AVAHO

The investigational bispecific T-cell engager tarlatamab achieved durable responses and clinically meaningful survival outcomes in patients with small-cell lung cancer (SCLC), particularly at lower doses, according to a follow-up analysis of the phase 1 DeLLphi-300 trial.

Most patients with central nervous system tumors also sustained tumor shrinkage long after receiving radiotherapy, providing “encouraging evidence” of the new agent’s intracranial activity, said study presenter Horst-Dieter Hummel, MD, Comprehensive Cancer Center Mainfranken, Würzburg, Germany.

The research was presented at the European Lung Cancer Congress 2024 on March 22.

Tarlatamab targets cancer cells that express the delta-like ligand 3 (DLL3), which occurs infrequently on normal cells but on most SCLC cells. 

Data from the phase 1 and phase 2 DeLLphi trials, published last year, showed the compound achieved “encouraging clinical activity” in pretreated patients, said Dr. Hummel.

The initial phase 1 DeLLphi study found that after a median follow-up of 8.7 months, the immunotherapy led to a disease control rate of 51.4%, a median progression-free survival of 3.7 months, and median overall survival of 13.2 months.

At the meeting, Dr. Hummel reported longer-term outcomes from the phase 1 study over a median of 12.1 months as well as intracranial activity in patients who received clinically relevant doses of tarlatamab, defined as ≥ 10 mg.

The 152 patients included in the analysis had a median of two prior lines of therapy; 76.3% had undergone radiotherapy, and 63.2% had received immunotherapy. Liver metastases were present in 42.1% of patients, and 25.0% had brain metastases.

Doses varied among participants, with 76 patients (50.0%) receiving 100 mg, 32 (21.0%) receiving 100 mg via extended intravenous infusion, 17 (11.2%) receiving 10 mg, and 8 (5.3%) receiving 30 mg.

The overall objective response rate was 25.0%, with a median duration of response of 11.2 months. Among patients given the 10-mg dose, the objective response rate was higher, at 35.3%, as was the median duration of response, at 14.9 months.

Tarlatamab was associated with a median overall survival of 17.5 months, with 57.9% of patients alive at 12 months. Patients receiving the 10 mg dose had a better median overall survival of 20.3 months.

Of the 16 patients with analyzable central nervous system tumors, 62.5% experienced tumor shrinkage by ≥ 30% and 87.5% experienced intracranial disease control, which lasted for a median of 7.4 months.

In this follow-up study, tarlatamab demonstrated “clinically meaningful survival outcomes in patients with previously treated SCLC, particularly with the 10 mg dose,” Dr. Hummel concluded in his presentation.

No new safety signals emerged, though almost all patients did experience tarlatamab-related adverse events (94.8% for doses > 10 mg and 100% of patients with 10 mg doses). Overall, 66.4% of the total cohort experienced cytokine release syndrome of any grade, and 11.8% developed immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome. 

Discontinuation due to treatment-related adverse events occurred in 9 patients overall, and adverse events that led to dose interruption or reduction occurred in 32 patients overall. 

“After many efforts at DLL3 targeting, we finally have an agent that shows activity and efficacy, and with convincing data,” said Jessica Menis, MD, a medical oncologist at the oncology department of the University Hospital of Verona, Italy, who was not involved in the study. The intracranial activity of tarlatamab “needs to be further evaluated in untreated patients,” Dr. Menis noted, because the study included only patients with stable, treated brain metastases.

And given the high rates of adverse events, Dr. Menis cautioned that adverse event management “will be a challenge.”

On X (Twitter), Tom Newsom-Davis, MBBS, PhD, a consultant in medical oncology at Chelsea and Westminster Hospital, London, said that tarlatamab is “not a straightforward drug to use,” highlighting the occurrence of cytokine release syndrome.

“But in this significantly pretreated population and in this hard-to-treat tumor type,” the rate and duration of responses seen with the extended follow-up are ‘impressive’,” he added.

DeLLphi-300, 301, and 304 were funded by Amgen Inc. Dr. Hummel declared relationships with several companies, including Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Merck, Novartis, Daiichi Sankyo, and Roche. Dr. Menis declared relationships with AstraZeneca, BMS, MSD, Roche, and Novartis.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The investigational bispecific T-cell engager tarlatamab achieved durable responses and clinically meaningful survival outcomes in patients with small-cell lung cancer (SCLC), particularly at lower doses, according to a follow-up analysis of the phase 1 DeLLphi-300 trial.

Most patients with central nervous system tumors also sustained tumor shrinkage long after receiving radiotherapy, providing “encouraging evidence” of the new agent’s intracranial activity, said study presenter Horst-Dieter Hummel, MD, Comprehensive Cancer Center Mainfranken, Würzburg, Germany.

The research was presented at the European Lung Cancer Congress 2024 on March 22.

Tarlatamab targets cancer cells that express the delta-like ligand 3 (DLL3), which occurs infrequently on normal cells but on most SCLC cells. 

Data from the phase 1 and phase 2 DeLLphi trials, published last year, showed the compound achieved “encouraging clinical activity” in pretreated patients, said Dr. Hummel.

The initial phase 1 DeLLphi study found that after a median follow-up of 8.7 months, the immunotherapy led to a disease control rate of 51.4%, a median progression-free survival of 3.7 months, and median overall survival of 13.2 months.

At the meeting, Dr. Hummel reported longer-term outcomes from the phase 1 study over a median of 12.1 months as well as intracranial activity in patients who received clinically relevant doses of tarlatamab, defined as ≥ 10 mg.

The 152 patients included in the analysis had a median of two prior lines of therapy; 76.3% had undergone radiotherapy, and 63.2% had received immunotherapy. Liver metastases were present in 42.1% of patients, and 25.0% had brain metastases.

Doses varied among participants, with 76 patients (50.0%) receiving 100 mg, 32 (21.0%) receiving 100 mg via extended intravenous infusion, 17 (11.2%) receiving 10 mg, and 8 (5.3%) receiving 30 mg.

The overall objective response rate was 25.0%, with a median duration of response of 11.2 months. Among patients given the 10-mg dose, the objective response rate was higher, at 35.3%, as was the median duration of response, at 14.9 months.

Tarlatamab was associated with a median overall survival of 17.5 months, with 57.9% of patients alive at 12 months. Patients receiving the 10 mg dose had a better median overall survival of 20.3 months.

Of the 16 patients with analyzable central nervous system tumors, 62.5% experienced tumor shrinkage by ≥ 30% and 87.5% experienced intracranial disease control, which lasted for a median of 7.4 months.

In this follow-up study, tarlatamab demonstrated “clinically meaningful survival outcomes in patients with previously treated SCLC, particularly with the 10 mg dose,” Dr. Hummel concluded in his presentation.

No new safety signals emerged, though almost all patients did experience tarlatamab-related adverse events (94.8% for doses > 10 mg and 100% of patients with 10 mg doses). Overall, 66.4% of the total cohort experienced cytokine release syndrome of any grade, and 11.8% developed immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome. 

Discontinuation due to treatment-related adverse events occurred in 9 patients overall, and adverse events that led to dose interruption or reduction occurred in 32 patients overall. 

“After many efforts at DLL3 targeting, we finally have an agent that shows activity and efficacy, and with convincing data,” said Jessica Menis, MD, a medical oncologist at the oncology department of the University Hospital of Verona, Italy, who was not involved in the study. The intracranial activity of tarlatamab “needs to be further evaluated in untreated patients,” Dr. Menis noted, because the study included only patients with stable, treated brain metastases.

And given the high rates of adverse events, Dr. Menis cautioned that adverse event management “will be a challenge.”

On X (Twitter), Tom Newsom-Davis, MBBS, PhD, a consultant in medical oncology at Chelsea and Westminster Hospital, London, said that tarlatamab is “not a straightforward drug to use,” highlighting the occurrence of cytokine release syndrome.

“But in this significantly pretreated population and in this hard-to-treat tumor type,” the rate and duration of responses seen with the extended follow-up are ‘impressive’,” he added.

DeLLphi-300, 301, and 304 were funded by Amgen Inc. Dr. Hummel declared relationships with several companies, including Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Merck, Novartis, Daiichi Sankyo, and Roche. Dr. Menis declared relationships with AstraZeneca, BMS, MSD, Roche, and Novartis.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The investigational bispecific T-cell engager tarlatamab achieved durable responses and clinically meaningful survival outcomes in patients with small-cell lung cancer (SCLC), particularly at lower doses, according to a follow-up analysis of the phase 1 DeLLphi-300 trial.

Most patients with central nervous system tumors also sustained tumor shrinkage long after receiving radiotherapy, providing “encouraging evidence” of the new agent’s intracranial activity, said study presenter Horst-Dieter Hummel, MD, Comprehensive Cancer Center Mainfranken, Würzburg, Germany.

The research was presented at the European Lung Cancer Congress 2024 on March 22.

Tarlatamab targets cancer cells that express the delta-like ligand 3 (DLL3), which occurs infrequently on normal cells but on most SCLC cells. 

Data from the phase 1 and phase 2 DeLLphi trials, published last year, showed the compound achieved “encouraging clinical activity” in pretreated patients, said Dr. Hummel.

The initial phase 1 DeLLphi study found that after a median follow-up of 8.7 months, the immunotherapy led to a disease control rate of 51.4%, a median progression-free survival of 3.7 months, and median overall survival of 13.2 months.

At the meeting, Dr. Hummel reported longer-term outcomes from the phase 1 study over a median of 12.1 months as well as intracranial activity in patients who received clinically relevant doses of tarlatamab, defined as ≥ 10 mg.

The 152 patients included in the analysis had a median of two prior lines of therapy; 76.3% had undergone radiotherapy, and 63.2% had received immunotherapy. Liver metastases were present in 42.1% of patients, and 25.0% had brain metastases.

Doses varied among participants, with 76 patients (50.0%) receiving 100 mg, 32 (21.0%) receiving 100 mg via extended intravenous infusion, 17 (11.2%) receiving 10 mg, and 8 (5.3%) receiving 30 mg.

The overall objective response rate was 25.0%, with a median duration of response of 11.2 months. Among patients given the 10-mg dose, the objective response rate was higher, at 35.3%, as was the median duration of response, at 14.9 months.

Tarlatamab was associated with a median overall survival of 17.5 months, with 57.9% of patients alive at 12 months. Patients receiving the 10 mg dose had a better median overall survival of 20.3 months.

Of the 16 patients with analyzable central nervous system tumors, 62.5% experienced tumor shrinkage by ≥ 30% and 87.5% experienced intracranial disease control, which lasted for a median of 7.4 months.

In this follow-up study, tarlatamab demonstrated “clinically meaningful survival outcomes in patients with previously treated SCLC, particularly with the 10 mg dose,” Dr. Hummel concluded in his presentation.

No new safety signals emerged, though almost all patients did experience tarlatamab-related adverse events (94.8% for doses > 10 mg and 100% of patients with 10 mg doses). Overall, 66.4% of the total cohort experienced cytokine release syndrome of any grade, and 11.8% developed immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome. 

Discontinuation due to treatment-related adverse events occurred in 9 patients overall, and adverse events that led to dose interruption or reduction occurred in 32 patients overall. 

“After many efforts at DLL3 targeting, we finally have an agent that shows activity and efficacy, and with convincing data,” said Jessica Menis, MD, a medical oncologist at the oncology department of the University Hospital of Verona, Italy, who was not involved in the study. The intracranial activity of tarlatamab “needs to be further evaluated in untreated patients,” Dr. Menis noted, because the study included only patients with stable, treated brain metastases.

And given the high rates of adverse events, Dr. Menis cautioned that adverse event management “will be a challenge.”

On X (Twitter), Tom Newsom-Davis, MBBS, PhD, a consultant in medical oncology at Chelsea and Westminster Hospital, London, said that tarlatamab is “not a straightforward drug to use,” highlighting the occurrence of cytokine release syndrome.

“But in this significantly pretreated population and in this hard-to-treat tumor type,” the rate and duration of responses seen with the extended follow-up are ‘impressive’,” he added.

DeLLphi-300, 301, and 304 were funded by Amgen Inc. Dr. Hummel declared relationships with several companies, including Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Merck, Novartis, Daiichi Sankyo, and Roche. Dr. Menis declared relationships with AstraZeneca, BMS, MSD, Roche, and Novartis.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Regeneron Pharmaceuticals said in an interview that it may be the first company to have an accelerated approval application for its cancer drug rebuffed by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) due to concerns about the timing of completion of confirmatory research.

The company once had hoped to win this US clearance for odronextamab in relapsed/refractory (R/R) follicular lymphoma (FL) and in R/R diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) by March 31. Last year when Regeneron announced the FDA’s decision to grant priority review for odronextamab, the firm said that the end of this month was the US regulators’ target decision date.

But on March 25, Regeneron said the FDA issued two complete response letters (CRLs) in connection with odronextamab application. It will not approve the experimental medicine at this time.

In the release, Regeneron said the only approvability issue is related to the enrollment status of the confirmatory trials. The letters did not identify issues with the odronextamab clinical efficacy or safety, trial design, labeling, or manufacturing.

“While we acknowledge the general concerns that FDA has about sponsors failing to complete their postmarketing confirmatory trials, the relevant laws and regulatory guidances do not lay out rigid criteria for assessing whether the progress on a confirmatory trial is adequate to allow for an accelerated approval,” Tammy Allen, Regeneron’s director for product and pipeline communications, said in an email. “ And to our knowledge, this is the first time the FDA has issued a CRL for this reason.”

There has been rising concern in recent years about the gap between initial accelerated approvals for medicines and the completion of studies that show whether these promising therapies actually help patients live longer or better. Thus, a serious knowledge gap arises, often for many years, while patients and physicians use drugs with as yet unproven benefit. Recent studies highlighting this knowledge gap include work from Harvard’s Program on Regulation, Therapeutics, and Law (PORTAL) group and researchers at the University of Pennsylvania.

While Congress has long sought to speed approvals of new drugs, in 2022 lawmakers gave the FDA more clout for efforts to shorten the period of uncertainty between accelerated and traditional approval. Congress added a provision to a large spending package that said the federal government could require a study or studies to be underway prior to approval, or within a specified time period after the date of approval, of the applicable product.

“As this is new territory for us and for industry, we’re committed to working closely with them to address and plan on sharing updates on enrollment and regulatory timelines later this year,” Ms. Allen said.

The FDA generally does not comment on applications under review. In response to a question about Regeneron’s statements, an FDA spokeswoman pointed out by email that the 2022 law had made clear how the agency can decline approval if confirmatory clinical trials are not considered underway prior to approval.

Odronextamab is potentially part of a rapidly advancing field of lymphoma treatments, which include autologous chimeric antigen receptor (CAR T-cell) therapy in certain settings. There are severe constraints, though, on CAR-T therapy, including manufacturing delays and treatment-related toxicities. Odronextamab is part of what are called “off-the-shelf” drugs with the same aim as CAR-T. The bispecific antibodies (BsAb) are meant to teach the immune system to fight cancer.

Regeneron said it has been actively enrolling patients in multiple phase 3 trials for odronextamab as part of its OLYMPIA program. The company said this is intended to change the treatment paradigm of several B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma subtypes, including in earlier lines of therapy.

Enrollment in the dose-finding portion has begun, but the CRLs indicate that the confirmatory portions of these trials should be underway and that the timelines to completion should be agreed on prior to resubmission, Regeneron said. The company added that it is working closely with the FDA and investigators to bring odronextamab to patients with R/R FL and R/R DLBCL as quickly as possible. The company plans to share updates on enrollment and regulatory timelines later this year.

Regeneron Pharmaceuticals said in an interview that it may be the first company to have an accelerated approval application for its cancer drug rebuffed by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) due to concerns about the timing of completion of confirmatory research.

