroenterology, said in an interview. “Within gastroenterology, the role of AI in endoscopic diagnostics is also evolving. The COLO-DETECT trial demonstrates that AI increases detection of lesions, and work is ongoing to see how AI might help with characterization and other elements of endoscopic practice.”

 

Study Details

The multicenter, open-label, parallel-arm, pragmatic randomized controlled trial was conducted at 12 National Health Service hospitals in England. The study cohort consisted of adults ≥ 18 years undergoing colorectal cancer (CRC) screening or colonoscopy for gastrointestinal symptom surveillance owing to personal or family history.

Recruiting staff, participants, and colonoscopists were unmasked to allocation, whereas histopathologists, cochief investigators, and trial statisticians were masked.

CADe-assisted colonoscopy consisted of standard colonoscopy plus the GI Genius module active for at least the entire inspection phase of colonoscope withdrawal.

The primary outcome was mean adenomas per procedure (total number of adenomas detected divided by total number of procedures). The key secondary outcome was adenoma detection rate (proportion of colonoscopies with at least one adenoma).

From March 2021 to April 2023, the investigators recruited 2032 participants, 55.7% men, with a mean cohort age of 62.4 years and randomly assigned them to CADe-assisted colonoscopy (n = 1015) or to standard colonoscopy (n = 1017). Of these, 60.6% were undergoing screening and 39.4% had symptomatic indications.

Mean adenomas per procedure were 1.56 (SD, 2.82; n = 1001 participants with data) in the CADe-assisted group vs 1.21 (n = 1009) in the standard group, for an adjusted mean difference of 0.36 (95% CI, 0.14-0.57; adjusted incidence rate ratio, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.15-1.47; P < .0001).

Adenomas were detected in 555 (56.6%) of 980 participants in the CADe-assisted group vs 477 (48.4%) of 986 in the standard group, representing a proportion difference of 8.3% (95% CI, 3.9-12.7; adjusted odds ratio, 1.47; 95% CI, 1.21-1.78; P < .0001).

As to safety, adverse events were numerically comparable in both the intervention and control groups, with overall events 25 vs 19 and serious events 4 vs 6. On independent review, no adverse events in the CADe-assisted colonoscopy group were related to GI Genius.

 

Offering a US perspective on the study, Nabil M. Mansour, MD, an associate professor and director of the McNair General GI Clinic at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, Texas, said GI Genius and other CADe systems represent a significant advance over standard colonoscopy for identifying premalignant polyps. “While the data have been mixed, most studies, particularly randomized controlled trials have shown significant improvements with CADe in detection both terms of in adenomas per colonoscopy and reductions in adenoma miss rate,” he said in an interview.

He added that the main utility of CADe is for asymptomatic patients undergoing average-risk screening and surveillance colonoscopy for CRC screening and prevention, as well as for those with positive stool-based screening tests, “though there is no downside to using it in symptomatic patients as well.” Though AI colonoscopy likely still stands at < 50% of endoscopy centers overall, and is used mainly at academic centers, his clinic has been using it for the past year.

The main question, Mansour cautioned, is whether increased detection of small polyps will actually reduce CRC incidence or mortality, and it will likely be several years before clear, concrete data can answer that.

“Most studies have shown the improvement in adenoma detection is mainly for diminutive polyps < 5 mm in diameter, but whether that will actually translate to substantive improvements in hard outcomes is as yet unknown,” he said. “But if gastroenterologists are interested in doing everything they can today to help improve detection rates and lower miss rates of premalignant polyps, serious consideration should be given to adopting the use of CADe in practice.”

This study was supported by Medtronic. Rees reported receiving grant funding from ARC Medical, Norgine, Medtronic, 3-D Matrix, and Olympus Medical, and has been an expert witness for ARC Medical. Other authors disclosed receiving research funding, honoraria, or travel expenses from Medtronic or other private companies. Mansour had no competing interests to declare.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Results from the British COLO-DETECT trial add to the growing body of evidence supporting the use of artificial intelligence (AI)–aided colonoscopy to increase premalignant colorectal polyp detection in routine colonoscopy practice.

Colin J. Rees, a professor of gastroenterology in the Faculty of Medical Sciences at Newcastle University in Newcastle upon Tyne, England, and colleagues compared the real-world clinical effectiveness of computer-aided detection (CADe)–assisted colonoscopy using an “intelligent” module with that of standard colonoscopy in a study in The Lancet Gastroenterology & Hepatology.

They found the GI Genius Intelligent Endoscopy Module (Medtronic) increased the mean number of adenomas detected per procedure and the adenoma detection rate, especially for small, flat (type 0-IIa) polyps, and sessile serrated lesions, which are more likely to be missed.

“Missed sessile serrated lesions disproportionately increase the risk of post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer, thus the adoption of GI Genius into routine colonoscopy practice could not only increase polyp detection but also reduce the incidence of post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer,” the investigators wrote.

“AI is going to have a major impact upon most aspects of healthcare. Some areas of medical practice are now well established, and some are still in evolution,” Rees, who is also president of the British Society of Gastroenterology, said in an interview. “Within gastroenterology, the role of AI in endoscopic diagnostics is also evolving. The COLO-DETECT trial demonstrates that AI increases detection of lesions, and work is ongoing to see how AI might help with characterization and other elements of endoscopic practice.”

 

Study Details

The multicenter, open-label, parallel-arm, pragmatic randomized controlled trial was conducted at 12 National Health Service hospitals in England. The study cohort consisted of adults ≥ 18 years undergoing colorectal cancer (CRC) screening or colonoscopy for gastrointestinal symptom surveillance owing to personal or family history.

Recruiting staff, participants, and colonoscopists were unmasked to allocation, whereas histopathologists, cochief investigators, and trial statisticians were masked.

CADe-assisted colonoscopy consisted of standard colonoscopy plus the GI Genius module active for at least the entire inspection phase of colonoscope withdrawal.

The primary outcome was mean adenomas per procedure (total number of adenomas detected divided by total number of procedures). The key secondary outcome was adenoma detection rate (proportion of colonoscopies with at least one adenoma).

From March 2021 to April 2023, the investigators recruited 2032 participants, 55.7% men, with a mean cohort age of 62.4 years and randomly assigned them to CADe-assisted colonoscopy (n = 1015) or to standard colonoscopy (n = 1017). Of these, 60.6% were undergoing screening and 39.4% had symptomatic indications.

Mean adenomas per procedure were 1.56 (SD, 2.82; n = 1001 participants with data) in the CADe-assisted group vs 1.21 (n = 1009) in the standard group, for an adjusted mean difference of 0.36 (95% CI, 0.14-0.57; adjusted incidence rate ratio, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.15-1.47; P < .0001).

Adenomas were detected in 555 (56.6%) of 980 participants in the CADe-assisted group vs 477 (48.4%) of 986 in the standard group, representing a proportion difference of 8.3% (95% CI, 3.9-12.7; adjusted odds ratio, 1.47; 95% CI, 1.21-1.78; P < .0001).

As to safety, adverse events were numerically comparable in both the intervention and control groups, with overall events 25 vs 19 and serious events 4 vs 6. On independent review, no adverse events in the CADe-assisted colonoscopy group were related to GI Genius.

 

Offering a US perspective on the study, Nabil M. Mansour, MD, an associate professor and director of the McNair General GI Clinic at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, Texas, said GI Genius and other CADe systems represent a significant advance over standard colonoscopy for identifying premalignant polyps. “While the data have been mixed, most studies, particularly randomized controlled trials have shown significant improvements with CADe in detection both terms of in adenomas per colonoscopy and reductions in adenoma miss rate,” he said in an interview.

He added that the main utility of CADe is for asymptomatic patients undergoing average-risk screening and surveillance colonoscopy for CRC screening and prevention, as well as for those with positive stool-based screening tests, “though there is no downside to using it in symptomatic patients as well.” Though AI colonoscopy likely still stands at < 50% of endoscopy centers overall, and is used mainly at academic centers, his clinic has been using it for the past year.

The main question, Mansour cautioned, is whether increased detection of small polyps will actually reduce CRC incidence or mortality, and it will likely be several years before clear, concrete data can answer that.

“Most studies have shown the improvement in adenoma detection is mainly for diminutive polyps < 5 mm in diameter, but whether that will actually translate to substantive improvements in hard outcomes is as yet unknown,” he said. “But if gastroenterologists are interested in doing everything they can today to help improve detection rates and lower miss rates of premalignant polyps, serious consideration should be given to adopting the use of CADe in practice.”

This study was supported by Medtronic. Rees reported receiving grant funding from ARC Medical, Norgine, Medtronic, 3-D Matrix, and Olympus Medical, and has been an expert witness for ARC Medical. Other authors disclosed receiving research funding, honoraria, or travel expenses from Medtronic or other private companies. Mansour had no competing interests to declare.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Results from the British COLO-DETECT trial add to the growing body of evidence supporting the use of artificial intelligence (AI)–aided colonoscopy to increase premalignant colorectal polyp detection in routine colonoscopy practice.

Colin J. Rees, a professor of gastroenterology in the Faculty of Medical Sciences at Newcastle University in Newcastle upon Tyne, England, and colleagues compared the real-world clinical effectiveness of computer-aided detection (CADe)–assisted colonoscopy using an “intelligent” module with that of standard colonoscopy in a study in The Lancet Gastroenterology & Hepatology.

They found the GI Genius Intelligent Endoscopy Module (Medtronic) increased the mean number of adenomas detected per procedure and the adenoma detection rate, especially for small, flat (type 0-IIa) polyps, and sessile serrated lesions, which are more likely to be missed.

“Missed sessile serrated lesions disproportionately increase the risk of post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer, thus the adoption of GI Genius into routine colonoscopy practice could not only increase polyp detection but also reduce the incidence of post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer,” the investigators wrote.

“AI is going to have a major impact upon most aspects of healthcare. Some areas of medical practice are now well established, and some are still in evolution,” Rees, who is also president of the British Society of Gastroenterology, said in an interview. “Within gastroenterology, the role of AI in endoscopic diagnostics is also evolving. The COLO-DETECT trial demonstrates that AI increases detection of lesions, and work is ongoing to see how AI might help with characterization and other elements of endoscopic practice.”

 

Study Details

The multicenter, open-label, parallel-arm, pragmatic randomized controlled trial was conducted at 12 National Health Service hospitals in England. The study cohort consisted of adults ≥ 18 years undergoing colorectal cancer (CRC) screening or colonoscopy for gastrointestinal symptom surveillance owing to personal or family history.

Recruiting staff, participants, and colonoscopists were unmasked to allocation, whereas histopathologists, cochief investigators, and trial statisticians were masked.

CADe-assisted colonoscopy consisted of standard colonoscopy plus the GI Genius module active for at least the entire inspection phase of colonoscope withdrawal.

The primary outcome was mean adenomas per procedure (total number of adenomas detected divided by total number of procedures). The key secondary outcome was adenoma detection rate (proportion of colonoscopies with at least one adenoma).

From March 2021 to April 2023, the investigators recruited 2032 participants, 55.7% men, with a mean cohort age of 62.4 years and randomly assigned them to CADe-assisted colonoscopy (n = 1015) or to standard colonoscopy (n = 1017). Of these, 60.6% were undergoing screening and 39.4% had symptomatic indications.

Mean adenomas per procedure were 1.56 (SD, 2.82; n = 1001 participants with data) in the CADe-assisted group vs 1.21 (n = 1009) in the standard group, for an adjusted mean difference of 0.36 (95% CI, 0.14-0.57; adjusted incidence rate ratio, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.15-1.47; P < .0001).

Adenomas were detected in 555 (56.6%) of 980 participants in the CADe-assisted group vs 477 (48.4%) of 986 in the standard group, representing a proportion difference of 8.3% (95% CI, 3.9-12.7; adjusted odds ratio, 1.47; 95% CI, 1.21-1.78; P < .0001).

As to safety, adverse events were numerically comparable in both the intervention and control groups, with overall events 25 vs 19 and serious events 4 vs 6. On independent review, no adverse events in the CADe-assisted colonoscopy group were related to GI Genius.

 

Offering a US perspective on the study, Nabil M. Mansour, MD, an associate professor and director of the McNair General GI Clinic at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, Texas, said GI Genius and other CADe systems represent a significant advance over standard colonoscopy for identifying premalignant polyps. “While the data have been mixed, most studies, particularly randomized controlled trials have shown significant improvements with CADe in detection both terms of in adenomas per colonoscopy and reductions in adenoma miss rate,” he said in an interview.

