AVAHO

In its updated cancer prevention guidelines, the American Cancer Society now recommends that “it is best not to drink alcohol.”

Previously, ACS suggested that, for those who consume alcoholic beverages, intake should be no more than one drink per day for women or two per day for men. That recommendation is still in place, but is now accompanied by this new, stronger directive.

The revised guidelines also place more emphasis on reducing the consumption of processed and red meat and highly processed foods, and on increasing physical activity.

But importantly, there is also a call for action from public, private, and community organizations to work to together to increase access to affordable, nutritious foods and physical activity.

“Making healthy choices can be challenging for many, and there are strategies included in the guidelines that communities can undertake to help reduce barriers to eating well and physical activity,” said Laura Makaroff, DO, American Cancer Society senior vice president. “Individual choice is an important part of a healthy lifestyle, but having the right policies and environmental factors to break down these barriers is also important, and that is something that clinicians can support.”

The guidelines were published in CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians.

The link between cancer and lifestyle factors has long been established, and for the past 4 decades, both government and leading nonprofit health organizations, including the ACS and the World Cancer Research Fund/American Institute for Cancer Research (WCRF/AICR), have released cancer prevention guidelines and recommendations that focus on managing weight, diet, physical activity, and alcohol consumption.

In 2012, the ACS issued guidelines on diet and physical activity, and their current guideline is largely based on the WCRF/AICR systematic reviews and Continuous Update Project reports, which were last updated in 2018. The ACS guidelines also incorporated systematic reviews conducted by the International Agency on Cancer Research (IARC) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Department of Health and Human Services (USDA/HHS) and other analyses that were published since the WCRF/AICR recommendations were released.
 

Emphasis on three areas

The differences between the old guidelines and the update do not differ dramatically, but Makaroff highlighted a few areas that have increased emphasis.

Time spent being physically active is critical. The recommendation has changed to encourage adults to engage in 150-300 minutes (2.5-5 hours) of moderate-intensity physical activity, or 75-150 minutes (1.25-2.5 hours) of vigorous-intensity physical activity, or an equivalent combination, per week. Achieving or exceeding the upper limit of 300 minutes is optimal.

“That is more than what we have recommended in the past, along with the continued message that children and adolescents engage in at least 1 hour of moderate- or vigorous-intensity activity each day,” she told Medscape Medical News.

The ACS has also increased emphasis on reducing the consumption of processed and red meat. “This is part of a healthy eating pattern and making sure that people are eating food that is high in nutrients that help achieve and maintain a healthy body weight,” said Makaroff.

A healthy diet should include a variety of dark green, red, and orange vegetables; fiber-rich legumes; and fruits with a variety of colors and whole grains, according to the guidelines. Sugar-sweetened beverages, highly processed foods, and refined grain products should be limited or avoided.

The revised dietary recommendations reflect a shift from a “reductionist or nutrient-centric” approach to one that is more “holistic” and that focuses on dietary patterns. In contrast to a focus on individual nutrients and bioactive compounds, the new approach is more consistent with what and how people actually eat, ACS points out.

The third area that Makaroff highlighted is alcohol, where the recommendation is to avoid or limit consumption. “The current update says not to drink alcohol, which is in line with the scientific evidence, but for those people who choose to drink alcohol, to limit it to one drink per day for women and two drinks per day for men.”

Thus, the change here is that the previous guideline only recommended limiting alcohol consumption, while the update suggests that, optimally, it should be avoided completely.

The ACS has also called for community involvement to help implement these goals: “Public, private, and community organizations should work collaboratively at national, state, and local levels to develop, advocate for, and implement policy and environmental changes that increase access to affordable, nutritious foods; provide safe, enjoyable, and accessible opportunities for physical activity; and limit alcohol for all individuals.”
 

No smoking guns

Commenting on the guidelines, Steven K. Clinton, MD, PhD, associate director of the Center for Advanced Functional Foods Research and Entrepreneurship at the Ohio State University, Columbus, explained that he didn’t view the change in alcohol as that much of an evolution. “It’s been 8 years since they revised their overall guidelines, and during that time frame, there has been an enormous growth in the evidence that has been used by many organizations,” he said.

Clinton noted that the guidelines are consistent with the whole body of current scientific literature. “It’s very easy to go to the document and look for the ‘smoking gun’ – but the smoking gun is really not one thing,” he said. “It’s a pattern, and what dietitians and nutritionists are telling people is that you need to orchestrate a healthy lifestyle and diet, with a diet that has a foundation of fruits, vegetables, whole grains, and modest intake of refined grains and meat. You are orchestrating an entire pattern to get the maximum benefit.”

Makaroff is an employee of the ACS. Clinton has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In its updated cancer prevention guidelines, the American Cancer Society now recommends that “it is best not to drink alcohol.”

Previously, ACS suggested that, for those who consume alcoholic beverages, intake should be no more than one drink per day for women or two per day for men. That recommendation is still in place, but is now accompanied by this new, stronger directive.

The revised guidelines also place more emphasis on reducing the consumption of processed and red meat and highly processed foods, and on increasing physical activity.

But importantly, there is also a call for action from public, private, and community organizations to work to together to increase access to affordable, nutritious foods and physical activity.

“Making healthy choices can be challenging for many, and there are strategies included in the guidelines that communities can undertake to help reduce barriers to eating well and physical activity,” said Laura Makaroff, DO, American Cancer Society senior vice president. “Individual choice is an important part of a healthy lifestyle, but having the right policies and environmental factors to break down these barriers is also important, and that is something that clinicians can support.”

The guidelines were published in CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians.

The link between cancer and lifestyle factors has long been established, and for the past 4 decades, both government and leading nonprofit health organizations, including the ACS and the World Cancer Research Fund/American Institute for Cancer Research (WCRF/AICR), have released cancer prevention guidelines and recommendations that focus on managing weight, diet, physical activity, and alcohol consumption.

In 2012, the ACS issued guidelines on diet and physical activity, and their current guideline is largely based on the WCRF/AICR systematic reviews and Continuous Update Project reports, which were last updated in 2018. The ACS guidelines also incorporated systematic reviews conducted by the International Agency on Cancer Research (IARC) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Department of Health and Human Services (USDA/HHS) and other analyses that were published since the WCRF/AICR recommendations were released.
 

Emphasis on three areas

The differences between the old guidelines and the update do not differ dramatically, but Makaroff highlighted a few areas that have increased emphasis.

Time spent being physically active is critical. The recommendation has changed to encourage adults to engage in 150-300 minutes (2.5-5 hours) of moderate-intensity physical activity, or 75-150 minutes (1.25-2.5 hours) of vigorous-intensity physical activity, or an equivalent combination, per week. Achieving or exceeding the upper limit of 300 minutes is optimal.

“That is more than what we have recommended in the past, along with the continued message that children and adolescents engage in at least 1 hour of moderate- or vigorous-intensity activity each day,” she told Medscape Medical News.

The ACS has also increased emphasis on reducing the consumption of processed and red meat. “This is part of a healthy eating pattern and making sure that people are eating food that is high in nutrients that help achieve and maintain a healthy body weight,” said Makaroff.

A healthy diet should include a variety of dark green, red, and orange vegetables; fiber-rich legumes; and fruits with a variety of colors and whole grains, according to the guidelines. Sugar-sweetened beverages, highly processed foods, and refined grain products should be limited or avoided.

The revised dietary recommendations reflect a shift from a “reductionist or nutrient-centric” approach to one that is more “holistic” and that focuses on dietary patterns. In contrast to a focus on individual nutrients and bioactive compounds, the new approach is more consistent with what and how people actually eat, ACS points out.

The third area that Makaroff highlighted is alcohol, where the recommendation is to avoid or limit consumption. “The current update says not to drink alcohol, which is in line with the scientific evidence, but for those people who choose to drink alcohol, to limit it to one drink per day for women and two drinks per day for men.”

Thus, the change here is that the previous guideline only recommended limiting alcohol consumption, while the update suggests that, optimally, it should be avoided completely.

The ACS has also called for community involvement to help implement these goals: “Public, private, and community organizations should work collaboratively at national, state, and local levels to develop, advocate for, and implement policy and environmental changes that increase access to affordable, nutritious foods; provide safe, enjoyable, and accessible opportunities for physical activity; and limit alcohol for all individuals.”
 

No smoking guns

Commenting on the guidelines, Steven K. Clinton, MD, PhD, associate director of the Center for Advanced Functional Foods Research and Entrepreneurship at the Ohio State University, Columbus, explained that he didn’t view the change in alcohol as that much of an evolution. “It’s been 8 years since they revised their overall guidelines, and during that time frame, there has been an enormous growth in the evidence that has been used by many organizations,” he said.

Clinton noted that the guidelines are consistent with the whole body of current scientific literature. “It’s very easy to go to the document and look for the ‘smoking gun’ – but the smoking gun is really not one thing,” he said. “It’s a pattern, and what dietitians and nutritionists are telling people is that you need to orchestrate a healthy lifestyle and diet, with a diet that has a foundation of fruits, vegetables, whole grains, and modest intake of refined grains and meat. You are orchestrating an entire pattern to get the maximum benefit.”

Makaroff is an employee of the ACS. Clinton has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In its updated cancer prevention guidelines, the American Cancer Society now recommends that “it is best not to drink alcohol.”

Previously, ACS suggested that, for those who consume alcoholic beverages, intake should be no more than one drink per day for women or two per day for men. That recommendation is still in place, but is now accompanied by this new, stronger directive.

The revised guidelines also place more emphasis on reducing the consumption of processed and red meat and highly processed foods, and on increasing physical activity.

But importantly, there is also a call for action from public, private, and community organizations to work to together to increase access to affordable, nutritious foods and physical activity.

“Making healthy choices can be challenging for many, and there are strategies included in the guidelines that communities can undertake to help reduce barriers to eating well and physical activity,” said Laura Makaroff, DO, American Cancer Society senior vice president. “Individual choice is an important part of a healthy lifestyle, but having the right policies and environmental factors to break down these barriers is also important, and that is something that clinicians can support.”

The guidelines were published in CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians.

The link between cancer and lifestyle factors has long been established, and for the past 4 decades, both government and leading nonprofit health organizations, including the ACS and the World Cancer Research Fund/American Institute for Cancer Research (WCRF/AICR), have released cancer prevention guidelines and recommendations that focus on managing weight, diet, physical activity, and alcohol consumption.

In 2012, the ACS issued guidelines on diet and physical activity, and their current guideline is largely based on the WCRF/AICR systematic reviews and Continuous Update Project reports, which were last updated in 2018. The ACS guidelines also incorporated systematic reviews conducted by the International Agency on Cancer Research (IARC) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Department of Health and Human Services (USDA/HHS) and other analyses that were published since the WCRF/AICR recommendations were released.
 

Emphasis on three areas

The differences between the old guidelines and the update do not differ dramatically, but Makaroff highlighted a few areas that have increased emphasis.

Time spent being physically active is critical. The recommendation has changed to encourage adults to engage in 150-300 minutes (2.5-5 hours) of moderate-intensity physical activity, or 75-150 minutes (1.25-2.5 hours) of vigorous-intensity physical activity, or an equivalent combination, per week. Achieving or exceeding the upper limit of 300 minutes is optimal.

“That is more than what we have recommended in the past, along with the continued message that children and adolescents engage in at least 1 hour of moderate- or vigorous-intensity activity each day,” she told Medscape Medical News.

The ACS has also increased emphasis on reducing the consumption of processed and red meat. “This is part of a healthy eating pattern and making sure that people are eating food that is high in nutrients that help achieve and maintain a healthy body weight,” said Makaroff.

A healthy diet should include a variety of dark green, red, and orange vegetables; fiber-rich legumes; and fruits with a variety of colors and whole grains, according to the guidelines. Sugar-sweetened beverages, highly processed foods, and refined grain products should be limited or avoided.

The revised dietary recommendations reflect a shift from a “reductionist or nutrient-centric” approach to one that is more “holistic” and that focuses on dietary patterns. In contrast to a focus on individual nutrients and bioactive compounds, the new approach is more consistent with what and how people actually eat, ACS points out.

The third area that Makaroff highlighted is alcohol, where the recommendation is to avoid or limit consumption. “The current update says not to drink alcohol, which is in line with the scientific evidence, but for those people who choose to drink alcohol, to limit it to one drink per day for women and two drinks per day for men.”

Thus, the change here is that the previous guideline only recommended limiting alcohol consumption, while the update suggests that, optimally, it should be avoided completely.

The ACS has also called for community involvement to help implement these goals: “Public, private, and community organizations should work collaboratively at national, state, and local levels to develop, advocate for, and implement policy and environmental changes that increase access to affordable, nutritious foods; provide safe, enjoyable, and accessible opportunities for physical activity; and limit alcohol for all individuals.”
 

No smoking guns

Commenting on the guidelines, Steven K. Clinton, MD, PhD, associate director of the Center for Advanced Functional Foods Research and Entrepreneurship at the Ohio State University, Columbus, explained that he didn’t view the change in alcohol as that much of an evolution. “It’s been 8 years since they revised their overall guidelines, and during that time frame, there has been an enormous growth in the evidence that has been used by many organizations,” he said.

Clinton noted that the guidelines are consistent with the whole body of current scientific literature. “It’s very easy to go to the document and look for the ‘smoking gun’ – but the smoking gun is really not one thing,” he said. “It’s a pattern, and what dietitians and nutritionists are telling people is that you need to orchestrate a healthy lifestyle and diet, with a diet that has a foundation of fruits, vegetables, whole grains, and modest intake of refined grains and meat. You are orchestrating an entire pattern to get the maximum benefit.”

Makaroff is an employee of the ACS. Clinton has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Deciding which cancer patients need immediate treatment and who can safely wait is an uncomfortable assessment for cancer clinicians during the COVID-19 pandemic.

In early April, as the COVID-19 surge was bearing down on New York City, those treatment decisions were “a juggling act every single day,” Jonathan Yang, MD, PhD, a radiation oncologist from New York’s Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, told Medscape Medical News.

Eventually, a glut of guidelines, recommendations, and expert opinions aimed at helping oncologists emerged. The tools help navigate the complicated risk-benefit analysis of their patient’s risk of infection by SARS-CoV-2 and delaying therapy.

Now, a new tool, which appears to be the first of its kind, quantifies that risk-benefit analysis. But its presence immediately raises the question: can it help?
 

Three-Tier Systems Are Not Very Sophisticated

OncCOVID, a free tool that was launched May 26 by the University of Michigan, allows physicians to individualize risk estimates for delaying treatment of up to 25 early- to late-stage cancers. It includes more than 45 patient characteristics, such as age, location, cancer type, cancer stage, treatment plan, underlying medical conditions, and proposed length of delay in care.

Combining these personal details with data from the National Cancer Institute’s SEER (Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results) registry and the National Cancer Database, the Michigan app then estimates a patient’s 5- or 10-year survival with immediate vs delayed treatment and weighs that against their risk for COVID-19 using data from the Johns Hopkins Coronavirus Resource Center.

“We thought, isn’t it better to at least provide some evidence-based quantification, rather than a back-of-the-envelope three-tier system that is just sort of ‘made up’?“ explained one of the developers, Daniel Spratt, MD, associate professor of radiation oncology at Michigan Medicine.

Spratt explained that almost every organization, professional society, and government has created something like a three-tier system. Tier 1 represents urgent cases and patients who need immediate treatment. For tier 2, treatment can be delayed weeks or a month, and with tier 3, it can be delayed until the pandemic is over or it’s deemed safe.

“[This system] sounds good at first glance, but in cancer, we’re always talking about personalized medicine, and it’s mind-blowing that these tier systems are only based on urgency and prognosis,” he told Medscape Medical News.

Spratt offered an example. Consider a patient with a very aggressive brain tumor ― that patient is in tier 1 and should undergo treatment immediately. But will the treatment actually help? And how helpful would the procedure be if, say, the patient is 80 years old and, if infected, would have a 30% to 50% chance of dying from the coronavirus?

“If the model says this guy has a 5% harm and this one has 30% harm, you can use that to help prioritize,” summarized Spratt.

The app can generate risk estimates for patients living anywhere in the world and has already been accessed by people from 37 countries. However, Spratt cautions that it is primarily “designed and calibrated for the US.

“The estimates are based on very large US registries, and though it’s probably somewhat similar across much of the world, there’s probably certain cancer types that are more region specific ― especially something like stomach cancer or certain types of head and neck cancer in parts of Asia, for example,” he said.

Although the app’s COVID-19 data are specific to the county level in the United States, elsewhere in the world, it is only country specific.

“We’re using the best data we have for coronavirus, but everyone knows we still have large data gaps,” he acknowledged.
 

How Accurate?

Asked to comment on the app, Richard Bleicher, MD, leader of the Breast Cancer Program at Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, praised the effort and the goal but had some concerns.

“Several questions arise, most important of which is, How accurate is this, and how has this been validated, if at all ― especially as it is too soon to see the outcomes of patients affected in this pandemic?” he told Medscape Medical News.

“We are imposing delays on a broad scale because of the coronavirus, and we are getting continuously changing data as we test more patients. But both situations are novel and may not be accurately represented by the data being pulled, because the datasets use patients from a few years ago, and confounders in these datasets may not apply to this situation,” Bleicher continued.

