AVAHO

Patients with cancer, particularly those with solid tumors, mounted an immune response to COVID-19 similar to that seen in people without cancer, but among patients with hematologic cancers, immune responses were less pronounced and were highly variable, typically taking longer to clear the virus.

The findings come from a small U.K. study published online Jan. 4 in Cancer Cell as a fast-track preprint article.

The findings may have implications for vaccinating against COVID-19, said the researchers, led by Sheeba Irshad, MD, PhD, a Cancer Research UK clinician scientist based at King’s College London.

“Our study provides some confidence and reassurance to care providers that many of our patients with solid cancers will mount a good immune response against the virus, develop antibodies that last, and hopefully resume their cancer treatment as soon as possible,” Dr. Irshad said in a statement.

“These conclusions imply that many patients, despite being on immunosuppressive therapies, will respond satisfactorily to COVID-19 vaccines,” she added.

Although “the data would suggest that solid cancer patients are likely to mount an efficient immune response to the vaccine ... the same cannot be said for hematological cancers, especially those with B-cell malignancies,” Dr. Irshad said in an interview.

“They may be susceptible to persistent infection despite developing antibodies, so the next stage of our study will focus on monitoring their response to the vaccines.

“At present, the best way to protect them alongside vaccinating them may be to vaccinate all their health care providers and carers to achieve herd immunity and continue to respect the public health measures put in place,” such as wearing a mask, practicing social distancing, and testing asymptomatic persons, she commented.
 

Study details

This study, known as the SARS-CoV-2 for Cancer Patients study, involved 76 patients with cancer; 41 of these patients had COVID-19, and 35 served as non-COVID cancer control patients.

Peripheral blood was collected from all patients; multiple samples were taken every 2-4 days where possible.

The COVID-19 and control groups were matched for age, body mass index, and tumor type, and both groups included patients with solid and hematologic cancers.

The groups were also comparable in terms of the proportion of patients with stage IV disease, those who received palliative as opposed to radical treatment, and patients who were treated within 4 weeks of recruitment to the study.

The results showed that 24.4% of cancer patients who were exposed to COVID-19 remained asymptomatic, 21.9% had mild disease, 31.7% had moderate disease, and 21.9% had severe disease.

Patients with hematologic cancers were more likely to experience dyspnea than those with solid tumors, and 39% received corticosteroid/antiviral therapies that specifically targeted COVID-19 infection.

The median duration of virus shedding was 39 days across the whole cohort. It was notably longer among patients with hematologic cancers, at a median of 55 days versus 29 days for patients with solid tumors.

Of 46 patients who survived beyond 30 days and for whom complete data were available, the team found that those with moderate or severe COVID-19 were more likely to be diagnosed with progressive cancer at their next assessment in comparison with those who were asymptomatic with COVID-19 or with control patients.

Solid-cancer patients with moderate to severe COVID-19 had sustained lymphopenia and increased neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratios up to days 40-49 of the infection, whereas among those with mild infection, clinical blood parameters were typically in the normal range.

Although overall blood profiles of patients with hematologic cancers were similar to those of patients with solid cancers, the trajectories between mild and moderate/severe COVID-19 overlapped, and there was a large degree of heterogeneity between patients.

The team also reports that among patients with solid tumors, all parameters returned to values that were close to baseline 4-6 weeks after the patients tested negative for COVID-19 on nasopharyngeal swabbing; by contrast, many of the patients with hematologic cancers experienced ongoing immune dysregulation.

Further analysis revealed differences in immune signatures between patients with solid cancers who had active SARS-CoV-2 infection and noninfected control patients. The former showed, for example, interleukin-8, IL-6, and IL-10, IP-10 enrichment.

In contrast, there were few differences between infected and noninfected hematologic cancer patients.

Across both cohorts, approximately 75% of patients had detectable antibodies against COVID-19. Antibodies were sustained for up to 78 days after exposure to the virus.

However, patients with solid tumors showed earlier seroconversion than those with hematologic cancers. The latter had more varied responses to infection, displaying three distinct phenotypes: failure to mount an antibody response, with prolonged viral shedding, even beyond day 50 after the first positive swab; an antibody response but failure to clear the virus; and an antibody response and successful clearing of the virus.

The team noted that overall patients with hematologic cancers showed a mild response to COVID-19 in the active/early phases of the disease and that the response grew stronger over time, similar to the immune changes typically seen with chronic infections.

This was particularly the case for patients with cancers that affect B cells.

The team acknowledged that there are several limitations to the study, including its small sample size and lack of statistical power to detect differences between, for example, different treatment modalities.

“An important question which remains unanswered is if a ‘reinforced’ immune system following immunotherapy results in an under-/overactivation of the immune response” to COVID-19, the investigators commented. They note that one such patient had a good response.

The SOAP study is sponsored by King’s College London and Guy’s and St. Thomas’ Foundation NHS Trust. It is funded from grants from the KCL Charity funds, MRC, Cancer Research UK, program grants from Breast Cancer Now at King’s College London and by grants to the Breast Cancer Now Toby Robin’s Research Center at the Institute of Cancer Research, London, and the Wellcome Trust Investigator Award, and is supported by the Cancer Research UK Cancer Immunotherapy Accelerator and the UK COVID-Immunology-Consortium. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Patients with cancer, particularly those with solid tumors, mounted an immune response to COVID-19 similar to that seen in people without cancer, but among patients with hematologic cancers, immune responses were less pronounced and were highly variable, typically taking longer to clear the virus.

The findings come from a small U.K. study published online Jan. 4 in Cancer Cell as a fast-track preprint article.

The findings may have implications for vaccinating against COVID-19, said the researchers, led by Sheeba Irshad, MD, PhD, a Cancer Research UK clinician scientist based at King’s College London.

“Our study provides some confidence and reassurance to care providers that many of our patients with solid cancers will mount a good immune response against the virus, develop antibodies that last, and hopefully resume their cancer treatment as soon as possible,” Dr. Irshad said in a statement.

“These conclusions imply that many patients, despite being on immunosuppressive therapies, will respond satisfactorily to COVID-19 vaccines,” she added.

Although “the data would suggest that solid cancer patients are likely to mount an efficient immune response to the vaccine ... the same cannot be said for hematological cancers, especially those with B-cell malignancies,” Dr. Irshad said in an interview.

“They may be susceptible to persistent infection despite developing antibodies, so the next stage of our study will focus on monitoring their response to the vaccines.

“At present, the best way to protect them alongside vaccinating them may be to vaccinate all their health care providers and carers to achieve herd immunity and continue to respect the public health measures put in place,” such as wearing a mask, practicing social distancing, and testing asymptomatic persons, she commented.
 

Study details

This study, known as the SARS-CoV-2 for Cancer Patients study, involved 76 patients with cancer; 41 of these patients had COVID-19, and 35 served as non-COVID cancer control patients.

Peripheral blood was collected from all patients; multiple samples were taken every 2-4 days where possible.

