AVAHO

An experimental cell-collection device that can be administered without anesthesia in a primary care practice was shown to be better at detecting Barrett esophagus than the standard of care in a community-based clinical trial.

Use of this patient-swallowed device, called Cytosponge-TFF3, could allow clinicians to diagnose esophageal conditions such as dysplasia or cancer at an earlier and potentially curable stage, said the investigators. However, it would also increase the likelihood of unnecessary endoscopies, owing to false-positive results.

“In this multicenter, pragmatic, randomized controlled trial we found that an invitation to have a Cytosponge-TFF3 test led to increased diagnosis of Barrett’s esophagus when compared with usual care by general practitioners,” write Rebecca C. Fitzgerald, MD, from the Hutchison/MRC Research Center in Cambridge, England, and colleagues.

The study was published online on Aug. 1 in The Lancet.

“This is a very important study, a landmark study,” said Stephen J. Meltzer, MD, professor of medicine and oncology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, who was approached for comment.

“What it shows is that if you opt to have this procedure, you’re much more likely to have your Barrett’s diagnosed than if you don’t opt to have it,” he said.

He congratulated Dr. Fitzgerald and colleagues for successful completion of a large, primary practice–based clinical utility study.

“Those studies are very difficult to do. This is looking at the actual impact of an intervention, which is the sponge,” he said in an interview.

Soaking up cells

Dr. Meltzer was senior author of a case-control study published in 2019 in Clinical Cancer Research that described use of a similar device. As previously reported, that device, called EsophaCap, uses a “methylation on bead” technique to collect DNA on a swallowed sponge. The DNA is then extracted from the sponge and analyzed with a methylation biomarker panel.

Like the EsophaCap device, the Cytosponge-TFF3 device consists of a compressed, gelatin-coated collection sponge attached to a thread. The patient swallows the device. After the gelatin dissolves and the sponge expands, it is gently withdrawn through the esophagus, picking up cells as it passes through.

The collected cells are then analyzed with an in vitro test for biomarker trefoil factor 3 (TFF3), a sign of intestinal metaplasia that is a histopathologic hallmark of Barrett esophagus, the authors explained.

Cytosponge-TFF3 study

The study by Dr. Fitzgerald and colleagues was conducted in patients taking medications for gastroesophageal reflux. The patients were undergoing treatment at 109 general practice clinics in England.

Eligible patients included adults aged 50 years and older who had been taking acid-suppressing medication for gastroesophageal reflux for more than 6 months and had not undergone endoscopy within the previous 5 years.

The study was randomized at both the clinic level (cluster randomization) and the individual patient level. Patients were assigned to either standard management of gastroesophageal reflux, with endoscopies performed only if recommended by the practitioner, or to the intervention group, where individuals received usual care and were offered the Cytosponge-TFF3 procedure. Those patients whose samples yielded TFF3-positive cells subsequently underwent endoscopy.

Among 6,834 patients assigned to the intervention group, 2,679 (39%) expressed willingness to undergo the Cytosponge-TFF3 procedure. Of this group, 1,750 patients met all of the eligibility criteria on telephone screening and underwent the procedure.

The large majority of patients (95%) who agreed to undergo the procedure were able to swallow the capsule and the attached thread.

Patients in the intervention group who declined the Cytosponge-TFF3 and all patients assigned to the usual-care arm underwent endoscopy only at the recommendation of their primary practitioner.

During a mean follow-up of 12 months, 140 of the 6,834 patients in the intervention group (2%) were diagnosed with Barrett esophagus, compared with 13 of 6,388 patients in the usual-care group (0.2%). The absolute difference per 1000 person-years, the trial’s primary endpoint, was 18.3. The rate ratio adjusted for cluster randomization was 10.6 (P < .001).

A total of four patients in the intervention group were diagnosed with dysplastic Barrett esophagus, and five were diagnosed with stage I esophagogastric cancer. No patients in the usual-care group were diagnosed with either condition.

Of the 1,654 patients in the intervention group who opted for the Cytosponge device and swallowed it successfully, 221 underwent endoscopy after testing positive for TFF3. Of these patients, 131 (59%) were diagnosed with either Barrett esophagus or cancer.

The most common adverse event with the Cytosponge procedure was sore throat, reported by 4% of those who opted for it. In one patient, the thread became detach from the Cytopsonge, necessitating endoscopy to remove the device.

Promising, but refinements needed

In an editorial accompanying the study, Yuri Hanada, MD, and Kenneth K. Wang, MD, from the department of gastroenterology at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., said that the Cytosponge-TFF3 procedure “is a promising nonendoscopic screening tool and will represent a component in the screening for Barrett’s esophagus and esophagogastric cancer.”

They noted, however, that it is unlikely to be the sole screening tool for Barrett esophagus and that its use in primary practice may be problematic during the COVID-19 pandemic, because of the release of aerosolized particles as the sponge is withdrawn from the esophagus.

“It might also be necessary to enrich disease prevalence in the screened population by limiting this population to males and people with other risk factors, in order to make this test more cost-effective than previously shown,” they wrote.

Acceptance rate low?

Dr. Meltzer noted that, despite being less invasive than endoscopy, only 39% of the group who could try it agreed to do so.

“It was kind of surprising, because in my experience, when I offer it to my patients, the acceptance is much higher, but that’s not in a controlled clinical trial situation, so I don’t really know what the true percentage is,” he said.

He pointed out that the patients he sees in his clinic are more likely to be symptomatic and highly motivated to accept a test, in contrast to the general patient population in the study.

He also noted that the endoscopy-confirmed prevalence rate of Barrett esophagus or cancer in 221 patients in the intervention group was 59%, suggesting that 41% underwent an unnecessary endoscopy after the Cytosponge screening.

Dr. Fitzgerald and colleagues acknowledged the potential for overdiagnosis with screening. They noted a debate as to whether 1 cm or short segments of Barrett esophagus are a cause for clinical concern.

They also note that the TFF3 test (used in the CytoSponge device) is sensitive and detects some short segments of Barrett esophagus and that, “since this was a pragmatic trial that relied on a coded diagnosis of Barrett’s esophagus, we also identified patients in the usual care group who had short segments of Barrett’s esophagus (1 cm or less in length) and were diagnosed as having the condition, reflecting the variable practice in U.K. hospitals.

“We expect that these patients can be reassured and probably do not require surveillance,” they continued. “This expectation is consistent with the clinical guidelines, which suggest that patients with over 1 cm of salmon-colored epithelium containing intestinal metaplasia should be monitored.”

The study was funded by Cancer Research UK, the U.K. National Institute for Health Research, the U.K. National Health Service, Medtronic, and the Medical Research Council. Dr. Fitzgerald is named on patents related to the Cytosponge-TFF3 test. Dr. Meltzer has cofounded a company, Capsulomics, to commercialize the methylation biomarker panel used in EsophaCap studies. Dr. Wang has received research funding from eNose for research on a device used in a screening study of Barrett esophagus.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

An experimental cell-collection device that can be administered without anesthesia in a primary care practice was shown to be better at detecting Barrett esophagus than the standard of care in a community-based clinical trial.

Use of this patient-swallowed device, called Cytosponge-TFF3, could allow clinicians to diagnose esophageal conditions such as dysplasia or cancer at an earlier and potentially curable stage, said the investigators. However, it would also increase the likelihood of unnecessary endoscopies, owing to false-positive results.

“In this multicenter, pragmatic, randomized controlled trial we found that an invitation to have a Cytosponge-TFF3 test led to increased diagnosis of Barrett’s esophagus when compared with usual care by general practitioners,” write Rebecca C. Fitzgerald, MD, from the Hutchison/MRC Research Center in Cambridge, England, and colleagues.

The study was published online on Aug. 1 in The Lancet.

“This is a very important study, a landmark study,” said Stephen J. Meltzer, MD, professor of medicine and oncology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, who was approached for comment.

“What it shows is that if you opt to have this procedure, you’re much more likely to have your Barrett’s diagnosed than if you don’t opt to have it,” he said.

He congratulated Dr. Fitzgerald and colleagues for successful completion of a large, primary practice–based clinical utility study.

“Those studies are very difficult to do. This is looking at the actual impact of an intervention, which is the sponge,” he said in an interview.

Soaking up cells

Dr. Meltzer was senior author of a case-control study published in 2019 in Clinical Cancer Research that described use of a similar device. As previously reported, that device, called EsophaCap, uses a “methylation on bead” technique to collect DNA on a swallowed sponge. The DNA is then extracted from the sponge and analyzed with a methylation biomarker panel.

Like the EsophaCap device, the Cytosponge-TFF3 device consists of a compressed, gelatin-coated collection sponge attached to a thread. The patient swallows the device. After the gelatin dissolves and the sponge expands, it is gently withdrawn through the esophagus, picking up cells as it passes through.

The collected cells are then analyzed with an in vitro test for biomarker trefoil factor 3 (TFF3), a sign of intestinal metaplasia that is a histopathologic hallmark of Barrett esophagus, the authors explained.

Cytosponge-TFF3 study

The study by Dr. Fitzgerald and colleagues was conducted in patients taking medications for gastroesophageal reflux. The patients were undergoing treatment at 109 general practice clinics in England.

Eligible patients included adults aged 50 years and older who had been taking acid-suppressing medication for gastroesophageal reflux for more than 6 months and had not undergone endoscopy within the previous 5 years.

The study was randomized at both the clinic level (cluster randomization) and the individual patient level. Patients were assigned to either standard management of gastroesophageal reflux, with endoscopies performed only if recommended by the practitioner, or to the intervention group, where individuals received usual care and were offered the Cytosponge-TFF3 procedure. Those patients whose samples yielded TFF3-positive cells subsequently underwent endoscopy.

Among 6,834 patients assigned to the intervention group, 2,679 (39%) expressed willingness to undergo the Cytosponge-TFF3 procedure. Of this group, 1,750 patients met all of the eligibility criteria on telephone screening and underwent the procedure.

The large majority of patients (95%) who agreed to undergo the procedure were able to swallow the capsule and the attached thread.

Patients in the intervention group who declined the Cytosponge-TFF3 and all patients assigned to the usual-care arm underwent endoscopy only at the recommendation of their primary practitioner.

During a mean follow-up of 12 months, 140 of the 6,834 patients in the intervention group (2%) were diagnosed with Barrett esophagus, compared with 13 of 6,388 patients in the usual-care group (0.2%). The absolute difference per 1000 person-years, the trial’s primary endpoint, was 18.3. The rate ratio adjusted for cluster randomization was 10.6 (P < .001).

A total of four patients in the intervention group were diagnosed with dysplastic Barrett esophagus, and five were diagnosed with stage I esophagogastric cancer. No patients in the usual-care group were diagnosed with either condition.

Of the 1,654 patients in the intervention group who opted for the Cytosponge device and swallowed it successfully, 221 underwent endoscopy after testing positive for TFF3. Of these patients, 131 (59%) were diagnosed with either Barrett esophagus or cancer.

The most common adverse event with the Cytosponge procedure was sore throat, reported by 4% of those who opted for it. In one patient, the thread became detach from the Cytopsonge, necessitating endoscopy to remove the device.

Promising, but refinements needed

In an editorial accompanying the study, Yuri Hanada, MD, and Kenneth K. Wang, MD, from the department of gastroenterology at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., said that the Cytosponge-TFF3 procedure “is a promising nonendoscopic screening tool and will represent a component in the screening for Barrett’s esophagus and esophagogastric cancer.”

They noted, however, that it is unlikely to be the sole screening tool for Barrett esophagus and that its use in primary practice may be problematic during the COVID-19 pandemic, because of the release of aerosolized particles as the sponge is withdrawn from the esophagus.

“It might also be necessary to enrich disease prevalence in the screened population by limiting this population to males and people with other risk factors, in order to make this test more cost-effective than previously shown,” they wrote.

Acceptance rate low?

Dr. Meltzer noted that, despite being less invasive than endoscopy, only 39% of the group who could try it agreed to do so.

“It was kind of surprising, because in my experience, when I offer it to my patients, the acceptance is much higher, but that’s not in a controlled clinical trial situation, so I don’t really know what the true percentage is,” he said.

He pointed out that the patients he sees in his clinic are more likely to be symptomatic and highly motivated to accept a test, in contrast to the general patient population in the study.

He also noted that the endoscopy-confirmed prevalence rate of Barrett esophagus or cancer in 221 patients in the intervention group was 59%, suggesting that 41% underwent an unnecessary endoscopy after the Cytosponge screening.

Dr. Fitzgerald and colleagues acknowledged the potential for overdiagnosis with screening. They noted a debate as to whether 1 cm or short segments of Barrett esophagus are a cause for clinical concern.

They also note that the TFF3 test (used in the CytoSponge device) is sensitive and detects some short segments of Barrett esophagus and that, “since this was a pragmatic trial that relied on a coded diagnosis of Barrett’s esophagus, we also identified patients in the usual care group who had short segments of Barrett’s esophagus (1 cm or less in length) and were diagnosed as having the condition, reflecting the variable practice in U.K. hospitals.

“We expect that these patients can be reassured and probably do not require surveillance,” they continued. “This expectation is consistent with the clinical guidelines, which suggest that patients with over 1 cm of salmon-colored epithelium containing intestinal metaplasia should be monitored.”

The study was funded by Cancer Research UK, the U.K. National Institute for Health Research, the U.K. National Health Service, Medtronic, and the Medical Research Council. Dr. Fitzgerald is named on patents related to the Cytosponge-TFF3 test. Dr. Meltzer has cofounded a company, Capsulomics, to commercialize the methylation biomarker panel used in EsophaCap studies. Dr. Wang has received research funding from eNose for research on a device used in a screening study of Barrett esophagus.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

An experimental cell-collection device that can be administered without anesthesia in a primary care practice was shown to be better at detecting Barrett esophagus than the standard of care in a community-based clinical trial.

Use of this patient-swallowed device, called Cytosponge-TFF3, could allow clinicians to diagnose esophageal conditions such as dysplasia or cancer at an earlier and potentially curable stage, said the investigators. However, it would also increase the likelihood of unnecessary endoscopies, owing to false-positive results.

“In this multicenter, pragmatic, randomized controlled trial we found that an invitation to have a Cytosponge-TFF3 test led to increased diagnosis of Barrett’s esophagus when compared with usual care by general practitioners,” write Rebecca C. Fitzgerald, MD, from the Hutchison/MRC Research Center in Cambridge, England, and colleagues.

The study was published online on Aug. 1 in The Lancet.

“This is a very important study, a landmark study,” said Stephen J. Meltzer, MD, professor of medicine and oncology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, who was approached for comment.

“What it shows is that if you opt to have this procedure, you’re much more likely to have your Barrett’s diagnosed than if you don’t opt to have it,” he said.

He congratulated Dr. Fitzgerald and colleagues for successful completion of a large, primary practice–based clinical utility study.

“Those studies are very difficult to do. This is looking at the actual impact of an intervention, which is the sponge,” he said in an interview.

Soaking up cells

Dr. Meltzer was senior author of a case-control study published in 2019 in Clinical Cancer Research that described use of a similar device. As previously reported, that device, called EsophaCap, uses a “methylation on bead” technique to collect DNA on a swallowed sponge. The DNA is then extracted from the sponge and analyzed with a methylation biomarker panel.

Like the EsophaCap device, the Cytosponge-TFF3 device consists of a compressed, gelatin-coated collection sponge attached to a thread. The patient swallows the device. After the gelatin dissolves and the sponge expands, it is gently withdrawn through the esophagus, picking up cells as it passes through.

The collected cells are then analyzed with an in vitro test for biomarker trefoil factor 3 (TFF3), a sign of intestinal metaplasia that is a histopathologic hallmark of Barrett esophagus, the authors explained.

Cytosponge-TFF3 study

The study by Dr. Fitzgerald and colleagues was conducted in patients taking medications for gastroesophageal reflux. The patients were undergoing treatment at 109 general practice clinics in England.

Eligible patients included adults aged 50 years and older who had been taking acid-suppressing medication for gastroesophageal reflux for more than 6 months and had not undergone endoscopy within the previous 5 years.

The study was randomized at both the clinic level (cluster randomization) and the individual patient level. Patients were assigned to either standard management of gastroesophageal reflux, with endoscopies performed only if recommended by the practitioner, or to the intervention group, where individuals received usual care and were offered the Cytosponge-TFF3 procedure. Those patients whose samples yielded TFF3-positive cells subsequently underwent endoscopy.

Among 6,834 patients assigned to the intervention group, 2,679 (39%) expressed willingness to undergo the Cytosponge-TFF3 procedure. Of this group, 1,750 patients met all of the eligibility criteria on telephone screening and underwent the procedure.

The large majority of patients (95%) who agreed to undergo the procedure were able to swallow the capsule and the attached thread.

Patients in the intervention group who declined the Cytosponge-TFF3 and all patients assigned to the usual-care arm underwent endoscopy only at the recommendation of their primary practitioner.

During a mean follow-up of 12 months, 140 of the 6,834 patients in the intervention group (2%) were diagnosed with Barrett esophagus, compared with 13 of 6,388 patients in the usual-care group (0.2%). The absolute difference per 1000 person-years, the trial’s primary endpoint, was 18.3. The rate ratio adjusted for cluster randomization was 10.6 (P < .001).

A total of four patients in the intervention group were diagnosed with dysplastic Barrett esophagus, and five were diagnosed with stage I esophagogastric cancer. No patients in the usual-care group were diagnosed with either condition.

Of the 1,654 patients in the intervention group who opted for the Cytosponge device and swallowed it successfully, 221 underwent endoscopy after testing positive for TFF3. Of these patients, 131 (59%) were diagnosed with either Barrett esophagus or cancer.

The most common adverse event with the Cytosponge procedure was sore throat, reported by 4% of those who opted for it. In one patient, the thread became detach from the Cytopsonge, necessitating endoscopy to remove the device.

Promising, but refinements needed

In an editorial accompanying the study, Yuri Hanada, MD, and Kenneth K. Wang, MD, from the department of gastroenterology at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., said that the Cytosponge-TFF3 procedure “is a promising nonendoscopic screening tool and will represent a component in the screening for Barrett’s esophagus and esophagogastric cancer.”

They noted, however, that it is unlikely to be the sole screening tool for Barrett esophagus and that its use in primary practice may be problematic during the COVID-19 pandemic, because of the release of aerosolized particles as the sponge is withdrawn from the esophagus.

“It might also be necessary to enrich disease prevalence in the screened population by limiting this population to males and people with other risk factors, in order to make this test more cost-effective than previously shown,” they wrote.

Acceptance rate low?

Dr. Meltzer noted that, despite being less invasive than endoscopy, only 39% of the group who could try it agreed to do so.

“It was kind of surprising, because in my experience, when I offer it to my patients, the acceptance is much higher, but that’s not in a controlled clinical trial situation, so I don’t really know what the true percentage is,” he said.

He pointed out that the patients he sees in his clinic are more likely to be symptomatic and highly motivated to accept a test, in contrast to the general patient population in the study.

He also noted that the endoscopy-confirmed prevalence rate of Barrett esophagus or cancer in 221 patients in the intervention group was 59%, suggesting that 41% underwent an unnecessary endoscopy after the Cytosponge screening.

Dr. Fitzgerald and colleagues acknowledged the potential for overdiagnosis with screening. They noted a debate as to whether 1 cm or short segments of Barrett esophagus are a cause for clinical concern.

They also note that the TFF3 test (used in the CytoSponge device) is sensitive and detects some short segments of Barrett esophagus and that, “since this was a pragmatic trial that relied on a coded diagnosis of Barrett’s esophagus, we also identified patients in the usual care group who had short segments of Barrett’s esophagus (1 cm or less in length) and were diagnosed as having the condition, reflecting the variable practice in U.K. hospitals.

“We expect that these patients can be reassured and probably do not require surveillance,” they continued. “This expectation is consistent with the clinical guidelines, which suggest that patients with over 1 cm of salmon-colored epithelium containing intestinal metaplasia should be monitored.”

The study was funded by Cancer Research UK, the U.K. National Institute for Health Research, the U.K. National Health Service, Medtronic, and the Medical Research Council. Dr. Fitzgerald is named on patents related to the Cytosponge-TFF3 test. Dr. Meltzer has cofounded a company, Capsulomics, to commercialize the methylation biomarker panel used in EsophaCap studies. Dr. Wang has received research funding from eNose for research on a device used in a screening study of Barrett esophagus.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A deep learning (DL) computer model improved upon the accuracy of cervical cancer diagnoses compared to traditional radiology. This could allow some women to avoid surgery and be treated with chemotherapy instead, suggested researchers.

The model mined tumor information from pelvic sagittal contrast-enhanced T1-weighted MRIs and combined this with clinical MRI lymph node status.

It was 90.62% sensitive and 87.16% specific for predicting lymph node metastases (LNMs) in a validation cohort of women who underwent surgery for cervical cancer.

The area under the curve was 0.933. The approach was significantly associated with disease-free survival (hazard ratio, 4.59; 95% confidence interval, 2.04-10.31; P < .001).

The study was published online on July 24 in JAMA Network Open.

“The findings of this study suggest that deep learning can be used as a preoperative noninvasive tool to diagnose lymph node metastasis in cervical cancer ... This model might be used preoperatively to help gynecologists make decisions,” said investigators led by Qingxia Wu, PhD, of the Northeastern University College of Medicine and Biomedical Information Engineering in Shenyang, China.

