AVAHO

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

I’m going to tell you about a chemical that might cause cancer — one I suspect you haven’t heard of before.

These types of stories usually end with a call for regulation — to ban said chemical or substance, or to regulate it — but in this case, that has already happened. This new carcinogen I’m telling you about is actually an old chemical. And it has not been manufactured or legally imported in the US since 2013.

So, why bother? Because in this case, the chemical — or, really, a group of chemicals called polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) — are still around: in our soil, in our food, and in our blood.

PBDEs are a group of compounds that confer flame-retardant properties to plastics, and they were used extensively in the latter part of the 20th century in electronic enclosures, business equipment, and foam cushioning in upholstery.

But there was a problem. They don’t chemically bond to plastics; they are just sort of mixed in, which means they can leach out. They are hydrophobic, meaning they don’t get washed out of soil, and, when ingested or inhaled by humans, they dissolve in our fat stores, making it difficult for our normal excretory systems to excrete them.

PBDEs biomagnify. Small animals can take them up from contaminated soil or water, and those animals are eaten by larger animals, which accumulate higher concentrations of the chemicals. This bioaccumulation increases as you move up the food web until you get to an apex predator — like you and me.

This is true of lots of chemicals, of course. The concern arises when these chemicals are toxic. To date, the toxicity data for PBDEs were pretty limited. There were some animal studies where rats were exposed to extremely high doses and they developed liver lesions — but I am always very wary of extrapolating high-dose rat toxicity studies to humans. There was also some suggestion that the chemicals could be endocrine disruptors, affecting breast and thyroid tissue.

What about cancer? In 2016, the International Agency for Research on Cancer concluded there was “inadequate evidence in humans for the carcinogencity of” PBDEs.

In the same report, though, they suggested PBDEs are “probably carcinogenic to humans” based on mechanistic studies.

In other words, we can’t prove they’re cancerous — but come on, they probably are.

Finally, we have some evidence that really pushes us toward the carcinogenic conclusion, in the form of this study, appearing in JAMA Network Open. It’s a nice bit of epidemiology leveraging the population-based National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES).

Researchers measured PBDE levels in blood samples from 1100 people enrolled in NHANES in 2003 and 2004 and linked them to death records collected over the next 20 years or so.

The first thing to note is that the researchers were able to measure PBDEs in the blood samples. They were in there. They were detectable. And they were variable. Dividing the 1100 participants into low, medium, and high PBDE tertiles, you can see a nearly 10-fold difference across the population.

Importantly, not many baseline variables correlated with PBDE levels. People in the highest group were a bit younger but had a fairly similar sex distribution, race, ethnicity, education, income, physical activity, smoking status, and body mass index.

This is not a randomized trial, of course — but at least based on these data, exposure levels do seem fairly random, which is what you would expect from an environmental toxin that percolates up through the food chain. They are often somewhat indiscriminate.

This similarity in baseline characteristics between people with low or high blood levels of PBDE also allows us to make some stronger inferences about the observed outcomes. Let’s take a look at them.

After adjustment for baseline factors, individuals in the highest PBDE group had a 43% higher rate of death from any cause over the follow-up period. This was not enough to achieve statistical significance, but it was close.

Dr. Wilson

Dr. F. Perry Wilson is associate professor of medicine and public health and director of the Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

I’m going to tell you about a chemical that might cause cancer — one I suspect you haven’t heard of before.

These types of stories usually end with a call for regulation — to ban said chemical or substance, or to regulate it — but in this case, that has already happened. This new carcinogen I’m telling you about is actually an old chemical. And it has not been manufactured or legally imported in the US since 2013.

So, why bother? Because in this case, the chemical — or, really, a group of chemicals called polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) — are still around: in our soil, in our food, and in our blood.

PBDEs are a group of compounds that confer flame-retardant properties to plastics, and they were used extensively in the latter part of the 20th century in electronic enclosures, business equipment, and foam cushioning in upholstery.

But there was a problem. They don’t chemically bond to plastics; they are just sort of mixed in, which means they can leach out. They are hydrophobic, meaning they don’t get washed out of soil, and, when ingested or inhaled by humans, they dissolve in our fat stores, making it difficult for our normal excretory systems to excrete them.

PBDEs biomagnify. Small animals can take them up from contaminated soil or water, and those animals are eaten by larger animals, which accumulate higher concentrations of the chemicals. This bioaccumulation increases as you move up the food web until you get to an apex predator — like you and me.

This is true of lots of chemicals, of course. The concern arises when these chemicals are toxic. To date, the toxicity data for PBDEs were pretty limited. There were some animal studies where rats were exposed to extremely high doses and they developed liver lesions — but I am always very wary of extrapolating high-dose rat toxicity studies to humans. There was also some suggestion that the chemicals could be endocrine disruptors, affecting breast and thyroid tissue.

What about cancer? In 2016, the International Agency for Research on Cancer concluded there was “inadequate evidence in humans for the carcinogencity of” PBDEs.

In the same report, though, they suggested PBDEs are “probably carcinogenic to humans” based on mechanistic studies.

In other words, we can’t prove they’re cancerous — but come on, they probably are.

Finally, we have some evidence that really pushes us toward the carcinogenic conclusion, in the form of this study, appearing in JAMA Network Open. It’s a nice bit of epidemiology leveraging the population-based National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES).

Researchers measured PBDE levels in blood samples from 1100 people enrolled in NHANES in 2003 and 2004 and linked them to death records collected over the next 20 years or so.

The first thing to note is that the researchers were able to measure PBDEs in the blood samples. They were in there. They were detectable. And they were variable. Dividing the 1100 participants into low, medium, and high PBDE tertiles, you can see a nearly 10-fold difference across the population.

Importantly, not many baseline variables correlated with PBDE levels. People in the highest group were a bit younger but had a fairly similar sex distribution, race, ethnicity, education, income, physical activity, smoking status, and body mass index.

This is not a randomized trial, of course — but at least based on these data, exposure levels do seem fairly random, which is what you would expect from an environmental toxin that percolates up through the food chain. They are often somewhat indiscriminate.

This similarity in baseline characteristics between people with low or high blood levels of PBDE also allows us to make some stronger inferences about the observed outcomes. Let’s take a look at them.

After adjustment for baseline factors, individuals in the highest PBDE group had a 43% higher rate of death from any cause over the follow-up period. This was not enough to achieve statistical significance, but it was close.

Dr. Wilson

Dr. F. Perry Wilson is associate professor of medicine and public health and director of the Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

I’m going to tell you about a chemical that might cause cancer — one I suspect you haven’t heard of before.

These types of stories usually end with a call for regulation — to ban said chemical or substance, or to regulate it — but in this case, that has already happened. This new carcinogen I’m telling you about is actually an old chemical. And it has not been manufactured or legally imported in the US since 2013.

So, why bother? Because in this case, the chemical — or, really, a group of chemicals called polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) — are still around: in our soil, in our food, and in our blood.

PBDEs are a group of compounds that confer flame-retardant properties to plastics, and they were used extensively in the latter part of the 20th century in electronic enclosures, business equipment, and foam cushioning in upholstery.

But there was a problem. They don’t chemically bond to plastics; they are just sort of mixed in, which means they can leach out. They are hydrophobic, meaning they don’t get washed out of soil, and, when ingested or inhaled by humans, they dissolve in our fat stores, making it difficult for our normal excretory systems to excrete them.

PBDEs biomagnify. Small animals can take them up from contaminated soil or water, and those animals are eaten by larger animals, which accumulate higher concentrations of the chemicals. This bioaccumulation increases as you move up the food web until you get to an apex predator — like you and me.

This is true of lots of chemicals, of course. The concern arises when these chemicals are toxic. To date, the toxicity data for PBDEs were pretty limited. There were some animal studies where rats were exposed to extremely high doses and they developed liver lesions — but I am always very wary of extrapolating high-dose rat toxicity studies to humans. There was also some suggestion that the chemicals could be endocrine disruptors, affecting breast and thyroid tissue.

What about cancer? In 2016, the International Agency for Research on Cancer concluded there was “inadequate evidence in humans for the carcinogencity of” PBDEs.

