AVAHO

In recent years, innovative use of bispecific antibodies and CAR T-cell therapy has ushered in an era when many patients with relapsed/refractory acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) — who once had prognoses of 6 months or less — now survive for multiple years with the malignancy, and some are cured.

The comparative benefits and limitations of these two treatments for r/r ALL were a topic for discussion at the Great Debates & Updates Hematological Malignancies conference, held April 5-6 in New York City.

“Every single patient with ALL should benefit from bispecific antibodies before getting CAR-T cells, and I want to make the case that everybody should get CAR T as well. But they should get blinatumomab before they get CAR T,” said Elias Jabbour, MD, of the MD Anderson Cancer Center at The University of Texas in Houston, whose presentation focused on the merits of bispecific antibodies.

MD Anderson Cancer Center

His argument was based on data indicating that patients have better chances of long-term remission with the use of bispecific antibodies when they are administered in an earlier round of salvage treatment — and the fact that patients who are not cured with these drugs can still achieve a lower disease burden and perform better on CAR T-cell therapy than those who don’t receive the drugs.

“When blinatumomab is used as a consolidation during the first salvage treatment and spaces out transplantation, 3-year overall survival increases in the relapse setting, deepening responses and reducing the rate of VOD (veno-occlusive disease). The safety and efficacy of CAR T depends on a disease burden. If you have a minimal residual disease (MRD), you have a safer outcome and a better outcome in the long run,” Dr. Jabbour explained.

This point of view is supported by data from the treatment of patients r/r ALL with low intensity chemotherapy + inotuzumab ozogamicin (Besponsa; Pfizer) +/- blinatumomab (Blincyto; Amgen), knows as Mini-HCVD + Ino +/-Blina. Trial members achieved a median overall survival (OS) rate of 17 months, a 3-year survival rate of 42%, and an overall MRD negativity rate of 85%.

Dr. Jabbour noted that blinatumomab has its limitations. Generally, this treatment is administered intravenously every few weeks and can be cumbersome for patients who must travel to an infusion center. However, data from a phase 1b trial of single agent subcutaneous blinatumomab for advanced ALL has demonstrated that this formulation can be effective and can lead to MRD negativity, possibly paving the way for easier administration of the drug.

Aditi Shastri, MD, a leukemia specialist at New York’s Montefiore Medical Center who attended the debate, agreed that the data presented did support Dr. Jabbour’s contention that subcutaneous blinatumomab could make treatment available to even more people with r/r ALL. “It’s easier to administer than the blina pump and could act as a bridge to curative therapies like AlloHSCT,” she said.

Jae Park, MD, a leukemia and cellular therapy specialist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City, argued that CAR T is the most potent therapy for r/r ALL. Dr. Park agreed that inotuzumab and blinatumomab have yielded tremendous progress in the treatment of patients with r/r ALL, but he noted that bispecific antibodies lack some of the advantages of CAR T.

Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center

In recent years, innovative use of bispecific antibodies and CAR T-cell therapy has ushered in an era when many patients with relapsed/refractory acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) — who once had prognoses of 6 months or less — now survive for multiple years with the malignancy, and some are cured.

The comparative benefits and limitations of these two treatments for r/r ALL were a topic for discussion at the Great Debates & Updates Hematological Malignancies conference, held April 5-6 in New York City.

“Every single patient with ALL should benefit from bispecific antibodies before getting CAR-T cells, and I want to make the case that everybody should get CAR T as well. But they should get blinatumomab before they get CAR T,” said Elias Jabbour, MD, of the MD Anderson Cancer Center at The University of Texas in Houston, whose presentation focused on the merits of bispecific antibodies.

MD Anderson Cancer Center

His argument was based on data indicating that patients have better chances of long-term remission with the use of bispecific antibodies when they are administered in an earlier round of salvage treatment — and the fact that patients who are not cured with these drugs can still achieve a lower disease burden and perform better on CAR T-cell therapy than those who don’t receive the drugs.

“When blinatumomab is used as a consolidation during the first salvage treatment and spaces out transplantation, 3-year overall survival increases in the relapse setting, deepening responses and reducing the rate of VOD (veno-occlusive disease). The safety and efficacy of CAR T depends on a disease burden. If you have a minimal residual disease (MRD), you have a safer outcome and a better outcome in the long run,” Dr. Jabbour explained.

This point of view is supported by data from the treatment of patients r/r ALL with low intensity chemotherapy + inotuzumab ozogamicin (Besponsa; Pfizer) +/- blinatumomab (Blincyto; Amgen), knows as Mini-HCVD + Ino +/-Blina. Trial members achieved a median overall survival (OS) rate of 17 months, a 3-year survival rate of 42%, and an overall MRD negativity rate of 85%.

Dr. Jabbour noted that blinatumomab has its limitations. Generally, this treatment is administered intravenously every few weeks and can be cumbersome for patients who must travel to an infusion center. However, data from a phase 1b trial of single agent subcutaneous blinatumomab for advanced ALL has demonstrated that this formulation can be effective and can lead to MRD negativity, possibly paving the way for easier administration of the drug.

Aditi Shastri, MD, a leukemia specialist at New York’s Montefiore Medical Center who attended the debate, agreed that the data presented did support Dr. Jabbour’s contention that subcutaneous blinatumomab could make treatment available to even more people with r/r ALL. “It’s easier to administer than the blina pump and could act as a bridge to curative therapies like AlloHSCT,” she said.

Jae Park, MD, a leukemia and cellular therapy specialist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City, argued that CAR T is the most potent therapy for r/r ALL. Dr. Park agreed that inotuzumab and blinatumomab have yielded tremendous progress in the treatment of patients with r/r ALL, but he noted that bispecific antibodies lack some of the advantages of CAR T.

Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center

In recent years, innovative use of bispecific antibodies and CAR T-cell therapy has ushered in an era when many patients with relapsed/refractory acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) — who once had prognoses of 6 months or less — now survive for multiple years with the malignancy, and some are cured.

The comparative benefits and limitations of these two treatments for r/r ALL were a topic for discussion at the Great Debates & Updates Hematological Malignancies conference, held April 5-6 in New York City.

“Every single patient with ALL should benefit from bispecific antibodies before getting CAR-T cells, and I want to make the case that everybody should get CAR T as well. But they should get blinatumomab before they get CAR T,” said Elias Jabbour, MD, of the MD Anderson Cancer Center at The University of Texas in Houston, whose presentation focused on the merits of bispecific antibodies.

MD Anderson Cancer Center

His argument was based on data indicating that patients have better chances of long-term remission with the use of bispecific antibodies when they are administered in an earlier round of salvage treatment — and the fact that patients who are not cured with these drugs can still achieve a lower disease burden and perform better on CAR T-cell therapy than those who don’t receive the drugs.

“When blinatumomab is used as a consolidation during the first salvage treatment and spaces out transplantation, 3-year overall survival increases in the relapse setting, deepening responses and reducing the rate of VOD (veno-occlusive disease). The safety and efficacy of CAR T depends on a disease burden. If you have a minimal residual disease (MRD), you have a safer outcome and a better outcome in the long run,” Dr. Jabbour explained.

This point of view is supported by data from the treatment of patients r/r ALL with low intensity chemotherapy + inotuzumab ozogamicin (Besponsa; Pfizer) +/- blinatumomab (Blincyto; Amgen), knows as Mini-HCVD + Ino +/-Blina. Trial members achieved a median overall survival (OS) rate of 17 months, a 3-year survival rate of 42%, and an overall MRD negativity rate of 85%.

Dr. Jabbour noted that blinatumomab has its limitations. Generally, this treatment is administered intravenously every few weeks and can be cumbersome for patients who must travel to an infusion center. However, data from a phase 1b trial of single agent subcutaneous blinatumomab for advanced ALL has demonstrated that this formulation can be effective and can lead to MRD negativity, possibly paving the way for easier administration of the drug.

Aditi Shastri, MD, a leukemia specialist at New York’s Montefiore Medical Center who attended the debate, agreed that the data presented did support Dr. Jabbour’s contention that subcutaneous blinatumomab could make treatment available to even more people with r/r ALL. “It’s easier to administer than the blina pump and could act as a bridge to curative therapies like AlloHSCT,” she said.

Jae Park, MD, a leukemia and cellular therapy specialist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City, argued that CAR T is the most potent therapy for r/r ALL. Dr. Park agreed that inotuzumab and blinatumomab have yielded tremendous progress in the treatment of patients with r/r ALL, but he noted that bispecific antibodies lack some of the advantages of CAR T.

Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center

SAN DIEGO — A liquid biopsy assay that combines a microRNA signature and a well-known biomarker for pancreatic cancer has demonstrated an accuracy of 97% for detecting stage I/II pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma, the most common type of pancreatic cancer.

It is quite encouraging to know we have a blood test that could potentially find this disease early, said Ajay Goel, PhD, a molecular diagnostics specialist at City of Hope in Duarte, California, who presented the findings at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR).

Dr. Goel and colleagues developed a signature for pancreatic cancer based on microRNAs identified in the exomes shed from pancreatic cancers and cell-free DNA markers found in the blood of patients with the disease.

Their initial assay tested blood samples for this signature in a training cohort of 252 people in Japan, approximately 60% of whom had pancreatic cancer. The rest were healthy controls. The assay was then tested in validation cohorts of 400 subjects, half with pancreatic cancer and half controls, in China and South Korea.

In both the initial and validation tests, the microRNA assay had an accuracy of about 90% for stage I/II pancreatic cancer, already far better than commercially available assays.

In an additional validation cohort in the United States with 139 patients with pancreatic cancer and 193 controls at six centers across the country, the researchers found that adding carbohydrate antigen 19-9 — a well-known marker of pancreatic cancer — to the assay boosted the test’s accuracy to 97%.

The test performed the same whether the tumor was in the head or tail of the pancreas.

“We are very excited about this data,” said Dr. Goel.

The technology was recently licensed to Pharus Diagnostics for commercial development, which will likely include a prospective screening trial, he told this news organization.

Because pancreatic cancer is fairly uncommon, Dr. Goel did not anticipate the test being used for general screening but rather for screening high-risk patients such as those with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes, a family history of pancreatic cancer, or predisposing genetic mutations.

“It should be a very inexpensive test; it doesn’t cost us much to do in the lab,” he added.

Study moderator Ryan Corcoran, MD, PhD, a gastrointestinal (GI) oncologist at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, saw the potential.

“As a GI oncologist, I know how lethal and hard to treat pancreatic cancer is,” he said. A test that could reliably detect pancreatic cancer early, with an acceptable false-positive rate, would be extremely useful.

“The cure rate is many, many times higher,” if we detect it before it has a chance to spread, he explained.

In the meantime, Dr. Goel said there’s more work to be done.

Almost 4,000 subjects have been enrolled in ongoing validation efforts, and efforts are underway to use the test to screen thousands of banked blood samples from the PLCO, a prospective cancer screening trial in healthy subjects.

The researchers also want to see if the test can distinguish benign pancreatic cysts from ones that turn cancerous.

The idea is to find the earliest possible signs of this disease to see if we can find it not “at the moment of clinical diagnosis, but possibly 6 months, 1 year, 2 years earlier” than with radiologic imaging, Dr. Goel said.

The work was funded by the National Cancer Institute and others. Dr. Goel is a consultant for Pharus Diagnostics and Cellomics. Dr. Corcoran is a consultant for, has grants from, and/or holds stock in numerous companies, including Pfizer, Novartis, Eli Lilly, and Revolution Medicines.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO — A liquid biopsy assay that combines a microRNA signature and a well-known biomarker for pancreatic cancer has demonstrated an accuracy of 97% for detecting stage I/II pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma, the most common type of pancreatic cancer.

It is quite encouraging to know we have a blood test that could potentially find this disease early, said Ajay Goel, PhD, a molecular diagnostics specialist at City of Hope in Duarte, California, who presented the findings at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR).

Dr. Goel and colleagues developed a signature for pancreatic cancer based on microRNAs identified in the exomes shed from pancreatic cancers and cell-free DNA markers found in the blood of patients with the disease.

Their initial assay tested blood samples for this signature in a training cohort of 252 people in Japan, approximately 60% of whom had pancreatic cancer. The rest were healthy controls. The assay was then tested in validation cohorts of 400 subjects, half with pancreatic cancer and half controls, in China and South Korea.

In both the initial and validation tests, the microRNA assay had an accuracy of about 90% for stage I/II pancreatic cancer, already far better than commercially available assays.

In an additional validation cohort in the United States with 139 patients with pancreatic cancer and 193 controls at six centers across the country, the researchers found that adding carbohydrate antigen 19-9 — a well-known marker of pancreatic cancer — to the assay boosted the test’s accuracy to 97%.

The test performed the same whether the tumor was in the head or tail of the pancreas.

“We are very excited about this data,” said Dr. Goel.

The technology was recently licensed to Pharus Diagnostics for commercial development, which will likely include a prospective screening trial, he told this news organization.

Because pancreatic cancer is fairly uncommon, Dr. Goel did not anticipate the test being used for general screening but rather for screening high-risk patients such as those with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes, a family history of pancreatic cancer, or predisposing genetic mutations.

“It should be a very inexpensive test; it doesn’t cost us much to do in the lab,” he added.

Study moderator Ryan Corcoran, MD, PhD, a gastrointestinal (GI) oncologist at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, saw the potential.

“As a GI oncologist, I know how lethal and hard to treat pancreatic cancer is,” he said. A test that could reliably detect pancreatic cancer early, with an acceptable false-positive rate, would be extremely useful.

“The cure rate is many, many times higher,” if we detect it before it has a chance to spread, he explained.

In the meantime, Dr. Goel said there’s more work to be done.

Almost 4,000 subjects have been enrolled in ongoing validation efforts, and efforts are underway to use the test to screen thousands of banked blood samples from the PLCO, a prospective cancer screening trial in healthy subjects.

The researchers also want to see if the test can distinguish benign pancreatic cysts from ones that turn cancerous.

The idea is to find the earliest possible signs of this disease to see if we can find it not “at the moment of clinical diagnosis, but possibly 6 months, 1 year, 2 years earlier” than with radiologic imaging, Dr. Goel said.

The work was funded by the National Cancer Institute and others. Dr. Goel is a consultant for Pharus Diagnostics and Cellomics. Dr. Corcoran is a consultant for, has grants from, and/or holds stock in numerous companies, including Pfizer, Novartis, Eli Lilly, and Revolution Medicines.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO — A liquid biopsy assay that combines a microRNA signature and a well-known biomarker for pancreatic cancer has demonstrated an accuracy of 97% for detecting stage I/II pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma, the most common type of pancreatic cancer.

It is quite encouraging to know we have a blood test that could potentially find this disease early, said Ajay Goel, PhD, a molecular diagnostics specialist at City of Hope in Duarte, California, who presented the findings at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR).