The COVID-19 and control groups were matched for age, body mass index, and tumor type, and both groups included patients with solid and hematologic cancers.

The groups were also comparable in terms of the proportion of patients with stage IV disease, those who received palliative as opposed to radical treatment, and patients who were treated within 4 weeks of recruitment to the study.

The results showed that 24.4% of cancer patients who were exposed to COVID-19 remained asymptomatic, 21.9% had mild disease, 31.7% had moderate disease, and 21.9% had severe disease.

Patients with hematologic cancers were more likely to experience dyspnea than those with solid tumors, and 39% received corticosteroid/antiviral therapies that specifically targeted COVID-19 infection.

The median duration of virus shedding was 39 days across the whole cohort. It was notably longer among patients with hematologic cancers, at a median of 55 days versus 29 days for patients with solid tumors.

Of 46 patients who survived beyond 30 days and for whom complete data were available, the team found that those with moderate or severe COVID-19 were more likely to be diagnosed with progressive cancer at their next assessment in comparison with those who were asymptomatic with COVID-19 or with control patients.

Solid-cancer patients with moderate to severe COVID-19 had sustained lymphopenia and increased neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratios up to days 40-49 of the infection, whereas among those with mild infection, clinical blood parameters were typically in the normal range.

Although overall blood profiles of patients with hematologic cancers were similar to those of patients with solid cancers, the trajectories between mild and moderate/severe COVID-19 overlapped, and there was a large degree of heterogeneity between patients.

The team also reports that among patients with solid tumors, all parameters returned to values that were close to baseline 4-6 weeks after the patients tested negative for COVID-19 on nasopharyngeal swabbing; by contrast, many of the patients with hematologic cancers experienced ongoing immune dysregulation.

Further analysis revealed differences in immune signatures between patients with solid cancers who had active SARS-CoV-2 infection and noninfected control patients. The former showed, for example, interleukin-8, IL-6, and IL-10, IP-10 enrichment.

In contrast, there were few differences between infected and noninfected hematologic cancer patients.

Across both cohorts, approximately 75% of patients had detectable antibodies against COVID-19. Antibodies were sustained for up to 78 days after exposure to the virus.

However, patients with solid tumors showed earlier seroconversion than those with hematologic cancers. The latter had more varied responses to infection, displaying three distinct phenotypes: failure to mount an antibody response, with prolonged viral shedding, even beyond day 50 after the first positive swab; an antibody response but failure to clear the virus; and an antibody response and successful clearing of the virus.

The team noted that overall patients with hematologic cancers showed a mild response to COVID-19 in the active/early phases of the disease and that the response grew stronger over time, similar to the immune changes typically seen with chronic infections.

This was particularly the case for patients with cancers that affect B cells.

The team acknowledged that there are several limitations to the study, including its small sample size and lack of statistical power to detect differences between, for example, different treatment modalities.

“An important question which remains unanswered is if a ‘reinforced’ immune system following immunotherapy results in an under-/overactivation of the immune response” to COVID-19, the investigators commented. They note that one such patient had a good response.

The SOAP study is sponsored by King’s College London and Guy’s and St. Thomas’ Foundation NHS Trust. It is funded from grants from the KCL Charity funds, MRC, Cancer Research UK, program grants from Breast Cancer Now at King’s College London and by grants to the Breast Cancer Now Toby Robin’s Research Center at the Institute of Cancer Research, London, and the Wellcome Trust Investigator Award, and is supported by the Cancer Research UK Cancer Immunotherapy Accelerator and the UK COVID-Immunology-Consortium. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Patients with cancer, particularly those with solid tumors, mounted an immune response to COVID-19 similar to that seen in people without cancer, but among patients with hematologic cancers, immune responses were less pronounced and were highly variable, typically taking longer to clear the virus.

The findings come from a small U.K. study published online Jan. 4 in Cancer Cell as a fast-track preprint article.

The findings may have implications for vaccinating against COVID-19, said the researchers, led by Sheeba Irshad, MD, PhD, a Cancer Research UK clinician scientist based at King’s College London.

“Our study provides some confidence and reassurance to care providers that many of our patients with solid cancers will mount a good immune response against the virus, develop antibodies that last, and hopefully resume their cancer treatment as soon as possible,” Dr. Irshad said in a statement.

“These conclusions imply that many patients, despite being on immunosuppressive therapies, will respond satisfactorily to COVID-19 vaccines,” she added.

Although “the data would suggest that solid cancer patients are likely to mount an efficient immune response to the vaccine ... the same cannot be said for hematological cancers, especially those with B-cell malignancies,” Dr. Irshad said in an interview.

“They may be susceptible to persistent infection despite developing antibodies, so the next stage of our study will focus on monitoring their response to the vaccines.

“At present, the best way to protect them alongside vaccinating them may be to vaccinate all their health care providers and carers to achieve herd immunity and continue to respect the public health measures put in place,” such as wearing a mask, practicing social distancing, and testing asymptomatic persons, she commented.
 

Study details

This study, known as the SARS-CoV-2 for Cancer Patients study, involved 76 patients with cancer; 41 of these patients had COVID-19, and 35 served as non-COVID cancer control patients.

Peripheral blood was collected from all patients; multiple samples were taken every 2-4 days where possible.

The COVID-19 and control groups were matched for age, body mass index, and tumor type, and both groups included patients with solid and hematologic cancers.

The groups were also comparable in terms of the proportion of patients with stage IV disease, those who received palliative as opposed to radical treatment, and patients who were treated within 4 weeks of recruitment to the study.

The results showed that 24.4% of cancer patients who were exposed to COVID-19 remained asymptomatic, 21.9% had mild disease, 31.7% had moderate disease, and 21.9% had severe disease.

Patients with hematologic cancers were more likely to experience dyspnea than those with solid tumors, and 39% received corticosteroid/antiviral therapies that specifically targeted COVID-19 infection.

The median duration of virus shedding was 39 days across the whole cohort. It was notably longer among patients with hematologic cancers, at a median of 55 days versus 29 days for patients with solid tumors.

Of 46 patients who survived beyond 30 days and for whom complete data were available, the team found that those with moderate or severe COVID-19 were more likely to be diagnosed with progressive cancer at their next assessment in comparison with those who were asymptomatic with COVID-19 or with control patients.

Solid-cancer patients with moderate to severe COVID-19 had sustained lymphopenia and increased neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratios up to days 40-49 of the infection, whereas among those with mild infection, clinical blood parameters were typically in the normal range.

Although overall blood profiles of patients with hematologic cancers were similar to those of patients with solid cancers, the trajectories between mild and moderate/severe COVID-19 overlapped, and there was a large degree of heterogeneity between patients.

The team also reports that among patients with solid tumors, all parameters returned to values that were close to baseline 4-6 weeks after the patients tested negative for COVID-19 on nasopharyngeal swabbing; by contrast, many of the patients with hematologic cancers experienced ongoing immune dysregulation.