Although acknowledging the “value in delineating the risk of dying from cancer vs the risk of dying from the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic,” Bleicher urged caution in using the tool to make individual patient decisions.

“We need to remember that the best of modeling ... can be wildly inaccurate and needs to be validated using patients having the circumstances in question. ... This won’t be possible until long after the pandemic is completed, and so the model’s accuracy remains unknown.”

That sentiment was echoed by Giampaolo Bianchini, MD, head of the Breast Cancer Group, Department of Medical Oncology, Ospedale San Raffaele, in Milan, Italy.

“Arbitrarily postponing and modifying treatment strategies including surgery, radiation therapy, and medical therapy without properly balancing the risk/benefit ratio may lead to significantly worse cancer-related outcomes, which largely exceed the actual risks for COVID,” he wrote in an email.

“The OncCOVID app is a remarkable attempt to fill the gap between perception and estimation,” he said. The app provides side by side the COVID-19 risk estimation and the consequences of arbitrary deviation from the standard of care, observed Bianchini.

However, he pointed out weaknesses, including the fact that the “data generated in literature are not always of high quality and do not take into consideration relevant characteristics of the disease and treatment benefit. It should for sure be used, but then also interpreted with caution.”

Another Italian group responded more positively.

“In our opinion, it could be a useful tool for clinicians,” wrote colleagues Alessio Cortelinni and Giampiero Porzio, both medical oncologists at San Salvatore Hospital and the University of L’Aquila, in Italy. “This Web app might assist clinicians in balancing the risk/benefit ratio of being treated and/or access to the outpatient cancer center for each kind of patient (both early and advanced stages), in order to make a more tailored counseling,” they wrote in an email. “Importantly, the Web app might help those clinicians who work ‘alone,’ in peripheral centers, without resources, colleagues, and multidisciplinary tumor boards on whom they can rely.”

Bleicher, who was involved in the COVID-19 Breast Cancer Consortium’s recommendations for prioritizing breast cancer treatment, summarized that the app “may end up being close or accurate, but we won’t know except in hindsight.”
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Deciding which cancer patients need immediate treatment and who can safely wait is an uncomfortable assessment for cancer clinicians during the COVID-19 pandemic.

In early April, as the COVID-19 surge was bearing down on New York City, those treatment decisions were “a juggling act every single day,” Jonathan Yang, MD, PhD, a radiation oncologist from New York’s Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, told Medscape Medical News.

Eventually, a glut of guidelines, recommendations, and expert opinions aimed at helping oncologists emerged. The tools help navigate the complicated risk-benefit analysis of their patient’s risk of infection by SARS-CoV-2 and delaying therapy.

Now, a new tool, which appears to be the first of its kind, quantifies that risk-benefit analysis. But its presence immediately raises the question: can it help?
 

Three-Tier Systems Are Not Very Sophisticated

OncCOVID, a free tool that was launched May 26 by the University of Michigan, allows physicians to individualize risk estimates for delaying treatment of up to 25 early- to late-stage cancers. It includes more than 45 patient characteristics, such as age, location, cancer type, cancer stage, treatment plan, underlying medical conditions, and proposed length of delay in care.

Combining these personal details with data from the National Cancer Institute’s SEER (Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results) registry and the National Cancer Database, the Michigan app then estimates a patient’s 5- or 10-year survival with immediate vs delayed treatment and weighs that against their risk for COVID-19 using data from the Johns Hopkins Coronavirus Resource Center.

“We thought, isn’t it better to at least provide some evidence-based quantification, rather than a back-of-the-envelope three-tier system that is just sort of ‘made up’?“ explained one of the developers, Daniel Spratt, MD, associate professor of radiation oncology at Michigan Medicine.

Spratt explained that almost every organization, professional society, and government has created something like a three-tier system. Tier 1 represents urgent cases and patients who need immediate treatment. For tier 2, treatment can be delayed weeks or a month, and with tier 3, it can be delayed until the pandemic is over or it’s deemed safe.

“[This system] sounds good at first glance, but in cancer, we’re always talking about personalized medicine, and it’s mind-blowing that these tier systems are only based on urgency and prognosis,” he told Medscape Medical News.

Spratt offered an example. Consider a patient with a very aggressive brain tumor ― that patient is in tier 1 and should undergo treatment immediately. But will the treatment actually help? And how helpful would the procedure be if, say, the patient is 80 years old and, if infected, would have a 30% to 50% chance of dying from the coronavirus?

“If the model says this guy has a 5% harm and this one has 30% harm, you can use that to help prioritize,” summarized Spratt.

The app can generate risk estimates for patients living anywhere in the world and has already been accessed by people from 37 countries. However, Spratt cautions that it is primarily “designed and calibrated for the US.

“The estimates are based on very large US registries, and though it’s probably somewhat similar across much of the world, there’s probably certain cancer types that are more region specific ― especially something like stomach cancer or certain types of head and neck cancer in parts of Asia, for example,” he said.

Although the app’s COVID-19 data are specific to the county level in the United States, elsewhere in the world, it is only country specific.

“We’re using the best data we have for coronavirus, but everyone knows we still have large data gaps,” he acknowledged.
 

How Accurate?

Asked to comment on the app, Richard Bleicher, MD, leader of the Breast Cancer Program at Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, praised the effort and the goal but had some concerns.

“Several questions arise, most important of which is, How accurate is this, and how has this been validated, if at all ― especially as it is too soon to see the outcomes of patients affected in this pandemic?” he told Medscape Medical News.

“We are imposing delays on a broad scale because of the coronavirus, and we are getting continuously changing data as we test more patients. But both situations are novel and may not be accurately represented by the data being pulled, because the datasets use patients from a few years ago, and confounders in these datasets may not apply to this situation,” Bleicher continued.

Although acknowledging the “value in delineating the risk of dying from cancer vs the risk of dying from the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic,” Bleicher urged caution in using the tool to make individual patient decisions.

“We need to remember that the best of modeling ... can be wildly inaccurate and needs to be validated using patients having the circumstances in question. ... This won’t be possible until long after the pandemic is completed, and so the model’s accuracy remains unknown.”

That sentiment was echoed by Giampaolo Bianchini, MD, head of the Breast Cancer Group, Department of Medical Oncology, Ospedale San Raffaele, in Milan, Italy.

“Arbitrarily postponing and modifying treatment strategies including surgery, radiation therapy, and medical therapy without properly balancing the risk/benefit ratio may lead to significantly worse cancer-related outcomes, which largely exceed the actual risks for COVID,” he wrote in an email.

“The OncCOVID app is a remarkable attempt to fill the gap between perception and estimation,” he said. The app provides side by side the COVID-19 risk estimation and the consequences of arbitrary deviation from the standard of care, observed Bianchini.

However, he pointed out weaknesses, including the fact that the “data generated in literature are not always of high quality and do not take into consideration relevant characteristics of the disease and treatment benefit. It should for sure be used, but then also interpreted with caution.”

Another Italian group responded more positively.

“In our opinion, it could be a useful tool for clinicians,” wrote colleagues Alessio Cortelinni and Giampiero Porzio, both medical oncologists at San Salvatore Hospital and the University of L’Aquila, in Italy. “This Web app might assist clinicians in balancing the risk/benefit ratio of being treated and/or access to the outpatient cancer center for each kind of patient (both early and advanced stages), in order to make a more tailored counseling,” they wrote in an email. “Importantly, the Web app might help those clinicians who work ‘alone,’ in peripheral centers, without resources, colleagues, and multidisciplinary tumor boards on whom they can rely.”

Bleicher, who was involved in the COVID-19 Breast Cancer Consortium’s recommendations for prioritizing breast cancer treatment, summarized that the app “may end up being close or accurate, but we won’t know except in hindsight.”
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Deciding which cancer patients need immediate treatment and who can safely wait is an uncomfortable assessment for cancer clinicians during the COVID-19 pandemic.

In early April, as the COVID-19 surge was bearing down on New York City, those treatment decisions were “a juggling act every single day,” Jonathan Yang, MD, PhD, a radiation oncologist from New York’s Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, told Medscape Medical News.

Eventually, a glut of guidelines, recommendations, and expert opinions aimed at helping oncologists emerged. The tools help navigate the complicated risk-benefit analysis of their patient’s risk of infection by SARS-CoV-2 and delaying therapy.

Now, a new tool, which appears to be the first of its kind, quantifies that risk-benefit analysis. But its presence immediately raises the question: can it help?
 

Three-Tier Systems Are Not Very Sophisticated

OncCOVID, a free tool that was launched May 26 by the University of Michigan, allows physicians to individualize risk estimates for delaying treatment of up to 25 early- to late-stage cancers. It includes more than 45 patient characteristics, such as age, location, cancer type, cancer stage, treatment plan, underlying medical conditions, and proposed length of delay in care.

Combining these personal details with data from the National Cancer Institute’s SEER (Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results) registry and the National Cancer Database, the Michigan app then estimates a patient’s 5- or 10-year survival with immediate vs delayed treatment and weighs that against their risk for COVID-19 using data from the Johns Hopkins Coronavirus Resource Center.

“We thought, isn’t it better to at least provide some evidence-based quantification, rather than a back-of-the-envelope three-tier system that is just sort of ‘made up’?“ explained one of the developers, Daniel Spratt, MD, associate professor of radiation oncology at Michigan Medicine.

Spratt explained that almost every organization, professional society, and government has created something like a three-tier system. Tier 1 represents urgent cases and patients who need immediate treatment. For tier 2, treatment can be delayed weeks or a month, and with tier 3, it can be delayed until the pandemic is over or it’s deemed safe.

“[This system] sounds good at first glance, but in cancer, we’re always talking about personalized medicine, and it’s mind-blowing that these tier systems are only based on urgency and prognosis,” he told Medscape Medical News.

Spratt offered an example. Consider a patient with a very aggressive brain tumor ― that patient is in tier 1 and should undergo treatment immediately. But will the treatment actually help? And how helpful would the procedure be if, say, the patient is 80 years old and, if infected, would have a 30% to 50% chance of dying from the coronavirus?

“If the model says this guy has a 5% harm and this one has 30% harm, you can use that to help prioritize,” summarized Spratt.

The app can generate risk estimates for patients living anywhere in the world and has already been accessed by people from 37 countries. However, Spratt cautions that it is primarily “designed and calibrated for the US.

“The estimates are based on very large US registries, and though it’s probably somewhat similar across much of the world, there’s probably certain cancer types that are more region specific ― especially something like stomach cancer or certain types of head and neck cancer in parts of Asia, for example,” he said.

Although the app’s COVID-19 data are specific to the county level in the United States, elsewhere in the world, it is only country specific.

“We’re using the best data we have for coronavirus, but everyone knows we still have large data gaps,” he acknowledged.
 

How Accurate?

Asked to comment on the app, Richard Bleicher, MD, leader of the Breast Cancer Program at Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, praised the effort and the goal but had some concerns.

“Several questions arise, most important of which is, How accurate is this, and how has this been validated, if at all ― especially as it is too soon to see the outcomes of patients affected in this pandemic?” he told Medscape Medical News.

“We are imposing delays on a broad scale because of the coronavirus, and we are getting continuously changing data as we test more patients. But both situations are novel and may not be accurately represented by the data being pulled, because the datasets use patients from a few years ago, and confounders in these datasets may not apply to this situation,” Bleicher continued.

Although acknowledging the “value in delineating the risk of dying from cancer vs the risk of dying from the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic,” Bleicher urged caution in using the tool to make individual patient decisions.

“We need to remember that the best of modeling ... can be wildly inaccurate and needs to be validated using patients having the circumstances in question. ... This won’t be possible until long after the pandemic is completed, and so the model’s accuracy remains unknown.”

That sentiment was echoed by Giampaolo Bianchini, MD, head of the Breast Cancer Group, Department of Medical Oncology, Ospedale San Raffaele, in Milan, Italy.

“Arbitrarily postponing and modifying treatment strategies including surgery, radiation therapy, and medical therapy without properly balancing the risk/benefit ratio may lead to significantly worse cancer-related outcomes, which largely exceed the actual risks for COVID,” he wrote in an email.

“The OncCOVID app is a remarkable attempt to fill the gap between perception and estimation,” he said. The app provides side by side the COVID-19 risk estimation and the consequences of arbitrary deviation from the standard of care, observed Bianchini.

However, he pointed out weaknesses, including the fact that the “data generated in literature are not always of high quality and do not take into consideration relevant characteristics of the disease and treatment benefit. It should for sure be used, but then also interpreted with caution.”

Another Italian group responded more positively.

“In our opinion, it could be a useful tool for clinicians,” wrote colleagues Alessio Cortelinni and Giampiero Porzio, both medical oncologists at San Salvatore Hospital and the University of L’Aquila, in Italy. “This Web app might assist clinicians in balancing the risk/benefit ratio of being treated and/or access to the outpatient cancer center for each kind of patient (both early and advanced stages), in order to make a more tailored counseling,” they wrote in an email. “Importantly, the Web app might help those clinicians who work ‘alone,’ in peripheral centers, without resources, colleagues, and multidisciplinary tumor boards on whom they can rely.”

Bleicher, who was involved in the COVID-19 Breast Cancer Consortium’s recommendations for prioritizing breast cancer treatment, summarized that the app “may end up being close or accurate, but we won’t know except in hindsight.”
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The risk of melanoma was increased among patients taking biologics for immune-mediated inflammatory diseases, compared with biologic-naive patients on conventional systemic therapy, but the association was not statistically significant in a systematic review and meta-analysis published in JAMA Dermatology.

The studies included in the analysis, however, had limitations, including a lack of those comparing biologic and conventional systemic therapy in psoriasis and inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), according to Shamarke Esse, MRes, of the division of musculoskeletal and dermatological sciences at the University of Manchester (England) and colleagues. “We advocate for more large, well-designed studies of this issue to be performed to help improve certainty” regarding this association, they wrote.

Previous studies that have found an increased risk of melanoma in patients on biologics for psoriasis, rheumatoid arthritis, and IBD have “typically used the general population as the comparator,” they noted. There is a large amount of evidence that has established short-term efficacy and safety of biologics, compared with conventional systemic treatments, but concerns about longer-term cancer risk associated with biologics remains a concern. Moreover, they added, “melanoma is a highly immunogenic skin cancer and therefore of concern to patients treated with TNFIs [tumor necrosis factor inhibitors] because melanoma risk increases with suppression of the immune system and TNF-alpha plays an important role in the immune surveillance of tumors.12,13

In their review, the researchers identified seven cohort studies from MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) databases published between January 1995 and February 2019 that evaluated melanoma risk in about 34,000 patients receiving biologics and 135,370 patients who had never been treated with biologics, and were receiving conventional systemic therapy for psoriasis, RA, or IBD. Of these, four studies were in patients with RA, two studies were in patients with IBD, and a single study was in patients with psoriasis. Six studies examined patients taking TNF inhibitors, but only one of six studies had information on specific TNF inhibitors (adalimumab, etanercept, and infliximab) in patients with RA. One study evaluated abatacept and rituximab in RA patients.

The researchers analyzed the pooled relative risk across all studies. Compared with patients who received conventional systemic therapy, there was a nonsignificant association with risk of melanoma in patients with psoriasis (hazard ratio, 1.57; 95% confidence interval, 0.61-4.09), RA (pooled relative risk, 1.20; 95% CI, 0.83-1.74), and IBD (pRR, 1.20; 95% CI, 0.60-2.40).

Among RA patients who received TNF inhibitors only, there was a slightly elevated nonsignificant risk of melanoma (pRR, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.81-1.43). Patients receiving rituximab had a pRR of 0.73 (95% CI, 0.38-1.39), and patients taking abatacept had a pRR of 1.43 (95% CI, 0.66-3.09), compared with RA patients receiving conventional systemic therapy. When excluding two major studies in the RA subgroup of patients in a sensitivity analysis, pooled risk estimates varied from 0.91 (95% CI, 0.69-1.18) to 1.95 (95% CI, 1.16- 3.30). There were no significant between-study heterogeneity or publication bias among the IBD and RA studies.

Mr. Esse and colleagues acknowledged the small number of IBD and psoriasis studies in the meta-analysis, which could affect pooled risk estimates. “Any future update of our study through the inclusion of newly published studies may produce significantly different pooled risk estimates than those reported in our meta-analysis,” they said. In addition, the use of health insurance databases, lack of risk factors for melanoma, and inconsistent information about treatment duration for patients receiving conventional systemic therapy were also limitations.

“Prospective cohort studies using an active comparator, new-user study design providing detailed information on treatment history, concomitant treatments, biologic and conventional systemic treatment duration, recreational and treatment-related UV exposure, skin color, and date of melanoma diagnosis are required to help improve certainty. These studies would also need to account for key risk factors and the latency period of melanoma,” the researchers said.

Mr. Esse disclosed being funded by a PhD studentship from the Psoriasis Association. One author disclosed receiving personal fees from Janssen, LEO Pharma, Lilly, and Novartis outside the study; another disclosed receiving grants and personal fees from those and several other pharmaceutical companies during the study, and personal fees from several pharmaceutical companies outside of the submitted work; the fourth author had no disclosures.

