AVAHO

Women with breast cancer may be receiving treatments that are discordant with guideline recommendations for genetic subtypes of disease, based on a retrospective analysis of more than 20,000 patients.

Radiotherapy and chemotherapy practices were particularly out of alignment with guidelines, reported lead author Allison W. Kurian, MD, of Stanford (Calif.) University, and colleagues.

“Integrating genetic testing into breast cancer care has been complex and challenging,” the investigators wrote in JAMA Oncology. “There is wide variability in which clinicians order testing and disclose results, in the clinical significance of results, and in how clinicians interpret results to patients.”

According to the investigators, while germline testing is on the rise, little is known about how these test results are translating to clinical care.

To learn more, the investigators evaluated data from 20,568 women with stage 0-III breast cancer who entered the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results registries of Georgia and California between 2014 and 2016.

Three treatment types were evaluated: surgery (bilateral vs. unilateral mastectomy), radiotherapy after lumpectomy, and chemotherapy. Treatment selection was compared with test results for breast cancer–associated genes, such as BRCA1/2, TP53, PTEN, and others. Associations were then compared with guideline recommendations.

Data analysis suggested that many clinicians were correctly using genetic test results to guide surgical decisions. For example, almost two-thirds (61.7%) of women with a BRCA mutation underwent bilateral mastectomy, compared with one-quarter (24.3%) who were BRCA negative (odds ratio, 5.52). For other pathogenic variants, the rate of bilateral mastectomy was still elevated, albeit to a lesser degree (OR, 2.41).

Generally, these practices align with recommendations, the investigators wrote, noting that research supports bilateral mastectomy with BRCA1/2, TP53, and PTEN variants, while data are lacking for other genetic subtypes.

Radiotherapy and chemotherapy practices were more discordant with guidelines. For example, women with a BRCA mutation were 78% less likely to receive radiotherapy after lumpectomy (OR, 0.22) and 76% more likely to receive chemotherapy for early-stage, hormone-positive disease (OR, 1.76). According to investigators, these findings suggest possible trends in undertreatment and overtreatment, respectively.

“We believe more research is needed to confirm our results and to evaluate long-term outcomes of pathogenic variant carriers to understand treatment decision making and consequences,” the investigators concluded.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health and the California Department of Public Health. The investigators reported relationships with Myriad Genetics, Genomic Health, Roche, and other companies.

SOURCE: Kurian AW et al. JAMA Oncol. 2020 Feb 6. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2019.6400.

Women with breast cancer may be receiving treatments that are discordant with guideline recommendations for genetic subtypes of disease, based on a retrospective analysis of more than 20,000 patients.

Radiotherapy and chemotherapy practices were particularly out of alignment with guidelines, reported lead author Allison W. Kurian, MD, of Stanford (Calif.) University, and colleagues.

“Integrating genetic testing into breast cancer care has been complex and challenging,” the investigators wrote in JAMA Oncology. “There is wide variability in which clinicians order testing and disclose results, in the clinical significance of results, and in how clinicians interpret results to patients.”

According to the investigators, while germline testing is on the rise, little is known about how these test results are translating to clinical care.

To learn more, the investigators evaluated data from 20,568 women with stage 0-III breast cancer who entered the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results registries of Georgia and California between 2014 and 2016.

Three treatment types were evaluated: surgery (bilateral vs. unilateral mastectomy), radiotherapy after lumpectomy, and chemotherapy. Treatment selection was compared with test results for breast cancer–associated genes, such as BRCA1/2, TP53, PTEN, and others. Associations were then compared with guideline recommendations.

Data analysis suggested that many clinicians were correctly using genetic test results to guide surgical decisions. For example, almost two-thirds (61.7%) of women with a BRCA mutation underwent bilateral mastectomy, compared with one-quarter (24.3%) who were BRCA negative (odds ratio, 5.52). For other pathogenic variants, the rate of bilateral mastectomy was still elevated, albeit to a lesser degree (OR, 2.41).

Generally, these practices align with recommendations, the investigators wrote, noting that research supports bilateral mastectomy with BRCA1/2, TP53, and PTEN variants, while data are lacking for other genetic subtypes.

Radiotherapy and chemotherapy practices were more discordant with guidelines. For example, women with a BRCA mutation were 78% less likely to receive radiotherapy after lumpectomy (OR, 0.22) and 76% more likely to receive chemotherapy for early-stage, hormone-positive disease (OR, 1.76). According to investigators, these findings suggest possible trends in undertreatment and overtreatment, respectively.

“We believe more research is needed to confirm our results and to evaluate long-term outcomes of pathogenic variant carriers to understand treatment decision making and consequences,” the investigators concluded.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health and the California Department of Public Health. The investigators reported relationships with Myriad Genetics, Genomic Health, Roche, and other companies.

SOURCE: Kurian AW et al. JAMA Oncol. 2020 Feb 6. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2019.6400.

Women with breast cancer may be receiving treatments that are discordant with guideline recommendations for genetic subtypes of disease, based on a retrospective analysis of more than 20,000 patients.

Radiotherapy and chemotherapy practices were particularly out of alignment with guidelines, reported lead author Allison W. Kurian, MD, of Stanford (Calif.) University, and colleagues.

“Integrating genetic testing into breast cancer care has been complex and challenging,” the investigators wrote in JAMA Oncology. “There is wide variability in which clinicians order testing and disclose results, in the clinical significance of results, and in how clinicians interpret results to patients.”

According to the investigators, while germline testing is on the rise, little is known about how these test results are translating to clinical care.

To learn more, the investigators evaluated data from 20,568 women with stage 0-III breast cancer who entered the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results registries of Georgia and California between 2014 and 2016.

Three treatment types were evaluated: surgery (bilateral vs. unilateral mastectomy), radiotherapy after lumpectomy, and chemotherapy. Treatment selection was compared with test results for breast cancer–associated genes, such as BRCA1/2, TP53, PTEN, and others. Associations were then compared with guideline recommendations.

Data analysis suggested that many clinicians were correctly using genetic test results to guide surgical decisions. For example, almost two-thirds (61.7%) of women with a BRCA mutation underwent bilateral mastectomy, compared with one-quarter (24.3%) who were BRCA negative (odds ratio, 5.52). For other pathogenic variants, the rate of bilateral mastectomy was still elevated, albeit to a lesser degree (OR, 2.41).

Generally, these practices align with recommendations, the investigators wrote, noting that research supports bilateral mastectomy with BRCA1/2, TP53, and PTEN variants, while data are lacking for other genetic subtypes.

Radiotherapy and chemotherapy practices were more discordant with guidelines. For example, women with a BRCA mutation were 78% less likely to receive radiotherapy after lumpectomy (OR, 0.22) and 76% more likely to receive chemotherapy for early-stage, hormone-positive disease (OR, 1.76). According to investigators, these findings suggest possible trends in undertreatment and overtreatment, respectively.

“We believe more research is needed to confirm our results and to evaluate long-term outcomes of pathogenic variant carriers to understand treatment decision making and consequences,” the investigators concluded.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health and the California Department of Public Health. The investigators reported relationships with Myriad Genetics, Genomic Health, Roche, and other companies.

SOURCE: Kurian AW et al. JAMA Oncol. 2020 Feb 6. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2019.6400.

For adults aged 50 and older in first or second remission after induction therapy for acute myeloid leukemia, hematopoietic stem cell transplants (HSCT) from young matched unrelated donors was associated with better overall survival and lower risk for relapse than transplants from haploidentical donors, a retrospective study suggests,

Among 823 patients from the aged 50 to 75 with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) in a transplant registry, hazard ratios for both mortality and relapse were significantly higher for patients who received transplants from haploidentical siblings or offspring, compared with patients who received transplants from HLA-matched unrelated donors aged 40 or younger, reported Miguel-Angel Perales, MD, who is affiliated with Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City, and colleagues.

“Our findings lend support to our hypothesis that a young [matched unrelated donor] should be the donor of choice when available. Furthermore, the data presented here suggest comparable times to transplantation in both treatment groups, confirming timely access to unrelated donors is no longer a barrier,” they wrote in Haematologica.Allogeneic transplants from matched unrelated donors have been performed ­­­for more than 30 years for treatment of patients with advanced myeloid and lymphoid malignancies. More recently, T-cell-replete bone marrow or peripheral blood transplants from haploidentical relatives, with post-transplant cyclophosphamide, tacrolimus, and mycophenolate mofetil to lower risk for graft-versus-host disease (GvHD) have become commonplace worldwide, and are established treatment options for patients with myeloid and lymphoid malignancies. There are conflicting studies suggesting that outcomes with haploidentical transplants are equivalent or superior to those seen with matched unrelated donors, the authors noted, but pointed to a 2018 study from the Acute Leukemia Working Party of the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplant and the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR). Those study results found that, among transplant recipients aged 55 through 76, graft failure, nonrelapse mortality, and overall mortality were higher when the donors were haploidentical offspring rather than HLA-matched siblings.

To see whether patients aged 50 and older with AML might benefit more with transplants from hapolidentical relatives or matched unrelated donors, the investigators used CIBMTR data to review outcomes for 823 adults with AML who received a transplant in first or second remission at one of 90 U.S. centers from 2008 through 2015.

Of this cohort, 192 patients received grafts from haploidentical donors (25% from siblings and 75% from offspring), and 631 received grafts from matched unrelated donors ranging from 18 to 40 years of age.

Although the two groups were generally similar in demographic and disease characteristics, patients in the matched unrelated donor group had significantly higher frequency of poor-risk cytogenetics (P = .03) and were significantly more likely to have received a myeloablative condition regimen than a reduced-intensity regimen (P less than .001).

In the haploidentical group, 76% of patients were in first complete remission, and the remaining 24% were in second complete remission. In the HLA-matched group the respective proportions were 83% and 17%.

The median follow-up was 42 months in the haploidentical group and 47 months in the HLA-matched group. Five-year overall survival rates were 32% and 42%, respectively.

In multivariable models controlling for donor and recipient age, sex, performance score, hematopoietic cell transplant comorbidity score, cytomegalovirus serostatus, disease status, cytogenetic risk, transplant conditioning regimen intensity and transplant period, the hazard ratio (HR) for the primary endpoint of overall mortality was 1.27 for haploidentical vs. HLA-matched grafts (P = .04). The HR for relapse risk with haploidentical transplants was 1.32 (P =.04). No significant differences in risk of nonrelapse mortality were found between the two study arms.

Bone marrow grafts from matched unrelated donors were associated with significantly higher risk for chronic GvHD than haploidentical grafts (HR, 3.12; P less than .001), but there was no difference in chronic graft-versus-host disease (GvHD) incidence between peripheral blood grafts from matched unrelated donors and haploidentical grafts.

“These data support the view that matched unrelated donor transplant with donors younger than 40 years is to be preferred,” the investigators wrote.

But in an interview, coauthor Benjamin K. Tomlinson, MD, of the University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center in Cleveland, acknowledged that their findings might not be sufficiently large to sway opinions or clinical practice.

“Even though there appears to be that clinical benefit for this older AML patient population, that benefit is not huge, and when you’re also accounting for the process of finding a donor and just getting someone into transplant, a lot of us weren’t sure if this was really going to be practice changing as the field does move into haploidentical transplants being more common,” he said.

He noted that the better outcomes among patients who received transplants from matched unrelated donors may be at least in part explained by the higher proportion of patients with unrelated donors who received myeloablative conditioning regimens. In this study, 65% of patients with haploidentical donors underwent reduced-intensity conditioning with total body irradiation, cyclophosphamide, and fludarabine.“If we do a comparison of equal conditioning regimens, are we really going to see the same outcomes in this setting? This might actually argue that, if you’re going to do a haploidentical transplant, you might start thinking about those newer, more ablative conditioning regimens,” he said.Dr. Tomlinson added that the data are reassuring, because of the modest size of the benefit, and because “many, many of our studies are showing that haploidentical transplants do almost as well as the matched ones. The big question mark will be what are the long-term outcomes? What happens after 3 years from those transplants? And that is going to take a lot more high quality, mature data.”In an editorial accompanying the study, Richard E. Champlin, MD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, noted that the more frequent use of reduced-intensity conditioning used for most patients in the haploidentical group has been associated in other studies with higher relapse rates, compared with other, more intense reduced-intensity regimens.

While he agreed that the study by Dr. Perales and colleagues “should give pause for thought, however, for those considering jumping to haploidentical transplants as a preferred approach in general,” he also noted that the study’s conclusion might not apply to cases where time-to-transplant is critical, or when other conditioning and GvHD prophylaxis regimens are used.

“The ideal study would compare optimized versions of both haploidentical and unrelated donor transplants, and use “intention-to-treat” analysis, including all patients for whom a transplant is intended from the time of initial HLA typing,” he wrote.

The study was funded by grants from the National Institutes of Health and the Office of Naval Research. Dr. Tomlinson reported no relevant disclosures. Dr. Champlin did not report disclosures.

SOURCE: Perales M-A et al. Haematologica. 2020 Jan 31;105(2):407-13.

For adults aged 50 and older in first or second remission after induction therapy for acute myeloid leukemia, hematopoietic stem cell transplants (HSCT) from young matched unrelated donors was associated with better overall survival and lower risk for relapse than transplants from haploidentical donors, a retrospective study suggests,

Among 823 patients from the aged 50 to 75 with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) in a transplant registry, hazard ratios for both mortality and relapse were significantly higher for patients who received transplants from haploidentical siblings or offspring, compared with patients who received transplants from HLA-matched unrelated donors aged 40 or younger, reported Miguel-Angel Perales, MD, who is affiliated with Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City, and colleagues.

“Our findings lend support to our hypothesis that a young [matched unrelated donor] should be the donor of choice when available. Furthermore, the data presented here suggest comparable times to transplantation in both treatment groups, confirming timely access to unrelated donors is no longer a barrier,” they wrote in Haematologica.Allogeneic transplants from matched unrelated donors have been performed ­­­for more than 30 years for treatment of patients with advanced myeloid and lymphoid malignancies. More recently, T-cell-replete bone marrow or peripheral blood transplants from haploidentical relatives, with post-transplant cyclophosphamide, tacrolimus, and mycophenolate mofetil to lower risk for graft-versus-host disease (GvHD) have become commonplace worldwide, and are established treatment options for patients with myeloid and lymphoid malignancies. There are conflicting studies suggesting that outcomes with haploidentical transplants are equivalent or superior to those seen with matched unrelated donors, the authors noted, but pointed to a 2018 study from the Acute Leukemia Working Party of the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplant and the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR). Those study results found that, among transplant recipients aged 55 through 76, graft failure, nonrelapse mortality, and overall mortality were higher when the donors were haploidentical offspring rather than HLA-matched siblings.

To see whether patients aged 50 and older with AML might benefit more with transplants from hapolidentical relatives or matched unrelated donors, the investigators used CIBMTR data to review outcomes for 823 adults with AML who received a transplant in first or second remission at one of 90 U.S. centers from 2008 through 2015.

Of this cohort, 192 patients received grafts from haploidentical donors (25% from siblings and 75% from offspring), and 631 received grafts from matched unrelated donors ranging from 18 to 40 years of age.

Although the two groups were generally similar in demographic and disease characteristics, patients in the matched unrelated donor group had significantly higher frequency of poor-risk cytogenetics (P = .03) and were significantly more likely to have received a myeloablative condition regimen than a reduced-intensity regimen (P less than .001).

In the haploidentical group, 76% of patients were in first complete remission, and the remaining 24% were in second complete remission. In the HLA-matched group the respective proportions were 83% and 17%.

The median follow-up was 42 months in the haploidentical group and 47 months in the HLA-matched group. Five-year overall survival rates were 32% and 42%, respectively.

In multivariable models controlling for donor and recipient age, sex, performance score, hematopoietic cell transplant comorbidity score, cytomegalovirus serostatus, disease status, cytogenetic risk, transplant conditioning regimen intensity and transplant period, the hazard ratio (HR) for the primary endpoint of overall mortality was 1.27 for haploidentical vs. HLA-matched grafts (P = .04). The HR for relapse risk with haploidentical transplants was 1.32 (P =.04). No significant differences in risk of nonrelapse mortality were found between the two study arms.

Bone marrow grafts from matched unrelated donors were associated with significantly higher risk for chronic GvHD than haploidentical grafts (HR, 3.12; P less than .001), but there was no difference in chronic graft-versus-host disease (GvHD) incidence between peripheral blood grafts from matched unrelated donors and haploidentical grafts.

“These data support the view that matched unrelated donor transplant with donors younger than 40 years is to be preferred,” the investigators wrote.

But in an interview, coauthor Benjamin K. Tomlinson, MD, of the University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center in Cleveland, acknowledged that their findings might not be sufficiently large to sway opinions or clinical practice.

“Even though there appears to be that clinical benefit for this older AML patient population, that benefit is not huge, and when you’re also accounting for the process of finding a donor and just getting someone into transplant, a lot of us weren’t sure if this was really going to be practice changing as the field does move into haploidentical transplants being more common,” he said.

He noted that the better outcomes among patients who received transplants from matched unrelated donors may be at least in part explained by the higher proportion of patients with unrelated donors who received myeloablative conditioning regimens. In this study, 65% of patients with haploidentical donors underwent reduced-intensity conditioning with total body irradiation, cyclophosphamide, and fludarabine.“If we do a comparison of equal conditioning regimens, are we really going to see the same outcomes in this setting? This might actually argue that, if you’re going to do a haploidentical transplant, you might start thinking about those newer, more ablative conditioning regimens,” he said.Dr. Tomlinson added that the data are reassuring, because of the modest size of the benefit, and because “many, many of our studies are showing that haploidentical transplants do almost as well as the matched ones. The big question mark will be what are the long-term outcomes? What happens after 3 years from those transplants? And that is going to take a lot more high quality, mature data.”In an editorial accompanying the study, Richard E. Champlin, MD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, noted that the more frequent use of reduced-intensity conditioning used for most patients in the haploidentical group has been associated in other studies with higher relapse rates, compared with other, more intense reduced-intensity regimens.

While he agreed that the study by Dr. Perales and colleagues “should give pause for thought, however, for those considering jumping to haploidentical transplants as a preferred approach in general,” he also noted that the study’s conclusion might not apply to cases where time-to-transplant is critical, or when other conditioning and GvHD prophylaxis regimens are used.

“The ideal study would compare optimized versions of both haploidentical and unrelated donor transplants, and use “intention-to-treat” analysis, including all patients for whom a transplant is intended from the time of initial HLA typing,” he wrote.

The study was funded by grants from the National Institutes of Health and the Office of Naval Research. Dr. Tomlinson reported no relevant disclosures. Dr. Champlin did not report disclosures.

SOURCE: Perales M-A et al. Haematologica. 2020 Jan 31;105(2):407-13.

For adults aged 50 and older in first or second remission after induction therapy for acute myeloid leukemia, hematopoietic stem cell transplants (HSCT) from young matched unrelated donors was associated with better overall survival and lower risk for relapse than transplants from haploidentical donors, a retrospective study suggests,

Among 823 patients from the aged 50 to 75 with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) in a transplant registry, hazard ratios for both mortality and relapse were significantly higher for patients who received transplants from haploidentical siblings or offspring, compared with patients who received transplants from HLA-matched unrelated donors aged 40 or younger, reported Miguel-Angel Perales, MD, who is affiliated with Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City, and colleagues.

“Our findings lend support to our hypothesis that a young [matched unrelated donor] should be the donor of choice when available. Furthermore, the data presented here suggest comparable times to transplantation in both treatment groups, confirming timely access to unrelated donors is no longer a barrier,” they wrote in Haematologica.Allogeneic transplants from matched unrelated donors have been performed ­­­for more than 30 years for treatment of patients with advanced myeloid and lymphoid malignancies. More recently, T-cell-replete bone marrow or peripheral blood transplants from haploidentical relatives, with post-transplant cyclophosphamide, tacrolimus, and mycophenolate mofetil to lower risk for graft-versus-host disease (GvHD) have become commonplace worldwide, and are established treatment options for patients with myeloid and lymphoid malignancies. There are conflicting studies suggesting that outcomes with haploidentical transplants are equivalent or superior to those seen with matched unrelated donors, the authors noted, but pointed to a 2018 study from the Acute Leukemia Working Party of the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplant and the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR). Those study results found that, among transplant recipients aged 55 through 76, graft failure, nonrelapse mortality, and overall mortality were higher when the donors were haploidentical offspring rather than HLA-matched siblings.

To see whether patients aged 50 and older with AML might benefit more with transplants from hapolidentical relatives or matched unrelated donors, the investigators used CIBMTR data to review outcomes for 823 adults with AML who received a transplant in first or second remission at one of 90 U.S. centers from 2008 through 2015.

Of this cohort, 192 patients received grafts from haploidentical donors (25% from siblings and 75% from offspring), and 631 received grafts from matched unrelated donors ranging from 18 to 40 years of age.

Although the two groups were generally similar in demographic and disease characteristics, patients in the matched unrelated donor group had significantly higher frequency of poor-risk cytogenetics (P = .03) and were significantly more likely to have received a myeloablative condition regimen than a reduced-intensity regimen (P less than .001).

In the haploidentical group, 76% of patients were in first complete remission, and the remaining 24% were in second complete remission. In the HLA-matched group the respective proportions were 83% and 17%.

The median follow-up was 42 months in the haploidentical group and 47 months in the HLA-matched group. Five-year overall survival rates were 32% and 42%, respectively.

In multivariable models controlling for donor and recipient age, sex, performance score, hematopoietic cell transplant comorbidity score, cytomegalovirus serostatus, disease status, cytogenetic risk, transplant conditioning regimen intensity and transplant period, the hazard ratio (HR) for the primary endpoint of overall mortality was 1.27 for haploidentical vs. HLA-matched grafts (P = .04). The HR for relapse risk with haploidentical transplants was 1.32 (P =.04). No significant differences in risk of nonrelapse mortality were found between the two study arms.

Bone marrow grafts from matched unrelated donors were associated with significantly higher risk for chronic GvHD than haploidentical grafts (HR, 3.12; P less than .001), but there was no difference in chronic graft-versus-host disease (GvHD) incidence between peripheral blood grafts from matched unrelated donors and haploidentical grafts.

“These data support the view that matched unrelated donor transplant with donors younger than 40 years is to be preferred,” the investigators wrote.

But in an interview, coauthor Benjamin K. Tomlinson, MD, of the University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center in Cleveland, acknowledged that their findings might not be sufficiently large to sway opinions or clinical practice.

“Even though there appears to be that clinical benefit for this older AML patient population, that benefit is not huge, and when you’re also accounting for the process of finding a donor and just getting someone into transplant, a lot of us weren’t sure if this was really going to be practice changing as the field does move into haploidentical transplants being more common,” he said.

He noted that the better outcomes among patients who received transplants from matched unrelated donors may be at least in part explained by the higher proportion of patients with unrelated donors who received myeloablative conditioning regimens. In this study, 65% of patients with haploidentical donors underwent reduced-intensity conditioning with total body irradiation, cyclophosphamide, and fludarabine.“If we do a comparison of equal conditioning regimens, are we really going to see the same outcomes in this setting? This might actually argue that, if you’re going to do a haploidentical transplant, you might start thinking about those newer, more ablative conditioning regimens,” he said.Dr. Tomlinson added that the data are reassuring, because of the modest size of the benefit, and because “many, many of our studies are showing that haploidentical transplants do almost as well as the matched ones. The big question mark will be what are the long-term outcomes? What happens after 3 years from those transplants? And that is going to take a lot more high quality, mature data.”In an editorial accompanying the study, Richard E. Champlin, MD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, noted that the more frequent use of reduced-intensity conditioning used for most patients in the haploidentical group has been associated in other studies with higher relapse rates, compared with other, more intense reduced-intensity regimens.

While he agreed that the study by Dr. Perales and colleagues “should give pause for thought, however, for those considering jumping to haploidentical transplants as a preferred approach in general,” he also noted that the study’s conclusion might not apply to cases where time-to-transplant is critical, or when other conditioning and GvHD prophylaxis regimens are used.

“The ideal study would compare optimized versions of both haploidentical and unrelated donor transplants, and use “intention-to-treat” analysis, including all patients for whom a transplant is intended from the time of initial HLA typing,” he wrote.

The study was funded by grants from the National Institutes of Health and the Office of Naval Research. Dr. Tomlinson reported no relevant disclosures. Dr. Champlin did not report disclosures.

SOURCE: Perales M-A et al. Haematologica. 2020 Jan 31;105(2):407-13.

SAN DIEGO – When Dawn Lemanne, MD, MPH, meets with cancer patients and their families, the question invariably comes up: “What should I eat?”

“The answer always is, ‘It depends,’” Dr. Lemanne, an oncologist who founded Oregon Integrative Oncology in Ashland, said at Natural Supplements: An Evidence-Based Update, presented by Scripps Center for Integrative Medicine. “The answers are not the same for each of these patients.”

According to Dr. Lemanne, targeted nutrition is evolving as a key component of cancer care. One of the goals of this approach is to decrease mTOR signaling. Normally, mTOR signaling promotes cell proliferation and metabolism; aberrant mTOR signaling can contribute to cancer initiation and progression.

“When mTOR speaks it says, ‘grow,’” said Dr. Lemanne, who is also an assistant professor of clinical medicine at the Andrew Weil Center for Integrative Medicine at the University of Arizona in Tucson. This message is meant to be heard by normal tissues, to stimulate normal tissue proliferation, such as in growing children or when a wound needs to be healed.

“However, cancer cells can hear and respond to mTOR’s message,” she said. “Normal cells may listen to mTOR’s ‘grow’ message or not, depending on the task they perform. Once we reach adulthood, we all likely have some precancerous or cancerous cells around, but they’re usually dormant. That’s why once you’re an adult, however, you don’t want too much mTOR signaling, because that might stimulate growth of things you definitely don’t want to grow.”

Having excessive levels of the growth hormone insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF-1) also appears to play a role in cancer risk. Researchers studying members of a South American clan with Laron dwarfism – an inherited IGF-1 deficiency – found that besides being very short, affected members of this family rarely develop cancer (Cells. 2019;8[6]:596). “They also don’t get diabetes,” Dr. Lemanne said. “What we see in those with Laron dwarfism is that mTOR signaling is missing.”

She went on to note that studying type 2 diabetes gives physicians “a clue as to what dietary measures we might offer our patients in terms of decreasing their risk of dying from cancer or getting cancer.” The most common types of cancer are indeed more common in patients with type 2 diabetes. In addition, once someone with type 2 diabetes is diagnosed with cancer, their prognosis is poorer, compared with a cancer patient without diabetes.

“Metformin is often prescribed to patients with type 2 diabetes because it helps keep blood sugar low,” she said. “What’s fascinating is that diabetics on metformin develop cancer less frequently than diabetics not taking this drug. And also interesting, those diabetics who do develop cancer seem to do better if they’re on metformin before and after diagnosis.”

On the other hand, exogenous insulin therapy given to people with type 2 diabetes doubles the risk of cancer. Consistent with this is the two-decades-old finding that an elevated fasting insulin level also is associated with a poor breast cancer prognosis (J Clin Oncol. 2002 Jan 1;20[1]:42-51). “It’s really important to understand that, in a person destined to become a type 2 diabetic, the level of fasting insulin rises long before fasting glucose becomes abnormally high,” Dr. Lemanne explained. “A normal fasting glucose doesn’t let you off the hook in terms of checking your patient for insulin resistance.

“We will miss diagnosing many patients with dangerous insulin resistance and prediabetes if we don’t check the fasting glucose and the fasting insulin levels together. If the fasting insulin level is high, it’s important to limit carbohydrate intake enough to bring it down permanently, even when the fasting glucose is normal, or the patient is likely at increased risk for developing cancer.”

Two large, prospective randomized trials have examined breast cancer and diet: the Women’s Intervention Study (WINS) and the Women’s Health Eating and Living Study (WHEL). Patients in both trials had early stage breast cancer and were put on low-fat diets. In the end, there was a weak to negligible connection between breast cancer survival and dietary fat restriction. “That kind of shook up the oncology world,” Dr. Lemanne said, “because before these two studies, everyone ‘knew’ that dietary fat was related to breast cancer risk. These studies showed that wasn’t the case at all.”

