AVAHO

Lung cancer experts in Europe issued highly considered recommendations for the management of lung cancer during the COVID-19 crisis, the main intention of which is to minimize the risk of patients getting infected by SARS-CoV-2 while in hospital receiving treatment.

The recommendations were published online April 3 in ESMO Open.

“We know that having cancer increases the risk of dying of COVID-19, although not necessarily the risk of getting the virus, and we also know that having lung cancer could increase the risk of pulmonary complications from SARS-CoV-2,” lead author Alfredo Addeo, MD, University Hospital of Geneva, Switzerland, told Medscape Medical News.

“But patients who are often in the hospital have a higher risk of catching the virus. So this paper is not about not giving necessary treatment, it’s about treating patients the best you can based on the area where you live and the resources you have and keeping patients away from the hospital as much as possible,” he added.

“The main message is, try to personalize the care you deliver,” Addeo said. “Rather than remain rigid about how you’ve been treating patients thus far, try to think outside the box and find a way to minimize the risk of infection, and, if you have to limit treatment, discuss the pros and cons of your treatment plan with the patient and make sure the message is given clearly.”

How much benefit?

The first general concept to keep in mind is: How likely is a patient to benefit from treatment?

“All regimens with a survival benefit should be maintained and prioritised whenever possible,” Addeo and colleagues observe. The other co-authors of the paper are Giuseppe Banna, MD, Ospedale Cannizzaro, Catania, Italy; Alessandra Curioni-Fontecedro, MD, University Hospital Zurich, Switzerland; and Alex Friedlaender, MD, University Hospital of Geneva.

For non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), neoadjuvant chemotherapy for locally advanced resectable disease and sequential/concurrent chemotherapy/radiation therapy for patients with stage III lung cancer – provided they have adequate respiratory function – should be started when possible and should not be stopped without justification, the authors point out.

This is also true for first-line therapy in patients with metastatic disease. Treatment should also not be stopped without good reason among patients already receiving maintenance immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy.

For small cell lung cancer (SCLC), both first-line treatment for extensive-stage disease as well as concurrent chemotherapy/radiotherapy for patients with limited-stage disease should be started when possible, again provided they have adequate respiratory function.

Palliative or stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) delivered outside the lung should also be initiated when possible in SCLC patients.

The authors caution, however, that if palliative or SBRT outside the lung requires multiple visits to the hospital, treatment to the lung should be limited to cases with compression of airways or bleeding.

Oncologists should also try to start radiotherapy on day 1 of chemotherapy because then only 2 cycles will be needed; if radiotherapy is started with cycle 2 or is given sequentially, 3 cycles of treatment will be required.

“Fractions of SBRT could be reduced, depending on organ at risk (8 fractions to 5 or 3) while palliative RT [given] as a single fraction or two (8-10 Gy or 17 Gy, respectively) should be used where possible,” the authors observe.

Concurrent chemotherapy with radiotherapy for limited-stage disease should not be stopped without justification and nor should first-line treatment for metastatic SCLC, the authors continue.

Again, however, patients must have adequate respiratory function to receive or continue with concurrent chemotherapy and radiotherapy, they add.

For patients with stage III NSCLC, concurrent chemotherapy plus radiotherapy may be considered and given preferentially or not.

Similarly, oral rather than intravenous chemotherapy may be preferred for elderly NSCLC patients or for those with an ECOG performance status of 2 as well as for SCLC patients.
 

Delaying surgery

As a general principle, the use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy instead of adjuvant therapy following surgery can delay the need for immediate surgery. If surgery can be delayed, “the risk of a patient catching the virus several months from now might be less,” Addeo noted. Thus, treating patients upfront with chemotherapy is one tactic to consider in appropriate patients.

For NSCLC patients at high risk for COVID-19, adjuvant chemotherapy should be discussed and potentially withheld, the authors observe.

NSCLC patients at high risk for COVID-19 include those with comorbidities, such as cardiovascular or pulmonary disease, as well as patients who are 70 years of age and older.

Immunotherapy should also be discussed and possibly delayed for stage III NSCLC patients following concurrent chemotherapy and radiation, they add.

Maintenance pemetrexed also may be withheld for NSCLC patients, and intervals of immunotherapy may be prolonged (e.g., nivolumab every 4 weeks and pembrolizumab every 6 weeks).

Intervals of immunotherapy should be similarly prolonged for SCLC patients, they continue.

“Shorter duration of chemotherapy (e.g., four cycles of chemotherapy instead of six) should be discussed with patients and maintenance chemotherapy can be withheld,” the authors note.

Furthermore, “given the pandemic, it is highly likely that metastatic cancer patients will be less likely to be intubated or to be heavily ventilated compared to patients without any comorbidity,” Addeo explained.

“So we have to acknowledge that metastatic lung cancer patients will be at higher risk of dying due to severe pulmonary COVID-19 complications,” he added.

Therefore, third and further lines of chemotherapy in both NSCLC and SCLC patients at significant COVID-19 risk should not be initiated without having a good reason to do so.

“Prophylactic cranial irradiation (PCI) is still a matter of debate [in SCLC patients],” Addeo noted. “So the reasonable alternative is to do surveillance MRI, and, in 6 or 8 months, we can probably offer PCI more safely at that point,” he suggested, adding that radiation therapy to the brain should only be considered if a patient develops brain metastases.

The authors also suggest that thoracic consolidation radiotherapy for extensive stage SCLC should not be initiated unless there is good reason to do so.

Patients with family members or caregivers who have tested positive for COVID-19 should themselves be tested before or during any cancer treatment.

If patients themselves then test positive and are asymptomatic, “28 days of delay should be considered before (re)starting the treatment,” the authors advise.

However, two negative tests done 1 week apart should be carried out before starting or restarting treatment, they note.

The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Lung cancer experts in Europe issued highly considered recommendations for the management of lung cancer during the COVID-19 crisis, the main intention of which is to minimize the risk of patients getting infected by SARS-CoV-2 while in hospital receiving treatment.

The recommendations were published online April 3 in ESMO Open.

“We know that having cancer increases the risk of dying of COVID-19, although not necessarily the risk of getting the virus, and we also know that having lung cancer could increase the risk of pulmonary complications from SARS-CoV-2,” lead author Alfredo Addeo, MD, University Hospital of Geneva, Switzerland, told Medscape Medical News.

“But patients who are often in the hospital have a higher risk of catching the virus. So this paper is not about not giving necessary treatment, it’s about treating patients the best you can based on the area where you live and the resources you have and keeping patients away from the hospital as much as possible,” he added.

“The main message is, try to personalize the care you deliver,” Addeo said. “Rather than remain rigid about how you’ve been treating patients thus far, try to think outside the box and find a way to minimize the risk of infection, and, if you have to limit treatment, discuss the pros and cons of your treatment plan with the patient and make sure the message is given clearly.”

How much benefit?

The first general concept to keep in mind is: How likely is a patient to benefit from treatment?

“All regimens with a survival benefit should be maintained and prioritised whenever possible,” Addeo and colleagues observe. The other co-authors of the paper are Giuseppe Banna, MD, Ospedale Cannizzaro, Catania, Italy; Alessandra Curioni-Fontecedro, MD, University Hospital Zurich, Switzerland; and Alex Friedlaender, MD, University Hospital of Geneva.

For non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), neoadjuvant chemotherapy for locally advanced resectable disease and sequential/concurrent chemotherapy/radiation therapy for patients with stage III lung cancer – provided they have adequate respiratory function – should be started when possible and should not be stopped without justification, the authors point out.

This is also true for first-line therapy in patients with metastatic disease. Treatment should also not be stopped without good reason among patients already receiving maintenance immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy.

For small cell lung cancer (SCLC), both first-line treatment for extensive-stage disease as well as concurrent chemotherapy/radiotherapy for patients with limited-stage disease should be started when possible, again provided they have adequate respiratory function.

Palliative or stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) delivered outside the lung should also be initiated when possible in SCLC patients.

The authors caution, however, that if palliative or SBRT outside the lung requires multiple visits to the hospital, treatment to the lung should be limited to cases with compression of airways or bleeding.

Oncologists should also try to start radiotherapy on day 1 of chemotherapy because then only 2 cycles will be needed; if radiotherapy is started with cycle 2 or is given sequentially, 3 cycles of treatment will be required.

“Fractions of SBRT could be reduced, depending on organ at risk (8 fractions to 5 or 3) while palliative RT [given] as a single fraction or two (8-10 Gy or 17 Gy, respectively) should be used where possible,” the authors observe.

Concurrent chemotherapy with radiotherapy for limited-stage disease should not be stopped without justification and nor should first-line treatment for metastatic SCLC, the authors continue.

Again, however, patients must have adequate respiratory function to receive or continue with concurrent chemotherapy and radiotherapy, they add.

For patients with stage III NSCLC, concurrent chemotherapy plus radiotherapy may be considered and given preferentially or not.

Similarly, oral rather than intravenous chemotherapy may be preferred for elderly NSCLC patients or for those with an ECOG performance status of 2 as well as for SCLC patients.
 

Delaying surgery

As a general principle, the use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy instead of adjuvant therapy following surgery can delay the need for immediate surgery. If surgery can be delayed, “the risk of a patient catching the virus several months from now might be less,” Addeo noted. Thus, treating patients upfront with chemotherapy is one tactic to consider in appropriate patients.

For NSCLC patients at high risk for COVID-19, adjuvant chemotherapy should be discussed and potentially withheld, the authors observe.

NSCLC patients at high risk for COVID-19 include those with comorbidities, such as cardiovascular or pulmonary disease, as well as patients who are 70 years of age and older.

Immunotherapy should also be discussed and possibly delayed for stage III NSCLC patients following concurrent chemotherapy and radiation, they add.

Maintenance pemetrexed also may be withheld for NSCLC patients, and intervals of immunotherapy may be prolonged (e.g., nivolumab every 4 weeks and pembrolizumab every 6 weeks).

Intervals of immunotherapy should be similarly prolonged for SCLC patients, they continue.

“Shorter duration of chemotherapy (e.g., four cycles of chemotherapy instead of six) should be discussed with patients and maintenance chemotherapy can be withheld,” the authors note.

Furthermore, “given the pandemic, it is highly likely that metastatic cancer patients will be less likely to be intubated or to be heavily ventilated compared to patients without any comorbidity,” Addeo explained.

“So we have to acknowledge that metastatic lung cancer patients will be at higher risk of dying due to severe pulmonary COVID-19 complications,” he added.

Therefore, third and further lines of chemotherapy in both NSCLC and SCLC patients at significant COVID-19 risk should not be initiated without having a good reason to do so.

“Prophylactic cranial irradiation (PCI) is still a matter of debate [in SCLC patients],” Addeo noted. “So the reasonable alternative is to do surveillance MRI, and, in 6 or 8 months, we can probably offer PCI more safely at that point,” he suggested, adding that radiation therapy to the brain should only be considered if a patient develops brain metastases.

The authors also suggest that thoracic consolidation radiotherapy for extensive stage SCLC should not be initiated unless there is good reason to do so.

Patients with family members or caregivers who have tested positive for COVID-19 should themselves be tested before or during any cancer treatment.

If patients themselves then test positive and are asymptomatic, “28 days of delay should be considered before (re)starting the treatment,” the authors advise.

However, two negative tests done 1 week apart should be carried out before starting or restarting treatment, they note.

The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Lung cancer experts in Europe issued highly considered recommendations for the management of lung cancer during the COVID-19 crisis, the main intention of which is to minimize the risk of patients getting infected by SARS-CoV-2 while in hospital receiving treatment.

The recommendations were published online April 3 in ESMO Open.

“We know that having cancer increases the risk of dying of COVID-19, although not necessarily the risk of getting the virus, and we also know that having lung cancer could increase the risk of pulmonary complications from SARS-CoV-2,” lead author Alfredo Addeo, MD, University Hospital of Geneva, Switzerland, told Medscape Medical News.

“But patients who are often in the hospital have a higher risk of catching the virus. So this paper is not about not giving necessary treatment, it’s about treating patients the best you can based on the area where you live and the resources you have and keeping patients away from the hospital as much as possible,” he added.

“The main message is, try to personalize the care you deliver,” Addeo said. “Rather than remain rigid about how you’ve been treating patients thus far, try to think outside the box and find a way to minimize the risk of infection, and, if you have to limit treatment, discuss the pros and cons of your treatment plan with the patient and make sure the message is given clearly.”

How much benefit?

The first general concept to keep in mind is: How likely is a patient to benefit from treatment?

“All regimens with a survival benefit should be maintained and prioritised whenever possible,” Addeo and colleagues observe. The other co-authors of the paper are Giuseppe Banna, MD, Ospedale Cannizzaro, Catania, Italy; Alessandra Curioni-Fontecedro, MD, University Hospital Zurich, Switzerland; and Alex Friedlaender, MD, University Hospital of Geneva.

For non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), neoadjuvant chemotherapy for locally advanced resectable disease and sequential/concurrent chemotherapy/radiation therapy for patients with stage III lung cancer – provided they have adequate respiratory function – should be started when possible and should not be stopped without justification, the authors point out.

This is also true for first-line therapy in patients with metastatic disease. Treatment should also not be stopped without good reason among patients already receiving maintenance immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy.

For small cell lung cancer (SCLC), both first-line treatment for extensive-stage disease as well as concurrent chemotherapy/radiotherapy for patients with limited-stage disease should be started when possible, again provided they have adequate respiratory function.

Palliative or stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) delivered outside the lung should also be initiated when possible in SCLC patients.

The authors caution, however, that if palliative or SBRT outside the lung requires multiple visits to the hospital, treatment to the lung should be limited to cases with compression of airways or bleeding.

Oncologists should also try to start radiotherapy on day 1 of chemotherapy because then only 2 cycles will be needed; if radiotherapy is started with cycle 2 or is given sequentially, 3 cycles of treatment will be required.

“Fractions of SBRT could be reduced, depending on organ at risk (8 fractions to 5 or 3) while palliative RT [given] as a single fraction or two (8-10 Gy or 17 Gy, respectively) should be used where possible,” the authors observe.

Concurrent chemotherapy with radiotherapy for limited-stage disease should not be stopped without justification and nor should first-line treatment for metastatic SCLC, the authors continue.