The company once had hoped to win this US clearance for odronextamab in relapsed/refractory (R/R) follicular lymphoma (FL) and in R/R diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) by March 31. Last year when Regeneron announced the FDA’s decision to grant priority review for odronextamab, the firm said that the end of this month was the US regulators’ target decision date.

But on March 25, Regeneron said the FDA issued two complete response letters (CRLs) in connection with odronextamab application. It will not approve the experimental medicine at this time.

In the release, Regeneron said the only approvability issue is related to the enrollment status of the confirmatory trials. The letters did not identify issues with the odronextamab clinical efficacy or safety, trial design, labeling, or manufacturing.

“While we acknowledge the general concerns that FDA has about sponsors failing to complete their postmarketing confirmatory trials, the relevant laws and regulatory guidances do not lay out rigid criteria for assessing whether the progress on a confirmatory trial is adequate to allow for an accelerated approval,” Tammy Allen, Regeneron’s director for product and pipeline communications, said in an email. “ And to our knowledge, this is the first time the FDA has issued a CRL for this reason.”

There has been rising concern in recent years about the gap between initial accelerated approvals for medicines and the completion of studies that show whether these promising therapies actually help patients live longer or better. Thus, a serious knowledge gap arises, often for many years, while patients and physicians use drugs with as yet unproven benefit. Recent studies highlighting this knowledge gap include work from Harvard’s Program on Regulation, Therapeutics, and Law (PORTAL) group and researchers at the University of Pennsylvania.

While Congress has long sought to speed approvals of new drugs, in 2022 lawmakers gave the FDA more clout for efforts to shorten the period of uncertainty between accelerated and traditional approval. Congress added a provision to a large spending package that said the federal government could require a study or studies to be underway prior to approval, or within a specified time period after the date of approval, of the applicable product.

“As this is new territory for us and for industry, we’re committed to working closely with them to address and plan on sharing updates on enrollment and regulatory timelines later this year,” Ms. Allen said.

The FDA generally does not comment on applications under review. In response to a question about Regeneron’s statements, an FDA spokeswoman pointed out by email that the 2022 law had made clear how the agency can decline approval if confirmatory clinical trials are not considered underway prior to approval.

Odronextamab is potentially part of a rapidly advancing field of lymphoma treatments, which include autologous chimeric antigen receptor (CAR T-cell) therapy in certain settings. There are severe constraints, though, on CAR-T therapy, including manufacturing delays and treatment-related toxicities. Odronextamab is part of what are called “off-the-shelf” drugs with the same aim as CAR-T. The bispecific antibodies (BsAb) are meant to teach the immune system to fight cancer.

Regeneron said it has been actively enrolling patients in multiple phase 3 trials for odronextamab as part of its OLYMPIA program. The company said this is intended to change the treatment paradigm of several B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma subtypes, including in earlier lines of therapy.

Enrollment in the dose-finding portion has begun, but the CRLs indicate that the confirmatory portions of these trials should be underway and that the timelines to completion should be agreed on prior to resubmission, Regeneron said. The company added that it is working closely with the FDA and investigators to bring odronextamab to patients with R/R FL and R/R DLBCL as quickly as possible. The company plans to share updates on enrollment and regulatory timelines later this year.

Regeneron Pharmaceuticals said in an interview that it may be the first company to have an accelerated approval application for its cancer drug rebuffed by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) due to concerns about the timing of completion of confirmatory research.

The company once had hoped to win this US clearance for odronextamab in relapsed/refractory (R/R) follicular lymphoma (FL) and in R/R diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) by March 31. Last year when Regeneron announced the FDA’s decision to grant priority review for odronextamab, the firm said that the end of this month was the US regulators’ target decision date.

But on March 25, Regeneron said the FDA issued two complete response letters (CRLs) in connection with odronextamab application. It will not approve the experimental medicine at this time.

In the release, Regeneron said the only approvability issue is related to the enrollment status of the confirmatory trials. The letters did not identify issues with the odronextamab clinical efficacy or safety, trial design, labeling, or manufacturing.

“While we acknowledge the general concerns that FDA has about sponsors failing to complete their postmarketing confirmatory trials, the relevant laws and regulatory guidances do not lay out rigid criteria for assessing whether the progress on a confirmatory trial is adequate to allow for an accelerated approval,” Tammy Allen, Regeneron’s director for product and pipeline communications, said in an email. “ And to our knowledge, this is the first time the FDA has issued a CRL for this reason.”

There has been rising concern in recent years about the gap between initial accelerated approvals for medicines and the completion of studies that show whether these promising therapies actually help patients live longer or better. Thus, a serious knowledge gap arises, often for many years, while patients and physicians use drugs with as yet unproven benefit. Recent studies highlighting this knowledge gap include work from Harvard’s Program on Regulation, Therapeutics, and Law (PORTAL) group and researchers at the University of Pennsylvania.

While Congress has long sought to speed approvals of new drugs, in 2022 lawmakers gave the FDA more clout for efforts to shorten the period of uncertainty between accelerated and traditional approval. Congress added a provision to a large spending package that said the federal government could require a study or studies to be underway prior to approval, or within a specified time period after the date of approval, of the applicable product.

“As this is new territory for us and for industry, we’re committed to working closely with them to address and plan on sharing updates on enrollment and regulatory timelines later this year,” Ms. Allen said.

The FDA generally does not comment on applications under review. In response to a question about Regeneron’s statements, an FDA spokeswoman pointed out by email that the 2022 law had made clear how the agency can decline approval if confirmatory clinical trials are not considered underway prior to approval.

Odronextamab is potentially part of a rapidly advancing field of lymphoma treatments, which include autologous chimeric antigen receptor (CAR T-cell) therapy in certain settings. There are severe constraints, though, on CAR-T therapy, including manufacturing delays and treatment-related toxicities. Odronextamab is part of what are called “off-the-shelf” drugs with the same aim as CAR-T. The bispecific antibodies (BsAb) are meant to teach the immune system to fight cancer.

Regeneron said it has been actively enrolling patients in multiple phase 3 trials for odronextamab as part of its OLYMPIA program. The company said this is intended to change the treatment paradigm of several B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma subtypes, including in earlier lines of therapy.

Enrollment in the dose-finding portion has begun, but the CRLs indicate that the confirmatory portions of these trials should be underway and that the timelines to completion should be agreed on prior to resubmission, Regeneron said. The company added that it is working closely with the FDA and investigators to bring odronextamab to patients with R/R FL and R/R DLBCL as quickly as possible. The company plans to share updates on enrollment and regulatory timelines later this year.

Blood-based screening for colorectal cancer (CRC), also known as a “liquid biopsy,” may be better than nothing among patients who skip established screening tests, but it can’t replace colonoscopy as the gold standard, according to two new modeling studies and an expert consensus commentary.

Although some patients find blood-based tests more convenient, the higher numbers of false positives and false negatives could lead to more CRC cases and deaths.

“Based on their current characteristics, blood tests should not be recommended to replace established colorectal cancer screening tests, since blood tests are neither as effective nor cost-effective and would worsen outcomes,” David Lieberman, MD, AGAF, chair of the American Gastroenterological Association’s CRC Workshop Panel, and lead author of the expert commentary, said in a statement.

AGA Institute

The blood tests detect circulating nucleotides, such as cell-free DNA or metabolic products associated with CRC and its precursors. Current tests are in development by Guardant Health and Freenome.

The two modeling studies, published in Gastroenterology on March 26, analyzed the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of blood-based CRC screening that meets Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) coverage criteria, as well as the comparative effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of CRC screening with blood-based biomarkers versus fecal tests or colonoscopy.

Also published on March 26 in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology, the expert commentary included key conclusions from the AGA CRC Workshop, which analyzed the two modeling studies.
 

Comparing CRC Screening Methods

In the first modeling study, an international team of researchers ran three microsimulation models for CRC to estimate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of triennial blood-based screening for ages 45-75, compared with no screening, annual fecal immunochemical testing (FIT), triennial stool DNA testing combined with a FIT assay, and colonoscopy screening every 10 years. The researchers used CMS coverage criteria for blood tests, with a sensitivity of at least 74% for detection of CRC and specificity of at least 90%.

Without screening, the models predicted between 77 and 88 CRC cases and between 32 and 36 deaths per 1,000 individuals, costing between $5.3 million to $5.8 million. Compared with no screening, blood-based screening was considered cost-effective, with an additional cost of $25,600 to $43,700 per quality-adjusted life-year gained (QALYG).

However, compared with the FIT, stool, and colonoscopy options, blood-based screening was not cost-effective, with both a decrease in QALYG and an increase in costs. FIT was more effective and less costly, with 5-24 QALYG and nearly $3.5 million cheaper than blood-based screening, even when blood-based uptake was 20 percentage points higher than FIT uptake.

In the second modeling study, US researchers compared triennial blood-based screening with established alternatives at the CMS thresholds of 74% sensitivity and 90% specificity.

Overall, a blood-based test at the CMS minimum reduced CRC incidence by 40% and CRC mortality by 52% versus no screening. However, a blood-based test was significantly less effective than triennial stool DNA testing, annual FIT, and colonoscopy every 10 years, which reduced CRC incidence by 68%-79% and CRC mortality by 73%-81%.

Assuming a blood-based test would cost the same as a multi-target stool test, the blood-based test would cost $28,500 per QALYG versus no screening. At the same time, FIT, colonoscopy, and stool DNA testing were less costly and more effective. In general, the blood-based test would match FIT’s clinical outcomes if it achieved 1.4- to 1.8-fold the participation rate for FIT.

Even still, the sensitivity for advanced precancerous lesion (APL) was a key determinant. A paradigm-changing blood-based test would need to have higher than 90% sensitivity for CRC and 80% for APL, 90% specificity, and cost less than $120 to $140, the study authors wrote.

“High APL sensitivity, which can result in CRC prevention, should be a top priority for screening test developers,” the authors wrote. “APL detection should not be penalized by a definition of test specificity that focuses on CRC only.”
 

Additional Considerations

The AGA CRC Workshop Panel met in September 2023 to review the two modeling studies and other data on blood-based tests for CRC. Overall, the group concluded that a triennial blood test that meets minimal CMS criteria would likely result in better outcomes than no screening and provide a simple process to encourage more people to participate in screening.

However, patients who may have declined colonoscopy should understand the need for a colonoscopy if blood-based tests show abnormal results, the commentary authors wrote.

In addition, because blood-based tests for CRC appear to be less effective and more costly than current screening options, they shouldn’t be recommended to replace established screening methods. Although these blood-based tests may improve screening rates and outcomes in unscreened people, substituting blood tests for other effective tests would increase costs and worsen patient outcomes.

Beyond that, they wrote, the industry should consider other potential benchmarks for an effective blood test, such as a sensitivity for stage I-III CRC of greater than 90% and sensitivity for advanced adenomas of 40%-50% or higher.

University of California San Diego

“Unless we have the expectation of high sensitivity and specificity, blood-based colorectal cancer tests could lead to false positive and false negative results, which are both bad for patient outcomes,” John M. Carethers, MD, AGAF, vice chancellor for health sciences at UC San Diego, AGA past president, and a member of the AGA CRC Workshop panel, said in a statement.

Several authors reported consultant roles and funding support from numerous companies, including Guardant Health and Freenome.

Blood-based screening for colorectal cancer (CRC), also known as a “liquid biopsy,” may be better than nothing among patients who skip established screening tests, but it can’t replace colonoscopy as the gold standard, according to two new modeling studies and an expert consensus commentary.

Although some patients find blood-based tests more convenient, the higher numbers of false positives and false negatives could lead to more CRC cases and deaths.

“Based on their current characteristics, blood tests should not be recommended to replace established colorectal cancer screening tests, since blood tests are neither as effective nor cost-effective and would worsen outcomes,” David Lieberman, MD, AGAF, chair of the American Gastroenterological Association’s CRC Workshop Panel, and lead author of the expert commentary, said in a statement.

AGA Institute

The blood tests detect circulating nucleotides, such as cell-free DNA or metabolic products associated with CRC and its precursors. Current tests are in development by Guardant Health and Freenome.

The two modeling studies, published in Gastroenterology on March 26, analyzed the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of blood-based CRC screening that meets Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) coverage criteria, as well as the comparative effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of CRC screening with blood-based biomarkers versus fecal tests or colonoscopy.

Also published on March 26 in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology, the expert commentary included key conclusions from the AGA CRC Workshop, which analyzed the two modeling studies.
 

Comparing CRC Screening Methods

In the first modeling study, an international team of researchers ran three microsimulation models for CRC to estimate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of triennial blood-based screening for ages 45-75, compared with no screening, annual fecal immunochemical testing (FIT), triennial stool DNA testing combined with a FIT assay, and colonoscopy screening every 10 years. The researchers used CMS coverage criteria for blood tests, with a sensitivity of at least 74% for detection of CRC and specificity of at least 90%.

Without screening, the models predicted between 77 and 88 CRC cases and between 32 and 36 deaths per 1,000 individuals, costing between $5.3 million to $5.8 million. Compared with no screening, blood-based screening was considered cost-effective, with an additional cost of $25,600 to $43,700 per quality-adjusted life-year gained (QALYG).

However, compared with the FIT, stool, and colonoscopy options, blood-based screening was not cost-effective, with both a decrease in QALYG and an increase in costs. FIT was more effective and less costly, with 5-24 QALYG and nearly $3.5 million cheaper than blood-based screening, even when blood-based uptake was 20 percentage points higher than FIT uptake.

In the second modeling study, US researchers compared triennial blood-based screening with established alternatives at the CMS thresholds of 74% sensitivity and 90% specificity.

Overall, a blood-based test at the CMS minimum reduced CRC incidence by 40% and CRC mortality by 52% versus no screening. However, a blood-based test was significantly less effective than triennial stool DNA testing, annual FIT, and colonoscopy every 10 years, which reduced CRC incidence by 68%-79% and CRC mortality by 73%-81%.

Assuming a blood-based test would cost the same as a multi-target stool test, the blood-based test would cost $28,500 per QALYG versus no screening. At the same time, FIT, colonoscopy, and stool DNA testing were less costly and more effective. In general, the blood-based test would match FIT’s clinical outcomes if it achieved 1.4- to 1.8-fold the participation rate for FIT.

Even still, the sensitivity for advanced precancerous lesion (APL) was a key determinant. A paradigm-changing blood-based test would need to have higher than 90% sensitivity for CRC and 80% for APL, 90% specificity, and cost less than $120 to $140, the study authors wrote.

“High APL sensitivity, which can result in CRC prevention, should be a top priority for screening test developers,” the authors wrote. “APL detection should not be penalized by a definition of test specificity that focuses on CRC only.”
 

Additional Considerations

The AGA CRC Workshop Panel met in September 2023 to review the two modeling studies and other data on blood-based tests for CRC. Overall, the group concluded that a triennial blood test that meets minimal CMS criteria would likely result in better outcomes than no screening and provide a simple process to encourage more people to participate in screening.

However, patients who may have declined colonoscopy should understand the need for a colonoscopy if blood-based tests show abnormal results, the commentary authors wrote.

In addition, because blood-based tests for CRC appear to be less effective and more costly than current screening options, they shouldn’t be recommended to replace established screening methods. Although these blood-based tests may improve screening rates and outcomes in unscreened people, substituting blood tests for other effective tests would increase costs and worsen patient outcomes.

Beyond that, they wrote, the industry should consider other potential benchmarks for an effective blood test, such as a sensitivity for stage I-III CRC of greater than 90% and sensitivity for advanced adenomas of 40%-50% or higher.

University of California San Diego

“Unless we have the expectation of high sensitivity and specificity, blood-based colorectal cancer tests could lead to false positive and false negative results, which are both bad for patient outcomes,” John M. Carethers, MD, AGAF, vice chancellor for health sciences at UC San Diego, AGA past president, and a member of the AGA CRC Workshop panel, said in a statement.