According to Dr. Lemanne, unexpectedly, moderate carbohydrate restriction has been associated with lower risk of breast cancer recurrence in patients with postmenopausal hormone-receptor expressing breast cancer. Researchers at the University of California, San Diego, conducted a subanalysis of 265 postmenopausal patients with estrogen receptor positive breast cancer from the WHEL cohort (Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2014 23[7]:1273-9). The recurrence risk was halved in those who cut their carbohydrate intake after diagnosis. The amount of decrease was modest, only 27 grams per day – the equivalent of one banana. “That is on par with a lot of our drugs, and maybe a little bit better,” she said. The effect was strongest if the breast tumor expressed IGF-1 receptor. Dr. Lemanne pointed out that decreasing dietary carbohydrate load was not the only treatment. These patients also had appropriate conventional cancer treatments, including surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy. “If we cut just some of the daily carb load in these patients, they might have a better cancer prognosis,” she said.

Overweight or obese patients with colon cancer also may benefit from moderate carbohydrate restriction. The CALGB 89803 study assessed 1,011 subjects with stage III colon cancer. It found that the subjects in the highest quintile of daily glycemic load and total carbohydrate intake had an increased risk of cancer recurrence and mortality (hazard ratio, 2.26; J Nat Cancer Inst. 2012;104[22]:1702-11). “This is pretty strong evidence that glycemic load and total carbohydrate intake play a role in colon cancer recurrence, but there’s a caveat here,” she said. “The effect was seen only in patients who were overweight or obese.” There was no association between carbohydrate intake and colon cancer recurrence in the absence of overweight or obesity.

Based on existing evidence, she said, clinicians could recommend restricting carb intake to 100 grams per day for patients with postmenopausal hormone-receptor expressing breast cancer and for overweight or obese patients with colon cancer.

“That’s pretty modest; that’s 400 calories of carbohydrates per day,” Dr. Lemanne said. “I tell patients that they can have fruit, starchy vegetables, and even very small amounts of healthy whole grains, although I’m not a fan of grains due to the heavy carbohydrate load. All those things are OK. We’re not talking about jelly beans and white sugar.

“I also have them measure their fasting glucose each day, because different people have different blood glucose responses to the same food.” The goals she aims for with many of her patients are a fasting morning glucose between 79 and 83 mg/dL consistently, an HbA1c of 5.4 or less, and a BMI of 24.9 kg/m² or less. “This set of goals, however, has to be individualized,” she said.

The ketogenic diet is another form of carb restriction, “but it’s much more drastic,” Dr. Lemanne said. “Most people require a carbohydrate load below 30 grams a day to enter a state of ketosis. But ketosis lowers the blood sugar and dampens the mTOR signaling.”

Evidence is emerging to support the use of a ketogenic diet as an adjunct to radiation therapy and as part of a complete course of treatment for glioblastoma multiforme and cancer cachexia. As an adjunct to radiation, a ketogenic diet decreases insulin and IGF-1 signaling. “This causes normal cells to enter dormancy, decreasing oxidative damage in normal cells,” Dr. Lemanne said. “There is also suppression of tumor angiogenesis, and thus poor DNA repair of radiation damage in tumor cells (Cancer Metastasis Rev. 2014;33[1]:217-29). Being in ketosis widens the therapeutic window. There are many animal studies which show that the ketogenic diet is helpful in cancer, mainly when combined with other anticancer treatments, such as radiation. Unfortunately, the evidence in humans is very anecdotal.”

One study found that if you feed mice with cancer ketogenic chow versus standard chow, they have a modestly improved survival (a mean of 43 days vs. 33 days; PLoS ONE. 2012;7[5]:e36197). However, when radiation was added to the keto diet, there was a dramatic improvement in survival (P less than 0.001). In fact, 75% survived to 250 days. “That’s pretty spectacular,” Dr. Lemanne said.

A ketogenic diet is standard therapy for several nonmalignant conditions, including glucose transporter 1 deficiency syndrome, pyruvate dehydrogenase deficiency syndrome, and refractory infantile epilepsy. The three major ketone bodies involved in human nutrition are acetoacetate, beta hydroxybutyrate, and acetone. Dr. Lemanne said beta hydroxybutyrate decreases inflammation and inhibits hexadecynoic acids (which induces apoptosis in cancer cells). Beta hydroxybutyrate also increases sirtuins, innate immunity, and seizure threshold; modulates circadian rhythm; and decreases insulin levels, she said.

In one case report from the scientific literature, a 38-year-old male with glioblastoma multiforme was placed on a hypocaloric ketogenic diet (Front Nutr. 2018 Mar 29;5:20). The patient had surgery, radiation, chemotherapy, and hyperbaric oxygen, and was given high doses of green tea extract in an attempt to antagonize glutamine metabolism. Two years after the beginning of his treatment, he was alive and had maintained a good level of tumor regression.

“We’ll see how he does,” said Dr. Lemanne, who was not involved in the report. “In my experience, I have a patient right now with a diagnosis of glioblastoma multiforme. She’s getting a keto diet in combo with intensive chemo, radiation, and surgery. She’s also had some hyperbaric oxygen and IV ozone therapy and is taking repurposed drugs. She has exceeded her expected survival, but she continues to have disease and symptoms. We are by no means out of the woods with this patient. But the keto diet has been quite feasible for her, because she has a lot of family and outside support.”

A ketogenic diet also may benefit patients with cancer cachexia, which is a loss of lean tissue. “Cancer cachexia is not completely understood,” Dr. Lemanne said. “What we know is that it is caused by inflammation created by the tumor itself, and this, in turn results in severe insulin resistance. Therefore, giving more calories as carbohydrate makes the cancer cachexia situation worse. Animal models of cancer cachexia have shown that the ketogenic diet normalizes metabolism and prevents lean tissue loss. Human studies are underway; we’ll see how they turn out.”

She closed her presentation by noting that in copious amounts of animal studies, fasting has been linked to improvements in chemotherapy efficacy and decreased side effects. In one study carried out at the University of Southern California in Los Angeles, volunteers fasted up to 140 hours before chemotherapy and an additional 156 hours afterward (Aging. 2009;1[12]:988-1007). The researchers found that the fasting was well-tolerated.

“The patients had some mild light-headedness, but there were no adverse effects on tumor volume or serum tumor markers,” Dr. Lemanne said. A more recent study of patients on cisplatin found that acaloric fasting led to decreased DNA damage in white blood cells, decreased IFG-1, and better white blood cell counts (BMC Cancer. 2016 Jun 10;16:360). “The benefits are immediate, and the optimal fasting time appears to be 48 hours,” Dr. Lemanne said.

One of her patients is a 64-year-old man on adjuvant cisplatin-based chemotherapy for cholangiocarcinoma. He fasts 24 hours before and 24 hours after each infusion, and has experienced no emesis or nausea. “His immune suppression and anemia are much milder than we expected, and he has not required any treatment for chemotherapy-related side effects,” Dr. Lemanne said. “That’s a big monetary value.”

Fasting 13 hours overnight has been associated with fewer breast cancer-related problems in patients already diagnosed with the disease. Chronic caloric restriction, just cutting calories by 25%-40% daily, has been shown to delay all diseases of aging, including cancer, and is associated with increased longevity in many species. “Chronic caloric restriction is difficult, however, because it results in chronic hunger and weight loss,” she said. “Occasional fasting is superior to chronic caloric restriction because it maintains normal weight, preserves lean muscle mass, enhances tumor sensitivity to chemotherapy and radiotherapy, and diminishes the side effects of chemotherapy.”

Dr. Lemanne reported having no financial disclosures.

[email protected]

SAN DIEGO – When Dawn Lemanne, MD, MPH, meets with cancer patients and their families, the question invariably comes up: “What should I eat?”

“The answer always is, ‘It depends,’” Dr. Lemanne, an oncologist who founded Oregon Integrative Oncology in Ashland, said at Natural Supplements: An Evidence-Based Update, presented by Scripps Center for Integrative Medicine. “The answers are not the same for each of these patients.”

According to Dr. Lemanne, targeted nutrition is evolving as a key component of cancer care. One of the goals of this approach is to decrease mTOR signaling. Normally, mTOR signaling promotes cell proliferation and metabolism; aberrant mTOR signaling can contribute to cancer initiation and progression.

“When mTOR speaks it says, ‘grow,’” said Dr. Lemanne, who is also an assistant professor of clinical medicine at the Andrew Weil Center for Integrative Medicine at the University of Arizona in Tucson. This message is meant to be heard by normal tissues, to stimulate normal tissue proliferation, such as in growing children or when a wound needs to be healed.

“However, cancer cells can hear and respond to mTOR’s message,” she said. “Normal cells may listen to mTOR’s ‘grow’ message or not, depending on the task they perform. Once we reach adulthood, we all likely have some precancerous or cancerous cells around, but they’re usually dormant. That’s why once you’re an adult, however, you don’t want too much mTOR signaling, because that might stimulate growth of things you definitely don’t want to grow.”

Having excessive levels of the growth hormone insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF-1) also appears to play a role in cancer risk. Researchers studying members of a South American clan with Laron dwarfism – an inherited IGF-1 deficiency – found that besides being very short, affected members of this family rarely develop cancer (Cells. 2019;8[6]:596). “They also don’t get diabetes,” Dr. Lemanne said. “What we see in those with Laron dwarfism is that mTOR signaling is missing.”

She went on to note that studying type 2 diabetes gives physicians “a clue as to what dietary measures we might offer our patients in terms of decreasing their risk of dying from cancer or getting cancer.” The most common types of cancer are indeed more common in patients with type 2 diabetes. In addition, once someone with type 2 diabetes is diagnosed with cancer, their prognosis is poorer, compared with a cancer patient without diabetes.

“Metformin is often prescribed to patients with type 2 diabetes because it helps keep blood sugar low,” she said. “What’s fascinating is that diabetics on metformin develop cancer less frequently than diabetics not taking this drug. And also interesting, those diabetics who do develop cancer seem to do better if they’re on metformin before and after diagnosis.”

On the other hand, exogenous insulin therapy given to people with type 2 diabetes doubles the risk of cancer. Consistent with this is the two-decades-old finding that an elevated fasting insulin level also is associated with a poor breast cancer prognosis (J Clin Oncol. 2002 Jan 1;20[1]:42-51). “It’s really important to understand that, in a person destined to become a type 2 diabetic, the level of fasting insulin rises long before fasting glucose becomes abnormally high,” Dr. Lemanne explained. “A normal fasting glucose doesn’t let you off the hook in terms of checking your patient for insulin resistance.

“We will miss diagnosing many patients with dangerous insulin resistance and prediabetes if we don’t check the fasting glucose and the fasting insulin levels together. If the fasting insulin level is high, it’s important to limit carbohydrate intake enough to bring it down permanently, even when the fasting glucose is normal, or the patient is likely at increased risk for developing cancer.”

Two large, prospective randomized trials have examined breast cancer and diet: the Women’s Intervention Study (WINS) and the Women’s Health Eating and Living Study (WHEL). Patients in both trials had early stage breast cancer and were put on low-fat diets. In the end, there was a weak to negligible connection between breast cancer survival and dietary fat restriction. “That kind of shook up the oncology world,” Dr. Lemanne said, “because before these two studies, everyone ‘knew’ that dietary fat was related to breast cancer risk. These studies showed that wasn’t the case at all.”

According to Dr. Lemanne, unexpectedly, moderate carbohydrate restriction has been associated with lower risk of breast cancer recurrence in patients with postmenopausal hormone-receptor expressing breast cancer. Researchers at the University of California, San Diego, conducted a subanalysis of 265 postmenopausal patients with estrogen receptor positive breast cancer from the WHEL cohort (Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2014 23[7]:1273-9). The recurrence risk was halved in those who cut their carbohydrate intake after diagnosis. The amount of decrease was modest, only 27 grams per day – the equivalent of one banana. “That is on par with a lot of our drugs, and maybe a little bit better,” she said. The effect was strongest if the breast tumor expressed IGF-1 receptor. Dr. Lemanne pointed out that decreasing dietary carbohydrate load was not the only treatment. These patients also had appropriate conventional cancer treatments, including surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy. “If we cut just some of the daily carb load in these patients, they might have a better cancer prognosis,” she said.

Overweight or obese patients with colon cancer also may benefit from moderate carbohydrate restriction. The CALGB 89803 study assessed 1,011 subjects with stage III colon cancer. It found that the subjects in the highest quintile of daily glycemic load and total carbohydrate intake had an increased risk of cancer recurrence and mortality (hazard ratio, 2.26; J Nat Cancer Inst. 2012;104[22]:1702-11). “This is pretty strong evidence that glycemic load and total carbohydrate intake play a role in colon cancer recurrence, but there’s a caveat here,” she said. “The effect was seen only in patients who were overweight or obese.” There was no association between carbohydrate intake and colon cancer recurrence in the absence of overweight or obesity.

Based on existing evidence, she said, clinicians could recommend restricting carb intake to 100 grams per day for patients with postmenopausal hormone-receptor expressing breast cancer and for overweight or obese patients with colon cancer.

“That’s pretty modest; that’s 400 calories of carbohydrates per day,” Dr. Lemanne said. “I tell patients that they can have fruit, starchy vegetables, and even very small amounts of healthy whole grains, although I’m not a fan of grains due to the heavy carbohydrate load. All those things are OK. We’re not talking about jelly beans and white sugar.

“I also have them measure their fasting glucose each day, because different people have different blood glucose responses to the same food.” The goals she aims for with many of her patients are a fasting morning glucose between 79 and 83 mg/dL consistently, an HbA1c of 5.4 or less, and a BMI of 24.9 kg/m² or less. “This set of goals, however, has to be individualized,” she said.

The ketogenic diet is another form of carb restriction, “but it’s much more drastic,” Dr. Lemanne said. “Most people require a carbohydrate load below 30 grams a day to enter a state of ketosis. But ketosis lowers the blood sugar and dampens the mTOR signaling.”

Evidence is emerging to support the use of a ketogenic diet as an adjunct to radiation therapy and as part of a complete course of treatment for glioblastoma multiforme and cancer cachexia. As an adjunct to radiation, a ketogenic diet decreases insulin and IGF-1 signaling. “This causes normal cells to enter dormancy, decreasing oxidative damage in normal cells,” Dr. Lemanne said. “There is also suppression of tumor angiogenesis, and thus poor DNA repair of radiation damage in tumor cells (Cancer Metastasis Rev. 2014;33[1]:217-29). Being in ketosis widens the therapeutic window. There are many animal studies which show that the ketogenic diet is helpful in cancer, mainly when combined with other anticancer treatments, such as radiation. Unfortunately, the evidence in humans is very anecdotal.”

One study found that if you feed mice with cancer ketogenic chow versus standard chow, they have a modestly improved survival (a mean of 43 days vs. 33 days; PLoS ONE. 2012;7[5]:e36197). However, when radiation was added to the keto diet, there was a dramatic improvement in survival (P less than 0.001). In fact, 75% survived to 250 days. “That’s pretty spectacular,” Dr. Lemanne said.

A ketogenic diet is standard therapy for several nonmalignant conditions, including glucose transporter 1 deficiency syndrome, pyruvate dehydrogenase deficiency syndrome, and refractory infantile epilepsy. The three major ketone bodies involved in human nutrition are acetoacetate, beta hydroxybutyrate, and acetone. Dr. Lemanne said beta hydroxybutyrate decreases inflammation and inhibits hexadecynoic acids (which induces apoptosis in cancer cells). Beta hydroxybutyrate also increases sirtuins, innate immunity, and seizure threshold; modulates circadian rhythm; and decreases insulin levels, she said.

In one case report from the scientific literature, a 38-year-old male with glioblastoma multiforme was placed on a hypocaloric ketogenic diet (Front Nutr. 2018 Mar 29;5:20). The patient had surgery, radiation, chemotherapy, and hyperbaric oxygen, and was given high doses of green tea extract in an attempt to antagonize glutamine metabolism. Two years after the beginning of his treatment, he was alive and had maintained a good level of tumor regression.

“We’ll see how he does,” said Dr. Lemanne, who was not involved in the report. “In my experience, I have a patient right now with a diagnosis of glioblastoma multiforme. She’s getting a keto diet in combo with intensive chemo, radiation, and surgery. She’s also had some hyperbaric oxygen and IV ozone therapy and is taking repurposed drugs. She has exceeded her expected survival, but she continues to have disease and symptoms. We are by no means out of the woods with this patient. But the keto diet has been quite feasible for her, because she has a lot of family and outside support.”

A ketogenic diet also may benefit patients with cancer cachexia, which is a loss of lean tissue. “Cancer cachexia is not completely understood,” Dr. Lemanne said. “What we know is that it is caused by inflammation created by the tumor itself, and this, in turn results in severe insulin resistance. Therefore, giving more calories as carbohydrate makes the cancer cachexia situation worse. Animal models of cancer cachexia have shown that the ketogenic diet normalizes metabolism and prevents lean tissue loss. Human studies are underway; we’ll see how they turn out.”

She closed her presentation by noting that in copious amounts of animal studies, fasting has been linked to improvements in chemotherapy efficacy and decreased side effects. In one study carried out at the University of Southern California in Los Angeles, volunteers fasted up to 140 hours before chemotherapy and an additional 156 hours afterward (Aging. 2009;1[12]:988-1007). The researchers found that the fasting was well-tolerated.

“The patients had some mild light-headedness, but there were no adverse effects on tumor volume or serum tumor markers,” Dr. Lemanne said. A more recent study of patients on cisplatin found that acaloric fasting led to decreased DNA damage in white blood cells, decreased IFG-1, and better white blood cell counts (BMC Cancer. 2016 Jun 10;16:360). “The benefits are immediate, and the optimal fasting time appears to be 48 hours,” Dr. Lemanne said.

One of her patients is a 64-year-old man on adjuvant cisplatin-based chemotherapy for cholangiocarcinoma. He fasts 24 hours before and 24 hours after each infusion, and has experienced no emesis or nausea. “His immune suppression and anemia are much milder than we expected, and he has not required any treatment for chemotherapy-related side effects,” Dr. Lemanne said. “That’s a big monetary value.”

Fasting 13 hours overnight has been associated with fewer breast cancer-related problems in patients already diagnosed with the disease. Chronic caloric restriction, just cutting calories by 25%-40% daily, has been shown to delay all diseases of aging, including cancer, and is associated with increased longevity in many species. “Chronic caloric restriction is difficult, however, because it results in chronic hunger and weight loss,” she said. “Occasional fasting is superior to chronic caloric restriction because it maintains normal weight, preserves lean muscle mass, enhances tumor sensitivity to chemotherapy and radiotherapy, and diminishes the side effects of chemotherapy.”

Dr. Lemanne reported having no financial disclosures.

[email protected]

SAN DIEGO – When Dawn Lemanne, MD, MPH, meets with cancer patients and their families, the question invariably comes up: “What should I eat?”

“The answer always is, ‘It depends,’” Dr. Lemanne, an oncologist who founded Oregon Integrative Oncology in Ashland, said at Natural Supplements: An Evidence-Based Update, presented by Scripps Center for Integrative Medicine. “The answers are not the same for each of these patients.”

According to Dr. Lemanne, targeted nutrition is evolving as a key component of cancer care. One of the goals of this approach is to decrease mTOR signaling. Normally, mTOR signaling promotes cell proliferation and metabolism; aberrant mTOR signaling can contribute to cancer initiation and progression.

“When mTOR speaks it says, ‘grow,’” said Dr. Lemanne, who is also an assistant professor of clinical medicine at the Andrew Weil Center for Integrative Medicine at the University of Arizona in Tucson. This message is meant to be heard by normal tissues, to stimulate normal tissue proliferation, such as in growing children or when a wound needs to be healed.

“However, cancer cells can hear and respond to mTOR’s message,” she said. “Normal cells may listen to mTOR’s ‘grow’ message or not, depending on the task they perform. Once we reach adulthood, we all likely have some precancerous or cancerous cells around, but they’re usually dormant. That’s why once you’re an adult, however, you don’t want too much mTOR signaling, because that might stimulate growth of things you definitely don’t want to grow.”

Having excessive levels of the growth hormone insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF-1) also appears to play a role in cancer risk. Researchers studying members of a South American clan with Laron dwarfism – an inherited IGF-1 deficiency – found that besides being very short, affected members of this family rarely develop cancer (Cells. 2019;8[6]:596). “They also don’t get diabetes,” Dr. Lemanne said. “What we see in those with Laron dwarfism is that mTOR signaling is missing.”

She went on to note that studying type 2 diabetes gives physicians “a clue as to what dietary measures we might offer our patients in terms of decreasing their risk of dying from cancer or getting cancer.” The most common types of cancer are indeed more common in patients with type 2 diabetes. In addition, once someone with type 2 diabetes is diagnosed with cancer, their prognosis is poorer, compared with a cancer patient without diabetes.

“Metformin is often prescribed to patients with type 2 diabetes because it helps keep blood sugar low,” she said. “What’s fascinating is that diabetics on metformin develop cancer less frequently than diabetics not taking this drug. And also interesting, those diabetics who do develop cancer seem to do better if they’re on metformin before and after diagnosis.”

On the other hand, exogenous insulin therapy given to people with type 2 diabetes doubles the risk of cancer. Consistent with this is the two-decades-old finding that an elevated fasting insulin level also is associated with a poor breast cancer prognosis (J Clin Oncol. 2002 Jan 1;20[1]:42-51). “It’s really important to understand that, in a person destined to become a type 2 diabetic, the level of fasting insulin rises long before fasting glucose becomes abnormally high,” Dr. Lemanne explained. “A normal fasting glucose doesn’t let you off the hook in terms of checking your patient for insulin resistance.

“We will miss diagnosing many patients with dangerous insulin resistance and prediabetes if we don’t check the fasting glucose and the fasting insulin levels together. If the fasting insulin level is high, it’s important to limit carbohydrate intake enough to bring it down permanently, even when the fasting glucose is normal, or the patient is likely at increased risk for developing cancer.”

Two large, prospective randomized trials have examined breast cancer and diet: the Women’s Intervention Study (WINS) and the Women’s Health Eating and Living Study (WHEL). Patients in both trials had early stage breast cancer and were put on low-fat diets. In the end, there was a weak to negligible connection between breast cancer survival and dietary fat restriction. “That kind of shook up the oncology world,” Dr. Lemanne said, “because before these two studies, everyone ‘knew’ that dietary fat was related to breast cancer risk. These studies showed that wasn’t the case at all.”

According to Dr. Lemanne, unexpectedly, moderate carbohydrate restriction has been associated with lower risk of breast cancer recurrence in patients with postmenopausal hormone-receptor expressing breast cancer. Researchers at the University of California, San Diego, conducted a subanalysis of 265 postmenopausal patients with estrogen receptor positive breast cancer from the WHEL cohort (Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2014 23[7]:1273-9). The recurrence risk was halved in those who cut their carbohydrate intake after diagnosis. The amount of decrease was modest, only 27 grams per day – the equivalent of one banana. “That is on par with a lot of our drugs, and maybe a little bit better,” she said. The effect was strongest if the breast tumor expressed IGF-1 receptor. Dr. Lemanne pointed out that decreasing dietary carbohydrate load was not the only treatment. These patients also had appropriate conventional cancer treatments, including surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy. “If we cut just some of the daily carb load in these patients, they might have a better cancer prognosis,” she said.

Overweight or obese patients with colon cancer also may benefit from moderate carbohydrate restriction. The CALGB 89803 study assessed 1,011 subjects with stage III colon cancer. It found that the subjects in the highest quintile of daily glycemic load and total carbohydrate intake had an increased risk of cancer recurrence and mortality (hazard ratio, 2.26; J Nat Cancer Inst. 2012;104[22]:1702-11). “This is pretty strong evidence that glycemic load and total carbohydrate intake play a role in colon cancer recurrence, but there’s a caveat here,” she said. “The effect was seen only in patients who were overweight or obese.” There was no association between carbohydrate intake and colon cancer recurrence in the absence of overweight or obesity.

Based on existing evidence, she said, clinicians could recommend restricting carb intake to 100 grams per day for patients with postmenopausal hormone-receptor expressing breast cancer and for overweight or obese patients with colon cancer.

“That’s pretty modest; that’s 400 calories of carbohydrates per day,” Dr. Lemanne said. “I tell patients that they can have fruit, starchy vegetables, and even very small amounts of healthy whole grains, although I’m not a fan of grains due to the heavy carbohydrate load. All those things are OK. We’re not talking about jelly beans and white sugar.

“I also have them measure their fasting glucose each day, because different people have different blood glucose responses to the same food.” The goals she aims for with many of her patients are a fasting morning glucose between 79 and 83 mg/dL consistently, an HbA1c of 5.4 or less, and a BMI of 24.9 kg/m² or less. “This set of goals, however, has to be individualized,” she said.

The ketogenic diet is another form of carb restriction, “but it’s much more drastic,” Dr. Lemanne said. “Most people require a carbohydrate load below 30 grams a day to enter a state of ketosis. But ketosis lowers the blood sugar and dampens the mTOR signaling.”

Evidence is emerging to support the use of a ketogenic diet as an adjunct to radiation therapy and as part of a complete course of treatment for glioblastoma multiforme and cancer cachexia. As an adjunct to radiation, a ketogenic diet decreases insulin and IGF-1 signaling. “This causes normal cells to enter dormancy, decreasing oxidative damage in normal cells,” Dr. Lemanne said. “There is also suppression of tumor angiogenesis, and thus poor DNA repair of radiation damage in tumor cells (Cancer Metastasis Rev. 2014;33[1]:217-29). Being in ketosis widens the therapeutic window. There are many animal studies which show that the ketogenic diet is helpful in cancer, mainly when combined with other anticancer treatments, such as radiation. Unfortunately, the evidence in humans is very anecdotal.”

One study found that if you feed mice with cancer ketogenic chow versus standard chow, they have a modestly improved survival (a mean of 43 days vs. 33 days; PLoS ONE. 2012;7[5]:e36197). However, when radiation was added to the keto diet, there was a dramatic improvement in survival (P less than 0.001). In fact, 75% survived to 250 days. “That’s pretty spectacular,” Dr. Lemanne said.

A ketogenic diet is standard therapy for several nonmalignant conditions, including glucose transporter 1 deficiency syndrome, pyruvate dehydrogenase deficiency syndrome, and refractory infantile epilepsy. The three major ketone bodies involved in human nutrition are acetoacetate, beta hydroxybutyrate, and acetone. Dr. Lemanne said beta hydroxybutyrate decreases inflammation and inhibits hexadecynoic acids (which induces apoptosis in cancer cells). Beta hydroxybutyrate also increases sirtuins, innate immunity, and seizure threshold; modulates circadian rhythm; and decreases insulin levels, she said.

In one case report from the scientific literature, a 38-year-old male with glioblastoma multiforme was placed on a hypocaloric ketogenic diet (Front Nutr. 2018 Mar 29;5:20). The patient had surgery, radiation, chemotherapy, and hyperbaric oxygen, and was given high doses of green tea extract in an attempt to antagonize glutamine metabolism. Two years after the beginning of his treatment, he was alive and had maintained a good level of tumor regression.

“We’ll see how he does,” said Dr. Lemanne, who was not involved in the report. “In my experience, I have a patient right now with a diagnosis of glioblastoma multiforme. She’s getting a keto diet in combo with intensive chemo, radiation, and surgery. She’s also had some hyperbaric oxygen and IV ozone therapy and is taking repurposed drugs. She has exceeded her expected survival, but she continues to have disease and symptoms. We are by no means out of the woods with this patient. But the keto diet has been quite feasible for her, because she has a lot of family and outside support.”

A ketogenic diet also may benefit patients with cancer cachexia, which is a loss of lean tissue. “Cancer cachexia is not completely understood,” Dr. Lemanne said. “What we know is that it is caused by inflammation created by the tumor itself, and this, in turn results in severe insulin resistance. Therefore, giving more calories as carbohydrate makes the cancer cachexia situation worse. Animal models of cancer cachexia have shown that the ketogenic diet normalizes metabolism and prevents lean tissue loss. Human studies are underway; we’ll see how they turn out.”