Dr. Goel and colleagues developed a signature for pancreatic cancer based on microRNAs identified in the exomes shed from pancreatic cancers and cell-free DNA markers found in the blood of patients with the disease.

Their initial assay tested blood samples for this signature in a training cohort of 252 people in Japan, approximately 60% of whom had pancreatic cancer. The rest were healthy controls. The assay was then tested in validation cohorts of 400 subjects, half with pancreatic cancer and half controls, in China and South Korea.

In both the initial and validation tests, the microRNA assay had an accuracy of about 90% for stage I/II pancreatic cancer, already far better than commercially available assays.

In an additional validation cohort in the United States with 139 patients with pancreatic cancer and 193 controls at six centers across the country, the researchers found that adding carbohydrate antigen 19-9 — a well-known marker of pancreatic cancer — to the assay boosted the test’s accuracy to 97%.

The test performed the same whether the tumor was in the head or tail of the pancreas.

“We are very excited about this data,” said Dr. Goel.

The technology was recently licensed to Pharus Diagnostics for commercial development, which will likely include a prospective screening trial, he told this news organization.

Because pancreatic cancer is fairly uncommon, Dr. Goel did not anticipate the test being used for general screening but rather for screening high-risk patients such as those with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes, a family history of pancreatic cancer, or predisposing genetic mutations.

“It should be a very inexpensive test; it doesn’t cost us much to do in the lab,” he added.

Study moderator Ryan Corcoran, MD, PhD, a gastrointestinal (GI) oncologist at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, saw the potential.

“As a GI oncologist, I know how lethal and hard to treat pancreatic cancer is,” he said. A test that could reliably detect pancreatic cancer early, with an acceptable false-positive rate, would be extremely useful.

“The cure rate is many, many times higher,” if we detect it before it has a chance to spread, he explained.

In the meantime, Dr. Goel said there’s more work to be done.

Almost 4,000 subjects have been enrolled in ongoing validation efforts, and efforts are underway to use the test to screen thousands of banked blood samples from the PLCO, a prospective cancer screening trial in healthy subjects.

The researchers also want to see if the test can distinguish benign pancreatic cysts from ones that turn cancerous.

The idea is to find the earliest possible signs of this disease to see if we can find it not “at the moment of clinical diagnosis, but possibly 6 months, 1 year, 2 years earlier” than with radiologic imaging, Dr. Goel said.

The work was funded by the National Cancer Institute and others. Dr. Goel is a consultant for Pharus Diagnostics and Cellomics. Dr. Corcoran is a consultant for, has grants from, and/or holds stock in numerous companies, including Pfizer, Novartis, Eli Lilly, and Revolution Medicines.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO — A novel multicancer early detection (MCED) blood test has demonstrated promising real-world results in detecting new cancers, including several cases of early-stage disease.

This was the conclusion of recent data presented by Ora Karp Gordon, MD, MS, during a session at the American Association for Cancer Research annual meeting.

The MCED test, known as Galleri, was made clinically available in the United States in April 2021. Developed by GRAIL LLC, the test analyzes cell-free DNA in the blood using targeted methylation analysis and machine learning to detect the presence of a cancer signal and determine its organ of origin or cancer signal origin. The initial screening of over 53,000 individuals with the Galleri test detected a cancer signal in 1.1% of participants.

The new real-world analysis examines the outcomes of repeat MCED testing in 5,794 individuals.

The study looked at individuals who initially received a ‘no cancer signal detected’ result and then underwent a second Galleri test. Over 80% of participants received their follow-up test 10-18 months after the first, with a median interval between blood draws of 12.9 months.

“The repeat tests detect those cancer cases that have reached the detection threshold since their last MCED test, which should be less than one year of incidence,” Dr. Gordon, professor at Saint John’s Cancer Institute, Santa Monica, California, said in an interview. “We are just now starting to see results from patients who get their second and even third round of screening.”

“Galleri is recommended to be used annually in addition to USPSTF [US Preventive Services Task Force]–recommended cancer screening tests, like mammography and colonoscopy,” she said.

This recommendation is based on a modeling study suggesting that annual screening would improve stage shift, diagnostic yield, and potentially mortality when compared to biennial screening, although biennial screening was still favorable compared with no screening, she explained.
 

Early Real-World Evidence of Repeat Testing

Among the cohort of 5,794 individuals who received repeat testing, 26 received a positive cancer signal on their second test, yielding a cancer signal detection rate of 0.45% (95% CI: 0.31%-0.66%). The cancer signal detection rate was slightly higher in men. The rate was 0.50% (95% CI: 0.32%-0.81%; 17 of 3367) in men versus 0.37% (95% CI: 0.2%-0.7%; 9 of 2427) in women.

During her presentation, Dr. Gordon highlighted that the repeat testing signal detection rate was lower than the initial 0.95% rate (95% CI: 0.87-1.0; 510 of 53,744) seen in the previous larger cohort of patients who were retested at 1 year.

She acknowledged that the lower cancer signal detection rate of repeat testing may indicate some degree of ‘early adopter’ bias, where those who return for a second test are systematically different from the general screening population. This could suggest that broader population-level screening may yield different results, she continued.
 

Shift Toward Unscreened Cancers

The top cancer types identified in the second round of testing were lymphoid, head and neck, bladder/urothelial, colorectal, and anal cancers. Clinicians were able to confirm clinical outcomes in 12 of 26 cases, in which cancer signals were detected. Of those 12 cases, 8 individuals received a cancer diagnosis and 4 did not have cancer. The remaining 14 of 26 cases in which cancer signals were detected are still under investigation.

“We found a shift away from USPSTF screen-detected cancers, like breast, lung, and prostate, and relative increase in unscreened urinary, head and neck, and lymphoid cancers, with 75% of cancers being those without any screening guidelines,” Dr. Gordon said in an interview.

She added that patients who choose to retest may have different cancer rates for several reasons, including bias toward a population that is health conscious and adhered to all recommended cancer screening.

“So the shift toward unscreened cancers is not unexpected and highlights the value of Galleri,” she said, but also acknowledged that “continued monitoring is needed to see if this translates in a persistent finding over time and tests.”
 

Shift Toward Early-Stage Cancers

Staging information was available for five cases, and Dr. Gordon highlighted in her talk that four of these confirmed cancers were stage I, including cancers of the anus, head and neck, bladder, and lymphoma. The fifth confirmed cancer with staging information was stage IV ovarian cancer.

“It is still early, and the numbers are very small, but the detection of early-stage cancers with second annual testing is very encouraging as these are the cases where MCED testing could have the greatest impact in improving outcomes through earlier treatment,” Dr. Gordon told this publication.

During an interview after the talk, Kenneth L. Kehl, MD, MPH, echoed that data must be confirmed in larger cohorts.

“The shift toward earlier stage cancers that are less detectable by standard screening methods is an interesting result, but we need to be cautious since the numbers were relatively small, and we do not have data on cancers that were diagnosed among patients whose second MCED test was also negative,” said Dr. Kehl, a medical oncologist at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston.
 

MCED Results Could Help Direct Diagnostic Workup

The test’s ability to predict the organ of origin was highly accurate, correctly identifying the cancer type in all eight confirmed cases. Among the eight cases with a confirmed cancer diagnosis, the accuracy of the first prediction was 100%, and diagnoses included invasive cancers across multiple tissues and organs, including anus, colon, head and neck, urothelial tract, ovary, and the lymphatic system.

“The fact that the site of origin for 100% of confirmed cancers was accurately predicted with GRAIL’s CSO by Galleri test confirms the promise that this can guide workup when a cancer signal is detected,” Dr. Gordon noted in the interview.
 

Looking Ahead

Dr. Kehl, who was not involved in the MCED study, noted in an interview that “further data on test characteristics beyond positive predictive value, including the sensitivity, specificity, and negative predictive value, as well as demonstration of clinical benefit — ideally in a randomized trial — will likely be required for MCED testing to become a standard public health recommendation.”

He added that challenges associated with implementing annual screening with MCED tests include the risks of both false positives and false negatives as testing becomes more widely available.

“False positives cause anxiety and lead to additional testing that may carry its own risks, and we need to understand if potentially false negative tests will be associated with less uptake of established screening strategies,” Dr. Kehl said in an interview. However, he noted that serial testing could lead to more frequent diagnoses of early-stage cancers that may be less detectable by standard methods.

Dr. Gordon reported financial relationships with GRAIL LLC and Genetic Technologies Corporation. Dr. Kehl reported no relationships with entities whose primary business is producing, marketing, selling, reselling, or distributing healthcare products used by or on patients.

SAN DIEGO — A novel multicancer early detection (MCED) blood test has demonstrated promising real-world results in detecting new cancers, including several cases of early-stage disease.

This was the conclusion of recent data presented by Ora Karp Gordon, MD, MS, during a session at the American Association for Cancer Research annual meeting.

The MCED test, known as Galleri, was made clinically available in the United States in April 2021. Developed by GRAIL LLC, the test analyzes cell-free DNA in the blood using targeted methylation analysis and machine learning to detect the presence of a cancer signal and determine its organ of origin or cancer signal origin. The initial screening of over 53,000 individuals with the Galleri test detected a cancer signal in 1.1% of participants.

The new real-world analysis examines the outcomes of repeat MCED testing in 5,794 individuals.

The study looked at individuals who initially received a ‘no cancer signal detected’ result and then underwent a second Galleri test. Over 80% of participants received their follow-up test 10-18 months after the first, with a median interval between blood draws of 12.9 months.

“The repeat tests detect those cancer cases that have reached the detection threshold since their last MCED test, which should be less than one year of incidence,” Dr. Gordon, professor at Saint John’s Cancer Institute, Santa Monica, California, said in an interview. “We are just now starting to see results from patients who get their second and even third round of screening.”

“Galleri is recommended to be used annually in addition to USPSTF [US Preventive Services Task Force]–recommended cancer screening tests, like mammography and colonoscopy,” she said.

This recommendation is based on a modeling study suggesting that annual screening would improve stage shift, diagnostic yield, and potentially mortality when compared to biennial screening, although biennial screening was still favorable compared with no screening, she explained.
 

Early Real-World Evidence of Repeat Testing

Among the cohort of 5,794 individuals who received repeat testing, 26 received a positive cancer signal on their second test, yielding a cancer signal detection rate of 0.45% (95% CI: 0.31%-0.66%). The cancer signal detection rate was slightly higher in men. The rate was 0.50% (95% CI: 0.32%-0.81%; 17 of 3367) in men versus 0.37% (95% CI: 0.2%-0.7%; 9 of 2427) in women.

During her presentation, Dr. Gordon highlighted that the repeat testing signal detection rate was lower than the initial 0.95% rate (95% CI: 0.87-1.0; 510 of 53,744) seen in the previous larger cohort of patients who were retested at 1 year.

She acknowledged that the lower cancer signal detection rate of repeat testing may indicate some degree of ‘early adopter’ bias, where those who return for a second test are systematically different from the general screening population. This could suggest that broader population-level screening may yield different results, she continued.
 

Shift Toward Unscreened Cancers

The top cancer types identified in the second round of testing were lymphoid, head and neck, bladder/urothelial, colorectal, and anal cancers. Clinicians were able to confirm clinical outcomes in 12 of 26 cases, in which cancer signals were detected. Of those 12 cases, 8 individuals received a cancer diagnosis and 4 did not have cancer. The remaining 14 of 26 cases in which cancer signals were detected are still under investigation.

“We found a shift away from USPSTF screen-detected cancers, like breast, lung, and prostate, and relative increase in unscreened urinary, head and neck, and lymphoid cancers, with 75% of cancers being those without any screening guidelines,” Dr. Gordon said in an interview.

She added that patients who choose to retest may have different cancer rates for several reasons, including bias toward a population that is health conscious and adhered to all recommended cancer screening.

“So the shift toward unscreened cancers is not unexpected and highlights the value of Galleri,” she said, but also acknowledged that “continued monitoring is needed to see if this translates in a persistent finding over time and tests.”
 

Shift Toward Early-Stage Cancers

Staging information was available for five cases, and Dr. Gordon highlighted in her talk that four of these confirmed cancers were stage I, including cancers of the anus, head and neck, bladder, and lymphoma. The fifth confirmed cancer with staging information was stage IV ovarian cancer.

“It is still early, and the numbers are very small, but the detection of early-stage cancers with second annual testing is very encouraging as these are the cases where MCED testing could have the greatest impact in improving outcomes through earlier treatment,” Dr. Gordon told this publication.

During an interview after the talk, Kenneth L. Kehl, MD, MPH, echoed that data must be confirmed in larger cohorts.

“The shift toward earlier stage cancers that are less detectable by standard screening methods is an interesting result, but we need to be cautious since the numbers were relatively small, and we do not have data on cancers that were diagnosed among patients whose second MCED test was also negative,” said Dr. Kehl, a medical oncologist at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston.
 

MCED Results Could Help Direct Diagnostic Workup

The test’s ability to predict the organ of origin was highly accurate, correctly identifying the cancer type in all eight confirmed cases. Among the eight cases with a confirmed cancer diagnosis, the accuracy of the first prediction was 100%, and diagnoses included invasive cancers across multiple tissues and organs, including anus, colon, head and neck, urothelial tract, ovary, and the lymphatic system.

“The fact that the site of origin for 100% of confirmed cancers was accurately predicted with GRAIL’s CSO by Galleri test confirms the promise that this can guide workup when a cancer signal is detected,” Dr. Gordon noted in the interview.
 

Looking Ahead

Dr. Kehl, who was not involved in the MCED study, noted in an interview that “further data on test characteristics beyond positive predictive value, including the sensitivity, specificity, and negative predictive value, as well as demonstration of clinical benefit — ideally in a randomized trial — will likely be required for MCED testing to become a standard public health recommendation.”

He added that challenges associated with implementing annual screening with MCED tests include the risks of both false positives and false negatives as testing becomes more widely available.

“False positives cause anxiety and lead to additional testing that may carry its own risks, and we need to understand if potentially false negative tests will be associated with less uptake of established screening strategies,” Dr. Kehl said in an interview. However, he noted that serial testing could lead to more frequent diagnoses of early-stage cancers that may be less detectable by standard methods.

Dr. Gordon reported financial relationships with GRAIL LLC and Genetic Technologies Corporation. Dr. Kehl reported no relationships with entities whose primary business is producing, marketing, selling, reselling, or distributing healthcare products used by or on patients.

SAN DIEGO — A novel multicancer early detection (MCED) blood test has demonstrated promising real-world results in detecting new cancers, including several cases of early-stage disease.

This was the conclusion of recent data presented by Ora Karp Gordon, MD, MS, during a session at the American Association for Cancer Research annual meeting.

