AVAHO

Click here to get access to Abstracts Presented at the 2020 AVAHO Annual Meeting

Click here to get access to Abstracts Presented at the 2020 AVAHO Annual Meeting

Click here to get access to Abstracts Presented at the 2020 AVAHO Annual Meeting

All breast cancer patients who develop a second primary cancer should undergo multigene panel testing, according to a paper published in JCO Precision Oncology.

The authors noted that women with breast cancer have a 4%-16% lifetime risk of a second primary cancer. However, it hasn’t been clear if mutations in genes other than BRCA1/2 are enriched in patients with multiple primary cancers.

“Surprisingly few papers have focused on genetic evaluation of patients with multiple primary cancers,” senior author Katherine L. Nathanson, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, said in an interview.

“Ours is one of the first studies to look closely at this issue. We know from clinical experience that these patients are more likely to have more than one genetic mutation,” she added.

For their study, Dr. Nathanson and colleagues identified pathogenic germline mutations in 17 cancer susceptibility genes in patients with BRCA1/2-negative breast cancer in two cohorts.

Cohort 1 consisted of 1,000 high-risk breast cancer patients – 551 with multiple primary cancers and 449 with a single breast cancer.

Cohort 2 included 1,804 familial breast cancer patients – 340 with multiple primaries and 1,464 with a single breast cancer.

The researchers assessed mutations in these cohorts and compared them with mutations in a control data set.
 

Mutation rates and age

Pathogenic mutation rates were higher in both cohorts in patients with multiple primaries as compared with patients with single primaries.

In cohort 1, the overall panel positive rate was 8.53% in the multiple-primaries group and 4.90% in the single-primary group (P = .024).

In cohort 2, the overall panel positive rate was 7.06% in the multiple-primaries group and 4.23% in the single-primary group (P = .034).

In both cohorts, younger age at first breast cancer was associated with higher mutation rates. However, the age at onset of cancers other than breast cancer was not related to mutation rate.

“Regardless of age, mutations in genes other than BRCA1/2 are found in at least 5% of patients with breast cancer and another primary cancer, with up to 25% in patients with their first breast cancer at age 30 years,” Dr. Nathanson said. “This supports the need for multigene panel testing in all patients with breast cancer and another primary cancer.”

“Once a woman has multiple primaries with breast cancer, it doesn’t matter what her family history is, she is more likely to be at risk,” Dr. Nathanson added.
 

Genetic susceptibility

The researchers also identified genes associated with multiple primary cancers. TP53 and MSH6 mutations were significantly enriched in patients with multiple primaries but not single primaries. ATM and PALB2 mutations were significantly enriched in both groups when compared with controls.

The researchers noted that high-penetrance cancer genes were responsible for higher mutation rates in the cohort enriched for early-onset breast cancer and non–breast cancer second primaries. Moderate-penetrance cancer genes were responsible for the higher mutation rates in the cohort enriched for familial breast cancer and second breast cancer primaries.

“In multiple primary cancers, we found additional genes with moderate penetrance and some genes with high penetrance associated with TP53 and Lynch syndrome,” Dr. Nathanson said.
 

Cancer prevention and screening

The results of this study could lead to better implementation of cancer prevention and screening strategies, according to the researchers.

“As we look at guidelines in development and NCCN recommendations, our data suggest that age should not be part of the criteria for genetic testing in patients who have more than one primary cancer. These patients are at high risk and should be recommended for screening,” Dr. Nathanson said.

“If you see a patient with multiple primary cancers, refer for genetic testing. Age does not matter,” she reiterated.

Future research will look at potentially missing mutations.

“With targeted sequencing, structurally rearranged genes might be missed for those at risk. We will try to identify cancer susceptibility genes and define the true risk of penetrance of these genes in the general population,” Dr. Nathanson said.

This research was supported by grants from government agencies and foundations as well as the University of Pennsylvania. Dr. Nathanson disclosed no conflicts of interest. Other authors disclosed relationships with a range of companies, all listed in the paper.

SOURCE: Maxwell KN et al. JCO Precis Oncol. 2020. doi: 10.1200/PO.19.00301.

All breast cancer patients who develop a second primary cancer should undergo multigene panel testing, according to a paper published in JCO Precision Oncology.

The authors noted that women with breast cancer have a 4%-16% lifetime risk of a second primary cancer. However, it hasn’t been clear if mutations in genes other than BRCA1/2 are enriched in patients with multiple primary cancers.

“Surprisingly few papers have focused on genetic evaluation of patients with multiple primary cancers,” senior author Katherine L. Nathanson, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, said in an interview.

“Ours is one of the first studies to look closely at this issue. We know from clinical experience that these patients are more likely to have more than one genetic mutation,” she added.

For their study, Dr. Nathanson and colleagues identified pathogenic germline mutations in 17 cancer susceptibility genes in patients with BRCA1/2-negative breast cancer in two cohorts.

Cohort 1 consisted of 1,000 high-risk breast cancer patients – 551 with multiple primary cancers and 449 with a single breast cancer.

Cohort 2 included 1,804 familial breast cancer patients – 340 with multiple primaries and 1,464 with a single breast cancer.

The researchers assessed mutations in these cohorts and compared them with mutations in a control data set.
 

Mutation rates and age

Pathogenic mutation rates were higher in both cohorts in patients with multiple primaries as compared with patients with single primaries.

In cohort 1, the overall panel positive rate was 8.53% in the multiple-primaries group and 4.90% in the single-primary group (P = .024).

In cohort 2, the overall panel positive rate was 7.06% in the multiple-primaries group and 4.23% in the single-primary group (P = .034).

In both cohorts, younger age at first breast cancer was associated with higher mutation rates. However, the age at onset of cancers other than breast cancer was not related to mutation rate.

“Regardless of age, mutations in genes other than BRCA1/2 are found in at least 5% of patients with breast cancer and another primary cancer, with up to 25% in patients with their first breast cancer at age 30 years,” Dr. Nathanson said. “This supports the need for multigene panel testing in all patients with breast cancer and another primary cancer.”

“Once a woman has multiple primaries with breast cancer, it doesn’t matter what her family history is, she is more likely to be at risk,” Dr. Nathanson added.
 

Genetic susceptibility

The researchers also identified genes associated with multiple primary cancers. TP53 and MSH6 mutations were significantly enriched in patients with multiple primaries but not single primaries. ATM and PALB2 mutations were significantly enriched in both groups when compared with controls.

The researchers noted that high-penetrance cancer genes were responsible for higher mutation rates in the cohort enriched for early-onset breast cancer and non–breast cancer second primaries. Moderate-penetrance cancer genes were responsible for the higher mutation rates in the cohort enriched for familial breast cancer and second breast cancer primaries.

“In multiple primary cancers, we found additional genes with moderate penetrance and some genes with high penetrance associated with TP53 and Lynch syndrome,” Dr. Nathanson said.
 

Cancer prevention and screening

The results of this study could lead to better implementation of cancer prevention and screening strategies, according to the researchers.

“As we look at guidelines in development and NCCN recommendations, our data suggest that age should not be part of the criteria for genetic testing in patients who have more than one primary cancer. These patients are at high risk and should be recommended for screening,” Dr. Nathanson said.

“If you see a patient with multiple primary cancers, refer for genetic testing. Age does not matter,” she reiterated.

Future research will look at potentially missing mutations.

“With targeted sequencing, structurally rearranged genes might be missed for those at risk. We will try to identify cancer susceptibility genes and define the true risk of penetrance of these genes in the general population,” Dr. Nathanson said.

This research was supported by grants from government agencies and foundations as well as the University of Pennsylvania. Dr. Nathanson disclosed no conflicts of interest. Other authors disclosed relationships with a range of companies, all listed in the paper.

SOURCE: Maxwell KN et al. JCO Precis Oncol. 2020. doi: 10.1200/PO.19.00301.

All breast cancer patients who develop a second primary cancer should undergo multigene panel testing, according to a paper published in JCO Precision Oncology.

The authors noted that women with breast cancer have a 4%-16% lifetime risk of a second primary cancer. However, it hasn’t been clear if mutations in genes other than BRCA1/2 are enriched in patients with multiple primary cancers.

“Surprisingly few papers have focused on genetic evaluation of patients with multiple primary cancers,” senior author Katherine L. Nathanson, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, said in an interview.

“Ours is one of the first studies to look closely at this issue. We know from clinical experience that these patients are more likely to have more than one genetic mutation,” she added.

For their study, Dr. Nathanson and colleagues identified pathogenic germline mutations in 17 cancer susceptibility genes in patients with BRCA1/2-negative breast cancer in two cohorts.

Cohort 1 consisted of 1,000 high-risk breast cancer patients – 551 with multiple primary cancers and 449 with a single breast cancer.

Cohort 2 included 1,804 familial breast cancer patients – 340 with multiple primaries and 1,464 with a single breast cancer.

The researchers assessed mutations in these cohorts and compared them with mutations in a control data set.
 

Mutation rates and age

Pathogenic mutation rates were higher in both cohorts in patients with multiple primaries as compared with patients with single primaries.

In cohort 1, the overall panel positive rate was 8.53% in the multiple-primaries group and 4.90% in the single-primary group (P = .024).

In cohort 2, the overall panel positive rate was 7.06% in the multiple-primaries group and 4.23% in the single-primary group (P = .034).

