AVAHO

In a small survey, 75% of dermatology patients said they would recommend the use of artificial intelligence (AI) for skin cancer screening to friends and family members, but 94% emphasized the need for symbiosis between doctors, patients, and AI.

AI under investigation in dermatology includes both direct-to-patient and clinician decision-support AI tools for skin cancer screening, but patients’ perceptions of AI in health care remains unclear, Caroline A. Nelson, MD, of Yale University in New Haven, Conn., and colleagues wrote in JAMA Dermatology.

“We sought to elucidate perceived benefits and risks, strengths and weaknesses, implementation, response to conflict between human and AI clinical decision making, and recommendation for or against AI,” the researchers wrote.

They identified 48 patients seen from May 6, 2019, to July 8, 2019, at general dermatology clinics and melanoma clinics. This included 16 patients with a history of melanoma, 16 with a history of nonmelanoma skin cancer, and 16 with no history of skin cancer. The average age of the patients was 53.3 years, 54% were women, and 94% were white.

The researchers interviewed 24 patients about a direct-to-patient AI tool and 24 patients about a clinician decision-support AI tool.

Overall, 36 patients (75%) said they would recommend the AI tool to family and friends, with 17 patients (71%) saying they would recommend the direct-to-patient tool and 19 (79%) saying they would recommend the clinician decision-support tool. Another nine patients (19%) were ambivalent about the AI tools, and three patients (6%) said they would not recommend the tools.

Diagnostic speed and health care access were the most common perceived benefits of AI (by 60% of patients for each), and increased patient anxiety was the most common perceived risk (by 40% of patients). In addition, 69% of patients perceived more accurate diagnosis to be the greatest strength of an AI tool, and 85% perceived less accurate diagnosis to be the greatest weakness.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the small sample size, qualitative design, use of a hypothetical rather than real-world situation, and a homogeneous study population, the researchers noted. However, the results merit more studies to obtain perspectives from diverse populations, they said.

“This expansion is particularly important in light of concerns raised that AI tools may exacerbate health care disparities in dermatology,” the researchers wrote.

From the patient perspective, the use of AI “may improve health care quality but should be implemented in a manner that preserves the integrity of the human physician-patient relationship,” the authors concluded.

“Although AI technology has not been widely implemented in dermatology yet, it is the pivotal time to assess patients’ views on the subject to understand their knowledge base, as well as values, preferences, and concerns regarding AI,” wrote Carrie L. Kovarik, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, in an accompanying editorial.

“Vulnerable patients, including racial and ethnic minorities, the underinsured or uninsured, economically disadvantaged, and those with chronic health conditions, may be at risk for improper consent for or use of AI,” she wrote.

Dr. Kovarik cited the position statement on augmented intelligence from the American Academy of Dermatology, which states that, for both patients and clinicians, “there should be transparency and choice on how their medical information is gathered, utilized, and stored and when, what, and how augmented intelligence technologies are utilized in their care process. There should be clarity in the symbiotic and synergistic roles of augmented intelligence and human judgment so that it is clear to the patient and provider when and how this technology is utilized to augment human judgment and interpretation.”

Clinicians will need to understand the perspectives on AI from patients of a range of backgrounds to achieve this goal, Dr. Kovarik said.

Dr. Nelson had no financial conflicts to disclose, but her colleagues disclosed relationships with pharmaceutical companies, government agencies, and nonprofit organizations. Dr. Kovarik disclosed serving on the artificial intelligence task force for the American Academy of Dermatology.

SOURCES: Nelson CA et al. JAMA Dermatol. 2020 Mar 11. doi: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2019.5014; Kovarik CL. JAMA Dermatol. 2020 Mar 11. doi: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2019.5013.

In a small survey, 75% of dermatology patients said they would recommend the use of artificial intelligence (AI) for skin cancer screening to friends and family members, but 94% emphasized the need for symbiosis between doctors, patients, and AI.

AI under investigation in dermatology includes both direct-to-patient and clinician decision-support AI tools for skin cancer screening, but patients’ perceptions of AI in health care remains unclear, Caroline A. Nelson, MD, of Yale University in New Haven, Conn., and colleagues wrote in JAMA Dermatology.

“We sought to elucidate perceived benefits and risks, strengths and weaknesses, implementation, response to conflict between human and AI clinical decision making, and recommendation for or against AI,” the researchers wrote.

They identified 48 patients seen from May 6, 2019, to July 8, 2019, at general dermatology clinics and melanoma clinics. This included 16 patients with a history of melanoma, 16 with a history of nonmelanoma skin cancer, and 16 with no history of skin cancer. The average age of the patients was 53.3 years, 54% were women, and 94% were white.

The researchers interviewed 24 patients about a direct-to-patient AI tool and 24 patients about a clinician decision-support AI tool.

Overall, 36 patients (75%) said they would recommend the AI tool to family and friends, with 17 patients (71%) saying they would recommend the direct-to-patient tool and 19 (79%) saying they would recommend the clinician decision-support tool. Another nine patients (19%) were ambivalent about the AI tools, and three patients (6%) said they would not recommend the tools.

Diagnostic speed and health care access were the most common perceived benefits of AI (by 60% of patients for each), and increased patient anxiety was the most common perceived risk (by 40% of patients). In addition, 69% of patients perceived more accurate diagnosis to be the greatest strength of an AI tool, and 85% perceived less accurate diagnosis to be the greatest weakness.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the small sample size, qualitative design, use of a hypothetical rather than real-world situation, and a homogeneous study population, the researchers noted. However, the results merit more studies to obtain perspectives from diverse populations, they said.

“This expansion is particularly important in light of concerns raised that AI tools may exacerbate health care disparities in dermatology,” the researchers wrote.

From the patient perspective, the use of AI “may improve health care quality but should be implemented in a manner that preserves the integrity of the human physician-patient relationship,” the authors concluded.

“Although AI technology has not been widely implemented in dermatology yet, it is the pivotal time to assess patients’ views on the subject to understand their knowledge base, as well as values, preferences, and concerns regarding AI,” wrote Carrie L. Kovarik, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, in an accompanying editorial.

“Vulnerable patients, including racial and ethnic minorities, the underinsured or uninsured, economically disadvantaged, and those with chronic health conditions, may be at risk for improper consent for or use of AI,” she wrote.

Dr. Kovarik cited the position statement on augmented intelligence from the American Academy of Dermatology, which states that, for both patients and clinicians, “there should be transparency and choice on how their medical information is gathered, utilized, and stored and when, what, and how augmented intelligence technologies are utilized in their care process. There should be clarity in the symbiotic and synergistic roles of augmented intelligence and human judgment so that it is clear to the patient and provider when and how this technology is utilized to augment human judgment and interpretation.”

Clinicians will need to understand the perspectives on AI from patients of a range of backgrounds to achieve this goal, Dr. Kovarik said.

Dr. Nelson had no financial conflicts to disclose, but her colleagues disclosed relationships with pharmaceutical companies, government agencies, and nonprofit organizations. Dr. Kovarik disclosed serving on the artificial intelligence task force for the American Academy of Dermatology.

SOURCES: Nelson CA et al. JAMA Dermatol. 2020 Mar 11. doi: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2019.5014; Kovarik CL. JAMA Dermatol. 2020 Mar 11. doi: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2019.5013.

In a small survey, 75% of dermatology patients said they would recommend the use of artificial intelligence (AI) for skin cancer screening to friends and family members, but 94% emphasized the need for symbiosis between doctors, patients, and AI.

AI under investigation in dermatology includes both direct-to-patient and clinician decision-support AI tools for skin cancer screening, but patients’ perceptions of AI in health care remains unclear, Caroline A. Nelson, MD, of Yale University in New Haven, Conn., and colleagues wrote in JAMA Dermatology.

“We sought to elucidate perceived benefits and risks, strengths and weaknesses, implementation, response to conflict between human and AI clinical decision making, and recommendation for or against AI,” the researchers wrote.

They identified 48 patients seen from May 6, 2019, to July 8, 2019, at general dermatology clinics and melanoma clinics. This included 16 patients with a history of melanoma, 16 with a history of nonmelanoma skin cancer, and 16 with no history of skin cancer. The average age of the patients was 53.3 years, 54% were women, and 94% were white.

The researchers interviewed 24 patients about a direct-to-patient AI tool and 24 patients about a clinician decision-support AI tool.

Overall, 36 patients (75%) said they would recommend the AI tool to family and friends, with 17 patients (71%) saying they would recommend the direct-to-patient tool and 19 (79%) saying they would recommend the clinician decision-support tool. Another nine patients (19%) were ambivalent about the AI tools, and three patients (6%) said they would not recommend the tools.

Diagnostic speed and health care access were the most common perceived benefits of AI (by 60% of patients for each), and increased patient anxiety was the most common perceived risk (by 40% of patients). In addition, 69% of patients perceived more accurate diagnosis to be the greatest strength of an AI tool, and 85% perceived less accurate diagnosis to be the greatest weakness.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the small sample size, qualitative design, use of a hypothetical rather than real-world situation, and a homogeneous study population, the researchers noted. However, the results merit more studies to obtain perspectives from diverse populations, they said.

“This expansion is particularly important in light of concerns raised that AI tools may exacerbate health care disparities in dermatology,” the researchers wrote.

From the patient perspective, the use of AI “may improve health care quality but should be implemented in a manner that preserves the integrity of the human physician-patient relationship,” the authors concluded.

“Although AI technology has not been widely implemented in dermatology yet, it is the pivotal time to assess patients’ views on the subject to understand their knowledge base, as well as values, preferences, and concerns regarding AI,” wrote Carrie L. Kovarik, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, in an accompanying editorial.

“Vulnerable patients, including racial and ethnic minorities, the underinsured or uninsured, economically disadvantaged, and those with chronic health conditions, may be at risk for improper consent for or use of AI,” she wrote.

Dr. Kovarik cited the position statement on augmented intelligence from the American Academy of Dermatology, which states that, for both patients and clinicians, “there should be transparency and choice on how their medical information is gathered, utilized, and stored and when, what, and how augmented intelligence technologies are utilized in their care process. There should be clarity in the symbiotic and synergistic roles of augmented intelligence and human judgment so that it is clear to the patient and provider when and how this technology is utilized to augment human judgment and interpretation.”

Clinicians will need to understand the perspectives on AI from patients of a range of backgrounds to achieve this goal, Dr. Kovarik said.

Dr. Nelson had no financial conflicts to disclose, but her colleagues disclosed relationships with pharmaceutical companies, government agencies, and nonprofit organizations. Dr. Kovarik disclosed serving on the artificial intelligence task force for the American Academy of Dermatology.

SOURCES: Nelson CA et al. JAMA Dermatol. 2020 Mar 11. doi: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2019.5014; Kovarik CL. JAMA Dermatol. 2020 Mar 11. doi: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2019.5013.

Bariatric surgery was associated with a significant reduction in the risk of colorectal cancer among obese adults in a retrospective study of more than 1 million individuals.

Although some studies have suggested that bariatric surgery may reduce the risk of obesity-associated cancers, such as colorectal cancer, other studies have shown an increased colorectal cancer risk after surgery, according to Laurent Bailly, MD, of Université Côte d’Azur in Nice, France, and colleagues.

In a study published in JAMA Surgery, Dr. Bailly and colleagues compared the incidence of colorectal cancer in obese patients who underwent bariatric surgery with the incidence in obese patients who did not have surgery and the incidence in the general population.

Using the French National Health Insurance Information System database, the researchers identified 1,045,348 obese adults aged 50-75 years who had no colorectal cancer at baseline. Of these patients, 74,131 underwent bariatric surgery and 971,217 did not. The mean age was 57.3 years in the surgery group and 63.4 years in the nonsurgery group.

The mean follow-up period was 6.2 years for patients who underwent adjustable gastric banding, 5.5 years for those with sleeve gastrectomy, 5.7 years for those who underwent gastric bypass, and 5.3 years for the nonsurgery group.
 

Results

Overall, the colorectal cancer rate was 0.6% in the surgery group and 1.3% in the nonsurgery group (P < .001).

The researchers calculated standardized incidence ratios (SIRs) to compare the risk of colorectal cancer in the study population with the risk among the French general population; in other words, the number of observed colorectal cancer cases divided by the number of expected cases.

In the surgery group, 423 cases of colorectal cancer were observed and 428 cases were expected, which leads to an SIR of 1.0. In the nonsurgery group, 12,629 cases were observed and 9,417 cases were expected, leading to an SIR of 1.34.

These results suggest patients in the nonsurgery group had a 34% higher risk of colorectal cancer compared with the general population, whereas the risk in the surgery group was similar to that in the general population.

Patients who underwent either gastric bypass or sleeve gastrectomy had fewer new colorectal cancer diagnoses (0.5% for both) compared with patients who had adjustable gastric banding (0.7%).

The researchers noted that this study was limited by several factors, including the retrospective, observational design and potential selection bias among surgery patients. However, the results were strengthened by the large study population and long-term follow-up.
 

Putting results into context

The authors of an invited commentary noted that this study is supported by results from a retrospective, U.S.-based study, which indicated that bariatric surgery has a “protective effect” against colorectal cancer (Ann Surg. 2019 Jan;269[1]:95-101).

However, these results conflict with other retrospective studies. A study of Nordic patients suggested that bariatric surgery is associated with an increased risk of colon cancer but perhaps not rectal cancer (Int J Cancer. 2019. doi: 10.1002/ijc.32770).

And a study of English patients showed an increased risk of colorectal cancer in patients who underwent gastric bypass but not in those who underwent gastric banding or sleeve gastrectomy (Br J Surg. 2018;105(12):1650-7).

These conflicting results “imply that the jury is still out on whether bariatric surgery increases or decreases” the risk of colorectal cancer, the commentators wrote. They added that future studies “must account for differences in study population (i.e., race/ethnicity and national origin), mechanistic variation in bariatric surgical type, and length of follow-up, while also distinguishing between rectal and colon cancer before the case is settled.”

This study had no outside sponsorship, and the researchers and commentators had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Bailly L et al. JAMA Surg. 2020 Mar 11. doi:10.1001/jamasurg.2020.0089; Davidson LE et al. JAMA Surg. 2020 Mar. 11. doi:10.1001/jamasurg.2020.0090.

Bariatric surgery was associated with a significant reduction in the risk of colorectal cancer among obese adults in a retrospective study of more than 1 million individuals.

Although some studies have suggested that bariatric surgery may reduce the risk of obesity-associated cancers, such as colorectal cancer, other studies have shown an increased colorectal cancer risk after surgery, according to Laurent Bailly, MD, of Université Côte d’Azur in Nice, France, and colleagues.

In a study published in JAMA Surgery, Dr. Bailly and colleagues compared the incidence of colorectal cancer in obese patients who underwent bariatric surgery with the incidence in obese patients who did not have surgery and the incidence in the general population.

Using the French National Health Insurance Information System database, the researchers identified 1,045,348 obese adults aged 50-75 years who had no colorectal cancer at baseline. Of these patients, 74,131 underwent bariatric surgery and 971,217 did not. The mean age was 57.3 years in the surgery group and 63.4 years in the nonsurgery group.