The MCED test, known as Galleri, was made clinically available in the United States in April 2021. Developed by GRAIL LLC, the test analyzes cell-free DNA in the blood using targeted methylation analysis and machine learning to detect the presence of a cancer signal and determine its organ of origin or cancer signal origin. The initial screening of over 53,000 individuals with the Galleri test detected a cancer signal in 1.1% of participants.

The new real-world analysis examines the outcomes of repeat MCED testing in 5,794 individuals.

The study looked at individuals who initially received a ‘no cancer signal detected’ result and then underwent a second Galleri test. Over 80% of participants received their follow-up test 10-18 months after the first, with a median interval between blood draws of 12.9 months.

“The repeat tests detect those cancer cases that have reached the detection threshold since their last MCED test, which should be less than one year of incidence,” Dr. Gordon, professor at Saint John’s Cancer Institute, Santa Monica, California, said in an interview. “We are just now starting to see results from patients who get their second and even third round of screening.”

“Galleri is recommended to be used annually in addition to USPSTF [US Preventive Services Task Force]–recommended cancer screening tests, like mammography and colonoscopy,” she said.

This recommendation is based on a modeling study suggesting that annual screening would improve stage shift, diagnostic yield, and potentially mortality when compared to biennial screening, although biennial screening was still favorable compared with no screening, she explained.
 

Early Real-World Evidence of Repeat Testing

Among the cohort of 5,794 individuals who received repeat testing, 26 received a positive cancer signal on their second test, yielding a cancer signal detection rate of 0.45% (95% CI: 0.31%-0.66%). The cancer signal detection rate was slightly higher in men. The rate was 0.50% (95% CI: 0.32%-0.81%; 17 of 3367) in men versus 0.37% (95% CI: 0.2%-0.7%; 9 of 2427) in women.

During her presentation, Dr. Gordon highlighted that the repeat testing signal detection rate was lower than the initial 0.95% rate (95% CI: 0.87-1.0; 510 of 53,744) seen in the previous larger cohort of patients who were retested at 1 year.

She acknowledged that the lower cancer signal detection rate of repeat testing may indicate some degree of ‘early adopter’ bias, where those who return for a second test are systematically different from the general screening population. This could suggest that broader population-level screening may yield different results, she continued.
 

Shift Toward Unscreened Cancers

The top cancer types identified in the second round of testing were lymphoid, head and neck, bladder/urothelial, colorectal, and anal cancers. Clinicians were able to confirm clinical outcomes in 12 of 26 cases, in which cancer signals were detected. Of those 12 cases, 8 individuals received a cancer diagnosis and 4 did not have cancer. The remaining 14 of 26 cases in which cancer signals were detected are still under investigation.

“We found a shift away from USPSTF screen-detected cancers, like breast, lung, and prostate, and relative increase in unscreened urinary, head and neck, and lymphoid cancers, with 75% of cancers being those without any screening guidelines,” Dr. Gordon said in an interview.

She added that patients who choose to retest may have different cancer rates for several reasons, including bias toward a population that is health conscious and adhered to all recommended cancer screening.

“So the shift toward unscreened cancers is not unexpected and highlights the value of Galleri,” she said, but also acknowledged that “continued monitoring is needed to see if this translates in a persistent finding over time and tests.”
 

Shift Toward Early-Stage Cancers

Staging information was available for five cases, and Dr. Gordon highlighted in her talk that four of these confirmed cancers were stage I, including cancers of the anus, head and neck, bladder, and lymphoma. The fifth confirmed cancer with staging information was stage IV ovarian cancer.

“It is still early, and the numbers are very small, but the detection of early-stage cancers with second annual testing is very encouraging as these are the cases where MCED testing could have the greatest impact in improving outcomes through earlier treatment,” Dr. Gordon told this publication.

During an interview after the talk, Kenneth L. Kehl, MD, MPH, echoed that data must be confirmed in larger cohorts.

“The shift toward earlier stage cancers that are less detectable by standard screening methods is an interesting result, but we need to be cautious since the numbers were relatively small, and we do not have data on cancers that were diagnosed among patients whose second MCED test was also negative,” said Dr. Kehl, a medical oncologist at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston.
 

MCED Results Could Help Direct Diagnostic Workup

The test’s ability to predict the organ of origin was highly accurate, correctly identifying the cancer type in all eight confirmed cases. Among the eight cases with a confirmed cancer diagnosis, the accuracy of the first prediction was 100%, and diagnoses included invasive cancers across multiple tissues and organs, including anus, colon, head and neck, urothelial tract, ovary, and the lymphatic system.

“The fact that the site of origin for 100% of confirmed cancers was accurately predicted with GRAIL’s CSO by Galleri test confirms the promise that this can guide workup when a cancer signal is detected,” Dr. Gordon noted in the interview.
 

Looking Ahead

Dr. Kehl, who was not involved in the MCED study, noted in an interview that “further data on test characteristics beyond positive predictive value, including the sensitivity, specificity, and negative predictive value, as well as demonstration of clinical benefit — ideally in a randomized trial — will likely be required for MCED testing to become a standard public health recommendation.”

He added that challenges associated with implementing annual screening with MCED tests include the risks of both false positives and false negatives as testing becomes more widely available.

“False positives cause anxiety and lead to additional testing that may carry its own risks, and we need to understand if potentially false negative tests will be associated with less uptake of established screening strategies,” Dr. Kehl said in an interview. However, he noted that serial testing could lead to more frequent diagnoses of early-stage cancers that may be less detectable by standard methods.

Dr. Gordon reported financial relationships with GRAIL LLC and Genetic Technologies Corporation. Dr. Kehl reported no relationships with entities whose primary business is producing, marketing, selling, reselling, or distributing healthcare products used by or on patients.

SAN DIEGO — Fewer than half of the cancer drugs approved under the US Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA’s) accelerated approval pathway between 2013 and 2017 have been shown to improve overall survival or quality of life, despite being on the US market for more than 5 years, according to a new study. 

Under the program, drugs are approved for marketing if they show benefit in surrogate markers thought to indicate efficacy. Progression-free survival, tumor response, and duration of response are the most used surrogate markers for accelerated approvals of cancer drugs. These are based largely on imaging studies that show either a stop in growth in the case of progression-free survival or tumor shrinkage in the case of tumor response. 

Following accelerated approvals, companies are then supposed to show actual clinical benefit in confirmatory trials.

The problem with relying on surrogate markers for drug approvals is that they don’t always correlate with longer survival or improved quality of life, said Edward Cliff, MBBS, who presented the findings at the American Association for Cancer Research 2024 annual meeting (abstract 918). The study was also published in JAMA to coincide with the meeting presentation.

In some cancers, these markers work well, but in others they don’t, said Dr. Cliff, a hematology trainee at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, when the work was conducted, and now a hematology fellow at the Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre in Melbourne, Australia.

To determine whether cancer drugs granted accelerated approval ultimately show an overall survival or quality of life benefit, researchers reviewed 46 cancer drugs granted accelerated approvals between 2013 and 2017. Twenty (43%) were granted full approval after demonstrating survival or quality-of-life benefits. 

Nine, however, were converted to full approvals on the basis of surrogate markers. These include a full approval for pembrolizumab in previously treated recurrent or refractory head and neck squamous cell carcinoma and a full approval for nivolumab for refractory locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma, both based on tumor response rate and duration of response.

Of the remaining 17 drugs evaluated in the trial, 10 have been withdrawn and seven do not yet have confirmatory trial results. 

The reliance on surrogate markers means that these drugs are used for treatment, covered by insurance, and added to guidelines — all without solid evidence of real-world clinical benefit, said Dr. Cliff. 

However, the goal should not be to do away with the accelerated approval process, because it sometimes does deliver powerful agents to patients quickly. Instead, Dr. Cliff told this news organization, the system needs to be improved so that “we keep the speed while getting certainty around clinical benefits” with robust and timely confirmatory trials. 

In the meantime, “clinicians should communicate with patients about any residual uncertainty of clinical benefit when they offer novel therapies,” Dr. Cliff explained. “It’s important for them to have the information.”

There has been some progress on the issue. In December 2022, the US Congress passed the Food and Drug Administration Omnibus Reform Act. Among other things, the Act requires companies to have confirmation trials underway as a condition for accelerated approval, and to provide regular reports on their progress. The Act also expedites the withdrawal process for drugs that don’t show a benefit. 

The Act has been put to the test twice recently. In February, FDA used the expedited process to remove the multiple myeloma drug melphalan flufenamide from the market. Melphalan flufenamide hadn’t been sold in the US for quite some time, so the process wasn’t contentious. 

In March, Regeneron announced that accelerated approval for the follicular and diffuse B cell lymphoma drug odronextamab has been delayed pending enrollment in a confirmatory trial. 

“There have been some promising steps,” Dr. Cliff said, but much work needs to be done. 

Study moderator Shivaani Kummar, MD, agreed, noting that “the data is showing that the confirmatory trials aren’t happening at the pace which they should.” 

But the solution is not to curtail approvals; it’s to make sure that accelerated approval commitments are met, said Dr. Kummar.

Still, “as a practicing oncologist, I welcome the accelerated pathway,” Dr. Kummar, a medical oncologist/hematologist at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, told this news organization. “I want the availability to my patients.” 

Having drugs approved on the basis of surrogate markers doesn’t necessarily mean patients are getting ineffective therapies, Dr. Kummar noted. For instance, if an agent just shrinks the tumor, it can sometimes still be “a huge clinical benefit because it can take the symptoms away.” 

As for prescribing drugs based on accelerated approvals, she said she tells her patients that trials have been promising, but we don’t know what the long-term effects are. She and her patient then make a decision together. 

The study was funded by Arnold Ventures. Dr. Kummar reported support from several companies, including Bayer, Gilead, and others. Dr. Cliff had no disclosures. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO — Fewer than half of the cancer drugs approved under the US Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA’s) accelerated approval pathway between 2013 and 2017 have been shown to improve overall survival or quality of life, despite being on the US market for more than 5 years, according to a new study. 

Under the program, drugs are approved for marketing if they show benefit in surrogate markers thought to indicate efficacy. Progression-free survival, tumor response, and duration of response are the most used surrogate markers for accelerated approvals of cancer drugs. These are based largely on imaging studies that show either a stop in growth in the case of progression-free survival or tumor shrinkage in the case of tumor response. 

Following accelerated approvals, companies are then supposed to show actual clinical benefit in confirmatory trials.

The problem with relying on surrogate markers for drug approvals is that they don’t always correlate with longer survival or improved quality of life, said Edward Cliff, MBBS, who presented the findings at the American Association for Cancer Research 2024 annual meeting (abstract 918). The study was also published in JAMA to coincide with the meeting presentation.

In some cancers, these markers work well, but in others they don’t, said Dr. Cliff, a hematology trainee at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, when the work was conducted, and now a hematology fellow at the Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre in Melbourne, Australia.

To determine whether cancer drugs granted accelerated approval ultimately show an overall survival or quality of life benefit, researchers reviewed 46 cancer drugs granted accelerated approvals between 2013 and 2017. Twenty (43%) were granted full approval after demonstrating survival or quality-of-life benefits. 

Nine, however, were converted to full approvals on the basis of surrogate markers. These include a full approval for pembrolizumab in previously treated recurrent or refractory head and neck squamous cell carcinoma and a full approval for nivolumab for refractory locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma, both based on tumor response rate and duration of response.

Of the remaining 17 drugs evaluated in the trial, 10 have been withdrawn and seven do not yet have confirmatory trial results. 

The reliance on surrogate markers means that these drugs are used for treatment, covered by insurance, and added to guidelines — all without solid evidence of real-world clinical benefit, said Dr. Cliff. 

However, the goal should not be to do away with the accelerated approval process, because it sometimes does deliver powerful agents to patients quickly. Instead, Dr. Cliff told this news organization, the system needs to be improved so that “we keep the speed while getting certainty around clinical benefits” with robust and timely confirmatory trials. 

In the meantime, “clinicians should communicate with patients about any residual uncertainty of clinical benefit when they offer novel therapies,” Dr. Cliff explained. “It’s important for them to have the information.”

There has been some progress on the issue. In December 2022, the US Congress passed the Food and Drug Administration Omnibus Reform Act. Among other things, the Act requires companies to have confirmation trials underway as a condition for accelerated approval, and to provide regular reports on their progress. The Act also expedites the withdrawal process for drugs that don’t show a benefit. 

The Act has been put to the test twice recently. In February, FDA used the expedited process to remove the multiple myeloma drug melphalan flufenamide from the market. Melphalan flufenamide hadn’t been sold in the US for quite some time, so the process wasn’t contentious. 

In March, Regeneron announced that accelerated approval for the follicular and diffuse B cell lymphoma drug odronextamab has been delayed pending enrollment in a confirmatory trial. 

“There have been some promising steps,” Dr. Cliff said, but much work needs to be done. 

Study moderator Shivaani Kummar, MD, agreed, noting that “the data is showing that the confirmatory trials aren’t happening at the pace which they should.” 

But the solution is not to curtail approvals; it’s to make sure that accelerated approval commitments are met, said Dr. Kummar.

Still, “as a practicing oncologist, I welcome the accelerated pathway,” Dr. Kummar, a medical oncologist/hematologist at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, told this news organization. “I want the availability to my patients.” 

Having drugs approved on the basis of surrogate markers doesn’t necessarily mean patients are getting ineffective therapies, Dr. Kummar noted. For instance, if an agent just shrinks the tumor, it can sometimes still be “a huge clinical benefit because it can take the symptoms away.” 

As for prescribing drugs based on accelerated approvals, she said she tells her patients that trials have been promising, but we don’t know what the long-term effects are. She and her patient then make a decision together. 

The study was funded by Arnold Ventures. Dr. Kummar reported support from several companies, including Bayer, Gilead, and others. Dr. Cliff had no disclosures. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO — Fewer than half of the cancer drugs approved under the US Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA’s) accelerated approval pathway between 2013 and 2017 have been shown to improve overall survival or quality of life, despite being on the US market for more than 5 years, according to a new study. 

Under the program, drugs are approved for marketing if they show benefit in surrogate markers thought to indicate efficacy. Progression-free survival, tumor response, and duration of response are the most used surrogate markers for accelerated approvals of cancer drugs. These are based largely on imaging studies that show either a stop in growth in the case of progression-free survival or tumor shrinkage in the case of tumor response. 

Following accelerated approvals, companies are then supposed to show actual clinical benefit in confirmatory trials.

The problem with relying on surrogate markers for drug approvals is that they don’t always correlate with longer survival or improved quality of life, said Edward Cliff, MBBS, who presented the findings at the American Association for Cancer Research 2024 annual meeting (abstract 918). The study was also published in JAMA to coincide with the meeting presentation.

In some cancers, these markers work well, but in others they don’t, said Dr. Cliff, a hematology trainee at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, when the work was conducted, and now a hematology fellow at the Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre in Melbourne, Australia.