In the same report, though, they suggested PBDEs are “probably carcinogenic to humans” based on mechanistic studies.

In other words, we can’t prove they’re cancerous — but come on, they probably are.

Finally, we have some evidence that really pushes us toward the carcinogenic conclusion, in the form of this study, appearing in JAMA Network Open. It’s a nice bit of epidemiology leveraging the population-based National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES).

Researchers measured PBDE levels in blood samples from 1100 people enrolled in NHANES in 2003 and 2004 and linked them to death records collected over the next 20 years or so.

The first thing to note is that the researchers were able to measure PBDEs in the blood samples. They were in there. They were detectable. And they were variable. Dividing the 1100 participants into low, medium, and high PBDE tertiles, you can see a nearly 10-fold difference across the population.

Importantly, not many baseline variables correlated with PBDE levels. People in the highest group were a bit younger but had a fairly similar sex distribution, race, ethnicity, education, income, physical activity, smoking status, and body mass index.

This is not a randomized trial, of course — but at least based on these data, exposure levels do seem fairly random, which is what you would expect from an environmental toxin that percolates up through the food chain. They are often somewhat indiscriminate.

This similarity in baseline characteristics between people with low or high blood levels of PBDE also allows us to make some stronger inferences about the observed outcomes. Let’s take a look at them.

After adjustment for baseline factors, individuals in the highest PBDE group had a 43% higher rate of death from any cause over the follow-up period. This was not enough to achieve statistical significance, but it was close.

Dr. Wilson

Dr. F. Perry Wilson is associate professor of medicine and public health and director of the Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Development of a DNA-based lung cancer vaccine in the United Kingdom received funding for 2 years of laboratory research and initial manufacture of 3000 doses, according to a press release from the University of Oxford, England.

A team of scientists from the University of Oxford, the Francis Crick Institute, and University College London (UCL) will receive funding from the Cancer Research UK and the CRIS Cancer Foundation.

The LungVax vaccine is based on technology similar to that used in the creation of the successful Oxford/AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine and will carry a DNA strand that trains the immune system to recognize the neoantigens that indicate abnormal lung cancer cells and then activate the immune system to kill these cells and stop the cancer, according to the statement.

Initially, scientists are working to develop a vaccine that triggers an immune response in the lab setting. If successful, the vaccine will move directly into a clinical trial. “If the subsequent early trial delivers promising results, the vaccine could then be scaled up to bigger trials for people at high risk of lung cancer,” according to the release.
 

Help for High-Risk Patients

Lung cancer is diagnosed in approximately 48,000 individuals in the United Kingdom each year, and the average 10-year survival is only 10%, Tim Elliott, MD, professor of immuno-oncology at the University of Oxford and lead researcher on the LungVax project, said in an interview. Nearly three-quarters of the 35,000 annual deaths are preventable by quitting smoking, which remains the best risk reduction strategy to date, he said. However, “an intervention such as a vaccine, given when people are healthy and are more likely to have a strong immune system, could benefit many thousands per year in the UK and 1.8 million patients worldwide,” he said.
 

Preliminary Trial Plans

The initial trial of the vaccine is a collaboration between Oxford University, UCL, and the Francis Crick Institute, Dr. Elliott said. The trial is a culmination of research into the biology and genetics of lung cancer at UCL and vaccine design research at the University of Oxford.

“We are at a very early stage of the program, which will develop over the next 6 years if all goes to plan,” said Dr. Elliott. The vaccine is designed on the basis of shared lung cancer antigens and packaged into the ChAdOx delivery system that proved successful as the Oxford-AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine, he said.

“We intend to vaccinate individuals who have had curative surgery for their lung cancer after being diagnosed with a very early stage of the disease,” Dr. Elliott said.

Challenges to vaccine development include knowing whether there is a clinical benefit, Dr. Elliott noted. “Our clinical trial is calculated to show up to 15% reduction in risk over 3-5 years, but only long-term follow-up will really tell us whether the immune responses we see to the vaccine within the first few weeks will have a long-term effect,” he emphasized.

In clinical practice, “these people are cancer-free and healthy after surgery,” said Dr. Elliott. However, “they are at a high risk of recurrence; 30%-70% of ex-patients will develop new cancer in their lifetime and in the majority of cases that will happen within 2 years after surgery,” he said. “We think that vaccinating them against common lung cancer antigens could reduce this risk significantly and remove some of the uncertainty that they live with after their operation.”
 

Vaccine Has Potential for Immense Impact

Lung cancer remains one of the most frequently diagnosed cancers. “In the past few decades, public health measures including tobacco cessation and lung cancer screening have contributed to the reduction of lung cancer incidence and improved survival in high-income countries, but lung cancer continues to be the leading cause of cancer-related deaths worldwide,” Saadia A. Faiz, MD, a member of the CHEST Physician editorial board, said in an interview.

“Further, new cancer diagnoses continue to increase in low-income countries where there may not be widespread public health initiatives and/or access to healthcare. Thus, development of a vaccine to prevent lung cancer could be very impactful,” she said.

Challenges to vaccine development include the heterogeneous nature of the disease, which may occur in smokers and nonsmokers, said Dr. Faiz. “Targeting the various molecular markers may be challenging,” she said. However, building on the success of other vaccine initiatives, such as the human papillomavirus vaccine for cervical cancer, and COVID-19 vaccines with collaboration and clinical research will ideally overcome these challenges, she added.

“The potential implications for a lung cancer vaccine are immense,” said Dr. Faiz.

A lung cancer vaccine could prevent a deadly disease, but continued efforts in risk factor reduction and lung cancer screening will also be important, she said.

“Depending on the results of this clinical research, longitudinal data regarding efficacy, side effects, and prevention will be vital prior to application in high-risk patients in clinical practice,” she emphasized.

The development of the lung cancer vaccine is supported in part by Cancer Research UK and the CRIS Cancer Foundation. Dr. Elliott has received support from Cancer Research UK but had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Faiz had no financial conflicts to disclose.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Development of a DNA-based lung cancer vaccine in the United Kingdom received funding for 2 years of laboratory research and initial manufacture of 3000 doses, according to a press release from the University of Oxford, England.

A team of scientists from the University of Oxford, the Francis Crick Institute, and University College London (UCL) will receive funding from the Cancer Research UK and the CRIS Cancer Foundation.

The LungVax vaccine is based on technology similar to that used in the creation of the successful Oxford/AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine and will carry a DNA strand that trains the immune system to recognize the neoantigens that indicate abnormal lung cancer cells and then activate the immune system to kill these cells and stop the cancer, according to the statement.

Initially, scientists are working to develop a vaccine that triggers an immune response in the lab setting. If successful, the vaccine will move directly into a clinical trial. “If the subsequent early trial delivers promising results, the vaccine could then be scaled up to bigger trials for people at high risk of lung cancer,” according to the release.
 

Help for High-Risk Patients

Lung cancer is diagnosed in approximately 48,000 individuals in the United Kingdom each year, and the average 10-year survival is only 10%, Tim Elliott, MD, professor of immuno-oncology at the University of Oxford and lead researcher on the LungVax project, said in an interview. Nearly three-quarters of the 35,000 annual deaths are preventable by quitting smoking, which remains the best risk reduction strategy to date, he said. However, “an intervention such as a vaccine, given when people are healthy and are more likely to have a strong immune system, could benefit many thousands per year in the UK and 1.8 million patients worldwide,” he said.
 

Preliminary Trial Plans

The initial trial of the vaccine is a collaboration between Oxford University, UCL, and the Francis Crick Institute, Dr. Elliott said. The trial is a culmination of research into the biology and genetics of lung cancer at UCL and vaccine design research at the University of Oxford.

“We are at a very early stage of the program, which will develop over the next 6 years if all goes to plan,” said Dr. Elliott. The vaccine is designed on the basis of shared lung cancer antigens and packaged into the ChAdOx delivery system that proved successful as the Oxford-AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine, he said.

“We intend to vaccinate individuals who have had curative surgery for their lung cancer after being diagnosed with a very early stage of the disease,” Dr. Elliott said.

