AVAHO

Hypersomnolence, or excessive daytime sleepiness, in older adults is a risk factor for developing several serious medical conditions, including hypertension, heart disease, cancer, and diabetes, new research suggests. A study of almost 11,000 participants shows those who reported excessive sleepiness were twice as likely as their nonsleepy counterparts to develop these conditions. Hypersomnolence was also linked to development of musculoskeletal and connective tissue conditions.

“Paying attention to sleepiness in older adults could help doctors predict and prevent future medical conditions,” study investigator Maurice M. Ohayon, MD, PhD, Stanford University, California, said in a news release.

The findings were released March 1 ahead of the study’s scheduled presentation at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology. The AAN canceled the meeting and released abstracts and access to presenters for press coverage.
 

Early warning sign

Prior research has suggested an association between hypersomnolence and several psychiatric disorders, as well as cognitive decline and Alzheimer’s disease. However, its role in the development of other medical conditions is not as well studied.

The current investigation included 10,930 adults who were interviewed by phone on two separate occasions 3 years apart. At the second interview, 3,701 participants were at least 65 years old and 59% were women.

About 23% of the elderly participants reported hypersomnolence in the first interview and 24% reported it in the second interview. Of these individuals, 41% said during the first and second interviews that excessive daytime sleepiness was a chronic problem.

After adjusting for gender and obstructive sleep apnea status, participants who reported hypersomnolence in the first interview had more than a twofold greater risk of developing diabetes (relative risk [RR], 2.3; 95% CI, 1.5 - 3.4) or hypertension (RR, 2.3; 95% CI, 1.5 - 3.4) 3 years later than those who did not report this problem. They were also twice as likely to develop cancer (RR, 2.0; 95% CI, 1.1 - 3.8).

Of the 840 participants who reported hypersomnolence at the first interview, 52 (6.2%) developed diabetes compared with 74 (2.9%) who did not have excessive daytime sleepiness. Twenty (2.4%) individuals who reported hypersomnolence developed cancer compared with 21 (0.8%) who did not have it. Chronic hypersomnolence was associated with a greater than twofold increased risk of developing heart disease (RR, 2.5; 95% CI, 1.8 - 3.4).

Those who reported hypersomnolence at the second interview also were 50% more likely to have diseases of the musculoskeletal system and connective tissue, such as arthritis, tendinitis, and lupus, than their peers who did not have excessive daytime sleepiness.

The findings suggest that hypersomnolence in the elderly “can be an early sign of a developing medical condition,” the investigators wrote.

A limitation of the study is that it relied on participants’ memories rather than monitoring their sleep length and quality and daytime sleepiness in a sleep clinic, they noted.

Sleep as a vital sign?

Commenting on the findings, Harly Greenberg, MD, medical director at the Northwell Health Sleep Disorders Center, New York City, called the study “informative.”

However, because the findings were associations, “the study does not necessarily indicate that hypersomnolence itself is causal for these conditions. Rather excessive sleepiness may be a marker of sleep disorders that can cause sleepiness as well as contribute to the risk of these medical conditions,” said Dr. Greenberg, who was not involved with the research.

“The takeaway point from this study is that excessive sleepiness should not be ignored. Not only does it impair quality of life, daytime function, and vigilance and increase risk of sleepiness-related accidents, it may also be a marker for serious sleep disorders that can increase risk for medical disorders,” he said.

Also commenting on the study, Nathaniel Watson, MD, professor of neurology at the University of Washington (UW) and director of the UW Medicine Sleep Clinic, said it is “not surprising” that excessive daytime sleepiness might contribute to diabetes, hypertension, and other diseases.

“Sleep is something we spend a third of our lives doing. It impacts nearly every aspect of human physiology and we have a lot of basic science and epidemiologic research that shows when sleep is either inadequate or of poor quality or not timed correctly it can be associated with some of these untoward health outcomes,” said Watson, who is a past president of the American Academy of Sleep Medicine.

“This research just provides further evidence in support of the importance of sleep for overall health and well-being,” he added.

Asking patients about sleepiness, sleep, or sleep quality should be a “vital sign just like temperature, blood pressure, weight, and these other measures,” Dr. Watson said.

The study was supported by the Arrillaga Foundation. Drs. Ohayon, Greenberg, and Watson have reported no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Hypersomnolence, or excessive daytime sleepiness, in older adults is a risk factor for developing several serious medical conditions, including hypertension, heart disease, cancer, and diabetes, new research suggests. A study of almost 11,000 participants shows those who reported excessive sleepiness were twice as likely as their nonsleepy counterparts to develop these conditions. Hypersomnolence was also linked to development of musculoskeletal and connective tissue conditions.

“Paying attention to sleepiness in older adults could help doctors predict and prevent future medical conditions,” study investigator Maurice M. Ohayon, MD, PhD, Stanford University, California, said in a news release.

The findings were released March 1 ahead of the study’s scheduled presentation at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology. The AAN canceled the meeting and released abstracts and access to presenters for press coverage.
 

Early warning sign

Prior research has suggested an association between hypersomnolence and several psychiatric disorders, as well as cognitive decline and Alzheimer’s disease. However, its role in the development of other medical conditions is not as well studied.

The current investigation included 10,930 adults who were interviewed by phone on two separate occasions 3 years apart. At the second interview, 3,701 participants were at least 65 years old and 59% were women.

About 23% of the elderly participants reported hypersomnolence in the first interview and 24% reported it in the second interview. Of these individuals, 41% said during the first and second interviews that excessive daytime sleepiness was a chronic problem.

After adjusting for gender and obstructive sleep apnea status, participants who reported hypersomnolence in the first interview had more than a twofold greater risk of developing diabetes (relative risk [RR], 2.3; 95% CI, 1.5 - 3.4) or hypertension (RR, 2.3; 95% CI, 1.5 - 3.4) 3 years later than those who did not report this problem. They were also twice as likely to develop cancer (RR, 2.0; 95% CI, 1.1 - 3.8).

Of the 840 participants who reported hypersomnolence at the first interview, 52 (6.2%) developed diabetes compared with 74 (2.9%) who did not have excessive daytime sleepiness. Twenty (2.4%) individuals who reported hypersomnolence developed cancer compared with 21 (0.8%) who did not have it. Chronic hypersomnolence was associated with a greater than twofold increased risk of developing heart disease (RR, 2.5; 95% CI, 1.8 - 3.4).

Those who reported hypersomnolence at the second interview also were 50% more likely to have diseases of the musculoskeletal system and connective tissue, such as arthritis, tendinitis, and lupus, than their peers who did not have excessive daytime sleepiness.

The findings suggest that hypersomnolence in the elderly “can be an early sign of a developing medical condition,” the investigators wrote.

A limitation of the study is that it relied on participants’ memories rather than monitoring their sleep length and quality and daytime sleepiness in a sleep clinic, they noted.

Sleep as a vital sign?

Commenting on the findings, Harly Greenberg, MD, medical director at the Northwell Health Sleep Disorders Center, New York City, called the study “informative.”

However, because the findings were associations, “the study does not necessarily indicate that hypersomnolence itself is causal for these conditions. Rather excessive sleepiness may be a marker of sleep disorders that can cause sleepiness as well as contribute to the risk of these medical conditions,” said Dr. Greenberg, who was not involved with the research.

“The takeaway point from this study is that excessive sleepiness should not be ignored. Not only does it impair quality of life, daytime function, and vigilance and increase risk of sleepiness-related accidents, it may also be a marker for serious sleep disorders that can increase risk for medical disorders,” he said.

Also commenting on the study, Nathaniel Watson, MD, professor of neurology at the University of Washington (UW) and director of the UW Medicine Sleep Clinic, said it is “not surprising” that excessive daytime sleepiness might contribute to diabetes, hypertension, and other diseases.

“Sleep is something we spend a third of our lives doing. It impacts nearly every aspect of human physiology and we have a lot of basic science and epidemiologic research that shows when sleep is either inadequate or of poor quality or not timed correctly it can be associated with some of these untoward health outcomes,” said Watson, who is a past president of the American Academy of Sleep Medicine.

“This research just provides further evidence in support of the importance of sleep for overall health and well-being,” he added.

Asking patients about sleepiness, sleep, or sleep quality should be a “vital sign just like temperature, blood pressure, weight, and these other measures,” Dr. Watson said.

The study was supported by the Arrillaga Foundation. Drs. Ohayon, Greenberg, and Watson have reported no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Hypersomnolence, or excessive daytime sleepiness, in older adults is a risk factor for developing several serious medical conditions, including hypertension, heart disease, cancer, and diabetes, new research suggests. A study of almost 11,000 participants shows those who reported excessive sleepiness were twice as likely as their nonsleepy counterparts to develop these conditions. Hypersomnolence was also linked to development of musculoskeletal and connective tissue conditions.

“Paying attention to sleepiness in older adults could help doctors predict and prevent future medical conditions,” study investigator Maurice M. Ohayon, MD, PhD, Stanford University, California, said in a news release.

The findings were released March 1 ahead of the study’s scheduled presentation at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology. The AAN canceled the meeting and released abstracts and access to presenters for press coverage.
 

Early warning sign

Prior research has suggested an association between hypersomnolence and several psychiatric disorders, as well as cognitive decline and Alzheimer’s disease. However, its role in the development of other medical conditions is not as well studied.

The current investigation included 10,930 adults who were interviewed by phone on two separate occasions 3 years apart. At the second interview, 3,701 participants were at least 65 years old and 59% were women.

About 23% of the elderly participants reported hypersomnolence in the first interview and 24% reported it in the second interview. Of these individuals, 41% said during the first and second interviews that excessive daytime sleepiness was a chronic problem.

After adjusting for gender and obstructive sleep apnea status, participants who reported hypersomnolence in the first interview had more than a twofold greater risk of developing diabetes (relative risk [RR], 2.3; 95% CI, 1.5 - 3.4) or hypertension (RR, 2.3; 95% CI, 1.5 - 3.4) 3 years later than those who did not report this problem. They were also twice as likely to develop cancer (RR, 2.0; 95% CI, 1.1 - 3.8).

Of the 840 participants who reported hypersomnolence at the first interview, 52 (6.2%) developed diabetes compared with 74 (2.9%) who did not have excessive daytime sleepiness. Twenty (2.4%) individuals who reported hypersomnolence developed cancer compared with 21 (0.8%) who did not have it. Chronic hypersomnolence was associated with a greater than twofold increased risk of developing heart disease (RR, 2.5; 95% CI, 1.8 - 3.4).

Those who reported hypersomnolence at the second interview also were 50% more likely to have diseases of the musculoskeletal system and connective tissue, such as arthritis, tendinitis, and lupus, than their peers who did not have excessive daytime sleepiness.

The findings suggest that hypersomnolence in the elderly “can be an early sign of a developing medical condition,” the investigators wrote.

A limitation of the study is that it relied on participants’ memories rather than monitoring their sleep length and quality and daytime sleepiness in a sleep clinic, they noted.

Sleep as a vital sign?

Commenting on the findings, Harly Greenberg, MD, medical director at the Northwell Health Sleep Disorders Center, New York City, called the study “informative.”

However, because the findings were associations, “the study does not necessarily indicate that hypersomnolence itself is causal for these conditions. Rather excessive sleepiness may be a marker of sleep disorders that can cause sleepiness as well as contribute to the risk of these medical conditions,” said Dr. Greenberg, who was not involved with the research.

“The takeaway point from this study is that excessive sleepiness should not be ignored. Not only does it impair quality of life, daytime function, and vigilance and increase risk of sleepiness-related accidents, it may also be a marker for serious sleep disorders that can increase risk for medical disorders,” he said.

Also commenting on the study, Nathaniel Watson, MD, professor of neurology at the University of Washington (UW) and director of the UW Medicine Sleep Clinic, said it is “not surprising” that excessive daytime sleepiness might contribute to diabetes, hypertension, and other diseases.

“Sleep is something we spend a third of our lives doing. It impacts nearly every aspect of human physiology and we have a lot of basic science and epidemiologic research that shows when sleep is either inadequate or of poor quality or not timed correctly it can be associated with some of these untoward health outcomes,” said Watson, who is a past president of the American Academy of Sleep Medicine.

“This research just provides further evidence in support of the importance of sleep for overall health and well-being,” he added.

Asking patients about sleepiness, sleep, or sleep quality should be a “vital sign just like temperature, blood pressure, weight, and these other measures,” Dr. Watson said.

The study was supported by the Arrillaga Foundation. Drs. Ohayon, Greenberg, and Watson have reported no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

ORLANDO – Combination pepinemab and avelumab is well tolerated and shows antitumor activity in patients with advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who progressed on prior treatment, according to interim results from a phase 1b/2 trial.

Sharon Worcester/MDedge News

Treatment with pepinemab, an anti–semaphorin 4D antibody, and avelumab, a programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) inhibitor, produced disease control rates of 59% in immunotherapy-resistant patients and 81% in immunotherapy-naive patients.

Michael Rahman Shafique, MD, of Moffitt Cancer Center in Tampa, Fla., reported these results at the ASCO-SITC Clinical Immuno-Oncology Symposium.

The CLASSICAL-Lung trial initially enrolled 12 immunotherapy-naive patients with stage IIIb/IV NSCLC into a dose-escalation phase that examined pepinemab at doses of 5, 10, and 20 mg/kg along with 10 mg/kg of avelumab every 2 weeks.

Then, the trial enrolled 50 stage IIIb/IV patients – including 18 immunotherapy-naive patients and 32 who failed prior immunotherapy – into a phase 2 dose-expansion phase.

The 10 mg/kg pepinemab dose and 10 mg/kg avelumab dose were selected for the expansion phase based on the dose-escalation results, Dr. Shafique said. He explained that all three doses were safe, but “we were saturating the target at the 10-mg dose.”
 

Efficacy and safety

“In general, the safety data were encouraging,” Dr. Shafique said. “This was a very well-tolerated combination with no concerning safety signals. The most common adverse events were grade 1 and grade 2 fatigue, chills, pyrexia, and no grade 5 events attributable to the combination were reported.”

