AVAHO

Patients benefit from multidisciplinary care that coordinates management of complex medical problems. Traditionally, multidisciplinary cancer care involves oncology specialty providers in fields that include medical oncology, radiation oncology, and surgical oncology. Multidisciplinary cancer care intends to improve patient outcomes by bringing together different health care providers (HCPs) who are involved in the treatment of patients with cancer. Because new therapies are more effective and allow patients with cancer to live longer, adverse effects (AEs) are more likely to impact patients’ well-being, both while receiving treatment and long after it has completed. Thus, this population may benefit from an expanded approach to multidisciplinary care that includes input from specialty and primary care providers (PCPs), clinical pharmacy specialists (CPS), physical and occupational therapists, and patient navigators and educators.

We present 4 hypothetical cases, based on actual patients, that illustrate opportunities where multidisciplinary care coordination may improve patient experiences. These cases draw on current quality initiatives from the National Cancer Institute Community Cancer Centers Program, which has focused on improving the quality of multidisciplinary cancer care at selected community centers, and the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) patient-aligned care team (PACT) model, which brings together different health professionals to optimize primary care coordination.^1,2 In addition, the National Committee for Quality Assurance has introduced an educational initiative to facilitate implementation of an oncologic medical home.³ This initiative stresses increased multidisciplinary communication, patient-centered care delivery, and reduced fragmentation of care for this population. Despite these guidelines and experiences from other medical specialties, models for integrated cancer care have not been implemented in a prospective fashion within the VHA.

In this article, we focus on opportunities to take collaborative care approaches for the treatment of patients with follicular lymphoma (FL): a common, incurable, and often indolent B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma.⁴ FL was selected because these patients may be treated numerous times and long-term sequalae can accumulate throughout their cancer continuum (a series of health events encompassing cancer screening, diagnosis, treatment, survivorship, relapse, and death).⁵ HCPs in distinct roles can assist patients with cancer in optimizing their health outcomes and overall wellbeing.⁶

Case Example 1

A 70-year-old male was diagnosed with stage IV FL. Because of his advanced disease, he began therapy with R-CHOP (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, prednisone). Prednisone was administered at 100 mg daily on the first 5 days of each 21-day cycle. On day 4 of the first treatment cycle, the patient notified his oncologist that he had been very thirsty and his random blood sugar values on 2 different days were 283 mg/dL and 312 mg/dL. A laboratory review revealed his hemoglobin A_1c (HbA_1c) 7 months prior was 5.6%.

Discussion

The high-dose prednisone component of this and other lymphoma therapy regimens can worsen diabetes mellitus (DM) control and/or worsen prediabetes. Patient characteristics that increase the risk of developing glucocorticoid-induced DM after CHOP chemotherapy include age ≥ 60 years, HbA_1c > 6.1%, and body mass index > 30.⁷ This patient did not have DM prior to the FL therapy initiation, but afterwards he met diagnostic criteria for DM. For completeness, other causes for elevated blood glucose should be ruled out (ie, infection, laboratory error, etc.). An oncologist often will triage acute hyperglycemia, treating immediately with IV fluids and/or insulin. Thereafter, ongoing chronic disease management for DM may be best managed by PCPs, certified DM educators, and registered dieticians.

Several programs involving multidisciplinary DM care, comprised of physicians, advanced practice providers, nurses, certified DM educators, and/or pharmacists have been shown to improve HbA_1c, cardiovascular outcomes, and all-cause mortality, while reducing health care costs.⁸ In addition, patient navigators can assist patients with coordinating visits to disease-state specialists and identifying further educational needs. For example, in 1 program, nonclinical peer navigators were shown to improve the number of appointments attended and reduce HbA_1c in a population of patients with DM who were primarily minority, urban, and of low socioeconomic status.⁹ Thus, integrating DM care shows potential to improve outcomes for patients with lymphoma who develop glucocorticoid-induced DM.

Case Example 2

A 75-year-old male was diagnosed with FL. He was treated initially with bendamustine and rituximab. He required reinitiation of therapy 20 months later when he developed lymphadenopathy, fatigue, and night sweats and began treatment with oral idelalisib, a second-line therapy. Later, the patient presented to his PCP for a routine visit, and on medication reconciliation review, the patient reported regular use of trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole.

Discussion

Upon consultation with the CPS and the patient’s oncologist, the PCP confirmed trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole should be continued during therapy and for about 6 months following completion of therapy. Trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole is used for prophylaxis against Pneumocystis jirovecii (formerly Pneumocystis carinii). While use of prophylactic therapy is not necessary for all patients with FL, idelalisib impairs the function of circulating lymphoid B-cells and thus has been associated with an increased risk of serious infection.¹⁰ A CPS can provide insight that maximizes medication adherence and efficacy while minimizing food-drug, drug-drug interactions, and AEs. CPS have been shown to: improve adherence to oral therapies, increase prospective monitoring required for safe therapy dose selection, and document assessment of chemotherapy-related AEs.^11,12 Thus, multidisciplinary, integrated care is an important component of providing quality oncology care.

Case Example 3

A 60-year-old female presented to her PCP with a 2-week history of shortness of breath and leg swelling. She was treated for FL 4 years previously with 6 cycles of R-CHOP. She reported no chest pain and did not have a prior history of hypertension, DM, or heart disease. On physical exam, she had elevated jugular venous pressure to jaw at 45°, bilateral pulmonary rales, and 2+ pitting pretibial edema. Laboratory tests that included complete blood count, basic chemistries, and thyroid stimulating hormone were unremarkable, though brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) was elevated at 425 pg/mL.

As this patient’s laboratory results and physical examination suggested new-onset congestive heart failure, the PCP obtained an echocardiogram, which demonstrated an ejection fraction of 35% and global hypokinesis. Because the patient was symptomatic, she was admitted to the hospital to begin guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) including IV diuresis.

Discussion

Given the absence of significant risk factors and prior history of coronary artery disease, the most probable cause for this patient’s cardiomyopathy is doxorubicin. Doxorubicin is an anthracycline chemotherapy that can cause nonischemic, dilated cardiomyopathy, particularly when cumulative doses > 400 mg/m² are administered, or when combined with chest radiation.¹³ This patient benefited from GDMT for reduced ejection-fraction heart failure (HFrEF). Studies have demonstrated positive outcomes when HFrEF patients are cared for by a multidisciplinary team who focus of volume management as well as uptitration of therapies to target doses.¹⁴

Case Example 4

An 80-year-old female was diagnosed with stage III FL but did not require immediate therapy. After developing discomfort due to enlarging lymphadenopathy, she initiated therapy with rituximab, cyclophosphamide, vincristine, and prednisone (R-CVP). She presented to her oncologist for consideration of her fifth cycle of R-CVP and reported a burning sensation on the soles of her feet and numbness in her fingertips and toes. On examination, her pulses were intact and there were no signs of infection, reduced blood flow, or edema. The patient demonstrated decreased sensation on monofilament testing. She had no history of DM and a recent HbA_1c test was 4.9% An evaluation for other causes of neuropathy, such as hypothyroidism and vitamin B₁₂ deficiency was negative. Thus, vincristine therapy was identified as the most likely etiology for her peripheral neuropathy. The oncologist decided to proceed with cycle 5 of chemotherapy but reduced the dose of vincristine by 50%.

Discussion

Vincristine is a microtubule inhibitor used in many chemotherapy regimens and may cause reversible or permanent neuropathy, including autonomic (constipation), sensory (stocking-glove distribution), or motor (foot-drop).¹⁵ A nerve conduction study may be indicated as part of the diagnostic evaluation. Treatment for painful sensory neuropathy may include pharmacologic therapy (such as gabapentin, pregabalin, capsaicin cream).¹⁶ Podiatrists can provide foot care and may provide shoes and inserts if appropriate. Physical therapists may assist with safety and mobility evaluations and can provide therapeutic exercises and assistive devices that improve function and quality of life.¹⁷

Conclusion

As cancer becomes more curable and more manageable, patients with cancer and survivors no longer rely exclusively on their oncologists for medical care. This is increasingly prevalent for patients with incurable but indolent cancers that may be present for years to decades, as acute and cumulative toxicities may complicate existing comorbidities. Thus, in this era of increasingly complex cancer therapies, multidisciplinary medical care that involves PCPs, specialists, and allied medical professionals, is essential for providing care that optimizes health and fully addresses patients’ needs.

Patients benefit from multidisciplinary care that coordinates management of complex medical problems. Traditionally, multidisciplinary cancer care involves oncology specialty providers in fields that include medical oncology, radiation oncology, and surgical oncology. Multidisciplinary cancer care intends to improve patient outcomes by bringing together different health care providers (HCPs) who are involved in the treatment of patients with cancer. Because new therapies are more effective and allow patients with cancer to live longer, adverse effects (AEs) are more likely to impact patients’ well-being, both while receiving treatment and long after it has completed. Thus, this population may benefit from an expanded approach to multidisciplinary care that includes input from specialty and primary care providers (PCPs), clinical pharmacy specialists (CPS), physical and occupational therapists, and patient navigators and educators.

We present 4 hypothetical cases, based on actual patients, that illustrate opportunities where multidisciplinary care coordination may improve patient experiences. These cases draw on current quality initiatives from the National Cancer Institute Community Cancer Centers Program, which has focused on improving the quality of multidisciplinary cancer care at selected community centers, and the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) patient-aligned care team (PACT) model, which brings together different health professionals to optimize primary care coordination.^1,2 In addition, the National Committee for Quality Assurance has introduced an educational initiative to facilitate implementation of an oncologic medical home.³ This initiative stresses increased multidisciplinary communication, patient-centered care delivery, and reduced fragmentation of care for this population. Despite these guidelines and experiences from other medical specialties, models for integrated cancer care have not been implemented in a prospective fashion within the VHA.

In this article, we focus on opportunities to take collaborative care approaches for the treatment of patients with follicular lymphoma (FL): a common, incurable, and often indolent B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma.⁴ FL was selected because these patients may be treated numerous times and long-term sequalae can accumulate throughout their cancer continuum (a series of health events encompassing cancer screening, diagnosis, treatment, survivorship, relapse, and death).⁵ HCPs in distinct roles can assist patients with cancer in optimizing their health outcomes and overall wellbeing.⁶

Case Example 1

A 70-year-old male was diagnosed with stage IV FL. Because of his advanced disease, he began therapy with R-CHOP (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, prednisone). Prednisone was administered at 100 mg daily on the first 5 days of each 21-day cycle. On day 4 of the first treatment cycle, the patient notified his oncologist that he had been very thirsty and his random blood sugar values on 2 different days were 283 mg/dL and 312 mg/dL. A laboratory review revealed his hemoglobin A_1c (HbA_1c) 7 months prior was 5.6%.

Discussion

The high-dose prednisone component of this and other lymphoma therapy regimens can worsen diabetes mellitus (DM) control and/or worsen prediabetes. Patient characteristics that increase the risk of developing glucocorticoid-induced DM after CHOP chemotherapy include age ≥ 60 years, HbA_1c > 6.1%, and body mass index > 30.⁷ This patient did not have DM prior to the FL therapy initiation, but afterwards he met diagnostic criteria for DM. For completeness, other causes for elevated blood glucose should be ruled out (ie, infection, laboratory error, etc.). An oncologist often will triage acute hyperglycemia, treating immediately with IV fluids and/or insulin. Thereafter, ongoing chronic disease management for DM may be best managed by PCPs, certified DM educators, and registered dieticians.

Several programs involving multidisciplinary DM care, comprised of physicians, advanced practice providers, nurses, certified DM educators, and/or pharmacists have been shown to improve HbA_1c, cardiovascular outcomes, and all-cause mortality, while reducing health care costs.⁸ In addition, patient navigators can assist patients with coordinating visits to disease-state specialists and identifying further educational needs. For example, in 1 program, nonclinical peer navigators were shown to improve the number of appointments attended and reduce HbA_1c in a population of patients with DM who were primarily minority, urban, and of low socioeconomic status.⁹ Thus, integrating DM care shows potential to improve outcomes for patients with lymphoma who develop glucocorticoid-induced DM.

Case Example 2

A 75-year-old male was diagnosed with FL. He was treated initially with bendamustine and rituximab. He required reinitiation of therapy 20 months later when he developed lymphadenopathy, fatigue, and night sweats and began treatment with oral idelalisib, a second-line therapy. Later, the patient presented to his PCP for a routine visit, and on medication reconciliation review, the patient reported regular use of trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole.

Discussion

Upon consultation with the CPS and the patient’s oncologist, the PCP confirmed trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole should be continued during therapy and for about 6 months following completion of therapy. Trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole is used for prophylaxis against Pneumocystis jirovecii (formerly Pneumocystis carinii). While use of prophylactic therapy is not necessary for all patients with FL, idelalisib impairs the function of circulating lymphoid B-cells and thus has been associated with an increased risk of serious infection.¹⁰ A CPS can provide insight that maximizes medication adherence and efficacy while minimizing food-drug, drug-drug interactions, and AEs. CPS have been shown to: improve adherence to oral therapies, increase prospective monitoring required for safe therapy dose selection, and document assessment of chemotherapy-related AEs.^11,12 Thus, multidisciplinary, integrated care is an important component of providing quality oncology care.