The mean follow-up period was 6.2 years for patients who underwent adjustable gastric banding, 5.5 years for those with sleeve gastrectomy, 5.7 years for those who underwent gastric bypass, and 5.3 years for the nonsurgery group.
 

Results

Overall, the colorectal cancer rate was 0.6% in the surgery group and 1.3% in the nonsurgery group (P < .001).

The researchers calculated standardized incidence ratios (SIRs) to compare the risk of colorectal cancer in the study population with the risk among the French general population; in other words, the number of observed colorectal cancer cases divided by the number of expected cases.

In the surgery group, 423 cases of colorectal cancer were observed and 428 cases were expected, which leads to an SIR of 1.0. In the nonsurgery group, 12,629 cases were observed and 9,417 cases were expected, leading to an SIR of 1.34.

These results suggest patients in the nonsurgery group had a 34% higher risk of colorectal cancer compared with the general population, whereas the risk in the surgery group was similar to that in the general population.

Patients who underwent either gastric bypass or sleeve gastrectomy had fewer new colorectal cancer diagnoses (0.5% for both) compared with patients who had adjustable gastric banding (0.7%).

The researchers noted that this study was limited by several factors, including the retrospective, observational design and potential selection bias among surgery patients. However, the results were strengthened by the large study population and long-term follow-up.
 

Putting results into context

The authors of an invited commentary noted that this study is supported by results from a retrospective, U.S.-based study, which indicated that bariatric surgery has a “protective effect” against colorectal cancer (Ann Surg. 2019 Jan;269[1]:95-101).

However, these results conflict with other retrospective studies. A study of Nordic patients suggested that bariatric surgery is associated with an increased risk of colon cancer but perhaps not rectal cancer (Int J Cancer. 2019. doi: 10.1002/ijc.32770).

And a study of English patients showed an increased risk of colorectal cancer in patients who underwent gastric bypass but not in those who underwent gastric banding or sleeve gastrectomy (Br J Surg. 2018;105(12):1650-7).

These conflicting results “imply that the jury is still out on whether bariatric surgery increases or decreases” the risk of colorectal cancer, the commentators wrote. They added that future studies “must account for differences in study population (i.e., race/ethnicity and national origin), mechanistic variation in bariatric surgical type, and length of follow-up, while also distinguishing between rectal and colon cancer before the case is settled.”

This study had no outside sponsorship, and the researchers and commentators had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Bailly L et al. JAMA Surg. 2020 Mar 11. doi:10.1001/jamasurg.2020.0089; Davidson LE et al. JAMA Surg. 2020 Mar. 11. doi:10.1001/jamasurg.2020.0090.

Bariatric surgery was associated with a significant reduction in the risk of colorectal cancer among obese adults in a retrospective study of more than 1 million individuals.

Although some studies have suggested that bariatric surgery may reduce the risk of obesity-associated cancers, such as colorectal cancer, other studies have shown an increased colorectal cancer risk after surgery, according to Laurent Bailly, MD, of Université Côte d’Azur in Nice, France, and colleagues.

In a study published in JAMA Surgery, Dr. Bailly and colleagues compared the incidence of colorectal cancer in obese patients who underwent bariatric surgery with the incidence in obese patients who did not have surgery and the incidence in the general population.

Using the French National Health Insurance Information System database, the researchers identified 1,045,348 obese adults aged 50-75 years who had no colorectal cancer at baseline. Of these patients, 74,131 underwent bariatric surgery and 971,217 did not. The mean age was 57.3 years in the surgery group and 63.4 years in the nonsurgery group.

The mean follow-up period was 6.2 years for patients who underwent adjustable gastric banding, 5.5 years for those with sleeve gastrectomy, 5.7 years for those who underwent gastric bypass, and 5.3 years for the nonsurgery group.
 

Results

Overall, the colorectal cancer rate was 0.6% in the surgery group and 1.3% in the nonsurgery group (P < .001).

The researchers calculated standardized incidence ratios (SIRs) to compare the risk of colorectal cancer in the study population with the risk among the French general population; in other words, the number of observed colorectal cancer cases divided by the number of expected cases.

In the surgery group, 423 cases of colorectal cancer were observed and 428 cases were expected, which leads to an SIR of 1.0. In the nonsurgery group, 12,629 cases were observed and 9,417 cases were expected, leading to an SIR of 1.34.

These results suggest patients in the nonsurgery group had a 34% higher risk of colorectal cancer compared with the general population, whereas the risk in the surgery group was similar to that in the general population.

Patients who underwent either gastric bypass or sleeve gastrectomy had fewer new colorectal cancer diagnoses (0.5% for both) compared with patients who had adjustable gastric banding (0.7%).

The researchers noted that this study was limited by several factors, including the retrospective, observational design and potential selection bias among surgery patients. However, the results were strengthened by the large study population and long-term follow-up.
 

Putting results into context

The authors of an invited commentary noted that this study is supported by results from a retrospective, U.S.-based study, which indicated that bariatric surgery has a “protective effect” against colorectal cancer (Ann Surg. 2019 Jan;269[1]:95-101).

However, these results conflict with other retrospective studies. A study of Nordic patients suggested that bariatric surgery is associated with an increased risk of colon cancer but perhaps not rectal cancer (Int J Cancer. 2019. doi: 10.1002/ijc.32770).

And a study of English patients showed an increased risk of colorectal cancer in patients who underwent gastric bypass but not in those who underwent gastric banding or sleeve gastrectomy (Br J Surg. 2018;105(12):1650-7).

These conflicting results “imply that the jury is still out on whether bariatric surgery increases or decreases” the risk of colorectal cancer, the commentators wrote. They added that future studies “must account for differences in study population (i.e., race/ethnicity and national origin), mechanistic variation in bariatric surgical type, and length of follow-up, while also distinguishing between rectal and colon cancer before the case is settled.”

This study had no outside sponsorship, and the researchers and commentators had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Bailly L et al. JAMA Surg. 2020 Mar 11. doi:10.1001/jamasurg.2020.0089; Davidson LE et al. JAMA Surg. 2020 Mar. 11. doi:10.1001/jamasurg.2020.0090.

Current trends in the incidence and mortality of colorectal cancer (CRC) in the United States suggest CRC will become a disease that largely affects young and middle-aged adults, according to a report published in CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians.

As the second leading cause of cancer-related death in the United States, and with modifiable risk factors accounting for over 50% of cases and deaths, CRC is largely a preventable disease, explained study author Rebecca L. Siegel, of the American Cancer Society, and colleagues.

According to the investigators, CRC incidence dropped by 3.3% per year from 2011 through 2016 among individuals aged 65 years or older, but the opposite was observed for those aged 50-64 years, with rates increasing by 1% per year. The increase was even greater for those younger than 50 years, with an increase of 2.2% per year.

The CRC incidence from 2012 through 2016 was highest among Alaska Natives (89 cases per 100,000 persons) and lowest among Asian/Pacific Islanders (30 cases per 100,000 persons).

“CRC has been the most commonly diagnosed cancer in Alaska Natives since the early 1970s for reasons that are unknown but may include a higher prevalence of risk factors,” the investigators wrote.

The risk of developing CRC is related to several factors, including obesity, vitamin D deficiency, diabetes, smoking, and other dietary factors, the team further explained.

Among those aged 65 years or older, CRC death rates decreased by 3% per year from 2008 through 2017. For those aged 50-64 years, death rates dropped by 0.6% per year. In contrast, death rates rose by 1.3% per year for those younger than 50 years.

“The uptick in young adults, which is most rapid among non-Hispanic whites (2% per year), began around 2004 and was preceded by declines of 1% to 2% per year since at least 1975,” the investigators wrote.

The reduction in incidence and mortality among older adults is partially attributable to higher uptake of CRC screening. According to recent data, CRC screening rates were lower for those aged 50-64 years compared with individuals aged 65 years and older.

Based on current recommendations from the American Cancer Society, CRC screening should begin at age 45, with some higher-risk patients starting at age 40.

“Progress against CRC can be accelerated by increasing access to guideline-recommended screening and high quality treatment, particularly among Alaska Natives, and elucidating causes for rising incidence in young and middle-aged adults,” the investigators concluded.

The authors disclosed financial affiliations with the American Cancer Society, which funded the study, as well as Array Biopharma, Bayer, RGenix, Tesaro, and Seattle Genetics.

SOURCE: Siegel RL et al. CA Cancer J Clin. 2020 Mar 5. doi: 10.3322/caac.21601.

Current trends in the incidence and mortality of colorectal cancer (CRC) in the United States suggest CRC will become a disease that largely affects young and middle-aged adults, according to a report published in CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians.

As the second leading cause of cancer-related death in the United States, and with modifiable risk factors accounting for over 50% of cases and deaths, CRC is largely a preventable disease, explained study author Rebecca L. Siegel, of the American Cancer Society, and colleagues.

According to the investigators, CRC incidence dropped by 3.3% per year from 2011 through 2016 among individuals aged 65 years or older, but the opposite was observed for those aged 50-64 years, with rates increasing by 1% per year. The increase was even greater for those younger than 50 years, with an increase of 2.2% per year.

The CRC incidence from 2012 through 2016 was highest among Alaska Natives (89 cases per 100,000 persons) and lowest among Asian/Pacific Islanders (30 cases per 100,000 persons).

“CRC has been the most commonly diagnosed cancer in Alaska Natives since the early 1970s for reasons that are unknown but may include a higher prevalence of risk factors,” the investigators wrote.

The risk of developing CRC is related to several factors, including obesity, vitamin D deficiency, diabetes, smoking, and other dietary factors, the team further explained.

Among those aged 65 years or older, CRC death rates decreased by 3% per year from 2008 through 2017. For those aged 50-64 years, death rates dropped by 0.6% per year. In contrast, death rates rose by 1.3% per year for those younger than 50 years.

“The uptick in young adults, which is most rapid among non-Hispanic whites (2% per year), began around 2004 and was preceded by declines of 1% to 2% per year since at least 1975,” the investigators wrote.

The reduction in incidence and mortality among older adults is partially attributable to higher uptake of CRC screening. According to recent data, CRC screening rates were lower for those aged 50-64 years compared with individuals aged 65 years and older.

Based on current recommendations from the American Cancer Society, CRC screening should begin at age 45, with some higher-risk patients starting at age 40.

“Progress against CRC can be accelerated by increasing access to guideline-recommended screening and high quality treatment, particularly among Alaska Natives, and elucidating causes for rising incidence in young and middle-aged adults,” the investigators concluded.

The authors disclosed financial affiliations with the American Cancer Society, which funded the study, as well as Array Biopharma, Bayer, RGenix, Tesaro, and Seattle Genetics.

SOURCE: Siegel RL et al. CA Cancer J Clin. 2020 Mar 5. doi: 10.3322/caac.21601.

Current trends in the incidence and mortality of colorectal cancer (CRC) in the United States suggest CRC will become a disease that largely affects young and middle-aged adults, according to a report published in CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians.

As the second leading cause of cancer-related death in the United States, and with modifiable risk factors accounting for over 50% of cases and deaths, CRC is largely a preventable disease, explained study author Rebecca L. Siegel, of the American Cancer Society, and colleagues.

According to the investigators, CRC incidence dropped by 3.3% per year from 2011 through 2016 among individuals aged 65 years or older, but the opposite was observed for those aged 50-64 years, with rates increasing by 1% per year. The increase was even greater for those younger than 50 years, with an increase of 2.2% per year.

The CRC incidence from 2012 through 2016 was highest among Alaska Natives (89 cases per 100,000 persons) and lowest among Asian/Pacific Islanders (30 cases per 100,000 persons).

“CRC has been the most commonly diagnosed cancer in Alaska Natives since the early 1970s for reasons that are unknown but may include a higher prevalence of risk factors,” the investigators wrote.

The risk of developing CRC is related to several factors, including obesity, vitamin D deficiency, diabetes, smoking, and other dietary factors, the team further explained.

Among those aged 65 years or older, CRC death rates decreased by 3% per year from 2008 through 2017. For those aged 50-64 years, death rates dropped by 0.6% per year. In contrast, death rates rose by 1.3% per year for those younger than 50 years.

“The uptick in young adults, which is most rapid among non-Hispanic whites (2% per year), began around 2004 and was preceded by declines of 1% to 2% per year since at least 1975,” the investigators wrote.

The reduction in incidence and mortality among older adults is partially attributable to higher uptake of CRC screening. According to recent data, CRC screening rates were lower for those aged 50-64 years compared with individuals aged 65 years and older.

Based on current recommendations from the American Cancer Society, CRC screening should begin at age 45, with some higher-risk patients starting at age 40.

“Progress against CRC can be accelerated by increasing access to guideline-recommended screening and high quality treatment, particularly among Alaska Natives, and elucidating causes for rising incidence in young and middle-aged adults,” the investigators concluded.

The authors disclosed financial affiliations with the American Cancer Society, which funded the study, as well as Array Biopharma, Bayer, RGenix, Tesaro, and Seattle Genetics.

SOURCE: Siegel RL et al. CA Cancer J Clin. 2020 Mar 5. doi: 10.3322/caac.21601.

For patients undergoing major oncologic surgery, the best definition of malnutrition used to assess postoperative risk varies by cancer type, results of a retrospective study suggest.

The current, one-size-fits-all approach to nutritional status leads to both undertreatment and overtreatment of malnutrition, as well as inaccurate estimations of postoperative risk, reported lead study author Nicholas P. McKenna, MD, of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., and colleagues.

“Assessing nutritional status is important because it impacts preoperative planning, particularly with respect to the use of prehabilitation,” the investigators wrote. Their report is in the Journal of the American College of Surgeons. They noted that while prehabilitation has been shown to reduce postoperative risk among those who need it, identification of these patients is an area that needs improvement.

With this in mind, Dr. McKenna and colleagues analyzed 205,840 major oncologic operations, with data drawn from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement (NSQIP) database.

The researchers evaluated patients’ nutritional status using three techniques: the NSQIP method, the European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism (ESPEN) definitions, and the World Health Organization body mass index (BMI) classification system.

Combining these three assessments led to seven hierarchical nutritional status categories:

• Severe malnutrition – BMI less than 18.5 kg/m² and greater than 10% weight loss
• ESPEN 1 – BMI 18.5-20 kg/m² (if younger than 70 years) or less than 22 kg/m² (if 70 years or older) plus greater than 10% weight loss
• ESPEN 2 – BMI less than 18.5 kg/m²
• NSQIP – BMI greater than 20 kg/m² (if younger than 70 years) or 22 kg/m² (if 70 years or older) plus greater than 10% weight loss
• Mild malnutrition – BMI 18.5-20 kg/m² (if younger than 70 years) or less than 22 kg/m² (if 70 years or older)
• Obese – BMI at least 30 kg/m²
• No malnutrition.

The study’s primary outcomes were 30-day mortality and 30-day morbidity. The latter included a variety of complications, such as deep incisional surgical site infection, septic shock, and acute renal failure. Demographic and clinical factors were included in multivariate analyses.
 