Several authors reported consultant roles and funding support from numerous companies, including Guardant Health and Freenome.

Blood-based screening for colorectal cancer (CRC), also known as a “liquid biopsy,” may be better than nothing among patients who skip established screening tests, but it can’t replace colonoscopy as the gold standard, according to two new modeling studies and an expert consensus commentary.

Although some patients find blood-based tests more convenient, the higher numbers of false positives and false negatives could lead to more CRC cases and deaths.

“Based on their current characteristics, blood tests should not be recommended to replace established colorectal cancer screening tests, since blood tests are neither as effective nor cost-effective and would worsen outcomes,” David Lieberman, MD, AGAF, chair of the American Gastroenterological Association’s CRC Workshop Panel, and lead author of the expert commentary, said in a statement.

AGA Institute

The blood tests detect circulating nucleotides, such as cell-free DNA or metabolic products associated with CRC and its precursors. Current tests are in development by Guardant Health and Freenome.

The two modeling studies, published in Gastroenterology on March 26, analyzed the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of blood-based CRC screening that meets Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) coverage criteria, as well as the comparative effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of CRC screening with blood-based biomarkers versus fecal tests or colonoscopy.

Also published on March 26 in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology, the expert commentary included key conclusions from the AGA CRC Workshop, which analyzed the two modeling studies.
 

Comparing CRC Screening Methods

In the first modeling study, an international team of researchers ran three microsimulation models for CRC to estimate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of triennial blood-based screening for ages 45-75, compared with no screening, annual fecal immunochemical testing (FIT), triennial stool DNA testing combined with a FIT assay, and colonoscopy screening every 10 years. The researchers used CMS coverage criteria for blood tests, with a sensitivity of at least 74% for detection of CRC and specificity of at least 90%.

Without screening, the models predicted between 77 and 88 CRC cases and between 32 and 36 deaths per 1,000 individuals, costing between $5.3 million to $5.8 million. Compared with no screening, blood-based screening was considered cost-effective, with an additional cost of $25,600 to $43,700 per quality-adjusted life-year gained (QALYG).

However, compared with the FIT, stool, and colonoscopy options, blood-based screening was not cost-effective, with both a decrease in QALYG and an increase in costs. FIT was more effective and less costly, with 5-24 QALYG and nearly $3.5 million cheaper than blood-based screening, even when blood-based uptake was 20 percentage points higher than FIT uptake.

In the second modeling study, US researchers compared triennial blood-based screening with established alternatives at the CMS thresholds of 74% sensitivity and 90% specificity.

Overall, a blood-based test at the CMS minimum reduced CRC incidence by 40% and CRC mortality by 52% versus no screening. However, a blood-based test was significantly less effective than triennial stool DNA testing, annual FIT, and colonoscopy every 10 years, which reduced CRC incidence by 68%-79% and CRC mortality by 73%-81%.

Assuming a blood-based test would cost the same as a multi-target stool test, the blood-based test would cost $28,500 per QALYG versus no screening. At the same time, FIT, colonoscopy, and stool DNA testing were less costly and more effective. In general, the blood-based test would match FIT’s clinical outcomes if it achieved 1.4- to 1.8-fold the participation rate for FIT.

Even still, the sensitivity for advanced precancerous lesion (APL) was a key determinant. A paradigm-changing blood-based test would need to have higher than 90% sensitivity for CRC and 80% for APL, 90% specificity, and cost less than $120 to $140, the study authors wrote.

“High APL sensitivity, which can result in CRC prevention, should be a top priority for screening test developers,” the authors wrote. “APL detection should not be penalized by a definition of test specificity that focuses on CRC only.”
 

Additional Considerations

The AGA CRC Workshop Panel met in September 2023 to review the two modeling studies and other data on blood-based tests for CRC. Overall, the group concluded that a triennial blood test that meets minimal CMS criteria would likely result in better outcomes than no screening and provide a simple process to encourage more people to participate in screening.

However, patients who may have declined colonoscopy should understand the need for a colonoscopy if blood-based tests show abnormal results, the commentary authors wrote.

In addition, because blood-based tests for CRC appear to be less effective and more costly than current screening options, they shouldn’t be recommended to replace established screening methods. Although these blood-based tests may improve screening rates and outcomes in unscreened people, substituting blood tests for other effective tests would increase costs and worsen patient outcomes.

Beyond that, they wrote, the industry should consider other potential benchmarks for an effective blood test, such as a sensitivity for stage I-III CRC of greater than 90% and sensitivity for advanced adenomas of 40%-50% or higher.

University of California San Diego

“Unless we have the expectation of high sensitivity and specificity, blood-based colorectal cancer tests could lead to false positive and false negative results, which are both bad for patient outcomes,” John M. Carethers, MD, AGAF, vice chancellor for health sciences at UC San Diego, AGA past president, and a member of the AGA CRC Workshop panel, said in a statement.

Several authors reported consultant roles and funding support from numerous companies, including Guardant Health and Freenome.

One in seven women will die within 2 months of being diagnosed with ovarian cancer, a new report from the United Kingdom states. But if diagnosed at the earliest stage, 9 in 10 women will survive. Two thirds of women are now diagnosed late, when the cancer is harder to treat.

Diagnosis is difficult for many reasons, among them that women sometimes think symptoms are a natural part of menopause and don’t acknowledge or report them. Clinicians may mistake abdominal symptoms for those of a bowel condition or bladder problem. Almost half of GPs (46%) in the UK mistakenly believe that ovarian cancer symptoms present in only the later stages of the disease.

Cervical Screening Does Not Detect Ovarian Cancer

Additionally, there are misconceptions regarding cervical cancer screening — one study found that “40% of women in the general public mistakenly believe that cervical screening detects ovarian cancer.” But there is no current screening program for ovarian cancer in the UK or United States.

During a pelvic exam, the physician feels the ovaries and uterus for size, shape, and consistency and that can be useful in finding some cancers early, but most early ovarian tumors are difficult or impossible to feel, the American Cancer Society notes.

Recognizing the Red Flags

Victoria Barber, MBBS, a general practitioner in Northamptonshire and a Primary Care Advisory Board member with the Target Ovarian Cancer program in the UK published a paper in the British Journal of Nursing (2024 Mar 7. doi: 10.12968/bjon.2024.33.5.S16) on the program’s efforts to urge clinicians to recognize ovarian cancer red flags and to “never diagnose new-onset irritable bowel syndrome or overactive bladder in women over 50 without ruling out ovarian cancer.”

She says nurses should be involved to help with earlier diagnosis of ovarian cancer as they are often involved in evaluating urine samples. Nurse practitioners, she notes, are typically included in consultations for abdominal symptoms and potential urinary tract infections.

“If the woman is recurrently presenting with urinary symptoms, sterile midstream urine samples should raise alarm,” she says. “The woman may have diabetes, an overactive bladder, or interstitial cystitis; however, urgency and frequency are some of the symptoms of ovarian cancer, and they need investigation.”

Persistent Systems Over Age 50

The paper lists ovarian cancer symptoms from the UK’s National Institute for Health and Care Excellence and notes that among red flags are having any of the following persistently/frequently (particularly more than 12 times per month and especially if the woman is 50 years or older):

• Early satiety and/or loss of appetite
• Abdominal bloating
• Pelvic or abdominal pain
• Urinary urgency/frequency

Other symptoms could include:

• Changes in bowel habits (e.g., diarrhea or constipation)
• Extreme fatigue
• Unexplained weight loss

Diagnosis Challenges Similar in US

Ernst Lengyel, MD, PhD, UChicago Medicine’s Chairman of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology in Chicago, Illinois, who was not involved with the paper, said the situation in the United States is similar to that described in the UK.

“The diagnosis is delayed because the symptoms are unspecific. The problem is that ovarian cancer is so rare, and primary care physicians or nurse practitioners have to consider over 100 differential diagnoses,” he says.

In the US, he says, it is likely easier to get in and see a physician because of the private insurance options and because there are more gynecologic oncologists in large urban areas. Getting imaging approved — such as ultrasound and computed tomography scans — is also easier in the US.

Still, “there is no effective way to diagnose ovarian cancer early,” he says. “No single test or combination of symptoms can be used as a screening test.”

The CA-125 blood test measures proteins that can be linked with ovarian cancer, but is not a screening test, he notes.

“Large UK and US studies have not been able to show a survival benefit with ultrasound, serial CA-125, or a combination thereof,” Dr. Lengyel said.

Weight Gain May Also be a Sign

A broad range of clinicians should be aware of the symptoms the author mentions, he says, especially primary care physicians, nurse practitioners, and obstetrician/gynecologists.

“Too often, symptoms that women report are ignored and treated as unspecific or psychosomatic,” Dr. Lengyel says. “It is easy to disregard recurrent complaints and move on instead of being vigilant and working them up. Ironically, women with ovarian cancer can initially gain weight, which is counterintuitive as most doctors believe that patients with cancer lose weight. However, if they develop abdominal fluid, a patient often gains weight.”

Dr. Barber and Dr. Lengyel report no relevant financial relationships.

One in seven women will die within 2 months of being diagnosed with ovarian cancer, a new report from the United Kingdom states. But if diagnosed at the earliest stage, 9 in 10 women will survive. Two thirds of women are now diagnosed late, when the cancer is harder to treat.

Diagnosis is difficult for many reasons, among them that women sometimes think symptoms are a natural part of menopause and don’t acknowledge or report them. Clinicians may mistake abdominal symptoms for those of a bowel condition or bladder problem. Almost half of GPs (46%) in the UK mistakenly believe that ovarian cancer symptoms present in only the later stages of the disease.

Cervical Screening Does Not Detect Ovarian Cancer

Additionally, there are misconceptions regarding cervical cancer screening — one study found that “40% of women in the general public mistakenly believe that cervical screening detects ovarian cancer.” But there is no current screening program for ovarian cancer in the UK or United States.

During a pelvic exam, the physician feels the ovaries and uterus for size, shape, and consistency and that can be useful in finding some cancers early, but most early ovarian tumors are difficult or impossible to feel, the American Cancer Society notes.

Recognizing the Red Flags

Victoria Barber, MBBS, a general practitioner in Northamptonshire and a Primary Care Advisory Board member with the Target Ovarian Cancer program in the UK published a paper in the British Journal of Nursing (2024 Mar 7. doi: 10.12968/bjon.2024.33.5.S16) on the program’s efforts to urge clinicians to recognize ovarian cancer red flags and to “never diagnose new-onset irritable bowel syndrome or overactive bladder in women over 50 without ruling out ovarian cancer.”

She says nurses should be involved to help with earlier diagnosis of ovarian cancer as they are often involved in evaluating urine samples. Nurse practitioners, she notes, are typically included in consultations for abdominal symptoms and potential urinary tract infections.

“If the woman is recurrently presenting with urinary symptoms, sterile midstream urine samples should raise alarm,” she says. “The woman may have diabetes, an overactive bladder, or interstitial cystitis; however, urgency and frequency are some of the symptoms of ovarian cancer, and they need investigation.”

Persistent Systems Over Age 50

The paper lists ovarian cancer symptoms from the UK’s National Institute for Health and Care Excellence and notes that among red flags are having any of the following persistently/frequently (particularly more than 12 times per month and especially if the woman is 50 years or older):

• Early satiety and/or loss of appetite
• Abdominal bloating
• Pelvic or abdominal pain
• Urinary urgency/frequency

Other symptoms could include:

• Changes in bowel habits (e.g., diarrhea or constipation)
• Extreme fatigue
• Unexplained weight loss

Diagnosis Challenges Similar in US

Ernst Lengyel, MD, PhD, UChicago Medicine’s Chairman of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology in Chicago, Illinois, who was not involved with the paper, said the situation in the United States is similar to that described in the UK.

“The diagnosis is delayed because the symptoms are unspecific. The problem is that ovarian cancer is so rare, and primary care physicians or nurse practitioners have to consider over 100 differential diagnoses,” he says.

In the US, he says, it is likely easier to get in and see a physician because of the private insurance options and because there are more gynecologic oncologists in large urban areas. Getting imaging approved — such as ultrasound and computed tomography scans — is also easier in the US.

Still, “there is no effective way to diagnose ovarian cancer early,” he says. “No single test or combination of symptoms can be used as a screening test.”

The CA-125 blood test measures proteins that can be linked with ovarian cancer, but is not a screening test, he notes.

“Large UK and US studies have not been able to show a survival benefit with ultrasound, serial CA-125, or a combination thereof,” Dr. Lengyel said.

Weight Gain May Also be a Sign

A broad range of clinicians should be aware of the symptoms the author mentions, he says, especially primary care physicians, nurse practitioners, and obstetrician/gynecologists.

“Too often, symptoms that women report are ignored and treated as unspecific or psychosomatic,” Dr. Lengyel says. “It is easy to disregard recurrent complaints and move on instead of being vigilant and working them up. Ironically, women with ovarian cancer can initially gain weight, which is counterintuitive as most doctors believe that patients with cancer lose weight. However, if they develop abdominal fluid, a patient often gains weight.”

Dr. Barber and Dr. Lengyel report no relevant financial relationships.

One in seven women will die within 2 months of being diagnosed with ovarian cancer, a new report from the United Kingdom states. But if diagnosed at the earliest stage, 9 in 10 women will survive. Two thirds of women are now diagnosed late, when the cancer is harder to treat.

Diagnosis is difficult for many reasons, among them that women sometimes think symptoms are a natural part of menopause and don’t acknowledge or report them. Clinicians may mistake abdominal symptoms for those of a bowel condition or bladder problem. Almost half of GPs (46%) in the UK mistakenly believe that ovarian cancer symptoms present in only the later stages of the disease.

Cervical Screening Does Not Detect Ovarian Cancer

Additionally, there are misconceptions regarding cervical cancer screening — one study found that “40% of women in the general public mistakenly believe that cervical screening detects ovarian cancer.” But there is no current screening program for ovarian cancer in the UK or United States.

During a pelvic exam, the physician feels the ovaries and uterus for size, shape, and consistency and that can be useful in finding some cancers early, but most early ovarian tumors are difficult or impossible to feel, the American Cancer Society notes.

Recognizing the Red Flags

Victoria Barber, MBBS, a general practitioner in Northamptonshire and a Primary Care Advisory Board member with the Target Ovarian Cancer program in the UK published a paper in the British Journal of Nursing (2024 Mar 7. doi: 10.12968/bjon.2024.33.5.S16) on the program’s efforts to urge clinicians to recognize ovarian cancer red flags and to “never diagnose new-onset irritable bowel syndrome or overactive bladder in women over 50 without ruling out ovarian cancer.”

She says nurses should be involved to help with earlier diagnosis of ovarian cancer as they are often involved in evaluating urine samples. Nurse practitioners, she notes, are typically included in consultations for abdominal symptoms and potential urinary tract infections.

“If the woman is recurrently presenting with urinary symptoms, sterile midstream urine samples should raise alarm,” she says. “The woman may have diabetes, an overactive bladder, or interstitial cystitis; however, urgency and frequency are some of the symptoms of ovarian cancer, and they need investigation.”

Persistent Systems Over Age 50

The paper lists ovarian cancer symptoms from the UK’s National Institute for Health and Care Excellence and notes that among red flags are having any of the following persistently/frequently (particularly more than 12 times per month and especially if the woman is 50 years or older):

• Early satiety and/or loss of appetite
• Abdominal bloating
• Pelvic or abdominal pain
• Urinary urgency/frequency

Other symptoms could include:

• Changes in bowel habits (e.g., diarrhea or constipation)
• Extreme fatigue
• Unexplained weight loss

Diagnosis Challenges Similar in US

Ernst Lengyel, MD, PhD, UChicago Medicine’s Chairman of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology in Chicago, Illinois, who was not involved with the paper, said the situation in the United States is similar to that described in the UK.