SOURCE: Esse S et al. JAMA Dermatol. 2020 May 20;e201300.

The risk of melanoma was increased among patients taking biologics for immune-mediated inflammatory diseases, compared with biologic-naive patients on conventional systemic therapy, but the association was not statistically significant in a systematic review and meta-analysis published in JAMA Dermatology.

The studies included in the analysis, however, had limitations, including a lack of those comparing biologic and conventional systemic therapy in psoriasis and inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), according to Shamarke Esse, MRes, of the division of musculoskeletal and dermatological sciences at the University of Manchester (England) and colleagues. “We advocate for more large, well-designed studies of this issue to be performed to help improve certainty” regarding this association, they wrote.

Previous studies that have found an increased risk of melanoma in patients on biologics for psoriasis, rheumatoid arthritis, and IBD have “typically used the general population as the comparator,” they noted. There is a large amount of evidence that has established short-term efficacy and safety of biologics, compared with conventional systemic treatments, but concerns about longer-term cancer risk associated with biologics remains a concern. Moreover, they added, “melanoma is a highly immunogenic skin cancer and therefore of concern to patients treated with TNFIs [tumor necrosis factor inhibitors] because melanoma risk increases with suppression of the immune system and TNF-alpha plays an important role in the immune surveillance of tumors.12,13

In their review, the researchers identified seven cohort studies from MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) databases published between January 1995 and February 2019 that evaluated melanoma risk in about 34,000 patients receiving biologics and 135,370 patients who had never been treated with biologics, and were receiving conventional systemic therapy for psoriasis, RA, or IBD. Of these, four studies were in patients with RA, two studies were in patients with IBD, and a single study was in patients with psoriasis. Six studies examined patients taking TNF inhibitors, but only one of six studies had information on specific TNF inhibitors (adalimumab, etanercept, and infliximab) in patients with RA. One study evaluated abatacept and rituximab in RA patients.

The researchers analyzed the pooled relative risk across all studies. Compared with patients who received conventional systemic therapy, there was a nonsignificant association with risk of melanoma in patients with psoriasis (hazard ratio, 1.57; 95% confidence interval, 0.61-4.09), RA (pooled relative risk, 1.20; 95% CI, 0.83-1.74), and IBD (pRR, 1.20; 95% CI, 0.60-2.40).

Among RA patients who received TNF inhibitors only, there was a slightly elevated nonsignificant risk of melanoma (pRR, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.81-1.43). Patients receiving rituximab had a pRR of 0.73 (95% CI, 0.38-1.39), and patients taking abatacept had a pRR of 1.43 (95% CI, 0.66-3.09), compared with RA patients receiving conventional systemic therapy. When excluding two major studies in the RA subgroup of patients in a sensitivity analysis, pooled risk estimates varied from 0.91 (95% CI, 0.69-1.18) to 1.95 (95% CI, 1.16- 3.30). There were no significant between-study heterogeneity or publication bias among the IBD and RA studies.

Mr. Esse and colleagues acknowledged the small number of IBD and psoriasis studies in the meta-analysis, which could affect pooled risk estimates. “Any future update of our study through the inclusion of newly published studies may produce significantly different pooled risk estimates than those reported in our meta-analysis,” they said. In addition, the use of health insurance databases, lack of risk factors for melanoma, and inconsistent information about treatment duration for patients receiving conventional systemic therapy were also limitations.

“Prospective cohort studies using an active comparator, new-user study design providing detailed information on treatment history, concomitant treatments, biologic and conventional systemic treatment duration, recreational and treatment-related UV exposure, skin color, and date of melanoma diagnosis are required to help improve certainty. These studies would also need to account for key risk factors and the latency period of melanoma,” the researchers said.

Mr. Esse disclosed being funded by a PhD studentship from the Psoriasis Association. One author disclosed receiving personal fees from Janssen, LEO Pharma, Lilly, and Novartis outside the study; another disclosed receiving grants and personal fees from those and several other pharmaceutical companies during the study, and personal fees from several pharmaceutical companies outside of the submitted work; the fourth author had no disclosures.

SOURCE: Esse S et al. JAMA Dermatol. 2020 May 20;e201300.

The risk of melanoma was increased among patients taking biologics for immune-mediated inflammatory diseases, compared with biologic-naive patients on conventional systemic therapy, but the association was not statistically significant in a systematic review and meta-analysis published in JAMA Dermatology.

The studies included in the analysis, however, had limitations, including a lack of those comparing biologic and conventional systemic therapy in psoriasis and inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), according to Shamarke Esse, MRes, of the division of musculoskeletal and dermatological sciences at the University of Manchester (England) and colleagues. “We advocate for more large, well-designed studies of this issue to be performed to help improve certainty” regarding this association, they wrote.

Previous studies that have found an increased risk of melanoma in patients on biologics for psoriasis, rheumatoid arthritis, and IBD have “typically used the general population as the comparator,” they noted. There is a large amount of evidence that has established short-term efficacy and safety of biologics, compared with conventional systemic treatments, but concerns about longer-term cancer risk associated with biologics remains a concern. Moreover, they added, “melanoma is a highly immunogenic skin cancer and therefore of concern to patients treated with TNFIs [tumor necrosis factor inhibitors] because melanoma risk increases with suppression of the immune system and TNF-alpha plays an important role in the immune surveillance of tumors.12,13

In their review, the researchers identified seven cohort studies from MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) databases published between January 1995 and February 2019 that evaluated melanoma risk in about 34,000 patients receiving biologics and 135,370 patients who had never been treated with biologics, and were receiving conventional systemic therapy for psoriasis, RA, or IBD. Of these, four studies were in patients with RA, two studies were in patients with IBD, and a single study was in patients with psoriasis. Six studies examined patients taking TNF inhibitors, but only one of six studies had information on specific TNF inhibitors (adalimumab, etanercept, and infliximab) in patients with RA. One study evaluated abatacept and rituximab in RA patients.

The researchers analyzed the pooled relative risk across all studies. Compared with patients who received conventional systemic therapy, there was a nonsignificant association with risk of melanoma in patients with psoriasis (hazard ratio, 1.57; 95% confidence interval, 0.61-4.09), RA (pooled relative risk, 1.20; 95% CI, 0.83-1.74), and IBD (pRR, 1.20; 95% CI, 0.60-2.40).

Among RA patients who received TNF inhibitors only, there was a slightly elevated nonsignificant risk of melanoma (pRR, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.81-1.43). Patients receiving rituximab had a pRR of 0.73 (95% CI, 0.38-1.39), and patients taking abatacept had a pRR of 1.43 (95% CI, 0.66-3.09), compared with RA patients receiving conventional systemic therapy. When excluding two major studies in the RA subgroup of patients in a sensitivity analysis, pooled risk estimates varied from 0.91 (95% CI, 0.69-1.18) to 1.95 (95% CI, 1.16- 3.30). There were no significant between-study heterogeneity or publication bias among the IBD and RA studies.

Mr. Esse and colleagues acknowledged the small number of IBD and psoriasis studies in the meta-analysis, which could affect pooled risk estimates. “Any future update of our study through the inclusion of newly published studies may produce significantly different pooled risk estimates than those reported in our meta-analysis,” they said. In addition, the use of health insurance databases, lack of risk factors for melanoma, and inconsistent information about treatment duration for patients receiving conventional systemic therapy were also limitations.

“Prospective cohort studies using an active comparator, new-user study design providing detailed information on treatment history, concomitant treatments, biologic and conventional systemic treatment duration, recreational and treatment-related UV exposure, skin color, and date of melanoma diagnosis are required to help improve certainty. These studies would also need to account for key risk factors and the latency period of melanoma,” the researchers said.

Mr. Esse disclosed being funded by a PhD studentship from the Psoriasis Association. One author disclosed receiving personal fees from Janssen, LEO Pharma, Lilly, and Novartis outside the study; another disclosed receiving grants and personal fees from those and several other pharmaceutical companies during the study, and personal fees from several pharmaceutical companies outside of the submitted work; the fourth author had no disclosures.

SOURCE: Esse S et al. JAMA Dermatol. 2020 May 20;e201300.

A disease risk index is now available for pediatric patients with acute myeloid leukemia or acute lymphoblastic leukemia who undergo allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation.

The model, which was developed and validated using data from more than 2,000 patients, stratifies probabilities of leukemia-free survival (LFS) into four risk groups for acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and three risk groups for acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL), reported lead author Muna Qayed, MD, of Emory University, Atlanta, who presented findings as part of the American Society of Clinical Oncology virtual scientific program.

“The outcome of stem cell transplantation for hematologic malignancy is influenced by disease type, cytogenetics, and disease status at transplantation,” Dr. Qayed said. “In adults, these attributes were used to develop the disease risk index, or DRI, that can stratify patients for overall survival for purposes such as prognostication or clinical trial entry.”

But no such model exists for pediatric patients, Dr. Qayed said, noting that the adult DRI was found to be inaccurate when applied to children.

“[T]he [adult] DRI did not differentiate [pediatric] patients by overall survival,” Dr. Qayed said. “Therefore, knowing that pediatric AML and ALL differ biologically from adult leukemia, and further, treatment strategies differ between adults and children, we aimed to develop a pediatric-specific DRI.”

This involved analysis of data from 1,135 children with AML and 1,228 children with ALL who underwent transplantation between 2008 and 2017. All patients had myeloablative conditioning, and 75% received an unrelated donor graft. Haploidentical transplants were excluded because of small sample size.

Analyses were conducted in AML and ALL cohorts, with patients in each population randomized to training and validation subgroups in a 1:1 ratio. The primary outcome was LFS. Cox regression models were used to identify significant characteristics, which were then integrated into a prognostic scoring system for the training groups. These scoring systems were then tested in the validation subgroups. Maximum likelihood was used to identify age cutoffs, which were 3 years for AML and 2 years for ALL.

In both cohorts, disease status at transplantation was characterized by complete remission and minimal residual disease status.

In the AML cohort, approximately one-third of patients were in first complete remission with negative minimal residual disease. Risk was stratified into four groups, including good, intermediate, high, and very high risk, with respective 5-year LFS probabilities of 81%, 56%, 44%, and 21%. Independent predictors of poorer outcome included unfavorable cytogenetics, first or second complete remission with minimal residual disease positivity, relapse at transplantation, and age less than 3 years.

In the ALL cohort, risk was stratified into three risk tiers: good, intermediate, and high, with 5-year LFS probabilities of 68%, 50%, and 15%, respectively. Independent predictors of poorer outcome included age less than 2 years, relapse at transplantation, and second complete remission regardless of minimal residual disease status.

The models for each disease also predicted overall survival.

For AML, hazard ratios, ascending from good to very-high-risk tiers, were 1.00, 3.52, 4.67, and 8.62. For ALL risk tiers, ascending hazard ratios were 1.00, 2.16, and 3.86.

“In summary, the pediatric disease risk index validated for leukemia-free survival and overall survival successfully stratifies children with acute leukemia at the time of transplantation,” Dr. Qayed said.

She concluded her presentation by highlighting the practicality and relevance of the new scoring system.

“The components included in the scoring system used information that is readily available pretransplantation, lending support to the deliverability of the prognostic scoring system,” Dr. Qayed said. “It can further be used for improved interpretation of multicenter data and in clinical trials for risk stratification.”

In a virtual presentation, invited discussant Nirali N. Shah, MD, of the National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Md., first emphasized the clinical importance of an accurate disease risk index for pediatric patients.

“When going into transplant, the No. 1 question that all parents will ask is: ‘Will my child be cured?’ ” she said.

According to Dr. Shah, the risk model developed by Dr. Qayed and colleagues is built on a strong foundation, including adequate sample size, comprehensive disease characterization, exclusion of patients that did not undergo myeloablative conditioning, and use of minimal residual disease status.

Still, more work is needed, Dr. Shah said.

“This DRI will need to be prospectively tested and compared to other established risk factors. For instance, minimal residual disease alone can be further stratified and has a significant role in establishing risk for posttransplant relapse. And the development of acute graft-versus-host disease also plays an important role in posttransplant relapse.”

Dr. Shah went on to outline potential areas of improvement.

“[F]uture directions for this study could include incorporation of early posttransplant events like graft-versus-host disease, potential stratification of the minimal residual disease results among those patients in complete remission, and potential application of this DRI to the adolescent and young adult population, which may have slight variation even from the adult DRI.”The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. The investigators disclosed no conflicts of interest

SOURCE: Qayed M et al. ASCO 2020, Abstract 7503.

A disease risk index is now available for pediatric patients with acute myeloid leukemia or acute lymphoblastic leukemia who undergo allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation.

The model, which was developed and validated using data from more than 2,000 patients, stratifies probabilities of leukemia-free survival (LFS) into four risk groups for acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and three risk groups for acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL), reported lead author Muna Qayed, MD, of Emory University, Atlanta, who presented findings as part of the American Society of Clinical Oncology virtual scientific program.

“The outcome of stem cell transplantation for hematologic malignancy is influenced by disease type, cytogenetics, and disease status at transplantation,” Dr. Qayed said. “In adults, these attributes were used to develop the disease risk index, or DRI, that can stratify patients for overall survival for purposes such as prognostication or clinical trial entry.”

But no such model exists for pediatric patients, Dr. Qayed said, noting that the adult DRI was found to be inaccurate when applied to children.

“[T]he [adult] DRI did not differentiate [pediatric] patients by overall survival,” Dr. Qayed said. “Therefore, knowing that pediatric AML and ALL differ biologically from adult leukemia, and further, treatment strategies differ between adults and children, we aimed to develop a pediatric-specific DRI.”

This involved analysis of data from 1,135 children with AML and 1,228 children with ALL who underwent transplantation between 2008 and 2017. All patients had myeloablative conditioning, and 75% received an unrelated donor graft. Haploidentical transplants were excluded because of small sample size.

Analyses were conducted in AML and ALL cohorts, with patients in each population randomized to training and validation subgroups in a 1:1 ratio. The primary outcome was LFS. Cox regression models were used to identify significant characteristics, which were then integrated into a prognostic scoring system for the training groups. These scoring systems were then tested in the validation subgroups. Maximum likelihood was used to identify age cutoffs, which were 3 years for AML and 2 years for ALL.

In both cohorts, disease status at transplantation was characterized by complete remission and minimal residual disease status.

In the AML cohort, approximately one-third of patients were in first complete remission with negative minimal residual disease. Risk was stratified into four groups, including good, intermediate, high, and very high risk, with respective 5-year LFS probabilities of 81%, 56%, 44%, and 21%. Independent predictors of poorer outcome included unfavorable cytogenetics, first or second complete remission with minimal residual disease positivity, relapse at transplantation, and age less than 3 years.

In the ALL cohort, risk was stratified into three risk tiers: good, intermediate, and high, with 5-year LFS probabilities of 68%, 50%, and 15%, respectively. Independent predictors of poorer outcome included age less than 2 years, relapse at transplantation, and second complete remission regardless of minimal residual disease status.

The models for each disease also predicted overall survival.

For AML, hazard ratios, ascending from good to very-high-risk tiers, were 1.00, 3.52, 4.67, and 8.62. For ALL risk tiers, ascending hazard ratios were 1.00, 2.16, and 3.86.

“In summary, the pediatric disease risk index validated for leukemia-free survival and overall survival successfully stratifies children with acute leukemia at the time of transplantation,” Dr. Qayed said.

She concluded her presentation by highlighting the practicality and relevance of the new scoring system.

“The components included in the scoring system used information that is readily available pretransplantation, lending support to the deliverability of the prognostic scoring system,” Dr. Qayed said. “It can further be used for improved interpretation of multicenter data and in clinical trials for risk stratification.”

In a virtual presentation, invited discussant Nirali N. Shah, MD, of the National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Md., first emphasized the clinical importance of an accurate disease risk index for pediatric patients.

“When going into transplant, the No. 1 question that all parents will ask is: ‘Will my child be cured?’ ” she said.

According to Dr. Shah, the risk model developed by Dr. Qayed and colleagues is built on a strong foundation, including adequate sample size, comprehensive disease characterization, exclusion of patients that did not undergo myeloablative conditioning, and use of minimal residual disease status.

Still, more work is needed, Dr. Shah said.

“This DRI will need to be prospectively tested and compared to other established risk factors. For instance, minimal residual disease alone can be further stratified and has a significant role in establishing risk for posttransplant relapse. And the development of acute graft-versus-host disease also plays an important role in posttransplant relapse.”

Dr. Shah went on to outline potential areas of improvement.

“[F]uture directions for this study could include incorporation of early posttransplant events like graft-versus-host disease, potential stratification of the minimal residual disease results among those patients in complete remission, and potential application of this DRI to the adolescent and young adult population, which may have slight variation even from the adult DRI.”The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. The investigators disclosed no conflicts of interest

SOURCE: Qayed M et al. ASCO 2020, Abstract 7503.

A disease risk index is now available for pediatric patients with acute myeloid leukemia or acute lymphoblastic leukemia who undergo allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation.