“Studies like these suggest that deep learning has the potential to improve the way we care for our patients,” but there’s much to be done “before these types of algorithms will be commonplace,” commented Christiaan Rees, MD, PhD, an internal medicine resident at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, who has a doctorate in quantitative biomedical sciences.

Next steps include repeated validation across multiple control groups, he said in an interview, as well as “finding ways to effectively integrate these tools into the radiologist’s day-to-day practice. One possibility would be for direct integration of the algorithm into the electronic health record.”
 

Accurate prediction could lead to skipping surgery

Chemotherapy, rather than surgery, is an option for women with positive lymph nodes (LNs), so accurate prediction can help them avoid an operation and its risks, the authors said.

The problem is that “the traditional methods for assessing LN status in cervical cancer, which rely mainly on assessing the size of LNs on MRI, have limited sensitivity in diagnosing LNM in cervical cancer and might lead to inappropriate treatment decisions,” they wrote.

“Although sentinel LN dissection ... shows good sensitivity and specificity, its application is limited by available facilities and experts,” the team said.

DL is an advanced form of artificial intelligence in which a computer program continuously improves on a given task as it incorporates more data – in Dr. Wu’s study, more than 14 million images. Deep learning has recently shown promise in several imaging tasks, such as diagnosing Alzheimer’s disease and screening for breast cancer.

Once adapted for cervical cancer, DL “does not require precise tumor delineation, making it an easy-to-use method in clinical practice. In many tumor analysis tasks, DL outperforms traditional radiomic features,” the team noted.

The study involved 479 women – 338 during model development, and 141 in the validation cohorts. The mean age of the participants was 49.1 years. They had undergone radical hysterectomy with pelvic lymphadenectomy for stage IB-IIB cervical cancer within 2 weeks of a pelvic MRI. Pathology reports were used to check the accuracy of the model’s predictions.

Specificity, sensitivity, and area under the curve were a little better in the study’s development cohort than its validation group, for whom median disease-free survival was 23 months versus 31 months among the patients in the development cohort. Nodes were positive on lymphadenectomy in a little more than 20% of women in both groups.

Incorporation of both intratumoral and peritumoral regions on contrast-enhanced T1-weighted MRIs versus axial T2-weighted and axial diffusion-weighted imaging, produced the highest sensitivity. Adding MRI-LN status – defined as positive when the short-axis diameter of the largest LN on MRI was ≥1 cm – improved the model’s specificity.

To understand how the model reached its conclusions, the team analyzed how it extracted features from tumor images. “In the shallow convolution layers, the DL model extracted simple tumor edge features ... while in deeper convolution layers, it extracted complex tumor texture information ... In the last convolution layer, the DL model extracted high-level abstract features (the fourteenth layer). Although these high-level features were so intricate that they were hard to interpret by general gross observation, they were associated with LN status,” the investigators said.

The team notes that “both intratumoral and peritumoral regions were necessary for the DL model to make decisions,” which “can probably be explained by the fact that higher lymphatic vessel density in peritumoral regions might lead to higher regional LNM.”

Commenting on the study, Dr. Rees said that “the authors did a [good] job of essentially deconstructing their neural network to see what the algorithm was actually picking up on to make its decision.

“One of the nice features of deep learning is that once the algorithm has been developed and validated, the end user doesn’t need any experience in deep learning in order to use it,” he added.

Even so, “while these resources can be incredibly powerful tools, they should not function in a vacuum without human judgment,” Dr. Rees said.

The work was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China, among others. The investigators have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A deep learning (DL) computer model improved upon the accuracy of cervical cancer diagnoses compared to traditional radiology. This could allow some women to avoid surgery and be treated with chemotherapy instead, suggested researchers.

The model mined tumor information from pelvic sagittal contrast-enhanced T1-weighted MRIs and combined this with clinical MRI lymph node status.

It was 90.62% sensitive and 87.16% specific for predicting lymph node metastases (LNMs) in a validation cohort of women who underwent surgery for cervical cancer.

The area under the curve was 0.933. The approach was significantly associated with disease-free survival (hazard ratio, 4.59; 95% confidence interval, 2.04-10.31; P < .001).

The study was published online on July 24 in JAMA Network Open.

“The findings of this study suggest that deep learning can be used as a preoperative noninvasive tool to diagnose lymph node metastasis in cervical cancer ... This model might be used preoperatively to help gynecologists make decisions,” said investigators led by Qingxia Wu, PhD, of the Northeastern University College of Medicine and Biomedical Information Engineering in Shenyang, China.

“Studies like these suggest that deep learning has the potential to improve the way we care for our patients,” but there’s much to be done “before these types of algorithms will be commonplace,” commented Christiaan Rees, MD, PhD, an internal medicine resident at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, who has a doctorate in quantitative biomedical sciences.

Next steps include repeated validation across multiple control groups, he said in an interview, as well as “finding ways to effectively integrate these tools into the radiologist’s day-to-day practice. One possibility would be for direct integration of the algorithm into the electronic health record.”
 

Accurate prediction could lead to skipping surgery

Chemotherapy, rather than surgery, is an option for women with positive lymph nodes (LNs), so accurate prediction can help them avoid an operation and its risks, the authors said.

The problem is that “the traditional methods for assessing LN status in cervical cancer, which rely mainly on assessing the size of LNs on MRI, have limited sensitivity in diagnosing LNM in cervical cancer and might lead to inappropriate treatment decisions,” they wrote.

“Although sentinel LN dissection ... shows good sensitivity and specificity, its application is limited by available facilities and experts,” the team said.

DL is an advanced form of artificial intelligence in which a computer program continuously improves on a given task as it incorporates more data – in Dr. Wu’s study, more than 14 million images. Deep learning has recently shown promise in several imaging tasks, such as diagnosing Alzheimer’s disease and screening for breast cancer.

Once adapted for cervical cancer, DL “does not require precise tumor delineation, making it an easy-to-use method in clinical practice. In many tumor analysis tasks, DL outperforms traditional radiomic features,” the team noted.

The study involved 479 women – 338 during model development, and 141 in the validation cohorts. The mean age of the participants was 49.1 years. They had undergone radical hysterectomy with pelvic lymphadenectomy for stage IB-IIB cervical cancer within 2 weeks of a pelvic MRI. Pathology reports were used to check the accuracy of the model’s predictions.

Specificity, sensitivity, and area under the curve were a little better in the study’s development cohort than its validation group, for whom median disease-free survival was 23 months versus 31 months among the patients in the development cohort. Nodes were positive on lymphadenectomy in a little more than 20% of women in both groups.

Incorporation of both intratumoral and peritumoral regions on contrast-enhanced T1-weighted MRIs versus axial T2-weighted and axial diffusion-weighted imaging, produced the highest sensitivity. Adding MRI-LN status – defined as positive when the short-axis diameter of the largest LN on MRI was ≥1 cm – improved the model’s specificity.

To understand how the model reached its conclusions, the team analyzed how it extracted features from tumor images. “In the shallow convolution layers, the DL model extracted simple tumor edge features ... while in deeper convolution layers, it extracted complex tumor texture information ... In the last convolution layer, the DL model extracted high-level abstract features (the fourteenth layer). Although these high-level features were so intricate that they were hard to interpret by general gross observation, they were associated with LN status,” the investigators said.

The team notes that “both intratumoral and peritumoral regions were necessary for the DL model to make decisions,” which “can probably be explained by the fact that higher lymphatic vessel density in peritumoral regions might lead to higher regional LNM.”

Commenting on the study, Dr. Rees said that “the authors did a [good] job of essentially deconstructing their neural network to see what the algorithm was actually picking up on to make its decision.

“One of the nice features of deep learning is that once the algorithm has been developed and validated, the end user doesn’t need any experience in deep learning in order to use it,” he added.

Even so, “while these resources can be incredibly powerful tools, they should not function in a vacuum without human judgment,” Dr. Rees said.

The work was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China, among others. The investigators have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A deep learning (DL) computer model improved upon the accuracy of cervical cancer diagnoses compared to traditional radiology. This could allow some women to avoid surgery and be treated with chemotherapy instead, suggested researchers.

The model mined tumor information from pelvic sagittal contrast-enhanced T1-weighted MRIs and combined this with clinical MRI lymph node status.

It was 90.62% sensitive and 87.16% specific for predicting lymph node metastases (LNMs) in a validation cohort of women who underwent surgery for cervical cancer.

The area under the curve was 0.933. The approach was significantly associated with disease-free survival (hazard ratio, 4.59; 95% confidence interval, 2.04-10.31; P < .001).

The study was published online on July 24 in JAMA Network Open.

“The findings of this study suggest that deep learning can be used as a preoperative noninvasive tool to diagnose lymph node metastasis in cervical cancer ... This model might be used preoperatively to help gynecologists make decisions,” said investigators led by Qingxia Wu, PhD, of the Northeastern University College of Medicine and Biomedical Information Engineering in Shenyang, China.

“Studies like these suggest that deep learning has the potential to improve the way we care for our patients,” but there’s much to be done “before these types of algorithms will be commonplace,” commented Christiaan Rees, MD, PhD, an internal medicine resident at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, who has a doctorate in quantitative biomedical sciences.

Next steps include repeated validation across multiple control groups, he said in an interview, as well as “finding ways to effectively integrate these tools into the radiologist’s day-to-day practice. One possibility would be for direct integration of the algorithm into the electronic health record.”
 

Accurate prediction could lead to skipping surgery

Chemotherapy, rather than surgery, is an option for women with positive lymph nodes (LNs), so accurate prediction can help them avoid an operation and its risks, the authors said.

The problem is that “the traditional methods for assessing LN status in cervical cancer, which rely mainly on assessing the size of LNs on MRI, have limited sensitivity in diagnosing LNM in cervical cancer and might lead to inappropriate treatment decisions,” they wrote.

“Although sentinel LN dissection ... shows good sensitivity and specificity, its application is limited by available facilities and experts,” the team said.

DL is an advanced form of artificial intelligence in which a computer program continuously improves on a given task as it incorporates more data – in Dr. Wu’s study, more than 14 million images. Deep learning has recently shown promise in several imaging tasks, such as diagnosing Alzheimer’s disease and screening for breast cancer.

Once adapted for cervical cancer, DL “does not require precise tumor delineation, making it an easy-to-use method in clinical practice. In many tumor analysis tasks, DL outperforms traditional radiomic features,” the team noted.

The study involved 479 women – 338 during model development, and 141 in the validation cohorts. The mean age of the participants was 49.1 years. They had undergone radical hysterectomy with pelvic lymphadenectomy for stage IB-IIB cervical cancer within 2 weeks of a pelvic MRI. Pathology reports were used to check the accuracy of the model’s predictions.

Specificity, sensitivity, and area under the curve were a little better in the study’s development cohort than its validation group, for whom median disease-free survival was 23 months versus 31 months among the patients in the development cohort. Nodes were positive on lymphadenectomy in a little more than 20% of women in both groups.

Incorporation of both intratumoral and peritumoral regions on contrast-enhanced T1-weighted MRIs versus axial T2-weighted and axial diffusion-weighted imaging, produced the highest sensitivity. Adding MRI-LN status – defined as positive when the short-axis diameter of the largest LN on MRI was ≥1 cm – improved the model’s specificity.

To understand how the model reached its conclusions, the team analyzed how it extracted features from tumor images. “In the shallow convolution layers, the DL model extracted simple tumor edge features ... while in deeper convolution layers, it extracted complex tumor texture information ... In the last convolution layer, the DL model extracted high-level abstract features (the fourteenth layer). Although these high-level features were so intricate that they were hard to interpret by general gross observation, they were associated with LN status,” the investigators said.

The team notes that “both intratumoral and peritumoral regions were necessary for the DL model to make decisions,” which “can probably be explained by the fact that higher lymphatic vessel density in peritumoral regions might lead to higher regional LNM.”

Commenting on the study, Dr. Rees said that “the authors did a [good] job of essentially deconstructing their neural network to see what the algorithm was actually picking up on to make its decision.

“One of the nice features of deep learning is that once the algorithm has been developed and validated, the end user doesn’t need any experience in deep learning in order to use it,” he added.

Even so, “while these resources can be incredibly powerful tools, they should not function in a vacuum without human judgment,” Dr. Rees said.

The work was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China, among others. The investigators have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Mortality from non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) has fallen sharply in the United States over the past few years, and survival following its diagnosis has dramatically improved, the first analysis of its kind indicates.

“This analysis shows for the first time that nationwide mortality rates for the most common category of lung cancer, NSCLC, are declining faster than its incidence, an advance that correlates with the [FDA] approval of several targeted therapies for this cancer in recent years,” coauthor Douglas Lowy, MD, deputy director, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Md., said in a statement.

“Major improvements have been made in NSCLC treatment with the advent of targeted therapies and immunotherapies,” lead author Nadia Howlander, PhD, National Cancer Institute, and colleagues observed.

“The survival benefit for patients with NSCLC treated with targeted therapy has been shown in clinical trials, but our study highlights their possible effect at the population level,” they added.

In contrast, mortality from SCLC has dropped only in tandem with a decline in the incidence of SCLC, and survival has remained largely unchanged, the same analysis showed.

NSCLC is by far the most common type of lung cancer, accounting for more than 75% of all lung cancer cases in the United States. SCLC accounts for about 13%.

The study was published online Aug. 12 in the New England Journal of Medicine.

“Although overall mortality from lung cancer has been declining in the United States, little is known about mortality trends according to cancer subtype at the population level because death certificates do not record subtype information,” the authors commented.

“To address this data limitation, the U.S. Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) program has linked mortality records to incidence cancer cases,” the authors explained. This allowed them to calculate incidence-based mortality among men and women in the United States.

The incidence-based mortality method that the researchers used was applied to the SEER data to describe population-level mortality trends in the United States that were attributable to each subtype of lung cancer as well as gender from 2001 to 2016.

Among men, the incidence of NSCLC decreased gradually by 1.9% a year from 2001 to 2008, then more dramatically by 3.1% a year from 2008 to 2016.

Corresponding incidence-based mortality rates among men dropped by 3.2% a year from 2006 to 2013, then again more dramatically by 6.3% a year from 2013 to 2016.

“The 2-year relative survival among patients with lung cancer improved substantially from 26% among men with NSCLC diagnosed in 2001 to 35% among those with NSCLC diagnosed in 2014,” the researchers added.

Among women, the incidence of NSCLC remained unchanged between 2001 and 2006, after which it began to drop by 1.5% a year from 2006 to 2016.

“In contrast, incidence-based mortality decreased slowly [among women] by 2.3% annually ... from 2006 through 2014 and then at a faster rate of 5.9% annually ... from 2014 through 2016,” the authors noted.

The 2-year relative survival rate for patients with NSCLC was higher among women than among men, improving from 35% in 2001 to 44% in 2014.

Improvements in survival were also observed for all races and ethnicities, despite concerns that new cancer treatments might increase treatment disparities between races, because they are all so expensive, the authors commented.

Mortality from SCLC declined by 4.3% a year among men, but that decline was entirely due to a similar decrease in the incidence of SCLC. Survival at 2 years for patients with this subtype of lung cancer remained largely unchanged over the same interval.

Genetic testing

The accelerating decline in NSCLC mortality starting in 2013 corresponds to the period in which clinicians began to routinely test for molecular alterations in epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) and anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK), the authors pointed out.

In 2012, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network recommended that all patients with nonsquamous NSCLC undergo genetic testing for EGFR mutations and ALK rearrangements.

At about the same time, the FDA approved a number of targeted therapies for tumors that are sensitive to targeted tyrosine kinase inhibition.

More recently, immunotherapies that act as programmed cell death inhibitors have substantially improved NSCLC outcomes, the authors noted.

The first of these was approved for NSCLC in 2015 (pembrolizumab). It was followed by a number of similar agents. It is unlikely that their approval contributed to the observed decline in NSCLC mortality, which started to accelerate in 2013 in the United States, the authors commented.

Nevertheless, the effect that the immune checkpoint inhibitors has had on the survival of patients with NSCLC can be expected to continue and to extend improvement in survival beyond the current study endpoint in 2016, they suggest.

Another contributing factor is the decline in smoking that has occurred in the United States since the 1960s. This has led to the decrease in the incidence of lung cancer. The faster decrease in the incidence of SCLC, compared with NSCLC can be explained by the higher relative risk of smoking with regard to SCLC compared to NSCLC, they commented.

Similarly, the faster decrease in lung cancer incidence in men compared to women can be explained by the relative difference in the prevalence of smoking between men and women, they added.

The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Mortality from non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) has fallen sharply in the United States over the past few years, and survival following its diagnosis has dramatically improved, the first analysis of its kind indicates.

“This analysis shows for the first time that nationwide mortality rates for the most common category of lung cancer, NSCLC, are declining faster than its incidence, an advance that correlates with the [FDA] approval of several targeted therapies for this cancer in recent years,” coauthor Douglas Lowy, MD, deputy director, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Md., said in a statement.

“Major improvements have been made in NSCLC treatment with the advent of targeted therapies and immunotherapies,” lead author Nadia Howlander, PhD, National Cancer Institute, and colleagues observed.

“The survival benefit for patients with NSCLC treated with targeted therapy has been shown in clinical trials, but our study highlights their possible effect at the population level,” they added.

In contrast, mortality from SCLC has dropped only in tandem with a decline in the incidence of SCLC, and survival has remained largely unchanged, the same analysis showed.

NSCLC is by far the most common type of lung cancer, accounting for more than 75% of all lung cancer cases in the United States. SCLC accounts for about 13%.

The study was published online Aug. 12 in the New England Journal of Medicine.

“Although overall mortality from lung cancer has been declining in the United States, little is known about mortality trends according to cancer subtype at the population level because death certificates do not record subtype information,” the authors commented.

“To address this data limitation, the U.S. Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) program has linked mortality records to incidence cancer cases,” the authors explained. This allowed them to calculate incidence-based mortality among men and women in the United States.

The incidence-based mortality method that the researchers used was applied to the SEER data to describe population-level mortality trends in the United States that were attributable to each subtype of lung cancer as well as gender from 2001 to 2016.

Among men, the incidence of NSCLC decreased gradually by 1.9% a year from 2001 to 2008, then more dramatically by 3.1% a year from 2008 to 2016.

Corresponding incidence-based mortality rates among men dropped by 3.2% a year from 2006 to 2013, then again more dramatically by 6.3% a year from 2013 to 2016.

“The 2-year relative survival among patients with lung cancer improved substantially from 26% among men with NSCLC diagnosed in 2001 to 35% among those with NSCLC diagnosed in 2014,” the researchers added.

Among women, the incidence of NSCLC remained unchanged between 2001 and 2006, after which it began to drop by 1.5% a year from 2006 to 2016.

“In contrast, incidence-based mortality decreased slowly [among women] by 2.3% annually ... from 2006 through 2014 and then at a faster rate of 5.9% annually ... from 2014 through 2016,” the authors noted.

The 2-year relative survival rate for patients with NSCLC was higher among women than among men, improving from 35% in 2001 to 44% in 2014.

Improvements in survival were also observed for all races and ethnicities, despite concerns that new cancer treatments might increase treatment disparities between races, because they are all so expensive, the authors commented.

Mortality from SCLC declined by 4.3% a year among men, but that decline was entirely due to a similar decrease in the incidence of SCLC. Survival at 2 years for patients with this subtype of lung cancer remained largely unchanged over the same interval.

Genetic testing

The accelerating decline in NSCLC mortality starting in 2013 corresponds to the period in which clinicians began to routinely test for molecular alterations in epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) and anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK), the authors pointed out.

In 2012, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network recommended that all patients with nonsquamous NSCLC undergo genetic testing for EGFR mutations and ALK rearrangements.

At about the same time, the FDA approved a number of targeted therapies for tumors that are sensitive to targeted tyrosine kinase inhibition.

More recently, immunotherapies that act as programmed cell death inhibitors have substantially improved NSCLC outcomes, the authors noted.

The first of these was approved for NSCLC in 2015 (pembrolizumab). It was followed by a number of similar agents. It is unlikely that their approval contributed to the observed decline in NSCLC mortality, which started to accelerate in 2013 in the United States, the authors commented.

Nevertheless, the effect that the immune checkpoint inhibitors has had on the survival of patients with NSCLC can be expected to continue and to extend improvement in survival beyond the current study endpoint in 2016, they suggest.

Another contributing factor is the decline in smoking that has occurred in the United States since the 1960s. This has led to the decrease in the incidence of lung cancer. The faster decrease in the incidence of SCLC, compared with NSCLC can be explained by the higher relative risk of smoking with regard to SCLC compared to NSCLC, they commented.

Similarly, the faster decrease in lung cancer incidence in men compared to women can be explained by the relative difference in the prevalence of smoking between men and women, they added.

The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Mortality from non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) has fallen sharply in the United States over the past few years, and survival following its diagnosis has dramatically improved, the first analysis of its kind indicates.

“This analysis shows for the first time that nationwide mortality rates for the most common category of lung cancer, NSCLC, are declining faster than its incidence, an advance that correlates with the [FDA] approval of several targeted therapies for this cancer in recent years,” coauthor Douglas Lowy, MD, deputy director, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Md., said in a statement.

“Major improvements have been made in NSCLC treatment with the advent of targeted therapies and immunotherapies,” lead author Nadia Howlander, PhD, National Cancer Institute, and colleagues observed.

“The survival benefit for patients with NSCLC treated with targeted therapy has been shown in clinical trials, but our study highlights their possible effect at the population level,” they added.