“The diagnosis is delayed because the symptoms are unspecific. The problem is that ovarian cancer is so rare, and primary care physicians or nurse practitioners have to consider over 100 differential diagnoses,” he says.

In the US, he says, it is likely easier to get in and see a physician because of the private insurance options and because there are more gynecologic oncologists in large urban areas. Getting imaging approved — such as ultrasound and computed tomography scans — is also easier in the US.

Still, “there is no effective way to diagnose ovarian cancer early,” he says. “No single test or combination of symptoms can be used as a screening test.”

The CA-125 blood test measures proteins that can be linked with ovarian cancer, but is not a screening test, he notes.

“Large UK and US studies have not been able to show a survival benefit with ultrasound, serial CA-125, or a combination thereof,” Dr. Lengyel said.

Weight Gain May Also be a Sign

A broad range of clinicians should be aware of the symptoms the author mentions, he says, especially primary care physicians, nurse practitioners, and obstetrician/gynecologists.

“Too often, symptoms that women report are ignored and treated as unspecific or psychosomatic,” Dr. Lengyel says. “It is easy to disregard recurrent complaints and move on instead of being vigilant and working them up. Ironically, women with ovarian cancer can initially gain weight, which is counterintuitive as most doctors believe that patients with cancer lose weight. However, if they develop abdominal fluid, a patient often gains weight.”

Dr. Barber and Dr. Lengyel report no relevant financial relationships.

Among diagnostic interventions recommended to manage the common CAR-T cell therapy–associated side effect of immune effector cell–associated neurotoxicity syndrome (ICANS), only electroencephalogram (EEG) shows significant therapeutic benefit — while magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and lumbar puncture appear to have limited value, new research shows.

“Our results emphasize for the first time the role of EEG in the current guidelines [for ICANS] but question the need for systematic MRI and lumbar puncture,” reported the authors of the study, published in Blood Advances.

The study underscores that “EEG does more that depict insignificant anomalies and plays a key role in patient management in daily practice,” first author Mattéo Mauget, said in an interview. He is a resident in the intensive care unit at the University Hospital of Rennes in France.

ICANS is among the most common of acute neurotoxicities occurring after CAR T-cell therapy, and international guidelines recommend MRI, lumbar puncture, and EEG in the management of the toxicity, which is typically treated with anti-cytokine therapy and steroids.

However, the guidelines widely vary. All recommend the use of MRI for ICANS grade 3 or higher, but fewer recommend the approach for grade 2. Meanwhile, only some recommend the use of lumbar puncture, and even fewer guidelines recommend the use of EEG.

While these measures are expensive — and in the case of lumbar puncture, invasive and burdensome for patients — the recommendations on these measures “rely on empirical practices and are only based on expert opinions with low scientific evidence,” the authors wrote.

To evaluate the interventions in a cohort of real-life patients treated with CAR T-cell therapy, the authors identified 190 consecutive patients receiving the therapy at the University Hospital of Rennes, France, between August 2018 and January 2023.

Of the patients, 62% were male and their median age was 64. Overall, 91 (48%) developed ICANS.

The majority of patients (73%) received CAR-T cell therapy for a refractory/relapsed (R/R) DLBCL (73%), and most (60%) had received the CAR-T product axicabtagene-ciloleucel (axi-cel) after two or more prior therapies.

While MRI was performed in 78% of patients with ICANS, the measure was determined to have had a therapeutic impact in just 4% of patients, despite common observations of abnormal findings.

Lumbar puncture was meanwhile performed in 47% of patients, resulting in preemptive antimicrobial agents in 7% of patients, with no infection detected.

While systematic EEG was performed in 56% of patients, the intervention led to therapeutic modifications among 16% of those patients.

“Our findings highlight some divergences between guidelines and daily practice regarding diagnostic investigations,” the authors noted.

The study “shows that EEG is the diagnostic investigation with the greatest therapeutic impact, while MRI and lumbar puncture appear to have a limited therapeutic impact,” they concluded.
 

EEG Findings

Of note, only 18% of EEGs in the cohort were normal, ranging from 50% of those with ICANS grade 1 to 6% among those with ICANS grade 4.

Encephalopathy was the most common EEG finding, observed in 45% of patients, while 6 EEGs (12%) showed seizures or status epilepticus.

Two patients with ICANS grade 2 and 3 (6% of EEG) developed seizure or status epilepticus on their EEGs, despite the absence of clinical symptoms of epilepsy, while the rate was 4 (33%) among patients with ICANS grade 4.

Among the eight (16%) patients who received therapeutic modification as the result of the EEG, seven were in the severe and life-threatening ICANS (grade 3+) group (24%).

In addition, all EEGs detecting seizure or status epilepticus resulted in an increase in antiepileptic prophylaxis with levetiracetam or the introduction of a new antiepileptics, mainly phenytoin.

Surprisingly, there were no cases of diffuse edema in the entire cohort, even among those with grade 4 ICANS, which is one of the key concerns of treating physicians managing severe ICANS, the authors noted.

A notable caveat is that EEG can be a time- and physician-consuming examination not easily accessed on a 24/7 daily practice level.

With such challenges, “[we] advocate for a close partnership between hematologists and electrophysiologists to make EEG access as easy as possible for this kind of patient, as EEG is a key game changer in patient course,” Mr. Mauget said.

Commenting on the findings, Marcela V. Maus, MD, PhD, director of the Cellular Immunotherapy Program at the Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center in Boston, agreed that the study adds importantly to a topic in need of more data.

“This is a very interesting study that starts to provide data behind the consensus recommendations that were initially made based purely on expert opinion and collective practices,” she said in an interview.

“I think [the EEG findings] are interesting, because EEG is often the most non-specific of these tests, and I would not have predicted this result. I also think that monitoring of cerebral spinal fluid [through lumbar puncture] could have potentially higher impact if there was a way to routinely quantify and detect the CAR-T cells,” Dr. Maus said.

“Although admittedly I think this may be of greater benefit when patients present with neurologic findings outside the typical window of ICANS, such as what can occur with delayed neurologic toxicities such as Parkinsonism after BCMA-directed CAR T cells,” she added.

Senior author Guillaume Manson, MD, a hematologist also with the University Hospital of Rennes, underscored that the results shouldn’t be construed to suggest that MRI or LP should not be used in such cases, but may often not be necessary.

“Every patient’s case is different, and these findings certainly do not say that certain tests should or should not be performed,” he said in a press statement.

“We did this research to generate clinical evidence to inform guidelines that support physicians in making clinical decisions when treating patients with these complex, and sometimes severe conditions,” he added.

Dr. Manson reported relationships with BMS-Celgene, Gilead-Kite, and Takeda. Dr. Maus disclosed ties with Century Therapeutics, TCR2, Kite/Gilead, Novartis, and several other companies in the field of cellular therapies.

Among diagnostic interventions recommended to manage the common CAR-T cell therapy–associated side effect of immune effector cell–associated neurotoxicity syndrome (ICANS), only electroencephalogram (EEG) shows significant therapeutic benefit — while magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and lumbar puncture appear to have limited value, new research shows.

“Our results emphasize for the first time the role of EEG in the current guidelines [for ICANS] but question the need for systematic MRI and lumbar puncture,” reported the authors of the study, published in Blood Advances.

The study underscores that “EEG does more that depict insignificant anomalies and plays a key role in patient management in daily practice,” first author Mattéo Mauget, said in an interview. He is a resident in the intensive care unit at the University Hospital of Rennes in France.

ICANS is among the most common of acute neurotoxicities occurring after CAR T-cell therapy, and international guidelines recommend MRI, lumbar puncture, and EEG in the management of the toxicity, which is typically treated with anti-cytokine therapy and steroids.

However, the guidelines widely vary. All recommend the use of MRI for ICANS grade 3 or higher, but fewer recommend the approach for grade 2. Meanwhile, only some recommend the use of lumbar puncture, and even fewer guidelines recommend the use of EEG.

While these measures are expensive — and in the case of lumbar puncture, invasive and burdensome for patients — the recommendations on these measures “rely on empirical practices and are only based on expert opinions with low scientific evidence,” the authors wrote.

To evaluate the interventions in a cohort of real-life patients treated with CAR T-cell therapy, the authors identified 190 consecutive patients receiving the therapy at the University Hospital of Rennes, France, between August 2018 and January 2023.

Of the patients, 62% were male and their median age was 64. Overall, 91 (48%) developed ICANS.

The majority of patients (73%) received CAR-T cell therapy for a refractory/relapsed (R/R) DLBCL (73%), and most (60%) had received the CAR-T product axicabtagene-ciloleucel (axi-cel) after two or more prior therapies.

While MRI was performed in 78% of patients with ICANS, the measure was determined to have had a therapeutic impact in just 4% of patients, despite common observations of abnormal findings.

Lumbar puncture was meanwhile performed in 47% of patients, resulting in preemptive antimicrobial agents in 7% of patients, with no infection detected.

While systematic EEG was performed in 56% of patients, the intervention led to therapeutic modifications among 16% of those patients.

“Our findings highlight some divergences between guidelines and daily practice regarding diagnostic investigations,” the authors noted.

The study “shows that EEG is the diagnostic investigation with the greatest therapeutic impact, while MRI and lumbar puncture appear to have a limited therapeutic impact,” they concluded.
 

EEG Findings

Of note, only 18% of EEGs in the cohort were normal, ranging from 50% of those with ICANS grade 1 to 6% among those with ICANS grade 4.

Encephalopathy was the most common EEG finding, observed in 45% of patients, while 6 EEGs (12%) showed seizures or status epilepticus.

Two patients with ICANS grade 2 and 3 (6% of EEG) developed seizure or status epilepticus on their EEGs, despite the absence of clinical symptoms of epilepsy, while the rate was 4 (33%) among patients with ICANS grade 4.

Among the eight (16%) patients who received therapeutic modification as the result of the EEG, seven were in the severe and life-threatening ICANS (grade 3+) group (24%).

In addition, all EEGs detecting seizure or status epilepticus resulted in an increase in antiepileptic prophylaxis with levetiracetam or the introduction of a new antiepileptics, mainly phenytoin.

Surprisingly, there were no cases of diffuse edema in the entire cohort, even among those with grade 4 ICANS, which is one of the key concerns of treating physicians managing severe ICANS, the authors noted.

A notable caveat is that EEG can be a time- and physician-consuming examination not easily accessed on a 24/7 daily practice level.

With such challenges, “[we] advocate for a close partnership between hematologists and electrophysiologists to make EEG access as easy as possible for this kind of patient, as EEG is a key game changer in patient course,” Mr. Mauget said.

Commenting on the findings, Marcela V. Maus, MD, PhD, director of the Cellular Immunotherapy Program at the Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center in Boston, agreed that the study adds importantly to a topic in need of more data.

“This is a very interesting study that starts to provide data behind the consensus recommendations that were initially made based purely on expert opinion and collective practices,” she said in an interview.

“I think [the EEG findings] are interesting, because EEG is often the most non-specific of these tests, and I would not have predicted this result. I also think that monitoring of cerebral spinal fluid [through lumbar puncture] could have potentially higher impact if there was a way to routinely quantify and detect the CAR-T cells,” Dr. Maus said.

“Although admittedly I think this may be of greater benefit when patients present with neurologic findings outside the typical window of ICANS, such as what can occur with delayed neurologic toxicities such as Parkinsonism after BCMA-directed CAR T cells,” she added.

Senior author Guillaume Manson, MD, a hematologist also with the University Hospital of Rennes, underscored that the results shouldn’t be construed to suggest that MRI or LP should not be used in such cases, but may often not be necessary.

“Every patient’s case is different, and these findings certainly do not say that certain tests should or should not be performed,” he said in a press statement.

“We did this research to generate clinical evidence to inform guidelines that support physicians in making clinical decisions when treating patients with these complex, and sometimes severe conditions,” he added.

Dr. Manson reported relationships with BMS-Celgene, Gilead-Kite, and Takeda. Dr. Maus disclosed ties with Century Therapeutics, TCR2, Kite/Gilead, Novartis, and several other companies in the field of cellular therapies.

Among diagnostic interventions recommended to manage the common CAR-T cell therapy–associated side effect of immune effector cell–associated neurotoxicity syndrome (ICANS), only electroencephalogram (EEG) shows significant therapeutic benefit — while magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and lumbar puncture appear to have limited value, new research shows.

“Our results emphasize for the first time the role of EEG in the current guidelines [for ICANS] but question the need for systematic MRI and lumbar puncture,” reported the authors of the study, published in Blood Advances.

The study underscores that “EEG does more that depict insignificant anomalies and plays a key role in patient management in daily practice,” first author Mattéo Mauget, said in an interview. He is a resident in the intensive care unit at the University Hospital of Rennes in France.

ICANS is among the most common of acute neurotoxicities occurring after CAR T-cell therapy, and international guidelines recommend MRI, lumbar puncture, and EEG in the management of the toxicity, which is typically treated with anti-cytokine therapy and steroids.

However, the guidelines widely vary. All recommend the use of MRI for ICANS grade 3 or higher, but fewer recommend the approach for grade 2. Meanwhile, only some recommend the use of lumbar puncture, and even fewer guidelines recommend the use of EEG.

While these measures are expensive — and in the case of lumbar puncture, invasive and burdensome for patients — the recommendations on these measures “rely on empirical practices and are only based on expert opinions with low scientific evidence,” the authors wrote.

To evaluate the interventions in a cohort of real-life patients treated with CAR T-cell therapy, the authors identified 190 consecutive patients receiving the therapy at the University Hospital of Rennes, France, between August 2018 and January 2023.

Of the patients, 62% were male and their median age was 64. Overall, 91 (48%) developed ICANS.

The majority of patients (73%) received CAR-T cell therapy for a refractory/relapsed (R/R) DLBCL (73%), and most (60%) had received the CAR-T product axicabtagene-ciloleucel (axi-cel) after two or more prior therapies.

While MRI was performed in 78% of patients with ICANS, the measure was determined to have had a therapeutic impact in just 4% of patients, despite common observations of abnormal findings.

Lumbar puncture was meanwhile performed in 47% of patients, resulting in preemptive antimicrobial agents in 7% of patients, with no infection detected.

While systematic EEG was performed in 56% of patients, the intervention led to therapeutic modifications among 16% of those patients.

“Our findings highlight some divergences between guidelines and daily practice regarding diagnostic investigations,” the authors noted.

The study “shows that EEG is the diagnostic investigation with the greatest therapeutic impact, while MRI and lumbar puncture appear to have a limited therapeutic impact,” they concluded.
 

EEG Findings

Of note, only 18% of EEGs in the cohort were normal, ranging from 50% of those with ICANS grade 1 to 6% among those with ICANS grade 4.

Encephalopathy was the most common EEG finding, observed in 45% of patients, while 6 EEGs (12%) showed seizures or status epilepticus.

Two patients with ICANS grade 2 and 3 (6% of EEG) developed seizure or status epilepticus on their EEGs, despite the absence of clinical symptoms of epilepsy, while the rate was 4 (33%) among patients with ICANS grade 4.

Among the eight (16%) patients who received therapeutic modification as the result of the EEG, seven were in the severe and life-threatening ICANS (grade 3+) group (24%).

In addition, all EEGs detecting seizure or status epilepticus resulted in an increase in antiepileptic prophylaxis with levetiracetam or the introduction of a new antiepileptics, mainly phenytoin.

Surprisingly, there were no cases of diffuse edema in the entire cohort, even among those with grade 4 ICANS, which is one of the key concerns of treating physicians managing severe ICANS, the authors noted.

A notable caveat is that EEG can be a time- and physician-consuming examination not easily accessed on a 24/7 daily practice level.

With such challenges, “[we] advocate for a close partnership between hematologists and electrophysiologists to make EEG access as easy as possible for this kind of patient, as EEG is a key game changer in patient course,” Mr. Mauget said.