He added that the main utility of CADe is for asymptomatic patients undergoing average-risk screening and surveillance colonoscopy for CRC screening and prevention, as well as for those with positive stool-based screening tests, “though there is no downside to using it in symptomatic patients as well.” Though AI colonoscopy likely still stands at < 50% of endoscopy centers overall, and is used mainly at academic centers, his clinic has been using it for the past year.

The main question, Mansour cautioned, is whether increased detection of small polyps will actually reduce CRC incidence or mortality, and it will likely be several years before clear, concrete data can answer that.

“Most studies have shown the improvement in adenoma detection is mainly for diminutive polyps < 5 mm in diameter, but whether that will actually translate to substantive improvements in hard outcomes is as yet unknown,” he said. “But if gastroenterologists are interested in doing everything they can today to help improve detection rates and lower miss rates of premalignant polyps, serious consideration should be given to adopting the use of CADe in practice.”

This study was supported by Medtronic. Rees reported receiving grant funding from ARC Medical, Norgine, Medtronic, 3-D Matrix, and Olympus Medical, and has been an expert witness for ARC Medical. Other authors disclosed receiving research funding, honoraria, or travel expenses from Medtronic or other private companies. Mansour had no competing interests to declare.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Survivors of blood or marrow transplant (BMT) face a significant risk of developing cutaneous malignant neoplasms, including basal cell carcinoma (BCC), squamous cell carcinoma (SCC), and melanoma, with a cumulative incidence of 27.4% over 30 years, according to the results of a cohort study.

METHODOLOGY:

• The retrospective cohort study included 3880 BMT survivors (median age, 44 years; 55.8% men; 4.9% Black, 12.1 Hispanic, and 74.7% non-Hispanic White individuals) who underwent transplant between 1974 to 2014.
• Participants completed the BMT Survivor Study survey and were followed up for a median of 9.5 years.
• The primary outcomes were the development of subsequent cutaneous malignant neoplasms (BCC, SCC, or melanoma).

TAKEAWAY:

• The 30-year cumulative incidence of any cutaneous malignant neoplasm was 27.4% — 18% for BCC, 9.8% for SCC, and 3.7% for melanoma.
• A higher risk for skin cancer was reported for patients aged 50 years or more (subdistribution hazard ratio [SHR], 2.23; 95% CI, 1.83-2.71), and men (SHR, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.18-1.65).
• Allogeneic BMT with chronic graft-vs-host disease (cGVHD) increased the risk for skin cancer (SHR, 1.84; 95% CI, 1.37-2.47), compared with autologous BMT, while post-BMT immunosuppression increased risk for all types (overall SHR, 1.53; 95% CI, 1.26-1.86).
• The risk for any skin cancer was significantly lower in Black individuals (SHR, 0.14; 95% CI, 0.05-0.37), Hispanic individuals (SHR, 0.29; 95%CI, 0.20-0.62), and patients of other races or who were multiracial (SHR, 0.22; 95% CI, 0.13-0.37) than in non-Hispanic White patients.

IN PRACTICE:

In the study, “risk factors for post-BMT cutaneous malignant neoplasms included pretransplant treatment with a monoclonal antibody, cGVHD, and posttransplant immunosuppression,” the authors wrote, adding that the findings “could inform targeted surveillance of BMT survivors.” Most BMT survivors, “do not undergo routine dermatologic surveillance, highlighting the need to understand risk factors and incorporate risk-informed dermatologic surveillance into survivorship care plans.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Kristy K. Broman, MD, MPH, University of Alabama at Birmingham, and was published online on December 18 in JAMA Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

Limitations included self-reported data and possible underreporting of melanoma cases in the SEER database. Additionally, the study did not capture other risk factors for cutaneous malignant neoplasms such as skin phototype, ultraviolet light exposure, or family history. The duration of posttransplant immunosuppression was not collected, and surveys were administered at variable intervals, though all were completed more than 2 years post BMT.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the National Cancer Institute (NCI) and the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society. Broman received grants from NCI, the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, the American Society of Clinical Oncology, and the American College of Surgeons. Another author reported receiving grants outside this work.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including artificial intelligence, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Survivors of blood or marrow transplant (BMT) face a significant risk of developing cutaneous malignant neoplasms, including basal cell carcinoma (BCC), squamous cell carcinoma (SCC), and melanoma, with a cumulative incidence of 27.4% over 30 years, according to the results of a cohort study.

METHODOLOGY:

• The retrospective cohort study included 3880 BMT survivors (median age, 44 years; 55.8% men; 4.9% Black, 12.1 Hispanic, and 74.7% non-Hispanic White individuals) who underwent transplant between 1974 to 2014.
• Participants completed the BMT Survivor Study survey and were followed up for a median of 9.5 years.
• The primary outcomes were the development of subsequent cutaneous malignant neoplasms (BCC, SCC, or melanoma).

TAKEAWAY:

• The 30-year cumulative incidence of any cutaneous malignant neoplasm was 27.4% — 18% for BCC, 9.8% for SCC, and 3.7% for melanoma.
• A higher risk for skin cancer was reported for patients aged 50 years or more (subdistribution hazard ratio [SHR], 2.23; 95% CI, 1.83-2.71), and men (SHR, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.18-1.65).
• Allogeneic BMT with chronic graft-vs-host disease (cGVHD) increased the risk for skin cancer (SHR, 1.84; 95% CI, 1.37-2.47), compared with autologous BMT, while post-BMT immunosuppression increased risk for all types (overall SHR, 1.53; 95% CI, 1.26-1.86).
• The risk for any skin cancer was significantly lower in Black individuals (SHR, 0.14; 95% CI, 0.05-0.37), Hispanic individuals (SHR, 0.29; 95%CI, 0.20-0.62), and patients of other races or who were multiracial (SHR, 0.22; 95% CI, 0.13-0.37) than in non-Hispanic White patients.

IN PRACTICE:

In the study, “risk factors for post-BMT cutaneous malignant neoplasms included pretransplant treatment with a monoclonal antibody, cGVHD, and posttransplant immunosuppression,” the authors wrote, adding that the findings “could inform targeted surveillance of BMT survivors.” Most BMT survivors, “do not undergo routine dermatologic surveillance, highlighting the need to understand risk factors and incorporate risk-informed dermatologic surveillance into survivorship care plans.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Kristy K. Broman, MD, MPH, University of Alabama at Birmingham, and was published online on December 18 in JAMA Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

Limitations included self-reported data and possible underreporting of melanoma cases in the SEER database. Additionally, the study did not capture other risk factors for cutaneous malignant neoplasms such as skin phototype, ultraviolet light exposure, or family history. The duration of posttransplant immunosuppression was not collected, and surveys were administered at variable intervals, though all were completed more than 2 years post BMT.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the National Cancer Institute (NCI) and the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society. Broman received grants from NCI, the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, the American Society of Clinical Oncology, and the American College of Surgeons. Another author reported receiving grants outside this work.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including artificial intelligence, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Survivors of blood or marrow transplant (BMT) face a significant risk of developing cutaneous malignant neoplasms, including basal cell carcinoma (BCC), squamous cell carcinoma (SCC), and melanoma, with a cumulative incidence of 27.4% over 30 years, according to the results of a cohort study.

METHODOLOGY:

• The retrospective cohort study included 3880 BMT survivors (median age, 44 years; 55.8% men; 4.9% Black, 12.1 Hispanic, and 74.7% non-Hispanic White individuals) who underwent transplant between 1974 to 2014.
• Participants completed the BMT Survivor Study survey and were followed up for a median of 9.5 years.
• The primary outcomes were the development of subsequent cutaneous malignant neoplasms (BCC, SCC, or melanoma).

TAKEAWAY:

• The 30-year cumulative incidence of any cutaneous malignant neoplasm was 27.4% — 18% for BCC, 9.8% for SCC, and 3.7% for melanoma.
• A higher risk for skin cancer was reported for patients aged 50 years or more (subdistribution hazard ratio [SHR], 2.23; 95% CI, 1.83-2.71), and men (SHR, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.18-1.65).
• Allogeneic BMT with chronic graft-vs-host disease (cGVHD) increased the risk for skin cancer (SHR, 1.84; 95% CI, 1.37-2.47), compared with autologous BMT, while post-BMT immunosuppression increased risk for all types (overall SHR, 1.53; 95% CI, 1.26-1.86).
• The risk for any skin cancer was significantly lower in Black individuals (SHR, 0.14; 95% CI, 0.05-0.37), Hispanic individuals (SHR, 0.29; 95%CI, 0.20-0.62), and patients of other races or who were multiracial (SHR, 0.22; 95% CI, 0.13-0.37) than in non-Hispanic White patients.

IN PRACTICE:

In the study, “risk factors for post-BMT cutaneous malignant neoplasms included pretransplant treatment with a monoclonal antibody, cGVHD, and posttransplant immunosuppression,” the authors wrote, adding that the findings “could inform targeted surveillance of BMT survivors.” Most BMT survivors, “do not undergo routine dermatologic surveillance, highlighting the need to understand risk factors and incorporate risk-informed dermatologic surveillance into survivorship care plans.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Kristy K. Broman, MD, MPH, University of Alabama at Birmingham, and was published online on December 18 in JAMA Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

Limitations included self-reported data and possible underreporting of melanoma cases in the SEER database. Additionally, the study did not capture other risk factors for cutaneous malignant neoplasms such as skin phototype, ultraviolet light exposure, or family history. The duration of posttransplant immunosuppression was not collected, and surveys were administered at variable intervals, though all were completed more than 2 years post BMT.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the National Cancer Institute (NCI) and the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society. Broman received grants from NCI, the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, the American Society of Clinical Oncology, and the American College of Surgeons. Another author reported receiving grants outside this work.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including artificial intelligence, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

The use of active surveillance or watchful waiting increased by more than twofold overall between 2010 and 2020 among patients with intermediate-risk prostate cancer.

METHODOLOGY:

• Current guidelines support active surveillance or watchful waiting for select patients with intermediate-risk prostate cancer. These observation strategies may help reduce the adverse effects associated with immediate radical treatment.
• To understand the trends over time in the use of active surveillance and watchful waiting, researchers looked at data of 147,205 individuals with intermediate-risk prostate cancer from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results prostate cancer database between 2010 and 2020 in the United States.
• Criteria for intermediate-risk included Gleason grade group 2 or 3, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels of 10-20 ng/mL, or stage cT2b of the disease. Researchers also included trends for patients with Gleason grade group 1, as a reference group.
• Researchers assessed the temporal trends and factors associated with the selection of active surveillance and watchful waiting in this population.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, the rate of active surveillance and watchful waiting more than doubled among intermediate-risk patients from 5% to 12.3% between 2010 and 2020.
• Between 2010 and 2020, the use of active surveillance and watchful waiting increased significantly among patients in Gleason grade group 1 (13.2% to 53.8%) and Gleason grade group 2 (4.0% to 11.6%) but remained stable for those in Gleason grade group 3 (2.5% to 2.8%; P = .85). For those with PSA levels < 10 ng/mL, adoption increased from 3.4% in 2010 to 9.2% in 2020 and more than doubled (9.3% to 20.7%) for those with PSA levels of 10-20 ng/mL.
• Higher Gleason grade groups had a significantly lower likelihood of adopting active surveillance or watchful waiting (Gleason grade group 2 vs 1: odds ratio [OR], 0.83; Gleason grade group 3 vs 1: OR, 0.79).
• Hispanic or Latino individuals (OR, 0.98) and non-Hispanic Black individuals (OR, 0.99) were slightly less likely to adopt these strategies than non-Hispanic White individuals.

IN PRACTICE:

“This study found a significant increase in initial active surveillance and watchful waiting for intermediate-risk prostate cancer between 2010 and 2020,” the authors wrote. “Research priorities should include reducing upfront overdiagnosis and better defining criteria for starting and stopping active surveillance and watchful waiting beyond conventional clinical measures such as GGs [Gleason grade groups] or PSA levels alone.”

SOURCE:

This study, led by Ismail Ajjawi, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, was published online in JAMA.

LIMITATIONS:

This study relied on observational data and therefore could not capture various factors influencing clinical decision-making processes. Additionally, the absence of information on patient outcomes restricted the ability to assess the long-term implications of different management strategies.