In contrast, mortality from SCLC has dropped only in tandem with a decline in the incidence of SCLC, and survival has remained largely unchanged, the same analysis showed.

NSCLC is by far the most common type of lung cancer, accounting for more than 75% of all lung cancer cases in the United States. SCLC accounts for about 13%.

The study was published online Aug. 12 in the New England Journal of Medicine.

“Although overall mortality from lung cancer has been declining in the United States, little is known about mortality trends according to cancer subtype at the population level because death certificates do not record subtype information,” the authors commented.

“To address this data limitation, the U.S. Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) program has linked mortality records to incidence cancer cases,” the authors explained. This allowed them to calculate incidence-based mortality among men and women in the United States.

The incidence-based mortality method that the researchers used was applied to the SEER data to describe population-level mortality trends in the United States that were attributable to each subtype of lung cancer as well as gender from 2001 to 2016.

Among men, the incidence of NSCLC decreased gradually by 1.9% a year from 2001 to 2008, then more dramatically by 3.1% a year from 2008 to 2016.

Corresponding incidence-based mortality rates among men dropped by 3.2% a year from 2006 to 2013, then again more dramatically by 6.3% a year from 2013 to 2016.

“The 2-year relative survival among patients with lung cancer improved substantially from 26% among men with NSCLC diagnosed in 2001 to 35% among those with NSCLC diagnosed in 2014,” the researchers added.

Among women, the incidence of NSCLC remained unchanged between 2001 and 2006, after which it began to drop by 1.5% a year from 2006 to 2016.

“In contrast, incidence-based mortality decreased slowly [among women] by 2.3% annually ... from 2006 through 2014 and then at a faster rate of 5.9% annually ... from 2014 through 2016,” the authors noted.

The 2-year relative survival rate for patients with NSCLC was higher among women than among men, improving from 35% in 2001 to 44% in 2014.

Improvements in survival were also observed for all races and ethnicities, despite concerns that new cancer treatments might increase treatment disparities between races, because they are all so expensive, the authors commented.

Mortality from SCLC declined by 4.3% a year among men, but that decline was entirely due to a similar decrease in the incidence of SCLC. Survival at 2 years for patients with this subtype of lung cancer remained largely unchanged over the same interval.

Genetic testing

The accelerating decline in NSCLC mortality starting in 2013 corresponds to the period in which clinicians began to routinely test for molecular alterations in epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) and anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK), the authors pointed out.

In 2012, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network recommended that all patients with nonsquamous NSCLC undergo genetic testing for EGFR mutations and ALK rearrangements.

At about the same time, the FDA approved a number of targeted therapies for tumors that are sensitive to targeted tyrosine kinase inhibition.

More recently, immunotherapies that act as programmed cell death inhibitors have substantially improved NSCLC outcomes, the authors noted.

The first of these was approved for NSCLC in 2015 (pembrolizumab). It was followed by a number of similar agents. It is unlikely that their approval contributed to the observed decline in NSCLC mortality, which started to accelerate in 2013 in the United States, the authors commented.

Nevertheless, the effect that the immune checkpoint inhibitors has had on the survival of patients with NSCLC can be expected to continue and to extend improvement in survival beyond the current study endpoint in 2016, they suggest.

Another contributing factor is the decline in smoking that has occurred in the United States since the 1960s. This has led to the decrease in the incidence of lung cancer. The faster decrease in the incidence of SCLC, compared with NSCLC can be explained by the higher relative risk of smoking with regard to SCLC compared to NSCLC, they commented.

Similarly, the faster decrease in lung cancer incidence in men compared to women can be explained by the relative difference in the prevalence of smoking between men and women, they added.

The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The investigational anti-PD-1 antibody sintilimab (Tyvyt, Innovent Biologics and Eli Lilly) has shown that it improves the efficacy of platinum-based chemotherapy in the first-line treatment of patients with advanced nonsquamous non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in a phase 3 trial dubbed ORIENT-11.

The study was presented at the World Congress on Lung Cancer 2020 Virtual Presidential Symposium, held virtually due to the COVID-19 pandemic, on August 8. It was also published simultaneously in the Journal of Thoracic Oncology.

Sintilimab is a fully human IgG4 monoclonal antibody that blocks the binding of programmed death (PD)-1 to PD-ligand 1 (PD-L1) or PD-L2 with high affinity, and has received market authorization in China for the treatment of Hodgkin lymphoma.

For ORIENT-11, almost 400 patients with advanced nonsquamous NSCLC were randomly assigned to sintilimab or placebo plus pemetrexed and platinum-based chemotherapy in a 2:1 ratio.

“The addition of sintilimab to pemetrexed and platinum significantly improved PFS [progression-free survival], compared to placebo,” reducing progression rates by 52%, noted lead investigator Li Zhang, MD, professor of medical oncology, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China.

Crucially, this benefit “was seen across key clinical subgroups,” he added.

He noted that the overall response rate “was also improved, with a durable response,” while the results, which are not yet mature, suggest the experimental arm was associated with an overall survival (OS) benefit.

Study discussant Misako Nagasaka, MD, a thoracic oncologist and clinical investigator at Karmanos Cancer Institute, Detroit, said that the PFS benefit seen in the study is “certainly encouraging.”

Adding a note of caution, she continued: “But we have seen studies with PFS improvement which did not translate into OS improvement.

“Longer follow-up would allow events to mature and we will ultimately see if there would be a significant OS benefit,” she said.

Dr. Nagasaka also pointed out that the greater benefit with sintilimab seen in patients with high PD-L1 begs the question as to what would be the preferred regimen in those with higher or lower expression.

And, she said, this is not just about what regimen to choose but “more importantly, why?”

“Perhaps you’d like to use something with the best response rate, perhaps you’re sticking to a single agent immunotherapy because the toxicity profile is more favorable, or perhaps you [are] convinced with a certain regimen because of the robust PFS and OS data,” she said.

“Whatever you chose, there was a reason for your choice,” she said, adding that the sintilimab combination would have to “fulfill those reasons for you to consider choosing this regimen.”

Study details

Dr. Zhang began his presentation by noting that previous phase 1b studies have shown that sintilimab plus pemetrexed and platinum-based chemotherapy has a “tolerable safety profile and promising efficacy” in previously untreated non-squamous NSCLC.

They therefore conducted ORIENT-11, a randomized, double-blind, phase 3 study involving 397 patients with untreated stage IIIB/C or IV nonsquamous NSCLC who had neither EGFR nor ALK gene alterations.

The patients were randomly assigned in a 2:1 fashion to sintilimab plus pemetrexed and platinum-based chemotherapy (n = 266) or placebo plus pemetrexed and chemo (n = 131) for four cycles, followed by sintilimab or placebo plus pemetrexed for up to 24 months.

Thirty-five patients in the placebo arm crossed over to sintilimab monotherapy, representing 31.3% of the intention-to-treat population.

At the data cutoff of Nov. 15, 2019, 198 events had occurred, at a median follow-up of 8.9 months.

The team found that median PFS was significantly higher with sintilimab than placebo combination therapy, at 8.9 months vs. 5.0 months, or a hazard ratio of 0.482 (P < .00001).

Dr. Zhang noted that the benefit with sintilimab plus pemetrexed and platinum-based chemotherapy was seen across all subgroups.

However, it was notable that the impact of adding sintilimab on PFS was greater in patients with a tumor proportion score (TPS) ≥50%.

The HR for progression vs. the placebo treatment arm was 0.310, with median PFS not reached, which decreased to 0.503 in patients with a TPS of 1%-49% and 0.664 among those with a TPS <1%.

The results also showed that there was a “nominally significant improvement” in overall survival with sintilimab versus placebo, at a HR of 0.609 (P = 0.01921).

The ORR was markedly different between the sintilimab and placebo groups, at 51.9% vs. 29.8%, with the duration of response not reached in the sintilimab arm compared with 5.5 months in the placebo arm.

The sintilimab arm included three (1.1%) complete responses, which was not observed with pemetrexed and platinum-based chemotherapy alone.

Finally, Dr. Zhang observed that the safety profiles of the sintilimab and placebo arms were similar, with comparable rates of any, grade 3-5, and serious adverse events largely driven by high rates of chemotherapy-related events.

While there were fewer adverse events that led to death with sintilimab, at 2.3% vs. 6.9% with placebo, there were, as expected, more immune-related adverse events, at 43.2% vs. 36.6%, respectively.

Comparison with pembrolizumab

In her discussion, Dr. Nagasaka said that the first question that came to mind when she saw the results was: “How does the ORIENT-11 data compare with KEYNOTE-189?”

For that study, pembrolizumab (Keytruda, Merck) was added to pemetrexed plus carboplatin chemotherapy and compared with standard of care alone in patients with untreated metastatic nonsquamous NSCLC.

As reported by Medscape Medical News, pembrolizumab was associated with a 48% reduced risk of disease progression, as well as improved overall survival.

Dr. Nagasaka said that ORIENT-11 “had patients that tended to be younger, there were more males, more with performance status 1, and those who had never smoked” than those in KEYNOTE-189.

“But most importantly, KEYNOTE-189 had a very small number of patients from East Asia, only 1% in the pembro arm and 2.9% in the placebo arm.”

In contrast, all the patients included in ORIENT-11 were from East Asia, making the study of “high importance.”

She added that, “while across-trial comparisons must be taken with caution, the medium PFS of ORIENT-11 ... appears comparable to those of KEYNOTE-189,” while the HR “appears identical.”

This is despite median follow-up time in ORIENT-11 of “only” 8.9 months vs. a median of 23.1 months in the updated KEYNOTE-189 data.

There are plans to register the sintilimab combination therapy in China for the treatment of nonsquamous NSCLC, where it will go up against pembrolizumab as well as, potentially, tislelizumab (BeiGene).

The study was sponsored by Innovent Biologics and Eli Lilly. Dr. Zhang disclosed research grants from Eli Lilly and Pfizer. Dr. Nagasaka disclosed serving on the advisory boards of AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Takeda, Novartis, and EMD Serono; as a consultant for Caris Life Sciences; and receiving travel support from An Hearts Therapeutics.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The investigational anti-PD-1 antibody sintilimab (Tyvyt, Innovent Biologics and Eli Lilly) has shown that it improves the efficacy of platinum-based chemotherapy in the first-line treatment of patients with advanced nonsquamous non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in a phase 3 trial dubbed ORIENT-11.

The study was presented at the World Congress on Lung Cancer 2020 Virtual Presidential Symposium, held virtually due to the COVID-19 pandemic, on August 8. It was also published simultaneously in the Journal of Thoracic Oncology.

Sintilimab is a fully human IgG4 monoclonal antibody that blocks the binding of programmed death (PD)-1 to PD-ligand 1 (PD-L1) or PD-L2 with high affinity, and has received market authorization in China for the treatment of Hodgkin lymphoma.

For ORIENT-11, almost 400 patients with advanced nonsquamous NSCLC were randomly assigned to sintilimab or placebo plus pemetrexed and platinum-based chemotherapy in a 2:1 ratio.

“The addition of sintilimab to pemetrexed and platinum significantly improved PFS [progression-free survival], compared to placebo,” reducing progression rates by 52%, noted lead investigator Li Zhang, MD, professor of medical oncology, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China.

Crucially, this benefit “was seen across key clinical subgroups,” he added.

He noted that the overall response rate “was also improved, with a durable response,” while the results, which are not yet mature, suggest the experimental arm was associated with an overall survival (OS) benefit.

Study discussant Misako Nagasaka, MD, a thoracic oncologist and clinical investigator at Karmanos Cancer Institute, Detroit, said that the PFS benefit seen in the study is “certainly encouraging.”

Adding a note of caution, she continued: “But we have seen studies with PFS improvement which did not translate into OS improvement.

“Longer follow-up would allow events to mature and we will ultimately see if there would be a significant OS benefit,” she said.

Dr. Nagasaka also pointed out that the greater benefit with sintilimab seen in patients with high PD-L1 begs the question as to what would be the preferred regimen in those with higher or lower expression.

And, she said, this is not just about what regimen to choose but “more importantly, why?”

“Perhaps you’d like to use something with the best response rate, perhaps you’re sticking to a single agent immunotherapy because the toxicity profile is more favorable, or perhaps you [are] convinced with a certain regimen because of the robust PFS and OS data,” she said.

“Whatever you chose, there was a reason for your choice,” she said, adding that the sintilimab combination would have to “fulfill those reasons for you to consider choosing this regimen.”

Study details

Dr. Zhang began his presentation by noting that previous phase 1b studies have shown that sintilimab plus pemetrexed and platinum-based chemotherapy has a “tolerable safety profile and promising efficacy” in previously untreated non-squamous NSCLC.

They therefore conducted ORIENT-11, a randomized, double-blind, phase 3 study involving 397 patients with untreated stage IIIB/C or IV nonsquamous NSCLC who had neither EGFR nor ALK gene alterations.

The patients were randomly assigned in a 2:1 fashion to sintilimab plus pemetrexed and platinum-based chemotherapy (n = 266) or placebo plus pemetrexed and chemo (n = 131) for four cycles, followed by sintilimab or placebo plus pemetrexed for up to 24 months.

Thirty-five patients in the placebo arm crossed over to sintilimab monotherapy, representing 31.3% of the intention-to-treat population.

At the data cutoff of Nov. 15, 2019, 198 events had occurred, at a median follow-up of 8.9 months.

The team found that median PFS was significantly higher with sintilimab than placebo combination therapy, at 8.9 months vs. 5.0 months, or a hazard ratio of 0.482 (P < .00001).

Dr. Zhang noted that the benefit with sintilimab plus pemetrexed and platinum-based chemotherapy was seen across all subgroups.

However, it was notable that the impact of adding sintilimab on PFS was greater in patients with a tumor proportion score (TPS) ≥50%.

The HR for progression vs. the placebo treatment arm was 0.310, with median PFS not reached, which decreased to 0.503 in patients with a TPS of 1%-49% and 0.664 among those with a TPS <1%.

The results also showed that there was a “nominally significant improvement” in overall survival with sintilimab versus placebo, at a HR of 0.609 (P = 0.01921).

The ORR was markedly different between the sintilimab and placebo groups, at 51.9% vs. 29.8%, with the duration of response not reached in the sintilimab arm compared with 5.5 months in the placebo arm.

The sintilimab arm included three (1.1%) complete responses, which was not observed with pemetrexed and platinum-based chemotherapy alone.

Finally, Dr. Zhang observed that the safety profiles of the sintilimab and placebo arms were similar, with comparable rates of any, grade 3-5, and serious adverse events largely driven by high rates of chemotherapy-related events.

While there were fewer adverse events that led to death with sintilimab, at 2.3% vs. 6.9% with placebo, there were, as expected, more immune-related adverse events, at 43.2% vs. 36.6%, respectively.

Comparison with pembrolizumab

In her discussion, Dr. Nagasaka said that the first question that came to mind when she saw the results was: “How does the ORIENT-11 data compare with KEYNOTE-189?”

For that study, pembrolizumab (Keytruda, Merck) was added to pemetrexed plus carboplatin chemotherapy and compared with standard of care alone in patients with untreated metastatic nonsquamous NSCLC.

As reported by Medscape Medical News, pembrolizumab was associated with a 48% reduced risk of disease progression, as well as improved overall survival.

Dr. Nagasaka said that ORIENT-11 “had patients that tended to be younger, there were more males, more with performance status 1, and those who had never smoked” than those in KEYNOTE-189.

“But most importantly, KEYNOTE-189 had a very small number of patients from East Asia, only 1% in the pembro arm and 2.9% in the placebo arm.”

In contrast, all the patients included in ORIENT-11 were from East Asia, making the study of “high importance.”

She added that, “while across-trial comparisons must be taken with caution, the medium PFS of ORIENT-11 ... appears comparable to those of KEYNOTE-189,” while the HR “appears identical.”

This is despite median follow-up time in ORIENT-11 of “only” 8.9 months vs. a median of 23.1 months in the updated KEYNOTE-189 data.

There are plans to register the sintilimab combination therapy in China for the treatment of nonsquamous NSCLC, where it will go up against pembrolizumab as well as, potentially, tislelizumab (BeiGene).

The study was sponsored by Innovent Biologics and Eli Lilly. Dr. Zhang disclosed research grants from Eli Lilly and Pfizer. Dr. Nagasaka disclosed serving on the advisory boards of AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Takeda, Novartis, and EMD Serono; as a consultant for Caris Life Sciences; and receiving travel support from An Hearts Therapeutics.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The investigational anti-PD-1 antibody sintilimab (Tyvyt, Innovent Biologics and Eli Lilly) has shown that it improves the efficacy of platinum-based chemotherapy in the first-line treatment of patients with advanced nonsquamous non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in a phase 3 trial dubbed ORIENT-11.

The study was presented at the World Congress on Lung Cancer 2020 Virtual Presidential Symposium, held virtually due to the COVID-19 pandemic, on August 8. It was also published simultaneously in the Journal of Thoracic Oncology.

Sintilimab is a fully human IgG4 monoclonal antibody that blocks the binding of programmed death (PD)-1 to PD-ligand 1 (PD-L1) or PD-L2 with high affinity, and has received market authorization in China for the treatment of Hodgkin lymphoma.

For ORIENT-11, almost 400 patients with advanced nonsquamous NSCLC were randomly assigned to sintilimab or placebo plus pemetrexed and platinum-based chemotherapy in a 2:1 ratio.

“The addition of sintilimab to pemetrexed and platinum significantly improved PFS [progression-free survival], compared to placebo,” reducing progression rates by 52%, noted lead investigator Li Zhang, MD, professor of medical oncology, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China.

Crucially, this benefit “was seen across key clinical subgroups,” he added.

He noted that the overall response rate “was also improved, with a durable response,” while the results, which are not yet mature, suggest the experimental arm was associated with an overall survival (OS) benefit.

Study discussant Misako Nagasaka, MD, a thoracic oncologist and clinical investigator at Karmanos Cancer Institute, Detroit, said that the PFS benefit seen in the study is “certainly encouraging.”

Adding a note of caution, she continued: “But we have seen studies with PFS improvement which did not translate into OS improvement.

“Longer follow-up would allow events to mature and we will ultimately see if there would be a significant OS benefit,” she said.

Dr. Nagasaka also pointed out that the greater benefit with sintilimab seen in patients with high PD-L1 begs the question as to what would be the preferred regimen in those with higher or lower expression.

And, she said, this is not just about what regimen to choose but “more importantly, why?”

“Perhaps you’d like to use something with the best response rate, perhaps you’re sticking to a single agent immunotherapy because the toxicity profile is more favorable, or perhaps you [are] convinced with a certain regimen because of the robust PFS and OS data,” she said.

“Whatever you chose, there was a reason for your choice,” she said, adding that the sintilimab combination would have to “fulfill those reasons for you to consider choosing this regimen.”

Study details

Dr. Zhang began his presentation by noting that previous phase 1b studies have shown that sintilimab plus pemetrexed and platinum-based chemotherapy has a “tolerable safety profile and promising efficacy” in previously untreated non-squamous NSCLC.

They therefore conducted ORIENT-11, a randomized, double-blind, phase 3 study involving 397 patients with untreated stage IIIB/C or IV nonsquamous NSCLC who had neither EGFR nor ALK gene alterations.

The patients were randomly assigned in a 2:1 fashion to sintilimab plus pemetrexed and platinum-based chemotherapy (n = 266) or placebo plus pemetrexed and chemo (n = 131) for four cycles, followed by sintilimab or placebo plus pemetrexed for up to 24 months.

Thirty-five patients in the placebo arm crossed over to sintilimab monotherapy, representing 31.3% of the intention-to-treat population.

At the data cutoff of Nov. 15, 2019, 198 events had occurred, at a median follow-up of 8.9 months.

The team found that median PFS was significantly higher with sintilimab than placebo combination therapy, at 8.9 months vs. 5.0 months, or a hazard ratio of 0.482 (P < .00001).

Dr. Zhang noted that the benefit with sintilimab plus pemetrexed and platinum-based chemotherapy was seen across all subgroups.

However, it was notable that the impact of adding sintilimab on PFS was greater in patients with a tumor proportion score (TPS) ≥50%.

The HR for progression vs. the placebo treatment arm was 0.310, with median PFS not reached, which decreased to 0.503 in patients with a TPS of 1%-49% and 0.664 among those with a TPS <1%.

The results also showed that there was a “nominally significant improvement” in overall survival with sintilimab versus placebo, at a HR of 0.609 (P = 0.01921).

The ORR was markedly different between the sintilimab and placebo groups, at 51.9% vs. 29.8%, with the duration of response not reached in the sintilimab arm compared with 5.5 months in the placebo arm.

The sintilimab arm included three (1.1%) complete responses, which was not observed with pemetrexed and platinum-based chemotherapy alone.

Finally, Dr. Zhang observed that the safety profiles of the sintilimab and placebo arms were similar, with comparable rates of any, grade 3-5, and serious adverse events largely driven by high rates of chemotherapy-related events.

While there were fewer adverse events that led to death with sintilimab, at 2.3% vs. 6.9% with placebo, there were, as expected, more immune-related adverse events, at 43.2% vs. 36.6%, respectively.

Comparison with pembrolizumab

In her discussion, Dr. Nagasaka said that the first question that came to mind when she saw the results was: “How does the ORIENT-11 data compare with KEYNOTE-189?”