Again, however, patients must have adequate respiratory function to receive or continue with concurrent chemotherapy and radiotherapy, they add.

For patients with stage III NSCLC, concurrent chemotherapy plus radiotherapy may be considered and given preferentially or not.

Similarly, oral rather than intravenous chemotherapy may be preferred for elderly NSCLC patients or for those with an ECOG performance status of 2 as well as for SCLC patients.
 

Delaying surgery

As a general principle, the use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy instead of adjuvant therapy following surgery can delay the need for immediate surgery. If surgery can be delayed, “the risk of a patient catching the virus several months from now might be less,” Addeo noted. Thus, treating patients upfront with chemotherapy is one tactic to consider in appropriate patients.

For NSCLC patients at high risk for COVID-19, adjuvant chemotherapy should be discussed and potentially withheld, the authors observe.

NSCLC patients at high risk for COVID-19 include those with comorbidities, such as cardiovascular or pulmonary disease, as well as patients who are 70 years of age and older.

Immunotherapy should also be discussed and possibly delayed for stage III NSCLC patients following concurrent chemotherapy and radiation, they add.

Maintenance pemetrexed also may be withheld for NSCLC patients, and intervals of immunotherapy may be prolonged (e.g., nivolumab every 4 weeks and pembrolizumab every 6 weeks).

Intervals of immunotherapy should be similarly prolonged for SCLC patients, they continue.

“Shorter duration of chemotherapy (e.g., four cycles of chemotherapy instead of six) should be discussed with patients and maintenance chemotherapy can be withheld,” the authors note.

Furthermore, “given the pandemic, it is highly likely that metastatic cancer patients will be less likely to be intubated or to be heavily ventilated compared to patients without any comorbidity,” Addeo explained.

“So we have to acknowledge that metastatic lung cancer patients will be at higher risk of dying due to severe pulmonary COVID-19 complications,” he added.

Therefore, third and further lines of chemotherapy in both NSCLC and SCLC patients at significant COVID-19 risk should not be initiated without having a good reason to do so.

“Prophylactic cranial irradiation (PCI) is still a matter of debate [in SCLC patients],” Addeo noted. “So the reasonable alternative is to do surveillance MRI, and, in 6 or 8 months, we can probably offer PCI more safely at that point,” he suggested, adding that radiation therapy to the brain should only be considered if a patient develops brain metastases.

The authors also suggest that thoracic consolidation radiotherapy for extensive stage SCLC should not be initiated unless there is good reason to do so.

Patients with family members or caregivers who have tested positive for COVID-19 should themselves be tested before or during any cancer treatment.

If patients themselves then test positive and are asymptomatic, “28 days of delay should be considered before (re)starting the treatment,” the authors advise.

However, two negative tests done 1 week apart should be carried out before starting or restarting treatment, they note.

The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Approximately one-third of high-risk chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) patients received chemoimmunotherapy that was not aligned with current CLL treatment recommendations, according to a study based upon data from the informCLL registry. In addition, low levels of prognostic marker testing in these patients was a concern.

Researchers assessed data from 840 enrolled CLL patients, of whom 459 (55%) were previously untreated, and 381 (45%) had relapsed/refractory disease. In terms of therapy, chemoimmunotherapy was more common in previously untreated patients, compared with relapsed/refractory patients (42% vs. 23%), whereas ibrutinib was more frequently used in relapsed/refractory vs. previously untreated patients (51% vs. 39%), according to the researchers.

Fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH) testing, TP53 mutation, and immunoglobulin heavy chain somatic hypermutation biomarker testing were performed infrequently across all patients at registry enrollment, according to the authors.

Among patients who were tested, the rate of mutated TP53 was the same for previously untreated (14/54; 26%) and relapsed/refractory patients (9/35; 26%). In those patients who were tested, 34% with del(17p), a chromosomal deletion, and 26% of mutated TP53 patients received chemoimmunotherapy combinations. The authors stated that this was concerning in that it contradicts consensus guidelines based on data from several clinical studies. Chemoimmunotherapy is not recommended for these high-risk patients because of poor disease and survival outcomes with this treatment strategy, according to the authors.

“Current clinical practice is not keeping pace with recommendations and guidelines for prognostic

marker testing and subsequent selection of appropriate therapy,” the authors stated.

“Even with the approval of novel agents and updated guidelines, low rates of prognostic biomarker testing may lead to suboptimal therapy choices for patients with unknown risk status. In addition, we note that the presence of high-risk features (del(17p) and TP53) is unfortunately not translating to choosing the optimal therapy for these patients,” the researchers concluded.

The study was sponsored by an AbbVie Company and Janssen. The authors reported consulting and grants from these and other pharmaceutical companies.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Mato AR et al. Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk. 2020;20(3):174-83.

Approximately one-third of high-risk chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) patients received chemoimmunotherapy that was not aligned with current CLL treatment recommendations, according to a study based upon data from the informCLL registry. In addition, low levels of prognostic marker testing in these patients was a concern.

Researchers assessed data from 840 enrolled CLL patients, of whom 459 (55%) were previously untreated, and 381 (45%) had relapsed/refractory disease. In terms of therapy, chemoimmunotherapy was more common in previously untreated patients, compared with relapsed/refractory patients (42% vs. 23%), whereas ibrutinib was more frequently used in relapsed/refractory vs. previously untreated patients (51% vs. 39%), according to the researchers.

Fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH) testing, TP53 mutation, and immunoglobulin heavy chain somatic hypermutation biomarker testing were performed infrequently across all patients at registry enrollment, according to the authors.

Among patients who were tested, the rate of mutated TP53 was the same for previously untreated (14/54; 26%) and relapsed/refractory patients (9/35; 26%). In those patients who were tested, 34% with del(17p), a chromosomal deletion, and 26% of mutated TP53 patients received chemoimmunotherapy combinations. The authors stated that this was concerning in that it contradicts consensus guidelines based on data from several clinical studies. Chemoimmunotherapy is not recommended for these high-risk patients because of poor disease and survival outcomes with this treatment strategy, according to the authors.

“Current clinical practice is not keeping pace with recommendations and guidelines for prognostic

marker testing and subsequent selection of appropriate therapy,” the authors stated.

“Even with the approval of novel agents and updated guidelines, low rates of prognostic biomarker testing may lead to suboptimal therapy choices for patients with unknown risk status. In addition, we note that the presence of high-risk features (del(17p) and TP53) is unfortunately not translating to choosing the optimal therapy for these patients,” the researchers concluded.

The study was sponsored by an AbbVie Company and Janssen. The authors reported consulting and grants from these and other pharmaceutical companies.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Mato AR et al. Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk. 2020;20(3):174-83.

Approximately one-third of high-risk chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) patients received chemoimmunotherapy that was not aligned with current CLL treatment recommendations, according to a study based upon data from the informCLL registry. In addition, low levels of prognostic marker testing in these patients was a concern.

Researchers assessed data from 840 enrolled CLL patients, of whom 459 (55%) were previously untreated, and 381 (45%) had relapsed/refractory disease. In terms of therapy, chemoimmunotherapy was more common in previously untreated patients, compared with relapsed/refractory patients (42% vs. 23%), whereas ibrutinib was more frequently used in relapsed/refractory vs. previously untreated patients (51% vs. 39%), according to the researchers.

Fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH) testing, TP53 mutation, and immunoglobulin heavy chain somatic hypermutation biomarker testing were performed infrequently across all patients at registry enrollment, according to the authors.

Among patients who were tested, the rate of mutated TP53 was the same for previously untreated (14/54; 26%) and relapsed/refractory patients (9/35; 26%). In those patients who were tested, 34% with del(17p), a chromosomal deletion, and 26% of mutated TP53 patients received chemoimmunotherapy combinations. The authors stated that this was concerning in that it contradicts consensus guidelines based on data from several clinical studies. Chemoimmunotherapy is not recommended for these high-risk patients because of poor disease and survival outcomes with this treatment strategy, according to the authors.

“Current clinical practice is not keeping pace with recommendations and guidelines for prognostic

marker testing and subsequent selection of appropriate therapy,” the authors stated.

“Even with the approval of novel agents and updated guidelines, low rates of prognostic biomarker testing may lead to suboptimal therapy choices for patients with unknown risk status. In addition, we note that the presence of high-risk features (del(17p) and TP53) is unfortunately not translating to choosing the optimal therapy for these patients,” the researchers concluded.

The study was sponsored by an AbbVie Company and Janssen. The authors reported consulting and grants from these and other pharmaceutical companies.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Mato AR et al. Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk. 2020;20(3):174-83.

More than three-quarters of cancer clinical research programs have experienced operational changes during the COVID-19 pandemic, according to a survey conducted by the Association of Community Cancer Centers (ACCC) during a recent webinar.

The webinar included insights into how some cancer research programs have adapted to the pandemic, a review of guidance for conducting cancer trials during this time, and a discussion of how the cancer research landscape may be affected by COVID-19 going forward.

The webinar was led by Randall A. Oyer, MD, president of the ACCC and medical director of the oncology program at Penn Medicine Lancaster General Health in Pennsylvania.

The impact of COVID-19 on cancer research

Dr. Oyer observed that planning and implementation for COVID-19–related illness at U.S. health care institutions has had a predictable effect of limiting patient access and staff availability for nonessential services.

Coronavirus-related exposure and/or illness has relegated cancer research to a lower-level priority. As a result, ACCC institutions have made adjustments in their cancer research programs, including moving clinical research coordinators off-campus and deploying them in clinical areas.

New clinical trials have not been opened. In some cases, new accruals have been halted, particularly for registry, prevention, and symptom control trials.

Standards that have changed and those that have not

Guidance documents for conducting clinical trials during the pandemic have been developed by the Food and Drug Administration, the National Cancer Institute’s Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program and Central Institutional Review Board, and the National Institutes of Health’s Office of Extramural Research. Industry sponsors and parent institutions of research programs have also disseminated guidance.

Among other topics, guidance documents have addressed:

• How COVID-19-related protocol deviations will be judged at monitoring visits and audits
• Missed office visits and endpoint evaluations
• Providing investigational oral medications to patients via mail and potential issues of medication unavailability
• Processes for patients to have interim visits with providers at external institutions, including providers who may not be personally engaged in or credentialed for the research trial
• Potential delays in submitting protocol amendments for institutional review board (IRB) review
• Recommendations for patients confirmed or suspected of having a coronavirus infection.

Dr. Oyer emphasized that patient safety must remain the highest priority for patient management, on or off study. He advised continuing investigational therapy when potential benefit from treatment is anticipated and identifying alternative methods to face-to-face visits for monitoring and access to treatment.

Dr. Oyer urged programs to:

• Maintain good clinical practice standards
• Consult with sponsors and IRBs when questions arise but implement changes that affect patient safety prior to IRB review if necessary
• Document all deviations and COVID-19 related adaptations in a log or spreadsheet in anticipation of future questions from sponsors, monitors, and other entities.

New questions and considerations

In the short-term, Dr. Oyer predicts fewer available trials and a decreased rate of accrual to existing studies. This may result in delays in trial completion and the possibility of redesign for some trials.

He predicts the emergence of COVID-19-focused research questions, including those assessing the course of coronavirus infection in various malignant settings and the impact of cancer-directed treatments and supportive care interventions (e.g., treatment for graft-versus-host disease) on response to COVID-19.

To facilitate developing a clinically and research-relevant database, Dr. Oyer stressed the importance of documentation in the research record, reporting infections as serious adverse events. Documentation should specify whether the infection was confirmed or suspected coronavirus or related to another organism.

In general, when coronavirus infection is strongly suspected, Dr. Oyer said investigational treatments should be interrupted, but study-specific criteria will be forthcoming on that issue.
 

Looking to the future

For patients with advanced cancers, clinical trials provide an important option for hope and clinical benefit. Disrupting the conduct of clinical trials could endanger the lives of participants and delay the emergence of promising treatments and diagnostic tests.

When the coronavirus pandemic recedes, advancing knowledge and treatments for cancer will demand renewed commitment across the oncology care community.

Going forward, Dr. Oyer advised that clinical research staff protect their own health and the safety of trial participants. He encouraged programs to work with sponsors and IRBs to solve logistical problems and clarify individual issues.

He was optimistic that resumption of more normal conduct of studies will enable the successful completion of ongoing trials, enhanced by the creative solutions that were devised during the crisis and by additional prospective, clinically annotated, carefully recorded data from academic and community research sites.


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

More than three-quarters of cancer clinical research programs have experienced operational changes during the COVID-19 pandemic, according to a survey conducted by the Association of Community Cancer Centers (ACCC) during a recent webinar.

The webinar included insights into how some cancer research programs have adapted to the pandemic, a review of guidance for conducting cancer trials during this time, and a discussion of how the cancer research landscape may be affected by COVID-19 going forward.

The webinar was led by Randall A. Oyer, MD, president of the ACCC and medical director of the oncology program at Penn Medicine Lancaster General Health in Pennsylvania.

The impact of COVID-19 on cancer research

Dr. Oyer observed that planning and implementation for COVID-19–related illness at U.S. health care institutions has had a predictable effect of limiting patient access and staff availability for nonessential services.

Coronavirus-related exposure and/or illness has relegated cancer research to a lower-level priority. As a result, ACCC institutions have made adjustments in their cancer research programs, including moving clinical research coordinators off-campus and deploying them in clinical areas.

New clinical trials have not been opened. In some cases, new accruals have been halted, particularly for registry, prevention, and symptom control trials.

Standards that have changed and those that have not

Guidance documents for conducting clinical trials during the pandemic have been developed by the Food and Drug Administration, the National Cancer Institute’s Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program and Central Institutional Review Board, and the National Institutes of Health’s Office of Extramural Research. Industry sponsors and parent institutions of research programs have also disseminated guidance.

Among other topics, guidance documents have addressed:

• How COVID-19-related protocol deviations will be judged at monitoring visits and audits
• Missed office visits and endpoint evaluations
• Providing investigational oral medications to patients via mail and potential issues of medication unavailability
• Processes for patients to have interim visits with providers at external institutions, including providers who may not be personally engaged in or credentialed for the research trial
• Potential delays in submitting protocol amendments for institutional review board (IRB) review
• Recommendations for patients confirmed or suspected of having a coronavirus infection.