Case Example 3

A 60-year-old female presented to her PCP with a 2-week history of shortness of breath and leg swelling. She was treated for FL 4 years previously with 6 cycles of R-CHOP. She reported no chest pain and did not have a prior history of hypertension, DM, or heart disease. On physical exam, she had elevated jugular venous pressure to jaw at 45°, bilateral pulmonary rales, and 2+ pitting pretibial edema. Laboratory tests that included complete blood count, basic chemistries, and thyroid stimulating hormone were unremarkable, though brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) was elevated at 425 pg/mL.

As this patient’s laboratory results and physical examination suggested new-onset congestive heart failure, the PCP obtained an echocardiogram, which demonstrated an ejection fraction of 35% and global hypokinesis. Because the patient was symptomatic, she was admitted to the hospital to begin guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) including IV diuresis.

Discussion

Given the absence of significant risk factors and prior history of coronary artery disease, the most probable cause for this patient’s cardiomyopathy is doxorubicin. Doxorubicin is an anthracycline chemotherapy that can cause nonischemic, dilated cardiomyopathy, particularly when cumulative doses > 400 mg/m² are administered, or when combined with chest radiation.¹³ This patient benefited from GDMT for reduced ejection-fraction heart failure (HFrEF). Studies have demonstrated positive outcomes when HFrEF patients are cared for by a multidisciplinary team who focus of volume management as well as uptitration of therapies to target doses.¹⁴

Case Example 4

An 80-year-old female was diagnosed with stage III FL but did not require immediate therapy. After developing discomfort due to enlarging lymphadenopathy, she initiated therapy with rituximab, cyclophosphamide, vincristine, and prednisone (R-CVP). She presented to her oncologist for consideration of her fifth cycle of R-CVP and reported a burning sensation on the soles of her feet and numbness in her fingertips and toes. On examination, her pulses were intact and there were no signs of infection, reduced blood flow, or edema. The patient demonstrated decreased sensation on monofilament testing. She had no history of DM and a recent HbA_1c test was 4.9% An evaluation for other causes of neuropathy, such as hypothyroidism and vitamin B₁₂ deficiency was negative. Thus, vincristine therapy was identified as the most likely etiology for her peripheral neuropathy. The oncologist decided to proceed with cycle 5 of chemotherapy but reduced the dose of vincristine by 50%.

Discussion

Vincristine is a microtubule inhibitor used in many chemotherapy regimens and may cause reversible or permanent neuropathy, including autonomic (constipation), sensory (stocking-glove distribution), or motor (foot-drop).¹⁵ A nerve conduction study may be indicated as part of the diagnostic evaluation. Treatment for painful sensory neuropathy may include pharmacologic therapy (such as gabapentin, pregabalin, capsaicin cream).¹⁶ Podiatrists can provide foot care and may provide shoes and inserts if appropriate. Physical therapists may assist with safety and mobility evaluations and can provide therapeutic exercises and assistive devices that improve function and quality of life.¹⁷

Conclusion

As cancer becomes more curable and more manageable, patients with cancer and survivors no longer rely exclusively on their oncologists for medical care. This is increasingly prevalent for patients with incurable but indolent cancers that may be present for years to decades, as acute and cumulative toxicities may complicate existing comorbidities. Thus, in this era of increasingly complex cancer therapies, multidisciplinary medical care that involves PCPs, specialists, and allied medical professionals, is essential for providing care that optimizes health and fully addresses patients’ needs.

Patients benefit from multidisciplinary care that coordinates management of complex medical problems. Traditionally, multidisciplinary cancer care involves oncology specialty providers in fields that include medical oncology, radiation oncology, and surgical oncology. Multidisciplinary cancer care intends to improve patient outcomes by bringing together different health care providers (HCPs) who are involved in the treatment of patients with cancer. Because new therapies are more effective and allow patients with cancer to live longer, adverse effects (AEs) are more likely to impact patients’ well-being, both while receiving treatment and long after it has completed. Thus, this population may benefit from an expanded approach to multidisciplinary care that includes input from specialty and primary care providers (PCPs), clinical pharmacy specialists (CPS), physical and occupational therapists, and patient navigators and educators.

We present 4 hypothetical cases, based on actual patients, that illustrate opportunities where multidisciplinary care coordination may improve patient experiences. These cases draw on current quality initiatives from the National Cancer Institute Community Cancer Centers Program, which has focused on improving the quality of multidisciplinary cancer care at selected community centers, and the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) patient-aligned care team (PACT) model, which brings together different health professionals to optimize primary care coordination.^1,2 In addition, the National Committee for Quality Assurance has introduced an educational initiative to facilitate implementation of an oncologic medical home.³ This initiative stresses increased multidisciplinary communication, patient-centered care delivery, and reduced fragmentation of care for this population. Despite these guidelines and experiences from other medical specialties, models for integrated cancer care have not been implemented in a prospective fashion within the VHA.

In this article, we focus on opportunities to take collaborative care approaches for the treatment of patients with follicular lymphoma (FL): a common, incurable, and often indolent B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma.⁴ FL was selected because these patients may be treated numerous times and long-term sequalae can accumulate throughout their cancer continuum (a series of health events encompassing cancer screening, diagnosis, treatment, survivorship, relapse, and death).⁵ HCPs in distinct roles can assist patients with cancer in optimizing their health outcomes and overall wellbeing.⁶

Case Example 1

A 70-year-old male was diagnosed with stage IV FL. Because of his advanced disease, he began therapy with R-CHOP (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, prednisone). Prednisone was administered at 100 mg daily on the first 5 days of each 21-day cycle. On day 4 of the first treatment cycle, the patient notified his oncologist that he had been very thirsty and his random blood sugar values on 2 different days were 283 mg/dL and 312 mg/dL. A laboratory review revealed his hemoglobin A_1c (HbA_1c) 7 months prior was 5.6%.

Discussion

The high-dose prednisone component of this and other lymphoma therapy regimens can worsen diabetes mellitus (DM) control and/or worsen prediabetes. Patient characteristics that increase the risk of developing glucocorticoid-induced DM after CHOP chemotherapy include age ≥ 60 years, HbA_1c > 6.1%, and body mass index > 30.⁷ This patient did not have DM prior to the FL therapy initiation, but afterwards he met diagnostic criteria for DM. For completeness, other causes for elevated blood glucose should be ruled out (ie, infection, laboratory error, etc.). An oncologist often will triage acute hyperglycemia, treating immediately with IV fluids and/or insulin. Thereafter, ongoing chronic disease management for DM may be best managed by PCPs, certified DM educators, and registered dieticians.

Several programs involving multidisciplinary DM care, comprised of physicians, advanced practice providers, nurses, certified DM educators, and/or pharmacists have been shown to improve HbA_1c, cardiovascular outcomes, and all-cause mortality, while reducing health care costs.⁸ In addition, patient navigators can assist patients with coordinating visits to disease-state specialists and identifying further educational needs. For example, in 1 program, nonclinical peer navigators were shown to improve the number of appointments attended and reduce HbA_1c in a population of patients with DM who were primarily minority, urban, and of low socioeconomic status.⁹ Thus, integrating DM care shows potential to improve outcomes for patients with lymphoma who develop glucocorticoid-induced DM.

Case Example 2

A 75-year-old male was diagnosed with FL. He was treated initially with bendamustine and rituximab. He required reinitiation of therapy 20 months later when he developed lymphadenopathy, fatigue, and night sweats and began treatment with oral idelalisib, a second-line therapy. Later, the patient presented to his PCP for a routine visit, and on medication reconciliation review, the patient reported regular use of trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole.

Discussion

Upon consultation with the CPS and the patient’s oncologist, the PCP confirmed trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole should be continued during therapy and for about 6 months following completion of therapy. Trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole is used for prophylaxis against Pneumocystis jirovecii (formerly Pneumocystis carinii). While use of prophylactic therapy is not necessary for all patients with FL, idelalisib impairs the function of circulating lymphoid B-cells and thus has been associated with an increased risk of serious infection.¹⁰ A CPS can provide insight that maximizes medication adherence and efficacy while minimizing food-drug, drug-drug interactions, and AEs. CPS have been shown to: improve adherence to oral therapies, increase prospective monitoring required for safe therapy dose selection, and document assessment of chemotherapy-related AEs.^11,12 Thus, multidisciplinary, integrated care is an important component of providing quality oncology care.

Case Example 3

A 60-year-old female presented to her PCP with a 2-week history of shortness of breath and leg swelling. She was treated for FL 4 years previously with 6 cycles of R-CHOP. She reported no chest pain and did not have a prior history of hypertension, DM, or heart disease. On physical exam, she had elevated jugular venous pressure to jaw at 45°, bilateral pulmonary rales, and 2+ pitting pretibial edema. Laboratory tests that included complete blood count, basic chemistries, and thyroid stimulating hormone were unremarkable, though brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) was elevated at 425 pg/mL.

As this patient’s laboratory results and physical examination suggested new-onset congestive heart failure, the PCP obtained an echocardiogram, which demonstrated an ejection fraction of 35% and global hypokinesis. Because the patient was symptomatic, she was admitted to the hospital to begin guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) including IV diuresis.

Discussion

Given the absence of significant risk factors and prior history of coronary artery disease, the most probable cause for this patient’s cardiomyopathy is doxorubicin. Doxorubicin is an anthracycline chemotherapy that can cause nonischemic, dilated cardiomyopathy, particularly when cumulative doses > 400 mg/m² are administered, or when combined with chest radiation.¹³ This patient benefited from GDMT for reduced ejection-fraction heart failure (HFrEF). Studies have demonstrated positive outcomes when HFrEF patients are cared for by a multidisciplinary team who focus of volume management as well as uptitration of therapies to target doses.¹⁴

Case Example 4

An 80-year-old female was diagnosed with stage III FL but did not require immediate therapy. After developing discomfort due to enlarging lymphadenopathy, she initiated therapy with rituximab, cyclophosphamide, vincristine, and prednisone (R-CVP). She presented to her oncologist for consideration of her fifth cycle of R-CVP and reported a burning sensation on the soles of her feet and numbness in her fingertips and toes. On examination, her pulses were intact and there were no signs of infection, reduced blood flow, or edema. The patient demonstrated decreased sensation on monofilament testing. She had no history of DM and a recent HbA_1c test was 4.9% An evaluation for other causes of neuropathy, such as hypothyroidism and vitamin B₁₂ deficiency was negative. Thus, vincristine therapy was identified as the most likely etiology for her peripheral neuropathy. The oncologist decided to proceed with cycle 5 of chemotherapy but reduced the dose of vincristine by 50%.

Discussion

Vincristine is a microtubule inhibitor used in many chemotherapy regimens and may cause reversible or permanent neuropathy, including autonomic (constipation), sensory (stocking-glove distribution), or motor (foot-drop).¹⁵ A nerve conduction study may be indicated as part of the diagnostic evaluation. Treatment for painful sensory neuropathy may include pharmacologic therapy (such as gabapentin, pregabalin, capsaicin cream).¹⁶ Podiatrists can provide foot care and may provide shoes and inserts if appropriate. Physical therapists may assist with safety and mobility evaluations and can provide therapeutic exercises and assistive devices that improve function and quality of life.¹⁷

Conclusion

As cancer becomes more curable and more manageable, patients with cancer and survivors no longer rely exclusively on their oncologists for medical care. This is increasingly prevalent for patients with incurable but indolent cancers that may be present for years to decades, as acute and cumulative toxicities may complicate existing comorbidities. Thus, in this era of increasingly complex cancer therapies, multidisciplinary medical care that involves PCPs, specialists, and allied medical professionals, is essential for providing care that optimizes health and fully addresses patients’ needs.

AMSTERDAM – Patients with relapsed or refractory acute myeloid leukemia (AML) may be more likely to respond when selinexor is added to standard chemotherapy, according to investigators.

Will Pass/MDedge News

In a recent phase 2 trial, selinexor given with cytarabine and idarubicin led to a 50% overall response rate, reported lead author Walter Fiedler, MD, of University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf (Germany). This response rate is at the upper end of what has been seen in published studies, Dr. Fiedler said at the annual congress of the European Hematology Association.

He also noted that giving a flat dose of selinexor improved tolerability in the trial, a significant finding in light of common adverse events and recent concerns from the Food and Drug Administration about the safety of selinexor for patients with multiple myeloma.

“The rationale to employ selinexor in this study is that there is a synergy between anthracyclines and selinexor,” Dr. Fiedler said, which may restore anthracycline sensitivity in relapsed or refractory patients. “Secondly, there is a c-myc reduction pathway that leads to a reduction of DNA damage repair genes such as Rad51 and Chk1, and this might result in inhibition of homologous recombination.”

The study involved 44 patients with relapsed or refractory AML, of whom 17 (39%) had previously received stem cell transplantation and 11 (25%) exhibited therapy-induced or secondary disease. The median patient age was 59.5 years.

Patients were given idarubicin 10 mg/m² on days 1, 3, and 5, and cytarabine 100 mg/m² on days 1-7. Initially, selinexor was given at a dose of 40 mg/m² twice per week for 4 weeks, but this led to high rates of febrile neutropenia and grade 3 or higher diarrhea, along with prolonged aplasia. In response to this issue, after the first 27 patients, the dose was reduced to a flat amount of 60 mg, given twice weekly for 3 weeks.