The model, which was developed and validated using data from more than 2,000 patients, stratifies probabilities of leukemia-free survival (LFS) into four risk groups for acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and three risk groups for acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL), reported lead author Muna Qayed, MD, of Emory University, Atlanta, who presented findings as part of the American Society of Clinical Oncology virtual scientific program.

“The outcome of stem cell transplantation for hematologic malignancy is influenced by disease type, cytogenetics, and disease status at transplantation,” Dr. Qayed said. “In adults, these attributes were used to develop the disease risk index, or DRI, that can stratify patients for overall survival for purposes such as prognostication or clinical trial entry.”

But no such model exists for pediatric patients, Dr. Qayed said, noting that the adult DRI was found to be inaccurate when applied to children.

“[T]he [adult] DRI did not differentiate [pediatric] patients by overall survival,” Dr. Qayed said. “Therefore, knowing that pediatric AML and ALL differ biologically from adult leukemia, and further, treatment strategies differ between adults and children, we aimed to develop a pediatric-specific DRI.”

This involved analysis of data from 1,135 children with AML and 1,228 children with ALL who underwent transplantation between 2008 and 2017. All patients had myeloablative conditioning, and 75% received an unrelated donor graft. Haploidentical transplants were excluded because of small sample size.

Analyses were conducted in AML and ALL cohorts, with patients in each population randomized to training and validation subgroups in a 1:1 ratio. The primary outcome was LFS. Cox regression models were used to identify significant characteristics, which were then integrated into a prognostic scoring system for the training groups. These scoring systems were then tested in the validation subgroups. Maximum likelihood was used to identify age cutoffs, which were 3 years for AML and 2 years for ALL.

In both cohorts, disease status at transplantation was characterized by complete remission and minimal residual disease status.

In the AML cohort, approximately one-third of patients were in first complete remission with negative minimal residual disease. Risk was stratified into four groups, including good, intermediate, high, and very high risk, with respective 5-year LFS probabilities of 81%, 56%, 44%, and 21%. Independent predictors of poorer outcome included unfavorable cytogenetics, first or second complete remission with minimal residual disease positivity, relapse at transplantation, and age less than 3 years.

In the ALL cohort, risk was stratified into three risk tiers: good, intermediate, and high, with 5-year LFS probabilities of 68%, 50%, and 15%, respectively. Independent predictors of poorer outcome included age less than 2 years, relapse at transplantation, and second complete remission regardless of minimal residual disease status.

The models for each disease also predicted overall survival.

For AML, hazard ratios, ascending from good to very-high-risk tiers, were 1.00, 3.52, 4.67, and 8.62. For ALL risk tiers, ascending hazard ratios were 1.00, 2.16, and 3.86.

“In summary, the pediatric disease risk index validated for leukemia-free survival and overall survival successfully stratifies children with acute leukemia at the time of transplantation,” Dr. Qayed said.

She concluded her presentation by highlighting the practicality and relevance of the new scoring system.

“The components included in the scoring system used information that is readily available pretransplantation, lending support to the deliverability of the prognostic scoring system,” Dr. Qayed said. “It can further be used for improved interpretation of multicenter data and in clinical trials for risk stratification.”

In a virtual presentation, invited discussant Nirali N. Shah, MD, of the National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Md., first emphasized the clinical importance of an accurate disease risk index for pediatric patients.

“When going into transplant, the No. 1 question that all parents will ask is: ‘Will my child be cured?’ ” she said.

According to Dr. Shah, the risk model developed by Dr. Qayed and colleagues is built on a strong foundation, including adequate sample size, comprehensive disease characterization, exclusion of patients that did not undergo myeloablative conditioning, and use of minimal residual disease status.

Still, more work is needed, Dr. Shah said.

“This DRI will need to be prospectively tested and compared to other established risk factors. For instance, minimal residual disease alone can be further stratified and has a significant role in establishing risk for posttransplant relapse. And the development of acute graft-versus-host disease also plays an important role in posttransplant relapse.”

Dr. Shah went on to outline potential areas of improvement.

“[F]uture directions for this study could include incorporation of early posttransplant events like graft-versus-host disease, potential stratification of the minimal residual disease results among those patients in complete remission, and potential application of this DRI to the adolescent and young adult population, which may have slight variation even from the adult DRI.”The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. The investigators disclosed no conflicts of interest

SOURCE: Qayed M et al. ASCO 2020, Abstract 7503.

Lillie Shockney, RN, MAS, a two-time breast cancer survivor and adjunct professor at Johns Hopkins School of Nursing in Baltimore, Maryland, mourns the many losses that her patients with advanced cancer now face in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic. But in the void of the usual support networks and treatment plans, she sees the resurgence of something that has recently been crowded out: hospice.

The pandemic has forced patients and their physicians to reassess the risk/benefit balance of continuing or embarking on yet another cancer treatment.

“It’s one of the pearls that we will get out of this nightmare,” said Ms. Shockney, who recently retired as administrative director of the cancer survivorship programs at the Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center.

“Physicians have been taught to treat the disease – so as long as there’s a treatment they give another treatment,” she told Medscape Medical News during a Zoom call from her home. “But for some patients with advanced disease, those treatments were making them very sick, so they were trading longevity over quality of life.”

Of course, longevity has never been a guarantee with cancer treatment, and even less so now, with the risk of COVID-19.

“This is going to bring them to some hard discussions,” says Brenda Nevidjon, RN, MSN, chief executive officer at the Oncology Nursing Society.

“We’ve known for a long time that there are patients who are on third- and fourth-round treatment options that have very little evidence of prolonging life or quality of life,” she told Medscape Medical News. “Do we bring these people out of their home to a setting where there could be a fair number of COVID-positive patients? Do we expose them to that?”

Across the world, these dilemmas are pushing cancer specialists to initiate discussions of hospice sooner with patients who have advanced disease, and with more clarity than before.

One of the reasons such conversations have often been avoided is that the concept of hospice is generally misunderstood, said Ms. Shockney.

“Patients think ‘you’re giving up on me, you’ve abandoned me’, but hospice is all about preserving the remainder of their quality of life and letting them have time with family and time to fulfill those elements of experiencing a good and peaceful death,” she said.

Indeed, hospice is “a benefit meant for somebody with at least a 6-month horizon,” agrees Ms. Nevidjon. Yet the average length of hospice in the United States is just 5 days. “It’s at the very, very end, and yet for some of these patients the 6 months they could get in hospice might be a better quality of life than the 4 months on another whole plan of chemotherapy. I can’t imagine that on the backside of this pandemic we will not have learned and we won’t start to change practices around initiating more of these conversations.”
 

Silver lining of this pandemic?

It’s too early into the pandemic to have hard data on whether hospice uptake has increased, but “it’s encouraging to hear that hospice is being discussed and offered sooner as an alternative to that third- or fourth-round chemo,” said Lori Bishop, MHA, RN, vice president of palliative and advanced care at the National Hospice and Palliative Care Organization.

“I agree that improving informed-decision discussions and timely access to hospice is a silver lining of the pandemic,” she told Medscape Medical News.

But she points out that today’s hospice looks quite different than it did before the pandemic, with the immediate and very obvious difference being telehealth, which was not widely utilized previously.

In March, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services expanded telehealth options for hospice providers, something that Ms. Bishop and other hospice providers hope will remain in place after the pandemic passes.

“Telehealth visits are offered to replace some in-home visits both to minimize risk of exposure to COVID-19 and reduce the drain on personal protective equipment,” Bishop explained.

“In-patient hospice programs are also finding unique ways to provide support and connect patients to their loved ones: visitors are allowed but limited to one or two. Music and pet therapy are being provided through the window or virtually and devices such as iPads are being used to help patients connect with loved ones,” she said.

Telehealth links patients out of loneliness, but the one thing it cannot do is provide the comfort of touch – an important part of any hospice program.

“Hand-holding ... I miss that a lot,” says Ms. Shockney, her eyes filling with tears. “When you take somebody’s hand, you don’t even have to speak; that connection, and eye contact, is all you need to help that person emotionally heal.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Lillie Shockney, RN, MAS, a two-time breast cancer survivor and adjunct professor at Johns Hopkins School of Nursing in Baltimore, Maryland, mourns the many losses that her patients with advanced cancer now face in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic. But in the void of the usual support networks and treatment plans, she sees the resurgence of something that has recently been crowded out: hospice.

The pandemic has forced patients and their physicians to reassess the risk/benefit balance of continuing or embarking on yet another cancer treatment.

“It’s one of the pearls that we will get out of this nightmare,” said Ms. Shockney, who recently retired as administrative director of the cancer survivorship programs at the Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center.

“Physicians have been taught to treat the disease – so as long as there’s a treatment they give another treatment,” she told Medscape Medical News during a Zoom call from her home. “But for some patients with advanced disease, those treatments were making them very sick, so they were trading longevity over quality of life.”

Of course, longevity has never been a guarantee with cancer treatment, and even less so now, with the risk of COVID-19.

“This is going to bring them to some hard discussions,” says Brenda Nevidjon, RN, MSN, chief executive officer at the Oncology Nursing Society.

“We’ve known for a long time that there are patients who are on third- and fourth-round treatment options that have very little evidence of prolonging life or quality of life,” she told Medscape Medical News. “Do we bring these people out of their home to a setting where there could be a fair number of COVID-positive patients? Do we expose them to that?”

Across the world, these dilemmas are pushing cancer specialists to initiate discussions of hospice sooner with patients who have advanced disease, and with more clarity than before.

One of the reasons such conversations have often been avoided is that the concept of hospice is generally misunderstood, said Ms. Shockney.

“Patients think ‘you’re giving up on me, you’ve abandoned me’, but hospice is all about preserving the remainder of their quality of life and letting them have time with family and time to fulfill those elements of experiencing a good and peaceful death,” she said.

Indeed, hospice is “a benefit meant for somebody with at least a 6-month horizon,” agrees Ms. Nevidjon. Yet the average length of hospice in the United States is just 5 days. “It’s at the very, very end, and yet for some of these patients the 6 months they could get in hospice might be a better quality of life than the 4 months on another whole plan of chemotherapy. I can’t imagine that on the backside of this pandemic we will not have learned and we won’t start to change practices around initiating more of these conversations.”
 

Silver lining of this pandemic?

It’s too early into the pandemic to have hard data on whether hospice uptake has increased, but “it’s encouraging to hear that hospice is being discussed and offered sooner as an alternative to that third- or fourth-round chemo,” said Lori Bishop, MHA, RN, vice president of palliative and advanced care at the National Hospice and Palliative Care Organization.

“I agree that improving informed-decision discussions and timely access to hospice is a silver lining of the pandemic,” she told Medscape Medical News.

But she points out that today’s hospice looks quite different than it did before the pandemic, with the immediate and very obvious difference being telehealth, which was not widely utilized previously.

In March, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services expanded telehealth options for hospice providers, something that Ms. Bishop and other hospice providers hope will remain in place after the pandemic passes.

“Telehealth visits are offered to replace some in-home visits both to minimize risk of exposure to COVID-19 and reduce the drain on personal protective equipment,” Bishop explained.

“In-patient hospice programs are also finding unique ways to provide support and connect patients to their loved ones: visitors are allowed but limited to one or two. Music and pet therapy are being provided through the window or virtually and devices such as iPads are being used to help patients connect with loved ones,” she said.

Telehealth links patients out of loneliness, but the one thing it cannot do is provide the comfort of touch – an important part of any hospice program.

“Hand-holding ... I miss that a lot,” says Ms. Shockney, her eyes filling with tears. “When you take somebody’s hand, you don’t even have to speak; that connection, and eye contact, is all you need to help that person emotionally heal.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Lillie Shockney, RN, MAS, a two-time breast cancer survivor and adjunct professor at Johns Hopkins School of Nursing in Baltimore, Maryland, mourns the many losses that her patients with advanced cancer now face in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic. But in the void of the usual support networks and treatment plans, she sees the resurgence of something that has recently been crowded out: hospice.

The pandemic has forced patients and their physicians to reassess the risk/benefit balance of continuing or embarking on yet another cancer treatment.

“It’s one of the pearls that we will get out of this nightmare,” said Ms. Shockney, who recently retired as administrative director of the cancer survivorship programs at the Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center.

“Physicians have been taught to treat the disease – so as long as there’s a treatment they give another treatment,” she told Medscape Medical News during a Zoom call from her home. “But for some patients with advanced disease, those treatments were making them very sick, so they were trading longevity over quality of life.”

Of course, longevity has never been a guarantee with cancer treatment, and even less so now, with the risk of COVID-19.

“This is going to bring them to some hard discussions,” says Brenda Nevidjon, RN, MSN, chief executive officer at the Oncology Nursing Society.

“We’ve known for a long time that there are patients who are on third- and fourth-round treatment options that have very little evidence of prolonging life or quality of life,” she told Medscape Medical News. “Do we bring these people out of their home to a setting where there could be a fair number of COVID-positive patients? Do we expose them to that?”

Across the world, these dilemmas are pushing cancer specialists to initiate discussions of hospice sooner with patients who have advanced disease, and with more clarity than before.

One of the reasons such conversations have often been avoided is that the concept of hospice is generally misunderstood, said Ms. Shockney.

“Patients think ‘you’re giving up on me, you’ve abandoned me’, but hospice is all about preserving the remainder of their quality of life and letting them have time with family and time to fulfill those elements of experiencing a good and peaceful death,” she said.

Indeed, hospice is “a benefit meant for somebody with at least a 6-month horizon,” agrees Ms. Nevidjon. Yet the average length of hospice in the United States is just 5 days. “It’s at the very, very end, and yet for some of these patients the 6 months they could get in hospice might be a better quality of life than the 4 months on another whole plan of chemotherapy. I can’t imagine that on the backside of this pandemic we will not have learned and we won’t start to change practices around initiating more of these conversations.”
 

Silver lining of this pandemic?

It’s too early into the pandemic to have hard data on whether hospice uptake has increased, but “it’s encouraging to hear that hospice is being discussed and offered sooner as an alternative to that third- or fourth-round chemo,” said Lori Bishop, MHA, RN, vice president of palliative and advanced care at the National Hospice and Palliative Care Organization.

“I agree that improving informed-decision discussions and timely access to hospice is a silver lining of the pandemic,” she told Medscape Medical News.

But she points out that today’s hospice looks quite different than it did before the pandemic, with the immediate and very obvious difference being telehealth, which was not widely utilized previously.

In March, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services expanded telehealth options for hospice providers, something that Ms. Bishop and other hospice providers hope will remain in place after the pandemic passes.

“Telehealth visits are offered to replace some in-home visits both to minimize risk of exposure to COVID-19 and reduce the drain on personal protective equipment,” Bishop explained.

“In-patient hospice programs are also finding unique ways to provide support and connect patients to their loved ones: visitors are allowed but limited to one or two. Music and pet therapy are being provided through the window or virtually and devices such as iPads are being used to help patients connect with loved ones,” she said.

Telehealth links patients out of loneliness, but the one thing it cannot do is provide the comfort of touch – an important part of any hospice program.

“Hand-holding ... I miss that a lot,” says Ms. Shockney, her eyes filling with tears. “When you take somebody’s hand, you don’t even have to speak; that connection, and eye contact, is all you need to help that person emotionally heal.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Adding durvalumab to first-line pemetrexed and cisplatin improved survival in patients with unresectable malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) in a phase 2 trial, compared with historical controls who received only pemetrexed and cisplatin.

The median overall survival was 20.4 months in patients who received durvalumab plus pemetrexed-cisplatin. This is significantly longer than the median overall survival of 12.1 months (P = .0014) observed with pemetrexed-cisplatin in a prior phase 3 study (J Clin Oncol. 2003 Jul 15;21[14]:2636-44).

The new phase 2 results are “promising,” said lead investigator Patrick Forde, MBBCh, director of the thoracic cancer clinical research program at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore.

He presented the results as part of the American Society of Clinical Oncology virtual scientific program.

Dr. Forde noted that a phase 3 trial directly comparing pemetrexed-cisplatin plus durvalumab to pemetrexed-cisplatin will begin recruiting this year. The trial is a collaboration between U.S. investigators and Australian researchers who reported their own phase 2 results with durvalumab plus pemetrexed-cisplatin in 2018 (J Thorac Oncol. 2018 Oct;13[10]:S338-339).
 

Study details

Dr. Forde’s phase 2 study enrolled 55 patients with treatment-naive, unresectable MPM. Their median age was 68 years (range, 35-83 years), and 45 (82%) were men. All had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-1.

Epithelioid mesothelioma was the histologic subtype in three-quarters of patients. “It was a fairly typical mesothelioma population,” Dr. Forde said.

The patients received durvalumab at 1,120 mg plus pemetrexed at 500 mg/m² and cisplatin at 75 mg/m² every 3 weeks for up to six cycles. Carboplatin was substituted when cisplatin was contraindicated or patients developed toxicities.

All but one patient had stable or responding disease on radiography and went on to durvalumab maintenance, also given at 1,120 mg every 3 weeks, for up to 1 year from study entry.
 

Results

Dr. Forde said this study had 90% power to detect a 58% improvement in median overall survival, from the 12.1 months seen in historical controls to 19 months, which was the goal of this study.

It was a positive study, he said, as the median overall survival was 20.4 months (P = .0014).