In both cohorts, younger age at first breast cancer was associated with higher mutation rates. However, the age at onset of cancers other than breast cancer was not related to mutation rate.

“Regardless of age, mutations in genes other than BRCA1/2 are found in at least 5% of patients with breast cancer and another primary cancer, with up to 25% in patients with their first breast cancer at age 30 years,” Dr. Nathanson said. “This supports the need for multigene panel testing in all patients with breast cancer and another primary cancer.”

“Once a woman has multiple primaries with breast cancer, it doesn’t matter what her family history is, she is more likely to be at risk,” Dr. Nathanson added.
 

Genetic susceptibility

The researchers also identified genes associated with multiple primary cancers. TP53 and MSH6 mutations were significantly enriched in patients with multiple primaries but not single primaries. ATM and PALB2 mutations were significantly enriched in both groups when compared with controls.

The researchers noted that high-penetrance cancer genes were responsible for higher mutation rates in the cohort enriched for early-onset breast cancer and non–breast cancer second primaries. Moderate-penetrance cancer genes were responsible for the higher mutation rates in the cohort enriched for familial breast cancer and second breast cancer primaries.

“In multiple primary cancers, we found additional genes with moderate penetrance and some genes with high penetrance associated with TP53 and Lynch syndrome,” Dr. Nathanson said.
 

Cancer prevention and screening

The results of this study could lead to better implementation of cancer prevention and screening strategies, according to the researchers.

“As we look at guidelines in development and NCCN recommendations, our data suggest that age should not be part of the criteria for genetic testing in patients who have more than one primary cancer. These patients are at high risk and should be recommended for screening,” Dr. Nathanson said.

“If you see a patient with multiple primary cancers, refer for genetic testing. Age does not matter,” she reiterated.

Future research will look at potentially missing mutations.

“With targeted sequencing, structurally rearranged genes might be missed for those at risk. We will try to identify cancer susceptibility genes and define the true risk of penetrance of these genes in the general population,” Dr. Nathanson said.

This research was supported by grants from government agencies and foundations as well as the University of Pennsylvania. Dr. Nathanson disclosed no conflicts of interest. Other authors disclosed relationships with a range of companies, all listed in the paper.

SOURCE: Maxwell KN et al. JCO Precis Oncol. 2020. doi: 10.1200/PO.19.00301.

In the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, the virtual medical meeting is now the norm. And while it’s admirable that key data are being disseminated (often for free), there is no escaping the fact that it is a fundamentally different and lesser experience.

Watching from home, most of us split our attention between live streams of the meeting and work and family obligations. There is far less urgency when early live presentations are recorded and can be viewed later.

In terms of discussing the data, Twitter may offer broader participation than a live meeting, yet only a small number of attendees actively engage online.

And the exhibit halls for these online meetings? With neither free coffee nor company-branded tchotchkes, I expect that they have virtual tumbleweeds blowing through and crickets chirping.

Even still, the virtual meeting experience, while inferior to the live one, is a tremendous advance. It should never be banished as a historical footnote but rather should remain an option. It’s analogous to watching the Super Bowl at home: Obviously, it’s not the same as being there, but it’s a terrific alternative. Like telemedicine, this pandemic has provided a critical proof of concept that there is a better model.
 

Reshaping the medical meeting

Let’s consider five reasons why medical meetings should be permanently reshaped by this pandemic.

This pandemic isn’t going away in 2020. While nearly every country has done a far better job than the United States of containing COVID-19 thus far, outbreaks remain a problem wherever crowds assemble. You’d be hard-pressed to devise a setting more conducive to mass spread than a conference of 20,000 attendees from all over the world sitting alongside each other cheek to jowl for 5 days. Worse yet is the thought of them returning home and infecting their patients, families, and friends. What medical society wants to be remembered for creating a COVID-19 superspreader event? Professional medical societies will need to offer this option as the safest alternative moving forward.

Virtual learning still conveys the most important content. Despite the many social benefits of a live meeting, its core purpose is to disseminate new research and current and emerging treatment options. Virtual meetings have proven that this format can effectively deliver the content, and not as a secondary offering but as the sole platform in real time.

Virtual learning levels the playing field. Traveling to attend conferences typically costs thousands of dollars, accounting for the registration fees, inflated hotel rates, ground transportation, and meals out for days on end. Most meetings also demand several days away from our work and families, forcing many of us to work extra in the days before we leave and upon our return. Parents and those with commitments at home also face special challenges. For international participants, the financial and time costs are even greater. A virtual meeting helps overcome these hurdles and erases barriers that have long precluded many from attending a conference.

Virtual learning is efficient and comfortable. Virtual meetings over the past 6 months have given us a glimpse of an astonishingly more efficient form. If the content seems of a lower magnitude without the fanfare of a live conference, it is in part because so much of a live meeting is spent walking a mile between session rooms, waiting in concession or taxi lines, sitting in traffic between venues, or simply waiting for a session to begin. All of that has been replaced with time that you can use productively in between video sessions viewed either live or on demand. And with a virtual meeting, you can comfortably watch the sessions. There’s no need to stand along the back wall of an overcrowded room or step over 10 people to squeeze into an open middle seat. You can be focused, rather than having an end-of-day presentation wash over you as your eyes cross because you’ve been running around for the past 12 hours.

Virtual learning and social media will only improve. While virtual meetings unquestionably have limitations, it’s important to acknowledge that the successes thus far still represent only the earliest forays into this endeavor. In-person meetings evolved to their present form over centuries. In contrast, virtual meetings are being cobbled together within a few weeks or months. They can only be expected to improve as presenters adapt their skills to the online audience and new tools improve virtual discussions.

I am not implying that live meetings will or should be replaced by virtual ones. We still need that experience of trainees and experts presenting to a live audience and discussing the results together, all while sharing the energy of the moment. But there should be room for both a live conference and a virtual version.

Practically speaking, it is unclear whether professional societies could forgo the revenue they receive from registration fees, meeting sponsorships, and corporate exhibits. Yet, there are certainly ways to obtain sponsorship revenue for a virtual program. Even if the virtual version of a conference costs far less than attending in person, there is plenty of room between that number and free. It costs remarkably little for a professional society to share its content, and virtual offerings further the mission of distributing this content broadly.

We should not rush to return to the previous status quo. Despite their limitations, virtual meetings have brought a new, higher standard of access and efficiency for sharing important new data and treatment options in medicine.

H. Jack West, MD, associate clinical professor and executive director of employer services at City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center in Duarte, Calif., regularly comments on lung cancer for Medscape. West serves as web editor for JAMA Oncology, edits and writes several sections on lung cancer for UpToDate, and leads a wide range of continuing education programs and other educational programs, including hosting the audio podcast West Wind.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, the virtual medical meeting is now the norm. And while it’s admirable that key data are being disseminated (often for free), there is no escaping the fact that it is a fundamentally different and lesser experience.

Watching from home, most of us split our attention between live streams of the meeting and work and family obligations. There is far less urgency when early live presentations are recorded and can be viewed later.

In terms of discussing the data, Twitter may offer broader participation than a live meeting, yet only a small number of attendees actively engage online.

And the exhibit halls for these online meetings? With neither free coffee nor company-branded tchotchkes, I expect that they have virtual tumbleweeds blowing through and crickets chirping.

Even still, the virtual meeting experience, while inferior to the live one, is a tremendous advance. It should never be banished as a historical footnote but rather should remain an option. It’s analogous to watching the Super Bowl at home: Obviously, it’s not the same as being there, but it’s a terrific alternative. Like telemedicine, this pandemic has provided a critical proof of concept that there is a better model.
 

Reshaping the medical meeting

Let’s consider five reasons why medical meetings should be permanently reshaped by this pandemic.

This pandemic isn’t going away in 2020. While nearly every country has done a far better job than the United States of containing COVID-19 thus far, outbreaks remain a problem wherever crowds assemble. You’d be hard-pressed to devise a setting more conducive to mass spread than a conference of 20,000 attendees from all over the world sitting alongside each other cheek to jowl for 5 days. Worse yet is the thought of them returning home and infecting their patients, families, and friends. What medical society wants to be remembered for creating a COVID-19 superspreader event? Professional medical societies will need to offer this option as the safest alternative moving forward.

Virtual learning still conveys the most important content. Despite the many social benefits of a live meeting, its core purpose is to disseminate new research and current and emerging treatment options. Virtual meetings have proven that this format can effectively deliver the content, and not as a secondary offering but as the sole platform in real time.

Virtual learning levels the playing field. Traveling to attend conferences typically costs thousands of dollars, accounting for the registration fees, inflated hotel rates, ground transportation, and meals out for days on end. Most meetings also demand several days away from our work and families, forcing many of us to work extra in the days before we leave and upon our return. Parents and those with commitments at home also face special challenges. For international participants, the financial and time costs are even greater. A virtual meeting helps overcome these hurdles and erases barriers that have long precluded many from attending a conference.

Virtual learning is efficient and comfortable. Virtual meetings over the past 6 months have given us a glimpse of an astonishingly more efficient form. If the content seems of a lower magnitude without the fanfare of a live conference, it is in part because so much of a live meeting is spent walking a mile between session rooms, waiting in concession or taxi lines, sitting in traffic between venues, or simply waiting for a session to begin. All of that has been replaced with time that you can use productively in between video sessions viewed either live or on demand. And with a virtual meeting, you can comfortably watch the sessions. There’s no need to stand along the back wall of an overcrowded room or step over 10 people to squeeze into an open middle seat. You can be focused, rather than having an end-of-day presentation wash over you as your eyes cross because you’ve been running around for the past 12 hours.