Challenges to vaccine development include knowing whether there is a clinical benefit, Dr. Elliott noted. “Our clinical trial is calculated to show up to 15% reduction in risk over 3-5 years, but only long-term follow-up will really tell us whether the immune responses we see to the vaccine within the first few weeks will have a long-term effect,” he emphasized.

In clinical practice, “these people are cancer-free and healthy after surgery,” said Dr. Elliott. However, “they are at a high risk of recurrence; 30%-70% of ex-patients will develop new cancer in their lifetime and in the majority of cases that will happen within 2 years after surgery,” he said. “We think that vaccinating them against common lung cancer antigens could reduce this risk significantly and remove some of the uncertainty that they live with after their operation.”
 

Vaccine Has Potential for Immense Impact

Lung cancer remains one of the most frequently diagnosed cancers. “In the past few decades, public health measures including tobacco cessation and lung cancer screening have contributed to the reduction of lung cancer incidence and improved survival in high-income countries, but lung cancer continues to be the leading cause of cancer-related deaths worldwide,” Saadia A. Faiz, MD, a member of the CHEST Physician editorial board, said in an interview.

“Further, new cancer diagnoses continue to increase in low-income countries where there may not be widespread public health initiatives and/or access to healthcare. Thus, development of a vaccine to prevent lung cancer could be very impactful,” she said.

Challenges to vaccine development include the heterogeneous nature of the disease, which may occur in smokers and nonsmokers, said Dr. Faiz. “Targeting the various molecular markers may be challenging,” she said. However, building on the success of other vaccine initiatives, such as the human papillomavirus vaccine for cervical cancer, and COVID-19 vaccines with collaboration and clinical research will ideally overcome these challenges, she added.

“The potential implications for a lung cancer vaccine are immense,” said Dr. Faiz.

A lung cancer vaccine could prevent a deadly disease, but continued efforts in risk factor reduction and lung cancer screening will also be important, she said.

“Depending on the results of this clinical research, longitudinal data regarding efficacy, side effects, and prevention will be vital prior to application in high-risk patients in clinical practice,” she emphasized.

The development of the lung cancer vaccine is supported in part by Cancer Research UK and the CRIS Cancer Foundation. Dr. Elliott has received support from Cancer Research UK but had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Faiz had no financial conflicts to disclose.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Development of a DNA-based lung cancer vaccine in the United Kingdom received funding for 2 years of laboratory research and initial manufacture of 3000 doses, according to a press release from the University of Oxford, England.

A team of scientists from the University of Oxford, the Francis Crick Institute, and University College London (UCL) will receive funding from the Cancer Research UK and the CRIS Cancer Foundation.

The LungVax vaccine is based on technology similar to that used in the creation of the successful Oxford/AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine and will carry a DNA strand that trains the immune system to recognize the neoantigens that indicate abnormal lung cancer cells and then activate the immune system to kill these cells and stop the cancer, according to the statement.

Initially, scientists are working to develop a vaccine that triggers an immune response in the lab setting. If successful, the vaccine will move directly into a clinical trial. “If the subsequent early trial delivers promising results, the vaccine could then be scaled up to bigger trials for people at high risk of lung cancer,” according to the release.
 

Help for High-Risk Patients

Lung cancer is diagnosed in approximately 48,000 individuals in the United Kingdom each year, and the average 10-year survival is only 10%, Tim Elliott, MD, professor of immuno-oncology at the University of Oxford and lead researcher on the LungVax project, said in an interview. Nearly three-quarters of the 35,000 annual deaths are preventable by quitting smoking, which remains the best risk reduction strategy to date, he said. However, “an intervention such as a vaccine, given when people are healthy and are more likely to have a strong immune system, could benefit many thousands per year in the UK and 1.8 million patients worldwide,” he said.
 

Preliminary Trial Plans

The initial trial of the vaccine is a collaboration between Oxford University, UCL, and the Francis Crick Institute, Dr. Elliott said. The trial is a culmination of research into the biology and genetics of lung cancer at UCL and vaccine design research at the University of Oxford.

“We are at a very early stage of the program, which will develop over the next 6 years if all goes to plan,” said Dr. Elliott. The vaccine is designed on the basis of shared lung cancer antigens and packaged into the ChAdOx delivery system that proved successful as the Oxford-AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine, he said.

“We intend to vaccinate individuals who have had curative surgery for their lung cancer after being diagnosed with a very early stage of the disease,” Dr. Elliott said.

Challenges to vaccine development include knowing whether there is a clinical benefit, Dr. Elliott noted. “Our clinical trial is calculated to show up to 15% reduction in risk over 3-5 years, but only long-term follow-up will really tell us whether the immune responses we see to the vaccine within the first few weeks will have a long-term effect,” he emphasized.

In clinical practice, “these people are cancer-free and healthy after surgery,” said Dr. Elliott. However, “they are at a high risk of recurrence; 30%-70% of ex-patients will develop new cancer in their lifetime and in the majority of cases that will happen within 2 years after surgery,” he said. “We think that vaccinating them against common lung cancer antigens could reduce this risk significantly and remove some of the uncertainty that they live with after their operation.”
 

Vaccine Has Potential for Immense Impact

Lung cancer remains one of the most frequently diagnosed cancers. “In the past few decades, public health measures including tobacco cessation and lung cancer screening have contributed to the reduction of lung cancer incidence and improved survival in high-income countries, but lung cancer continues to be the leading cause of cancer-related deaths worldwide,” Saadia A. Faiz, MD, a member of the CHEST Physician editorial board, said in an interview.

“Further, new cancer diagnoses continue to increase in low-income countries where there may not be widespread public health initiatives and/or access to healthcare. Thus, development of a vaccine to prevent lung cancer could be very impactful,” she said.

Challenges to vaccine development include the heterogeneous nature of the disease, which may occur in smokers and nonsmokers, said Dr. Faiz. “Targeting the various molecular markers may be challenging,” she said. However, building on the success of other vaccine initiatives, such as the human papillomavirus vaccine for cervical cancer, and COVID-19 vaccines with collaboration and clinical research will ideally overcome these challenges, she added.

“The potential implications for a lung cancer vaccine are immense,” said Dr. Faiz.

A lung cancer vaccine could prevent a deadly disease, but continued efforts in risk factor reduction and lung cancer screening will also be important, she said.

“Depending on the results of this clinical research, longitudinal data regarding efficacy, side effects, and prevention will be vital prior to application in high-risk patients in clinical practice,” she emphasized.

The development of the lung cancer vaccine is supported in part by Cancer Research UK and the CRIS Cancer Foundation. Dr. Elliott has received support from Cancer Research UK but had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Faiz had no financial conflicts to disclose.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Despite concerns about malpractice risk among physicians, investigators found no successful malpractice litigation related to active surveillance as a management strategy for low-risk cancers.

METHODOLOGY:

• Although practice guidelines from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network consider active surveillance an effective strategy for managing low-risk cancers, some physicians have been hesitant to incorporate it into their practice because of concerns about potential litigation.
• Researchers used Westlaw Edge and LexisNexis Advance databases to identify malpractice trends involving active surveillance related to thyroid, prostate, kidney, and  or  from 1990 to 2022.
• Data included unpublished cases, trial orders, jury verdicts, and administrative decisions.
• Researchers identified 201 malpractice cases across all low-risk cancers in the initial screening. Out of these, only five cases, all , involved active surveillance as the point of allegation.

TAKEAWAY:

• Out of the five prostate cancer cases, two involved incarcerated patients with Gleason 6 very-low-risk prostate adenocarcinoma that was managed with active surveillance by their urologists.
• In these two cases, the patients claimed that active surveillance violated their 8th Amendment right to be free from cruel or unusual punishment. In both cases, there was no metastasis or spread detected and the court determined active surveillance management was performed under national standards.
• The other three cases involved litigation claiming that active surveillance was not explicitly recommended as a treatment option for patients who all had very-low-risk prostate adenocarcinoma and had reported negligence from an intervention ( or cryoablation). However, all cases had documented informed consent for active surveillance.
• No relevant cases were found relating to active surveillance in any other type of cancer, whether in an initial diagnosis or recurrence.