In the efficacy analysis, there were 29 evaluable patients who received pepinemab and avelumab after progressing on prior immunotherapy and were followed for at least 6 months. Two of these patients experienced a confirmed partial response (PR), and 15 had stable disease, for a disease control rate of 59%. Five patients had durable clinical benefit lasting at least 23 weeks, and three remained on active treatment at last follow-up, including one who had been on treatment for more than a year.

Of 21 evaluable immunotherapy-naive patients followed for at least 6 months, 5 experienced a confirmed PR, and 12 had stable disease, for a disease control rate of 81%. Three patients had clinical benefit lasting at least a year, and two remained on study and continued to receive treatment at last follow-up.

Pre- and on-treatment biopsies performed on the same lesion about 5 weeks apart demonstrated “a pretty drastic reduction in viable tumor,” Dr. Shafique noted.

“Even in patients with stable disease, many of them had absent tumor on these repeat, on-treatment biopsies,” he said, also noting that CD8-positive T-cell density increased in most tumors following treatment in patients who had a PR or stable disease, and the levels appeared to correspond with response.
 

Mechanism of action

Despite advances in immunotherapy, NSCLC patients often are refractory or acquire resistance to currently available agents, but semaphorin 4D “seems to shift the balance in the microenvironment to one of myeloid-induced immune suppression and generally a protumor, if you will, microenvironment,” Dr. Shafique said.

“Blockade of semaphorin 4D with pepinemab, we think, helps relieve this suppressive environment and actually seems to stimulate infiltration of T cells and improve T-cell activity in these tumors,” he added. He went on to explain that the mechanism of action is believed to generally be through suppression of myeloid cell trafficking to the tumor and myeloid cell cytokine secretion.

Further, and more importantly for cancer immunotherapy, preclinical models suggest that anti–semaphorin 4D antibodies are synergistic with various checkpoint inhibitors, including the PD-L1 inhibitor avelumab and others, Dr. Shafique said.

Indeed, these early CLASSICAL-Lung trial findings “do support the mechanism of action being reversing this myeloid-induced suppression in the microenvironment and improving T-cell infiltration and activity,” and they support a potential benefit of combining anti–semaphorin 4D antibodies and checkpoint inhibition in advanced NSCLC after progression on prior therapy, Dr. Shafique added.

Sharon Worcester/MDedge News

Invited discussant Timothy A. Yap, MBBS, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, said that “inhibition of [semaphorin 4D] promotes functional immune infiltration into the [tumor microenvironment] and, therefore, is a rational way of inhibiting tumor progression” in NSCLC and other cancers.

The CLASSICAL-Lung trial “didn’t escalate all the way to the [maximum tolerated dose] but did demonstrate durable on-treatment increases in CD8-positive T-cell infiltration, including in 79% of patients with low or null PD-L1 expression, as proof of mechanism,” Dr. Yap said, noting the responses in both immunotherapy-naive and immunotherapy-resistant patients.

“So I guess the key question will be, ‘Is this an active combination in NSCLC?’ ” Dr. Yap said. “In my opinion, yes it is, but is it going to be enough to take it past registration?”
 

Next steps

As next steps for the investigators, Dr. Yap suggested looking at a more specific population of PD-L1–low or –null immunotherapy-resistant NSCLC patients, considering adding a chemotherapy agent to the pepinemab/avelumab combination, or perhaps going “straight to a randomized phase 2/3 trial [comparing the combination with] pembrolizumab.”

“The investigators should also consider other tumor types beyond non–small cell lung cancer with this particular combination,” he said.

The preclinical data with respect to the anti–semaphorin 4D antibody suggest that study in combination with other agents, such as anti–CTLA-4 agents or anti-LAG3 agents, is also warranted, Dr. Yap added, noting that triplet combinations might also be worth investigating.

The CLASSICAL-Lung trial is funded by Vaccinex and Merck. Dr. Shafique reported a consulting or advisory role with GlaxoSmithKline. Dr. Yap reported relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies, including Merck. MD Anderson’s Institute of Applied Cancer Science, where Dr. Yap serves as medical director, has a commercial interest in DNA damage response inhibitors and other inhibitors.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Shafique MR et al. ASCO-SITC 2020, Abstract 75.

ORLANDO – Combination pepinemab and avelumab is well tolerated and shows antitumor activity in patients with advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who progressed on prior treatment, according to interim results from a phase 1b/2 trial.

Sharon Worcester/MDedge News

Treatment with pepinemab, an anti–semaphorin 4D antibody, and avelumab, a programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) inhibitor, produced disease control rates of 59% in immunotherapy-resistant patients and 81% in immunotherapy-naive patients.

Michael Rahman Shafique, MD, of Moffitt Cancer Center in Tampa, Fla., reported these results at the ASCO-SITC Clinical Immuno-Oncology Symposium.

The CLASSICAL-Lung trial initially enrolled 12 immunotherapy-naive patients with stage IIIb/IV NSCLC into a dose-escalation phase that examined pepinemab at doses of 5, 10, and 20 mg/kg along with 10 mg/kg of avelumab every 2 weeks.

Then, the trial enrolled 50 stage IIIb/IV patients – including 18 immunotherapy-naive patients and 32 who failed prior immunotherapy – into a phase 2 dose-expansion phase.

The 10 mg/kg pepinemab dose and 10 mg/kg avelumab dose were selected for the expansion phase based on the dose-escalation results, Dr. Shafique said. He explained that all three doses were safe, but “we were saturating the target at the 10-mg dose.”
 

Efficacy and safety

“In general, the safety data were encouraging,” Dr. Shafique said. “This was a very well-tolerated combination with no concerning safety signals. The most common adverse events were grade 1 and grade 2 fatigue, chills, pyrexia, and no grade 5 events attributable to the combination were reported.”

In the efficacy analysis, there were 29 evaluable patients who received pepinemab and avelumab after progressing on prior immunotherapy and were followed for at least 6 months. Two of these patients experienced a confirmed partial response (PR), and 15 had stable disease, for a disease control rate of 59%. Five patients had durable clinical benefit lasting at least 23 weeks, and three remained on active treatment at last follow-up, including one who had been on treatment for more than a year.

Of 21 evaluable immunotherapy-naive patients followed for at least 6 months, 5 experienced a confirmed PR, and 12 had stable disease, for a disease control rate of 81%. Three patients had clinical benefit lasting at least a year, and two remained on study and continued to receive treatment at last follow-up.

Pre- and on-treatment biopsies performed on the same lesion about 5 weeks apart demonstrated “a pretty drastic reduction in viable tumor,” Dr. Shafique noted.

“Even in patients with stable disease, many of them had absent tumor on these repeat, on-treatment biopsies,” he said, also noting that CD8-positive T-cell density increased in most tumors following treatment in patients who had a PR or stable disease, and the levels appeared to correspond with response.
 

Mechanism of action

Despite advances in immunotherapy, NSCLC patients often are refractory or acquire resistance to currently available agents, but semaphorin 4D “seems to shift the balance in the microenvironment to one of myeloid-induced immune suppression and generally a protumor, if you will, microenvironment,” Dr. Shafique said.

“Blockade of semaphorin 4D with pepinemab, we think, helps relieve this suppressive environment and actually seems to stimulate infiltration of T cells and improve T-cell activity in these tumors,” he added. He went on to explain that the mechanism of action is believed to generally be through suppression of myeloid cell trafficking to the tumor and myeloid cell cytokine secretion.

Further, and more importantly for cancer immunotherapy, preclinical models suggest that anti–semaphorin 4D antibodies are synergistic with various checkpoint inhibitors, including the PD-L1 inhibitor avelumab and others, Dr. Shafique said.

Indeed, these early CLASSICAL-Lung trial findings “do support the mechanism of action being reversing this myeloid-induced suppression in the microenvironment and improving T-cell infiltration and activity,” and they support a potential benefit of combining anti–semaphorin 4D antibodies and checkpoint inhibition in advanced NSCLC after progression on prior therapy, Dr. Shafique added.

Sharon Worcester/MDedge News

Invited discussant Timothy A. Yap, MBBS, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, said that “inhibition of [semaphorin 4D] promotes functional immune infiltration into the [tumor microenvironment] and, therefore, is a rational way of inhibiting tumor progression” in NSCLC and other cancers.

The CLASSICAL-Lung trial “didn’t escalate all the way to the [maximum tolerated dose] but did demonstrate durable on-treatment increases in CD8-positive T-cell infiltration, including in 79% of patients with low or null PD-L1 expression, as proof of mechanism,” Dr. Yap said, noting the responses in both immunotherapy-naive and immunotherapy-resistant patients.

“So I guess the key question will be, ‘Is this an active combination in NSCLC?’ ” Dr. Yap said. “In my opinion, yes it is, but is it going to be enough to take it past registration?”
 

Next steps

As next steps for the investigators, Dr. Yap suggested looking at a more specific population of PD-L1–low or –null immunotherapy-resistant NSCLC patients, considering adding a chemotherapy agent to the pepinemab/avelumab combination, or perhaps going “straight to a randomized phase 2/3 trial [comparing the combination with] pembrolizumab.”

“The investigators should also consider other tumor types beyond non–small cell lung cancer with this particular combination,” he said.

The preclinical data with respect to the anti–semaphorin 4D antibody suggest that study in combination with other agents, such as anti–CTLA-4 agents or anti-LAG3 agents, is also warranted, Dr. Yap added, noting that triplet combinations might also be worth investigating.

The CLASSICAL-Lung trial is funded by Vaccinex and Merck. Dr. Shafique reported a consulting or advisory role with GlaxoSmithKline. Dr. Yap reported relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies, including Merck. MD Anderson’s Institute of Applied Cancer Science, where Dr. Yap serves as medical director, has a commercial interest in DNA damage response inhibitors and other inhibitors.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Shafique MR et al. ASCO-SITC 2020, Abstract 75.

ORLANDO – Combination pepinemab and avelumab is well tolerated and shows antitumor activity in patients with advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who progressed on prior treatment, according to interim results from a phase 1b/2 trial.

Sharon Worcester/MDedge News

Treatment with pepinemab, an anti–semaphorin 4D antibody, and avelumab, a programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) inhibitor, produced disease control rates of 59% in immunotherapy-resistant patients and 81% in immunotherapy-naive patients.

Michael Rahman Shafique, MD, of Moffitt Cancer Center in Tampa, Fla., reported these results at the ASCO-SITC Clinical Immuno-Oncology Symposium.

The CLASSICAL-Lung trial initially enrolled 12 immunotherapy-naive patients with stage IIIb/IV NSCLC into a dose-escalation phase that examined pepinemab at doses of 5, 10, and 20 mg/kg along with 10 mg/kg of avelumab every 2 weeks.

Then, the trial enrolled 50 stage IIIb/IV patients – including 18 immunotherapy-naive patients and 32 who failed prior immunotherapy – into a phase 2 dose-expansion phase.

The 10 mg/kg pepinemab dose and 10 mg/kg avelumab dose were selected for the expansion phase based on the dose-escalation results, Dr. Shafique said. He explained that all three doses were safe, but “we were saturating the target at the 10-mg dose.”
 

Efficacy and safety

“In general, the safety data were encouraging,” Dr. Shafique said. “This was a very well-tolerated combination with no concerning safety signals. The most common adverse events were grade 1 and grade 2 fatigue, chills, pyrexia, and no grade 5 events attributable to the combination were reported.”

In the efficacy analysis, there were 29 evaluable patients who received pepinemab and avelumab after progressing on prior immunotherapy and were followed for at least 6 months. Two of these patients experienced a confirmed partial response (PR), and 15 had stable disease, for a disease control rate of 59%. Five patients had durable clinical benefit lasting at least 23 weeks, and three remained on active treatment at last follow-up, including one who had been on treatment for more than a year.

Of 21 evaluable immunotherapy-naive patients followed for at least 6 months, 5 experienced a confirmed PR, and 12 had stable disease, for a disease control rate of 81%. Three patients had clinical benefit lasting at least a year, and two remained on study and continued to receive treatment at last follow-up.

Pre- and on-treatment biopsies performed on the same lesion about 5 weeks apart demonstrated “a pretty drastic reduction in viable tumor,” Dr. Shafique noted.

“Even in patients with stable disease, many of them had absent tumor on these repeat, on-treatment biopsies,” he said, also noting that CD8-positive T-cell density increased in most tumors following treatment in patients who had a PR or stable disease, and the levels appeared to correspond with response.
 

Mechanism of action

Despite advances in immunotherapy, NSCLC patients often are refractory or acquire resistance to currently available agents, but semaphorin 4D “seems to shift the balance in the microenvironment to one of myeloid-induced immune suppression and generally a protumor, if you will, microenvironment,” Dr. Shafique said.

“Blockade of semaphorin 4D with pepinemab, we think, helps relieve this suppressive environment and actually seems to stimulate infiltration of T cells and improve T-cell activity in these tumors,” he added. He went on to explain that the mechanism of action is believed to generally be through suppression of myeloid cell trafficking to the tumor and myeloid cell cytokine secretion.

Further, and more importantly for cancer immunotherapy, preclinical models suggest that anti–semaphorin 4D antibodies are synergistic with various checkpoint inhibitors, including the PD-L1 inhibitor avelumab and others, Dr. Shafique said.

Indeed, these early CLASSICAL-Lung trial findings “do support the mechanism of action being reversing this myeloid-induced suppression in the microenvironment and improving T-cell infiltration and activity,” and they support a potential benefit of combining anti–semaphorin 4D antibodies and checkpoint inhibition in advanced NSCLC after progression on prior therapy, Dr. Shafique added.

Sharon Worcester/MDedge News

Invited discussant Timothy A. Yap, MBBS, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, said that “inhibition of [semaphorin 4D] promotes functional immune infiltration into the [tumor microenvironment] and, therefore, is a rational way of inhibiting tumor progression” in NSCLC and other cancers.

The CLASSICAL-Lung trial “didn’t escalate all the way to the [maximum tolerated dose] but did demonstrate durable on-treatment increases in CD8-positive T-cell infiltration, including in 79% of patients with low or null PD-L1 expression, as proof of mechanism,” Dr. Yap said, noting the responses in both immunotherapy-naive and immunotherapy-resistant patients.