Virtual learning and social media will only improve. While virtual meetings unquestionably have limitations, it’s important to acknowledge that the successes thus far still represent only the earliest forays into this endeavor. In-person meetings evolved to their present form over centuries. In contrast, virtual meetings are being cobbled together within a few weeks or months. They can only be expected to improve as presenters adapt their skills to the online audience and new tools improve virtual discussions.

I am not implying that live meetings will or should be replaced by virtual ones. We still need that experience of trainees and experts presenting to a live audience and discussing the results together, all while sharing the energy of the moment. But there should be room for both a live conference and a virtual version.

Practically speaking, it is unclear whether professional societies could forgo the revenue they receive from registration fees, meeting sponsorships, and corporate exhibits. Yet, there are certainly ways to obtain sponsorship revenue for a virtual program. Even if the virtual version of a conference costs far less than attending in person, there is plenty of room between that number and free. It costs remarkably little for a professional society to share its content, and virtual offerings further the mission of distributing this content broadly.

We should not rush to return to the previous status quo. Despite their limitations, virtual meetings have brought a new, higher standard of access and efficiency for sharing important new data and treatment options in medicine.

H. Jack West, MD, associate clinical professor and executive director of employer services at City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center in Duarte, Calif., regularly comments on lung cancer for Medscape. West serves as web editor for JAMA Oncology, edits and writes several sections on lung cancer for UpToDate, and leads a wide range of continuing education programs and other educational programs, including hosting the audio podcast West Wind.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, the virtual medical meeting is now the norm. And while it’s admirable that key data are being disseminated (often for free), there is no escaping the fact that it is a fundamentally different and lesser experience.

Watching from home, most of us split our attention between live streams of the meeting and work and family obligations. There is far less urgency when early live presentations are recorded and can be viewed later.

In terms of discussing the data, Twitter may offer broader participation than a live meeting, yet only a small number of attendees actively engage online.

And the exhibit halls for these online meetings? With neither free coffee nor company-branded tchotchkes, I expect that they have virtual tumbleweeds blowing through and crickets chirping.

Even still, the virtual meeting experience, while inferior to the live one, is a tremendous advance. It should never be banished as a historical footnote but rather should remain an option. It’s analogous to watching the Super Bowl at home: Obviously, it’s not the same as being there, but it’s a terrific alternative. Like telemedicine, this pandemic has provided a critical proof of concept that there is a better model.
 

Reshaping the medical meeting

Let’s consider five reasons why medical meetings should be permanently reshaped by this pandemic.

This pandemic isn’t going away in 2020. While nearly every country has done a far better job than the United States of containing COVID-19 thus far, outbreaks remain a problem wherever crowds assemble. You’d be hard-pressed to devise a setting more conducive to mass spread than a conference of 20,000 attendees from all over the world sitting alongside each other cheek to jowl for 5 days. Worse yet is the thought of them returning home and infecting their patients, families, and friends. What medical society wants to be remembered for creating a COVID-19 superspreader event? Professional medical societies will need to offer this option as the safest alternative moving forward.

Virtual learning still conveys the most important content. Despite the many social benefits of a live meeting, its core purpose is to disseminate new research and current and emerging treatment options. Virtual meetings have proven that this format can effectively deliver the content, and not as a secondary offering but as the sole platform in real time.

Virtual learning levels the playing field. Traveling to attend conferences typically costs thousands of dollars, accounting for the registration fees, inflated hotel rates, ground transportation, and meals out for days on end. Most meetings also demand several days away from our work and families, forcing many of us to work extra in the days before we leave and upon our return. Parents and those with commitments at home also face special challenges. For international participants, the financial and time costs are even greater. A virtual meeting helps overcome these hurdles and erases barriers that have long precluded many from attending a conference.

Virtual learning is efficient and comfortable. Virtual meetings over the past 6 months have given us a glimpse of an astonishingly more efficient form. If the content seems of a lower magnitude without the fanfare of a live conference, it is in part because so much of a live meeting is spent walking a mile between session rooms, waiting in concession or taxi lines, sitting in traffic between venues, or simply waiting for a session to begin. All of that has been replaced with time that you can use productively in between video sessions viewed either live or on demand. And with a virtual meeting, you can comfortably watch the sessions. There’s no need to stand along the back wall of an overcrowded room or step over 10 people to squeeze into an open middle seat. You can be focused, rather than having an end-of-day presentation wash over you as your eyes cross because you’ve been running around for the past 12 hours.

Virtual learning and social media will only improve. While virtual meetings unquestionably have limitations, it’s important to acknowledge that the successes thus far still represent only the earliest forays into this endeavor. In-person meetings evolved to their present form over centuries. In contrast, virtual meetings are being cobbled together within a few weeks or months. They can only be expected to improve as presenters adapt their skills to the online audience and new tools improve virtual discussions.

I am not implying that live meetings will or should be replaced by virtual ones. We still need that experience of trainees and experts presenting to a live audience and discussing the results together, all while sharing the energy of the moment. But there should be room for both a live conference and a virtual version.

Practically speaking, it is unclear whether professional societies could forgo the revenue they receive from registration fees, meeting sponsorships, and corporate exhibits. Yet, there are certainly ways to obtain sponsorship revenue for a virtual program. Even if the virtual version of a conference costs far less than attending in person, there is plenty of room between that number and free. It costs remarkably little for a professional society to share its content, and virtual offerings further the mission of distributing this content broadly.

We should not rush to return to the previous status quo. Despite their limitations, virtual meetings have brought a new, higher standard of access and efficiency for sharing important new data and treatment options in medicine.

H. Jack West, MD, associate clinical professor and executive director of employer services at City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center in Duarte, Calif., regularly comments on lung cancer for Medscape. West serves as web editor for JAMA Oncology, edits and writes several sections on lung cancer for UpToDate, and leads a wide range of continuing education programs and other educational programs, including hosting the audio podcast West Wind.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A team of U.S. researchers is investigating whether pressurized intraperitoneal aerosolized chemotherapy (PIPAC) can benefit patients with advanced cancer and peritoneal carcinomatosis.

City of Hope

The team’s phase 1 trial is the first in the United States to test PIPAC, and it will enroll patients with ovarian, uterine, colorectal, or gastric cancer who have peritoneal carcinomatosis.

Data from studies outside the United States suggest PIPAC can induce regression of peritoneal carcinomatosis, even in end-stage, therapy-resistant gastric, ovarian, and colorectal cancers (Lancet Oncol. 2019 Jul;20[7]:e368-e377).

The current study (NCT04329494) formally introduces PIPAC to the United States and serves as a launching pad for further investigation into how the treatment should be administered and which types of chemotherapies can be used.
 

About PIPAC

“PIPAC is a novel therapeutic approach that is minimally invasive, does not require cytoreduction, and can be repeated frequently,” said Thanh Dellinger, MD, a gynecologic oncology surgeon at City of Hope in Duarte, Calif., and co–principal investigator of the phase 1 trial.

“[PIPAC] entails accessing the abdominal cavity using standard laparoscopic techniques and relies on the increased intra-abdominal pressure (15 mm Hg) achieved with laparoscopic surgery, which generates a convective flux that forces aerosolized chemotherapy drugs from the peritoneal cavity into the subperitoneal tissue and overcomes the tumor’s interstitial pressure,” Dr. Dellinger explained in an interview.

“The surgical procedure to deliver PIPAC does not typically cause adhesive disease and allows for repeated delivery of intraperitoneal chemotherapy, objective tumor staging, and response assessment,” she noted.

Dr. Dellinger said the advantages of PIPAC include a minimally invasive approach; no debulking surgery required; deeper uptake of drugs in tumor tissues; wider, more effective drug distribution; fewer toxicities caused by lower drug dosage; repeatable administration; and palliation of peritoneal carcinomatosis symptoms, including abdominal bloating and ascites.

PIPAC achieves a deeper peritoneal nodule penetration of several millimeters with cisplatin, compared to less than 1 mm with heated intraoperative peritoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) and other intraperitoneal methods, according to Amit Merchea, MD, an assistant professor of surgery at the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Fla.

Dr. Merchea performed the first PIPAC procedure in the United States in December 2019.
 

Innovative therapies needed

Peritoneal carcinomatosis is often a late-stage manifestation of abdominal cancers and is usually lethal, Dr. Dellinger said. She noted that systemic chemotherapy in the palliative setting is relatively ineffective in patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis because of pharmacokinetic limitations, poor peritoneal drug uptake, and impaired local drug distribution.

“Innovative, effective therapies are urgently needed for people who have ovarian, uterine, gastric, or colorectal cancer with peritoneal carcinomatosis,” Dr. Dellinger said.

“PIPAC is a novel treatment option that has had very favorable and exciting results,” Dr. Merchea said. “It is a potential option for patients when no other treatment options exist, and it is an avenue to provide hope to patients when often they have none.”

Potential candidates for PIPAC include patients who have peritoneal carcinomatosis, have failed other standard therapies, have more than 6 months’ life expectancy, and are not candidates for cytoreduction with HIPEC. There remains very limited data on the use of PIPAC as a neoadjuvant approach to convert patients who were previously unresectable to resectable disease, Dr. Merchea noted.