For patients not undergoing transplantation after the first or second induction cycle, selinexor maintenance monotherapy was offered for up to 1 year.

The primary endpoint was overall remission rate, reported as complete remission, complete remission with incomplete blood count recovery, and morphological leukemia-free status. Secondary endpoints included the rate of partial remissions, percentage of patients being transplanted after induction, early death rate, overall survival, event-free survival, and relapse-free survival.

The efficacy analysis revealed an overall response rate of 50%. A total of 9 patients had complete remission (21.4%), 11 achieved complete remission with incomplete blood count recovery (26.2%), and 1 exhibited morphological leukemia-free status (2.4%). Of note, almost half of the patients (47%) who had relapsed after previous stem cell transplantation responded, as did three-quarters who tested positive for an NPM1 mutation. After a median follow-up of 8.2 months, the median overall survival was 8.2 months, relapse-free survival was 17.7 months, and event-free survival was 4.9 months.

Adverse events occurred frequently, with a majority of patients experiencing nausea (86%), diarrhea (83%), vomiting (74%), decreased appetite (71%), febrile neutropenia (67%), fatigue (64%), leukopenia (62%), thrombocytopenia (62%), or anemia (60%).

Grade 3 or higher adverse events were almost as common, and included febrile neutropenia (67%), leukopenia (62%), thrombocytopenia (62%), anemia (57%), and diarrhea (50%). Reducing the dose did improve tolerability, with notable drops in the rate of severe diarrhea (56% vs. 40%) and febrile neutropenia (85% vs. 33%). In total, 19% of patients discontinued treatment because of adverse events.

A total of 25 patients (60%) died during the study, with about half dying from disease progression (n = 12), and fewer succumbing to infectious complications, graft-versus-host disease, multiorgan failure, multiple brain infarct, or asystole. Two deaths, one from suspected hemophagocytosis and another from systemic inflammatory response syndrome, were considered possibly related to selinexor.

“The results should be further evaluated in a phase 3 study,” Dr. Fiedler said. However, plans for this are not yet underway, he said, adding that Karyopharm Therapeutics will be focusing its efforts on selinexor for myeloma first.

The study was funded by Karyopharm. Dr. Fielder reported financial relationships with Amgen, Pfizer, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, and other companies.

SOURCE: Fiedler W et al. EHA Congress, Abstract S880.

AMSTERDAM – Patients with relapsed or refractory acute myeloid leukemia (AML) may be more likely to respond when selinexor is added to standard chemotherapy, according to investigators.

Will Pass/MDedge News

In a recent phase 2 trial, selinexor given with cytarabine and idarubicin led to a 50% overall response rate, reported lead author Walter Fiedler, MD, of University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf (Germany). This response rate is at the upper end of what has been seen in published studies, Dr. Fiedler said at the annual congress of the European Hematology Association.

He also noted that giving a flat dose of selinexor improved tolerability in the trial, a significant finding in light of common adverse events and recent concerns from the Food and Drug Administration about the safety of selinexor for patients with multiple myeloma.

“The rationale to employ selinexor in this study is that there is a synergy between anthracyclines and selinexor,” Dr. Fiedler said, which may restore anthracycline sensitivity in relapsed or refractory patients. “Secondly, there is a c-myc reduction pathway that leads to a reduction of DNA damage repair genes such as Rad51 and Chk1, and this might result in inhibition of homologous recombination.”

The study involved 44 patients with relapsed or refractory AML, of whom 17 (39%) had previously received stem cell transplantation and 11 (25%) exhibited therapy-induced or secondary disease. The median patient age was 59.5 years.

Patients were given idarubicin 10 mg/m² on days 1, 3, and 5, and cytarabine 100 mg/m² on days 1-7. Initially, selinexor was given at a dose of 40 mg/m² twice per week for 4 weeks, but this led to high rates of febrile neutropenia and grade 3 or higher diarrhea, along with prolonged aplasia. In response to this issue, after the first 27 patients, the dose was reduced to a flat amount of 60 mg, given twice weekly for 3 weeks.

For patients not undergoing transplantation after the first or second induction cycle, selinexor maintenance monotherapy was offered for up to 1 year.

The primary endpoint was overall remission rate, reported as complete remission, complete remission with incomplete blood count recovery, and morphological leukemia-free status. Secondary endpoints included the rate of partial remissions, percentage of patients being transplanted after induction, early death rate, overall survival, event-free survival, and relapse-free survival.

The efficacy analysis revealed an overall response rate of 50%. A total of 9 patients had complete remission (21.4%), 11 achieved complete remission with incomplete blood count recovery (26.2%), and 1 exhibited morphological leukemia-free status (2.4%). Of note, almost half of the patients (47%) who had relapsed after previous stem cell transplantation responded, as did three-quarters who tested positive for an NPM1 mutation. After a median follow-up of 8.2 months, the median overall survival was 8.2 months, relapse-free survival was 17.7 months, and event-free survival was 4.9 months.

Adverse events occurred frequently, with a majority of patients experiencing nausea (86%), diarrhea (83%), vomiting (74%), decreased appetite (71%), febrile neutropenia (67%), fatigue (64%), leukopenia (62%), thrombocytopenia (62%), or anemia (60%).

Grade 3 or higher adverse events were almost as common, and included febrile neutropenia (67%), leukopenia (62%), thrombocytopenia (62%), anemia (57%), and diarrhea (50%). Reducing the dose did improve tolerability, with notable drops in the rate of severe diarrhea (56% vs. 40%) and febrile neutropenia (85% vs. 33%). In total, 19% of patients discontinued treatment because of adverse events.

A total of 25 patients (60%) died during the study, with about half dying from disease progression (n = 12), and fewer succumbing to infectious complications, graft-versus-host disease, multiorgan failure, multiple brain infarct, or asystole. Two deaths, one from suspected hemophagocytosis and another from systemic inflammatory response syndrome, were considered possibly related to selinexor.

“The results should be further evaluated in a phase 3 study,” Dr. Fiedler said. However, plans for this are not yet underway, he said, adding that Karyopharm Therapeutics will be focusing its efforts on selinexor for myeloma first.

The study was funded by Karyopharm. Dr. Fielder reported financial relationships with Amgen, Pfizer, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, and other companies.

SOURCE: Fiedler W et al. EHA Congress, Abstract S880.

AMSTERDAM – Patients with relapsed or refractory acute myeloid leukemia (AML) may be more likely to respond when selinexor is added to standard chemotherapy, according to investigators.

Will Pass/MDedge News

In a recent phase 2 trial, selinexor given with cytarabine and idarubicin led to a 50% overall response rate, reported lead author Walter Fiedler, MD, of University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf (Germany). This response rate is at the upper end of what has been seen in published studies, Dr. Fiedler said at the annual congress of the European Hematology Association.

He also noted that giving a flat dose of selinexor improved tolerability in the trial, a significant finding in light of common adverse events and recent concerns from the Food and Drug Administration about the safety of selinexor for patients with multiple myeloma.

“The rationale to employ selinexor in this study is that there is a synergy between anthracyclines and selinexor,” Dr. Fiedler said, which may restore anthracycline sensitivity in relapsed or refractory patients. “Secondly, there is a c-myc reduction pathway that leads to a reduction of DNA damage repair genes such as Rad51 and Chk1, and this might result in inhibition of homologous recombination.”

The study involved 44 patients with relapsed or refractory AML, of whom 17 (39%) had previously received stem cell transplantation and 11 (25%) exhibited therapy-induced or secondary disease. The median patient age was 59.5 years.

Patients were given idarubicin 10 mg/m² on days 1, 3, and 5, and cytarabine 100 mg/m² on days 1-7. Initially, selinexor was given at a dose of 40 mg/m² twice per week for 4 weeks, but this led to high rates of febrile neutropenia and grade 3 or higher diarrhea, along with prolonged aplasia. In response to this issue, after the first 27 patients, the dose was reduced to a flat amount of 60 mg, given twice weekly for 3 weeks.

For patients not undergoing transplantation after the first or second induction cycle, selinexor maintenance monotherapy was offered for up to 1 year.

The primary endpoint was overall remission rate, reported as complete remission, complete remission with incomplete blood count recovery, and morphological leukemia-free status. Secondary endpoints included the rate of partial remissions, percentage of patients being transplanted after induction, early death rate, overall survival, event-free survival, and relapse-free survival.

The efficacy analysis revealed an overall response rate of 50%. A total of 9 patients had complete remission (21.4%), 11 achieved complete remission with incomplete blood count recovery (26.2%), and 1 exhibited morphological leukemia-free status (2.4%). Of note, almost half of the patients (47%) who had relapsed after previous stem cell transplantation responded, as did three-quarters who tested positive for an NPM1 mutation. After a median follow-up of 8.2 months, the median overall survival was 8.2 months, relapse-free survival was 17.7 months, and event-free survival was 4.9 months.

Adverse events occurred frequently, with a majority of patients experiencing nausea (86%), diarrhea (83%), vomiting (74%), decreased appetite (71%), febrile neutropenia (67%), fatigue (64%), leukopenia (62%), thrombocytopenia (62%), or anemia (60%).

Grade 3 or higher adverse events were almost as common, and included febrile neutropenia (67%), leukopenia (62%), thrombocytopenia (62%), anemia (57%), and diarrhea (50%). Reducing the dose did improve tolerability, with notable drops in the rate of severe diarrhea (56% vs. 40%) and febrile neutropenia (85% vs. 33%). In total, 19% of patients discontinued treatment because of adverse events.

A total of 25 patients (60%) died during the study, with about half dying from disease progression (n = 12), and fewer succumbing to infectious complications, graft-versus-host disease, multiorgan failure, multiple brain infarct, or asystole. Two deaths, one from suspected hemophagocytosis and another from systemic inflammatory response syndrome, were considered possibly related to selinexor.

“The results should be further evaluated in a phase 3 study,” Dr. Fiedler said. However, plans for this are not yet underway, he said, adding that Karyopharm Therapeutics will be focusing its efforts on selinexor for myeloma first.

The study was funded by Karyopharm. Dr. Fielder reported financial relationships with Amgen, Pfizer, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, and other companies.

SOURCE: Fiedler W et al. EHA Congress, Abstract S880.

Giving steroids for indications other than cancer palliation doesn’t compromise the effectiveness of immunotherapy for advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), suggests a single-center retrospective cohort study.

The immunosuppressant activity of corticosteroids and recent reports linking them to poorer outcomes has raised concern about their use during immunotherapy, noted Biagio Ricciuti, MD, of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Harvard Medical School, Boston, and coinvestigators. But mechanisms underpinning this association are unclear.

The investigators studied 650 patients with NSCLC treated with immunotherapy targeting programmed death 1 (PD-1) or programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1), either as monotherapy or with other immunotherapy. Overall, 14.3% were receiving 10 mg or more of prednisone daily when they started the immunotherapy, a cutoff selected for study because it has been used an exclusion criterion for clinical trials.

Results reported in the Journal of Clinical Oncology showed that, compared with other patients, those who received 10 mg or more of steroids indeed had poorer median progression-free survival (2.0 vs. 3.4 months; P = .01) and overall survival (4.9 vs. 11.2 months; P less than .001).

However, when the indication for steroid therapy was considered, median progression-free survival was just 1.4 months among patients who received 10 mg or more prednisone for cancer-related palliation, compared with 4.6 months among patients who received 10 mg or more prednisone for cancer-unrelated reasons (for example, autoimmune disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease flare, hypersensitivity prophylaxis, or management of noncancer pain) and 3.4 months among patients who received 0-10 mg of prednisone (P less than .001 across groups).

Similarly, median overall survival was just 2.2 months among patients who received 10 mg or more prednisone for palliative indications, but 10.7 months among patients who received 10 mg or more prednisone for cancer-unrelated reasons and 11.2 months among patients who received less than 10 mg prednisone (P less than .001 across groups).

In a multivariate analysis that adjusted for performance status and PD-L1 positivity and that used patients receiving up to 10 mg prednisone as the comparator, patients receiving 10 mg or more for cancer palliation had a trend toward high risk of progression-free survival events and a higher risk of death (hazard ratio, 1.40; P less than .06 and HR, 1.60; P = .02, respectively). In contrast, patients receiving 10 mg or more for cancer-unrelated reasons did not have elevated risks (HR, 0.62; P = .14 and HR, 0.91; P = .79, respectively).

“These data suggest that the significantly worse outcomes among patients who receive corticosteroids before immunotherapy are driven by the group of patients treated with corticosteroids for palliative oncologic symptom management, rather than by patients receiving corticosteroids for other reasons,” Dr. Ricciuti and coinvestigators wrote. “Corticosteroid use for cancer symptom management might simply correlate with patients who have adverse prognostic factors (e.g., brain metastases and poor performance status) rather than cause a clinically significant blunting of the response to [immune checkpoint inhibitors].

“Our data suggest that corticosteroids should not necessarily be decreased or discontinued before the start of immunotherapy out of a theoretical concern that corticosteroids could impair a response to immunotherapy,” the investigators concluded. “Additional mechanistic studies are needed to identify whether the use of corticosteroids affects specific aspects of the immune system necessary for immunotherapy activity.”