Commenting on the findings, Marcela V. Maus, MD, PhD, director of the Cellular Immunotherapy Program at the Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center in Boston, agreed that the study adds importantly to a topic in need of more data.

“This is a very interesting study that starts to provide data behind the consensus recommendations that were initially made based purely on expert opinion and collective practices,” she said in an interview.

“I think [the EEG findings] are interesting, because EEG is often the most non-specific of these tests, and I would not have predicted this result. I also think that monitoring of cerebral spinal fluid [through lumbar puncture] could have potentially higher impact if there was a way to routinely quantify and detect the CAR-T cells,” Dr. Maus said.

“Although admittedly I think this may be of greater benefit when patients present with neurologic findings outside the typical window of ICANS, such as what can occur with delayed neurologic toxicities such as Parkinsonism after BCMA-directed CAR T cells,” she added.

Senior author Guillaume Manson, MD, a hematologist also with the University Hospital of Rennes, underscored that the results shouldn’t be construed to suggest that MRI or LP should not be used in such cases, but may often not be necessary.

“Every patient’s case is different, and these findings certainly do not say that certain tests should or should not be performed,” he said in a press statement.

“We did this research to generate clinical evidence to inform guidelines that support physicians in making clinical decisions when treating patients with these complex, and sometimes severe conditions,” he added.

Dr. Manson reported relationships with BMS-Celgene, Gilead-Kite, and Takeda. Dr. Maus disclosed ties with Century Therapeutics, TCR2, Kite/Gilead, Novartis, and several other companies in the field of cellular therapies.

The Advanced Breast Cancer (ABC) 7th International Consensus Conference Guidelines for Advanced Breast Cancer will soon be released. This news organization discussed the new guidelines with Fatima Cardoso, MD, director of the Breast Unit at Champalimaud Clinical Center, Lisbon, Portugal. Dr. Cardoso is president of the ABC Global Alliance and chair of the guidelines committee. The interview has been edited for length and clarity.

Where do the ABC International Consensus Guidelines come from?

The 7th International Consensus Conference for Advanced Breast Cancer was held in November 2023. This is an international conference that takes place every 2 years. At the conference, we discuss new data that have come out in the past 2 years regarding advanced and metastatic breast cancer, and whether they should impact the guidelines or not. We look at whether there is any new treatment that is ready for clinical practice that wasn’t available 2 years ago. We look at whether there is anything else that has changed in the past 2 years.
 

How do the ABC International Consensus Guidelines differ from other guidelines, such as those from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN), American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), or the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO)?

These guidelines have some characteristics that are different from the NCCN guidelines. One of the major differences is that the ABC guidelines are developed together with patients and patient advocates. Patients and patient advocates are members of the consensus panel where we discuss important issues around this disease and how to manage it. We also do not discuss drugs exclusively because there are other needs for patients with advanced breast cancer, and we issue recommendations regarding the global care of these patients.
 

Can you tell me about the other issues discussed in the guidelines besides drugs?

For example, in the more general recommendations, we revisited the proper definition of endocrine resistance. A lot of clinical trials are based on selecting a population that is considered to be endocrine sensitive or endocrine resistant, but the definition is very heterogeneous. We have updated the definition because there have been quite a few advances in this particular subtype of cancer. This [new] definition of endocrine resistance and sensitivity will be used and implemented in the different clinical trials, allowing for a better interpretation of the results, with clear impact on clinical practice.
 

What subtype of metastatic breast cancer had the biggest advances in terms of drugs in the guidelines?

The subtype that had the biggest advances in the new guidelines is the hormonal-dependent breast cancer, the ER-positive, HER2-negative. For that particular subtype, we have new drugs either already approved or in the process of being evaluated. Some of them have been approved in the United States but not yet in Europe by the European Medicines Agency (EMA). We are starting to discuss whether these drugs should be approved, and if they are, how we should use them. It is relevant to know what the cost-effectiveness is of each new treatment, as well and the balance between efficacy and toxicity. Sometimes data are too preliminary and we need longer follow-up or more important endpoints, such as survival.

Elacestrant is one of the drugs that has been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and it is very controversial because the benefit it provides on progression-free survival is modest and we still lack data on survival. So, there was a discussion on whether to consider this drug as an option or wait until we have survival data. The majority on the panel thought we could consider elacestrant as a potential new option, when we do not have other endocrine options available.

We issued a recommendation on a drug that is not FDA approved because we think the FDA is going to approve it quite soon. The drug is capivasertib and it blocks the PIK3CA pathway. [Editor’s note: The drug has since been approved by the FDA.] We have a drug that targets this pathway, alpelisib, but it is quite toxic so it is not widely used. Capivasertib has a better toxicity profile so we believe it could be a good addition to our armamentarium for this particular subtype of breast cancer.

We have lots of new data about the antibody-drug conjugates, the ADCs. Initially, we had more data for HER2-positive and triple-negative disease, but now studies have been done to show the value of the ADCs also in the ER-positive, HER2-negative subtype, and so they are now options. In particular, we have trastuzumab deruxtecan for patients with HER2-low disease. Most of the HER2-low tumors are also hormone receptor–positive.
 

The ABC Guidelines discuss tough clinical situations. Can you explain?

The guidelines also discuss issues that in clinical practice are quite difficult because we don’t have strong data. There are certain tough clinical situations. One example is how to treat a woman who has metastatic disease and is pregnant. We discuss the possibilities of treatment in that situation and also what other support these patients need. We discussed that the only available therapy we can use is chemotherapy. We cannot use endocrine therapy, nor biological agents such as anti-HER2 agents and immunotherapy. So, this raises a lot of concerns for how to treat these women without hurting the fetus. But in these guidelines, we discuss other needs of these patients. It’s a hot topic in the US and we did issue a recommendation: that in some situations where the life of the mother may be at risk because we are not able to provide the most adequate treatment, then they should be free to choose to terminate the pregnancy.

It is important to realize that you can’t give most of the new treatments — and ones that have an impact on survival — to a woman when she is pregnant.
 

What other tough clinical situations do you discuss in the new guidelines?

We discuss someone who has metastatic disease and is HIV-positive. Can we use CDK4/6 inhibitors? Can we use immunotherapy? What are the recent data? We have very little data to show that we can possibly use immunotherapy, but we do not have any safety data regarding the CDK4/6 inhibitors.

It’s important to note that people who are HIV-positive tend to have a worse mortality rate from cancer and also suffer from more toxicity. Very often, there is a need to reduce the doses of the treatments we are going to give. The guidelines provide guidance on these issues so that in clinical practice, doctors can have some help managing these difficult situations.

Another example of a tough clinical situation is how to treat an elderly, frail patient who has metastatic disease. We discuss what geriatric evaluations you need to perform before deciding the treatment. We discuss the need very often to reduce the starting dose and then adapt according to what the patient can tolerate.

We have discussed quite a lot of topics that are really patient-oriented and clinically oriented. The aim is to help everyone in clinical practice to provide the best available care.
 

Do you want to expand a bit on the elderly, frail patient and what you have in the guidelines about that?

A very important message is that it doesn’t matter what age your ID card says; it’s the biological age that is important. There are some people who are in their 80s, but they are very fit and they have a very active, normal life. There are other people who are in their 50s and they struggle. It’s important to perform a geriatric evaluation to determine the probability of tolerating a cancer treatment, and we normally use a simple tool called G8. If this tool shows fragility, then it is crucial to have a full geriatric assessment and a full physical exam.

It’s also very important to look for drug-drug interactions in the elderly because these patients often take many different therapies for other diseases.

Another issue is chronic undertreatment in the elderly. If you look just at chronological age and you don’t provide the optimal treatment, there will be increased mortality.

We also recommend starting elderly patients on a lower dose. There are not strong data for that, but we think it is clinical common sense to start at a lower dose. Then, if there is good tolerance, you can move to the usual dose.

Often, the elderly are excluded from clinical trials. Some of the clinical trials for some of the newer agents have included elderly patients. For example, there were some elderly patients in the CDK4/6 inhibitor trials. We know that these patients can receive these treatments with a reduction in dose.

Very frail elderly patients are often excluded from clinical trials. If we continue to do that, we will never know how to treat them.
 

Is there anything you would like to add about the ABC Guidelines that we haven’t talked about?

In the general statement of the guidelines, we mention two things that I think are important for people to know. The first is that during the COVID-19 pandemic, a lot of cancer patients, particularly those with advanced disease, were not offered access to ventilators. Remember, we didn’t have enough ventilators for everyone, so there were exclusion criteria, and one of the exclusion criteria was having cancer. Cancer patients shouldn’t be excluded from having life-saving treatment based solely on the cancer diagnosis. There are many different cancers and many different stages of the disease.

Access to intensive care units is sometimes needed temporarily for a patient with advanced breast cancer. The new treatments, such as immunotherapies and ADCs, can have significant and life-threatening toxicities. You can die from some of these side effects. All over the world, this is a difficult situation because of the bias among many healthcare providers regarding access to intensive care units for cancer patients. It’s a bias we are fighting against.

The second thing we discuss in the beginning of the new guidelines is what is happening to cancer patients during periods of war or conflict. For example, in Ukraine, many of the patients were able to run away and go to another country, but all their health information was lost because the hospitals were destroyed. Patients arrive in a new country and they don’t have any information on the type of cancer they have nor the type of treatment they were undergoing. It was very difficult, for example, for the doctors in Poland to know how to continue to treat the Ukrainian patients. So, in the guidelines, we discuss how we can find a way to ensure that a patient has a copy of their important health data.

Dr. Cardoso, MD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships:Personal financial interest in form of consultancy role for: Amgen; Astellas/Medivation; AstraZeneca; Celgene; Daiichi-Sankyo; Eisai; GE Oncology; Genentech; Gilead; GlaxoSmithKline; Iqvia; Macrogenics; Medscape; Merck-Sharp; Merus BV; Mylan; Mundipharma; Novartis; Pfizer; Pierre-Fabre; prIME Oncology; Roche; Sanofi; Samsung Bioepis; Seagen; Teva; Touchime.

Institutional financial support for clinical trials from: Amgen; AstraZeneca; Bayer; Boehringer Ingelheim; Bristol Myers Squibb; Bayer; Daiichi; Eisai; Fresenius GmbH; Genentech; GlaxoSmithKline; Ipsen; Incyte; Nektar Therapeutics; Nerviano; Novartis; Macrogenics; Medigene; MedImmune; Merck; Millennium; Pfizer; Pierre-Fabre; Roche; Sanofi-Aventis; Sonus; Tesaro; Tigris; Wilex; Wyeth.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The Advanced Breast Cancer (ABC) 7th International Consensus Conference Guidelines for Advanced Breast Cancer will soon be released. This news organization discussed the new guidelines with Fatima Cardoso, MD, director of the Breast Unit at Champalimaud Clinical Center, Lisbon, Portugal. Dr. Cardoso is president of the ABC Global Alliance and chair of the guidelines committee. The interview has been edited for length and clarity.

Where do the ABC International Consensus Guidelines come from?

The 7th International Consensus Conference for Advanced Breast Cancer was held in November 2023. This is an international conference that takes place every 2 years. At the conference, we discuss new data that have come out in the past 2 years regarding advanced and metastatic breast cancer, and whether they should impact the guidelines or not. We look at whether there is any new treatment that is ready for clinical practice that wasn’t available 2 years ago. We look at whether there is anything else that has changed in the past 2 years.
 

How do the ABC International Consensus Guidelines differ from other guidelines, such as those from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN), American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), or the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO)?

These guidelines have some characteristics that are different from the NCCN guidelines. One of the major differences is that the ABC guidelines are developed together with patients and patient advocates. Patients and patient advocates are members of the consensus panel where we discuss important issues around this disease and how to manage it. We also do not discuss drugs exclusively because there are other needs for patients with advanced breast cancer, and we issue recommendations regarding the global care of these patients.
 

Can you tell me about the other issues discussed in the guidelines besides drugs?

For example, in the more general recommendations, we revisited the proper definition of endocrine resistance. A lot of clinical trials are based on selecting a population that is considered to be endocrine sensitive or endocrine resistant, but the definition is very heterogeneous. We have updated the definition because there have been quite a few advances in this particular subtype of cancer. This [new] definition of endocrine resistance and sensitivity will be used and implemented in the different clinical trials, allowing for a better interpretation of the results, with clear impact on clinical practice.
 

What subtype of metastatic breast cancer had the biggest advances in terms of drugs in the guidelines?

The subtype that had the biggest advances in the new guidelines is the hormonal-dependent breast cancer, the ER-positive, HER2-negative. For that particular subtype, we have new drugs either already approved or in the process of being evaluated. Some of them have been approved in the United States but not yet in Europe by the European Medicines Agency (EMA). We are starting to discuss whether these drugs should be approved, and if they are, how we should use them. It is relevant to know what the cost-effectiveness is of each new treatment, as well and the balance between efficacy and toxicity. Sometimes data are too preliminary and we need longer follow-up or more important endpoints, such as survival.

Elacestrant is one of the drugs that has been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and it is very controversial because the benefit it provides on progression-free survival is modest and we still lack data on survival. So, there was a discussion on whether to consider this drug as an option or wait until we have survival data. The majority on the panel thought we could consider elacestrant as a potential new option, when we do not have other endocrine options available.

We issued a recommendation on a drug that is not FDA approved because we think the FDA is going to approve it quite soon. The drug is capivasertib and it blocks the PIK3CA pathway. [Editor’s note: The drug has since been approved by the FDA.] We have a drug that targets this pathway, alpelisib, but it is quite toxic so it is not widely used. Capivasertib has a better toxicity profile so we believe it could be a good addition to our armamentarium for this particular subtype of breast cancer.

We have lots of new data about the antibody-drug conjugates, the ADCs. Initially, we had more data for HER2-positive and triple-negative disease, but now studies have been done to show the value of the ADCs also in the ER-positive, HER2-negative subtype, and so they are now options. In particular, we have trastuzumab deruxtecan for patients with HER2-low disease. Most of the HER2-low tumors are also hormone receptor–positive.
 

The ABC Guidelines discuss tough clinical situations. Can you explain?

The guidelines also discuss issues that in clinical practice are quite difficult because we don’t have strong data. There are certain tough clinical situations. One example is how to treat a woman who has metastatic disease and is pregnant. We discuss the possibilities of treatment in that situation and also what other support these patients need. We discussed that the only available therapy we can use is chemotherapy. We cannot use endocrine therapy, nor biological agents such as anti-HER2 agents and immunotherapy. So, this raises a lot of concerns for how to treat these women without hurting the fetus. But in these guidelines, we discuss other needs of these patients. It’s a hot topic in the US and we did issue a recommendation: that in some situations where the life of the mother may be at risk because we are not able to provide the most adequate treatment, then they should be free to choose to terminate the pregnancy.

It is important to realize that you can’t give most of the new treatments — and ones that have an impact on survival — to a woman when she is pregnant.
 

What other tough clinical situations do you discuss in the new guidelines?

We discuss someone who has metastatic disease and is HIV-positive. Can we use CDK4/6 inhibitors? Can we use immunotherapy? What are the recent data? We have very little data to show that we can possibly use immunotherapy, but we do not have any safety data regarding the CDK4/6 inhibitors.

It’s important to note that people who are HIV-positive tend to have a worse mortality rate from cancer and also suffer from more toxicity. Very often, there is a need to reduce the doses of the treatments we are going to give. The guidelines provide guidance on these issues so that in clinical practice, doctors can have some help managing these difficult situations.

Another example of a tough clinical situation is how to treat an elderly, frail patient who has metastatic disease. We discuss what geriatric evaluations you need to perform before deciding the treatment. We discuss the need very often to reduce the starting dose and then adapt according to what the patient can tolerate.

We have discussed quite a lot of topics that are really patient-oriented and clinically oriented. The aim is to help everyone in clinical practice to provide the best available care.
 

Do you want to expand a bit on the elderly, frail patient and what you have in the guidelines about that?