Further analysis revealed differences in immune signatures between patients with solid cancers who had active SARS-CoV-2 infection and noninfected control patients. The former showed, for example, interleukin-8, IL-6, and IL-10, IP-10 enrichment.

In contrast, there were few differences between infected and noninfected hematologic cancer patients.

Across both cohorts, approximately 75% of patients had detectable antibodies against COVID-19. Antibodies were sustained for up to 78 days after exposure to the virus.

However, patients with solid tumors showed earlier seroconversion than those with hematologic cancers. The latter had more varied responses to infection, displaying three distinct phenotypes: failure to mount an antibody response, with prolonged viral shedding, even beyond day 50 after the first positive swab; an antibody response but failure to clear the virus; and an antibody response and successful clearing of the virus.

The team noted that overall patients with hematologic cancers showed a mild response to COVID-19 in the active/early phases of the disease and that the response grew stronger over time, similar to the immune changes typically seen with chronic infections.

This was particularly the case for patients with cancers that affect B cells.

The team acknowledged that there are several limitations to the study, including its small sample size and lack of statistical power to detect differences between, for example, different treatment modalities.

“An important question which remains unanswered is if a ‘reinforced’ immune system following immunotherapy results in an under-/overactivation of the immune response” to COVID-19, the investigators commented. They note that one such patient had a good response.

The SOAP study is sponsored by King’s College London and Guy’s and St. Thomas’ Foundation NHS Trust. It is funded from grants from the KCL Charity funds, MRC, Cancer Research UK, program grants from Breast Cancer Now at King’s College London and by grants to the Breast Cancer Now Toby Robin’s Research Center at the Institute of Cancer Research, London, and the Wellcome Trust Investigator Award, and is supported by the Cancer Research UK Cancer Immunotherapy Accelerator and the UK COVID-Immunology-Consortium. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

There is no question that COVID-19 infection increases the risks of serious thromboembolic events, including pulmonary embolism (PE), but it also increases the risk of bleeding, complicating the benefit-to-risk calculations for anticoagulation, according to a review of data at the virtual Going Back to the Heart of Cardiology meeting.

“Bleeding is a significant cause of morbidity in patients with COVID-19, and this is an important concept to appreciate,” reported Rachel P. Rosovsky, MD, director of thrombosis research, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

At least five guidelines, including those issued by the American College of Cardiology, International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis (ISTH), and the American College of Chest Physicians, have recently addressed anticoagulation in patients infected with COVID-19, but there are “substantive differences” between them, according to Dr. Rosovsky. The reason is that they are essentially no high quality trials to guide practice. Rather, the recommendations are based primarily on retrospective studies and expert opinion.

The single most common theme from the guidelines is that anticoagulation must be individualized to balance patient-specific risks of venous thromboembolism (VTE) and bleeding, said Dr. Rosovsky, whose group published a recent comparison of these guidelines (Flaczyk A et al. Crit Care 2020;24:559).

Although there is general consensus that all hospitalized patients with COVID-19 should receive anticoagulation unless there are contraindications, there are differences in the recommended intensity of the anticoagulation for different risk groups and there is even less is less consensus on the need to anticoagulate outpatients or patients after discharge, according to Dr. Rosovsky

In her own center, the standard is a prophylactic dose of low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) in an algorithm that calls for dose adjustments for some groups such as those with renal impairment or obesity. Alternative forms of anticoagulation are recommended for patients with a history of thrombocytopenia or are at high risk for hemorrhage. Full dose LMWH is recommended in patients already on an oral anticoagulant at time of hospitalization.

“The biggest question right now is when to consider increasing from a prophylactic dose to intermediate or full dose anticoagulation in high risk patients, especially those in the ICU patients,” Dr. Rosovsky said.

Current practices are diverse, according to a recently published survey led by Dr. Rosovsky (Rosovsky RP et al. Res Pract Thromb Haemost. 2020;4:969-83). According to the survey, which had responses from more than 500 physicians in 41 countries, 30% of centers escalate from a prophylactic dose of anticoagulation to an intermediate dose when patients move to the ICU. Although not all answered this question, 25% reported that they do not escalate at ICU transfer. For 15% of respondents, dose escalation is being offered to patients with a D-dimer exceeding six-times the upper limit of normal.

These practices have developed in the absence of prospective clinical trials, which are urgently needed, according to Dr. Rosovsky. The reason that trials specific to COVID-19 are particularly important is that this infection also engenders a high risk of major bleeding.

For example, in a multicenter retrospective study of 400 hospital-admitted COVID-19 patients the rates of major bleeding was 4.8% or exactly the same as the rate of radiographically confirmed VTE. At 7.6%, the rates of VTE and major bleeding were also exactly the same for ICU patients (Al-Samkari H et al. Blood 2020;136:489-500).

“An elevated D-dimer was a marker for both VTE and major bleeding,” reported Dr. Rosovsky, who was the senior author of this study. On the basis of odds ratio (OR), the risk of VTE was increased more than six-fold (OR, 6.79) and the risk of major bleeding by more than three-fold (OR, 3.56) when the D-dimer exceeded 2,500 ng/mL.

The risk of VTE from COVID-19 infection is well documented. For example, autopsy studies have shown widespread thrombosis, including PE, in patients who have died from COVID-19 infection, according to Dr. Rosovsky.

There is also evidence of benefit from anticoagulation. In an retrospective study from China undertaken early in the pandemic, there was no overall mortality benefit at 28 days among those who did receive LMWH when compared to those who did not, but there was a 20% absolute mortality benefit (52.4% vs. 32.8%; P = .017) in those with a D-dimer six-fold ULN (Tang N et al. J Thromb Haemost 2020;18:1094-9).

These types of data support the use of anticoagulation to manage VTE risk in at least some patients, but the reported rates of VTE across institutions and across inpatient and outpatient settings have varied “dramatically,” according to Dr. Rosovsky. The balance of VTE and major bleeding is delicate. In one retrospective study, the mortality advantage for therapeutic versus prophylactic dose of LMWH did not reach statistical significance, but the rate of major bleeding was nearly doubled (3.0% vs. 1.7%) (Nadkarni GN et al J Am Coll Cardiol 2020;76:1815-26).

Because of the many variables that might affect risk of VTE and risk of major bleeding in any individual patient, the benefit-to-risk calculation of anticoagulation is “complex,” according to Dr. Rosovsky. It is for this reason she urged clinicians to consider entering patients into clinical trials designed to generate evidence-based answers.

There is large and growing body of retrospective data that have helped characterize the risk of VTE and bleeding in patients with COVID-19, but “there is no substitute for a well-controlled clinical trial,” agreed Robert A. Harrington, MD, chairman of the department of medicine, Stanford (Calif.) University.

He and the comoderator of the session in which these data were presented agreed that anticoagulation must be administered within a narrow therapeutic window that will be best defined through controlled trial designs.