Results

Most of the operations involved patients with colorectal cancer (74%), followed by pancreatic (10%), lung (9%), gastric (3%), esophageal (3%), and liver (2%) cancer.

Across all patients, 16% fell into one of five malnutrition categories: mild malnutrition (6%), NSQIP (6%), ESPEN 2 (2%), ESPEN 1 (1%), or severe malnutrition (0.6%). The remainder of patients were either obese (31%) or had normal nutritional status (54%).

Malnutrition was most common among patients with pancreatic cancer (28%) and least common among those with colorectal cancer (14%).

Aligning with previous research, this study showed that nutritional status was associated with postoperative risk. Mortality risk was highest among patients with severe malnutrition, and morbidity was most common in the severe and ESPEN 1 groups (P less than .0001 for both).

While the spectrum of classifications appeared accurate across the population, multivariable models for mortality and morbidity revealed an interaction between cancer type and malnutrition definition (P less than .0001 for both), which suggested the most accurate definition of malnutrition differed from one type of cancer to another.

Specifically, a classification of severe malnutrition was most predictive of mortality among patients with esophageal or colorectal cancer. ESPEN 1 was most predictive of mortality for patients with gastric or lung cancer, and NSQIP was most predictive for those with liver cancer.

For predicting morbidity, severe malnutrition was most accurate among patients with colorectal cancer, whereas ESPEN 1 was better suited for gastric and lung cancer.
 

Interpreting and applying the results

“The biggest takeaway is that the optimal definition of malnutrition varies by cancer type,” Dr. McKenna said in an interview.

He went on to explain that weight loss is a particularly important indicator of malnutrition for patients with esophageal or gastric cancer. “These are the cancers that more commonly undergo neoadjuvant chemotherapy,” he noted.

The other major finding, Dr. McKenna said, offers some perspective on short-term versus long-term risk.

“Most people consider obesity a negative prognostic factor,” he said. “But in terms of operative risk, it’s kind of a neutral effect. It doesn’t really affect the short-term outcomes of an operation.”

Still, Dr. McKenna warned that a visual assessment of patient body condition is not enough to predict postoperative risk. Instead, he recommended accurate height and weight measurements during annual and preoperative exams. He also noted that more patients are at risk than clinicians may suspect.

“Even definitions that didn’t previously exist, such as mild malnutrition, had a somewhat negative effect within colorectal cancer and esophageal cancer,” Dr. McKenna said. “So these are patients who previously probably would be considered pretty healthy, but there is probably some room to improve their nutritional status.”

While the study revealed that different types of cancer should have unique tools for measuring nutritional status, development of these systems will require more research concerning prehabilitation outcomes, according to Dr. McKenna. In the meantime, he highlighted a point of action in the clinic.

“We think, overall, especially with the rise of neoadjuvant chemotherapy upfront, before surgery, that identifying patients at risk before they start neoadjuvant chemotherapy is going to be important,” he said. “They are the ones who really need to be targeted.”

There was no external funding for this study, and the investigators reported no conflicts of interest.
 

SOURCE: McKenna NP et al. J Am Coll Surg. 2020 Feb 26. doi: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2019.12.034.

For patients undergoing major oncologic surgery, the best definition of malnutrition used to assess postoperative risk varies by cancer type, results of a retrospective study suggest.

The current, one-size-fits-all approach to nutritional status leads to both undertreatment and overtreatment of malnutrition, as well as inaccurate estimations of postoperative risk, reported lead study author Nicholas P. McKenna, MD, of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., and colleagues.

“Assessing nutritional status is important because it impacts preoperative planning, particularly with respect to the use of prehabilitation,” the investigators wrote. Their report is in the Journal of the American College of Surgeons. They noted that while prehabilitation has been shown to reduce postoperative risk among those who need it, identification of these patients is an area that needs improvement.

With this in mind, Dr. McKenna and colleagues analyzed 205,840 major oncologic operations, with data drawn from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement (NSQIP) database.

The researchers evaluated patients’ nutritional status using three techniques: the NSQIP method, the European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism (ESPEN) definitions, and the World Health Organization body mass index (BMI) classification system.

Combining these three assessments led to seven hierarchical nutritional status categories:

• Severe malnutrition – BMI less than 18.5 kg/m² and greater than 10% weight loss
• ESPEN 1 – BMI 18.5-20 kg/m² (if younger than 70 years) or less than 22 kg/m² (if 70 years or older) plus greater than 10% weight loss
• ESPEN 2 – BMI less than 18.5 kg/m²
• NSQIP – BMI greater than 20 kg/m² (if younger than 70 years) or 22 kg/m² (if 70 years or older) plus greater than 10% weight loss
• Mild malnutrition – BMI 18.5-20 kg/m² (if younger than 70 years) or less than 22 kg/m² (if 70 years or older)
• Obese – BMI at least 30 kg/m²
• No malnutrition.

The study’s primary outcomes were 30-day mortality and 30-day morbidity. The latter included a variety of complications, such as deep incisional surgical site infection, septic shock, and acute renal failure. Demographic and clinical factors were included in multivariate analyses.
 

Results

Most of the operations involved patients with colorectal cancer (74%), followed by pancreatic (10%), lung (9%), gastric (3%), esophageal (3%), and liver (2%) cancer.

Across all patients, 16% fell into one of five malnutrition categories: mild malnutrition (6%), NSQIP (6%), ESPEN 2 (2%), ESPEN 1 (1%), or severe malnutrition (0.6%). The remainder of patients were either obese (31%) or had normal nutritional status (54%).

Malnutrition was most common among patients with pancreatic cancer (28%) and least common among those with colorectal cancer (14%).

Aligning with previous research, this study showed that nutritional status was associated with postoperative risk. Mortality risk was highest among patients with severe malnutrition, and morbidity was most common in the severe and ESPEN 1 groups (P less than .0001 for both).

While the spectrum of classifications appeared accurate across the population, multivariable models for mortality and morbidity revealed an interaction between cancer type and malnutrition definition (P less than .0001 for both), which suggested the most accurate definition of malnutrition differed from one type of cancer to another.

Specifically, a classification of severe malnutrition was most predictive of mortality among patients with esophageal or colorectal cancer. ESPEN 1 was most predictive of mortality for patients with gastric or lung cancer, and NSQIP was most predictive for those with liver cancer.

For predicting morbidity, severe malnutrition was most accurate among patients with colorectal cancer, whereas ESPEN 1 was better suited for gastric and lung cancer.
 

Interpreting and applying the results

“The biggest takeaway is that the optimal definition of malnutrition varies by cancer type,” Dr. McKenna said in an interview.

He went on to explain that weight loss is a particularly important indicator of malnutrition for patients with esophageal or gastric cancer. “These are the cancers that more commonly undergo neoadjuvant chemotherapy,” he noted.

The other major finding, Dr. McKenna said, offers some perspective on short-term versus long-term risk.

“Most people consider obesity a negative prognostic factor,” he said. “But in terms of operative risk, it’s kind of a neutral effect. It doesn’t really affect the short-term outcomes of an operation.”

Still, Dr. McKenna warned that a visual assessment of patient body condition is not enough to predict postoperative risk. Instead, he recommended accurate height and weight measurements during annual and preoperative exams. He also noted that more patients are at risk than clinicians may suspect.

“Even definitions that didn’t previously exist, such as mild malnutrition, had a somewhat negative effect within colorectal cancer and esophageal cancer,” Dr. McKenna said. “So these are patients who previously probably would be considered pretty healthy, but there is probably some room to improve their nutritional status.”

While the study revealed that different types of cancer should have unique tools for measuring nutritional status, development of these systems will require more research concerning prehabilitation outcomes, according to Dr. McKenna. In the meantime, he highlighted a point of action in the clinic.

“We think, overall, especially with the rise of neoadjuvant chemotherapy upfront, before surgery, that identifying patients at risk before they start neoadjuvant chemotherapy is going to be important,” he said. “They are the ones who really need to be targeted.”

There was no external funding for this study, and the investigators reported no conflicts of interest.
 

SOURCE: McKenna NP et al. J Am Coll Surg. 2020 Feb 26. doi: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2019.12.034.

For patients undergoing major oncologic surgery, the best definition of malnutrition used to assess postoperative risk varies by cancer type, results of a retrospective study suggest.

The current, one-size-fits-all approach to nutritional status leads to both undertreatment and overtreatment of malnutrition, as well as inaccurate estimations of postoperative risk, reported lead study author Nicholas P. McKenna, MD, of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., and colleagues.

“Assessing nutritional status is important because it impacts preoperative planning, particularly with respect to the use of prehabilitation,” the investigators wrote. Their report is in the Journal of the American College of Surgeons. They noted that while prehabilitation has been shown to reduce postoperative risk among those who need it, identification of these patients is an area that needs improvement.

With this in mind, Dr. McKenna and colleagues analyzed 205,840 major oncologic operations, with data drawn from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement (NSQIP) database.

The researchers evaluated patients’ nutritional status using three techniques: the NSQIP method, the European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism (ESPEN) definitions, and the World Health Organization body mass index (BMI) classification system.

Combining these three assessments led to seven hierarchical nutritional status categories:

• Severe malnutrition – BMI less than 18.5 kg/m² and greater than 10% weight loss
• ESPEN 1 – BMI 18.5-20 kg/m² (if younger than 70 years) or less than 22 kg/m² (if 70 years or older) plus greater than 10% weight loss
• ESPEN 2 – BMI less than 18.5 kg/m²
• NSQIP – BMI greater than 20 kg/m² (if younger than 70 years) or 22 kg/m² (if 70 years or older) plus greater than 10% weight loss
• Mild malnutrition – BMI 18.5-20 kg/m² (if younger than 70 years) or less than 22 kg/m² (if 70 years or older)
• Obese – BMI at least 30 kg/m²
• No malnutrition.

The study’s primary outcomes were 30-day mortality and 30-day morbidity. The latter included a variety of complications, such as deep incisional surgical site infection, septic shock, and acute renal failure. Demographic and clinical factors were included in multivariate analyses.
 

Results

Most of the operations involved patients with colorectal cancer (74%), followed by pancreatic (10%), lung (9%), gastric (3%), esophageal (3%), and liver (2%) cancer.

Across all patients, 16% fell into one of five malnutrition categories: mild malnutrition (6%), NSQIP (6%), ESPEN 2 (2%), ESPEN 1 (1%), or severe malnutrition (0.6%). The remainder of patients were either obese (31%) or had normal nutritional status (54%).

Malnutrition was most common among patients with pancreatic cancer (28%) and least common among those with colorectal cancer (14%).

Aligning with previous research, this study showed that nutritional status was associated with postoperative risk. Mortality risk was highest among patients with severe malnutrition, and morbidity was most common in the severe and ESPEN 1 groups (P less than .0001 for both).

While the spectrum of classifications appeared accurate across the population, multivariable models for mortality and morbidity revealed an interaction between cancer type and malnutrition definition (P less than .0001 for both), which suggested the most accurate definition of malnutrition differed from one type of cancer to another.

Specifically, a classification of severe malnutrition was most predictive of mortality among patients with esophageal or colorectal cancer. ESPEN 1 was most predictive of mortality for patients with gastric or lung cancer, and NSQIP was most predictive for those with liver cancer.

For predicting morbidity, severe malnutrition was most accurate among patients with colorectal cancer, whereas ESPEN 1 was better suited for gastric and lung cancer.
 

Interpreting and applying the results

“The biggest takeaway is that the optimal definition of malnutrition varies by cancer type,” Dr. McKenna said in an interview.

He went on to explain that weight loss is a particularly important indicator of malnutrition for patients with esophageal or gastric cancer. “These are the cancers that more commonly undergo neoadjuvant chemotherapy,” he noted.

The other major finding, Dr. McKenna said, offers some perspective on short-term versus long-term risk.

“Most people consider obesity a negative prognostic factor,” he said. “But in terms of operative risk, it’s kind of a neutral effect. It doesn’t really affect the short-term outcomes of an operation.”

Still, Dr. McKenna warned that a visual assessment of patient body condition is not enough to predict postoperative risk. Instead, he recommended accurate height and weight measurements during annual and preoperative exams. He also noted that more patients are at risk than clinicians may suspect.

“Even definitions that didn’t previously exist, such as mild malnutrition, had a somewhat negative effect within colorectal cancer and esophageal cancer,” Dr. McKenna said. “So these are patients who previously probably would be considered pretty healthy, but there is probably some room to improve their nutritional status.”

While the study revealed that different types of cancer should have unique tools for measuring nutritional status, development of these systems will require more research concerning prehabilitation outcomes, according to Dr. McKenna. In the meantime, he highlighted a point of action in the clinic.

“We think, overall, especially with the rise of neoadjuvant chemotherapy upfront, before surgery, that identifying patients at risk before they start neoadjuvant chemotherapy is going to be important,” he said. “They are the ones who really need to be targeted.”

There was no external funding for this study, and the investigators reported no conflicts of interest.
 

SOURCE: McKenna NP et al. J Am Coll Surg. 2020 Feb 26. doi: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2019.12.034.

ORLANDO – Collecting and storing extra stem cells on the off chance that a patient with multiple myeloma will need a salvage autologous stem cell transplant may not be worth the money or effort, investigators say.

Neil Osterweil/MDedge News

Among patients with multiple myeloma who had adequate collection of mobilized and stored cells, only 3 of 146 eligible patients were given the stored cells in a second autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT), reported Nausheen Ahmed, MD, from the Case Western Reserve Cancer Center and University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, both in Cleveland.

“We found overall low utilization of salvage transplants and storage stem cells at our institution, which may not justify the strategy of early collection for all patients fit for transplant,” she said at the Transplantation and Cellular Therapy Meetings.

But Sergio Giralt, MD, a transplant specialist from Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, who was not involved in the study, warned against changing practice “for the wrong reason, because it’s just a financial reason.”
 

Get them while they’re fresh

The rationale for collecting and storing extra cells is the risk that mobilization will fail in the future following prolonged maintenance with immunomodulatory agents such as lenalidomide (Revlimid), and the risk for genetic or epigenetic damage to cells from high-dose melphalan used in transplant-conditioning regimens, Dr. Ahmed noted at the meeting held by the American Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation and the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research.

“However, there are potential issues with early mobilization and storage, including cost, resources, apheresis scheduling, uncertainty of cell viability, and liability. There’s also risk of side effects with filgrastim and plerixafor use [for mobilization],” she said.

Dr. Ahmed and colleagues conducted a study to determine how stored stem cells for second ASCT were used, describe how second ASCTs are used in patients who meet the Mayo Consensus Stratification for Myeloma & Risk-Adapted Therapy (mSMART) criteria, and the costs of mobilizing and storing stem cells for a second ASCT.

They took a retrospective look at all adults aged 18 years and older with a diagnosis of multiple myeloma who received a first ASCT at their institution from 2009 to 2017. They excluded patients who had amyloidosis without myeloma or POEMS (polyneuropathy, organomegaly, endocrinopathy, monoclonal plasma proliferative disorder, skin changes) syndrome.