For that study, pembrolizumab (Keytruda, Merck) was added to pemetrexed plus carboplatin chemotherapy and compared with standard of care alone in patients with untreated metastatic nonsquamous NSCLC.

As reported by Medscape Medical News, pembrolizumab was associated with a 48% reduced risk of disease progression, as well as improved overall survival.

Dr. Nagasaka said that ORIENT-11 “had patients that tended to be younger, there were more males, more with performance status 1, and those who had never smoked” than those in KEYNOTE-189.

“But most importantly, KEYNOTE-189 had a very small number of patients from East Asia, only 1% in the pembro arm and 2.9% in the placebo arm.”

In contrast, all the patients included in ORIENT-11 were from East Asia, making the study of “high importance.”

She added that, “while across-trial comparisons must be taken with caution, the medium PFS of ORIENT-11 ... appears comparable to those of KEYNOTE-189,” while the HR “appears identical.”

This is despite median follow-up time in ORIENT-11 of “only” 8.9 months vs. a median of 23.1 months in the updated KEYNOTE-189 data.

There are plans to register the sintilimab combination therapy in China for the treatment of nonsquamous NSCLC, where it will go up against pembrolizumab as well as, potentially, tislelizumab (BeiGene).

The study was sponsored by Innovent Biologics and Eli Lilly. Dr. Zhang disclosed research grants from Eli Lilly and Pfizer. Dr. Nagasaka disclosed serving on the advisory boards of AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Takeda, Novartis, and EMD Serono; as a consultant for Caris Life Sciences; and receiving travel support from An Hearts Therapeutics.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients with untreated mesothelioma may be able to avoid chemotherapy, say researchers reporting new survival data with the immunotherapy combination of nivolumab (Opdivo) and ipilimumab (Yervoy).

The two approaches were compared in more than 600 patients with treatment-naive mesothelioma in the phase 3 CheckMate 743 trial, which was supported by the manufacturer of both immunotherapies, Bristol-Myers Squibb.

The trial “met its primary endpoint of statistically improving overall survival for the experimental arm vs chemotherapy in a prespecified interim analysis,” reported Paul Baas, MD, PhD, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands,

The combined nivo+ipi immunotherapy regimen was associated with a 26% improvement in overall survival. At 2 years, 41% of patients in the immunotherapy arm were still alive, vs 27% in the chemotherapy group.

“This is the first positive randomized trial of dual immunotherapy in the first-line treatment of patients with mesothelioma,” he said. He suggested that it should therefore “be considered as a new standard of care.”

The data were presented on August 8 in the presidential symposium of the World Congress on Lung Cancer 2020, which was held online because of the COVID-19 pandemic.

A key analysis for the study was by histologic subgroup. It is known that standard-of-care chemotherapy performs better in patients with epithelioid as opposed to nonepithelioid tumor subtypes.

Bass highlighted that the performance of nivo+ipi was “almost the same” in patients with epithelioid and nonepithelioid tumors, at a median overall survival of 18.7 months and 18.1 months, respectively.

In contrast, overall survival in the chemotherapy arm was markedly lower in patients with nonepithelioid tumors, at 8.8 months vs 16.5 months among those with epithelioid tumors.

This was reflected in the hazard ratios for overall survival vs nivo+ipi, at 0.46 and 0.86, respectively, the latter nonsignificantly different from combination immunotherapy.

For study discussant Dean A. Fennell, MD, PhD, professor and consultant in thoracic medical oncology, University of Leicester, United Kingdom, the epithet of a “new standard of care” for nivo+ipi should be reserved for nonepithelioid disease.

In this setting, he described the overall survival improvement as “transformative,” considering the “marked chemo resistance” of nonepithelioid tumors, which is “almost certainly” associated with epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition (EMT).

In the future, he suggested, combinations of chemotherapy and immunotherapy involving all histologies or selective targeting of nonepithelioid mesothelioma “could further extend the benefit for patients.”
 

Improving survival in mesothelioma

“We have been trying to improve the overall survival of patients with mesothelioma now for many decades,” Bass commented. Platinum-based chemotherapy plus pemetrexed is a standard of care, although the 5-year survival rate «is still below 10%,” he noted.

Randomized trials of single-agent immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy in the second-line treatment of patients with mesothelioma have not shown any significant benefits.

However, nivolumab and ipilimumab have a “complementary mechanism of action,” and two previous reports have indicated that together, they have clinical activity in the second-line setting.

The team conducted CheckMate 743 to determine the efficacy of the combination in the first-line setting.

The study involved 605 patients with pleural mesothelioma who had received no prior systemic therapy and had good performance status.

They were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive nivo+ipi for up to 2 years or six cycles of pemetrexed plus cisplatin or carboplatin until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity occurred.

“Patients could have a subsequent therapy,” Bass noted; 44.0% of patients in the experimental arm received subsequent therapy, vs 44.1% of those in the chemotherapy arm.

Of the latter, 20% received an immune checkpoint inhibitor as subsequent therapy.

The minimum follow-up for overall survival was 22.1 months; the median follow-up was 29.7 months.

Nivo+ipi was associated with a significant improvement in overall survival vs standard-of-care chemotherapy, at a median overall survival of 18.1 months vs 14.1 months, with a hazard ratio of 0.74 (P = .0020).

The results indicated that overall survival was similar across key subgroups, which suggests that “no subgroup was harmed” by nivo+ipi, Bass said.
 

Stratification by PD-LI expression

Stratifying the patients by the absence or presence of programmed cell death–ligand-1 (PD-L1) expression, the team found that the performance of nivo+ipi was “the same” as that of chemotherapy, Bass said.

“But in cases where there is any expression of PD-L1, the experimental arm performs better,” at an overall survival 18.0 months vs 13.3 months for chemotherapy and a hazard ratio of 0.69, he said.

There was no difference between the two treatment arms in progression-free survival. Chemotherapy performed better in the first 6 months of treatment, after which the nivo+ipi arm had lower event rates.

Nivo+ipi was also associated with a greater duration of response, at a median of 11.0 months vs 6.7 months for standard-of-care chemotherapy.

Moreover, at 24 months, 32% of nivo+ipi patients were still experiencing a response, whereas 8% of those in the chemotherapy arm were.

Treatment-related adverse events rates were almost identical between the two treatment groups, although treatment with nivo+ipi was associated with more grade 3/4 serious treatment-related adverse events, at 15 vs six for chemotherapy.
 

Choosing immunotherapy vs. chemotherapy

In his discussion of the new study, Fennell compared the current results with those from two studies, INITIATE and MAPS2. “What’s very clear is the response rate is slightly higher,” as is the disease control rate, he said.

This, he explained, “is perhaps not surprising, given that these two previous trials were in the relapse setting.”

He pointed out, however, that the progression-free survival data from those previous trials were “not a million miles away” from results seen in CheckMate 743, “suggesting that this immunotherapy does have significant activity in the relapse setting.”

For Fennell, the “pivotal data” are in patients with nonepithelioid tumors, particularly inasmuch as chemotherapy performed “poorly” in this setting, whereas it performs “as expected” in epithelioid mesothelioma.

He believes that the driver for this is the poor prognosis associated with sarcomatoid biphasic disease, a subtype characterized by increased expression of vimentin and ZEB1, proteins both associated with EMT.

“What does this mean?” Fennell asked.

“If you have have enrichment of EMT, what you see is increased drug resistance, increased invasiveness, something we know well with sarcomatoid mesotheliomas in particular, and this drug-resistance phenotype may account for the drug resistance that we see in CheckMate 743 with chemotherapy.

“This does not appear, however, to impact in any way the efficacy of the immunotherapy,” he noted.

Fennell believes that, with regard to both efficacy and safety, the balance is “very much in favor” of nivo+ipi in epithelioid mesothelioma, although there is less to choose between immunotherapy and chemotherapy in the nonepithelioid setting.

Indeed, the choice is “possible tilting slightly towards chemotherapy” in patients with the nonepithelioid tumors, owing to the lower rates of grade 3/4 serious treatment-related adverse events in comparison with combination immunotherapy.

The study was supported by Bristol-Myers Squibb. Bass has served on the advisory boards of MSD, AstraZeneca, and Takeda. Fennell has received research support from AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Clovis Oncology, Eli Lilly, MSD, and Roche; research funding from Astex Therapeutics, Bayer, and Boehringer Ingelheim; has served on the speaker bureau of AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Roche; has acted as a consultant for Bayer and Lab 21; and has served on the advisory board of Atara Biotherapeutics, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Inventiva.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients with untreated mesothelioma may be able to avoid chemotherapy, say researchers reporting new survival data with the immunotherapy combination of nivolumab (Opdivo) and ipilimumab (Yervoy).

The two approaches were compared in more than 600 patients with treatment-naive mesothelioma in the phase 3 CheckMate 743 trial, which was supported by the manufacturer of both immunotherapies, Bristol-Myers Squibb.

The trial “met its primary endpoint of statistically improving overall survival for the experimental arm vs chemotherapy in a prespecified interim analysis,” reported Paul Baas, MD, PhD, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands,

The combined nivo+ipi immunotherapy regimen was associated with a 26% improvement in overall survival. At 2 years, 41% of patients in the immunotherapy arm were still alive, vs 27% in the chemotherapy group.

“This is the first positive randomized trial of dual immunotherapy in the first-line treatment of patients with mesothelioma,” he said. He suggested that it should therefore “be considered as a new standard of care.”

The data were presented on August 8 in the presidential symposium of the World Congress on Lung Cancer 2020, which was held online because of the COVID-19 pandemic.

A key analysis for the study was by histologic subgroup. It is known that standard-of-care chemotherapy performs better in patients with epithelioid as opposed to nonepithelioid tumor subtypes.

Bass highlighted that the performance of nivo+ipi was “almost the same” in patients with epithelioid and nonepithelioid tumors, at a median overall survival of 18.7 months and 18.1 months, respectively.

In contrast, overall survival in the chemotherapy arm was markedly lower in patients with nonepithelioid tumors, at 8.8 months vs 16.5 months among those with epithelioid tumors.

This was reflected in the hazard ratios for overall survival vs nivo+ipi, at 0.46 and 0.86, respectively, the latter nonsignificantly different from combination immunotherapy.

For study discussant Dean A. Fennell, MD, PhD, professor and consultant in thoracic medical oncology, University of Leicester, United Kingdom, the epithet of a “new standard of care” for nivo+ipi should be reserved for nonepithelioid disease.

In this setting, he described the overall survival improvement as “transformative,” considering the “marked chemo resistance” of nonepithelioid tumors, which is “almost certainly” associated with epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition (EMT).

In the future, he suggested, combinations of chemotherapy and immunotherapy involving all histologies or selective targeting of nonepithelioid mesothelioma “could further extend the benefit for patients.”
 

Improving survival in mesothelioma

“We have been trying to improve the overall survival of patients with mesothelioma now for many decades,” Bass commented. Platinum-based chemotherapy plus pemetrexed is a standard of care, although the 5-year survival rate «is still below 10%,” he noted.

Randomized trials of single-agent immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy in the second-line treatment of patients with mesothelioma have not shown any significant benefits.

However, nivolumab and ipilimumab have a “complementary mechanism of action,” and two previous reports have indicated that together, they have clinical activity in the second-line setting.

The team conducted CheckMate 743 to determine the efficacy of the combination in the first-line setting.

The study involved 605 patients with pleural mesothelioma who had received no prior systemic therapy and had good performance status.

They were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive nivo+ipi for up to 2 years or six cycles of pemetrexed plus cisplatin or carboplatin until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity occurred.

“Patients could have a subsequent therapy,” Bass noted; 44.0% of patients in the experimental arm received subsequent therapy, vs 44.1% of those in the chemotherapy arm.

Of the latter, 20% received an immune checkpoint inhibitor as subsequent therapy.

The minimum follow-up for overall survival was 22.1 months; the median follow-up was 29.7 months.

Nivo+ipi was associated with a significant improvement in overall survival vs standard-of-care chemotherapy, at a median overall survival of 18.1 months vs 14.1 months, with a hazard ratio of 0.74 (P = .0020).

The results indicated that overall survival was similar across key subgroups, which suggests that “no subgroup was harmed” by nivo+ipi, Bass said.
 

Stratification by PD-LI expression

Stratifying the patients by the absence or presence of programmed cell death–ligand-1 (PD-L1) expression, the team found that the performance of nivo+ipi was “the same” as that of chemotherapy, Bass said.

“But in cases where there is any expression of PD-L1, the experimental arm performs better,” at an overall survival 18.0 months vs 13.3 months for chemotherapy and a hazard ratio of 0.69, he said.

There was no difference between the two treatment arms in progression-free survival. Chemotherapy performed better in the first 6 months of treatment, after which the nivo+ipi arm had lower event rates.

Nivo+ipi was also associated with a greater duration of response, at a median of 11.0 months vs 6.7 months for standard-of-care chemotherapy.

Moreover, at 24 months, 32% of nivo+ipi patients were still experiencing a response, whereas 8% of those in the chemotherapy arm were.

Treatment-related adverse events rates were almost identical between the two treatment groups, although treatment with nivo+ipi was associated with more grade 3/4 serious treatment-related adverse events, at 15 vs six for chemotherapy.
 

Choosing immunotherapy vs. chemotherapy

In his discussion of the new study, Fennell compared the current results with those from two studies, INITIATE and MAPS2. “What’s very clear is the response rate is slightly higher,” as is the disease control rate, he said.

This, he explained, “is perhaps not surprising, given that these two previous trials were in the relapse setting.”

He pointed out, however, that the progression-free survival data from those previous trials were “not a million miles away” from results seen in CheckMate 743, “suggesting that this immunotherapy does have significant activity in the relapse setting.”

For Fennell, the “pivotal data” are in patients with nonepithelioid tumors, particularly inasmuch as chemotherapy performed “poorly” in this setting, whereas it performs “as expected” in epithelioid mesothelioma.

He believes that the driver for this is the poor prognosis associated with sarcomatoid biphasic disease, a subtype characterized by increased expression of vimentin and ZEB1, proteins both associated with EMT.

“What does this mean?” Fennell asked.

“If you have have enrichment of EMT, what you see is increased drug resistance, increased invasiveness, something we know well with sarcomatoid mesotheliomas in particular, and this drug-resistance phenotype may account for the drug resistance that we see in CheckMate 743 with chemotherapy.

“This does not appear, however, to impact in any way the efficacy of the immunotherapy,” he noted.

Fennell believes that, with regard to both efficacy and safety, the balance is “very much in favor” of nivo+ipi in epithelioid mesothelioma, although there is less to choose between immunotherapy and chemotherapy in the nonepithelioid setting.

Indeed, the choice is “possible tilting slightly towards chemotherapy” in patients with the nonepithelioid tumors, owing to the lower rates of grade 3/4 serious treatment-related adverse events in comparison with combination immunotherapy.

The study was supported by Bristol-Myers Squibb. Bass has served on the advisory boards of MSD, AstraZeneca, and Takeda. Fennell has received research support from AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Clovis Oncology, Eli Lilly, MSD, and Roche; research funding from Astex Therapeutics, Bayer, and Boehringer Ingelheim; has served on the speaker bureau of AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Roche; has acted as a consultant for Bayer and Lab 21; and has served on the advisory board of Atara Biotherapeutics, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Inventiva.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients with untreated mesothelioma may be able to avoid chemotherapy, say researchers reporting new survival data with the immunotherapy combination of nivolumab (Opdivo) and ipilimumab (Yervoy).

The two approaches were compared in more than 600 patients with treatment-naive mesothelioma in the phase 3 CheckMate 743 trial, which was supported by the manufacturer of both immunotherapies, Bristol-Myers Squibb.

The trial “met its primary endpoint of statistically improving overall survival for the experimental arm vs chemotherapy in a prespecified interim analysis,” reported Paul Baas, MD, PhD, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands,

The combined nivo+ipi immunotherapy regimen was associated with a 26% improvement in overall survival. At 2 years, 41% of patients in the immunotherapy arm were still alive, vs 27% in the chemotherapy group.

“This is the first positive randomized trial of dual immunotherapy in the first-line treatment of patients with mesothelioma,” he said. He suggested that it should therefore “be considered as a new standard of care.”

The data were presented on August 8 in the presidential symposium of the World Congress on Lung Cancer 2020, which was held online because of the COVID-19 pandemic.

A key analysis for the study was by histologic subgroup. It is known that standard-of-care chemotherapy performs better in patients with epithelioid as opposed to nonepithelioid tumor subtypes.

Bass highlighted that the performance of nivo+ipi was “almost the same” in patients with epithelioid and nonepithelioid tumors, at a median overall survival of 18.7 months and 18.1 months, respectively.

In contrast, overall survival in the chemotherapy arm was markedly lower in patients with nonepithelioid tumors, at 8.8 months vs 16.5 months among those with epithelioid tumors.

This was reflected in the hazard ratios for overall survival vs nivo+ipi, at 0.46 and 0.86, respectively, the latter nonsignificantly different from combination immunotherapy.

For study discussant Dean A. Fennell, MD, PhD, professor and consultant in thoracic medical oncology, University of Leicester, United Kingdom, the epithet of a “new standard of care” for nivo+ipi should be reserved for nonepithelioid disease.

In this setting, he described the overall survival improvement as “transformative,” considering the “marked chemo resistance” of nonepithelioid tumors, which is “almost certainly” associated with epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition (EMT).

In the future, he suggested, combinations of chemotherapy and immunotherapy involving all histologies or selective targeting of nonepithelioid mesothelioma “could further extend the benefit for patients.”
 

Improving survival in mesothelioma

“We have been trying to improve the overall survival of patients with mesothelioma now for many decades,” Bass commented. Platinum-based chemotherapy plus pemetrexed is a standard of care, although the 5-year survival rate «is still below 10%,” he noted.

Randomized trials of single-agent immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy in the second-line treatment of patients with mesothelioma have not shown any significant benefits.

However, nivolumab and ipilimumab have a “complementary mechanism of action,” and two previous reports have indicated that together, they have clinical activity in the second-line setting.

The team conducted CheckMate 743 to determine the efficacy of the combination in the first-line setting.

The study involved 605 patients with pleural mesothelioma who had received no prior systemic therapy and had good performance status.

They were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive nivo+ipi for up to 2 years or six cycles of pemetrexed plus cisplatin or carboplatin until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity occurred.

“Patients could have a subsequent therapy,” Bass noted; 44.0% of patients in the experimental arm received subsequent therapy, vs 44.1% of those in the chemotherapy arm.

Of the latter, 20% received an immune checkpoint inhibitor as subsequent therapy.

The minimum follow-up for overall survival was 22.1 months; the median follow-up was 29.7 months.

Nivo+ipi was associated with a significant improvement in overall survival vs standard-of-care chemotherapy, at a median overall survival of 18.1 months vs 14.1 months, with a hazard ratio of 0.74 (P = .0020).

The results indicated that overall survival was similar across key subgroups, which suggests that “no subgroup was harmed” by nivo+ipi, Bass said.
 

Stratification by PD-LI expression

Stratifying the patients by the absence or presence of programmed cell death–ligand-1 (PD-L1) expression, the team found that the performance of nivo+ipi was “the same” as that of chemotherapy, Bass said.

“But in cases where there is any expression of PD-L1, the experimental arm performs better,” at an overall survival 18.0 months vs 13.3 months for chemotherapy and a hazard ratio of 0.69, he said.

There was no difference between the two treatment arms in progression-free survival. Chemotherapy performed better in the first 6 months of treatment, after which the nivo+ipi arm had lower event rates.

Nivo+ipi was also associated with a greater duration of response, at a median of 11.0 months vs 6.7 months for standard-of-care chemotherapy.

Moreover, at 24 months, 32% of nivo+ipi patients were still experiencing a response, whereas 8% of those in the chemotherapy arm were.

Treatment-related adverse events rates were almost identical between the two treatment groups, although treatment with nivo+ipi was associated with more grade 3/4 serious treatment-related adverse events, at 15 vs six for chemotherapy.
 

Choosing immunotherapy vs. chemotherapy

In his discussion of the new study, Fennell compared the current results with those from two studies, INITIATE and MAPS2. “What’s very clear is the response rate is slightly higher,” as is the disease control rate, he said.

This, he explained, “is perhaps not surprising, given that these two previous trials were in the relapse setting.”

He pointed out, however, that the progression-free survival data from those previous trials were “not a million miles away” from results seen in CheckMate 743, “suggesting that this immunotherapy does have significant activity in the relapse setting.”

For Fennell, the “pivotal data” are in patients with nonepithelioid tumors, particularly inasmuch as chemotherapy performed “poorly” in this setting, whereas it performs “as expected” in epithelioid mesothelioma.

He believes that the driver for this is the poor prognosis associated with sarcomatoid biphasic disease, a subtype characterized by increased expression of vimentin and ZEB1, proteins both associated with EMT.

“What does this mean?” Fennell asked.

“If you have have enrichment of EMT, what you see is increased drug resistance, increased invasiveness, something we know well with sarcomatoid mesotheliomas in particular, and this drug-resistance phenotype may account for the drug resistance that we see in CheckMate 743 with chemotherapy.

“This does not appear, however, to impact in any way the efficacy of the immunotherapy,” he noted.

Fennell believes that, with regard to both efficacy and safety, the balance is “very much in favor” of nivo+ipi in epithelioid mesothelioma, although there is less to choose between immunotherapy and chemotherapy in the nonepithelioid setting.