“To deliver chemotherapy directly to the tumor under pressure allows PIPAC to better penetrate the peritoneal surface and tumor nodules than traditional approaches, such as HIPEC,” Dr. Merchea said. “And the drug distribution at the tissue level is better than what is often achieved by systemic chemotherapy, but without the systemic effects of chemotherapy, such as hair loss. The treatment gives essentially a real-time, quantitative assessment of response by being able to directly assess the tumor via laparoscopic visualization and repeat biopsy.”

“Importantly, patients who undergo PIPAC don’t notice a decrease in their quality of life, and some patients note improvement, particularly with respect to nausea, vomiting, appetite, fatigue, and constipation,” Dr. Merchea said.
 

Trial details

The phase 1 trial of PIPAC will include a maximum of 24 patients. They will receive treatment every 6 weeks for up to three cycles and be followed for up to 3 years.

Patients with ovarian, uterine, or gastric cancer will undergo PIPAC with cisplatin, followed by doxorubicin. Patients with colorectal cancer will undergo PIPAC with oxaliplatin preceded by leucovorin and fluorouracil for cycles 2 and 3.

The researchers also plan to profile patients’ tumors.

“Tumor samples will be chronologically evaluated with genomics, spatial transcriptomics, pharmacodynamics, and single-cell sequencing throughout a patient’s treatment course, thus elucidating the treatment effects and natural history of peritoneal cancers,” Dr. Dellinger said.

The trial sites include City of Hope, Mayo Clinic in Florida, Northwell Health in New York, and the National Cancer Institute in Maryland.

The trial is sponsored by City of Hope in collaboration with the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Merchea and Dr. Dellinger reported having no conflicts of interest.

A team of U.S. researchers is investigating whether pressurized intraperitoneal aerosolized chemotherapy (PIPAC) can benefit patients with advanced cancer and peritoneal carcinomatosis.

City of Hope

The team’s phase 1 trial is the first in the United States to test PIPAC, and it will enroll patients with ovarian, uterine, colorectal, or gastric cancer who have peritoneal carcinomatosis.

Data from studies outside the United States suggest PIPAC can induce regression of peritoneal carcinomatosis, even in end-stage, therapy-resistant gastric, ovarian, and colorectal cancers (Lancet Oncol. 2019 Jul;20[7]:e368-e377).

The current study (NCT04329494) formally introduces PIPAC to the United States and serves as a launching pad for further investigation into how the treatment should be administered and which types of chemotherapies can be used.
 

About PIPAC

“PIPAC is a novel therapeutic approach that is minimally invasive, does not require cytoreduction, and can be repeated frequently,” said Thanh Dellinger, MD, a gynecologic oncology surgeon at City of Hope in Duarte, Calif., and co–principal investigator of the phase 1 trial.

“[PIPAC] entails accessing the abdominal cavity using standard laparoscopic techniques and relies on the increased intra-abdominal pressure (15 mm Hg) achieved with laparoscopic surgery, which generates a convective flux that forces aerosolized chemotherapy drugs from the peritoneal cavity into the subperitoneal tissue and overcomes the tumor’s interstitial pressure,” Dr. Dellinger explained in an interview.

“The surgical procedure to deliver PIPAC does not typically cause adhesive disease and allows for repeated delivery of intraperitoneal chemotherapy, objective tumor staging, and response assessment,” she noted.

Dr. Dellinger said the advantages of PIPAC include a minimally invasive approach; no debulking surgery required; deeper uptake of drugs in tumor tissues; wider, more effective drug distribution; fewer toxicities caused by lower drug dosage; repeatable administration; and palliation of peritoneal carcinomatosis symptoms, including abdominal bloating and ascites.

PIPAC achieves a deeper peritoneal nodule penetration of several millimeters with cisplatin, compared to less than 1 mm with heated intraoperative peritoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) and other intraperitoneal methods, according to Amit Merchea, MD, an assistant professor of surgery at the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Fla.

Dr. Merchea performed the first PIPAC procedure in the United States in December 2019.
 

Innovative therapies needed

Peritoneal carcinomatosis is often a late-stage manifestation of abdominal cancers and is usually lethal, Dr. Dellinger said. She noted that systemic chemotherapy in the palliative setting is relatively ineffective in patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis because of pharmacokinetic limitations, poor peritoneal drug uptake, and impaired local drug distribution.

“Innovative, effective therapies are urgently needed for people who have ovarian, uterine, gastric, or colorectal cancer with peritoneal carcinomatosis,” Dr. Dellinger said.

“PIPAC is a novel treatment option that has had very favorable and exciting results,” Dr. Merchea said. “It is a potential option for patients when no other treatment options exist, and it is an avenue to provide hope to patients when often they have none.”

Potential candidates for PIPAC include patients who have peritoneal carcinomatosis, have failed other standard therapies, have more than 6 months’ life expectancy, and are not candidates for cytoreduction with HIPEC. There remains very limited data on the use of PIPAC as a neoadjuvant approach to convert patients who were previously unresectable to resectable disease, Dr. Merchea noted.

“To deliver chemotherapy directly to the tumor under pressure allows PIPAC to better penetrate the peritoneal surface and tumor nodules than traditional approaches, such as HIPEC,” Dr. Merchea said. “And the drug distribution at the tissue level is better than what is often achieved by systemic chemotherapy, but without the systemic effects of chemotherapy, such as hair loss. The treatment gives essentially a real-time, quantitative assessment of response by being able to directly assess the tumor via laparoscopic visualization and repeat biopsy.”

“Importantly, patients who undergo PIPAC don’t notice a decrease in their quality of life, and some patients note improvement, particularly with respect to nausea, vomiting, appetite, fatigue, and constipation,” Dr. Merchea said.
 

Trial details

The phase 1 trial of PIPAC will include a maximum of 24 patients. They will receive treatment every 6 weeks for up to three cycles and be followed for up to 3 years.

Patients with ovarian, uterine, or gastric cancer will undergo PIPAC with cisplatin, followed by doxorubicin. Patients with colorectal cancer will undergo PIPAC with oxaliplatin preceded by leucovorin and fluorouracil for cycles 2 and 3.

The researchers also plan to profile patients’ tumors.

“Tumor samples will be chronologically evaluated with genomics, spatial transcriptomics, pharmacodynamics, and single-cell sequencing throughout a patient’s treatment course, thus elucidating the treatment effects and natural history of peritoneal cancers,” Dr. Dellinger said.

The trial sites include City of Hope, Mayo Clinic in Florida, Northwell Health in New York, and the National Cancer Institute in Maryland.

The trial is sponsored by City of Hope in collaboration with the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Merchea and Dr. Dellinger reported having no conflicts of interest.

A team of U.S. researchers is investigating whether pressurized intraperitoneal aerosolized chemotherapy (PIPAC) can benefit patients with advanced cancer and peritoneal carcinomatosis.

City of Hope

The team’s phase 1 trial is the first in the United States to test PIPAC, and it will enroll patients with ovarian, uterine, colorectal, or gastric cancer who have peritoneal carcinomatosis.

Data from studies outside the United States suggest PIPAC can induce regression of peritoneal carcinomatosis, even in end-stage, therapy-resistant gastric, ovarian, and colorectal cancers (Lancet Oncol. 2019 Jul;20[7]:e368-e377).

The current study (NCT04329494) formally introduces PIPAC to the United States and serves as a launching pad for further investigation into how the treatment should be administered and which types of chemotherapies can be used.
 

About PIPAC

“PIPAC is a novel therapeutic approach that is minimally invasive, does not require cytoreduction, and can be repeated frequently,” said Thanh Dellinger, MD, a gynecologic oncology surgeon at City of Hope in Duarte, Calif., and co–principal investigator of the phase 1 trial.

“[PIPAC] entails accessing the abdominal cavity using standard laparoscopic techniques and relies on the increased intra-abdominal pressure (15 mm Hg) achieved with laparoscopic surgery, which generates a convective flux that forces aerosolized chemotherapy drugs from the peritoneal cavity into the subperitoneal tissue and overcomes the tumor’s interstitial pressure,” Dr. Dellinger explained in an interview.

“The surgical procedure to deliver PIPAC does not typically cause adhesive disease and allows for repeated delivery of intraperitoneal chemotherapy, objective tumor staging, and response assessment,” she noted.

Dr. Dellinger said the advantages of PIPAC include a minimally invasive approach; no debulking surgery required; deeper uptake of drugs in tumor tissues; wider, more effective drug distribution; fewer toxicities caused by lower drug dosage; repeatable administration; and palliation of peritoneal carcinomatosis symptoms, including abdominal bloating and ascites.

PIPAC achieves a deeper peritoneal nodule penetration of several millimeters with cisplatin, compared to less than 1 mm with heated intraoperative peritoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) and other intraperitoneal methods, according to Amit Merchea, MD, an assistant professor of surgery at the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Fla.

Dr. Merchea performed the first PIPAC procedure in the United States in December 2019.
 

Innovative therapies needed

Peritoneal carcinomatosis is often a late-stage manifestation of abdominal cancers and is usually lethal, Dr. Dellinger said. She noted that systemic chemotherapy in the palliative setting is relatively ineffective in patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis because of pharmacokinetic limitations, poor peritoneal drug uptake, and impaired local drug distribution.

“Innovative, effective therapies are urgently needed for people who have ovarian, uterine, gastric, or colorectal cancer with peritoneal carcinomatosis,” Dr. Dellinger said.