The overall survival rate was 87.2% at 6 months, 70.4% at 12 months, and 44.2% at 24 months. The progression-free survival rate was 69.1% at 6 months, 16.4% at 12 months, and 10.9% at 24 months.

The overall response rate was 56.4%, which comprised 31 partial responses. Forty percent of patients (n = 22) had stable disease. One patient had progressive disease, and one was not evaluable (1.8% each).

To help with future patient selection, the researchers looked for baseline biomarkers that predicted response. Tumor PD-L1 expression, tumor mutation burden, and other potential candidates haven’t worked out so far, but the work continues, Dr. Forde said.

He noted that many of the adverse events in this trial are those typically seen with platinum-based chemotherapy.

Grade 3/4 treatment-emergent adverse events included anemia (n = 14), fatigue (n = 4), decreased appetite (n = 1), and hypomagnesemia (n = 1).

The most common grade 1/2 adverse events of special interest were hypothyroidism (n = 7), rash (n = 5), pruritus (n = 3), AST elevation (n = 3), and hyperthyroidism (n = 3).
 

Putting the results in context

Given the role of inflammation in MPM, durvalumab is among several immunotherapies under investigation for the disease.

A phase 3 French trial showed MPM patients had a median overall survival of 18.8 months with pemetrexed-cisplatin plus bevacizumab versus 16.1 months with pemetrexed-cisplatin only (Lancet. 2016 Apr 2;387[10026]:1405-1414).

The higher overall survival in the French study’s pemetrexed-cisplatin arm, compared with the 2003 trial results, is likely due to the use of modern second-line options, said Marjorie Zauderer, MD, codirector of the mesothelioma program at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, who was the discussant for Dr. Forde’s presentation.

“I think the improvement in overall survival presented by Dr. Forde is potentially clinically meaningful,” she said, but it was “well within the 95% confidence interval” of the bevacizumab trial. Even so, “I look forward” to the phase 3 results, she said.

Dr. Zauderer also pointed out an April press release from Bristol Myers Squibb that reported improved survival over pemetrexed-cisplatin with two of the company’s immunotherapies, nivolumab and ipilimumab, not as additions but as replacement first-line therapy. However, the randomized trial data haven’t been released yet. “We are all eager to evaluate this option further,” she said.

AstraZeneca, maker of durvalumab, funded the current study. Dr. Forde is an adviser for the company and reported research funding. Dr. Zauderer reported a relationship with Roche, which markets bevacizumab through its subsidiary, Genentech. She also disclosed research funding from Bristol Myers Squibb.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Forde PM et al. ASCO 2020, Abstract 9003.

Adding durvalumab to first-line pemetrexed and cisplatin improved survival in patients with unresectable malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) in a phase 2 trial, compared with historical controls who received only pemetrexed and cisplatin.

The median overall survival was 20.4 months in patients who received durvalumab plus pemetrexed-cisplatin. This is significantly longer than the median overall survival of 12.1 months (P = .0014) observed with pemetrexed-cisplatin in a prior phase 3 study (J Clin Oncol. 2003 Jul 15;21[14]:2636-44).

The new phase 2 results are “promising,” said lead investigator Patrick Forde, MBBCh, director of the thoracic cancer clinical research program at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore.

He presented the results as part of the American Society of Clinical Oncology virtual scientific program.

Dr. Forde noted that a phase 3 trial directly comparing pemetrexed-cisplatin plus durvalumab to pemetrexed-cisplatin will begin recruiting this year. The trial is a collaboration between U.S. investigators and Australian researchers who reported their own phase 2 results with durvalumab plus pemetrexed-cisplatin in 2018 (J Thorac Oncol. 2018 Oct;13[10]:S338-339).
 

Study details

Dr. Forde’s phase 2 study enrolled 55 patients with treatment-naive, unresectable MPM. Their median age was 68 years (range, 35-83 years), and 45 (82%) were men. All had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-1.

Epithelioid mesothelioma was the histologic subtype in three-quarters of patients. “It was a fairly typical mesothelioma population,” Dr. Forde said.

The patients received durvalumab at 1,120 mg plus pemetrexed at 500 mg/m² and cisplatin at 75 mg/m² every 3 weeks for up to six cycles. Carboplatin was substituted when cisplatin was contraindicated or patients developed toxicities.

All but one patient had stable or responding disease on radiography and went on to durvalumab maintenance, also given at 1,120 mg every 3 weeks, for up to 1 year from study entry.
 

Results

Dr. Forde said this study had 90% power to detect a 58% improvement in median overall survival, from the 12.1 months seen in historical controls to 19 months, which was the goal of this study.

It was a positive study, he said, as the median overall survival was 20.4 months (P = .0014).

The overall survival rate was 87.2% at 6 months, 70.4% at 12 months, and 44.2% at 24 months. The progression-free survival rate was 69.1% at 6 months, 16.4% at 12 months, and 10.9% at 24 months.

The overall response rate was 56.4%, which comprised 31 partial responses. Forty percent of patients (n = 22) had stable disease. One patient had progressive disease, and one was not evaluable (1.8% each).

To help with future patient selection, the researchers looked for baseline biomarkers that predicted response. Tumor PD-L1 expression, tumor mutation burden, and other potential candidates haven’t worked out so far, but the work continues, Dr. Forde said.

He noted that many of the adverse events in this trial are those typically seen with platinum-based chemotherapy.

Grade 3/4 treatment-emergent adverse events included anemia (n = 14), fatigue (n = 4), decreased appetite (n = 1), and hypomagnesemia (n = 1).

The most common grade 1/2 adverse events of special interest were hypothyroidism (n = 7), rash (n = 5), pruritus (n = 3), AST elevation (n = 3), and hyperthyroidism (n = 3).
 

Putting the results in context

Given the role of inflammation in MPM, durvalumab is among several immunotherapies under investigation for the disease.

A phase 3 French trial showed MPM patients had a median overall survival of 18.8 months with pemetrexed-cisplatin plus bevacizumab versus 16.1 months with pemetrexed-cisplatin only (Lancet. 2016 Apr 2;387[10026]:1405-1414).

The higher overall survival in the French study’s pemetrexed-cisplatin arm, compared with the 2003 trial results, is likely due to the use of modern second-line options, said Marjorie Zauderer, MD, codirector of the mesothelioma program at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, who was the discussant for Dr. Forde’s presentation.

“I think the improvement in overall survival presented by Dr. Forde is potentially clinically meaningful,” she said, but it was “well within the 95% confidence interval” of the bevacizumab trial. Even so, “I look forward” to the phase 3 results, she said.

Dr. Zauderer also pointed out an April press release from Bristol Myers Squibb that reported improved survival over pemetrexed-cisplatin with two of the company’s immunotherapies, nivolumab and ipilimumab, not as additions but as replacement first-line therapy. However, the randomized trial data haven’t been released yet. “We are all eager to evaluate this option further,” she said.

AstraZeneca, maker of durvalumab, funded the current study. Dr. Forde is an adviser for the company and reported research funding. Dr. Zauderer reported a relationship with Roche, which markets bevacizumab through its subsidiary, Genentech. She also disclosed research funding from Bristol Myers Squibb.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Forde PM et al. ASCO 2020, Abstract 9003.

Adding durvalumab to first-line pemetrexed and cisplatin improved survival in patients with unresectable malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) in a phase 2 trial, compared with historical controls who received only pemetrexed and cisplatin.

The median overall survival was 20.4 months in patients who received durvalumab plus pemetrexed-cisplatin. This is significantly longer than the median overall survival of 12.1 months (P = .0014) observed with pemetrexed-cisplatin in a prior phase 3 study (J Clin Oncol. 2003 Jul 15;21[14]:2636-44).

The new phase 2 results are “promising,” said lead investigator Patrick Forde, MBBCh, director of the thoracic cancer clinical research program at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore.

He presented the results as part of the American Society of Clinical Oncology virtual scientific program.

Dr. Forde noted that a phase 3 trial directly comparing pemetrexed-cisplatin plus durvalumab to pemetrexed-cisplatin will begin recruiting this year. The trial is a collaboration between U.S. investigators and Australian researchers who reported their own phase 2 results with durvalumab plus pemetrexed-cisplatin in 2018 (J Thorac Oncol. 2018 Oct;13[10]:S338-339).
 

Study details

Dr. Forde’s phase 2 study enrolled 55 patients with treatment-naive, unresectable MPM. Their median age was 68 years (range, 35-83 years), and 45 (82%) were men. All had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-1.

Epithelioid mesothelioma was the histologic subtype in three-quarters of patients. “It was a fairly typical mesothelioma population,” Dr. Forde said.

The patients received durvalumab at 1,120 mg plus pemetrexed at 500 mg/m² and cisplatin at 75 mg/m² every 3 weeks for up to six cycles. Carboplatin was substituted when cisplatin was contraindicated or patients developed toxicities.

All but one patient had stable or responding disease on radiography and went on to durvalumab maintenance, also given at 1,120 mg every 3 weeks, for up to 1 year from study entry.
 

Results

Dr. Forde said this study had 90% power to detect a 58% improvement in median overall survival, from the 12.1 months seen in historical controls to 19 months, which was the goal of this study.

It was a positive study, he said, as the median overall survival was 20.4 months (P = .0014).

The overall survival rate was 87.2% at 6 months, 70.4% at 12 months, and 44.2% at 24 months. The progression-free survival rate was 69.1% at 6 months, 16.4% at 12 months, and 10.9% at 24 months.

The overall response rate was 56.4%, which comprised 31 partial responses. Forty percent of patients (n = 22) had stable disease. One patient had progressive disease, and one was not evaluable (1.8% each).

To help with future patient selection, the researchers looked for baseline biomarkers that predicted response. Tumor PD-L1 expression, tumor mutation burden, and other potential candidates haven’t worked out so far, but the work continues, Dr. Forde said.

He noted that many of the adverse events in this trial are those typically seen with platinum-based chemotherapy.

Grade 3/4 treatment-emergent adverse events included anemia (n = 14), fatigue (n = 4), decreased appetite (n = 1), and hypomagnesemia (n = 1).

The most common grade 1/2 adverse events of special interest were hypothyroidism (n = 7), rash (n = 5), pruritus (n = 3), AST elevation (n = 3), and hyperthyroidism (n = 3).
 

Putting the results in context

Given the role of inflammation in MPM, durvalumab is among several immunotherapies under investigation for the disease.

A phase 3 French trial showed MPM patients had a median overall survival of 18.8 months with pemetrexed-cisplatin plus bevacizumab versus 16.1 months with pemetrexed-cisplatin only (Lancet. 2016 Apr 2;387[10026]:1405-1414).

The higher overall survival in the French study’s pemetrexed-cisplatin arm, compared with the 2003 trial results, is likely due to the use of modern second-line options, said Marjorie Zauderer, MD, codirector of the mesothelioma program at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, who was the discussant for Dr. Forde’s presentation.

“I think the improvement in overall survival presented by Dr. Forde is potentially clinically meaningful,” she said, but it was “well within the 95% confidence interval” of the bevacizumab trial. Even so, “I look forward” to the phase 3 results, she said.

Dr. Zauderer also pointed out an April press release from Bristol Myers Squibb that reported improved survival over pemetrexed-cisplatin with two of the company’s immunotherapies, nivolumab and ipilimumab, not as additions but as replacement first-line therapy. However, the randomized trial data haven’t been released yet. “We are all eager to evaluate this option further,” she said.

AstraZeneca, maker of durvalumab, funded the current study. Dr. Forde is an adviser for the company and reported research funding. Dr. Zauderer reported a relationship with Roche, which markets bevacizumab through its subsidiary, Genentech. She also disclosed research funding from Bristol Myers Squibb.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Forde PM et al. ASCO 2020, Abstract 9003.

A treatment schedule of very attenuated chemotherapy using standard drugs is feasible and effective in frail and elderly patients with acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL), according to a prospective study published in Clinical Lymphoma, Myeloma & Leukemia.

VashiDonsk/Creative Commons/CC ASA 3.0

The study comprised 67 previously untreated patients with B- or T-lineage Philadelphia chromosome–negative ALL from 30 Spanish hospitals who were enrolled in the prospective, multicenter ALL-07FRAIL trial (NCT01358201) from the Spanish PETHEMA (Programa Español de Tratamientos en Hematologia) group from January 2008 to October 2019.

The median patient age in this analysis was 67 years and 51 patients (76%) were older than 70 years. The median Charlson Comorbidity Index was 5, with the main comorbidities being cardiovascular (47 patients), other neoplasia (24), diabetes (17), and very advanced age (>80 years; 12).

The attenuated treatment regimen consisted of a prephase with dexamethasone and intrathecal therapy with methotrexate was given for a maximum of 1 week. Then weekly induction therapy consisted of weekly vincristine (capped at 1 mg/week) and daily dexamethasone with a progressively decreasing dose along 4 weeks, as well as two additional doses of intrathecal methotrexate.

Those patients who achieved complete remission received maintenance therapy with mercaptopurine and methotrexate to complete 2 years of treatment. In addition, reinduction pulses with vincristine and dexamethasone were given every 3 months during the first year, according to Josep-Maria Ribera, MD, of the Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Badalona, Spain and colleagues on behalf of the PETHEMA group of the Spanish Society of Hematology.

The complete remission rate was 54% (36/67 patients). The median disease-free survival and overall survival were 6.9 months and 7.6 months, respectively.

Of the 32 patients who initiated maintenance therapy, 5 patients died of infection (2), hemorrhage (2), and acute cognitive impairment (1), and 23 relapsed, with a cumulative incidence of relapse of 74% and a median time to relapse of 12.3 months.

The most frequent toxic events reported were hematologic (neutropenia 77% and thrombocytopenia 54%, of grade III-IV in all cases) followed by infections, metabolic (mainly hyperglycemia), and neurologic, according to the researchers.

“The lack of similar trials specifically directed to this frail population is one of the major strengths of this study, and we consider that this minimal chemotherapy approach could be used as a backbone for addition of immuno/targeted therapy in this subset of infirm patients,” the researchers concluded.

The study was supported by the CERCA Program/Generalitat de Catalunya and the Josep Carreras Leukemia Research Institute. The authors reported having no disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Ribera J-M et al. Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk. 2020 Apr 5. doi: 10.1016/j.clml.2020.03.011.

A treatment schedule of very attenuated chemotherapy using standard drugs is feasible and effective in frail and elderly patients with acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL), according to a prospective study published in Clinical Lymphoma, Myeloma & Leukemia.

VashiDonsk/Creative Commons/CC ASA 3.0

The study comprised 67 previously untreated patients with B- or T-lineage Philadelphia chromosome–negative ALL from 30 Spanish hospitals who were enrolled in the prospective, multicenter ALL-07FRAIL trial (NCT01358201) from the Spanish PETHEMA (Programa Español de Tratamientos en Hematologia) group from January 2008 to October 2019.

The median patient age in this analysis was 67 years and 51 patients (76%) were older than 70 years. The median Charlson Comorbidity Index was 5, with the main comorbidities being cardiovascular (47 patients), other neoplasia (24), diabetes (17), and very advanced age (>80 years; 12).

The attenuated treatment regimen consisted of a prephase with dexamethasone and intrathecal therapy with methotrexate was given for a maximum of 1 week. Then weekly induction therapy consisted of weekly vincristine (capped at 1 mg/week) and daily dexamethasone with a progressively decreasing dose along 4 weeks, as well as two additional doses of intrathecal methotrexate.

Those patients who achieved complete remission received maintenance therapy with mercaptopurine and methotrexate to complete 2 years of treatment. In addition, reinduction pulses with vincristine and dexamethasone were given every 3 months during the first year, according to Josep-Maria Ribera, MD, of the Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Badalona, Spain and colleagues on behalf of the PETHEMA group of the Spanish Society of Hematology.

The complete remission rate was 54% (36/67 patients). The median disease-free survival and overall survival were 6.9 months and 7.6 months, respectively.

Of the 32 patients who initiated maintenance therapy, 5 patients died of infection (2), hemorrhage (2), and acute cognitive impairment (1), and 23 relapsed, with a cumulative incidence of relapse of 74% and a median time to relapse of 12.3 months.

The most frequent toxic events reported were hematologic (neutropenia 77% and thrombocytopenia 54%, of grade III-IV in all cases) followed by infections, metabolic (mainly hyperglycemia), and neurologic, according to the researchers.

“The lack of similar trials specifically directed to this frail population is one of the major strengths of this study, and we consider that this minimal chemotherapy approach could be used as a backbone for addition of immuno/targeted therapy in this subset of infirm patients,” the researchers concluded.

The study was supported by the CERCA Program/Generalitat de Catalunya and the Josep Carreras Leukemia Research Institute. The authors reported having no disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Ribera J-M et al. Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk. 2020 Apr 5. doi: 10.1016/j.clml.2020.03.011.

A treatment schedule of very attenuated chemotherapy using standard drugs is feasible and effective in frail and elderly patients with acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL), according to a prospective study published in Clinical Lymphoma, Myeloma & Leukemia.