IN PRACTICE:

“This data should bolster physicians’ confidence in recommending active surveillance for their patients when it is an appropriate option,” study coauthor Timothy Daskivich, MD, assistant professor of surgery at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, said in a statement . “Active surveillance maximizes quality of life and avoids unnecessary overtreatment, and it does not increase medicolegal liability to physicians, as detailed in the case dismissals identified in this study.”

SOURCE:

This study, led by Samuel Chang, JD, with Athene Law LLP, San Francisco, was recently published in Annals of Surgery.

LIMITATIONS:

The Westlaw and Lexis databases may not contain all cases or decisions issued by a state regulatory agency, like a medical board. Federal and state decisions from lower courts may not be published and available. Also, settlements outside of court or suits filed and not pursued were not included in the data.

DISCLOSURES:

The researchers did not provide any disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Despite concerns about malpractice risk among physicians, investigators found no successful malpractice litigation related to active surveillance as a management strategy for low-risk cancers.

METHODOLOGY:

• Although practice guidelines from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network consider active surveillance an effective strategy for managing low-risk cancers, some physicians have been hesitant to incorporate it into their practice because of concerns about potential litigation.
• Researchers used Westlaw Edge and LexisNexis Advance databases to identify malpractice trends involving active surveillance related to thyroid, prostate, kidney, and  or  from 1990 to 2022.
• Data included unpublished cases, trial orders, jury verdicts, and administrative decisions.
• Researchers identified 201 malpractice cases across all low-risk cancers in the initial screening. Out of these, only five cases, all , involved active surveillance as the point of allegation.

TAKEAWAY:

• Out of the five prostate cancer cases, two involved incarcerated patients with Gleason 6 very-low-risk prostate adenocarcinoma that was managed with active surveillance by their urologists.
• In these two cases, the patients claimed that active surveillance violated their 8th Amendment right to be free from cruel or unusual punishment. In both cases, there was no metastasis or spread detected and the court determined active surveillance management was performed under national standards.
• The other three cases involved litigation claiming that active surveillance was not explicitly recommended as a treatment option for patients who all had very-low-risk prostate adenocarcinoma and had reported negligence from an intervention ( or cryoablation). However, all cases had documented informed consent for active surveillance.
• No relevant cases were found relating to active surveillance in any other type of cancer, whether in an initial diagnosis or recurrence.

IN PRACTICE:

“This data should bolster physicians’ confidence in recommending active surveillance for their patients when it is an appropriate option,” study coauthor Timothy Daskivich, MD, assistant professor of surgery at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, said in a statement . “Active surveillance maximizes quality of life and avoids unnecessary overtreatment, and it does not increase medicolegal liability to physicians, as detailed in the case dismissals identified in this study.”

SOURCE:

This study, led by Samuel Chang, JD, with Athene Law LLP, San Francisco, was recently published in Annals of Surgery.

LIMITATIONS:

The Westlaw and Lexis databases may not contain all cases or decisions issued by a state regulatory agency, like a medical board. Federal and state decisions from lower courts may not be published and available. Also, settlements outside of court or suits filed and not pursued were not included in the data.

DISCLOSURES:

The researchers did not provide any disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Despite concerns about malpractice risk among physicians, investigators found no successful malpractice litigation related to active surveillance as a management strategy for low-risk cancers.

METHODOLOGY:

• Although practice guidelines from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network consider active surveillance an effective strategy for managing low-risk cancers, some physicians have been hesitant to incorporate it into their practice because of concerns about potential litigation.
• Researchers used Westlaw Edge and LexisNexis Advance databases to identify malpractice trends involving active surveillance related to thyroid, prostate, kidney, and  or  from 1990 to 2022.
• Data included unpublished cases, trial orders, jury verdicts, and administrative decisions.
• Researchers identified 201 malpractice cases across all low-risk cancers in the initial screening. Out of these, only five cases, all , involved active surveillance as the point of allegation.

TAKEAWAY:

• Out of the five prostate cancer cases, two involved incarcerated patients with Gleason 6 very-low-risk prostate adenocarcinoma that was managed with active surveillance by their urologists.
• In these two cases, the patients claimed that active surveillance violated their 8th Amendment right to be free from cruel or unusual punishment. In both cases, there was no metastasis or spread detected and the court determined active surveillance management was performed under national standards.
• The other three cases involved litigation claiming that active surveillance was not explicitly recommended as a treatment option for patients who all had very-low-risk prostate adenocarcinoma and had reported negligence from an intervention ( or cryoablation). However, all cases had documented informed consent for active surveillance.
• No relevant cases were found relating to active surveillance in any other type of cancer, whether in an initial diagnosis or recurrence.

IN PRACTICE:

“This data should bolster physicians’ confidence in recommending active surveillance for their patients when it is an appropriate option,” study coauthor Timothy Daskivich, MD, assistant professor of surgery at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, said in a statement . “Active surveillance maximizes quality of life and avoids unnecessary overtreatment, and it does not increase medicolegal liability to physicians, as detailed in the case dismissals identified in this study.”

SOURCE:

This study, led by Samuel Chang, JD, with Athene Law LLP, San Francisco, was recently published in Annals of Surgery.

LIMITATIONS:

The Westlaw and Lexis databases may not contain all cases or decisions issued by a state regulatory agency, like a medical board. Federal and state decisions from lower courts may not be published and available. Also, settlements outside of court or suits filed and not pursued were not included in the data.

DISCLOSURES:

The researchers did not provide any disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Treatment decisions about the care of patients with non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) that has metastasized to the brain should always be made by a multidisciplinary team, according to a lung cancer research specialist.

The care of these patients can be quite complex, and the brain is still largely terra incognita, said Lizza Hendriks, MD, PhD, during a case-based session at the European Lung Cancer Congress (ELCC) 2024 in Prague, Czech Republic.

The approach to patients with NSCLC metastatic to the brain and central nervous system was the subject of the session presented by Dr. Hendriks of Maastricht University Medical Center in Maastricht, the Netherlands. During this session, she outlined what is known, what is believed to be true, and what is still unknown about the treatment of patients with NSCLC that has spread to the CNS.

“Immunotherapy has moderate efficacy in the brain, but it can result in long-term disease control,” she said. She added that the best treatment strategy using these agents, whether immunotherapy alone or combined with chemotherapy, is still unknown, even when patients have high levels of programmed death protein 1 (PD-1) in their tumors.

“Also, we don’t know the best sequence of treatments, and we really need more preclinical research regarding the tumor microenvironment in the CNS,” she said.

Next-generation tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) generally have good intracranial efficacy, except for KRAS G12C inhibitors, which need to be tweaked for better effectiveness in the brain. The optimal sequence for TKIs also still needs to be determined, she continued.
 

Decision Points

Dr. Hendriks summarized decision points for the case of a 60-year-old female patient, a smoker, who in February of 2021 was evaluated for multiple asymptomatic brain metastases. The patient, who had good performance status, had a diagnosis of stage IVB NSCLC of adenocarcinoma histology, with a tumor positive for a KRAS G12C mutation and with 50% of tumor cells expressing PD-1.

The patient was treated with whole-brain radiation therapy and single-agent immunotherapy, and, 8 months later, in October 2021, was diagnosed with extracranial progressive disease and was then started on the KRAS G12c inhibitor sotorasib (Lumakras).

In May 2023 the patient was diagnosed with CNS oligoprogressive disease (that is, isolated progressing lesions) and underwent stereotactic radiotherapy. In June 2023 the patient was found to have progressive disease and was then started on platinum-based chemotherapy, with disease progression again noted in December of that year. The patient was still alive at the time of the presentation.

The first decision point in this case, Dr. Hendriks said, was whether to treat the patient at the time of diagnosis of brain metastases with upfront systemic or local therapy for the metastases.

At the time of extracranial progressive disease, should the treatment be another immumotherapy, chemotherapy, or a targeted agent?

“And the last decision is what should we do [in the event of] CNS oligoprogression?,” she said.
 

First Decision

For cases such as that described by Dr. Hendriks the question is whether upfront local therapy is needed if the patient is initially asymptomatic. Other considerations concerning early local therapy include the risks for late toxicities and whether there is also extracranial disease that needs to be controlled.