DISCLOSURES:

This study received financial support from the Urological Research Foundation. Several authors reported having various ties with various sources.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

The use of active surveillance or watchful waiting increased by more than twofold overall between 2010 and 2020 among patients with intermediate-risk prostate cancer.

METHODOLOGY:

• Current guidelines support active surveillance or watchful waiting for select patients with intermediate-risk prostate cancer. These observation strategies may help reduce the adverse effects associated with immediate radical treatment.
• To understand the trends over time in the use of active surveillance and watchful waiting, researchers looked at data of 147,205 individuals with intermediate-risk prostate cancer from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results prostate cancer database between 2010 and 2020 in the United States.
• Criteria for intermediate-risk included Gleason grade group 2 or 3, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels of 10-20 ng/mL, or stage cT2b of the disease. Researchers also included trends for patients with Gleason grade group 1, as a reference group.
• Researchers assessed the temporal trends and factors associated with the selection of active surveillance and watchful waiting in this population.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, the rate of active surveillance and watchful waiting more than doubled among intermediate-risk patients from 5% to 12.3% between 2010 and 2020.
• Between 2010 and 2020, the use of active surveillance and watchful waiting increased significantly among patients in Gleason grade group 1 (13.2% to 53.8%) and Gleason grade group 2 (4.0% to 11.6%) but remained stable for those in Gleason grade group 3 (2.5% to 2.8%; P = .85). For those with PSA levels < 10 ng/mL, adoption increased from 3.4% in 2010 to 9.2% in 2020 and more than doubled (9.3% to 20.7%) for those with PSA levels of 10-20 ng/mL.
• Higher Gleason grade groups had a significantly lower likelihood of adopting active surveillance or watchful waiting (Gleason grade group 2 vs 1: odds ratio [OR], 0.83; Gleason grade group 3 vs 1: OR, 0.79).
• Hispanic or Latino individuals (OR, 0.98) and non-Hispanic Black individuals (OR, 0.99) were slightly less likely to adopt these strategies than non-Hispanic White individuals.

IN PRACTICE:

“This study found a significant increase in initial active surveillance and watchful waiting for intermediate-risk prostate cancer between 2010 and 2020,” the authors wrote. “Research priorities should include reducing upfront overdiagnosis and better defining criteria for starting and stopping active surveillance and watchful waiting beyond conventional clinical measures such as GGs [Gleason grade groups] or PSA levels alone.”

SOURCE:

This study, led by Ismail Ajjawi, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, was published online in JAMA.

LIMITATIONS:

This study relied on observational data and therefore could not capture various factors influencing clinical decision-making processes. Additionally, the absence of information on patient outcomes restricted the ability to assess the long-term implications of different management strategies.

DISCLOSURES:

This study received financial support from the Urological Research Foundation. Several authors reported having various ties with various sources.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

The use of active surveillance or watchful waiting increased by more than twofold overall between 2010 and 2020 among patients with intermediate-risk prostate cancer.

METHODOLOGY:

• Current guidelines support active surveillance or watchful waiting for select patients with intermediate-risk prostate cancer. These observation strategies may help reduce the adverse effects associated with immediate radical treatment.
• To understand the trends over time in the use of active surveillance and watchful waiting, researchers looked at data of 147,205 individuals with intermediate-risk prostate cancer from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results prostate cancer database between 2010 and 2020 in the United States.
• Criteria for intermediate-risk included Gleason grade group 2 or 3, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels of 10-20 ng/mL, or stage cT2b of the disease. Researchers also included trends for patients with Gleason grade group 1, as a reference group.
• Researchers assessed the temporal trends and factors associated with the selection of active surveillance and watchful waiting in this population.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, the rate of active surveillance and watchful waiting more than doubled among intermediate-risk patients from 5% to 12.3% between 2010 and 2020.
• Between 2010 and 2020, the use of active surveillance and watchful waiting increased significantly among patients in Gleason grade group 1 (13.2% to 53.8%) and Gleason grade group 2 (4.0% to 11.6%) but remained stable for those in Gleason grade group 3 (2.5% to 2.8%; P = .85). For those with PSA levels < 10 ng/mL, adoption increased from 3.4% in 2010 to 9.2% in 2020 and more than doubled (9.3% to 20.7%) for those with PSA levels of 10-20 ng/mL.
• Higher Gleason grade groups had a significantly lower likelihood of adopting active surveillance or watchful waiting (Gleason grade group 2 vs 1: odds ratio [OR], 0.83; Gleason grade group 3 vs 1: OR, 0.79).
• Hispanic or Latino individuals (OR, 0.98) and non-Hispanic Black individuals (OR, 0.99) were slightly less likely to adopt these strategies than non-Hispanic White individuals.

IN PRACTICE:

“This study found a significant increase in initial active surveillance and watchful waiting for intermediate-risk prostate cancer between 2010 and 2020,” the authors wrote. “Research priorities should include reducing upfront overdiagnosis and better defining criteria for starting and stopping active surveillance and watchful waiting beyond conventional clinical measures such as GGs [Gleason grade groups] or PSA levels alone.”

SOURCE:

This study, led by Ismail Ajjawi, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, was published online in JAMA.

LIMITATIONS:

This study relied on observational data and therefore could not capture various factors influencing clinical decision-making processes. Additionally, the absence of information on patient outcomes restricted the ability to assess the long-term implications of different management strategies.

DISCLOSURES:

This study received financial support from the Urological Research Foundation. Several authors reported having various ties with various sources.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

When the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) grants cancer drugs accelerated approval, a key aim is to provide patients faster access to therapies that can benefit them. 

The downside of a speedier approval timeline, however, is that it’s often not yet clear whether the new drugs will actually allow a patient to live longer or better. Information on overall survival and quality of life typically comes years later, after drugs undergo confirmatory trials, or sometimes not at all, if companies fail to conduct these trials. 

During this waiting period, patients may be receiving a cancer drug that provides no real clinical benefit but comes with a host of toxicities. 

In fact, the odds are about as good as a coin flip. For cancer drugs that have confirmatory trial data, more than half don’t ultimately provide an overall survival or quality of life benefit.

Inherent to the accelerated approval process is the assumption that patients are willing to accept this uncertainty in exchange for faster access.

But is that really the case? 

A recent survey published in The Lancet Oncology aimed to tease out people’s preferences for confirmed clinical benefit vs speedier access. The researchers asked about 870 adults with experience of cancer challenges — either their own cancer diagnosis or that of family or a close friend — whether they valued faster access or certainty that a drug really works. 

In the study, participants imagined they had been diagnosed with cancer and could choose between two cancer drugs under investigation in clinical trials but with uncertain effectiveness, and a current standard treatment. Participants had to make a series of choices based on five scenarios. 

The first two scenarios were based on the impact of the current standard treatment: A patient’s life expectancy on the standard treatment (6 months up to 3 years), and a patient’s physical health on the standard treatment (functional status restricted only during strenuous activities up to completely disabled).

The remaining three scenarios dealt with the two new drugs: The effect of the new drugs on a surrogate endpoint, progression-free survival (whether the drugs slowed tumor growth for an extra month or 5 additional months compared with the standard treatment), certainty that slowing tumor growth will improve survival (very low to high), and the wait time to access the drugs (immediately to as long as 2 years).

The researchers assessed the relative importance of survival benefit certainty vs wait time and how that balance shifted depending on the different scenarios. 

Overall, the researchers found that, if there was no evidence linking the surrogate endpoint (progression-free survival) to overall survival, patients were willing to wait about 8 months for weak evidence of an overall survival benefit (ie, low certainty the drug will extend survival by 1-5 months), about 16 months for moderate certainty, and almost 22 months for high certainty. 

Despite a willingness to wait for greater certainty, participants did value speed as well. Overall, respondents showed a strong preference against a 1-year delay in FDA approval time. People who were aged 55 years or more and were non-White individuals made less than $40,000 year as well as those with the lowest life expectancy on a current standard treatment were most sensitive to wait times while those with better functional status and longer life expectancies on a current treatment were less sensitive to longer wait times.

“Our results indicate that some patients (except those with the poorest prognoses) would find the additional time required to generate evidence on the survival benefit of new cancer drugs an acceptable tradeoff,” the study authors concluded.

Although people do place high value on timely access to new cancer drugs, especially if there are limited treatment options, many are willing to wait for greater certainty that a new drug provides an overall survival benefit, lead author Robin Forrest, MSc, with the Department of Health Policy, London School of Economics in England, said in an interview. 

In the study, respondents also did not place significant value on whether the drug substantially slowed cancer growth. “In other words, substantial progression-free survival benefit of a drug did not compensate for lack of certainty about a drug’s benefit on survival in respondents’ drug choices,” the authors explained.

“In an effort to move quickly, we have accepted progression-free survival [as a surrogate endpoint],” Jyoti D. Patel, MD, oncologist with Northwestern Memorial Hospital, Chicago, Illinois, who wasn’t involved in the study. But a growing body of evidence indicates that progression-free survival is often a poor surrogate for overall survival. And what this study suggests is that “patients uniformly care about improvements in overall survival and the quality of that survival,” Patel said.

Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, was not surprised by the findings. 

“I always thought this was the real-world scenario, but the problem is the voices of ordinary patients are not heard,” Gyawali, with Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada, who also wasn’t involved in the study, said in an interview. 

“What is heard is the loud noise of ‘we need access now, today, yesterday’ — ‘we don’t care if the drug doesn’t improve overall survival, we just need a drug, any drug’ — ‘we don’t care how much it costs, we need access today,’ ” Gyawali said. “Not saying this is wrong, but this is not the representation of all patients.”

However, the voices of patients who are more cautious and want evidence of benefit before accepting toxicities don’t make headlines, he added. 

What this survey means from a policy perspective, said Gyawali, is that accelerated approvals that do not mandate survival endpoint in confirmatory trials are ignoring the need of many patients who prioritize certainty of benefit over speed of access.

The study was funded by the London School of Economics and Political Science Phelan United States Centre. Forrest had no relevant disclosures. Gyawali has received consulting fees from Vivio Health. Patel has various relationships with AbbVie, Anheart, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Guardant, Tempus, Sanofi, BluePrint, Takeda, and Gilead.

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

When the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) grants cancer drugs accelerated approval, a key aim is to provide patients faster access to therapies that can benefit them. 

The downside of a speedier approval timeline, however, is that it’s often not yet clear whether the new drugs will actually allow a patient to live longer or better. Information on overall survival and quality of life typically comes years later, after drugs undergo confirmatory trials, or sometimes not at all, if companies fail to conduct these trials. 

During this waiting period, patients may be receiving a cancer drug that provides no real clinical benefit but comes with a host of toxicities. 

In fact, the odds are about as good as a coin flip. For cancer drugs that have confirmatory trial data, more than half don’t ultimately provide an overall survival or quality of life benefit.

Inherent to the accelerated approval process is the assumption that patients are willing to accept this uncertainty in exchange for faster access.

But is that really the case? 

A recent survey published in The Lancet Oncology aimed to tease out people’s preferences for confirmed clinical benefit vs speedier access. The researchers asked about 870 adults with experience of cancer challenges — either their own cancer diagnosis or that of family or a close friend — whether they valued faster access or certainty that a drug really works. 

In the study, participants imagined they had been diagnosed with cancer and could choose between two cancer drugs under investigation in clinical trials but with uncertain effectiveness, and a current standard treatment. Participants had to make a series of choices based on five scenarios. 

The first two scenarios were based on the impact of the current standard treatment: A patient’s life expectancy on the standard treatment (6 months up to 3 years), and a patient’s physical health on the standard treatment (functional status restricted only during strenuous activities up to completely disabled).

The remaining three scenarios dealt with the two new drugs: The effect of the new drugs on a surrogate endpoint, progression-free survival (whether the drugs slowed tumor growth for an extra month or 5 additional months compared with the standard treatment), certainty that slowing tumor growth will improve survival (very low to high), and the wait time to access the drugs (immediately to as long as 2 years).

The researchers assessed the relative importance of survival benefit certainty vs wait time and how that balance shifted depending on the different scenarios. 

Overall, the researchers found that, if there was no evidence linking the surrogate endpoint (progression-free survival) to overall survival, patients were willing to wait about 8 months for weak evidence of an overall survival benefit (ie, low certainty the drug will extend survival by 1-5 months), about 16 months for moderate certainty, and almost 22 months for high certainty. 