“So I guess the key question will be, ‘Is this an active combination in NSCLC?’ ” Dr. Yap said. “In my opinion, yes it is, but is it going to be enough to take it past registration?”
 

Next steps

As next steps for the investigators, Dr. Yap suggested looking at a more specific population of PD-L1–low or –null immunotherapy-resistant NSCLC patients, considering adding a chemotherapy agent to the pepinemab/avelumab combination, or perhaps going “straight to a randomized phase 2/3 trial [comparing the combination with] pembrolizumab.”

“The investigators should also consider other tumor types beyond non–small cell lung cancer with this particular combination,” he said.

The preclinical data with respect to the anti–semaphorin 4D antibody suggest that study in combination with other agents, such as anti–CTLA-4 agents or anti-LAG3 agents, is also warranted, Dr. Yap added, noting that triplet combinations might also be worth investigating.

The CLASSICAL-Lung trial is funded by Vaccinex and Merck. Dr. Shafique reported a consulting or advisory role with GlaxoSmithKline. Dr. Yap reported relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies, including Merck. MD Anderson’s Institute of Applied Cancer Science, where Dr. Yap serves as medical director, has a commercial interest in DNA damage response inhibitors and other inhibitors.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Shafique MR et al. ASCO-SITC 2020, Abstract 75.

With careful review and some changes, cancer centers can provide effective care during the COVID-19 pandemic without sacrificing the safety of patients, caregivers, and health care workers, according to the authors of a special feature article in the Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network.

Prescreening, telemedicine, and limiting procedures top the authors’ list of 10 recommendations for ensuring patient safety in U.S. oncology practices. Assuring appropriate personal proctective equipment (PPE), encouraging telecommuting, and providing wellness/stress management are a few of the ways to look out for health care worker safety during the crisis.

These recommendations were drafted to provide guidance during the rapidly evolving global pandemic that, in some cases, has deluged health care delivery systems and strained the ability of providers to assure safe and effective care, said lead author Pelin Cinar, MD, of the Hellen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center at the University of California, San Francisco.

“I think we have been so overwhelmed that sometimes it’s difficult to get organized in our thought processes,” Dr. Cinar said in an interview. “So this [article] was really trying to provide some structure to each of the different steps that we should be addressing at minimum.”
 

Screening patients

Prescreening systems are a critical first step to ensure cancer centers are helping control community spread of the virus, according to the article. Whether done by phone or online, prescreening 1-2 days before a patient’s visit can help identify COVID-19 symptoms and exposure history, guiding whether patients need to be evaluated, monitored, or referred to an ED.

Next, screening clinics can help ensure cancer patients with COVID-19 symptoms are evaluated and tested in a unit with dedicated staff, according to the article.

“If symptomatic patients present to the cancer center for treatment after a negative prescreening assessment, they must be provided with a mask and directed to a screening clinic for evaluation and potential testing before moving forward with any cancer-directed therapy,” the article states.
 

Telemedicine and treatment

Telemedicine visits should be done whenever possible to avoid in-person visits, according to the article. Dr. Cinar said that her center, like other cancer centers, has seen a major uptick in these visits, which are typically done over video. In February, there were a total of 232 video visits at her center, which jumped to 1,702 in March, or an approximate 600% increase.

“Even though we had a relatively robust presence [before the pandemic], we still weren’t at a level where we are now,” Dr. Cinar said.

When it comes to cancer treatment, surgeries and procedures should be limited to essential or urgent cases, and, if possible, chemotherapy and systemic therapy regimens can be modified to allow for fewer visits to the cancer center or infusion center, according to the article.

Transitions to outpatient care can help further reduce the need for in-person visits, while intervals between scans can be increased, or biochemical markers can be used instead of scans.
 

Protecting providers

Health care workers providing cancer care should be assured appropriate PPE, and websites or other centralized resources should be in place to make sure workers are aware of current PPE guidelines and changes in workflow, according to the article.

The authors note that daily screening tools or temperature checks of symptomatic workers can help decrease the risk of exposure to others. The authors also recommend establishing clear rules for when health care workers with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 should be staying at home and returning to the job.

Telecommuting should be encouraged, with limited staff participating in onsite rotations to further reduce exposure risks, the article states.

Anxiety, insomnia, and distress have been reported among frontline health care workers managing patients with COVID-19, according to the article, which recommends wellness and stress management resources be available as an “invaluable resource” in cancer centers.

“We have to take care of ourselves to be able to take care of others,” Dr. Cinar said. “With PPE, you’re physically protecting yourself, while self-care, stress management, and wellness are also a big component of protecting ourselves.”

The report by Dr. Cinar and colleagues was an invited article from the NCCN Best Practices Committee. One coauthor reported relationships with Abbvie, Adaptive Biotechnologies, Aduro, and several other companies. Dr. Cinar and the remaining authors said they had no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Cinar P et al. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2020 Apr 15. doi: 10.6004/jnccn.2020.7572.

With careful review and some changes, cancer centers can provide effective care during the COVID-19 pandemic without sacrificing the safety of patients, caregivers, and health care workers, according to the authors of a special feature article in the Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network.

Prescreening, telemedicine, and limiting procedures top the authors’ list of 10 recommendations for ensuring patient safety in U.S. oncology practices. Assuring appropriate personal proctective equipment (PPE), encouraging telecommuting, and providing wellness/stress management are a few of the ways to look out for health care worker safety during the crisis.

These recommendations were drafted to provide guidance during the rapidly evolving global pandemic that, in some cases, has deluged health care delivery systems and strained the ability of providers to assure safe and effective care, said lead author Pelin Cinar, MD, of the Hellen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center at the University of California, San Francisco.

“I think we have been so overwhelmed that sometimes it’s difficult to get organized in our thought processes,” Dr. Cinar said in an interview. “So this [article] was really trying to provide some structure to each of the different steps that we should be addressing at minimum.”
 

Screening patients

Prescreening systems are a critical first step to ensure cancer centers are helping control community spread of the virus, according to the article. Whether done by phone or online, prescreening 1-2 days before a patient’s visit can help identify COVID-19 symptoms and exposure history, guiding whether patients need to be evaluated, monitored, or referred to an ED.

Next, screening clinics can help ensure cancer patients with COVID-19 symptoms are evaluated and tested in a unit with dedicated staff, according to the article.

“If symptomatic patients present to the cancer center for treatment after a negative prescreening assessment, they must be provided with a mask and directed to a screening clinic for evaluation and potential testing before moving forward with any cancer-directed therapy,” the article states.
 

Telemedicine and treatment

Telemedicine visits should be done whenever possible to avoid in-person visits, according to the article. Dr. Cinar said that her center, like other cancer centers, has seen a major uptick in these visits, which are typically done over video. In February, there were a total of 232 video visits at her center, which jumped to 1,702 in March, or an approximate 600% increase.

“Even though we had a relatively robust presence [before the pandemic], we still weren’t at a level where we are now,” Dr. Cinar said.

When it comes to cancer treatment, surgeries and procedures should be limited to essential or urgent cases, and, if possible, chemotherapy and systemic therapy regimens can be modified to allow for fewer visits to the cancer center or infusion center, according to the article.

Transitions to outpatient care can help further reduce the need for in-person visits, while intervals between scans can be increased, or biochemical markers can be used instead of scans.
 

Protecting providers

Health care workers providing cancer care should be assured appropriate PPE, and websites or other centralized resources should be in place to make sure workers are aware of current PPE guidelines and changes in workflow, according to the article.

The authors note that daily screening tools or temperature checks of symptomatic workers can help decrease the risk of exposure to others. The authors also recommend establishing clear rules for when health care workers with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 should be staying at home and returning to the job.

Telecommuting should be encouraged, with limited staff participating in onsite rotations to further reduce exposure risks, the article states.

Anxiety, insomnia, and distress have been reported among frontline health care workers managing patients with COVID-19, according to the article, which recommends wellness and stress management resources be available as an “invaluable resource” in cancer centers.

“We have to take care of ourselves to be able to take care of others,” Dr. Cinar said. “With PPE, you’re physically protecting yourself, while self-care, stress management, and wellness are also a big component of protecting ourselves.”

The report by Dr. Cinar and colleagues was an invited article from the NCCN Best Practices Committee. One coauthor reported relationships with Abbvie, Adaptive Biotechnologies, Aduro, and several other companies. Dr. Cinar and the remaining authors said they had no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Cinar P et al. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2020 Apr 15. doi: 10.6004/jnccn.2020.7572.

With careful review and some changes, cancer centers can provide effective care during the COVID-19 pandemic without sacrificing the safety of patients, caregivers, and health care workers, according to the authors of a special feature article in the Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network.

Prescreening, telemedicine, and limiting procedures top the authors’ list of 10 recommendations for ensuring patient safety in U.S. oncology practices. Assuring appropriate personal proctective equipment (PPE), encouraging telecommuting, and providing wellness/stress management are a few of the ways to look out for health care worker safety during the crisis.

These recommendations were drafted to provide guidance during the rapidly evolving global pandemic that, in some cases, has deluged health care delivery systems and strained the ability of providers to assure safe and effective care, said lead author Pelin Cinar, MD, of the Hellen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center at the University of California, San Francisco.

“I think we have been so overwhelmed that sometimes it’s difficult to get organized in our thought processes,” Dr. Cinar said in an interview. “So this [article] was really trying to provide some structure to each of the different steps that we should be addressing at minimum.”
 

Screening patients

Prescreening systems are a critical first step to ensure cancer centers are helping control community spread of the virus, according to the article. Whether done by phone or online, prescreening 1-2 days before a patient’s visit can help identify COVID-19 symptoms and exposure history, guiding whether patients need to be evaluated, monitored, or referred to an ED.

Next, screening clinics can help ensure cancer patients with COVID-19 symptoms are evaluated and tested in a unit with dedicated staff, according to the article.

“If symptomatic patients present to the cancer center for treatment after a negative prescreening assessment, they must be provided with a mask and directed to a screening clinic for evaluation and potential testing before moving forward with any cancer-directed therapy,” the article states.
 

Telemedicine and treatment

Telemedicine visits should be done whenever possible to avoid in-person visits, according to the article. Dr. Cinar said that her center, like other cancer centers, has seen a major uptick in these visits, which are typically done over video. In February, there were a total of 232 video visits at her center, which jumped to 1,702 in March, or an approximate 600% increase.

“Even though we had a relatively robust presence [before the pandemic], we still weren’t at a level where we are now,” Dr. Cinar said.

When it comes to cancer treatment, surgeries and procedures should be limited to essential or urgent cases, and, if possible, chemotherapy and systemic therapy regimens can be modified to allow for fewer visits to the cancer center or infusion center, according to the article.

Transitions to outpatient care can help further reduce the need for in-person visits, while intervals between scans can be increased, or biochemical markers can be used instead of scans.
 

Protecting providers

Health care workers providing cancer care should be assured appropriate PPE, and websites or other centralized resources should be in place to make sure workers are aware of current PPE guidelines and changes in workflow, according to the article.

The authors note that daily screening tools or temperature checks of symptomatic workers can help decrease the risk of exposure to others. The authors also recommend establishing clear rules for when health care workers with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 should be staying at home and returning to the job.

Telecommuting should be encouraged, with limited staff participating in onsite rotations to further reduce exposure risks, the article states.

Anxiety, insomnia, and distress have been reported among frontline health care workers managing patients with COVID-19, according to the article, which recommends wellness and stress management resources be available as an “invaluable resource” in cancer centers.

“We have to take care of ourselves to be able to take care of others,” Dr. Cinar said. “With PPE, you’re physically protecting yourself, while self-care, stress management, and wellness are also a big component of protecting ourselves.”

The report by Dr. Cinar and colleagues was an invited article from the NCCN Best Practices Committee. One coauthor reported relationships with Abbvie, Adaptive Biotechnologies, Aduro, and several other companies. Dr. Cinar and the remaining authors said they had no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Cinar P et al. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2020 Apr 15. doi: 10.6004/jnccn.2020.7572.

As the COVID-19 pandemic continues, many cancer patients are finding it increasingly difficult to receive the care they need and are facing financial challenges.

Half of the cancer patients and survivors who responded to a recent survey reported changes, delays, or disruptions to the care they were receiving. The survey, with 1,219 respondents, was conducted by the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network (ACS CAN).

“The circumstances of this virus – from the fact cancer patients are at higher risk of severe complications should they be diagnosed with COVID-19, to the fact many patients are facing serious financial strain caused by the virus’ economic effect – make getting care especially difficult,” Keysha Brooks-Coley, vice president of federal advocacy for ACS CAN, told Medscape Medical News.

Nearly a quarter (24%) of survey respondents reported a delay in care or treatment. The proportion was slightly more (27%) among those currently receiving active treatment.

In addition, 12% (13% in active treatment) stated that not only was their care delayed but that they also have not been told when services would be rescheduled.

As previously reported by Medscape Medical News, many oncology groups have issued new guidelines for cancer care in reaction to the current crisis. These include recommendations to delay cancer treatment in order to avoid exposing cancer patients to the virus.

Half of those in active treatment report disruptions

The survey was initiated by ACS CAN on March 25 and was distributed over a 2-week period. The goal was to gain a better understanding of how COVID-19 was affecting cancer patients and survivors in the United States. Of the 1,219 respondents, half (51%) were cancer patients currently undergoing active treatment.

Among the patients and survivors who were currently in active treatment, 55% reported that there have been changes, delays, or disruptions in their care. The services most frequently affected included in-person provider visits (50%), supportive services (20%), and imaging procedures to monitor tumor growth (20%).

In addition, 8% reported that their treatment, including chemotherapy and immunotherapy, had been affected by the COVID-19 pandemic.

Financial concerns

Almost all of the survey respondents were covered by some type of insurance; 49% had coverage through an employer, 32% were covered by Medicare, 7% had privately purchased insurance, and 4% were covered through Medicaid.

Many cancer patients had already been having difficulty paying for their care, but for a substantial proportion of survey respondents, the COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated the problem. More than one-third (38%) stated that COVID-19 “has had a notable impact on their financial situation that affects their ability to pay for health care.”