To determine whether cancer drugs granted accelerated approval ultimately show an overall survival or quality of life benefit, researchers reviewed 46 cancer drugs granted accelerated approvals between 2013 and 2017. Twenty (43%) were granted full approval after demonstrating survival or quality-of-life benefits. 

Nine, however, were converted to full approvals on the basis of surrogate markers. These include a full approval for pembrolizumab in previously treated recurrent or refractory head and neck squamous cell carcinoma and a full approval for nivolumab for refractory locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma, both based on tumor response rate and duration of response.

Of the remaining 17 drugs evaluated in the trial, 10 have been withdrawn and seven do not yet have confirmatory trial results. 

The reliance on surrogate markers means that these drugs are used for treatment, covered by insurance, and added to guidelines — all without solid evidence of real-world clinical benefit, said Dr. Cliff. 

However, the goal should not be to do away with the accelerated approval process, because it sometimes does deliver powerful agents to patients quickly. Instead, Dr. Cliff told this news organization, the system needs to be improved so that “we keep the speed while getting certainty around clinical benefits” with robust and timely confirmatory trials. 

In the meantime, “clinicians should communicate with patients about any residual uncertainty of clinical benefit when they offer novel therapies,” Dr. Cliff explained. “It’s important for them to have the information.”

There has been some progress on the issue. In December 2022, the US Congress passed the Food and Drug Administration Omnibus Reform Act. Among other things, the Act requires companies to have confirmation trials underway as a condition for accelerated approval, and to provide regular reports on their progress. The Act also expedites the withdrawal process for drugs that don’t show a benefit. 

The Act has been put to the test twice recently. In February, FDA used the expedited process to remove the multiple myeloma drug melphalan flufenamide from the market. Melphalan flufenamide hadn’t been sold in the US for quite some time, so the process wasn’t contentious. 

In March, Regeneron announced that accelerated approval for the follicular and diffuse B cell lymphoma drug odronextamab has been delayed pending enrollment in a confirmatory trial. 

“There have been some promising steps,” Dr. Cliff said, but much work needs to be done. 

Study moderator Shivaani Kummar, MD, agreed, noting that “the data is showing that the confirmatory trials aren’t happening at the pace which they should.” 

But the solution is not to curtail approvals; it’s to make sure that accelerated approval commitments are met, said Dr. Kummar.

Still, “as a practicing oncologist, I welcome the accelerated pathway,” Dr. Kummar, a medical oncologist/hematologist at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, told this news organization. “I want the availability to my patients.” 

Having drugs approved on the basis of surrogate markers doesn’t necessarily mean patients are getting ineffective therapies, Dr. Kummar noted. For instance, if an agent just shrinks the tumor, it can sometimes still be “a huge clinical benefit because it can take the symptoms away.” 

As for prescribing drugs based on accelerated approvals, she said she tells her patients that trials have been promising, but we don’t know what the long-term effects are. She and her patient then make a decision together. 

The study was funded by Arnold Ventures. Dr. Kummar reported support from several companies, including Bayer, Gilead, and others. Dr. Cliff had no disclosures. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO — First-line treatment with a combination of cadonilimab, a PD-1/CTLA-4 bispecific immune checkpoint inhibitor, and standard chemotherapy provides a survival advantage over placebo plus chemotherapy in patients with locally advanced or metastatic gastric or gastroesophageal junction (G/GEJ) adenocarcinoma,, according to a new study.

Jiafu Ji, MD, PhD, presented this and other findings of the randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 COMPASSION-15 trial at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR).

“The consistent survival benefits across all prespecified PD-L1 expression cutoffs, particularly in patients with low PD-L1 expression, have significant implications for clinical practice by expanding treatment options, improving outcomes for patients with PD-L1–low tumors, influencing guidelines, and stimulating further research in advanced G/GEJ adenocarcinoma treatment,” said Dr. Ji, a principal investigator of this trial, in an interview.

Unmet Need

The incidence of gastric cancer is particularly high in China, but as Dr. Ji discussed in his talk, the treatment options for patients with advanced disease remain limited. Although the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved the combination of PD-L1 inhibitors with chemotherapy for the first-line treatment of advanced gastric cancer, not all patients respond to the treatment, explained Dr. Ji, who is a professor of gastrointestinal surgery and president of Peking University Cancer Hospital and Beijing Institute for Cancer Research in China.

He added that the combination of PD-L1 inhibitors and chemotherapy has not yet been approved for the treatment of advanced gastric cancer in China, leaving chemotherapy as the only treatment option for Chinese patients.

Study Design

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of first-line cadonilimab plus standard chemotherapy in patients with advanced or metastatic gastric cancer, the authors of the COMPASSION-15 trial enrolled 610 patients with unresectable, locally advanced, or metastatic G/GEJ adenocarcinoma who had not received any prior treatments. PD-L1 expression status was not used to exclude patients from the trial.

In a press conference held at AACR 2024, Dr. Ji explained the study rationale, design, and endpoints. He said that patients with tumors without PD-L1 expression typically show little to no benefit from anti–PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors, and their treatment options are limited to chemotherapy.

“Testing the efficacy of this bispecific antibody in this patient population could provide an alternative treatment approach for them,” he added.

Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive either cadonilimab (10 mg/kg every 3 weeks) plus chemotherapy or placebo plus chemotherapy. The primary endpoint of the study was overall survival (OS) in the intent-to-treat (ITT) population, and secondary efficacy endpoints included OS, progression-free survival (PFS), and objective response rate (ORR) in the ITT population, as well as in patients stratified by PD-L1 expression.

Cadonilimab Plus Standard Chemotherapy Improves OS

Interim analysis, conducted with a median follow-up of 18.69 months, showed a significant improvement in OS for the cadonilimab plus chemotherapy group compared with the chemotherapy-alone group, according to data presented at the press conference. The median OS was 15.0 months in the cadonilimab group versus 10.8 months in the placebo group, representing a 38% reduction in the risk of death (hazard ratio [HR], 0.62; 95% CI, 0.50-0.78, P < .001).

Yelena Y. Janjigian, MD, who not involved in COMPASSION-15, provided critique of the study, during another session at the meeting, in which she discussed the CheckMate 649 trial. She noted that, although the median OS of 15 months in the COMPASSION-15 study was slightly higher than the OS in the CheckMate 649 trial (approximately 14 months), comparing the results of two studies is challenging.

“In the COMPASSION-15 trial, chemotherapy was stopped after [4.5 months], and only 50% of patients received chemotherapy with subsequent treatment — this is not standard and may limit the comparison with other immunotherapy trials,” explained Dr. Janjigian, who is a gastrointestinal oncologist and was a principal investigator in the phase 3 CheckMate 649 immunotherapy trial for advanced gastric cancer.

Importantly, survival benefit with cadonilimab plus chemotherapy was observed across all prespecified PD-L1 expression levels, including in patients with low PD-L1 expression (PD-L1 combined positive score [CPS] less than 5%). In the low PD-L1 expression group (CPS less than 5%), the median OS was 14.8 months in the cadonilimab group compared with 11.8 months in the placebo group (HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.51-0.95; P = .011).

“These positive survival outcomes when cadonilimab was combined with chemotherapy may be attributed to synergistic mechanisms of action, enhanced immune responses, modulation of the tumor microenvironment, and careful patient selection based on biomarker assessments,” noted Dr. Ji, during an interview. “Targeting multiple pathways using bispecific antibodies provides potential synergistic effects, enhancing anti-tumor activity and improving treatment outcomes.”

Cadonilimab Plus Standard Chemotherapy Reduces the Risk of Tumor Progression

In addition to prolonging OS, cadonilimab plus chemotherapy also provided superior PFS and ORR compared to placebo plus chemotherapy.

The median PFS was 7.0 months in the cadonilimab plus chemotherapy group, versus 5.3 months in the chemotherapy-only group (HR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.44-0.65, P < .001), and the ORR was 65.2% versus 48.9%, respectively. Furthermore, the duration of response was longer with cadonilimab plus chemotherapy than with placebo plus chemotherapy (8.8 versus 4.4 months, respectively).

Toxicities Associated With Cadonilimab Plus Standard Chemotherapy Are Manageable

The safety profile of the cadonilimab plus chemotherapy regimen was manageable, with grade 3 or higher treatment-related adverse events occurring in 71.8% of patients in the cadonilimab group and 60.5% of patients in the placebo group. No new safety signals were observed.

During an interview, Dr. Ji said that the most common adverse events were endocrine toxicity, skin toxicity, and lung toxicity. “These adverse events were managed through close monitoring, symptom management, and appropriate interventions based on the severity and nature of the toxicity experienced by patients,” he explained. He added that this toxicity profile of cadonilimab is similar to the toxicity profiles of approved PD-1 and CTLA-4 inhibitors.

Implications — A New Treatment Paradigm for Advanced Gastric Cancer?

According to Dr. Ji, the interim results from the cadonilimab study suggest that this novel PD-1/CTLA-4 bispecific antibody, in combination with chemotherapy, could become a new standard first-line treatment option for patients with advanced G/GEJ adenocarcinoma, offering a significant survival advantage over chemotherapy alone, regardless of PD-L1 status.

“The ability of cadonilimab to improve survival outcomes, regardless of PD-L1 status, is a significant advancement, as we have struggled to find effective treatments for patients with low PD-L1 expression in this setting,” he said, during the interview.

Despite these promising findings, Dr. Janjigian highlighted that patient stratification in the COMPASSION-15 study is currently lacking. She explained that biomarkers such as MSI status, T-reg signatures, and HER-2 are important to consider according to data from the CheckMate 649 trial.

“Hazard ratios for patients with T-reg–high tumors were almost 0.6, independent of inflammatory status. These data suggest that we can maybe even cure some patients with PD-1/CTLA-4 inhibitors,” she noted.

She added that knowing the status of MSI and HER-2 is clinically important as it can inform clinicians whether they can avoid chemotherapy or add trastuzumab.

“Despite the suboptimal comparator arm, the study is very important and offers a rationale for dual PD-1/CTLA-4 blockade,” Dr. Janjigian concluded.

COMPASSION-15 was funded by Akeso Biopharma, Inc. Dr. Ji reported no relationships with entities whose primary business is producing, marketing, selling, reselling, or distributing healthcare products used by or on patients. Dr. Janjigian lists relationships with AbbVie, AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, Arcus Biosciences, Ask-Gene Pharma, Inc., Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Basilea Pharmaceutica Ltd., Bayer, Bristol Myers, Squibb, Eli Lilly and Company, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Pfizer, and many other companies, as well as the U.S. Department of Defense, National Cancer Institute, and others.

SAN DIEGO — First-line treatment with a combination of cadonilimab, a PD-1/CTLA-4 bispecific immune checkpoint inhibitor, and standard chemotherapy provides a survival advantage over placebo plus chemotherapy in patients with locally advanced or metastatic gastric or gastroesophageal junction (G/GEJ) adenocarcinoma,, according to a new study.

Jiafu Ji, MD, PhD, presented this and other findings of the randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 COMPASSION-15 trial at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR).

“The consistent survival benefits across all prespecified PD-L1 expression cutoffs, particularly in patients with low PD-L1 expression, have significant implications for clinical practice by expanding treatment options, improving outcomes for patients with PD-L1–low tumors, influencing guidelines, and stimulating further research in advanced G/GEJ adenocarcinoma treatment,” said Dr. Ji, a principal investigator of this trial, in an interview.

Unmet Need

The incidence of gastric cancer is particularly high in China, but as Dr. Ji discussed in his talk, the treatment options for patients with advanced disease remain limited. Although the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved the combination of PD-L1 inhibitors with chemotherapy for the first-line treatment of advanced gastric cancer, not all patients respond to the treatment, explained Dr. Ji, who is a professor of gastrointestinal surgery and president of Peking University Cancer Hospital and Beijing Institute for Cancer Research in China.

He added that the combination of PD-L1 inhibitors and chemotherapy has not yet been approved for the treatment of advanced gastric cancer in China, leaving chemotherapy as the only treatment option for Chinese patients.

Study Design

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of first-line cadonilimab plus standard chemotherapy in patients with advanced or metastatic gastric cancer, the authors of the COMPASSION-15 trial enrolled 610 patients with unresectable, locally advanced, or metastatic G/GEJ adenocarcinoma who had not received any prior treatments. PD-L1 expression status was not used to exclude patients from the trial.

In a press conference held at AACR 2024, Dr. Ji explained the study rationale, design, and endpoints. He said that patients with tumors without PD-L1 expression typically show little to no benefit from anti–PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors, and their treatment options are limited to chemotherapy.

“Testing the efficacy of this bispecific antibody in this patient population could provide an alternative treatment approach for them,” he added.

Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive either cadonilimab (10 mg/kg every 3 weeks) plus chemotherapy or placebo plus chemotherapy. The primary endpoint of the study was overall survival (OS) in the intent-to-treat (ITT) population, and secondary efficacy endpoints included OS, progression-free survival (PFS), and objective response rate (ORR) in the ITT population, as well as in patients stratified by PD-L1 expression.

Cadonilimab Plus Standard Chemotherapy Improves OS

Interim analysis, conducted with a median follow-up of 18.69 months, showed a significant improvement in OS for the cadonilimab plus chemotherapy group compared with the chemotherapy-alone group, according to data presented at the press conference. The median OS was 15.0 months in the cadonilimab group versus 10.8 months in the placebo group, representing a 38% reduction in the risk of death (hazard ratio [HR], 0.62; 95% CI, 0.50-0.78, P < .001).

Yelena Y. Janjigian, MD, who not involved in COMPASSION-15, provided critique of the study, during another session at the meeting, in which she discussed the CheckMate 649 trial. She noted that, although the median OS of 15 months in the COMPASSION-15 study was slightly higher than the OS in the CheckMate 649 trial (approximately 14 months), comparing the results of two studies is challenging.

“In the COMPASSION-15 trial, chemotherapy was stopped after [4.5 months], and only 50% of patients received chemotherapy with subsequent treatment — this is not standard and may limit the comparison with other immunotherapy trials,” explained Dr. Janjigian, who is a gastrointestinal oncologist and was a principal investigator in the phase 3 CheckMate 649 immunotherapy trial for advanced gastric cancer.

Importantly, survival benefit with cadonilimab plus chemotherapy was observed across all prespecified PD-L1 expression levels, including in patients with low PD-L1 expression (PD-L1 combined positive score [CPS] less than 5%). In the low PD-L1 expression group (CPS less than 5%), the median OS was 14.8 months in the cadonilimab group compared with 11.8 months in the placebo group (HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.51-0.95; P = .011).