Indeed, the choice is “possible tilting slightly towards chemotherapy” in patients with the nonepithelioid tumors, owing to the lower rates of grade 3/4 serious treatment-related adverse events in comparison with combination immunotherapy.

The study was supported by Bristol-Myers Squibb. Bass has served on the advisory boards of MSD, AstraZeneca, and Takeda. Fennell has received research support from AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Clovis Oncology, Eli Lilly, MSD, and Roche; research funding from Astex Therapeutics, Bayer, and Boehringer Ingelheim; has served on the speaker bureau of AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Roche; has acted as a consultant for Bayer and Lab 21; and has served on the advisory board of Atara Biotherapeutics, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Inventiva.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Precision medicine is driven by technologies such as rapid genome sequencing and artificial intelligence (AI), according to a presentation at the AACR virtual meeting II.

AI can be applied to the sequencing information derived from advanced cancers to make highly personalized treatment recommendations for patients, said Olivier Elemento, PhD, of Weill Cornell Medicine, New York.

Dr. Elemento described such work during the opening plenary session of the meeting.

Dr. Elemento advocated for whole-genome sequencing (WGS) of metastatic sites, as it can reveal “branched evolution” as tumors progress from localized to metastatic (Nat Genet. 2016 Dec;48[12]:1490-9).

The metastases share common mutations with the primaries from which they arise but also develop their own mutational profiles, which facilitate site-of-origin-agnostic, predictive treatment choices.

As examples, Dr. Elemento mentioned HER2 amplification found in a patient with urothelial cancer (J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2019 Mar 1;17[3]:194-200) and a patient with uterine serous carcinoma (Gynecol Oncol Rep. 2019 Feb 21;28:54-7), both of whom experienced long-lasting remissions to HER2-targeted therapy.

Dr. Elemento also noted that WGS can reveal complex structural variants in lung adenocarcinomas that lack alterations in the RTK/RAS/RAF pathway (unpublished data).
 

Application of machine learning

One study suggested that microRNA expression and machine learning can be used to identify malignant thyroid lesions (Clin Cancer Res. 2012 Apr 1;18[7]:2032-8). The approach diagnosed malignant lesions with 90% accuracy, 100% sensitivity, and 86% specificity.

Dr. Elemento and colleagues used a similar approach to predict response to immunotherapy in melanoma (unpublished data).

The idea was to mine the cancer genome and transcriptome, allowing for identification of signals from neoantigens, immune gene expression, immune cell composition, and T-cell receptor repertoires, Dr. Elemento said. Integrating these signals with clinical outcome data via machine learning technology enabled the researchers to predict immunotherapy response in malignant melanoma with nearly 90% accuracy.

AI and image analysis

Studies have indicated that AI can be applied to medical images to improve diagnosis and treatment. The approach has been shown to:

• Facilitate correct diagnoses of malignant skin lesions (Nature. 2017 Feb 2;542[7639]:115-8).
• Distinguish lung adenocarcinoma from squamous cell cancer with 100% accuracy (EBioMedicine. 2018 Jan;27:317-28).
• Recognize distinct breast cancer subtypes (ductal, lobular, mucinous, papillary) and biomarkers (bioRxiv 242818. doi: 10.1101/242818; EBioMedicine. 2018 Jan;27:317-28)
• Predict mesothelioma prognosis (Nat Med. 2019 Oct;25[10]:1519-25).
• Predict prostate biopsy results (unpublished data) and calculate Gleason scores that can predict survival in prostate cancer patients (AACR 2020, Abstract 867).

Drug development through applied AI

In another study, Dr. Elemento and colleagues used a Bayesian machine learning approach to predict targets of molecules without a known mechanism of action (Nat Commun. 2019 Nov 19;10[1]:5221).

The method involved using data on gene expression profiles, cell line viability, side effects in animals, and structures of the molecules. The researchers applied this method to a large library of orphan small molecules and found it could predict targets in about 40% of cases.

Of 24 AI-predicted microtubule-targeting molecules, 14 depolymerized microtubules in the lab. Five of these molecules were effective in cell lines that were resistant to other microtubule-targeted drugs.

Dr. Elemento went on to describe how Oncoceutics was developing an antineoplastic agent called ONC201, but the company lacked information about the agent’s target. Using AI, the target was identified as dopamine receptor 2 (DRD2; Clin Cancer Res. 2019 Apr 1;25[7]:2305-13).

With that information, Oncoceutics initiated trials of ONC201 in tumors expressing high levels of DRD2, including a highly resistant glioma (J Neurooncol. 2019 Oct;145[1]:97-105). Responses were seen, and ONC201 is now being tested against other DRD2-expressing cancers.
 

Challenges to acknowledge

Potential benefits of AI in the clinic are exciting, but there are many bench-to-bedside challenges.

A clinically obvious example of AI’s applications is radiographic image analysis. There is no biologic rationale for our RECIST “cut values” for partial response, minimal response, and stable disease.

If AI can measure subtle changes on imaging that correlate with tumor biology (i.e., radiomics), we stand a better chance of predicting treatment outcomes than we can with conventional measurements of shrinkage of arbitrarily selected “target lesions.”

A tremendous amount of work is needed to build the required large image banks. During that time, AI will only improve – and without the human risks of fatigue, inconsistency, or burnout.

Those human frailties notwithstanding, AI cannot substitute for the key discussions between patient and clinician regarding goals of care, trade-offs of risks and benefits, and shared decision-making regarding management options.

At least initially (but painfully), complex technologies like WGS and digital image analysis via AI may further disadvantage patients who are medically disadvantaged by geography or socioeconomic circumstances.

In the discussion period, AACR President Antoni Ribas, MD, of University of California, Los Angeles, asked whether AI can simulate crosstalk between gene pathways so that unique treatment combinations can be identified. Dr. Elemento said those simulations are the subject of ongoing investigation.

The theme of the opening plenary session at the AACR virtual meeting II was “Turning Science into Life-Saving Care.” Applications of AI to optimize personalized use of genomics, digital image analysis, and drug development show great promise for being among the technologies that can help to realize AACR’s thematic vision.

Dr. Elemento disclosed relationships with Volastra Therapeutics, OneThree Biotech, Owkin, Freenome, Genetic Intelligence, Acuamark Diagnostics, Eli Lilly, Janssen, and Sanofi.

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

Precision medicine is driven by technologies such as rapid genome sequencing and artificial intelligence (AI), according to a presentation at the AACR virtual meeting II.

AI can be applied to the sequencing information derived from advanced cancers to make highly personalized treatment recommendations for patients, said Olivier Elemento, PhD, of Weill Cornell Medicine, New York.

Dr. Elemento described such work during the opening plenary session of the meeting.

Dr. Elemento advocated for whole-genome sequencing (WGS) of metastatic sites, as it can reveal “branched evolution” as tumors progress from localized to metastatic (Nat Genet. 2016 Dec;48[12]:1490-9).

The metastases share common mutations with the primaries from which they arise but also develop their own mutational profiles, which facilitate site-of-origin-agnostic, predictive treatment choices.

As examples, Dr. Elemento mentioned HER2 amplification found in a patient with urothelial cancer (J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2019 Mar 1;17[3]:194-200) and a patient with uterine serous carcinoma (Gynecol Oncol Rep. 2019 Feb 21;28:54-7), both of whom experienced long-lasting remissions to HER2-targeted therapy.

Dr. Elemento also noted that WGS can reveal complex structural variants in lung adenocarcinomas that lack alterations in the RTK/RAS/RAF pathway (unpublished data).
 

Application of machine learning

One study suggested that microRNA expression and machine learning can be used to identify malignant thyroid lesions (Clin Cancer Res. 2012 Apr 1;18[7]:2032-8). The approach diagnosed malignant lesions with 90% accuracy, 100% sensitivity, and 86% specificity.

Dr. Elemento and colleagues used a similar approach to predict response to immunotherapy in melanoma (unpublished data).

The idea was to mine the cancer genome and transcriptome, allowing for identification of signals from neoantigens, immune gene expression, immune cell composition, and T-cell receptor repertoires, Dr. Elemento said. Integrating these signals with clinical outcome data via machine learning technology enabled the researchers to predict immunotherapy response in malignant melanoma with nearly 90% accuracy.

AI and image analysis

Studies have indicated that AI can be applied to medical images to improve diagnosis and treatment. The approach has been shown to:

• Facilitate correct diagnoses of malignant skin lesions (Nature. 2017 Feb 2;542[7639]:115-8).
• Distinguish lung adenocarcinoma from squamous cell cancer with 100% accuracy (EBioMedicine. 2018 Jan;27:317-28).
• Recognize distinct breast cancer subtypes (ductal, lobular, mucinous, papillary) and biomarkers (bioRxiv 242818. doi: 10.1101/242818; EBioMedicine. 2018 Jan;27:317-28)
• Predict mesothelioma prognosis (Nat Med. 2019 Oct;25[10]:1519-25).
• Predict prostate biopsy results (unpublished data) and calculate Gleason scores that can predict survival in prostate cancer patients (AACR 2020, Abstract 867).

Drug development through applied AI

In another study, Dr. Elemento and colleagues used a Bayesian machine learning approach to predict targets of molecules without a known mechanism of action (Nat Commun. 2019 Nov 19;10[1]:5221).

The method involved using data on gene expression profiles, cell line viability, side effects in animals, and structures of the molecules. The researchers applied this method to a large library of orphan small molecules and found it could predict targets in about 40% of cases.

Of 24 AI-predicted microtubule-targeting molecules, 14 depolymerized microtubules in the lab. Five of these molecules were effective in cell lines that were resistant to other microtubule-targeted drugs.

Dr. Elemento went on to describe how Oncoceutics was developing an antineoplastic agent called ONC201, but the company lacked information about the agent’s target. Using AI, the target was identified as dopamine receptor 2 (DRD2; Clin Cancer Res. 2019 Apr 1;25[7]:2305-13).

With that information, Oncoceutics initiated trials of ONC201 in tumors expressing high levels of DRD2, including a highly resistant glioma (J Neurooncol. 2019 Oct;145[1]:97-105). Responses were seen, and ONC201 is now being tested against other DRD2-expressing cancers.
 

Challenges to acknowledge

Potential benefits of AI in the clinic are exciting, but there are many bench-to-bedside challenges.

A clinically obvious example of AI’s applications is radiographic image analysis. There is no biologic rationale for our RECIST “cut values” for partial response, minimal response, and stable disease.

If AI can measure subtle changes on imaging that correlate with tumor biology (i.e., radiomics), we stand a better chance of predicting treatment outcomes than we can with conventional measurements of shrinkage of arbitrarily selected “target lesions.”

A tremendous amount of work is needed to build the required large image banks. During that time, AI will only improve – and without the human risks of fatigue, inconsistency, or burnout.

Those human frailties notwithstanding, AI cannot substitute for the key discussions between patient and clinician regarding goals of care, trade-offs of risks and benefits, and shared decision-making regarding management options.

At least initially (but painfully), complex technologies like WGS and digital image analysis via AI may further disadvantage patients who are medically disadvantaged by geography or socioeconomic circumstances.

In the discussion period, AACR President Antoni Ribas, MD, of University of California, Los Angeles, asked whether AI can simulate crosstalk between gene pathways so that unique treatment combinations can be identified. Dr. Elemento said those simulations are the subject of ongoing investigation.

The theme of the opening plenary session at the AACR virtual meeting II was “Turning Science into Life-Saving Care.” Applications of AI to optimize personalized use of genomics, digital image analysis, and drug development show great promise for being among the technologies that can help to realize AACR’s thematic vision.

Dr. Elemento disclosed relationships with Volastra Therapeutics, OneThree Biotech, Owkin, Freenome, Genetic Intelligence, Acuamark Diagnostics, Eli Lilly, Janssen, and Sanofi.

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

Precision medicine is driven by technologies such as rapid genome sequencing and artificial intelligence (AI), according to a presentation at the AACR virtual meeting II.

AI can be applied to the sequencing information derived from advanced cancers to make highly personalized treatment recommendations for patients, said Olivier Elemento, PhD, of Weill Cornell Medicine, New York.

Dr. Elemento described such work during the opening plenary session of the meeting.

Dr. Elemento advocated for whole-genome sequencing (WGS) of metastatic sites, as it can reveal “branched evolution” as tumors progress from localized to metastatic (Nat Genet. 2016 Dec;48[12]:1490-9).

The metastases share common mutations with the primaries from which they arise but also develop their own mutational profiles, which facilitate site-of-origin-agnostic, predictive treatment choices.

As examples, Dr. Elemento mentioned HER2 amplification found in a patient with urothelial cancer (J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2019 Mar 1;17[3]:194-200) and a patient with uterine serous carcinoma (Gynecol Oncol Rep. 2019 Feb 21;28:54-7), both of whom experienced long-lasting remissions to HER2-targeted therapy.

Dr. Elemento also noted that WGS can reveal complex structural variants in lung adenocarcinomas that lack alterations in the RTK/RAS/RAF pathway (unpublished data).
 

Application of machine learning

One study suggested that microRNA expression and machine learning can be used to identify malignant thyroid lesions (Clin Cancer Res. 2012 Apr 1;18[7]:2032-8). The approach diagnosed malignant lesions with 90% accuracy, 100% sensitivity, and 86% specificity.

Dr. Elemento and colleagues used a similar approach to predict response to immunotherapy in melanoma (unpublished data).

The idea was to mine the cancer genome and transcriptome, allowing for identification of signals from neoantigens, immune gene expression, immune cell composition, and T-cell receptor repertoires, Dr. Elemento said. Integrating these signals with clinical outcome data via machine learning technology enabled the researchers to predict immunotherapy response in malignant melanoma with nearly 90% accuracy.

AI and image analysis

Studies have indicated that AI can be applied to medical images to improve diagnosis and treatment. The approach has been shown to:

• Facilitate correct diagnoses of malignant skin lesions (Nature. 2017 Feb 2;542[7639]:115-8).
• Distinguish lung adenocarcinoma from squamous cell cancer with 100% accuracy (EBioMedicine. 2018 Jan;27:317-28).
• Recognize distinct breast cancer subtypes (ductal, lobular, mucinous, papillary) and biomarkers (bioRxiv 242818. doi: 10.1101/242818; EBioMedicine. 2018 Jan;27:317-28)
• Predict mesothelioma prognosis (Nat Med. 2019 Oct;25[10]:1519-25).
• Predict prostate biopsy results (unpublished data) and calculate Gleason scores that can predict survival in prostate cancer patients (AACR 2020, Abstract 867).

Drug development through applied AI

In another study, Dr. Elemento and colleagues used a Bayesian machine learning approach to predict targets of molecules without a known mechanism of action (Nat Commun. 2019 Nov 19;10[1]:5221).

The method involved using data on gene expression profiles, cell line viability, side effects in animals, and structures of the molecules. The researchers applied this method to a large library of orphan small molecules and found it could predict targets in about 40% of cases.

Of 24 AI-predicted microtubule-targeting molecules, 14 depolymerized microtubules in the lab. Five of these molecules were effective in cell lines that were resistant to other microtubule-targeted drugs.

Dr. Elemento went on to describe how Oncoceutics was developing an antineoplastic agent called ONC201, but the company lacked information about the agent’s target. Using AI, the target was identified as dopamine receptor 2 (DRD2; Clin Cancer Res. 2019 Apr 1;25[7]:2305-13).

With that information, Oncoceutics initiated trials of ONC201 in tumors expressing high levels of DRD2, including a highly resistant glioma (J Neurooncol. 2019 Oct;145[1]:97-105). Responses were seen, and ONC201 is now being tested against other DRD2-expressing cancers.
 

Challenges to acknowledge

Potential benefits of AI in the clinic are exciting, but there are many bench-to-bedside challenges.

A clinically obvious example of AI’s applications is radiographic image analysis. There is no biologic rationale for our RECIST “cut values” for partial response, minimal response, and stable disease.

If AI can measure subtle changes on imaging that correlate with tumor biology (i.e., radiomics), we stand a better chance of predicting treatment outcomes than we can with conventional measurements of shrinkage of arbitrarily selected “target lesions.”

A tremendous amount of work is needed to build the required large image banks. During that time, AI will only improve – and without the human risks of fatigue, inconsistency, or burnout.

Those human frailties notwithstanding, AI cannot substitute for the key discussions between patient and clinician regarding goals of care, trade-offs of risks and benefits, and shared decision-making regarding management options.

At least initially (but painfully), complex technologies like WGS and digital image analysis via AI may further disadvantage patients who are medically disadvantaged by geography or socioeconomic circumstances.

In the discussion period, AACR President Antoni Ribas, MD, of University of California, Los Angeles, asked whether AI can simulate crosstalk between gene pathways so that unique treatment combinations can be identified. Dr. Elemento said those simulations are the subject of ongoing investigation.

The theme of the opening plenary session at the AACR virtual meeting II was “Turning Science into Life-Saving Care.” Applications of AI to optimize personalized use of genomics, digital image analysis, and drug development show great promise for being among the technologies that can help to realize AACR’s thematic vision.

Dr. Elemento disclosed relationships with Volastra Therapeutics, OneThree Biotech, Owkin, Freenome, Genetic Intelligence, Acuamark Diagnostics, Eli Lilly, Janssen, and Sanofi.

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

A radical change in screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) is being proposed in the United States, where the default screening modality to date has been colonoscopy.

Instead, the American Gastroenterological Association is proposing new approaches that combine better risk assessment, more use of noninvasive testing (such as fecal occult blood tests), and more targeted referrals for colonoscopy. Such changes could increase patient compliance and “save countless lives.”

“We need to improve our strategies to curb the cancer that ranks second for deaths in the U.S.,” commented Srinadh Komanduri, MD, chair of the AGA Center for GI Innovation and Technology, in a statement.

“Approximately 67% of eligible Americans are screened for colorectal cancer,” he said, which means that a third (33%) are not.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the proportion of individuals not being screened has increased. One report of medical claims data showed that colonoscopies dropped by 90% during April.

The proposed changes are outlined in an AGA white paper: “Roadmap for the Future of Colorectal Cancer Screening in the United States.”

The report, written following consultation with 60 gastroenterology and research experts, was published online in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

It proposed that alternative testing modalities to colonoscopy will need to be integrated into organized screening programs.

Rather than offering colonoscopy as the default screening method for all patients at risk, the AGA advised that it be offered initially only to patients at high risk, which would increase access for those who need it most. For patients at lower risk, noninvasive screening methods, such as fecal occult blood testing, could be offered initially and then integrated with colonoscopy.

“If we offered tests that were convenient, accurate, and of lower cost, and we could help people choose the best option based on their individual cancer risks, we would save more lives,” Joshua E. Melson, MD, MPH, lead author of the AGA white paper and professor at Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, said in an interview.

Screening can reduce CRC mortality by more than 50%, he added.

“Screening should be thought of as a process over time, not a single test isolated in time,” Dr. Melson commented. A clinical practice that has historically used only colonoscopy will need an organized, structured program to incorporate noninvasive testing, he said.

To date, efforts to increase CRC screening uptake have met with limited success, the AGA says. In 2014, the National Colorectal Cancer Round Table set the bar high with a 2018 screening goal of 80% for adults 50 years of age and older. As of 2020, some states had almost reached this goal, but most had not.

“In the opportunistic screening environment in the U.S., where colonoscopy is the most prevalent method, CRC screening has not reached aspirational goals in terms of uptake, reduction in CRC incidence, and disease burden,” the AGA said. “It is questionable if 80% uptake is achievable in a primarily opportunistic screening environment.”

In the proposed revamping of the current CRC screening infrastructure, patients whose physicians recommend CRC screening would no longer be left to their own devices to follow up. Clinicians would initiate CRC screening and oversee follow-up testing at defined intervals and would employ ongoing surveillance.

Ensuring that appropriate screening is readily available to at-risk individuals with no social, racial, or economic disparities is crucial, the AGA says. Racial disparities in access to screening disproportionately burden Blacks and Latin Americans as well as people living in rural areas. Screening differences account for 42% of the disparity in CRC incidence between Black and White Americans and 19% of the disparity in CRC mortality.

Compared with colonoscopy, which requires bowel preparation, time off from work, and a hospital or clinic procedure, the fecal immunochemical test (FIT), for which a patient provides stool samples that are examined for the presence of blood, is much less stressful: it is noninvasive, and the patients collect the samples themselves in their own home. Studies show that, in diverse environments, patients prefer FIT over colonoscopy.

In a controlled trial that involved more than 55,000 patients who were randomly assigned to undergo either FIT or colonoscopy, the participation rate in the first cycle was greater for FIT than for colonoscopy (34.2% vs. 24.6%). This partially offset the lower single-application sensitivity for CRC of FIT, the researchers said.

Results from a study with a cluster randomized design showed that offering up-front stool testing as an option in addition to colonoscopy increased screening uptake. Of patients offered fecal occult blood testing or colonoscopy, 69% completed the noninvasive screening, compared with 38% of those offered colonoscopy alone. Notably, non-White participants were more adherent to stool testing.

The success of the AGA’s new initiative hinges largely upon the development of affordable, highly accurate, easy-to-use, noninvasive tests. In this regard, the organization has challenged scientists and industry partners with an aspirational target that is “far superior to current methodologies in terms of sensitivity and specificity,” said Dr. Melson, who is associate professor at Rush Medical College, Chicago, and a member of the AGA Center for GI Innovation and Technology.

The AGA wants new CRC screening tests that are capable of detecting advanced adenomas and advanced serrated lesions with a one-time sensitivity and specificity of 90% or higher, which is comparable with colonoscopy.