The most common financial problems that were related to access to care include reduced work hours (14%), reduced investment values (11%), having difficulty affording food and supplies because of staying at home to avoid contracting the virus (9%), and becoming unemployed (8%).

A reduction in work hours and job loss were of particular concern to respondents because of the possible effects these would have on their health insurance coverage. Of those who reported that they or a family member living with them had lost a job, 43% had employer-sponsored health insurance. Additionally, 58% of patients or a family member whose working hours had been reduced also had health insurance through their employer

Among the entire cohort, 28% reported that they were worried that the financial impact of COVID-19 would make it difficult to pay for the health care they need as cancer survivors. This concern was highly correlated with income. Almost half (46%) of patients who earned $30,000 or less reported that they were worried, but even in household with incomes over $110,000 per year, 21% were also concerned about the financial impact.

“Now more than ever, patients need to be able to get, keep, and afford health coverage to treat their disease,” commented Brooks-Coley.
 

Taking action

“ACS CAN is working every day to make clear to Congress and the administration the real and immediate challenges cancer patients and survivors face during this pandemic,” said Brooks-Coley.

With nearly 50 other professional and advocacy groups, ACS CAN has sent letters to congressional leadership and the Secretary of the Department of Health & Human Services asking them to make policy changes that would help patients.

The proposed action points include having insurers allow patients to use providers who are out of network if necessary; waiving site-specific precertification and prior authorization for cancer treatment; utilizing shared decision making between patients and providers in deciding whether to use home infusion without pressure from the insurer; allowing patients to obtain 90-day supplies of medication; increasing funding for state Medicaid programs and assistance for those who have lost employee-sponsored coverage; and improving telehealth services.

“We urge Congress and the administration to keep the needs of cancer patients and survivors in mind as they continue to address the public health crisis,” she said.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

As the COVID-19 pandemic continues, many cancer patients are finding it increasingly difficult to receive the care they need and are facing financial challenges.

Half of the cancer patients and survivors who responded to a recent survey reported changes, delays, or disruptions to the care they were receiving. The survey, with 1,219 respondents, was conducted by the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network (ACS CAN).

“The circumstances of this virus – from the fact cancer patients are at higher risk of severe complications should they be diagnosed with COVID-19, to the fact many patients are facing serious financial strain caused by the virus’ economic effect – make getting care especially difficult,” Keysha Brooks-Coley, vice president of federal advocacy for ACS CAN, told Medscape Medical News.

Nearly a quarter (24%) of survey respondents reported a delay in care or treatment. The proportion was slightly more (27%) among those currently receiving active treatment.

In addition, 12% (13% in active treatment) stated that not only was their care delayed but that they also have not been told when services would be rescheduled.

As previously reported by Medscape Medical News, many oncology groups have issued new guidelines for cancer care in reaction to the current crisis. These include recommendations to delay cancer treatment in order to avoid exposing cancer patients to the virus.

Half of those in active treatment report disruptions

The survey was initiated by ACS CAN on March 25 and was distributed over a 2-week period. The goal was to gain a better understanding of how COVID-19 was affecting cancer patients and survivors in the United States. Of the 1,219 respondents, half (51%) were cancer patients currently undergoing active treatment.

Among the patients and survivors who were currently in active treatment, 55% reported that there have been changes, delays, or disruptions in their care. The services most frequently affected included in-person provider visits (50%), supportive services (20%), and imaging procedures to monitor tumor growth (20%).

In addition, 8% reported that their treatment, including chemotherapy and immunotherapy, had been affected by the COVID-19 pandemic.

Financial concerns

Almost all of the survey respondents were covered by some type of insurance; 49% had coverage through an employer, 32% were covered by Medicare, 7% had privately purchased insurance, and 4% were covered through Medicaid.

Many cancer patients had already been having difficulty paying for their care, but for a substantial proportion of survey respondents, the COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated the problem. More than one-third (38%) stated that COVID-19 “has had a notable impact on their financial situation that affects their ability to pay for health care.”

The most common financial problems that were related to access to care include reduced work hours (14%), reduced investment values (11%), having difficulty affording food and supplies because of staying at home to avoid contracting the virus (9%), and becoming unemployed (8%).

A reduction in work hours and job loss were of particular concern to respondents because of the possible effects these would have on their health insurance coverage. Of those who reported that they or a family member living with them had lost a job, 43% had employer-sponsored health insurance. Additionally, 58% of patients or a family member whose working hours had been reduced also had health insurance through their employer

Among the entire cohort, 28% reported that they were worried that the financial impact of COVID-19 would make it difficult to pay for the health care they need as cancer survivors. This concern was highly correlated with income. Almost half (46%) of patients who earned $30,000 or less reported that they were worried, but even in household with incomes over $110,000 per year, 21% were also concerned about the financial impact.

“Now more than ever, patients need to be able to get, keep, and afford health coverage to treat their disease,” commented Brooks-Coley.
 

Taking action

“ACS CAN is working every day to make clear to Congress and the administration the real and immediate challenges cancer patients and survivors face during this pandemic,” said Brooks-Coley.

With nearly 50 other professional and advocacy groups, ACS CAN has sent letters to congressional leadership and the Secretary of the Department of Health & Human Services asking them to make policy changes that would help patients.

The proposed action points include having insurers allow patients to use providers who are out of network if necessary; waiving site-specific precertification and prior authorization for cancer treatment; utilizing shared decision making between patients and providers in deciding whether to use home infusion without pressure from the insurer; allowing patients to obtain 90-day supplies of medication; increasing funding for state Medicaid programs and assistance for those who have lost employee-sponsored coverage; and improving telehealth services.

“We urge Congress and the administration to keep the needs of cancer patients and survivors in mind as they continue to address the public health crisis,” she said.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

As the COVID-19 pandemic continues, many cancer patients are finding it increasingly difficult to receive the care they need and are facing financial challenges.

Half of the cancer patients and survivors who responded to a recent survey reported changes, delays, or disruptions to the care they were receiving. The survey, with 1,219 respondents, was conducted by the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network (ACS CAN).

“The circumstances of this virus – from the fact cancer patients are at higher risk of severe complications should they be diagnosed with COVID-19, to the fact many patients are facing serious financial strain caused by the virus’ economic effect – make getting care especially difficult,” Keysha Brooks-Coley, vice president of federal advocacy for ACS CAN, told Medscape Medical News.

Nearly a quarter (24%) of survey respondents reported a delay in care or treatment. The proportion was slightly more (27%) among those currently receiving active treatment.

In addition, 12% (13% in active treatment) stated that not only was their care delayed but that they also have not been told when services would be rescheduled.

As previously reported by Medscape Medical News, many oncology groups have issued new guidelines for cancer care in reaction to the current crisis. These include recommendations to delay cancer treatment in order to avoid exposing cancer patients to the virus.

Half of those in active treatment report disruptions

The survey was initiated by ACS CAN on March 25 and was distributed over a 2-week period. The goal was to gain a better understanding of how COVID-19 was affecting cancer patients and survivors in the United States. Of the 1,219 respondents, half (51%) were cancer patients currently undergoing active treatment.

Among the patients and survivors who were currently in active treatment, 55% reported that there have been changes, delays, or disruptions in their care. The services most frequently affected included in-person provider visits (50%), supportive services (20%), and imaging procedures to monitor tumor growth (20%).

In addition, 8% reported that their treatment, including chemotherapy and immunotherapy, had been affected by the COVID-19 pandemic.

Financial concerns

Almost all of the survey respondents were covered by some type of insurance; 49% had coverage through an employer, 32% were covered by Medicare, 7% had privately purchased insurance, and 4% were covered through Medicaid.

Many cancer patients had already been having difficulty paying for their care, but for a substantial proportion of survey respondents, the COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated the problem. More than one-third (38%) stated that COVID-19 “has had a notable impact on their financial situation that affects their ability to pay for health care.”

The most common financial problems that were related to access to care include reduced work hours (14%), reduced investment values (11%), having difficulty affording food and supplies because of staying at home to avoid contracting the virus (9%), and becoming unemployed (8%).

A reduction in work hours and job loss were of particular concern to respondents because of the possible effects these would have on their health insurance coverage. Of those who reported that they or a family member living with them had lost a job, 43% had employer-sponsored health insurance. Additionally, 58% of patients or a family member whose working hours had been reduced also had health insurance through their employer

Among the entire cohort, 28% reported that they were worried that the financial impact of COVID-19 would make it difficult to pay for the health care they need as cancer survivors. This concern was highly correlated with income. Almost half (46%) of patients who earned $30,000 or less reported that they were worried, but even in household with incomes over $110,000 per year, 21% were also concerned about the financial impact.

“Now more than ever, patients need to be able to get, keep, and afford health coverage to treat their disease,” commented Brooks-Coley.
 

Taking action

“ACS CAN is working every day to make clear to Congress and the administration the real and immediate challenges cancer patients and survivors face during this pandemic,” said Brooks-Coley.

With nearly 50 other professional and advocacy groups, ACS CAN has sent letters to congressional leadership and the Secretary of the Department of Health & Human Services asking them to make policy changes that would help patients.

The proposed action points include having insurers allow patients to use providers who are out of network if necessary; waiving site-specific precertification and prior authorization for cancer treatment; utilizing shared decision making between patients and providers in deciding whether to use home infusion without pressure from the insurer; allowing patients to obtain 90-day supplies of medication; increasing funding for state Medicaid programs and assistance for those who have lost employee-sponsored coverage; and improving telehealth services.

“We urge Congress and the administration to keep the needs of cancer patients and survivors in mind as they continue to address the public health crisis,” she said.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

As an Episcopal priest, Father Robert Pace of Fort Worth, TX, is used to putting others first and reaching out to help. So when the pulmonologist who helped him through his ordeal with COVID-19 asked if he would like to donate blood to help other patients, he did not hesitate.

“I said, ‘Absolutely,’” Pace, 53, recalls. He says the idea was ‘very appealing.’ ” During his ordeal with COVID-19 in March, he had spent 3 days in the hospital, isolated and on IV fluids and oxygen. He was short of breath, with a heartbeat more rapid than usual.

Now, fully recovered, his blood was a precious commodity, antibody-rich and potentially life-saving.

As researchers scramble to test drugs to fight COVID-19, others are turning to an age-old treatment. They’re collecting the blood of survivors and giving it to patients in the throes of a severe infection, a treatment known as convalescent plasma therapy.

Doctors say the treatment will probably serve as a bridge until other drugs and a vaccine become available.

Although the FDA considers the treatment investigational, in late March, it eased access to it. Patients can get it as part of a clinical trial or through an expanded access program overseen by hospitals or universities. A doctor can also request permission to use the treatment for a single patient.

“It is considered an emergent, compassionate need,” says John Burk, MD, a pulmonologist at Texas Health Harris Methodist Hospital, Fort Worth, who treated Pace. “It is a way to bring it to the bedside.” And the approval can happen quickly. Burk says he got one from the FDA just 20 minutes after requesting it for a severely ill patient.
 

How it works

The premise of how it works is “quite straightforward,” says Michael Joyner, MD, a professor of anesthesiology at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN. “When someone is recovered and no longer symptomatic, you can harvest those antibodies from their blood and give them to someone else, and hopefully alter the course of their disease.” Joyner is the principal investigator for the FDA’s national Expanded Access to Convalescent Plasma for the Treatment of Patients with COVID-19, with 1,000 sites already signed on.

Convalescent therapy has been used to fight many other viruses, including Ebola, severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), the “bird” flu, H1N1 flu, and during the 1918 flu pandemic. Joyner says the strongest evidence for it comes from the 1950s, when it was used to treat a rodent-borne illness called Argentine hemorrhagic fever. Using convalescent plasma therapy for this infection reduced the death rate from nearly 43% before the treatment became common in the late 1950s to about 3% after it was widely used, one report found.

Data about convalescent therapy specifically for COVID-19 is limited. Chinese researchers reported on five critically ill patients, all on mechanical ventilation, treated with convalescent plasma after they had received antiviral and anti-inflammatory medicines. Three could leave the hospital after 51-55 days, and two were in stable condition in the hospital 37 days after the transfusion.

In another study of 10 severely ill patients, symptoms went away or improved in all 10 within 1 to 3 days after the transfusion. Two of the three on ventilators were weaned off and put on oxygen instead. None died.

Chinese researchers also reported three cases of patients with COVID-19 given the convalescent therapy who had a satisfactory recovery.

Researchers who reviewed the track record of convalescent therapy for other conditions recently concluded that the treatment doesn’t appear to cause severe side effects and it should be studied for COVID-19.

Although information on side effects specific to this treatment is evolving, Joyner says they are “very, very low.”

According to the FDA, allergic reactions can occur with plasma therapies. Because the treatment for COVID-19 is new, it is not known if patients might have other types of reactions.
 

Who can donate?

Blood bank officials and researchers running the convalescent plasma programs say the desire to help is widespread, and they’ve been deluged with offers to donate. But requirements are strict.

Donors must have evidence of COVID-19 infection, documented in a variety of ways, such as a diagnostic test by nasal swab or a blood test showing antibodies. And they must be symptom-free for 14 days, with test results, or 28 days without.

The treatment involves collecting plasma, not whole blood. Plasma, the liquid part of the blood, helps with clotting and supports immunity. During the collection, a donor’s blood is put through a machine that collects the plasma only and sends the red blood cells and platelets back to the donor.
 

Clinical trials

Requirements may be more stringent for donors joining a formal clinical trial rather than an expanded access program. For instance, potential donors in a randomized clinical trial underway at Stony Brook University must have higher antibody levels than required by the FDA, says study leader Elliott Bennett-Guerrero, MD, medical director of perioperative quality and patient safety and professor at the Renaissance School of Medicine.

He hopes to enroll up to 500 patients from the Long Island, NY, area. While clinical trials typically have a 50-50 split, with half of subjects getting a treatment and half a placebo, Bennett-Guerrero’s study will give 80% of patients the convalescent plasma and 20% standard plasma.

Julia Sabia Motley, 57, of Merrick, NY, is hoping to become a donor for the Stony Brook study. She and her husband, Sean Motley, 59, tested positive in late March. She has to pass one more test to join the trial. Her husband is also planning to try to donate. “I can finally do something,” Sabia Motley says. Her son is in the MD-PhD program at Stony Brook and told her about the study.
 