Despite a willingness to wait for greater certainty, participants did value speed as well. Overall, respondents showed a strong preference against a 1-year delay in FDA approval time. People who were aged 55 years or more and were non-White individuals made less than $40,000 year as well as those with the lowest life expectancy on a current standard treatment were most sensitive to wait times while those with better functional status and longer life expectancies on a current treatment were less sensitive to longer wait times.

“Our results indicate that some patients (except those with the poorest prognoses) would find the additional time required to generate evidence on the survival benefit of new cancer drugs an acceptable tradeoff,” the study authors concluded.

Although people do place high value on timely access to new cancer drugs, especially if there are limited treatment options, many are willing to wait for greater certainty that a new drug provides an overall survival benefit, lead author Robin Forrest, MSc, with the Department of Health Policy, London School of Economics in England, said in an interview. 

In the study, respondents also did not place significant value on whether the drug substantially slowed cancer growth. “In other words, substantial progression-free survival benefit of a drug did not compensate for lack of certainty about a drug’s benefit on survival in respondents’ drug choices,” the authors explained.

“In an effort to move quickly, we have accepted progression-free survival [as a surrogate endpoint],” Jyoti D. Patel, MD, oncologist with Northwestern Memorial Hospital, Chicago, Illinois, who wasn’t involved in the study. But a growing body of evidence indicates that progression-free survival is often a poor surrogate for overall survival. And what this study suggests is that “patients uniformly care about improvements in overall survival and the quality of that survival,” Patel said.

Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, was not surprised by the findings. 

“I always thought this was the real-world scenario, but the problem is the voices of ordinary patients are not heard,” Gyawali, with Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada, who also wasn’t involved in the study, said in an interview. 

“What is heard is the loud noise of ‘we need access now, today, yesterday’ — ‘we don’t care if the drug doesn’t improve overall survival, we just need a drug, any drug’ — ‘we don’t care how much it costs, we need access today,’ ” Gyawali said. “Not saying this is wrong, but this is not the representation of all patients.”

However, the voices of patients who are more cautious and want evidence of benefit before accepting toxicities don’t make headlines, he added. 

What this survey means from a policy perspective, said Gyawali, is that accelerated approvals that do not mandate survival endpoint in confirmatory trials are ignoring the need of many patients who prioritize certainty of benefit over speed of access.

The study was funded by the London School of Economics and Political Science Phelan United States Centre. Forrest had no relevant disclosures. Gyawali has received consulting fees from Vivio Health. Patel has various relationships with AbbVie, Anheart, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Guardant, Tempus, Sanofi, BluePrint, Takeda, and Gilead.

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

When the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) grants cancer drugs accelerated approval, a key aim is to provide patients faster access to therapies that can benefit them. 

The downside of a speedier approval timeline, however, is that it’s often not yet clear whether the new drugs will actually allow a patient to live longer or better. Information on overall survival and quality of life typically comes years later, after drugs undergo confirmatory trials, or sometimes not at all, if companies fail to conduct these trials. 

During this waiting period, patients may be receiving a cancer drug that provides no real clinical benefit but comes with a host of toxicities. 

In fact, the odds are about as good as a coin flip. For cancer drugs that have confirmatory trial data, more than half don’t ultimately provide an overall survival or quality of life benefit.

Inherent to the accelerated approval process is the assumption that patients are willing to accept this uncertainty in exchange for faster access.

But is that really the case? 

A recent survey published in The Lancet Oncology aimed to tease out people’s preferences for confirmed clinical benefit vs speedier access. The researchers asked about 870 adults with experience of cancer challenges — either their own cancer diagnosis or that of family or a close friend — whether they valued faster access or certainty that a drug really works. 

In the study, participants imagined they had been diagnosed with cancer and could choose between two cancer drugs under investigation in clinical trials but with uncertain effectiveness, and a current standard treatment. Participants had to make a series of choices based on five scenarios. 

The first two scenarios were based on the impact of the current standard treatment: A patient’s life expectancy on the standard treatment (6 months up to 3 years), and a patient’s physical health on the standard treatment (functional status restricted only during strenuous activities up to completely disabled).

The remaining three scenarios dealt with the two new drugs: The effect of the new drugs on a surrogate endpoint, progression-free survival (whether the drugs slowed tumor growth for an extra month or 5 additional months compared with the standard treatment), certainty that slowing tumor growth will improve survival (very low to high), and the wait time to access the drugs (immediately to as long as 2 years).

The researchers assessed the relative importance of survival benefit certainty vs wait time and how that balance shifted depending on the different scenarios. 

Overall, the researchers found that, if there was no evidence linking the surrogate endpoint (progression-free survival) to overall survival, patients were willing to wait about 8 months for weak evidence of an overall survival benefit (ie, low certainty the drug will extend survival by 1-5 months), about 16 months for moderate certainty, and almost 22 months for high certainty. 

Despite a willingness to wait for greater certainty, participants did value speed as well. Overall, respondents showed a strong preference against a 1-year delay in FDA approval time. People who were aged 55 years or more and were non-White individuals made less than $40,000 year as well as those with the lowest life expectancy on a current standard treatment were most sensitive to wait times while those with better functional status and longer life expectancies on a current treatment were less sensitive to longer wait times.

“Our results indicate that some patients (except those with the poorest prognoses) would find the additional time required to generate evidence on the survival benefit of new cancer drugs an acceptable tradeoff,” the study authors concluded.

Although people do place high value on timely access to new cancer drugs, especially if there are limited treatment options, many are willing to wait for greater certainty that a new drug provides an overall survival benefit, lead author Robin Forrest, MSc, with the Department of Health Policy, London School of Economics in England, said in an interview. 

In the study, respondents also did not place significant value on whether the drug substantially slowed cancer growth. “In other words, substantial progression-free survival benefit of a drug did not compensate for lack of certainty about a drug’s benefit on survival in respondents’ drug choices,” the authors explained.

“In an effort to move quickly, we have accepted progression-free survival [as a surrogate endpoint],” Jyoti D. Patel, MD, oncologist with Northwestern Memorial Hospital, Chicago, Illinois, who wasn’t involved in the study. But a growing body of evidence indicates that progression-free survival is often a poor surrogate for overall survival. And what this study suggests is that “patients uniformly care about improvements in overall survival and the quality of that survival,” Patel said.

Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, was not surprised by the findings. 

“I always thought this was the real-world scenario, but the problem is the voices of ordinary patients are not heard,” Gyawali, with Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada, who also wasn’t involved in the study, said in an interview. 

“What is heard is the loud noise of ‘we need access now, today, yesterday’ — ‘we don’t care if the drug doesn’t improve overall survival, we just need a drug, any drug’ — ‘we don’t care how much it costs, we need access today,’ ” Gyawali said. “Not saying this is wrong, but this is not the representation of all patients.”

However, the voices of patients who are more cautious and want evidence of benefit before accepting toxicities don’t make headlines, he added. 

What this survey means from a policy perspective, said Gyawali, is that accelerated approvals that do not mandate survival endpoint in confirmatory trials are ignoring the need of many patients who prioritize certainty of benefit over speed of access.

The study was funded by the London School of Economics and Political Science Phelan United States Centre. Forrest had no relevant disclosures. Gyawali has received consulting fees from Vivio Health. Patel has various relationships with AbbVie, Anheart, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Guardant, Tempus, Sanofi, BluePrint, Takeda, and Gilead.

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

Recipients of allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (allo-HCT) for blood disorders who maintain diets high in fiber show significant improvements in overall survival and a reduced risk of developing the potentially life-threatening complication of acute graft-versus-host disease (aGVHD), new research shows.

Importantly, the findings suggest standard recommendations for patients of a low-fiber diet following allo-HCT may run counter to the potential benefits. 

“Significant decrease of fiber intake during transplantation is detrimental. It’s a lost opportunity to promote a healthy gut microbiome, recover from treatment-related microbiota injury, and protect against GVHD,” first author Jenny Paredes, PhD, a staff scientist at City of Hope National Medical Center in Duarte, California, said in a press statement for the study presented at the American Society of Hematology (ASH) 2024 Annual Meeting.

Although the health benefits of dietary fiber on the gut microbiome are well-documented, the effects have recently been shown to extend to outcomes after allo-HCT in general, with researchers finding increased overall survival when there is higher diversity in the gut microbiome, including a higher abundance of butyrate producers and lower abundance of enterococcus, explained Paredes when presenting the findings.

Acute GvHD, a common and potentially life-threatening complication of allo-HCT, can have symptoms that mimic irritable bowel disease (IBD), including abdominal pain or cramps, nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea. The low-fiber diet recommendations, including avoidance of raw vegetables and fruits before and after the allo-HCT procedure, are designed to counter those effects, as well as reduce exposure to bacteria.

However, with data suggesting the potential benefits of dietary fiber could extend to the prevention of GvHD, Paredes and colleagues further investigated.

For the observational study, they evaluated all dietary data on 173 allo-HCT recipients at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) from 10 days prior to transplantation to 30 days post-transplantation, representing 3837 patient-days in total.

Data collected from the patients also included rRNA sequencing of fecal samples and fecal short-chain fatty acid concentration. 

Participants had a median age of 60, and 45% were female. The most common diseases being treated were leukemia (50%), myelodysplastic syndrome (25%), and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (8.7%).

After stratifying patients based on high- or low-fiber intake, those with high-fiber intake were found to have significantly higher rates of microbial α-diversity (P = .009), a higher abundance of butyrate producers (P = .03), and a higher concentration of butyrate (P = .02), a short-chain fatty acid that plays a key role in gut health. 

Furthermore, the high-fiber group had significantly higher overall survival in an analysis extending to 24 months relative to day 12 of the study (P = .04).

Focusing on GvHD outcomes, the authors further evaluated data on 101 non-T-cell–depleted patients, and identified 29 patients without GvHD and 24 who developed lower gastrointestinal (GI) GvHD. 

Patients with lower GI GvHD had significantly lower fecal concentrations of butyrate (P = .03) and acetate (P = .02).

However, patients among those in the high-fiber intake group had a significantly lower cumulative incidence of developing GvHD at day 100 (P = .034) and a lower incidence of lower GI GvHD (P = .04).

A separate preclinical analysis of a mouse model with GvHD further showed that a fiber-rich diet (12% cellulose) significantly increased the expression of genes associated with reduced GvHD, including IDO1 and CEACAM1, and those associated with enrichment of the bile acid pathway.

The findings suggest an opportunity to improve outcomes with relatively small dietary changes, Paredes said.

“Strategies to increase the fiber concentration in these diets paired with the safety that these patients need is what makes this study exciting,” she said in an interview. 

“Increasing the fiber intake by 10 to 20 grams/day could potentially increase the microbiome diversity and abundance of butyrate producers, which have been correlated with higher overall survival rates post allo-HCT,” she continued.

“[For instance], that could be an avocado per day, or it could be a small salad per day, or a small vegetable soup per day,” she added. “I would encourage institutions to re-evaluate their menu planning and see how to include more fiber into the meals in a safe way.”

Ultimately, “I think that a dietary intervention outweighs the risks of a pharmacological intervention,” Paredes added.

The necessary duration of a high-fiber diet to produce the beneficial effects on allo-HCT outcomes would likely be over the course of the pre- and post-transplant periods, Paredes added.

“With the survival analysis extending from 5 days before transplantation to 12 days post, we are looking at an intervention that potentially could be around 20 days,” she said.

“We would love to take advantage of the pretransplantation window, in particular, and we can see that just increasing the fiber intake by about 20 grams during this window was shown to improve overall survival after 24 months,” Paredes added.

Importantly, however, some patients may not be appropriate for high-fiber dietary changes, Paredes cautioned. 

“Patients that have developed IBD-like symptoms and severe GvHD patients, for example, or with lower GI-GvHD grades 3 and 4 would be not appropriate candidates for a high-fiber diet,” she said. 

 

High-Fiber Diet Slows MM Disease Progression?

The potential important benefits of a high-fiber diet in blood diseases were further demonstrated in a separate study also by MSKCC researchers presented at the meeting, which showed encouraging signs that a plant-based diet rich in fiber could potentially slow disease progression in multiple myeloma (MM).

NUTRIVENTION included 20 patients with the two precancerous MM conditions, monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance (MGUS) and smoldering multiple myeloma (SMM), which can last for years without progressing to MM and which researchers have speculated could be a potential opportunity to intervene to prevent progression to cancer.