“PIPAC is a novel treatment option that has had very favorable and exciting results,” Dr. Merchea said. “It is a potential option for patients when no other treatment options exist, and it is an avenue to provide hope to patients when often they have none.”

Potential candidates for PIPAC include patients who have peritoneal carcinomatosis, have failed other standard therapies, have more than 6 months’ life expectancy, and are not candidates for cytoreduction with HIPEC. There remains very limited data on the use of PIPAC as a neoadjuvant approach to convert patients who were previously unresectable to resectable disease, Dr. Merchea noted.

“To deliver chemotherapy directly to the tumor under pressure allows PIPAC to better penetrate the peritoneal surface and tumor nodules than traditional approaches, such as HIPEC,” Dr. Merchea said. “And the drug distribution at the tissue level is better than what is often achieved by systemic chemotherapy, but without the systemic effects of chemotherapy, such as hair loss. The treatment gives essentially a real-time, quantitative assessment of response by being able to directly assess the tumor via laparoscopic visualization and repeat biopsy.”

“Importantly, patients who undergo PIPAC don’t notice a decrease in their quality of life, and some patients note improvement, particularly with respect to nausea, vomiting, appetite, fatigue, and constipation,” Dr. Merchea said.
 

Trial details

The phase 1 trial of PIPAC will include a maximum of 24 patients. They will receive treatment every 6 weeks for up to three cycles and be followed for up to 3 years.

Patients with ovarian, uterine, or gastric cancer will undergo PIPAC with cisplatin, followed by doxorubicin. Patients with colorectal cancer will undergo PIPAC with oxaliplatin preceded by leucovorin and fluorouracil for cycles 2 and 3.

The researchers also plan to profile patients’ tumors.

“Tumor samples will be chronologically evaluated with genomics, spatial transcriptomics, pharmacodynamics, and single-cell sequencing throughout a patient’s treatment course, thus elucidating the treatment effects and natural history of peritoneal cancers,” Dr. Dellinger said.

The trial sites include City of Hope, Mayo Clinic in Florida, Northwell Health in New York, and the National Cancer Institute in Maryland.

The trial is sponsored by City of Hope in collaboration with the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Merchea and Dr. Dellinger reported having no conflicts of interest.

Oxidative stress may play a role in pathogenesis of B-cell chronic lymphocytic leukemia (B-CLL), according to the results of a biochemical and cytogenetic study of patients published online in Experimental and Molecular Pathology.

The study evaluated the serum levels of oxidative stress biomarkers [conjugated dienes (CD), malondialdehyde (MDA), and nitrite levels] and the levels of antioxidant biomarkers [ceruloplasmin (CP) and glutathione peroxidase (GPx)] in 64 B-CLL patients. The relationship between these biomarkers and the presence of cytogenetic abnormalities was examined, according to Tatiana Zhevak, MD, of Sechenov First Moscow (Russia) State Medical University, and colleagues.

Cytogenetic abnormalities have previously been determined to be linked to a poorer prognosis in CLL patients, and factors that increase the frequency of CA have been shown to increase the risk of rapid tumor progression, Dr. Zhevak and her colleagues stated.
 

Oxidative stress connection

Enhanced oxidative stress was detected in B-CLL patients as shown by their increased levels of serum CD, MDA, and nitrite, as well as a demonstrated imbalance in the antioxidant defense system as shown by an increased serum CP level and decreased serum GPx activity, according to the researchers.

In addition, these metabolic changes were found to be greater in those patients whose lymphocytes harbored specific cytogenetic abnormalities, and could be predicted by the serum levels of CD. Specifically, the odds of harboring a cytogenetic abnormality increased by a factor of 1.88 (P = .004) for every one-unit increase in serum CD level (mcmol/L), according to the authors.

“Collectively, the results support our hypothesis that oxidative stress and resulting lipid peroxidation play a role in pathogenesis of B-CLL and provide a rational basis for the use of agents regulating the pro-oxidant and antioxidant activity in the treatment of B-CLL patients,” the researchers concluded.

The research was unsponsored and the authors reported having no conflicts.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Zhevak T et al. Exp Mol Patholo. 2020 Oct;16:104524 doi: 10.1016/j.yexmp.2020.104524.

Oxidative stress may play a role in pathogenesis of B-cell chronic lymphocytic leukemia (B-CLL), according to the results of a biochemical and cytogenetic study of patients published online in Experimental and Molecular Pathology.

The study evaluated the serum levels of oxidative stress biomarkers [conjugated dienes (CD), malondialdehyde (MDA), and nitrite levels] and the levels of antioxidant biomarkers [ceruloplasmin (CP) and glutathione peroxidase (GPx)] in 64 B-CLL patients. The relationship between these biomarkers and the presence of cytogenetic abnormalities was examined, according to Tatiana Zhevak, MD, of Sechenov First Moscow (Russia) State Medical University, and colleagues.

Cytogenetic abnormalities have previously been determined to be linked to a poorer prognosis in CLL patients, and factors that increase the frequency of CA have been shown to increase the risk of rapid tumor progression, Dr. Zhevak and her colleagues stated.
 

Oxidative stress connection

Enhanced oxidative stress was detected in B-CLL patients as shown by their increased levels of serum CD, MDA, and nitrite, as well as a demonstrated imbalance in the antioxidant defense system as shown by an increased serum CP level and decreased serum GPx activity, according to the researchers.

In addition, these metabolic changes were found to be greater in those patients whose lymphocytes harbored specific cytogenetic abnormalities, and could be predicted by the serum levels of CD. Specifically, the odds of harboring a cytogenetic abnormality increased by a factor of 1.88 (P = .004) for every one-unit increase in serum CD level (mcmol/L), according to the authors.

“Collectively, the results support our hypothesis that oxidative stress and resulting lipid peroxidation play a role in pathogenesis of B-CLL and provide a rational basis for the use of agents regulating the pro-oxidant and antioxidant activity in the treatment of B-CLL patients,” the researchers concluded.

The research was unsponsored and the authors reported having no conflicts.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Zhevak T et al. Exp Mol Patholo. 2020 Oct;16:104524 doi: 10.1016/j.yexmp.2020.104524.

Oxidative stress may play a role in pathogenesis of B-cell chronic lymphocytic leukemia (B-CLL), according to the results of a biochemical and cytogenetic study of patients published online in Experimental and Molecular Pathology.

The study evaluated the serum levels of oxidative stress biomarkers [conjugated dienes (CD), malondialdehyde (MDA), and nitrite levels] and the levels of antioxidant biomarkers [ceruloplasmin (CP) and glutathione peroxidase (GPx)] in 64 B-CLL patients. The relationship between these biomarkers and the presence of cytogenetic abnormalities was examined, according to Tatiana Zhevak, MD, of Sechenov First Moscow (Russia) State Medical University, and colleagues.

Cytogenetic abnormalities have previously been determined to be linked to a poorer prognosis in CLL patients, and factors that increase the frequency of CA have been shown to increase the risk of rapid tumor progression, Dr. Zhevak and her colleagues stated.
 

Oxidative stress connection

Enhanced oxidative stress was detected in B-CLL patients as shown by their increased levels of serum CD, MDA, and nitrite, as well as a demonstrated imbalance in the antioxidant defense system as shown by an increased serum CP level and decreased serum GPx activity, according to the researchers.

In addition, these metabolic changes were found to be greater in those patients whose lymphocytes harbored specific cytogenetic abnormalities, and could be predicted by the serum levels of CD. Specifically, the odds of harboring a cytogenetic abnormality increased by a factor of 1.88 (P = .004) for every one-unit increase in serum CD level (mcmol/L), according to the authors.

“Collectively, the results support our hypothesis that oxidative stress and resulting lipid peroxidation play a role in pathogenesis of B-CLL and provide a rational basis for the use of agents regulating the pro-oxidant and antioxidant activity in the treatment of B-CLL patients,” the researchers concluded.

The research was unsponsored and the authors reported having no conflicts.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Zhevak T et al. Exp Mol Patholo. 2020 Oct;16:104524 doi: 10.1016/j.yexmp.2020.104524.

The first targeted therapy for patients with advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) harboring MET mutations, capmatinib (Tabrecta), has shown deep and durable responses, conclude investigators of the pivotal trial that led to the drug’s approval.

Responses were seen in all patients regardless of how many previous drugs they had been treated with, although responses were particularly pronounced among patients who were treatment naive.

Capmatinib and a companion assay received FDA approval in May 2020 for the treatment of adults with metastatic NSCLC harboring MET exon 14–skipping mutations.

These MET mutations occur in 3%-4% of NSCLC patients. MET amplifications occur in 1%-6% of NSCLC patients. They have been associated with poor response to chemotherapy and immunotherapy.

“Prior to this approval, there weren’t any approved therapies for this group of patients,” noted Edward Garon, MD, associate professor of hematology and oncology at the University of California, Los Angeles, who led the pivotal trial.

“There are several drugs that have been used off label for MET exon 14 skipping mutations, but none with an indication for it,” he said in an interview.

Garon emphasized that capmatinib was particularly robust for patients who had not received prior therapy, although he added that it was also very effective for those who had been previously treated.

“The drug has been approved and it is available, and we have already written prescriptions for it at our clinic,” said Dr. Garon, “although, at our clinic, the majority of patients using it were part of the [pivotal] clinical trial.”