She closed her presentation by noting that in copious amounts of animal studies, fasting has been linked to improvements in chemotherapy efficacy and decreased side effects. In one study carried out at the University of Southern California in Los Angeles, volunteers fasted up to 140 hours before chemotherapy and an additional 156 hours afterward (Aging. 2009;1[12]:988-1007). The researchers found that the fasting was well-tolerated.

“The patients had some mild light-headedness, but there were no adverse effects on tumor volume or serum tumor markers,” Dr. Lemanne said. A more recent study of patients on cisplatin found that acaloric fasting led to decreased DNA damage in white blood cells, decreased IFG-1, and better white blood cell counts (BMC Cancer. 2016 Jun 10;16:360). “The benefits are immediate, and the optimal fasting time appears to be 48 hours,” Dr. Lemanne said.

One of her patients is a 64-year-old man on adjuvant cisplatin-based chemotherapy for cholangiocarcinoma. He fasts 24 hours before and 24 hours after each infusion, and has experienced no emesis or nausea. “His immune suppression and anemia are much milder than we expected, and he has not required any treatment for chemotherapy-related side effects,” Dr. Lemanne said. “That’s a big monetary value.”

Fasting 13 hours overnight has been associated with fewer breast cancer-related problems in patients already diagnosed with the disease. Chronic caloric restriction, just cutting calories by 25%-40% daily, has been shown to delay all diseases of aging, including cancer, and is associated with increased longevity in many species. “Chronic caloric restriction is difficult, however, because it results in chronic hunger and weight loss,” she said. “Occasional fasting is superior to chronic caloric restriction because it maintains normal weight, preserves lean muscle mass, enhances tumor sensitivity to chemotherapy and radiotherapy, and diminishes the side effects of chemotherapy.”

Dr. Lemanne reported having no financial disclosures.

[email protected]

In the general US population, African American men are more than twice as likely as non-Hispanic white men to die of prostate cancer. Researchers from the University of California at San Diego, though, speculated that disparities in access to care and not racial differences might be driving the differing outcomes. They turned to the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) with its “equal-access medical system” to find out.

Using data from a longitudinal database of > 20 million veterans, the researchers followed 18,201 black and 41,834 white patients with prostate cancer who were diagnosed between 2000 and 2015 and received care through the VA. The results of the study were published in Cancer.

African American men at diagnosis were younger (median age, 63 vs 66 years), more likely to smoke, and had more general health problems than did white men. Black patients also had higher prostate-specific antigen levels (median, 6.7 ng/mL vs 6.2 ng/mL) but were less likely to have Gleason score 8 to 10 disease, a clinical T classification ≥ 3, or distant metastatic disease.

There was no difference between the groups in time from diagnosis to treatment. The 10-year prostate cancer-specific mortality rate was actually slightly lower for African American men: 4.4%, compared with 5.1% for white men.

Thus, the researchers concluded that because African American men who receive VA healthcare do not appear to present with more advanced disease, or experience worse outcomes than do white men—in contrast to national trends. Therefore, they determined that access to care may be an important determinant of racial equity.

“Prior outcomes for African Americans with prostate cancer don’t have to be a foregone conclusion,” the senior author, Brent Rose, MD, told The New York Times. “They are at least partly due to policy decisions we make about access to care.”

In the general US population, African American men are more than twice as likely as non-Hispanic white men to die of prostate cancer. Researchers from the University of California at San Diego, though, speculated that disparities in access to care and not racial differences might be driving the differing outcomes. They turned to the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) with its “equal-access medical system” to find out.

Using data from a longitudinal database of > 20 million veterans, the researchers followed 18,201 black and 41,834 white patients with prostate cancer who were diagnosed between 2000 and 2015 and received care through the VA. The results of the study were published in Cancer.

African American men at diagnosis were younger (median age, 63 vs 66 years), more likely to smoke, and had more general health problems than did white men. Black patients also had higher prostate-specific antigen levels (median, 6.7 ng/mL vs 6.2 ng/mL) but were less likely to have Gleason score 8 to 10 disease, a clinical T classification ≥ 3, or distant metastatic disease.

There was no difference between the groups in time from diagnosis to treatment. The 10-year prostate cancer-specific mortality rate was actually slightly lower for African American men: 4.4%, compared with 5.1% for white men.

Thus, the researchers concluded that because African American men who receive VA healthcare do not appear to present with more advanced disease, or experience worse outcomes than do white men—in contrast to national trends. Therefore, they determined that access to care may be an important determinant of racial equity.

“Prior outcomes for African Americans with prostate cancer don’t have to be a foregone conclusion,” the senior author, Brent Rose, MD, told The New York Times. “They are at least partly due to policy decisions we make about access to care.”

In the general US population, African American men are more than twice as likely as non-Hispanic white men to die of prostate cancer. Researchers from the University of California at San Diego, though, speculated that disparities in access to care and not racial differences might be driving the differing outcomes. They turned to the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) with its “equal-access medical system” to find out.

Using data from a longitudinal database of > 20 million veterans, the researchers followed 18,201 black and 41,834 white patients with prostate cancer who were diagnosed between 2000 and 2015 and received care through the VA. The results of the study were published in Cancer.

African American men at diagnosis were younger (median age, 63 vs 66 years), more likely to smoke, and had more general health problems than did white men. Black patients also had higher prostate-specific antigen levels (median, 6.7 ng/mL vs 6.2 ng/mL) but were less likely to have Gleason score 8 to 10 disease, a clinical T classification ≥ 3, or distant metastatic disease.

There was no difference between the groups in time from diagnosis to treatment. The 10-year prostate cancer-specific mortality rate was actually slightly lower for African American men: 4.4%, compared with 5.1% for white men.

Thus, the researchers concluded that because African American men who receive VA healthcare do not appear to present with more advanced disease, or experience worse outcomes than do white men—in contrast to national trends. Therefore, they determined that access to care may be an important determinant of racial equity.

“Prior outcomes for African Americans with prostate cancer don’t have to be a foregone conclusion,” the senior author, Brent Rose, MD, told The New York Times. “They are at least partly due to policy decisions we make about access to care.”

On a population level, mailed fecal immunohistochemical tests (FITs) may catch more cases of advanced neoplasia than endoscopic methods, based on a Dutch screening study that invited more than 30,000 people to participate.

The relative success of mailed FIT screening was largely due a participation rate of 73%, compared with participation rates between 24% and 31% among those invited to undergo endoscopic screening, reported lead author Esmée J. Grobbee, MD, of Erasmus University Medical Centre in Rotterdam, the Netherlands, and colleagues.

In addition to high participation, previous research has shown that successful FIT screening depends upon continued adherence to the screening program, the investigators wrote in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. They noted that, in the present study, just two rounds of FIT were needed to outperform endoscopic methods, and that these comparative findings are a first for the field.

“No literature is available on the comparison between endoscopic screening strategies and multiple rounds of FIT screening,” the investigators wrote. “It is of key importance for policy makers to know the impact of different screening programs over multiple rounds with long-term follow-up.”

To this end, the investigators invited 30,052 screening-naive people in the Netherlands to participate in the present study. Each invitation was for one of three groups: once-only colonoscopy, once-only flexible sigmoidoscopy, or four rounds of FIT. All individuals received an advanced notification by mail followed 2 weeks later by a more substantial information kit (and first FIT test when applicable). If these steps received no response, a reminder was sent 6 weeks later.

Participants in the FIT group received one test every 2 years. Patients who had a positive FIT (hemoglobin concentration of at least 10 mcg Hb/g feces) were scheduled for a colonoscopy. Similarly, colonoscopies were performed in patients who had concerning findings on flexible sigmoidoscopy (e.g., sessile serrated adenoma. This sequential system reduced the relative number of colonoscopies in these two groups; colonoscopy rates in the FIT group and flexible sigmoidoscopy group were 13% and 3%, respectively, compared with the 24% participation rate in the colonoscopy group.

At a population level, FIT screening had the highest advanced neoplasia detection rate, at 4.5%, compared with 2.3% and 2.2% for screening by sigmoidoscopy and colonoscopy, respectively.

“In the intention-to-screen analysis, FIT already detected significantly more advanced neoplasia and colorectal cancer (CRC) after only 2 rounds of FIT, and this difference increased over rounds,” the investigators noted.

Again in the intention-to-screen population, mailed FIT detected three times as many cases of CRC than either of the other two groups (0.6% vs. 0.2% for both). In contrast, colonoscopy and sigmoidoscopy had higher detection rates for nonadvanced adenomas, at 5.6% and 3.7%, respectively, compared with 3.2% for FIT, although the investigators noted that nonadvanced adenomas are “of uncertain clinical importance.” Sessile adenoma detection rates were similar across all three groups.

The as-screened analysis revealed higher detection rates of advanced neoplasia for colonoscopy (9.1%), compared with sigmoidoscopy (7.4%) and FIT (6.1%). In the same analysis, detection rates of colorectal cancer (CRC) were comparable across all three groups.

According to the investigators, the CRC-related findings require careful interpretation.

“Comparing CRC detection rates of FIT and endoscopic screening is complex … because CRCs detected in FIT screening could in theory have been prevented in a once-only colonoscopy by the removal of adenomas,” they wrote.

Still, the key takeaway of the study – that FIT screening was the most effective strategy – may have practical implications on a global scale, according to the investigators.

“Because many countries are considering implementing screening programs, the findings of this study aid in deciding on choice of screening strategies worldwide, which is based on expected participation rates and available colonoscopy resources,” they wrote.

The study was funded by the Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development. The investigators disclosed no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Grobbee EJ et al. Clin Gastro Hepatol. 2019 Aug 13. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2019.08.015.

On a population level, mailed fecal immunohistochemical tests (FITs) may catch more cases of advanced neoplasia than endoscopic methods, based on a Dutch screening study that invited more than 30,000 people to participate.

The relative success of mailed FIT screening was largely due a participation rate of 73%, compared with participation rates between 24% and 31% among those invited to undergo endoscopic screening, reported lead author Esmée J. Grobbee, MD, of Erasmus University Medical Centre in Rotterdam, the Netherlands, and colleagues.

In addition to high participation, previous research has shown that successful FIT screening depends upon continued adherence to the screening program, the investigators wrote in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. They noted that, in the present study, just two rounds of FIT were needed to outperform endoscopic methods, and that these comparative findings are a first for the field.

“No literature is available on the comparison between endoscopic screening strategies and multiple rounds of FIT screening,” the investigators wrote. “It is of key importance for policy makers to know the impact of different screening programs over multiple rounds with long-term follow-up.”

To this end, the investigators invited 30,052 screening-naive people in the Netherlands to participate in the present study. Each invitation was for one of three groups: once-only colonoscopy, once-only flexible sigmoidoscopy, or four rounds of FIT. All individuals received an advanced notification by mail followed 2 weeks later by a more substantial information kit (and first FIT test when applicable). If these steps received no response, a reminder was sent 6 weeks later.

Participants in the FIT group received one test every 2 years. Patients who had a positive FIT (hemoglobin concentration of at least 10 mcg Hb/g feces) were scheduled for a colonoscopy. Similarly, colonoscopies were performed in patients who had concerning findings on flexible sigmoidoscopy (e.g., sessile serrated adenoma. This sequential system reduced the relative number of colonoscopies in these two groups; colonoscopy rates in the FIT group and flexible sigmoidoscopy group were 13% and 3%, respectively, compared with the 24% participation rate in the colonoscopy group.

At a population level, FIT screening had the highest advanced neoplasia detection rate, at 4.5%, compared with 2.3% and 2.2% for screening by sigmoidoscopy and colonoscopy, respectively.

“In the intention-to-screen analysis, FIT already detected significantly more advanced neoplasia and colorectal cancer (CRC) after only 2 rounds of FIT, and this difference increased over rounds,” the investigators noted.

Again in the intention-to-screen population, mailed FIT detected three times as many cases of CRC than either of the other two groups (0.6% vs. 0.2% for both). In contrast, colonoscopy and sigmoidoscopy had higher detection rates for nonadvanced adenomas, at 5.6% and 3.7%, respectively, compared with 3.2% for FIT, although the investigators noted that nonadvanced adenomas are “of uncertain clinical importance.” Sessile adenoma detection rates were similar across all three groups.

The as-screened analysis revealed higher detection rates of advanced neoplasia for colonoscopy (9.1%), compared with sigmoidoscopy (7.4%) and FIT (6.1%). In the same analysis, detection rates of colorectal cancer (CRC) were comparable across all three groups.

According to the investigators, the CRC-related findings require careful interpretation.

“Comparing CRC detection rates of FIT and endoscopic screening is complex … because CRCs detected in FIT screening could in theory have been prevented in a once-only colonoscopy by the removal of adenomas,” they wrote.

Still, the key takeaway of the study – that FIT screening was the most effective strategy – may have practical implications on a global scale, according to the investigators.

“Because many countries are considering implementing screening programs, the findings of this study aid in deciding on choice of screening strategies worldwide, which is based on expected participation rates and available colonoscopy resources,” they wrote.

The study was funded by the Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development. The investigators disclosed no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Grobbee EJ et al. Clin Gastro Hepatol. 2019 Aug 13. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2019.08.015.

On a population level, mailed fecal immunohistochemical tests (FITs) may catch more cases of advanced neoplasia than endoscopic methods, based on a Dutch screening study that invited more than 30,000 people to participate.

The relative success of mailed FIT screening was largely due a participation rate of 73%, compared with participation rates between 24% and 31% among those invited to undergo endoscopic screening, reported lead author Esmée J. Grobbee, MD, of Erasmus University Medical Centre in Rotterdam, the Netherlands, and colleagues.

In addition to high participation, previous research has shown that successful FIT screening depends upon continued adherence to the screening program, the investigators wrote in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. They noted that, in the present study, just two rounds of FIT were needed to outperform endoscopic methods, and that these comparative findings are a first for the field.

“No literature is available on the comparison between endoscopic screening strategies and multiple rounds of FIT screening,” the investigators wrote. “It is of key importance for policy makers to know the impact of different screening programs over multiple rounds with long-term follow-up.”

To this end, the investigators invited 30,052 screening-naive people in the Netherlands to participate in the present study. Each invitation was for one of three groups: once-only colonoscopy, once-only flexible sigmoidoscopy, or four rounds of FIT. All individuals received an advanced notification by mail followed 2 weeks later by a more substantial information kit (and first FIT test when applicable). If these steps received no response, a reminder was sent 6 weeks later.

Participants in the FIT group received one test every 2 years. Patients who had a positive FIT (hemoglobin concentration of at least 10 mcg Hb/g feces) were scheduled for a colonoscopy. Similarly, colonoscopies were performed in patients who had concerning findings on flexible sigmoidoscopy (e.g., sessile serrated adenoma. This sequential system reduced the relative number of colonoscopies in these two groups; colonoscopy rates in the FIT group and flexible sigmoidoscopy group were 13% and 3%, respectively, compared with the 24% participation rate in the colonoscopy group.

At a population level, FIT screening had the highest advanced neoplasia detection rate, at 4.5%, compared with 2.3% and 2.2% for screening by sigmoidoscopy and colonoscopy, respectively.

“In the intention-to-screen analysis, FIT already detected significantly more advanced neoplasia and colorectal cancer (CRC) after only 2 rounds of FIT, and this difference increased over rounds,” the investigators noted.

Again in the intention-to-screen population, mailed FIT detected three times as many cases of CRC than either of the other two groups (0.6% vs. 0.2% for both). In contrast, colonoscopy and sigmoidoscopy had higher detection rates for nonadvanced adenomas, at 5.6% and 3.7%, respectively, compared with 3.2% for FIT, although the investigators noted that nonadvanced adenomas are “of uncertain clinical importance.” Sessile adenoma detection rates were similar across all three groups.

The as-screened analysis revealed higher detection rates of advanced neoplasia for colonoscopy (9.1%), compared with sigmoidoscopy (7.4%) and FIT (6.1%). In the same analysis, detection rates of colorectal cancer (CRC) were comparable across all three groups.

According to the investigators, the CRC-related findings require careful interpretation.

“Comparing CRC detection rates of FIT and endoscopic screening is complex … because CRCs detected in FIT screening could in theory have been prevented in a once-only colonoscopy by the removal of adenomas,” they wrote.

Still, the key takeaway of the study – that FIT screening was the most effective strategy – may have practical implications on a global scale, according to the investigators.

“Because many countries are considering implementing screening programs, the findings of this study aid in deciding on choice of screening strategies worldwide, which is based on expected participation rates and available colonoscopy resources,” they wrote.

The study was funded by the Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development. The investigators disclosed no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Grobbee EJ et al. Clin Gastro Hepatol. 2019 Aug 13. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2019.08.015.

The first international public survey on cancer perceptions and attitudes in a decade shows that, in spite of progress, low socioeconomic status and lack of education continue to jeopardize the health of the world’s most vulnerable populations.

The survey was commissioned by the Union for International Cancer Control (UICC) to mark the 20th anniversary of World Cancer Day on Feb. 4, 2020.

The survey, which was conducted by Ipsos, was taken by more than 15,000 people in 20 countries. It shows that people of lower socioeconomic status are less likely than those in higher-income households to recognize the risk factors for cancer or to make lifestyle changes. With the exception of tobacco use, people with low educational attainment also showed less cancer awareness and were less likely to engage in preventive behaviors than those with a university degree.

It is “unacceptable that millions of people have a greater chance of developing cancer in their lifetime because they are simply not aware of the cancer risks to avoid and the healthy behaviors to adopt – information that many of us take for granted. And this is true around the world,” Cary Adams, MBA, CEO of the UICC, commented in a statement.

The survey was conducted from Oct. 25 to Nov., 2019, and included 15,427 participants from Australia, Bolivia, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, Great Britain, India, Israel, Japan, Kenya, Mexico, the Philippines, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Turkey, and the United States.

The vast majority of those surveyed – 87% – said they were aware of the major risk factors for cancer, while only 6% said they were not.

The cancer risk factors that were most recognized were tobacco use (63%), ultraviolet light exposure (54%), and exposure to secondhand tobacco smoke (50%).

The cancer risks that were least recognized included being overweight (29%), a lack of exercise (28%), and exposure to certain viruses or bacteria (28%).

The difference in awareness across the social spectrum was striking. “Emerging from the survey are the apparent and glaring inequities faced by socioeconomically disadvantaged groups,” the authors said.

“Much more must be done to ensure that everyone has an equal chance to reduce their risk of preventable cancer,” commented Sonali Johnson, PhD, head of knowledge, advocacy, and policy at the UICC in Geneva, Switzerland.

“We’ve seen in the results that those surveyed with a lower education and those on lower incomes appear less aware of the main risk factors associated with cancer and thus are less likely to proactively take the steps needed to reduce their cancer risk as compared to those from a high income household or those with a university education,” Dr. Johnson said in an interview.

Does increased cancer awareness translate into behavioral change for the better? This question can only be answered by more research, the survey authors said. They reported that 7 of 10 survey respondents (69%) said they had made a behavioral change to reduce their cancer risk within the past 12 months. Most said they were eating more healthfully.

Slightly fewer than one-quarter reported that they had not taken any preventive measures in the past year.

When it comes to raising cancer awareness, World Cancer Day is “a powerful tool to remind every person that they can play a crucial role in reducing the impact of cancer,” said Dr. Johnson.
 

Health care providers are “crucial”

Reacting to the findings of the survey, the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) emphasized the key role that physicians play in cancer prevention.

“Research speaks very clearly for prevention,” said ESMO President Solange Peters, MD, PhD. “With the number of cancer cases expected to rise to 29.5 million by 2040, we must act now. ESMO is committed to educating doctors on all aspects of cancer control, which should begin well before a cancer diagnosis.

“In the face of this emergency, which is rendered even more salient by the results of the report, we must work to enlarge the basis of doctors who are properly educated and trained in key prevention measures,” Dr. Peters added. “General practitioners and organ specialists are in the front line to guide and support patients on their quest for healthy lifestyles and reliable ways to detect cancer early.”

In a comment, Dr. Johnson acknowledged the role physicians play in health promotion and informing patients about noncommunicable disease risks, including those related to cancer. However, she emphasized that nurses, pharmacists, community health workers, midwives, and other health care providers who deliver primary care “are crucial around the world to imparting health information and offering services.”

Frontline health care workers can assess patients’ cancer knowledge and health literacy, determine the barriers to health care, and assess “how best to engage with people across the life course,” Dr. Johnson explained. “Rather than just focusing on physicians, we must work with all those involved in primary care, especially as primary care services are scaled up to achieve universal health coverage.”

Call on governments to do more

The authors noted that, although there is wide awareness of the cancer risks from tobacco use, adults younger than 35 years were less likely than those older than 50 to identify tobacco as a cancer risk factor. They described this finding as “most concerning” and said it “underscores the ongoing need to raise awareness about cancer risk factors in every new generation.”

Almost 60% of survey respondents, regardless of age, education, or income, expressed concern about being diagnosed with cancer in the future or having cancer recur.

In Kenya, where the death toll from cancer rose 30% from 2014 to 2018, people appeared to be the most worried about cancer, with four of five survey respondents (82%) expressing concern.

Survey respondents from Saudi Arabia appeared the least concerned, with one of three people saying they were worried.

Notably, 84% of survey respondents said that governments should be doing more to increase cancer prevention and awareness; 33% demanded that governments improve the affordability of cancer care.

“It is understandable that people turn to their governments for support,” Dr. Johnson commented. “Affordability is a big challenge for low-income settings.”

Data from the World Health Organization show that, for every U.S. $1 invested in low- and middle-income countries, the return is U.S. $3.20, Johnson pointed out. “We really need to convince decision makers ... and see the right investments being made. It is important to ensure that the health system strengthening takes place in tandem with prevention services.”

Governments have begun making commitments to tackle noncommunicable diseases and cancer, Dr. Johnson commented. He highlighted the WHO’s Global Action Plan for Healthy Lives and Well-being for All and the updated cancer resolution adopted at the 2017 World Health Assembly.

“Education, training, and awareness-raising efforts need to be backed by strong and progressive health policies that prioritize prevention and help reduce the consumption of known cancer-causing products such as tobacco, sugary food, and beverages,” she said. “Countries should also invest proactively in national cancer control planning and the establishment of population-based registries to ensure the most effective resource allocation that benefits all groups.”

Up-to-date information on cancer risks and cancer prevention must be delivered to the public in ways that are accessible to those in lower socioeconomic groups, Dr. Johnson added. “Awareness needs to be raised continuously with each new generation,” she noted.

The UICC has relationships with Astellas, Daiichi Sankyo, Diaceutics, MSD Inventing for Life, Bristol-Myers Squibb, CUBEBIO, the Icon Group, Roche, and Sanofi.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The first international public survey on cancer perceptions and attitudes in a decade shows that, in spite of progress, low socioeconomic status and lack of education continue to jeopardize the health of the world’s most vulnerable populations.

The survey was commissioned by the Union for International Cancer Control (UICC) to mark the 20th anniversary of World Cancer Day on Feb. 4, 2020.

The survey, which was conducted by Ipsos, was taken by more than 15,000 people in 20 countries. It shows that people of lower socioeconomic status are less likely than those in higher-income households to recognize the risk factors for cancer or to make lifestyle changes. With the exception of tobacco use, people with low educational attainment also showed less cancer awareness and were less likely to engage in preventive behaviors than those with a university degree.

It is “unacceptable that millions of people have a greater chance of developing cancer in their lifetime because they are simply not aware of the cancer risks to avoid and the healthy behaviors to adopt – information that many of us take for granted. And this is true around the world,” Cary Adams, MBA, CEO of the UICC, commented in a statement.

The survey was conducted from Oct. 25 to Nov., 2019, and included 15,427 participants from Australia, Bolivia, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, Great Britain, India, Israel, Japan, Kenya, Mexico, the Philippines, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Turkey, and the United States.

The vast majority of those surveyed – 87% – said they were aware of the major risk factors for cancer, while only 6% said they were not.

The cancer risk factors that were most recognized were tobacco use (63%), ultraviolet light exposure (54%), and exposure to secondhand tobacco smoke (50%).

The cancer risks that were least recognized included being overweight (29%), a lack of exercise (28%), and exposure to certain viruses or bacteria (28%).

The difference in awareness across the social spectrum was striking. “Emerging from the survey are the apparent and glaring inequities faced by socioeconomically disadvantaged groups,” the authors said.

“Much more must be done to ensure that everyone has an equal chance to reduce their risk of preventable cancer,” commented Sonali Johnson, PhD, head of knowledge, advocacy, and policy at the UICC in Geneva, Switzerland.

“We’ve seen in the results that those surveyed with a lower education and those on lower incomes appear less aware of the main risk factors associated with cancer and thus are less likely to proactively take the steps needed to reduce their cancer risk as compared to those from a high income household or those with a university education,” Dr. Johnson said in an interview.

Does increased cancer awareness translate into behavioral change for the better? This question can only be answered by more research, the survey authors said. They reported that 7 of 10 survey respondents (69%) said they had made a behavioral change to reduce their cancer risk within the past 12 months. Most said they were eating more healthfully.

Slightly fewer than one-quarter reported that they had not taken any preventive measures in the past year.

When it comes to raising cancer awareness, World Cancer Day is “a powerful tool to remind every person that they can play a crucial role in reducing the impact of cancer,” said Dr. Johnson.
 

Health care providers are “crucial”

Reacting to the findings of the survey, the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) emphasized the key role that physicians play in cancer prevention.

“Research speaks very clearly for prevention,” said ESMO President Solange Peters, MD, PhD. “With the number of cancer cases expected to rise to 29.5 million by 2040, we must act now. ESMO is committed to educating doctors on all aspects of cancer control, which should begin well before a cancer diagnosis.

“In the face of this emergency, which is rendered even more salient by the results of the report, we must work to enlarge the basis of doctors who are properly educated and trained in key prevention measures,” Dr. Peters added. “General practitioners and organ specialists are in the front line to guide and support patients on their quest for healthy lifestyles and reliable ways to detect cancer early.”

In a comment, Dr. Johnson acknowledged the role physicians play in health promotion and informing patients about noncommunicable disease risks, including those related to cancer. However, she emphasized that nurses, pharmacists, community health workers, midwives, and other health care providers who deliver primary care “are crucial around the world to imparting health information and offering services.”

Frontline health care workers can assess patients’ cancer knowledge and health literacy, determine the barriers to health care, and assess “how best to engage with people across the life course,” Dr. Johnson explained. “Rather than just focusing on physicians, we must work with all those involved in primary care, especially as primary care services are scaled up to achieve universal health coverage.”

Call on governments to do more

The authors noted that, although there is wide awareness of the cancer risks from tobacco use, adults younger than 35 years were less likely than those older than 50 to identify tobacco as a cancer risk factor. They described this finding as “most concerning” and said it “underscores the ongoing need to raise awareness about cancer risk factors in every new generation.”

Almost 60% of survey respondents, regardless of age, education, or income, expressed concern about being diagnosed with cancer in the future or having cancer recur.

In Kenya, where the death toll from cancer rose 30% from 2014 to 2018, people appeared to be the most worried about cancer, with four of five survey respondents (82%) expressing concern.

Survey respondents from Saudi Arabia appeared the least concerned, with one of three people saying they were worried.

Notably, 84% of survey respondents said that governments should be doing more to increase cancer prevention and awareness; 33% demanded that governments improve the affordability of cancer care.

“It is understandable that people turn to their governments for support,” Dr. Johnson commented. “Affordability is a big challenge for low-income settings.”

Data from the World Health Organization show that, for every U.S. $1 invested in low- and middle-income countries, the return is U.S. $3.20, Johnson pointed out. “We really need to convince decision makers ... and see the right investments being made. It is important to ensure that the health system strengthening takes place in tandem with prevention services.”

Governments have begun making commitments to tackle noncommunicable diseases and cancer, Dr. Johnson commented. He highlighted the WHO’s Global Action Plan for Healthy Lives and Well-being for All and the updated cancer resolution adopted at the 2017 World Health Assembly.