Patients were provided with a 12-week controlled diet plus health coaching for another 3 months; no meals or coaching were provided for the rest of the 1-year study period. Participants had a median age of 62 and, with being overweight/obesity a risk factor for MM, had a body mass index (BMI) of 25 kg/m² or higher.

The trial met its endpoint of feasibility, with 91% adherence in the first 3 months. The rate of consumption of unprocessed plant foods increased from 20% at baseline to 92% on the intervention. Overall adherence was 58%. Insulin and anti-inflammatory markers also improved and, despite no calorie restriction, there was a 7% sustained reduction in BMI. 

Notably, two patients in the study had stabilization of disease progression.

“We saw improvements in all spheres, including metabolism, microbiome, and immune system markers, and we also saw that two patients with progressive disease had the progression stabilize and slow down on the intervention,” principal investigator Urvi A. Shah, MD, said in a press statement. 

“Even though it’s just two cases, to our knowledge, it has not been shown before in an intervention setting that you can improve diet and lifestyle and actually slow or change the trajectory of the disease,” she noted.

The researchers caution that findings in mice do not necessarily translate to humans but note another experiment in mice with SMM that showed animals fed a normal diet had progression to MM after a median of 12 weeks, compared with a median of 30 weeks among those fed a high-fiber diet.

Notably, all mice in the normal-diet group progressed to MM, whereas 40% of mice in the high-fiber group did not. 

“We found that a high-fiber plant-based diet can improve BMI, improve insulin resistance [and] the microbiome through diversity and butyrate producers, and with the production of short-chain fatty acids, can have effects on inflammation, immunity, innate and adaptive antitumor immunity, and tumor cells or plasma cells,” Shah said during her presentation.

The study was supported by funding from the National Cancer Institute and private foundations. Paredes has reported no relevant financial relationships. Shah has reported relationships with Sanofi, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Janssen.

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

Recipients of allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (allo-HCT) for blood disorders who maintain diets high in fiber show significant improvements in overall survival and a reduced risk of developing the potentially life-threatening complication of acute graft-versus-host disease (aGVHD), new research shows.

Importantly, the findings suggest standard recommendations for patients of a low-fiber diet following allo-HCT may run counter to the potential benefits. 

“Significant decrease of fiber intake during transplantation is detrimental. It’s a lost opportunity to promote a healthy gut microbiome, recover from treatment-related microbiota injury, and protect against GVHD,” first author Jenny Paredes, PhD, a staff scientist at City of Hope National Medical Center in Duarte, California, said in a press statement for the study presented at the American Society of Hematology (ASH) 2024 Annual Meeting.

Although the health benefits of dietary fiber on the gut microbiome are well-documented, the effects have recently been shown to extend to outcomes after allo-HCT in general, with researchers finding increased overall survival when there is higher diversity in the gut microbiome, including a higher abundance of butyrate producers and lower abundance of enterococcus, explained Paredes when presenting the findings.

Acute GvHD, a common and potentially life-threatening complication of allo-HCT, can have symptoms that mimic irritable bowel disease (IBD), including abdominal pain or cramps, nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea. The low-fiber diet recommendations, including avoidance of raw vegetables and fruits before and after the allo-HCT procedure, are designed to counter those effects, as well as reduce exposure to bacteria.

However, with data suggesting the potential benefits of dietary fiber could extend to the prevention of GvHD, Paredes and colleagues further investigated.

For the observational study, they evaluated all dietary data on 173 allo-HCT recipients at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) from 10 days prior to transplantation to 30 days post-transplantation, representing 3837 patient-days in total.

Data collected from the patients also included rRNA sequencing of fecal samples and fecal short-chain fatty acid concentration. 

Participants had a median age of 60, and 45% were female. The most common diseases being treated were leukemia (50%), myelodysplastic syndrome (25%), and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (8.7%).

After stratifying patients based on high- or low-fiber intake, those with high-fiber intake were found to have significantly higher rates of microbial α-diversity (P = .009), a higher abundance of butyrate producers (P = .03), and a higher concentration of butyrate (P = .02), a short-chain fatty acid that plays a key role in gut health. 

Furthermore, the high-fiber group had significantly higher overall survival in an analysis extending to 24 months relative to day 12 of the study (P = .04).

Focusing on GvHD outcomes, the authors further evaluated data on 101 non-T-cell–depleted patients, and identified 29 patients without GvHD and 24 who developed lower gastrointestinal (GI) GvHD. 

Patients with lower GI GvHD had significantly lower fecal concentrations of butyrate (P = .03) and acetate (P = .02).

However, patients among those in the high-fiber intake group had a significantly lower cumulative incidence of developing GvHD at day 100 (P = .034) and a lower incidence of lower GI GvHD (P = .04).

A separate preclinical analysis of a mouse model with GvHD further showed that a fiber-rich diet (12% cellulose) significantly increased the expression of genes associated with reduced GvHD, including IDO1 and CEACAM1, and those associated with enrichment of the bile acid pathway.

The findings suggest an opportunity to improve outcomes with relatively small dietary changes, Paredes said.

“Strategies to increase the fiber concentration in these diets paired with the safety that these patients need is what makes this study exciting,” she said in an interview. 

“Increasing the fiber intake by 10 to 20 grams/day could potentially increase the microbiome diversity and abundance of butyrate producers, which have been correlated with higher overall survival rates post allo-HCT,” she continued.

“[For instance], that could be an avocado per day, or it could be a small salad per day, or a small vegetable soup per day,” she added. “I would encourage institutions to re-evaluate their menu planning and see how to include more fiber into the meals in a safe way.”

Ultimately, “I think that a dietary intervention outweighs the risks of a pharmacological intervention,” Paredes added.

The necessary duration of a high-fiber diet to produce the beneficial effects on allo-HCT outcomes would likely be over the course of the pre- and post-transplant periods, Paredes added.

“With the survival analysis extending from 5 days before transplantation to 12 days post, we are looking at an intervention that potentially could be around 20 days,” she said.

“We would love to take advantage of the pretransplantation window, in particular, and we can see that just increasing the fiber intake by about 20 grams during this window was shown to improve overall survival after 24 months,” Paredes added.

Importantly, however, some patients may not be appropriate for high-fiber dietary changes, Paredes cautioned. 

“Patients that have developed IBD-like symptoms and severe GvHD patients, for example, or with lower GI-GvHD grades 3 and 4 would be not appropriate candidates for a high-fiber diet,” she said. 

 

High-Fiber Diet Slows MM Disease Progression?

The potential important benefits of a high-fiber diet in blood diseases were further demonstrated in a separate study also by MSKCC researchers presented at the meeting, which showed encouraging signs that a plant-based diet rich in fiber could potentially slow disease progression in multiple myeloma (MM).

NUTRIVENTION included 20 patients with the two precancerous MM conditions, monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance (MGUS) and smoldering multiple myeloma (SMM), which can last for years without progressing to MM and which researchers have speculated could be a potential opportunity to intervene to prevent progression to cancer.

Patients were provided with a 12-week controlled diet plus health coaching for another 3 months; no meals or coaching were provided for the rest of the 1-year study period. Participants had a median age of 62 and, with being overweight/obesity a risk factor for MM, had a body mass index (BMI) of 25 kg/m² or higher.

The trial met its endpoint of feasibility, with 91% adherence in the first 3 months. The rate of consumption of unprocessed plant foods increased from 20% at baseline to 92% on the intervention. Overall adherence was 58%. Insulin and anti-inflammatory markers also improved and, despite no calorie restriction, there was a 7% sustained reduction in BMI. 

Notably, two patients in the study had stabilization of disease progression.

“We saw improvements in all spheres, including metabolism, microbiome, and immune system markers, and we also saw that two patients with progressive disease had the progression stabilize and slow down on the intervention,” principal investigator Urvi A. Shah, MD, said in a press statement. 

“Even though it’s just two cases, to our knowledge, it has not been shown before in an intervention setting that you can improve diet and lifestyle and actually slow or change the trajectory of the disease,” she noted.

The researchers caution that findings in mice do not necessarily translate to humans but note another experiment in mice with SMM that showed animals fed a normal diet had progression to MM after a median of 12 weeks, compared with a median of 30 weeks among those fed a high-fiber diet.

Notably, all mice in the normal-diet group progressed to MM, whereas 40% of mice in the high-fiber group did not. 

“We found that a high-fiber plant-based diet can improve BMI, improve insulin resistance [and] the microbiome through diversity and butyrate producers, and with the production of short-chain fatty acids, can have effects on inflammation, immunity, innate and adaptive antitumor immunity, and tumor cells or plasma cells,” Shah said during her presentation.

The study was supported by funding from the National Cancer Institute and private foundations. Paredes has reported no relevant financial relationships. Shah has reported relationships with Sanofi, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Janssen.

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

Recipients of allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (allo-HCT) for blood disorders who maintain diets high in fiber show significant improvements in overall survival and a reduced risk of developing the potentially life-threatening complication of acute graft-versus-host disease (aGVHD), new research shows.

Importantly, the findings suggest standard recommendations for patients of a low-fiber diet following allo-HCT may run counter to the potential benefits. 

“Significant decrease of fiber intake during transplantation is detrimental. It’s a lost opportunity to promote a healthy gut microbiome, recover from treatment-related microbiota injury, and protect against GVHD,” first author Jenny Paredes, PhD, a staff scientist at City of Hope National Medical Center in Duarte, California, said in a press statement for the study presented at the American Society of Hematology (ASH) 2024 Annual Meeting.

Although the health benefits of dietary fiber on the gut microbiome are well-documented, the effects have recently been shown to extend to outcomes after allo-HCT in general, with researchers finding increased overall survival when there is higher diversity in the gut microbiome, including a higher abundance of butyrate producers and lower abundance of enterococcus, explained Paredes when presenting the findings.

Acute GvHD, a common and potentially life-threatening complication of allo-HCT, can have symptoms that mimic irritable bowel disease (IBD), including abdominal pain or cramps, nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea. The low-fiber diet recommendations, including avoidance of raw vegetables and fruits before and after the allo-HCT procedure, are designed to counter those effects, as well as reduce exposure to bacteria.

However, with data suggesting the potential benefits of dietary fiber could extend to the prevention of GvHD, Paredes and colleagues further investigated.

For the observational study, they evaluated all dietary data on 173 allo-HCT recipients at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) from 10 days prior to transplantation to 30 days post-transplantation, representing 3837 patient-days in total.

Data collected from the patients also included rRNA sequencing of fecal samples and fecal short-chain fatty acid concentration. 

Participants had a median age of 60, and 45% were female. The most common diseases being treated were leukemia (50%), myelodysplastic syndrome (25%), and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (8.7%).

After stratifying patients based on high- or low-fiber intake, those with high-fiber intake were found to have significantly higher rates of microbial α-diversity (P = .009), a higher abundance of butyrate producers (P = .03), and a higher concentration of butyrate (P = .02), a short-chain fatty acid that plays a key role in gut health. 

Furthermore, the high-fiber group had significantly higher overall survival in an analysis extending to 24 months relative to day 12 of the study (P = .04).

Focusing on GvHD outcomes, the authors further evaluated data on 101 non-T-cell–depleted patients, and identified 29 patients without GvHD and 24 who developed lower gastrointestinal (GI) GvHD. 

Patients with lower GI GvHD had significantly lower fecal concentrations of butyrate (P = .03) and acetate (P = .02).

However, patients among those in the high-fiber intake group had a significantly lower cumulative incidence of developing GvHD at day 100 (P = .034) and a lower incidence of lower GI GvHD (P = .04).

A separate preclinical analysis of a mouse model with GvHD further showed that a fiber-rich diet (12% cellulose) significantly increased the expression of genes associated with reduced GvHD, including IDO1 and CEACAM1, and those associated with enrichment of the bile acid pathway.

The findings suggest an opportunity to improve outcomes with relatively small dietary changes, Paredes said.

“Strategies to increase the fiber concentration in these diets paired with the safety that these patients need is what makes this study exciting,” she said in an interview. 

“Increasing the fiber intake by 10 to 20 grams/day could potentially increase the microbiome diversity and abundance of butyrate producers, which have been correlated with higher overall survival rates post allo-HCT,” she continued.