Dr. Oyer emphasized that patient safety must remain the highest priority for patient management, on or off study. He advised continuing investigational therapy when potential benefit from treatment is anticipated and identifying alternative methods to face-to-face visits for monitoring and access to treatment.

Dr. Oyer urged programs to:

• Maintain good clinical practice standards
• Consult with sponsors and IRBs when questions arise but implement changes that affect patient safety prior to IRB review if necessary
• Document all deviations and COVID-19 related adaptations in a log or spreadsheet in anticipation of future questions from sponsors, monitors, and other entities.

New questions and considerations

In the short-term, Dr. Oyer predicts fewer available trials and a decreased rate of accrual to existing studies. This may result in delays in trial completion and the possibility of redesign for some trials.

He predicts the emergence of COVID-19-focused research questions, including those assessing the course of coronavirus infection in various malignant settings and the impact of cancer-directed treatments and supportive care interventions (e.g., treatment for graft-versus-host disease) on response to COVID-19.

To facilitate developing a clinically and research-relevant database, Dr. Oyer stressed the importance of documentation in the research record, reporting infections as serious adverse events. Documentation should specify whether the infection was confirmed or suspected coronavirus or related to another organism.

In general, when coronavirus infection is strongly suspected, Dr. Oyer said investigational treatments should be interrupted, but study-specific criteria will be forthcoming on that issue.
 

Looking to the future

For patients with advanced cancers, clinical trials provide an important option for hope and clinical benefit. Disrupting the conduct of clinical trials could endanger the lives of participants and delay the emergence of promising treatments and diagnostic tests.

When the coronavirus pandemic recedes, advancing knowledge and treatments for cancer will demand renewed commitment across the oncology care community.

Going forward, Dr. Oyer advised that clinical research staff protect their own health and the safety of trial participants. He encouraged programs to work with sponsors and IRBs to solve logistical problems and clarify individual issues.

He was optimistic that resumption of more normal conduct of studies will enable the successful completion of ongoing trials, enhanced by the creative solutions that were devised during the crisis and by additional prospective, clinically annotated, carefully recorded data from academic and community research sites.


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

More than three-quarters of cancer clinical research programs have experienced operational changes during the COVID-19 pandemic, according to a survey conducted by the Association of Community Cancer Centers (ACCC) during a recent webinar.

The webinar included insights into how some cancer research programs have adapted to the pandemic, a review of guidance for conducting cancer trials during this time, and a discussion of how the cancer research landscape may be affected by COVID-19 going forward.

The webinar was led by Randall A. Oyer, MD, president of the ACCC and medical director of the oncology program at Penn Medicine Lancaster General Health in Pennsylvania.

The impact of COVID-19 on cancer research

Dr. Oyer observed that planning and implementation for COVID-19–related illness at U.S. health care institutions has had a predictable effect of limiting patient access and staff availability for nonessential services.

Coronavirus-related exposure and/or illness has relegated cancer research to a lower-level priority. As a result, ACCC institutions have made adjustments in their cancer research programs, including moving clinical research coordinators off-campus and deploying them in clinical areas.

New clinical trials have not been opened. In some cases, new accruals have been halted, particularly for registry, prevention, and symptom control trials.

Standards that have changed and those that have not

Guidance documents for conducting clinical trials during the pandemic have been developed by the Food and Drug Administration, the National Cancer Institute’s Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program and Central Institutional Review Board, and the National Institutes of Health’s Office of Extramural Research. Industry sponsors and parent institutions of research programs have also disseminated guidance.

Among other topics, guidance documents have addressed:

• How COVID-19-related protocol deviations will be judged at monitoring visits and audits
• Missed office visits and endpoint evaluations
• Providing investigational oral medications to patients via mail and potential issues of medication unavailability
• Processes for patients to have interim visits with providers at external institutions, including providers who may not be personally engaged in or credentialed for the research trial
• Potential delays in submitting protocol amendments for institutional review board (IRB) review
• Recommendations for patients confirmed or suspected of having a coronavirus infection.

Dr. Oyer emphasized that patient safety must remain the highest priority for patient management, on or off study. He advised continuing investigational therapy when potential benefit from treatment is anticipated and identifying alternative methods to face-to-face visits for monitoring and access to treatment.

Dr. Oyer urged programs to:

• Maintain good clinical practice standards
• Consult with sponsors and IRBs when questions arise but implement changes that affect patient safety prior to IRB review if necessary
• Document all deviations and COVID-19 related adaptations in a log or spreadsheet in anticipation of future questions from sponsors, monitors, and other entities.

New questions and considerations

In the short-term, Dr. Oyer predicts fewer available trials and a decreased rate of accrual to existing studies. This may result in delays in trial completion and the possibility of redesign for some trials.

He predicts the emergence of COVID-19-focused research questions, including those assessing the course of coronavirus infection in various malignant settings and the impact of cancer-directed treatments and supportive care interventions (e.g., treatment for graft-versus-host disease) on response to COVID-19.

To facilitate developing a clinically and research-relevant database, Dr. Oyer stressed the importance of documentation in the research record, reporting infections as serious adverse events. Documentation should specify whether the infection was confirmed or suspected coronavirus or related to another organism.

In general, when coronavirus infection is strongly suspected, Dr. Oyer said investigational treatments should be interrupted, but study-specific criteria will be forthcoming on that issue.
 

Looking to the future

For patients with advanced cancers, clinical trials provide an important option for hope and clinical benefit. Disrupting the conduct of clinical trials could endanger the lives of participants and delay the emergence of promising treatments and diagnostic tests.

When the coronavirus pandemic recedes, advancing knowledge and treatments for cancer will demand renewed commitment across the oncology care community.

Going forward, Dr. Oyer advised that clinical research staff protect their own health and the safety of trial participants. He encouraged programs to work with sponsors and IRBs to solve logistical problems and clarify individual issues.

He was optimistic that resumption of more normal conduct of studies will enable the successful completion of ongoing trials, enhanced by the creative solutions that were devised during the crisis and by additional prospective, clinically annotated, carefully recorded data from academic and community research sites.


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

Stratifying diagnostic cut-off values of tumor markers based on genetic variants may improve detection of pancreatic cancer, according to investigators.

Stratification had the greatest positive impact on accuracy of carbohydrate antigen 19-9 (CA19-9), reported lead author Toshiya Abe, MD, PhD, of Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, and colleagues.

“Despite the evidence that genetic factors influence tumor marker levels, the potential utility of using a genetic test to improve the interpretation of tumor markers has drawn limited attention,” the investigators wrote in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

And improvements are needed, the investigators noted, particularly for early cancer detection in high-risk individuals.

“[T]he toughest hurdle for a pancreatic cancer detection blood test is the detection of stage I disease,” the investigators wrote. “Cancers generally shed biomarkers in proportion to their size, and small stage I pancreatic cancers shed fewer diagnostic biomarkers into the circulation, making diagnosis more difficult.”

Although a 2016 study by Dr. Guopei Luo and colleagues demonstrated that diagnostic accuracy of CA19-9 could be improved via genotyping, tumor marker performance was not characterized by high-specificity cut-off values, which the present study aimed to do.

The control group included 504 high-risk individuals who were prospectively enrolled in the Cancer of the Pancreas Screening (CAPS) studies from 2002 to 2018, while the case group included 245 patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) who underwent resection at Johns Hopkins from 2010 to 2017.

The control group was randomly divided into discovery and validation sets in order to achieve 99% specificity cut-off values, which were used to measure sensitivity in the case group. According to the investigators, high-specificity cut-off values are necessary for surveillance of asymptomatic high-risk individuals in order to minimize false-positive results.

In all patients, tumor markers and genotype were analyzed. Tumor markers included carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), CA19-9, and cancer antigen 125 (CA-125). Genotyping included 16 single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in 9 genes, including FUT2 and FUT3, which are known to influence levels of CA19-9.

In contrast with previous findings, which identified three relevant subgroups of FUT2/FUT3, the present study found that four distinct subgroups were significantly associated with CA19-9 levels: FUT3-null, FUT3+/-, FUT3+/+, and FUT2-null.

When CA19-9 cut-off levels were stratified by these four subgroups and applied to the 245 patients with pancreatic cancer, the investigators achieved a sensitivity of 60.8%, compared with 52.7% without stratification. The new cut-off values led to reclassification of 28 (11.4%) patients with pancreatic cancer, including 24 who switched from negative to positive, and 4 who switched from positive to negative.

Sensitivity of the SNP-adjusted CA19-9 test was improved to 66.4% when used exclusively in patients with functional FUT3 genes. Conversely, sensitivity was markedly lower, at 36.7%, when the test was used for patients with stage I disease.

While CA19-9 testing was notably improved by SNP-based stratification, results from CEA and CA-125 testing were more modest. Standard CEA testing had a sensitivity of 13.8%, compared with 15.9% when cut-off values were stratified by FUT2 status and ABO blood group. Similarly, modifying CA-125 values based on SNPs in GAL3ST2 raised sensitivity from 15.5% to 17.6%.

Although combining SNP-modified tumor marker results did increase overall sensitivity to as high as 66.1%, this also reduced specificity to as low as 95.4%

Still, Dr. Abe and colleagues suggested that the findings demonstrate proof of concept.

“Our results show that a tumor marker SNP test can improve the diagnostic accuracy of CA19-9 and, to a lesser extent, CEA and CA-125, but further work is needed to improve the diagnostic accuracy of our panel for the detection of early-stage pancreatic cancer,” they concluded.

The investigators also suggested that the technique could have value for surveillance of ovarian cancer; however, again, they emphasized the need for more research.The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health, Susan Wojcicki and Dennis Troper, the Pancreatic Cancer Action Network, and others. The investigators reported no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Abe T et al. Clin Gastro Hepatol. 2019 Oct 29. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2019.10.036.

Stratifying diagnostic cut-off values of tumor markers based on genetic variants may improve detection of pancreatic cancer, according to investigators.

Stratification had the greatest positive impact on accuracy of carbohydrate antigen 19-9 (CA19-9), reported lead author Toshiya Abe, MD, PhD, of Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, and colleagues.

“Despite the evidence that genetic factors influence tumor marker levels, the potential utility of using a genetic test to improve the interpretation of tumor markers has drawn limited attention,” the investigators wrote in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

And improvements are needed, the investigators noted, particularly for early cancer detection in high-risk individuals.

“[T]he toughest hurdle for a pancreatic cancer detection blood test is the detection of stage I disease,” the investigators wrote. “Cancers generally shed biomarkers in proportion to their size, and small stage I pancreatic cancers shed fewer diagnostic biomarkers into the circulation, making diagnosis more difficult.”

Although a 2016 study by Dr. Guopei Luo and colleagues demonstrated that diagnostic accuracy of CA19-9 could be improved via genotyping, tumor marker performance was not characterized by high-specificity cut-off values, which the present study aimed to do.

The control group included 504 high-risk individuals who were prospectively enrolled in the Cancer of the Pancreas Screening (CAPS) studies from 2002 to 2018, while the case group included 245 patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) who underwent resection at Johns Hopkins from 2010 to 2017.

The control group was randomly divided into discovery and validation sets in order to achieve 99% specificity cut-off values, which were used to measure sensitivity in the case group. According to the investigators, high-specificity cut-off values are necessary for surveillance of asymptomatic high-risk individuals in order to minimize false-positive results.

In all patients, tumor markers and genotype were analyzed. Tumor markers included carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), CA19-9, and cancer antigen 125 (CA-125). Genotyping included 16 single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in 9 genes, including FUT2 and FUT3, which are known to influence levels of CA19-9.

In contrast with previous findings, which identified three relevant subgroups of FUT2/FUT3, the present study found that four distinct subgroups were significantly associated with CA19-9 levels: FUT3-null, FUT3+/-, FUT3+/+, and FUT2-null.

When CA19-9 cut-off levels were stratified by these four subgroups and applied to the 245 patients with pancreatic cancer, the investigators achieved a sensitivity of 60.8%, compared with 52.7% without stratification. The new cut-off values led to reclassification of 28 (11.4%) patients with pancreatic cancer, including 24 who switched from negative to positive, and 4 who switched from positive to negative.

Sensitivity of the SNP-adjusted CA19-9 test was improved to 66.4% when used exclusively in patients with functional FUT3 genes. Conversely, sensitivity was markedly lower, at 36.7%, when the test was used for patients with stage I disease.

While CA19-9 testing was notably improved by SNP-based stratification, results from CEA and CA-125 testing were more modest. Standard CEA testing had a sensitivity of 13.8%, compared with 15.9% when cut-off values were stratified by FUT2 status and ABO blood group. Similarly, modifying CA-125 values based on SNPs in GAL3ST2 raised sensitivity from 15.5% to 17.6%.

Although combining SNP-modified tumor marker results did increase overall sensitivity to as high as 66.1%, this also reduced specificity to as low as 95.4%

Still, Dr. Abe and colleagues suggested that the findings demonstrate proof of concept.

“Our results show that a tumor marker SNP test can improve the diagnostic accuracy of CA19-9 and, to a lesser extent, CEA and CA-125, but further work is needed to improve the diagnostic accuracy of our panel for the detection of early-stage pancreatic cancer,” they concluded.

The investigators also suggested that the technique could have value for surveillance of ovarian cancer; however, again, they emphasized the need for more research.The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health, Susan Wojcicki and Dennis Troper, the Pancreatic Cancer Action Network, and others. The investigators reported no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Abe T et al. Clin Gastro Hepatol. 2019 Oct 29. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2019.10.036.

Stratifying diagnostic cut-off values of tumor markers based on genetic variants may improve detection of pancreatic cancer, according to investigators.

Stratification had the greatest positive impact on accuracy of carbohydrate antigen 19-9 (CA19-9), reported lead author Toshiya Abe, MD, PhD, of Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, and colleagues.

“Despite the evidence that genetic factors influence tumor marker levels, the potential utility of using a genetic test to improve the interpretation of tumor markers has drawn limited attention,” the investigators wrote in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

And improvements are needed, the investigators noted, particularly for early cancer detection in high-risk individuals.