VashiDonsk/Creative Commons/CC ASA 3.0

The study comprised 67 previously untreated patients with B- or T-lineage Philadelphia chromosome–negative ALL from 30 Spanish hospitals who were enrolled in the prospective, multicenter ALL-07FRAIL trial (NCT01358201) from the Spanish PETHEMA (Programa Español de Tratamientos en Hematologia) group from January 2008 to October 2019.

The median patient age in this analysis was 67 years and 51 patients (76%) were older than 70 years. The median Charlson Comorbidity Index was 5, with the main comorbidities being cardiovascular (47 patients), other neoplasia (24), diabetes (17), and very advanced age (>80 years; 12).

The attenuated treatment regimen consisted of a prephase with dexamethasone and intrathecal therapy with methotrexate was given for a maximum of 1 week. Then weekly induction therapy consisted of weekly vincristine (capped at 1 mg/week) and daily dexamethasone with a progressively decreasing dose along 4 weeks, as well as two additional doses of intrathecal methotrexate.

Those patients who achieved complete remission received maintenance therapy with mercaptopurine and methotrexate to complete 2 years of treatment. In addition, reinduction pulses with vincristine and dexamethasone were given every 3 months during the first year, according to Josep-Maria Ribera, MD, of the Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Badalona, Spain and colleagues on behalf of the PETHEMA group of the Spanish Society of Hematology.

The complete remission rate was 54% (36/67 patients). The median disease-free survival and overall survival were 6.9 months and 7.6 months, respectively.

Of the 32 patients who initiated maintenance therapy, 5 patients died of infection (2), hemorrhage (2), and acute cognitive impairment (1), and 23 relapsed, with a cumulative incidence of relapse of 74% and a median time to relapse of 12.3 months.

The most frequent toxic events reported were hematologic (neutropenia 77% and thrombocytopenia 54%, of grade III-IV in all cases) followed by infections, metabolic (mainly hyperglycemia), and neurologic, according to the researchers.

“The lack of similar trials specifically directed to this frail population is one of the major strengths of this study, and we consider that this minimal chemotherapy approach could be used as a backbone for addition of immuno/targeted therapy in this subset of infirm patients,” the researchers concluded.

The study was supported by the CERCA Program/Generalitat de Catalunya and the Josep Carreras Leukemia Research Institute. The authors reported having no disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Ribera J-M et al. Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk. 2020 Apr 5. doi: 10.1016/j.clml.2020.03.011.

From 7% to nearly 9% of patients with advanced cancer were found to harbor a germline variant with targeted therapeutic actionability in the first study of its kind.

The study involved 11,974 patients with various tumor types. All the patients underwent germline genetic testing from 2015 to 2019 at the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) in New York, using the next-generation sequencing panel MSK-IMPACT.

This testing showed that 17.1% of patients had variants in cancer predisposition genes, and 7.1%-8.6% had variants that could potentially be targeted.

“Of course, these numbers are not static,” commented lead author Zsofia K. Stadler, MD, a medical oncologist at MSKCC. “And with the emergence of novel targeted treatments with new FDA indications, the therapeutic actionability of germline variants is likely to increase over time.

“Our study demonstrates the first comprehensive assessment of the clinical utility of germline alterations for therapeutic actionability in a population of patients with advanced cancer,” she added.

Dr. Stadler presented the study results during a virtual scientific program of the American Society of Clinical Oncology 2020.

Testing for somatic mutations is evolving as the standard of care in many cancer types, and somatic genomic testing is rapidly becoming an integral part of the regimen for patients with advanced disease. Some studies suggest that 9%-11% of patients harbor actionable genetic alterations, as determined on the basis of tumor profiling.

“The take-home message from this is that now, more than ever before, germline testing is indicated for the selection of cancer treatment,” said Erin Wysong Hofstatter, MD, from Yale University, New Haven, Conn., in a Highlights of the Day session.

An emerging indication for germline testing is the selection of treatment in the advanced setting, she noted. “And it is important to know your test. Remember that tumor sequencing is not a substitute for comprehensive germline testing.”
 

Implications in cancer treatment

For their study, Dr. Stadler and colleagues reviewed the medical records of patients with likely pathogenic/pathogenic germline (LP/P) alterations in genes that had known therapeutic targets so as to identify germline-targeted treatment either in a clinical or research setting.

“Since 2015, patients undergoing MSK-IMPACT may also choose to provide additional consent for secondary germline genetic analysis, wherein up to 88 genes known to be associated with cancer predisposition are analyzed,” she said. “Likely pathogenic and pathogenic germline alterations identified are disclosed to the patient and treating physician via the Clinical Genetic Service.”

A total of 2043 (17.1%) patients who harbored LP/P variants in a cancer predisposition gene were identified. Of these, 11% of patients harbored pathogenic alterations in high or moderate penetrance cancer predisposition genes. When the analysis was limited to genes with targeted therapeutic actionability, or what the authors defined as tier 1 and tier 2 genes, 7.1% of patients (n = 849) harbored a targetable pathogenic germline alteration.

BRCA alterations accounted for half (52%) of the findings, and 20% were associated with Lynch syndrome.

The tier 2 genes, which included PALB2, ATM, RAD51C, and RAD51D, accounted for about a quarter of the findings. Dr. Hofstatter noted that, using strict criteria, 7.1% of patients (n = 849) were found to harbor a pathogenic alteration and a targetable gene. Using less stringent criteria, additional tier 3 genes and additional genes associated with DNA homologous recombination repair brought the number up to 8.6% (n = 1,003).

Therapeutic action

For determining therapeutic actionability, the strict criteria were used; 593 patients (4.95%) with recurrent or metastatic disease were identified. For these patients, consideration of a targeted therapy, either as part of standard care or as part of an investigation or research protocol, was important.

Of this group, 44% received therapy targeting the germline alteration. Regarding specific genes, 50% of BRCA1/2 carriers and 58% of Lynch syndrome patients received targeted treatment. With respect to tier 2 genes, 40% of patients with PALB2, 19% with ATM, and 37% with RAD51C or 51D received a poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor.

Among patients with a BRCA1/2 mutation who received a PARP inhibitor, 55.1% had breast or ovarian cancer, and 44.8% had other tumor types, including pancreas, prostate, bile duct, gastric cancers. These patients received the drug in a research setting.

For patients with PALB2 alterations who received PARP inhibitors, 53.3% had breast or pancreas cancer, and 46.7% had cancer of the prostate, ovary, or an unknown primary.

Looking ahead

The discussant for the paper, Funda Meric-Bernstam, MD, chair of the Department of Investigational Cancer Therapeutics at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, pointed out that most of the BRCA-positive patients had cancers traditionally associated with the mutation. “There were no patients with PTEN mutations treated, and interestingly, no patients with NF1 were treated,” she said. “But actionability is evolving, as the MEK inhibitor selumitinib was recently approved for NF1.”

Some questions remain unanswered, she noted, such as: “What percentage of patients undergoing tumor-normal testing signed a germline protocol?” and “Does the population introduce a bias – such as younger patients, family history, and so on?”

It is also unknown what percentage of germline alterations were known in comparison with those identified through tumor/normal testing. Also of importance is the fact that in this study, the results of germline testing were delivered in an academic setting, she emphasized. “What if they were delivered elsewhere? What would be the impact of identifying these alterations in an environment with less access to trials?

“But to be fair, it is not easy to seek the germline mutations,” Dr. Meric-Bernstam continued. “These studies were done under institutional review board protocols, and it is important to note that most profiling is done as standard of care without consenting and soliciting patient preference on the return of germline results.”

An infrastructure is needed to return/counsel/offer cascade testing, and “analyses need to be facilitated to ensure that findings can be acted upon in a timely fashion,” she added.

The study was supported by MSKCC internal funding. Dr. Stadler reported relationships (institutional) with Adverum, Alimera Sciences, Allergan, Biomarin, Fortress Biotech, Genentech/Roche, Novartis, Optos, Regeneron, Regenxbio, and Spark Therapeutics. Dr. Meric-Bernstram reported relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

From 7% to nearly 9% of patients with advanced cancer were found to harbor a germline variant with targeted therapeutic actionability in the first study of its kind.

The study involved 11,974 patients with various tumor types. All the patients underwent germline genetic testing from 2015 to 2019 at the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) in New York, using the next-generation sequencing panel MSK-IMPACT.

This testing showed that 17.1% of patients had variants in cancer predisposition genes, and 7.1%-8.6% had variants that could potentially be targeted.

“Of course, these numbers are not static,” commented lead author Zsofia K. Stadler, MD, a medical oncologist at MSKCC. “And with the emergence of novel targeted treatments with new FDA indications, the therapeutic actionability of germline variants is likely to increase over time.

“Our study demonstrates the first comprehensive assessment of the clinical utility of germline alterations for therapeutic actionability in a population of patients with advanced cancer,” she added.

Dr. Stadler presented the study results during a virtual scientific program of the American Society of Clinical Oncology 2020.

Testing for somatic mutations is evolving as the standard of care in many cancer types, and somatic genomic testing is rapidly becoming an integral part of the regimen for patients with advanced disease. Some studies suggest that 9%-11% of patients harbor actionable genetic alterations, as determined on the basis of tumor profiling.

“The take-home message from this is that now, more than ever before, germline testing is indicated for the selection of cancer treatment,” said Erin Wysong Hofstatter, MD, from Yale University, New Haven, Conn., in a Highlights of the Day session.

An emerging indication for germline testing is the selection of treatment in the advanced setting, she noted. “And it is important to know your test. Remember that tumor sequencing is not a substitute for comprehensive germline testing.”
 

Implications in cancer treatment

For their study, Dr. Stadler and colleagues reviewed the medical records of patients with likely pathogenic/pathogenic germline (LP/P) alterations in genes that had known therapeutic targets so as to identify germline-targeted treatment either in a clinical or research setting.

“Since 2015, patients undergoing MSK-IMPACT may also choose to provide additional consent for secondary germline genetic analysis, wherein up to 88 genes known to be associated with cancer predisposition are analyzed,” she said. “Likely pathogenic and pathogenic germline alterations identified are disclosed to the patient and treating physician via the Clinical Genetic Service.”

A total of 2043 (17.1%) patients who harbored LP/P variants in a cancer predisposition gene were identified. Of these, 11% of patients harbored pathogenic alterations in high or moderate penetrance cancer predisposition genes. When the analysis was limited to genes with targeted therapeutic actionability, or what the authors defined as tier 1 and tier 2 genes, 7.1% of patients (n = 849) harbored a targetable pathogenic germline alteration.

BRCA alterations accounted for half (52%) of the findings, and 20% were associated with Lynch syndrome.

The tier 2 genes, which included PALB2, ATM, RAD51C, and RAD51D, accounted for about a quarter of the findings. Dr. Hofstatter noted that, using strict criteria, 7.1% of patients (n = 849) were found to harbor a pathogenic alteration and a targetable gene. Using less stringent criteria, additional tier 3 genes and additional genes associated with DNA homologous recombination repair brought the number up to 8.6% (n = 1,003).

Therapeutic action

For determining therapeutic actionability, the strict criteria were used; 593 patients (4.95%) with recurrent or metastatic disease were identified. For these patients, consideration of a targeted therapy, either as part of standard care or as part of an investigation or research protocol, was important.

Of this group, 44% received therapy targeting the germline alteration. Regarding specific genes, 50% of BRCA1/2 carriers and 58% of Lynch syndrome patients received targeted treatment. With respect to tier 2 genes, 40% of patients with PALB2, 19% with ATM, and 37% with RAD51C or 51D received a poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor.

Among patients with a BRCA1/2 mutation who received a PARP inhibitor, 55.1% had breast or ovarian cancer, and 44.8% had other tumor types, including pancreas, prostate, bile duct, gastric cancers. These patients received the drug in a research setting.

For patients with PALB2 alterations who received PARP inhibitors, 53.3% had breast or pancreas cancer, and 46.7% had cancer of the prostate, ovary, or an unknown primary.

Looking ahead

The discussant for the paper, Funda Meric-Bernstam, MD, chair of the Department of Investigational Cancer Therapeutics at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, pointed out that most of the BRCA-positive patients had cancers traditionally associated with the mutation. “There were no patients with PTEN mutations treated, and interestingly, no patients with NF1 were treated,” she said. “But actionability is evolving, as the MEK inhibitor selumitinib was recently approved for NF1.”

Some questions remain unanswered, she noted, such as: “What percentage of patients undergoing tumor-normal testing signed a germline protocol?” and “Does the population introduce a bias – such as younger patients, family history, and so on?”

It is also unknown what percentage of germline alterations were known in comparison with those identified through tumor/normal testing. Also of importance is the fact that in this study, the results of germline testing were delivered in an academic setting, she emphasized. “What if they were delivered elsewhere? What would be the impact of identifying these alterations in an environment with less access to trials?

“But to be fair, it is not easy to seek the germline mutations,” Dr. Meric-Bernstam continued. “These studies were done under institutional review board protocols, and it is important to note that most profiling is done as standard of care without consenting and soliciting patient preference on the return of germline results.”

An infrastructure is needed to return/counsel/offer cascade testing, and “analyses need to be facilitated to ensure that findings can be acted upon in a timely fashion,” she added.

The study was supported by MSKCC internal funding. Dr. Stadler reported relationships (institutional) with Adverum, Alimera Sciences, Allergan, Biomarin, Fortress Biotech, Genentech/Roche, Novartis, Optos, Regeneron, Regenxbio, and Spark Therapeutics. Dr. Meric-Bernstram reported relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

From 7% to nearly 9% of patients with advanced cancer were found to harbor a germline variant with targeted therapeutic actionability in the first study of its kind.

The study involved 11,974 patients with various tumor types. All the patients underwent germline genetic testing from 2015 to 2019 at the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) in New York, using the next-generation sequencing panel MSK-IMPACT.

This testing showed that 17.1% of patients had variants in cancer predisposition genes, and 7.1%-8.6% had variants that could potentially be targeted.

“Of course, these numbers are not static,” commented lead author Zsofia K. Stadler, MD, a medical oncologist at MSKCC. “And with the emergence of novel targeted treatments with new FDA indications, the therapeutic actionability of germline variants is likely to increase over time.

“Our study demonstrates the first comprehensive assessment of the clinical utility of germline alterations for therapeutic actionability in a population of patients with advanced cancer,” she added.

Dr. Stadler presented the study results during a virtual scientific program of the American Society of Clinical Oncology 2020.

Testing for somatic mutations is evolving as the standard of care in many cancer types, and somatic genomic testing is rapidly becoming an integral part of the regimen for patients with advanced disease. Some studies suggest that 9%-11% of patients harbor actionable genetic alterations, as determined on the basis of tumor profiling.

“The take-home message from this is that now, more than ever before, germline testing is indicated for the selection of cancer treatment,” said Erin Wysong Hofstatter, MD, from Yale University, New Haven, Conn., in a Highlights of the Day session.

An emerging indication for germline testing is the selection of treatment in the advanced setting, she noted. “And it is important to know your test. Remember that tumor sequencing is not a substitute for comprehensive germline testing.”
 

Implications in cancer treatment

For their study, Dr. Stadler and colleagues reviewed the medical records of patients with likely pathogenic/pathogenic germline (LP/P) alterations in genes that had known therapeutic targets so as to identify germline-targeted treatment either in a clinical or research setting.

“Since 2015, patients undergoing MSK-IMPACT may also choose to provide additional consent for secondary germline genetic analysis, wherein up to 88 genes known to be associated with cancer predisposition are analyzed,” she said. “Likely pathogenic and pathogenic germline alterations identified are disclosed to the patient and treating physician via the Clinical Genetic Service.”

A total of 2043 (17.1%) patients who harbored LP/P variants in a cancer predisposition gene were identified. Of these, 11% of patients harbored pathogenic alterations in high or moderate penetrance cancer predisposition genes. When the analysis was limited to genes with targeted therapeutic actionability, or what the authors defined as tier 1 and tier 2 genes, 7.1% of patients (n = 849) harbored a targetable pathogenic germline alteration.

BRCA alterations accounted for half (52%) of the findings, and 20% were associated with Lynch syndrome.

The tier 2 genes, which included PALB2, ATM, RAD51C, and RAD51D, accounted for about a quarter of the findings. Dr. Hofstatter noted that, using strict criteria, 7.1% of patients (n = 849) were found to harbor a pathogenic alteration and a targetable gene. Using less stringent criteria, additional tier 3 genes and additional genes associated with DNA homologous recombination repair brought the number up to 8.6% (n = 1,003).

Therapeutic action

For determining therapeutic actionability, the strict criteria were used; 593 patients (4.95%) with recurrent or metastatic disease were identified. For these patients, consideration of a targeted therapy, either as part of standard care or as part of an investigation or research protocol, was important.

Of this group, 44% received therapy targeting the germline alteration. Regarding specific genes, 50% of BRCA1/2 carriers and 58% of Lynch syndrome patients received targeted treatment. With respect to tier 2 genes, 40% of patients with PALB2, 19% with ATM, and 37% with RAD51C or 51D received a poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor.

Among patients with a BRCA1/2 mutation who received a PARP inhibitor, 55.1% had breast or ovarian cancer, and 44.8% had other tumor types, including pancreas, prostate, bile duct, gastric cancers. These patients received the drug in a research setting.