That trial is the phase 2 GEOMETRY mono-1 study. Results from the study were presented at a meeting earlier this year and have now been published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

It was conducted in a cohort of 364 patients with advanced NSCLC. Patients were stratified into five cohorts and two expansion cohorts, which were assigned according to MET status and previous lines of therapy. Across cohorts 1 through 5, a total of 97 patients had a MET exon 14–skipping mutation, and 210 had MET amplification. All patients were treated with capmatinib 400 mg twice daily.

Among patients with a MET exon 14 skipping mutation, an overall response was observed in 41% of previously treated patients and in 68% of those who had not previously been treated.

“That is a very high response rate, and clearly this drug is targeting this mutation,” said Fred Hirsch, MD, PhD, executive director, Center for Thoracic Oncology, Mount Sinai Health System, New York, who was approached for comment. “It’s very active, and you don’t get those responses with chemotherapy.”

The median duration of response was 9.7 months among previously treated patients and 12.6 months among those who were treatment naive. Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 5.4 months and 12.4 months, respectively.

In the cohort of patients with MET amplification, the overall response was 12% among those whose tumor tissue had a gene copy number of 6-9. The overall response rate was 9% among those with a gene copy number of 4 or 5, and it was 7% among those with a gene copy number of less than 4.

Median PFS was 2.7 months for patients whose tumor tissue had a gene copy number of 6-9 and in those with a gene copy number of 4 or 5. PFS rose to 3.6 months for patients with a gene copy number of less than 4.

The most frequently reported adverse events were peripheral edema (in 51%) and nausea (in 45%). These events were mostly of grade 1 or 2. Treatment-related serious adverse events occurred in 13% of patients. The incidence was lower in the groups with shorter duration of exposure. Treatment was discontinued in 11% of patients (consistent across cohorts) because of adverse events.

Dr. Hirsch commented that the results for patients with NSCLC and brain metastases were particularly noteworthy. “Brain metastases are, unfortunately, a common problem in patients with lung cancer,” he said. “Now, we have a drug that is effective for MET mutation and CNS involvement and can penetrate the blood-brain barrier, and this is a very encouraging situation.”

He pointed out that 7 of 13 patients with brain metastases responded to treatment with capmatinib. “Four patients have a complete response, and that is very encouraging,” said Dr. Hirsch. “This is clearly a deal-breaker in my opinion.”
 

The future is bright

Dr. Hirsch noted that the evidence supporting capmatinib is strong, even though a larger prospective study with a control group is lacking. “If we have a patient with this mutation, and knowing that there is a drug with a response rate of 68%, that is a good reason to try the drug up front. The data are sufficient that it should be offered to the patient, even without a control group.”

Capmatinib is the latest of many targeted drugs that have been launched in recent years, and several immunotherapies are also now available for treatment of this disease. These new therapies are making this a “very encouraging time in lung cancer,” Dr. Hirsch commented.

“We are seeing long-term survival, and, eventually, we may start seeing potential cures for some patients,” he said. “But at the very least, we are seeing very good long-term results with many of these targeted therapies, and we are continuing to learn more about resistant mechanisms. I can’t wait to see future in the field.”

The study was funded by Novartis Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Garon reports consulting or advisory roles with Dracen and research funding (institutional) from Merck, Genentech, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Lilly, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Mirati Therapeutics, Dynavax, Iovance Biotherapeutics, and Neon Therapeutics. His coauthors have disclosed numerous relationships with industry, as listed in the original article. Dr. Hirsch has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The first targeted therapy for patients with advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) harboring MET mutations, capmatinib (Tabrecta), has shown deep and durable responses, conclude investigators of the pivotal trial that led to the drug’s approval.

Responses were seen in all patients regardless of how many previous drugs they had been treated with, although responses were particularly pronounced among patients who were treatment naive.

Capmatinib and a companion assay received FDA approval in May 2020 for the treatment of adults with metastatic NSCLC harboring MET exon 14–skipping mutations.

These MET mutations occur in 3%-4% of NSCLC patients. MET amplifications occur in 1%-6% of NSCLC patients. They have been associated with poor response to chemotherapy and immunotherapy.

“Prior to this approval, there weren’t any approved therapies for this group of patients,” noted Edward Garon, MD, associate professor of hematology and oncology at the University of California, Los Angeles, who led the pivotal trial.

“There are several drugs that have been used off label for MET exon 14 skipping mutations, but none with an indication for it,” he said in an interview.

Garon emphasized that capmatinib was particularly robust for patients who had not received prior therapy, although he added that it was also very effective for those who had been previously treated.

“The drug has been approved and it is available, and we have already written prescriptions for it at our clinic,” said Dr. Garon, “although, at our clinic, the majority of patients using it were part of the [pivotal] clinical trial.”

That trial is the phase 2 GEOMETRY mono-1 study. Results from the study were presented at a meeting earlier this year and have now been published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

It was conducted in a cohort of 364 patients with advanced NSCLC. Patients were stratified into five cohorts and two expansion cohorts, which were assigned according to MET status and previous lines of therapy. Across cohorts 1 through 5, a total of 97 patients had a MET exon 14–skipping mutation, and 210 had MET amplification. All patients were treated with capmatinib 400 mg twice daily.

Among patients with a MET exon 14 skipping mutation, an overall response was observed in 41% of previously treated patients and in 68% of those who had not previously been treated.

“That is a very high response rate, and clearly this drug is targeting this mutation,” said Fred Hirsch, MD, PhD, executive director, Center for Thoracic Oncology, Mount Sinai Health System, New York, who was approached for comment. “It’s very active, and you don’t get those responses with chemotherapy.”

The median duration of response was 9.7 months among previously treated patients and 12.6 months among those who were treatment naive. Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 5.4 months and 12.4 months, respectively.

In the cohort of patients with MET amplification, the overall response was 12% among those whose tumor tissue had a gene copy number of 6-9. The overall response rate was 9% among those with a gene copy number of 4 or 5, and it was 7% among those with a gene copy number of less than 4.

Median PFS was 2.7 months for patients whose tumor tissue had a gene copy number of 6-9 and in those with a gene copy number of 4 or 5. PFS rose to 3.6 months for patients with a gene copy number of less than 4.

The most frequently reported adverse events were peripheral edema (in 51%) and nausea (in 45%). These events were mostly of grade 1 or 2. Treatment-related serious adverse events occurred in 13% of patients. The incidence was lower in the groups with shorter duration of exposure. Treatment was discontinued in 11% of patients (consistent across cohorts) because of adverse events.

Dr. Hirsch commented that the results for patients with NSCLC and brain metastases were particularly noteworthy. “Brain metastases are, unfortunately, a common problem in patients with lung cancer,” he said. “Now, we have a drug that is effective for MET mutation and CNS involvement and can penetrate the blood-brain barrier, and this is a very encouraging situation.”

He pointed out that 7 of 13 patients with brain metastases responded to treatment with capmatinib. “Four patients have a complete response, and that is very encouraging,” said Dr. Hirsch. “This is clearly a deal-breaker in my opinion.”
 

The future is bright

Dr. Hirsch noted that the evidence supporting capmatinib is strong, even though a larger prospective study with a control group is lacking. “If we have a patient with this mutation, and knowing that there is a drug with a response rate of 68%, that is a good reason to try the drug up front. The data are sufficient that it should be offered to the patient, even without a control group.”

Capmatinib is the latest of many targeted drugs that have been launched in recent years, and several immunotherapies are also now available for treatment of this disease. These new therapies are making this a “very encouraging time in lung cancer,” Dr. Hirsch commented.

“We are seeing long-term survival, and, eventually, we may start seeing potential cures for some patients,” he said. “But at the very least, we are seeing very good long-term results with many of these targeted therapies, and we are continuing to learn more about resistant mechanisms. I can’t wait to see future in the field.”

The study was funded by Novartis Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Garon reports consulting or advisory roles with Dracen and research funding (institutional) from Merck, Genentech, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Lilly, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Mirati Therapeutics, Dynavax, Iovance Biotherapeutics, and Neon Therapeutics. His coauthors have disclosed numerous relationships with industry, as listed in the original article. Dr. Hirsch has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The first targeted therapy for patients with advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) harboring MET mutations, capmatinib (Tabrecta), has shown deep and durable responses, conclude investigators of the pivotal trial that led to the drug’s approval.

Responses were seen in all patients regardless of how many previous drugs they had been treated with, although responses were particularly pronounced among patients who were treatment naive.

Capmatinib and a companion assay received FDA approval in May 2020 for the treatment of adults with metastatic NSCLC harboring MET exon 14–skipping mutations.

These MET mutations occur in 3%-4% of NSCLC patients. MET amplifications occur in 1%-6% of NSCLC patients. They have been associated with poor response to chemotherapy and immunotherapy.

“Prior to this approval, there weren’t any approved therapies for this group of patients,” noted Edward Garon, MD, associate professor of hematology and oncology at the University of California, Los Angeles, who led the pivotal trial.

“There are several drugs that have been used off label for MET exon 14 skipping mutations, but none with an indication for it,” he said in an interview.

Garon emphasized that capmatinib was particularly robust for patients who had not received prior therapy, although he added that it was also very effective for those who had been previously treated.

“The drug has been approved and it is available, and we have already written prescriptions for it at our clinic,” said Dr. Garon, “although, at our clinic, the majority of patients using it were part of the [pivotal] clinical trial.”