“These positive survival outcomes when cadonilimab was combined with chemotherapy may be attributed to synergistic mechanisms of action, enhanced immune responses, modulation of the tumor microenvironment, and careful patient selection based on biomarker assessments,” noted Dr. Ji, during an interview. “Targeting multiple pathways using bispecific antibodies provides potential synergistic effects, enhancing anti-tumor activity and improving treatment outcomes.”

Cadonilimab Plus Standard Chemotherapy Reduces the Risk of Tumor Progression

In addition to prolonging OS, cadonilimab plus chemotherapy also provided superior PFS and ORR compared to placebo plus chemotherapy.

The median PFS was 7.0 months in the cadonilimab plus chemotherapy group, versus 5.3 months in the chemotherapy-only group (HR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.44-0.65, P < .001), and the ORR was 65.2% versus 48.9%, respectively. Furthermore, the duration of response was longer with cadonilimab plus chemotherapy than with placebo plus chemotherapy (8.8 versus 4.4 months, respectively).

Toxicities Associated With Cadonilimab Plus Standard Chemotherapy Are Manageable

The safety profile of the cadonilimab plus chemotherapy regimen was manageable, with grade 3 or higher treatment-related adverse events occurring in 71.8% of patients in the cadonilimab group and 60.5% of patients in the placebo group. No new safety signals were observed.

During an interview, Dr. Ji said that the most common adverse events were endocrine toxicity, skin toxicity, and lung toxicity. “These adverse events were managed through close monitoring, symptom management, and appropriate interventions based on the severity and nature of the toxicity experienced by patients,” he explained. He added that this toxicity profile of cadonilimab is similar to the toxicity profiles of approved PD-1 and CTLA-4 inhibitors.

Implications — A New Treatment Paradigm for Advanced Gastric Cancer?

According to Dr. Ji, the interim results from the cadonilimab study suggest that this novel PD-1/CTLA-4 bispecific antibody, in combination with chemotherapy, could become a new standard first-line treatment option for patients with advanced G/GEJ adenocarcinoma, offering a significant survival advantage over chemotherapy alone, regardless of PD-L1 status.

“The ability of cadonilimab to improve survival outcomes, regardless of PD-L1 status, is a significant advancement, as we have struggled to find effective treatments for patients with low PD-L1 expression in this setting,” he said, during the interview.

Despite these promising findings, Dr. Janjigian highlighted that patient stratification in the COMPASSION-15 study is currently lacking. She explained that biomarkers such as MSI status, T-reg signatures, and HER-2 are important to consider according to data from the CheckMate 649 trial.

“Hazard ratios for patients with T-reg–high tumors were almost 0.6, independent of inflammatory status. These data suggest that we can maybe even cure some patients with PD-1/CTLA-4 inhibitors,” she noted.

She added that knowing the status of MSI and HER-2 is clinically important as it can inform clinicians whether they can avoid chemotherapy or add trastuzumab.

“Despite the suboptimal comparator arm, the study is very important and offers a rationale for dual PD-1/CTLA-4 blockade,” Dr. Janjigian concluded.

COMPASSION-15 was funded by Akeso Biopharma, Inc. Dr. Ji reported no relationships with entities whose primary business is producing, marketing, selling, reselling, or distributing healthcare products used by or on patients. Dr. Janjigian lists relationships with AbbVie, AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, Arcus Biosciences, Ask-Gene Pharma, Inc., Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Basilea Pharmaceutica Ltd., Bayer, Bristol Myers, Squibb, Eli Lilly and Company, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Pfizer, and many other companies, as well as the U.S. Department of Defense, National Cancer Institute, and others.

SAN DIEGO — First-line treatment with a combination of cadonilimab, a PD-1/CTLA-4 bispecific immune checkpoint inhibitor, and standard chemotherapy provides a survival advantage over placebo plus chemotherapy in patients with locally advanced or metastatic gastric or gastroesophageal junction (G/GEJ) adenocarcinoma,, according to a new study.

Jiafu Ji, MD, PhD, presented this and other findings of the randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 COMPASSION-15 trial at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR).

“The consistent survival benefits across all prespecified PD-L1 expression cutoffs, particularly in patients with low PD-L1 expression, have significant implications for clinical practice by expanding treatment options, improving outcomes for patients with PD-L1–low tumors, influencing guidelines, and stimulating further research in advanced G/GEJ adenocarcinoma treatment,” said Dr. Ji, a principal investigator of this trial, in an interview.

Unmet Need

The incidence of gastric cancer is particularly high in China, but as Dr. Ji discussed in his talk, the treatment options for patients with advanced disease remain limited. Although the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved the combination of PD-L1 inhibitors with chemotherapy for the first-line treatment of advanced gastric cancer, not all patients respond to the treatment, explained Dr. Ji, who is a professor of gastrointestinal surgery and president of Peking University Cancer Hospital and Beijing Institute for Cancer Research in China.

He added that the combination of PD-L1 inhibitors and chemotherapy has not yet been approved for the treatment of advanced gastric cancer in China, leaving chemotherapy as the only treatment option for Chinese patients.

Study Design

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of first-line cadonilimab plus standard chemotherapy in patients with advanced or metastatic gastric cancer, the authors of the COMPASSION-15 trial enrolled 610 patients with unresectable, locally advanced, or metastatic G/GEJ adenocarcinoma who had not received any prior treatments. PD-L1 expression status was not used to exclude patients from the trial.

In a press conference held at AACR 2024, Dr. Ji explained the study rationale, design, and endpoints. He said that patients with tumors without PD-L1 expression typically show little to no benefit from anti–PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors, and their treatment options are limited to chemotherapy.

“Testing the efficacy of this bispecific antibody in this patient population could provide an alternative treatment approach for them,” he added.

Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive either cadonilimab (10 mg/kg every 3 weeks) plus chemotherapy or placebo plus chemotherapy. The primary endpoint of the study was overall survival (OS) in the intent-to-treat (ITT) population, and secondary efficacy endpoints included OS, progression-free survival (PFS), and objective response rate (ORR) in the ITT population, as well as in patients stratified by PD-L1 expression.

Cadonilimab Plus Standard Chemotherapy Improves OS

Interim analysis, conducted with a median follow-up of 18.69 months, showed a significant improvement in OS for the cadonilimab plus chemotherapy group compared with the chemotherapy-alone group, according to data presented at the press conference. The median OS was 15.0 months in the cadonilimab group versus 10.8 months in the placebo group, representing a 38% reduction in the risk of death (hazard ratio [HR], 0.62; 95% CI, 0.50-0.78, P < .001).

Yelena Y. Janjigian, MD, who not involved in COMPASSION-15, provided critique of the study, during another session at the meeting, in which she discussed the CheckMate 649 trial. She noted that, although the median OS of 15 months in the COMPASSION-15 study was slightly higher than the OS in the CheckMate 649 trial (approximately 14 months), comparing the results of two studies is challenging.

“In the COMPASSION-15 trial, chemotherapy was stopped after [4.5 months], and only 50% of patients received chemotherapy with subsequent treatment — this is not standard and may limit the comparison with other immunotherapy trials,” explained Dr. Janjigian, who is a gastrointestinal oncologist and was a principal investigator in the phase 3 CheckMate 649 immunotherapy trial for advanced gastric cancer.

Importantly, survival benefit with cadonilimab plus chemotherapy was observed across all prespecified PD-L1 expression levels, including in patients with low PD-L1 expression (PD-L1 combined positive score [CPS] less than 5%). In the low PD-L1 expression group (CPS less than 5%), the median OS was 14.8 months in the cadonilimab group compared with 11.8 months in the placebo group (HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.51-0.95; P = .011).

“These positive survival outcomes when cadonilimab was combined with chemotherapy may be attributed to synergistic mechanisms of action, enhanced immune responses, modulation of the tumor microenvironment, and careful patient selection based on biomarker assessments,” noted Dr. Ji, during an interview. “Targeting multiple pathways using bispecific antibodies provides potential synergistic effects, enhancing anti-tumor activity and improving treatment outcomes.”

Cadonilimab Plus Standard Chemotherapy Reduces the Risk of Tumor Progression

In addition to prolonging OS, cadonilimab plus chemotherapy also provided superior PFS and ORR compared to placebo plus chemotherapy.

The median PFS was 7.0 months in the cadonilimab plus chemotherapy group, versus 5.3 months in the chemotherapy-only group (HR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.44-0.65, P < .001), and the ORR was 65.2% versus 48.9%, respectively. Furthermore, the duration of response was longer with cadonilimab plus chemotherapy than with placebo plus chemotherapy (8.8 versus 4.4 months, respectively).

Toxicities Associated With Cadonilimab Plus Standard Chemotherapy Are Manageable

The safety profile of the cadonilimab plus chemotherapy regimen was manageable, with grade 3 or higher treatment-related adverse events occurring in 71.8% of patients in the cadonilimab group and 60.5% of patients in the placebo group. No new safety signals were observed.

During an interview, Dr. Ji said that the most common adverse events were endocrine toxicity, skin toxicity, and lung toxicity. “These adverse events were managed through close monitoring, symptom management, and appropriate interventions based on the severity and nature of the toxicity experienced by patients,” he explained. He added that this toxicity profile of cadonilimab is similar to the toxicity profiles of approved PD-1 and CTLA-4 inhibitors.

Implications — A New Treatment Paradigm for Advanced Gastric Cancer?

According to Dr. Ji, the interim results from the cadonilimab study suggest that this novel PD-1/CTLA-4 bispecific antibody, in combination with chemotherapy, could become a new standard first-line treatment option for patients with advanced G/GEJ adenocarcinoma, offering a significant survival advantage over chemotherapy alone, regardless of PD-L1 status.

“The ability of cadonilimab to improve survival outcomes, regardless of PD-L1 status, is a significant advancement, as we have struggled to find effective treatments for patients with low PD-L1 expression in this setting,” he said, during the interview.

Despite these promising findings, Dr. Janjigian highlighted that patient stratification in the COMPASSION-15 study is currently lacking. She explained that biomarkers such as MSI status, T-reg signatures, and HER-2 are important to consider according to data from the CheckMate 649 trial.

“Hazard ratios for patients with T-reg–high tumors were almost 0.6, independent of inflammatory status. These data suggest that we can maybe even cure some patients with PD-1/CTLA-4 inhibitors,” she noted.

She added that knowing the status of MSI and HER-2 is clinically important as it can inform clinicians whether they can avoid chemotherapy or add trastuzumab.

“Despite the suboptimal comparator arm, the study is very important and offers a rationale for dual PD-1/CTLA-4 blockade,” Dr. Janjigian concluded.

COMPASSION-15 was funded by Akeso Biopharma, Inc. Dr. Ji reported no relationships with entities whose primary business is producing, marketing, selling, reselling, or distributing healthcare products used by or on patients. Dr. Janjigian lists relationships with AbbVie, AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, Arcus Biosciences, Ask-Gene Pharma, Inc., Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Basilea Pharmaceutica Ltd., Bayer, Bristol Myers, Squibb, Eli Lilly and Company, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Pfizer, and many other companies, as well as the U.S. Department of Defense, National Cancer Institute, and others.

Several new clinical trials in prostate cancer have started recruiting in recent months. Maybe one of your patients could benefit from enrolling?

Metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer 

Adults with this diagnosis may be interested in a randomized, double-blind, phase 3 study examining whether an experimental poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor called saruparib can further delay disease progression when added to a next-generation hormonal agent such as abiraterone (Zytiga), darolutamide (Nubeqa), or enzalutamide (Xtandi).

One group of participants will take daily oral doses of saruparib plus physician’s choice of a next-generation hormonal agent until disease progression or another reason for stopping therapy. The other group will add a placebo to a next-generation hormonal agent.

Sites in Rhode Island, Arkansas, California, Michigan, Australia, Canada, Japan, Taiwan, Thailand, the United Kingdom, and South Korea began seeking the trial’s 1800 participants in November 2023. Research centers in 31 other US states and 18 other countries are gearing up. The primary endpoint is radiographic progression-free survival. Overall survival and quality of life (QoL) are secondary endpoints. More details at clinicaltrials.gov.

This news organization asked Marc Garnick, MD, professor of medicine, Harvard Medical School and Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, for his take on the trial. “The study is interesting since it is adding to the evaluations of continued intensification for first-line therapy and will help further elucidate the role of PARP inhibition regardless of homologous repair status,” Dr. Garnick said. “Plus, saruparib is supposedly more selective on PARP1, which in-and-of-itself is of potential benefit.”

Metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer

People with this type of cancer who have progressed on a next-generation hormonal agent may be eligible for a randomized, open-label, phase 3 trial testing an investigational oral treatment called MK-5684 to see if it increases survival more effectively than switching to an alternative next-generation hormonal agent.

MK-5684 is designed to inhibit the CYP11A1 enzyme, thereby disrupting the androgen-receptor signaling pathway.

One group will take twice-daily tablets of MK-5684 plus hormone replacement therapy, oral dexamethasone, and oral fludrocortisone acetate (Florinef), with rescue hydrocortisone as needed. The other participants will take daily tablets of a next-generation hormonal agent: Either enzalutamide or abiraterone. Patients assigned to abiraterone will also be given prednisone tablets.

US-based sites in nine states and Puerto Rico started looking for the trial’s 1500 participants in December 2023 in partnership with study centers in Australia, Israel, South Korea, and Taiwan. The primary endpoints are radiographic progression-free survival and overall survival. QoL will not be tracked. More details at clinicaltrials.gov.

Metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer

Patients in this situation who have progressed on taxane-based chemotherapy as well as a next-generation hormonal agent have the option to enroll in another phase 3 MK-5684 study.

Like the trial described above, all patients will remain on their respective therapy until disease progression. In this trial, one group will take twice-daily tablets of MK-5684 without hormone replacement therapy but the same mix of oral dexamethasone and fludrocortisone. Rescue hydrocortisone will also be available. The second group will be assigned either enzalutamide or abiraterone plus prednisone.

Sites in Puerto Rico, Colorado, Nevada, and Virginia, and five other countries outside the United States, opened their doors to the first of 1200 patients in December 2023. The primary endpoints are radiographic progression-free survival and overall survival, analyzed separately for patients with and without an androgen receptor ligand-binding domain mutation. QoL will not be measured. More details at clinicaltrials.gov.

High-risk prostate cancer

People with this diagnosis can join a randomized, open-label, phase 3 National Cancer Institute study to test whether stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) is as effective as conventional external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) at preventing metastasis.

SBRT delivers radiation to tumors with higher precision than EBRT. The advantage of SBRT is the ability to deliver fewer doses over a shorter duration with less collateral damage to surrounding tissues.

In the trial, half of participants will undergo five treatments of SBRT over 2 weeks, while the other half will receive 20-45 treatments of EBRT over 4-9 weeks. Study sites in 14 US states began recruiting the trial’s 1209 participants in November 2023. Metastasis-free survival over 15 years is the primary endpoint, overall survival is a secondary endpoint, and QoL measures, apart from fatigue, will not be tracked. More details at clinicaltrials.gov.