“Education, training, and awareness-raising efforts need to be backed by strong and progressive health policies that prioritize prevention and help reduce the consumption of known cancer-causing products such as tobacco, sugary food, and beverages,” she said. “Countries should also invest proactively in national cancer control planning and the establishment of population-based registries to ensure the most effective resource allocation that benefits all groups.”

Up-to-date information on cancer risks and cancer prevention must be delivered to the public in ways that are accessible to those in lower socioeconomic groups, Dr. Johnson added. “Awareness needs to be raised continuously with each new generation,” she noted.

The UICC has relationships with Astellas, Daiichi Sankyo, Diaceutics, MSD Inventing for Life, Bristol-Myers Squibb, CUBEBIO, the Icon Group, Roche, and Sanofi.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The first international public survey on cancer perceptions and attitudes in a decade shows that, in spite of progress, low socioeconomic status and lack of education continue to jeopardize the health of the world’s most vulnerable populations.

The survey was commissioned by the Union for International Cancer Control (UICC) to mark the 20th anniversary of World Cancer Day on Feb. 4, 2020.

The survey, which was conducted by Ipsos, was taken by more than 15,000 people in 20 countries. It shows that people of lower socioeconomic status are less likely than those in higher-income households to recognize the risk factors for cancer or to make lifestyle changes. With the exception of tobacco use, people with low educational attainment also showed less cancer awareness and were less likely to engage in preventive behaviors than those with a university degree.

It is “unacceptable that millions of people have a greater chance of developing cancer in their lifetime because they are simply not aware of the cancer risks to avoid and the healthy behaviors to adopt – information that many of us take for granted. And this is true around the world,” Cary Adams, MBA, CEO of the UICC, commented in a statement.

The survey was conducted from Oct. 25 to Nov., 2019, and included 15,427 participants from Australia, Bolivia, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, Great Britain, India, Israel, Japan, Kenya, Mexico, the Philippines, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Turkey, and the United States.

The vast majority of those surveyed – 87% – said they were aware of the major risk factors for cancer, while only 6% said they were not.

The cancer risk factors that were most recognized were tobacco use (63%), ultraviolet light exposure (54%), and exposure to secondhand tobacco smoke (50%).

The cancer risks that were least recognized included being overweight (29%), a lack of exercise (28%), and exposure to certain viruses or bacteria (28%).

The difference in awareness across the social spectrum was striking. “Emerging from the survey are the apparent and glaring inequities faced by socioeconomically disadvantaged groups,” the authors said.

“Much more must be done to ensure that everyone has an equal chance to reduce their risk of preventable cancer,” commented Sonali Johnson, PhD, head of knowledge, advocacy, and policy at the UICC in Geneva, Switzerland.

“We’ve seen in the results that those surveyed with a lower education and those on lower incomes appear less aware of the main risk factors associated with cancer and thus are less likely to proactively take the steps needed to reduce their cancer risk as compared to those from a high income household or those with a university education,” Dr. Johnson said in an interview.

Does increased cancer awareness translate into behavioral change for the better? This question can only be answered by more research, the survey authors said. They reported that 7 of 10 survey respondents (69%) said they had made a behavioral change to reduce their cancer risk within the past 12 months. Most said they were eating more healthfully.

Slightly fewer than one-quarter reported that they had not taken any preventive measures in the past year.

When it comes to raising cancer awareness, World Cancer Day is “a powerful tool to remind every person that they can play a crucial role in reducing the impact of cancer,” said Dr. Johnson.
 

Health care providers are “crucial”

Reacting to the findings of the survey, the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) emphasized the key role that physicians play in cancer prevention.

“Research speaks very clearly for prevention,” said ESMO President Solange Peters, MD, PhD. “With the number of cancer cases expected to rise to 29.5 million by 2040, we must act now. ESMO is committed to educating doctors on all aspects of cancer control, which should begin well before a cancer diagnosis.

“In the face of this emergency, which is rendered even more salient by the results of the report, we must work to enlarge the basis of doctors who are properly educated and trained in key prevention measures,” Dr. Peters added. “General practitioners and organ specialists are in the front line to guide and support patients on their quest for healthy lifestyles and reliable ways to detect cancer early.”

In a comment, Dr. Johnson acknowledged the role physicians play in health promotion and informing patients about noncommunicable disease risks, including those related to cancer. However, she emphasized that nurses, pharmacists, community health workers, midwives, and other health care providers who deliver primary care “are crucial around the world to imparting health information and offering services.”

Frontline health care workers can assess patients’ cancer knowledge and health literacy, determine the barriers to health care, and assess “how best to engage with people across the life course,” Dr. Johnson explained. “Rather than just focusing on physicians, we must work with all those involved in primary care, especially as primary care services are scaled up to achieve universal health coverage.”

Call on governments to do more

The authors noted that, although there is wide awareness of the cancer risks from tobacco use, adults younger than 35 years were less likely than those older than 50 to identify tobacco as a cancer risk factor. They described this finding as “most concerning” and said it “underscores the ongoing need to raise awareness about cancer risk factors in every new generation.”

Almost 60% of survey respondents, regardless of age, education, or income, expressed concern about being diagnosed with cancer in the future or having cancer recur.

In Kenya, where the death toll from cancer rose 30% from 2014 to 2018, people appeared to be the most worried about cancer, with four of five survey respondents (82%) expressing concern.

Survey respondents from Saudi Arabia appeared the least concerned, with one of three people saying they were worried.

Notably, 84% of survey respondents said that governments should be doing more to increase cancer prevention and awareness; 33% demanded that governments improve the affordability of cancer care.

“It is understandable that people turn to their governments for support,” Dr. Johnson commented. “Affordability is a big challenge for low-income settings.”

Data from the World Health Organization show that, for every U.S. $1 invested in low- and middle-income countries, the return is U.S. $3.20, Johnson pointed out. “We really need to convince decision makers ... and see the right investments being made. It is important to ensure that the health system strengthening takes place in tandem with prevention services.”

Governments have begun making commitments to tackle noncommunicable diseases and cancer, Dr. Johnson commented. He highlighted the WHO’s Global Action Plan for Healthy Lives and Well-being for All and the updated cancer resolution adopted at the 2017 World Health Assembly.

“Education, training, and awareness-raising efforts need to be backed by strong and progressive health policies that prioritize prevention and help reduce the consumption of known cancer-causing products such as tobacco, sugary food, and beverages,” she said. “Countries should also invest proactively in national cancer control planning and the establishment of population-based registries to ensure the most effective resource allocation that benefits all groups.”

Up-to-date information on cancer risks and cancer prevention must be delivered to the public in ways that are accessible to those in lower socioeconomic groups, Dr. Johnson added. “Awareness needs to be raised continuously with each new generation,” she noted.

The UICC has relationships with Astellas, Daiichi Sankyo, Diaceutics, MSD Inventing for Life, Bristol-Myers Squibb, CUBEBIO, the Icon Group, Roche, and Sanofi.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Academic cancer centers around the United States continue to get caught up in an ever-evolving investigation into researchers – American and Chinese – who did not disclose payments from or the work they did for Chinese institutions while simultaneously accepting taxpayer money through U.S. government grants.

The U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation has been ferreting out researchers it says have acted illegally.

On Jan. 28, the agency arrested Charles Lieber, a chemist from Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass., and also unveiled charges against Zheng Zaosong, a cancer researcher who is in the United States on a Harvard-sponsored visa.

The FBI said Mr. Zheng, who worked at the Harvard-affiliated Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, tried to smuggle 21 vials of biological material and research to China. Mr. Zheng was arrested in December at Boston’s Logan Airport. He admitted he planned to conduct and publish research in China using the stolen samples, said the FBI.

“All of the individuals charged today were either directly or indirectly working for the Chinese government, at our country’s expense,” said the agent in charge of the FBI’s Boston office, Joseph R. Bonavolonta.

Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA), who has been pushing for more government action against foreign theft of U.S. research, said in a statement, “I’m glad the FBI appears to be taking foreign threats to taxpayer-funded research seriously, but I fear that this case is only the tip of the iceberg.”

The FBI said it is investigating China-related cases in all 50 states.

Ross McKinney, MD, the chief scientific officer at the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC), said he is aware of some 200 investigations, not all of which are cancer related, at 70-75 institutions.

“It’s a very ubiquitous problem,” Dr. McKinney said in an interview.

He also pointed out that some 6,000 National Institutes of Health–funded principal investigators are of Asian background. “So that 200 is a pretty small proportion,” said Dr. McKinney.

The NIH warned some 10,000 institutions in August 2018 that it had uncovered Chinese manipulation of peer review and a lack of disclosure of work for Chinese institutions. It urged the institutions to report irregularities.

For universities, “the trouble is sorting out who is the violator from who is not,” said Dr. McKinney. He noted that they are not set up to investigate whether someone has a laboratory in China.

“The fact that the Chinese government exploited the fact that universities are typically fairly trusting is extremely disappointing,” he said.
 

Moffitt story still unfolding

The most serious allegations have been leveled against six former employees of the Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute in Tampa, Florida.

In December 2019, Moffitt announced that the six – including President and CEO Alan List, MD, and the center director, Thomas Sellers, PhD – had left Moffitt as a result of “violations of conflict of interest rules through their work in China.”

New details have emerged, thanks to a new investigative report from a committee of the Florida House of Representatives.

The report said that Sheng Wei, a naturalized U.S. citizen who had worked at Moffitt since 2008 – when Moffitt began its affiliation with the Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital – was instrumental in recruiting top executives into the Thousand Talents program, which Wei had joined in 2010, according to the report. These executives included Dr. List, Dr. Sellers, and also Daniel Sullivan, head of Moffitt’s clinical science program, and cancer biologist Pearlie Epling-Burnette, it noted.

Begun in 2008, China’s Thousand Talents Plan gave salaries, funding, laboratory space, and other incentives to researchers who promised to bring U.S.-gained knowledge and research to China.

All information about this program has been removed from the Internet, but the program may still be active, Dr. McKinney commented.

According to the report, Dr. List pledged to work for the Tianjin cancer center 9 months a year for $71,000 annually. He was appointed head of the hematology department ($85,300 a year) in 2016. He opened a bank account in China to receive that salary and other Thousand Talents payments, the report found. The report notes that the exact amount Dr. List was paid is still not known.

Initially, Dr. Sellers, who was the principal investigator for Moffitt’s National Cancer Institute core grant, said he had not been involved in the Thousand Talents program. He later admitted that he had pledged to work in China 2 months a year for the program and that he’d opened a Chinese bank account and had deposited at least $35,000 into the account, the report notes.

The others pledged to work for the Thousand Talents program and also opened bank accounts in China and received money in those accounts.

Another Moffitt employee, Howard McLeod, MD, had worked for Thousand Talents before he joined Moffitt but did not disclose his China work. Dr. McLeod also supervised and had a close relationship with another researcher, Yijing (Bob) He, MD, who was employed by Moffitt but who lived in China, unbeknownst to Moffitt. “Dr. He appears to have functioned as an agent of Dr. McLeod in China,” said the report.

The report concluded that “none of the Moffitt faculty who were Talents program participants properly or timely disclosed their Talents program involvement to Moffitt, and none disclosed the full extent of their Talents program activities prior to Moffitt’s internal investigation.”

No charges have been filed against any of the former Moffitt employees.

However, the Cancer Letter has reported that Dr. Sellers is claiming he was not involved in the program and that he is preparing to sue Moffitt.

AAMC’s Dr. McKinney notes that it is illegal for researchers to take U.S. government grant money and pledge a certain amount of time but not deliver on that commitment because they are working for someone else – in this case, China. They also lied about not having any other research support, which is also illegal, he said.

The researchers received Chinese money and deposited it in Chinese accounts, which was never reported to the U.S. Internal Revenue Service.

“One of the hallmarks of the Chinese recruitment program was that people were instructed to not tell their normal U.S. host institution and not tell any U.S. government agency about their relationship with China,” Dr. McKinney said. “It was creating a culture where dishonesty in this situation was norm,” he added.

The lack of honesty brings up bigger questions for the field, he said. “Once you start lying about one thing, do you lie about your science, too?”
 

Lack of oversight?

Dr. McKinney said the NIH, as well as universities and hospitals, had a long and trusting relationship with China and should not be blamed for falling prey to the Chinese government’s concerted effort to steal intellectual property.

But some government watchdog groups have chided the NIH for lax oversight. In February 2019, the federal Health & Human Services’ Office of Inspector General found that “NIH has not assessed the risks to national security when permitting data access to foreign [principal investigators].”

Federal investigators have said that Thousand Talents has been one of the biggest threats.

The U.S. Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations reported in November 2019 that “the federal government’s grant-making agencies did little to prevent this from happening, nor did the FBI and other federal agencies develop a coordinated response to mitigate the threat.”

The NIH invests $31 billion a year in medical research through 50,000 competitive grants to more than 300,000 researchers, according to that report. Even after uncovering grant fraud and peer-review manipulation that benefited China, “significant gaps in NIH’s grant integrity process remain,” the report states. Site visits by the NIH’s Division of Grants Compliance and Oversight dropped from 28 in 2012 to just 3 in 2018, the report noted.
 

Widening dragnet

In April 2019, Science reported that the NIH identified five researchers at MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston who had failed to disclose their ties to Chinese enterprises and who had failed to keep peer review confidential.

Two resigned before they could be fired, one was fired, another eventually left the institution, and the fifth was found to have not willfully engaged in subterfuge.

Just a month later, Emory University in Atlanta announced that it had fired a husband and wife research team. The neuroscientists were known for their studies of Huntington disease. Both were U.S. citizens and had worked at Emory for more than 2 decades, according to the Science report.

The Moffitt situation led to the Florida legislature’s investigation, and also prompted some soul searching. The Tampa Bay Times reported that U.S. Senator Rick Scott (R-FL) asked state universities to provide information on what they are doing to stop foreign influence. The University of Florida then acknowledged that four faculty members resigned or were terminated because of ties to a foreign recruitment program.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Academic cancer centers around the United States continue to get caught up in an ever-evolving investigation into researchers – American and Chinese – who did not disclose payments from or the work they did for Chinese institutions while simultaneously accepting taxpayer money through U.S. government grants.

The U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation has been ferreting out researchers it says have acted illegally.

On Jan. 28, the agency arrested Charles Lieber, a chemist from Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass., and also unveiled charges against Zheng Zaosong, a cancer researcher who is in the United States on a Harvard-sponsored visa.

The FBI said Mr. Zheng, who worked at the Harvard-affiliated Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, tried to smuggle 21 vials of biological material and research to China. Mr. Zheng was arrested in December at Boston’s Logan Airport. He admitted he planned to conduct and publish research in China using the stolen samples, said the FBI.

“All of the individuals charged today were either directly or indirectly working for the Chinese government, at our country’s expense,” said the agent in charge of the FBI’s Boston office, Joseph R. Bonavolonta.

Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA), who has been pushing for more government action against foreign theft of U.S. research, said in a statement, “I’m glad the FBI appears to be taking foreign threats to taxpayer-funded research seriously, but I fear that this case is only the tip of the iceberg.”

The FBI said it is investigating China-related cases in all 50 states.

Ross McKinney, MD, the chief scientific officer at the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC), said he is aware of some 200 investigations, not all of which are cancer related, at 70-75 institutions.

“It’s a very ubiquitous problem,” Dr. McKinney said in an interview.

He also pointed out that some 6,000 National Institutes of Health–funded principal investigators are of Asian background. “So that 200 is a pretty small proportion,” said Dr. McKinney.

The NIH warned some 10,000 institutions in August 2018 that it had uncovered Chinese manipulation of peer review and a lack of disclosure of work for Chinese institutions. It urged the institutions to report irregularities.

For universities, “the trouble is sorting out who is the violator from who is not,” said Dr. McKinney. He noted that they are not set up to investigate whether someone has a laboratory in China.

“The fact that the Chinese government exploited the fact that universities are typically fairly trusting is extremely disappointing,” he said.
 

Moffitt story still unfolding

The most serious allegations have been leveled against six former employees of the Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute in Tampa, Florida.

In December 2019, Moffitt announced that the six – including President and CEO Alan List, MD, and the center director, Thomas Sellers, PhD – had left Moffitt as a result of “violations of conflict of interest rules through their work in China.”

New details have emerged, thanks to a new investigative report from a committee of the Florida House of Representatives.

The report said that Sheng Wei, a naturalized U.S. citizen who had worked at Moffitt since 2008 – when Moffitt began its affiliation with the Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital – was instrumental in recruiting top executives into the Thousand Talents program, which Wei had joined in 2010, according to the report. These executives included Dr. List, Dr. Sellers, and also Daniel Sullivan, head of Moffitt’s clinical science program, and cancer biologist Pearlie Epling-Burnette, it noted.

Begun in 2008, China’s Thousand Talents Plan gave salaries, funding, laboratory space, and other incentives to researchers who promised to bring U.S.-gained knowledge and research to China.

All information about this program has been removed from the Internet, but the program may still be active, Dr. McKinney commented.

According to the report, Dr. List pledged to work for the Tianjin cancer center 9 months a year for $71,000 annually. He was appointed head of the hematology department ($85,300 a year) in 2016. He opened a bank account in China to receive that salary and other Thousand Talents payments, the report found. The report notes that the exact amount Dr. List was paid is still not known.

Initially, Dr. Sellers, who was the principal investigator for Moffitt’s National Cancer Institute core grant, said he had not been involved in the Thousand Talents program. He later admitted that he had pledged to work in China 2 months a year for the program and that he’d opened a Chinese bank account and had deposited at least $35,000 into the account, the report notes.

The others pledged to work for the Thousand Talents program and also opened bank accounts in China and received money in those accounts.

Another Moffitt employee, Howard McLeod, MD, had worked for Thousand Talents before he joined Moffitt but did not disclose his China work. Dr. McLeod also supervised and had a close relationship with another researcher, Yijing (Bob) He, MD, who was employed by Moffitt but who lived in China, unbeknownst to Moffitt. “Dr. He appears to have functioned as an agent of Dr. McLeod in China,” said the report.

The report concluded that “none of the Moffitt faculty who were Talents program participants properly or timely disclosed their Talents program involvement to Moffitt, and none disclosed the full extent of their Talents program activities prior to Moffitt’s internal investigation.”

No charges have been filed against any of the former Moffitt employees.

However, the Cancer Letter has reported that Dr. Sellers is claiming he was not involved in the program and that he is preparing to sue Moffitt.

AAMC’s Dr. McKinney notes that it is illegal for researchers to take U.S. government grant money and pledge a certain amount of time but not deliver on that commitment because they are working for someone else – in this case, China. They also lied about not having any other research support, which is also illegal, he said.

The researchers received Chinese money and deposited it in Chinese accounts, which was never reported to the U.S. Internal Revenue Service.

“One of the hallmarks of the Chinese recruitment program was that people were instructed to not tell their normal U.S. host institution and not tell any U.S. government agency about their relationship with China,” Dr. McKinney said. “It was creating a culture where dishonesty in this situation was norm,” he added.

The lack of honesty brings up bigger questions for the field, he said. “Once you start lying about one thing, do you lie about your science, too?”
 

Lack of oversight?

Dr. McKinney said the NIH, as well as universities and hospitals, had a long and trusting relationship with China and should not be blamed for falling prey to the Chinese government’s concerted effort to steal intellectual property.

But some government watchdog groups have chided the NIH for lax oversight. In February 2019, the federal Health & Human Services’ Office of Inspector General found that “NIH has not assessed the risks to national security when permitting data access to foreign [principal investigators].”

Federal investigators have said that Thousand Talents has been one of the biggest threats.

The U.S. Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations reported in November 2019 that “the federal government’s grant-making agencies did little to prevent this from happening, nor did the FBI and other federal agencies develop a coordinated response to mitigate the threat.”

The NIH invests $31 billion a year in medical research through 50,000 competitive grants to more than 300,000 researchers, according to that report. Even after uncovering grant fraud and peer-review manipulation that benefited China, “significant gaps in NIH’s grant integrity process remain,” the report states. Site visits by the NIH’s Division of Grants Compliance and Oversight dropped from 28 in 2012 to just 3 in 2018, the report noted.
 

Widening dragnet

In April 2019, Science reported that the NIH identified five researchers at MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston who had failed to disclose their ties to Chinese enterprises and who had failed to keep peer review confidential.

Two resigned before they could be fired, one was fired, another eventually left the institution, and the fifth was found to have not willfully engaged in subterfuge.

Just a month later, Emory University in Atlanta announced that it had fired a husband and wife research team. The neuroscientists were known for their studies of Huntington disease. Both were U.S. citizens and had worked at Emory for more than 2 decades, according to the Science report.

The Moffitt situation led to the Florida legislature’s investigation, and also prompted some soul searching. The Tampa Bay Times reported that U.S. Senator Rick Scott (R-FL) asked state universities to provide information on what they are doing to stop foreign influence. The University of Florida then acknowledged that four faculty members resigned or were terminated because of ties to a foreign recruitment program.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Academic cancer centers around the United States continue to get caught up in an ever-evolving investigation into researchers – American and Chinese – who did not disclose payments from or the work they did for Chinese institutions while simultaneously accepting taxpayer money through U.S. government grants.

The U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation has been ferreting out researchers it says have acted illegally.

On Jan. 28, the agency arrested Charles Lieber, a chemist from Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass., and also unveiled charges against Zheng Zaosong, a cancer researcher who is in the United States on a Harvard-sponsored visa.

The FBI said Mr. Zheng, who worked at the Harvard-affiliated Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, tried to smuggle 21 vials of biological material and research to China. Mr. Zheng was arrested in December at Boston’s Logan Airport. He admitted he planned to conduct and publish research in China using the stolen samples, said the FBI.

“All of the individuals charged today were either directly or indirectly working for the Chinese government, at our country’s expense,” said the agent in charge of the FBI’s Boston office, Joseph R. Bonavolonta.

Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA), who has been pushing for more government action against foreign theft of U.S. research, said in a statement, “I’m glad the FBI appears to be taking foreign threats to taxpayer-funded research seriously, but I fear that this case is only the tip of the iceberg.”

The FBI said it is investigating China-related cases in all 50 states.

Ross McKinney, MD, the chief scientific officer at the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC), said he is aware of some 200 investigations, not all of which are cancer related, at 70-75 institutions.

“It’s a very ubiquitous problem,” Dr. McKinney said in an interview.

He also pointed out that some 6,000 National Institutes of Health–funded principal investigators are of Asian background. “So that 200 is a pretty small proportion,” said Dr. McKinney.

The NIH warned some 10,000 institutions in August 2018 that it had uncovered Chinese manipulation of peer review and a lack of disclosure of work for Chinese institutions. It urged the institutions to report irregularities.

For universities, “the trouble is sorting out who is the violator from who is not,” said Dr. McKinney. He noted that they are not set up to investigate whether someone has a laboratory in China.

“The fact that the Chinese government exploited the fact that universities are typically fairly trusting is extremely disappointing,” he said.
 

Moffitt story still unfolding

The most serious allegations have been leveled against six former employees of the Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute in Tampa, Florida.

In December 2019, Moffitt announced that the six – including President and CEO Alan List, MD, and the center director, Thomas Sellers, PhD – had left Moffitt as a result of “violations of conflict of interest rules through their work in China.”

New details have emerged, thanks to a new investigative report from a committee of the Florida House of Representatives.

The report said that Sheng Wei, a naturalized U.S. citizen who had worked at Moffitt since 2008 – when Moffitt began its affiliation with the Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital – was instrumental in recruiting top executives into the Thousand Talents program, which Wei had joined in 2010, according to the report. These executives included Dr. List, Dr. Sellers, and also Daniel Sullivan, head of Moffitt’s clinical science program, and cancer biologist Pearlie Epling-Burnette, it noted.

Begun in 2008, China’s Thousand Talents Plan gave salaries, funding, laboratory space, and other incentives to researchers who promised to bring U.S.-gained knowledge and research to China.

All information about this program has been removed from the Internet, but the program may still be active, Dr. McKinney commented.

According to the report, Dr. List pledged to work for the Tianjin cancer center 9 months a year for $71,000 annually. He was appointed head of the hematology department ($85,300 a year) in 2016. He opened a bank account in China to receive that salary and other Thousand Talents payments, the report found. The report notes that the exact amount Dr. List was paid is still not known.

Initially, Dr. Sellers, who was the principal investigator for Moffitt’s National Cancer Institute core grant, said he had not been involved in the Thousand Talents program. He later admitted that he had pledged to work in China 2 months a year for the program and that he’d opened a Chinese bank account and had deposited at least $35,000 into the account, the report notes.

The others pledged to work for the Thousand Talents program and also opened bank accounts in China and received money in those accounts.

Another Moffitt employee, Howard McLeod, MD, had worked for Thousand Talents before he joined Moffitt but did not disclose his China work. Dr. McLeod also supervised and had a close relationship with another researcher, Yijing (Bob) He, MD, who was employed by Moffitt but who lived in China, unbeknownst to Moffitt. “Dr. He appears to have functioned as an agent of Dr. McLeod in China,” said the report.

The report concluded that “none of the Moffitt faculty who were Talents program participants properly or timely disclosed their Talents program involvement to Moffitt, and none disclosed the full extent of their Talents program activities prior to Moffitt’s internal investigation.”

No charges have been filed against any of the former Moffitt employees.

However, the Cancer Letter has reported that Dr. Sellers is claiming he was not involved in the program and that he is preparing to sue Moffitt.

AAMC’s Dr. McKinney notes that it is illegal for researchers to take U.S. government grant money and pledge a certain amount of time but not deliver on that commitment because they are working for someone else – in this case, China. They also lied about not having any other research support, which is also illegal, he said.

The researchers received Chinese money and deposited it in Chinese accounts, which was never reported to the U.S. Internal Revenue Service.

“One of the hallmarks of the Chinese recruitment program was that people were instructed to not tell their normal U.S. host institution and not tell any U.S. government agency about their relationship with China,” Dr. McKinney said. “It was creating a culture where dishonesty in this situation was norm,” he added.

The lack of honesty brings up bigger questions for the field, he said. “Once you start lying about one thing, do you lie about your science, too?”
 

Lack of oversight?

Dr. McKinney said the NIH, as well as universities and hospitals, had a long and trusting relationship with China and should not be blamed for falling prey to the Chinese government’s concerted effort to steal intellectual property.

But some government watchdog groups have chided the NIH for lax oversight. In February 2019, the federal Health & Human Services’ Office of Inspector General found that “NIH has not assessed the risks to national security when permitting data access to foreign [principal investigators].”

Federal investigators have said that Thousand Talents has been one of the biggest threats.

The U.S. Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations reported in November 2019 that “the federal government’s grant-making agencies did little to prevent this from happening, nor did the FBI and other federal agencies develop a coordinated response to mitigate the threat.”

The NIH invests $31 billion a year in medical research through 50,000 competitive grants to more than 300,000 researchers, according to that report. Even after uncovering grant fraud and peer-review manipulation that benefited China, “significant gaps in NIH’s grant integrity process remain,” the report states. Site visits by the NIH’s Division of Grants Compliance and Oversight dropped from 28 in 2012 to just 3 in 2018, the report noted.
 

Widening dragnet

In April 2019, Science reported that the NIH identified five researchers at MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston who had failed to disclose their ties to Chinese enterprises and who had failed to keep peer review confidential.

Two resigned before they could be fired, one was fired, another eventually left the institution, and the fifth was found to have not willfully engaged in subterfuge.

Just a month later, Emory University in Atlanta announced that it had fired a husband and wife research team. The neuroscientists were known for their studies of Huntington disease. Both were U.S. citizens and had worked at Emory for more than 2 decades, according to the Science report.

The Moffitt situation led to the Florida legislature’s investigation, and also prompted some soul searching. The Tampa Bay Times reported that U.S. Senator Rick Scott (R-FL) asked state universities to provide information on what they are doing to stop foreign influence. The University of Florida then acknowledged that four faculty members resigned or were terminated because of ties to a foreign recruitment program.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

For lung cancer patients with moderately decreased lung function, the 6-minute walk test may be a useful tool to help predict postoperative cardiopulmonary complications, researchers have found.