“[For instance], that could be an avocado per day, or it could be a small salad per day, or a small vegetable soup per day,” she added. “I would encourage institutions to re-evaluate their menu planning and see how to include more fiber into the meals in a safe way.”

Ultimately, “I think that a dietary intervention outweighs the risks of a pharmacological intervention,” Paredes added.

The necessary duration of a high-fiber diet to produce the beneficial effects on allo-HCT outcomes would likely be over the course of the pre- and post-transplant periods, Paredes added.

“With the survival analysis extending from 5 days before transplantation to 12 days post, we are looking at an intervention that potentially could be around 20 days,” she said.

“We would love to take advantage of the pretransplantation window, in particular, and we can see that just increasing the fiber intake by about 20 grams during this window was shown to improve overall survival after 24 months,” Paredes added.

Importantly, however, some patients may not be appropriate for high-fiber dietary changes, Paredes cautioned. 

“Patients that have developed IBD-like symptoms and severe GvHD patients, for example, or with lower GI-GvHD grades 3 and 4 would be not appropriate candidates for a high-fiber diet,” she said. 

 

High-Fiber Diet Slows MM Disease Progression?

The potential important benefits of a high-fiber diet in blood diseases were further demonstrated in a separate study also by MSKCC researchers presented at the meeting, which showed encouraging signs that a plant-based diet rich in fiber could potentially slow disease progression in multiple myeloma (MM).

NUTRIVENTION included 20 patients with the two precancerous MM conditions, monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance (MGUS) and smoldering multiple myeloma (SMM), which can last for years without progressing to MM and which researchers have speculated could be a potential opportunity to intervene to prevent progression to cancer.

Patients were provided with a 12-week controlled diet plus health coaching for another 3 months; no meals or coaching were provided for the rest of the 1-year study period. Participants had a median age of 62 and, with being overweight/obesity a risk factor for MM, had a body mass index (BMI) of 25 kg/m² or higher.

The trial met its endpoint of feasibility, with 91% adherence in the first 3 months. The rate of consumption of unprocessed plant foods increased from 20% at baseline to 92% on the intervention. Overall adherence was 58%. Insulin and anti-inflammatory markers also improved and, despite no calorie restriction, there was a 7% sustained reduction in BMI. 

Notably, two patients in the study had stabilization of disease progression.

“We saw improvements in all spheres, including metabolism, microbiome, and immune system markers, and we also saw that two patients with progressive disease had the progression stabilize and slow down on the intervention,” principal investigator Urvi A. Shah, MD, said in a press statement. 

“Even though it’s just two cases, to our knowledge, it has not been shown before in an intervention setting that you can improve diet and lifestyle and actually slow or change the trajectory of the disease,” she noted.

The researchers caution that findings in mice do not necessarily translate to humans but note another experiment in mice with SMM that showed animals fed a normal diet had progression to MM after a median of 12 weeks, compared with a median of 30 weeks among those fed a high-fiber diet.

Notably, all mice in the normal-diet group progressed to MM, whereas 40% of mice in the high-fiber group did not. 

“We found that a high-fiber plant-based diet can improve BMI, improve insulin resistance [and] the microbiome through diversity and butyrate producers, and with the production of short-chain fatty acids, can have effects on inflammation, immunity, innate and adaptive antitumor immunity, and tumor cells or plasma cells,” Shah said during her presentation.

The study was supported by funding from the National Cancer Institute and private foundations. Paredes has reported no relevant financial relationships. Shah has reported relationships with Sanofi, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Janssen.

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

TOPLINE:

For patients with early-stage ERBB2 (formerly HER2)–positive breast cancer, injections of increasing doses of autologous conventional type 1 dendritic cells (cDC1) combined with ERBB2-targeted antibodies demonstrate safety and effectiveness in enhancing immune response. The higher dose (100 million cells) shows enhanced immune effector recruitment and significant tumor regression before chemotherapy initiation.

METHODOLOGY:

• ERBB2-positive breast cancer survival has improved with anti-ERBB2 antibodies trastuzumab and pertuzumab, but for a pathologic complete response, chemotherapy remains necessary, which comes with significant toxic effects.
• A phase 1, nonrandomized clinical trial enrolled 12 patients with early-stage ERBB2-positive breast cancer in Tampa, Florida, from October 2021 to October 2022.
• Participants received intratumoral (IT) cDC1 injections weekly for 6 weeks at two dose levels (50 million cells for dose level 1 and 100 million cells for dose level 2), with six patients in each group.
• Starting from day 1 of the cDC1 injections, treatment included trastuzumab (8-mg/kg loading dose, then 6 mg/kg) and pertuzumab (840-mg loading dose, then 420 mg) administered intravenously every 3 weeks for six cycles, followed by paclitaxel (80 mg/m²) weekly for 12 weeks and surgery with lumpectomy or mastectomy.
• Primary outcomes measured safety and immune response of increasing doses of cDC1 combined with anti-ERBB2 antibodies before neoadjuvant chemotherapy; secondary outcomes assessed antitumor efficacy through breast MRI and residual cancer burden at surgery.

TAKEAWAY:

• IT delivery of ERBB2 cDC1 was safe and not associated with any dose-limiting toxic effects. The most frequent adverse events attributed to cDC1 were grade 1-2 chills (50%), fatigue (41.7%), headache (33%), and injection-site reactions (33%).
• Dose level 2 showed enhanced recruitment of adaptive CD3, CD4, and CD8 T cells and B cells within the tumor microenvironment (TME), along with increased innate gamma delta T cells and natural killer T cells.
• Breast MRI revealed nine objective responses, including six partial responses and three complete responses, with three cases of stable disease.
• Following surgery, 7 of 12 patients (58%) achieved a pathologic complete response, including all 3 hormone receptor–negative patients and 4 of the 9 hormone receptor–positive patients.

IN PRACTICE:

“Overall, the clinical data shown here demonstrate the effects of combining ERBB2 antibodies with IT [intratumoral] delivery of targeted cDC1 to enhance immune cell infiltration within the TME [tumor microenvironment] and subsequently induce tumor regression before chemotherapy,” wrote the authors, who noted they will be testing the higher dose for an ongoing phase 2 trial with an additional 41 patients.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Hyo S. Han, MD, of H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute in Tampa, Florida. It was published online on December 5, 2024, in JAMA Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

Because only two dose levels of cDC1 were tested, it remains unclear whether higher doses or different administration schedules could further enhance immune response. Additionally, the nonrandomized design prevents definitive conclusions about whether the clinical benefits were solely from the anti-ERBB2 antibodies. The small sample size also makes it difficult to determine if the pathologic complete responses were primarily due to the 12 weeks of trastuzumab/pertuzumab/paclitaxel treatment.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by the Moffitt Breast Cancer Research Fund, Shula Fund, and Pennies in Action. Several authors reported research support and personal and consulting fees from US funding agencies and multiple pharmaceutical companies outside of the submitted work, as well as related intellectual property and patents.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

For patients with early-stage ERBB2 (formerly HER2)–positive breast cancer, injections of increasing doses of autologous conventional type 1 dendritic cells (cDC1) combined with ERBB2-targeted antibodies demonstrate safety and effectiveness in enhancing immune response. The higher dose (100 million cells) shows enhanced immune effector recruitment and significant tumor regression before chemotherapy initiation.

METHODOLOGY:

• ERBB2-positive breast cancer survival has improved with anti-ERBB2 antibodies trastuzumab and pertuzumab, but for a pathologic complete response, chemotherapy remains necessary, which comes with significant toxic effects.
• A phase 1, nonrandomized clinical trial enrolled 12 patients with early-stage ERBB2-positive breast cancer in Tampa, Florida, from October 2021 to October 2022.
• Participants received intratumoral (IT) cDC1 injections weekly for 6 weeks at two dose levels (50 million cells for dose level 1 and 100 million cells for dose level 2), with six patients in each group.
• Starting from day 1 of the cDC1 injections, treatment included trastuzumab (8-mg/kg loading dose, then 6 mg/kg) and pertuzumab (840-mg loading dose, then 420 mg) administered intravenously every 3 weeks for six cycles, followed by paclitaxel (80 mg/m²) weekly for 12 weeks and surgery with lumpectomy or mastectomy.
• Primary outcomes measured safety and immune response of increasing doses of cDC1 combined with anti-ERBB2 antibodies before neoadjuvant chemotherapy; secondary outcomes assessed antitumor efficacy through breast MRI and residual cancer burden at surgery.

TAKEAWAY:

• IT delivery of ERBB2 cDC1 was safe and not associated with any dose-limiting toxic effects. The most frequent adverse events attributed to cDC1 were grade 1-2 chills (50%), fatigue (41.7%), headache (33%), and injection-site reactions (33%).
• Dose level 2 showed enhanced recruitment of adaptive CD3, CD4, and CD8 T cells and B cells within the tumor microenvironment (TME), along with increased innate gamma delta T cells and natural killer T cells.
• Breast MRI revealed nine objective responses, including six partial responses and three complete responses, with three cases of stable disease.
• Following surgery, 7 of 12 patients (58%) achieved a pathologic complete response, including all 3 hormone receptor–negative patients and 4 of the 9 hormone receptor–positive patients.

IN PRACTICE:

“Overall, the clinical data shown here demonstrate the effects of combining ERBB2 antibodies with IT [intratumoral] delivery of targeted cDC1 to enhance immune cell infiltration within the TME [tumor microenvironment] and subsequently induce tumor regression before chemotherapy,” wrote the authors, who noted they will be testing the higher dose for an ongoing phase 2 trial with an additional 41 patients.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Hyo S. Han, MD, of H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute in Tampa, Florida. It was published online on December 5, 2024, in JAMA Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

Because only two dose levels of cDC1 were tested, it remains unclear whether higher doses or different administration schedules could further enhance immune response. Additionally, the nonrandomized design prevents definitive conclusions about whether the clinical benefits were solely from the anti-ERBB2 antibodies. The small sample size also makes it difficult to determine if the pathologic complete responses were primarily due to the 12 weeks of trastuzumab/pertuzumab/paclitaxel treatment.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by the Moffitt Breast Cancer Research Fund, Shula Fund, and Pennies in Action. Several authors reported research support and personal and consulting fees from US funding agencies and multiple pharmaceutical companies outside of the submitted work, as well as related intellectual property and patents.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

For patients with early-stage ERBB2 (formerly HER2)–positive breast cancer, injections of increasing doses of autologous conventional type 1 dendritic cells (cDC1) combined with ERBB2-targeted antibodies demonstrate safety and effectiveness in enhancing immune response. The higher dose (100 million cells) shows enhanced immune effector recruitment and significant tumor regression before chemotherapy initiation.

METHODOLOGY:

• ERBB2-positive breast cancer survival has improved with anti-ERBB2 antibodies trastuzumab and pertuzumab, but for a pathologic complete response, chemotherapy remains necessary, which comes with significant toxic effects.
• A phase 1, nonrandomized clinical trial enrolled 12 patients with early-stage ERBB2-positive breast cancer in Tampa, Florida, from October 2021 to October 2022.
• Participants received intratumoral (IT) cDC1 injections weekly for 6 weeks at two dose levels (50 million cells for dose level 1 and 100 million cells for dose level 2), with six patients in each group.
• Starting from day 1 of the cDC1 injections, treatment included trastuzumab (8-mg/kg loading dose, then 6 mg/kg) and pertuzumab (840-mg loading dose, then 420 mg) administered intravenously every 3 weeks for six cycles, followed by paclitaxel (80 mg/m²) weekly for 12 weeks and surgery with lumpectomy or mastectomy.
• Primary outcomes measured safety and immune response of increasing doses of cDC1 combined with anti-ERBB2 antibodies before neoadjuvant chemotherapy; secondary outcomes assessed antitumor efficacy through breast MRI and residual cancer burden at surgery.

TAKEAWAY:

• IT delivery of ERBB2 cDC1 was safe and not associated with any dose-limiting toxic effects. The most frequent adverse events attributed to cDC1 were grade 1-2 chills (50%), fatigue (41.7%), headache (33%), and injection-site reactions (33%).
• Dose level 2 showed enhanced recruitment of adaptive CD3, CD4, and CD8 T cells and B cells within the tumor microenvironment (TME), along with increased innate gamma delta T cells and natural killer T cells.
• Breast MRI revealed nine objective responses, including six partial responses and three complete responses, with three cases of stable disease.
• Following surgery, 7 of 12 patients (58%) achieved a pathologic complete response, including all 3 hormone receptor–negative patients and 4 of the 9 hormone receptor–positive patients.