Dr. Garnick viewed this study as “problematic because patient accrual ends in 2036 with a readout in 2041.” He added, “What its relevance will be at that time is unlikely to provide practice changes, since in that interval there will undoubtedly be multiple advances in place.”

Newly diagnosed favorable intermediate risk prostate cancer

People with this type of cancer are eligible for an open-label, phase 4 real-world study of a radioactive diagnostic agent called piflufolastat F 18 (Pylarify) that targets prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA)–positive lesions. Piflufolastat is designed to enhance detection of metastases during PSMA-targeted PET.

Participants will receive a single injection of piflufolastat followed 1-2 hours later by a single whole-body PET-CT or PET-MRI scan. A study site at the Hoag Cancer Center in Irvine, California, welcomed the first of the trial’s 274 participants in February 2024. Sites in Tower Urology, Los Angeles, and the Cleveland Clinic, Ohio, are gearing up. Detection rate is the primary endpoint. Overall survival and QoL are not measured. More details at clinicaltrials.gov

Stages I-IV prostate cancer without bone metastases. People 60 years or older with this type of prostate cancer who are just starting androgen deprivation therapy are eligible for a phase 3, placebo-controlled trial investigating whether high-dose vitamin D can prevent or reduce androgen-deprivation therapy-induced bone loss.

For 1 year, participants will take tablets of high-dose vitamin D or a placebo and then undergo dual x-ray absorptiometry. The Ochsner Medical Center in Jefferson, Louisiana, started recruiting 366 trial participants in December 2023. Reduction in bone mineral density loss in the hip and spine over 1 year is the primary objective. QoL is a secondary objective, and overall survival will not be measured. More details at clinicaltrials.gov

Dr. Garnick expressed some concerns with the trial design so far, including that “the dose of vitamin D is not delineated nor is the target vitamin D level.”

All trial information is from the National Institutes of Health’s National Library of Medicine (online at clinicaltrials.gov). Dr. Garnick did not report conflicts with any of the trials.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Several new clinical trials in prostate cancer have started recruiting in recent months. Maybe one of your patients could benefit from enrolling?

Metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer 

Adults with this diagnosis may be interested in a randomized, double-blind, phase 3 study examining whether an experimental poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor called saruparib can further delay disease progression when added to a next-generation hormonal agent such as abiraterone (Zytiga), darolutamide (Nubeqa), or enzalutamide (Xtandi).

One group of participants will take daily oral doses of saruparib plus physician’s choice of a next-generation hormonal agent until disease progression or another reason for stopping therapy. The other group will add a placebo to a next-generation hormonal agent.

Sites in Rhode Island, Arkansas, California, Michigan, Australia, Canada, Japan, Taiwan, Thailand, the United Kingdom, and South Korea began seeking the trial’s 1800 participants in November 2023. Research centers in 31 other US states and 18 other countries are gearing up. The primary endpoint is radiographic progression-free survival. Overall survival and quality of life (QoL) are secondary endpoints. More details at clinicaltrials.gov.

This news organization asked Marc Garnick, MD, professor of medicine, Harvard Medical School and Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, for his take on the trial. “The study is interesting since it is adding to the evaluations of continued intensification for first-line therapy and will help further elucidate the role of PARP inhibition regardless of homologous repair status,” Dr. Garnick said. “Plus, saruparib is supposedly more selective on PARP1, which in-and-of-itself is of potential benefit.”

Metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer

People with this type of cancer who have progressed on a next-generation hormonal agent may be eligible for a randomized, open-label, phase 3 trial testing an investigational oral treatment called MK-5684 to see if it increases survival more effectively than switching to an alternative next-generation hormonal agent.

MK-5684 is designed to inhibit the CYP11A1 enzyme, thereby disrupting the androgen-receptor signaling pathway.

One group will take twice-daily tablets of MK-5684 plus hormone replacement therapy, oral dexamethasone, and oral fludrocortisone acetate (Florinef), with rescue hydrocortisone as needed. The other participants will take daily tablets of a next-generation hormonal agent: Either enzalutamide or abiraterone. Patients assigned to abiraterone will also be given prednisone tablets.

US-based sites in nine states and Puerto Rico started looking for the trial’s 1500 participants in December 2023 in partnership with study centers in Australia, Israel, South Korea, and Taiwan. The primary endpoints are radiographic progression-free survival and overall survival. QoL will not be tracked. More details at clinicaltrials.gov.

Metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer

Patients in this situation who have progressed on taxane-based chemotherapy as well as a next-generation hormonal agent have the option to enroll in another phase 3 MK-5684 study.

Like the trial described above, all patients will remain on their respective therapy until disease progression. In this trial, one group will take twice-daily tablets of MK-5684 without hormone replacement therapy but the same mix of oral dexamethasone and fludrocortisone. Rescue hydrocortisone will also be available. The second group will be assigned either enzalutamide or abiraterone plus prednisone.

Sites in Puerto Rico, Colorado, Nevada, and Virginia, and five other countries outside the United States, opened their doors to the first of 1200 patients in December 2023. The primary endpoints are radiographic progression-free survival and overall survival, analyzed separately for patients with and without an androgen receptor ligand-binding domain mutation. QoL will not be measured. More details at clinicaltrials.gov.

High-risk prostate cancer

People with this diagnosis can join a randomized, open-label, phase 3 National Cancer Institute study to test whether stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) is as effective as conventional external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) at preventing metastasis.

SBRT delivers radiation to tumors with higher precision than EBRT. The advantage of SBRT is the ability to deliver fewer doses over a shorter duration with less collateral damage to surrounding tissues.

In the trial, half of participants will undergo five treatments of SBRT over 2 weeks, while the other half will receive 20-45 treatments of EBRT over 4-9 weeks. Study sites in 14 US states began recruiting the trial’s 1209 participants in November 2023. Metastasis-free survival over 15 years is the primary endpoint, overall survival is a secondary endpoint, and QoL measures, apart from fatigue, will not be tracked. More details at clinicaltrials.gov.

Dr. Garnick viewed this study as “problematic because patient accrual ends in 2036 with a readout in 2041.” He added, “What its relevance will be at that time is unlikely to provide practice changes, since in that interval there will undoubtedly be multiple advances in place.”

Newly diagnosed favorable intermediate risk prostate cancer

People with this type of cancer are eligible for an open-label, phase 4 real-world study of a radioactive diagnostic agent called piflufolastat F 18 (Pylarify) that targets prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA)–positive lesions. Piflufolastat is designed to enhance detection of metastases during PSMA-targeted PET.

Participants will receive a single injection of piflufolastat followed 1-2 hours later by a single whole-body PET-CT or PET-MRI scan. A study site at the Hoag Cancer Center in Irvine, California, welcomed the first of the trial’s 274 participants in February 2024. Sites in Tower Urology, Los Angeles, and the Cleveland Clinic, Ohio, are gearing up. Detection rate is the primary endpoint. Overall survival and QoL are not measured. More details at clinicaltrials.gov

Stages I-IV prostate cancer without bone metastases. People 60 years or older with this type of prostate cancer who are just starting androgen deprivation therapy are eligible for a phase 3, placebo-controlled trial investigating whether high-dose vitamin D can prevent or reduce androgen-deprivation therapy-induced bone loss.

For 1 year, participants will take tablets of high-dose vitamin D or a placebo and then undergo dual x-ray absorptiometry. The Ochsner Medical Center in Jefferson, Louisiana, started recruiting 366 trial participants in December 2023. Reduction in bone mineral density loss in the hip and spine over 1 year is the primary objective. QoL is a secondary objective, and overall survival will not be measured. More details at clinicaltrials.gov

Dr. Garnick expressed some concerns with the trial design so far, including that “the dose of vitamin D is not delineated nor is the target vitamin D level.”

All trial information is from the National Institutes of Health’s National Library of Medicine (online at clinicaltrials.gov). Dr. Garnick did not report conflicts with any of the trials.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Several new clinical trials in prostate cancer have started recruiting in recent months. Maybe one of your patients could benefit from enrolling?

Metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer 

Adults with this diagnosis may be interested in a randomized, double-blind, phase 3 study examining whether an experimental poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor called saruparib can further delay disease progression when added to a next-generation hormonal agent such as abiraterone (Zytiga), darolutamide (Nubeqa), or enzalutamide (Xtandi).

One group of participants will take daily oral doses of saruparib plus physician’s choice of a next-generation hormonal agent until disease progression or another reason for stopping therapy. The other group will add a placebo to a next-generation hormonal agent.

Sites in Rhode Island, Arkansas, California, Michigan, Australia, Canada, Japan, Taiwan, Thailand, the United Kingdom, and South Korea began seeking the trial’s 1800 participants in November 2023. Research centers in 31 other US states and 18 other countries are gearing up. The primary endpoint is radiographic progression-free survival. Overall survival and quality of life (QoL) are secondary endpoints. More details at clinicaltrials.gov.

This news organization asked Marc Garnick, MD, professor of medicine, Harvard Medical School and Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, for his take on the trial. “The study is interesting since it is adding to the evaluations of continued intensification for first-line therapy and will help further elucidate the role of PARP inhibition regardless of homologous repair status,” Dr. Garnick said. “Plus, saruparib is supposedly more selective on PARP1, which in-and-of-itself is of potential benefit.”

Metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer

People with this type of cancer who have progressed on a next-generation hormonal agent may be eligible for a randomized, open-label, phase 3 trial testing an investigational oral treatment called MK-5684 to see if it increases survival more effectively than switching to an alternative next-generation hormonal agent.

MK-5684 is designed to inhibit the CYP11A1 enzyme, thereby disrupting the androgen-receptor signaling pathway.

One group will take twice-daily tablets of MK-5684 plus hormone replacement therapy, oral dexamethasone, and oral fludrocortisone acetate (Florinef), with rescue hydrocortisone as needed. The other participants will take daily tablets of a next-generation hormonal agent: Either enzalutamide or abiraterone. Patients assigned to abiraterone will also be given prednisone tablets.

US-based sites in nine states and Puerto Rico started looking for the trial’s 1500 participants in December 2023 in partnership with study centers in Australia, Israel, South Korea, and Taiwan. The primary endpoints are radiographic progression-free survival and overall survival. QoL will not be tracked. More details at clinicaltrials.gov.

Metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer

Patients in this situation who have progressed on taxane-based chemotherapy as well as a next-generation hormonal agent have the option to enroll in another phase 3 MK-5684 study.

Like the trial described above, all patients will remain on their respective therapy until disease progression. In this trial, one group will take twice-daily tablets of MK-5684 without hormone replacement therapy but the same mix of oral dexamethasone and fludrocortisone. Rescue hydrocortisone will also be available. The second group will be assigned either enzalutamide or abiraterone plus prednisone.

Sites in Puerto Rico, Colorado, Nevada, and Virginia, and five other countries outside the United States, opened their doors to the first of 1200 patients in December 2023. The primary endpoints are radiographic progression-free survival and overall survival, analyzed separately for patients with and without an androgen receptor ligand-binding domain mutation. QoL will not be measured. More details at clinicaltrials.gov.

High-risk prostate cancer

People with this diagnosis can join a randomized, open-label, phase 3 National Cancer Institute study to test whether stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) is as effective as conventional external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) at preventing metastasis.

SBRT delivers radiation to tumors with higher precision than EBRT. The advantage of SBRT is the ability to deliver fewer doses over a shorter duration with less collateral damage to surrounding tissues.

In the trial, half of participants will undergo five treatments of SBRT over 2 weeks, while the other half will receive 20-45 treatments of EBRT over 4-9 weeks. Study sites in 14 US states began recruiting the trial’s 1209 participants in November 2023. Metastasis-free survival over 15 years is the primary endpoint, overall survival is a secondary endpoint, and QoL measures, apart from fatigue, will not be tracked. More details at clinicaltrials.gov.

Dr. Garnick viewed this study as “problematic because patient accrual ends in 2036 with a readout in 2041.” He added, “What its relevance will be at that time is unlikely to provide practice changes, since in that interval there will undoubtedly be multiple advances in place.”

Newly diagnosed favorable intermediate risk prostate cancer

People with this type of cancer are eligible for an open-label, phase 4 real-world study of a radioactive diagnostic agent called piflufolastat F 18 (Pylarify) that targets prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA)–positive lesions. Piflufolastat is designed to enhance detection of metastases during PSMA-targeted PET.

Participants will receive a single injection of piflufolastat followed 1-2 hours later by a single whole-body PET-CT or PET-MRI scan. A study site at the Hoag Cancer Center in Irvine, California, welcomed the first of the trial’s 274 participants in February 2024. Sites in Tower Urology, Los Angeles, and the Cleveland Clinic, Ohio, are gearing up. Detection rate is the primary endpoint. Overall survival and QoL are not measured. More details at clinicaltrials.gov

Stages I-IV prostate cancer without bone metastases. People 60 years or older with this type of prostate cancer who are just starting androgen deprivation therapy are eligible for a phase 3, placebo-controlled trial investigating whether high-dose vitamin D can prevent or reduce androgen-deprivation therapy-induced bone loss.

For 1 year, participants will take tablets of high-dose vitamin D or a placebo and then undergo dual x-ray absorptiometry. The Ochsner Medical Center in Jefferson, Louisiana, started recruiting 366 trial participants in December 2023. Reduction in bone mineral density loss in the hip and spine over 1 year is the primary objective. QoL is a secondary objective, and overall survival will not be measured. More details at clinicaltrials.gov

Dr. Garnick expressed some concerns with the trial design so far, including that “the dose of vitamin D is not delineated nor is the target vitamin D level.”

All trial information is from the National Institutes of Health’s National Library of Medicine (online at clinicaltrials.gov). Dr. Garnick did not report conflicts with any of the trials.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

There are several new therapies on the horizon for polycythemia vera. What is the potential impact of these treatments coming to market?

Dr. Richard: There are a number of emerging therapies for polycythemia vera (PV), such as PTG-300, idasanutlin, and givinostat. PTG-300, or rusfertide, is a hepcidin mimetic that works by regulating iron metabolism and potentially controlling erythropoiesis, limiting the need for phlebotomy. Idasanutlin, a selective MDM2 inhibitor, targets p53 activity. Even though this drug is early in its development, everyone who treats patients with cancer has been hoping for a drug that works through p53. If it is effective here, who knows where else it could be effective across various other conditions.

Givinostat is well along the development pathway in advanced trials. This drug shows promise in modulating gene expression and reducing the inflammation and fibrosis associated with PV, potentially improving patient outcomes and quality of life. Everyone is hopeful that givinostat could show some effect on disease control and potentially an effect on the myeloproliferative clone. However, rigorous clinical trials and further research are necessary to validate their efficacy, safety profiles, and long-term impacts on patients with PV.