The FIT test has a sensitivity of less than 50% for detecting an advanced polyp of 10 mm or larger, said Dr. Melson.

The multitarget stool DNA (MT-sDNA) test may offer some improvement.

In a 2014 pivotal trial that compared FIT with the MT-sDNA in patients at average risk, the MT-sDNA test had higher sensitivity for detecting nonadvanced CRC lesions than FIT (92% vs. 74%) but less specificity (87% vs. 95%). The rate of detection of polyps with high-grade dysplasia was 69.2% with DNA testing and 46.2% with FIT.

However, the MT-sDNA test costs more than $500, compared with $25 for the FIT test, Dr. Melson pointed out.

To help identify the most appropriate screening for individual patients, better understanding and more thorough identification of risk factors are needed. “Risk assessment is definitely not where it could be,” Dr. Melson said.

The accuracy of risk assessment can be improved by sharing information from electronic health records on past colonoscopy polyp data, the presence of molecular markers, and family history, the AGA said. “With clearer risk assessment, shared decision-making on the most appropriate test becomes more clear and screening rates would benefit from patient buy-in and from easier access.”

The AGA recommended that research focus on the cost-effectiveness of screening younger patients, because the proportion of CRC cases in adults aged younger than 50 years has doubled since 1990.

This has raised the question as to whether the age for initial CRC screening should be lowered to 45 years (it already has been by the American Cancer Society), but there is much debate over this move.

Dr. Melson has received consulting fees from Clinical Genomics and research support from Boston Scientific Corporation and holds stocks in Virgo Imaging. A number of AGA white paper coauthors have disclosed relevant financial relationships.

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

A radical change in screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) is being proposed in the United States, where the default screening modality to date has been colonoscopy.

Instead, the American Gastroenterological Association is proposing new approaches that combine better risk assessment, more use of noninvasive testing (such as fecal occult blood tests), and more targeted referrals for colonoscopy. Such changes could increase patient compliance and “save countless lives.”

“We need to improve our strategies to curb the cancer that ranks second for deaths in the U.S.,” commented Srinadh Komanduri, MD, chair of the AGA Center for GI Innovation and Technology, in a statement.

“Approximately 67% of eligible Americans are screened for colorectal cancer,” he said, which means that a third (33%) are not.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the proportion of individuals not being screened has increased. One report of medical claims data showed that colonoscopies dropped by 90% during April.

The proposed changes are outlined in an AGA white paper: “Roadmap for the Future of Colorectal Cancer Screening in the United States.”

The report, written following consultation with 60 gastroenterology and research experts, was published online in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

It proposed that alternative testing modalities to colonoscopy will need to be integrated into organized screening programs.

Rather than offering colonoscopy as the default screening method for all patients at risk, the AGA advised that it be offered initially only to patients at high risk, which would increase access for those who need it most. For patients at lower risk, noninvasive screening methods, such as fecal occult blood testing, could be offered initially and then integrated with colonoscopy.

“If we offered tests that were convenient, accurate, and of lower cost, and we could help people choose the best option based on their individual cancer risks, we would save more lives,” Joshua E. Melson, MD, MPH, lead author of the AGA white paper and professor at Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, said in an interview.

Screening can reduce CRC mortality by more than 50%, he added.

“Screening should be thought of as a process over time, not a single test isolated in time,” Dr. Melson commented. A clinical practice that has historically used only colonoscopy will need an organized, structured program to incorporate noninvasive testing, he said.

To date, efforts to increase CRC screening uptake have met with limited success, the AGA says. In 2014, the National Colorectal Cancer Round Table set the bar high with a 2018 screening goal of 80% for adults 50 years of age and older. As of 2020, some states had almost reached this goal, but most had not.

“In the opportunistic screening environment in the U.S., where colonoscopy is the most prevalent method, CRC screening has not reached aspirational goals in terms of uptake, reduction in CRC incidence, and disease burden,” the AGA said. “It is questionable if 80% uptake is achievable in a primarily opportunistic screening environment.”

In the proposed revamping of the current CRC screening infrastructure, patients whose physicians recommend CRC screening would no longer be left to their own devices to follow up. Clinicians would initiate CRC screening and oversee follow-up testing at defined intervals and would employ ongoing surveillance.

Ensuring that appropriate screening is readily available to at-risk individuals with no social, racial, or economic disparities is crucial, the AGA says. Racial disparities in access to screening disproportionately burden Blacks and Latin Americans as well as people living in rural areas. Screening differences account for 42% of the disparity in CRC incidence between Black and White Americans and 19% of the disparity in CRC mortality.

Compared with colonoscopy, which requires bowel preparation, time off from work, and a hospital or clinic procedure, the fecal immunochemical test (FIT), for which a patient provides stool samples that are examined for the presence of blood, is much less stressful: it is noninvasive, and the patients collect the samples themselves in their own home. Studies show that, in diverse environments, patients prefer FIT over colonoscopy.

In a controlled trial that involved more than 55,000 patients who were randomly assigned to undergo either FIT or colonoscopy, the participation rate in the first cycle was greater for FIT than for colonoscopy (34.2% vs. 24.6%). This partially offset the lower single-application sensitivity for CRC of FIT, the researchers said.

Results from a study with a cluster randomized design showed that offering up-front stool testing as an option in addition to colonoscopy increased screening uptake. Of patients offered fecal occult blood testing or colonoscopy, 69% completed the noninvasive screening, compared with 38% of those offered colonoscopy alone. Notably, non-White participants were more adherent to stool testing.

The success of the AGA’s new initiative hinges largely upon the development of affordable, highly accurate, easy-to-use, noninvasive tests. In this regard, the organization has challenged scientists and industry partners with an aspirational target that is “far superior to current methodologies in terms of sensitivity and specificity,” said Dr. Melson, who is associate professor at Rush Medical College, Chicago, and a member of the AGA Center for GI Innovation and Technology.

The AGA wants new CRC screening tests that are capable of detecting advanced adenomas and advanced serrated lesions with a one-time sensitivity and specificity of 90% or higher, which is comparable with colonoscopy.

The FIT test has a sensitivity of less than 50% for detecting an advanced polyp of 10 mm or larger, said Dr. Melson.

The multitarget stool DNA (MT-sDNA) test may offer some improvement.

In a 2014 pivotal trial that compared FIT with the MT-sDNA in patients at average risk, the MT-sDNA test had higher sensitivity for detecting nonadvanced CRC lesions than FIT (92% vs. 74%) but less specificity (87% vs. 95%). The rate of detection of polyps with high-grade dysplasia was 69.2% with DNA testing and 46.2% with FIT.

However, the MT-sDNA test costs more than $500, compared with $25 for the FIT test, Dr. Melson pointed out.

To help identify the most appropriate screening for individual patients, better understanding and more thorough identification of risk factors are needed. “Risk assessment is definitely not where it could be,” Dr. Melson said.

The accuracy of risk assessment can be improved by sharing information from electronic health records on past colonoscopy polyp data, the presence of molecular markers, and family history, the AGA said. “With clearer risk assessment, shared decision-making on the most appropriate test becomes more clear and screening rates would benefit from patient buy-in and from easier access.”

The AGA recommended that research focus on the cost-effectiveness of screening younger patients, because the proportion of CRC cases in adults aged younger than 50 years has doubled since 1990.

This has raised the question as to whether the age for initial CRC screening should be lowered to 45 years (it already has been by the American Cancer Society), but there is much debate over this move.

Dr. Melson has received consulting fees from Clinical Genomics and research support from Boston Scientific Corporation and holds stocks in Virgo Imaging. A number of AGA white paper coauthors have disclosed relevant financial relationships.

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

A radical change in screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) is being proposed in the United States, where the default screening modality to date has been colonoscopy.

Instead, the American Gastroenterological Association is proposing new approaches that combine better risk assessment, more use of noninvasive testing (such as fecal occult blood tests), and more targeted referrals for colonoscopy. Such changes could increase patient compliance and “save countless lives.”

“We need to improve our strategies to curb the cancer that ranks second for deaths in the U.S.,” commented Srinadh Komanduri, MD, chair of the AGA Center for GI Innovation and Technology, in a statement.

“Approximately 67% of eligible Americans are screened for colorectal cancer,” he said, which means that a third (33%) are not.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the proportion of individuals not being screened has increased. One report of medical claims data showed that colonoscopies dropped by 90% during April.

The proposed changes are outlined in an AGA white paper: “Roadmap for the Future of Colorectal Cancer Screening in the United States.”

The report, written following consultation with 60 gastroenterology and research experts, was published online in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

It proposed that alternative testing modalities to colonoscopy will need to be integrated into organized screening programs.

Rather than offering colonoscopy as the default screening method for all patients at risk, the AGA advised that it be offered initially only to patients at high risk, which would increase access for those who need it most. For patients at lower risk, noninvasive screening methods, such as fecal occult blood testing, could be offered initially and then integrated with colonoscopy.

“If we offered tests that were convenient, accurate, and of lower cost, and we could help people choose the best option based on their individual cancer risks, we would save more lives,” Joshua E. Melson, MD, MPH, lead author of the AGA white paper and professor at Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, said in an interview.

Screening can reduce CRC mortality by more than 50%, he added.

“Screening should be thought of as a process over time, not a single test isolated in time,” Dr. Melson commented. A clinical practice that has historically used only colonoscopy will need an organized, structured program to incorporate noninvasive testing, he said.

To date, efforts to increase CRC screening uptake have met with limited success, the AGA says. In 2014, the National Colorectal Cancer Round Table set the bar high with a 2018 screening goal of 80% for adults 50 years of age and older. As of 2020, some states had almost reached this goal, but most had not.

“In the opportunistic screening environment in the U.S., where colonoscopy is the most prevalent method, CRC screening has not reached aspirational goals in terms of uptake, reduction in CRC incidence, and disease burden,” the AGA said. “It is questionable if 80% uptake is achievable in a primarily opportunistic screening environment.”

In the proposed revamping of the current CRC screening infrastructure, patients whose physicians recommend CRC screening would no longer be left to their own devices to follow up. Clinicians would initiate CRC screening and oversee follow-up testing at defined intervals and would employ ongoing surveillance.

Ensuring that appropriate screening is readily available to at-risk individuals with no social, racial, or economic disparities is crucial, the AGA says. Racial disparities in access to screening disproportionately burden Blacks and Latin Americans as well as people living in rural areas. Screening differences account for 42% of the disparity in CRC incidence between Black and White Americans and 19% of the disparity in CRC mortality.

Compared with colonoscopy, which requires bowel preparation, time off from work, and a hospital or clinic procedure, the fecal immunochemical test (FIT), for which a patient provides stool samples that are examined for the presence of blood, is much less stressful: it is noninvasive, and the patients collect the samples themselves in their own home. Studies show that, in diverse environments, patients prefer FIT over colonoscopy.

In a controlled trial that involved more than 55,000 patients who were randomly assigned to undergo either FIT or colonoscopy, the participation rate in the first cycle was greater for FIT than for colonoscopy (34.2% vs. 24.6%). This partially offset the lower single-application sensitivity for CRC of FIT, the researchers said.

Results from a study with a cluster randomized design showed that offering up-front stool testing as an option in addition to colonoscopy increased screening uptake. Of patients offered fecal occult blood testing or colonoscopy, 69% completed the noninvasive screening, compared with 38% of those offered colonoscopy alone. Notably, non-White participants were more adherent to stool testing.

The success of the AGA’s new initiative hinges largely upon the development of affordable, highly accurate, easy-to-use, noninvasive tests. In this regard, the organization has challenged scientists and industry partners with an aspirational target that is “far superior to current methodologies in terms of sensitivity and specificity,” said Dr. Melson, who is associate professor at Rush Medical College, Chicago, and a member of the AGA Center for GI Innovation and Technology.

The AGA wants new CRC screening tests that are capable of detecting advanced adenomas and advanced serrated lesions with a one-time sensitivity and specificity of 90% or higher, which is comparable with colonoscopy.

The FIT test has a sensitivity of less than 50% for detecting an advanced polyp of 10 mm or larger, said Dr. Melson.

The multitarget stool DNA (MT-sDNA) test may offer some improvement.

In a 2014 pivotal trial that compared FIT with the MT-sDNA in patients at average risk, the MT-sDNA test had higher sensitivity for detecting nonadvanced CRC lesions than FIT (92% vs. 74%) but less specificity (87% vs. 95%). The rate of detection of polyps with high-grade dysplasia was 69.2% with DNA testing and 46.2% with FIT.

However, the MT-sDNA test costs more than $500, compared with $25 for the FIT test, Dr. Melson pointed out.

To help identify the most appropriate screening for individual patients, better understanding and more thorough identification of risk factors are needed. “Risk assessment is definitely not where it could be,” Dr. Melson said.

The accuracy of risk assessment can be improved by sharing information from electronic health records on past colonoscopy polyp data, the presence of molecular markers, and family history, the AGA said. “With clearer risk assessment, shared decision-making on the most appropriate test becomes more clear and screening rates would benefit from patient buy-in and from easier access.”

The AGA recommended that research focus on the cost-effectiveness of screening younger patients, because the proportion of CRC cases in adults aged younger than 50 years has doubled since 1990.

This has raised the question as to whether the age for initial CRC screening should be lowered to 45 years (it already has been by the American Cancer Society), but there is much debate over this move.

Dr. Melson has received consulting fees from Clinical Genomics and research support from Boston Scientific Corporation and holds stocks in Virgo Imaging. A number of AGA white paper coauthors have disclosed relevant financial relationships.

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

Immune checkpoint inhibition was not associated with an increased mortality risk from COVID-19 in patients with cancer in an international observational study.

The study included 113 cancer patients who had laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 within 12 months of receiving immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy. The patients did not receive chemotherapy within 3 months of testing positive for COVID-19.

In all, 33 patients were admitted to the hospital, including 6 who were admitted to the ICU, and 9 patients died.

“Nine out of 113 patients is a mortality rate of 8%, which is in the middle of the earlier reported rates for cancer patients in general [7.6%-12%],” said Aljosja Rogiers, MD, PhD, of the Melanoma Institute Australia in Sydney.

COVID-19 was the primary cause of death in seven of the patients, including three of those who were admitted to the ICU, Dr. Rogiers noted.

He reported these results during the AACR virtual meeting: COVID-19 and Cancer.
 

Study details

Patients in this study were treated at 19 hospitals in North America, Europe, and Australia, and the data cutoff was May 15, 2020. Most patients (64%) were treated in Europe, which was the epicenter for the COVID-19 pandemic at the time of data collection, Dr. Rogiers noted. A third of patients were in North America, and 3% were in Australia.

The patients’ median age was 63 years (range, 27-86 years). Most patients were men (65%), and most had Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance scores of 0-1 (90%).

The most common malignancies were melanoma (57%), non–small cell lung cancer (17%), and renal cell carcinoma (9%). Treatment was for early cancer in 26% of patients and for advanced cancer in 74%. Comorbidities included cardiovascular disease in 27% of patients, diabetes in 15%, pulmonary disease in 12%, and renal disease in 5%.

Immunosuppressive therapy equivalent to a prednisone dose of 10 mg or greater daily was given in 13% of patients, and other immunosuppressive therapies, such as infliximab, were given in 3%.

Among the 60% of patients with COVID-19 symptoms, 68% had fever, 59% had cough, 34% had dyspnea, and 15% had myalgia. Most of the 40% of asymptomatic patients were tested because they had COVID-19–positive contact, Dr. Rogiers noted.

Immune checkpoint inhibitor treatment included monotherapy with a programmed death–1/PD–ligand 1 inhibitor in 82% of patients, combination anti-PD-1 and anti-CTLA4 therapy in 13%, and other therapy – usually a checkpoint inhibitor combined with a different type of targeted agent – in 5%.

At the time of COVID-19 diagnosis, 30% of patients had achieved a partial response, complete response, or had no evidence of disease, 18% had stable disease, and 15% had progression. Response data were not available in 37% of cases, usually because treatment was only recently started prior to COVID-19 diagnosis, Dr. Rogiers said.

Treatments administered for COVID-19 included antibiotic therapy in 25% of patients, oxygen therapy in 20%, glucocorticoids in 10%, antiviral drugs in 6%, and intravenous immunoglobulin or anti–interleukin-6 in 2% each.

Among patients admitted to the ICU, 3% required mechanical ventilation, 2% had vasopressin, and 1% received renal replacement therapy.

At the data cutoff, 20 of 33 hospitalized patients (61%) had been discharged, and 4 (12%) were still in the hospital.
 

Mortality results

Nine patients died. The rate of death was 8% overall and 27% among hospitalized patients.

“The mortality rate of COVID-19 in the general population without comorbidities is about 1.4%,” Dr. Rogiers said. “For cancer patients, this is reported to be in the range of 7.6%-12%. To what extent patients on immune checkpoint inhibition are at a higher risk of mortality is currently unknown.”

Theoretically, immune checkpoint inhibition could either mitigate or exacerbate COVID-19 infection. It has been hypothesized that immune checkpoint inhibitors could increase the risk of severe acute lung injury or other complications of COVID-19, Dr. Rogiers said, explaining the rationale for the study.

The study shows that the patients who died had a median age of 72 years (range, 49-81 years), which is slightly higher than the median overall age of 63 years. Six patients were from North America, and three were from Italy.

“Two melanoma patients and two non–small cell lung cancer patients died,” Dr. Rogiers said. He noted that two other deaths were in patients with renal cell carcinoma, and three deaths were in other cancer types. All patients had advanced or metastatic disease.

Given that 57% of patients in the study had melanoma and 17% had NSCLC, this finding may indicate that COVID-19 has a slightly higher mortality rate in NSCLC patients than in melanoma patients, but the numbers are small, Dr. Rogiers said.

Notably, six of the patients who died were not admitted to the ICU. In four cases, this was because of underlying malignancy; in the other two cases, it was because of a constrained health care system, Dr. Rogiers said.

Overall, the findings show that the mortality rate of patients with COVID-19 and cancer treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors is similar to the mortality rate reported in the general cancer population, Dr. Rogiers said.

“Treatment with immune checkpoint inhibition does not seem to pose an additional mortality risk for cancer patients with COVID-19,” he concluded.

Dr. Rogiers reported having no conflicts of interest. There was no funding disclosed for the study.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Rogiers A et al. AACR: COVID-19 and Cancer, Abstract S02-01.

Immune checkpoint inhibition was not associated with an increased mortality risk from COVID-19 in patients with cancer in an international observational study.

The study included 113 cancer patients who had laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 within 12 months of receiving immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy. The patients did not receive chemotherapy within 3 months of testing positive for COVID-19.

In all, 33 patients were admitted to the hospital, including 6 who were admitted to the ICU, and 9 patients died.

“Nine out of 113 patients is a mortality rate of 8%, which is in the middle of the earlier reported rates for cancer patients in general [7.6%-12%],” said Aljosja Rogiers, MD, PhD, of the Melanoma Institute Australia in Sydney.

COVID-19 was the primary cause of death in seven of the patients, including three of those who were admitted to the ICU, Dr. Rogiers noted.

He reported these results during the AACR virtual meeting: COVID-19 and Cancer.
 

Study details

Patients in this study were treated at 19 hospitals in North America, Europe, and Australia, and the data cutoff was May 15, 2020. Most patients (64%) were treated in Europe, which was the epicenter for the COVID-19 pandemic at the time of data collection, Dr. Rogiers noted. A third of patients were in North America, and 3% were in Australia.

The patients’ median age was 63 years (range, 27-86 years). Most patients were men (65%), and most had Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance scores of 0-1 (90%).

The most common malignancies were melanoma (57%), non–small cell lung cancer (17%), and renal cell carcinoma (9%). Treatment was for early cancer in 26% of patients and for advanced cancer in 74%. Comorbidities included cardiovascular disease in 27% of patients, diabetes in 15%, pulmonary disease in 12%, and renal disease in 5%.

Immunosuppressive therapy equivalent to a prednisone dose of 10 mg or greater daily was given in 13% of patients, and other immunosuppressive therapies, such as infliximab, were given in 3%.

Among the 60% of patients with COVID-19 symptoms, 68% had fever, 59% had cough, 34% had dyspnea, and 15% had myalgia. Most of the 40% of asymptomatic patients were tested because they had COVID-19–positive contact, Dr. Rogiers noted.

Immune checkpoint inhibitor treatment included monotherapy with a programmed death–1/PD–ligand 1 inhibitor in 82% of patients, combination anti-PD-1 and anti-CTLA4 therapy in 13%, and other therapy – usually a checkpoint inhibitor combined with a different type of targeted agent – in 5%.

At the time of COVID-19 diagnosis, 30% of patients had achieved a partial response, complete response, or had no evidence of disease, 18% had stable disease, and 15% had progression. Response data were not available in 37% of cases, usually because treatment was only recently started prior to COVID-19 diagnosis, Dr. Rogiers said.

Treatments administered for COVID-19 included antibiotic therapy in 25% of patients, oxygen therapy in 20%, glucocorticoids in 10%, antiviral drugs in 6%, and intravenous immunoglobulin or anti–interleukin-6 in 2% each.

Among patients admitted to the ICU, 3% required mechanical ventilation, 2% had vasopressin, and 1% received renal replacement therapy.

At the data cutoff, 20 of 33 hospitalized patients (61%) had been discharged, and 4 (12%) were still in the hospital.
 

Mortality results

Nine patients died. The rate of death was 8% overall and 27% among hospitalized patients.