“There is a significant risk of doing harm,” said Fatima Rodriguez, MD, assistant professor of cardiology at Stanford University. She seconded the critical role of trial participation when possible and the need for clinical trials to better guide treatment decisions.

The meeting was sponsored by MedscapeLive. MedscapeLive and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

There is no question that COVID-19 infection increases the risks of serious thromboembolic events, including pulmonary embolism (PE), but it also increases the risk of bleeding, complicating the benefit-to-risk calculations for anticoagulation, according to a review of data at the virtual Going Back to the Heart of Cardiology meeting.

“Bleeding is a significant cause of morbidity in patients with COVID-19, and this is an important concept to appreciate,” reported Rachel P. Rosovsky, MD, director of thrombosis research, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

At least five guidelines, including those issued by the American College of Cardiology, International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis (ISTH), and the American College of Chest Physicians, have recently addressed anticoagulation in patients infected with COVID-19, but there are “substantive differences” between them, according to Dr. Rosovsky. The reason is that they are essentially no high quality trials to guide practice. Rather, the recommendations are based primarily on retrospective studies and expert opinion.

The single most common theme from the guidelines is that anticoagulation must be individualized to balance patient-specific risks of venous thromboembolism (VTE) and bleeding, said Dr. Rosovsky, whose group published a recent comparison of these guidelines (Flaczyk A et al. Crit Care 2020;24:559).

Although there is general consensus that all hospitalized patients with COVID-19 should receive anticoagulation unless there are contraindications, there are differences in the recommended intensity of the anticoagulation for different risk groups and there is even less is less consensus on the need to anticoagulate outpatients or patients after discharge, according to Dr. Rosovsky

In her own center, the standard is a prophylactic dose of low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) in an algorithm that calls for dose adjustments for some groups such as those with renal impairment or obesity. Alternative forms of anticoagulation are recommended for patients with a history of thrombocytopenia or are at high risk for hemorrhage. Full dose LMWH is recommended in patients already on an oral anticoagulant at time of hospitalization.

“The biggest question right now is when to consider increasing from a prophylactic dose to intermediate or full dose anticoagulation in high risk patients, especially those in the ICU patients,” Dr. Rosovsky said.

Current practices are diverse, according to a recently published survey led by Dr. Rosovsky (Rosovsky RP et al. Res Pract Thromb Haemost. 2020;4:969-83). According to the survey, which had responses from more than 500 physicians in 41 countries, 30% of centers escalate from a prophylactic dose of anticoagulation to an intermediate dose when patients move to the ICU. Although not all answered this question, 25% reported that they do not escalate at ICU transfer. For 15% of respondents, dose escalation is being offered to patients with a D-dimer exceeding six-times the upper limit of normal.

These practices have developed in the absence of prospective clinical trials, which are urgently needed, according to Dr. Rosovsky. The reason that trials specific to COVID-19 are particularly important is that this infection also engenders a high risk of major bleeding.

For example, in a multicenter retrospective study of 400 hospital-admitted COVID-19 patients the rates of major bleeding was 4.8% or exactly the same as the rate of radiographically confirmed VTE. At 7.6%, the rates of VTE and major bleeding were also exactly the same for ICU patients (Al-Samkari H et al. Blood 2020;136:489-500).

“An elevated D-dimer was a marker for both VTE and major bleeding,” reported Dr. Rosovsky, who was the senior author of this study. On the basis of odds ratio (OR), the risk of VTE was increased more than six-fold (OR, 6.79) and the risk of major bleeding by more than three-fold (OR, 3.56) when the D-dimer exceeded 2,500 ng/mL.

The risk of VTE from COVID-19 infection is well documented. For example, autopsy studies have shown widespread thrombosis, including PE, in patients who have died from COVID-19 infection, according to Dr. Rosovsky.

There is also evidence of benefit from anticoagulation. In an retrospective study from China undertaken early in the pandemic, there was no overall mortality benefit at 28 days among those who did receive LMWH when compared to those who did not, but there was a 20% absolute mortality benefit (52.4% vs. 32.8%; P = .017) in those with a D-dimer six-fold ULN (Tang N et al. J Thromb Haemost 2020;18:1094-9).

These types of data support the use of anticoagulation to manage VTE risk in at least some patients, but the reported rates of VTE across institutions and across inpatient and outpatient settings have varied “dramatically,” according to Dr. Rosovsky. The balance of VTE and major bleeding is delicate. In one retrospective study, the mortality advantage for therapeutic versus prophylactic dose of LMWH did not reach statistical significance, but the rate of major bleeding was nearly doubled (3.0% vs. 1.7%) (Nadkarni GN et al J Am Coll Cardiol 2020;76:1815-26).

Because of the many variables that might affect risk of VTE and risk of major bleeding in any individual patient, the benefit-to-risk calculation of anticoagulation is “complex,” according to Dr. Rosovsky. It is for this reason she urged clinicians to consider entering patients into clinical trials designed to generate evidence-based answers.

There is large and growing body of retrospective data that have helped characterize the risk of VTE and bleeding in patients with COVID-19, but “there is no substitute for a well-controlled clinical trial,” agreed Robert A. Harrington, MD, chairman of the department of medicine, Stanford (Calif.) University.

He and the comoderator of the session in which these data were presented agreed that anticoagulation must be administered within a narrow therapeutic window that will be best defined through controlled trial designs.

“There is a significant risk of doing harm,” said Fatima Rodriguez, MD, assistant professor of cardiology at Stanford University. She seconded the critical role of trial participation when possible and the need for clinical trials to better guide treatment decisions.

The meeting was sponsored by MedscapeLive. MedscapeLive and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

There is no question that COVID-19 infection increases the risks of serious thromboembolic events, including pulmonary embolism (PE), but it also increases the risk of bleeding, complicating the benefit-to-risk calculations for anticoagulation, according to a review of data at the virtual Going Back to the Heart of Cardiology meeting.

“Bleeding is a significant cause of morbidity in patients with COVID-19, and this is an important concept to appreciate,” reported Rachel P. Rosovsky, MD, director of thrombosis research, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

At least five guidelines, including those issued by the American College of Cardiology, International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis (ISTH), and the American College of Chest Physicians, have recently addressed anticoagulation in patients infected with COVID-19, but there are “substantive differences” between them, according to Dr. Rosovsky. The reason is that they are essentially no high quality trials to guide practice. Rather, the recommendations are based primarily on retrospective studies and expert opinion.

The single most common theme from the guidelines is that anticoagulation must be individualized to balance patient-specific risks of venous thromboembolism (VTE) and bleeding, said Dr. Rosovsky, whose group published a recent comparison of these guidelines (Flaczyk A et al. Crit Care 2020;24:559).