A very important message is that it doesn’t matter what age your ID card says; it’s the biological age that is important. There are some people who are in their 80s, but they are very fit and they have a very active, normal life. There are other people who are in their 50s and they struggle. It’s important to perform a geriatric evaluation to determine the probability of tolerating a cancer treatment, and we normally use a simple tool called G8. If this tool shows fragility, then it is crucial to have a full geriatric assessment and a full physical exam.

It’s also very important to look for drug-drug interactions in the elderly because these patients often take many different therapies for other diseases.

Another issue is chronic undertreatment in the elderly. If you look just at chronological age and you don’t provide the optimal treatment, there will be increased mortality.

We also recommend starting elderly patients on a lower dose. There are not strong data for that, but we think it is clinical common sense to start at a lower dose. Then, if there is good tolerance, you can move to the usual dose.

Often, the elderly are excluded from clinical trials. Some of the clinical trials for some of the newer agents have included elderly patients. For example, there were some elderly patients in the CDK4/6 inhibitor trials. We know that these patients can receive these treatments with a reduction in dose.

Very frail elderly patients are often excluded from clinical trials. If we continue to do that, we will never know how to treat them.
 

Is there anything you would like to add about the ABC Guidelines that we haven’t talked about?

In the general statement of the guidelines, we mention two things that I think are important for people to know. The first is that during the COVID-19 pandemic, a lot of cancer patients, particularly those with advanced disease, were not offered access to ventilators. Remember, we didn’t have enough ventilators for everyone, so there were exclusion criteria, and one of the exclusion criteria was having cancer. Cancer patients shouldn’t be excluded from having life-saving treatment based solely on the cancer diagnosis. There are many different cancers and many different stages of the disease.

Access to intensive care units is sometimes needed temporarily for a patient with advanced breast cancer. The new treatments, such as immunotherapies and ADCs, can have significant and life-threatening toxicities. You can die from some of these side effects. All over the world, this is a difficult situation because of the bias among many healthcare providers regarding access to intensive care units for cancer patients. It’s a bias we are fighting against.

The second thing we discuss in the beginning of the new guidelines is what is happening to cancer patients during periods of war or conflict. For example, in Ukraine, many of the patients were able to run away and go to another country, but all their health information was lost because the hospitals were destroyed. Patients arrive in a new country and they don’t have any information on the type of cancer they have nor the type of treatment they were undergoing. It was very difficult, for example, for the doctors in Poland to know how to continue to treat the Ukrainian patients. So, in the guidelines, we discuss how we can find a way to ensure that a patient has a copy of their important health data.

Dr. Cardoso, MD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships:Personal financial interest in form of consultancy role for: Amgen; Astellas/Medivation; AstraZeneca; Celgene; Daiichi-Sankyo; Eisai; GE Oncology; Genentech; Gilead; GlaxoSmithKline; Iqvia; Macrogenics; Medscape; Merck-Sharp; Merus BV; Mylan; Mundipharma; Novartis; Pfizer; Pierre-Fabre; prIME Oncology; Roche; Sanofi; Samsung Bioepis; Seagen; Teva; Touchime.

Institutional financial support for clinical trials from: Amgen; AstraZeneca; Bayer; Boehringer Ingelheim; Bristol Myers Squibb; Bayer; Daiichi; Eisai; Fresenius GmbH; Genentech; GlaxoSmithKline; Ipsen; Incyte; Nektar Therapeutics; Nerviano; Novartis; Macrogenics; Medigene; MedImmune; Merck; Millennium; Pfizer; Pierre-Fabre; Roche; Sanofi-Aventis; Sonus; Tesaro; Tigris; Wilex; Wyeth.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The Advanced Breast Cancer (ABC) 7th International Consensus Conference Guidelines for Advanced Breast Cancer will soon be released. This news organization discussed the new guidelines with Fatima Cardoso, MD, director of the Breast Unit at Champalimaud Clinical Center, Lisbon, Portugal. Dr. Cardoso is president of the ABC Global Alliance and chair of the guidelines committee. The interview has been edited for length and clarity.

Where do the ABC International Consensus Guidelines come from?

The 7th International Consensus Conference for Advanced Breast Cancer was held in November 2023. This is an international conference that takes place every 2 years. At the conference, we discuss new data that have come out in the past 2 years regarding advanced and metastatic breast cancer, and whether they should impact the guidelines or not. We look at whether there is any new treatment that is ready for clinical practice that wasn’t available 2 years ago. We look at whether there is anything else that has changed in the past 2 years.
 

How do the ABC International Consensus Guidelines differ from other guidelines, such as those from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN), American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), or the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO)?

These guidelines have some characteristics that are different from the NCCN guidelines. One of the major differences is that the ABC guidelines are developed together with patients and patient advocates. Patients and patient advocates are members of the consensus panel where we discuss important issues around this disease and how to manage it. We also do not discuss drugs exclusively because there are other needs for patients with advanced breast cancer, and we issue recommendations regarding the global care of these patients.
 

Can you tell me about the other issues discussed in the guidelines besides drugs?

For example, in the more general recommendations, we revisited the proper definition of endocrine resistance. A lot of clinical trials are based on selecting a population that is considered to be endocrine sensitive or endocrine resistant, but the definition is very heterogeneous. We have updated the definition because there have been quite a few advances in this particular subtype of cancer. This [new] definition of endocrine resistance and sensitivity will be used and implemented in the different clinical trials, allowing for a better interpretation of the results, with clear impact on clinical practice.
 

What subtype of metastatic breast cancer had the biggest advances in terms of drugs in the guidelines?

The subtype that had the biggest advances in the new guidelines is the hormonal-dependent breast cancer, the ER-positive, HER2-negative. For that particular subtype, we have new drugs either already approved or in the process of being evaluated. Some of them have been approved in the United States but not yet in Europe by the European Medicines Agency (EMA). We are starting to discuss whether these drugs should be approved, and if they are, how we should use them. It is relevant to know what the cost-effectiveness is of each new treatment, as well and the balance between efficacy and toxicity. Sometimes data are too preliminary and we need longer follow-up or more important endpoints, such as survival.

Elacestrant is one of the drugs that has been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and it is very controversial because the benefit it provides on progression-free survival is modest and we still lack data on survival. So, there was a discussion on whether to consider this drug as an option or wait until we have survival data. The majority on the panel thought we could consider elacestrant as a potential new option, when we do not have other endocrine options available.

We issued a recommendation on a drug that is not FDA approved because we think the FDA is going to approve it quite soon. The drug is capivasertib and it blocks the PIK3CA pathway. [Editor’s note: The drug has since been approved by the FDA.] We have a drug that targets this pathway, alpelisib, but it is quite toxic so it is not widely used. Capivasertib has a better toxicity profile so we believe it could be a good addition to our armamentarium for this particular subtype of breast cancer.

We have lots of new data about the antibody-drug conjugates, the ADCs. Initially, we had more data for HER2-positive and triple-negative disease, but now studies have been done to show the value of the ADCs also in the ER-positive, HER2-negative subtype, and so they are now options. In particular, we have trastuzumab deruxtecan for patients with HER2-low disease. Most of the HER2-low tumors are also hormone receptor–positive.
 

The ABC Guidelines discuss tough clinical situations. Can you explain?

The guidelines also discuss issues that in clinical practice are quite difficult because we don’t have strong data. There are certain tough clinical situations. One example is how to treat a woman who has metastatic disease and is pregnant. We discuss the possibilities of treatment in that situation and also what other support these patients need. We discussed that the only available therapy we can use is chemotherapy. We cannot use endocrine therapy, nor biological agents such as anti-HER2 agents and immunotherapy. So, this raises a lot of concerns for how to treat these women without hurting the fetus. But in these guidelines, we discuss other needs of these patients. It’s a hot topic in the US and we did issue a recommendation: that in some situations where the life of the mother may be at risk because we are not able to provide the most adequate treatment, then they should be free to choose to terminate the pregnancy.

It is important to realize that you can’t give most of the new treatments — and ones that have an impact on survival — to a woman when she is pregnant.
 

What other tough clinical situations do you discuss in the new guidelines?

We discuss someone who has metastatic disease and is HIV-positive. Can we use CDK4/6 inhibitors? Can we use immunotherapy? What are the recent data? We have very little data to show that we can possibly use immunotherapy, but we do not have any safety data regarding the CDK4/6 inhibitors.

It’s important to note that people who are HIV-positive tend to have a worse mortality rate from cancer and also suffer from more toxicity. Very often, there is a need to reduce the doses of the treatments we are going to give. The guidelines provide guidance on these issues so that in clinical practice, doctors can have some help managing these difficult situations.

Another example of a tough clinical situation is how to treat an elderly, frail patient who has metastatic disease. We discuss what geriatric evaluations you need to perform before deciding the treatment. We discuss the need very often to reduce the starting dose and then adapt according to what the patient can tolerate.

We have discussed quite a lot of topics that are really patient-oriented and clinically oriented. The aim is to help everyone in clinical practice to provide the best available care.
 

Do you want to expand a bit on the elderly, frail patient and what you have in the guidelines about that?

A very important message is that it doesn’t matter what age your ID card says; it’s the biological age that is important. There are some people who are in their 80s, but they are very fit and they have a very active, normal life. There are other people who are in their 50s and they struggle. It’s important to perform a geriatric evaluation to determine the probability of tolerating a cancer treatment, and we normally use a simple tool called G8. If this tool shows fragility, then it is crucial to have a full geriatric assessment and a full physical exam.

It’s also very important to look for drug-drug interactions in the elderly because these patients often take many different therapies for other diseases.

Another issue is chronic undertreatment in the elderly. If you look just at chronological age and you don’t provide the optimal treatment, there will be increased mortality.

We also recommend starting elderly patients on a lower dose. There are not strong data for that, but we think it is clinical common sense to start at a lower dose. Then, if there is good tolerance, you can move to the usual dose.

Often, the elderly are excluded from clinical trials. Some of the clinical trials for some of the newer agents have included elderly patients. For example, there were some elderly patients in the CDK4/6 inhibitor trials. We know that these patients can receive these treatments with a reduction in dose.

Very frail elderly patients are often excluded from clinical trials. If we continue to do that, we will never know how to treat them.
 

Is there anything you would like to add about the ABC Guidelines that we haven’t talked about?

In the general statement of the guidelines, we mention two things that I think are important for people to know. The first is that during the COVID-19 pandemic, a lot of cancer patients, particularly those with advanced disease, were not offered access to ventilators. Remember, we didn’t have enough ventilators for everyone, so there were exclusion criteria, and one of the exclusion criteria was having cancer. Cancer patients shouldn’t be excluded from having life-saving treatment based solely on the cancer diagnosis. There are many different cancers and many different stages of the disease.

Access to intensive care units is sometimes needed temporarily for a patient with advanced breast cancer. The new treatments, such as immunotherapies and ADCs, can have significant and life-threatening toxicities. You can die from some of these side effects. All over the world, this is a difficult situation because of the bias among many healthcare providers regarding access to intensive care units for cancer patients. It’s a bias we are fighting against.

The second thing we discuss in the beginning of the new guidelines is what is happening to cancer patients during periods of war or conflict. For example, in Ukraine, many of the patients were able to run away and go to another country, but all their health information was lost because the hospitals were destroyed. Patients arrive in a new country and they don’t have any information on the type of cancer they have nor the type of treatment they were undergoing. It was very difficult, for example, for the doctors in Poland to know how to continue to treat the Ukrainian patients. So, in the guidelines, we discuss how we can find a way to ensure that a patient has a copy of their important health data.

Dr. Cardoso, MD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships:Personal financial interest in form of consultancy role for: Amgen; Astellas/Medivation; AstraZeneca; Celgene; Daiichi-Sankyo; Eisai; GE Oncology; Genentech; Gilead; GlaxoSmithKline; Iqvia; Macrogenics; Medscape; Merck-Sharp; Merus BV; Mylan; Mundipharma; Novartis; Pfizer; Pierre-Fabre; prIME Oncology; Roche; Sanofi; Samsung Bioepis; Seagen; Teva; Touchime.

Institutional financial support for clinical trials from: Amgen; AstraZeneca; Bayer; Boehringer Ingelheim; Bristol Myers Squibb; Bayer; Daiichi; Eisai; Fresenius GmbH; Genentech; GlaxoSmithKline; Ipsen; Incyte; Nektar Therapeutics; Nerviano; Novartis; Macrogenics; Medigene; MedImmune; Merck; Millennium; Pfizer; Pierre-Fabre; Roche; Sanofi-Aventis; Sonus; Tesaro; Tigris; Wilex; Wyeth.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In the not-too-distant future, immunotherapy might be administered to cancer patients in their homes.

The possibility is being driven by the development of subcutaneous formulations of commonly used immune checkpoint inhibitors for non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and other indications, including pembrolizumab, nivolumab, durvalumab, atezolizumab, and amivantamab.

Instead of waiting anywhere from 30 minutes to several hours for infusions into their veins, patients would spend just a few minutes being injected under the loose skin of their abdomens or thighs. Clinicians would save time and money, and patients would leave the clinic much sooner than normal. The ease of subcutaneous injections also opens up an opportunity for home treatment, a potential boon for people who don’t want to spend their remaining time on hospital visits.

“In the future, I hope we can deliver these medicines at home,” said Hazel O’Sullivan, MBBCh, a medical lung cancer oncologist at Cork University, Ireland, who explained the issues during a session at the 2024 European Lung Cancer Congress.

She was the discussant on two studies at the meeting that highlighted the latest developments in the field, the IMscin002 study of subcutaneous atezolizumab and the PALOMA study of subcutaneous amivantamab, both mostly in NSCLC patients.

Subcutaneous atezolizumab was approved recently in Europe after its maker, Genentech/Roche, made a convincing case that its pharmacokinetics, efficacy, and safety are comparable to the intravenous (IV) version. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is considering approval; Genentech/Roche anticipates a decision in 2024.

IMscin002 randomized 179 stage 2-4 NSCLC patients evenly to IV or subcutaneous atezolizumab for the first three cycles, then switched them for three more cycles.

Participants were then asked what version they preferred and what they wanted to continue with.

Seventy-one percent said they liked the subcutaneous version better and 80% opted to continue with it. Their main reasons were because they spent less time in the clinic and it was more comfortable.

When asked about the potential for home administration, presenter Federico Cappuzzo, MD, PhD, a medical lung cancer oncologist in Rome, said that it could be “an important option in the future,” particularly in isolated areas far away from hospitals.

The authors of new research are currently evaluating whether home administration is possible. Nurses are administering atezolizumab to patients in their homes with telemedicine monitoring.

The other subcutaneous study presented at the meeting, the PALOMA trial with amivantamab, had only 19 subjects. Administration took no more than 10 minutes, versus potentially hours, especially for the first dose. Subcutaneous amivantamab was given once a month, versus every 2 weeks for the IV formulation, during the maintenance phase of treatment.

The take-home from PALOMA is that the risk of infusion reactions is lower with subcutaneous administration (16% versus 67%) but the risk of mostly mild skin rashes is higher (79% versus 36%).

Investigation is ongoing to confirm safety, pharmacokinetic, and efficacy equivalence with the IV formulation, including in combination with other medications.

When asked about home administration of amivantamab, PALOMA lead investigator Natasha Leighl, MD, a lung, and breast cancer medical oncologist at the University of Toronto, stated that patients probably need to be watched in the clinic for the first 4 months.

The atezolizumab study was funded by maker Genentech/Roche. The amivantamab study was funded by its maker, Janssen. The amivantamab investigator, Dr. Leighl, reported grants, honoraria, and travel payments from Janssen. Dr. Cappuzzo, the investigator on the atezolizumab study, reported speaker and adviser payments from Genentech/Roche. The discussant, Dr. O’Sullivan, wasn’t involved with either company but reported payments from Amgen and AstraZeneca and travel costs covered by Takeda.