“The mortality rate of COVID-19 in the general population without comorbidities is about 1.4%,” Dr. Rogiers said. “For cancer patients, this is reported to be in the range of 7.6%-12%. To what extent patients on immune checkpoint inhibition are at a higher risk of mortality is currently unknown.”

Theoretically, immune checkpoint inhibition could either mitigate or exacerbate COVID-19 infection. It has been hypothesized that immune checkpoint inhibitors could increase the risk of severe acute lung injury or other complications of COVID-19, Dr. Rogiers said, explaining the rationale for the study.

The study shows that the patients who died had a median age of 72 years (range, 49-81 years), which is slightly higher than the median overall age of 63 years. Six patients were from North America, and three were from Italy.

“Two melanoma patients and two non–small cell lung cancer patients died,” Dr. Rogiers said. He noted that two other deaths were in patients with renal cell carcinoma, and three deaths were in other cancer types. All patients had advanced or metastatic disease.

Given that 57% of patients in the study had melanoma and 17% had NSCLC, this finding may indicate that COVID-19 has a slightly higher mortality rate in NSCLC patients than in melanoma patients, but the numbers are small, Dr. Rogiers said.

Notably, six of the patients who died were not admitted to the ICU. In four cases, this was because of underlying malignancy; in the other two cases, it was because of a constrained health care system, Dr. Rogiers said.

Overall, the findings show that the mortality rate of patients with COVID-19 and cancer treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors is similar to the mortality rate reported in the general cancer population, Dr. Rogiers said.

“Treatment with immune checkpoint inhibition does not seem to pose an additional mortality risk for cancer patients with COVID-19,” he concluded.

Dr. Rogiers reported having no conflicts of interest. There was no funding disclosed for the study.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Rogiers A et al. AACR: COVID-19 and Cancer, Abstract S02-01.

Immune checkpoint inhibition was not associated with an increased mortality risk from COVID-19 in patients with cancer in an international observational study.

The study included 113 cancer patients who had laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 within 12 months of receiving immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy. The patients did not receive chemotherapy within 3 months of testing positive for COVID-19.

In all, 33 patients were admitted to the hospital, including 6 who were admitted to the ICU, and 9 patients died.

“Nine out of 113 patients is a mortality rate of 8%, which is in the middle of the earlier reported rates for cancer patients in general [7.6%-12%],” said Aljosja Rogiers, MD, PhD, of the Melanoma Institute Australia in Sydney.

COVID-19 was the primary cause of death in seven of the patients, including three of those who were admitted to the ICU, Dr. Rogiers noted.

He reported these results during the AACR virtual meeting: COVID-19 and Cancer.
 

Study details

Patients in this study were treated at 19 hospitals in North America, Europe, and Australia, and the data cutoff was May 15, 2020. Most patients (64%) were treated in Europe, which was the epicenter for the COVID-19 pandemic at the time of data collection, Dr. Rogiers noted. A third of patients were in North America, and 3% were in Australia.

The patients’ median age was 63 years (range, 27-86 years). Most patients were men (65%), and most had Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance scores of 0-1 (90%).

The most common malignancies were melanoma (57%), non–small cell lung cancer (17%), and renal cell carcinoma (9%). Treatment was for early cancer in 26% of patients and for advanced cancer in 74%. Comorbidities included cardiovascular disease in 27% of patients, diabetes in 15%, pulmonary disease in 12%, and renal disease in 5%.

Immunosuppressive therapy equivalent to a prednisone dose of 10 mg or greater daily was given in 13% of patients, and other immunosuppressive therapies, such as infliximab, were given in 3%.

Among the 60% of patients with COVID-19 symptoms, 68% had fever, 59% had cough, 34% had dyspnea, and 15% had myalgia. Most of the 40% of asymptomatic patients were tested because they had COVID-19–positive contact, Dr. Rogiers noted.

Immune checkpoint inhibitor treatment included monotherapy with a programmed death–1/PD–ligand 1 inhibitor in 82% of patients, combination anti-PD-1 and anti-CTLA4 therapy in 13%, and other therapy – usually a checkpoint inhibitor combined with a different type of targeted agent – in 5%.

At the time of COVID-19 diagnosis, 30% of patients had achieved a partial response, complete response, or had no evidence of disease, 18% had stable disease, and 15% had progression. Response data were not available in 37% of cases, usually because treatment was only recently started prior to COVID-19 diagnosis, Dr. Rogiers said.

Treatments administered for COVID-19 included antibiotic therapy in 25% of patients, oxygen therapy in 20%, glucocorticoids in 10%, antiviral drugs in 6%, and intravenous immunoglobulin or anti–interleukin-6 in 2% each.

Among patients admitted to the ICU, 3% required mechanical ventilation, 2% had vasopressin, and 1% received renal replacement therapy.

At the data cutoff, 20 of 33 hospitalized patients (61%) had been discharged, and 4 (12%) were still in the hospital.
 

Mortality results

Nine patients died. The rate of death was 8% overall and 27% among hospitalized patients.

“The mortality rate of COVID-19 in the general population without comorbidities is about 1.4%,” Dr. Rogiers said. “For cancer patients, this is reported to be in the range of 7.6%-12%. To what extent patients on immune checkpoint inhibition are at a higher risk of mortality is currently unknown.”

Theoretically, immune checkpoint inhibition could either mitigate or exacerbate COVID-19 infection. It has been hypothesized that immune checkpoint inhibitors could increase the risk of severe acute lung injury or other complications of COVID-19, Dr. Rogiers said, explaining the rationale for the study.

The study shows that the patients who died had a median age of 72 years (range, 49-81 years), which is slightly higher than the median overall age of 63 years. Six patients were from North America, and three were from Italy.

“Two melanoma patients and two non–small cell lung cancer patients died,” Dr. Rogiers said. He noted that two other deaths were in patients with renal cell carcinoma, and three deaths were in other cancer types. All patients had advanced or metastatic disease.

Given that 57% of patients in the study had melanoma and 17% had NSCLC, this finding may indicate that COVID-19 has a slightly higher mortality rate in NSCLC patients than in melanoma patients, but the numbers are small, Dr. Rogiers said.

Notably, six of the patients who died were not admitted to the ICU. In four cases, this was because of underlying malignancy; in the other two cases, it was because of a constrained health care system, Dr. Rogiers said.

Overall, the findings show that the mortality rate of patients with COVID-19 and cancer treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors is similar to the mortality rate reported in the general cancer population, Dr. Rogiers said.

“Treatment with immune checkpoint inhibition does not seem to pose an additional mortality risk for cancer patients with COVID-19,” he concluded.

Dr. Rogiers reported having no conflicts of interest. There was no funding disclosed for the study.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Rogiers A et al. AACR: COVID-19 and Cancer, Abstract S02-01.

The American Cancer Society (ACS) has released updated guidelines for cervical cancer screening. The key recommendation is that primary human papillomavirus (HPV) testing is the preferred screening method, starting at the age of 25 and repeated every 5 years.

In the past, guidelines for cervical cancer screening recommended cytology (the Pap test) starting at 21 years of age and repeated every 3 years. In more recent years, cotesting (with both Pap and HPV tests) has been recommended.

Since the last ACS guidelines on cervical cancer screening were published in 2012, two HPV tests have been approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for use in primary HPV screening.

The new “streamlined recommendations can improve compliance and reduce potential harms,” commented Debbie Saslow, PhD, managing director, HPV/GYN Cancers, American Cancer Society.

The updated guidelines were published online July 30 in CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians.

“We now have stronger evidence to support starting cervical cancer screening at a later age and to recommend screening with the HPV test as the preferred test,” Saslow told Medscape Medical News. This also reflects the phasing out of cytology and cotesting, she added.

“This update is based on decades of studies comparing the effectiveness of HPV testing to cytology and is bolstered by evidence of the impact of HPV vaccination, including a dramatic decline in cervical precancers and, more recently, cervical cancers among young women,” she said.

The American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology (ASCCP) said that it was preparing a response to these new guidelines, as is the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG).
 

Cotesting or cytology alone

The updated guidelines recommend primary HPV testing as the preferred screening method for all women with a cervix. If primary HPV testing is not available, women should be screened with cotesting, which should also be performed every 5 years.

If only cytology is available, then women should be screened every 3 years.

The ACS authors point out that cotesting or cytology testing alone is still an acceptable option for cervical cancer screening, insofar as primary HPV testing using FDA-approved tests may not be available in some settings.

As more laboratories in the United States transition to FDA-approved tests for primary HPV testing, it is expected that the use of cotesting or cytology alone will be phased out.

The new guidelines also emphasize that women may discontinue screening at the age of 65 if they have not had cervical intraepitheal neoplasia of grade 2 or higher within the past 25 years and if they have tested negative over the past 10 years on all past screens.

The authors caution that past screens should only be considered negative if the patient has had two consecutive negative HPV tests or two consecutive negative cotests or three consecutive negative cytology tests within the past 10 years.

“These criteria do not apply to individuals who are currently under surveillance for abnormal screening results,” the authors state.

Women older than 65 for whom adequate documentation of prior screening is not available should continue to be screened until criteria for screening discontinuation are met, they add.

Screening may be discontinued among women with a limited life expectancy.
 

HPV vaccination

The authors note that HPV vaccination is expected to substantially change cervical cancer screening strategies.

In 2018, the National Immunization Survey–Teen, involving adolescents aged 13 to 17 years, showed that 68.1% of female patients were up to date on HPV vaccine recommendations, as were 51.1% of male patients.

“Cytology-based screening is much less efficient in vaccinated populations, as abnormal cytology disproportionately identifies minor abnormalities resulting from HPV types that are associated with lower cancer risk,” the reports’ authors point out.

As the prevalence of high-grade cervical abnormalities and the incidence of cervical cancer continue to decline, “the proportion of false-positive findings [on cytology alone] is expected to increase significantly,” they caution.

As a result, the ACS suggests that physicians will likely have to consider a patient’s vaccination status in tandem with cervical cancer screening results to arrive at an accurate assessment.
 

Raising starting age to 25 years

Saslow also noted that there were several reasons why it is now recommended that screening begin at the age of 25 instead of the age of 21, as in earlier guidelines.

“Firstly, less than 1% of cervical cancers are diagnosed before the age of 25 – so this is about 130 cases per year,” she explained.

Thanks to HPV vaccination, this percentage is further declining, “so screening is just not beneficial at this age,” Saslow emphasized.

Furthermore, the rate of false positives is much higher in younger patients, and a false-positive result can have a negative impact on pregnancy outcomes, she added.

Saslow also dismissed an article in favor of cotesting instead of HPV testing alone. That study, carried out by researchers at Quest Diagnostics and the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, recommended cotesting, claiming that primary HPV testing is significantly less likely to detect cervical precancers or cervical cancer than cotesting.

“These data come from parties with a vested interest in preserving cytology as a screening test,” Saslow told Medscape Medical News. She noted that “these findings are not at all credible as judged by the scientific community.”

On the basis of their own modeling, ACS researchers estimate that “starting with primary HPV testing at age 25 will prevent 13% more cervical cancers and 7% more cervical cancer deaths” in comparison with cytology (Pap testing alone) beginning at the age of 21, then cotesting at the age of 30, Saslow said in a statement.

“Our model showed we could do that with a 9% increase in follow-up procedures but with 45% fewer tests required overall,” she added.

The new recommendations are not expected to create any change in the type or amount of care required by providers, and patients will not notice any difference, inasmuch as cotesting and primary HPV testing are performed the same way in the examination room, she added.

“Resistance [to the changes] is expected – and is already occurring – from laboratories and manufacturers of tests that will no longer be used once we transition from cotesting and, less commonly, Pap testing to primary HPV testing,” Saslow said.

However, providers need to be aware that HPV infection, as with any sexually transmitted disease, is associated with a certain stigma, and they need to take care in discussing potential HPV infection with their patients.
 

Good method

Medscape Medical News approached Mark Einstein, MD, president of the ASCCP and professor and chair of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive health at Rutgers Biomedical and Health Sciences, Newark, New Jersey, to comment on the new guidelines.

“First and foremost,” he said, “everything we want to do when it comes to screening is to maximize the identification of picking up a cancer and minimize the risk or potential harm of not only screening itself but of missing cancers, so any strategy that improves on the sensitivity of picking up a cancer is a good method.”

Nevertheless, inasmuch as the ASCCP is one of the foremost organizations involved in cervical cancer screening and management, its members need more time to take a closer look at the updated ACS guidelines before they, together with sister organizations, such as the ACOG, release an official statement as to whether or not they fully endorse the new guidelines.

The United States Preventive Services Task Force recently endorsed primary HPV testing (starting at age 30), but it also said that an alternative strategy is cotesting for women between 30 and 65 years of age, Einstein observed.

Asked to comment on the article from Quest Diagnostics and the University of Pittsburgh that recommended cotesting instead of primary HPV testing, Einstein said that suggestion should not be dismissed out of hand.

The ASCCP has asked the authors of that study for their data in order conduct an independent assessment of it, largely because the study was retrospective in nature. Because of that, “there may have been a few pieces of information that were missing in true real-time fashion,” he said. “Not having [both the primary HPV testing and the cytology results] in front of me might change the next thing I might recommend to the patient,” Einstein explained.

The bottom line is that, when comparing primary HPV testing alone, cytology alone, and cotesting and rates of cervical cancer at 5 years, “the biggest driver for true performance of positive predictive value is HPV,” Einstein said.

Nevertheless, cotesting does bring more information into the equation compared with primary HPV testing alone, although it also increases the potential for harm, including the harm of overtesting and conducting needless colposcopies, he added.

That said, starting primary HPV testing at the age of 25 rather than the age of 30, as was previously recommended, is very likely to lead to detection of spurious HPV infections because HPV infections are very common among women in their 20s, Einstein pointed out.

“This, too, could potentially lead to more colposcopies, which may cause harm from the procedure itself but also create a certain amount of anxiety and concern, so there is some harm in testing for HPV at an earlier age as well,” Einstein said.

Saslow and Einstein have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The American Cancer Society (ACS) has released updated guidelines for cervical cancer screening. The key recommendation is that primary human papillomavirus (HPV) testing is the preferred screening method, starting at the age of 25 and repeated every 5 years.

In the past, guidelines for cervical cancer screening recommended cytology (the Pap test) starting at 21 years of age and repeated every 3 years. In more recent years, cotesting (with both Pap and HPV tests) has been recommended.

Since the last ACS guidelines on cervical cancer screening were published in 2012, two HPV tests have been approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for use in primary HPV screening.

The new “streamlined recommendations can improve compliance and reduce potential harms,” commented Debbie Saslow, PhD, managing director, HPV/GYN Cancers, American Cancer Society.

The updated guidelines were published online July 30 in CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians.

“We now have stronger evidence to support starting cervical cancer screening at a later age and to recommend screening with the HPV test as the preferred test,” Saslow told Medscape Medical News. This also reflects the phasing out of cytology and cotesting, she added.

“This update is based on decades of studies comparing the effectiveness of HPV testing to cytology and is bolstered by evidence of the impact of HPV vaccination, including a dramatic decline in cervical precancers and, more recently, cervical cancers among young women,” she said.

The American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology (ASCCP) said that it was preparing a response to these new guidelines, as is the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG).
 

Cotesting or cytology alone

The updated guidelines recommend primary HPV testing as the preferred screening method for all women with a cervix. If primary HPV testing is not available, women should be screened with cotesting, which should also be performed every 5 years.

If only cytology is available, then women should be screened every 3 years.

The ACS authors point out that cotesting or cytology testing alone is still an acceptable option for cervical cancer screening, insofar as primary HPV testing using FDA-approved tests may not be available in some settings.

As more laboratories in the United States transition to FDA-approved tests for primary HPV testing, it is expected that the use of cotesting or cytology alone will be phased out.

The new guidelines also emphasize that women may discontinue screening at the age of 65 if they have not had cervical intraepitheal neoplasia of grade 2 or higher within the past 25 years and if they have tested negative over the past 10 years on all past screens.

The authors caution that past screens should only be considered negative if the patient has had two consecutive negative HPV tests or two consecutive negative cotests or three consecutive negative cytology tests within the past 10 years.

“These criteria do not apply to individuals who are currently under surveillance for abnormal screening results,” the authors state.

Women older than 65 for whom adequate documentation of prior screening is not available should continue to be screened until criteria for screening discontinuation are met, they add.

Screening may be discontinued among women with a limited life expectancy.
 

HPV vaccination

The authors note that HPV vaccination is expected to substantially change cervical cancer screening strategies.

In 2018, the National Immunization Survey–Teen, involving adolescents aged 13 to 17 years, showed that 68.1% of female patients were up to date on HPV vaccine recommendations, as were 51.1% of male patients.

“Cytology-based screening is much less efficient in vaccinated populations, as abnormal cytology disproportionately identifies minor abnormalities resulting from HPV types that are associated with lower cancer risk,” the reports’ authors point out.

As the prevalence of high-grade cervical abnormalities and the incidence of cervical cancer continue to decline, “the proportion of false-positive findings [on cytology alone] is expected to increase significantly,” they caution.

As a result, the ACS suggests that physicians will likely have to consider a patient’s vaccination status in tandem with cervical cancer screening results to arrive at an accurate assessment.
 

Raising starting age to 25 years

Saslow also noted that there were several reasons why it is now recommended that screening begin at the age of 25 instead of the age of 21, as in earlier guidelines.

“Firstly, less than 1% of cervical cancers are diagnosed before the age of 25 – so this is about 130 cases per year,” she explained.

Thanks to HPV vaccination, this percentage is further declining, “so screening is just not beneficial at this age,” Saslow emphasized.

Furthermore, the rate of false positives is much higher in younger patients, and a false-positive result can have a negative impact on pregnancy outcomes, she added.

Saslow also dismissed an article in favor of cotesting instead of HPV testing alone. That study, carried out by researchers at Quest Diagnostics and the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, recommended cotesting, claiming that primary HPV testing is significantly less likely to detect cervical precancers or cervical cancer than cotesting.

“These data come from parties with a vested interest in preserving cytology as a screening test,” Saslow told Medscape Medical News. She noted that “these findings are not at all credible as judged by the scientific community.”

On the basis of their own modeling, ACS researchers estimate that “starting with primary HPV testing at age 25 will prevent 13% more cervical cancers and 7% more cervical cancer deaths” in comparison with cytology (Pap testing alone) beginning at the age of 21, then cotesting at the age of 30, Saslow said in a statement.

“Our model showed we could do that with a 9% increase in follow-up procedures but with 45% fewer tests required overall,” she added.

The new recommendations are not expected to create any change in the type or amount of care required by providers, and patients will not notice any difference, inasmuch as cotesting and primary HPV testing are performed the same way in the examination room, she added.

“Resistance [to the changes] is expected – and is already occurring – from laboratories and manufacturers of tests that will no longer be used once we transition from cotesting and, less commonly, Pap testing to primary HPV testing,” Saslow said.

However, providers need to be aware that HPV infection, as with any sexually transmitted disease, is associated with a certain stigma, and they need to take care in discussing potential HPV infection with their patients.
 

Good method

Medscape Medical News approached Mark Einstein, MD, president of the ASCCP and professor and chair of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive health at Rutgers Biomedical and Health Sciences, Newark, New Jersey, to comment on the new guidelines.

“First and foremost,” he said, “everything we want to do when it comes to screening is to maximize the identification of picking up a cancer and minimize the risk or potential harm of not only screening itself but of missing cancers, so any strategy that improves on the sensitivity of picking up a cancer is a good method.”

Nevertheless, inasmuch as the ASCCP is one of the foremost organizations involved in cervical cancer screening and management, its members need more time to take a closer look at the updated ACS guidelines before they, together with sister organizations, such as the ACOG, release an official statement as to whether or not they fully endorse the new guidelines.

The United States Preventive Services Task Force recently endorsed primary HPV testing (starting at age 30), but it also said that an alternative strategy is cotesting for women between 30 and 65 years of age, Einstein observed.

Asked to comment on the article from Quest Diagnostics and the University of Pittsburgh that recommended cotesting instead of primary HPV testing, Einstein said that suggestion should not be dismissed out of hand.

The ASCCP has asked the authors of that study for their data in order conduct an independent assessment of it, largely because the study was retrospective in nature. Because of that, “there may have been a few pieces of information that were missing in true real-time fashion,” he said. “Not having [both the primary HPV testing and the cytology results] in front of me might change the next thing I might recommend to the patient,” Einstein explained.

The bottom line is that, when comparing primary HPV testing alone, cytology alone, and cotesting and rates of cervical cancer at 5 years, “the biggest driver for true performance of positive predictive value is HPV,” Einstein said.

Nevertheless, cotesting does bring more information into the equation compared with primary HPV testing alone, although it also increases the potential for harm, including the harm of overtesting and conducting needless colposcopies, he added.

That said, starting primary HPV testing at the age of 25 rather than the age of 30, as was previously recommended, is very likely to lead to detection of spurious HPV infections because HPV infections are very common among women in their 20s, Einstein pointed out.

“This, too, could potentially lead to more colposcopies, which may cause harm from the procedure itself but also create a certain amount of anxiety and concern, so there is some harm in testing for HPV at an earlier age as well,” Einstein said.

Saslow and Einstein have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The American Cancer Society (ACS) has released updated guidelines for cervical cancer screening. The key recommendation is that primary human papillomavirus (HPV) testing is the preferred screening method, starting at the age of 25 and repeated every 5 years.