Now, with the approval of peginterferon, the next step is going to be to see how effective it will be and what the adverse events might be. I think we will be getting more data as it starts to be used more. My prediction is that there will be a slow uptake, largely because many older physicians such as myself remember the significant side effects from interferon in the past. Despite being an FDA-approved treatment, it remains an emerging therapy, particularly in the United States. Its adoption and efficacy will become clearer as time progresses.

Another promising drug early in its development is bomedemstat, which functions through a different mechanism as a deacetylase. While the potential effect of histone deacetylase drugs on patient treatment outcomes remains uncertain this year, there might be significant data—either positive or negative—that accelerate the progress of these drugs in their developmental trajectory.

We know that ruxolitinib can be used effectively for patients once they fail hydroxyurea. And now there has been the development of other JAK2 inhibitors that are approved for myelofibrosis. I am not quite sure how they can be evaluated in PV, since we are talking about relatively small numbers of patients, but they do seem to have some slight differences that may be significant and could be used in this space.

Those are the main therapies that I will have my eye on this year.

What is the potential significance of an accelerated dosing schedule for BESREMi (ropeginterferon-alfa-2b-njft), which is being investigated in the ECLIPSE PV phase 3b clinical trial?

Dr. Richard: The potential significance of an accelerated dosing schedule for BESREMi, as investigated in the ECLIPSE PV phase 3b clinical trial, lies in its capacity to enhance treatment efficacy and outcomes for patients with PV. I am incredibly pleased that it is being done as a trial, partly because a lot of people assume that once a phase 3 study is complete and a drug receives FDA approval, everything is finished and done, and we will move on to the next thing. I really appreciate it when phase 3b or 4 studies are performed, and the data get collected and published.

This study is going to follow a group of patients closely for adverse events and for the JAK2 signal. By administering BESREMi at an accelerated pace, researchers can evaluate its ability to better control hematocrit levels and symptoms associated with PV. In addition, an accelerated dosing schedule could potentially offer patients more efficient symptom management and disease control, leading to improved quality of life and reduced complications associated with PV. I believe that findings from this trial could thus pave the way for optimized treatment strategies and better outcomes for individuals living with PV.

What should future trials focus on to help improve prognosis and survival for patients with PV?

Dr. Richard: We are starting to move increasingly into finding better therapies for patients with PV, and I’ll add in essential thrombocytosis, which are based on informed prognostication. I would love to see studies that just pull out the patients at the highest risk, where the survival is down around 5 years—those are small numbers of patients. To conduct a study like that is exceedingly difficult to do. We are seeing increased consortiums of myeloproliferative neoplasm physicians. Europe has always been particularly good at this. The United States is getting better at it, so it is possible that a trial like that could be pulled together, where centers put in 1 or 2 patients at a time.

Future trials aimed at improving prognosis and survival for PV should prioritize several critical areas. First, there is a need for comprehensive studies to better understand the molecular mechanisms underlying PV pathogenesis, including the JAK2 mutation and its downstream effects. Exploring new therapeutic implications and improve long-term outcomes. Additionally, identifying reliable biomarkers for disease progression and treatment response can facilitate early intervention and personalized treatment approaches. Finally, trials should focus on assessing the impact of treatment on quality of life and addressing the unique needs of patients with PV to optimize overall prognosis and survival.

I have always held hope that the Veterans Administration could serve as a platform for conducting some of these studies, given that we possess the largest healthcare system in the country. Whether we participate in larger studies or conduct our research internally, this is something I have long envisioned.

There are several new therapies on the horizon for polycythemia vera. What is the potential impact of these treatments coming to market?

Dr. Richard: There are a number of emerging therapies for polycythemia vera (PV), such as PTG-300, idasanutlin, and givinostat. PTG-300, or rusfertide, is a hepcidin mimetic that works by regulating iron metabolism and potentially controlling erythropoiesis, limiting the need for phlebotomy. Idasanutlin, a selective MDM2 inhibitor, targets p53 activity. Even though this drug is early in its development, everyone who treats patients with cancer has been hoping for a drug that works through p53. If it is effective here, who knows where else it could be effective across various other conditions.

Givinostat is well along the development pathway in advanced trials. This drug shows promise in modulating gene expression and reducing the inflammation and fibrosis associated with PV, potentially improving patient outcomes and quality of life. Everyone is hopeful that givinostat could show some effect on disease control and potentially an effect on the myeloproliferative clone. However, rigorous clinical trials and further research are necessary to validate their efficacy, safety profiles, and long-term impacts on patients with PV.

Now, with the approval of peginterferon, the next step is going to be to see how effective it will be and what the adverse events might be. I think we will be getting more data as it starts to be used more. My prediction is that there will be a slow uptake, largely because many older physicians such as myself remember the significant side effects from interferon in the past. Despite being an FDA-approved treatment, it remains an emerging therapy, particularly in the United States. Its adoption and efficacy will become clearer as time progresses.

Another promising drug early in its development is bomedemstat, which functions through a different mechanism as a deacetylase. While the potential effect of histone deacetylase drugs on patient treatment outcomes remains uncertain this year, there might be significant data—either positive or negative—that accelerate the progress of these drugs in their developmental trajectory.

We know that ruxolitinib can be used effectively for patients once they fail hydroxyurea. And now there has been the development of other JAK2 inhibitors that are approved for myelofibrosis. I am not quite sure how they can be evaluated in PV, since we are talking about relatively small numbers of patients, but they do seem to have some slight differences that may be significant and could be used in this space.

Those are the main therapies that I will have my eye on this year.

What is the potential significance of an accelerated dosing schedule for BESREMi (ropeginterferon-alfa-2b-njft), which is being investigated in the ECLIPSE PV phase 3b clinical trial?

Dr. Richard: The potential significance of an accelerated dosing schedule for BESREMi, as investigated in the ECLIPSE PV phase 3b clinical trial, lies in its capacity to enhance treatment efficacy and outcomes for patients with PV. I am incredibly pleased that it is being done as a trial, partly because a lot of people assume that once a phase 3 study is complete and a drug receives FDA approval, everything is finished and done, and we will move on to the next thing. I really appreciate it when phase 3b or 4 studies are performed, and the data get collected and published.

This study is going to follow a group of patients closely for adverse events and for the JAK2 signal. By administering BESREMi at an accelerated pace, researchers can evaluate its ability to better control hematocrit levels and symptoms associated with PV. In addition, an accelerated dosing schedule could potentially offer patients more efficient symptom management and disease control, leading to improved quality of life and reduced complications associated with PV. I believe that findings from this trial could thus pave the way for optimized treatment strategies and better outcomes for individuals living with PV.

What should future trials focus on to help improve prognosis and survival for patients with PV?

Dr. Richard: We are starting to move increasingly into finding better therapies for patients with PV, and I’ll add in essential thrombocytosis, which are based on informed prognostication. I would love to see studies that just pull out the patients at the highest risk, where the survival is down around 5 years—those are small numbers of patients. To conduct a study like that is exceedingly difficult to do. We are seeing increased consortiums of myeloproliferative neoplasm physicians. Europe has always been particularly good at this. The United States is getting better at it, so it is possible that a trial like that could be pulled together, where centers put in 1 or 2 patients at a time.

Future trials aimed at improving prognosis and survival for PV should prioritize several critical areas. First, there is a need for comprehensive studies to better understand the molecular mechanisms underlying PV pathogenesis, including the JAK2 mutation and its downstream effects. Exploring new therapeutic implications and improve long-term outcomes. Additionally, identifying reliable biomarkers for disease progression and treatment response can facilitate early intervention and personalized treatment approaches. Finally, trials should focus on assessing the impact of treatment on quality of life and addressing the unique needs of patients with PV to optimize overall prognosis and survival.

I have always held hope that the Veterans Administration could serve as a platform for conducting some of these studies, given that we possess the largest healthcare system in the country. Whether we participate in larger studies or conduct our research internally, this is something I have long envisioned.

There are several new therapies on the horizon for polycythemia vera. What is the potential impact of these treatments coming to market?

Dr. Richard: There are a number of emerging therapies for polycythemia vera (PV), such as PTG-300, idasanutlin, and givinostat. PTG-300, or rusfertide, is a hepcidin mimetic that works by regulating iron metabolism and potentially controlling erythropoiesis, limiting the need for phlebotomy. Idasanutlin, a selective MDM2 inhibitor, targets p53 activity. Even though this drug is early in its development, everyone who treats patients with cancer has been hoping for a drug that works through p53. If it is effective here, who knows where else it could be effective across various other conditions.

Givinostat is well along the development pathway in advanced trials. This drug shows promise in modulating gene expression and reducing the inflammation and fibrosis associated with PV, potentially improving patient outcomes and quality of life. Everyone is hopeful that givinostat could show some effect on disease control and potentially an effect on the myeloproliferative clone. However, rigorous clinical trials and further research are necessary to validate their efficacy, safety profiles, and long-term impacts on patients with PV.

Now, with the approval of peginterferon, the next step is going to be to see how effective it will be and what the adverse events might be. I think we will be getting more data as it starts to be used more. My prediction is that there will be a slow uptake, largely because many older physicians such as myself remember the significant side effects from interferon in the past. Despite being an FDA-approved treatment, it remains an emerging therapy, particularly in the United States. Its adoption and efficacy will become clearer as time progresses.

Another promising drug early in its development is bomedemstat, which functions through a different mechanism as a deacetylase. While the potential effect of histone deacetylase drugs on patient treatment outcomes remains uncertain this year, there might be significant data—either positive or negative—that accelerate the progress of these drugs in their developmental trajectory.

We know that ruxolitinib can be used effectively for patients once they fail hydroxyurea. And now there has been the development of other JAK2 inhibitors that are approved for myelofibrosis. I am not quite sure how they can be evaluated in PV, since we are talking about relatively small numbers of patients, but they do seem to have some slight differences that may be significant and could be used in this space.

Those are the main therapies that I will have my eye on this year.

What is the potential significance of an accelerated dosing schedule for BESREMi (ropeginterferon-alfa-2b-njft), which is being investigated in the ECLIPSE PV phase 3b clinical trial?

Dr. Richard: The potential significance of an accelerated dosing schedule for BESREMi, as investigated in the ECLIPSE PV phase 3b clinical trial, lies in its capacity to enhance treatment efficacy and outcomes for patients with PV. I am incredibly pleased that it is being done as a trial, partly because a lot of people assume that once a phase 3 study is complete and a drug receives FDA approval, everything is finished and done, and we will move on to the next thing. I really appreciate it when phase 3b or 4 studies are performed, and the data get collected and published.

This study is going to follow a group of patients closely for adverse events and for the JAK2 signal. By administering BESREMi at an accelerated pace, researchers can evaluate its ability to better control hematocrit levels and symptoms associated with PV. In addition, an accelerated dosing schedule could potentially offer patients more efficient symptom management and disease control, leading to improved quality of life and reduced complications associated with PV. I believe that findings from this trial could thus pave the way for optimized treatment strategies and better outcomes for individuals living with PV.

What should future trials focus on to help improve prognosis and survival for patients with PV?

Dr. Richard: We are starting to move increasingly into finding better therapies for patients with PV, and I’ll add in essential thrombocytosis, which are based on informed prognostication. I would love to see studies that just pull out the patients at the highest risk, where the survival is down around 5 years—those are small numbers of patients. To conduct a study like that is exceedingly difficult to do. We are seeing increased consortiums of myeloproliferative neoplasm physicians. Europe has always been particularly good at this. The United States is getting better at it, so it is possible that a trial like that could be pulled together, where centers put in 1 or 2 patients at a time.

Future trials aimed at improving prognosis and survival for PV should prioritize several critical areas. First, there is a need for comprehensive studies to better understand the molecular mechanisms underlying PV pathogenesis, including the JAK2 mutation and its downstream effects. Exploring new therapeutic implications and improve long-term outcomes. Additionally, identifying reliable biomarkers for disease progression and treatment response can facilitate early intervention and personalized treatment approaches. Finally, trials should focus on assessing the impact of treatment on quality of life and addressing the unique needs of patients with PV to optimize overall prognosis and survival.

I have always held hope that the Veterans Administration could serve as a platform for conducting some of these studies, given that we possess the largest healthcare system in the country. Whether we participate in larger studies or conduct our research internally, this is something I have long envisioned.

A San Antonio oncology practice and diagnostic reference laboratory have agreed to settle a federal lawsuit, which alleged the two entities had entered an unlawful kickback arrangement.

The US Department of Justice (DOJ) announced on April 2 that Oncology San Antonio, PA, and its physicians have agreed to pay $1.3 million, and CorePath Laboratories, PA, has agreed to pay nearly $2.75 million plus accrued interest in civil settlements with the United States and Texas for alleged violations of the False Claims Act.

According to the DOJ, the diagnostic reference laboratory, CorePath Laboratories, conducted in-office bone marrow biopsies at Oncology San Antonio practice locations and performed diagnostic testing on the samples. CorePath Laboratories agreed to pay $115 for each biopsy referred by Oncology San Antonio physicians, and these biopsy payments were allegedly paid to the private practices of three physicians at Oncology San Antonio. This arrangement allegedly began in August 2016.

The DOJ claimed that the payments for referring biopsies constituted illegal kickbacks under the Anti-Kickback Statute, which prohibits offering or receiving payments to encourage referrals of services covered by federal healthcare programs like Medicare and Medicaid.

“Violations of the Anti-Kickback Statute involving oncology services can waste scarce federal healthcare program funds and corrupt the medical decision-making process,” Special Agent in Charge Jason E. Meadows with the US Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General said in a statement.

Oncology San Antonio told this news organization that the cost and distraction of prolonged litigation were the primary factors in its decision to settle. “The decision to settle was an extremely difficult one because Oncology San Antonio was confident that it would have prevailed in any action,” the practice said via email.

This civil settlement with Oncology San Antonio also resolved allegations that a physician affiliated with the practice, Jayasree Rao, MD, provided unnecessary tests, services, and treatments to patients covered by Medicare, TRICARE, and Texas Medicaid in the San Antonio Metro Area and billed these federal healthcare programs for the unnecessary services.

The DOJ identified Slavisa Gasic, MD, a physician formerly employed by Dr. Rao, as a whistleblower in the investigation. When asked for comment, Oncology San Antonio alleged Dr. Gasic was “disgruntled for not being promoted.”

According to Oncology San Antonio, the contract for bone marrow biopsies was negotiated and signed by a former nonphysician officer of the company without the input of Oncology San Antonio physicians. The contract permitted bone marrow biopsies at Oncology San Antonio clinics instead of requiring older adult and sick patients to go to a different facility for these services.

“Oncology San Antonio and Rao vehemently denied Gasic’s allegations as wholly unfounded,” the company told this news organization.