Many questions remain

The treatment for COVID-19 is in its infancy. Burk has given the convalescent plasma to two patients. One is now recovering at home, and the other is on a ventilator but improving, he says.

About 200 nationwide have received the therapy, Joyner says. He expects blood supplies to increase as more people are eligible to donate.

Questions remain about how effective the convalescent therapy will be. While experts know that the COVID-19 antibodies “can be helpful in fighting the virus, we don’t know how long the antibodies in the plasma would stay in place,” Bennett-Guerrero says.

Nor do doctors know who the therapy might work best for, beyond people with a severe or life-threatening illness. When it’s been used for other infections, it’s generally given in early stages once someone has symptoms, Joyner says.

Joyner says he sees the treatment as a stopgap ‘’until concentrated antibodies are available.” Several drug companies are working to retrieve antibodies from donors and make concentrated antibody drugs.

“Typically we would think convalescent plasma might be a helpful bridge until therapies that are safe and effective and can be mass-produced are available, such as a vaccine or a drug,” Bennett-Guerrero says.

Even so, he says that he doesn’t think he will have a problem attracting donors, and that he will have repeat donors eager to help.
 

More information for potential donors

Blood banks, the American Red Cross, and others involved in convalescent plasma therapy have posted information online for potential donors. People who don’t meet the qualifications for COVID-19 plasma donations are welcomed as regular blood donors if they meet those criteria

According to the FDA, a donation could potentially help save the lives of up to four COVID-19 patients.

Father Pace is already planning another visit to the blood bank. To pass the time last time, he says, he prayed for the person who would eventually get his blood.

This article first appeared on WebMD.com.

As an Episcopal priest, Father Robert Pace of Fort Worth, TX, is used to putting others first and reaching out to help. So when the pulmonologist who helped him through his ordeal with COVID-19 asked if he would like to donate blood to help other patients, he did not hesitate.

“I said, ‘Absolutely,’” Pace, 53, recalls. He says the idea was ‘very appealing.’ ” During his ordeal with COVID-19 in March, he had spent 3 days in the hospital, isolated and on IV fluids and oxygen. He was short of breath, with a heartbeat more rapid than usual.

Now, fully recovered, his blood was a precious commodity, antibody-rich and potentially life-saving.

As researchers scramble to test drugs to fight COVID-19, others are turning to an age-old treatment. They’re collecting the blood of survivors and giving it to patients in the throes of a severe infection, a treatment known as convalescent plasma therapy.

Doctors say the treatment will probably serve as a bridge until other drugs and a vaccine become available.

Although the FDA considers the treatment investigational, in late March, it eased access to it. Patients can get it as part of a clinical trial or through an expanded access program overseen by hospitals or universities. A doctor can also request permission to use the treatment for a single patient.

“It is considered an emergent, compassionate need,” says John Burk, MD, a pulmonologist at Texas Health Harris Methodist Hospital, Fort Worth, who treated Pace. “It is a way to bring it to the bedside.” And the approval can happen quickly. Burk says he got one from the FDA just 20 minutes after requesting it for a severely ill patient.
 

How it works

The premise of how it works is “quite straightforward,” says Michael Joyner, MD, a professor of anesthesiology at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN. “When someone is recovered and no longer symptomatic, you can harvest those antibodies from their blood and give them to someone else, and hopefully alter the course of their disease.” Joyner is the principal investigator for the FDA’s national Expanded Access to Convalescent Plasma for the Treatment of Patients with COVID-19, with 1,000 sites already signed on.

Convalescent therapy has been used to fight many other viruses, including Ebola, severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), the “bird” flu, H1N1 flu, and during the 1918 flu pandemic. Joyner says the strongest evidence for it comes from the 1950s, when it was used to treat a rodent-borne illness called Argentine hemorrhagic fever. Using convalescent plasma therapy for this infection reduced the death rate from nearly 43% before the treatment became common in the late 1950s to about 3% after it was widely used, one report found.

Data about convalescent therapy specifically for COVID-19 is limited. Chinese researchers reported on five critically ill patients, all on mechanical ventilation, treated with convalescent plasma after they had received antiviral and anti-inflammatory medicines. Three could leave the hospital after 51-55 days, and two were in stable condition in the hospital 37 days after the transfusion.

In another study of 10 severely ill patients, symptoms went away or improved in all 10 within 1 to 3 days after the transfusion. Two of the three on ventilators were weaned off and put on oxygen instead. None died.

Chinese researchers also reported three cases of patients with COVID-19 given the convalescent therapy who had a satisfactory recovery.

Researchers who reviewed the track record of convalescent therapy for other conditions recently concluded that the treatment doesn’t appear to cause severe side effects and it should be studied for COVID-19.

Although information on side effects specific to this treatment is evolving, Joyner says they are “very, very low.”

According to the FDA, allergic reactions can occur with plasma therapies. Because the treatment for COVID-19 is new, it is not known if patients might have other types of reactions.
 

Who can donate?

Blood bank officials and researchers running the convalescent plasma programs say the desire to help is widespread, and they’ve been deluged with offers to donate. But requirements are strict.

Donors must have evidence of COVID-19 infection, documented in a variety of ways, such as a diagnostic test by nasal swab or a blood test showing antibodies. And they must be symptom-free for 14 days, with test results, or 28 days without.

The treatment involves collecting plasma, not whole blood. Plasma, the liquid part of the blood, helps with clotting and supports immunity. During the collection, a donor’s blood is put through a machine that collects the plasma only and sends the red blood cells and platelets back to the donor.
 

Clinical trials

Requirements may be more stringent for donors joining a formal clinical trial rather than an expanded access program. For instance, potential donors in a randomized clinical trial underway at Stony Brook University must have higher antibody levels than required by the FDA, says study leader Elliott Bennett-Guerrero, MD, medical director of perioperative quality and patient safety and professor at the Renaissance School of Medicine.

He hopes to enroll up to 500 patients from the Long Island, NY, area. While clinical trials typically have a 50-50 split, with half of subjects getting a treatment and half a placebo, Bennett-Guerrero’s study will give 80% of patients the convalescent plasma and 20% standard plasma.

Julia Sabia Motley, 57, of Merrick, NY, is hoping to become a donor for the Stony Brook study. She and her husband, Sean Motley, 59, tested positive in late March. She has to pass one more test to join the trial. Her husband is also planning to try to donate. “I can finally do something,” Sabia Motley says. Her son is in the MD-PhD program at Stony Brook and told her about the study.
 

Many questions remain

The treatment for COVID-19 is in its infancy. Burk has given the convalescent plasma to two patients. One is now recovering at home, and the other is on a ventilator but improving, he says.

About 200 nationwide have received the therapy, Joyner says. He expects blood supplies to increase as more people are eligible to donate.

Questions remain about how effective the convalescent therapy will be. While experts know that the COVID-19 antibodies “can be helpful in fighting the virus, we don’t know how long the antibodies in the plasma would stay in place,” Bennett-Guerrero says.

Nor do doctors know who the therapy might work best for, beyond people with a severe or life-threatening illness. When it’s been used for other infections, it’s generally given in early stages once someone has symptoms, Joyner says.

Joyner says he sees the treatment as a stopgap ‘’until concentrated antibodies are available.” Several drug companies are working to retrieve antibodies from donors and make concentrated antibody drugs.

“Typically we would think convalescent plasma might be a helpful bridge until therapies that are safe and effective and can be mass-produced are available, such as a vaccine or a drug,” Bennett-Guerrero says.

Even so, he says that he doesn’t think he will have a problem attracting donors, and that he will have repeat donors eager to help.
 

More information for potential donors

Blood banks, the American Red Cross, and others involved in convalescent plasma therapy have posted information online for potential donors. People who don’t meet the qualifications for COVID-19 plasma donations are welcomed as regular blood donors if they meet those criteria

According to the FDA, a donation could potentially help save the lives of up to four COVID-19 patients.

Father Pace is already planning another visit to the blood bank. To pass the time last time, he says, he prayed for the person who would eventually get his blood.

This article first appeared on WebMD.com.

As an Episcopal priest, Father Robert Pace of Fort Worth, TX, is used to putting others first and reaching out to help. So when the pulmonologist who helped him through his ordeal with COVID-19 asked if he would like to donate blood to help other patients, he did not hesitate.

“I said, ‘Absolutely,’” Pace, 53, recalls. He says the idea was ‘very appealing.’ ” During his ordeal with COVID-19 in March, he had spent 3 days in the hospital, isolated and on IV fluids and oxygen. He was short of breath, with a heartbeat more rapid than usual.

Now, fully recovered, his blood was a precious commodity, antibody-rich and potentially life-saving.

As researchers scramble to test drugs to fight COVID-19, others are turning to an age-old treatment. They’re collecting the blood of survivors and giving it to patients in the throes of a severe infection, a treatment known as convalescent plasma therapy.

Doctors say the treatment will probably serve as a bridge until other drugs and a vaccine become available.

Although the FDA considers the treatment investigational, in late March, it eased access to it. Patients can get it as part of a clinical trial or through an expanded access program overseen by hospitals or universities. A doctor can also request permission to use the treatment for a single patient.

“It is considered an emergent, compassionate need,” says John Burk, MD, a pulmonologist at Texas Health Harris Methodist Hospital, Fort Worth, who treated Pace. “It is a way to bring it to the bedside.” And the approval can happen quickly. Burk says he got one from the FDA just 20 minutes after requesting it for a severely ill patient.
 

How it works

The premise of how it works is “quite straightforward,” says Michael Joyner, MD, a professor of anesthesiology at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN. “When someone is recovered and no longer symptomatic, you can harvest those antibodies from their blood and give them to someone else, and hopefully alter the course of their disease.” Joyner is the principal investigator for the FDA’s national Expanded Access to Convalescent Plasma for the Treatment of Patients with COVID-19, with 1,000 sites already signed on.

Convalescent therapy has been used to fight many other viruses, including Ebola, severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), the “bird” flu, H1N1 flu, and during the 1918 flu pandemic. Joyner says the strongest evidence for it comes from the 1950s, when it was used to treat a rodent-borne illness called Argentine hemorrhagic fever. Using convalescent plasma therapy for this infection reduced the death rate from nearly 43% before the treatment became common in the late 1950s to about 3% after it was widely used, one report found.

Data about convalescent therapy specifically for COVID-19 is limited. Chinese researchers reported on five critically ill patients, all on mechanical ventilation, treated with convalescent plasma after they had received antiviral and anti-inflammatory medicines. Three could leave the hospital after 51-55 days, and two were in stable condition in the hospital 37 days after the transfusion.

In another study of 10 severely ill patients, symptoms went away or improved in all 10 within 1 to 3 days after the transfusion. Two of the three on ventilators were weaned off and put on oxygen instead. None died.

Chinese researchers also reported three cases of patients with COVID-19 given the convalescent therapy who had a satisfactory recovery.

Researchers who reviewed the track record of convalescent therapy for other conditions recently concluded that the treatment doesn’t appear to cause severe side effects and it should be studied for COVID-19.

Although information on side effects specific to this treatment is evolving, Joyner says they are “very, very low.”

According to the FDA, allergic reactions can occur with plasma therapies. Because the treatment for COVID-19 is new, it is not known if patients might have other types of reactions.
 

Who can donate?

Blood bank officials and researchers running the convalescent plasma programs say the desire to help is widespread, and they’ve been deluged with offers to donate. But requirements are strict.

Donors must have evidence of COVID-19 infection, documented in a variety of ways, such as a diagnostic test by nasal swab or a blood test showing antibodies. And they must be symptom-free for 14 days, with test results, or 28 days without.

The treatment involves collecting plasma, not whole blood. Plasma, the liquid part of the blood, helps with clotting and supports immunity. During the collection, a donor’s blood is put through a machine that collects the plasma only and sends the red blood cells and platelets back to the donor.
 

Clinical trials

Requirements may be more stringent for donors joining a formal clinical trial rather than an expanded access program. For instance, potential donors in a randomized clinical trial underway at Stony Brook University must have higher antibody levels than required by the FDA, says study leader Elliott Bennett-Guerrero, MD, medical director of perioperative quality and patient safety and professor at the Renaissance School of Medicine.

He hopes to enroll up to 500 patients from the Long Island, NY, area. While clinical trials typically have a 50-50 split, with half of subjects getting a treatment and half a placebo, Bennett-Guerrero’s study will give 80% of patients the convalescent plasma and 20% standard plasma.

Julia Sabia Motley, 57, of Merrick, NY, is hoping to become a donor for the Stony Brook study. She and her husband, Sean Motley, 59, tested positive in late March. She has to pass one more test to join the trial. Her husband is also planning to try to donate. “I can finally do something,” Sabia Motley says. Her son is in the MD-PhD program at Stony Brook and told her about the study.
 

Many questions remain

The treatment for COVID-19 is in its infancy. Burk has given the convalescent plasma to two patients. One is now recovering at home, and the other is on a ventilator but improving, he says.

About 200 nationwide have received the therapy, Joyner says. He expects blood supplies to increase as more people are eligible to donate.

Questions remain about how effective the convalescent therapy will be. While experts know that the COVID-19 antibodies “can be helpful in fighting the virus, we don’t know how long the antibodies in the plasma would stay in place,” Bennett-Guerrero says.

Nor do doctors know who the therapy might work best for, beyond people with a severe or life-threatening illness. When it’s been used for other infections, it’s generally given in early stages once someone has symptoms, Joyner says.

Joyner says he sees the treatment as a stopgap ‘’until concentrated antibodies are available.” Several drug companies are working to retrieve antibodies from donors and make concentrated antibody drugs.

“Typically we would think convalescent plasma might be a helpful bridge until therapies that are safe and effective and can be mass-produced are available, such as a vaccine or a drug,” Bennett-Guerrero says.

Even so, he says that he doesn’t think he will have a problem attracting donors, and that he will have repeat donors eager to help.
 

More information for potential donors

Blood banks, the American Red Cross, and others involved in convalescent plasma therapy have posted information online for potential donors. People who don’t meet the qualifications for COVID-19 plasma donations are welcomed as regular blood donors if they meet those criteria

According to the FDA, a donation could potentially help save the lives of up to four COVID-19 patients.