Patients were considered eligible for a second ASCT based on mSMART recommendations if they had a relapse either 18 or more months without maintenance therapy or after at least 36 months on maintenance. The investigators defined an extra day of collection as an additional day of apheresis to obtain 2 million or more CD34 cells/kg for storage only.

They estimated costs from the institution’s charge master as the sum of cell processing, leukapheresis costs, additional plerixafor costs, and storage costs, and calculated the total duration of storage as months from the date of collection until the last follow-up.

The median age of the total study population of 179 patients was 61 years, with a majority of male and white patients. Of this group, 98% had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance score of 0-1. In all, 63.7% of the patients had standard-risk cytogenetics, 22.4% had high-risk disease, and the remainder had unknown cytogenetic risk.

At a median follow-up of 56.5 months, 95 patients (53.1%) had experienced a relapse after transplant with a median time to progression of 47.5 months. The majority of patients (166; 92.7%) had received a single transplant, 10 (5.6%) had received tandem transplants, and only 3 (1.6%) had a second transplant at relapse.

Looking at the use of second transplant in patients who met the criteria for salvage transplant based on mSMART (excluding patients who had undergone tandem transplant) and whose maintenance status was known, they identified 61 patients on maintenance therapy and 24 with no maintenance. A total of 31 patients (18 in the maintenance group and 13 in the no-maintenance group) met mSMART criteria for salvage ASCT.

Dr. Ahmed and colleagues next looked at the 146 patients who had at least 2 million stored cells/kg, and found that the stored cells were used for only three patients. Of the 146 patients, 66 had 1 extra collection day, 17 had 2 extra days, and 4 had 3 extra days, for an average additional cost per patient of $16,859.
 

‘Woefully underutilized’

Discussing the study, Dr. Giralt asked: “How valid are the SMART criteria of 36 months? And the answer is there is no data to support it, and if we actually go back to our oncology, any patient who has had more than 18 months without exposure to a drug can continue to have sensitivity to that drug, and that’s why if we used the ASBMT criteria of greater than 18 months you’d have a larger population” of patients eligible for salvage transplant.

He stated that, “we know these patients exist, we know they have cells in the freezer, but we’re not using those cells. Second transplant is woefully underutilized in myeloma patients,” and he added that stored cells could also be used to support those patients who develop cytopenias following chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy.

Yago Nieto, MD, from the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, who comoderated the session where the data were presented, agreed with Dr. Giralt that stored stem cells are underutilized in the treatment of patients with multiple myeloma.

“I don’t think that the experience from Case Western, where the percentage of patients who are eligible for salvage transplant and actually got it was less than 10%, can be extrapolated to many other centers. I think that in most centers the actual percentage is higher than that,” he said in an interview.

“There are going to be therapies like CAR T that will compete with salvage transplants, but I think more patients should be considered for this salvage procedure,” he added.

No funding source for the story was disclosed. Dr. Ahmed reported no financial disclosures. Dr. Giralt reported consulting/advisory activities and receiving research funding from multiple companies. Dr. Nieto disclosed research funding from, and consultancy for, several companies.

SOURCE: Ahmed N et al. TCT 2020, Abstract 28.

ORLANDO – Collecting and storing extra stem cells on the off chance that a patient with multiple myeloma will need a salvage autologous stem cell transplant may not be worth the money or effort, investigators say.

Neil Osterweil/MDedge News

Among patients with multiple myeloma who had adequate collection of mobilized and stored cells, only 3 of 146 eligible patients were given the stored cells in a second autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT), reported Nausheen Ahmed, MD, from the Case Western Reserve Cancer Center and University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, both in Cleveland.

“We found overall low utilization of salvage transplants and storage stem cells at our institution, which may not justify the strategy of early collection for all patients fit for transplant,” she said at the Transplantation and Cellular Therapy Meetings.

But Sergio Giralt, MD, a transplant specialist from Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, who was not involved in the study, warned against changing practice “for the wrong reason, because it’s just a financial reason.”
 

Get them while they’re fresh

The rationale for collecting and storing extra cells is the risk that mobilization will fail in the future following prolonged maintenance with immunomodulatory agents such as lenalidomide (Revlimid), and the risk for genetic or epigenetic damage to cells from high-dose melphalan used in transplant-conditioning regimens, Dr. Ahmed noted at the meeting held by the American Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation and the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research.

“However, there are potential issues with early mobilization and storage, including cost, resources, apheresis scheduling, uncertainty of cell viability, and liability. There’s also risk of side effects with filgrastim and plerixafor use [for mobilization],” she said.

Dr. Ahmed and colleagues conducted a study to determine how stored stem cells for second ASCT were used, describe how second ASCTs are used in patients who meet the Mayo Consensus Stratification for Myeloma & Risk-Adapted Therapy (mSMART) criteria, and the costs of mobilizing and storing stem cells for a second ASCT.

They took a retrospective look at all adults aged 18 years and older with a diagnosis of multiple myeloma who received a first ASCT at their institution from 2009 to 2017. They excluded patients who had amyloidosis without myeloma or POEMS (polyneuropathy, organomegaly, endocrinopathy, monoclonal plasma proliferative disorder, skin changes) syndrome.

Patients were considered eligible for a second ASCT based on mSMART recommendations if they had a relapse either 18 or more months without maintenance therapy or after at least 36 months on maintenance. The investigators defined an extra day of collection as an additional day of apheresis to obtain 2 million or more CD34 cells/kg for storage only.

They estimated costs from the institution’s charge master as the sum of cell processing, leukapheresis costs, additional plerixafor costs, and storage costs, and calculated the total duration of storage as months from the date of collection until the last follow-up.

The median age of the total study population of 179 patients was 61 years, with a majority of male and white patients. Of this group, 98% had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance score of 0-1. In all, 63.7% of the patients had standard-risk cytogenetics, 22.4% had high-risk disease, and the remainder had unknown cytogenetic risk.

At a median follow-up of 56.5 months, 95 patients (53.1%) had experienced a relapse after transplant with a median time to progression of 47.5 months. The majority of patients (166; 92.7%) had received a single transplant, 10 (5.6%) had received tandem transplants, and only 3 (1.6%) had a second transplant at relapse.

Looking at the use of second transplant in patients who met the criteria for salvage transplant based on mSMART (excluding patients who had undergone tandem transplant) and whose maintenance status was known, they identified 61 patients on maintenance therapy and 24 with no maintenance. A total of 31 patients (18 in the maintenance group and 13 in the no-maintenance group) met mSMART criteria for salvage ASCT.

Dr. Ahmed and colleagues next looked at the 146 patients who had at least 2 million stored cells/kg, and found that the stored cells were used for only three patients. Of the 146 patients, 66 had 1 extra collection day, 17 had 2 extra days, and 4 had 3 extra days, for an average additional cost per patient of $16,859.
 

‘Woefully underutilized’

Discussing the study, Dr. Giralt asked: “How valid are the SMART criteria of 36 months? And the answer is there is no data to support it, and if we actually go back to our oncology, any patient who has had more than 18 months without exposure to a drug can continue to have sensitivity to that drug, and that’s why if we used the ASBMT criteria of greater than 18 months you’d have a larger population” of patients eligible for salvage transplant.

He stated that, “we know these patients exist, we know they have cells in the freezer, but we’re not using those cells. Second transplant is woefully underutilized in myeloma patients,” and he added that stored cells could also be used to support those patients who develop cytopenias following chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy.

Yago Nieto, MD, from the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, who comoderated the session where the data were presented, agreed with Dr. Giralt that stored stem cells are underutilized in the treatment of patients with multiple myeloma.

“I don’t think that the experience from Case Western, where the percentage of patients who are eligible for salvage transplant and actually got it was less than 10%, can be extrapolated to many other centers. I think that in most centers the actual percentage is higher than that,” he said in an interview.

“There are going to be therapies like CAR T that will compete with salvage transplants, but I think more patients should be considered for this salvage procedure,” he added.

No funding source for the story was disclosed. Dr. Ahmed reported no financial disclosures. Dr. Giralt reported consulting/advisory activities and receiving research funding from multiple companies. Dr. Nieto disclosed research funding from, and consultancy for, several companies.

SOURCE: Ahmed N et al. TCT 2020, Abstract 28.

ORLANDO – Collecting and storing extra stem cells on the off chance that a patient with multiple myeloma will need a salvage autologous stem cell transplant may not be worth the money or effort, investigators say.

Neil Osterweil/MDedge News

Among patients with multiple myeloma who had adequate collection of mobilized and stored cells, only 3 of 146 eligible patients were given the stored cells in a second autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT), reported Nausheen Ahmed, MD, from the Case Western Reserve Cancer Center and University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, both in Cleveland.

“We found overall low utilization of salvage transplants and storage stem cells at our institution, which may not justify the strategy of early collection for all patients fit for transplant,” she said at the Transplantation and Cellular Therapy Meetings.

But Sergio Giralt, MD, a transplant specialist from Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, who was not involved in the study, warned against changing practice “for the wrong reason, because it’s just a financial reason.”
 

Get them while they’re fresh

The rationale for collecting and storing extra cells is the risk that mobilization will fail in the future following prolonged maintenance with immunomodulatory agents such as lenalidomide (Revlimid), and the risk for genetic or epigenetic damage to cells from high-dose melphalan used in transplant-conditioning regimens, Dr. Ahmed noted at the meeting held by the American Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation and the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research.

“However, there are potential issues with early mobilization and storage, including cost, resources, apheresis scheduling, uncertainty of cell viability, and liability. There’s also risk of side effects with filgrastim and plerixafor use [for mobilization],” she said.

Dr. Ahmed and colleagues conducted a study to determine how stored stem cells for second ASCT were used, describe how second ASCTs are used in patients who meet the Mayo Consensus Stratification for Myeloma & Risk-Adapted Therapy (mSMART) criteria, and the costs of mobilizing and storing stem cells for a second ASCT.

They took a retrospective look at all adults aged 18 years and older with a diagnosis of multiple myeloma who received a first ASCT at their institution from 2009 to 2017. They excluded patients who had amyloidosis without myeloma or POEMS (polyneuropathy, organomegaly, endocrinopathy, monoclonal plasma proliferative disorder, skin changes) syndrome.

Patients were considered eligible for a second ASCT based on mSMART recommendations if they had a relapse either 18 or more months without maintenance therapy or after at least 36 months on maintenance. The investigators defined an extra day of collection as an additional day of apheresis to obtain 2 million or more CD34 cells/kg for storage only.

They estimated costs from the institution’s charge master as the sum of cell processing, leukapheresis costs, additional plerixafor costs, and storage costs, and calculated the total duration of storage as months from the date of collection until the last follow-up.

The median age of the total study population of 179 patients was 61 years, with a majority of male and white patients. Of this group, 98% had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance score of 0-1. In all, 63.7% of the patients had standard-risk cytogenetics, 22.4% had high-risk disease, and the remainder had unknown cytogenetic risk.

At a median follow-up of 56.5 months, 95 patients (53.1%) had experienced a relapse after transplant with a median time to progression of 47.5 months. The majority of patients (166; 92.7%) had received a single transplant, 10 (5.6%) had received tandem transplants, and only 3 (1.6%) had a second transplant at relapse.

Looking at the use of second transplant in patients who met the criteria for salvage transplant based on mSMART (excluding patients who had undergone tandem transplant) and whose maintenance status was known, they identified 61 patients on maintenance therapy and 24 with no maintenance. A total of 31 patients (18 in the maintenance group and 13 in the no-maintenance group) met mSMART criteria for salvage ASCT.

Dr. Ahmed and colleagues next looked at the 146 patients who had at least 2 million stored cells/kg, and found that the stored cells were used for only three patients. Of the 146 patients, 66 had 1 extra collection day, 17 had 2 extra days, and 4 had 3 extra days, for an average additional cost per patient of $16,859.
 

‘Woefully underutilized’

Discussing the study, Dr. Giralt asked: “How valid are the SMART criteria of 36 months? And the answer is there is no data to support it, and if we actually go back to our oncology, any patient who has had more than 18 months without exposure to a drug can continue to have sensitivity to that drug, and that’s why if we used the ASBMT criteria of greater than 18 months you’d have a larger population” of patients eligible for salvage transplant.

He stated that, “we know these patients exist, we know they have cells in the freezer, but we’re not using those cells. Second transplant is woefully underutilized in myeloma patients,” and he added that stored cells could also be used to support those patients who develop cytopenias following chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy.

Yago Nieto, MD, from the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, who comoderated the session where the data were presented, agreed with Dr. Giralt that stored stem cells are underutilized in the treatment of patients with multiple myeloma.

“I don’t think that the experience from Case Western, where the percentage of patients who are eligible for salvage transplant and actually got it was less than 10%, can be extrapolated to many other centers. I think that in most centers the actual percentage is higher than that,” he said in an interview.

“There are going to be therapies like CAR T that will compete with salvage transplants, but I think more patients should be considered for this salvage procedure,” he added.

No funding source for the story was disclosed. Dr. Ahmed reported no financial disclosures. Dr. Giralt reported consulting/advisory activities and receiving research funding from multiple companies. Dr. Nieto disclosed research funding from, and consultancy for, several companies.

SOURCE: Ahmed N et al. TCT 2020, Abstract 28.

The combination of radiotherapy plus pembrolizumab (Keytruda, Merck) leads to good disease control in recurrent or metastatic head and neck squamous cell cancer (HNSCC) in patients for whom cisplatin would prove to be too toxic, a phase 2 trial suggests.

“There are convincing arguments that radiation sensitizes patients to immunotherapy and can enhance its effects,” Jared Weiss, MD, associate professor of medicine, UNC Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, said in a statement.

“And the opposite direction also seems to be true – radiation therapy needs a functional immune system to work. Our hope was that pembrolizumab might be a radiation sensitizer for these patients,” he said.

The study was presented at the Multidisciplinary Head and Neck Cancer Symposium, sponsored by the American Society for Radiation Oncology.

Both modalities have had some outstanding results in the past, observed Weiss. “If you look back to the historic studies, radiation alone often cures patients with this disease, while some of the first patients treated with pembrolizumab for recurrent/metastatic cancer are still alive many years out, with no evidence of disease,” he said.

“Our concept was that, in addition to whatever synergy the immunotherapy might provide with radiation, we also conceived of it as a ‘second shot on goal’ towards a cure, because there is durable control with drug alone,” he added.

Single-arm trial

The single-arm trial included 29 patients with locally advanced HNSCC.

Only about 10% of patients were current smokers, but more than half of the study group had a history of smoking. Of those, more than 55% had a history of 10 pack-years or more.

In slightly more than one third of patients, the primary site of the cancer was the base of the tongue. The tonsils were the primary site in slightly more than one third.

Platinum ineligibility was defined by provider and standard measures.

More than two thirds of patients were ineligible to receive cisplatin because of preexisting otopathy, including hearing impairment and tinnitus.