Dr. Ricciuti reported that he has no relevant conflicts of interest. The study did not receive any funding.

SOURCE: Ricciuti B et al. J Clin Oncol. 2019 Jun 17. doi: 10.1200/JCO.19.00189.

Giving steroids for indications other than cancer palliation doesn’t compromise the effectiveness of immunotherapy for advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), suggests a single-center retrospective cohort study.

The immunosuppressant activity of corticosteroids and recent reports linking them to poorer outcomes has raised concern about their use during immunotherapy, noted Biagio Ricciuti, MD, of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Harvard Medical School, Boston, and coinvestigators. But mechanisms underpinning this association are unclear.

The investigators studied 650 patients with NSCLC treated with immunotherapy targeting programmed death 1 (PD-1) or programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1), either as monotherapy or with other immunotherapy. Overall, 14.3% were receiving 10 mg or more of prednisone daily when they started the immunotherapy, a cutoff selected for study because it has been used an exclusion criterion for clinical trials.

Results reported in the Journal of Clinical Oncology showed that, compared with other patients, those who received 10 mg or more of steroids indeed had poorer median progression-free survival (2.0 vs. 3.4 months; P = .01) and overall survival (4.9 vs. 11.2 months; P less than .001).

However, when the indication for steroid therapy was considered, median progression-free survival was just 1.4 months among patients who received 10 mg or more prednisone for cancer-related palliation, compared with 4.6 months among patients who received 10 mg or more prednisone for cancer-unrelated reasons (for example, autoimmune disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease flare, hypersensitivity prophylaxis, or management of noncancer pain) and 3.4 months among patients who received 0-10 mg of prednisone (P less than .001 across groups).

Similarly, median overall survival was just 2.2 months among patients who received 10 mg or more prednisone for palliative indications, but 10.7 months among patients who received 10 mg or more prednisone for cancer-unrelated reasons and 11.2 months among patients who received less than 10 mg prednisone (P less than .001 across groups).

In a multivariate analysis that adjusted for performance status and PD-L1 positivity and that used patients receiving up to 10 mg prednisone as the comparator, patients receiving 10 mg or more for cancer palliation had a trend toward high risk of progression-free survival events and a higher risk of death (hazard ratio, 1.40; P less than .06 and HR, 1.60; P = .02, respectively). In contrast, patients receiving 10 mg or more for cancer-unrelated reasons did not have elevated risks (HR, 0.62; P = .14 and HR, 0.91; P = .79, respectively).

“These data suggest that the significantly worse outcomes among patients who receive corticosteroids before immunotherapy are driven by the group of patients treated with corticosteroids for palliative oncologic symptom management, rather than by patients receiving corticosteroids for other reasons,” Dr. Ricciuti and coinvestigators wrote. “Corticosteroid use for cancer symptom management might simply correlate with patients who have adverse prognostic factors (e.g., brain metastases and poor performance status) rather than cause a clinically significant blunting of the response to [immune checkpoint inhibitors].

“Our data suggest that corticosteroids should not necessarily be decreased or discontinued before the start of immunotherapy out of a theoretical concern that corticosteroids could impair a response to immunotherapy,” the investigators concluded. “Additional mechanistic studies are needed to identify whether the use of corticosteroids affects specific aspects of the immune system necessary for immunotherapy activity.”

Dr. Ricciuti reported that he has no relevant conflicts of interest. The study did not receive any funding.

SOURCE: Ricciuti B et al. J Clin Oncol. 2019 Jun 17. doi: 10.1200/JCO.19.00189.

Giving steroids for indications other than cancer palliation doesn’t compromise the effectiveness of immunotherapy for advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), suggests a single-center retrospective cohort study.

The immunosuppressant activity of corticosteroids and recent reports linking them to poorer outcomes has raised concern about their use during immunotherapy, noted Biagio Ricciuti, MD, of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Harvard Medical School, Boston, and coinvestigators. But mechanisms underpinning this association are unclear.

The investigators studied 650 patients with NSCLC treated with immunotherapy targeting programmed death 1 (PD-1) or programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1), either as monotherapy or with other immunotherapy. Overall, 14.3% were receiving 10 mg or more of prednisone daily when they started the immunotherapy, a cutoff selected for study because it has been used an exclusion criterion for clinical trials.

Results reported in the Journal of Clinical Oncology showed that, compared with other patients, those who received 10 mg or more of steroids indeed had poorer median progression-free survival (2.0 vs. 3.4 months; P = .01) and overall survival (4.9 vs. 11.2 months; P less than .001).

However, when the indication for steroid therapy was considered, median progression-free survival was just 1.4 months among patients who received 10 mg or more prednisone for cancer-related palliation, compared with 4.6 months among patients who received 10 mg or more prednisone for cancer-unrelated reasons (for example, autoimmune disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease flare, hypersensitivity prophylaxis, or management of noncancer pain) and 3.4 months among patients who received 0-10 mg of prednisone (P less than .001 across groups).

Similarly, median overall survival was just 2.2 months among patients who received 10 mg or more prednisone for palliative indications, but 10.7 months among patients who received 10 mg or more prednisone for cancer-unrelated reasons and 11.2 months among patients who received less than 10 mg prednisone (P less than .001 across groups).

In a multivariate analysis that adjusted for performance status and PD-L1 positivity and that used patients receiving up to 10 mg prednisone as the comparator, patients receiving 10 mg or more for cancer palliation had a trend toward high risk of progression-free survival events and a higher risk of death (hazard ratio, 1.40; P less than .06 and HR, 1.60; P = .02, respectively). In contrast, patients receiving 10 mg or more for cancer-unrelated reasons did not have elevated risks (HR, 0.62; P = .14 and HR, 0.91; P = .79, respectively).

“These data suggest that the significantly worse outcomes among patients who receive corticosteroids before immunotherapy are driven by the group of patients treated with corticosteroids for palliative oncologic symptom management, rather than by patients receiving corticosteroids for other reasons,” Dr. Ricciuti and coinvestigators wrote. “Corticosteroid use for cancer symptom management might simply correlate with patients who have adverse prognostic factors (e.g., brain metastases and poor performance status) rather than cause a clinically significant blunting of the response to [immune checkpoint inhibitors].

“Our data suggest that corticosteroids should not necessarily be decreased or discontinued before the start of immunotherapy out of a theoretical concern that corticosteroids could impair a response to immunotherapy,” the investigators concluded. “Additional mechanistic studies are needed to identify whether the use of corticosteroids affects specific aspects of the immune system necessary for immunotherapy activity.”

Dr. Ricciuti reported that he has no relevant conflicts of interest. The study did not receive any funding.

SOURCE: Ricciuti B et al. J Clin Oncol. 2019 Jun 17. doi: 10.1200/JCO.19.00189.

Neoadjuvant and adjuvant targeted therapy with erlotinib (Tarceva) may outperform standard chemotherapy in patients with locally advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) harboring an epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation, suggests the Chinese Thoracic Oncology Group’s EMERGING trial.

Investigators led by Wen-Zhao Zhong, MD, a professor at Guangdong Provincial People’s Hospital and Guangdong Academy of Medical Sciences, Guangzhou, China, enrolled 72 patients with stage IIIA-N2 EGFR-mutant NSCLC in the phase 2 randomized controlled trial. The patients were randomized to receive either erlotinib, an EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI), or the chemotherapy doublet of gemcitabine (Gemzar) and cisplatin as both neoadjuvant and adjuvant therapy.

Results reported in the Journal of Clinical Oncology showed that the objective response rate was 54.1% with neoadjuvant erlotinib (median, 42 days of therapy) versus 34.3% with neoadjuvant chemotherapy (with most patients receiving two cycles). However, the difference was not significant (odds ratio, 2.26; P = .092).

None of the patients in either arm achieved a pathologic complete response, but 9.7% in the erlotinib arm achieved a major pathologic response (less than 10% residual viable tumor cells) versus none of those in the chemotherapy arm.

With a median follow-up of 14.1 months, median progression-free survival was 21.5 months with erlotinib, nearly double the 11.4 months seen with chemotherapy (hazard ratio for events, 0.39; P less than .001). Overall survival did not differ significantly but was immature at the time of analysis.

Adverse events were largely as expected for each therapy. Incidence of grade 3 or 4 adverse events was 0% with erlotinib versus 29.4% with chemotherapy.

“These results suggest that biomarker-guided neoadjuvant/adjuvant EGFR-TKI treatment strategies in stage IIIA-N2 NSCLC are promising,” Dr. Zhong and colleagues wrote. “Our promising findings warrant additional investigation.”

“The optimal duration of neoadjuvant TKI also warrants additional investigation to validate the role of perioperative TKI therapy in oncogene-driven NSCLC,” they concluded. “Future studies should investigate the translational value of sequential plasma and tissue samples in a neoadjuvant setting using multiomics-based assays to identify predictive characteristics of patients who would benefit from neoadjuvant targeted therapies and predict prognosis.”

Dr. Zhong disclosed receiving honoraria from AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Roche, and Sanofi. The trial was supported by the Chinese Thoracic Oncology Group and Shanghai Roche Pharmaceutical.

SOURCE: Zhong W-Z et al. J Clin Oncol. 2019 June 13. doi: 10.1200/JCO.19.00075.

Neoadjuvant and adjuvant targeted therapy with erlotinib (Tarceva) may outperform standard chemotherapy in patients with locally advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) harboring an epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation, suggests the Chinese Thoracic Oncology Group’s EMERGING trial.

Investigators led by Wen-Zhao Zhong, MD, a professor at Guangdong Provincial People’s Hospital and Guangdong Academy of Medical Sciences, Guangzhou, China, enrolled 72 patients with stage IIIA-N2 EGFR-mutant NSCLC in the phase 2 randomized controlled trial. The patients were randomized to receive either erlotinib, an EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI), or the chemotherapy doublet of gemcitabine (Gemzar) and cisplatin as both neoadjuvant and adjuvant therapy.

Results reported in the Journal of Clinical Oncology showed that the objective response rate was 54.1% with neoadjuvant erlotinib (median, 42 days of therapy) versus 34.3% with neoadjuvant chemotherapy (with most patients receiving two cycles). However, the difference was not significant (odds ratio, 2.26; P = .092).

None of the patients in either arm achieved a pathologic complete response, but 9.7% in the erlotinib arm achieved a major pathologic response (less than 10% residual viable tumor cells) versus none of those in the chemotherapy arm.

With a median follow-up of 14.1 months, median progression-free survival was 21.5 months with erlotinib, nearly double the 11.4 months seen with chemotherapy (hazard ratio for events, 0.39; P less than .001). Overall survival did not differ significantly but was immature at the time of analysis.

Adverse events were largely as expected for each therapy. Incidence of grade 3 or 4 adverse events was 0% with erlotinib versus 29.4% with chemotherapy.

“These results suggest that biomarker-guided neoadjuvant/adjuvant EGFR-TKI treatment strategies in stage IIIA-N2 NSCLC are promising,” Dr. Zhong and colleagues wrote. “Our promising findings warrant additional investigation.”

“The optimal duration of neoadjuvant TKI also warrants additional investigation to validate the role of perioperative TKI therapy in oncogene-driven NSCLC,” they concluded. “Future studies should investigate the translational value of sequential plasma and tissue samples in a neoadjuvant setting using multiomics-based assays to identify predictive characteristics of patients who would benefit from neoadjuvant targeted therapies and predict prognosis.”

Dr. Zhong disclosed receiving honoraria from AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Roche, and Sanofi. The trial was supported by the Chinese Thoracic Oncology Group and Shanghai Roche Pharmaceutical.

SOURCE: Zhong W-Z et al. J Clin Oncol. 2019 June 13. doi: 10.1200/JCO.19.00075.

Neoadjuvant and adjuvant targeted therapy with erlotinib (Tarceva) may outperform standard chemotherapy in patients with locally advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) harboring an epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation, suggests the Chinese Thoracic Oncology Group’s EMERGING trial.

Investigators led by Wen-Zhao Zhong, MD, a professor at Guangdong Provincial People’s Hospital and Guangdong Academy of Medical Sciences, Guangzhou, China, enrolled 72 patients with stage IIIA-N2 EGFR-mutant NSCLC in the phase 2 randomized controlled trial. The patients were randomized to receive either erlotinib, an EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI), or the chemotherapy doublet of gemcitabine (Gemzar) and cisplatin as both neoadjuvant and adjuvant therapy.

Results reported in the Journal of Clinical Oncology showed that the objective response rate was 54.1% with neoadjuvant erlotinib (median, 42 days of therapy) versus 34.3% with neoadjuvant chemotherapy (with most patients receiving two cycles). However, the difference was not significant (odds ratio, 2.26; P = .092).

None of the patients in either arm achieved a pathologic complete response, but 9.7% in the erlotinib arm achieved a major pathologic response (less than 10% residual viable tumor cells) versus none of those in the chemotherapy arm.

With a median follow-up of 14.1 months, median progression-free survival was 21.5 months with erlotinib, nearly double the 11.4 months seen with chemotherapy (hazard ratio for events, 0.39; P less than .001). Overall survival did not differ significantly but was immature at the time of analysis.

Adverse events were largely as expected for each therapy. Incidence of grade 3 or 4 adverse events was 0% with erlotinib versus 29.4% with chemotherapy.