Risk of cardiopulmonary complications increased nearly eightfold in patients with moderate lung function decreases who failed to walk 400 m or more, according to the study, which included data on 416 patients with non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who underwent lobectomy.

This is believed to be the first large study evaluating the utility of the 6-minute walk test (6MWT) to predict postoperative cardiopulmonary complications in this surgical setting, according to researchers led by Hyun Lee, MD, of Hanyang University in Seoul, South Korea. 

“Our findings suggest that 6-minute walk distance would provide additional information in lung cancer patients with moderately decreased lung function who plan to undergo surgical resection,” said Dr. Lee and coauthors of the study report, which appears in CHEST.

More specifically, the option of curative resection should be considered in those lung cancer patients with moderately decreased lung function but a longer 6-minute walk distance, they added.

Exercise testing is currently recommended to further stratify risk of postoperative complications among patient with moderately decreased lung function, according to the researchers. The 6-minute walk test might be a good tool to evaluate feasibility for moderate risk patients, according to one recent review. However, studies so far have been limited by small numbers of patients, and larger studies have not specifically looked at predicted postoperative lung function status, they said.

Accordingly, the researchers evaluated data from patients expected to undergo curative lung cancer surgery who were enrolled in a prospective cohort study in Korea. They were classified as low or moderate risk based on pulmonary function tests, and further classified into short distance (less than 400 m) and long distance (400 m or more) groups based on their performance on the 6-minute walk test. 

Postoperative cardiopulmonary complications were seen in 42.9% of the moderate-risk, short-distance group, versus 14.4% of patients in the moderate-risk, long-distance group. In the low-risk patients, those complications were seen in 9.5% and 8.3% of those in the long and short distance groups.

Odds for postoperative cardiopulmonary complications were significantly increased in the moderate-risk, short-distance group, compared with the low-risk, long-distance group (adjusted odds ratio, 7.84; 95% confidence interval, 2.24-27.46).

By contrast, odds for complications were not significantly increased in the moderate-risk, long-distance group, nor in the low-risk, short-distance groups, investigators said.

Dr. Lee and coauthors said they had no conflicts of interest to disclose.

SOURCE: Lee H et al. CHEST. 2020. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2019.12.039.

For lung cancer patients with moderately decreased lung function, the 6-minute walk test may be a useful tool to help predict postoperative cardiopulmonary complications, researchers have found.

Risk of cardiopulmonary complications increased nearly eightfold in patients with moderate lung function decreases who failed to walk 400 m or more, according to the study, which included data on 416 patients with non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who underwent lobectomy.

This is believed to be the first large study evaluating the utility of the 6-minute walk test (6MWT) to predict postoperative cardiopulmonary complications in this surgical setting, according to researchers led by Hyun Lee, MD, of Hanyang University in Seoul, South Korea. 

“Our findings suggest that 6-minute walk distance would provide additional information in lung cancer patients with moderately decreased lung function who plan to undergo surgical resection,” said Dr. Lee and coauthors of the study report, which appears in CHEST.

More specifically, the option of curative resection should be considered in those lung cancer patients with moderately decreased lung function but a longer 6-minute walk distance, they added.

Exercise testing is currently recommended to further stratify risk of postoperative complications among patient with moderately decreased lung function, according to the researchers. The 6-minute walk test might be a good tool to evaluate feasibility for moderate risk patients, according to one recent review. However, studies so far have been limited by small numbers of patients, and larger studies have not specifically looked at predicted postoperative lung function status, they said.

Accordingly, the researchers evaluated data from patients expected to undergo curative lung cancer surgery who were enrolled in a prospective cohort study in Korea. They were classified as low or moderate risk based on pulmonary function tests, and further classified into short distance (less than 400 m) and long distance (400 m or more) groups based on their performance on the 6-minute walk test. 

Postoperative cardiopulmonary complications were seen in 42.9% of the moderate-risk, short-distance group, versus 14.4% of patients in the moderate-risk, long-distance group. In the low-risk patients, those complications were seen in 9.5% and 8.3% of those in the long and short distance groups.

Odds for postoperative cardiopulmonary complications were significantly increased in the moderate-risk, short-distance group, compared with the low-risk, long-distance group (adjusted odds ratio, 7.84; 95% confidence interval, 2.24-27.46).

By contrast, odds for complications were not significantly increased in the moderate-risk, long-distance group, nor in the low-risk, short-distance groups, investigators said.

Dr. Lee and coauthors said they had no conflicts of interest to disclose.

SOURCE: Lee H et al. CHEST. 2020. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2019.12.039.

For lung cancer patients with moderately decreased lung function, the 6-minute walk test may be a useful tool to help predict postoperative cardiopulmonary complications, researchers have found.

Risk of cardiopulmonary complications increased nearly eightfold in patients with moderate lung function decreases who failed to walk 400 m or more, according to the study, which included data on 416 patients with non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who underwent lobectomy.

This is believed to be the first large study evaluating the utility of the 6-minute walk test (6MWT) to predict postoperative cardiopulmonary complications in this surgical setting, according to researchers led by Hyun Lee, MD, of Hanyang University in Seoul, South Korea. 

“Our findings suggest that 6-minute walk distance would provide additional information in lung cancer patients with moderately decreased lung function who plan to undergo surgical resection,” said Dr. Lee and coauthors of the study report, which appears in CHEST.

More specifically, the option of curative resection should be considered in those lung cancer patients with moderately decreased lung function but a longer 6-minute walk distance, they added.

Exercise testing is currently recommended to further stratify risk of postoperative complications among patient with moderately decreased lung function, according to the researchers. The 6-minute walk test might be a good tool to evaluate feasibility for moderate risk patients, according to one recent review. However, studies so far have been limited by small numbers of patients, and larger studies have not specifically looked at predicted postoperative lung function status, they said.

Accordingly, the researchers evaluated data from patients expected to undergo curative lung cancer surgery who were enrolled in a prospective cohort study in Korea. They were classified as low or moderate risk based on pulmonary function tests, and further classified into short distance (less than 400 m) and long distance (400 m or more) groups based on their performance on the 6-minute walk test. 

Postoperative cardiopulmonary complications were seen in 42.9% of the moderate-risk, short-distance group, versus 14.4% of patients in the moderate-risk, long-distance group. In the low-risk patients, those complications were seen in 9.5% and 8.3% of those in the long and short distance groups.

Odds for postoperative cardiopulmonary complications were significantly increased in the moderate-risk, short-distance group, compared with the low-risk, long-distance group (adjusted odds ratio, 7.84; 95% confidence interval, 2.24-27.46).

By contrast, odds for complications were not significantly increased in the moderate-risk, long-distance group, nor in the low-risk, short-distance groups, investigators said.

Dr. Lee and coauthors said they had no conflicts of interest to disclose.

SOURCE: Lee H et al. CHEST. 2020. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2019.12.039.

Sequencing Therapies

Mark Klein, MD. The last few years, there have been several new trials in prostate cancer for people in a metastatic setting or more advanced local setting, such as the STAMPEDE, LATITUDE, and CHAARTED trials.^1-4 In addition, recently a few trials have examined apalutamide and enzalutamide for people who have had PSA (prostate-specific antigen) levels rapidly rising within about 10 months or so. One of the questions that arises is, how do we wrap our heads around sequencing these therapies. Is there a sequence that we should be doing and thinking about upfront and how do the different trials compare?

Julie Graff, MD. It just got more complicated. There was news today (December 20, 2018) that using enzalutamide early on in newly diagnosed metastatic prostate cancer may have positive results. It is not yet approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), but for patients who present with metastatic prostate cancer, we may have 4 potential treatments. We could have androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) alone, ADT plus docetaxel, enzalutamide, or abiraterone.

When I see patients in this situation, I talk to them about their options, the pros and cons of each option, and try to cover all the trials that look at these combinations. It can be quite a long visit. I talk to the patient about who benefits most, whether it is patients with high-risk factors or high-volume cancers. Also, I talk with the patient about all the adverse effects (AEs), and I look at my patients’ comorbid conditions and come up with a plan.

I encourage any patient who has high-volume or high-risk disease to consider more than just ADT alone. For many patients, I have been using abiraterone plus ADT. I have a wonderful pharmacist. As a medical oncologist, I can’t do it on my own. I need someone to follow patients’ laboratory results and to be available for medication questions and complications.

Elizabeth Hansen, PharmD. With the increasing number of patients on oral antineoplastics, monitoring patients in the outpatient setting has become an increasing priority and one of my major roles as a pharmacist in the clinic at the Chalmers P. Wylie VA Ambulatory Care Center in Columbus, Ohio. This is especially important as some of these treatments require frequent laboratory monitoring, such as abiraterone with liver function tests every 2 weeks for the first 3 months of treatment and monthly thereafter. Without frequent-follow up it’s easy for these patients to get lost in the shuffle.

Abhishek Solanki, MD. You could argue that a fifth option is prostate-directed radiation for patients who have limited metastases based on the STAMPEDE trial, which we’ve started integrating into our practice at the Edward Hines, Jr. Veterans Affairs Hospital in Chicago, Illinois.⁴

Mark Klein. Do you have a feel for the data and using radiation in oligometastatic (≤ 5 metastatic tumors) disease in prostate cancer and how well that might work?

Abhishek Solanki. The best data we have are from the multi-arm, multistage STAMPEDE trial systemic therapies and local therapy in the setting of high-risk localized disease and metastatic disease.⁶ The most recent publication looked specifically at the population with newly diagnosed metastatic disease and compared standard ADT (and docetaxel in about 18% of the patients) with or without prostate-directed radiation therapy. There was no survival benefit with radiation in the overall population, but in the subgroup of patients with low metastatic burden, there was an 8% survival benefit at 3 years.

It’s difficult to know what to make of that information because, as we’ve discussed already, there are other systemic therapy options that are being used more and more upfront such as abiraterone. Can you see the same benefit of radiation in that setting? The flip side is that in this study, radiation just targeted the prostate; could survival be improved even more by targeting all sites of disease in patients with oligometastatic disease? These are still open questions in prostate cancer and there are clinical trials attempting to define the clinical benefit of radiation in the metastatic setting for patients with limited metastases.

Mark Klein. How do you select patients for radiation in this particular situation; How do you approach stratification when radiation is started upfront?

Abhishek Solanki. In the STAMPEDE trial, low metastatic burden was defined based on the definition in the CHAARTED trial, which was those patients who did not have ≥ 4 bone metastases with ≥ 1 outside the vertebral bodies or pelvis, and did not have visceral metastases.⁷ That’s tough, because this definition could be a patient with a solitary bone metastasis but also could include some patients who have involved nodes extending all the way up to the retroperitoneal nodes—that is a fairly heterogeneous population. What we have done at our institution is select patients who have 3 to 5 metastases, administer prostate radiation therapy, and add stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for the other sites of disease, invoking the oligometastasis approach.

We have been doing this more frequently in the last few months. Typically, we’ll do 3 to 5 fractions of SBRT to metastases. For the primary, if the patient chooses SBRT, we’ll take that approach. If the patient chooses a more standard fractionation, we’ll do 20 treatments, but from a logistic perspective, most patients would rather come in for 5 treatments than 20. We also typically would start these patients on systemic hormonal therapy.

Mark Klein. At that point, are they referred back to medical oncology for surveillance?

Abhishek Solanki. Yes, they are followed by medical oncology and radiation oncology, and typically would continue hormonal therapy.

Mark Klein. Julie, how have you thought about presenting the therapeutic options for those patients who would be either eligible for docetaxel with high-bulk disease or abiraterone? Do you find patients prefer one or the other?

Julie Graff. I try to be very open about all the possibilities, and I present both. I don’t just decide for the patient chemotherapy vs abiraterone, but after we talk about it, most of my patients do opt for the abiraterone. I had a patient referred from the community—we are seeing more and more of this because abiraterone is so expensive—whose ejection fraction was about 38%. I said to that patient, “we could do chemotherapy, but we shouldn’t do abiraterone.” But usually it’s not that clear-cut.

Elizabeth Hansen. There was also an update from the STAMPEDE trial published recently comparing upfront abiraterone and prednisone to docetaxel (18 weeks) in advanced or metastatic prostate cancer. Results from this trial indicated a nearly identical overall survival (OS) (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.16; 95% CI, 0.82-1.65; P = .40). However, the failure-free survival (HR = 0.51; 95% CI, 0.39-0.67; P < .001) and progression-free survival (PFS) (HR= 0.65; 95% CI, 0.0.48-0.88; P = .005) favored abiraterone.^8,9 The authors argue that while there was no change in OS, this trial demonstrates an important difference in the pattern of treatment failure.

Julie, do you think there will be any change in the treatment paradigm between docetaxel and abiraterone with this new update?

Julie Graff. I wasn’t that impressed by that study. I do not see it as practice changing, and it makes sense to me that the PFS is different in the 2 arms because we give chemotherapy and take a break vs giving abiraterone indefinitely. For me, there’s not really a shift.

Patients With Rising PSAs

Mark Klein. Let’s discuss the data from the recent studies on enzalutamide and apalutamide for the patients with fast-rising PSAs. In your discussions with other prostate researchers, will this become a standard part of practice or not?

Julie Graff. I was one of the authors on the SPARTAN apalutamide study.¹⁰ For a long time, we have had patients without metastatic disease but with a PSA relapse after surgery or radiation; and the PSA levels climb when the cancer becomes resistant to ADT. We haven’t had many options in that setting except to use bicalutamide and some older androgen receptor (AR) antagonists. We used to use estrogen and ketoconazole as well.

But now 2 studies have come out looking at a primary endpoint of metastases-free survival. Patients whose PSA was doubling every 10 months or shorter were randomized to either apalutamide (SPARTAN¹⁰) or enzalutamide (PROSPER¹¹), both second-generation AR antagonists. There was a placebo control arm in each of the studies. Both studies found that adding the second-generation AR targeting agent delayed the time to metastatic disease by about 2 years. There is not any signal yet for statistically significant OS benefit, so it is not entirely clear if you could wait for the first metastasis to develop and then give 1 of these treatments and have the same OS benefit.

At the VA Portland Health Care System (VAPORHCS), it took a while to make these drugs available. My fellows were excited to give these drugs right away, but I often counsel patients that we don’t know if the second-generation AR targeting agents will improve survival. They almost certainly will bring down PSAs, which helps with peace of mind, but anything we add to the ADT can cause more AEs.

I have been cautious with second-generation AR antagonists because patients, when they take one of these drugs, are going to be on it for a long time. The FDA has approved those 2 drugs regardless of PSA doubling time, but I would not give it for a PSA doubling time > 10 months. In my practice about a quarter of patients who would qualify for apalutamide or enzalutamide are actually taking one, and the others are monitored closely with computed tomography (CT) and bone scans. When the disease becomes metastatic, then we start those drugs.

Mark Klein. Why 10 months, why not 6 months, a year, or 18 months? Is there reasoning behind that?

Julie Graff. There was a publication by Matthew Smith showing that the PSA doubling time was predictive of the development of metastatic disease and cancer death or prostate cancer death, and that 10 months seemed to be the cutoff between when the prostate cancer was going to become deadly vs not.¹² If you actually look at the trial data, I think the PSA doubling time was between 3 and 4 months for the participants, so pretty short.

Adverse Effects

Mark Klein. What are the AEs people are seeing from using apalutamide, enzalutamide, and abiraterone? What are they seeing in their practice vs what is in the studies? When I have had to stop people on abiraterone or drop down the dose, almost always it has been for fatigue. We check liver function tests (LFTs) repeatedly, but I can’t remember ever having to drop down the dose or take it away even for that reason.

Elizabeth Hansen. The toxicities of these 3 agents are very different. In my practice I have seen a few patients develop hepatotoxicity with abiraterone, and I think this reflects the known incidence of transaminitis (grade 3/4) seen in clinical trials, reported at 6%. Generally, we’ve been able to restart treatment by withholding abiraterone until liver function returns to baseline and then subsequently dose reducing. Like Julie mentioned, abiraterone should be used with caution and/or avoided in patients with serious cardiac disease, recent myocardial infarction, or heart failure. I also always check blood pressure history, to ensure it is well controlled prior to initiation, and order a home blood pressure cuff for monitoring. With enzalutamide one of the main concerns is fatigue, which occurred in > 10% of patients in clinical trials. In my experience this has been dose limiting and can be managed with dose reductions. Seizures also occurred in 0.4% of patients on enzalutamide, so I always ask about seizure history and screen the medication list for concomitant medications that may lower the seizure threshold or other risk factors such as brain metastasis. Last, enzalutamide is a strong CYP3A4 inducer, so there is a strong possibility for drug interactions with other medications, and it is associated with increased cardiac events. With apalutamide you have the cardiac concerns, thyroid dysfunction, fracture risk, and drug interactions to worry about as well. To be honest, we have not used this agent yet at my practice.

Mark Klein. At the Minneapolis VA Health Care System (MVAHCS) when apalutamide first came out, for the PSA rapid doubling, there had already been an abstract presenting the enzalutamide data. We have chosen to recommend enzalutamide as our choice for the people with PSA doubling based on the cost. It’s significantly cheaper for the VA. Between the 2 papers there is very little difference in the efficacy data. I’m wondering what other sites have done with regard to that specific point at their VAs?

Elizabeth Hansen. In Columbus, we prefer to use either abiraterone and enzalutamide because they’re essentially cost neutral. However, this may change with generic abiraterone coming to market. Apalutamide is really cost prohibitive currently.

Julie Graff. I agree.

Patient Education

Mark Klein. At MVAHCS, the navigators handle a lot of upfront education. We have 3 navigators, including Kathleen Nelson who is on this roundtable. She works with patients and provides much of the patient education. How have you handled education for patients?

Kathleen Nelson. For the most part, our pharmacists do the drug-specific education for the oral agents, and the nurse navigators provide more generic education. We did a trial for patients on IV therapies. We learned that patients really don’t report in much detail, but if you call and ask them specific questions, then you can tease out some more detail.

Elizabeth Hansen. It is interesting that every site is different. One of my main roles is oral antineoplastic monitoring, which includes many patients on enzalutamide or abiraterone. At least initially with these patients, I try to follow them closely—abiraterone more so than enzalutamide. I typically call every 2 to 4 weeks, in between clinic visits, to follow up the laboratory tests and manage the AEs. I always try to ask direct and open-ended questions: How often are you checking your blood pressure? What is your current weight? How has your energy level changed since therapy initiation?

The VA telehealth system is amazing. For patients who need to monitor blood pressure regularly, it’s really nice for them to have those numbers come directly back to me in CPRS (Computerized Patient Record System). That has worked wonders for some of our patients to get them through therapy.

Mark Klein. What do you tend to use when the prostate cancer is progressing for a patient? And how do you determine that progression? Some studies will use PSA rise only as a marker for progression. Other studies have not used PSA rise as the only marker for progression and oftentimes require some sort of bone scan criteria or CT imaging criteria for progression.

Julie Graff. We have a limited number of treatment options. Providers typically use enzalutamide or abiraterone as there is a high degree of resistance between the 2. Then there is chemotherapy and then radium, which quite a few people don’t qualify for. We need to be very thoughtful when we change treatments. I look at the 3 factors of biochemical progression or response—PSA, radiographic progression, and clinical progression. If I don’t see 2 out of 3, I typically don’t change treatments. Then after enzalutamide or abiraterone, I wait until there are cancer-related symptoms before I consider chemotherapy and closely monitor my patients.

Imaging Modalities

Abhishek Solanki. Over the last few years the Hines VA Hospital has used fluciclovine positron emission tomography (PET), which is one of the novel imaging modalities for prostate cancer. Really the 2 novel imaging modalities that have gained the most excitement are prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) PET and fluciclovine PET. Fluciclovine PET is based on a synthetic amino acid that’s taken up in multiple tissues, including prostate cancer. It has changed our practice in the localized setting for patients who have developed recurrence after radiation or radical prostatectomy. We have incorporated the scan into our workup of patients with recurrent disease, which can give us some more information at lower PSAs than historically we could get with CT, bone scan, or magnetic resonance imaging.

Our medical oncologists have started using it more and more as well. We are getting a lot of patients who have a negative CT or bone scan but have a positive fluciclovine PET. There are a few different disease settings where that becomes relevant. In patients who develop biochemical recurrence after radiation or salvage radiation after radical, we are finding that a lot of these patients who have no CT or bone scan findings of disease ultimately are found to have a PET-positive lesion. Sometimes it’s difficult to know how best to help patients with PET-only disease. Should you target the disease with an oligometastasis approach or just pursue systemic therapy or surveillance? It is challenging but more and more we are moving toward metastasis-directed therapy. There are multiple randomized trials in progress testing whether metastasis-directed therapy to the PET areas of recurrence can improve outcomes or delay systemic ADT. The STOMP trial randomized surveillance vs SBRT or surgery for patients with oligometastatic disease that showed improvement in biochemical control and ADT-free survival.¹³ However this was a small trial that tried to identify a signal. More definitive trials are necessary.

The other setting where we have found novel PET imaging to be helpful is in patients who have become castration resistant but don’t have clear metastases on conventional imaging. We’re identifying more patients who have only a few sites of progression, and we’ll pursue metastasis-directed therapy to those areas to try to get more mileage out of the systemic therapy that the patient is currently on and to try to avoid having to switch to the next line with the idea that, potentially, the progression site is just a limited clone that is progressing despite the current systemic therapy.
 

Mark Klein. I find that to be a very attractive approach. I’m assuming you do that for any systemic therapy where people have maybe 1 or 2 sites and they do not have a big PSA jump. Do you have a number of sites that you’re willing to radiate? And then, when you do that, what radiation fractionation and dosing do you use? Is there any observational data behind that for efficacy?

Abhishek Solanki. It is a patient by patient decision. Some patients, if they have a very rapid pace of progression shortly after starting systemic therapy and metastases have grown in several areas, we think that perhaps this person may benefit less from aggressive local therapy. But if it’s somebody who has been on systemic therapy for a while and has up to 3 sites of disease growth, we consider SBRT for oligoprogressive disease. Typically, we’ll use SBRT, which delivers a high dose of radiation over 3 to 5 treatments. With SBRT you can give a higher biologic dose and use more sophisticated treatment machines and image guidance for treatments to focus the radiation on the tumor area and limit exposure to normal tissue structures.

In prostate cancer to the primary site, we will typically do around 35 to 40 Gy in 5 fractions. For metastases, it depends on the site. If it’s in the lung, typically we will do 3 to 5 treatments, giving approximately 50 to 60 Gy in that course. In the spine, we use lower doses near the spinal cord and the cauda equina, typically about 30 Gy in 3 fractions. In the liver, similar to the lung, we’ll typically do 50-54 Gy in 3-5 fractions. There aren’t a lot of high-level data guiding the optimal dose/fractionation to metastases, but these are the doses we’ll use for various malignancies.

Treatment Options for Patients With Adverse Events

Mark Klein. I was just reviewing the 2004 study that randomized patients to mitoxantrone or docetaxel for up to 10 cycles.^14,15 Who are good candidates for docetaxel after they have exhausted abiraterone and enzalutamide? How long do you hold to the 10-cycle rule, or do you go beyond that if they’re doing well? And if they’re not a good candidate, what are some options?

Julie Graff. The best candidates are those who are having a cancer-related AE, particularly pain, because docetaxel only improves survival over mitoxantrone by about 2.5 months. I don’t talk to patients about it as though it is a life extender, but it seems to help control pain—about 70% of patients benefited in terms of pain or some other cancer-related symptom.¹⁴

I have a lot of patients who say, “Never will I do chemotherapy.” I refer those patients to hospice, or if they’re appropriate for radium-223, I consider that. I typically give about 6 cycles of chemotherapy and then see how they’re doing. In some patients, the cancer just doesn’t respond to it.

I do tell patients about the papers that you mentioned, the 2 studies of docetaxel vs mitoxantrone where they use about 10 cycles, and some of my patients go all 10.^14,15 Sometimes we have to stop because of neuropathy or some other AE. I believe in taking breaks and that you can probably start it later.

Elizabeth Hansen. I agree, our practice is similar. A lot of our patients are not very interested in chemotherapy. You have to take into consideration their ECOG (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group) status, their goals, and quality of life when talking to them about these medications. And a lot of them tend to choose more of a palliative route. Depending on their AEs and how things are going, we will dose reduce, hold treatment, or give treatment holidays.

Mark Klein. If patients are progressing on docetaxel, what are options that people would use? Radium-223 certainly is available for patients with nonvisceral metastases, as well as cabazitaxel, mitoxantrone, estramustine and other older drugs.

Julie Graff. We have some clinical trials for patients postdocetaxel. We have the TRITON2 and TRITON3 studies open at the VA. (NCT02952534 and NCT02975934, respectively) A lot of patients would get a biopsy, and we’d look for a BRCA 1 or 2 and ATM mutation. For those patients who don’t have those mutations—and maybe 80% of them don’t—we talk about radium-223 for the patients without visceral metastases and bone pain. I have had a fair number of patients go on cabazitaxel, but I have not used mitoxantrone since cabazitaxel came out. It’s not off the table, but it hasn’t shown improvement in survival.

Elizabeth Hansen. One of our challenges, because we’re an ambulatory care center, is that we are unable to give radium-223 in house, and these services have to be sent out to a non-VA facility. It is doable, but it takes more legwork and organization on our part.

Julie Graff. We have not had radium-223, although we’re working to get that online. And we are physically connected to Oregon Health Science University (OHSU), so we send our patients there for radium. It is a pain because the doctors at OHSU don’t have CPRS access. I’m often in the middle of making sure the complete blood counts (CBCs) are sent to OHSU and to get my patients their treatments.

Mark Klein. The Minneapolis VAMC has radium-223 on site, and we have used it for patients whose cancer has progressed while on docetaxel without visceral metastases. Katie, have you had an opportunity to coordinate that care for patients?

Kathleen Nelson. Radium is administered at our facility by one of our nuclear medicine physicians. A complete blood count is checked at least 3 days prior to the infusion date but no sooner than 6 days. Due to the cost of the material, ordering without knowing the patient’s counts are within a safe range to administer is prohibitive. This adds an additional burden of 2 visits (lab with return visit) to the patient. We have treated 12 patients. Four patients stopped treatment prior to completing the 6 planned treatments citing debilitating fatigue and/or nonresolution of symptoms as their reason to stop treatment. One patient died. The 7 remaining patients subjectively reported varying degrees of pain relief.

Elizabeth Hansen. Another thing to mention is the lack of a PSA response from radium-223 as well. Patients are generally very diligent about monitoring their PSA, so this can be a bit distressing.

Mark Klein. Julie, have you noticed a PSA flare with radium-223? I know it has been reported.

Julie Graff. I haven’t. But I put little stock in PSAs in these patients. I spend 20 minutes explaining to patients that the PSA is not helpful in determining whether or not the radium is working. I tell them that the bone marker alkaline phosphatase may decrease. And I think it’s important to note, too, that radium-223 is not a treatment we have on the shelf. We order it from Denver I believe. It is weight based, and it takes 5 days to get.

Clinical Trials

Mark Klein. That leads us into clinical trials. What is the role for precision oncology in prostate cancer right now, specifically looking at particular panels? One would be the DNA repair enzyme-based genes and/or also the AR variants and any other markers.

Elizabeth Hansen. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network came out with a statement recommending germ-line and somatic-mutation testing in all patients with metastatic prostate cancer. This highlights the need to offer patients the availability of clinical trials.

Julie Graff. I agree. We occasionally get to a place in the disease where patients are feeling fine, but we don’t have anything else to offer. The studies by Robinson¹⁶ and then Matteo¹⁷ showed that (a) these DNA repair defects are present in about a quarter of patients; and (b) that PARP inhibitors can help these patients. At least it has an anticancer effect.

What’s interesting is that we have TRITON2, and TRITON3, which are sponsored by Clovis,for patients with BRCA 1/2 and ATM mutations and using the PARP-inhibitor rucaparib. Based on the data we have available, we thought a quarter of patients would have the mutation in the tumor, but they’re finding that it is more like 10% to 15%. They are screening many patients but not finding it.