The combination of cisplatin and definitive-dose radiotherapy is standard treatment for locally advanced head and neck cancer, but contraindications to cisplatin are common in everyday clinical practice. Weiss noted that contraindications are present in about one third of his patients.

“We replaced standard, every-3-week cisplatin with pembrolizumab every 3 weeks,” Weiss explained, “and we hypothesized that with the ongoing effects of radiation therapy after completion, that additional adjuvant cycles could further sensitize patients [to the effects of radiation] without impairing recovery, so we added three adjuvant cycles as well,” he added.

With six cycles of an every-3-week drug, patients received 18 weeks of pembrolizumab in total.

Echoing results from the previously reported KEYNOTE-48 trial, pembrolizumab given with radiotherapy instead of chemotherapy led to an overall progression-free survival (PFS) rate of 76% at 1 year and an estimated PFS of 71% at 2 years.

At 1 year, 86% of patients were still alive, and at 2 years, an estimated 75% of patients were still alive, Weiss added.

For patients with human papillomavirus 16–positive cancer, rates of PFS and overall survival were slightly better, at 88% and 94%, respectively.

With regard to toxicities, “For the most part, this [treatment regimen] looks like radiation alone with one very notable exception, which was lymphopenia,” Weiss observed. Grade 3-4 lymphopenia affected 59% of patients.

Lymphocyte count hit bottom at week 4, he added, with only partial recovery at week 20 and no further recovery at 40 weeks. Lymphocyte count alone or any change in it was not predictive of early progression.

However, in comparing patients who experienced early disease progression to patients who did not experience progression, levels of baseline naive B cells in peripheral blood were higher and levels of circulating marginal zone B cells were lower in patients with progressive disease, Weiss reported.

Patient-reported outcomes indicated that common symptoms of treatment peaked at week 10, and there was relative recovery by week 20.

As reflected by Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT) scores, which include social, emotional, and functional well-being, as well as the head and neck cancer scale, “we again see a nadir at 10 weeks with relative recovery at 20 weeks,” Weiss noted.

“We found that concurrent pembrolizumab with radiotherapy is a safe and feasible option for locally advanced head and neck cancer patients with cisplatin ineligibility,” Weiss concluded.

More research is being conducted in this area, and multiple ongoing studies will further elucidate the value of PD-1 or PD-L1 checkpoint blockade with definitive radiation therapy, he added.

The study was funded by Merck & Co. Weiss’ institution has received research funding from Celgene, Pfizer, Merck, AZ/Medimmmune, Amgen, Carefusion, G1 Therapeutics, Immunicum, Loxo/Lilly, and the Jimmy V Foundation. Weiss has received honoraria for consulting from AstraZeneca, EMD Serono, Genentech, Inivata, Celgene, G1 Therapeutics, Jounce Therapeutics, Abbvie, Rakuten, Nanobiotix, Azitra, Loxo/Lilly, Pfizer, and Blueprint had has stock in Nektar and Vesselon.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The combination of radiotherapy plus pembrolizumab (Keytruda, Merck) leads to good disease control in recurrent or metastatic head and neck squamous cell cancer (HNSCC) in patients for whom cisplatin would prove to be too toxic, a phase 2 trial suggests.

“There are convincing arguments that radiation sensitizes patients to immunotherapy and can enhance its effects,” Jared Weiss, MD, associate professor of medicine, UNC Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, said in a statement.

“And the opposite direction also seems to be true – radiation therapy needs a functional immune system to work. Our hope was that pembrolizumab might be a radiation sensitizer for these patients,” he said.

The study was presented at the Multidisciplinary Head and Neck Cancer Symposium, sponsored by the American Society for Radiation Oncology.

Both modalities have had some outstanding results in the past, observed Weiss. “If you look back to the historic studies, radiation alone often cures patients with this disease, while some of the first patients treated with pembrolizumab for recurrent/metastatic cancer are still alive many years out, with no evidence of disease,” he said.

“Our concept was that, in addition to whatever synergy the immunotherapy might provide with radiation, we also conceived of it as a ‘second shot on goal’ towards a cure, because there is durable control with drug alone,” he added.

Single-arm trial

The single-arm trial included 29 patients with locally advanced HNSCC.

Only about 10% of patients were current smokers, but more than half of the study group had a history of smoking. Of those, more than 55% had a history of 10 pack-years or more.

In slightly more than one third of patients, the primary site of the cancer was the base of the tongue. The tonsils were the primary site in slightly more than one third.

Platinum ineligibility was defined by provider and standard measures.

More than two thirds of patients were ineligible to receive cisplatin because of preexisting otopathy, including hearing impairment and tinnitus.

The combination of cisplatin and definitive-dose radiotherapy is standard treatment for locally advanced head and neck cancer, but contraindications to cisplatin are common in everyday clinical practice. Weiss noted that contraindications are present in about one third of his patients.

“We replaced standard, every-3-week cisplatin with pembrolizumab every 3 weeks,” Weiss explained, “and we hypothesized that with the ongoing effects of radiation therapy after completion, that additional adjuvant cycles could further sensitize patients [to the effects of radiation] without impairing recovery, so we added three adjuvant cycles as well,” he added.

With six cycles of an every-3-week drug, patients received 18 weeks of pembrolizumab in total.

Echoing results from the previously reported KEYNOTE-48 trial, pembrolizumab given with radiotherapy instead of chemotherapy led to an overall progression-free survival (PFS) rate of 76% at 1 year and an estimated PFS of 71% at 2 years.

At 1 year, 86% of patients were still alive, and at 2 years, an estimated 75% of patients were still alive, Weiss added.

For patients with human papillomavirus 16–positive cancer, rates of PFS and overall survival were slightly better, at 88% and 94%, respectively.

With regard to toxicities, “For the most part, this [treatment regimen] looks like radiation alone with one very notable exception, which was lymphopenia,” Weiss observed. Grade 3-4 lymphopenia affected 59% of patients.

Lymphocyte count hit bottom at week 4, he added, with only partial recovery at week 20 and no further recovery at 40 weeks. Lymphocyte count alone or any change in it was not predictive of early progression.

However, in comparing patients who experienced early disease progression to patients who did not experience progression, levels of baseline naive B cells in peripheral blood were higher and levels of circulating marginal zone B cells were lower in patients with progressive disease, Weiss reported.

Patient-reported outcomes indicated that common symptoms of treatment peaked at week 10, and there was relative recovery by week 20.

As reflected by Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT) scores, which include social, emotional, and functional well-being, as well as the head and neck cancer scale, “we again see a nadir at 10 weeks with relative recovery at 20 weeks,” Weiss noted.

“We found that concurrent pembrolizumab with radiotherapy is a safe and feasible option for locally advanced head and neck cancer patients with cisplatin ineligibility,” Weiss concluded.

More research is being conducted in this area, and multiple ongoing studies will further elucidate the value of PD-1 or PD-L1 checkpoint blockade with definitive radiation therapy, he added.

The study was funded by Merck & Co. Weiss’ institution has received research funding from Celgene, Pfizer, Merck, AZ/Medimmmune, Amgen, Carefusion, G1 Therapeutics, Immunicum, Loxo/Lilly, and the Jimmy V Foundation. Weiss has received honoraria for consulting from AstraZeneca, EMD Serono, Genentech, Inivata, Celgene, G1 Therapeutics, Jounce Therapeutics, Abbvie, Rakuten, Nanobiotix, Azitra, Loxo/Lilly, Pfizer, and Blueprint had has stock in Nektar and Vesselon.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The combination of radiotherapy plus pembrolizumab (Keytruda, Merck) leads to good disease control in recurrent or metastatic head and neck squamous cell cancer (HNSCC) in patients for whom cisplatin would prove to be too toxic, a phase 2 trial suggests.

“There are convincing arguments that radiation sensitizes patients to immunotherapy and can enhance its effects,” Jared Weiss, MD, associate professor of medicine, UNC Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, said in a statement.

“And the opposite direction also seems to be true – radiation therapy needs a functional immune system to work. Our hope was that pembrolizumab might be a radiation sensitizer for these patients,” he said.

The study was presented at the Multidisciplinary Head and Neck Cancer Symposium, sponsored by the American Society for Radiation Oncology.

Both modalities have had some outstanding results in the past, observed Weiss. “If you look back to the historic studies, radiation alone often cures patients with this disease, while some of the first patients treated with pembrolizumab for recurrent/metastatic cancer are still alive many years out, with no evidence of disease,” he said.

“Our concept was that, in addition to whatever synergy the immunotherapy might provide with radiation, we also conceived of it as a ‘second shot on goal’ towards a cure, because there is durable control with drug alone,” he added.

Single-arm trial

The single-arm trial included 29 patients with locally advanced HNSCC.

Only about 10% of patients were current smokers, but more than half of the study group had a history of smoking. Of those, more than 55% had a history of 10 pack-years or more.

In slightly more than one third of patients, the primary site of the cancer was the base of the tongue. The tonsils were the primary site in slightly more than one third.

Platinum ineligibility was defined by provider and standard measures.

More than two thirds of patients were ineligible to receive cisplatin because of preexisting otopathy, including hearing impairment and tinnitus.

The combination of cisplatin and definitive-dose radiotherapy is standard treatment for locally advanced head and neck cancer, but contraindications to cisplatin are common in everyday clinical practice. Weiss noted that contraindications are present in about one third of his patients.

“We replaced standard, every-3-week cisplatin with pembrolizumab every 3 weeks,” Weiss explained, “and we hypothesized that with the ongoing effects of radiation therapy after completion, that additional adjuvant cycles could further sensitize patients [to the effects of radiation] without impairing recovery, so we added three adjuvant cycles as well,” he added.

With six cycles of an every-3-week drug, patients received 18 weeks of pembrolizumab in total.

Echoing results from the previously reported KEYNOTE-48 trial, pembrolizumab given with radiotherapy instead of chemotherapy led to an overall progression-free survival (PFS) rate of 76% at 1 year and an estimated PFS of 71% at 2 years.

At 1 year, 86% of patients were still alive, and at 2 years, an estimated 75% of patients were still alive, Weiss added.

For patients with human papillomavirus 16–positive cancer, rates of PFS and overall survival were slightly better, at 88% and 94%, respectively.

With regard to toxicities, “For the most part, this [treatment regimen] looks like radiation alone with one very notable exception, which was lymphopenia,” Weiss observed. Grade 3-4 lymphopenia affected 59% of patients.

Lymphocyte count hit bottom at week 4, he added, with only partial recovery at week 20 and no further recovery at 40 weeks. Lymphocyte count alone or any change in it was not predictive of early progression.

However, in comparing patients who experienced early disease progression to patients who did not experience progression, levels of baseline naive B cells in peripheral blood were higher and levels of circulating marginal zone B cells were lower in patients with progressive disease, Weiss reported.

Patient-reported outcomes indicated that common symptoms of treatment peaked at week 10, and there was relative recovery by week 20.

As reflected by Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT) scores, which include social, emotional, and functional well-being, as well as the head and neck cancer scale, “we again see a nadir at 10 weeks with relative recovery at 20 weeks,” Weiss noted.

“We found that concurrent pembrolizumab with radiotherapy is a safe and feasible option for locally advanced head and neck cancer patients with cisplatin ineligibility,” Weiss concluded.

More research is being conducted in this area, and multiple ongoing studies will further elucidate the value of PD-1 or PD-L1 checkpoint blockade with definitive radiation therapy, he added.

The study was funded by Merck & Co. Weiss’ institution has received research funding from Celgene, Pfizer, Merck, AZ/Medimmmune, Amgen, Carefusion, G1 Therapeutics, Immunicum, Loxo/Lilly, and the Jimmy V Foundation. Weiss has received honoraria for consulting from AstraZeneca, EMD Serono, Genentech, Inivata, Celgene, G1 Therapeutics, Jounce Therapeutics, Abbvie, Rakuten, Nanobiotix, Azitra, Loxo/Lilly, Pfizer, and Blueprint had has stock in Nektar and Vesselon.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Combining magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)–targeted biopsy and systematic biopsy improved detection of prostate cancer among men with MRI-visible lesions in a single-center study.

Compared with either method alone, a combination of the two biopsy methods resulted in 9.9% more prostate cancer diagnoses, explained study author Michael Ahdoot, MD, of the National Institutes of Health and colleagues. Their report was published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

“With the addition of MRI-targeted biopsy to systematic biopsy, we may have entered an era of increased diagnostic certainty in prostate cancer,” the researchers wrote.

Their single-center, comparative diagnostic study included 2,103 patients with MRI-visible prostate lesions who underwent both systematic and MRI-targeted biopsy. In cases of multiple biopsies, only the results of the initial biopsies were included.

Each individual specimen was assigned a Gleason score by a genitourinary pathologist and was subsequently categorized into a grade group on a scale of 1-5, with higher scores reflecting greater cancer risk. Grade group 1 was defined as clinically insignificant disease. Grade group 2 was defined as favorable intermediate-risk disease. Grade group 3 or higher was defined as unfavorable intermediate-risk disease or worse.

The primary endpoints were cancer detection rates for each biopsy method, based on grade group. “Among the men who underwent subsequent radical prostatectomy, upgrading and downgrading of grade group from biopsy to whole-mount histopathological analysis of surgical specimens [was also assessed],” the researchers explained.

Among patients who underwent combined biopsy, prostate cancer was identified in 62.4% of patients, and 19.2% underwent radical prostatectomy.

For grade groups 3-5, rates of cancer detection were significantly higher with MRI-targeted biopsy than with systematic biopsy (P less than .01 for all). For grade group 1, detection rates were significantly lower with MRI-targeted biopsy (P less than .01).

“Although many of [the] benefits resulted from MRI-targeted biopsy alone, omission of systematic biopsy would have led to missing the diagnosis of 8.8% of clinically significant cancers,” the researchers reported.

In addition, among patients who underwent radical prostatectomy, the rates of upgrading (grade group 3 or higher) on histopathological analysis were lower for combined biopsy (3.5%) than for MRI-targeted biopsy (8.7%) and systematic biopsy (16.8%).

The researchers acknowledged that a key limitation of this study was the single-center design. As a result, the findings may not be generalizable to other institutions.

However, the researchers concluded that “these findings suggest that combined biopsy provides improved diagnostic accuracy over either systematic or MRI-targeted biopsy alone and better predicts the results of final histopathological analysis.”

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health, Philips, and the Dr. Mildred Scheel Foundation for Cancer Research. The authors disclosed financial affiliations with Philips, Biocompatibles UK, Boston Scientific, Celsion, and other companies.

SOURCE: Ahdoot M et al. N Engl J Med. 2020 Mar 4. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1910038.

Combining magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)–targeted biopsy and systematic biopsy improved detection of prostate cancer among men with MRI-visible lesions in a single-center study.

Compared with either method alone, a combination of the two biopsy methods resulted in 9.9% more prostate cancer diagnoses, explained study author Michael Ahdoot, MD, of the National Institutes of Health and colleagues. Their report was published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

“With the addition of MRI-targeted biopsy to systematic biopsy, we may have entered an era of increased diagnostic certainty in prostate cancer,” the researchers wrote.