“[T]he toughest hurdle for a pancreatic cancer detection blood test is the detection of stage I disease,” the investigators wrote. “Cancers generally shed biomarkers in proportion to their size, and small stage I pancreatic cancers shed fewer diagnostic biomarkers into the circulation, making diagnosis more difficult.”

Although a 2016 study by Dr. Guopei Luo and colleagues demonstrated that diagnostic accuracy of CA19-9 could be improved via genotyping, tumor marker performance was not characterized by high-specificity cut-off values, which the present study aimed to do.

The control group included 504 high-risk individuals who were prospectively enrolled in the Cancer of the Pancreas Screening (CAPS) studies from 2002 to 2018, while the case group included 245 patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) who underwent resection at Johns Hopkins from 2010 to 2017.

The control group was randomly divided into discovery and validation sets in order to achieve 99% specificity cut-off values, which were used to measure sensitivity in the case group. According to the investigators, high-specificity cut-off values are necessary for surveillance of asymptomatic high-risk individuals in order to minimize false-positive results.

In all patients, tumor markers and genotype were analyzed. Tumor markers included carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), CA19-9, and cancer antigen 125 (CA-125). Genotyping included 16 single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in 9 genes, including FUT2 and FUT3, which are known to influence levels of CA19-9.

In contrast with previous findings, which identified three relevant subgroups of FUT2/FUT3, the present study found that four distinct subgroups were significantly associated with CA19-9 levels: FUT3-null, FUT3+/-, FUT3+/+, and FUT2-null.

When CA19-9 cut-off levels were stratified by these four subgroups and applied to the 245 patients with pancreatic cancer, the investigators achieved a sensitivity of 60.8%, compared with 52.7% without stratification. The new cut-off values led to reclassification of 28 (11.4%) patients with pancreatic cancer, including 24 who switched from negative to positive, and 4 who switched from positive to negative.

Sensitivity of the SNP-adjusted CA19-9 test was improved to 66.4% when used exclusively in patients with functional FUT3 genes. Conversely, sensitivity was markedly lower, at 36.7%, when the test was used for patients with stage I disease.

While CA19-9 testing was notably improved by SNP-based stratification, results from CEA and CA-125 testing were more modest. Standard CEA testing had a sensitivity of 13.8%, compared with 15.9% when cut-off values were stratified by FUT2 status and ABO blood group. Similarly, modifying CA-125 values based on SNPs in GAL3ST2 raised sensitivity from 15.5% to 17.6%.

Although combining SNP-modified tumor marker results did increase overall sensitivity to as high as 66.1%, this also reduced specificity to as low as 95.4%

Still, Dr. Abe and colleagues suggested that the findings demonstrate proof of concept.

“Our results show that a tumor marker SNP test can improve the diagnostic accuracy of CA19-9 and, to a lesser extent, CEA and CA-125, but further work is needed to improve the diagnostic accuracy of our panel for the detection of early-stage pancreatic cancer,” they concluded.

The investigators also suggested that the technique could have value for surveillance of ovarian cancer; however, again, they emphasized the need for more research.The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health, Susan Wojcicki and Dennis Troper, the Pancreatic Cancer Action Network, and others. The investigators reported no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Abe T et al. Clin Gastro Hepatol. 2019 Oct 29. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2019.10.036.

A team of radiation oncologists has devised recommendations and a framework for managing radiotherapy in prostate cancer patients during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The framework involves using remote visits via telemedicine, avoiding radiotherapy in applicable cases, deferring radiotherapy as appropriate, and shortening the fractionation schedule of treatment based on safety and efficacy parameters.

Nicholas G. Zaorsky, MD, of Penn State Cancer Institute in Hershey, Pennsylvania, and colleagues described the framework and recommendations in Advances in Radiation Oncology.

The authors systematically reviewed the body of literature for evidence pertaining to the safe use of telemedicine, avoidance or deferral of radiotherapy, and optimal use of androgen deprivation therapy for patients with prostate cancer. The team also reviewed best practices for patients undergoing radiotherapy based on disease risk.

Based on their findings, Dr. Zaorsky and colleagues recommended that, during the pandemic, all consultations and return visits become telehealth visits. “Very few prostate cancer patients require an in-person visit during a pandemic,” the authors wrote.
 

Lower-risk disease

Dr. Zaorsky and colleagues recommended avoiding radiotherapy in patients with very-low-, low-, and favorable intermediate-risk disease. The authors said data suggest that, in general, treatment can be safely deferred in these patients “until after pandemic-related restrictions have been lifted.” However, this recommendation presumes the pandemic will wane over the next 12 months.

“I reassure my patients with very-low- and low-risk prostate cancer that the preferred, evidence-based treatment for patients in these categories is active surveillance,” said study author Amar U. Kishan, MD, of the University of California, Los Angeles.

“If surveillance is an option, then delaying treatment must be reasonable [during the pandemic],” he added. “For favorable intermediate-risk disease, I [review] the data supporting this approach and discuss that short delays are very unlikely to compromise outcomes.”
 

Higher-risk disease

The authors recommended deferral of radiotherapy for 4-6 months in patients with higher-risk disease, which includes those with unfavorable intermediate-risk, high-risk, very-high-risk, clinical node-positive, oligometastatic, and low-volume M1 disease, as well as patients who have undergone prostatectomy.

The authors noted that in-person consultations and return visits should be converted to “timely remote telehealth visits” for these patients. After these patients have started treatment, androgen deprivation therapy “can allow for further deferral of radiotherapy as necessary based on the nature of the ongoing epidemic.”

In cases where radiotherapy cannot be deferred safely, “the shortest fractionation schedule should be adopted that has evidence of safety and efficacy,” the authors wrote.

They acknowledged that these recommendations are only applicable to patients not infected with COVID-19. In cases of suspected or confirmed COVID-19, local institutional policies and practices should be followed.

The authors further explained that, due to the rapidly evolving nature of the COVID-19 pandemic, state and federal guidelines should be followed when made available.

The authors reported having no conflicts of interest. No funding sources were reported.

SOURCE: Zaorsky NG et al. Adv Radiat Oncol. 2020 Apr 1. doi: 10.1016/j.adro.2020.03.010.

A team of radiation oncologists has devised recommendations and a framework for managing radiotherapy in prostate cancer patients during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The framework involves using remote visits via telemedicine, avoiding radiotherapy in applicable cases, deferring radiotherapy as appropriate, and shortening the fractionation schedule of treatment based on safety and efficacy parameters.

Nicholas G. Zaorsky, MD, of Penn State Cancer Institute in Hershey, Pennsylvania, and colleagues described the framework and recommendations in Advances in Radiation Oncology.

The authors systematically reviewed the body of literature for evidence pertaining to the safe use of telemedicine, avoidance or deferral of radiotherapy, and optimal use of androgen deprivation therapy for patients with prostate cancer. The team also reviewed best practices for patients undergoing radiotherapy based on disease risk.

Based on their findings, Dr. Zaorsky and colleagues recommended that, during the pandemic, all consultations and return visits become telehealth visits. “Very few prostate cancer patients require an in-person visit during a pandemic,” the authors wrote.
 

Lower-risk disease

Dr. Zaorsky and colleagues recommended avoiding radiotherapy in patients with very-low-, low-, and favorable intermediate-risk disease. The authors said data suggest that, in general, treatment can be safely deferred in these patients “until after pandemic-related restrictions have been lifted.” However, this recommendation presumes the pandemic will wane over the next 12 months.

“I reassure my patients with very-low- and low-risk prostate cancer that the preferred, evidence-based treatment for patients in these categories is active surveillance,” said study author Amar U. Kishan, MD, of the University of California, Los Angeles.

“If surveillance is an option, then delaying treatment must be reasonable [during the pandemic],” he added. “For favorable intermediate-risk disease, I [review] the data supporting this approach and discuss that short delays are very unlikely to compromise outcomes.”
 

Higher-risk disease

The authors recommended deferral of radiotherapy for 4-6 months in patients with higher-risk disease, which includes those with unfavorable intermediate-risk, high-risk, very-high-risk, clinical node-positive, oligometastatic, and low-volume M1 disease, as well as patients who have undergone prostatectomy.

The authors noted that in-person consultations and return visits should be converted to “timely remote telehealth visits” for these patients. After these patients have started treatment, androgen deprivation therapy “can allow for further deferral of radiotherapy as necessary based on the nature of the ongoing epidemic.”

In cases where radiotherapy cannot be deferred safely, “the shortest fractionation schedule should be adopted that has evidence of safety and efficacy,” the authors wrote.

They acknowledged that these recommendations are only applicable to patients not infected with COVID-19. In cases of suspected or confirmed COVID-19, local institutional policies and practices should be followed.

The authors further explained that, due to the rapidly evolving nature of the COVID-19 pandemic, state and federal guidelines should be followed when made available.

The authors reported having no conflicts of interest. No funding sources were reported.

SOURCE: Zaorsky NG et al. Adv Radiat Oncol. 2020 Apr 1. doi: 10.1016/j.adro.2020.03.010.

A team of radiation oncologists has devised recommendations and a framework for managing radiotherapy in prostate cancer patients during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The framework involves using remote visits via telemedicine, avoiding radiotherapy in applicable cases, deferring radiotherapy as appropriate, and shortening the fractionation schedule of treatment based on safety and efficacy parameters.

Nicholas G. Zaorsky, MD, of Penn State Cancer Institute in Hershey, Pennsylvania, and colleagues described the framework and recommendations in Advances in Radiation Oncology.

The authors systematically reviewed the body of literature for evidence pertaining to the safe use of telemedicine, avoidance or deferral of radiotherapy, and optimal use of androgen deprivation therapy for patients with prostate cancer. The team also reviewed best practices for patients undergoing radiotherapy based on disease risk.

Based on their findings, Dr. Zaorsky and colleagues recommended that, during the pandemic, all consultations and return visits become telehealth visits. “Very few prostate cancer patients require an in-person visit during a pandemic,” the authors wrote.
 

Lower-risk disease

Dr. Zaorsky and colleagues recommended avoiding radiotherapy in patients with very-low-, low-, and favorable intermediate-risk disease. The authors said data suggest that, in general, treatment can be safely deferred in these patients “until after pandemic-related restrictions have been lifted.” However, this recommendation presumes the pandemic will wane over the next 12 months.

“I reassure my patients with very-low- and low-risk prostate cancer that the preferred, evidence-based treatment for patients in these categories is active surveillance,” said study author Amar U. Kishan, MD, of the University of California, Los Angeles.

“If surveillance is an option, then delaying treatment must be reasonable [during the pandemic],” he added. “For favorable intermediate-risk disease, I [review] the data supporting this approach and discuss that short delays are very unlikely to compromise outcomes.”
 

Higher-risk disease

The authors recommended deferral of radiotherapy for 4-6 months in patients with higher-risk disease, which includes those with unfavorable intermediate-risk, high-risk, very-high-risk, clinical node-positive, oligometastatic, and low-volume M1 disease, as well as patients who have undergone prostatectomy.

The authors noted that in-person consultations and return visits should be converted to “timely remote telehealth visits” for these patients. After these patients have started treatment, androgen deprivation therapy “can allow for further deferral of radiotherapy as necessary based on the nature of the ongoing epidemic.”

In cases where radiotherapy cannot be deferred safely, “the shortest fractionation schedule should be adopted that has evidence of safety and efficacy,” the authors wrote.

They acknowledged that these recommendations are only applicable to patients not infected with COVID-19. In cases of suspected or confirmed COVID-19, local institutional policies and practices should be followed.

The authors further explained that, due to the rapidly evolving nature of the COVID-19 pandemic, state and federal guidelines should be followed when made available.

The authors reported having no conflicts of interest. No funding sources were reported.

SOURCE: Zaorsky NG et al. Adv Radiat Oncol. 2020 Apr 1. doi: 10.1016/j.adro.2020.03.010.

Recent research has shown that severe cases of COVID-19 show an excessive immune response and a strong cytokine storm, which may include high levels of granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GSF) and interleukin-6 (IL-6). Following up on that research, investigators from China reported the first case of COVID-19 in a patient with multiple myeloma (MM) who was successfully treated with the humanized anti–IL-6 receptor antibody tocilizumab (an off-label use in the United States). The exceptional case report was published online in Blood Advances, an American Society of Hematology journal.

A 60-year-old man working in Wuhan, China, developed chest tightness without fever and cough on Feb. 1, 2020, and was admitted immediately after computed tomography (CT) imaging of his chest showed multiple ground-glass opacities and pneumatocele located in both subpleural spaces. He received 400 mg of moxifloxacin IV daily for 3 days while swab specimens were collected and tested by real-time reverse transcriptase–polymerase chain reaction. A positive result for SARS-CoV-2 infection was received 3 days later. The patient was subsequently given 200-mg umifenovir (Arbidol) tablets orally, three times daily, for antiviral treatment.

The patient had a history of symptomatic MM, which was diagnosed in 2015. The patient received two cycles of induction chemotherapy consisting of bortezomib, thalidomide, and dexamethasone, and his symptoms completely disappeared. After that, he received thalidomide for maintenance.

Chest CT imaging on hospital day 8 showed that the bilateral, multiple ground-glass opacities from the first scan remained, and laboratory investigations revealed a high level of serum IL-6. On hospital day 9, the patient was given a single, one-time dose of 8 mg/kg tocilizumab, administered by IV. On hospital day 12, his chest tightness disappeared. “After tocilizumab administration, the IL-6 level decreased gradually over the following 10 days (from 121.59 to 20.81 pg/mL), then increased rapidly to the peak (317.38 pg/mL), and then decreased to a low level (117.10 pg/mL). The transient rebounding of the IL-6 level to the peak does not mean COVID-19 relapse: Instead, this might be attributed to the recovery of the normal T cells,” the authors wrote.

On hospital day 19, the patient’s chest CT scan showed that the range of ground-glass opacities had obviously decreased, and he was declared cured and discharged from the hospital. The patient had no symptoms of MM, and related laboratory findings were all in normal ranges, according to the researchers.

“This case is the first to prove that tocilizumab is effective in the treatment of COVID-19 in MM with obvious clinical recovery; however, randomized controlled trials are needed to determine the safety and efficacy of tocilizumab,” the researchers concluded.

The authors declared that they had no conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Zhang X et al. Blood Adv. 2020;4(7):1307-10.