That trial is the phase 2 GEOMETRY mono-1 study. Results from the study were presented at a meeting earlier this year and have now been published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

It was conducted in a cohort of 364 patients with advanced NSCLC. Patients were stratified into five cohorts and two expansion cohorts, which were assigned according to MET status and previous lines of therapy. Across cohorts 1 through 5, a total of 97 patients had a MET exon 14–skipping mutation, and 210 had MET amplification. All patients were treated with capmatinib 400 mg twice daily.

Among patients with a MET exon 14 skipping mutation, an overall response was observed in 41% of previously treated patients and in 68% of those who had not previously been treated.

“That is a very high response rate, and clearly this drug is targeting this mutation,” said Fred Hirsch, MD, PhD, executive director, Center for Thoracic Oncology, Mount Sinai Health System, New York, who was approached for comment. “It’s very active, and you don’t get those responses with chemotherapy.”

The median duration of response was 9.7 months among previously treated patients and 12.6 months among those who were treatment naive. Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 5.4 months and 12.4 months, respectively.

In the cohort of patients with MET amplification, the overall response was 12% among those whose tumor tissue had a gene copy number of 6-9. The overall response rate was 9% among those with a gene copy number of 4 or 5, and it was 7% among those with a gene copy number of less than 4.

Median PFS was 2.7 months for patients whose tumor tissue had a gene copy number of 6-9 and in those with a gene copy number of 4 or 5. PFS rose to 3.6 months for patients with a gene copy number of less than 4.

The most frequently reported adverse events were peripheral edema (in 51%) and nausea (in 45%). These events were mostly of grade 1 or 2. Treatment-related serious adverse events occurred in 13% of patients. The incidence was lower in the groups with shorter duration of exposure. Treatment was discontinued in 11% of patients (consistent across cohorts) because of adverse events.

Dr. Hirsch commented that the results for patients with NSCLC and brain metastases were particularly noteworthy. “Brain metastases are, unfortunately, a common problem in patients with lung cancer,” he said. “Now, we have a drug that is effective for MET mutation and CNS involvement and can penetrate the blood-brain barrier, and this is a very encouraging situation.”

He pointed out that 7 of 13 patients with brain metastases responded to treatment with capmatinib. “Four patients have a complete response, and that is very encouraging,” said Dr. Hirsch. “This is clearly a deal-breaker in my opinion.”
 

The future is bright

Dr. Hirsch noted that the evidence supporting capmatinib is strong, even though a larger prospective study with a control group is lacking. “If we have a patient with this mutation, and knowing that there is a drug with a response rate of 68%, that is a good reason to try the drug up front. The data are sufficient that it should be offered to the patient, even without a control group.”

Capmatinib is the latest of many targeted drugs that have been launched in recent years, and several immunotherapies are also now available for treatment of this disease. These new therapies are making this a “very encouraging time in lung cancer,” Dr. Hirsch commented.

“We are seeing long-term survival, and, eventually, we may start seeing potential cures for some patients,” he said. “But at the very least, we are seeing very good long-term results with many of these targeted therapies, and we are continuing to learn more about resistant mechanisms. I can’t wait to see future in the field.”

The study was funded by Novartis Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Garon reports consulting or advisory roles with Dracen and research funding (institutional) from Merck, Genentech, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Lilly, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Mirati Therapeutics, Dynavax, Iovance Biotherapeutics, and Neon Therapeutics. His coauthors have disclosed numerous relationships with industry, as listed in the original article. Dr. Hirsch has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Adjuvant therapy for patients with high-risk resected melanomas is now a standard of care, but the durability of the benefit gained from this treatment is still unclear.

New data show that the benefit is maintained over the longer term.

At 5 years, just over half of patients (52%) with advanced melanoma who had received a year of adjuvant therapy with two targeted agents were still alive and remained relapse free, compared with 36% of patients who received placebo.

The combination of dabrafenib (Tafinlar) and trametinib (Mekinist) conferred a durable long-term, relapse-free survival benefit for patients with resected stage III melanoma with BRAF V600E or V600K mutations, the investigators concluded.

These data come from the COMBI-AD phase 3 trial and were published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.

“The treatment duration of this adjuvant therapy was 12 months; however, we do not know whether this is the optimal treatment duration,” said lead author Reinhard Dummer, MD, vice chairman, department of dermatology, University of Zürich Hospital. “Early biomarker results suggest that, in a subgroup, longer treatment durations might be necessary. In other patients, a shorter treatment could be sufficient.”

Richard Carvajal, MD, director of the Melanoma Service at New York–Presbyterian Hospital and Columbia University Medical Center, also in New York, said the new data “address prior concerns that any benefit achieved with targeted therapy in the adjuvant setting may be limited in duration.”

“Indeed, with active therapy, over 50% of patients are alive without relapse and 65% of patients are alive without the development of distant metastasis,” he said. “Although overall survival data remain immature, numerical improvement in survival is also reported.”

In an interview, Dr. Carvajal said that the plateaus observed with relapse and distant metastasis-free survival suggest that true disease cures are being achieved with treatment. “Based upon these results, the discussion of adjuvant therapeutic options should include a 12-month course of adjuvant dabrafenib and trametinib, as well as the option of adjuvant anti-PD-1 [programmed death–1] therapy.”

As for how the MEK-BRAF inhibitor combination compares with immunotherapy in this setting, he pointed out that, since there has been no head-to-head comparison of adjuvant targeted therapy and adjuvant nivolumab (Opdivo) or pembrolizumab (Keytruda), it is not possible to conclusively state that one regimen is more effective than another.

“For patients with resected BRAF-mutant melanoma at high risk of disease recurrence, we now have data demonstrating the clinical benefit for a course of adjuvant dabrafenib and trametinib, adjuvant nivolumab and adjuvant pembrolizumab,” said Dr. Carvajal.

“Although the efficacy of adjuvant ipilimumab [Yervoy] as well as adjuvant interferon have also been previously demonstrated, these agents are now appropriate for consideration in extremely rare clinical circumstances given the clinical efficacy and improved toxicity profile of single agent anti-PD-1 therapy.”

“The selection of the most appropriate adjuvant therapy should take into account the preferences of individual patients in terms of toxicity profile and drug administration considerations,” he added.


 

Study details

The COMBI-AD was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study conducted in 870 patients with high-risk, stage III, BRAF-V600E/K–mutant melanoma who were treatment naive. Participating patients had undergone surgical resection and had been disease free for ≤12 weeks.

Interim results from this study, reported in 2017, showed 1 year of oral adjuvant therapy with dabrafenib and trametinib provided a 53% lower risk for 3-year recurrence, compared with placebo.

Now, the investigators reported on the 5-year results for relapse-free survival and survival without distant metastasis. They noted that they were unable to analyze overall survival since the required number of events had not been reached.

Patients had been randomly assigned to receive 12 months of oral dabrafenib (at a dose of 150 mg twice daily) plus trametinib (2 mg once daily) or two matched placebos. Patients were followed for 60 months (5 years) for dabrafenib plus trametinib and 58 months for placebo.

At 5 years, the median relapse-free survival was not reached for patients who received the combination therapy group versus 16.6 months in the placebo group (hazard ratio for relapse or death, 0.51).

The percentage of patients who were alive without distant metastasis at 5 years was 65% in the dabrafenib plus trametinib group and 54% in the placebo arm (HR for distant metastasis or death, 0.55).

The hazard ratio for relapse-free survival favored dabrafenib plus trametinib across all patient subgroups that were evaluated in the study, and survival without distant metastasis showed a similar benefit for the combination regardless of disease stage.

Subsequent therapy was needed in 40% of patients who received dabrafenib plus trametinib and by 54% of those in the placebo group, with the most common treatments being immunotherapy in the combination-therapy group [26%] and small molecule–targeted therapy in the placebo group (35%).
 

A viable option

Dr. Dummer noted that, when this clinical trial was designed, all patients had to undergo aggressive surgery that involved lymph node dissection. “Nowadays, based on the lack of improvement on progression-free survival and overall survival, the surgical procedures are less aggressive and today we do not recommend aggressive lymph node dissection in patients that qualify for adjuvant therapy. In patients that do not have the BRAF mutation, there is the possibility of giving immunotherapy.”

He added that there is an urgent need for biomarkers that can identify early progression during adjuvant therapy. “Potentially, these patients would profit from immunotherapy alone or from combination using targeted therapy and immunotherapy,” Dr. Dummer said.

The study was funded by GlaxoSmithKline and Novartis. Dr. Dummer has declared multiple relationships with industry.

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

Adjuvant therapy for patients with high-risk resected melanomas is now a standard of care, but the durability of the benefit gained from this treatment is still unclear.

New data show that the benefit is maintained over the longer term.

At 5 years, just over half of patients (52%) with advanced melanoma who had received a year of adjuvant therapy with two targeted agents were still alive and remained relapse free, compared with 36% of patients who received placebo.

The combination of dabrafenib (Tafinlar) and trametinib (Mekinist) conferred a durable long-term, relapse-free survival benefit for patients with resected stage III melanoma with BRAF V600E or V600K mutations, the investigators concluded.

These data come from the COMBI-AD phase 3 trial and were published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.

“The treatment duration of this adjuvant therapy was 12 months; however, we do not know whether this is the optimal treatment duration,” said lead author Reinhard Dummer, MD, vice chairman, department of dermatology, University of Zürich Hospital. “Early biomarker results suggest that, in a subgroup, longer treatment durations might be necessary. In other patients, a shorter treatment could be sufficient.”