In the not-too-distant future, immunotherapy might be administered to cancer patients in their homes.

The possibility is being driven by the development of subcutaneous formulations of commonly used immune checkpoint inhibitors for non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and other indications, including pembrolizumab, nivolumab, durvalumab, atezolizumab, and amivantamab.

Instead of waiting anywhere from 30 minutes to several hours for infusions into their veins, patients would spend just a few minutes being injected under the loose skin of their abdomens or thighs. Clinicians would save time and money, and patients would leave the clinic much sooner than normal. The ease of subcutaneous injections also opens up an opportunity for home treatment, a potential boon for people who don’t want to spend their remaining time on hospital visits.

“In the future, I hope we can deliver these medicines at home,” said Hazel O’Sullivan, MBBCh, a medical lung cancer oncologist at Cork University, Ireland, who explained the issues during a session at the 2024 European Lung Cancer Congress.

She was the discussant on two studies at the meeting that highlighted the latest developments in the field, the IMscin002 study of subcutaneous atezolizumab and the PALOMA study of subcutaneous amivantamab, both mostly in NSCLC patients.

Subcutaneous atezolizumab was approved recently in Europe after its maker, Genentech/Roche, made a convincing case that its pharmacokinetics, efficacy, and safety are comparable to the intravenous (IV) version. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is considering approval; Genentech/Roche anticipates a decision in 2024.

IMscin002 randomized 179 stage 2-4 NSCLC patients evenly to IV or subcutaneous atezolizumab for the first three cycles, then switched them for three more cycles.

Participants were then asked what version they preferred and what they wanted to continue with.

Seventy-one percent said they liked the subcutaneous version better and 80% opted to continue with it. Their main reasons were because they spent less time in the clinic and it was more comfortable.

When asked about the potential for home administration, presenter Federico Cappuzzo, MD, PhD, a medical lung cancer oncologist in Rome, said that it could be “an important option in the future,” particularly in isolated areas far away from hospitals.

The authors of new research are currently evaluating whether home administration is possible. Nurses are administering atezolizumab to patients in their homes with telemedicine monitoring.

The other subcutaneous study presented at the meeting, the PALOMA trial with amivantamab, had only 19 subjects. Administration took no more than 10 minutes, versus potentially hours, especially for the first dose. Subcutaneous amivantamab was given once a month, versus every 2 weeks for the IV formulation, during the maintenance phase of treatment.

The take-home from PALOMA is that the risk of infusion reactions is lower with subcutaneous administration (16% versus 67%) but the risk of mostly mild skin rashes is higher (79% versus 36%).

Investigation is ongoing to confirm safety, pharmacokinetic, and efficacy equivalence with the IV formulation, including in combination with other medications.

When asked about home administration of amivantamab, PALOMA lead investigator Natasha Leighl, MD, a lung, and breast cancer medical oncologist at the University of Toronto, stated that patients probably need to be watched in the clinic for the first 4 months.

The atezolizumab study was funded by maker Genentech/Roche. The amivantamab study was funded by its maker, Janssen. The amivantamab investigator, Dr. Leighl, reported grants, honoraria, and travel payments from Janssen. Dr. Cappuzzo, the investigator on the atezolizumab study, reported speaker and adviser payments from Genentech/Roche. The discussant, Dr. O’Sullivan, wasn’t involved with either company but reported payments from Amgen and AstraZeneca and travel costs covered by Takeda.

In the not-too-distant future, immunotherapy might be administered to cancer patients in their homes.

The possibility is being driven by the development of subcutaneous formulations of commonly used immune checkpoint inhibitors for non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and other indications, including pembrolizumab, nivolumab, durvalumab, atezolizumab, and amivantamab.

Instead of waiting anywhere from 30 minutes to several hours for infusions into their veins, patients would spend just a few minutes being injected under the loose skin of their abdomens or thighs. Clinicians would save time and money, and patients would leave the clinic much sooner than normal. The ease of subcutaneous injections also opens up an opportunity for home treatment, a potential boon for people who don’t want to spend their remaining time on hospital visits.

“In the future, I hope we can deliver these medicines at home,” said Hazel O’Sullivan, MBBCh, a medical lung cancer oncologist at Cork University, Ireland, who explained the issues during a session at the 2024 European Lung Cancer Congress.

She was the discussant on two studies at the meeting that highlighted the latest developments in the field, the IMscin002 study of subcutaneous atezolizumab and the PALOMA study of subcutaneous amivantamab, both mostly in NSCLC patients.

Subcutaneous atezolizumab was approved recently in Europe after its maker, Genentech/Roche, made a convincing case that its pharmacokinetics, efficacy, and safety are comparable to the intravenous (IV) version. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is considering approval; Genentech/Roche anticipates a decision in 2024.

IMscin002 randomized 179 stage 2-4 NSCLC patients evenly to IV or subcutaneous atezolizumab for the first three cycles, then switched them for three more cycles.

Participants were then asked what version they preferred and what they wanted to continue with.

Seventy-one percent said they liked the subcutaneous version better and 80% opted to continue with it. Their main reasons were because they spent less time in the clinic and it was more comfortable.

When asked about the potential for home administration, presenter Federico Cappuzzo, MD, PhD, a medical lung cancer oncologist in Rome, said that it could be “an important option in the future,” particularly in isolated areas far away from hospitals.

The authors of new research are currently evaluating whether home administration is possible. Nurses are administering atezolizumab to patients in their homes with telemedicine monitoring.

The other subcutaneous study presented at the meeting, the PALOMA trial with amivantamab, had only 19 subjects. Administration took no more than 10 minutes, versus potentially hours, especially for the first dose. Subcutaneous amivantamab was given once a month, versus every 2 weeks for the IV formulation, during the maintenance phase of treatment.

The take-home from PALOMA is that the risk of infusion reactions is lower with subcutaneous administration (16% versus 67%) but the risk of mostly mild skin rashes is higher (79% versus 36%).

Investigation is ongoing to confirm safety, pharmacokinetic, and efficacy equivalence with the IV formulation, including in combination with other medications.

When asked about home administration of amivantamab, PALOMA lead investigator Natasha Leighl, MD, a lung, and breast cancer medical oncologist at the University of Toronto, stated that patients probably need to be watched in the clinic for the first 4 months.

The atezolizumab study was funded by maker Genentech/Roche. The amivantamab study was funded by its maker, Janssen. The amivantamab investigator, Dr. Leighl, reported grants, honoraria, and travel payments from Janssen. Dr. Cappuzzo, the investigator on the atezolizumab study, reported speaker and adviser payments from Genentech/Roche. The discussant, Dr. O’Sullivan, wasn’t involved with either company but reported payments from Amgen and AstraZeneca and travel costs covered by Takeda.

Screening for lung cancer can detect other health issues, as well.

The reason is because the low-dose CT scans used for screening cover the lower neck down to the upper abdomen, revealing far more anatomy than simply the lungs.

In fact, lung cancer screening can provide information on three of the top 10 causes of death worldwide: ischemic heart disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and, of course, lung cancer.

With lung cancer screening, “we are basically targeting many birds with one low-dose stone,” explained Jelena Spasic MD, PhD, at the European Lung Cancer Congress (ELCC) 2024.

Dr. Spasic, a medical oncologist at the Institute for Oncology and Radiology of Serbia in Belgrade, was the discussant on a study that gave an indication on just how useful screening can be for other diseases.

The study, dubbed 4-IN-THE-LUNG-RUN trial (4ITLR), is an ongoing prospective trial in six European countries that is using lung cancer screening scans to also look for coronary artery calcifications, a marker of atherosclerosis.

Usually, coronary calcifications are considered incidental findings on lung cancer screenings and reported to subjects’ physicians for heart disease risk assessment.

The difference in 4ITLR is that investigators are actively looking for the lesions and quantifying the extent of calcifications.

It’s made possible by the artificial intelligence-based software being used to read the scans. In addition to generating reports on lung nodules, it also automatically calculates an Agatston score, a quantification of the degree of coronary artery calcification for each subject.

At the meeting, which was organized by the European Society for Clinical Oncology, 4ITLR investigator Daiwei Han, MD, PhD, a research associate at the Institute for Diagnostic Accuracy in Groningen, the Netherlands, reported outcomes in the first 2487 of the 24,000 planned subjects.

To be eligible for screening, participants had to be 60-79 years old and either current smokers, past smokers who had quit within 10 years, or people with a 35 or more pack-year history. The median age in the study was 68.1 years.

Overall, 53% of subjects had Agatston scores of 100 or more, indicating the need for treatment to prevent active coronary artery disease, Dr. Han said.

Fifteen percent were at high risk for heart disease with scores of 400-999, indicating extensive coronary artery calcification, and 16.2% were at very high risk, with scores of 1000 or higher. The information is being shared with participants’ physicians.

The risk of heart disease was far higher in men, who made up 56% of the study population. While women had a median Agatston score of 61, the median score for men was 211.1.

The findings illustrate the potential of dedicated cardiovascular screening within lung cancer screening programs, Dr. Han said, noting that 4ITLR will also incorporate COPD risk assessment.

The study also shows the increased impact lung cancer screening programs could have if greater use were made of the CT images to look for other diseases, Dr. Spasic said.

4ITLR is funded by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Program. Dr. Spasic and Dr. Han didn’t have any relevant disclosures.

Screening for lung cancer can detect other health issues, as well.

The reason is because the low-dose CT scans used for screening cover the lower neck down to the upper abdomen, revealing far more anatomy than simply the lungs.

In fact, lung cancer screening can provide information on three of the top 10 causes of death worldwide: ischemic heart disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and, of course, lung cancer.

With lung cancer screening, “we are basically targeting many birds with one low-dose stone,” explained Jelena Spasic MD, PhD, at the European Lung Cancer Congress (ELCC) 2024.

Dr. Spasic, a medical oncologist at the Institute for Oncology and Radiology of Serbia in Belgrade, was the discussant on a study that gave an indication on just how useful screening can be for other diseases.

The study, dubbed 4-IN-THE-LUNG-RUN trial (4ITLR), is an ongoing prospective trial in six European countries that is using lung cancer screening scans to also look for coronary artery calcifications, a marker of atherosclerosis.

Usually, coronary calcifications are considered incidental findings on lung cancer screenings and reported to subjects’ physicians for heart disease risk assessment.

The difference in 4ITLR is that investigators are actively looking for the lesions and quantifying the extent of calcifications.

It’s made possible by the artificial intelligence-based software being used to read the scans. In addition to generating reports on lung nodules, it also automatically calculates an Agatston score, a quantification of the degree of coronary artery calcification for each subject.

At the meeting, which was organized by the European Society for Clinical Oncology, 4ITLR investigator Daiwei Han, MD, PhD, a research associate at the Institute for Diagnostic Accuracy in Groningen, the Netherlands, reported outcomes in the first 2487 of the 24,000 planned subjects.

To be eligible for screening, participants had to be 60-79 years old and either current smokers, past smokers who had quit within 10 years, or people with a 35 or more pack-year history. The median age in the study was 68.1 years.

Overall, 53% of subjects had Agatston scores of 100 or more, indicating the need for treatment to prevent active coronary artery disease, Dr. Han said.

Fifteen percent were at high risk for heart disease with scores of 400-999, indicating extensive coronary artery calcification, and 16.2% were at very high risk, with scores of 1000 or higher. The information is being shared with participants’ physicians.

The risk of heart disease was far higher in men, who made up 56% of the study population. While women had a median Agatston score of 61, the median score for men was 211.1.

The findings illustrate the potential of dedicated cardiovascular screening within lung cancer screening programs, Dr. Han said, noting that 4ITLR will also incorporate COPD risk assessment.

The study also shows the increased impact lung cancer screening programs could have if greater use were made of the CT images to look for other diseases, Dr. Spasic said.

4ITLR is funded by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Program. Dr. Spasic and Dr. Han didn’t have any relevant disclosures.

Screening for lung cancer can detect other health issues, as well.

The reason is because the low-dose CT scans used for screening cover the lower neck down to the upper abdomen, revealing far more anatomy than simply the lungs.

In fact, lung cancer screening can provide information on three of the top 10 causes of death worldwide: ischemic heart disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and, of course, lung cancer.

With lung cancer screening, “we are basically targeting many birds with one low-dose stone,” explained Jelena Spasic MD, PhD, at the European Lung Cancer Congress (ELCC) 2024.

Dr. Spasic, a medical oncologist at the Institute for Oncology and Radiology of Serbia in Belgrade, was the discussant on a study that gave an indication on just how useful screening can be for other diseases.

The study, dubbed 4-IN-THE-LUNG-RUN trial (4ITLR), is an ongoing prospective trial in six European countries that is using lung cancer screening scans to also look for coronary artery calcifications, a marker of atherosclerosis.

Usually, coronary calcifications are considered incidental findings on lung cancer screenings and reported to subjects’ physicians for heart disease risk assessment.

The difference in 4ITLR is that investigators are actively looking for the lesions and quantifying the extent of calcifications.

It’s made possible by the artificial intelligence-based software being used to read the scans. In addition to generating reports on lung nodules, it also automatically calculates an Agatston score, a quantification of the degree of coronary artery calcification for each subject.

At the meeting, which was organized by the European Society for Clinical Oncology, 4ITLR investigator Daiwei Han, MD, PhD, a research associate at the Institute for Diagnostic Accuracy in Groningen, the Netherlands, reported outcomes in the first 2487 of the 24,000 planned subjects.

To be eligible for screening, participants had to be 60-79 years old and either current smokers, past smokers who had quit within 10 years, or people with a 35 or more pack-year history. The median age in the study was 68.1 years.

Overall, 53% of subjects had Agatston scores of 100 or more, indicating the need for treatment to prevent active coronary artery disease, Dr. Han said.

Fifteen percent were at high risk for heart disease with scores of 400-999, indicating extensive coronary artery calcification, and 16.2% were at very high risk, with scores of 1000 or higher. The information is being shared with participants’ physicians.

The risk of heart disease was far higher in men, who made up 56% of the study population. While women had a median Agatston score of 61, the median score for men was 211.1.

The findings illustrate the potential of dedicated cardiovascular screening within lung cancer screening programs, Dr. Han said, noting that 4ITLR will also incorporate COPD risk assessment.

The study also shows the increased impact lung cancer screening programs could have if greater use were made of the CT images to look for other diseases, Dr. Spasic said.

4ITLR is funded by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Program. Dr. Spasic and Dr. Han didn’t have any relevant disclosures.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Hello. I’m David Kerr, professor of cancer medicine from University of Oxford. I’d like to talk today about how we communicate with patients.

This is current on my mind because on Friday after clinic, I popped around to see a couple of patients who were in our local hospice. They were there for end-of-life care, being wonderfully well looked after. These were patients I have looked after for 3, 4, or 5 years, patients whom I cared for, and patients of whom I was fond. I think that relationship was reciprocated by them.

I found myself in the hospice, standing at the patients’ bedside, towering above them, effectively saying goodbye. The dynamics of that setting just made me think about how odd it seemed. We know that any effective communication between patients and doctors is absolutely critical and fundamental to the delivery of patient-centered care. It’s really hard to measure and challenging to attain in the dynamic, often noisy environment of a busy ward or even in the relative peace and quiet of a hospice.

We know that specific behavior by doctors can make a real difference to how they’re perceived by the patient, including their communicative skills and so on. I’ve been a doctor for more than 40 years, but sophisticated communicator though I think I am, there I was, standing by the bedside. It’s really interesting and odd, actually, when you stop and think about it.

There’s an increasing body of evidence that suggests that if the physician sits at the patient’s bedside, establishes better, more direct eye-to-eye contact and so on, then the quality of communication and patient satisfaction is improved.

I picked up on a recent study published just a few days ago in The BMJ; the title of the study is “Effect of Chair Placement on Physicians’ Behavior and Patients’ Satisfaction: Randomized Deception Trial.”