Father Pace is already planning another visit to the blood bank. To pass the time last time, he says, he prayed for the person who would eventually get his blood.

This article first appeared on WebMD.com.

There will be some change for the better when oncology care emerges from the COVID-19 pandemic, the most “revolutionary” being a deep dive into telehealth, predicts Deborah Schrag, MD, MPH, a medical oncologist specializing in gastrointestinal cancers at the Dana Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, Massachusetts.

“In the space of a month, approaches and accepted norms of cancer care delivery have been transformed of necessity,” Schrag and colleagues write in an article published in JAMA on April 13.

“Most of these changes would not have occurred without the pandemic,” they add. They predict that some changes will last after the crisis is over.

“None of us want to be thrown in the deep end.... On the other hand, sometimes it works,” Schrag told Medscape Medical News.

“The in-person visit between patient and physician has been upended,” she said.

“I don’t think there’s any going back to the way it was before because cancer patients won’t stand for it,” she said. “They’re not going to drive in to get the results of a blood test.

“I think that on balance, of course, there are situations where you need eye-to-eye contact. No one wants to have an initial oncology meeting by telehealth – doctors or patients – that’s ridiculous,” she said. “But for follow-up visits, patients are now going to be more demanding, and doctors will be more willing.”

The “essential empathy” of oncologists can still “transcend the new physical barriers presented by masks and telehealth,” Schrag and colleagues comment.

“Doctors are figuring out how to deliver empathy by Zoom,” she told Medscape Medical News. “It’s not the same, but we all convey empathy to our elderly relatives over the phone.”

Pandemic impact on oncology

While the crisis has affected all of medicine – dismantling how care is delivered and forcing clinicians to make difficult decisions regarding triage – the fact that some cancers present an immediate threat to survival means that oncology “provides a lens into the major shifts currently underway in clinical care,” Schrag and colleagues write.

They illustrate the point by highlighting systemic chemotherapy, which is provided to a large proportion of patients with advanced cancer. The pandemic has tipped the risk-benefit ratio away from treatments that have a marginal effect on quality or quantity of life, they note. It has forced an “elimination of low-value treatments that were identified by the Choosing Wisely campaign,” the authors write. Up to now, the uptake of recommendations to eliminate these treatments has been slow.

“For example, for most metastatic solid tumors, chemotherapy beyond the third regimen does not improve survival for more than a few weeks; therefore, oncologists are advising supportive care instead. For patients receiving adjuvant therapy for curable cancers, delaying initiation or abbreviating the number of cycles is appropriate. Oncologists are postponing initiation of adjuvant chemotherapy for some estrogen receptor–negative stage II breast cancers by 8 weeks and administering 6 rather than 12 cycles of adjuvant chemotherapy for stage III colorectal cancers,” Schrag and colleagues write.

On the other hand, even in the epicenters of the pandemic, thus far, oncologists are still delivering cancer treatments that have the potential to cure and cannot safely be delayed, they point out. “This includes most patients with new diagnoses of acute leukemia, high-grade lymphoma, and those with chemotherapy-responsive tumors such as testicular, ovarian, and small cell lung cancer. Despite the risks, oncologists are not modifying such treatments because these cancers are likely more lethal than COVID-19.”

It’s the cancer patients who fall in between these two extremes who pose the biggest treatment challenge during this crisis – the patients for whom a delay would have “moderate clinically important adverse influence on quality of life or survival.” In these cases, oncologists are “prescribing marginally less effective regimens that have lower risk of precipitating hospitalization,” the authors note.

These treatments include the use of “white cell growth factor, more stringent neutrophil counts for proceeding with a next cycle of therapy, and omitting use of steroids to manage nausea.” In addition, where possible, oncologists are substituting oral agents for intravenous agents and “myriad other modifications to minimize visits and hospitalizations.”

Most hospitals and outpatient infusion centers now prohibit visitors from accompanying patients, and oncologists are prioritizing conversations with patients about advance directives, healthcare proxies, and end-of-life care preferences. Yet, even here, telehealth offers a new, enhanced layer to those conversations by enabling families to gather with their loved one and the doctor, she said.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

There will be some change for the better when oncology care emerges from the COVID-19 pandemic, the most “revolutionary” being a deep dive into telehealth, predicts Deborah Schrag, MD, MPH, a medical oncologist specializing in gastrointestinal cancers at the Dana Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, Massachusetts.

“In the space of a month, approaches and accepted norms of cancer care delivery have been transformed of necessity,” Schrag and colleagues write in an article published in JAMA on April 13.

“Most of these changes would not have occurred without the pandemic,” they add. They predict that some changes will last after the crisis is over.

“None of us want to be thrown in the deep end.... On the other hand, sometimes it works,” Schrag told Medscape Medical News.

“The in-person visit between patient and physician has been upended,” she said.

“I don’t think there’s any going back to the way it was before because cancer patients won’t stand for it,” she said. “They’re not going to drive in to get the results of a blood test.

“I think that on balance, of course, there are situations where you need eye-to-eye contact. No one wants to have an initial oncology meeting by telehealth – doctors or patients – that’s ridiculous,” she said. “But for follow-up visits, patients are now going to be more demanding, and doctors will be more willing.”

The “essential empathy” of oncologists can still “transcend the new physical barriers presented by masks and telehealth,” Schrag and colleagues comment.

“Doctors are figuring out how to deliver empathy by Zoom,” she told Medscape Medical News. “It’s not the same, but we all convey empathy to our elderly relatives over the phone.”

Pandemic impact on oncology

While the crisis has affected all of medicine – dismantling how care is delivered and forcing clinicians to make difficult decisions regarding triage – the fact that some cancers present an immediate threat to survival means that oncology “provides a lens into the major shifts currently underway in clinical care,” Schrag and colleagues write.

They illustrate the point by highlighting systemic chemotherapy, which is provided to a large proportion of patients with advanced cancer. The pandemic has tipped the risk-benefit ratio away from treatments that have a marginal effect on quality or quantity of life, they note. It has forced an “elimination of low-value treatments that were identified by the Choosing Wisely campaign,” the authors write. Up to now, the uptake of recommendations to eliminate these treatments has been slow.

“For example, for most metastatic solid tumors, chemotherapy beyond the third regimen does not improve survival for more than a few weeks; therefore, oncologists are advising supportive care instead. For patients receiving adjuvant therapy for curable cancers, delaying initiation or abbreviating the number of cycles is appropriate. Oncologists are postponing initiation of adjuvant chemotherapy for some estrogen receptor–negative stage II breast cancers by 8 weeks and administering 6 rather than 12 cycles of adjuvant chemotherapy for stage III colorectal cancers,” Schrag and colleagues write.

On the other hand, even in the epicenters of the pandemic, thus far, oncologists are still delivering cancer treatments that have the potential to cure and cannot safely be delayed, they point out. “This includes most patients with new diagnoses of acute leukemia, high-grade lymphoma, and those with chemotherapy-responsive tumors such as testicular, ovarian, and small cell lung cancer. Despite the risks, oncologists are not modifying such treatments because these cancers are likely more lethal than COVID-19.”

It’s the cancer patients who fall in between these two extremes who pose the biggest treatment challenge during this crisis – the patients for whom a delay would have “moderate clinically important adverse influence on quality of life or survival.” In these cases, oncologists are “prescribing marginally less effective regimens that have lower risk of precipitating hospitalization,” the authors note.

These treatments include the use of “white cell growth factor, more stringent neutrophil counts for proceeding with a next cycle of therapy, and omitting use of steroids to manage nausea.” In addition, where possible, oncologists are substituting oral agents for intravenous agents and “myriad other modifications to minimize visits and hospitalizations.”

Most hospitals and outpatient infusion centers now prohibit visitors from accompanying patients, and oncologists are prioritizing conversations with patients about advance directives, healthcare proxies, and end-of-life care preferences. Yet, even here, telehealth offers a new, enhanced layer to those conversations by enabling families to gather with their loved one and the doctor, she said.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

There will be some change for the better when oncology care emerges from the COVID-19 pandemic, the most “revolutionary” being a deep dive into telehealth, predicts Deborah Schrag, MD, MPH, a medical oncologist specializing in gastrointestinal cancers at the Dana Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, Massachusetts.

“In the space of a month, approaches and accepted norms of cancer care delivery have been transformed of necessity,” Schrag and colleagues write in an article published in JAMA on April 13.

“Most of these changes would not have occurred without the pandemic,” they add. They predict that some changes will last after the crisis is over.

“None of us want to be thrown in the deep end.... On the other hand, sometimes it works,” Schrag told Medscape Medical News.

“The in-person visit between patient and physician has been upended,” she said.

“I don’t think there’s any going back to the way it was before because cancer patients won’t stand for it,” she said. “They’re not going to drive in to get the results of a blood test.

“I think that on balance, of course, there are situations where you need eye-to-eye contact. No one wants to have an initial oncology meeting by telehealth – doctors or patients – that’s ridiculous,” she said. “But for follow-up visits, patients are now going to be more demanding, and doctors will be more willing.”

The “essential empathy” of oncologists can still “transcend the new physical barriers presented by masks and telehealth,” Schrag and colleagues comment.

“Doctors are figuring out how to deliver empathy by Zoom,” she told Medscape Medical News. “It’s not the same, but we all convey empathy to our elderly relatives over the phone.”

Pandemic impact on oncology

While the crisis has affected all of medicine – dismantling how care is delivered and forcing clinicians to make difficult decisions regarding triage – the fact that some cancers present an immediate threat to survival means that oncology “provides a lens into the major shifts currently underway in clinical care,” Schrag and colleagues write.

They illustrate the point by highlighting systemic chemotherapy, which is provided to a large proportion of patients with advanced cancer. The pandemic has tipped the risk-benefit ratio away from treatments that have a marginal effect on quality or quantity of life, they note. It has forced an “elimination of low-value treatments that were identified by the Choosing Wisely campaign,” the authors write. Up to now, the uptake of recommendations to eliminate these treatments has been slow.

“For example, for most metastatic solid tumors, chemotherapy beyond the third regimen does not improve survival for more than a few weeks; therefore, oncologists are advising supportive care instead. For patients receiving adjuvant therapy for curable cancers, delaying initiation or abbreviating the number of cycles is appropriate. Oncologists are postponing initiation of adjuvant chemotherapy for some estrogen receptor–negative stage II breast cancers by 8 weeks and administering 6 rather than 12 cycles of adjuvant chemotherapy for stage III colorectal cancers,” Schrag and colleagues write.

On the other hand, even in the epicenters of the pandemic, thus far, oncologists are still delivering cancer treatments that have the potential to cure and cannot safely be delayed, they point out. “This includes most patients with new diagnoses of acute leukemia, high-grade lymphoma, and those with chemotherapy-responsive tumors such as testicular, ovarian, and small cell lung cancer. Despite the risks, oncologists are not modifying such treatments because these cancers are likely more lethal than COVID-19.”

It’s the cancer patients who fall in between these two extremes who pose the biggest treatment challenge during this crisis – the patients for whom a delay would have “moderate clinically important adverse influence on quality of life or survival.” In these cases, oncologists are “prescribing marginally less effective regimens that have lower risk of precipitating hospitalization,” the authors note.

These treatments include the use of “white cell growth factor, more stringent neutrophil counts for proceeding with a next cycle of therapy, and omitting use of steroids to manage nausea.” In addition, where possible, oncologists are substituting oral agents for intravenous agents and “myriad other modifications to minimize visits and hospitalizations.”

Most hospitals and outpatient infusion centers now prohibit visitors from accompanying patients, and oncologists are prioritizing conversations with patients about advance directives, healthcare proxies, and end-of-life care preferences. Yet, even here, telehealth offers a new, enhanced layer to those conversations by enabling families to gather with their loved one and the doctor, she said.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A meta-analysis of four applicable studies found that the hemoglobin value was significantly lower in COVID-19 patients with severe disease, compared with those with milder forms, according to a letter to the editor of Hematology Transfusion and Cell Therapy by Giuseppe Lippi, MD, of the University of Verona (Italy) and colleague.

The four studies comprised 1,210 COVID-19 patients (224 with severe disease; 18.5%). The primary endpoint was defined as a composite of admission to the ICU, need of mechanical ventilation or death. The heterogeneity among the studies was high.

Overall, the hemoglobin value was found to be significantly lower in COVID-19 patients with severe disease than in those with milder forms, yielding a weighted mean difference of −7.1 g/L, with a 95% confidence interval of −8.3 g/L to −5.9 g/L.

“Initial assessment and longitudinal monitoring of hemoglobin values seems advisable in patients with the SARS-CoV-2 infection, whereby a progressive decrease in the hemoglobin concentration may reflect a worse clinical progression,” the authors stated. They also suggested that studies should be “urgently planned to assess whether transfusion support (e.g., with administration of blood or packed red blood cells) may be helpful in this clinical setting to prevent evolution into severe disease and death.”

The authors declared the had no conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Lippi G et al. Hematol Transfus Cell Ther. 2020 Apr 11; doi:10.1016/j.htct.2020.03.001.

A meta-analysis of four applicable studies found that the hemoglobin value was significantly lower in COVID-19 patients with severe disease, compared with those with milder forms, according to a letter to the editor of Hematology Transfusion and Cell Therapy by Giuseppe Lippi, MD, of the University of Verona (Italy) and colleague.

The four studies comprised 1,210 COVID-19 patients (224 with severe disease; 18.5%). The primary endpoint was defined as a composite of admission to the ICU, need of mechanical ventilation or death. The heterogeneity among the studies was high.

Overall, the hemoglobin value was found to be significantly lower in COVID-19 patients with severe disease than in those with milder forms, yielding a weighted mean difference of −7.1 g/L, with a 95% confidence interval of −8.3 g/L to −5.9 g/L.

“Initial assessment and longitudinal monitoring of hemoglobin values seems advisable in patients with the SARS-CoV-2 infection, whereby a progressive decrease in the hemoglobin concentration may reflect a worse clinical progression,” the authors stated. They also suggested that studies should be “urgently planned to assess whether transfusion support (e.g., with administration of blood or packed red blood cells) may be helpful in this clinical setting to prevent evolution into severe disease and death.”