Their single-center, comparative diagnostic study included 2,103 patients with MRI-visible prostate lesions who underwent both systematic and MRI-targeted biopsy. In cases of multiple biopsies, only the results of the initial biopsies were included.

Each individual specimen was assigned a Gleason score by a genitourinary pathologist and was subsequently categorized into a grade group on a scale of 1-5, with higher scores reflecting greater cancer risk. Grade group 1 was defined as clinically insignificant disease. Grade group 2 was defined as favorable intermediate-risk disease. Grade group 3 or higher was defined as unfavorable intermediate-risk disease or worse.

The primary endpoints were cancer detection rates for each biopsy method, based on grade group. “Among the men who underwent subsequent radical prostatectomy, upgrading and downgrading of grade group from biopsy to whole-mount histopathological analysis of surgical specimens [was also assessed],” the researchers explained.

Among patients who underwent combined biopsy, prostate cancer was identified in 62.4% of patients, and 19.2% underwent radical prostatectomy.

For grade groups 3-5, rates of cancer detection were significantly higher with MRI-targeted biopsy than with systematic biopsy (P less than .01 for all). For grade group 1, detection rates were significantly lower with MRI-targeted biopsy (P less than .01).

“Although many of [the] benefits resulted from MRI-targeted biopsy alone, omission of systematic biopsy would have led to missing the diagnosis of 8.8% of clinically significant cancers,” the researchers reported.

In addition, among patients who underwent radical prostatectomy, the rates of upgrading (grade group 3 or higher) on histopathological analysis were lower for combined biopsy (3.5%) than for MRI-targeted biopsy (8.7%) and systematic biopsy (16.8%).

The researchers acknowledged that a key limitation of this study was the single-center design. As a result, the findings may not be generalizable to other institutions.

However, the researchers concluded that “these findings suggest that combined biopsy provides improved diagnostic accuracy over either systematic or MRI-targeted biopsy alone and better predicts the results of final histopathological analysis.”

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health, Philips, and the Dr. Mildred Scheel Foundation for Cancer Research. The authors disclosed financial affiliations with Philips, Biocompatibles UK, Boston Scientific, Celsion, and other companies.

SOURCE: Ahdoot M et al. N Engl J Med. 2020 Mar 4. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1910038.

Combining magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)–targeted biopsy and systematic biopsy improved detection of prostate cancer among men with MRI-visible lesions in a single-center study.

Compared with either method alone, a combination of the two biopsy methods resulted in 9.9% more prostate cancer diagnoses, explained study author Michael Ahdoot, MD, of the National Institutes of Health and colleagues. Their report was published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

“With the addition of MRI-targeted biopsy to systematic biopsy, we may have entered an era of increased diagnostic certainty in prostate cancer,” the researchers wrote.

Their single-center, comparative diagnostic study included 2,103 patients with MRI-visible prostate lesions who underwent both systematic and MRI-targeted biopsy. In cases of multiple biopsies, only the results of the initial biopsies were included.

Each individual specimen was assigned a Gleason score by a genitourinary pathologist and was subsequently categorized into a grade group on a scale of 1-5, with higher scores reflecting greater cancer risk. Grade group 1 was defined as clinically insignificant disease. Grade group 2 was defined as favorable intermediate-risk disease. Grade group 3 or higher was defined as unfavorable intermediate-risk disease or worse.

The primary endpoints were cancer detection rates for each biopsy method, based on grade group. “Among the men who underwent subsequent radical prostatectomy, upgrading and downgrading of grade group from biopsy to whole-mount histopathological analysis of surgical specimens [was also assessed],” the researchers explained.

Among patients who underwent combined biopsy, prostate cancer was identified in 62.4% of patients, and 19.2% underwent radical prostatectomy.

For grade groups 3-5, rates of cancer detection were significantly higher with MRI-targeted biopsy than with systematic biopsy (P less than .01 for all). For grade group 1, detection rates were significantly lower with MRI-targeted biopsy (P less than .01).

“Although many of [the] benefits resulted from MRI-targeted biopsy alone, omission of systematic biopsy would have led to missing the diagnosis of 8.8% of clinically significant cancers,” the researchers reported.

In addition, among patients who underwent radical prostatectomy, the rates of upgrading (grade group 3 or higher) on histopathological analysis were lower for combined biopsy (3.5%) than for MRI-targeted biopsy (8.7%) and systematic biopsy (16.8%).

The researchers acknowledged that a key limitation of this study was the single-center design. As a result, the findings may not be generalizable to other institutions.

However, the researchers concluded that “these findings suggest that combined biopsy provides improved diagnostic accuracy over either systematic or MRI-targeted biopsy alone and better predicts the results of final histopathological analysis.”

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health, Philips, and the Dr. Mildred Scheel Foundation for Cancer Research. The authors disclosed financial affiliations with Philips, Biocompatibles UK, Boston Scientific, Celsion, and other companies.

SOURCE: Ahdoot M et al. N Engl J Med. 2020 Mar 4. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1910038.

More than a third (35%) of patients with relapsed non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treated with pembrolizumab (Keytruda, Merck) were still alive at 3 years, according to long-term results from a pivotal clinical trial.

The results also showed that, among the 10% of patients who completed all 35 cycles of pembrolizumab, the 3-year overall survival was approximately 99%, with progression-free survival (PFS) at around 70%.

“It is too soon to say that pembrolizumab is a potential cure...and we know that it doesn’t work for all patients, but the agent remains very, very promising,” said lead investigator Roy Herbst, MD, PhD, Department of Medical Oncology, Yale Comprehensive Cancer Center, New Haven, Connecticut.

These new results come from the KEYNOTE-010 trial, conducted in more than 1000 patients with NSCLC who had progressed on chemotherapy, randomized to receive immunotherapy with pembrolizumab or chemotherapy with docetaxel.

The results were published online on February 20 in the Journal of Clinical Oncology and were previously presented at the 2018 annual meeting of the European Society of Medical Oncology.

Overall survival at 3 years was 35% in patients with PD-L1 expression ≥ 50% in the tumor, and 23% in those with PD-L1 ≥ 1%.

This compares with 3-year overall survival of 11-13% with docetaxel.

These results are “really extraordinary,” Herbst commented to Medscape Medical News.

The 3-year overall survival rate of 35% in patients with PD-L1 ≥ 50% “is huge,” he said. “It really shows the durability of the response.”

Herbst commented that the “almost 100%” survival at 3 years among patients who completed 35 cycles of pembrolizumab shows that this treatment period (of about 2 years) is “probably about the right time to treat.”

“Currently, the agent is being used in all potential settings, before any other treatment, after other treatment, and with other treatments,” he said.

“Our hope is to find the very best way to use pembrolizumab to treat individual lung cancer patients, assessing how much PD-L1 a tumor expresses, what stage the patient is in, as well as other variables and biomarkers we are working on. This is the story of tailored therapy,” Herbst said.

Approached for comment, Solange Peters, MD, PhD, Oncology Department, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois, Lausanne, Switzerland, said that the results are “very good” and “confirm the paradigms we have been seeing in melanoma,” with good long-term control, which is “very reassuring.”

However, she told Medscape Medical News that the trial raises an important question: «How long do you need to expose your patient with lung cancer to immunotherapy in order to get this long-term control?»

She said the “good news” is that, for the 10% of patients who completed 2 years of treatment per protocol, almost all of them are still alive at 3 years, “which is not observed with chemotherapy.”

The question for Peters is “more about the definition of long-term control,” as it was seen that almost one in three patients nevertheless had some form of progression.

This suggests that you have a group of people “who are nicely controlled, you stop the drug, and 1 year later a third of them have progressed.”

Peters said: “So how long do you need to treat these patients? I would say I still don’t know.”

“If I were one of these patients probably I would still want to continue [on the drug]. Of course, some might have progressed even while remaining on the drug, but the proportion who would have progressed is probably smaller than this one.”
 

Responses on Re-introduction of Therapy

The study also allowed patients who had completed 35 cycles of pembrolizumab to be restarted on the drug if they experienced progression.

The team found that, among 14 patients, 43% had a partial response and 36% had stable disease.

Herbst highlighted this finding and told Medscape Medical News that this «could be very important to physicians because they might want to think about using the drug again» in patients who have progressed on it.

He believes that the progression was not because of any resistance per se but rather a slowing down of the adaptive immune response.

“It’s just that it needs a boost,” he said, while noting that tissue specimens will nevertheless be required to demonstrate the theory.

Peters agreed that these results are “very promising,” but questioned their overall significance, as it is “a very small number of patients” from a subset whose disease was controlled while on treatment and then progressed after stopping.

She also pointed out that, in another study in patients with lung cancer (CheckMate-153), some patients were rechallenged with immunotherapy after having stopped treatment at 1 year “with very poor results.”

Peters said studies in melanoma have shown “rechallenge can be useful in a significant proportion of patients, but still you have not demonstrated that stopping and rechallenging is the same as not stopping.”

Study Details

KEYNOTE-010 involved patients with NSCLC from 202 centers in 24 countries with stage IIIB/IV disease expressing PD-L1 who had experienced disease progression after at least two cycles of platinum-based chemotherapy.

They were randomized 1:1:1 to open-label pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg, pembrolizumab 10 mg/kg, or docetaxel 75 mg/m² every 3 weeks.

Pembrolizumab was continued for 35 treatment cycles over 2 years and docetaxel was continued for the maximum duration allowed by local regulators.

Patients who stopped pembrolizumab after a complete response or completing all 35 cycles, and who subsequently experienced disease progression, could receive up to 17 additional cycles over 1 year if they had not received another anticancer therapy in the meantime.

Among the 1,034 patients originally recruited between August 2013 and February 2015, 691 were assigned to pembrolizumab at 3 mg/kg or 10 mg/kg and 343 to docetaxel.

For the intention-to-treat analysis in 1033 patients, the mean duration of follow-up was 42.6 months, with a median treatment duration of 3.5 months in the pembrolizumab group and 2.0 months in the docetaxel group.

Compared with docetaxel, pembrolizumab was associated with a significant reduction in the risk of death, at a hazard ratio of 0.53 in patients with PD-L1 ≥ 50% and 0.69 in those with PD-L1 ≥ 1% (both P < .0001).

In patients with PD-L1 ≥ 50%, median overall survival was 16.9 months in those given pembrolizumab and 8.2 months with docetaxel. Among those with PD-L1 ≥ 1%, median overall survival was 11.8 months with pembrolizumab versus 8.4 months with docetaxel.

Overall survival on Kaplan-Meier analysis was 34.5% with pembrolizumab and 12.7% with docetaxel in the PD-L1 ≥ 50% group, and 22.9% versus 11.0% in the PD-L1 ≥ 1% group.

PFS significantly improved with pembrolizumab versus docetaxel, at a hazard ratio of 0.57 (P < .00001) among patients with PD-L1 ≥ 50% and 0.83 (P < .005) in those with PD-L1 ≥ 1%.

In terms of safety, 17.7% of patients who completed 2 years of pembrolizumab had grade 3-5 treatment-related adverse events, compared with 16.6% among all pembrolizumab-treated patients and 36.6% of those given docetaxel.

The team reports that 79 patients completed 35 cycles of pembrolizumab, with a median follow-up of 43.4 months.

Compared with the overall patient group, these patients were less likely to be aged ≥ 65 years and to have received two or more prior treatment lines, although they were more likely to be current or former smokers and to have squamous tumor histology.

Patients who completed 35 cycles had an objective response rate of 94.9%, and 91.0% were still alive at the data cutoff. Overall survival rates were 98.7% at 12 months and 86.3% at 24 months.

Of 71 patients eligible for analysis, 23 experienced progression after completing pembrolizumab, at PFS rates at 12 and 24 months of 72.5% and 57.7%, respectively.

A total of 14 patients were given a second course of pembrolizumab, of whom six had a partial response and five had stable disease. At the data cutoff, five patients had completed 17 additional cycles and 11 were alive.

Pembro Approved at Fixed Dose

One notable aspect of the study is that patients in the pembrolizumab arm were given two different doses of the drug based on body weight, whereas the drug is approved in the United States at a fixed dose of 200 mg.

Herbst told Medscape Medical News he considers the 200-mg dose to be appropriate.

“I didn’t think that the 3-mg versus 10-mg dose per kg that we used in our study made much difference in an average-sized person,” he said, adding that the 200-mg dose “is something a little bit more than 3 mg/kg.”

“So I think that this is clearly the right dos, and I don’t think more would make any difference,” he said.

The study was funded by Merck, the manufacturer of pembrolizumab. Herbst has reported having a consulting or advisory role for many pharmaceutical companies. Other coauthors have also reported relationships with industry, and some of the authors are Merck employees. Peters has reported receiving education grants, providing consultation, attending advisory boards, and/or providing lectures for many pharmaceutical companies.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

More than a third (35%) of patients with relapsed non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treated with pembrolizumab (Keytruda, Merck) were still alive at 3 years, according to long-term results from a pivotal clinical trial.

The results also showed that, among the 10% of patients who completed all 35 cycles of pembrolizumab, the 3-year overall survival was approximately 99%, with progression-free survival (PFS) at around 70%.

“It is too soon to say that pembrolizumab is a potential cure...and we know that it doesn’t work for all patients, but the agent remains very, very promising,” said lead investigator Roy Herbst, MD, PhD, Department of Medical Oncology, Yale Comprehensive Cancer Center, New Haven, Connecticut.

These new results come from the KEYNOTE-010 trial, conducted in more than 1000 patients with NSCLC who had progressed on chemotherapy, randomized to receive immunotherapy with pembrolizumab or chemotherapy with docetaxel.

The results were published online on February 20 in the Journal of Clinical Oncology and were previously presented at the 2018 annual meeting of the European Society of Medical Oncology.

Overall survival at 3 years was 35% in patients with PD-L1 expression ≥ 50% in the tumor, and 23% in those with PD-L1 ≥ 1%.

This compares with 3-year overall survival of 11-13% with docetaxel.

These results are “really extraordinary,” Herbst commented to Medscape Medical News.

The 3-year overall survival rate of 35% in patients with PD-L1 ≥ 50% “is huge,” he said. “It really shows the durability of the response.”

Herbst commented that the “almost 100%” survival at 3 years among patients who completed 35 cycles of pembrolizumab shows that this treatment period (of about 2 years) is “probably about the right time to treat.”

“Currently, the agent is being used in all potential settings, before any other treatment, after other treatment, and with other treatments,” he said.

“Our hope is to find the very best way to use pembrolizumab to treat individual lung cancer patients, assessing how much PD-L1 a tumor expresses, what stage the patient is in, as well as other variables and biomarkers we are working on. This is the story of tailored therapy,” Herbst said.

Approached for comment, Solange Peters, MD, PhD, Oncology Department, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois, Lausanne, Switzerland, said that the results are “very good” and “confirm the paradigms we have been seeing in melanoma,” with good long-term control, which is “very reassuring.”

However, she told Medscape Medical News that the trial raises an important question: «How long do you need to expose your patient with lung cancer to immunotherapy in order to get this long-term control?»