I agree that clinical trials are the way to go. I am hopeful that we’ll get more treatments based on molecular markers. The approval for pembrolizumab in any tumor type with microsatellite instability is interesting, but in prostate cancer, I believe that’s about 3%. I haven’t seen anyone qualify for pembrolizumab based on that. Another plug for clinical trials: Let’s learn more and offer our patients potentially beneficial treatments earlier.

Mark Klein. The first interim analysis from the TRITON2 study found about 12% of patients had alterations in BRCA 1/2. But in those that met the RECIST criteria, they were able to have evaluable disease via that standard with about a 44% response rate so far and a 51% PSA response rate. It is promising data, but it’s only 85 patients so far. We’ll know more because the TRITON2 study is of a more pretreated population than the TRITION3 study at this point. Are there any data on precision medicine and radiation in prostate cancer?

Abhishek Solanki. In the prostate cancer setting, there are not a lot of emerging data specifically looking at using precision oncology biomarkers to help guide decisions in radiation therapy. For example, genomic classifiers, like GenomeDx Decipher (Vancouver, BC) and Myriad Genetics Prolaris (Salt Lake City, UT) are increasingly being utilized in patients with localized disease. Decipher can help predict the risk of recurrence after radical prostatectomy. The difficulty is that there are limited data that show that by using these genomic classifiers, one can improve outcomes in patients over traditional clinical characteristics.

There are 2 trials currently ongoing through NRG Oncology that are using Decipher. The GU002 is a trial for patients who had a radical prostatectomy and had a postoperative PSA that never nadired below 0.2. These patients are randomized between salvage radiation with hormone therapy with or without docetaxel. This trial is collecting Decipher results for patients enrolled in the study. The GU006 is a trial for a slightly more favorable group of patients who do nadir but still have biochemical recurrence and relatively low PSAs. This trial randomizes between radiotherapy alone and radiotherapy and 6 months of apalutamide, stratifying patients based on Decipher results, specially differentiating between patients who have a luminal vs basal subtype of prostate cancer. There are data that suggest that patients who have a luminal subtype may benefit more from the combination of radiation and hormone therapy vs patients who have basal subtype.¹⁸ However this hasn’t been validated in a prospective setting, and that’s what this trial will hopefully do.

Immunotherapies

Mark Klein. Outside of prostate cancer, there has been a lot of research trying to determine how to improve PD-L1 expression. Where are immunotherapy trials moving? How radiation might play a role in conjunction with immunotherapy.

Julie Graff. Two phase 3 studies did not show statistically improved survival or statistically significant survival improvement on ipilimumab, an immunotherapy agent that targets CTLA4. Some early studies of the PD-1 drugs nivolumab and pembrolizumab did not show much response with monotherapy. Despite the negative phase 3 studies for ipilimumab, we periodically see exceptional responses.

In prostate cancer, enzalutamide is FDA approved. And there’s currently a phase 3 study of the PD-L1 inhibitor atezolizumab plus enzalutamide in patients who have progressed on abiraterone. That trial is fully accrued, but the results are not yet known. Soon a study will compare pembrolizumab plus enzalutamide vs enzalutamide alone. So the combinations are getting more interesting.

I just received a Prostate Cancer Foundation Challenge Award to open a VA-only study looking at fecal microbiota transplant from responders to nonresponders to see how manipulating host factors can increase potential responses to PD-1 inhibition.

Abhishek Solanki. The classic mechanism by which radiation therapy works is direct DNA damage and indirect DNA damage through hydroxyl radicals that leads to cytotoxicity. But preclinical and clinical data suggest that radiation therapy can augment the local and systemic immunotherapy response. The radiation oncologist’s dream is what is called the abscopal effect, which is the idea that when you treat one site of disease with radiation, it can induce a response at other sites that didn’t get radiation therapy through reactivation of the immune system. I like to think of the abscopal effect like bigfoot—it’s elusive. However, it seems that the setting it is most likely to happen in is in combination with immunotherapy.

One of the ways that radiation fails locally is that it can upregulate PD-1 expression, and as a result, you can have progression of the tumor because of local immune suppression. We know that T cells are important for the activity of radiation therapy. If you combine checkpoint inhibition with radiation therapy, you can not only have better local control in the area of the tumor, but perhaps you can release tumor antigens that will then induce a systemic response.

The other potential mechanism by which radiation may work synergistically with immunotherapy is as a debulking agent. There are some data that suggest that the ratio of T-cell reinvigoration to bulk of disease, or the volume of tumor burden, is important. That is, having T-cell reinvigoration may not be sufficient to have a response to immunotherapy in patients with a large burden of disease. By using radiation to debulk disease, perhaps you could help make checkpoint inhibition more effective. Ultimately, in the setting of prostate cancer, there are not a lot of data yet showing meaningful benefits with the combination of immunotherapy and radiotherapy, but there are trials that are ongoing that will educate on potential synergy.

Pharmacy

Julie Graff. Before we end I want to make sure that we applaud the amazing pharmacists and patient care navigation teams in the VA who do such a great job of getting veterans the appropriate treatment expeditiously and keeping them safe. It’s something that is truly unique to the VA. And I want to thank the people on this call who do this every day.

Elizabeth Hansen. Thank you Julie. Compared with working in the community, at the VA I’m honestly amazed by the ease of access to these medications for our patients. Being able to deliver medications sometimes the same day to the patient is just not something that happens in the community. It’s nice to see that our veterans are getting cared for in that manner.

Author disclosures
Dr. Solanki participated in advisory boards for Blue Earth Diagnostics’ fluciclovine PET and was previously paid as a consultant. Dr. Graff is a consultant for Sanofi (docetaxel) and Astellas (enzalutamide), and has received research funding (no personal funding)from Sanofi, Merck (pembrolizumab), Astellas, and Jannsen (abiraterone, apalutamide). The other authors report no actual or potential conflicts of interest with regard to this article.

Disclaimer
The opinions expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of Federal Practitioner, Frontline Medical Communications Inc., the US Government, or any of its agencies. This article may discuss unlabeled or investigational use of certain drugs. Please review the complete prescribing information for specific drugs or drug combinations—including indications, contraindications, warnings, and adverse effects—before administering pharmacologic therapy to patients.

Sequencing Therapies

Mark Klein, MD. The last few years, there have been several new trials in prostate cancer for people in a metastatic setting or more advanced local setting, such as the STAMPEDE, LATITUDE, and CHAARTED trials.^1-4 In addition, recently a few trials have examined apalutamide and enzalutamide for people who have had PSA (prostate-specific antigen) levels rapidly rising within about 10 months or so. One of the questions that arises is, how do we wrap our heads around sequencing these therapies. Is there a sequence that we should be doing and thinking about upfront and how do the different trials compare?

Julie Graff, MD. It just got more complicated. There was news today (December 20, 2018) that using enzalutamide early on in newly diagnosed metastatic prostate cancer may have positive results. It is not yet approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), but for patients who present with metastatic prostate cancer, we may have 4 potential treatments. We could have androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) alone, ADT plus docetaxel, enzalutamide, or abiraterone.

When I see patients in this situation, I talk to them about their options, the pros and cons of each option, and try to cover all the trials that look at these combinations. It can be quite a long visit. I talk to the patient about who benefits most, whether it is patients with high-risk factors or high-volume cancers. Also, I talk with the patient about all the adverse effects (AEs), and I look at my patients’ comorbid conditions and come up with a plan.

I encourage any patient who has high-volume or high-risk disease to consider more than just ADT alone. For many patients, I have been using abiraterone plus ADT. I have a wonderful pharmacist. As a medical oncologist, I can’t do it on my own. I need someone to follow patients’ laboratory results and to be available for medication questions and complications.

Elizabeth Hansen, PharmD. With the increasing number of patients on oral antineoplastics, monitoring patients in the outpatient setting has become an increasing priority and one of my major roles as a pharmacist in the clinic at the Chalmers P. Wylie VA Ambulatory Care Center in Columbus, Ohio. This is especially important as some of these treatments require frequent laboratory monitoring, such as abiraterone with liver function tests every 2 weeks for the first 3 months of treatment and monthly thereafter. Without frequent-follow up it’s easy for these patients to get lost in the shuffle.

Abhishek Solanki, MD. You could argue that a fifth option is prostate-directed radiation for patients who have limited metastases based on the STAMPEDE trial, which we’ve started integrating into our practice at the Edward Hines, Jr. Veterans Affairs Hospital in Chicago, Illinois.⁴

Mark Klein. Do you have a feel for the data and using radiation in oligometastatic (≤ 5 metastatic tumors) disease in prostate cancer and how well that might work?

Abhishek Solanki. The best data we have are from the multi-arm, multistage STAMPEDE trial systemic therapies and local therapy in the setting of high-risk localized disease and metastatic disease.⁶ The most recent publication looked specifically at the population with newly diagnosed metastatic disease and compared standard ADT (and docetaxel in about 18% of the patients) with or without prostate-directed radiation therapy. There was no survival benefit with radiation in the overall population, but in the subgroup of patients with low metastatic burden, there was an 8% survival benefit at 3 years.

It’s difficult to know what to make of that information because, as we’ve discussed already, there are other systemic therapy options that are being used more and more upfront such as abiraterone. Can you see the same benefit of radiation in that setting? The flip side is that in this study, radiation just targeted the prostate; could survival be improved even more by targeting all sites of disease in patients with oligometastatic disease? These are still open questions in prostate cancer and there are clinical trials attempting to define the clinical benefit of radiation in the metastatic setting for patients with limited metastases.

Mark Klein. How do you select patients for radiation in this particular situation; How do you approach stratification when radiation is started upfront?

Abhishek Solanki. In the STAMPEDE trial, low metastatic burden was defined based on the definition in the CHAARTED trial, which was those patients who did not have ≥ 4 bone metastases with ≥ 1 outside the vertebral bodies or pelvis, and did not have visceral metastases.⁷ That’s tough, because this definition could be a patient with a solitary bone metastasis but also could include some patients who have involved nodes extending all the way up to the retroperitoneal nodes—that is a fairly heterogeneous population. What we have done at our institution is select patients who have 3 to 5 metastases, administer prostate radiation therapy, and add stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for the other sites of disease, invoking the oligometastasis approach.

We have been doing this more frequently in the last few months. Typically, we’ll do 3 to 5 fractions of SBRT to metastases. For the primary, if the patient chooses SBRT, we’ll take that approach. If the patient chooses a more standard fractionation, we’ll do 20 treatments, but from a logistic perspective, most patients would rather come in for 5 treatments than 20. We also typically would start these patients on systemic hormonal therapy.

Mark Klein. At that point, are they referred back to medical oncology for surveillance?

Abhishek Solanki. Yes, they are followed by medical oncology and radiation oncology, and typically would continue hormonal therapy.

Mark Klein. Julie, how have you thought about presenting the therapeutic options for those patients who would be either eligible for docetaxel with high-bulk disease or abiraterone? Do you find patients prefer one or the other?

Julie Graff. I try to be very open about all the possibilities, and I present both. I don’t just decide for the patient chemotherapy vs abiraterone, but after we talk about it, most of my patients do opt for the abiraterone. I had a patient referred from the community—we are seeing more and more of this because abiraterone is so expensive—whose ejection fraction was about 38%. I said to that patient, “we could do chemotherapy, but we shouldn’t do abiraterone.” But usually it’s not that clear-cut.

Elizabeth Hansen. There was also an update from the STAMPEDE trial published recently comparing upfront abiraterone and prednisone to docetaxel (18 weeks) in advanced or metastatic prostate cancer. Results from this trial indicated a nearly identical overall survival (OS) (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.16; 95% CI, 0.82-1.65; P = .40). However, the failure-free survival (HR = 0.51; 95% CI, 0.39-0.67; P < .001) and progression-free survival (PFS) (HR= 0.65; 95% CI, 0.0.48-0.88; P = .005) favored abiraterone.^8,9 The authors argue that while there was no change in OS, this trial demonstrates an important difference in the pattern of treatment failure.

Julie, do you think there will be any change in the treatment paradigm between docetaxel and abiraterone with this new update?

Julie Graff. I wasn’t that impressed by that study. I do not see it as practice changing, and it makes sense to me that the PFS is different in the 2 arms because we give chemotherapy and take a break vs giving abiraterone indefinitely. For me, there’s not really a shift.

Patients With Rising PSAs

Mark Klein. Let’s discuss the data from the recent studies on enzalutamide and apalutamide for the patients with fast-rising PSAs. In your discussions with other prostate researchers, will this become a standard part of practice or not?

Julie Graff. I was one of the authors on the SPARTAN apalutamide study.¹⁰ For a long time, we have had patients without metastatic disease but with a PSA relapse after surgery or radiation; and the PSA levels climb when the cancer becomes resistant to ADT. We haven’t had many options in that setting except to use bicalutamide and some older androgen receptor (AR) antagonists. We used to use estrogen and ketoconazole as well.

But now 2 studies have come out looking at a primary endpoint of metastases-free survival. Patients whose PSA was doubling every 10 months or shorter were randomized to either apalutamide (SPARTAN¹⁰) or enzalutamide (PROSPER¹¹), both second-generation AR antagonists. There was a placebo control arm in each of the studies. Both studies found that adding the second-generation AR targeting agent delayed the time to metastatic disease by about 2 years. There is not any signal yet for statistically significant OS benefit, so it is not entirely clear if you could wait for the first metastasis to develop and then give 1 of these treatments and have the same OS benefit.

At the VA Portland Health Care System (VAPORHCS), it took a while to make these drugs available. My fellows were excited to give these drugs right away, but I often counsel patients that we don’t know if the second-generation AR targeting agents will improve survival. They almost certainly will bring down PSAs, which helps with peace of mind, but anything we add to the ADT can cause more AEs.

I have been cautious with second-generation AR antagonists because patients, when they take one of these drugs, are going to be on it for a long time. The FDA has approved those 2 drugs regardless of PSA doubling time, but I would not give it for a PSA doubling time > 10 months. In my practice about a quarter of patients who would qualify for apalutamide or enzalutamide are actually taking one, and the others are monitored closely with computed tomography (CT) and bone scans. When the disease becomes metastatic, then we start those drugs.

Mark Klein. Why 10 months, why not 6 months, a year, or 18 months? Is there reasoning behind that?

Julie Graff. There was a publication by Matthew Smith showing that the PSA doubling time was predictive of the development of metastatic disease and cancer death or prostate cancer death, and that 10 months seemed to be the cutoff between when the prostate cancer was going to become deadly vs not.¹² If you actually look at the trial data, I think the PSA doubling time was between 3 and 4 months for the participants, so pretty short.

Adverse Effects

Mark Klein. What are the AEs people are seeing from using apalutamide, enzalutamide, and abiraterone? What are they seeing in their practice vs what is in the studies? When I have had to stop people on abiraterone or drop down the dose, almost always it has been for fatigue. We check liver function tests (LFTs) repeatedly, but I can’t remember ever having to drop down the dose or take it away even for that reason.

Elizabeth Hansen. The toxicities of these 3 agents are very different. In my practice I have seen a few patients develop hepatotoxicity with abiraterone, and I think this reflects the known incidence of transaminitis (grade 3/4) seen in clinical trials, reported at 6%. Generally, we’ve been able to restart treatment by withholding abiraterone until liver function returns to baseline and then subsequently dose reducing. Like Julie mentioned, abiraterone should be used with caution and/or avoided in patients with serious cardiac disease, recent myocardial infarction, or heart failure. I also always check blood pressure history, to ensure it is well controlled prior to initiation, and order a home blood pressure cuff for monitoring. With enzalutamide one of the main concerns is fatigue, which occurred in > 10% of patients in clinical trials. In my experience this has been dose limiting and can be managed with dose reductions. Seizures also occurred in 0.4% of patients on enzalutamide, so I always ask about seizure history and screen the medication list for concomitant medications that may lower the seizure threshold or other risk factors such as brain metastasis. Last, enzalutamide is a strong CYP3A4 inducer, so there is a strong possibility for drug interactions with other medications, and it is associated with increased cardiac events. With apalutamide you have the cardiac concerns, thyroid dysfunction, fracture risk, and drug interactions to worry about as well. To be honest, we have not used this agent yet at my practice.

Mark Klein. At the Minneapolis VA Health Care System (MVAHCS) when apalutamide first came out, for the PSA rapid doubling, there had already been an abstract presenting the enzalutamide data. We have chosen to recommend enzalutamide as our choice for the people with PSA doubling based on the cost. It’s significantly cheaper for the VA. Between the 2 papers there is very little difference in the efficacy data. I’m wondering what other sites have done with regard to that specific point at their VAs?

Elizabeth Hansen. In Columbus, we prefer to use either abiraterone and enzalutamide because they’re essentially cost neutral. However, this may change with generic abiraterone coming to market. Apalutamide is really cost prohibitive currently.

Julie Graff. I agree.

Patient Education

Mark Klein. At MVAHCS, the navigators handle a lot of upfront education. We have 3 navigators, including Kathleen Nelson who is on this roundtable. She works with patients and provides much of the patient education. How have you handled education for patients?

Kathleen Nelson. For the most part, our pharmacists do the drug-specific education for the oral agents, and the nurse navigators provide more generic education. We did a trial for patients on IV therapies. We learned that patients really don’t report in much detail, but if you call and ask them specific questions, then you can tease out some more detail.

Elizabeth Hansen. It is interesting that every site is different. One of my main roles is oral antineoplastic monitoring, which includes many patients on enzalutamide or abiraterone. At least initially with these patients, I try to follow them closely—abiraterone more so than enzalutamide. I typically call every 2 to 4 weeks, in between clinic visits, to follow up the laboratory tests and manage the AEs. I always try to ask direct and open-ended questions: How often are you checking your blood pressure? What is your current weight? How has your energy level changed since therapy initiation?

The VA telehealth system is amazing. For patients who need to monitor blood pressure regularly, it’s really nice for them to have those numbers come directly back to me in CPRS (Computerized Patient Record System). That has worked wonders for some of our patients to get them through therapy.

Mark Klein. What do you tend to use when the prostate cancer is progressing for a patient? And how do you determine that progression? Some studies will use PSA rise only as a marker for progression. Other studies have not used PSA rise as the only marker for progression and oftentimes require some sort of bone scan criteria or CT imaging criteria for progression.

Julie Graff. We have a limited number of treatment options. Providers typically use enzalutamide or abiraterone as there is a high degree of resistance between the 2. Then there is chemotherapy and then radium, which quite a few people don’t qualify for. We need to be very thoughtful when we change treatments. I look at the 3 factors of biochemical progression or response—PSA, radiographic progression, and clinical progression. If I don’t see 2 out of 3, I typically don’t change treatments. Then after enzalutamide or abiraterone, I wait until there are cancer-related symptoms before I consider chemotherapy and closely monitor my patients.

Imaging Modalities

Abhishek Solanki. Over the last few years the Hines VA Hospital has used fluciclovine positron emission tomography (PET), which is one of the novel imaging modalities for prostate cancer. Really the 2 novel imaging modalities that have gained the most excitement are prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) PET and fluciclovine PET. Fluciclovine PET is based on a synthetic amino acid that’s taken up in multiple tissues, including prostate cancer. It has changed our practice in the localized setting for patients who have developed recurrence after radiation or radical prostatectomy. We have incorporated the scan into our workup of patients with recurrent disease, which can give us some more information at lower PSAs than historically we could get with CT, bone scan, or magnetic resonance imaging.

Our medical oncologists have started using it more and more as well. We are getting a lot of patients who have a negative CT or bone scan but have a positive fluciclovine PET. There are a few different disease settings where that becomes relevant. In patients who develop biochemical recurrence after radiation or salvage radiation after radical, we are finding that a lot of these patients who have no CT or bone scan findings of disease ultimately are found to have a PET-positive lesion. Sometimes it’s difficult to know how best to help patients with PET-only disease. Should you target the disease with an oligometastasis approach or just pursue systemic therapy or surveillance? It is challenging but more and more we are moving toward metastasis-directed therapy. There are multiple randomized trials in progress testing whether metastasis-directed therapy to the PET areas of recurrence can improve outcomes or delay systemic ADT. The STOMP trial randomized surveillance vs SBRT or surgery for patients with oligometastatic disease that showed improvement in biochemical control and ADT-free survival.¹³ However this was a small trial that tried to identify a signal. More definitive trials are necessary.

The other setting where we have found novel PET imaging to be helpful is in patients who have become castration resistant but don’t have clear metastases on conventional imaging. We’re identifying more patients who have only a few sites of progression, and we’ll pursue metastasis-directed therapy to those areas to try to get more mileage out of the systemic therapy that the patient is currently on and to try to avoid having to switch to the next line with the idea that, potentially, the progression site is just a limited clone that is progressing despite the current systemic therapy.
 

Mark Klein. I find that to be a very attractive approach. I’m assuming you do that for any systemic therapy where people have maybe 1 or 2 sites and they do not have a big PSA jump. Do you have a number of sites that you’re willing to radiate? And then, when you do that, what radiation fractionation and dosing do you use? Is there any observational data behind that for efficacy?

Abhishek Solanki. It is a patient by patient decision. Some patients, if they have a very rapid pace of progression shortly after starting systemic therapy and metastases have grown in several areas, we think that perhaps this person may benefit less from aggressive local therapy. But if it’s somebody who has been on systemic therapy for a while and has up to 3 sites of disease growth, we consider SBRT for oligoprogressive disease. Typically, we’ll use SBRT, which delivers a high dose of radiation over 3 to 5 treatments. With SBRT you can give a higher biologic dose and use more sophisticated treatment machines and image guidance for treatments to focus the radiation on the tumor area and limit exposure to normal tissue structures.

In prostate cancer to the primary site, we will typically do around 35 to 40 Gy in 5 fractions. For metastases, it depends on the site. If it’s in the lung, typically we will do 3 to 5 treatments, giving approximately 50 to 60 Gy in that course. In the spine, we use lower doses near the spinal cord and the cauda equina, typically about 30 Gy in 3 fractions. In the liver, similar to the lung, we’ll typically do 50-54 Gy in 3-5 fractions. There aren’t a lot of high-level data guiding the optimal dose/fractionation to metastases, but these are the doses we’ll use for various malignancies.

Treatment Options for Patients With Adverse Events

Mark Klein. I was just reviewing the 2004 study that randomized patients to mitoxantrone or docetaxel for up to 10 cycles.^14,15 Who are good candidates for docetaxel after they have exhausted abiraterone and enzalutamide? How long do you hold to the 10-cycle rule, or do you go beyond that if they’re doing well? And if they’re not a good candidate, what are some options?

Julie Graff. The best candidates are those who are having a cancer-related AE, particularly pain, because docetaxel only improves survival over mitoxantrone by about 2.5 months. I don’t talk to patients about it as though it is a life extender, but it seems to help control pain—about 70% of patients benefited in terms of pain or some other cancer-related symptom.¹⁴

I have a lot of patients who say, “Never will I do chemotherapy.” I refer those patients to hospice, or if they’re appropriate for radium-223, I consider that. I typically give about 6 cycles of chemotherapy and then see how they’re doing. In some patients, the cancer just doesn’t respond to it.

I do tell patients about the papers that you mentioned, the 2 studies of docetaxel vs mitoxantrone where they use about 10 cycles, and some of my patients go all 10.^14,15 Sometimes we have to stop because of neuropathy or some other AE. I believe in taking breaks and that you can probably start it later.

Elizabeth Hansen. I agree, our practice is similar. A lot of our patients are not very interested in chemotherapy. You have to take into consideration their ECOG (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group) status, their goals, and quality of life when talking to them about these medications. And a lot of them tend to choose more of a palliative route. Depending on their AEs and how things are going, we will dose reduce, hold treatment, or give treatment holidays.

Mark Klein. If patients are progressing on docetaxel, what are options that people would use? Radium-223 certainly is available for patients with nonvisceral metastases, as well as cabazitaxel, mitoxantrone, estramustine and other older drugs.

Julie Graff. We have some clinical trials for patients postdocetaxel. We have the TRITON2 and TRITON3 studies open at the VA. (NCT02952534 and NCT02975934, respectively) A lot of patients would get a biopsy, and we’d look for a BRCA 1 or 2 and ATM mutation. For those patients who don’t have those mutations—and maybe 80% of them don’t—we talk about radium-223 for the patients without visceral metastases and bone pain. I have had a fair number of patients go on cabazitaxel, but I have not used mitoxantrone since cabazitaxel came out. It’s not off the table, but it hasn’t shown improvement in survival.

Elizabeth Hansen. One of our challenges, because we’re an ambulatory care center, is that we are unable to give radium-223 in house, and these services have to be sent out to a non-VA facility. It is doable, but it takes more legwork and organization on our part.

Julie Graff. We have not had radium-223, although we’re working to get that online. And we are physically connected to Oregon Health Science University (OHSU), so we send our patients there for radium. It is a pain because the doctors at OHSU don’t have CPRS access. I’m often in the middle of making sure the complete blood counts (CBCs) are sent to OHSU and to get my patients their treatments.

Mark Klein. The Minneapolis VAMC has radium-223 on site, and we have used it for patients whose cancer has progressed while on docetaxel without visceral metastases. Katie, have you had an opportunity to coordinate that care for patients?

Kathleen Nelson. Radium is administered at our facility by one of our nuclear medicine physicians. A complete blood count is checked at least 3 days prior to the infusion date but no sooner than 6 days. Due to the cost of the material, ordering without knowing the patient’s counts are within a safe range to administer is prohibitive. This adds an additional burden of 2 visits (lab with return visit) to the patient. We have treated 12 patients. Four patients stopped treatment prior to completing the 6 planned treatments citing debilitating fatigue and/or nonresolution of symptoms as their reason to stop treatment. One patient died. The 7 remaining patients subjectively reported varying degrees of pain relief.

Elizabeth Hansen. Another thing to mention is the lack of a PSA response from radium-223 as well. Patients are generally very diligent about monitoring their PSA, so this can be a bit distressing.

Mark Klein. Julie, have you noticed a PSA flare with radium-223? I know it has been reported.

Julie Graff. I haven’t. But I put little stock in PSAs in these patients. I spend 20 minutes explaining to patients that the PSA is not helpful in determining whether or not the radium is working. I tell them that the bone marker alkaline phosphatase may decrease. And I think it’s important to note, too, that radium-223 is not a treatment we have on the shelf. We order it from Denver I believe. It is weight based, and it takes 5 days to get.

Clinical Trials

Mark Klein. That leads us into clinical trials. What is the role for precision oncology in prostate cancer right now, specifically looking at particular panels? One would be the DNA repair enzyme-based genes and/or also the AR variants and any other markers.

Elizabeth Hansen. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network came out with a statement recommending germ-line and somatic-mutation testing in all patients with metastatic prostate cancer. This highlights the need to offer patients the availability of clinical trials.

Julie Graff. I agree. We occasionally get to a place in the disease where patients are feeling fine, but we don’t have anything else to offer. The studies by Robinson¹⁶ and then Matteo¹⁷ showed that (a) these DNA repair defects are present in about a quarter of patients; and (b) that PARP inhibitors can help these patients. At least it has an anticancer effect.

What’s interesting is that we have TRITON2, and TRITON3, which are sponsored by Clovis,for patients with BRCA 1/2 and ATM mutations and using the PARP-inhibitor rucaparib. Based on the data we have available, we thought a quarter of patients would have the mutation in the tumor, but they’re finding that it is more like 10% to 15%. They are screening many patients but not finding it.

I agree that clinical trials are the way to go. I am hopeful that we’ll get more treatments based on molecular markers. The approval for pembrolizumab in any tumor type with microsatellite instability is interesting, but in prostate cancer, I believe that’s about 3%. I haven’t seen anyone qualify for pembrolizumab based on that. Another plug for clinical trials: Let’s learn more and offer our patients potentially beneficial treatments earlier.

Mark Klein. The first interim analysis from the TRITON2 study found about 12% of patients had alterations in BRCA 1/2. But in those that met the RECIST criteria, they were able to have evaluable disease via that standard with about a 44% response rate so far and a 51% PSA response rate. It is promising data, but it’s only 85 patients so far. We’ll know more because the TRITON2 study is of a more pretreated population than the TRITION3 study at this point. Are there any data on precision medicine and radiation in prostate cancer?