The authors declared the had no conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Lippi G et al. Hematol Transfus Cell Ther. 2020 Apr 11; doi:10.1016/j.htct.2020.03.001.

A meta-analysis of four applicable studies found that the hemoglobin value was significantly lower in COVID-19 patients with severe disease, compared with those with milder forms, according to a letter to the editor of Hematology Transfusion and Cell Therapy by Giuseppe Lippi, MD, of the University of Verona (Italy) and colleague.

The four studies comprised 1,210 COVID-19 patients (224 with severe disease; 18.5%). The primary endpoint was defined as a composite of admission to the ICU, need of mechanical ventilation or death. The heterogeneity among the studies was high.

Overall, the hemoglobin value was found to be significantly lower in COVID-19 patients with severe disease than in those with milder forms, yielding a weighted mean difference of −7.1 g/L, with a 95% confidence interval of −8.3 g/L to −5.9 g/L.

“Initial assessment and longitudinal monitoring of hemoglobin values seems advisable in patients with the SARS-CoV-2 infection, whereby a progressive decrease in the hemoglobin concentration may reflect a worse clinical progression,” the authors stated. They also suggested that studies should be “urgently planned to assess whether transfusion support (e.g., with administration of blood or packed red blood cells) may be helpful in this clinical setting to prevent evolution into severe disease and death.”

The authors declared the had no conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Lippi G et al. Hematol Transfus Cell Ther. 2020 Apr 11; doi:10.1016/j.htct.2020.03.001.

The American Society of Hematology has committed a portion of its website to providing continually updated information addressing specific hematologic disorders in relation to COVID-19.

“As the world grapples with the novel coronavirus, ASH believes that we can help each other be as knowledgeable and prepared as possible,” wrote the society’s president, Stephanie J. Lee, MD, MPH.

On its website, ASH provides relevant COVID-19 information in a series of FAQ divided into malignant and nonmalignant hematologic diseases and disorders. In the malignant category, the various lymphomas and leukemias are individually addressed, as well as other conditions such as myelodysplastic syndromes, myeloproliferative neoplasms, and multiple myeloma. In the nonmalignant category, ASH has provided FAQ on aplastic anemia, thalassemia, sickle cell disease, pulmonary embolism, venous thromboembolism/anticoagulation, coagulopathy, and immune as well as thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura.

In addition to the continually updated series of relevant FAQ, as part of its response to the pandemic ASH is promoting two unique COVID-19 registries for physicians: the ASH Research Collaborative’s (ASH RC) Data Hub COVID-19 Registry and the Surveillance Epidemiology of Coronavirus (COVID-19) Under Research Exclusion Sickle Cell Disease (SECURE-SCD) Registry.

“The ASH Research Collaborative’s (ASH RC) Data Hub launched the COVID-19 Registry and is currently capturing data on people who test positive for COVID-19 and have been or are currently being treated for hematologic malignancy,” according to the website. The intention is to provide “near real-time observational data summaries,” which will hopefully provide useful information to clinicians treating hematologic malignancies in patients in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The registry allows clinicians to enter their own cases in a specified format to allow data analysis on clinical practice and patient outcomes that will be aggregated to provide rapid insights for clinicians to help them care for their patients, according to ASH.

The second registry specifically deals with COVID-19 cases in patients with sickle cell disease. It also allows clinicians to add cases with a similar intention of aggregating data to provide near real-time insights into patient care. “We are asking providers caring for these patients to report all of their cases of COVID-19 to this registry,” according to the registry website. The registry is for reporting COVID-19 cases in sickle cell disease patients “after sufficient time has passed to observe the disease course through resolution of acute illness and/or death.”

ASH also provides more generalized information for hematology practitioners dealing with COVID-19 on the topics of conducting their practice and using telemedicine, among others.

Correction, April 15, 2020: This story originally said incorrectly that ASH developed the 2 new registries. The registries are merely being promoted on the ASH website.

[email protected]

The American Society of Hematology has committed a portion of its website to providing continually updated information addressing specific hematologic disorders in relation to COVID-19.

“As the world grapples with the novel coronavirus, ASH believes that we can help each other be as knowledgeable and prepared as possible,” wrote the society’s president, Stephanie J. Lee, MD, MPH.

On its website, ASH provides relevant COVID-19 information in a series of FAQ divided into malignant and nonmalignant hematologic diseases and disorders. In the malignant category, the various lymphomas and leukemias are individually addressed, as well as other conditions such as myelodysplastic syndromes, myeloproliferative neoplasms, and multiple myeloma. In the nonmalignant category, ASH has provided FAQ on aplastic anemia, thalassemia, sickle cell disease, pulmonary embolism, venous thromboembolism/anticoagulation, coagulopathy, and immune as well as thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura.

In addition to the continually updated series of relevant FAQ, as part of its response to the pandemic ASH is promoting two unique COVID-19 registries for physicians: the ASH Research Collaborative’s (ASH RC) Data Hub COVID-19 Registry and the Surveillance Epidemiology of Coronavirus (COVID-19) Under Research Exclusion Sickle Cell Disease (SECURE-SCD) Registry.

“The ASH Research Collaborative’s (ASH RC) Data Hub launched the COVID-19 Registry and is currently capturing data on people who test positive for COVID-19 and have been or are currently being treated for hematologic malignancy,” according to the website. The intention is to provide “near real-time observational data summaries,” which will hopefully provide useful information to clinicians treating hematologic malignancies in patients in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The registry allows clinicians to enter their own cases in a specified format to allow data analysis on clinical practice and patient outcomes that will be aggregated to provide rapid insights for clinicians to help them care for their patients, according to ASH.

The second registry specifically deals with COVID-19 cases in patients with sickle cell disease. It also allows clinicians to add cases with a similar intention of aggregating data to provide near real-time insights into patient care. “We are asking providers caring for these patients to report all of their cases of COVID-19 to this registry,” according to the registry website. The registry is for reporting COVID-19 cases in sickle cell disease patients “after sufficient time has passed to observe the disease course through resolution of acute illness and/or death.”

ASH also provides more generalized information for hematology practitioners dealing with COVID-19 on the topics of conducting their practice and using telemedicine, among others.

Correction, April 15, 2020: This story originally said incorrectly that ASH developed the 2 new registries. The registries are merely being promoted on the ASH website.

[email protected]

The American Society of Hematology has committed a portion of its website to providing continually updated information addressing specific hematologic disorders in relation to COVID-19.

“As the world grapples with the novel coronavirus, ASH believes that we can help each other be as knowledgeable and prepared as possible,” wrote the society’s president, Stephanie J. Lee, MD, MPH.

On its website, ASH provides relevant COVID-19 information in a series of FAQ divided into malignant and nonmalignant hematologic diseases and disorders. In the malignant category, the various lymphomas and leukemias are individually addressed, as well as other conditions such as myelodysplastic syndromes, myeloproliferative neoplasms, and multiple myeloma. In the nonmalignant category, ASH has provided FAQ on aplastic anemia, thalassemia, sickle cell disease, pulmonary embolism, venous thromboembolism/anticoagulation, coagulopathy, and immune as well as thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura.

In addition to the continually updated series of relevant FAQ, as part of its response to the pandemic ASH is promoting two unique COVID-19 registries for physicians: the ASH Research Collaborative’s (ASH RC) Data Hub COVID-19 Registry and the Surveillance Epidemiology of Coronavirus (COVID-19) Under Research Exclusion Sickle Cell Disease (SECURE-SCD) Registry.

“The ASH Research Collaborative’s (ASH RC) Data Hub launched the COVID-19 Registry and is currently capturing data on people who test positive for COVID-19 and have been or are currently being treated for hematologic malignancy,” according to the website. The intention is to provide “near real-time observational data summaries,” which will hopefully provide useful information to clinicians treating hematologic malignancies in patients in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The registry allows clinicians to enter their own cases in a specified format to allow data analysis on clinical practice and patient outcomes that will be aggregated to provide rapid insights for clinicians to help them care for their patients, according to ASH.

The second registry specifically deals with COVID-19 cases in patients with sickle cell disease. It also allows clinicians to add cases with a similar intention of aggregating data to provide near real-time insights into patient care. “We are asking providers caring for these patients to report all of their cases of COVID-19 to this registry,” according to the registry website. The registry is for reporting COVID-19 cases in sickle cell disease patients “after sufficient time has passed to observe the disease course through resolution of acute illness and/or death.”

ASH also provides more generalized information for hematology practitioners dealing with COVID-19 on the topics of conducting their practice and using telemedicine, among others.

Correction, April 15, 2020: This story originally said incorrectly that ASH developed the 2 new registries. The registries are merely being promoted on the ASH website.

[email protected]

The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) has launched a registry to collect data on cancer patients with COVID-19 and is asking oncology practices across the United States to share information about their patients with the infection for educational purposes.

The new registry joins at least two other cancer and COVID-19 patient registries already underway in the U.S.

In a statement, ASCO President Howard “Skip” Burris III, MD said there is a need to know “how the virus is impacting our patients, their cancer treatment, and outcomes to inform current cancer care” and future care.

The web-based registry, known as the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Survey on COVID-19 in Oncology Registry, is open to all U.S. oncology practices. Participating practices will receive an unspecified “nominal” payment for their data entry efforts.

The registry patient information will be stored on ASCO’s “Big Data” platform, known as CancerLinQ, but is being held apart from that pool of data. The registry information will not be available for commercial purposes, ASCO spokesperson Rachel Martin recently told Medscape Medical News.

Separately, CancerLinQ, which is a wholly owned subsidiary of ASCO, will continue to collect data from its participant oncology practices (as usual), including COVID-19 information.

CancerLinQ has been criticized by ethicists for allowing partner companies to sell access to its data (after stripping off patient identifiers), but without asking for patients’ permission, as reported last year by Medscape Medical News.

Eleven practices, including academic enterprises, have so far expressed interested in participating in the ASCO COVID-19 Registry.

Participating practices are requested to send in details about cancer patients with a confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis. As well as a baseline data capture form, they will need to provide details of subsequent status, treatment, and outcomes. Some patient-identifying data, including zip code, date of birth, gender, race, ethnicity, type of cancer, and comorbidities, will be collected for the purposes of analysis.

ASCO hopes to learn about characteristics of patients with cancer most impacted by COVID-19; estimates of disease severity; treatment modifications or delays; implementation of telemedicine in the cancer treatment setting; and clinical outcomes related to both COVID-19 and cancer.

ASCO says it will deliver periodic reports to the cancer community and the broader public on these and other “key learnings.” It also says that the registry is designed to capture point-in-time data as well as longitudinal data on how the virus will impact care and outcomes into 2021.

ASCO is not alone in its data collection efforts.

The COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium is already collecting information from more than 50 cancer centers and organizations on COVID-19 in patients with cancer. The American Society of Hematology (ASH) Research Collaborative COVID-19 Registry for Hematologic Malignancy is doing the same but with a focus on hematologic malignancies.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) has launched a registry to collect data on cancer patients with COVID-19 and is asking oncology practices across the United States to share information about their patients with the infection for educational purposes.

The new registry joins at least two other cancer and COVID-19 patient registries already underway in the U.S.

In a statement, ASCO President Howard “Skip” Burris III, MD said there is a need to know “how the virus is impacting our patients, their cancer treatment, and outcomes to inform current cancer care” and future care.

The web-based registry, known as the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Survey on COVID-19 in Oncology Registry, is open to all U.S. oncology practices. Participating practices will receive an unspecified “nominal” payment for their data entry efforts.

The registry patient information will be stored on ASCO’s “Big Data” platform, known as CancerLinQ, but is being held apart from that pool of data. The registry information will not be available for commercial purposes, ASCO spokesperson Rachel Martin recently told Medscape Medical News.

Separately, CancerLinQ, which is a wholly owned subsidiary of ASCO, will continue to collect data from its participant oncology practices (as usual), including COVID-19 information.

CancerLinQ has been criticized by ethicists for allowing partner companies to sell access to its data (after stripping off patient identifiers), but without asking for patients’ permission, as reported last year by Medscape Medical News.

Eleven practices, including academic enterprises, have so far expressed interested in participating in the ASCO COVID-19 Registry.

Participating practices are requested to send in details about cancer patients with a confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis. As well as a baseline data capture form, they will need to provide details of subsequent status, treatment, and outcomes. Some patient-identifying data, including zip code, date of birth, gender, race, ethnicity, type of cancer, and comorbidities, will be collected for the purposes of analysis.

ASCO hopes to learn about characteristics of patients with cancer most impacted by COVID-19; estimates of disease severity; treatment modifications or delays; implementation of telemedicine in the cancer treatment setting; and clinical outcomes related to both COVID-19 and cancer.

ASCO says it will deliver periodic reports to the cancer community and the broader public on these and other “key learnings.” It also says that the registry is designed to capture point-in-time data as well as longitudinal data on how the virus will impact care and outcomes into 2021.

ASCO is not alone in its data collection efforts.

The COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium is already collecting information from more than 50 cancer centers and organizations on COVID-19 in patients with cancer. The American Society of Hematology (ASH) Research Collaborative COVID-19 Registry for Hematologic Malignancy is doing the same but with a focus on hematologic malignancies.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) has launched a registry to collect data on cancer patients with COVID-19 and is asking oncology practices across the United States to share information about their patients with the infection for educational purposes.

The new registry joins at least two other cancer and COVID-19 patient registries already underway in the U.S.

In a statement, ASCO President Howard “Skip” Burris III, MD said there is a need to know “how the virus is impacting our patients, their cancer treatment, and outcomes to inform current cancer care” and future care.

The web-based registry, known as the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Survey on COVID-19 in Oncology Registry, is open to all U.S. oncology practices. Participating practices will receive an unspecified “nominal” payment for their data entry efforts.

The registry patient information will be stored on ASCO’s “Big Data” platform, known as CancerLinQ, but is being held apart from that pool of data. The registry information will not be available for commercial purposes, ASCO spokesperson Rachel Martin recently told Medscape Medical News.