She said the “good news” is that, for the 10% of patients who completed 2 years of treatment per protocol, almost all of them are still alive at 3 years, “which is not observed with chemotherapy.”

The question for Peters is “more about the definition of long-term control,” as it was seen that almost one in three patients nevertheless had some form of progression.

This suggests that you have a group of people “who are nicely controlled, you stop the drug, and 1 year later a third of them have progressed.”

Peters said: “So how long do you need to treat these patients? I would say I still don’t know.”

“If I were one of these patients probably I would still want to continue [on the drug]. Of course, some might have progressed even while remaining on the drug, but the proportion who would have progressed is probably smaller than this one.”
 

Responses on Re-introduction of Therapy

The study also allowed patients who had completed 35 cycles of pembrolizumab to be restarted on the drug if they experienced progression.

The team found that, among 14 patients, 43% had a partial response and 36% had stable disease.

Herbst highlighted this finding and told Medscape Medical News that this «could be very important to physicians because they might want to think about using the drug again» in patients who have progressed on it.

He believes that the progression was not because of any resistance per se but rather a slowing down of the adaptive immune response.

“It’s just that it needs a boost,” he said, while noting that tissue specimens will nevertheless be required to demonstrate the theory.

Peters agreed that these results are “very promising,” but questioned their overall significance, as it is “a very small number of patients” from a subset whose disease was controlled while on treatment and then progressed after stopping.

She also pointed out that, in another study in patients with lung cancer (CheckMate-153), some patients were rechallenged with immunotherapy after having stopped treatment at 1 year “with very poor results.”

Peters said studies in melanoma have shown “rechallenge can be useful in a significant proportion of patients, but still you have not demonstrated that stopping and rechallenging is the same as not stopping.”

Study Details

KEYNOTE-010 involved patients with NSCLC from 202 centers in 24 countries with stage IIIB/IV disease expressing PD-L1 who had experienced disease progression after at least two cycles of platinum-based chemotherapy.

They were randomized 1:1:1 to open-label pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg, pembrolizumab 10 mg/kg, or docetaxel 75 mg/m² every 3 weeks.

Pembrolizumab was continued for 35 treatment cycles over 2 years and docetaxel was continued for the maximum duration allowed by local regulators.

Patients who stopped pembrolizumab after a complete response or completing all 35 cycles, and who subsequently experienced disease progression, could receive up to 17 additional cycles over 1 year if they had not received another anticancer therapy in the meantime.

Among the 1,034 patients originally recruited between August 2013 and February 2015, 691 were assigned to pembrolizumab at 3 mg/kg or 10 mg/kg and 343 to docetaxel.

For the intention-to-treat analysis in 1033 patients, the mean duration of follow-up was 42.6 months, with a median treatment duration of 3.5 months in the pembrolizumab group and 2.0 months in the docetaxel group.

Compared with docetaxel, pembrolizumab was associated with a significant reduction in the risk of death, at a hazard ratio of 0.53 in patients with PD-L1 ≥ 50% and 0.69 in those with PD-L1 ≥ 1% (both P < .0001).

In patients with PD-L1 ≥ 50%, median overall survival was 16.9 months in those given pembrolizumab and 8.2 months with docetaxel. Among those with PD-L1 ≥ 1%, median overall survival was 11.8 months with pembrolizumab versus 8.4 months with docetaxel.

Overall survival on Kaplan-Meier analysis was 34.5% with pembrolizumab and 12.7% with docetaxel in the PD-L1 ≥ 50% group, and 22.9% versus 11.0% in the PD-L1 ≥ 1% group.

PFS significantly improved with pembrolizumab versus docetaxel, at a hazard ratio of 0.57 (P < .00001) among patients with PD-L1 ≥ 50% and 0.83 (P < .005) in those with PD-L1 ≥ 1%.

In terms of safety, 17.7% of patients who completed 2 years of pembrolizumab had grade 3-5 treatment-related adverse events, compared with 16.6% among all pembrolizumab-treated patients and 36.6% of those given docetaxel.

The team reports that 79 patients completed 35 cycles of pembrolizumab, with a median follow-up of 43.4 months.

Compared with the overall patient group, these patients were less likely to be aged ≥ 65 years and to have received two or more prior treatment lines, although they were more likely to be current or former smokers and to have squamous tumor histology.

Patients who completed 35 cycles had an objective response rate of 94.9%, and 91.0% were still alive at the data cutoff. Overall survival rates were 98.7% at 12 months and 86.3% at 24 months.

Of 71 patients eligible for analysis, 23 experienced progression after completing pembrolizumab, at PFS rates at 12 and 24 months of 72.5% and 57.7%, respectively.

A total of 14 patients were given a second course of pembrolizumab, of whom six had a partial response and five had stable disease. At the data cutoff, five patients had completed 17 additional cycles and 11 were alive.

Pembro Approved at Fixed Dose

One notable aspect of the study is that patients in the pembrolizumab arm were given two different doses of the drug based on body weight, whereas the drug is approved in the United States at a fixed dose of 200 mg.

Herbst told Medscape Medical News he considers the 200-mg dose to be appropriate.

“I didn’t think that the 3-mg versus 10-mg dose per kg that we used in our study made much difference in an average-sized person,” he said, adding that the 200-mg dose “is something a little bit more than 3 mg/kg.”

“So I think that this is clearly the right dos, and I don’t think more would make any difference,” he said.

The study was funded by Merck, the manufacturer of pembrolizumab. Herbst has reported having a consulting or advisory role for many pharmaceutical companies. Other coauthors have also reported relationships with industry, and some of the authors are Merck employees. Peters has reported receiving education grants, providing consultation, attending advisory boards, and/or providing lectures for many pharmaceutical companies.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

More than a third (35%) of patients with relapsed non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treated with pembrolizumab (Keytruda, Merck) were still alive at 3 years, according to long-term results from a pivotal clinical trial.

The results also showed that, among the 10% of patients who completed all 35 cycles of pembrolizumab, the 3-year overall survival was approximately 99%, with progression-free survival (PFS) at around 70%.

“It is too soon to say that pembrolizumab is a potential cure...and we know that it doesn’t work for all patients, but the agent remains very, very promising,” said lead investigator Roy Herbst, MD, PhD, Department of Medical Oncology, Yale Comprehensive Cancer Center, New Haven, Connecticut.

These new results come from the KEYNOTE-010 trial, conducted in more than 1000 patients with NSCLC who had progressed on chemotherapy, randomized to receive immunotherapy with pembrolizumab or chemotherapy with docetaxel.

The results were published online on February 20 in the Journal of Clinical Oncology and were previously presented at the 2018 annual meeting of the European Society of Medical Oncology.

Overall survival at 3 years was 35% in patients with PD-L1 expression ≥ 50% in the tumor, and 23% in those with PD-L1 ≥ 1%.

This compares with 3-year overall survival of 11-13% with docetaxel.

These results are “really extraordinary,” Herbst commented to Medscape Medical News.

The 3-year overall survival rate of 35% in patients with PD-L1 ≥ 50% “is huge,” he said. “It really shows the durability of the response.”

Herbst commented that the “almost 100%” survival at 3 years among patients who completed 35 cycles of pembrolizumab shows that this treatment period (of about 2 years) is “probably about the right time to treat.”

“Currently, the agent is being used in all potential settings, before any other treatment, after other treatment, and with other treatments,” he said.

“Our hope is to find the very best way to use pembrolizumab to treat individual lung cancer patients, assessing how much PD-L1 a tumor expresses, what stage the patient is in, as well as other variables and biomarkers we are working on. This is the story of tailored therapy,” Herbst said.

Approached for comment, Solange Peters, MD, PhD, Oncology Department, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois, Lausanne, Switzerland, said that the results are “very good” and “confirm the paradigms we have been seeing in melanoma,” with good long-term control, which is “very reassuring.”

However, she told Medscape Medical News that the trial raises an important question: «How long do you need to expose your patient with lung cancer to immunotherapy in order to get this long-term control?»

She said the “good news” is that, for the 10% of patients who completed 2 years of treatment per protocol, almost all of them are still alive at 3 years, “which is not observed with chemotherapy.”

The question for Peters is “more about the definition of long-term control,” as it was seen that almost one in three patients nevertheless had some form of progression.

This suggests that you have a group of people “who are nicely controlled, you stop the drug, and 1 year later a third of them have progressed.”

Peters said: “So how long do you need to treat these patients? I would say I still don’t know.”

“If I were one of these patients probably I would still want to continue [on the drug]. Of course, some might have progressed even while remaining on the drug, but the proportion who would have progressed is probably smaller than this one.”
 

Responses on Re-introduction of Therapy

The study also allowed patients who had completed 35 cycles of pembrolizumab to be restarted on the drug if they experienced progression.

The team found that, among 14 patients, 43% had a partial response and 36% had stable disease.

Herbst highlighted this finding and told Medscape Medical News that this «could be very important to physicians because they might want to think about using the drug again» in patients who have progressed on it.

He believes that the progression was not because of any resistance per se but rather a slowing down of the adaptive immune response.

“It’s just that it needs a boost,” he said, while noting that tissue specimens will nevertheless be required to demonstrate the theory.

Peters agreed that these results are “very promising,” but questioned their overall significance, as it is “a very small number of patients” from a subset whose disease was controlled while on treatment and then progressed after stopping.

She also pointed out that, in another study in patients with lung cancer (CheckMate-153), some patients were rechallenged with immunotherapy after having stopped treatment at 1 year “with very poor results.”

Peters said studies in melanoma have shown “rechallenge can be useful in a significant proportion of patients, but still you have not demonstrated that stopping and rechallenging is the same as not stopping.”

Study Details

KEYNOTE-010 involved patients with NSCLC from 202 centers in 24 countries with stage IIIB/IV disease expressing PD-L1 who had experienced disease progression after at least two cycles of platinum-based chemotherapy.

They were randomized 1:1:1 to open-label pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg, pembrolizumab 10 mg/kg, or docetaxel 75 mg/m² every 3 weeks.

Pembrolizumab was continued for 35 treatment cycles over 2 years and docetaxel was continued for the maximum duration allowed by local regulators.

Patients who stopped pembrolizumab after a complete response or completing all 35 cycles, and who subsequently experienced disease progression, could receive up to 17 additional cycles over 1 year if they had not received another anticancer therapy in the meantime.

Among the 1,034 patients originally recruited between August 2013 and February 2015, 691 were assigned to pembrolizumab at 3 mg/kg or 10 mg/kg and 343 to docetaxel.

For the intention-to-treat analysis in 1033 patients, the mean duration of follow-up was 42.6 months, with a median treatment duration of 3.5 months in the pembrolizumab group and 2.0 months in the docetaxel group.

Compared with docetaxel, pembrolizumab was associated with a significant reduction in the risk of death, at a hazard ratio of 0.53 in patients with PD-L1 ≥ 50% and 0.69 in those with PD-L1 ≥ 1% (both P < .0001).

In patients with PD-L1 ≥ 50%, median overall survival was 16.9 months in those given pembrolizumab and 8.2 months with docetaxel. Among those with PD-L1 ≥ 1%, median overall survival was 11.8 months with pembrolizumab versus 8.4 months with docetaxel.

Overall survival on Kaplan-Meier analysis was 34.5% with pembrolizumab and 12.7% with docetaxel in the PD-L1 ≥ 50% group, and 22.9% versus 11.0% in the PD-L1 ≥ 1% group.

PFS significantly improved with pembrolizumab versus docetaxel, at a hazard ratio of 0.57 (P < .00001) among patients with PD-L1 ≥ 50% and 0.83 (P < .005) in those with PD-L1 ≥ 1%.

In terms of safety, 17.7% of patients who completed 2 years of pembrolizumab had grade 3-5 treatment-related adverse events, compared with 16.6% among all pembrolizumab-treated patients and 36.6% of those given docetaxel.

The team reports that 79 patients completed 35 cycles of pembrolizumab, with a median follow-up of 43.4 months.

Compared with the overall patient group, these patients were less likely to be aged ≥ 65 years and to have received two or more prior treatment lines, although they were more likely to be current or former smokers and to have squamous tumor histology.

Patients who completed 35 cycles had an objective response rate of 94.9%, and 91.0% were still alive at the data cutoff. Overall survival rates were 98.7% at 12 months and 86.3% at 24 months.

Of 71 patients eligible for analysis, 23 experienced progression after completing pembrolizumab, at PFS rates at 12 and 24 months of 72.5% and 57.7%, respectively.

A total of 14 patients were given a second course of pembrolizumab, of whom six had a partial response and five had stable disease. At the data cutoff, five patients had completed 17 additional cycles and 11 were alive.

Pembro Approved at Fixed Dose

One notable aspect of the study is that patients in the pembrolizumab arm were given two different doses of the drug based on body weight, whereas the drug is approved in the United States at a fixed dose of 200 mg.

Herbst told Medscape Medical News he considers the 200-mg dose to be appropriate.

“I didn’t think that the 3-mg versus 10-mg dose per kg that we used in our study made much difference in an average-sized person,” he said, adding that the 200-mg dose “is something a little bit more than 3 mg/kg.”

“So I think that this is clearly the right dos, and I don’t think more would make any difference,” he said.

The study was funded by Merck, the manufacturer of pembrolizumab. Herbst has reported having a consulting or advisory role for many pharmaceutical companies. Other coauthors have also reported relationships with industry, and some of the authors are Merck employees. Peters has reported receiving education grants, providing consultation, attending advisory boards, and/or providing lectures for many pharmaceutical companies.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

While more than half of women aged 75 years and older receive annual mammograms, they do not see a reduced risk of death from breast cancer, compared with women who have stopped regular screening, according to a study published in Annals of Internal Medicine.

copyright/Thinkstock

The lack of benefit is not because older women’s cancer risk is low; a third of breast cancer deaths occur in women diagnosed at or after age 70 years, according to study author Xabier García-Albéniz, MD, PhD, of Harvard University in Boston, and colleagues.

The lack of benefit is not because mammography is less effective in women older than 75 years; indeed, it becomes a better diagnostic tool as women age, said Otis Brawley, MD, of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, the author of an editorial related to the study. Rather, the lack of benefit is because breast cancer treatment in older women is less successful, he clarified.
 

Study details

Dr. García-Albéniz and colleagues looked at data from 1,058,013 women enrolled in Medicare across the United States during 2000-2008. All subjects were aged 70-84 years and had a life expectancy of at least 10 years, at least one recent mammogram, and no history of breast cancer.

There are little randomized trial data available on mammography and breast cancer deaths for women in their early 70s and none for women older than 75 years. To compensate for this, the researchers aimed to emulate a prospective trial by looking at deaths over an 8-year period for women aged 70 and older who either continued annual screening or stopped it. The investigators conducted separate analyses for women aged 70-74 years and those 75-84 years of age.

Diagnoses of breast cancer were, not surprisingly, higher in the continued-screening group, but this did not translate to serious reductions in death.