“These results suggest that biomarker-guided neoadjuvant/adjuvant EGFR-TKI treatment strategies in stage IIIA-N2 NSCLC are promising,” Dr. Zhong and colleagues wrote. “Our promising findings warrant additional investigation.”

“The optimal duration of neoadjuvant TKI also warrants additional investigation to validate the role of perioperative TKI therapy in oncogene-driven NSCLC,” they concluded. “Future studies should investigate the translational value of sequential plasma and tissue samples in a neoadjuvant setting using multiomics-based assays to identify predictive characteristics of patients who would benefit from neoadjuvant targeted therapies and predict prognosis.”

Dr. Zhong disclosed receiving honoraria from AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Roche, and Sanofi. The trial was supported by the Chinese Thoracic Oncology Group and Shanghai Roche Pharmaceutical.

SOURCE: Zhong W-Z et al. J Clin Oncol. 2019 June 13. doi: 10.1200/JCO.19.00075.

MILAN – Patients on checkpoint inhibitors who experience both dermatologic and gastrointestinal side effects may be at increased risk of further immune-related adverse events, even though they may have better odds of a favorable outcome on the cancer treatment, results of a study presented at the World Congress of Dermatology suggest.

Andrew Bowser/MDedge News

The co-occurrence of dermatologic and gastrointestinal immune-related adverse events (irAEs), which was usually seen early in the course of treatment, was independently associated with favorable progression-free and overall survival in this study, said Gabriel E. Molina, a medical student at Harvard Medical School, Boston.

Compared with patients with colitis alone, those patients who had both immune checkpoint inhibitor-induced rash and colitis were at significantly increased risk of additional irAEs affecting other organ systems, according to Mr. Molina. As a result, patients with both dermatologic and gastrointestinal irAEs may warrant earlier or closer monitoring, and need prompt referral to specialty care at first sign of emerging toxicity.

“We are really excited by the possibility that this co-occurrence of rash and colitis may be a unique and early clinical marker of both high-risk irAE patients and favorable treatment response,” Mr. Molina said.

The single-center, retrospective cohort study reported by Mr. Molina included 67 patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors who subsequently developed colitis. Of that group, 28 (or about 42%) also had a rash induced by that treatment.

The median time from starting treatment to onset of rash was 32.5 days, according to this report. Median onset of gastrointestinal toxicity was roughly similar between the patients who also had rash, at 73 days, as compared with patients who did not have rash, at 64 days. Most rashes were grade 1-2 in severity, and were treated with topical corticosteroids in 50% of cases or with nothing at all in 43%, according to the report.

The odds of developing an additional irAE such as hepatitis or hypophysitis was 18.5 times higher in the patients who had rash and colitis as compared with those with colitis only, the researchers also found.

In multivariate analysis, the patients with both rash and colitis had longer progression-free survival (hazard ratio, 0.37; 95% confidence interval, 0.17-0.80; P = .012) and overall survival (HR, 0.20; 95% CI, 0.05-0.83; P = .026), as compared with those with just colitis, Mr. Molina reported.

This isn’t the first study to show that the occurrence of an irAE foreshadows a better prognosis. “One promising observation that has consistently emerged in the literature is that cancer patients who develop these toxicities may actually have better oncologic outcomes than those who don’t,” Mr. Molina said.

Harvard now has a multidisciplinary group, including a dermatologist, dedicated to evaluating irAEs, he said. To date, however, a minority of patients are being referred, at which point, the dermatologic toxicity may be quite severe. “There’s this belief – which is generally true – that the rashes are mild and can be treated with topical steroids. So there’s often a delay before they see us.”

While larger studies are needed to validate the findings, just tallying up toxicities isn’t going far enough, according to the investigator.

“Our ultimate goal is to bridge the translational research gap, and to use thoughtful specimen collection to one day identify, ideally at the individualized level, the irAE risk level of the patient as soon as they start their immune checkpoint inhibitor, and then reprognosticate them each time they present with a new toxicity,” Mr. Molina said.

Mr. Molina reported no conflicts of interest.

MILAN – Patients on checkpoint inhibitors who experience both dermatologic and gastrointestinal side effects may be at increased risk of further immune-related adverse events, even though they may have better odds of a favorable outcome on the cancer treatment, results of a study presented at the World Congress of Dermatology suggest.

Andrew Bowser/MDedge News

The co-occurrence of dermatologic and gastrointestinal immune-related adverse events (irAEs), which was usually seen early in the course of treatment, was independently associated with favorable progression-free and overall survival in this study, said Gabriel E. Molina, a medical student at Harvard Medical School, Boston.

Compared with patients with colitis alone, those patients who had both immune checkpoint inhibitor-induced rash and colitis were at significantly increased risk of additional irAEs affecting other organ systems, according to Mr. Molina. As a result, patients with both dermatologic and gastrointestinal irAEs may warrant earlier or closer monitoring, and need prompt referral to specialty care at first sign of emerging toxicity.

“We are really excited by the possibility that this co-occurrence of rash and colitis may be a unique and early clinical marker of both high-risk irAE patients and favorable treatment response,” Mr. Molina said.

The single-center, retrospective cohort study reported by Mr. Molina included 67 patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors who subsequently developed colitis. Of that group, 28 (or about 42%) also had a rash induced by that treatment.

The median time from starting treatment to onset of rash was 32.5 days, according to this report. Median onset of gastrointestinal toxicity was roughly similar between the patients who also had rash, at 73 days, as compared with patients who did not have rash, at 64 days. Most rashes were grade 1-2 in severity, and were treated with topical corticosteroids in 50% of cases or with nothing at all in 43%, according to the report.

The odds of developing an additional irAE such as hepatitis or hypophysitis was 18.5 times higher in the patients who had rash and colitis as compared with those with colitis only, the researchers also found.

In multivariate analysis, the patients with both rash and colitis had longer progression-free survival (hazard ratio, 0.37; 95% confidence interval, 0.17-0.80; P = .012) and overall survival (HR, 0.20; 95% CI, 0.05-0.83; P = .026), as compared with those with just colitis, Mr. Molina reported.

This isn’t the first study to show that the occurrence of an irAE foreshadows a better prognosis. “One promising observation that has consistently emerged in the literature is that cancer patients who develop these toxicities may actually have better oncologic outcomes than those who don’t,” Mr. Molina said.

Harvard now has a multidisciplinary group, including a dermatologist, dedicated to evaluating irAEs, he said. To date, however, a minority of patients are being referred, at which point, the dermatologic toxicity may be quite severe. “There’s this belief – which is generally true – that the rashes are mild and can be treated with topical steroids. So there’s often a delay before they see us.”

While larger studies are needed to validate the findings, just tallying up toxicities isn’t going far enough, according to the investigator.

“Our ultimate goal is to bridge the translational research gap, and to use thoughtful specimen collection to one day identify, ideally at the individualized level, the irAE risk level of the patient as soon as they start their immune checkpoint inhibitor, and then reprognosticate them each time they present with a new toxicity,” Mr. Molina said.

Mr. Molina reported no conflicts of interest.

MILAN – Patients on checkpoint inhibitors who experience both dermatologic and gastrointestinal side effects may be at increased risk of further immune-related adverse events, even though they may have better odds of a favorable outcome on the cancer treatment, results of a study presented at the World Congress of Dermatology suggest.

Andrew Bowser/MDedge News

The co-occurrence of dermatologic and gastrointestinal immune-related adverse events (irAEs), which was usually seen early in the course of treatment, was independently associated with favorable progression-free and overall survival in this study, said Gabriel E. Molina, a medical student at Harvard Medical School, Boston.

Compared with patients with colitis alone, those patients who had both immune checkpoint inhibitor-induced rash and colitis were at significantly increased risk of additional irAEs affecting other organ systems, according to Mr. Molina. As a result, patients with both dermatologic and gastrointestinal irAEs may warrant earlier or closer monitoring, and need prompt referral to specialty care at first sign of emerging toxicity.

“We are really excited by the possibility that this co-occurrence of rash and colitis may be a unique and early clinical marker of both high-risk irAE patients and favorable treatment response,” Mr. Molina said.

The single-center, retrospective cohort study reported by Mr. Molina included 67 patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors who subsequently developed colitis. Of that group, 28 (or about 42%) also had a rash induced by that treatment.

The median time from starting treatment to onset of rash was 32.5 days, according to this report. Median onset of gastrointestinal toxicity was roughly similar between the patients who also had rash, at 73 days, as compared with patients who did not have rash, at 64 days. Most rashes were grade 1-2 in severity, and were treated with topical corticosteroids in 50% of cases or with nothing at all in 43%, according to the report.

The odds of developing an additional irAE such as hepatitis or hypophysitis was 18.5 times higher in the patients who had rash and colitis as compared with those with colitis only, the researchers also found.

In multivariate analysis, the patients with both rash and colitis had longer progression-free survival (hazard ratio, 0.37; 95% confidence interval, 0.17-0.80; P = .012) and overall survival (HR, 0.20; 95% CI, 0.05-0.83; P = .026), as compared with those with just colitis, Mr. Molina reported.

This isn’t the first study to show that the occurrence of an irAE foreshadows a better prognosis. “One promising observation that has consistently emerged in the literature is that cancer patients who develop these toxicities may actually have better oncologic outcomes than those who don’t,” Mr. Molina said.

Harvard now has a multidisciplinary group, including a dermatologist, dedicated to evaluating irAEs, he said. To date, however, a minority of patients are being referred, at which point, the dermatologic toxicity may be quite severe. “There’s this belief – which is generally true – that the rashes are mild and can be treated with topical steroids. So there’s often a delay before they see us.”

While larger studies are needed to validate the findings, just tallying up toxicities isn’t going far enough, according to the investigator.

“Our ultimate goal is to bridge the translational research gap, and to use thoughtful specimen collection to one day identify, ideally at the individualized level, the irAE risk level of the patient as soon as they start their immune checkpoint inhibitor, and then reprognosticate them each time they present with a new toxicity,” Mr. Molina said.

Mr. Molina reported no conflicts of interest.

MADRID – EULAR has issued recommendations to help rheumatologists address the increasingly common clinical issue of diagnosing and managing rheumatic-related adverse events associated with cancer immunotherapy.

Gianluca Colla

“The rheumatic adverse events associated with immunotherapy represent a spectrum of new clinical entities, and they are challenging because they can be difficult to control while attempting to preserve the antitumor effects of oncological drugs,” Marie Kostine, MD, of the Centre Universitaire Hospitalier, Bordeaux, France, explained at the European Congress of Rheumatology.

The recommendations were drawn from the deliberations of an expert task force that identified the clinical issues to address and then developed a consensus about best practice recommendations. In addition to rheumatologists with expertise in this field, the task force included oncologists, allied health personnel, and two patient representatives.

The recommendations include four overarching principles and 10 recommendations.

“One of the overarching principles regards the importance of shared decision making between rheumatologists, oncologists, and patients,” Dr. Kostine said. Because of the expertise of rheumatologists in employing immunomodulatory therapies as they pertain to inflammation of the joints, the recommendations emphasize the value of their collaboration in clinical decisions.

The recommendations address patient referral, the assessment of preexisting rheumatic conditions, diagnosis, and therapeutic strategies.

“Rheumatologists should make themselves aware of the wide spectrum of potential clinical presentations of rheumatic adverse events following the initiation of immunotherapy,” Dr. Kostine said. While rheumatoid arthritis–like symptoms are common, the immune activation produced by checkpoint inhibitors and other immunotherapies can affect nearly every organ in the body, which includes diverse involvement of joint tissues.

In addition to joint pain, which has occurred in up to 40% of patients receiving a checkpoint inhibitor in some series, rheumatology-related events can include vasculitis, systemic sclerosis, and lupus. When associated with immunotherapy, these events sometimes develop in the absence of inflammatory markers or autoantibodies.

The new consensus guidelines emphasize that glucocorticoids can be “considered” to control rheumatic-related adverse events despite their immunosuppressive effect. However, because of their potential to attenuate the benefit of immune activation for treatment of the oncologic disease, such drugs, if used, “should be tapered to the lowest effective dose.”

The consensus recommendations were based on an extensive literature review, but Dr. Kostine acknowledged that prospective studies regarding the best practices for managing rheumatic-related adverse events of immunotherapies remain limited. She suggested that this knowledge gap was one reason for creating an expert task force.

“There has been an immunotherapy revolution, such that rheumatologists who have not yet seen these adverse events soon will,” said Dr. Kostine, noting that the number of approved immunotherapies and their clinical indications have been increasing rapidly.

The EULAR recommendations were created specifically for rheumatologists. In addition to guiding them toward best practice, the report from the task force provides background on the clinical issues raised by therapies that cause inflammatory side effects while stimulating immune function to treat malignancy.

SOURCE: Ann Rheum Dis. Jun 2019;78(Suppl 2):158.

MADRID – EULAR has issued recommendations to help rheumatologists address the increasingly common clinical issue of diagnosing and managing rheumatic-related adverse events associated with cancer immunotherapy.

Gianluca Colla

“The rheumatic adverse events associated with immunotherapy represent a spectrum of new clinical entities, and they are challenging because they can be difficult to control while attempting to preserve the antitumor effects of oncological drugs,” Marie Kostine, MD, of the Centre Universitaire Hospitalier, Bordeaux, France, explained at the European Congress of Rheumatology.