For patients with PALB2 alterations who received PARP inhibitors, 53.3% had breast or pancreas cancer, and 46.7% had cancer of the prostate, ovary, or an unknown primary.

Looking ahead

The discussant for the paper, Funda Meric-Bernstam, MD, chair of the Department of Investigational Cancer Therapeutics at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, pointed out that most of the BRCA-positive patients had cancers traditionally associated with the mutation. “There were no patients with PTEN mutations treated, and interestingly, no patients with NF1 were treated,” she said. “But actionability is evolving, as the MEK inhibitor selumitinib was recently approved for NF1.”

Some questions remain unanswered, she noted, such as: “What percentage of patients undergoing tumor-normal testing signed a germline protocol?” and “Does the population introduce a bias – such as younger patients, family history, and so on?”

It is also unknown what percentage of germline alterations were known in comparison with those identified through tumor/normal testing. Also of importance is the fact that in this study, the results of germline testing were delivered in an academic setting, she emphasized. “What if they were delivered elsewhere? What would be the impact of identifying these alterations in an environment with less access to trials?

“But to be fair, it is not easy to seek the germline mutations,” Dr. Meric-Bernstam continued. “These studies were done under institutional review board protocols, and it is important to note that most profiling is done as standard of care without consenting and soliciting patient preference on the return of germline results.”

An infrastructure is needed to return/counsel/offer cascade testing, and “analyses need to be facilitated to ensure that findings can be acted upon in a timely fashion,” she added.

The study was supported by MSKCC internal funding. Dr. Stadler reported relationships (institutional) with Adverum, Alimera Sciences, Allergan, Biomarin, Fortress Biotech, Genentech/Roche, Novartis, Optos, Regeneron, Regenxbio, and Spark Therapeutics. Dr. Meric-Bernstram reported relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A single negative screening colonoscopy is associated with long-lasting, significant reductions in the incidence of, and mortality from, colorectal cancer (CRC), but only if the colonoscopy is of high quality, a new study concludes.

The population-based study showed a durable reduction in CRC risk over 17.4 years of follow-up.

“Our findings confirm that a 10-year interval between high-quality screening colonoscopies [as is currently recommended] is safe and that there is no benefit from more frequent screening,” lead author Nastazja Pilonis, MD, from the Maria Sklodowska-Curie National Research Institute of Oncology in Warsaw, Poland, told Medscape Medical News.

“Furthermore, our findings suggest that this interval could even be prolonged, provided the baseline colonoscopy is of high quality,” she added.

However, she emphasized that “only high-quality colonoscopy provided a durable reduction in mortality risk,” and noted that “low-quality colonoscopy was associated with a significantly increased risk of CRC death after the first 5 years following the examination.”

The study was published online May 25 in the Annals of Internal Medicine.
 

Polish Colonoscopy Screening Program

The study included 165,887 average-risk patients enrolled in the Polish Colonoscopy Screening Program who had a single negative screening colonoscopy between October 2000 and December 2011.

Negative colonoscopy was defined as an examination where no evidence of any neoplastic lesion was found.

A high-quality screening colonoscopy was defined by three key properties: cecal intubation, adequate bowel preparation, and an endoscopist’s adenoma detection rate (ADR) of 20% or greater calculated on a yearly basis.

A total of 505 different endoscopists performed the colonoscopies over a median follow-up of 10.1 years.

Compared with the general population, among individuals with a negative colonoscopy, the incidence of CRC was 72% lower and CRC mortality was 81% lower over a period of 5.1 to 10 years, Pilonis and colleagues report.

“This was mainly driven by long-lasting reductions in CRC incidence and mortality (by 84% and 90%, respectively) after high-quality screening colonoscopies,” the investigators emphasize.

Beyond 10 years of follow-up, reductions in CRC incidence and mortality were similar to those observed for the earlier period of 5.1 to 10 years but only for participants who had had a high-quality screening colonoscopy, they emphasize.

Subgroup analyses

In addition, subgroup analyses showed that high-quality colonoscopy – although not those of low-quality – effectively reduced the incidence of, and mortality from, CRC in women and in the proximal colon.

As Pilonis pointed out, previous studies have suggested that women may not benefit from screening colonoscopy to the same extent as men. Plus previous research suggests a reduced CRC risk in the proximal colon relative to that in the distal colon.

Overall, standardized incidence ratios (SIRs) and standardized mortality ratios (SMRs) significantly differed between men and women in the current study, but this difference was not observed after high-quality examinations, the investigators report.

“This is an extremely important finding because, for the first time, we showed that when you have high-quality colonoscopy, women benefit from screening colonoscopy as much as men,” Pilonis emphasized.

Similarly, high-quality screening colonoscopy was associated with a 50% reduction in mortality in the proximal colon throughout the 17.4-year follow-up, whereas there was no decrease in mortality from CRC in the proximal colon with low-quality colonoscopies.

As Pilonis noted, lesions in the proximal colon are more subtle and are harder to detect.”It’s also easier to achieve good bowel preparation in the distal colon than in the proximal colon,” she added.

Women are also more prone to develop lesions in the right (proximal) side of the colon and appear to have more pain with colonoscopy than men, all of which could have contributed to previous reports of colonoscopy not being very effective in women or for the detection of lesions in the proximal colon, as Pilonis suggested.

As the authors explain, current guidelines recommend a 10-year screening interval for the average-risk patient when colonoscopy results are negative.

This interval was partially based on the estimated time it was thought to take an adenoma to progress to a carcinoma and partially on the estimated sensitivity of screening colonoscopy.

“We showed that high-quality is a prerequisite for safe intervals between colonoscopies, Pilonis said. “So I would say that if, at a certain age, a patient has a negative colonoscopy of high-quality, a negative colonoscopy is highly predictive of a very low future risk of CRC,” she added.

The study was funded by the Polish Ministry of Health.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A single negative screening colonoscopy is associated with long-lasting, significant reductions in the incidence of, and mortality from, colorectal cancer (CRC), but only if the colonoscopy is of high quality, a new study concludes.

The population-based study showed a durable reduction in CRC risk over 17.4 years of follow-up.

“Our findings confirm that a 10-year interval between high-quality screening colonoscopies [as is currently recommended] is safe and that there is no benefit from more frequent screening,” lead author Nastazja Pilonis, MD, from the Maria Sklodowska-Curie National Research Institute of Oncology in Warsaw, Poland, told Medscape Medical News.

“Furthermore, our findings suggest that this interval could even be prolonged, provided the baseline colonoscopy is of high quality,” she added.

However, she emphasized that “only high-quality colonoscopy provided a durable reduction in mortality risk,” and noted that “low-quality colonoscopy was associated with a significantly increased risk of CRC death after the first 5 years following the examination.”

The study was published online May 25 in the Annals of Internal Medicine.
 

Polish Colonoscopy Screening Program

The study included 165,887 average-risk patients enrolled in the Polish Colonoscopy Screening Program who had a single negative screening colonoscopy between October 2000 and December 2011.

Negative colonoscopy was defined as an examination where no evidence of any neoplastic lesion was found.

A high-quality screening colonoscopy was defined by three key properties: cecal intubation, adequate bowel preparation, and an endoscopist’s adenoma detection rate (ADR) of 20% or greater calculated on a yearly basis.

A total of 505 different endoscopists performed the colonoscopies over a median follow-up of 10.1 years.

Compared with the general population, among individuals with a negative colonoscopy, the incidence of CRC was 72% lower and CRC mortality was 81% lower over a period of 5.1 to 10 years, Pilonis and colleagues report.

“This was mainly driven by long-lasting reductions in CRC incidence and mortality (by 84% and 90%, respectively) after high-quality screening colonoscopies,” the investigators emphasize.

Beyond 10 years of follow-up, reductions in CRC incidence and mortality were similar to those observed for the earlier period of 5.1 to 10 years but only for participants who had had a high-quality screening colonoscopy, they emphasize.

Subgroup analyses

In addition, subgroup analyses showed that high-quality colonoscopy – although not those of low-quality – effectively reduced the incidence of, and mortality from, CRC in women and in the proximal colon.

As Pilonis pointed out, previous studies have suggested that women may not benefit from screening colonoscopy to the same extent as men. Plus previous research suggests a reduced CRC risk in the proximal colon relative to that in the distal colon.

Overall, standardized incidence ratios (SIRs) and standardized mortality ratios (SMRs) significantly differed between men and women in the current study, but this difference was not observed after high-quality examinations, the investigators report.

“This is an extremely important finding because, for the first time, we showed that when you have high-quality colonoscopy, women benefit from screening colonoscopy as much as men,” Pilonis emphasized.

Similarly, high-quality screening colonoscopy was associated with a 50% reduction in mortality in the proximal colon throughout the 17.4-year follow-up, whereas there was no decrease in mortality from CRC in the proximal colon with low-quality colonoscopies.

As Pilonis noted, lesions in the proximal colon are more subtle and are harder to detect.”It’s also easier to achieve good bowel preparation in the distal colon than in the proximal colon,” she added.

Women are also more prone to develop lesions in the right (proximal) side of the colon and appear to have more pain with colonoscopy than men, all of which could have contributed to previous reports of colonoscopy not being very effective in women or for the detection of lesions in the proximal colon, as Pilonis suggested.

As the authors explain, current guidelines recommend a 10-year screening interval for the average-risk patient when colonoscopy results are negative.

This interval was partially based on the estimated time it was thought to take an adenoma to progress to a carcinoma and partially on the estimated sensitivity of screening colonoscopy.

“We showed that high-quality is a prerequisite for safe intervals between colonoscopies, Pilonis said. “So I would say that if, at a certain age, a patient has a negative colonoscopy of high-quality, a negative colonoscopy is highly predictive of a very low future risk of CRC,” she added.

The study was funded by the Polish Ministry of Health.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A single negative screening colonoscopy is associated with long-lasting, significant reductions in the incidence of, and mortality from, colorectal cancer (CRC), but only if the colonoscopy is of high quality, a new study concludes.

The population-based study showed a durable reduction in CRC risk over 17.4 years of follow-up.

“Our findings confirm that a 10-year interval between high-quality screening colonoscopies [as is currently recommended] is safe and that there is no benefit from more frequent screening,” lead author Nastazja Pilonis, MD, from the Maria Sklodowska-Curie National Research Institute of Oncology in Warsaw, Poland, told Medscape Medical News.

“Furthermore, our findings suggest that this interval could even be prolonged, provided the baseline colonoscopy is of high quality,” she added.

However, she emphasized that “only high-quality colonoscopy provided a durable reduction in mortality risk,” and noted that “low-quality colonoscopy was associated with a significantly increased risk of CRC death after the first 5 years following the examination.”

The study was published online May 25 in the Annals of Internal Medicine.
 

Polish Colonoscopy Screening Program

The study included 165,887 average-risk patients enrolled in the Polish Colonoscopy Screening Program who had a single negative screening colonoscopy between October 2000 and December 2011.

Negative colonoscopy was defined as an examination where no evidence of any neoplastic lesion was found.

A high-quality screening colonoscopy was defined by three key properties: cecal intubation, adequate bowel preparation, and an endoscopist’s adenoma detection rate (ADR) of 20% or greater calculated on a yearly basis.

A total of 505 different endoscopists performed the colonoscopies over a median follow-up of 10.1 years.

Compared with the general population, among individuals with a negative colonoscopy, the incidence of CRC was 72% lower and CRC mortality was 81% lower over a period of 5.1 to 10 years, Pilonis and colleagues report.

“This was mainly driven by long-lasting reductions in CRC incidence and mortality (by 84% and 90%, respectively) after high-quality screening colonoscopies,” the investigators emphasize.

Beyond 10 years of follow-up, reductions in CRC incidence and mortality were similar to those observed for the earlier period of 5.1 to 10 years but only for participants who had had a high-quality screening colonoscopy, they emphasize.

Subgroup analyses

In addition, subgroup analyses showed that high-quality colonoscopy – although not those of low-quality – effectively reduced the incidence of, and mortality from, CRC in women and in the proximal colon.

As Pilonis pointed out, previous studies have suggested that women may not benefit from screening colonoscopy to the same extent as men. Plus previous research suggests a reduced CRC risk in the proximal colon relative to that in the distal colon.

Overall, standardized incidence ratios (SIRs) and standardized mortality ratios (SMRs) significantly differed between men and women in the current study, but this difference was not observed after high-quality examinations, the investigators report.

“This is an extremely important finding because, for the first time, we showed that when you have high-quality colonoscopy, women benefit from screening colonoscopy as much as men,” Pilonis emphasized.

Similarly, high-quality screening colonoscopy was associated with a 50% reduction in mortality in the proximal colon throughout the 17.4-year follow-up, whereas there was no decrease in mortality from CRC in the proximal colon with low-quality colonoscopies.

As Pilonis noted, lesions in the proximal colon are more subtle and are harder to detect.”It’s also easier to achieve good bowel preparation in the distal colon than in the proximal colon,” she added.

Women are also more prone to develop lesions in the right (proximal) side of the colon and appear to have more pain with colonoscopy than men, all of which could have contributed to previous reports of colonoscopy not being very effective in women or for the detection of lesions in the proximal colon, as Pilonis suggested.

As the authors explain, current guidelines recommend a 10-year screening interval for the average-risk patient when colonoscopy results are negative.

This interval was partially based on the estimated time it was thought to take an adenoma to progress to a carcinoma and partially on the estimated sensitivity of screening colonoscopy.

“We showed that high-quality is a prerequisite for safe intervals between colonoscopies, Pilonis said. “So I would say that if, at a certain age, a patient has a negative colonoscopy of high-quality, a negative colonoscopy is highly predictive of a very low future risk of CRC,” she added.

The study was funded by the Polish Ministry of Health.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

On March 31, soon after the Food and Drug Administration authorized emergency use of antibody-packed plasma from recovered patients with COVID-19, Marisa Leuzzi became the first donor at an American Red Cross center. She hoped it could help her aunt, Renee Bannister, who was failing after 3 weeks on a ventilator at Virtua Hospital in Voorhees, N.J.

It may have worked; 11 days after receiving the plasma, Ms. Bannister was weaned off the ventilator and she is now awake and speaking, said Red Cross spokesperson Stephanie Rendon.

This kind of anecdote is fueling demand for the therapy, which can be provided through an expanded access program led by the Mayo Clinic, backed by the FDA, and the plasma paid for by the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. But while this program is collecting safety and outcomes data, it’s not a randomized, controlled trial.

Others, however, are pursuing that data. At least a dozen researchers are investigating the potential of plasma – both as a treatment and whether it could act as a stand-in for a vaccine until one is developed.

“One of the things I don’t want this to be is the flavor of the month,” Shmuel Shoham, MD, associate professor of medicine at Johns Hopkins University, said in an interview.

Dr. Shoham, principal investigator for a study evaluating convalescent plasma to prevent the infection in high-risk individuals, said some clinicians, desperate for any treatment, have tried potential therapies such as hydroxychloroquine and remdesivir without evidence of safety or efficacy in COVID-19.

The National Institutes of Health recently said something similar for convalescent plasma, that “there are insufficient clinical data to recommend either for or against” its use for COVID-19.

But plasma has promise, according to a Johns Hopkins School of Medicine’s Bloomberg Distinguished Professor, Arturo Casadevall, MD, PhD, in Baltimore, and Liise-anne Pirofski, MD, a professor at Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York. They lay out the case for convalescent plasma in an article published online March 13 in the Journal of Clinical Investigation. Passive antibody therapy, they wrote, has been used to stem polio, measles, mumps, and influenza, and more recently has shown some success against SARS-CoV-1 and Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS).

“The special attraction of this modality of treatment is that, unlike vaccines or newly developed drugs, it could, in principle, be made available very rapidly,” said researchers with the National COVID-19 Convalescent Plasma Project, which includes physicians and scientists from 57 institutions in 46 states. But where principle veers from reality is in availability of the plasma itself, and donors are in short supply.
 

Aiming to prevent infection

So far, the FDA has approved 12 plasma trials – including Dr. Shoham’s – and the NIH’s clinicaltrials.gov lists more than two dozen convalescent plasma studies in the United States and elsewhere.

Most are single-arm trials to determine if one infusion can decrease the need for intubation or help those on a ventilator improve. Two others, one at Johns Hopkins and one at Stanford (Calif.) Hospital are investigating whether convalescent plasma might be used before severe disease sets in.

“A general principle of passive antibody therapy is that it is more effective when used for prophylaxis than for treatment of disease,” Dr. Casadevall and Dr. Pirofski wrote.

Stanford’s randomized, double-blind study will evaluate regular versus convalescent plasma in ED patients who are not sick enough to require hospitalization.

The Johns Hopkins trial, which aims to protect against infection in the first place, will begin at Johns Hopkins, Baltimore, and at Hopkins-affiliated hospitals throughout Maryland, Dr. Shoham said. He hopes it will expand nationwide eventually, and said that they expect to enroll the first patients soon.

To start, the prevention study will enroll only 150 patients, each of whom must have had close contact with someone who has COVID-19 within the previous 120 hours and be asymptomatic. The number of subjects is small, compared with the trial size of other potential therapies, and an issue, Shoham said, “that keeps me up at night.” But finding thousands of enrollees for plasma studies is hard, in part because it’s so difficult to recruit donors.