Richard Carvajal, MD, director of the Melanoma Service at New York–Presbyterian Hospital and Columbia University Medical Center, also in New York, said the new data “address prior concerns that any benefit achieved with targeted therapy in the adjuvant setting may be limited in duration.”

“Indeed, with active therapy, over 50% of patients are alive without relapse and 65% of patients are alive without the development of distant metastasis,” he said. “Although overall survival data remain immature, numerical improvement in survival is also reported.”

In an interview, Dr. Carvajal said that the plateaus observed with relapse and distant metastasis-free survival suggest that true disease cures are being achieved with treatment. “Based upon these results, the discussion of adjuvant therapeutic options should include a 12-month course of adjuvant dabrafenib and trametinib, as well as the option of adjuvant anti-PD-1 [programmed death–1] therapy.”

As for how the MEK-BRAF inhibitor combination compares with immunotherapy in this setting, he pointed out that, since there has been no head-to-head comparison of adjuvant targeted therapy and adjuvant nivolumab (Opdivo) or pembrolizumab (Keytruda), it is not possible to conclusively state that one regimen is more effective than another.

“For patients with resected BRAF-mutant melanoma at high risk of disease recurrence, we now have data demonstrating the clinical benefit for a course of adjuvant dabrafenib and trametinib, adjuvant nivolumab and adjuvant pembrolizumab,” said Dr. Carvajal.

“Although the efficacy of adjuvant ipilimumab [Yervoy] as well as adjuvant interferon have also been previously demonstrated, these agents are now appropriate for consideration in extremely rare clinical circumstances given the clinical efficacy and improved toxicity profile of single agent anti-PD-1 therapy.”

“The selection of the most appropriate adjuvant therapy should take into account the preferences of individual patients in terms of toxicity profile and drug administration considerations,” he added.


 

Study details

The COMBI-AD was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study conducted in 870 patients with high-risk, stage III, BRAF-V600E/K–mutant melanoma who were treatment naive. Participating patients had undergone surgical resection and had been disease free for ≤12 weeks.

Interim results from this study, reported in 2017, showed 1 year of oral adjuvant therapy with dabrafenib and trametinib provided a 53% lower risk for 3-year recurrence, compared with placebo.

Now, the investigators reported on the 5-year results for relapse-free survival and survival without distant metastasis. They noted that they were unable to analyze overall survival since the required number of events had not been reached.

Patients had been randomly assigned to receive 12 months of oral dabrafenib (at a dose of 150 mg twice daily) plus trametinib (2 mg once daily) or two matched placebos. Patients were followed for 60 months (5 years) for dabrafenib plus trametinib and 58 months for placebo.

At 5 years, the median relapse-free survival was not reached for patients who received the combination therapy group versus 16.6 months in the placebo group (hazard ratio for relapse or death, 0.51).

The percentage of patients who were alive without distant metastasis at 5 years was 65% in the dabrafenib plus trametinib group and 54% in the placebo arm (HR for distant metastasis or death, 0.55).

The hazard ratio for relapse-free survival favored dabrafenib plus trametinib across all patient subgroups that were evaluated in the study, and survival without distant metastasis showed a similar benefit for the combination regardless of disease stage.

Subsequent therapy was needed in 40% of patients who received dabrafenib plus trametinib and by 54% of those in the placebo group, with the most common treatments being immunotherapy in the combination-therapy group [26%] and small molecule–targeted therapy in the placebo group (35%).
 

A viable option

Dr. Dummer noted that, when this clinical trial was designed, all patients had to undergo aggressive surgery that involved lymph node dissection. “Nowadays, based on the lack of improvement on progression-free survival and overall survival, the surgical procedures are less aggressive and today we do not recommend aggressive lymph node dissection in patients that qualify for adjuvant therapy. In patients that do not have the BRAF mutation, there is the possibility of giving immunotherapy.”

He added that there is an urgent need for biomarkers that can identify early progression during adjuvant therapy. “Potentially, these patients would profit from immunotherapy alone or from combination using targeted therapy and immunotherapy,” Dr. Dummer said.

The study was funded by GlaxoSmithKline and Novartis. Dr. Dummer has declared multiple relationships with industry.

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

Adjuvant therapy for patients with high-risk resected melanomas is now a standard of care, but the durability of the benefit gained from this treatment is still unclear.

New data show that the benefit is maintained over the longer term.

At 5 years, just over half of patients (52%) with advanced melanoma who had received a year of adjuvant therapy with two targeted agents were still alive and remained relapse free, compared with 36% of patients who received placebo.

The combination of dabrafenib (Tafinlar) and trametinib (Mekinist) conferred a durable long-term, relapse-free survival benefit for patients with resected stage III melanoma with BRAF V600E or V600K mutations, the investigators concluded.

These data come from the COMBI-AD phase 3 trial and were published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.

“The treatment duration of this adjuvant therapy was 12 months; however, we do not know whether this is the optimal treatment duration,” said lead author Reinhard Dummer, MD, vice chairman, department of dermatology, University of Zürich Hospital. “Early biomarker results suggest that, in a subgroup, longer treatment durations might be necessary. In other patients, a shorter treatment could be sufficient.”

Richard Carvajal, MD, director of the Melanoma Service at New York–Presbyterian Hospital and Columbia University Medical Center, also in New York, said the new data “address prior concerns that any benefit achieved with targeted therapy in the adjuvant setting may be limited in duration.”

“Indeed, with active therapy, over 50% of patients are alive without relapse and 65% of patients are alive without the development of distant metastasis,” he said. “Although overall survival data remain immature, numerical improvement in survival is also reported.”

In an interview, Dr. Carvajal said that the plateaus observed with relapse and distant metastasis-free survival suggest that true disease cures are being achieved with treatment. “Based upon these results, the discussion of adjuvant therapeutic options should include a 12-month course of adjuvant dabrafenib and trametinib, as well as the option of adjuvant anti-PD-1 [programmed death–1] therapy.”

As for how the MEK-BRAF inhibitor combination compares with immunotherapy in this setting, he pointed out that, since there has been no head-to-head comparison of adjuvant targeted therapy and adjuvant nivolumab (Opdivo) or pembrolizumab (Keytruda), it is not possible to conclusively state that one regimen is more effective than another.

“For patients with resected BRAF-mutant melanoma at high risk of disease recurrence, we now have data demonstrating the clinical benefit for a course of adjuvant dabrafenib and trametinib, adjuvant nivolumab and adjuvant pembrolizumab,” said Dr. Carvajal.

“Although the efficacy of adjuvant ipilimumab [Yervoy] as well as adjuvant interferon have also been previously demonstrated, these agents are now appropriate for consideration in extremely rare clinical circumstances given the clinical efficacy and improved toxicity profile of single agent anti-PD-1 therapy.”

“The selection of the most appropriate adjuvant therapy should take into account the preferences of individual patients in terms of toxicity profile and drug administration considerations,” he added.


 

Study details

The COMBI-AD was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study conducted in 870 patients with high-risk, stage III, BRAF-V600E/K–mutant melanoma who were treatment naive. Participating patients had undergone surgical resection and had been disease free for ≤12 weeks.

Interim results from this study, reported in 2017, showed 1 year of oral adjuvant therapy with dabrafenib and trametinib provided a 53% lower risk for 3-year recurrence, compared with placebo.

Now, the investigators reported on the 5-year results for relapse-free survival and survival without distant metastasis. They noted that they were unable to analyze overall survival since the required number of events had not been reached.

Patients had been randomly assigned to receive 12 months of oral dabrafenib (at a dose of 150 mg twice daily) plus trametinib (2 mg once daily) or two matched placebos. Patients were followed for 60 months (5 years) for dabrafenib plus trametinib and 58 months for placebo.

At 5 years, the median relapse-free survival was not reached for patients who received the combination therapy group versus 16.6 months in the placebo group (hazard ratio for relapse or death, 0.51).

The percentage of patients who were alive without distant metastasis at 5 years was 65% in the dabrafenib plus trametinib group and 54% in the placebo arm (HR for distant metastasis or death, 0.55).

The hazard ratio for relapse-free survival favored dabrafenib plus trametinib across all patient subgroups that were evaluated in the study, and survival without distant metastasis showed a similar benefit for the combination regardless of disease stage.

Subsequent therapy was needed in 40% of patients who received dabrafenib plus trametinib and by 54% of those in the placebo group, with the most common treatments being immunotherapy in the combination-therapy group [26%] and small molecule–targeted therapy in the placebo group (35%).
 

A viable option

Dr. Dummer noted that, when this clinical trial was designed, all patients had to undergo aggressive surgery that involved lymph node dissection. “Nowadays, based on the lack of improvement on progression-free survival and overall survival, the surgical procedures are less aggressive and today we do not recommend aggressive lymph node dissection in patients that qualify for adjuvant therapy. In patients that do not have the BRAF mutation, there is the possibility of giving immunotherapy.”

He added that there is an urgent need for biomarkers that can identify early progression during adjuvant therapy. “Potentially, these patients would profit from immunotherapy alone or from combination using targeted therapy and immunotherapy,” Dr. Dummer said.

The study was funded by GlaxoSmithKline and Novartis. Dr. Dummer has declared multiple relationships with industry.

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