Recent research has shown that severe cases of COVID-19 show an excessive immune response and a strong cytokine storm, which may include high levels of granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GSF) and interleukin-6 (IL-6). Following up on that research, investigators from China reported the first case of COVID-19 in a patient with multiple myeloma (MM) who was successfully treated with the humanized anti–IL-6 receptor antibody tocilizumab (an off-label use in the United States). The exceptional case report was published online in Blood Advances, an American Society of Hematology journal.

A 60-year-old man working in Wuhan, China, developed chest tightness without fever and cough on Feb. 1, 2020, and was admitted immediately after computed tomography (CT) imaging of his chest showed multiple ground-glass opacities and pneumatocele located in both subpleural spaces. He received 400 mg of moxifloxacin IV daily for 3 days while swab specimens were collected and tested by real-time reverse transcriptase–polymerase chain reaction. A positive result for SARS-CoV-2 infection was received 3 days later. The patient was subsequently given 200-mg umifenovir (Arbidol) tablets orally, three times daily, for antiviral treatment.

The patient had a history of symptomatic MM, which was diagnosed in 2015. The patient received two cycles of induction chemotherapy consisting of bortezomib, thalidomide, and dexamethasone, and his symptoms completely disappeared. After that, he received thalidomide for maintenance.

Chest CT imaging on hospital day 8 showed that the bilateral, multiple ground-glass opacities from the first scan remained, and laboratory investigations revealed a high level of serum IL-6. On hospital day 9, the patient was given a single, one-time dose of 8 mg/kg tocilizumab, administered by IV. On hospital day 12, his chest tightness disappeared. “After tocilizumab administration, the IL-6 level decreased gradually over the following 10 days (from 121.59 to 20.81 pg/mL), then increased rapidly to the peak (317.38 pg/mL), and then decreased to a low level (117.10 pg/mL). The transient rebounding of the IL-6 level to the peak does not mean COVID-19 relapse: Instead, this might be attributed to the recovery of the normal T cells,” the authors wrote.

On hospital day 19, the patient’s chest CT scan showed that the range of ground-glass opacities had obviously decreased, and he was declared cured and discharged from the hospital. The patient had no symptoms of MM, and related laboratory findings were all in normal ranges, according to the researchers.

“This case is the first to prove that tocilizumab is effective in the treatment of COVID-19 in MM with obvious clinical recovery; however, randomized controlled trials are needed to determine the safety and efficacy of tocilizumab,” the researchers concluded.

The authors declared that they had no conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Zhang X et al. Blood Adv. 2020;4(7):1307-10.

Recent research has shown that severe cases of COVID-19 show an excessive immune response and a strong cytokine storm, which may include high levels of granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GSF) and interleukin-6 (IL-6). Following up on that research, investigators from China reported the first case of COVID-19 in a patient with multiple myeloma (MM) who was successfully treated with the humanized anti–IL-6 receptor antibody tocilizumab (an off-label use in the United States). The exceptional case report was published online in Blood Advances, an American Society of Hematology journal.

A 60-year-old man working in Wuhan, China, developed chest tightness without fever and cough on Feb. 1, 2020, and was admitted immediately after computed tomography (CT) imaging of his chest showed multiple ground-glass opacities and pneumatocele located in both subpleural spaces. He received 400 mg of moxifloxacin IV daily for 3 days while swab specimens were collected and tested by real-time reverse transcriptase–polymerase chain reaction. A positive result for SARS-CoV-2 infection was received 3 days later. The patient was subsequently given 200-mg umifenovir (Arbidol) tablets orally, three times daily, for antiviral treatment.

The patient had a history of symptomatic MM, which was diagnosed in 2015. The patient received two cycles of induction chemotherapy consisting of bortezomib, thalidomide, and dexamethasone, and his symptoms completely disappeared. After that, he received thalidomide for maintenance.

Chest CT imaging on hospital day 8 showed that the bilateral, multiple ground-glass opacities from the first scan remained, and laboratory investigations revealed a high level of serum IL-6. On hospital day 9, the patient was given a single, one-time dose of 8 mg/kg tocilizumab, administered by IV. On hospital day 12, his chest tightness disappeared. “After tocilizumab administration, the IL-6 level decreased gradually over the following 10 days (from 121.59 to 20.81 pg/mL), then increased rapidly to the peak (317.38 pg/mL), and then decreased to a low level (117.10 pg/mL). The transient rebounding of the IL-6 level to the peak does not mean COVID-19 relapse: Instead, this might be attributed to the recovery of the normal T cells,” the authors wrote.

On hospital day 19, the patient’s chest CT scan showed that the range of ground-glass opacities had obviously decreased, and he was declared cured and discharged from the hospital. The patient had no symptoms of MM, and related laboratory findings were all in normal ranges, according to the researchers.

“This case is the first to prove that tocilizumab is effective in the treatment of COVID-19 in MM with obvious clinical recovery; however, randomized controlled trials are needed to determine the safety and efficacy of tocilizumab,” the researchers concluded.

The authors declared that they had no conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Zhang X et al. Blood Adv. 2020;4(7):1307-10.

Curative treatments for metastatic prostate, renal, and urothelial cancer – and germ cell tumors – should continue as usual amid the COVID-19 pandemic, but “the risk/benefit ratio of a number of palliative and (neo)adjuvant treatments has to be reconsidered,” according to an editorial set to be published in European Urology.

“Regimens with a clear survival advantage should be prioritized, with curative treatments remaining mandatory,” wrote Silke Gillessen Sommer, MD, of Istituto Oncologico della Svizzera Italiana in Bellizona, Switzerland, and Thomas Powles, MD, of Barts Cancer Institute in London.

However, it may be appropriate to stop or delay therapies with modest or unproven survival benefits. “Delaying the start of therapy ... is an appropriate measure for many of the therapies in urology cancer,” they wrote.
 

Timely recommendations for oncologists

The COVID-19 pandemic is limiting resources for cancer, noted Zachery Reichert, MD, PhD, a urological oncologist and assistant professor at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, who was asked for his thoughts about the editorial.

Oncologists and oncology nurses are being shifted to care for COVID-19 patients, space once devoted to cancer care is being repurposed for the pandemic, and personal protective equipment needed to prepare chemotherapies is in short supply.

Meanwhile, cancer patients are at increased risk of dying from the virus (Lancet Oncol. 2020;21:335-7), so there’s a need to minimize their contact with the health care system to protect them from nosocomial infection, and a need to keep their immune system as strong as possible to fight it off.

To help cancer patients fight off infection and keep them out of the hospital, the editorialists recommended growth factors and prophylactic antibiotics after chemotherapy, palliative therapies at doses that avoid febrile neutropenia, discontinuing steroids or at least reducing their doses, and avoiding bisphosphonates if they involve potential COVID-19 exposure in medical facilities.

The advice in the editorial mirrors many of the discussions going on right now at the University of Michigan, Dr. Reichert said, and perhaps other oncology services across the United States.

It will come down to how severe the pandemic becomes locally, but he said it seems likely “a lot of us are going to be wearing a different hat for a while.”

Patients who have symptoms from a growing tumor will likely take precedence at the university, but treatment might be postponed until after COVID-19 peaks if tumors don’t affect quality of life. Also, bladder cancer surgery will probably remain urgent “because the longer you wait, the worse the outcomes,” but perhaps not prostate and kidney cancer surgery, where delay is safer, Dr. Reichert said.
 

Prostate/renal cancers and germ cell tumors

The editorialists noted that oral androgen receptor therapy should be preferred over chemotherapy for prostate cancer. Dr. Reichert explained that’s because androgen blockade is effective, requires less contact with health care providers, and doesn’t suppress the immune system or tie up hospital resources as much as chemotherapy. “In the world we are in right now, oral pills are a better choice,” he said.

The editorialists recommended against both nephrectomy for metastatic renal cancer and adjuvant therapy after orchidectomy for stage 1 germ cell tumors for similar reasons, and also because there’s minimal evidence of benefit.

Dr. Powles and Dr. Gillessen Sommer suggested considering a break from immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) and oral vascular endothelial growth factors (VEGFs) for renal cancer patients who have been on them a year or two. It’s something that would be considered even under normal circumstances, Dr. Reichert explained, but it’s more urgent now to keep people out of the hospital. VEGFs should also be prioritized over ICIs; they have similar efficacy in renal cancer, but VEGFs are a pill.

They also called for oncologists to favor conventional-dose treatments for germ cell tumors over high-dose treatments, meaning bone marrow transplants or high-intensity chemotherapy. Amid a pandemic, the preference is for options “that don’t require a hospital bed,” Dr. Reichert said.
 

Urothelial cancer

Dr. Powles and Dr. Gillessen Sommer suggested not starting or continuing second-line chemotherapies in urothelial cancer patients refractory to first-line platinum-based therapies. The chance they will respond to second-line options is low, perhaps around 10%. That might have been enough before the pandemic, but it’s less justified amid resource shortages and the risk of COVID-19 in the infusion suite, Dr. Reichert explained.

Along the same lines, they also suggested reconsidering perioperative chemotherapy for urothelial cancer, and, if it’s still a go, recommended against going past three cycles, as the benefits in both scenarios are likely marginal. However, if COVID-19 cancels surgeries, neoadjuvant therapy might be the right – and only – call, according to the editorialists.

They recommended prioritizing ICIs over chemotherapy in patients with metastatic urothelial cancer who are positive for programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1). PD-L1–positive patients have a good chance of responding, and ICIs don’t suppress the immune system.

“Chemotherapy still has a slightly higher percent response, but right now, this is a better choice for” PD-L1-positive patients, Dr. Reichert said.

Dr. Gillessen Sommer and Dr. Powles disclosed ties to Bristol-Myers Squibb, Roche, and numerous other companies. Dr. Reichert has no relevant disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Gillessen Sommer S, Powles T. “Advice regarding systemic therapy in patients with urological cancers during the COVID-19 pandemic.” Eur Urol. https://els-jbs-prod-cdn.jbs.elsevierhealth.com/pb/assets/raw/Health%20Advance/journals/eururo/EURUROL-D-20-00382-1585928967060.pdf.

Curative treatments for metastatic prostate, renal, and urothelial cancer – and germ cell tumors – should continue as usual amid the COVID-19 pandemic, but “the risk/benefit ratio of a number of palliative and (neo)adjuvant treatments has to be reconsidered,” according to an editorial set to be published in European Urology.

“Regimens with a clear survival advantage should be prioritized, with curative treatments remaining mandatory,” wrote Silke Gillessen Sommer, MD, of Istituto Oncologico della Svizzera Italiana in Bellizona, Switzerland, and Thomas Powles, MD, of Barts Cancer Institute in London.

However, it may be appropriate to stop or delay therapies with modest or unproven survival benefits. “Delaying the start of therapy ... is an appropriate measure for many of the therapies in urology cancer,” they wrote.
 

Timely recommendations for oncologists

The COVID-19 pandemic is limiting resources for cancer, noted Zachery Reichert, MD, PhD, a urological oncologist and assistant professor at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, who was asked for his thoughts about the editorial.

Oncologists and oncology nurses are being shifted to care for COVID-19 patients, space once devoted to cancer care is being repurposed for the pandemic, and personal protective equipment needed to prepare chemotherapies is in short supply.

Meanwhile, cancer patients are at increased risk of dying from the virus (Lancet Oncol. 2020;21:335-7), so there’s a need to minimize their contact with the health care system to protect them from nosocomial infection, and a need to keep their immune system as strong as possible to fight it off.

To help cancer patients fight off infection and keep them out of the hospital, the editorialists recommended growth factors and prophylactic antibiotics after chemotherapy, palliative therapies at doses that avoid febrile neutropenia, discontinuing steroids or at least reducing their doses, and avoiding bisphosphonates if they involve potential COVID-19 exposure in medical facilities.

The advice in the editorial mirrors many of the discussions going on right now at the University of Michigan, Dr. Reichert said, and perhaps other oncology services across the United States.

It will come down to how severe the pandemic becomes locally, but he said it seems likely “a lot of us are going to be wearing a different hat for a while.”

Patients who have symptoms from a growing tumor will likely take precedence at the university, but treatment might be postponed until after COVID-19 peaks if tumors don’t affect quality of life. Also, bladder cancer surgery will probably remain urgent “because the longer you wait, the worse the outcomes,” but perhaps not prostate and kidney cancer surgery, where delay is safer, Dr. Reichert said.
 

Prostate/renal cancers and germ cell tumors

The editorialists noted that oral androgen receptor therapy should be preferred over chemotherapy for prostate cancer. Dr. Reichert explained that’s because androgen blockade is effective, requires less contact with health care providers, and doesn’t suppress the immune system or tie up hospital resources as much as chemotherapy. “In the world we are in right now, oral pills are a better choice,” he said.

The editorialists recommended against both nephrectomy for metastatic renal cancer and adjuvant therapy after orchidectomy for stage 1 germ cell tumors for similar reasons, and also because there’s minimal evidence of benefit.

Dr. Powles and Dr. Gillessen Sommer suggested considering a break from immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) and oral vascular endothelial growth factors (VEGFs) for renal cancer patients who have been on them a year or two. It’s something that would be considered even under normal circumstances, Dr. Reichert explained, but it’s more urgent now to keep people out of the hospital. VEGFs should also be prioritized over ICIs; they have similar efficacy in renal cancer, but VEGFs are a pill.

They also called for oncologists to favor conventional-dose treatments for germ cell tumors over high-dose treatments, meaning bone marrow transplants or high-intensity chemotherapy. Amid a pandemic, the preference is for options “that don’t require a hospital bed,” Dr. Reichert said.
 

Urothelial cancer

Dr. Powles and Dr. Gillessen Sommer suggested not starting or continuing second-line chemotherapies in urothelial cancer patients refractory to first-line platinum-based therapies. The chance they will respond to second-line options is low, perhaps around 10%. That might have been enough before the pandemic, but it’s less justified amid resource shortages and the risk of COVID-19 in the infusion suite, Dr. Reichert explained.

Along the same lines, they also suggested reconsidering perioperative chemotherapy for urothelial cancer, and, if it’s still a go, recommended against going past three cycles, as the benefits in both scenarios are likely marginal. However, if COVID-19 cancels surgeries, neoadjuvant therapy might be the right – and only – call, according to the editorialists.