If systemic therapy is considered at this point, clinicians need to consider intracranial response rates to specific agents, time to onset of response, risk of pseudoprogression, and the risk of toxicity if radiotherapy is delayed until later in the disease course.

“I think all of these patients with brain metastases really deserve multidisciplinary team decisions in order to maintain or to [move] to new treatments, improve the quality of life, and improve survival,” she said.

In the case described here, the patient had small but numerous metastases that indicated the need for extracranial control, she said.

European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO) guidelines recommend that asymptomatic patients or those with oligosymptomatic NSCLC brain metastases with an oncogenic driver receive a brain-penetrating TKI. Those with no oncogenic drive but high PD-1 expression should receive upfront immunotherapy alone, while those with PD-1 ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression below 50% receive chemoimmunotherapy.

The joint American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), Society for Neuro-Oncology (SNO), and American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) guideline for treatment of brain metastases recommends a CNS-penetrating TKI for patients with asymptomatic NSCLC brain metastases bearing EGFR or ALK alterations. If there is no oncogenic driver, the guideline recommends the option of pembrolizumab (Keytruda) with or without chemotherapy.

Both the US and European guidelines recommend initiating local treatment for patients with symptomatic metastases. The level of evidence for these recommendations is low, however.

Clinicians still need better evidence about the potential for upfront immunotherapy for these patients, more information about the NSCLC brain metastases immune environment and tumor microenvironment, data on the best treatment sequence, and new strategies for improving CNS penetration of systemic therapy, Dr. Hendriks said.
 

Second Decision

At the time of CNS progression, the question becomes whether patients would benefit from targeted therapy or chemotherapy.

“We quite often say that chemotherapy doesn’t work in the brain, but that’s not entirely true,” Dr. Hendriks said, noting that, depending on the regimen range, brain response rates range from 23% to as high as 50% in patients with previously untreated asymptomatic brain metastases, although the median survival times are fairly low, on the order of 4 to almost 13 months.

There is also preclinical evidence that chemotherapy uptake is higher for larger brain metastases, compared with normal tissue and cerebrospinal fluid, “so the blood-brain barrier opens if you have the larger brain metastases,” she said.

KRAS-positive NSCLC is associated with a high risk for brain metastases, and these metastases share the same mutation as the primary cancer, suggesting potential efficacy of KRAS G12c inhibitors. There is preclinical evidence that adagrasib (Krazati) has CNS penetration, and there was evidence for intracranial efficacy of the drug in the KRYSTAL-1b trial, Dr. Hendriks noted.

There are fewer data for the other Food and Drug Administration (FDA)–approved inhibitor, sotorasib, but there is evidence to suggest that its brain activity is restricted by ABCB1, a gene encoding for a transporter protein that shuttles substances out of cells.
 

Third Decision

For patients with CNS oligoprogression, the question is whether to adapt systemic therapy or use local therapy.

There is some evidence to support dose escalation for patients with oligoprogression of tumors with EGFR or ALK alterations, but no data to support such a strategy for those with KRAS alterations, she said.

In these situations, data support dose escalation of osimertinib (Tagrisso), especially for patients with leptomeningeal disease, and brigatinib (Alunbrig), but there is very little evidence to support dose escalation for any other drugs that might be tried, she said.

In the question-and-answer part of the session, Antonin Levy, MD, from Gustave Roussy in Villejuif, France, who also presented during the session, asked Dr. Hendriks what she would recommend for a patient with a long-term response to chemoimmunotherapy for whom treatment cessation may be recommended, but who still has oligopersistent brain metastases.

“The difficulty is that with immunotherapy patients can have persistent lesions without any tumor activity, and in the brain I think there is no reliable technique to evaluate this type of thing,” she said.

Dr. Hendriks added that she would continue to follow the patient, but also closely evaluate disease progression by reviewing all scans over the course of therapy to determine whether the tumor is truly stable, follow the patient with brain imaging, and then “don’t do anything.”

Dr. Hendriks disclosed grants/research support and financial relationships with multiple companies. Dr. Levy disclosed research grants from Beigene, AstraZeneca, PharmaMar, and Roche.

Treatment decisions about the care of patients with non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) that has metastasized to the brain should always be made by a multidisciplinary team, according to a lung cancer research specialist.

The care of these patients can be quite complex, and the brain is still largely terra incognita, said Lizza Hendriks, MD, PhD, during a case-based session at the European Lung Cancer Congress (ELCC) 2024 in Prague, Czech Republic.

The approach to patients with NSCLC metastatic to the brain and central nervous system was the subject of the session presented by Dr. Hendriks of Maastricht University Medical Center in Maastricht, the Netherlands. During this session, she outlined what is known, what is believed to be true, and what is still unknown about the treatment of patients with NSCLC that has spread to the CNS.

“Immunotherapy has moderate efficacy in the brain, but it can result in long-term disease control,” she said. She added that the best treatment strategy using these agents, whether immunotherapy alone or combined with chemotherapy, is still unknown, even when patients have high levels of programmed death protein 1 (PD-1) in their tumors.

“Also, we don’t know the best sequence of treatments, and we really need more preclinical research regarding the tumor microenvironment in the CNS,” she said.

Next-generation tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) generally have good intracranial efficacy, except for KRAS G12C inhibitors, which need to be tweaked for better effectiveness in the brain. The optimal sequence for TKIs also still needs to be determined, she continued.
 

Decision Points

Dr. Hendriks summarized decision points for the case of a 60-year-old female patient, a smoker, who in February of 2021 was evaluated for multiple asymptomatic brain metastases. The patient, who had good performance status, had a diagnosis of stage IVB NSCLC of adenocarcinoma histology, with a tumor positive for a KRAS G12C mutation and with 50% of tumor cells expressing PD-1.

The patient was treated with whole-brain radiation therapy and single-agent immunotherapy, and, 8 months later, in October 2021, was diagnosed with extracranial progressive disease and was then started on the KRAS G12c inhibitor sotorasib (Lumakras).

In May 2023 the patient was diagnosed with CNS oligoprogressive disease (that is, isolated progressing lesions) and underwent stereotactic radiotherapy. In June 2023 the patient was found to have progressive disease and was then started on platinum-based chemotherapy, with disease progression again noted in December of that year. The patient was still alive at the time of the presentation.

The first decision point in this case, Dr. Hendriks said, was whether to treat the patient at the time of diagnosis of brain metastases with upfront systemic or local therapy for the metastases.

At the time of extracranial progressive disease, should the treatment be another immumotherapy, chemotherapy, or a targeted agent?

“And the last decision is what should we do [in the event of] CNS oligoprogression?,” she said.
 

First Decision

For cases such as that described by Dr. Hendriks the question is whether upfront local therapy is needed if the patient is initially asymptomatic. Other considerations concerning early local therapy include the risks for late toxicities and whether there is also extracranial disease that needs to be controlled.

If systemic therapy is considered at this point, clinicians need to consider intracranial response rates to specific agents, time to onset of response, risk of pseudoprogression, and the risk of toxicity if radiotherapy is delayed until later in the disease course.

“I think all of these patients with brain metastases really deserve multidisciplinary team decisions in order to maintain or to [move] to new treatments, improve the quality of life, and improve survival,” she said.

In the case described here, the patient had small but numerous metastases that indicated the need for extracranial control, she said.

European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO) guidelines recommend that asymptomatic patients or those with oligosymptomatic NSCLC brain metastases with an oncogenic driver receive a brain-penetrating TKI. Those with no oncogenic drive but high PD-1 expression should receive upfront immunotherapy alone, while those with PD-1 ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression below 50% receive chemoimmunotherapy.

The joint American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), Society for Neuro-Oncology (SNO), and American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) guideline for treatment of brain metastases recommends a CNS-penetrating TKI for patients with asymptomatic NSCLC brain metastases bearing EGFR or ALK alterations. If there is no oncogenic driver, the guideline recommends the option of pembrolizumab (Keytruda) with or without chemotherapy.

Both the US and European guidelines recommend initiating local treatment for patients with symptomatic metastases. The level of evidence for these recommendations is low, however.