Although there is general consensus that all hospitalized patients with COVID-19 should receive anticoagulation unless there are contraindications, there are differences in the recommended intensity of the anticoagulation for different risk groups and there is even less is less consensus on the need to anticoagulate outpatients or patients after discharge, according to Dr. Rosovsky

In her own center, the standard is a prophylactic dose of low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) in an algorithm that calls for dose adjustments for some groups such as those with renal impairment or obesity. Alternative forms of anticoagulation are recommended for patients with a history of thrombocytopenia or are at high risk for hemorrhage. Full dose LMWH is recommended in patients already on an oral anticoagulant at time of hospitalization.

“The biggest question right now is when to consider increasing from a prophylactic dose to intermediate or full dose anticoagulation in high risk patients, especially those in the ICU patients,” Dr. Rosovsky said.

Current practices are diverse, according to a recently published survey led by Dr. Rosovsky (Rosovsky RP et al. Res Pract Thromb Haemost. 2020;4:969-83). According to the survey, which had responses from more than 500 physicians in 41 countries, 30% of centers escalate from a prophylactic dose of anticoagulation to an intermediate dose when patients move to the ICU. Although not all answered this question, 25% reported that they do not escalate at ICU transfer. For 15% of respondents, dose escalation is being offered to patients with a D-dimer exceeding six-times the upper limit of normal.

These practices have developed in the absence of prospective clinical trials, which are urgently needed, according to Dr. Rosovsky. The reason that trials specific to COVID-19 are particularly important is that this infection also engenders a high risk of major bleeding.

For example, in a multicenter retrospective study of 400 hospital-admitted COVID-19 patients the rates of major bleeding was 4.8% or exactly the same as the rate of radiographically confirmed VTE. At 7.6%, the rates of VTE and major bleeding were also exactly the same for ICU patients (Al-Samkari H et al. Blood 2020;136:489-500).

“An elevated D-dimer was a marker for both VTE and major bleeding,” reported Dr. Rosovsky, who was the senior author of this study. On the basis of odds ratio (OR), the risk of VTE was increased more than six-fold (OR, 6.79) and the risk of major bleeding by more than three-fold (OR, 3.56) when the D-dimer exceeded 2,500 ng/mL.

The risk of VTE from COVID-19 infection is well documented. For example, autopsy studies have shown widespread thrombosis, including PE, in patients who have died from COVID-19 infection, according to Dr. Rosovsky.

There is also evidence of benefit from anticoagulation. In an retrospective study from China undertaken early in the pandemic, there was no overall mortality benefit at 28 days among those who did receive LMWH when compared to those who did not, but there was a 20% absolute mortality benefit (52.4% vs. 32.8%; P = .017) in those with a D-dimer six-fold ULN (Tang N et al. J Thromb Haemost 2020;18:1094-9).

These types of data support the use of anticoagulation to manage VTE risk in at least some patients, but the reported rates of VTE across institutions and across inpatient and outpatient settings have varied “dramatically,” according to Dr. Rosovsky. The balance of VTE and major bleeding is delicate. In one retrospective study, the mortality advantage for therapeutic versus prophylactic dose of LMWH did not reach statistical significance, but the rate of major bleeding was nearly doubled (3.0% vs. 1.7%) (Nadkarni GN et al J Am Coll Cardiol 2020;76:1815-26).

Because of the many variables that might affect risk of VTE and risk of major bleeding in any individual patient, the benefit-to-risk calculation of anticoagulation is “complex,” according to Dr. Rosovsky. It is for this reason she urged clinicians to consider entering patients into clinical trials designed to generate evidence-based answers.

There is large and growing body of retrospective data that have helped characterize the risk of VTE and bleeding in patients with COVID-19, but “there is no substitute for a well-controlled clinical trial,” agreed Robert A. Harrington, MD, chairman of the department of medicine, Stanford (Calif.) University.

He and the comoderator of the session in which these data were presented agreed that anticoagulation must be administered within a narrow therapeutic window that will be best defined through controlled trial designs.

“There is a significant risk of doing harm,” said Fatima Rodriguez, MD, assistant professor of cardiology at Stanford University. She seconded the critical role of trial participation when possible and the need for clinical trials to better guide treatment decisions.

The meeting was sponsored by MedscapeLive. MedscapeLive and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

The real strength of the 4T score for heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) is its negative predictive value, according to hematologist Adam Cuker, MD, of the department of medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

The score assigns patients points based on degree of thrombocytopenia, timing of platelet count fall in relation to heparin exposure, presence of thrombosis and other sequelae, and the likelihood of other causes of thrombocytopenia.

A low score – 3 points or less – has a negative predictive value of 99.8%, “so HIT is basically ruled out; you do not need to order lab testing for HIT or manage the patient empirically for HIT,” and should look for other causes of thrombocytopenia, said Dr. Cuker, lead author of the American Society of Hematology’s most recent HIT guidelines.

Intermediate scores of 4 or 5 points, and high scores of 6-8 points, are a different story. The positive predictive value of an intermediate score is only 14%, and of a high score, 64%, so although they don’t confirm the diagnosis, “you have to take the possibility of HIT seriously.” Discontinue heparin, start a nonheparin anticoagulant, and order a HIT immunoassay. If it’s positive, order a functional assay to confirm the diagnosis, he said.

Suspicion of HIT “is perhaps the most common consult that we get on the hematology service. These are tough consults because it is a high-stakes decision.” There is about a 6% risk of thromboembolism, amputation, and death for every day treatment is delayed. “On the other hand, the nonheparin anticoagulants are expensive, and they carry about a 1% daily risk of major bleeding,” Dr. Cuker explained during his presentation at the 2020 Update in Nonneoplastic Hematology virtual conference.

ELISA immunoassay detects antiplatelet factor 4 heparin antibodies but doesn’t tell whether or not they are able to activate platelets and cause HIT. Functional tests such as the serotonin-release assay detect only those antibodies able to do so, but the assays are difficult to perform, and often require samples to be sent out to a reference lab.

ASH did not specify a particular nonheparin anticoagulant in its 2018 guidelines because “the best choice for your patient” depends on which drugs you have available, your familiarity with them, and patient factors, Dr. Cuker said at the conference sponsored by MedscapeLive.

It makes sense, for instance, to use a short-acting agent such as argatroban or bivalirudin in patients who are critically ill, at high risk of bleeding, or likely to need an urgent unplanned procedure. Fondaparinux or direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) make sense if patients are clinically stable with good organ function and no more than average bleeding risk, because they are easier to administer and facilitate transition to the outpatient setting.

DOACs are newcomers to ASH’s guidelines. Just 81 patients had been reported in the literature when they were being drafted, but only 2 patients had recurrence or progression of thromboembolic events, and there were no major bleeds. The results compared favorably with other options.

The studies were subject to selection and reporting biases, “but, nonetheless, the panel felt the results were positive enough that DOACs ought to be listed as an option,” Dr. Cuker said.

The guidelines note that parenteral options may be the best choice for life- or limb-threatening thrombosis “because few such patients have been treated with a DOAC.” Anticoagulation must continue until platelet counts recover.