The recommendations were drawn from the deliberations of an expert task force that identified the clinical issues to address and then developed a consensus about best practice recommendations. In addition to rheumatologists with expertise in this field, the task force included oncologists, allied health personnel, and two patient representatives.

The recommendations include four overarching principles and 10 recommendations.

“One of the overarching principles regards the importance of shared decision making between rheumatologists, oncologists, and patients,” Dr. Kostine said. Because of the expertise of rheumatologists in employing immunomodulatory therapies as they pertain to inflammation of the joints, the recommendations emphasize the value of their collaboration in clinical decisions.

The recommendations address patient referral, the assessment of preexisting rheumatic conditions, diagnosis, and therapeutic strategies.

“Rheumatologists should make themselves aware of the wide spectrum of potential clinical presentations of rheumatic adverse events following the initiation of immunotherapy,” Dr. Kostine said. While rheumatoid arthritis–like symptoms are common, the immune activation produced by checkpoint inhibitors and other immunotherapies can affect nearly every organ in the body, which includes diverse involvement of joint tissues.

In addition to joint pain, which has occurred in up to 40% of patients receiving a checkpoint inhibitor in some series, rheumatology-related events can include vasculitis, systemic sclerosis, and lupus. When associated with immunotherapy, these events sometimes develop in the absence of inflammatory markers or autoantibodies.

The new consensus guidelines emphasize that glucocorticoids can be “considered” to control rheumatic-related adverse events despite their immunosuppressive effect. However, because of their potential to attenuate the benefit of immune activation for treatment of the oncologic disease, such drugs, if used, “should be tapered to the lowest effective dose.”

The consensus recommendations were based on an extensive literature review, but Dr. Kostine acknowledged that prospective studies regarding the best practices for managing rheumatic-related adverse events of immunotherapies remain limited. She suggested that this knowledge gap was one reason for creating an expert task force.

“There has been an immunotherapy revolution, such that rheumatologists who have not yet seen these adverse events soon will,” said Dr. Kostine, noting that the number of approved immunotherapies and their clinical indications have been increasing rapidly.

The EULAR recommendations were created specifically for rheumatologists. In addition to guiding them toward best practice, the report from the task force provides background on the clinical issues raised by therapies that cause inflammatory side effects while stimulating immune function to treat malignancy.

SOURCE: Ann Rheum Dis. Jun 2019;78(Suppl 2):158.

MADRID – EULAR has issued recommendations to help rheumatologists address the increasingly common clinical issue of diagnosing and managing rheumatic-related adverse events associated with cancer immunotherapy.

Gianluca Colla

“The rheumatic adverse events associated with immunotherapy represent a spectrum of new clinical entities, and they are challenging because they can be difficult to control while attempting to preserve the antitumor effects of oncological drugs,” Marie Kostine, MD, of the Centre Universitaire Hospitalier, Bordeaux, France, explained at the European Congress of Rheumatology.

The recommendations were drawn from the deliberations of an expert task force that identified the clinical issues to address and then developed a consensus about best practice recommendations. In addition to rheumatologists with expertise in this field, the task force included oncologists, allied health personnel, and two patient representatives.

The recommendations include four overarching principles and 10 recommendations.

“One of the overarching principles regards the importance of shared decision making between rheumatologists, oncologists, and patients,” Dr. Kostine said. Because of the expertise of rheumatologists in employing immunomodulatory therapies as they pertain to inflammation of the joints, the recommendations emphasize the value of their collaboration in clinical decisions.

The recommendations address patient referral, the assessment of preexisting rheumatic conditions, diagnosis, and therapeutic strategies.

“Rheumatologists should make themselves aware of the wide spectrum of potential clinical presentations of rheumatic adverse events following the initiation of immunotherapy,” Dr. Kostine said. While rheumatoid arthritis–like symptoms are common, the immune activation produced by checkpoint inhibitors and other immunotherapies can affect nearly every organ in the body, which includes diverse involvement of joint tissues.

In addition to joint pain, which has occurred in up to 40% of patients receiving a checkpoint inhibitor in some series, rheumatology-related events can include vasculitis, systemic sclerosis, and lupus. When associated with immunotherapy, these events sometimes develop in the absence of inflammatory markers or autoantibodies.

The new consensus guidelines emphasize that glucocorticoids can be “considered” to control rheumatic-related adverse events despite their immunosuppressive effect. However, because of their potential to attenuate the benefit of immune activation for treatment of the oncologic disease, such drugs, if used, “should be tapered to the lowest effective dose.”

The consensus recommendations were based on an extensive literature review, but Dr. Kostine acknowledged that prospective studies regarding the best practices for managing rheumatic-related adverse events of immunotherapies remain limited. She suggested that this knowledge gap was one reason for creating an expert task force.

“There has been an immunotherapy revolution, such that rheumatologists who have not yet seen these adverse events soon will,” said Dr. Kostine, noting that the number of approved immunotherapies and their clinical indications have been increasing rapidly.

The EULAR recommendations were created specifically for rheumatologists. In addition to guiding them toward best practice, the report from the task force provides background on the clinical issues raised by therapies that cause inflammatory side effects while stimulating immune function to treat malignancy.

SOURCE: Ann Rheum Dis. Jun 2019;78(Suppl 2):158.

CHICAGO – Lenalidomide plus rituximab (R²) demonstrated activity against relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma (FL) and marginal zone lymphoma (MZL) in the phase 3b MAGNIFY trial.

Jennifer Smith/MDedge News

R² produced responses in FL and MZL patients, including those who had previously experienced early relapse and patients who were refractory to rituximab or both lenalidomide and rituximab at baseline.

David Jacob Andorsky, MD, of Rocky Mountain Cancer Centers in Boulder, Colo., and colleagues presented these results in a poster at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

The ongoing MAGNIFY trial has enrolled 370 patients with relapsed/refractory FL (grade 1-3a) or MZL.

For induction, patients receive lenalidomide (20 mg per day on days 1-21 for 12 cycles) and rituximab (375 mg/m² per week in cycle 1 and then on day 1 of cycles 3, 5, 7, 9, and 11). Patients who achieve stable disease or better on R² induction are randomized to maintenance with R² or rituximab alone.

Dr. Andorsky and colleagues presented results of R² induction in 310 evaluable patients – 247 with FL and 63 with MZL.

The patients had a median age of 66 years (range, 35-91 years) at baseline, and they had received a median of two prior therapies (range, one to eight). Some patients had experienced early relapse (37%, n = 115), were refractory to rituximab (36%, n = 113), or were refractory to both rituximab and lenalidomide (20%, n = 63) at baseline.

Results

At a median follow-up of 16.7 months, the overall response rate was 73%, and the complete response rate was 45%. The overall response rate was 74% in FL patients, 65% in MZL patients, 63% in rituximab-refractory patients, 51% in double-refractory patients, and 68% in patients with an early relapse.

The median duration of response was 36.8 months in all patients, 35.8 months in MZL patients, and not reached in FL patients. The median duration of response was 35.8 months in patients who were rituximab refractory and was not reached in patients who were not refractory to rituximab.

The median progression-free survival was 36 months overall, 30 months in FL patients, 38 months in MZL patients, 23 months in patients with early relapse, and 15.5 months in double-refractory patients.

“While these [subgroup analyses of efficacy] were exploratory endpoints, I think this suggests that [R²] is a promising regimen for patients that are in the high-risk subgroup,” said Carla Casulo, MD, of the University of Rochester (N.Y.), who reviewed this study in a poster discussion session.

The most common adverse events in this trial were fatigue (48%), neutropenia (40%), diarrhea (35%), nausea (30%), and constipation (29%). The most common grade 3/4 adverse event was neutropenia (34%).

The MAGNIFY trial is sponsored by Celgene. Dr. Andorsky reported financial relationships with Celgene, CTI BioPharma, and Gilead Sciences. Dr. Casulo reported financial relationships with Gilead Sciences, Celgene, and Roche.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Andorsky DJ et al. ASCO 2019, Abstract 7513.

CHICAGO – Lenalidomide plus rituximab (R²) demonstrated activity against relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma (FL) and marginal zone lymphoma (MZL) in the phase 3b MAGNIFY trial.

Jennifer Smith/MDedge News

R² produced responses in FL and MZL patients, including those who had previously experienced early relapse and patients who were refractory to rituximab or both lenalidomide and rituximab at baseline.

David Jacob Andorsky, MD, of Rocky Mountain Cancer Centers in Boulder, Colo., and colleagues presented these results in a poster at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

The ongoing MAGNIFY trial has enrolled 370 patients with relapsed/refractory FL (grade 1-3a) or MZL.

For induction, patients receive lenalidomide (20 mg per day on days 1-21 for 12 cycles) and rituximab (375 mg/m² per week in cycle 1 and then on day 1 of cycles 3, 5, 7, 9, and 11). Patients who achieve stable disease or better on R² induction are randomized to maintenance with R² or rituximab alone.

Dr. Andorsky and colleagues presented results of R² induction in 310 evaluable patients – 247 with FL and 63 with MZL.

The patients had a median age of 66 years (range, 35-91 years) at baseline, and they had received a median of two prior therapies (range, one to eight). Some patients had experienced early relapse (37%, n = 115), were refractory to rituximab (36%, n = 113), or were refractory to both rituximab and lenalidomide (20%, n = 63) at baseline.

Results

At a median follow-up of 16.7 months, the overall response rate was 73%, and the complete response rate was 45%. The overall response rate was 74% in FL patients, 65% in MZL patients, 63% in rituximab-refractory patients, 51% in double-refractory patients, and 68% in patients with an early relapse.

The median duration of response was 36.8 months in all patients, 35.8 months in MZL patients, and not reached in FL patients. The median duration of response was 35.8 months in patients who were rituximab refractory and was not reached in patients who were not refractory to rituximab.

The median progression-free survival was 36 months overall, 30 months in FL patients, 38 months in MZL patients, 23 months in patients with early relapse, and 15.5 months in double-refractory patients.

“While these [subgroup analyses of efficacy] were exploratory endpoints, I think this suggests that [R²] is a promising regimen for patients that are in the high-risk subgroup,” said Carla Casulo, MD, of the University of Rochester (N.Y.), who reviewed this study in a poster discussion session.

The most common adverse events in this trial were fatigue (48%), neutropenia (40%), diarrhea (35%), nausea (30%), and constipation (29%). The most common grade 3/4 adverse event was neutropenia (34%).

The MAGNIFY trial is sponsored by Celgene. Dr. Andorsky reported financial relationships with Celgene, CTI BioPharma, and Gilead Sciences. Dr. Casulo reported financial relationships with Gilead Sciences, Celgene, and Roche.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Andorsky DJ et al. ASCO 2019, Abstract 7513.

CHICAGO – Lenalidomide plus rituximab (R²) demonstrated activity against relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma (FL) and marginal zone lymphoma (MZL) in the phase 3b MAGNIFY trial.

Jennifer Smith/MDedge News

R² produced responses in FL and MZL patients, including those who had previously experienced early relapse and patients who were refractory to rituximab or both lenalidomide and rituximab at baseline.

David Jacob Andorsky, MD, of Rocky Mountain Cancer Centers in Boulder, Colo., and colleagues presented these results in a poster at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

The ongoing MAGNIFY trial has enrolled 370 patients with relapsed/refractory FL (grade 1-3a) or MZL.

For induction, patients receive lenalidomide (20 mg per day on days 1-21 for 12 cycles) and rituximab (375 mg/m² per week in cycle 1 and then on day 1 of cycles 3, 5, 7, 9, and 11). Patients who achieve stable disease or better on R² induction are randomized to maintenance with R² or rituximab alone.

Dr. Andorsky and colleagues presented results of R² induction in 310 evaluable patients – 247 with FL and 63 with MZL.

The patients had a median age of 66 years (range, 35-91 years) at baseline, and they had received a median of two prior therapies (range, one to eight). Some patients had experienced early relapse (37%, n = 115), were refractory to rituximab (36%, n = 113), or were refractory to both rituximab and lenalidomide (20%, n = 63) at baseline.

Results

At a median follow-up of 16.7 months, the overall response rate was 73%, and the complete response rate was 45%. The overall response rate was 74% in FL patients, 65% in MZL patients, 63% in rituximab-refractory patients, 51% in double-refractory patients, and 68% in patients with an early relapse.

The median duration of response was 36.8 months in all patients, 35.8 months in MZL patients, and not reached in FL patients. The median duration of response was 35.8 months in patients who were rituximab refractory and was not reached in patients who were not refractory to rituximab.

The median progression-free survival was 36 months overall, 30 months in FL patients, 38 months in MZL patients, 23 months in patients with early relapse, and 15.5 months in double-refractory patients.

“While these [subgroup analyses of efficacy] were exploratory endpoints, I think this suggests that [R²] is a promising regimen for patients that are in the high-risk subgroup,” said Carla Casulo, MD, of the University of Rochester (N.Y.), who reviewed this study in a poster discussion session.

The most common adverse events in this trial were fatigue (48%), neutropenia (40%), diarrhea (35%), nausea (30%), and constipation (29%). The most common grade 3/4 adverse event was neutropenia (34%).