Dr. Rao retired in March and is no longer practicing. CorePath Laboratories, PA, did not respond to this news organization’s request for comment.

According to the DOJ press release, the “investigation and resolution of this matter illustrate the government’s emphasis on combating healthcare fraud.”
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A San Antonio oncology practice and diagnostic reference laboratory have agreed to settle a federal lawsuit, which alleged the two entities had entered an unlawful kickback arrangement.

The US Department of Justice (DOJ) announced on April 2 that Oncology San Antonio, PA, and its physicians have agreed to pay $1.3 million, and CorePath Laboratories, PA, has agreed to pay nearly $2.75 million plus accrued interest in civil settlements with the United States and Texas for alleged violations of the False Claims Act.

According to the DOJ, the diagnostic reference laboratory, CorePath Laboratories, conducted in-office bone marrow biopsies at Oncology San Antonio practice locations and performed diagnostic testing on the samples. CorePath Laboratories agreed to pay $115 for each biopsy referred by Oncology San Antonio physicians, and these biopsy payments were allegedly paid to the private practices of three physicians at Oncology San Antonio. This arrangement allegedly began in August 2016.

The DOJ claimed that the payments for referring biopsies constituted illegal kickbacks under the Anti-Kickback Statute, which prohibits offering or receiving payments to encourage referrals of services covered by federal healthcare programs like Medicare and Medicaid.

“Violations of the Anti-Kickback Statute involving oncology services can waste scarce federal healthcare program funds and corrupt the medical decision-making process,” Special Agent in Charge Jason E. Meadows with the US Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General said in a statement.

Oncology San Antonio told this news organization that the cost and distraction of prolonged litigation were the primary factors in its decision to settle. “The decision to settle was an extremely difficult one because Oncology San Antonio was confident that it would have prevailed in any action,” the practice said via email.

This civil settlement with Oncology San Antonio also resolved allegations that a physician affiliated with the practice, Jayasree Rao, MD, provided unnecessary tests, services, and treatments to patients covered by Medicare, TRICARE, and Texas Medicaid in the San Antonio Metro Area and billed these federal healthcare programs for the unnecessary services.

The DOJ identified Slavisa Gasic, MD, a physician formerly employed by Dr. Rao, as a whistleblower in the investigation. When asked for comment, Oncology San Antonio alleged Dr. Gasic was “disgruntled for not being promoted.”

According to Oncology San Antonio, the contract for bone marrow biopsies was negotiated and signed by a former nonphysician officer of the company without the input of Oncology San Antonio physicians. The contract permitted bone marrow biopsies at Oncology San Antonio clinics instead of requiring older adult and sick patients to go to a different facility for these services.

“Oncology San Antonio and Rao vehemently denied Gasic’s allegations as wholly unfounded,” the company told this news organization.

Dr. Rao retired in March and is no longer practicing. CorePath Laboratories, PA, did not respond to this news organization’s request for comment.

According to the DOJ press release, the “investigation and resolution of this matter illustrate the government’s emphasis on combating healthcare fraud.”
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A San Antonio oncology practice and diagnostic reference laboratory have agreed to settle a federal lawsuit, which alleged the two entities had entered an unlawful kickback arrangement.

The US Department of Justice (DOJ) announced on April 2 that Oncology San Antonio, PA, and its physicians have agreed to pay $1.3 million, and CorePath Laboratories, PA, has agreed to pay nearly $2.75 million plus accrued interest in civil settlements with the United States and Texas for alleged violations of the False Claims Act.

According to the DOJ, the diagnostic reference laboratory, CorePath Laboratories, conducted in-office bone marrow biopsies at Oncology San Antonio practice locations and performed diagnostic testing on the samples. CorePath Laboratories agreed to pay $115 for each biopsy referred by Oncology San Antonio physicians, and these biopsy payments were allegedly paid to the private practices of three physicians at Oncology San Antonio. This arrangement allegedly began in August 2016.

The DOJ claimed that the payments for referring biopsies constituted illegal kickbacks under the Anti-Kickback Statute, which prohibits offering or receiving payments to encourage referrals of services covered by federal healthcare programs like Medicare and Medicaid.

“Violations of the Anti-Kickback Statute involving oncology services can waste scarce federal healthcare program funds and corrupt the medical decision-making process,” Special Agent in Charge Jason E. Meadows with the US Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General said in a statement.

Oncology San Antonio told this news organization that the cost and distraction of prolonged litigation were the primary factors in its decision to settle. “The decision to settle was an extremely difficult one because Oncology San Antonio was confident that it would have prevailed in any action,” the practice said via email.

This civil settlement with Oncology San Antonio also resolved allegations that a physician affiliated with the practice, Jayasree Rao, MD, provided unnecessary tests, services, and treatments to patients covered by Medicare, TRICARE, and Texas Medicaid in the San Antonio Metro Area and billed these federal healthcare programs for the unnecessary services.

The DOJ identified Slavisa Gasic, MD, a physician formerly employed by Dr. Rao, as a whistleblower in the investigation. When asked for comment, Oncology San Antonio alleged Dr. Gasic was “disgruntled for not being promoted.”

According to Oncology San Antonio, the contract for bone marrow biopsies was negotiated and signed by a former nonphysician officer of the company without the input of Oncology San Antonio physicians. The contract permitted bone marrow biopsies at Oncology San Antonio clinics instead of requiring older adult and sick patients to go to a different facility for these services.

“Oncology San Antonio and Rao vehemently denied Gasic’s allegations as wholly unfounded,” the company told this news organization.

Dr. Rao retired in March and is no longer practicing. CorePath Laboratories, PA, did not respond to this news organization’s request for comment.

According to the DOJ press release, the “investigation and resolution of this matter illustrate the government’s emphasis on combating healthcare fraud.”
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Immersive virtual reality (VR) distraction therapy may be more effective at controlling pain in hospitalized patients with cancer than a two-dimensional guided imagery experience, suggests a new randomized controlled trial.

While both interventions brought some pain relief, VR therapy yielded greater, longer-lasting comfort, reported lead author Hunter Groninger, MD, of MedStar Health Research Institute, Hyattsville, Maryland, and colleagues.

MedStar Health

“Investigators have explored immersive VR interventions in cancer populations for a variety of indications including anxiety, depression, fatigue, and procedure‐associated pain, particularly among patients with pediatric cancer and adult breast cancer,” the investigators wrote in Cancer. “Nevertheless, despite growing evidence supporting the efficacy of VR‐delivered interventions for analgesia, few data address its role to mitigate cancer‐related pain specifically.”

To address this knowledge gap, Dr. Groninger and colleagues enrolled 128 adult hospitalized patients with cancer of any kind, all of whom had moderate to severe pain (self-reported score at least 4 out of 10) within the past 24 hours.
 

Study Methods and Results

Patients were randomized to receive either 10 minutes of immersive VR distraction therapy or 10 minutes of two-dimensional guided imagery distraction therapy.

“[The VR therapy] provides noncompetitive experiences in which the user can move around and explore natural environments (e.g., beachscape, forest) from standing, seated, or fixed positions, including within a hospital bed or chair,” the investigators wrote. “We provided over‐the‐ear headphones to assure high sound quality for the experience in the virtual natural environment.”

The two-dimensional intervention, delivered via electronic tablet, featured a meditation with images of natural landscapes and instrumental background music.

“We chose this active control because it is readily available and reflects content similar to relaxation‐focused television channels that are increasingly common in hospital settings,” the investigators noted.

Compared with this more common approach, patients who received VR therapy had significantly greater immediate reduction in pain (mean change in pain score, –1.4 vs –0.7; P = .03). Twenty-four hours later, improvements in the VR group generally persisted, while pain level in the two-dimensional group returned almost to baseline (P = .004). In addition, patients in the VR group reported significantly greater improvements in general distress and pain bothersomeness.

“VR therapies may modulate the pain experience by reducing the level of attention paid to noxious stimuli, thereby suppressing transmission of painful sensations via pain processing pathways to the cerebral cortex, particularly with more active VR experiences compared to passive experiences,” the investigators wrote.
 

Downsides to Using VR

Although VR brought more benefit, participants in the VR group more often reported difficulty using the intervention compared with those who interacted with an electronic tablet.

Plus, one VR user described mild dizziness that resolved with pharmacologic intervention. Still, approximately 9 out of 10 participants in each group reported willingness to try the intervention again.
 

Future VR Research

“Virtual reality is a rapidly evolving technology with a wealth of potential patient‐facing applications,” the investigators wrote. “Future studies should explore repeated use, optimal dosing, and impact on VR therapy on opioid analgesic requirements as well as usability testing, VR content preferences and facilitators of analgesia, and barriers and facilitators to use in acute care settings.”

This study was supported by the American Cancer Society. The investigators disclosed no conflicts of interest.

Immersive virtual reality (VR) distraction therapy may be more effective at controlling pain in hospitalized patients with cancer than a two-dimensional guided imagery experience, suggests a new randomized controlled trial.

While both interventions brought some pain relief, VR therapy yielded greater, longer-lasting comfort, reported lead author Hunter Groninger, MD, of MedStar Health Research Institute, Hyattsville, Maryland, and colleagues.

MedStar Health

“Investigators have explored immersive VR interventions in cancer populations for a variety of indications including anxiety, depression, fatigue, and procedure‐associated pain, particularly among patients with pediatric cancer and adult breast cancer,” the investigators wrote in Cancer. “Nevertheless, despite growing evidence supporting the efficacy of VR‐delivered interventions for analgesia, few data address its role to mitigate cancer‐related pain specifically.”

To address this knowledge gap, Dr. Groninger and colleagues enrolled 128 adult hospitalized patients with cancer of any kind, all of whom had moderate to severe pain (self-reported score at least 4 out of 10) within the past 24 hours.
 

Study Methods and Results

Patients were randomized to receive either 10 minutes of immersive VR distraction therapy or 10 minutes of two-dimensional guided imagery distraction therapy.

“[The VR therapy] provides noncompetitive experiences in which the user can move around and explore natural environments (e.g., beachscape, forest) from standing, seated, or fixed positions, including within a hospital bed or chair,” the investigators wrote. “We provided over‐the‐ear headphones to assure high sound quality for the experience in the virtual natural environment.”

The two-dimensional intervention, delivered via electronic tablet, featured a meditation with images of natural landscapes and instrumental background music.

“We chose this active control because it is readily available and reflects content similar to relaxation‐focused television channels that are increasingly common in hospital settings,” the investigators noted.

Compared with this more common approach, patients who received VR therapy had significantly greater immediate reduction in pain (mean change in pain score, –1.4 vs –0.7; P = .03). Twenty-four hours later, improvements in the VR group generally persisted, while pain level in the two-dimensional group returned almost to baseline (P = .004). In addition, patients in the VR group reported significantly greater improvements in general distress and pain bothersomeness.

“VR therapies may modulate the pain experience by reducing the level of attention paid to noxious stimuli, thereby suppressing transmission of painful sensations via pain processing pathways to the cerebral cortex, particularly with more active VR experiences compared to passive experiences,” the investigators wrote.
 

Downsides to Using VR

Although VR brought more benefit, participants in the VR group more often reported difficulty using the intervention compared with those who interacted with an electronic tablet.

Plus, one VR user described mild dizziness that resolved with pharmacologic intervention. Still, approximately 9 out of 10 participants in each group reported willingness to try the intervention again.
 

Future VR Research

“Virtual reality is a rapidly evolving technology with a wealth of potential patient‐facing applications,” the investigators wrote. “Future studies should explore repeated use, optimal dosing, and impact on VR therapy on opioid analgesic requirements as well as usability testing, VR content preferences and facilitators of analgesia, and barriers and facilitators to use in acute care settings.”

This study was supported by the American Cancer Society. The investigators disclosed no conflicts of interest.

Immersive virtual reality (VR) distraction therapy may be more effective at controlling pain in hospitalized patients with cancer than a two-dimensional guided imagery experience, suggests a new randomized controlled trial.

While both interventions brought some pain relief, VR therapy yielded greater, longer-lasting comfort, reported lead author Hunter Groninger, MD, of MedStar Health Research Institute, Hyattsville, Maryland, and colleagues.

MedStar Health

“Investigators have explored immersive VR interventions in cancer populations for a variety of indications including anxiety, depression, fatigue, and procedure‐associated pain, particularly among patients with pediatric cancer and adult breast cancer,” the investigators wrote in Cancer. “Nevertheless, despite growing evidence supporting the efficacy of VR‐delivered interventions for analgesia, few data address its role to mitigate cancer‐related pain specifically.”

To address this knowledge gap, Dr. Groninger and colleagues enrolled 128 adult hospitalized patients with cancer of any kind, all of whom had moderate to severe pain (self-reported score at least 4 out of 10) within the past 24 hours.
 

Study Methods and Results

Patients were randomized to receive either 10 minutes of immersive VR distraction therapy or 10 minutes of two-dimensional guided imagery distraction therapy.

“[The VR therapy] provides noncompetitive experiences in which the user can move around and explore natural environments (e.g., beachscape, forest) from standing, seated, or fixed positions, including within a hospital bed or chair,” the investigators wrote. “We provided over‐the‐ear headphones to assure high sound quality for the experience in the virtual natural environment.”

The two-dimensional intervention, delivered via electronic tablet, featured a meditation with images of natural landscapes and instrumental background music.

“We chose this active control because it is readily available and reflects content similar to relaxation‐focused television channels that are increasingly common in hospital settings,” the investigators noted.

Compared with this more common approach, patients who received VR therapy had significantly greater immediate reduction in pain (mean change in pain score, –1.4 vs –0.7; P = .03). Twenty-four hours later, improvements in the VR group generally persisted, while pain level in the two-dimensional group returned almost to baseline (P = .004). In addition, patients in the VR group reported significantly greater improvements in general distress and pain bothersomeness.

“VR therapies may modulate the pain experience by reducing the level of attention paid to noxious stimuli, thereby suppressing transmission of painful sensations via pain processing pathways to the cerebral cortex, particularly with more active VR experiences compared to passive experiences,” the investigators wrote.
 

Downsides to Using VR

Although VR brought more benefit, participants in the VR group more often reported difficulty using the intervention compared with those who interacted with an electronic tablet.

Plus, one VR user described mild dizziness that resolved with pharmacologic intervention. Still, approximately 9 out of 10 participants in each group reported willingness to try the intervention again.
 

Future VR Research

“Virtual reality is a rapidly evolving technology with a wealth of potential patient‐facing applications,” the investigators wrote. “Future studies should explore repeated use, optimal dosing, and impact on VR therapy on opioid analgesic requirements as well as usability testing, VR content preferences and facilitators of analgesia, and barriers and facilitators to use in acute care settings.”

This study was supported by the American Cancer Society. The investigators disclosed no conflicts of interest.