Clinicians still need better evidence about the potential for upfront immunotherapy for these patients, more information about the NSCLC brain metastases immune environment and tumor microenvironment, data on the best treatment sequence, and new strategies for improving CNS penetration of systemic therapy, Dr. Hendriks said.
 

Second Decision

At the time of CNS progression, the question becomes whether patients would benefit from targeted therapy or chemotherapy.

“We quite often say that chemotherapy doesn’t work in the brain, but that’s not entirely true,” Dr. Hendriks said, noting that, depending on the regimen range, brain response rates range from 23% to as high as 50% in patients with previously untreated asymptomatic brain metastases, although the median survival times are fairly low, on the order of 4 to almost 13 months.

There is also preclinical evidence that chemotherapy uptake is higher for larger brain metastases, compared with normal tissue and cerebrospinal fluid, “so the blood-brain barrier opens if you have the larger brain metastases,” she said.

KRAS-positive NSCLC is associated with a high risk for brain metastases, and these metastases share the same mutation as the primary cancer, suggesting potential efficacy of KRAS G12c inhibitors. There is preclinical evidence that adagrasib (Krazati) has CNS penetration, and there was evidence for intracranial efficacy of the drug in the KRYSTAL-1b trial, Dr. Hendriks noted.

There are fewer data for the other Food and Drug Administration (FDA)–approved inhibitor, sotorasib, but there is evidence to suggest that its brain activity is restricted by ABCB1, a gene encoding for a transporter protein that shuttles substances out of cells.
 

Third Decision

For patients with CNS oligoprogression, the question is whether to adapt systemic therapy or use local therapy.

There is some evidence to support dose escalation for patients with oligoprogression of tumors with EGFR or ALK alterations, but no data to support such a strategy for those with KRAS alterations, she said.

In these situations, data support dose escalation of osimertinib (Tagrisso), especially for patients with leptomeningeal disease, and brigatinib (Alunbrig), but there is very little evidence to support dose escalation for any other drugs that might be tried, she said.

In the question-and-answer part of the session, Antonin Levy, MD, from Gustave Roussy in Villejuif, France, who also presented during the session, asked Dr. Hendriks what she would recommend for a patient with a long-term response to chemoimmunotherapy for whom treatment cessation may be recommended, but who still has oligopersistent brain metastases.

“The difficulty is that with immunotherapy patients can have persistent lesions without any tumor activity, and in the brain I think there is no reliable technique to evaluate this type of thing,” she said.

Dr. Hendriks added that she would continue to follow the patient, but also closely evaluate disease progression by reviewing all scans over the course of therapy to determine whether the tumor is truly stable, follow the patient with brain imaging, and then “don’t do anything.”

Dr. Hendriks disclosed grants/research support and financial relationships with multiple companies. Dr. Levy disclosed research grants from Beigene, AstraZeneca, PharmaMar, and Roche.

Treatment decisions about the care of patients with non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) that has metastasized to the brain should always be made by a multidisciplinary team, according to a lung cancer research specialist.

The care of these patients can be quite complex, and the brain is still largely terra incognita, said Lizza Hendriks, MD, PhD, during a case-based session at the European Lung Cancer Congress (ELCC) 2024 in Prague, Czech Republic.

The approach to patients with NSCLC metastatic to the brain and central nervous system was the subject of the session presented by Dr. Hendriks of Maastricht University Medical Center in Maastricht, the Netherlands. During this session, she outlined what is known, what is believed to be true, and what is still unknown about the treatment of patients with NSCLC that has spread to the CNS.

“Immunotherapy has moderate efficacy in the brain, but it can result in long-term disease control,” she said. She added that the best treatment strategy using these agents, whether immunotherapy alone or combined with chemotherapy, is still unknown, even when patients have high levels of programmed death protein 1 (PD-1) in their tumors.

“Also, we don’t know the best sequence of treatments, and we really need more preclinical research regarding the tumor microenvironment in the CNS,” she said.

Next-generation tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) generally have good intracranial efficacy, except for KRAS G12C inhibitors, which need to be tweaked for better effectiveness in the brain. The optimal sequence for TKIs also still needs to be determined, she continued.
 

Decision Points

Dr. Hendriks summarized decision points for the case of a 60-year-old female patient, a smoker, who in February of 2021 was evaluated for multiple asymptomatic brain metastases. The patient, who had good performance status, had a diagnosis of stage IVB NSCLC of adenocarcinoma histology, with a tumor positive for a KRAS G12C mutation and with 50% of tumor cells expressing PD-1.

The patient was treated with whole-brain radiation therapy and single-agent immunotherapy, and, 8 months later, in October 2021, was diagnosed with extracranial progressive disease and was then started on the KRAS G12c inhibitor sotorasib (Lumakras).

In May 2023 the patient was diagnosed with CNS oligoprogressive disease (that is, isolated progressing lesions) and underwent stereotactic radiotherapy. In June 2023 the patient was found to have progressive disease and was then started on platinum-based chemotherapy, with disease progression again noted in December of that year. The patient was still alive at the time of the presentation.

The first decision point in this case, Dr. Hendriks said, was whether to treat the patient at the time of diagnosis of brain metastases with upfront systemic or local therapy for the metastases.

At the time of extracranial progressive disease, should the treatment be another immumotherapy, chemotherapy, or a targeted agent?

“And the last decision is what should we do [in the event of] CNS oligoprogression?,” she said.
 

First Decision

For cases such as that described by Dr. Hendriks the question is whether upfront local therapy is needed if the patient is initially asymptomatic. Other considerations concerning early local therapy include the risks for late toxicities and whether there is also extracranial disease that needs to be controlled.

If systemic therapy is considered at this point, clinicians need to consider intracranial response rates to specific agents, time to onset of response, risk of pseudoprogression, and the risk of toxicity if radiotherapy is delayed until later in the disease course.

“I think all of these patients with brain metastases really deserve multidisciplinary team decisions in order to maintain or to [move] to new treatments, improve the quality of life, and improve survival,” she said.

In the case described here, the patient had small but numerous metastases that indicated the need for extracranial control, she said.

European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO) guidelines recommend that asymptomatic patients or those with oligosymptomatic NSCLC brain metastases with an oncogenic driver receive a brain-penetrating TKI. Those with no oncogenic drive but high PD-1 expression should receive upfront immunotherapy alone, while those with PD-1 ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression below 50% receive chemoimmunotherapy.

The joint American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), Society for Neuro-Oncology (SNO), and American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) guideline for treatment of brain metastases recommends a CNS-penetrating TKI for patients with asymptomatic NSCLC brain metastases bearing EGFR or ALK alterations. If there is no oncogenic driver, the guideline recommends the option of pembrolizumab (Keytruda) with or without chemotherapy.

Both the US and European guidelines recommend initiating local treatment for patients with symptomatic metastases. The level of evidence for these recommendations is low, however.

Clinicians still need better evidence about the potential for upfront immunotherapy for these patients, more information about the NSCLC brain metastases immune environment and tumor microenvironment, data on the best treatment sequence, and new strategies for improving CNS penetration of systemic therapy, Dr. Hendriks said.
 

Second Decision

At the time of CNS progression, the question becomes whether patients would benefit from targeted therapy or chemotherapy.

“We quite often say that chemotherapy doesn’t work in the brain, but that’s not entirely true,” Dr. Hendriks said, noting that, depending on the regimen range, brain response rates range from 23% to as high as 50% in patients with previously untreated asymptomatic brain metastases, although the median survival times are fairly low, on the order of 4 to almost 13 months.

There is also preclinical evidence that chemotherapy uptake is higher for larger brain metastases, compared with normal tissue and cerebrospinal fluid, “so the blood-brain barrier opens if you have the larger brain metastases,” she said.

KRAS-positive NSCLC is associated with a high risk for brain metastases, and these metastases share the same mutation as the primary cancer, suggesting potential efficacy of KRAS G12c inhibitors. There is preclinical evidence that adagrasib (Krazati) has CNS penetration, and there was evidence for intracranial efficacy of the drug in the KRYSTAL-1b trial, Dr. Hendriks noted.

There are fewer data for the other Food and Drug Administration (FDA)–approved inhibitor, sotorasib, but there is evidence to suggest that its brain activity is restricted by ABCB1, a gene encoding for a transporter protein that shuttles substances out of cells.
 