Dr. Cuker is a consultant for Synergy and has institutional research support from Alexion, Bayer, Sanofi, and other companies. MedscapeLive and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

[email protected]

The real strength of the 4T score for heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) is its negative predictive value, according to hematologist Adam Cuker, MD, of the department of medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

The score assigns patients points based on degree of thrombocytopenia, timing of platelet count fall in relation to heparin exposure, presence of thrombosis and other sequelae, and the likelihood of other causes of thrombocytopenia.

A low score – 3 points or less – has a negative predictive value of 99.8%, “so HIT is basically ruled out; you do not need to order lab testing for HIT or manage the patient empirically for HIT,” and should look for other causes of thrombocytopenia, said Dr. Cuker, lead author of the American Society of Hematology’s most recent HIT guidelines.

Intermediate scores of 4 or 5 points, and high scores of 6-8 points, are a different story. The positive predictive value of an intermediate score is only 14%, and of a high score, 64%, so although they don’t confirm the diagnosis, “you have to take the possibility of HIT seriously.” Discontinue heparin, start a nonheparin anticoagulant, and order a HIT immunoassay. If it’s positive, order a functional assay to confirm the diagnosis, he said.

Suspicion of HIT “is perhaps the most common consult that we get on the hematology service. These are tough consults because it is a high-stakes decision.” There is about a 6% risk of thromboembolism, amputation, and death for every day treatment is delayed. “On the other hand, the nonheparin anticoagulants are expensive, and they carry about a 1% daily risk of major bleeding,” Dr. Cuker explained during his presentation at the 2020 Update in Nonneoplastic Hematology virtual conference.

ELISA immunoassay detects antiplatelet factor 4 heparin antibodies but doesn’t tell whether or not they are able to activate platelets and cause HIT. Functional tests such as the serotonin-release assay detect only those antibodies able to do so, but the assays are difficult to perform, and often require samples to be sent out to a reference lab.

ASH did not specify a particular nonheparin anticoagulant in its 2018 guidelines because “the best choice for your patient” depends on which drugs you have available, your familiarity with them, and patient factors, Dr. Cuker said at the conference sponsored by MedscapeLive.

It makes sense, for instance, to use a short-acting agent such as argatroban or bivalirudin in patients who are critically ill, at high risk of bleeding, or likely to need an urgent unplanned procedure. Fondaparinux or direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) make sense if patients are clinically stable with good organ function and no more than average bleeding risk, because they are easier to administer and facilitate transition to the outpatient setting.

DOACs are newcomers to ASH’s guidelines. Just 81 patients had been reported in the literature when they were being drafted, but only 2 patients had recurrence or progression of thromboembolic events, and there were no major bleeds. The results compared favorably with other options.

The studies were subject to selection and reporting biases, “but, nonetheless, the panel felt the results were positive enough that DOACs ought to be listed as an option,” Dr. Cuker said.

The guidelines note that parenteral options may be the best choice for life- or limb-threatening thrombosis “because few such patients have been treated with a DOAC.” Anticoagulation must continue until platelet counts recover.

Dr. Cuker is a consultant for Synergy and has institutional research support from Alexion, Bayer, Sanofi, and other companies. MedscapeLive and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

[email protected]

The real strength of the 4T score for heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) is its negative predictive value, according to hematologist Adam Cuker, MD, of the department of medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

The score assigns patients points based on degree of thrombocytopenia, timing of platelet count fall in relation to heparin exposure, presence of thrombosis and other sequelae, and the likelihood of other causes of thrombocytopenia.

A low score – 3 points or less – has a negative predictive value of 99.8%, “so HIT is basically ruled out; you do not need to order lab testing for HIT or manage the patient empirically for HIT,” and should look for other causes of thrombocytopenia, said Dr. Cuker, lead author of the American Society of Hematology’s most recent HIT guidelines.

Intermediate scores of 4 or 5 points, and high scores of 6-8 points, are a different story. The positive predictive value of an intermediate score is only 14%, and of a high score, 64%, so although they don’t confirm the diagnosis, “you have to take the possibility of HIT seriously.” Discontinue heparin, start a nonheparin anticoagulant, and order a HIT immunoassay. If it’s positive, order a functional assay to confirm the diagnosis, he said.

Suspicion of HIT “is perhaps the most common consult that we get on the hematology service. These are tough consults because it is a high-stakes decision.” There is about a 6% risk of thromboembolism, amputation, and death for every day treatment is delayed. “On the other hand, the nonheparin anticoagulants are expensive, and they carry about a 1% daily risk of major bleeding,” Dr. Cuker explained during his presentation at the 2020 Update in Nonneoplastic Hematology virtual conference.

ELISA immunoassay detects antiplatelet factor 4 heparin antibodies but doesn’t tell whether or not they are able to activate platelets and cause HIT. Functional tests such as the serotonin-release assay detect only those antibodies able to do so, but the assays are difficult to perform, and often require samples to be sent out to a reference lab.

ASH did not specify a particular nonheparin anticoagulant in its 2018 guidelines because “the best choice for your patient” depends on which drugs you have available, your familiarity with them, and patient factors, Dr. Cuker said at the conference sponsored by MedscapeLive.

It makes sense, for instance, to use a short-acting agent such as argatroban or bivalirudin in patients who are critically ill, at high risk of bleeding, or likely to need an urgent unplanned procedure. Fondaparinux or direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) make sense if patients are clinically stable with good organ function and no more than average bleeding risk, because they are easier to administer and facilitate transition to the outpatient setting.

DOACs are newcomers to ASH’s guidelines. Just 81 patients had been reported in the literature when they were being drafted, but only 2 patients had recurrence or progression of thromboembolic events, and there were no major bleeds. The results compared favorably with other options.

The studies were subject to selection and reporting biases, “but, nonetheless, the panel felt the results were positive enough that DOACs ought to be listed as an option,” Dr. Cuker said.

The guidelines note that parenteral options may be the best choice for life- or limb-threatening thrombosis “because few such patients have been treated with a DOAC.” Anticoagulation must continue until platelet counts recover.

Dr. Cuker is a consultant for Synergy and has institutional research support from Alexion, Bayer, Sanofi, and other companies. MedscapeLive and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

[email protected]

Having oral sex with more than 10 previous partners was associated with a 4.3 times’ greater likelihood of developing human papillomavirus (HPV)–related oropharyngeal cancer, according to new findings.

The study also found that having more partners in a shorter period (i.e., greater oral sex intensity) and starting oral sex at a younger age were associated with higher odds of having HPV-related cancer of the mouth and throat.

The new study, published online on Jan. 11 in Cancer, confirms previous findings and adds more nuance, say the researchers.

Previous studies have demonstrated that oral sex is a strong risk factor for HPV-related oropharyngeal cancer, which has increased in incidence in recent decades, particularly cancer of the base of the tongue and palatine and lingual tonsils.

“Our research adds more nuance in our understanding of how people acquire oral HPV infection and HPV-related oropharyngeal cancer,” said study author Gypsyamber D’Souza, PhD, professor of epidemiology at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore. “It suggests that risk of infection is not only from the number of oral sexual partners but that the timing and type of partner also influence risk.”