In the past, guidelines for cervical cancer screening recommended cytology (the Pap test) starting at 21 years of age and repeated every 3 years. In more recent years, cotesting (with both Pap and HPV tests) has been recommended.

Since the last ACS guidelines on cervical cancer screening were published in 2012, two HPV tests have been approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for use in primary HPV screening.

The new “streamlined recommendations can improve compliance and reduce potential harms,” commented Debbie Saslow, PhD, managing director, HPV/GYN Cancers, American Cancer Society.

The updated guidelines were published online July 30 in CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians.

“We now have stronger evidence to support starting cervical cancer screening at a later age and to recommend screening with the HPV test as the preferred test,” Saslow told Medscape Medical News. This also reflects the phasing out of cytology and cotesting, she added.

“This update is based on decades of studies comparing the effectiveness of HPV testing to cytology and is bolstered by evidence of the impact of HPV vaccination, including a dramatic decline in cervical precancers and, more recently, cervical cancers among young women,” she said.

The American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology (ASCCP) said that it was preparing a response to these new guidelines, as is the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG).
 

Cotesting or cytology alone

The updated guidelines recommend primary HPV testing as the preferred screening method for all women with a cervix. If primary HPV testing is not available, women should be screened with cotesting, which should also be performed every 5 years.

If only cytology is available, then women should be screened every 3 years.

The ACS authors point out that cotesting or cytology testing alone is still an acceptable option for cervical cancer screening, insofar as primary HPV testing using FDA-approved tests may not be available in some settings.

As more laboratories in the United States transition to FDA-approved tests for primary HPV testing, it is expected that the use of cotesting or cytology alone will be phased out.

The new guidelines also emphasize that women may discontinue screening at the age of 65 if they have not had cervical intraepitheal neoplasia of grade 2 or higher within the past 25 years and if they have tested negative over the past 10 years on all past screens.

The authors caution that past screens should only be considered negative if the patient has had two consecutive negative HPV tests or two consecutive negative cotests or three consecutive negative cytology tests within the past 10 years.

“These criteria do not apply to individuals who are currently under surveillance for abnormal screening results,” the authors state.

Women older than 65 for whom adequate documentation of prior screening is not available should continue to be screened until criteria for screening discontinuation are met, they add.

Screening may be discontinued among women with a limited life expectancy.
 

HPV vaccination

The authors note that HPV vaccination is expected to substantially change cervical cancer screening strategies.

In 2018, the National Immunization Survey–Teen, involving adolescents aged 13 to 17 years, showed that 68.1% of female patients were up to date on HPV vaccine recommendations, as were 51.1% of male patients.

“Cytology-based screening is much less efficient in vaccinated populations, as abnormal cytology disproportionately identifies minor abnormalities resulting from HPV types that are associated with lower cancer risk,” the reports’ authors point out.

As the prevalence of high-grade cervical abnormalities and the incidence of cervical cancer continue to decline, “the proportion of false-positive findings [on cytology alone] is expected to increase significantly,” they caution.

As a result, the ACS suggests that physicians will likely have to consider a patient’s vaccination status in tandem with cervical cancer screening results to arrive at an accurate assessment.
 

Raising starting age to 25 years

Saslow also noted that there were several reasons why it is now recommended that screening begin at the age of 25 instead of the age of 21, as in earlier guidelines.

“Firstly, less than 1% of cervical cancers are diagnosed before the age of 25 – so this is about 130 cases per year,” she explained.

Thanks to HPV vaccination, this percentage is further declining, “so screening is just not beneficial at this age,” Saslow emphasized.

Furthermore, the rate of false positives is much higher in younger patients, and a false-positive result can have a negative impact on pregnancy outcomes, she added.

Saslow also dismissed an article in favor of cotesting instead of HPV testing alone. That study, carried out by researchers at Quest Diagnostics and the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, recommended cotesting, claiming that primary HPV testing is significantly less likely to detect cervical precancers or cervical cancer than cotesting.

“These data come from parties with a vested interest in preserving cytology as a screening test,” Saslow told Medscape Medical News. She noted that “these findings are not at all credible as judged by the scientific community.”

On the basis of their own modeling, ACS researchers estimate that “starting with primary HPV testing at age 25 will prevent 13% more cervical cancers and 7% more cervical cancer deaths” in comparison with cytology (Pap testing alone) beginning at the age of 21, then cotesting at the age of 30, Saslow said in a statement.

“Our model showed we could do that with a 9% increase in follow-up procedures but with 45% fewer tests required overall,” she added.

The new recommendations are not expected to create any change in the type or amount of care required by providers, and patients will not notice any difference, inasmuch as cotesting and primary HPV testing are performed the same way in the examination room, she added.

“Resistance [to the changes] is expected – and is already occurring – from laboratories and manufacturers of tests that will no longer be used once we transition from cotesting and, less commonly, Pap testing to primary HPV testing,” Saslow said.

However, providers need to be aware that HPV infection, as with any sexually transmitted disease, is associated with a certain stigma, and they need to take care in discussing potential HPV infection with their patients.
 

Good method

Medscape Medical News approached Mark Einstein, MD, president of the ASCCP and professor and chair of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive health at Rutgers Biomedical and Health Sciences, Newark, New Jersey, to comment on the new guidelines.

“First and foremost,” he said, “everything we want to do when it comes to screening is to maximize the identification of picking up a cancer and minimize the risk or potential harm of not only screening itself but of missing cancers, so any strategy that improves on the sensitivity of picking up a cancer is a good method.”

Nevertheless, inasmuch as the ASCCP is one of the foremost organizations involved in cervical cancer screening and management, its members need more time to take a closer look at the updated ACS guidelines before they, together with sister organizations, such as the ACOG, release an official statement as to whether or not they fully endorse the new guidelines.

The United States Preventive Services Task Force recently endorsed primary HPV testing (starting at age 30), but it also said that an alternative strategy is cotesting for women between 30 and 65 years of age, Einstein observed.

Asked to comment on the article from Quest Diagnostics and the University of Pittsburgh that recommended cotesting instead of primary HPV testing, Einstein said that suggestion should not be dismissed out of hand.

The ASCCP has asked the authors of that study for their data in order conduct an independent assessment of it, largely because the study was retrospective in nature. Because of that, “there may have been a few pieces of information that were missing in true real-time fashion,” he said. “Not having [both the primary HPV testing and the cytology results] in front of me might change the next thing I might recommend to the patient,” Einstein explained.

The bottom line is that, when comparing primary HPV testing alone, cytology alone, and cotesting and rates of cervical cancer at 5 years, “the biggest driver for true performance of positive predictive value is HPV,” Einstein said.

Nevertheless, cotesting does bring more information into the equation compared with primary HPV testing alone, although it also increases the potential for harm, including the harm of overtesting and conducting needless colposcopies, he added.

That said, starting primary HPV testing at the age of 25 rather than the age of 30, as was previously recommended, is very likely to lead to detection of spurious HPV infections because HPV infections are very common among women in their 20s, Einstein pointed out.

“This, too, could potentially lead to more colposcopies, which may cause harm from the procedure itself but also create a certain amount of anxiety and concern, so there is some harm in testing for HPV at an earlier age as well,” Einstein said.

Saslow and Einstein have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Older adults are being “overscreened” for cancer, say researchers who discovered that many patients reported undergoing screening for cancer even though they were older than the upper age limit recommended.

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommends an upper age limit on cancer screening that varies by cancer type – 75 years old for colorectal cancer, 74 for breast cancer, and 65 for cervical cancer.

The study found that 59.3% of men and 56.2% of women being screening for colorectal cancer were above that cut-off age, as were 45.8% of women being screened for cervical cancer and 74.1% of women being screened for breast cancer.    

Overscreening was particularly high for women living in metropolitan areas.

The finding is of concern, say the researchers, because “continuing to screen patients who are older and/or who have limited life expectancy may cause more harms than benefits.”

“The development of successful interventions to address this problem are thus essential,” they write.

The study was published online July 27 in JAMA Network Open.

Clinicians, patients, and health care systems can be changed – and should be changed – to minimize overscreening,” said lead author Jennifer L. Moss, PhD, assistant professor of family and community medicine and public health sciences at Penn State University, Hershey.

“It will probably take many changes to meaningfully decrease overscreening,” she told Medscape Medical News.

One change that would help is if health insurance companies stopped reimbursing providers for screening after the recommended upper age limit, she continued. “Another change is if providers had evidence-based tools to guide conversations about stopping screening, given an individual patient’s demographics, health status, and risks and benefits of the screening test.”

Approached for comment on the study, Nancy Schoenborn, MD, MHS, an associate professor of medicine in the Division of Geriatric Medicine and Gerontology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, noted that the finding of high overscreening is not surprising and is consistent with prior works that found similar results.

“One value of this paper is that the timing of the study is more recent and confirms that the issue of overscreening is one that is still ongoing,” she told Medscape Medical News. Schoenborn was not associated with the study.

As for what physicians should do about the findings in this study, Schoenborn suggested the first step is to simply recognize that overscreening is likely a problem and “to reflect if there are instances in one’s own practice where overscreening may occur.”

In her own work, Schoenborn continued, “I was recently surprised that a substantial minority of clinicians actually do not believe overscreening to be a problem in older adults, and they have a number of concerns about how overscreening is defined and about unintended consequences that can occur from efforts to reduce overscreening.”

She added that there are a number of reasons why overscreening occurs. These include guideline inconsistencies, inertia, patient request, clinician knowledge gaps, and discomfort with discussing stopping. “A lot of work is ongoing to address each of these issues, but I think the first step would be the clinician recognizing and agreeing that this is a problem that needs to be addressed,” she said.

Unnecessary screening

The authors note that the prevalence estimates for overscreening have not been reported on a national level, and it is also unclear how overscreening may vary among subgroups.

“The reason I focused on colorectal, cervical, and breast cancers is because USPSTF has very clear, age-based recommendations for these cancers in terms of who should and should not get screened routinely,” explained Moss. “This was important because it allowed me and my coauthors to clearly say, based on age alone, this person probably was screened unnecessarily, and this person was not.”

She noted that the age-based recommendations for routine screening are based on very large clinical trials to examine the effectiveness of the screening tool. “The recommendations for lung and prostate cancer screening are not so clear cut, and we would not be able to tell, based only on the available survey data, if someone was overscreened,” she said.

For their study, the team used data from the 2018 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, administered by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Overscreening was assessed in a cohort of 20,937 men and 34,244 women for colorectal cancer, 82,811 women for cervical cancer, and 38,356 women for breast cancer. Most the participants lived in a metropolitan area (about 80%) and were white (about 80%).

Being overscreened was also more common in metropolitan vs. nonmetropolitan areas for colorectal cancer in women (adjusted odds ratio, 1.23), cervical cancer (aOR, 1.20), and breast cancer (aOR, 1.36).

Overscreening for cervical and breast cancers was also associated with having a usual source of care, good/very good/excellent self-reported health, education beyond a high school diploma, and being married or living as married.

The study was carried out in 2018, and the situation is likely to have changed over recent months during the COVID-19 pandemic.

“We have already seen dramatic reductions in routine cancer screening among age-eligible adults, so part of this problem of overscreening among older adults will likely diminish,” said Moss. “State and national cancer surveillance systems will continue to monitor trends in cancer screening, including overscreening, cancer incidence, and cancer mortality.”

Johns Hopkins’ Schoenborn said one finding of particular interest was that the colorectal cancer overscreening rate was higher in those older than 80 and in those with higher mortality risk.

“It makes me wonder if this is due to the increasing use of noninvasive colorectal cancer screening modalities, such as the fecal immunochemical test FIT or Cologuard,” Schoenborn commented. “It would be important for clinicians to consider downstream effects even when the initial test is low risk, such as if the stool test screens positive, would the patient still need a colonoscopy, and is that something the patient can undergo and wants to undergo?”

The study was funded by the National Cancer Institute and American Cancer Society. Moss, study coauthors, and Schoenborn have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Older adults are being “overscreened” for cancer, say researchers who discovered that many patients reported undergoing screening for cancer even though they were older than the upper age limit recommended.

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommends an upper age limit on cancer screening that varies by cancer type – 75 years old for colorectal cancer, 74 for breast cancer, and 65 for cervical cancer.

The study found that 59.3% of men and 56.2% of women being screening for colorectal cancer were above that cut-off age, as were 45.8% of women being screened for cervical cancer and 74.1% of women being screened for breast cancer.    

Overscreening was particularly high for women living in metropolitan areas.

The finding is of concern, say the researchers, because “continuing to screen patients who are older and/or who have limited life expectancy may cause more harms than benefits.”

“The development of successful interventions to address this problem are thus essential,” they write.

The study was published online July 27 in JAMA Network Open.

Clinicians, patients, and health care systems can be changed – and should be changed – to minimize overscreening,” said lead author Jennifer L. Moss, PhD, assistant professor of family and community medicine and public health sciences at Penn State University, Hershey.

“It will probably take many changes to meaningfully decrease overscreening,” she told Medscape Medical News.

One change that would help is if health insurance companies stopped reimbursing providers for screening after the recommended upper age limit, she continued. “Another change is if providers had evidence-based tools to guide conversations about stopping screening, given an individual patient’s demographics, health status, and risks and benefits of the screening test.”

Approached for comment on the study, Nancy Schoenborn, MD, MHS, an associate professor of medicine in the Division of Geriatric Medicine and Gerontology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, noted that the finding of high overscreening is not surprising and is consistent with prior works that found similar results.

“One value of this paper is that the timing of the study is more recent and confirms that the issue of overscreening is one that is still ongoing,” she told Medscape Medical News. Schoenborn was not associated with the study.

As for what physicians should do about the findings in this study, Schoenborn suggested the first step is to simply recognize that overscreening is likely a problem and “to reflect if there are instances in one’s own practice where overscreening may occur.”

In her own work, Schoenborn continued, “I was recently surprised that a substantial minority of clinicians actually do not believe overscreening to be a problem in older adults, and they have a number of concerns about how overscreening is defined and about unintended consequences that can occur from efforts to reduce overscreening.”

She added that there are a number of reasons why overscreening occurs. These include guideline inconsistencies, inertia, patient request, clinician knowledge gaps, and discomfort with discussing stopping. “A lot of work is ongoing to address each of these issues, but I think the first step would be the clinician recognizing and agreeing that this is a problem that needs to be addressed,” she said.

Unnecessary screening

The authors note that the prevalence estimates for overscreening have not been reported on a national level, and it is also unclear how overscreening may vary among subgroups.

“The reason I focused on colorectal, cervical, and breast cancers is because USPSTF has very clear, age-based recommendations for these cancers in terms of who should and should not get screened routinely,” explained Moss. “This was important because it allowed me and my coauthors to clearly say, based on age alone, this person probably was screened unnecessarily, and this person was not.”

She noted that the age-based recommendations for routine screening are based on very large clinical trials to examine the effectiveness of the screening tool. “The recommendations for lung and prostate cancer screening are not so clear cut, and we would not be able to tell, based only on the available survey data, if someone was overscreened,” she said.

For their study, the team used data from the 2018 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, administered by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Overscreening was assessed in a cohort of 20,937 men and 34,244 women for colorectal cancer, 82,811 women for cervical cancer, and 38,356 women for breast cancer. Most the participants lived in a metropolitan area (about 80%) and were white (about 80%).

Being overscreened was also more common in metropolitan vs. nonmetropolitan areas for colorectal cancer in women (adjusted odds ratio, 1.23), cervical cancer (aOR, 1.20), and breast cancer (aOR, 1.36).

Overscreening for cervical and breast cancers was also associated with having a usual source of care, good/very good/excellent self-reported health, education beyond a high school diploma, and being married or living as married.

The study was carried out in 2018, and the situation is likely to have changed over recent months during the COVID-19 pandemic.

“We have already seen dramatic reductions in routine cancer screening among age-eligible adults, so part of this problem of overscreening among older adults will likely diminish,” said Moss. “State and national cancer surveillance systems will continue to monitor trends in cancer screening, including overscreening, cancer incidence, and cancer mortality.”

Johns Hopkins’ Schoenborn said one finding of particular interest was that the colorectal cancer overscreening rate was higher in those older than 80 and in those with higher mortality risk.

“It makes me wonder if this is due to the increasing use of noninvasive colorectal cancer screening modalities, such as the fecal immunochemical test FIT or Cologuard,” Schoenborn commented. “It would be important for clinicians to consider downstream effects even when the initial test is low risk, such as if the stool test screens positive, would the patient still need a colonoscopy, and is that something the patient can undergo and wants to undergo?”

The study was funded by the National Cancer Institute and American Cancer Society. Moss, study coauthors, and Schoenborn have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Older adults are being “overscreened” for cancer, say researchers who discovered that many patients reported undergoing screening for cancer even though they were older than the upper age limit recommended.

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommends an upper age limit on cancer screening that varies by cancer type – 75 years old for colorectal cancer, 74 for breast cancer, and 65 for cervical cancer.

The study found that 59.3% of men and 56.2% of women being screening for colorectal cancer were above that cut-off age, as were 45.8% of women being screened for cervical cancer and 74.1% of women being screened for breast cancer.    

Overscreening was particularly high for women living in metropolitan areas.

The finding is of concern, say the researchers, because “continuing to screen patients who are older and/or who have limited life expectancy may cause more harms than benefits.”

“The development of successful interventions to address this problem are thus essential,” they write.

The study was published online July 27 in JAMA Network Open.

Clinicians, patients, and health care systems can be changed – and should be changed – to minimize overscreening,” said lead author Jennifer L. Moss, PhD, assistant professor of family and community medicine and public health sciences at Penn State University, Hershey.

“It will probably take many changes to meaningfully decrease overscreening,” she told Medscape Medical News.

One change that would help is if health insurance companies stopped reimbursing providers for screening after the recommended upper age limit, she continued. “Another change is if providers had evidence-based tools to guide conversations about stopping screening, given an individual patient’s demographics, health status, and risks and benefits of the screening test.”

Approached for comment on the study, Nancy Schoenborn, MD, MHS, an associate professor of medicine in the Division of Geriatric Medicine and Gerontology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, noted that the finding of high overscreening is not surprising and is consistent with prior works that found similar results.

“One value of this paper is that the timing of the study is more recent and confirms that the issue of overscreening is one that is still ongoing,” she told Medscape Medical News. Schoenborn was not associated with the study.

As for what physicians should do about the findings in this study, Schoenborn suggested the first step is to simply recognize that overscreening is likely a problem and “to reflect if there are instances in one’s own practice where overscreening may occur.”

In her own work, Schoenborn continued, “I was recently surprised that a substantial minority of clinicians actually do not believe overscreening to be a problem in older adults, and they have a number of concerns about how overscreening is defined and about unintended consequences that can occur from efforts to reduce overscreening.”

She added that there are a number of reasons why overscreening occurs. These include guideline inconsistencies, inertia, patient request, clinician knowledge gaps, and discomfort with discussing stopping. “A lot of work is ongoing to address each of these issues, but I think the first step would be the clinician recognizing and agreeing that this is a problem that needs to be addressed,” she said.

Unnecessary screening

The authors note that the prevalence estimates for overscreening have not been reported on a national level, and it is also unclear how overscreening may vary among subgroups.

“The reason I focused on colorectal, cervical, and breast cancers is because USPSTF has very clear, age-based recommendations for these cancers in terms of who should and should not get screened routinely,” explained Moss. “This was important because it allowed me and my coauthors to clearly say, based on age alone, this person probably was screened unnecessarily, and this person was not.”

She noted that the age-based recommendations for routine screening are based on very large clinical trials to examine the effectiveness of the screening tool. “The recommendations for lung and prostate cancer screening are not so clear cut, and we would not be able to tell, based only on the available survey data, if someone was overscreened,” she said.

For their study, the team used data from the 2018 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, administered by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Overscreening was assessed in a cohort of 20,937 men and 34,244 women for colorectal cancer, 82,811 women for cervical cancer, and 38,356 women for breast cancer. Most the participants lived in a metropolitan area (about 80%) and were white (about 80%).

Being overscreened was also more common in metropolitan vs. nonmetropolitan areas for colorectal cancer in women (adjusted odds ratio, 1.23), cervical cancer (aOR, 1.20), and breast cancer (aOR, 1.36).

Overscreening for cervical and breast cancers was also associated with having a usual source of care, good/very good/excellent self-reported health, education beyond a high school diploma, and being married or living as married.

The study was carried out in 2018, and the situation is likely to have changed over recent months during the COVID-19 pandemic.

“We have already seen dramatic reductions in routine cancer screening among age-eligible adults, so part of this problem of overscreening among older adults will likely diminish,” said Moss. “State and national cancer surveillance systems will continue to monitor trends in cancer screening, including overscreening, cancer incidence, and cancer mortality.”

Johns Hopkins’ Schoenborn said one finding of particular interest was that the colorectal cancer overscreening rate was higher in those older than 80 and in those with higher mortality risk.

“It makes me wonder if this is due to the increasing use of noninvasive colorectal cancer screening modalities, such as the fecal immunochemical test FIT or Cologuard,” Schoenborn commented. “It would be important for clinicians to consider downstream effects even when the initial test is low risk, such as if the stool test screens positive, would the patient still need a colonoscopy, and is that something the patient can undergo and wants to undergo?”

The study was funded by the National Cancer Institute and American Cancer Society. Moss, study coauthors, and Schoenborn have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.