Third Decision

For patients with CNS oligoprogression, the question is whether to adapt systemic therapy or use local therapy.

There is some evidence to support dose escalation for patients with oligoprogression of tumors with EGFR or ALK alterations, but no data to support such a strategy for those with KRAS alterations, she said.

In these situations, data support dose escalation of osimertinib (Tagrisso), especially for patients with leptomeningeal disease, and brigatinib (Alunbrig), but there is very little evidence to support dose escalation for any other drugs that might be tried, she said.

In the question-and-answer part of the session, Antonin Levy, MD, from Gustave Roussy in Villejuif, France, who also presented during the session, asked Dr. Hendriks what she would recommend for a patient with a long-term response to chemoimmunotherapy for whom treatment cessation may be recommended, but who still has oligopersistent brain metastases.

“The difficulty is that with immunotherapy patients can have persistent lesions without any tumor activity, and in the brain I think there is no reliable technique to evaluate this type of thing,” she said.

Dr. Hendriks added that she would continue to follow the patient, but also closely evaluate disease progression by reviewing all scans over the course of therapy to determine whether the tumor is truly stable, follow the patient with brain imaging, and then “don’t do anything.”

Dr. Hendriks disclosed grants/research support and financial relationships with multiple companies. Dr. Levy disclosed research grants from Beigene, AstraZeneca, PharmaMar, and Roche.

Many women with cancer want advice for managing sexual function issues, and clinicians are tuning in, new studies suggest.

Decreased sexual function is a side effect of many types of cancer, notably uterine, cervical, ovarian, and breast cancer, that often goes unaddressed, according to the authors of several studies presented at the Society of Gynecologic Oncology (SGO)’s Annual Meeting on Women’s Cancer.

Patients want to talk about sex, but not necessarily at the start of their diagnosis or treatment, suggest the findings of a study presented at the meeting. Jesse T. Brewer of Weill Cornell Medicine in New York City and colleagues enrolled 63 patients who underwent surgery with documented hereditary breast cancer, ovarian cancer, or Lynch syndrome in a cross-sectional survey.

Overall, 86% said that sexuality and intimacy were very or somewhat important, and 78% said that the healthcare team addressing the issue was very or somewhat important, the researchers found. However, only 40% of the respondents said that they wanted to discuss sexuality at the time of diagnosis because the idea was too overwhelming.

Oncologists are more aware of sexual side effects and the potential for sexual issues that persist long after treatment, but many patients may not have opportunities to talk about sexual concerns, said Don S. Dizon, MD, an oncologist specializing in women’s cancers at Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island, in an interview.

“It is important that we [oncologists] be the ones to open the door to these conversations; people with cancer will not bring it up spontaneously, for fear of making their provider uncomfortable, especially if they’ve never been asked about it before,” Dr. Dizon said in an interview.

He advised clinicians to find a network within their health systems so they can refer patients to specialized services, such as sex therapy, couples counseling, pelvic rehabilitation, or menopausal experts as needed.

In another study presented at the meeting, Naaman Mehta, MD, of NYU Langone Health, and colleagues reviewed data from 166 healthcare providers who completed a 23-item survey about evaluating and managing sexual health concerns of their patients. Most of the respondents were gynecologic oncologists (93.4%), but one radiation oncologist and 10 other healthcare providers also completed the survey.

Overall, approximately 60% of the respondents routinely asked about the sexual health concerns of their patients, and 98% of these said they believed that sexual health discussions should be held with a gynecologic oncologist. Just over half (54%) also said that the patient should be the one to initiate a discussion of sexual health concerns.

Female providers were significantly more likely to discuss sexual health with patients, compared with male providers, after controlling for the hospital setting and training level, the researchers noted (odds ratio, 1.4;P < .01).

The results suggest a need for more ways to integrate sexual health screening into gynecologic oncologic clinics, the researchers concluded.

The provider survey findings are similar to the results of a survey conducted by Dr. Dizon and colleagues in 2007. In that study, less than half of respondents took a sexual history, but 80% felt there was insufficient time to explore sexual issues.

“It is critical to understand that people with cancer do not expect their oncologists to be sexual health experts, but as with all other side effects caused by treatment and the diagnosis, we can be the ones who recognize it,” Dr. Dizon noted, in an interview.
 

Common Complaints and Causes

In Dr. Dizon’s experience, local symptoms including vaginal dryness, pain with penetration, and vaginal thinning, are common sexual complaints in women with cancer, as are systemic issues such as lack of interest and menopause-type symptoms.

“For those undergoing radiation, the vaginal tunnel can actually develop adhesions, and if not treated proactively this can lead to vaginal stenosis,” said Dr. Dizon, who was not involved in the studies presented at the meeting.

Comorbidities such as diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and musculoskeletal conditions can contribute to sexual issues in women with cancer, according to Nora Lersch, DNP, FNP-BC, AOCNP, and Nicole Dreibelbis, CRNP, the authors of other research presented at the meeting.

Culture, religion, fitness level, history of sexual violence, and gender spectrum health also play a role, as do anxiety and depression, dementia, and substance abuse disorders, the authors wrote in their presentation, “Prioritizing Sexual Health in Gynecological Oncology Care.”

Low libido is a frequent complaint across all cancer types, Ms. Dreibelbis, a nurse practitioner specializing in gynecologic oncology at the UPMC Hillman Cancer Center, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, said in an interview.

“Breast cancer patients, especially those on [aromatase inhibitor] therapy, often experience vaginal dryness and therefore dyspareunia,” she added.

The pelvic floor muscles, with their important role in sexual response, can be weakened by cancer treatment or surgery, and the pudendal nerves, which are the primary nerves responsible for sexual response in women, can be affected as well, Dr. Lersch and Ms. Dreibelbis wrote.
 

Taking Sex Seriously

Researchers are exploring the impact of different cancer prevention treatments for women to mitigate sexual side effects, as illustrated by another study presented at the meeting.

Dr. Barbara Norquist, MD, a gynecologic oncologist at the University of Washington, Seattle, and colleagues compared the sexual function and menopausal symptoms of patients at high risk of ovarian carcinoma who underwent either interval salpingectomy/delayed oophorectomy (ISDO) or risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy (RRSO).

“For patients at high risk for ovarian cancer, surgical removal of the tubes and ovaries is the mainstay of prevention, as screening is not effective at reducing death from ovarian cancer. As a result of surgery, many patients become suddenly postmenopausal from losing their ovaries,” Dr. Norquist said in an interview.

Some patients delay surgery out of concern for health and quality of life, including sexual function, she said.

In the study (known as the WISP trial) the researchers compared data from 166 patients who underwent immediate removal of the fallopian tubes and ovaries and 171 who underwent fallopian tube removal and delayed oophorectomy. All patients completed questionnaires about sexual function. The primary outcome was change in sexual function based on the sexual function index (FSFI) from baseline to 6 months after surgery.

Overall, changes in sexual function were significantly greater in the immediate oophorectomy group, compared with the delayed oophorectomy group at 6 months (33% vs 17%) and also at 12 months (43% vs 20%).

A further review of patients using hormone therapy showed that those in the immediate oophorectomy group still had greater decreases in sexual function, compared with the delayed group, though the difference between groups of patients using hormone therapy was less dramatic.

“I was surprised that, even with hormone replacement therapy, patients undergoing removal of the ovaries still had significant detrimental changes to sexual function when compared to those having the tubes removed, although this was even worse in those who could not take HRT,” Dr. Norquist said, in an interview. “I was reassured that menopausal symptoms in general were well managed with HRT, as these patients did not score differently on menopause symptoms, compared with those having their tubes removed,” she said.

Patients deserve accurate information about predicted changes in menopausal symptoms and sexual function as a result of ovary removal, and HRT should be provided when there is no contraindication, Dr. Norquist told this news organization.

Dr. Norquist and colleagues are awaiting the results of clinical trials investigating the safety of salpingectomy with delayed oophorectomy in terms of ovarian cancer prevention, but more research is needed to identify optimal management of the menopausal and sexual side effects associated with surgical menopause, she noted.