Separately, CancerLinQ, which is a wholly owned subsidiary of ASCO, will continue to collect data from its participant oncology practices (as usual), including COVID-19 information.

CancerLinQ has been criticized by ethicists for allowing partner companies to sell access to its data (after stripping off patient identifiers), but without asking for patients’ permission, as reported last year by Medscape Medical News.

Eleven practices, including academic enterprises, have so far expressed interested in participating in the ASCO COVID-19 Registry.

Participating practices are requested to send in details about cancer patients with a confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis. As well as a baseline data capture form, they will need to provide details of subsequent status, treatment, and outcomes. Some patient-identifying data, including zip code, date of birth, gender, race, ethnicity, type of cancer, and comorbidities, will be collected for the purposes of analysis.

ASCO hopes to learn about characteristics of patients with cancer most impacted by COVID-19; estimates of disease severity; treatment modifications or delays; implementation of telemedicine in the cancer treatment setting; and clinical outcomes related to both COVID-19 and cancer.

ASCO says it will deliver periodic reports to the cancer community and the broader public on these and other “key learnings.” It also says that the registry is designed to capture point-in-time data as well as longitudinal data on how the virus will impact care and outcomes into 2021.

ASCO is not alone in its data collection efforts.

The COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium is already collecting information from more than 50 cancer centers and organizations on COVID-19 in patients with cancer. The American Society of Hematology (ASH) Research Collaborative COVID-19 Registry for Hematologic Malignancy is doing the same but with a focus on hematologic malignancies.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

As the COVID-19 pandemic continues, minimizing risks of infection to patients with cancer while maintaining good outcomes remains a priority. An international panel of experts has now issued recommendations for treating patients with rectal cancer, which includes using a short pre-operative course of radiotherapy (SCRT) and then delaying surgery.

Using SCRT translates to fewer hospital appointments, which will keep patients safer and allow them to maintain social distancing. The panel also found that surgery can be safely delayed by up to 12 weeks, and thus will allow procedures to be rescheduled after the pandemic peaks.

“The COVID-19 pandemic is a global emergency and we needed to work very quickly to identify changes that would benefit patients,” said David Sebag-Montefiore, MD, a professor of clinical oncology at the University of Leeds and honorary clinical oncologist with the Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, who led the 15 member panel. “Our recommendations were published 20 days after our first meeting.”

“This process normally takes many months, if not years,” he said in a statement.

The recommendations were published online April 2 in Radiotherapy and Oncology.

The panel used the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) rectal cancer guidelines as a framework to describe these new recommendations.

Recommendations by Stage

The recommendations were categorized into four subgroups based on cancer stage.

Early stage

• The ESMO guidelines recommend total mesorectal excision (TME) surgery without pre-operative radiotherapy for most cases.
• Panel recommendation also strongly supports the use of TME without pre-operative radiotherapy.

Intermediate stage

• The ESMO guidelines recommend TME alone or combined with SCRT or conventional radiotherapy (CRT) if there is uncertainty that a good quality mesorectal excision can be achieved.
• The panel strongly recommends TME alone in regions where high quality surgery is performed. The use of radiotherapy in this subgroup requires careful discussion, as the benefits of preoperative radiotherapy are likely to be small. If radiotherapy is used, then the preferred option should be SCRT.

Locally advanced

• The ESMO guideline recommends either pre-operative SCRT or CRT.
• The panel strongly recommends the use of SCRT and notes two phase 3 trials have compared SCRT and CRT and showed comparable outcomes for local recurrence, disease-free survival, overall survival, and late toxicity. In the COVID-19 setting, the panel points out that SCRT has many advantages over CRT, namely that there is less acute toxicity, fewer treatments which translate to less travel and contact with other patients and staff, and a significantly reduced risk of COVID-19 infection during treatment.

Timing of surgery after SCRT

• The ESMO guideline does not have any recommendations as they were issued before the Stockholm III trial (Lancet Oncol. 2017;18:336-46).
• The panel notes that the use of SCRT and delaying surgery has advantages that can be beneficial in both routine clinical practice and the COVID-19 setting. Several clinical trials have recommended that surgery should be performed within 3-7 days of completing radiotherapy, but the Stockholm III trial reported no difference in outcomes when surgery was delayed. It compared surgery performed within 1 week versus 4-8 weeks following SCRT and there was no difference in any survival endpoints. In addition, a longer delay to surgery was associated with a reduction in post-operative and surgical morbidity although no differences in severe complications or re-operations.

Advanced subgroup

• The ESMO guidelines recommend the use of pre-operative CRT or SCRT followed by neoadjuvant chemotherapy. CRT should be given as a fluoropyrimidine (usually capecitabine) combined with radiotherapy of 45-50.4 Gy over 5-5.5 weeks. Adjuvant chemotherapy should be considered but there is wide international variation in its use.
• The panel recommends that two options be considered based on the current evidence. The first is pre-op CRT, which is the most established standard of care, with the duration of concurrent capecitabine chemotherapy limited to 5-5.5 weeks. The second option is SCRT with or without neoadjuvant chemotherapy. In this case, the duration of radiotherapy is substantially less and has advantages versus CRT. “We consider both options to be acceptable but note the advantages of using SCRT in the COVID-19 setting,” the authors write. “The decision to use neoadjuvant chemotherapy in option 2 will reflect the attitudes to neoadjuvant and adjuvant chemotherapy in each country, the assessment of the risk-benefit ratio, considering the risk factors for COVID-19 increased mortality, and the capacity and prioritization of chemotherapy delivery.”

Organ Preservation

Organ preservation is being increasingly considered when a complete clinical response is achieved after CRT or SCRT, the panel points out. “An organ preservation approach may be considered during the COVID-19 period providing that resources for an adequate surveillance including imaging and endoscopy are available to detect local failures that require salvage surgery,” they write.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

As the COVID-19 pandemic continues, minimizing risks of infection to patients with cancer while maintaining good outcomes remains a priority. An international panel of experts has now issued recommendations for treating patients with rectal cancer, which includes using a short pre-operative course of radiotherapy (SCRT) and then delaying surgery.

Using SCRT translates to fewer hospital appointments, which will keep patients safer and allow them to maintain social distancing. The panel also found that surgery can be safely delayed by up to 12 weeks, and thus will allow procedures to be rescheduled after the pandemic peaks.

“The COVID-19 pandemic is a global emergency and we needed to work very quickly to identify changes that would benefit patients,” said David Sebag-Montefiore, MD, a professor of clinical oncology at the University of Leeds and honorary clinical oncologist with the Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, who led the 15 member panel. “Our recommendations were published 20 days after our first meeting.”

“This process normally takes many months, if not years,” he said in a statement.

The recommendations were published online April 2 in Radiotherapy and Oncology.

The panel used the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) rectal cancer guidelines as a framework to describe these new recommendations.

Recommendations by Stage

The recommendations were categorized into four subgroups based on cancer stage.

Early stage

• The ESMO guidelines recommend total mesorectal excision (TME) surgery without pre-operative radiotherapy for most cases.
• Panel recommendation also strongly supports the use of TME without pre-operative radiotherapy.

Intermediate stage

• The ESMO guidelines recommend TME alone or combined with SCRT or conventional radiotherapy (CRT) if there is uncertainty that a good quality mesorectal excision can be achieved.
• The panel strongly recommends TME alone in regions where high quality surgery is performed. The use of radiotherapy in this subgroup requires careful discussion, as the benefits of preoperative radiotherapy are likely to be small. If radiotherapy is used, then the preferred option should be SCRT.

Locally advanced

• The ESMO guideline recommends either pre-operative SCRT or CRT.
• The panel strongly recommends the use of SCRT and notes two phase 3 trials have compared SCRT and CRT and showed comparable outcomes for local recurrence, disease-free survival, overall survival, and late toxicity. In the COVID-19 setting, the panel points out that SCRT has many advantages over CRT, namely that there is less acute toxicity, fewer treatments which translate to less travel and contact with other patients and staff, and a significantly reduced risk of COVID-19 infection during treatment.

Timing of surgery after SCRT

• The ESMO guideline does not have any recommendations as they were issued before the Stockholm III trial (Lancet Oncol. 2017;18:336-46).
• The panel notes that the use of SCRT and delaying surgery has advantages that can be beneficial in both routine clinical practice and the COVID-19 setting. Several clinical trials have recommended that surgery should be performed within 3-7 days of completing radiotherapy, but the Stockholm III trial reported no difference in outcomes when surgery was delayed. It compared surgery performed within 1 week versus 4-8 weeks following SCRT and there was no difference in any survival endpoints. In addition, a longer delay to surgery was associated with a reduction in post-operative and surgical morbidity although no differences in severe complications or re-operations.

Advanced subgroup

• The ESMO guidelines recommend the use of pre-operative CRT or SCRT followed by neoadjuvant chemotherapy. CRT should be given as a fluoropyrimidine (usually capecitabine) combined with radiotherapy of 45-50.4 Gy over 5-5.5 weeks. Adjuvant chemotherapy should be considered but there is wide international variation in its use.
• The panel recommends that two options be considered based on the current evidence. The first is pre-op CRT, which is the most established standard of care, with the duration of concurrent capecitabine chemotherapy limited to 5-5.5 weeks. The second option is SCRT with or without neoadjuvant chemotherapy. In this case, the duration of radiotherapy is substantially less and has advantages versus CRT. “We consider both options to be acceptable but note the advantages of using SCRT in the COVID-19 setting,” the authors write. “The decision to use neoadjuvant chemotherapy in option 2 will reflect the attitudes to neoadjuvant and adjuvant chemotherapy in each country, the assessment of the risk-benefit ratio, considering the risk factors for COVID-19 increased mortality, and the capacity and prioritization of chemotherapy delivery.”

Organ Preservation

Organ preservation is being increasingly considered when a complete clinical response is achieved after CRT or SCRT, the panel points out. “An organ preservation approach may be considered during the COVID-19 period providing that resources for an adequate surveillance including imaging and endoscopy are available to detect local failures that require salvage surgery,” they write.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

As the COVID-19 pandemic continues, minimizing risks of infection to patients with cancer while maintaining good outcomes remains a priority. An international panel of experts has now issued recommendations for treating patients with rectal cancer, which includes using a short pre-operative course of radiotherapy (SCRT) and then delaying surgery.

Using SCRT translates to fewer hospital appointments, which will keep patients safer and allow them to maintain social distancing. The panel also found that surgery can be safely delayed by up to 12 weeks, and thus will allow procedures to be rescheduled after the pandemic peaks.

“The COVID-19 pandemic is a global emergency and we needed to work very quickly to identify changes that would benefit patients,” said David Sebag-Montefiore, MD, a professor of clinical oncology at the University of Leeds and honorary clinical oncologist with the Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, who led the 15 member panel. “Our recommendations were published 20 days after our first meeting.”

“This process normally takes many months, if not years,” he said in a statement.

The recommendations were published online April 2 in Radiotherapy and Oncology.

The panel used the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) rectal cancer guidelines as a framework to describe these new recommendations.

Recommendations by Stage

The recommendations were categorized into four subgroups based on cancer stage.

Early stage

• The ESMO guidelines recommend total mesorectal excision (TME) surgery without pre-operative radiotherapy for most cases.
• Panel recommendation also strongly supports the use of TME without pre-operative radiotherapy.

Intermediate stage

• The ESMO guidelines recommend TME alone or combined with SCRT or conventional radiotherapy (CRT) if there is uncertainty that a good quality mesorectal excision can be achieved.
• The panel strongly recommends TME alone in regions where high quality surgery is performed. The use of radiotherapy in this subgroup requires careful discussion, as the benefits of preoperative radiotherapy are likely to be small. If radiotherapy is used, then the preferred option should be SCRT.

Locally advanced

• The ESMO guideline recommends either pre-operative SCRT or CRT.
• The panel strongly recommends the use of SCRT and notes two phase 3 trials have compared SCRT and CRT and showed comparable outcomes for local recurrence, disease-free survival, overall survival, and late toxicity. In the COVID-19 setting, the panel points out that SCRT has many advantages over CRT, namely that there is less acute toxicity, fewer treatments which translate to less travel and contact with other patients and staff, and a significantly reduced risk of COVID-19 infection during treatment.

Timing of surgery after SCRT

• The ESMO guideline does not have any recommendations as they were issued before the Stockholm III trial (Lancet Oncol. 2017;18:336-46).
• The panel notes that the use of SCRT and delaying surgery has advantages that can be beneficial in both routine clinical practice and the COVID-19 setting. Several clinical trials have recommended that surgery should be performed within 3-7 days of completing radiotherapy, but the Stockholm III trial reported no difference in outcomes when surgery was delayed. It compared surgery performed within 1 week versus 4-8 weeks following SCRT and there was no difference in any survival endpoints. In addition, a longer delay to surgery was associated with a reduction in post-operative and surgical morbidity although no differences in severe complications or re-operations.

Advanced subgroup

• The ESMO guidelines recommend the use of pre-operative CRT or SCRT followed by neoadjuvant chemotherapy. CRT should be given as a fluoropyrimidine (usually capecitabine) combined with radiotherapy of 45-50.4 Gy over 5-5.5 weeks. Adjuvant chemotherapy should be considered but there is wide international variation in its use.
• The panel recommends that two options be considered based on the current evidence. The first is pre-op CRT, which is the most established standard of care, with the duration of concurrent capecitabine chemotherapy limited to 5-5.5 weeks. The second option is SCRT with or without neoadjuvant chemotherapy. In this case, the duration of radiotherapy is substantially less and has advantages versus CRT. “We consider both options to be acceptable but note the advantages of using SCRT in the COVID-19 setting,” the authors write. “The decision to use neoadjuvant chemotherapy in option 2 will reflect the attitudes to neoadjuvant and adjuvant chemotherapy in each country, the assessment of the risk-benefit ratio, considering the risk factors for COVID-19 increased mortality, and the capacity and prioritization of chemotherapy delivery.”

Organ Preservation

Organ preservation is being increasingly considered when a complete clinical response is achieved after CRT or SCRT, the panel points out. “An organ preservation approach may be considered during the COVID-19 period providing that resources for an adequate surveillance including imaging and endoscopy are available to detect local failures that require salvage surgery,” they write.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.