Abhishek Solanki. In the prostate cancer setting, there are not a lot of emerging data specifically looking at using precision oncology biomarkers to help guide decisions in radiation therapy. For example, genomic classifiers, like GenomeDx Decipher (Vancouver, BC) and Myriad Genetics Prolaris (Salt Lake City, UT) are increasingly being utilized in patients with localized disease. Decipher can help predict the risk of recurrence after radical prostatectomy. The difficulty is that there are limited data that show that by using these genomic classifiers, one can improve outcomes in patients over traditional clinical characteristics.

There are 2 trials currently ongoing through NRG Oncology that are using Decipher. The GU002 is a trial for patients who had a radical prostatectomy and had a postoperative PSA that never nadired below 0.2. These patients are randomized between salvage radiation with hormone therapy with or without docetaxel. This trial is collecting Decipher results for patients enrolled in the study. The GU006 is a trial for a slightly more favorable group of patients who do nadir but still have biochemical recurrence and relatively low PSAs. This trial randomizes between radiotherapy alone and radiotherapy and 6 months of apalutamide, stratifying patients based on Decipher results, specially differentiating between patients who have a luminal vs basal subtype of prostate cancer. There are data that suggest that patients who have a luminal subtype may benefit more from the combination of radiation and hormone therapy vs patients who have basal subtype.¹⁸ However this hasn’t been validated in a prospective setting, and that’s what this trial will hopefully do.

Immunotherapies

Mark Klein. Outside of prostate cancer, there has been a lot of research trying to determine how to improve PD-L1 expression. Where are immunotherapy trials moving? How radiation might play a role in conjunction with immunotherapy.

Julie Graff. Two phase 3 studies did not show statistically improved survival or statistically significant survival improvement on ipilimumab, an immunotherapy agent that targets CTLA4. Some early studies of the PD-1 drugs nivolumab and pembrolizumab did not show much response with monotherapy. Despite the negative phase 3 studies for ipilimumab, we periodically see exceptional responses.

In prostate cancer, enzalutamide is FDA approved. And there’s currently a phase 3 study of the PD-L1 inhibitor atezolizumab plus enzalutamide in patients who have progressed on abiraterone. That trial is fully accrued, but the results are not yet known. Soon a study will compare pembrolizumab plus enzalutamide vs enzalutamide alone. So the combinations are getting more interesting.

I just received a Prostate Cancer Foundation Challenge Award to open a VA-only study looking at fecal microbiota transplant from responders to nonresponders to see how manipulating host factors can increase potential responses to PD-1 inhibition.

Abhishek Solanki. The classic mechanism by which radiation therapy works is direct DNA damage and indirect DNA damage through hydroxyl radicals that leads to cytotoxicity. But preclinical and clinical data suggest that radiation therapy can augment the local and systemic immunotherapy response. The radiation oncologist’s dream is what is called the abscopal effect, which is the idea that when you treat one site of disease with radiation, it can induce a response at other sites that didn’t get radiation therapy through reactivation of the immune system. I like to think of the abscopal effect like bigfoot—it’s elusive. However, it seems that the setting it is most likely to happen in is in combination with immunotherapy.

One of the ways that radiation fails locally is that it can upregulate PD-1 expression, and as a result, you can have progression of the tumor because of local immune suppression. We know that T cells are important for the activity of radiation therapy. If you combine checkpoint inhibition with radiation therapy, you can not only have better local control in the area of the tumor, but perhaps you can release tumor antigens that will then induce a systemic response.

The other potential mechanism by which radiation may work synergistically with immunotherapy is as a debulking agent. There are some data that suggest that the ratio of T-cell reinvigoration to bulk of disease, or the volume of tumor burden, is important. That is, having T-cell reinvigoration may not be sufficient to have a response to immunotherapy in patients with a large burden of disease. By using radiation to debulk disease, perhaps you could help make checkpoint inhibition more effective. Ultimately, in the setting of prostate cancer, there are not a lot of data yet showing meaningful benefits with the combination of immunotherapy and radiotherapy, but there are trials that are ongoing that will educate on potential synergy.

Pharmacy

Julie Graff. Before we end I want to make sure that we applaud the amazing pharmacists and patient care navigation teams in the VA who do such a great job of getting veterans the appropriate treatment expeditiously and keeping them safe. It’s something that is truly unique to the VA. And I want to thank the people on this call who do this every day.

Elizabeth Hansen. Thank you Julie. Compared with working in the community, at the VA I’m honestly amazed by the ease of access to these medications for our patients. Being able to deliver medications sometimes the same day to the patient is just not something that happens in the community. It’s nice to see that our veterans are getting cared for in that manner.

Author disclosures
Dr. Solanki participated in advisory boards for Blue Earth Diagnostics’ fluciclovine PET and was previously paid as a consultant. Dr. Graff is a consultant for Sanofi (docetaxel) and Astellas (enzalutamide), and has received research funding (no personal funding)from Sanofi, Merck (pembrolizumab), Astellas, and Jannsen (abiraterone, apalutamide). The other authors report no actual or potential conflicts of interest with regard to this article.

Disclaimer
The opinions expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of Federal Practitioner, Frontline Medical Communications Inc., the US Government, or any of its agencies. This article may discuss unlabeled or investigational use of certain drugs. Please review the complete prescribing information for specific drugs or drug combinations—including indications, contraindications, warnings, and adverse effects—before administering pharmacologic therapy to patients.

Sequencing Therapies

Mark Klein, MD. The last few years, there have been several new trials in prostate cancer for people in a metastatic setting or more advanced local setting, such as the STAMPEDE, LATITUDE, and CHAARTED trials.^1-4 In addition, recently a few trials have examined apalutamide and enzalutamide for people who have had PSA (prostate-specific antigen) levels rapidly rising within about 10 months or so. One of the questions that arises is, how do we wrap our heads around sequencing these therapies. Is there a sequence that we should be doing and thinking about upfront and how do the different trials compare?

Julie Graff, MD. It just got more complicated. There was news today (December 20, 2018) that using enzalutamide early on in newly diagnosed metastatic prostate cancer may have positive results. It is not yet approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), but for patients who present with metastatic prostate cancer, we may have 4 potential treatments. We could have androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) alone, ADT plus docetaxel, enzalutamide, or abiraterone.

When I see patients in this situation, I talk to them about their options, the pros and cons of each option, and try to cover all the trials that look at these combinations. It can be quite a long visit. I talk to the patient about who benefits most, whether it is patients with high-risk factors or high-volume cancers. Also, I talk with the patient about all the adverse effects (AEs), and I look at my patients’ comorbid conditions and come up with a plan.

I encourage any patient who has high-volume or high-risk disease to consider more than just ADT alone. For many patients, I have been using abiraterone plus ADT. I have a wonderful pharmacist. As a medical oncologist, I can’t do it on my own. I need someone to follow patients’ laboratory results and to be available for medication questions and complications.

Elizabeth Hansen, PharmD. With the increasing number of patients on oral antineoplastics, monitoring patients in the outpatient setting has become an increasing priority and one of my major roles as a pharmacist in the clinic at the Chalmers P. Wylie VA Ambulatory Care Center in Columbus, Ohio. This is especially important as some of these treatments require frequent laboratory monitoring, such as abiraterone with liver function tests every 2 weeks for the first 3 months of treatment and monthly thereafter. Without frequent-follow up it’s easy for these patients to get lost in the shuffle.

Abhishek Solanki, MD. You could argue that a fifth option is prostate-directed radiation for patients who have limited metastases based on the STAMPEDE trial, which we’ve started integrating into our practice at the Edward Hines, Jr. Veterans Affairs Hospital in Chicago, Illinois.⁴

Mark Klein. Do you have a feel for the data and using radiation in oligometastatic (≤ 5 metastatic tumors) disease in prostate cancer and how well that might work?

Abhishek Solanki. The best data we have are from the multi-arm, multistage STAMPEDE trial systemic therapies and local therapy in the setting of high-risk localized disease and metastatic disease.⁶ The most recent publication looked specifically at the population with newly diagnosed metastatic disease and compared standard ADT (and docetaxel in about 18% of the patients) with or without prostate-directed radiation therapy. There was no survival benefit with radiation in the overall population, but in the subgroup of patients with low metastatic burden, there was an 8% survival benefit at 3 years.

It’s difficult to know what to make of that information because, as we’ve discussed already, there are other systemic therapy options that are being used more and more upfront such as abiraterone. Can you see the same benefit of radiation in that setting? The flip side is that in this study, radiation just targeted the prostate; could survival be improved even more by targeting all sites of disease in patients with oligometastatic disease? These are still open questions in prostate cancer and there are clinical trials attempting to define the clinical benefit of radiation in the metastatic setting for patients with limited metastases.

Mark Klein. How do you select patients for radiation in this particular situation; How do you approach stratification when radiation is started upfront?

Abhishek Solanki. In the STAMPEDE trial, low metastatic burden was defined based on the definition in the CHAARTED trial, which was those patients who did not have ≥ 4 bone metastases with ≥ 1 outside the vertebral bodies or pelvis, and did not have visceral metastases.⁷ That’s tough, because this definition could be a patient with a solitary bone metastasis but also could include some patients who have involved nodes extending all the way up to the retroperitoneal nodes—that is a fairly heterogeneous population. What we have done at our institution is select patients who have 3 to 5 metastases, administer prostate radiation therapy, and add stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for the other sites of disease, invoking the oligometastasis approach.

We have been doing this more frequently in the last few months. Typically, we’ll do 3 to 5 fractions of SBRT to metastases. For the primary, if the patient chooses SBRT, we’ll take that approach. If the patient chooses a more standard fractionation, we’ll do 20 treatments, but from a logistic perspective, most patients would rather come in for 5 treatments than 20. We also typically would start these patients on systemic hormonal therapy.

Mark Klein. At that point, are they referred back to medical oncology for surveillance?

Abhishek Solanki. Yes, they are followed by medical oncology and radiation oncology, and typically would continue hormonal therapy.

Mark Klein. Julie, how have you thought about presenting the therapeutic options for those patients who would be either eligible for docetaxel with high-bulk disease or abiraterone? Do you find patients prefer one or the other?

Julie Graff. I try to be very open about all the possibilities, and I present both. I don’t just decide for the patient chemotherapy vs abiraterone, but after we talk about it, most of my patients do opt for the abiraterone. I had a patient referred from the community—we are seeing more and more of this because abiraterone is so expensive—whose ejection fraction was about 38%. I said to that patient, “we could do chemotherapy, but we shouldn’t do abiraterone.” But usually it’s not that clear-cut.

Elizabeth Hansen. There was also an update from the STAMPEDE trial published recently comparing upfront abiraterone and prednisone to docetaxel (18 weeks) in advanced or metastatic prostate cancer. Results from this trial indicated a nearly identical overall survival (OS) (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.16; 95% CI, 0.82-1.65; P = .40). However, the failure-free survival (HR = 0.51; 95% CI, 0.39-0.67; P < .001) and progression-free survival (PFS) (HR= 0.65; 95% CI, 0.0.48-0.88; P = .005) favored abiraterone.^8,9 The authors argue that while there was no change in OS, this trial demonstrates an important difference in the pattern of treatment failure.

Julie, do you think there will be any change in the treatment paradigm between docetaxel and abiraterone with this new update?

Julie Graff. I wasn’t that impressed by that study. I do not see it as practice changing, and it makes sense to me that the PFS is different in the 2 arms because we give chemotherapy and take a break vs giving abiraterone indefinitely. For me, there’s not really a shift.

Patients With Rising PSAs

Mark Klein. Let’s discuss the data from the recent studies on enzalutamide and apalutamide for the patients with fast-rising PSAs. In your discussions with other prostate researchers, will this become a standard part of practice or not?

Julie Graff. I was one of the authors on the SPARTAN apalutamide study.¹⁰ For a long time, we have had patients without metastatic disease but with a PSA relapse after surgery or radiation; and the PSA levels climb when the cancer becomes resistant to ADT. We haven’t had many options in that setting except to use bicalutamide and some older androgen receptor (AR) antagonists. We used to use estrogen and ketoconazole as well.

But now 2 studies have come out looking at a primary endpoint of metastases-free survival. Patients whose PSA was doubling every 10 months or shorter were randomized to either apalutamide (SPARTAN¹⁰) or enzalutamide (PROSPER¹¹), both second-generation AR antagonists. There was a placebo control arm in each of the studies. Both studies found that adding the second-generation AR targeting agent delayed the time to metastatic disease by about 2 years. There is not any signal yet for statistically significant OS benefit, so it is not entirely clear if you could wait for the first metastasis to develop and then give 1 of these treatments and have the same OS benefit.

At the VA Portland Health Care System (VAPORHCS), it took a while to make these drugs available. My fellows were excited to give these drugs right away, but I often counsel patients that we don’t know if the second-generation AR targeting agents will improve survival. They almost certainly will bring down PSAs, which helps with peace of mind, but anything we add to the ADT can cause more AEs.

I have been cautious with second-generation AR antagonists because patients, when they take one of these drugs, are going to be on it for a long time. The FDA has approved those 2 drugs regardless of PSA doubling time, but I would not give it for a PSA doubling time > 10 months. In my practice about a quarter of patients who would qualify for apalutamide or enzalutamide are actually taking one, and the others are monitored closely with computed tomography (CT) and bone scans. When the disease becomes metastatic, then we start those drugs.

Mark Klein. Why 10 months, why not 6 months, a year, or 18 months? Is there reasoning behind that?

Julie Graff. There was a publication by Matthew Smith showing that the PSA doubling time was predictive of the development of metastatic disease and cancer death or prostate cancer death, and that 10 months seemed to be the cutoff between when the prostate cancer was going to become deadly vs not.¹² If you actually look at the trial data, I think the PSA doubling time was between 3 and 4 months for the participants, so pretty short.

Adverse Effects

Mark Klein. What are the AEs people are seeing from using apalutamide, enzalutamide, and abiraterone? What are they seeing in their practice vs what is in the studies? When I have had to stop people on abiraterone or drop down the dose, almost always it has been for fatigue. We check liver function tests (LFTs) repeatedly, but I can’t remember ever having to drop down the dose or take it away even for that reason.

Elizabeth Hansen. The toxicities of these 3 agents are very different. In my practice I have seen a few patients develop hepatotoxicity with abiraterone, and I think this reflects the known incidence of transaminitis (grade 3/4) seen in clinical trials, reported at 6%. Generally, we’ve been able to restart treatment by withholding abiraterone until liver function returns to baseline and then subsequently dose reducing. Like Julie mentioned, abiraterone should be used with caution and/or avoided in patients with serious cardiac disease, recent myocardial infarction, or heart failure. I also always check blood pressure history, to ensure it is well controlled prior to initiation, and order a home blood pressure cuff for monitoring. With enzalutamide one of the main concerns is fatigue, which occurred in > 10% of patients in clinical trials. In my experience this has been dose limiting and can be managed with dose reductions. Seizures also occurred in 0.4% of patients on enzalutamide, so I always ask about seizure history and screen the medication list for concomitant medications that may lower the seizure threshold or other risk factors such as brain metastasis. Last, enzalutamide is a strong CYP3A4 inducer, so there is a strong possibility for drug interactions with other medications, and it is associated with increased cardiac events. With apalutamide you have the cardiac concerns, thyroid dysfunction, fracture risk, and drug interactions to worry about as well. To be honest, we have not used this agent yet at my practice.

Mark Klein. At the Minneapolis VA Health Care System (MVAHCS) when apalutamide first came out, for the PSA rapid doubling, there had already been an abstract presenting the enzalutamide data. We have chosen to recommend enzalutamide as our choice for the people with PSA doubling based on the cost. It’s significantly cheaper for the VA. Between the 2 papers there is very little difference in the efficacy data. I’m wondering what other sites have done with regard to that specific point at their VAs?

Elizabeth Hansen. In Columbus, we prefer to use either abiraterone and enzalutamide because they’re essentially cost neutral. However, this may change with generic abiraterone coming to market. Apalutamide is really cost prohibitive currently.

Julie Graff. I agree.

Patient Education

Mark Klein. At MVAHCS, the navigators handle a lot of upfront education. We have 3 navigators, including Kathleen Nelson who is on this roundtable. She works with patients and provides much of the patient education. How have you handled education for patients?

Kathleen Nelson. For the most part, our pharmacists do the drug-specific education for the oral agents, and the nurse navigators provide more generic education. We did a trial for patients on IV therapies. We learned that patients really don’t report in much detail, but if you call and ask them specific questions, then you can tease out some more detail.

Elizabeth Hansen. It is interesting that every site is different. One of my main roles is oral antineoplastic monitoring, which includes many patients on enzalutamide or abiraterone. At least initially with these patients, I try to follow them closely—abiraterone more so than enzalutamide. I typically call every 2 to 4 weeks, in between clinic visits, to follow up the laboratory tests and manage the AEs. I always try to ask direct and open-ended questions: How often are you checking your blood pressure? What is your current weight? How has your energy level changed since therapy initiation?

The VA telehealth system is amazing. For patients who need to monitor blood pressure regularly, it’s really nice for them to have those numbers come directly back to me in CPRS (Computerized Patient Record System). That has worked wonders for some of our patients to get them through therapy.

Mark Klein. What do you tend to use when the prostate cancer is progressing for a patient? And how do you determine that progression? Some studies will use PSA rise only as a marker for progression. Other studies have not used PSA rise as the only marker for progression and oftentimes require some sort of bone scan criteria or CT imaging criteria for progression.

Julie Graff. We have a limited number of treatment options. Providers typically use enzalutamide or abiraterone as there is a high degree of resistance between the 2. Then there is chemotherapy and then radium, which quite a few people don’t qualify for. We need to be very thoughtful when we change treatments. I look at the 3 factors of biochemical progression or response—PSA, radiographic progression, and clinical progression. If I don’t see 2 out of 3, I typically don’t change treatments. Then after enzalutamide or abiraterone, I wait until there are cancer-related symptoms before I consider chemotherapy and closely monitor my patients.

Imaging Modalities

Abhishek Solanki. Over the last few years the Hines VA Hospital has used fluciclovine positron emission tomography (PET), which is one of the novel imaging modalities for prostate cancer. Really the 2 novel imaging modalities that have gained the most excitement are prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) PET and fluciclovine PET. Fluciclovine PET is based on a synthetic amino acid that’s taken up in multiple tissues, including prostate cancer. It has changed our practice in the localized setting for patients who have developed recurrence after radiation or radical prostatectomy. We have incorporated the scan into our workup of patients with recurrent disease, which can give us some more information at lower PSAs than historically we could get with CT, bone scan, or magnetic resonance imaging.

Our medical oncologists have started using it more and more as well. We are getting a lot of patients who have a negative CT or bone scan but have a positive fluciclovine PET. There are a few different disease settings where that becomes relevant. In patients who develop biochemical recurrence after radiation or salvage radiation after radical, we are finding that a lot of these patients who have no CT or bone scan findings of disease ultimately are found to have a PET-positive lesion. Sometimes it’s difficult to know how best to help patients with PET-only disease. Should you target the disease with an oligometastasis approach or just pursue systemic therapy or surveillance? It is challenging but more and more we are moving toward metastasis-directed therapy. There are multiple randomized trials in progress testing whether metastasis-directed therapy to the PET areas of recurrence can improve outcomes or delay systemic ADT. The STOMP trial randomized surveillance vs SBRT or surgery for patients with oligometastatic disease that showed improvement in biochemical control and ADT-free survival.¹³ However this was a small trial that tried to identify a signal. More definitive trials are necessary.

The other setting where we have found novel PET imaging to be helpful is in patients who have become castration resistant but don’t have clear metastases on conventional imaging. We’re identifying more patients who have only a few sites of progression, and we’ll pursue metastasis-directed therapy to those areas to try to get more mileage out of the systemic therapy that the patient is currently on and to try to avoid having to switch to the next line with the idea that, potentially, the progression site is just a limited clone that is progressing despite the current systemic therapy.
 

Mark Klein. I find that to be a very attractive approach. I’m assuming you do that for any systemic therapy where people have maybe 1 or 2 sites and they do not have a big PSA jump. Do you have a number of sites that you’re willing to radiate? And then, when you do that, what radiation fractionation and dosing do you use? Is there any observational data behind that for efficacy?

Abhishek Solanki. It is a patient by patient decision. Some patients, if they have a very rapid pace of progression shortly after starting systemic therapy and metastases have grown in several areas, we think that perhaps this person may benefit less from aggressive local therapy. But if it’s somebody who has been on systemic therapy for a while and has up to 3 sites of disease growth, we consider SBRT for oligoprogressive disease. Typically, we’ll use SBRT, which delivers a high dose of radiation over 3 to 5 treatments. With SBRT you can give a higher biologic dose and use more sophisticated treatment machines and image guidance for treatments to focus the radiation on the tumor area and limit exposure to normal tissue structures.

In prostate cancer to the primary site, we will typically do around 35 to 40 Gy in 5 fractions. For metastases, it depends on the site. If it’s in the lung, typically we will do 3 to 5 treatments, giving approximately 50 to 60 Gy in that course. In the spine, we use lower doses near the spinal cord and the cauda equina, typically about 30 Gy in 3 fractions. In the liver, similar to the lung, we’ll typically do 50-54 Gy in 3-5 fractions. There aren’t a lot of high-level data guiding the optimal dose/fractionation to metastases, but these are the doses we’ll use for various malignancies.

Treatment Options for Patients With Adverse Events

Mark Klein. I was just reviewing the 2004 study that randomized patients to mitoxantrone or docetaxel for up to 10 cycles.^14,15 Who are good candidates for docetaxel after they have exhausted abiraterone and enzalutamide? How long do you hold to the 10-cycle rule, or do you go beyond that if they’re doing well? And if they’re not a good candidate, what are some options?

Julie Graff. The best candidates are those who are having a cancer-related AE, particularly pain, because docetaxel only improves survival over mitoxantrone by about 2.5 months. I don’t talk to patients about it as though it is a life extender, but it seems to help control pain—about 70% of patients benefited in terms of pain or some other cancer-related symptom.¹⁴

I have a lot of patients who say, “Never will I do chemotherapy.” I refer those patients to hospice, or if they’re appropriate for radium-223, I consider that. I typically give about 6 cycles of chemotherapy and then see how they’re doing. In some patients, the cancer just doesn’t respond to it.

I do tell patients about the papers that you mentioned, the 2 studies of docetaxel vs mitoxantrone where they use about 10 cycles, and some of my patients go all 10.^14,15 Sometimes we have to stop because of neuropathy or some other AE. I believe in taking breaks and that you can probably start it later.

Elizabeth Hansen. I agree, our practice is similar. A lot of our patients are not very interested in chemotherapy. You have to take into consideration their ECOG (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group) status, their goals, and quality of life when talking to them about these medications. And a lot of them tend to choose more of a palliative route. Depending on their AEs and how things are going, we will dose reduce, hold treatment, or give treatment holidays.

Mark Klein. If patients are progressing on docetaxel, what are options that people would use? Radium-223 certainly is available for patients with nonvisceral metastases, as well as cabazitaxel, mitoxantrone, estramustine and other older drugs.

Julie Graff. We have some clinical trials for patients postdocetaxel. We have the TRITON2 and TRITON3 studies open at the VA. (NCT02952534 and NCT02975934, respectively) A lot of patients would get a biopsy, and we’d look for a BRCA 1 or 2 and ATM mutation. For those patients who don’t have those mutations—and maybe 80% of them don’t—we talk about radium-223 for the patients without visceral metastases and bone pain. I have had a fair number of patients go on cabazitaxel, but I have not used mitoxantrone since cabazitaxel came out. It’s not off the table, but it hasn’t shown improvement in survival.

Elizabeth Hansen. One of our challenges, because we’re an ambulatory care center, is that we are unable to give radium-223 in house, and these services have to be sent out to a non-VA facility. It is doable, but it takes more legwork and organization on our part.

Julie Graff. We have not had radium-223, although we’re working to get that online. And we are physically connected to Oregon Health Science University (OHSU), so we send our patients there for radium. It is a pain because the doctors at OHSU don’t have CPRS access. I’m often in the middle of making sure the complete blood counts (CBCs) are sent to OHSU and to get my patients their treatments.

Mark Klein. The Minneapolis VAMC has radium-223 on site, and we have used it for patients whose cancer has progressed while on docetaxel without visceral metastases. Katie, have you had an opportunity to coordinate that care for patients?

Kathleen Nelson. Radium is administered at our facility by one of our nuclear medicine physicians. A complete blood count is checked at least 3 days prior to the infusion date but no sooner than 6 days. Due to the cost of the material, ordering without knowing the patient’s counts are within a safe range to administer is prohibitive. This adds an additional burden of 2 visits (lab with return visit) to the patient. We have treated 12 patients. Four patients stopped treatment prior to completing the 6 planned treatments citing debilitating fatigue and/or nonresolution of symptoms as their reason to stop treatment. One patient died. The 7 remaining patients subjectively reported varying degrees of pain relief.

Elizabeth Hansen. Another thing to mention is the lack of a PSA response from radium-223 as well. Patients are generally very diligent about monitoring their PSA, so this can be a bit distressing.

Mark Klein. Julie, have you noticed a PSA flare with radium-223? I know it has been reported.

Julie Graff. I haven’t. But I put little stock in PSAs in these patients. I spend 20 minutes explaining to patients that the PSA is not helpful in determining whether or not the radium is working. I tell them that the bone marker alkaline phosphatase may decrease. And I think it’s important to note, too, that radium-223 is not a treatment we have on the shelf. We order it from Denver I believe. It is weight based, and it takes 5 days to get.

Clinical Trials

Mark Klein. That leads us into clinical trials. What is the role for precision oncology in prostate cancer right now, specifically looking at particular panels? One would be the DNA repair enzyme-based genes and/or also the AR variants and any other markers.

Elizabeth Hansen. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network came out with a statement recommending germ-line and somatic-mutation testing in all patients with metastatic prostate cancer. This highlights the need to offer patients the availability of clinical trials.

Julie Graff. I agree. We occasionally get to a place in the disease where patients are feeling fine, but we don’t have anything else to offer. The studies by Robinson¹⁶ and then Matteo¹⁷ showed that (a) these DNA repair defects are present in about a quarter of patients; and (b) that PARP inhibitors can help these patients. At least it has an anticancer effect.

What’s interesting is that we have TRITON2, and TRITON3, which are sponsored by Clovis,for patients with BRCA 1/2 and ATM mutations and using the PARP-inhibitor rucaparib. Based on the data we have available, we thought a quarter of patients would have the mutation in the tumor, but they’re finding that it is more like 10% to 15%. They are screening many patients but not finding it.

I agree that clinical trials are the way to go. I am hopeful that we’ll get more treatments based on molecular markers. The approval for pembrolizumab in any tumor type with microsatellite instability is interesting, but in prostate cancer, I believe that’s about 3%. I haven’t seen anyone qualify for pembrolizumab based on that. Another plug for clinical trials: Let’s learn more and offer our patients potentially beneficial treatments earlier.

Mark Klein. The first interim analysis from the TRITON2 study found about 12% of patients had alterations in BRCA 1/2. But in those that met the RECIST criteria, they were able to have evaluable disease via that standard with about a 44% response rate so far and a 51% PSA response rate. It is promising data, but it’s only 85 patients so far. We’ll know more because the TRITON2 study is of a more pretreated population than the TRITION3 study at this point. Are there any data on precision medicine and radiation in prostate cancer?

Abhishek Solanki. In the prostate cancer setting, there are not a lot of emerging data specifically looking at using precision oncology biomarkers to help guide decisions in radiation therapy. For example, genomic classifiers, like GenomeDx Decipher (Vancouver, BC) and Myriad Genetics Prolaris (Salt Lake City, UT) are increasingly being utilized in patients with localized disease. Decipher can help predict the risk of recurrence after radical prostatectomy. The difficulty is that there are limited data that show that by using these genomic classifiers, one can improve outcomes in patients over traditional clinical characteristics.