IN PRACTICE:

“Overall, the clinical data shown here demonstrate the effects of combining ERBB2 antibodies with IT [intratumoral] delivery of targeted cDC1 to enhance immune cell infiltration within the TME [tumor microenvironment] and subsequently induce tumor regression before chemotherapy,” wrote the authors, who noted they will be testing the higher dose for an ongoing phase 2 trial with an additional 41 patients.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Hyo S. Han, MD, of H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute in Tampa, Florida. It was published online on December 5, 2024, in JAMA Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

Because only two dose levels of cDC1 were tested, it remains unclear whether higher doses or different administration schedules could further enhance immune response. Additionally, the nonrandomized design prevents definitive conclusions about whether the clinical benefits were solely from the anti-ERBB2 antibodies. The small sample size also makes it difficult to determine if the pathologic complete responses were primarily due to the 12 weeks of trastuzumab/pertuzumab/paclitaxel treatment.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by the Moffitt Breast Cancer Research Fund, Shula Fund, and Pennies in Action. Several authors reported research support and personal and consulting fees from US funding agencies and multiple pharmaceutical companies outside of the submitted work, as well as related intellectual property and patents.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Vaccines for treating and preventing cancer have long been considered a holy grail in oncology.

But aside from a few notable exceptions — including the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine, which has dramatically reduced the incidence of HPV-related cancers, and a Bacillus Calmette-Guerin vaccine, which helps prevent early-stage bladder cancer recurrence — most have failed to deliver.

Following a string of disappointments over the past decade, recent advances in the immunotherapy space are bringing renewed hope for progress.

In an American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) series earlier in 2024, Catherine J. Wu, MD, predicted big strides for cancer vaccines, especially for personalized vaccines that target patient-specific neoantigens — the proteins that form on cancer cells — as well as vaccines that can treat diverse tumor types.

“A focus on neoantigens that arise from driver mutations in different tumor types could allow us to make progress in creating off-the-shelf vaccines,” said Wu, the Lavine Family Chair of Preventative Cancer Therapies at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, Massachusetts.

A prime example is a personalized, messenger RNA (mRNA)–based vaccine designed to prevent melanoma recurrence. The mRNA-4157 vaccine encodes up to 34 different patient-specific neoantigens.

“This is one of the most exciting developments in modern cancer therapy,” said Lawrence Young, a virologist and professor of molecular oncology at the University of Warwick, Coventry, England, who commented on the investigational vaccine via the UK-based Science Media Centre.

Other promising options are on the horizon as well. In August, BioNTech announced a phase 1 global trial to study BNT116 — a vaccine to treat non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). BNT116, like mRNA-4157, targets specific antigens in the lung cancer cells.

“This technology is the next big phase of cancer treatment,” Siow Ming Lee, MD, a consultant medical oncologist at University College London Hospitals in England, which is leading the UK trial for the lung cancer and melanoma vaccines, told The Guardian. “We are now entering this very exciting new era of mRNA-based immunotherapy clinical trials to investigate the treatment of lung cancer.”

Still, these predictions have a familiar ring. While the prospects are exciting, delivering on them is another story. There are simply no guarantees these strategies will work as hoped.

 

Then: Where We Were

Cancer vaccine research began to ramp up in the 2000s, and in 2006, the first-generation HPV vaccine, Gardasil, was approved. Gardasil prevents infection from four strains of HPV that cause about 80% of cervical cancer cases.

In 2010, the Food and Drug Administration approved sipuleucel-T, the first therapeutic cancer vaccine, which improved overall survival in patients with hormone-refractory prostate cancer.

Researchers predicted this approval would “pave the way for developing innovative, next generation of vaccines with enhanced antitumor potency.”

In a 2015 AACR research forecast report, Drew Pardoll, MD, PhD, co-director of the Cancer Immunology and Hematopoiesis Program at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, said that “we can expect to see encouraging results from studies using cancer vaccines.”

Despite the excitement surrounding cancer vaccines alongside a few successes, the next decade brought a longer string of late-phase disappointments.

In 2016, the phase 3 ACT IV trial of a therapeutic vaccine to treat glioblastoma multiforme (CDX-110) was terminated after it failed to demonstrate improved survival.

In 2017, a phase 3 trial of the therapeutic pancreatic cancer vaccine, GVAX, was stopped early for lack of efficacy.

That year, an attenuated Listeria monocytogenes vaccine to treat pancreatic cancer and mesothelioma also failed to come to fruition. In late 2017, concerns over listeria infections prompted Aduro Biotech to cancel its listeria-based cancer treatment program.

In 2018, a phase 3 trial of belagenpumatucel-L, a therapeutic NSCLC vaccine, failed to demonstrate a significant improvement in survival and further study was discontinued.

And in 2019, a vaccine targeting MAGE-A3, a cancer-testis antigen present in multiple tumor types, failed to meet endpoints for improved survival in a phase 3 trial, leading to discontinuation of the vaccine program.

But these disappointments and failures are normal parts of medical research and drug development and have allowed for incremental advances that helped fuel renewed interest and hope for cancer vaccines, when the timing was right, explained vaccine pioneer Larry W. Kwak, MD, PhD, deputy director of the Comprehensive Cancer Center at City of Hope, Duarte, California.

When it comes to vaccine progress, timing makes a difference. In 2011, Kwak and colleagues published promising phase 3 trial results on a personalized vaccine. The vaccine was a patient-specific tumor-derived antigen for patients with follicular lymphoma in their first remission following chemotherapy. Patients who received the vaccine demonstrated significantly longer disease-free survival.

But, at the time, personalized vaccines faced strong headwinds due, largely, to high costs, and commercial interest failed to materialize. “That’s been the major hurdle for a long time,” said Kwak.

Now, however, interest has returned alongside advances in technology and research. The big shift has been the emergence of lower-cost rapid-production mRNA and DNA platforms and a better understanding of how vaccines and potent immune stimulants, like checkpoint inhibitors, can work together to improve outcomes, he explained.

“The timing wasn’t right” back then, Kwak noted. “Now, it’s a different environment and a different time.”

 

A Turning Point?

Indeed, a decade later, cancer vaccine development appears to be headed in a more promising direction.

Among key cancer vaccines to watch is the mRNA-4157 vaccine, developed by Merck and Moderna, designed to prevent melanoma recurrence. In a recent phase 2 study, patients receiving the mRNA-4157 vaccine alongside pembrolizumab had nearly half the risk for melanoma recurrence or death at 3 years compared with those receiving pembrolizumab alone. Investigators are now evaluating the vaccine in a global phase 3 study in patients with high-risk, stage IIB to IV melanoma following surgery.

Another one to watch is the BNT116 NSCLC vaccine from BioNTech. This vaccine presents the immune system with NSCLC tumor markers to encourage the body to fight cancer cells expressing those markers while ignoring healthy cells. BioNTech also launched a global clinical trial for its vaccine this year.

Other notables include a pancreatic cancer mRNA vaccine, which has shown promising early results in a small trial of 16 patients. Of 16 patients who received the vaccine alongside chemotherapy and after surgery and immunotherapy, 8 responded. Of these eight, six remained recurrence free at 3 years. Investigators noted that the vaccine appeared to stimulate a durable T-cell response in patients who responded.

Kwak has also continued his work on lymphoma vaccines. In August, his team published promising first-in-human data on the use of personalized neoantigen vaccines as an early intervention in untreated patients with lymphoplasmacytic lymphoma. Among nine asymptomatic patients who received the vaccine, all achieved stable disease or better, with no dose-limiting toxicities. One patient had a minor response, and the median time to progression was greater than 72 months.

“The current setting is more for advanced disease,” Kwak explained. “It’s a tougher task, but combined with checkpoint blockade, it may be potent enough to work.” 

Still, caution is important. Despite early promise, it’s too soon to tell which, if any, of these investigational vaccines will pan out in the long run. Like investigational drugs, cancer vaccines may show big promising initially but then fail in larger trials.

One key to success, according to Kwak, is to design trials so that even negative results will inform next steps.

But, he noted, failures in large clinical trials will “put a chilling effect on cancer vaccine research again.”

“That’s what keeps me up at night,” he said. “We know the science is fundamentally sound and we have seen glimpses over decades of research that cancer vaccines can work, so it’s really just a matter of tweaking things to optimize trial design.”

Companies tend to design trials to test if a vaccine works or not, without trying to understand why, he said.

“What we need to do is design those so that we can learn from negative results,” he said. That’s what he and his colleagues attempted to do in their recent trial. “We didn’t just look at clinical results; we’re interrogating the actual tumor environment to understand what worked and didn’t and how to tweak that for the next trial.”

Kwak and his colleagues found, for instance, that the vaccine had a greater effect on B cell–derived tumor cells than on cells of plasma origin, so “the most rational design for the next iteration is to combine the vaccine with agents that work directly against plasma cells,” he explained.

As for what’s next, Kwak said: “We’re just focused on trying to do good science and understand. We’ve seen glimpses of success. That’s where we are.”

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

Vaccines for treating and preventing cancer have long been considered a holy grail in oncology.

But aside from a few notable exceptions — including the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine, which has dramatically reduced the incidence of HPV-related cancers, and a Bacillus Calmette-Guerin vaccine, which helps prevent early-stage bladder cancer recurrence — most have failed to deliver.

Following a string of disappointments over the past decade, recent advances in the immunotherapy space are bringing renewed hope for progress.

In an American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) series earlier in 2024, Catherine J. Wu, MD, predicted big strides for cancer vaccines, especially for personalized vaccines that target patient-specific neoantigens — the proteins that form on cancer cells — as well as vaccines that can treat diverse tumor types.

“A focus on neoantigens that arise from driver mutations in different tumor types could allow us to make progress in creating off-the-shelf vaccines,” said Wu, the Lavine Family Chair of Preventative Cancer Therapies at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, Massachusetts.

A prime example is a personalized, messenger RNA (mRNA)–based vaccine designed to prevent melanoma recurrence. The mRNA-4157 vaccine encodes up to 34 different patient-specific neoantigens.

“This is one of the most exciting developments in modern cancer therapy,” said Lawrence Young, a virologist and professor of molecular oncology at the University of Warwick, Coventry, England, who commented on the investigational vaccine via the UK-based Science Media Centre.

Other promising options are on the horizon as well. In August, BioNTech announced a phase 1 global trial to study BNT116 — a vaccine to treat non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). BNT116, like mRNA-4157, targets specific antigens in the lung cancer cells.

“This technology is the next big phase of cancer treatment,” Siow Ming Lee, MD, a consultant medical oncologist at University College London Hospitals in England, which is leading the UK trial for the lung cancer and melanoma vaccines, told The Guardian. “We are now entering this very exciting new era of mRNA-based immunotherapy clinical trials to investigate the treatment of lung cancer.”

Still, these predictions have a familiar ring. While the prospects are exciting, delivering on them is another story. There are simply no guarantees these strategies will work as hoped.

 

Then: Where We Were

Cancer vaccine research began to ramp up in the 2000s, and in 2006, the first-generation HPV vaccine, Gardasil, was approved. Gardasil prevents infection from four strains of HPV that cause about 80% of cervical cancer cases.

In 2010, the Food and Drug Administration approved sipuleucel-T, the first therapeutic cancer vaccine, which improved overall survival in patients with hormone-refractory prostate cancer.

Researchers predicted this approval would “pave the way for developing innovative, next generation of vaccines with enhanced antitumor potency.”

In a 2015 AACR research forecast report, Drew Pardoll, MD, PhD, co-director of the Cancer Immunology and Hematopoiesis Program at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, said that “we can expect to see encouraging results from studies using cancer vaccines.”

Despite the excitement surrounding cancer vaccines alongside a few successes, the next decade brought a longer string of late-phase disappointments.

In 2016, the phase 3 ACT IV trial of a therapeutic vaccine to treat glioblastoma multiforme (CDX-110) was terminated after it failed to demonstrate improved survival.

In 2017, a phase 3 trial of the therapeutic pancreatic cancer vaccine, GVAX, was stopped early for lack of efficacy.

That year, an attenuated Listeria monocytogenes vaccine to treat pancreatic cancer and mesothelioma also failed to come to fruition. In late 2017, concerns over listeria infections prompted Aduro Biotech to cancel its listeria-based cancer treatment program.