The MAGNIFY trial is sponsored by Celgene. Dr. Andorsky reported financial relationships with Celgene, CTI BioPharma, and Gilead Sciences. Dr. Casulo reported financial relationships with Gilead Sciences, Celgene, and Roche.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Andorsky DJ et al. ASCO 2019, Abstract 7513.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved Amgen’s trastuzumab-anns as a trastuzumab biosimilar for the treatment of HER2-positive breast cancer and gastric cancer.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

This biosimilar, to be marketed as Kanjinti, is the fifth trastuzumab biosimilar to be approved by the agency, according to the FDA.

Approval was based in part on the LILAC study, which demonstrated that the biosimilar, previously called ABP-980, had similar efficacy and comparable cardiac safety with trastuzumab.

In the phase 3 study, 725 patients with HER2-positive early breast cancer were randomized to neoadjuvant treatment with trastuzumab-anns or trastuzumab, plus paclitaxel, for four cycles following four cycles of chemotherapy. The primary pathological complete response endpoint was achieved in 48% of those in the biosimilar arm, compared with 40.5% in the trastuzumab arm. Patients then went on to receive adjuvant treatment with ABP 980 or trastuzumab every 3 weeks for up to 1 year following surgery.

Grade 3 or worse adverse events during the neoadjuvant phase occurred in 15% of patients in the ABP 980 group and 14% in the trastuzumab group. The most frequent grade 3 event in both study arms was neutropenia. In the adjuvant phase, grade 3 or worse adverse events occurred in 9% of those continuing ABP 980 and in 6% of those continuing trastuzumab. The most frequent events in both arms were infections, infestations, and neutropenia.

Trastuzumab-anns is indicated for adjuvant treatment of HER2-overexpressing node positive or node negative breast cancer, first-line treatment of HER2-overexpressing metastatic breast cancer, and first-line treatment of patients with HER2-overexpressing metastatic gastric or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma. The FDA indicates patients should be selected based on an FDA-approved companion diagnostic for a trastuzumab product.

The biosimilar includes a boxed warning for cardiomyopathy, infusion reactions, embryo-fetal toxicity, and pulmonary toxicity.

[email protected]

The Food and Drug Administration has approved Amgen’s trastuzumab-anns as a trastuzumab biosimilar for the treatment of HER2-positive breast cancer and gastric cancer.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

This biosimilar, to be marketed as Kanjinti, is the fifth trastuzumab biosimilar to be approved by the agency, according to the FDA.

Approval was based in part on the LILAC study, which demonstrated that the biosimilar, previously called ABP-980, had similar efficacy and comparable cardiac safety with trastuzumab.

In the phase 3 study, 725 patients with HER2-positive early breast cancer were randomized to neoadjuvant treatment with trastuzumab-anns or trastuzumab, plus paclitaxel, for four cycles following four cycles of chemotherapy. The primary pathological complete response endpoint was achieved in 48% of those in the biosimilar arm, compared with 40.5% in the trastuzumab arm. Patients then went on to receive adjuvant treatment with ABP 980 or trastuzumab every 3 weeks for up to 1 year following surgery.

Grade 3 or worse adverse events during the neoadjuvant phase occurred in 15% of patients in the ABP 980 group and 14% in the trastuzumab group. The most frequent grade 3 event in both study arms was neutropenia. In the adjuvant phase, grade 3 or worse adverse events occurred in 9% of those continuing ABP 980 and in 6% of those continuing trastuzumab. The most frequent events in both arms were infections, infestations, and neutropenia.

Trastuzumab-anns is indicated for adjuvant treatment of HER2-overexpressing node positive or node negative breast cancer, first-line treatment of HER2-overexpressing metastatic breast cancer, and first-line treatment of patients with HER2-overexpressing metastatic gastric or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma. The FDA indicates patients should be selected based on an FDA-approved companion diagnostic for a trastuzumab product.

The biosimilar includes a boxed warning for cardiomyopathy, infusion reactions, embryo-fetal toxicity, and pulmonary toxicity.

[email protected]

The Food and Drug Administration has approved Amgen’s trastuzumab-anns as a trastuzumab biosimilar for the treatment of HER2-positive breast cancer and gastric cancer.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

This biosimilar, to be marketed as Kanjinti, is the fifth trastuzumab biosimilar to be approved by the agency, according to the FDA.

Approval was based in part on the LILAC study, which demonstrated that the biosimilar, previously called ABP-980, had similar efficacy and comparable cardiac safety with trastuzumab.

In the phase 3 study, 725 patients with HER2-positive early breast cancer were randomized to neoadjuvant treatment with trastuzumab-anns or trastuzumab, plus paclitaxel, for four cycles following four cycles of chemotherapy. The primary pathological complete response endpoint was achieved in 48% of those in the biosimilar arm, compared with 40.5% in the trastuzumab arm. Patients then went on to receive adjuvant treatment with ABP 980 or trastuzumab every 3 weeks for up to 1 year following surgery.

Grade 3 or worse adverse events during the neoadjuvant phase occurred in 15% of patients in the ABP 980 group and 14% in the trastuzumab group. The most frequent grade 3 event in both study arms was neutropenia. In the adjuvant phase, grade 3 or worse adverse events occurred in 9% of those continuing ABP 980 and in 6% of those continuing trastuzumab. The most frequent events in both arms were infections, infestations, and neutropenia.

Trastuzumab-anns is indicated for adjuvant treatment of HER2-overexpressing node positive or node negative breast cancer, first-line treatment of HER2-overexpressing metastatic breast cancer, and first-line treatment of patients with HER2-overexpressing metastatic gastric or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma. The FDA indicates patients should be selected based on an FDA-approved companion diagnostic for a trastuzumab product.

The biosimilar includes a boxed warning for cardiomyopathy, infusion reactions, embryo-fetal toxicity, and pulmonary toxicity.

[email protected]

SAN FRANCISCO – Women with breast cancer faced an adjusted 23% higher risk of developing diabetes during the 5 years after their diagnosis, a new Danish study finds.

Randy Dotinga/MDedge News

The findings are “quite a clear signal of increased diabetes following breast cancer,” said epidemiologist and study coauthor Reimar W. Thomsen, MD, PhD, of Aarhus (Denmark) University Hospital, in an interview. “It’s very important to tell [patients with breast cancer] what they may expect in the long term.”

He spoke at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association, where he presented the study findings.

Much of the research into links between breast cancer and diabetes has focused on whether diabetes is a risk factor for breast cancer, and not the other way around. A 2018 meta-analysis of 18 studies found a slightly higher risk of breast cancer in women with diabetes (summary relative risk, 1.13; 95% confidence interval, 1.04-1.24). However, the researchers found evidence that the risk factor might be adiposity, and not diabetes itself (Diabetes. 2018 Jul;67[Supplement 1]. doi: 10.2337/db18-180-OR).

For the new study, researchers used health registries to track women in Denmark for up to 12 years, during 2005-2016. They compared 33,909 women who were older than 50 years and who had new-onset breast cancer with 313,998 women without breast cancer in a matched comparison cohort. The average age in both groups was 66 years; obesity was rare (4% vs. 3%, respectively), but statin therapy (21% in both groups) and hormone replacement therapy (36% vs. 32%) were more prevalent.

In the first year after a breast cancer diagnosis, the women in the breast cancer group were 15% more likely to develop diabetes (per use of diabetes medication or hospital-diagnosed diabetes) than those in the comparison group (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.01-1.30) with adjustments for factors such as age, marital status, residence, medical history, medications, and comorbidity.

Over a median follow-up period of 5.2 years, the risk of diabetes was 23% higher in the breast cancer group, at 8.4 new cases per 1,000 women, compared with 6.8 new cases per 1,000 women in the comparison group (aHR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.16-1.30). Unadjusted hazard ratios were similar.

Women in the breast cancer group who developed diabetes were more likely to use insulin-based therapy, suggesting they had more severe diabetes, compared with those in the control group (5% vs. 2%, respectively; P less than .00001). They were also more likely to be treated with insulin only (4% vs. 1%, P less than .00001).

It is not clear why patients with breast cancer face a higher risk of diabetes. Dr. Thomsen speculated that cancer drugs might play a role and he noted that cancer itself can cause inflammation and “lead to consequences.”

A 2018 study linked usage of hormone therapies, including tamoxifen (HR, 2.25; 95% CI, 1.19-4.26; P = .013) and aromatase inhibitors (HR, 4.27;95% CI, 1.42-12.84), in patients with breast cancer to higher levels of diabetes, compared with patients who did not use hormone therapy (J Clin Oncol. 2018;36[20]:2061-9).

Dr. Thomsen emphasized that physicians should monitor patients with breast cancer for diabetes. “It develops over time, and the risk is increasing, so you need to be aware of that.”

No study funding was reported. One of the researchers reported numerous ties to a range of drug companies. Dr. Thomsen and the other researchers reported no relevant disclosures.

SAN FRANCISCO – Women with breast cancer faced an adjusted 23% higher risk of developing diabetes during the 5 years after their diagnosis, a new Danish study finds.

Randy Dotinga/MDedge News

The findings are “quite a clear signal of increased diabetes following breast cancer,” said epidemiologist and study coauthor Reimar W. Thomsen, MD, PhD, of Aarhus (Denmark) University Hospital, in an interview. “It’s very important to tell [patients with breast cancer] what they may expect in the long term.”

He spoke at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association, where he presented the study findings.

Much of the research into links between breast cancer and diabetes has focused on whether diabetes is a risk factor for breast cancer, and not the other way around. A 2018 meta-analysis of 18 studies found a slightly higher risk of breast cancer in women with diabetes (summary relative risk, 1.13; 95% confidence interval, 1.04-1.24). However, the researchers found evidence that the risk factor might be adiposity, and not diabetes itself (Diabetes. 2018 Jul;67[Supplement 1]. doi: 10.2337/db18-180-OR).

For the new study, researchers used health registries to track women in Denmark for up to 12 years, during 2005-2016. They compared 33,909 women who were older than 50 years and who had new-onset breast cancer with 313,998 women without breast cancer in a matched comparison cohort. The average age in both groups was 66 years; obesity was rare (4% vs. 3%, respectively), but statin therapy (21% in both groups) and hormone replacement therapy (36% vs. 32%) were more prevalent.

In the first year after a breast cancer diagnosis, the women in the breast cancer group were 15% more likely to develop diabetes (per use of diabetes medication or hospital-diagnosed diabetes) than those in the comparison group (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.01-1.30) with adjustments for factors such as age, marital status, residence, medical history, medications, and comorbidity.

Over a median follow-up period of 5.2 years, the risk of diabetes was 23% higher in the breast cancer group, at 8.4 new cases per 1,000 women, compared with 6.8 new cases per 1,000 women in the comparison group (aHR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.16-1.30). Unadjusted hazard ratios were similar.

Women in the breast cancer group who developed diabetes were more likely to use insulin-based therapy, suggesting they had more severe diabetes, compared with those in the control group (5% vs. 2%, respectively; P less than .00001). They were also more likely to be treated with insulin only (4% vs. 1%, P less than .00001).

It is not clear why patients with breast cancer face a higher risk of diabetes. Dr. Thomsen speculated that cancer drugs might play a role and he noted that cancer itself can cause inflammation and “lead to consequences.”

A 2018 study linked usage of hormone therapies, including tamoxifen (HR, 2.25; 95% CI, 1.19-4.26; P = .013) and aromatase inhibitors (HR, 4.27;95% CI, 1.42-12.84), in patients with breast cancer to higher levels of diabetes, compared with patients who did not use hormone therapy (J Clin Oncol. 2018;36[20]:2061-9).

Dr. Thomsen emphasized that physicians should monitor patients with breast cancer for diabetes. “It develops over time, and the risk is increasing, so you need to be aware of that.”

No study funding was reported. One of the researchers reported numerous ties to a range of drug companies. Dr. Thomsen and the other researchers reported no relevant disclosures.

SAN FRANCISCO – Women with breast cancer faced an adjusted 23% higher risk of developing diabetes during the 5 years after their diagnosis, a new Danish study finds.

Randy Dotinga/MDedge News

The findings are “quite a clear signal of increased diabetes following breast cancer,” said epidemiologist and study coauthor Reimar W. Thomsen, MD, PhD, of Aarhus (Denmark) University Hospital, in an interview. “It’s very important to tell [patients with breast cancer] what they may expect in the long term.”

He spoke at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association, where he presented the study findings.

Much of the research into links between breast cancer and diabetes has focused on whether diabetes is a risk factor for breast cancer, and not the other way around. A 2018 meta-analysis of 18 studies found a slightly higher risk of breast cancer in women with diabetes (summary relative risk, 1.13; 95% confidence interval, 1.04-1.24). However, the researchers found evidence that the risk factor might be adiposity, and not diabetes itself (Diabetes. 2018 Jul;67[Supplement 1]. doi: 10.2337/db18-180-OR).

For the new study, researchers used health registries to track women in Denmark for up to 12 years, during 2005-2016. They compared 33,909 women who were older than 50 years and who had new-onset breast cancer with 313,998 women without breast cancer in a matched comparison cohort. The average age in both groups was 66 years; obesity was rare (4% vs. 3%, respectively), but statin therapy (21% in both groups) and hormone replacement therapy (36% vs. 32%) were more prevalent.