It was done in a single center and there were 125 separate physician interactions. In half of them, the chair in the patient’s room was in its conventional place back against the wall, round a corner, not particularly accessible. The randomization, or the active intervention, if you like, was to have a chair placed less than 3 feet from the patient’s bed and at the patient’s eye level.

What was really interesting was that of these randomized interventions in the setting in which the chair placement was close to the patient’s bed — it was accessible, less than 3 feet — 38 of the 60 physicians sat down in the chair and engaged with the patient from that level.

In the other setting, in which the chair wasn’t immediately adjacent to the bedside (it was back against the wall, out of the way), only in 5 of 60 did the physician retrieve the chair and move it to the right position. Otherwise, they stood and talked to the patient in that way.

The patient satisfaction scores that were measured using a conventional tool were much better for those seated physicians rather than those who stood and towered above.

This is an interesting study with statistically significant findings. It didn’t mean that the physicians who sat spent more time with the patient. It was the same in both settings, at about 10 or 11 minutes. It didn’t alter the physician’s perception of how long they spent with the patient — they guessed it was about 10 minutes, equally on both sides — or indeed the patient’s interpretation of how long the physician stayed.

It wasn’t a temporal thing but just the quality of communication. The patient satisfaction was much better, just simply by sitting at the patient’s bedside and engaging with them. It’s a tiny thing to do that made for a significant qualitative improvement. I’ve learned that lesson. No more towering above. No more standing at the bottom of the patient’s bedside, as I was taught and as I’ve always done.

I’m going to nudge my behavior. I’m going to use the psychology of that small study to nudge myself, the junior doctors that I train, and perhaps even my consultant colleagues, to do the same. It’s a small but effective step forward in improving patient-centered communication.

I’d be delighted to see what you think. How many of you stand? Being old-school, I would have thought that that’s most of us. How many of you make the effort to drag the chair over to sit at the patient’s bedside and to engage more fully? I’d be really interested in any comments that you’ve got.

For the time being, over and out. Ahoy. Thanks for listening.

Dr. Kerr disclosed the following relevant financial relationships Served as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for Celleron Therapeutics and Oxford Cancer Biomarkers (board of directors); Afrox (charity; trustee); and GlaxoSmithKline and Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals (consultant). Serve(d) as a speaker or a member of a speakers bureau for Genomic Health and Merck Serono. Received research grant from Roche. Has a 5% or greater equity interest in Celleron Therapeutics and Oxford Cancer Biomarkers.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Hello. I’m David Kerr, professor of cancer medicine from University of Oxford. I’d like to talk today about how we communicate with patients.

This is current on my mind because on Friday after clinic, I popped around to see a couple of patients who were in our local hospice. They were there for end-of-life care, being wonderfully well looked after. These were patients I have looked after for 3, 4, or 5 years, patients whom I cared for, and patients of whom I was fond. I think that relationship was reciprocated by them.

I found myself in the hospice, standing at the patients’ bedside, towering above them, effectively saying goodbye. The dynamics of that setting just made me think about how odd it seemed. We know that any effective communication between patients and doctors is absolutely critical and fundamental to the delivery of patient-centered care. It’s really hard to measure and challenging to attain in the dynamic, often noisy environment of a busy ward or even in the relative peace and quiet of a hospice.

We know that specific behavior by doctors can make a real difference to how they’re perceived by the patient, including their communicative skills and so on. I’ve been a doctor for more than 40 years, but sophisticated communicator though I think I am, there I was, standing by the bedside. It’s really interesting and odd, actually, when you stop and think about it.

There’s an increasing body of evidence that suggests that if the physician sits at the patient’s bedside, establishes better, more direct eye-to-eye contact and so on, then the quality of communication and patient satisfaction is improved.

I picked up on a recent study published just a few days ago in The BMJ; the title of the study is “Effect of Chair Placement on Physicians’ Behavior and Patients’ Satisfaction: Randomized Deception Trial.”

It was done in a single center and there were 125 separate physician interactions. In half of them, the chair in the patient’s room was in its conventional place back against the wall, round a corner, not particularly accessible. The randomization, or the active intervention, if you like, was to have a chair placed less than 3 feet from the patient’s bed and at the patient’s eye level.

What was really interesting was that of these randomized interventions in the setting in which the chair placement was close to the patient’s bed — it was accessible, less than 3 feet — 38 of the 60 physicians sat down in the chair and engaged with the patient from that level.

In the other setting, in which the chair wasn’t immediately adjacent to the bedside (it was back against the wall, out of the way), only in 5 of 60 did the physician retrieve the chair and move it to the right position. Otherwise, they stood and talked to the patient in that way.

The patient satisfaction scores that were measured using a conventional tool were much better for those seated physicians rather than those who stood and towered above.

This is an interesting study with statistically significant findings. It didn’t mean that the physicians who sat spent more time with the patient. It was the same in both settings, at about 10 or 11 minutes. It didn’t alter the physician’s perception of how long they spent with the patient — they guessed it was about 10 minutes, equally on both sides — or indeed the patient’s interpretation of how long the physician stayed.

It wasn’t a temporal thing but just the quality of communication. The patient satisfaction was much better, just simply by sitting at the patient’s bedside and engaging with them. It’s a tiny thing to do that made for a significant qualitative improvement. I’ve learned that lesson. No more towering above. No more standing at the bottom of the patient’s bedside, as I was taught and as I’ve always done.

I’m going to nudge my behavior. I’m going to use the psychology of that small study to nudge myself, the junior doctors that I train, and perhaps even my consultant colleagues, to do the same. It’s a small but effective step forward in improving patient-centered communication.

I’d be delighted to see what you think. How many of you stand? Being old-school, I would have thought that that’s most of us. How many of you make the effort to drag the chair over to sit at the patient’s bedside and to engage more fully? I’d be really interested in any comments that you’ve got.

For the time being, over and out. Ahoy. Thanks for listening.

Dr. Kerr disclosed the following relevant financial relationships Served as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for Celleron Therapeutics and Oxford Cancer Biomarkers (board of directors); Afrox (charity; trustee); and GlaxoSmithKline and Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals (consultant). Serve(d) as a speaker or a member of a speakers bureau for Genomic Health and Merck Serono. Received research grant from Roche. Has a 5% or greater equity interest in Celleron Therapeutics and Oxford Cancer Biomarkers.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Hello. I’m David Kerr, professor of cancer medicine from University of Oxford. I’d like to talk today about how we communicate with patients.

This is current on my mind because on Friday after clinic, I popped around to see a couple of patients who were in our local hospice. They were there for end-of-life care, being wonderfully well looked after. These were patients I have looked after for 3, 4, or 5 years, patients whom I cared for, and patients of whom I was fond. I think that relationship was reciprocated by them.

I found myself in the hospice, standing at the patients’ bedside, towering above them, effectively saying goodbye. The dynamics of that setting just made me think about how odd it seemed. We know that any effective communication between patients and doctors is absolutely critical and fundamental to the delivery of patient-centered care. It’s really hard to measure and challenging to attain in the dynamic, often noisy environment of a busy ward or even in the relative peace and quiet of a hospice.

We know that specific behavior by doctors can make a real difference to how they’re perceived by the patient, including their communicative skills and so on. I’ve been a doctor for more than 40 years, but sophisticated communicator though I think I am, there I was, standing by the bedside. It’s really interesting and odd, actually, when you stop and think about it.

There’s an increasing body of evidence that suggests that if the physician sits at the patient’s bedside, establishes better, more direct eye-to-eye contact and so on, then the quality of communication and patient satisfaction is improved.

I picked up on a recent study published just a few days ago in The BMJ; the title of the study is “Effect of Chair Placement on Physicians’ Behavior and Patients’ Satisfaction: Randomized Deception Trial.”

It was done in a single center and there were 125 separate physician interactions. In half of them, the chair in the patient’s room was in its conventional place back against the wall, round a corner, not particularly accessible. The randomization, or the active intervention, if you like, was to have a chair placed less than 3 feet from the patient’s bed and at the patient’s eye level.

What was really interesting was that of these randomized interventions in the setting in which the chair placement was close to the patient’s bed — it was accessible, less than 3 feet — 38 of the 60 physicians sat down in the chair and engaged with the patient from that level.

In the other setting, in which the chair wasn’t immediately adjacent to the bedside (it was back against the wall, out of the way), only in 5 of 60 did the physician retrieve the chair and move it to the right position. Otherwise, they stood and talked to the patient in that way.

The patient satisfaction scores that were measured using a conventional tool were much better for those seated physicians rather than those who stood and towered above.

This is an interesting study with statistically significant findings. It didn’t mean that the physicians who sat spent more time with the patient. It was the same in both settings, at about 10 or 11 minutes. It didn’t alter the physician’s perception of how long they spent with the patient — they guessed it was about 10 minutes, equally on both sides — or indeed the patient’s interpretation of how long the physician stayed.

It wasn’t a temporal thing but just the quality of communication. The patient satisfaction was much better, just simply by sitting at the patient’s bedside and engaging with them. It’s a tiny thing to do that made for a significant qualitative improvement. I’ve learned that lesson. No more towering above. No more standing at the bottom of the patient’s bedside, as I was taught and as I’ve always done.

I’m going to nudge my behavior. I’m going to use the psychology of that small study to nudge myself, the junior doctors that I train, and perhaps even my consultant colleagues, to do the same. It’s a small but effective step forward in improving patient-centered communication.

I’d be delighted to see what you think. How many of you stand? Being old-school, I would have thought that that’s most of us. How many of you make the effort to drag the chair over to sit at the patient’s bedside and to engage more fully? I’d be really interested in any comments that you’ve got.

For the time being, over and out. Ahoy. Thanks for listening.

Dr. Kerr disclosed the following relevant financial relationships Served as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for Celleron Therapeutics and Oxford Cancer Biomarkers (board of directors); Afrox (charity; trustee); and GlaxoSmithKline and Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals (consultant). Serve(d) as a speaker or a member of a speakers bureau for Genomic Health and Merck Serono. Received research grant from Roche. Has a 5% or greater equity interest in Celleron Therapeutics and Oxford Cancer Biomarkers.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) announced plans to expand preventive services, health care, and benefits for veterans with cancer.

Urethral cancers are set to be added to the list of > 300 conditions considered presumptive under the Sergeant First Class Heath Robinson Honoring our Promise to Address Comprehensive Toxics (PACT) Act of 2022. Veterans deployed to Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, Djibouti, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Yemen, Uzbekistan, and the entire Southwest Asia theater will not need to prove their service caused their urethral cancer in order to receive treatment for it. Additionally, the VA plans to evaluate whether there is a relationship between urinary bladder and ureteral cancers and toxic exposures for these veterans, and determine whether these conditions are presumptive. The VA has already screened > 5 million veterans for toxic exposures under the PACT Act, as part of an ongoing mission to expand cancer care services.

The VA is also set to expand access to screening programs in 2024 by providing:

• genetic testing to every veteran who may need it;
• lung cancer screening programs to every VA medical center; and
• home tests for colorectal cancer to > 1 million veterans nationwide.

The VA continues to expand the reach of smoking cessation services, with ≥ 6 additional sites added to the Quit VET eReferral program by the end of 2024, and a new pilot program to integrate smoking cessation services into lung cancer screening. 

The VA has already taken steps to build on the Biden-Harris Administration Cancer Moonshot program, which has the goals of preventing ≥ 4 million cancer deaths by 2047 and to improve the experience of individuals with cancer. For instance, it has prioritized claims processing for veterans with cancer and expanded cancer risk assessments and mammograms to veterans aged < 40 years, regardless of age, symptoms, family history, or whether they are enrolled in VA health care. In September, the VA and the National Cancer Institute announced a data-sharing collaboration to better understand and treat cancer among veterans.

“VA is planting the seeds for the future of cancer care,” said VHA Under Secretary for Health Shereef Elnahal, MD. “By investing in screenings, expanding access, and embracing cutting-edge technologies, VA is revolutionizing cancer care delivery, providing the best care possible to our nation’s heroes.” 

The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) announced plans to expand preventive services, health care, and benefits for veterans with cancer.

Urethral cancers are set to be added to the list of > 300 conditions considered presumptive under the Sergeant First Class Heath Robinson Honoring our Promise to Address Comprehensive Toxics (PACT) Act of 2022. Veterans deployed to Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, Djibouti, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Yemen, Uzbekistan, and the entire Southwest Asia theater will not need to prove their service caused their urethral cancer in order to receive treatment for it. Additionally, the VA plans to evaluate whether there is a relationship between urinary bladder and ureteral cancers and toxic exposures for these veterans, and determine whether these conditions are presumptive. The VA has already screened > 5 million veterans for toxic exposures under the PACT Act, as part of an ongoing mission to expand cancer care services.

The VA is also set to expand access to screening programs in 2024 by providing:

• genetic testing to every veteran who may need it;
• lung cancer screening programs to every VA medical center; and
• home tests for colorectal cancer to > 1 million veterans nationwide.

The VA continues to expand the reach of smoking cessation services, with ≥ 6 additional sites added to the Quit VET eReferral program by the end of 2024, and a new pilot program to integrate smoking cessation services into lung cancer screening. 

The VA has already taken steps to build on the Biden-Harris Administration Cancer Moonshot program, which has the goals of preventing ≥ 4 million cancer deaths by 2047 and to improve the experience of individuals with cancer. For instance, it has prioritized claims processing for veterans with cancer and expanded cancer risk assessments and mammograms to veterans aged < 40 years, regardless of age, symptoms, family history, or whether they are enrolled in VA health care. In September, the VA and the National Cancer Institute announced a data-sharing collaboration to better understand and treat cancer among veterans.

“VA is planting the seeds for the future of cancer care,” said VHA Under Secretary for Health Shereef Elnahal, MD. “By investing in screenings, expanding access, and embracing cutting-edge technologies, VA is revolutionizing cancer care delivery, providing the best care possible to our nation’s heroes.” 

The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) announced plans to expand preventive services, health care, and benefits for veterans with cancer.

Urethral cancers are set to be added to the list of > 300 conditions considered presumptive under the Sergeant First Class Heath Robinson Honoring our Promise to Address Comprehensive Toxics (PACT) Act of 2022. Veterans deployed to Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, Djibouti, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Yemen, Uzbekistan, and the entire Southwest Asia theater will not need to prove their service caused their urethral cancer in order to receive treatment for it. Additionally, the VA plans to evaluate whether there is a relationship between urinary bladder and ureteral cancers and toxic exposures for these veterans, and determine whether these conditions are presumptive. The VA has already screened > 5 million veterans for toxic exposures under the PACT Act, as part of an ongoing mission to expand cancer care services.

The VA is also set to expand access to screening programs in 2024 by providing:

• genetic testing to every veteran who may need it;
• lung cancer screening programs to every VA medical center; and
• home tests for colorectal cancer to > 1 million veterans nationwide.

The VA continues to expand the reach of smoking cessation services, with ≥ 6 additional sites added to the Quit VET eReferral program by the end of 2024, and a new pilot program to integrate smoking cessation services into lung cancer screening. 

The VA has already taken steps to build on the Biden-Harris Administration Cancer Moonshot program, which has the goals of preventing ≥ 4 million cancer deaths by 2047 and to improve the experience of individuals with cancer. For instance, it has prioritized claims processing for veterans with cancer and expanded cancer risk assessments and mammograms to veterans aged < 40 years, regardless of age, symptoms, family history, or whether they are enrolled in VA health care. In September, the VA and the National Cancer Institute announced a data-sharing collaboration to better understand and treat cancer among veterans.

“VA is planting the seeds for the future of cancer care,” said VHA Under Secretary for Health Shereef Elnahal, MD. “By investing in screenings, expanding access, and embracing cutting-edge technologies, VA is revolutionizing cancer care delivery, providing the best care possible to our nation’s heroes.”