They recommended prioritizing ICIs over chemotherapy in patients with metastatic urothelial cancer who are positive for programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1). PD-L1–positive patients have a good chance of responding, and ICIs don’t suppress the immune system.

“Chemotherapy still has a slightly higher percent response, but right now, this is a better choice for” PD-L1-positive patients, Dr. Reichert said.

Dr. Gillessen Sommer and Dr. Powles disclosed ties to Bristol-Myers Squibb, Roche, and numerous other companies. Dr. Reichert has no relevant disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Gillessen Sommer S, Powles T. “Advice regarding systemic therapy in patients with urological cancers during the COVID-19 pandemic.” Eur Urol. https://els-jbs-prod-cdn.jbs.elsevierhealth.com/pb/assets/raw/Health%20Advance/journals/eururo/EURUROL-D-20-00382-1585928967060.pdf.

Curative treatments for metastatic prostate, renal, and urothelial cancer – and germ cell tumors – should continue as usual amid the COVID-19 pandemic, but “the risk/benefit ratio of a number of palliative and (neo)adjuvant treatments has to be reconsidered,” according to an editorial set to be published in European Urology.

“Regimens with a clear survival advantage should be prioritized, with curative treatments remaining mandatory,” wrote Silke Gillessen Sommer, MD, of Istituto Oncologico della Svizzera Italiana in Bellizona, Switzerland, and Thomas Powles, MD, of Barts Cancer Institute in London.

However, it may be appropriate to stop or delay therapies with modest or unproven survival benefits. “Delaying the start of therapy ... is an appropriate measure for many of the therapies in urology cancer,” they wrote.
 

Timely recommendations for oncologists

The COVID-19 pandemic is limiting resources for cancer, noted Zachery Reichert, MD, PhD, a urological oncologist and assistant professor at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, who was asked for his thoughts about the editorial.

Oncologists and oncology nurses are being shifted to care for COVID-19 patients, space once devoted to cancer care is being repurposed for the pandemic, and personal protective equipment needed to prepare chemotherapies is in short supply.

Meanwhile, cancer patients are at increased risk of dying from the virus (Lancet Oncol. 2020;21:335-7), so there’s a need to minimize their contact with the health care system to protect them from nosocomial infection, and a need to keep their immune system as strong as possible to fight it off.

To help cancer patients fight off infection and keep them out of the hospital, the editorialists recommended growth factors and prophylactic antibiotics after chemotherapy, palliative therapies at doses that avoid febrile neutropenia, discontinuing steroids or at least reducing their doses, and avoiding bisphosphonates if they involve potential COVID-19 exposure in medical facilities.

The advice in the editorial mirrors many of the discussions going on right now at the University of Michigan, Dr. Reichert said, and perhaps other oncology services across the United States.

It will come down to how severe the pandemic becomes locally, but he said it seems likely “a lot of us are going to be wearing a different hat for a while.”

Patients who have symptoms from a growing tumor will likely take precedence at the university, but treatment might be postponed until after COVID-19 peaks if tumors don’t affect quality of life. Also, bladder cancer surgery will probably remain urgent “because the longer you wait, the worse the outcomes,” but perhaps not prostate and kidney cancer surgery, where delay is safer, Dr. Reichert said.
 

Prostate/renal cancers and germ cell tumors

The editorialists noted that oral androgen receptor therapy should be preferred over chemotherapy for prostate cancer. Dr. Reichert explained that’s because androgen blockade is effective, requires less contact with health care providers, and doesn’t suppress the immune system or tie up hospital resources as much as chemotherapy. “In the world we are in right now, oral pills are a better choice,” he said.

The editorialists recommended against both nephrectomy for metastatic renal cancer and adjuvant therapy after orchidectomy for stage 1 germ cell tumors for similar reasons, and also because there’s minimal evidence of benefit.

Dr. Powles and Dr. Gillessen Sommer suggested considering a break from immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) and oral vascular endothelial growth factors (VEGFs) for renal cancer patients who have been on them a year or two. It’s something that would be considered even under normal circumstances, Dr. Reichert explained, but it’s more urgent now to keep people out of the hospital. VEGFs should also be prioritized over ICIs; they have similar efficacy in renal cancer, but VEGFs are a pill.

They also called for oncologists to favor conventional-dose treatments for germ cell tumors over high-dose treatments, meaning bone marrow transplants or high-intensity chemotherapy. Amid a pandemic, the preference is for options “that don’t require a hospital bed,” Dr. Reichert said.
 

Urothelial cancer

Dr. Powles and Dr. Gillessen Sommer suggested not starting or continuing second-line chemotherapies in urothelial cancer patients refractory to first-line platinum-based therapies. The chance they will respond to second-line options is low, perhaps around 10%. That might have been enough before the pandemic, but it’s less justified amid resource shortages and the risk of COVID-19 in the infusion suite, Dr. Reichert explained.

Along the same lines, they also suggested reconsidering perioperative chemotherapy for urothelial cancer, and, if it’s still a go, recommended against going past three cycles, as the benefits in both scenarios are likely marginal. However, if COVID-19 cancels surgeries, neoadjuvant therapy might be the right – and only – call, according to the editorialists.

They recommended prioritizing ICIs over chemotherapy in patients with metastatic urothelial cancer who are positive for programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1). PD-L1–positive patients have a good chance of responding, and ICIs don’t suppress the immune system.

“Chemotherapy still has a slightly higher percent response, but right now, this is a better choice for” PD-L1-positive patients, Dr. Reichert said.

Dr. Gillessen Sommer and Dr. Powles disclosed ties to Bristol-Myers Squibb, Roche, and numerous other companies. Dr. Reichert has no relevant disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Gillessen Sommer S, Powles T. “Advice regarding systemic therapy in patients with urological cancers during the COVID-19 pandemic.” Eur Urol. https://els-jbs-prod-cdn.jbs.elsevierhealth.com/pb/assets/raw/Health%20Advance/journals/eururo/EURUROL-D-20-00382-1585928967060.pdf.

Patients with gynecologic malignancies who consumed only water for 24 hours before and 24 hours after each chemotherapy cycle had fewer dose delays and reductions compared with patients who didn’t fast, results of a small study showed.

The study included 23 women with ovarian, uterine, or cervical cancer, most of whom received platinum-based chemotherapy and taxanes. Fewer treatment modifications were required among the 11 patients randomized to a 24-hour water-only fast before and after each chemotherapy cycle than among the 12 patients randomized to standard care. Furthermore, there were no hospital admissions in the fasting group and two admissions in the control group, according to study author Courtney J. Riedinger, MD, of the University of Tennessee Medical Center in Knoxville.

She and her colleagues detailed the rationale and results of this study in an abstract that had been slated for presentation at the Society of Gynecologic Oncology’s Annual Meeting on Women’s Cancer. The meeting was canceled because of the COVID-19 pandemic. Data have been updated from the abstract.
 

Rationale

“There’s a lot of new research and interest about nonpharmacologic interventions and lifestyle modifications to help patients cope with chemotherapy and even help with treatment, potentially,” Dr. Riedinger said in an interview.

“We decided to test water-only fasting because there’s not much data about the cell-fitness effects of fasting” on chemotherapy outcomes, she said.

Pre-chemotherapy fasting is based on the concept of differential stress resistance intended to protect normal cells but not cancer cells from the effects of chemotherapy. Fasting decreases levels of insulin-like growth factor 1, which leads healthy cells to enter a protective state by decreasing cell growth and proliferation. Cancer cells, in contrast, cannot enter the protective state, and are therefore more vulnerable than healthy, quiescent cells when exposed to drugs that target the cell cycle, Dr. Riedinger and colleagues noted.

The team cited two studies suggesting a benefit from fasting prior to chemotherapy. In the first study, mice that underwent 48-60 hours of short-term fasting were significantly less likely to die after exposure to a high dose of etoposide, compared with mice that did not fast before exposure (PNAS; 105[24]: 8215-822).

The second study showed that breast and ovarian cancer patients had improved quality of life scores and decreased fatigue when they fasted for 36 hours before and 24 hours after a chemotherapy cycle (BMC Cancer;18: article 476).
 

Study details

Dr. Riedinger and colleagues conducted a nonblinded, randomized trial of fasting in women, aged 34-73 years, who had gynecologic malignancies treated with a planned six cycles of chemotherapy. The patients were instructed to maintain a water-only fast for 24 hours before and 24 hours after each cycle. Controls did not fast.

Patient functional status and quality of life were investigated with the National Comprehensive Cancer Network–Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Ovarian Symptom Index (NCCN-FACT FOSI-18). Questionnaires were completed at each chemotherapy visit, and the records were reviewed to evaluate compliance, changes in treatment plan, and hospitalizations.

In all, 92% of chemotherapy cycles were completed with fasting as directed.

There were no significant differences in any of the study measures between patients who fasted and those who did not. However, this study was not powered to detect a difference, according to Dr. Riedinger.

Still, there were trends suggesting a benefit to fasting. Fasting patients had a higher mean change in NCCN-FACT FOSI-18 score compared with controls – increases of 5.11 and .22, respectively.

Five patients in the fasting group required changes to their treatment regimen, compared with eight patients in the control group. In addition, there were no hospital admissions in the fasting group and two admissions in the control group.

Patients tolerated the fast well without significant weight loss, and there were no grade 3 or 4 toxicities among patients who fasted.

The investigators are planning a larger study to further evaluate the effect of fasting on quality of life scores and treatment, and to evaluate the effects of fasting on hematologic toxicities. Future studies will focus on the optimal duration of fasting and the use of fasting-mimicking diets to allow for longer fasting periods, Dr. Riedinger said.

The study was internally funded. The authors reported no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Riedinger CJ et al. SGO 2020. Abstract 22.

Patients with gynecologic malignancies who consumed only water for 24 hours before and 24 hours after each chemotherapy cycle had fewer dose delays and reductions compared with patients who didn’t fast, results of a small study showed.

The study included 23 women with ovarian, uterine, or cervical cancer, most of whom received platinum-based chemotherapy and taxanes. Fewer treatment modifications were required among the 11 patients randomized to a 24-hour water-only fast before and after each chemotherapy cycle than among the 12 patients randomized to standard care. Furthermore, there were no hospital admissions in the fasting group and two admissions in the control group, according to study author Courtney J. Riedinger, MD, of the University of Tennessee Medical Center in Knoxville.

She and her colleagues detailed the rationale and results of this study in an abstract that had been slated for presentation at the Society of Gynecologic Oncology’s Annual Meeting on Women’s Cancer. The meeting was canceled because of the COVID-19 pandemic. Data have been updated from the abstract.
 

Rationale

“There’s a lot of new research and interest about nonpharmacologic interventions and lifestyle modifications to help patients cope with chemotherapy and even help with treatment, potentially,” Dr. Riedinger said in an interview.

“We decided to test water-only fasting because there’s not much data about the cell-fitness effects of fasting” on chemotherapy outcomes, she said.

Pre-chemotherapy fasting is based on the concept of differential stress resistance intended to protect normal cells but not cancer cells from the effects of chemotherapy. Fasting decreases levels of insulin-like growth factor 1, which leads healthy cells to enter a protective state by decreasing cell growth and proliferation. Cancer cells, in contrast, cannot enter the protective state, and are therefore more vulnerable than healthy, quiescent cells when exposed to drugs that target the cell cycle, Dr. Riedinger and colleagues noted.

The team cited two studies suggesting a benefit from fasting prior to chemotherapy. In the first study, mice that underwent 48-60 hours of short-term fasting were significantly less likely to die after exposure to a high dose of etoposide, compared with mice that did not fast before exposure (PNAS; 105[24]: 8215-822).

The second study showed that breast and ovarian cancer patients had improved quality of life scores and decreased fatigue when they fasted for 36 hours before and 24 hours after a chemotherapy cycle (BMC Cancer;18: article 476).
 

Study details

Dr. Riedinger and colleagues conducted a nonblinded, randomized trial of fasting in women, aged 34-73 years, who had gynecologic malignancies treated with a planned six cycles of chemotherapy. The patients were instructed to maintain a water-only fast for 24 hours before and 24 hours after each cycle. Controls did not fast.

Patient functional status and quality of life were investigated with the National Comprehensive Cancer Network–Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Ovarian Symptom Index (NCCN-FACT FOSI-18). Questionnaires were completed at each chemotherapy visit, and the records were reviewed to evaluate compliance, changes in treatment plan, and hospitalizations.

In all, 92% of chemotherapy cycles were completed with fasting as directed.

There were no significant differences in any of the study measures between patients who fasted and those who did not. However, this study was not powered to detect a difference, according to Dr. Riedinger.

Still, there were trends suggesting a benefit to fasting. Fasting patients had a higher mean change in NCCN-FACT FOSI-18 score compared with controls – increases of 5.11 and .22, respectively.

Five patients in the fasting group required changes to their treatment regimen, compared with eight patients in the control group. In addition, there were no hospital admissions in the fasting group and two admissions in the control group.

Patients tolerated the fast well without significant weight loss, and there were no grade 3 or 4 toxicities among patients who fasted.

The investigators are planning a larger study to further evaluate the effect of fasting on quality of life scores and treatment, and to evaluate the effects of fasting on hematologic toxicities. Future studies will focus on the optimal duration of fasting and the use of fasting-mimicking diets to allow for longer fasting periods, Dr. Riedinger said.

The study was internally funded. The authors reported no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Riedinger CJ et al. SGO 2020. Abstract 22.

Patients with gynecologic malignancies who consumed only water for 24 hours before and 24 hours after each chemotherapy cycle had fewer dose delays and reductions compared with patients who didn’t fast, results of a small study showed.

The study included 23 women with ovarian, uterine, or cervical cancer, most of whom received platinum-based chemotherapy and taxanes. Fewer treatment modifications were required among the 11 patients randomized to a 24-hour water-only fast before and after each chemotherapy cycle than among the 12 patients randomized to standard care. Furthermore, there were no hospital admissions in the fasting group and two admissions in the control group, according to study author Courtney J. Riedinger, MD, of the University of Tennessee Medical Center in Knoxville.