There are 2 trials currently ongoing through NRG Oncology that are using Decipher. The GU002 is a trial for patients who had a radical prostatectomy and had a postoperative PSA that never nadired below 0.2. These patients are randomized between salvage radiation with hormone therapy with or without docetaxel. This trial is collecting Decipher results for patients enrolled in the study. The GU006 is a trial for a slightly more favorable group of patients who do nadir but still have biochemical recurrence and relatively low PSAs. This trial randomizes between radiotherapy alone and radiotherapy and 6 months of apalutamide, stratifying patients based on Decipher results, specially differentiating between patients who have a luminal vs basal subtype of prostate cancer. There are data that suggest that patients who have a luminal subtype may benefit more from the combination of radiation and hormone therapy vs patients who have basal subtype.¹⁸ However this hasn’t been validated in a prospective setting, and that’s what this trial will hopefully do.

Immunotherapies

Mark Klein. Outside of prostate cancer, there has been a lot of research trying to determine how to improve PD-L1 expression. Where are immunotherapy trials moving? How radiation might play a role in conjunction with immunotherapy.

Julie Graff. Two phase 3 studies did not show statistically improved survival or statistically significant survival improvement on ipilimumab, an immunotherapy agent that targets CTLA4. Some early studies of the PD-1 drugs nivolumab and pembrolizumab did not show much response with monotherapy. Despite the negative phase 3 studies for ipilimumab, we periodically see exceptional responses.

In prostate cancer, enzalutamide is FDA approved. And there’s currently a phase 3 study of the PD-L1 inhibitor atezolizumab plus enzalutamide in patients who have progressed on abiraterone. That trial is fully accrued, but the results are not yet known. Soon a study will compare pembrolizumab plus enzalutamide vs enzalutamide alone. So the combinations are getting more interesting.

I just received a Prostate Cancer Foundation Challenge Award to open a VA-only study looking at fecal microbiota transplant from responders to nonresponders to see how manipulating host factors can increase potential responses to PD-1 inhibition.

Abhishek Solanki. The classic mechanism by which radiation therapy works is direct DNA damage and indirect DNA damage through hydroxyl radicals that leads to cytotoxicity. But preclinical and clinical data suggest that radiation therapy can augment the local and systemic immunotherapy response. The radiation oncologist’s dream is what is called the abscopal effect, which is the idea that when you treat one site of disease with radiation, it can induce a response at other sites that didn’t get radiation therapy through reactivation of the immune system. I like to think of the abscopal effect like bigfoot—it’s elusive. However, it seems that the setting it is most likely to happen in is in combination with immunotherapy.

One of the ways that radiation fails locally is that it can upregulate PD-1 expression, and as a result, you can have progression of the tumor because of local immune suppression. We know that T cells are important for the activity of radiation therapy. If you combine checkpoint inhibition with radiation therapy, you can not only have better local control in the area of the tumor, but perhaps you can release tumor antigens that will then induce a systemic response.

The other potential mechanism by which radiation may work synergistically with immunotherapy is as a debulking agent. There are some data that suggest that the ratio of T-cell reinvigoration to bulk of disease, or the volume of tumor burden, is important. That is, having T-cell reinvigoration may not be sufficient to have a response to immunotherapy in patients with a large burden of disease. By using radiation to debulk disease, perhaps you could help make checkpoint inhibition more effective. Ultimately, in the setting of prostate cancer, there are not a lot of data yet showing meaningful benefits with the combination of immunotherapy and radiotherapy, but there are trials that are ongoing that will educate on potential synergy.

Pharmacy

Julie Graff. Before we end I want to make sure that we applaud the amazing pharmacists and patient care navigation teams in the VA who do such a great job of getting veterans the appropriate treatment expeditiously and keeping them safe. It’s something that is truly unique to the VA. And I want to thank the people on this call who do this every day.

Elizabeth Hansen. Thank you Julie. Compared with working in the community, at the VA I’m honestly amazed by the ease of access to these medications for our patients. Being able to deliver medications sometimes the same day to the patient is just not something that happens in the community. It’s nice to see that our veterans are getting cared for in that manner.

Author disclosures
Dr. Solanki participated in advisory boards for Blue Earth Diagnostics’ fluciclovine PET and was previously paid as a consultant. Dr. Graff is a consultant for Sanofi (docetaxel) and Astellas (enzalutamide), and has received research funding (no personal funding)from Sanofi, Merck (pembrolizumab), Astellas, and Jannsen (abiraterone, apalutamide). The other authors report no actual or potential conflicts of interest with regard to this article.

Disclaimer
The opinions expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of Federal Practitioner, Frontline Medical Communications Inc., the US Government, or any of its agencies. This article may discuss unlabeled or investigational use of certain drugs. Please review the complete prescribing information for specific drugs or drug combinations—including indications, contraindications, warnings, and adverse effects—before administering pharmacologic therapy to patients.

Prostatic leiomyosarcoma is a rare tumor.¹ This neoplasm is composed of highly aggressive prostatic smooth muscle cells that present with nonspecific signs and symptoms mimicking other forms of prostatic pathology. Of the primary prostatic sarcomas, leiomyosarcoma represents the most common subtype in adults and is found in 38% to 52% of newly diagnosed prostate sarcoma.^1,2 The prognosis is poor, and no clear guidelines exist regarding the optimal treatment approach. We report a case of prostate leiomyosarcoma and describe the disease characteristics, diagnostic modalities, and treatment approach regarding these rare malignancies.

Case Presentation

A 72-year-old male presented with 6 months of progressive severe lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) secondary to bladder outlet obstruction. The patient was refractory to medical management with combination α-blocker and 5-α-reductase inhibitor therapy and continued to require multiple emergent bladder catheterizations. Workup with urinalysis, blood biochemistry, and prostate specific antigen (PSA) levels were persistently normal. He reported no hematuria, weight loss, or perineal pain. The patient reported no history of tobacco use, exposure to hazardous chemicals, and had no family history of genitourinary cancers. On rectal exam, the prostate was firm and nodular, with induration noted along the right upper lobe of the prostate.

The patient was referred for a urology consultation and subsequently underwent transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) for suspected severe benign prostatic hypertrophy (BPH). A histopathologic examination demonstrated atypical cytology consistent with high- grade leiomyosarcoma. Immunohistochemical analysis revealed positive staining for vimentin, smooth muscle actin, desmin (partial), cytokeratin, smooth muscle myosin, muscle specific actin, and Ki-67 (50%-60% expression).

Fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) scan revealed a 5.7 x 5.9 cm tumor with a maximum standardized uptake value (SUV_max) of 12.6 in the right posterior prostate, without evidence of metastatic disease (Figures 1A and 1B). 

Discussion

Originating from prostatic interstitial cells, prostatic leiomyosarcoma is a rare tumor that accounts for < 0.1% of all primary prostatic malignancies.¹ Since its first description in 1950 by Riba and colleagues, < 200 cases have been reported worldwide.² Among the sarcomas of the prostate, it is the most common tumor, accounting for around 38% to 52% of prostate sarcoma presentations.^1,2

Patients typically present between the ages of 41 and 78 years (mean age 61 years).^2,3 Signs and symptoms at presentation may vary; however, the most common symptoms are related to lower urinary tract obstruction (89.4% of patients). These symptoms include urinary frequency, urgency, nocturia, and may mimic the presentation of BPH.

Symptoms commonly associated with other malignancies, including constitutional symptoms such as weight loss, tend to occur less frequently or may be absent. Perineal or rectal pain may only be present in 25.6% of patients. Hematuria, burning on ejaculation, and constitutional symptoms are a less common presentation (< 10% of patients).^3,4 PSA levels typically do not rise and are found to be within normal limits. The lack of PSA elevation is related to the tumors nonepithelial origin and may contribute to a delay in diagnosis.^2,4,5

Diagnosis

Diagnosis may be further eluded as digital rectal exam (DRE) findings tend to reveal nonspecific enlargement of the prostate, resembling that of BPH. DRE may show a hard and firm prostate with nodular induration at the base or over the lobes of the prostate.⁶ At this stage a urology consultation is useful, as diagnosis is most commonly achieved using transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) with ultrasound-guided needle biopsy or after a TURP procedure.³

Prostate sarcoma is associated with markedly enlarged prostate volume, irregular margins with invasion, or heterogenous hypoechoic lesions on TRUS.⁷ Transperineal biopsy, computed tomography (CT)-guided biopsy, or suprapubic prostatectomy have been less frequently employed for diagnosis in previously reported cases.⁸ Specialized imaging modalities, such as CT scan or bone scan, do not show any specific findings with regards to these tumors; their role is limited to evaluation of the local and distant metastasis and for follow-up assessments.⁹ Transabdominal ultrasound may assess hydronephrosis or enlarged prostate and its relation to nearby structures, although it has not been shown to be helpful in establishing a specific diagnosis.⁶

Histologically, prostatic leiomyosarcoma is a distinct subtype of prostatic sarcoma. Other subtypes include stromal tumors such as rhabdomyosarcoma, fibrosarcoma, and spindle cell sarcoma.² The majority of leiomyosarcomas are high-grade lesions demonstrating neoplastic spindle cells with nuclear atypia, multifocal necrosis, and cystic degeneration. Low-grade leiomyosarcomas are very rare.¹⁰ Immunohistochemistry is characteristically positive for vimentin, smooth muscle actin, and desmin expression. Cytokeratin may be positive in up to 25% of cases, whereas S-100, CD34, CD117, and PSA are negative.^2,3 These histopathological findings help to differentiate leiomyosarcoma from other prostatic tumors.

Tumor size may vary greatly, and measurements have been reported to range from 3 cm to 21 cm, frequently presenting with invasion of local structures.¹¹ Advanced stage disease is commonly found at initial diagnosis and is thought to be due to the lack of early specific symptoms. Metastatic disease at presentation may be found in up to one-third of patients, with the lungs being the most common site of metastasis followed by the liver. Local extent and distant spread of disease may be determined by CT or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans, which provide clear delineation of neoplastic and nonneoplastic tissues. 

Treatment

Treatment regimens may include a multimodal approach of combination surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy. However, there are currently no standardized guidelines for treatment and the optimal therapy remains unknown.^2,3,6 Surgery remains the mainstay of treatment, and patients with surgically resectable tumors are treated with curative intent. Surgeries performed include radical retropubic prostatectomy, radical cystoprostatectomy, suprapubic prostatectomy, and pelvic exenteration.^2,5,8,12 These operations may be preceded or followed by radiation therapy and/or chemotherapy depending on extent of disease.

It has been reported that neo-adjuvant chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy can aid in decreasing tumor burden to facilitate a complete resection.^2,8,13,14 Patients who are determined to not be candidates for surgery or whom have widespread disease may be offered systemic chemotherapy. Chemotherapy regimens vary, but common regimens include anthracyclines (doxorubicin or epirubicin), alkylating agents (cyclophosphamide, ifosfamide, dacarbazine), and/or vinca alkaloids (vinblastine or vincristine). Patients who do not receive surgical intervention rarely achieve a sustained remission.^3,5,8

The long-term prognosis of prostatic leiomyosarcoma is poor due to the aggressive nature of the neoplasm and the high chance of disease recurrence or metastasis. Median survival is estimated at 17 months, and from 50% to 75% of patients die within 2 to 5 years of diagnosis.^2,3 Prognosis may be improved in patients with localized disease at diagnosis who are candidates for complete surgical resection with negative margins.¹³ Adverse prognostic factors include metastatic disease at presentation and the presence of positive surgical margins after surgery.

Overall survival is very poor, and it is estimated that the 1-, 3-, and 5-year survival rates are 68%, 34%, and 26%, respectively.³ However, some studies estimate the 5-year survival to be anywhere from 0 to 60%.^8,9 Due to the substantially high risk of death, prostatic leiomyosarcoma may be one of the most aggressive and poorly prognostic malignancies involving the prostate.

Conclusion

Prostatic leiomyosarcoma poses a unique diagnostic challenge, as clinical presentation alone may not always be suggestive of underlying malignancy. This challenge is further exacerbated by its aggressive nature, high risk of metastasis, and difficulties with unclear treatment. Proper history and physical examination, differential diagnosis, and a multidisciplinary approach to patient care are the foundation for early detection and promoting improved survival.

Author disclosures
The authors report no actual or potential conflicts of interest with regard to this article.

Disclaimer
The opinions expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of Federal Practitioner, Frontline Medical Communications Inc., the US Government, or any of its agencies. This article may discuss unlabeled or investigational use of certain drugs. Please review the complete prescribing information for specific drugs or drug combinations—including indications, contraindications, warnings, and adverse effects—before administering pharmacologic therapy to patients.

Prostatic leiomyosarcoma is a rare tumor.¹ This neoplasm is composed of highly aggressive prostatic smooth muscle cells that present with nonspecific signs and symptoms mimicking other forms of prostatic pathology. Of the primary prostatic sarcomas, leiomyosarcoma represents the most common subtype in adults and is found in 38% to 52% of newly diagnosed prostate sarcoma.^1,2 The prognosis is poor, and no clear guidelines exist regarding the optimal treatment approach. We report a case of prostate leiomyosarcoma and describe the disease characteristics, diagnostic modalities, and treatment approach regarding these rare malignancies.

Case Presentation

A 72-year-old male presented with 6 months of progressive severe lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) secondary to bladder outlet obstruction. The patient was refractory to medical management with combination α-blocker and 5-α-reductase inhibitor therapy and continued to require multiple emergent bladder catheterizations. Workup with urinalysis, blood biochemistry, and prostate specific antigen (PSA) levels were persistently normal. He reported no hematuria, weight loss, or perineal pain. The patient reported no history of tobacco use, exposure to hazardous chemicals, and had no family history of genitourinary cancers. On rectal exam, the prostate was firm and nodular, with induration noted along the right upper lobe of the prostate.

The patient was referred for a urology consultation and subsequently underwent transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) for suspected severe benign prostatic hypertrophy (BPH). A histopathologic examination demonstrated atypical cytology consistent with high- grade leiomyosarcoma. Immunohistochemical analysis revealed positive staining for vimentin, smooth muscle actin, desmin (partial), cytokeratin, smooth muscle myosin, muscle specific actin, and Ki-67 (50%-60% expression).

Fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) scan revealed a 5.7 x 5.9 cm tumor with a maximum standardized uptake value (SUV_max) of 12.6 in the right posterior prostate, without evidence of metastatic disease (Figures 1A and 1B). 

Discussion

Originating from prostatic interstitial cells, prostatic leiomyosarcoma is a rare tumor that accounts for < 0.1% of all primary prostatic malignancies.¹ Since its first description in 1950 by Riba and colleagues, < 200 cases have been reported worldwide.² Among the sarcomas of the prostate, it is the most common tumor, accounting for around 38% to 52% of prostate sarcoma presentations.^1,2

Patients typically present between the ages of 41 and 78 years (mean age 61 years).^2,3 Signs and symptoms at presentation may vary; however, the most common symptoms are related to lower urinary tract obstruction (89.4% of patients). These symptoms include urinary frequency, urgency, nocturia, and may mimic the presentation of BPH.

Symptoms commonly associated with other malignancies, including constitutional symptoms such as weight loss, tend to occur less frequently or may be absent. Perineal or rectal pain may only be present in 25.6% of patients. Hematuria, burning on ejaculation, and constitutional symptoms are a less common presentation (< 10% of patients).^3,4 PSA levels typically do not rise and are found to be within normal limits. The lack of PSA elevation is related to the tumors nonepithelial origin and may contribute to a delay in diagnosis.^2,4,5

Diagnosis

Diagnosis may be further eluded as digital rectal exam (DRE) findings tend to reveal nonspecific enlargement of the prostate, resembling that of BPH. DRE may show a hard and firm prostate with nodular induration at the base or over the lobes of the prostate.⁶ At this stage a urology consultation is useful, as diagnosis is most commonly achieved using transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) with ultrasound-guided needle biopsy or after a TURP procedure.³

Prostate sarcoma is associated with markedly enlarged prostate volume, irregular margins with invasion, or heterogenous hypoechoic lesions on TRUS.⁷ Transperineal biopsy, computed tomography (CT)-guided biopsy, or suprapubic prostatectomy have been less frequently employed for diagnosis in previously reported cases.⁸ Specialized imaging modalities, such as CT scan or bone scan, do not show any specific findings with regards to these tumors; their role is limited to evaluation of the local and distant metastasis and for follow-up assessments.⁹ Transabdominal ultrasound may assess hydronephrosis or enlarged prostate and its relation to nearby structures, although it has not been shown to be helpful in establishing a specific diagnosis.⁶

Histologically, prostatic leiomyosarcoma is a distinct subtype of prostatic sarcoma. Other subtypes include stromal tumors such as rhabdomyosarcoma, fibrosarcoma, and spindle cell sarcoma.² The majority of leiomyosarcomas are high-grade lesions demonstrating neoplastic spindle cells with nuclear atypia, multifocal necrosis, and cystic degeneration. Low-grade leiomyosarcomas are very rare.¹⁰ Immunohistochemistry is characteristically positive for vimentin, smooth muscle actin, and desmin expression. Cytokeratin may be positive in up to 25% of cases, whereas S-100, CD34, CD117, and PSA are negative.^2,3 These histopathological findings help to differentiate leiomyosarcoma from other prostatic tumors.

Tumor size may vary greatly, and measurements have been reported to range from 3 cm to 21 cm, frequently presenting with invasion of local structures.¹¹ Advanced stage disease is commonly found at initial diagnosis and is thought to be due to the lack of early specific symptoms. Metastatic disease at presentation may be found in up to one-third of patients, with the lungs being the most common site of metastasis followed by the liver. Local extent and distant spread of disease may be determined by CT or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans, which provide clear delineation of neoplastic and nonneoplastic tissues. 

Treatment

Treatment regimens may include a multimodal approach of combination surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy. However, there are currently no standardized guidelines for treatment and the optimal therapy remains unknown.^2,3,6 Surgery remains the mainstay of treatment, and patients with surgically resectable tumors are treated with curative intent. Surgeries performed include radical retropubic prostatectomy, radical cystoprostatectomy, suprapubic prostatectomy, and pelvic exenteration.^2,5,8,12 These operations may be preceded or followed by radiation therapy and/or chemotherapy depending on extent of disease.

It has been reported that neo-adjuvant chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy can aid in decreasing tumor burden to facilitate a complete resection.^2,8,13,14 Patients who are determined to not be candidates for surgery or whom have widespread disease may be offered systemic chemotherapy. Chemotherapy regimens vary, but common regimens include anthracyclines (doxorubicin or epirubicin), alkylating agents (cyclophosphamide, ifosfamide, dacarbazine), and/or vinca alkaloids (vinblastine or vincristine). Patients who do not receive surgical intervention rarely achieve a sustained remission.^3,5,8

The long-term prognosis of prostatic leiomyosarcoma is poor due to the aggressive nature of the neoplasm and the high chance of disease recurrence or metastasis. Median survival is estimated at 17 months, and from 50% to 75% of patients die within 2 to 5 years of diagnosis.^2,3 Prognosis may be improved in patients with localized disease at diagnosis who are candidates for complete surgical resection with negative margins.¹³ Adverse prognostic factors include metastatic disease at presentation and the presence of positive surgical margins after surgery.

Overall survival is very poor, and it is estimated that the 1-, 3-, and 5-year survival rates are 68%, 34%, and 26%, respectively.³ However, some studies estimate the 5-year survival to be anywhere from 0 to 60%.^8,9 Due to the substantially high risk of death, prostatic leiomyosarcoma may be one of the most aggressive and poorly prognostic malignancies involving the prostate.

Conclusion

Prostatic leiomyosarcoma poses a unique diagnostic challenge, as clinical presentation alone may not always be suggestive of underlying malignancy. This challenge is further exacerbated by its aggressive nature, high risk of metastasis, and difficulties with unclear treatment. Proper history and physical examination, differential diagnosis, and a multidisciplinary approach to patient care are the foundation for early detection and promoting improved survival.

Author disclosures
The authors report no actual or potential conflicts of interest with regard to this article.

Disclaimer
The opinions expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of Federal Practitioner, Frontline Medical Communications Inc., the US Government, or any of its agencies. This article may discuss unlabeled or investigational use of certain drugs. Please review the complete prescribing information for specific drugs or drug combinations—including indications, contraindications, warnings, and adverse effects—before administering pharmacologic therapy to patients.

Prostatic leiomyosarcoma is a rare tumor.¹ This neoplasm is composed of highly aggressive prostatic smooth muscle cells that present with nonspecific signs and symptoms mimicking other forms of prostatic pathology. Of the primary prostatic sarcomas, leiomyosarcoma represents the most common subtype in adults and is found in 38% to 52% of newly diagnosed prostate sarcoma.^1,2 The prognosis is poor, and no clear guidelines exist regarding the optimal treatment approach. We report a case of prostate leiomyosarcoma and describe the disease characteristics, diagnostic modalities, and treatment approach regarding these rare malignancies.

Case Presentation

A 72-year-old male presented with 6 months of progressive severe lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) secondary to bladder outlet obstruction. The patient was refractory to medical management with combination α-blocker and 5-α-reductase inhibitor therapy and continued to require multiple emergent bladder catheterizations. Workup with urinalysis, blood biochemistry, and prostate specific antigen (PSA) levels were persistently normal. He reported no hematuria, weight loss, or perineal pain. The patient reported no history of tobacco use, exposure to hazardous chemicals, and had no family history of genitourinary cancers. On rectal exam, the prostate was firm and nodular, with induration noted along the right upper lobe of the prostate.

The patient was referred for a urology consultation and subsequently underwent transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) for suspected severe benign prostatic hypertrophy (BPH). A histopathologic examination demonstrated atypical cytology consistent with high- grade leiomyosarcoma. Immunohistochemical analysis revealed positive staining for vimentin, smooth muscle actin, desmin (partial), cytokeratin, smooth muscle myosin, muscle specific actin, and Ki-67 (50%-60% expression).

Fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) scan revealed a 5.7 x 5.9 cm tumor with a maximum standardized uptake value (SUV_max) of 12.6 in the right posterior prostate, without evidence of metastatic disease (Figures 1A and 1B). 

Discussion

Originating from prostatic interstitial cells, prostatic leiomyosarcoma is a rare tumor that accounts for < 0.1% of all primary prostatic malignancies.¹ Since its first description in 1950 by Riba and colleagues, < 200 cases have been reported worldwide.² Among the sarcomas of the prostate, it is the most common tumor, accounting for around 38% to 52% of prostate sarcoma presentations.^1,2

Patients typically present between the ages of 41 and 78 years (mean age 61 years).^2,3 Signs and symptoms at presentation may vary; however, the most common symptoms are related to lower urinary tract obstruction (89.4% of patients). These symptoms include urinary frequency, urgency, nocturia, and may mimic the presentation of BPH.

Symptoms commonly associated with other malignancies, including constitutional symptoms such as weight loss, tend to occur less frequently or may be absent. Perineal or rectal pain may only be present in 25.6% of patients. Hematuria, burning on ejaculation, and constitutional symptoms are a less common presentation (< 10% of patients).^3,4 PSA levels typically do not rise and are found to be within normal limits. The lack of PSA elevation is related to the tumors nonepithelial origin and may contribute to a delay in diagnosis.^2,4,5

Diagnosis

Diagnosis may be further eluded as digital rectal exam (DRE) findings tend to reveal nonspecific enlargement of the prostate, resembling that of BPH. DRE may show a hard and firm prostate with nodular induration at the base or over the lobes of the prostate.⁶ At this stage a urology consultation is useful, as diagnosis is most commonly achieved using transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) with ultrasound-guided needle biopsy or after a TURP procedure.³

Prostate sarcoma is associated with markedly enlarged prostate volume, irregular margins with invasion, or heterogenous hypoechoic lesions on TRUS.⁷ Transperineal biopsy, computed tomography (CT)-guided biopsy, or suprapubic prostatectomy have been less frequently employed for diagnosis in previously reported cases.⁸ Specialized imaging modalities, such as CT scan or bone scan, do not show any specific findings with regards to these tumors; their role is limited to evaluation of the local and distant metastasis and for follow-up assessments.⁹ Transabdominal ultrasound may assess hydronephrosis or enlarged prostate and its relation to nearby structures, although it has not been shown to be helpful in establishing a specific diagnosis.⁶

Histologically, prostatic leiomyosarcoma is a distinct subtype of prostatic sarcoma. Other subtypes include stromal tumors such as rhabdomyosarcoma, fibrosarcoma, and spindle cell sarcoma.² The majority of leiomyosarcomas are high-grade lesions demonstrating neoplastic spindle cells with nuclear atypia, multifocal necrosis, and cystic degeneration. Low-grade leiomyosarcomas are very rare.¹⁰ Immunohistochemistry is characteristically positive for vimentin, smooth muscle actin, and desmin expression. Cytokeratin may be positive in up to 25% of cases, whereas S-100, CD34, CD117, and PSA are negative.^2,3 These histopathological findings help to differentiate leiomyosarcoma from other prostatic tumors.

Tumor size may vary greatly, and measurements have been reported to range from 3 cm to 21 cm, frequently presenting with invasion of local structures.¹¹ Advanced stage disease is commonly found at initial diagnosis and is thought to be due to the lack of early specific symptoms. Metastatic disease at presentation may be found in up to one-third of patients, with the lungs being the most common site of metastasis followed by the liver. Local extent and distant spread of disease may be determined by CT or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans, which provide clear delineation of neoplastic and nonneoplastic tissues. 

Treatment

Treatment regimens may include a multimodal approach of combination surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy. However, there are currently no standardized guidelines for treatment and the optimal therapy remains unknown.^2,3,6 Surgery remains the mainstay of treatment, and patients with surgically resectable tumors are treated with curative intent. Surgeries performed include radical retropubic prostatectomy, radical cystoprostatectomy, suprapubic prostatectomy, and pelvic exenteration.^2,5,8,12 These operations may be preceded or followed by radiation therapy and/or chemotherapy depending on extent of disease.

It has been reported that neo-adjuvant chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy can aid in decreasing tumor burden to facilitate a complete resection.^2,8,13,14 Patients who are determined to not be candidates for surgery or whom have widespread disease may be offered systemic chemotherapy. Chemotherapy regimens vary, but common regimens include anthracyclines (doxorubicin or epirubicin), alkylating agents (cyclophosphamide, ifosfamide, dacarbazine), and/or vinca alkaloids (vinblastine or vincristine). Patients who do not receive surgical intervention rarely achieve a sustained remission.^3,5,8

The long-term prognosis of prostatic leiomyosarcoma is poor due to the aggressive nature of the neoplasm and the high chance of disease recurrence or metastasis. Median survival is estimated at 17 months, and from 50% to 75% of patients die within 2 to 5 years of diagnosis.^2,3 Prognosis may be improved in patients with localized disease at diagnosis who are candidates for complete surgical resection with negative margins.¹³ Adverse prognostic factors include metastatic disease at presentation and the presence of positive surgical margins after surgery.

Overall survival is very poor, and it is estimated that the 1-, 3-, and 5-year survival rates are 68%, 34%, and 26%, respectively.³ However, some studies estimate the 5-year survival to be anywhere from 0 to 60%.^8,9 Due to the substantially high risk of death, prostatic leiomyosarcoma may be one of the most aggressive and poorly prognostic malignancies involving the prostate.

Conclusion

Prostatic leiomyosarcoma poses a unique diagnostic challenge, as clinical presentation alone may not always be suggestive of underlying malignancy. This challenge is further exacerbated by its aggressive nature, high risk of metastasis, and difficulties with unclear treatment. Proper history and physical examination, differential diagnosis, and a multidisciplinary approach to patient care are the foundation for early detection and promoting improved survival.

Author disclosures
The authors report no actual or potential conflicts of interest with regard to this article.

Disclaimer
The opinions expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of Federal Practitioner, Frontline Medical Communications Inc., the US Government, or any of its agencies. This article may discuss unlabeled or investigational use of certain drugs. Please review the complete prescribing information for specific drugs or drug combinations—including indications, contraindications, warnings, and adverse effects—before administering pharmacologic therapy to patients.