In the first year after a breast cancer diagnosis, the women in the breast cancer group were 15% more likely to develop diabetes (per use of diabetes medication or hospital-diagnosed diabetes) than those in the comparison group (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.01-1.30) with adjustments for factors such as age, marital status, residence, medical history, medications, and comorbidity.

Over a median follow-up period of 5.2 years, the risk of diabetes was 23% higher in the breast cancer group, at 8.4 new cases per 1,000 women, compared with 6.8 new cases per 1,000 women in the comparison group (aHR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.16-1.30). Unadjusted hazard ratios were similar.

Women in the breast cancer group who developed diabetes were more likely to use insulin-based therapy, suggesting they had more severe diabetes, compared with those in the control group (5% vs. 2%, respectively; P less than .00001). They were also more likely to be treated with insulin only (4% vs. 1%, P less than .00001).

It is not clear why patients with breast cancer face a higher risk of diabetes. Dr. Thomsen speculated that cancer drugs might play a role and he noted that cancer itself can cause inflammation and “lead to consequences.”

A 2018 study linked usage of hormone therapies, including tamoxifen (HR, 2.25; 95% CI, 1.19-4.26; P = .013) and aromatase inhibitors (HR, 4.27;95% CI, 1.42-12.84), in patients with breast cancer to higher levels of diabetes, compared with patients who did not use hormone therapy (J Clin Oncol. 2018;36[20]:2061-9).

Dr. Thomsen emphasized that physicians should monitor patients with breast cancer for diabetes. “It develops over time, and the risk is increasing, so you need to be aware of that.”

No study funding was reported. One of the researchers reported numerous ties to a range of drug companies. Dr. Thomsen and the other researchers reported no relevant disclosures.

CHICAGO – Phase 3 results suggest ipilimumab plus nivolumab is no more effective than nivolumab alone in previously treated patients with metastatic squamous cell lung cancer and no matching biomarker.

However, there is evidence to suggest that patients with a high tumor mutational burden (TMB) and low programmed death–ligand 1 (PD-L1) tumor proportion score (TPS) may derive a benefit from the combination.

Lyudmila Bazhenova, MD, of the University of California, San Diego, and her colleagues presented results from this trial (NCT02785952) in a poster at the annual meeting of the American Society for Clinical Oncology. Kathryn C. Arbour, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York reviewed the data in a poster discussion session.

Patients and treatment

The researchers reported on 275 previously treated patients with stage IV or recurrent squamous cell lung cancer who were naive to checkpoint inhibitors. Patients were randomized to receive nivolumab (nivo) at 3 mg/m² once every 2 weeks (n = 137) or the same dose of nivolumab plus ipilimumab (ipi + nivo) at 1 mg/m² once every 6 weeks (n = 138).

The patients were stratified by gender and number of prior therapies (one vs. two or more), but they were not stratified by TMB or PD-L1 expression.

The PD-L1 TPS was unknown in 36% of patients, less than 5% in 57%, and 5% or greater in 43% of patients. TMB was unknown in 8% of patients, less than 10 mutations per megabase in 52%, and 10 mutations per megabase or greater in 48%.

Baseline characteristics were similar between the treatment arms. The median age was 67.5 years (range, 42-83 years) in the ipi + nivo arm and 68.1 years (range, 49-90 years) in the nivo arm. Most patients had received only one prior therapy – 85% and 83%, respectively – and most had a performance status of 1 – 71% and 72%, respectively.

Efficacy

There were no significant differences in outcomes between the treatment arms, and the study was closed early for futility.

The overall response rate was 18% in the ipi + nivo arm and 17% in the nivo arm, with one complete response occurring in each arm. The median duration of response was 9.1 months in the ipi + nivo arm and 8.6 months in the nivo arm.

The median progression-free survival was 3.8 months in the ipi + nivo arm and 2.9 months in the nivo arm (hazard ratio, 0.84; P = .19). The 24-month progression-free survival was 8.2% and 5.9%, respectively.

The median overall survival was 10.0 months in the ipi + nivo arm and 11.0 months in the nivo arm (HR, 0.97; P = .82). The 24-month overall survival was 27.6% and 20.1%, respectively.

There were no significant differences in outcomes by TMB or PD-L1 with the cutoffs used in this study, according to Dr. Bazhenova and colleagues, but different cutoffs are being explored.

Safety

There were no differences in individual toxicities between the treatment arms, but cumulative toxicities were higher in the combination arm, according to the researchers.

The incidence of treatment-related adverse events (AEs) was 88% in the ipi + nivo arm and 90% in the nivo arm. The incidence of grade 3-5 treatment-related AEs was 39% and 31%, respectively.

The incidence of immune-mediated AEs was 65% in the ipi + nivo arm and 57% in the nivo arm. The incidence of immune-mediated grade 3-5 AEs was 20% and 11%, respectively.

There were six AEs leading to death in the ipi + nivo arm – two due to dyspnea, one due to colitis, and one due to respiratory failure. The attribution of one death is under review. For the remaining death, the exact cause is unknown.

There were two AEs leading to death in the nivo arm, both due to pneumonitis.

This study was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health and by AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Genentech, and Pfizer through the Foundation for the National Institutes of Health in partnership with Friends of Cancer Research.

Dr. Bazhenova reported relationships with Epic Sciences, AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Boston Biomedical, Genentech/Roche, Lilly, Loxo, Pfizer, Takeda, and BeyondSpring Pharmaceuticals. Her colleagues reported relationships with these and other companies. Dr. Arbour reported a relationship with AstraZeneca.

SOURCE: Bazhenova L et al. ASCO 2019, Abstract 9014.

CHICAGO – Phase 3 results suggest ipilimumab plus nivolumab is no more effective than nivolumab alone in previously treated patients with metastatic squamous cell lung cancer and no matching biomarker.

However, there is evidence to suggest that patients with a high tumor mutational burden (TMB) and low programmed death–ligand 1 (PD-L1) tumor proportion score (TPS) may derive a benefit from the combination.

Lyudmila Bazhenova, MD, of the University of California, San Diego, and her colleagues presented results from this trial (NCT02785952) in a poster at the annual meeting of the American Society for Clinical Oncology. Kathryn C. Arbour, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York reviewed the data in a poster discussion session.

Patients and treatment

The researchers reported on 275 previously treated patients with stage IV or recurrent squamous cell lung cancer who were naive to checkpoint inhibitors. Patients were randomized to receive nivolumab (nivo) at 3 mg/m² once every 2 weeks (n = 137) or the same dose of nivolumab plus ipilimumab (ipi + nivo) at 1 mg/m² once every 6 weeks (n = 138).

The patients were stratified by gender and number of prior therapies (one vs. two or more), but they were not stratified by TMB or PD-L1 expression.

The PD-L1 TPS was unknown in 36% of patients, less than 5% in 57%, and 5% or greater in 43% of patients. TMB was unknown in 8% of patients, less than 10 mutations per megabase in 52%, and 10 mutations per megabase or greater in 48%.

Baseline characteristics were similar between the treatment arms. The median age was 67.5 years (range, 42-83 years) in the ipi + nivo arm and 68.1 years (range, 49-90 years) in the nivo arm. Most patients had received only one prior therapy – 85% and 83%, respectively – and most had a performance status of 1 – 71% and 72%, respectively.

Efficacy

There were no significant differences in outcomes between the treatment arms, and the study was closed early for futility.

The overall response rate was 18% in the ipi + nivo arm and 17% in the nivo arm, with one complete response occurring in each arm. The median duration of response was 9.1 months in the ipi + nivo arm and 8.6 months in the nivo arm.

The median progression-free survival was 3.8 months in the ipi + nivo arm and 2.9 months in the nivo arm (hazard ratio, 0.84; P = .19). The 24-month progression-free survival was 8.2% and 5.9%, respectively.

The median overall survival was 10.0 months in the ipi + nivo arm and 11.0 months in the nivo arm (HR, 0.97; P = .82). The 24-month overall survival was 27.6% and 20.1%, respectively.

There were no significant differences in outcomes by TMB or PD-L1 with the cutoffs used in this study, according to Dr. Bazhenova and colleagues, but different cutoffs are being explored.

Safety

There were no differences in individual toxicities between the treatment arms, but cumulative toxicities were higher in the combination arm, according to the researchers.

The incidence of treatment-related adverse events (AEs) was 88% in the ipi + nivo arm and 90% in the nivo arm. The incidence of grade 3-5 treatment-related AEs was 39% and 31%, respectively.

The incidence of immune-mediated AEs was 65% in the ipi + nivo arm and 57% in the nivo arm. The incidence of immune-mediated grade 3-5 AEs was 20% and 11%, respectively.

There were six AEs leading to death in the ipi + nivo arm – two due to dyspnea, one due to colitis, and one due to respiratory failure. The attribution of one death is under review. For the remaining death, the exact cause is unknown.

There were two AEs leading to death in the nivo arm, both due to pneumonitis.

This study was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health and by AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Genentech, and Pfizer through the Foundation for the National Institutes of Health in partnership with Friends of Cancer Research.

Dr. Bazhenova reported relationships with Epic Sciences, AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Boston Biomedical, Genentech/Roche, Lilly, Loxo, Pfizer, Takeda, and BeyondSpring Pharmaceuticals. Her colleagues reported relationships with these and other companies. Dr. Arbour reported a relationship with AstraZeneca.

SOURCE: Bazhenova L et al. ASCO 2019, Abstract 9014.

CHICAGO – Phase 3 results suggest ipilimumab plus nivolumab is no more effective than nivolumab alone in previously treated patients with metastatic squamous cell lung cancer and no matching biomarker.

However, there is evidence to suggest that patients with a high tumor mutational burden (TMB) and low programmed death–ligand 1 (PD-L1) tumor proportion score (TPS) may derive a benefit from the combination.

Lyudmila Bazhenova, MD, of the University of California, San Diego, and her colleagues presented results from this trial (NCT02785952) in a poster at the annual meeting of the American Society for Clinical Oncology. Kathryn C. Arbour, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York reviewed the data in a poster discussion session.

Patients and treatment

The researchers reported on 275 previously treated patients with stage IV or recurrent squamous cell lung cancer who were naive to checkpoint inhibitors. Patients were randomized to receive nivolumab (nivo) at 3 mg/m² once every 2 weeks (n = 137) or the same dose of nivolumab plus ipilimumab (ipi + nivo) at 1 mg/m² once every 6 weeks (n = 138).

The patients were stratified by gender and number of prior therapies (one vs. two or more), but they were not stratified by TMB or PD-L1 expression.

The PD-L1 TPS was unknown in 36% of patients, less than 5% in 57%, and 5% or greater in 43% of patients. TMB was unknown in 8% of patients, less than 10 mutations per megabase in 52%, and 10 mutations per megabase or greater in 48%.

Baseline characteristics were similar between the treatment arms. The median age was 67.5 years (range, 42-83 years) in the ipi + nivo arm and 68.1 years (range, 49-90 years) in the nivo arm. Most patients had received only one prior therapy – 85% and 83%, respectively – and most had a performance status of 1 – 71% and 72%, respectively.

Efficacy

There were no significant differences in outcomes between the treatment arms, and the study was closed early for futility.

The overall response rate was 18% in the ipi + nivo arm and 17% in the nivo arm, with one complete response occurring in each arm. The median duration of response was 9.1 months in the ipi + nivo arm and 8.6 months in the nivo arm.

The median progression-free survival was 3.8 months in the ipi + nivo arm and 2.9 months in the nivo arm (hazard ratio, 0.84; P = .19). The 24-month progression-free survival was 8.2% and 5.9%, respectively.

The median overall survival was 10.0 months in the ipi + nivo arm and 11.0 months in the nivo arm (HR, 0.97; P = .82). The 24-month overall survival was 27.6% and 20.1%, respectively.

There were no significant differences in outcomes by TMB or PD-L1 with the cutoffs used in this study, according to Dr. Bazhenova and colleagues, but different cutoffs are being explored.

Safety

There were no differences in individual toxicities between the treatment arms, but cumulative toxicities were higher in the combination arm, according to the researchers.

The incidence of treatment-related adverse events (AEs) was 88% in the ipi + nivo arm and 90% in the nivo arm. The incidence of grade 3-5 treatment-related AEs was 39% and 31%, respectively.

The incidence of immune-mediated AEs was 65% in the ipi + nivo arm and 57% in the nivo arm. The incidence of immune-mediated grade 3-5 AEs was 20% and 11%, respectively.

There were six AEs leading to death in the ipi + nivo arm – two due to dyspnea, one due to colitis, and one due to respiratory failure. The attribution of one death is under review. For the remaining death, the exact cause is unknown.

There were two AEs leading to death in the nivo arm, both due to pneumonitis.

This study was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health and by AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Genentech, and Pfizer through the Foundation for the National Institutes of Health in partnership with Friends of Cancer Research.

Dr. Bazhenova reported relationships with Epic Sciences, AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Boston Biomedical, Genentech/Roche, Lilly, Loxo, Pfizer, Takeda, and BeyondSpring Pharmaceuticals. Her colleagues reported relationships with these and other companies. Dr. Arbour reported a relationship with AstraZeneca.

SOURCE: Bazhenova L et al. ASCO 2019, Abstract 9014.