The results of the study do not change the clinical care or screening of patients, Dr. D’Souza noted, but the study does add context for patients and providers in understanding, “Why did I get HPV-oropharyngeal cancer?” she said.

“We know that people who develop HPV-oropharyngeal cancer have a wide range of sexual histories, but we do not suggest sexual history be used for screening, as many patients have low-risk sexual histories,” she said. “By chance, it only takes one partner who is infected to acquire the infection, while others who have had many partners by chance do not get exposed, or who are exposed but clear the infection.”
 

Reinforces the need for vaccination

Approached for comment, Joseph Califano, MD, physician-in-chief at the Moores Cancer Center and director of the Head and Neck Cancer Center at the University of California, San Diego, noted that similar data have been published before. The novelty here is in the timing and intensity of oral sex. “It’s not new data, but it certainly reinforces what we knew,” he said in an interview.

These new data are not going to change monitoring, he suggested. “It’s not going to change how we screen, because we don’t do population-based screening for oropharyngeal cancer,” Dr. Califano said.

“It does underline the fact that vaccination is really the key to preventing HPV-mediated cancers,” he said.

He pointed out that some data show lower rates of high-risk oral HPV shedding by children who have been appropriately vaccinated.

“This paper really highlights the fact we need to get people vaccinated early, before sexual debut,” he said. “In this case, sexual debut doesn’t necessarily mean intercourse but oral sex, and that’s a different concept of when sex starts.”

These new data “reinforce the fact that early exposure is what we need to focus on,” he said.
 

Details of the new findings

The current study by Dr. D’Souza and colleagues included 163 patients with HPV-related oropharyngeal cancer who were enrolled in the Papillomavirus Role in Oral Cancer Viral Etiology (PROVE) study. These patients were compared with 345 matched control persons.

All participants completed a behavioral survey and provided a blood sample. For the patients with cancer, a tumor sample was obtained.

The majority of participants were male (85% and 82%), were aged 50-69 years, were currently married or living with a partner, and identified as heterosexual. Case patients were more likely to report a history of sexually transmitted infection than were control participants (P = .003).

Case patients were more likely to have ever performed oral sex compared to control persons (98.8% vs 90.4%; P < .001) and to have performed oral sex at the time of their sexual debut (33.3% of case patients vs 21.4% of control persons; P = .004; odds ratio [OR], 1.8).

Significantly more case patients than control persons reported starting oral sex before they were 18 years old (37.4% of cases vs. 22.6% of controls; P < .001; OR, 3.1), and they had a greater number of lifetime oral sex partners (44.8% of cases and 19.1% of controls reported having more than 10 partners; P < .001; OR, 4.3).

Intensity of oral sexual exposure, which the authors measured by number of partners per 10 years, was also significantly higher among cases than controls (30.8% vs 11.1%; P < .001; OR, 5.6).

After adjustment for confounders (such as the lifetime number of oral sex partners and tobacco use), ever performing oral sex (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 4.4), early age of first oral sex encounter (20 years: aOR, 1.8), and oral sex intensity (aOR, 2.8) all remained significantly associated with increased odds of HPV-oropharyngeal cancer.

The type of sexual partner, such as partners who were older (OR, 1.7) and having a partner who engaged in extramarital sex (OR, 1.6), were also associated with increased odds of developing HPV-oropharyngeal cancer. In addition, seropositivity for antibodies to HPV16 E6 (OR, 286) and any HPV16 E protein (E1, E2, E6, E7; OR, 163) were also associated with increased odds of developing the disease.

The study was supported by the National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research and the National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders. Dr. D’Souza and Dr. Califano have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Having oral sex with more than 10 previous partners was associated with a 4.3 times’ greater likelihood of developing human papillomavirus (HPV)–related oropharyngeal cancer, according to new findings.

The study also found that having more partners in a shorter period (i.e., greater oral sex intensity) and starting oral sex at a younger age were associated with higher odds of having HPV-related cancer of the mouth and throat.

The new study, published online on Jan. 11 in Cancer, confirms previous findings and adds more nuance, say the researchers.

Previous studies have demonstrated that oral sex is a strong risk factor for HPV-related oropharyngeal cancer, which has increased in incidence in recent decades, particularly cancer of the base of the tongue and palatine and lingual tonsils.

“Our research adds more nuance in our understanding of how people acquire oral HPV infection and HPV-related oropharyngeal cancer,” said study author Gypsyamber D’Souza, PhD, professor of epidemiology at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore. “It suggests that risk of infection is not only from the number of oral sexual partners but that the timing and type of partner also influence risk.”

The results of the study do not change the clinical care or screening of patients, Dr. D’Souza noted, but the study does add context for patients and providers in understanding, “Why did I get HPV-oropharyngeal cancer?” she said.

“We know that people who develop HPV-oropharyngeal cancer have a wide range of sexual histories, but we do not suggest sexual history be used for screening, as many patients have low-risk sexual histories,” she said. “By chance, it only takes one partner who is infected to acquire the infection, while others who have had many partners by chance do not get exposed, or who are exposed but clear the infection.”
 

Reinforces the need for vaccination

Approached for comment, Joseph Califano, MD, physician-in-chief at the Moores Cancer Center and director of the Head and Neck Cancer Center at the University of California, San Diego, noted that similar data have been published before. The novelty here is in the timing and intensity of oral sex. “It’s not new data, but it certainly reinforces what we knew,” he said in an interview.

These new data are not going to change monitoring, he suggested. “It’s not going to change how we screen, because we don’t do population-based screening for oropharyngeal cancer,” Dr. Califano said.

“It does underline the fact that vaccination is really the key to preventing HPV-mediated cancers,” he said.

He pointed out that some data show lower rates of high-risk oral HPV shedding by children who have been appropriately vaccinated.

“This paper really highlights the fact we need to get people vaccinated early, before sexual debut,” he said. “In this case, sexual debut doesn’t necessarily mean intercourse but oral sex, and that’s a different concept of when sex starts.”

These new data “reinforce the fact that early exposure is what we need to focus on,” he said.
 

Details of the new findings

The current study by Dr. D’Souza and colleagues included 163 patients with HPV-related oropharyngeal cancer who were enrolled in the Papillomavirus Role in Oral Cancer Viral Etiology (PROVE) study. These patients were compared with 345 matched control persons.

All participants completed a behavioral survey and provided a blood sample. For the patients with cancer, a tumor sample was obtained.

The majority of participants were male (85% and 82%), were aged 50-69 years, were currently married or living with a partner, and identified as heterosexual. Case patients were more likely to report a history of sexually transmitted infection than were control participants (P = .003).

Case patients were more likely to have ever performed oral sex compared to control persons (98.8% vs 90.4%; P < .001) and to have performed oral sex at the time of their sexual debut (33.3% of case patients vs 21.4% of control persons; P = .004; odds ratio [OR], 1.8).