She and her colleagues detailed the rationale and results of this study in an abstract that had been slated for presentation at the Society of Gynecologic Oncology’s Annual Meeting on Women’s Cancer. The meeting was canceled because of the COVID-19 pandemic. Data have been updated from the abstract.
 

Rationale

“There’s a lot of new research and interest about nonpharmacologic interventions and lifestyle modifications to help patients cope with chemotherapy and even help with treatment, potentially,” Dr. Riedinger said in an interview.

“We decided to test water-only fasting because there’s not much data about the cell-fitness effects of fasting” on chemotherapy outcomes, she said.

Pre-chemotherapy fasting is based on the concept of differential stress resistance intended to protect normal cells but not cancer cells from the effects of chemotherapy. Fasting decreases levels of insulin-like growth factor 1, which leads healthy cells to enter a protective state by decreasing cell growth and proliferation. Cancer cells, in contrast, cannot enter the protective state, and are therefore more vulnerable than healthy, quiescent cells when exposed to drugs that target the cell cycle, Dr. Riedinger and colleagues noted.

The team cited two studies suggesting a benefit from fasting prior to chemotherapy. In the first study, mice that underwent 48-60 hours of short-term fasting were significantly less likely to die after exposure to a high dose of etoposide, compared with mice that did not fast before exposure (PNAS; 105[24]: 8215-822).

The second study showed that breast and ovarian cancer patients had improved quality of life scores and decreased fatigue when they fasted for 36 hours before and 24 hours after a chemotherapy cycle (BMC Cancer;18: article 476).
 

Study details

Dr. Riedinger and colleagues conducted a nonblinded, randomized trial of fasting in women, aged 34-73 years, who had gynecologic malignancies treated with a planned six cycles of chemotherapy. The patients were instructed to maintain a water-only fast for 24 hours before and 24 hours after each cycle. Controls did not fast.

Patient functional status and quality of life were investigated with the National Comprehensive Cancer Network–Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Ovarian Symptom Index (NCCN-FACT FOSI-18). Questionnaires were completed at each chemotherapy visit, and the records were reviewed to evaluate compliance, changes in treatment plan, and hospitalizations.

In all, 92% of chemotherapy cycles were completed with fasting as directed.

There were no significant differences in any of the study measures between patients who fasted and those who did not. However, this study was not powered to detect a difference, according to Dr. Riedinger.

Still, there were trends suggesting a benefit to fasting. Fasting patients had a higher mean change in NCCN-FACT FOSI-18 score compared with controls – increases of 5.11 and .22, respectively.

Five patients in the fasting group required changes to their treatment regimen, compared with eight patients in the control group. In addition, there were no hospital admissions in the fasting group and two admissions in the control group.

Patients tolerated the fast well without significant weight loss, and there were no grade 3 or 4 toxicities among patients who fasted.

The investigators are planning a larger study to further evaluate the effect of fasting on quality of life scores and treatment, and to evaluate the effects of fasting on hematologic toxicities. Future studies will focus on the optimal duration of fasting and the use of fasting-mimicking diets to allow for longer fasting periods, Dr. Riedinger said.

The study was internally funded. The authors reported no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Riedinger CJ et al. SGO 2020. Abstract 22.

There are several steps cancer centers can take in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, according to the medical director of a cancer care alliance in the first U.S. epicenter of the coronavirus outbreak.

Jennie R. Crews, MD, the medical director of the Seattle Cancer Care Alliance (SCCA), discussed the SCCA experience and offered advice for other cancer centers in a webinar hosted by the Association of Community Cancer Centers.

Dr. Crews highlighted the SCCA’s use of algorithms to predict which patients can be managed via telehealth and which require face-to-face visits, human resource issues that arose at SCCA, screening and testing procedures, and the importance of communication with patients, caregivers, and staff.
 

Communication

Dr. Crews stressed the value of clear, regular, and internally consistent staff communication in a variety of formats. SCCA sends daily email blasts to their personnel regarding policies and procedures, which are archived on the SCCA intranet site.

SCCA also holds weekly town hall meetings at which leaders respond to staff questions regarding practical matters they have encountered and future plans. Providers’ up-to-the-minute familiarity with policies and procedures enables all team members to uniformly and clearly communicate to patients and caregivers.

Dr. Crews emphasized the value of consistency and “over-communication” in projecting confidence and preparedness to patients and caregivers during an unsettling time. SCCA has developed fact sheets, posted current information on the SCCA website, and provided education during doorway screenings.
 

Screening and testing

All SCCA staff members are screened daily at the practice entrance so they have personal experience with the process utilized for patients. Because symptoms associated with coronavirus infection may overlap with cancer treatment–related complaints, SCCA clinicians have expanded the typical coronavirus screening questionnaire for patients on cancer treatment.

Patients with ambiguous symptoms are masked, taken to a physically separate area of the SCCA clinics, and screened further by an advanced practice provider. The patients are then triaged to either the clinic for treatment or to the emergency department for further triage and care.

Although testing processes and procedures have been modified, Dr. Crews advised codifying those policies and procedures, including notification of results and follow-up for both patients and staff. Dr. Crews also stressed the importance of clearly articulated return-to-work policies for staff who have potential exposure and/or positive test results.

At the University of Washington’s virology laboratory, they have a test turnaround time of less than 12 hours.
 

Planning ahead

Dr. Crews highlighted the importance of community-based surge planning, utilizing predictive models to assess inpatient capacity requirements and potential repurposing of providers.

The SCCA is prepared to close selected community sites and shift personnel to other locations if personnel needs cannot be met because of illness or quarantine. Contingency plans include specialized pharmacy services for patients requiring chemotherapy.

The SCCA has not yet experienced shortages of personal protective equipment (PPE). However, Dr. Crews said staff require detailed education regarding the use of PPE in order to safeguard the supply while providing maximal staff protection.
 

Helping the helpers

During the pandemic, SCCA has dealt with a variety of challenging human resource issues, including:

• Extending sick time beyond what was previously “stored” in staff members’ earned time off.
• Childcare during an extended hiatus in school and daycare schedules.
• Programs to maintain and/or restore employee wellness (including staff-centered support services, spiritual care, mindfulness exercises, and town halls).

Dr. Crews also discussed recruitment of community resources to provide meals for staff from local restaurants with restricted hours and transportation resources for staff and patients, as visitors are restricted (currently one per patient).
 

Managing care

Dr. Crews noted that the University of Washington had a foundational structure for a telehealth program prior to the pandemic. Their telehealth committee enabled SCCA to scale up the service quickly with their academic partners, including training modules for and certification of providers, outfitting off-site personnel with dedicated lines and hardware, and provision of personal Zoom accounts.

SCCA also devised algorithms for determining when face-to-face visits, remote management, or deferred visits are appropriate in various scenarios. The algorithms were developed by disease-specialized teams.

As a general rule, routine chemotherapy and radiation are administered on schedule. On-treatment and follow-up office visits are conducted via telehealth if possible. In some cases, initiation of chemotherapy and radiation has been delayed, and screening services have been suspended.

In response to questions about palliative care during the pandemic, Dr. Crews said SCCA has encouraged their patients to complete, review, or update their advance directives. The SCCA has not had the need to resuscitate a coronavirus-infected outpatient but has instituted policies for utilizing full PPE on any patient requiring resuscitation.

In her closing remarks, Dr. Crews stressed that the response to COVID-19 in Washington state has required an intense collaboration among colleagues, the community, and government leaders, as the actions required extended far beyond medical decision makers alone.
 

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

There are several steps cancer centers can take in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, according to the medical director of a cancer care alliance in the first U.S. epicenter of the coronavirus outbreak.

Jennie R. Crews, MD, the medical director of the Seattle Cancer Care Alliance (SCCA), discussed the SCCA experience and offered advice for other cancer centers in a webinar hosted by the Association of Community Cancer Centers.

Dr. Crews highlighted the SCCA’s use of algorithms to predict which patients can be managed via telehealth and which require face-to-face visits, human resource issues that arose at SCCA, screening and testing procedures, and the importance of communication with patients, caregivers, and staff.
 

Communication

Dr. Crews stressed the value of clear, regular, and internally consistent staff communication in a variety of formats. SCCA sends daily email blasts to their personnel regarding policies and procedures, which are archived on the SCCA intranet site.

SCCA also holds weekly town hall meetings at which leaders respond to staff questions regarding practical matters they have encountered and future plans. Providers’ up-to-the-minute familiarity with policies and procedures enables all team members to uniformly and clearly communicate to patients and caregivers.

Dr. Crews emphasized the value of consistency and “over-communication” in projecting confidence and preparedness to patients and caregivers during an unsettling time. SCCA has developed fact sheets, posted current information on the SCCA website, and provided education during doorway screenings.
 

Screening and testing

All SCCA staff members are screened daily at the practice entrance so they have personal experience with the process utilized for patients. Because symptoms associated with coronavirus infection may overlap with cancer treatment–related complaints, SCCA clinicians have expanded the typical coronavirus screening questionnaire for patients on cancer treatment.

Patients with ambiguous symptoms are masked, taken to a physically separate area of the SCCA clinics, and screened further by an advanced practice provider. The patients are then triaged to either the clinic for treatment or to the emergency department for further triage and care.

Although testing processes and procedures have been modified, Dr. Crews advised codifying those policies and procedures, including notification of results and follow-up for both patients and staff. Dr. Crews also stressed the importance of clearly articulated return-to-work policies for staff who have potential exposure and/or positive test results.

At the University of Washington’s virology laboratory, they have a test turnaround time of less than 12 hours.
 

Planning ahead

Dr. Crews highlighted the importance of community-based surge planning, utilizing predictive models to assess inpatient capacity requirements and potential repurposing of providers.

The SCCA is prepared to close selected community sites and shift personnel to other locations if personnel needs cannot be met because of illness or quarantine. Contingency plans include specialized pharmacy services for patients requiring chemotherapy.

The SCCA has not yet experienced shortages of personal protective equipment (PPE). However, Dr. Crews said staff require detailed education regarding the use of PPE in order to safeguard the supply while providing maximal staff protection.
 

Helping the helpers

During the pandemic, SCCA has dealt with a variety of challenging human resource issues, including:

• Extending sick time beyond what was previously “stored” in staff members’ earned time off.
• Childcare during an extended hiatus in school and daycare schedules.
• Programs to maintain and/or restore employee wellness (including staff-centered support services, spiritual care, mindfulness exercises, and town halls).

Dr. Crews also discussed recruitment of community resources to provide meals for staff from local restaurants with restricted hours and transportation resources for staff and patients, as visitors are restricted (currently one per patient).
 

Managing care

Dr. Crews noted that the University of Washington had a foundational structure for a telehealth program prior to the pandemic. Their telehealth committee enabled SCCA to scale up the service quickly with their academic partners, including training modules for and certification of providers, outfitting off-site personnel with dedicated lines and hardware, and provision of personal Zoom accounts.

SCCA also devised algorithms for determining when face-to-face visits, remote management, or deferred visits are appropriate in various scenarios. The algorithms were developed by disease-specialized teams.

As a general rule, routine chemotherapy and radiation are administered on schedule. On-treatment and follow-up office visits are conducted via telehealth if possible. In some cases, initiation of chemotherapy and radiation has been delayed, and screening services have been suspended.

In response to questions about palliative care during the pandemic, Dr. Crews said SCCA has encouraged their patients to complete, review, or update their advance directives. The SCCA has not had the need to resuscitate a coronavirus-infected outpatient but has instituted policies for utilizing full PPE on any patient requiring resuscitation.

In her closing remarks, Dr. Crews stressed that the response to COVID-19 in Washington state has required an intense collaboration among colleagues, the community, and government leaders, as the actions required extended far beyond medical decision makers alone.
 

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

There are several steps cancer centers can take in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, according to the medical director of a cancer care alliance in the first U.S. epicenter of the coronavirus outbreak.

Jennie R. Crews, MD, the medical director of the Seattle Cancer Care Alliance (SCCA), discussed the SCCA experience and offered advice for other cancer centers in a webinar hosted by the Association of Community Cancer Centers.

Dr. Crews highlighted the SCCA’s use of algorithms to predict which patients can be managed via telehealth and which require face-to-face visits, human resource issues that arose at SCCA, screening and testing procedures, and the importance of communication with patients, caregivers, and staff.
 

Communication

Dr. Crews stressed the value of clear, regular, and internally consistent staff communication in a variety of formats. SCCA sends daily email blasts to their personnel regarding policies and procedures, which are archived on the SCCA intranet site.

SCCA also holds weekly town hall meetings at which leaders respond to staff questions regarding practical matters they have encountered and future plans. Providers’ up-to-the-minute familiarity with policies and procedures enables all team members to uniformly and clearly communicate to patients and caregivers.

Dr. Crews emphasized the value of consistency and “over-communication” in projecting confidence and preparedness to patients and caregivers during an unsettling time. SCCA has developed fact sheets, posted current information on the SCCA website, and provided education during doorway screenings.
 

Screening and testing

All SCCA staff members are screened daily at the practice entrance so they have personal experience with the process utilized for patients. Because symptoms associated with coronavirus infection may overlap with cancer treatment–related complaints, SCCA clinicians have expanded the typical coronavirus screening questionnaire for patients on cancer treatment.

Patients with ambiguous symptoms are masked, taken to a physically separate area of the SCCA clinics, and screened further by an advanced practice provider. The patients are then triaged to either the clinic for treatment or to the emergency department for further triage and care.

Although testing processes and procedures have been modified, Dr. Crews advised codifying those policies and procedures, including notification of results and follow-up for both patients and staff. Dr. Crews also stressed the importance of clearly articulated return-to-work policies for staff who have potential exposure and/or positive test results.

At the University of Washington’s virology laboratory, they have a test turnaround time of less than 12 hours.
 

Planning ahead

Dr. Crews highlighted the importance of community-based surge planning, utilizing predictive models to assess inpatient capacity requirements and potential repurposing of providers.

The SCCA is prepared to close selected community sites and shift personnel to other locations if personnel needs cannot be met because of illness or quarantine. Contingency plans include specialized pharmacy services for patients requiring chemotherapy.

The SCCA has not yet experienced shortages of personal protective equipment (PPE). However, Dr. Crews said staff require detailed education regarding the use of PPE in order to safeguard the supply while providing maximal staff protection.
 