In the continued-screening group, the estimated 8-year risk for breast cancer was 5.5% in women aged 70-74 and 5.8% in women aged 75-84 years. Among women who stopped screening, the estimated 8-year risk for breast cancer was 3.9% in both age groups.

Among women aged 70-74 years, the estimated 8-year risk for breast cancer death was slightly reduced with continued screening: 2.7 deaths per 1,000 women, compared with 3.7 deaths per 1,000 women for those who stopped screening. The risk difference was –1.0 deaths per 1,000 women, and the hazard ratio was 0.78.

Among women aged 75-84 years, there was no difference in estimated 8-year risk for breast cancer death. Women treated under a continued screening protocol had 3.8 deaths per 1,000, while the stop-screening group had 3.7 deaths per 1,000. The risk difference was 0.07 deaths per 1,000 women, and the hazard ratio was 1.00.

Interpreting the results

In the editorial accompanying this study, Dr. Brawley praised its design as “especially useful in breast cancer screening,” as “prospective randomized studies of mammography are not feasible and are perhaps no longer ethical in older women … because mammography is so widely accepted.”

In an interview, Dr. Brawley stressed that the findings do not argue for denying women aged 75 years and older mammography screening. Decisions about screening require a value judgment tailored to each individual patient’s perceived risks and benefits, he said.

In the absence of randomized trial evidence, “the jury will always be out” on the benefits of regular mammography for women 75 and older, Dr. Brawley said. “A clinical trial or a modeling study always tells you about an average person who doesn’t exist,” he added. “I predict that, in the future, we will have more parameters to tell us, ‘this is a person who’s 80 years old who is likely to benefit from screening; this is a person who is 75 years old who is unlikely to benefit.’ ”

And focusing too much on screening, he said, can divert attention from a key driver of breast cancer mortality in older women: inadequate treatment.

In the United States, Dr. Brawley said, “There’s a lot of emphasis on screening but fewer people writing about the fact that nearly 40% of American women get less than optimal treatment once they’re diagnosed.”

Dr. Brawley cited a 2013 modeling study showing that improvements in delivering current treatments would save more women even if screening rates remained unaltered (Cancer. 2013 Jul 15;119[14]:2541-8).

Among women in their 70s and 80s, Dr. Brawley said, some of the barriers to effective breast cancer care aren’t related to treatment efficacy but to travel and other logistical issues that can become more pronounced with age. “Unfortunately, there’s very little research on why, for women in their 70s and 80s, the treatments don’t work as well as they work in women 20 years younger,” he said.

Dr. García-Albéniz and colleagues’ study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. One coauthor reported financial ties to industry. Dr. Brawley discloses no conflicts of interest related to his editorial.

SOURCE: García-Albéniz X et al. Ann Intern Med 2020. doi: 10.7326/M18-1199.

While more than half of women aged 75 years and older receive annual mammograms, they do not see a reduced risk of death from breast cancer, compared with women who have stopped regular screening, according to a study published in Annals of Internal Medicine.

copyright/Thinkstock

The lack of benefit is not because older women’s cancer risk is low; a third of breast cancer deaths occur in women diagnosed at or after age 70 years, according to study author Xabier García-Albéniz, MD, PhD, of Harvard University in Boston, and colleagues.

The lack of benefit is not because mammography is less effective in women older than 75 years; indeed, it becomes a better diagnostic tool as women age, said Otis Brawley, MD, of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, the author of an editorial related to the study. Rather, the lack of benefit is because breast cancer treatment in older women is less successful, he clarified.
 

Study details

Dr. García-Albéniz and colleagues looked at data from 1,058,013 women enrolled in Medicare across the United States during 2000-2008. All subjects were aged 70-84 years and had a life expectancy of at least 10 years, at least one recent mammogram, and no history of breast cancer.

There are little randomized trial data available on mammography and breast cancer deaths for women in their early 70s and none for women older than 75 years. To compensate for this, the researchers aimed to emulate a prospective trial by looking at deaths over an 8-year period for women aged 70 and older who either continued annual screening or stopped it. The investigators conducted separate analyses for women aged 70-74 years and those 75-84 years of age.

Diagnoses of breast cancer were, not surprisingly, higher in the continued-screening group, but this did not translate to serious reductions in death.

In the continued-screening group, the estimated 8-year risk for breast cancer was 5.5% in women aged 70-74 and 5.8% in women aged 75-84 years. Among women who stopped screening, the estimated 8-year risk for breast cancer was 3.9% in both age groups.

Among women aged 70-74 years, the estimated 8-year risk for breast cancer death was slightly reduced with continued screening: 2.7 deaths per 1,000 women, compared with 3.7 deaths per 1,000 women for those who stopped screening. The risk difference was –1.0 deaths per 1,000 women, and the hazard ratio was 0.78.

Among women aged 75-84 years, there was no difference in estimated 8-year risk for breast cancer death. Women treated under a continued screening protocol had 3.8 deaths per 1,000, while the stop-screening group had 3.7 deaths per 1,000. The risk difference was 0.07 deaths per 1,000 women, and the hazard ratio was 1.00.

Interpreting the results

In the editorial accompanying this study, Dr. Brawley praised its design as “especially useful in breast cancer screening,” as “prospective randomized studies of mammography are not feasible and are perhaps no longer ethical in older women … because mammography is so widely accepted.”

In an interview, Dr. Brawley stressed that the findings do not argue for denying women aged 75 years and older mammography screening. Decisions about screening require a value judgment tailored to each individual patient’s perceived risks and benefits, he said.

In the absence of randomized trial evidence, “the jury will always be out” on the benefits of regular mammography for women 75 and older, Dr. Brawley said. “A clinical trial or a modeling study always tells you about an average person who doesn’t exist,” he added. “I predict that, in the future, we will have more parameters to tell us, ‘this is a person who’s 80 years old who is likely to benefit from screening; this is a person who is 75 years old who is unlikely to benefit.’ ”

And focusing too much on screening, he said, can divert attention from a key driver of breast cancer mortality in older women: inadequate treatment.

In the United States, Dr. Brawley said, “There’s a lot of emphasis on screening but fewer people writing about the fact that nearly 40% of American women get less than optimal treatment once they’re diagnosed.”

Dr. Brawley cited a 2013 modeling study showing that improvements in delivering current treatments would save more women even if screening rates remained unaltered (Cancer. 2013 Jul 15;119[14]:2541-8).

Among women in their 70s and 80s, Dr. Brawley said, some of the barriers to effective breast cancer care aren’t related to treatment efficacy but to travel and other logistical issues that can become more pronounced with age. “Unfortunately, there’s very little research on why, for women in their 70s and 80s, the treatments don’t work as well as they work in women 20 years younger,” he said.

Dr. García-Albéniz and colleagues’ study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. One coauthor reported financial ties to industry. Dr. Brawley discloses no conflicts of interest related to his editorial.

SOURCE: García-Albéniz X et al. Ann Intern Med 2020. doi: 10.7326/M18-1199.

While more than half of women aged 75 years and older receive annual mammograms, they do not see a reduced risk of death from breast cancer, compared with women who have stopped regular screening, according to a study published in Annals of Internal Medicine.

copyright/Thinkstock

The lack of benefit is not because older women’s cancer risk is low; a third of breast cancer deaths occur in women diagnosed at or after age 70 years, according to study author Xabier García-Albéniz, MD, PhD, of Harvard University in Boston, and colleagues.

The lack of benefit is not because mammography is less effective in women older than 75 years; indeed, it becomes a better diagnostic tool as women age, said Otis Brawley, MD, of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, the author of an editorial related to the study. Rather, the lack of benefit is because breast cancer treatment in older women is less successful, he clarified.
 

Study details

Dr. García-Albéniz and colleagues looked at data from 1,058,013 women enrolled in Medicare across the United States during 2000-2008. All subjects were aged 70-84 years and had a life expectancy of at least 10 years, at least one recent mammogram, and no history of breast cancer.

There are little randomized trial data available on mammography and breast cancer deaths for women in their early 70s and none for women older than 75 years. To compensate for this, the researchers aimed to emulate a prospective trial by looking at deaths over an 8-year period for women aged 70 and older who either continued annual screening or stopped it. The investigators conducted separate analyses for women aged 70-74 years and those 75-84 years of age.

Diagnoses of breast cancer were, not surprisingly, higher in the continued-screening group, but this did not translate to serious reductions in death.

In the continued-screening group, the estimated 8-year risk for breast cancer was 5.5% in women aged 70-74 and 5.8% in women aged 75-84 years. Among women who stopped screening, the estimated 8-year risk for breast cancer was 3.9% in both age groups.

Among women aged 70-74 years, the estimated 8-year risk for breast cancer death was slightly reduced with continued screening: 2.7 deaths per 1,000 women, compared with 3.7 deaths per 1,000 women for those who stopped screening. The risk difference was –1.0 deaths per 1,000 women, and the hazard ratio was 0.78.

Among women aged 75-84 years, there was no difference in estimated 8-year risk for breast cancer death. Women treated under a continued screening protocol had 3.8 deaths per 1,000, while the stop-screening group had 3.7 deaths per 1,000. The risk difference was 0.07 deaths per 1,000 women, and the hazard ratio was 1.00.

Interpreting the results

In the editorial accompanying this study, Dr. Brawley praised its design as “especially useful in breast cancer screening,” as “prospective randomized studies of mammography are not feasible and are perhaps no longer ethical in older women … because mammography is so widely accepted.”

In an interview, Dr. Brawley stressed that the findings do not argue for denying women aged 75 years and older mammography screening. Decisions about screening require a value judgment tailored to each individual patient’s perceived risks and benefits, he said.

In the absence of randomized trial evidence, “the jury will always be out” on the benefits of regular mammography for women 75 and older, Dr. Brawley said. “A clinical trial or a modeling study always tells you about an average person who doesn’t exist,” he added. “I predict that, in the future, we will have more parameters to tell us, ‘this is a person who’s 80 years old who is likely to benefit from screening; this is a person who is 75 years old who is unlikely to benefit.’ ”

And focusing too much on screening, he said, can divert attention from a key driver of breast cancer mortality in older women: inadequate treatment.

In the United States, Dr. Brawley said, “There’s a lot of emphasis on screening but fewer people writing about the fact that nearly 40% of American women get less than optimal treatment once they’re diagnosed.”

Dr. Brawley cited a 2013 modeling study showing that improvements in delivering current treatments would save more women even if screening rates remained unaltered (Cancer. 2013 Jul 15;119[14]:2541-8).

Among women in their 70s and 80s, Dr. Brawley said, some of the barriers to effective breast cancer care aren’t related to treatment efficacy but to travel and other logistical issues that can become more pronounced with age. “Unfortunately, there’s very little research on why, for women in their 70s and 80s, the treatments don’t work as well as they work in women 20 years younger,” he said.

Dr. García-Albéniz and colleagues’ study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. One coauthor reported financial ties to industry. Dr. Brawley discloses no conflicts of interest related to his editorial.

SOURCE: García-Albéniz X et al. Ann Intern Med 2020. doi: 10.7326/M18-1199.

Oncology will account for a substantial majority of clinical trials to be launched in 2020, as well as accounting for most of those to be completed this year, according to a new analysis.

“A large number of early stage clinical trials within this field are likely to be due to the demand for novel therapeutic approaches addressing unmet medical need,” commented Mohamed Abukar, pharma analyst at GlobalData.

Most oncology studies planned to start in 2020 are phase 1 and 2, and 61.9% are industry sponsored. Eli Lilly and Novartis have announced the most upcoming studies.

Among the new drugs being evaluated in these clinical trials, four of the top seven drugs in phase 1–3 development are monoclonal antibodies, with the most studies being conducted on the experimental agents ZW25 (Zymeworks) and KSI-301 (Kodiak Sciences), the report notes.

As for clinical trials due for completion this year, many are funded by nonindustry sources, with Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center accounting for the most number of trials.

Top Indications Explored in Clinical Trials

Oncology also accounts for eight of the top ten indications for clinical trials planned to start in 2020, with solid tumors, breast cancer, and non–small cell lung cancer accounting for the second, third, and fourth top spots, respectively, regardless of sponsor type.

However, for industry-sponsored clinical trials, the predominant area is solid tumors for new investigations to start this year, followed by breast cancer, then pain.

“This is attributed to the manner in which the burden of cancer worldwide necessitates industry investment to allow for capitalization on the increasing market size,” Abukar said.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Oncology will account for a substantial majority of clinical trials to be launched in 2020, as well as accounting for most of those to be completed this year, according to a new analysis.

“A large number of early stage clinical trials within this field are likely to be due to the demand for novel therapeutic approaches addressing unmet medical need,” commented Mohamed Abukar, pharma analyst at GlobalData.

Most oncology studies planned to start in 2020 are phase 1 and 2, and 61.9% are industry sponsored. Eli Lilly and Novartis have announced the most upcoming studies.

Among the new drugs being evaluated in these clinical trials, four of the top seven drugs in phase 1–3 development are monoclonal antibodies, with the most studies being conducted on the experimental agents ZW25 (Zymeworks) and KSI-301 (Kodiak Sciences), the report notes.

As for clinical trials due for completion this year, many are funded by nonindustry sources, with Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center accounting for the most number of trials.

Top Indications Explored in Clinical Trials

Oncology also accounts for eight of the top ten indications for clinical trials planned to start in 2020, with solid tumors, breast cancer, and non–small cell lung cancer accounting for the second, third, and fourth top spots, respectively, regardless of sponsor type.

However, for industry-sponsored clinical trials, the predominant area is solid tumors for new investigations to start this year, followed by breast cancer, then pain.

“This is attributed to the manner in which the burden of cancer worldwide necessitates industry investment to allow for capitalization on the increasing market size,” Abukar said.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Oncology will account for a substantial majority of clinical trials to be launched in 2020, as well as accounting for most of those to be completed this year, according to a new analysis.

“A large number of early stage clinical trials within this field are likely to be due to the demand for novel therapeutic approaches addressing unmet medical need,” commented Mohamed Abukar, pharma analyst at GlobalData.

Most oncology studies planned to start in 2020 are phase 1 and 2, and 61.9% are industry sponsored. Eli Lilly and Novartis have announced the most upcoming studies.

Among the new drugs being evaluated in these clinical trials, four of the top seven drugs in phase 1–3 development are monoclonal antibodies, with the most studies being conducted on the experimental agents ZW25 (Zymeworks) and KSI-301 (Kodiak Sciences), the report notes.

As for clinical trials due for completion this year, many are funded by nonindustry sources, with Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center accounting for the most number of trials.

Top Indications Explored in Clinical Trials

Oncology also accounts for eight of the top ten indications for clinical trials planned to start in 2020, with solid tumors, breast cancer, and non–small cell lung cancer accounting for the second, third, and fourth top spots, respectively, regardless of sponsor type.

However, for industry-sponsored clinical trials, the predominant area is solid tumors for new investigations to start this year, followed by breast cancer, then pain.

“This is attributed to the manner in which the burden of cancer worldwide necessitates industry investment to allow for capitalization on the increasing market size,” Abukar said.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.