Significantly more case patients than control persons reported starting oral sex before they were 18 years old (37.4% of cases vs. 22.6% of controls; P < .001; OR, 3.1), and they had a greater number of lifetime oral sex partners (44.8% of cases and 19.1% of controls reported having more than 10 partners; P < .001; OR, 4.3).

Intensity of oral sexual exposure, which the authors measured by number of partners per 10 years, was also significantly higher among cases than controls (30.8% vs 11.1%; P < .001; OR, 5.6).

After adjustment for confounders (such as the lifetime number of oral sex partners and tobacco use), ever performing oral sex (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 4.4), early age of first oral sex encounter (20 years: aOR, 1.8), and oral sex intensity (aOR, 2.8) all remained significantly associated with increased odds of HPV-oropharyngeal cancer.

The type of sexual partner, such as partners who were older (OR, 1.7) and having a partner who engaged in extramarital sex (OR, 1.6), were also associated with increased odds of developing HPV-oropharyngeal cancer. In addition, seropositivity for antibodies to HPV16 E6 (OR, 286) and any HPV16 E protein (E1, E2, E6, E7; OR, 163) were also associated with increased odds of developing the disease.

The study was supported by the National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research and the National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders. Dr. D’Souza and Dr. Califano have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Having oral sex with more than 10 previous partners was associated with a 4.3 times’ greater likelihood of developing human papillomavirus (HPV)–related oropharyngeal cancer, according to new findings.

The study also found that having more partners in a shorter period (i.e., greater oral sex intensity) and starting oral sex at a younger age were associated with higher odds of having HPV-related cancer of the mouth and throat.

The new study, published online on Jan. 11 in Cancer, confirms previous findings and adds more nuance, say the researchers.

Previous studies have demonstrated that oral sex is a strong risk factor for HPV-related oropharyngeal cancer, which has increased in incidence in recent decades, particularly cancer of the base of the tongue and palatine and lingual tonsils.

“Our research adds more nuance in our understanding of how people acquire oral HPV infection and HPV-related oropharyngeal cancer,” said study author Gypsyamber D’Souza, PhD, professor of epidemiology at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore. “It suggests that risk of infection is not only from the number of oral sexual partners but that the timing and type of partner also influence risk.”

The results of the study do not change the clinical care or screening of patients, Dr. D’Souza noted, but the study does add context for patients and providers in understanding, “Why did I get HPV-oropharyngeal cancer?” she said.

“We know that people who develop HPV-oropharyngeal cancer have a wide range of sexual histories, but we do not suggest sexual history be used for screening, as many patients have low-risk sexual histories,” she said. “By chance, it only takes one partner who is infected to acquire the infection, while others who have had many partners by chance do not get exposed, or who are exposed but clear the infection.”
 

Reinforces the need for vaccination

Approached for comment, Joseph Califano, MD, physician-in-chief at the Moores Cancer Center and director of the Head and Neck Cancer Center at the University of California, San Diego, noted that similar data have been published before. The novelty here is in the timing and intensity of oral sex. “It’s not new data, but it certainly reinforces what we knew,” he said in an interview.

These new data are not going to change monitoring, he suggested. “It’s not going to change how we screen, because we don’t do population-based screening for oropharyngeal cancer,” Dr. Califano said.

“It does underline the fact that vaccination is really the key to preventing HPV-mediated cancers,” he said.

He pointed out that some data show lower rates of high-risk oral HPV shedding by children who have been appropriately vaccinated.

“This paper really highlights the fact we need to get people vaccinated early, before sexual debut,” he said. “In this case, sexual debut doesn’t necessarily mean intercourse but oral sex, and that’s a different concept of when sex starts.”

These new data “reinforce the fact that early exposure is what we need to focus on,” he said.
 

Details of the new findings

The current study by Dr. D’Souza and colleagues included 163 patients with HPV-related oropharyngeal cancer who were enrolled in the Papillomavirus Role in Oral Cancer Viral Etiology (PROVE) study. These patients were compared with 345 matched control persons.

All participants completed a behavioral survey and provided a blood sample. For the patients with cancer, a tumor sample was obtained.

The majority of participants were male (85% and 82%), were aged 50-69 years, were currently married or living with a partner, and identified as heterosexual. Case patients were more likely to report a history of sexually transmitted infection than were control participants (P = .003).

Case patients were more likely to have ever performed oral sex compared to control persons (98.8% vs 90.4%; P < .001) and to have performed oral sex at the time of their sexual debut (33.3% of case patients vs 21.4% of control persons; P = .004; odds ratio [OR], 1.8).

Significantly more case patients than control persons reported starting oral sex before they were 18 years old (37.4% of cases vs. 22.6% of controls; P < .001; OR, 3.1), and they had a greater number of lifetime oral sex partners (44.8% of cases and 19.1% of controls reported having more than 10 partners; P < .001; OR, 4.3).

Intensity of oral sexual exposure, which the authors measured by number of partners per 10 years, was also significantly higher among cases than controls (30.8% vs 11.1%; P < .001; OR, 5.6).

After adjustment for confounders (such as the lifetime number of oral sex partners and tobacco use), ever performing oral sex (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 4.4), early age of first oral sex encounter (20 years: aOR, 1.8), and oral sex intensity (aOR, 2.8) all remained significantly associated with increased odds of HPV-oropharyngeal cancer.

The type of sexual partner, such as partners who were older (OR, 1.7) and having a partner who engaged in extramarital sex (OR, 1.6), were also associated with increased odds of developing HPV-oropharyngeal cancer. In addition, seropositivity for antibodies to HPV16 E6 (OR, 286) and any HPV16 E protein (E1, E2, E6, E7; OR, 163) were also associated with increased odds of developing the disease.

The study was supported by the National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research and the National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders. Dr. D’Souza and Dr. Califano have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Relapse, safety, and patient reports

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A new standard

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Relapse, safety, and patient reports

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A new standard

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Relapse, safety, and patient reports

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A new standard

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Methods

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

Results

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

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

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

Discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusions

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

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

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

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

Methods

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

Results

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

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

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

Discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusions

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

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

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

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

Methods

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

Results

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

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

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

Discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusions

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

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

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

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

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

Case Presentation

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

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

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

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

Discussion

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

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

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

Conclusions

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

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

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

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

Case Presentation

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

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

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

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

Discussion

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

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

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

Conclusions

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

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

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

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

Case Presentation

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

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

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

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

Discussion

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

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

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

Conclusions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Radiation and immunotherapy combinations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Radiation and immunotherapy combinations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Radiation and immunotherapy combinations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Younger patients show more advanced illness

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

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

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

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

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

Reasons for increase remain unclear

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Younger patients show more advanced illness

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

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

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

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

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

Reasons for increase remain unclear

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Younger patients show more advanced illness

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

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

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

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

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

Reasons for increase remain unclear

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

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

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

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

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

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