In 2018, a phase 3 trial of belagenpumatucel-L, a therapeutic NSCLC vaccine, failed to demonstrate a significant improvement in survival and further study was discontinued.

And in 2019, a vaccine targeting MAGE-A3, a cancer-testis antigen present in multiple tumor types, failed to meet endpoints for improved survival in a phase 3 trial, leading to discontinuation of the vaccine program.

But these disappointments and failures are normal parts of medical research and drug development and have allowed for incremental advances that helped fuel renewed interest and hope for cancer vaccines, when the timing was right, explained vaccine pioneer Larry W. Kwak, MD, PhD, deputy director of the Comprehensive Cancer Center at City of Hope, Duarte, California.

When it comes to vaccine progress, timing makes a difference. In 2011, Kwak and colleagues published promising phase 3 trial results on a personalized vaccine. The vaccine was a patient-specific tumor-derived antigen for patients with follicular lymphoma in their first remission following chemotherapy. Patients who received the vaccine demonstrated significantly longer disease-free survival.

But, at the time, personalized vaccines faced strong headwinds due, largely, to high costs, and commercial interest failed to materialize. “That’s been the major hurdle for a long time,” said Kwak.

Now, however, interest has returned alongside advances in technology and research. The big shift has been the emergence of lower-cost rapid-production mRNA and DNA platforms and a better understanding of how vaccines and potent immune stimulants, like checkpoint inhibitors, can work together to improve outcomes, he explained.

“The timing wasn’t right” back then, Kwak noted. “Now, it’s a different environment and a different time.”

 

A Turning Point?

Indeed, a decade later, cancer vaccine development appears to be headed in a more promising direction.

Among key cancer vaccines to watch is the mRNA-4157 vaccine, developed by Merck and Moderna, designed to prevent melanoma recurrence. In a recent phase 2 study, patients receiving the mRNA-4157 vaccine alongside pembrolizumab had nearly half the risk for melanoma recurrence or death at 3 years compared with those receiving pembrolizumab alone. Investigators are now evaluating the vaccine in a global phase 3 study in patients with high-risk, stage IIB to IV melanoma following surgery.

Another one to watch is the BNT116 NSCLC vaccine from BioNTech. This vaccine presents the immune system with NSCLC tumor markers to encourage the body to fight cancer cells expressing those markers while ignoring healthy cells. BioNTech also launched a global clinical trial for its vaccine this year.

Other notables include a pancreatic cancer mRNA vaccine, which has shown promising early results in a small trial of 16 patients. Of 16 patients who received the vaccine alongside chemotherapy and after surgery and immunotherapy, 8 responded. Of these eight, six remained recurrence free at 3 years. Investigators noted that the vaccine appeared to stimulate a durable T-cell response in patients who responded.

Kwak has also continued his work on lymphoma vaccines. In August, his team published promising first-in-human data on the use of personalized neoantigen vaccines as an early intervention in untreated patients with lymphoplasmacytic lymphoma. Among nine asymptomatic patients who received the vaccine, all achieved stable disease or better, with no dose-limiting toxicities. One patient had a minor response, and the median time to progression was greater than 72 months.

“The current setting is more for advanced disease,” Kwak explained. “It’s a tougher task, but combined with checkpoint blockade, it may be potent enough to work.” 

Still, caution is important. Despite early promise, it’s too soon to tell which, if any, of these investigational vaccines will pan out in the long run. Like investigational drugs, cancer vaccines may show big promising initially but then fail in larger trials.

One key to success, according to Kwak, is to design trials so that even negative results will inform next steps.

But, he noted, failures in large clinical trials will “put a chilling effect on cancer vaccine research again.”

“That’s what keeps me up at night,” he said. “We know the science is fundamentally sound and we have seen glimpses over decades of research that cancer vaccines can work, so it’s really just a matter of tweaking things to optimize trial design.”

Companies tend to design trials to test if a vaccine works or not, without trying to understand why, he said.

“What we need to do is design those so that we can learn from negative results,” he said. That’s what he and his colleagues attempted to do in their recent trial. “We didn’t just look at clinical results; we’re interrogating the actual tumor environment to understand what worked and didn’t and how to tweak that for the next trial.”

Kwak and his colleagues found, for instance, that the vaccine had a greater effect on B cell–derived tumor cells than on cells of plasma origin, so “the most rational design for the next iteration is to combine the vaccine with agents that work directly against plasma cells,” he explained.

As for what’s next, Kwak said: “We’re just focused on trying to do good science and understand. We’ve seen glimpses of success. That’s where we are.”

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

Vaccines for treating and preventing cancer have long been considered a holy grail in oncology.

But aside from a few notable exceptions — including the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine, which has dramatically reduced the incidence of HPV-related cancers, and a Bacillus Calmette-Guerin vaccine, which helps prevent early-stage bladder cancer recurrence — most have failed to deliver.

Following a string of disappointments over the past decade, recent advances in the immunotherapy space are bringing renewed hope for progress.

In an American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) series earlier in 2024, Catherine J. Wu, MD, predicted big strides for cancer vaccines, especially for personalized vaccines that target patient-specific neoantigens — the proteins that form on cancer cells — as well as vaccines that can treat diverse tumor types.

“A focus on neoantigens that arise from driver mutations in different tumor types could allow us to make progress in creating off-the-shelf vaccines,” said Wu, the Lavine Family Chair of Preventative Cancer Therapies at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, Massachusetts.

A prime example is a personalized, messenger RNA (mRNA)–based vaccine designed to prevent melanoma recurrence. The mRNA-4157 vaccine encodes up to 34 different patient-specific neoantigens.

“This is one of the most exciting developments in modern cancer therapy,” said Lawrence Young, a virologist and professor of molecular oncology at the University of Warwick, Coventry, England, who commented on the investigational vaccine via the UK-based Science Media Centre.

Other promising options are on the horizon as well. In August, BioNTech announced a phase 1 global trial to study BNT116 — a vaccine to treat non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). BNT116, like mRNA-4157, targets specific antigens in the lung cancer cells.

“This technology is the next big phase of cancer treatment,” Siow Ming Lee, MD, a consultant medical oncologist at University College London Hospitals in England, which is leading the UK trial for the lung cancer and melanoma vaccines, told The Guardian. “We are now entering this very exciting new era of mRNA-based immunotherapy clinical trials to investigate the treatment of lung cancer.”

Still, these predictions have a familiar ring. While the prospects are exciting, delivering on them is another story. There are simply no guarantees these strategies will work as hoped.

 

Then: Where We Were

Cancer vaccine research began to ramp up in the 2000s, and in 2006, the first-generation HPV vaccine, Gardasil, was approved. Gardasil prevents infection from four strains of HPV that cause about 80% of cervical cancer cases.

In 2010, the Food and Drug Administration approved sipuleucel-T, the first therapeutic cancer vaccine, which improved overall survival in patients with hormone-refractory prostate cancer.

Researchers predicted this approval would “pave the way for developing innovative, next generation of vaccines with enhanced antitumor potency.”

In a 2015 AACR research forecast report, Drew Pardoll, MD, PhD, co-director of the Cancer Immunology and Hematopoiesis Program at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, said that “we can expect to see encouraging results from studies using cancer vaccines.”

Despite the excitement surrounding cancer vaccines alongside a few successes, the next decade brought a longer string of late-phase disappointments.

In 2016, the phase 3 ACT IV trial of a therapeutic vaccine to treat glioblastoma multiforme (CDX-110) was terminated after it failed to demonstrate improved survival.

In 2017, a phase 3 trial of the therapeutic pancreatic cancer vaccine, GVAX, was stopped early for lack of efficacy.

That year, an attenuated Listeria monocytogenes vaccine to treat pancreatic cancer and mesothelioma also failed to come to fruition. In late 2017, concerns over listeria infections prompted Aduro Biotech to cancel its listeria-based cancer treatment program.

In 2018, a phase 3 trial of belagenpumatucel-L, a therapeutic NSCLC vaccine, failed to demonstrate a significant improvement in survival and further study was discontinued.

And in 2019, a vaccine targeting MAGE-A3, a cancer-testis antigen present in multiple tumor types, failed to meet endpoints for improved survival in a phase 3 trial, leading to discontinuation of the vaccine program.

But these disappointments and failures are normal parts of medical research and drug development and have allowed for incremental advances that helped fuel renewed interest and hope for cancer vaccines, when the timing was right, explained vaccine pioneer Larry W. Kwak, MD, PhD, deputy director of the Comprehensive Cancer Center at City of Hope, Duarte, California.

When it comes to vaccine progress, timing makes a difference. In 2011, Kwak and colleagues published promising phase 3 trial results on a personalized vaccine. The vaccine was a patient-specific tumor-derived antigen for patients with follicular lymphoma in their first remission following chemotherapy. Patients who received the vaccine demonstrated significantly longer disease-free survival.

But, at the time, personalized vaccines faced strong headwinds due, largely, to high costs, and commercial interest failed to materialize. “That’s been the major hurdle for a long time,” said Kwak.

Now, however, interest has returned alongside advances in technology and research. The big shift has been the emergence of lower-cost rapid-production mRNA and DNA platforms and a better understanding of how vaccines and potent immune stimulants, like checkpoint inhibitors, can work together to improve outcomes, he explained.

“The timing wasn’t right” back then, Kwak noted. “Now, it’s a different environment and a different time.”

 

A Turning Point?

Indeed, a decade later, cancer vaccine development appears to be headed in a more promising direction.

Among key cancer vaccines to watch is the mRNA-4157 vaccine, developed by Merck and Moderna, designed to prevent melanoma recurrence. In a recent phase 2 study, patients receiving the mRNA-4157 vaccine alongside pembrolizumab had nearly half the risk for melanoma recurrence or death at 3 years compared with those receiving pembrolizumab alone. Investigators are now evaluating the vaccine in a global phase 3 study in patients with high-risk, stage IIB to IV melanoma following surgery.

Another one to watch is the BNT116 NSCLC vaccine from BioNTech. This vaccine presents the immune system with NSCLC tumor markers to encourage the body to fight cancer cells expressing those markers while ignoring healthy cells. BioNTech also launched a global clinical trial for its vaccine this year.

Other notables include a pancreatic cancer mRNA vaccine, which has shown promising early results in a small trial of 16 patients. Of 16 patients who received the vaccine alongside chemotherapy and after surgery and immunotherapy, 8 responded. Of these eight, six remained recurrence free at 3 years. Investigators noted that the vaccine appeared to stimulate a durable T-cell response in patients who responded.

Kwak has also continued his work on lymphoma vaccines. In August, his team published promising first-in-human data on the use of personalized neoantigen vaccines as an early intervention in untreated patients with lymphoplasmacytic lymphoma. Among nine asymptomatic patients who received the vaccine, all achieved stable disease or better, with no dose-limiting toxicities. One patient had a minor response, and the median time to progression was greater than 72 months.

“The current setting is more for advanced disease,” Kwak explained. “It’s a tougher task, but combined with checkpoint blockade, it may be potent enough to work.” 

Still, caution is important. Despite early promise, it’s too soon to tell which, if any, of these investigational vaccines will pan out in the long run. Like investigational drugs, cancer vaccines may show big promising initially but then fail in larger trials.

One key to success, according to Kwak, is to design trials so that even negative results will inform next steps.

But, he noted, failures in large clinical trials will “put a chilling effect on cancer vaccine research again.”

“That’s what keeps me up at night,” he said. “We know the science is fundamentally sound and we have seen glimpses over decades of research that cancer vaccines can work, so it’s really just a matter of tweaking things to optimize trial design.”

Companies tend to design trials to test if a vaccine works or not, without trying to understand why, he said.

“What we need to do is design those so that we can learn from negative results,” he said. That’s what he and his colleagues attempted to do in their recent trial. “We didn’t just look at clinical results; we’re interrogating the actual tumor environment to understand what worked and didn’t and how to tweak that for the next trial.”

Kwak and his colleagues found, for instance, that the vaccine had a greater effect on B cell–derived tumor cells than on cells of plasma origin, so “the most rational design for the next iteration is to combine the vaccine with agents that work directly against plasma cells,” he explained.

As for what’s next, Kwak said: “We’re just focused on trying to do good science and understand. We’ve seen glimpses of success. That’s where we are.”

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