Helping the helpers

During the pandemic, SCCA has dealt with a variety of challenging human resource issues, including:

• Extending sick time beyond what was previously “stored” in staff members’ earned time off.
• Childcare during an extended hiatus in school and daycare schedules.
• Programs to maintain and/or restore employee wellness (including staff-centered support services, spiritual care, mindfulness exercises, and town halls).

Dr. Crews also discussed recruitment of community resources to provide meals for staff from local restaurants with restricted hours and transportation resources for staff and patients, as visitors are restricted (currently one per patient).
 

Managing care

Dr. Crews noted that the University of Washington had a foundational structure for a telehealth program prior to the pandemic. Their telehealth committee enabled SCCA to scale up the service quickly with their academic partners, including training modules for and certification of providers, outfitting off-site personnel with dedicated lines and hardware, and provision of personal Zoom accounts.

SCCA also devised algorithms for determining when face-to-face visits, remote management, or deferred visits are appropriate in various scenarios. The algorithms were developed by disease-specialized teams.

As a general rule, routine chemotherapy and radiation are administered on schedule. On-treatment and follow-up office visits are conducted via telehealth if possible. In some cases, initiation of chemotherapy and radiation has been delayed, and screening services have been suspended.

In response to questions about palliative care during the pandemic, Dr. Crews said SCCA has encouraged their patients to complete, review, or update their advance directives. The SCCA has not had the need to resuscitate a coronavirus-infected outpatient but has instituted policies for utilizing full PPE on any patient requiring resuscitation.

In her closing remarks, Dr. Crews stressed that the response to COVID-19 in Washington state has required an intense collaboration among colleagues, the community, and government leaders, as the actions required extended far beyond medical decision makers alone.
 

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

Nearly one in five individuals with cancer who are treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors develop thyroid dysfunction, new research suggests.

Sebastian Kaulitzki/Fotolia

Immune checkpoint inhibitors have revolutionized the treatment of many different types of cancers, but can also trigger a variety of immune-related adverse effects. As these drugs become more widely used, rates of these events appear to be more common in the real-world compared with clinical trial settings.

In their new study, Zoe Quandt, MD, of the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), and colleagues specifically looked at thyroid dysfunction in their own institution’s EHR data and found more than double the rate of hypothyroidism and more than triple the rate of hyperthyroidism, compared with rates in published trials.

Moreover, in contrast to previous studies that have found differences in thyroid dysfunction by checkpoint inhibitor type, Dr. Quandt and colleagues instead found significant differences by cancer type.

Dr. Quandt presented the findings during a virtual press briefing held March 31originally scheduled for ENDO 2020.

“Thyroid dysfunction following checkpoint inhibitor therapy appears to be much more common than was previously reported in clinical trials, and this is one of the first studies to show differences by cancer type rather than by checkpoint inhibitor type,” Dr. Quandt said during the presentation.

However, she also cautioned that there’s “a lot more research to be done to validate case definitions and validate these findings.”

Asked to comment, endocrinologist David C. Lieb, MD, associate professor of medicine at Eastern Virginia Medical School in Norfolk, said in an interview, “These drugs are becoming so much more commonly used, so it’s not surprising that we’re seeing more endocrine complications, especially thyroid disease.”

“Endocrinologists need to work closely with oncologists to make sure patients are being screened and followed appropriately.”

‘A much higher percentage than we were expecting’

Dr. Quandt’s study included 1,146 individuals treated with checkpoint inhibitors at UCSF during 2012-2018 who did not have thyroid cancer or preexisting thyroid dysfunction.

Pembrolizumab (Keytruda) was the most common treatment (45%), followed by nivolumab (Opdivo) (20%). Less than 10% of patients received atezolizumab (Tecentriq), durvalumab (Imfizi), ipilimumab (Yervoy) monotherapy, combined ipilimumab/nivolumab, or other combinations of checkpoint inhibitors.

A total of 19.1% developed thyroid disease, with 13.4% having hypothyroidism and 9.5% hyperthyroidism. These figures far exceed those found in a recent meta-analysis of 38 randomized clinical trials of checkpoint inhibitors that included 7551 patients.

“Using this approach, we found a much higher percentage of patients who developed thyroid dysfunction than we were expecting,” Dr. Quandt said.

In both cases, the two categories – hypothyroidism and hyperthyroidism – aren’t mutually exclusive as hypothyroidism can arise de novo or subsequent to hyperthyroidism.

Dr Lieb commented, “It would be interesting to see what the causes of hyperthyroidism are – thyroiditis or Graves disease.”

Dr. Quandt mentioned a possible reason for the large difference between clinical trial and real-world data.

“Once we’re actually using these drugs outside of clinical trials, some of the restrictions about using them in people with other autoimmune diseases have been lifted, so my guess is that as we give them to a broader population we’re seeing more of these [adverse effects],” she suggested.

Also, “In the initial trials, people weren’t quite as aware of the possibilities of these side effects, so now we’re doing many more labs. Patients get thyroid function tests with every infusion, so I think we’re probably catching more patients who develop disease.”
 

Differences by cancer type, not checkpoint inhibitor type

And in a new twist, Dr. Quandt found that, in contrast to the differences seen by checkpoint inhibitor type in randomized trials, “surprisingly, we found that this difference did not reach statistical significance.”

“Instead, we saw that cancer type was associated with development of thyroid dysfunction, even after taking checkpoint inhibitor type into account.”

The percentages of patients who developed thyroid dysfunction ranged from 9.7% of those with glioblastoma to 40.0% of those with renal cell carcinoma.

The reason for this is not clear, said Dr. Quandt in an interview.

One possibility relates to other treatments patients with cancer also receive. In renal cell carcinoma, for example, patients also are treated with tyrosine kinase inhibitors, which can also cause thyroid dysfunction, so they may be more susceptible. Or there may be shared antigens activating the immune system.

“That’s definitely one of the questions we’re looking at,” she said.

Dr. Quandt and Dr. Lieb have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Nearly one in five individuals with cancer who are treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors develop thyroid dysfunction, new research suggests.

Sebastian Kaulitzki/Fotolia

Immune checkpoint inhibitors have revolutionized the treatment of many different types of cancers, but can also trigger a variety of immune-related adverse effects. As these drugs become more widely used, rates of these events appear to be more common in the real-world compared with clinical trial settings.

In their new study, Zoe Quandt, MD, of the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), and colleagues specifically looked at thyroid dysfunction in their own institution’s EHR data and found more than double the rate of hypothyroidism and more than triple the rate of hyperthyroidism, compared with rates in published trials.

Moreover, in contrast to previous studies that have found differences in thyroid dysfunction by checkpoint inhibitor type, Dr. Quandt and colleagues instead found significant differences by cancer type.

Dr. Quandt presented the findings during a virtual press briefing held March 31originally scheduled for ENDO 2020.

“Thyroid dysfunction following checkpoint inhibitor therapy appears to be much more common than was previously reported in clinical trials, and this is one of the first studies to show differences by cancer type rather than by checkpoint inhibitor type,” Dr. Quandt said during the presentation.

However, she also cautioned that there’s “a lot more research to be done to validate case definitions and validate these findings.”

Asked to comment, endocrinologist David C. Lieb, MD, associate professor of medicine at Eastern Virginia Medical School in Norfolk, said in an interview, “These drugs are becoming so much more commonly used, so it’s not surprising that we’re seeing more endocrine complications, especially thyroid disease.”

“Endocrinologists need to work closely with oncologists to make sure patients are being screened and followed appropriately.”

‘A much higher percentage than we were expecting’

Dr. Quandt’s study included 1,146 individuals treated with checkpoint inhibitors at UCSF during 2012-2018 who did not have thyroid cancer or preexisting thyroid dysfunction.

Pembrolizumab (Keytruda) was the most common treatment (45%), followed by nivolumab (Opdivo) (20%). Less than 10% of patients received atezolizumab (Tecentriq), durvalumab (Imfizi), ipilimumab (Yervoy) monotherapy, combined ipilimumab/nivolumab, or other combinations of checkpoint inhibitors.

A total of 19.1% developed thyroid disease, with 13.4% having hypothyroidism and 9.5% hyperthyroidism. These figures far exceed those found in a recent meta-analysis of 38 randomized clinical trials of checkpoint inhibitors that included 7551 patients.

“Using this approach, we found a much higher percentage of patients who developed thyroid dysfunction than we were expecting,” Dr. Quandt said.

In both cases, the two categories – hypothyroidism and hyperthyroidism – aren’t mutually exclusive as hypothyroidism can arise de novo or subsequent to hyperthyroidism.

Dr Lieb commented, “It would be interesting to see what the causes of hyperthyroidism are – thyroiditis or Graves disease.”

Dr. Quandt mentioned a possible reason for the large difference between clinical trial and real-world data.

“Once we’re actually using these drugs outside of clinical trials, some of the restrictions about using them in people with other autoimmune diseases have been lifted, so my guess is that as we give them to a broader population we’re seeing more of these [adverse effects],” she suggested.

Also, “In the initial trials, people weren’t quite as aware of the possibilities of these side effects, so now we’re doing many more labs. Patients get thyroid function tests with every infusion, so I think we’re probably catching more patients who develop disease.”
 

Differences by cancer type, not checkpoint inhibitor type

And in a new twist, Dr. Quandt found that, in contrast to the differences seen by checkpoint inhibitor type in randomized trials, “surprisingly, we found that this difference did not reach statistical significance.”

“Instead, we saw that cancer type was associated with development of thyroid dysfunction, even after taking checkpoint inhibitor type into account.”

The percentages of patients who developed thyroid dysfunction ranged from 9.7% of those with glioblastoma to 40.0% of those with renal cell carcinoma.

The reason for this is not clear, said Dr. Quandt in an interview.

One possibility relates to other treatments patients with cancer also receive. In renal cell carcinoma, for example, patients also are treated with tyrosine kinase inhibitors, which can also cause thyroid dysfunction, so they may be more susceptible. Or there may be shared antigens activating the immune system.

“That’s definitely one of the questions we’re looking at,” she said.

Dr. Quandt and Dr. Lieb have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Nearly one in five individuals with cancer who are treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors develop thyroid dysfunction, new research suggests.

Sebastian Kaulitzki/Fotolia

Immune checkpoint inhibitors have revolutionized the treatment of many different types of cancers, but can also trigger a variety of immune-related adverse effects. As these drugs become more widely used, rates of these events appear to be more common in the real-world compared with clinical trial settings.

In their new study, Zoe Quandt, MD, of the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), and colleagues specifically looked at thyroid dysfunction in their own institution’s EHR data and found more than double the rate of hypothyroidism and more than triple the rate of hyperthyroidism, compared with rates in published trials.

Moreover, in contrast to previous studies that have found differences in thyroid dysfunction by checkpoint inhibitor type, Dr. Quandt and colleagues instead found significant differences by cancer type.

Dr. Quandt presented the findings during a virtual press briefing held March 31originally scheduled for ENDO 2020.

“Thyroid dysfunction following checkpoint inhibitor therapy appears to be much more common than was previously reported in clinical trials, and this is one of the first studies to show differences by cancer type rather than by checkpoint inhibitor type,” Dr. Quandt said during the presentation.

However, she also cautioned that there’s “a lot more research to be done to validate case definitions and validate these findings.”

Asked to comment, endocrinologist David C. Lieb, MD, associate professor of medicine at Eastern Virginia Medical School in Norfolk, said in an interview, “These drugs are becoming so much more commonly used, so it’s not surprising that we’re seeing more endocrine complications, especially thyroid disease.”

“Endocrinologists need to work closely with oncologists to make sure patients are being screened and followed appropriately.”

‘A much higher percentage than we were expecting’

Dr. Quandt’s study included 1,146 individuals treated with checkpoint inhibitors at UCSF during 2012-2018 who did not have thyroid cancer or preexisting thyroid dysfunction.

Pembrolizumab (Keytruda) was the most common treatment (45%), followed by nivolumab (Opdivo) (20%). Less than 10% of patients received atezolizumab (Tecentriq), durvalumab (Imfizi), ipilimumab (Yervoy) monotherapy, combined ipilimumab/nivolumab, or other combinations of checkpoint inhibitors.

A total of 19.1% developed thyroid disease, with 13.4% having hypothyroidism and 9.5% hyperthyroidism. These figures far exceed those found in a recent meta-analysis of 38 randomized clinical trials of checkpoint inhibitors that included 7551 patients.

“Using this approach, we found a much higher percentage of patients who developed thyroid dysfunction than we were expecting,” Dr. Quandt said.

In both cases, the two categories – hypothyroidism and hyperthyroidism – aren’t mutually exclusive as hypothyroidism can arise de novo or subsequent to hyperthyroidism.

Dr Lieb commented, “It would be interesting to see what the causes of hyperthyroidism are – thyroiditis or Graves disease.”

Dr. Quandt mentioned a possible reason for the large difference between clinical trial and real-world data.

“Once we’re actually using these drugs outside of clinical trials, some of the restrictions about using them in people with other autoimmune diseases have been lifted, so my guess is that as we give them to a broader population we’re seeing more of these [adverse effects],” she suggested.

Also, “In the initial trials, people weren’t quite as aware of the possibilities of these side effects, so now we’re doing many more labs. Patients get thyroid function tests with every infusion, so I think we’re probably catching more patients who develop disease.”
 

Differences by cancer type, not checkpoint inhibitor type

And in a new twist, Dr. Quandt found that, in contrast to the differences seen by checkpoint inhibitor type in randomized trials, “surprisingly, we found that this difference did not reach statistical significance.”

“Instead, we saw that cancer type was associated with development of thyroid dysfunction, even after taking checkpoint inhibitor type into account.”

The percentages of patients who developed thyroid dysfunction ranged from 9.7% of those with glioblastoma to 40.0% of those with renal cell carcinoma.

The reason for this is not clear, said Dr. Quandt in an interview.

One possibility relates to other treatments patients with cancer also receive. In renal cell carcinoma, for example, patients also are treated with tyrosine kinase inhibitors, which can also cause thyroid dysfunction, so they may be more susceptible. Or there may be shared antigens activating the immune system.

“That’s definitely one of the questions we’re looking at,” she said.

Dr. Quandt and Dr. Lieb have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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