Participants will receive normal plasma (which will act as a placebo) or convalescent plasma.

The primary endpoint is cumulative incidence of COVID-19, defined as symptoms and a polymerase chain reaction–positive test; participants will be tracked for 90 days. Hospitals and health care workers could then decide if they want to use the therapy, he said.

The study will not answer whether participants will continue to have antibodies beyond the 90 days. Convalescent plasma is given as a rapid response to an emergent pathogen – a short-term boost of immunity rather than a long-term therapeutic.
 

What can we learn from expanded access?

Meanwhile, some 2,200 hospitals are participating in the expanded access program being led by the Mayo Clinic nationwide; more than 9,000 patients had received infusions at press time.

One participant is Northwell Health, a 23-hospital system that sprawls across the U.S. COVID epicenter: four of the five boroughs of New York City and Long Island.

Convalescent plasma is an in-demand therapy, said Christina Brennan, MD, vice president of clinical research at Northwell. “We get patients, family members, they say my family member is at X hospital – if it’s not being offered there, can you have them transferred?” she said in an interview.

When Northwell – through the New York Blood Bank – opened up donor registration, 800 people signed up in the first 24 hours, Dr. Brennan said. As of mid-May, 527 patients had received a transfusion.
 

Who’s the best donor and when should donation occur?

The Red Cross, hospitals, and independent blood banks are all soliciting donors, who can sign up at the Red Cross website. The FDA recommends that donors have a history of COVID-19 as confirmed by molecular or antibody testing, be symptom free for 14 days, have a negative follow-up molecular test, and be virus free at the time of collection. The FDA also suggests measuring a donor’s SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibody titers, if available, with a recommendation of at least 1:160.

But questions remain, such as whether there is a theoretical risk for antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE) of infection with SARS-CoV-2. “Antibodies to one type of coronavirus could enhance infection to another viral strain,” of coronavirus, Dr. Casadevall wrote. ADE has been observed in both severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) and MERS.

The other risk is that donors may still be shedding active virus. While the FDA suggests that donors are unlikely to still be infectious 14 days after infection, that is as of yet unproven. Both COVID-19 diagnostics and antibody tests have high rates of false negatives, which raises the specter that infection could be spread via the plasma donation.

Daniele Focosi, MD, PhD, from Pisa (Italy) University Hospital and colleagues raise that concern in a preprint review on convalescent plasma in COVID-19. “Although the recipient is already infected, theoretically transmission of more infectious particles could worsen clinical conditions,” they wrote, noting that “such a concern can be somewhat reduced by treatment with modern pathogen inactivation techniques.”

No evidence exists that SARS-CoV-2 can be transmitted through blood, but “we don’t know for sure,” Dr. Shoham said in an interview. A reassuring point: Even those with severe infection do not have viral RNA in their blood, he said, adding, “We don’t think there’s going to be viral transmission of this particular virus with transfusion.”

For another highly infectious pathogen, the Ebola virus, the World Health Organization recommended in 2014 that potential plasma donors wait at least 28 days after infection.

It’s also not known how long SARS-CoV-2 antibodies persist in the blood; longer viability could mean a longer donation window. Dr. Focosi noted that a previous Chinese study had shown that SARS-specific antibodies in people infected with the first SARS virus, SARS-CoV-1, persisted for 2 years.

Dr. Casadevall and Dr. Pirofski have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Shoham has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

On March 31, soon after the Food and Drug Administration authorized emergency use of antibody-packed plasma from recovered patients with COVID-19, Marisa Leuzzi became the first donor at an American Red Cross center. She hoped it could help her aunt, Renee Bannister, who was failing after 3 weeks on a ventilator at Virtua Hospital in Voorhees, N.J.

It may have worked; 11 days after receiving the plasma, Ms. Bannister was weaned off the ventilator and she is now awake and speaking, said Red Cross spokesperson Stephanie Rendon.

This kind of anecdote is fueling demand for the therapy, which can be provided through an expanded access program led by the Mayo Clinic, backed by the FDA, and the plasma paid for by the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. But while this program is collecting safety and outcomes data, it’s not a randomized, controlled trial.

Others, however, are pursuing that data. At least a dozen researchers are investigating the potential of plasma – both as a treatment and whether it could act as a stand-in for a vaccine until one is developed.

“One of the things I don’t want this to be is the flavor of the month,” Shmuel Shoham, MD, associate professor of medicine at Johns Hopkins University, said in an interview.

Dr. Shoham, principal investigator for a study evaluating convalescent plasma to prevent the infection in high-risk individuals, said some clinicians, desperate for any treatment, have tried potential therapies such as hydroxychloroquine and remdesivir without evidence of safety or efficacy in COVID-19.

The National Institutes of Health recently said something similar for convalescent plasma, that “there are insufficient clinical data to recommend either for or against” its use for COVID-19.

But plasma has promise, according to a Johns Hopkins School of Medicine’s Bloomberg Distinguished Professor, Arturo Casadevall, MD, PhD, in Baltimore, and Liise-anne Pirofski, MD, a professor at Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York. They lay out the case for convalescent plasma in an article published online March 13 in the Journal of Clinical Investigation. Passive antibody therapy, they wrote, has been used to stem polio, measles, mumps, and influenza, and more recently has shown some success against SARS-CoV-1 and Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS).

“The special attraction of this modality of treatment is that, unlike vaccines or newly developed drugs, it could, in principle, be made available very rapidly,” said researchers with the National COVID-19 Convalescent Plasma Project, which includes physicians and scientists from 57 institutions in 46 states. But where principle veers from reality is in availability of the plasma itself, and donors are in short supply.
 

Aiming to prevent infection

So far, the FDA has approved 12 plasma trials – including Dr. Shoham’s – and the NIH’s clinicaltrials.gov lists more than two dozen convalescent plasma studies in the United States and elsewhere.

Most are single-arm trials to determine if one infusion can decrease the need for intubation or help those on a ventilator improve. Two others, one at Johns Hopkins and one at Stanford (Calif.) Hospital are investigating whether convalescent plasma might be used before severe disease sets in.

“A general principle of passive antibody therapy is that it is more effective when used for prophylaxis than for treatment of disease,” Dr. Casadevall and Dr. Pirofski wrote.

Stanford’s randomized, double-blind study will evaluate regular versus convalescent plasma in ED patients who are not sick enough to require hospitalization.

The Johns Hopkins trial, which aims to protect against infection in the first place, will begin at Johns Hopkins, Baltimore, and at Hopkins-affiliated hospitals throughout Maryland, Dr. Shoham said. He hopes it will expand nationwide eventually, and said that they expect to enroll the first patients soon.

To start, the prevention study will enroll only 150 patients, each of whom must have had close contact with someone who has COVID-19 within the previous 120 hours and be asymptomatic. The number of subjects is small, compared with the trial size of other potential therapies, and an issue, Shoham said, “that keeps me up at night.” But finding thousands of enrollees for plasma studies is hard, in part because it’s so difficult to recruit donors.

Participants will receive normal plasma (which will act as a placebo) or convalescent plasma.

The primary endpoint is cumulative incidence of COVID-19, defined as symptoms and a polymerase chain reaction–positive test; participants will be tracked for 90 days. Hospitals and health care workers could then decide if they want to use the therapy, he said.

The study will not answer whether participants will continue to have antibodies beyond the 90 days. Convalescent plasma is given as a rapid response to an emergent pathogen – a short-term boost of immunity rather than a long-term therapeutic.
 

What can we learn from expanded access?

Meanwhile, some 2,200 hospitals are participating in the expanded access program being led by the Mayo Clinic nationwide; more than 9,000 patients had received infusions at press time.

One participant is Northwell Health, a 23-hospital system that sprawls across the U.S. COVID epicenter: four of the five boroughs of New York City and Long Island.

Convalescent plasma is an in-demand therapy, said Christina Brennan, MD, vice president of clinical research at Northwell. “We get patients, family members, they say my family member is at X hospital – if it’s not being offered there, can you have them transferred?” she said in an interview.

When Northwell – through the New York Blood Bank – opened up donor registration, 800 people signed up in the first 24 hours, Dr. Brennan said. As of mid-May, 527 patients had received a transfusion.
 

Who’s the best donor and when should donation occur?

The Red Cross, hospitals, and independent blood banks are all soliciting donors, who can sign up at the Red Cross website. The FDA recommends that donors have a history of COVID-19 as confirmed by molecular or antibody testing, be symptom free for 14 days, have a negative follow-up molecular test, and be virus free at the time of collection. The FDA also suggests measuring a donor’s SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibody titers, if available, with a recommendation of at least 1:160.

But questions remain, such as whether there is a theoretical risk for antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE) of infection with SARS-CoV-2. “Antibodies to one type of coronavirus could enhance infection to another viral strain,” of coronavirus, Dr. Casadevall wrote. ADE has been observed in both severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) and MERS.

The other risk is that donors may still be shedding active virus. While the FDA suggests that donors are unlikely to still be infectious 14 days after infection, that is as of yet unproven. Both COVID-19 diagnostics and antibody tests have high rates of false negatives, which raises the specter that infection could be spread via the plasma donation.

Daniele Focosi, MD, PhD, from Pisa (Italy) University Hospital and colleagues raise that concern in a preprint review on convalescent plasma in COVID-19. “Although the recipient is already infected, theoretically transmission of more infectious particles could worsen clinical conditions,” they wrote, noting that “such a concern can be somewhat reduced by treatment with modern pathogen inactivation techniques.”

No evidence exists that SARS-CoV-2 can be transmitted through blood, but “we don’t know for sure,” Dr. Shoham said in an interview. A reassuring point: Even those with severe infection do not have viral RNA in their blood, he said, adding, “We don’t think there’s going to be viral transmission of this particular virus with transfusion.”

For another highly infectious pathogen, the Ebola virus, the World Health Organization recommended in 2014 that potential plasma donors wait at least 28 days after infection.

It’s also not known how long SARS-CoV-2 antibodies persist in the blood; longer viability could mean a longer donation window. Dr. Focosi noted that a previous Chinese study had shown that SARS-specific antibodies in people infected with the first SARS virus, SARS-CoV-1, persisted for 2 years.

Dr. Casadevall and Dr. Pirofski have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Shoham has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

On March 31, soon after the Food and Drug Administration authorized emergency use of antibody-packed plasma from recovered patients with COVID-19, Marisa Leuzzi became the first donor at an American Red Cross center. She hoped it could help her aunt, Renee Bannister, who was failing after 3 weeks on a ventilator at Virtua Hospital in Voorhees, N.J.

It may have worked; 11 days after receiving the plasma, Ms. Bannister was weaned off the ventilator and she is now awake and speaking, said Red Cross spokesperson Stephanie Rendon.

This kind of anecdote is fueling demand for the therapy, which can be provided through an expanded access program led by the Mayo Clinic, backed by the FDA, and the plasma paid for by the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. But while this program is collecting safety and outcomes data, it’s not a randomized, controlled trial.

Others, however, are pursuing that data. At least a dozen researchers are investigating the potential of plasma – both as a treatment and whether it could act as a stand-in for a vaccine until one is developed.

“One of the things I don’t want this to be is the flavor of the month,” Shmuel Shoham, MD, associate professor of medicine at Johns Hopkins University, said in an interview.

Dr. Shoham, principal investigator for a study evaluating convalescent plasma to prevent the infection in high-risk individuals, said some clinicians, desperate for any treatment, have tried potential therapies such as hydroxychloroquine and remdesivir without evidence of safety or efficacy in COVID-19.

The National Institutes of Health recently said something similar for convalescent plasma, that “there are insufficient clinical data to recommend either for or against” its use for COVID-19.

But plasma has promise, according to a Johns Hopkins School of Medicine’s Bloomberg Distinguished Professor, Arturo Casadevall, MD, PhD, in Baltimore, and Liise-anne Pirofski, MD, a professor at Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York. They lay out the case for convalescent plasma in an article published online March 13 in the Journal of Clinical Investigation. Passive antibody therapy, they wrote, has been used to stem polio, measles, mumps, and influenza, and more recently has shown some success against SARS-CoV-1 and Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS).

“The special attraction of this modality of treatment is that, unlike vaccines or newly developed drugs, it could, in principle, be made available very rapidly,” said researchers with the National COVID-19 Convalescent Plasma Project, which includes physicians and scientists from 57 institutions in 46 states. But where principle veers from reality is in availability of the plasma itself, and donors are in short supply.
 

Aiming to prevent infection

So far, the FDA has approved 12 plasma trials – including Dr. Shoham’s – and the NIH’s clinicaltrials.gov lists more than two dozen convalescent plasma studies in the United States and elsewhere.

Most are single-arm trials to determine if one infusion can decrease the need for intubation or help those on a ventilator improve. Two others, one at Johns Hopkins and one at Stanford (Calif.) Hospital are investigating whether convalescent plasma might be used before severe disease sets in.

“A general principle of passive antibody therapy is that it is more effective when used for prophylaxis than for treatment of disease,” Dr. Casadevall and Dr. Pirofski wrote.

Stanford’s randomized, double-blind study will evaluate regular versus convalescent plasma in ED patients who are not sick enough to require hospitalization.

The Johns Hopkins trial, which aims to protect against infection in the first place, will begin at Johns Hopkins, Baltimore, and at Hopkins-affiliated hospitals throughout Maryland, Dr. Shoham said. He hopes it will expand nationwide eventually, and said that they expect to enroll the first patients soon.

To start, the prevention study will enroll only 150 patients, each of whom must have had close contact with someone who has COVID-19 within the previous 120 hours and be asymptomatic. The number of subjects is small, compared with the trial size of other potential therapies, and an issue, Shoham said, “that keeps me up at night.” But finding thousands of enrollees for plasma studies is hard, in part because it’s so difficult to recruit donors.

Participants will receive normal plasma (which will act as a placebo) or convalescent plasma.

The primary endpoint is cumulative incidence of COVID-19, defined as symptoms and a polymerase chain reaction–positive test; participants will be tracked for 90 days. Hospitals and health care workers could then decide if they want to use the therapy, he said.

The study will not answer whether participants will continue to have antibodies beyond the 90 days. Convalescent plasma is given as a rapid response to an emergent pathogen – a short-term boost of immunity rather than a long-term therapeutic.
 

What can we learn from expanded access?

Meanwhile, some 2,200 hospitals are participating in the expanded access program being led by the Mayo Clinic nationwide; more than 9,000 patients had received infusions at press time.

One participant is Northwell Health, a 23-hospital system that sprawls across the U.S. COVID epicenter: four of the five boroughs of New York City and Long Island.

Convalescent plasma is an in-demand therapy, said Christina Brennan, MD, vice president of clinical research at Northwell. “We get patients, family members, they say my family member is at X hospital – if it’s not being offered there, can you have them transferred?” she said in an interview.

When Northwell – through the New York Blood Bank – opened up donor registration, 800 people signed up in the first 24 hours, Dr. Brennan said. As of mid-May, 527 patients had received a transfusion.
 

Who’s the best donor and when should donation occur?

The Red Cross, hospitals, and independent blood banks are all soliciting donors, who can sign up at the Red Cross website. The FDA recommends that donors have a history of COVID-19 as confirmed by molecular or antibody testing, be symptom free for 14 days, have a negative follow-up molecular test, and be virus free at the time of collection. The FDA also suggests measuring a donor’s SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibody titers, if available, with a recommendation of at least 1:160.

But questions remain, such as whether there is a theoretical risk for antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE) of infection with SARS-CoV-2. “Antibodies to one type of coronavirus could enhance infection to another viral strain,” of coronavirus, Dr. Casadevall wrote. ADE has been observed in both severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) and MERS.

The other risk is that donors may still be shedding active virus. While the FDA suggests that donors are unlikely to still be infectious 14 days after infection, that is as of yet unproven. Both COVID-19 diagnostics and antibody tests have high rates of false negatives, which raises the specter that infection could be spread via the plasma donation.

Daniele Focosi, MD, PhD, from Pisa (Italy) University Hospital and colleagues raise that concern in a preprint review on convalescent plasma in COVID-19. “Although the recipient is already infected, theoretically transmission of more infectious particles could worsen clinical conditions,” they wrote, noting that “such a concern can be somewhat reduced by treatment with modern pathogen inactivation techniques.”

No evidence exists that SARS-CoV-2 can be transmitted through blood, but “we don’t know for sure,” Dr. Shoham said in an interview. A reassuring point: Even those with severe infection do not have viral RNA in their blood, he said, adding, “We don’t think there’s going to be viral transmission of this particular virus with transfusion.”

For another highly infectious pathogen, the Ebola virus, the World Health Organization recommended in 2014 that potential plasma donors wait at least 28 days after infection.

It’s also not known how long SARS-CoV-2 antibodies persist in the blood; longer viability could mean a longer donation window. Dr. Focosi noted that a previous Chinese study had shown that SARS-specific antibodies in people infected with the first SARS virus, SARS-CoV-1, persisted for 2 years.

Dr. Casadevall and Dr. Pirofski have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Shoham has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.