“Findings from the WISP study show the importance of hormones in women undergoing prophylactic surgery,” Dr. Dizon said. The findings indicate that salpingectomy has less of a negative influence on sexual function compared to removal of the ovaries, and the impact of hormone therapy and the relatively young age of the patients who took hormones reinforces current knowledge about hormones and sex, he added.
 

Barriers and Solutions

Barriers to asking women with cancer about sexual issues reported by providers include limited time, lack of training in sexual health, a desire to avoid offending the patient or making them uncomfortable, and uncertainty about how to answer the questions, Dr. Lersch and Ms. Dreibelbis wrote in their presentation.

Barriers to asking healthcare providers about their sexual issues reported by patients include the beliefs that the clinician should initiate the discussion, that sexual function will not be taken seriously, and that they might make the provider uncomfortable.

“Fortunately, more information and research has been done on sexual health and gynecological cancer in recent years, so oncologists are becoming more aware of the issues women may have,” said Dr. Lersch who is an oncology nurse practitioner at Providence Franz Cancer Institute in Portland, Oregon, in an interview.

Telling patients early in their cancer treatment about potential sexual side effects and opportunities for help is essential, she added.

Although oncologists have become more aware of the importance of sexual health and well-being for their patients, “I think there has historically been a disconnect in including sexual health education in medical training,” Ms. Dreibelbis said in an interview.

Dr. Lersch and Ms. Dreibelbis advised a multidimensional approach to managing sexual problems in cancer patients that includes consideration of biological and psychological symptoms, but also social, cultural, and interpersonal factors, in their presentation.

Their suggestions include discussing dyspareunia with their patients, asking for details such as whether the pain is internal or external, whether it occurs with activities outside of sex including masturbation, and whether bleeding is present.

Oncology therapies and surgeries can decrease or eliminate an individual’s ability to produce their own lubricant; for example, removal of the cervix eliminates cervical mucous, which helps with internal lubrication, they wrote in their presentation.

For patients with dyspareunia, Dr. Lersch and Ms. Dreibelbis recommend a vaginal moisturizer especially formulated for vaginal tissue that can be absorbed by the mucosal tissue of the vagina. Use of this type of product can increase the effectiveness of lubricants and help restore integrity of the vaginal tissue. Such moisturizers are available as gels, creams, or suppositories over the counter, and do not contain hormones.

Vaginal estrogen can be helpful for burning, itching, irritation, tissue fragility, and pain with sex, according to Dr. Lersch and Ms. Dreibelbis. Adequate estrogen therapy can promote normalization of vaginal pH and microflora, as well increase vaginal secretion and reduce pain and dryness with intercourse, the presenters stated in their presentation. In addition, dilator therapy can be used to help prevent vaginal stenosis, and penetration bumpers can help relieve discomfort during intercourse, they wrote.

Looking ahead, more research is needed to serve a wider patient population, Ms. Dreibelbis said, in an interview.

“LGBTQIA [individuals] have not been included in sexual health research and there are more people than ever who identify within this group of people. I know there has also been some very early work on shielding the clitoris from the impacts of radiation, and I believe this is extremely important up-and-coming research,” she said.

Dr. Lersch, Ms. Dreibelbi, Dr. Dizon, Dr. Norquist, Ms. Brewer, and Dr. Mehta had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Many women with cancer want advice for managing sexual function issues, and clinicians are tuning in, new studies suggest.

Decreased sexual function is a side effect of many types of cancer, notably uterine, cervical, ovarian, and breast cancer, that often goes unaddressed, according to the authors of several studies presented at the Society of Gynecologic Oncology (SGO)’s Annual Meeting on Women’s Cancer.

Patients want to talk about sex, but not necessarily at the start of their diagnosis or treatment, suggest the findings of a study presented at the meeting. Jesse T. Brewer of Weill Cornell Medicine in New York City and colleagues enrolled 63 patients who underwent surgery with documented hereditary breast cancer, ovarian cancer, or Lynch syndrome in a cross-sectional survey.

Overall, 86% said that sexuality and intimacy were very or somewhat important, and 78% said that the healthcare team addressing the issue was very or somewhat important, the researchers found. However, only 40% of the respondents said that they wanted to discuss sexuality at the time of diagnosis because the idea was too overwhelming.

Oncologists are more aware of sexual side effects and the potential for sexual issues that persist long after treatment, but many patients may not have opportunities to talk about sexual concerns, said Don S. Dizon, MD, an oncologist specializing in women’s cancers at Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island, in an interview.

“It is important that we [oncologists] be the ones to open the door to these conversations; people with cancer will not bring it up spontaneously, for fear of making their provider uncomfortable, especially if they’ve never been asked about it before,” Dr. Dizon said in an interview.

He advised clinicians to find a network within their health systems so they can refer patients to specialized services, such as sex therapy, couples counseling, pelvic rehabilitation, or menopausal experts as needed.

In another study presented at the meeting, Naaman Mehta, MD, of NYU Langone Health, and colleagues reviewed data from 166 healthcare providers who completed a 23-item survey about evaluating and managing sexual health concerns of their patients. Most of the respondents were gynecologic oncologists (93.4%), but one radiation oncologist and 10 other healthcare providers also completed the survey.

Overall, approximately 60% of the respondents routinely asked about the sexual health concerns of their patients, and 98% of these said they believed that sexual health discussions should be held with a gynecologic oncologist. Just over half (54%) also said that the patient should be the one to initiate a discussion of sexual health concerns.

Female providers were significantly more likely to discuss sexual health with patients, compared with male providers, after controlling for the hospital setting and training level, the researchers noted (odds ratio, 1.4;P < .01).

The results suggest a need for more ways to integrate sexual health screening into gynecologic oncologic clinics, the researchers concluded.

The provider survey findings are similar to the results of a survey conducted by Dr. Dizon and colleagues in 2007. In that study, less than half of respondents took a sexual history, but 80% felt there was insufficient time to explore sexual issues.

“It is critical to understand that people with cancer do not expect their oncologists to be sexual health experts, but as with all other side effects caused by treatment and the diagnosis, we can be the ones who recognize it,” Dr. Dizon noted, in an interview.
 

Common Complaints and Causes

In Dr. Dizon’s experience, local symptoms including vaginal dryness, pain with penetration, and vaginal thinning, are common sexual complaints in women with cancer, as are systemic issues such as lack of interest and menopause-type symptoms.

“For those undergoing radiation, the vaginal tunnel can actually develop adhesions, and if not treated proactively this can lead to vaginal stenosis,” said Dr. Dizon, who was not involved in the studies presented at the meeting.

Comorbidities such as diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and musculoskeletal conditions can contribute to sexual issues in women with cancer, according to Nora Lersch, DNP, FNP-BC, AOCNP, and Nicole Dreibelbis, CRNP, the authors of other research presented at the meeting.

Culture, religion, fitness level, history of sexual violence, and gender spectrum health also play a role, as do anxiety and depression, dementia, and substance abuse disorders, the authors wrote in their presentation, “Prioritizing Sexual Health in Gynecological Oncology Care.”

Low libido is a frequent complaint across all cancer types, Ms. Dreibelbis, a nurse practitioner specializing in gynecologic oncology at the UPMC Hillman Cancer Center, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, said in an interview.

“Breast cancer patients, especially those on [aromatase inhibitor] therapy, often experience vaginal dryness and therefore dyspareunia,” she added.

The pelvic floor muscles, with their important role in sexual response, can be weakened by cancer treatment or surgery, and the pudendal nerves, which are the primary nerves responsible for sexual response in women, can be affected as well, Dr. Lersch and Ms. Dreibelbis wrote.
 

Taking Sex Seriously

Researchers are exploring the impact of different cancer prevention treatments for women to mitigate sexual side effects, as illustrated by another study presented at the meeting.

Dr. Barbara Norquist, MD, a gynecologic oncologist at the University of Washington, Seattle, and colleagues compared the sexual function and menopausal symptoms of patients at high risk of ovarian carcinoma who underwent either interval salpingectomy/delayed oophorectomy (ISDO) or risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy (RRSO).

“For patients at high risk for ovarian cancer, surgical removal of the tubes and ovaries is the mainstay of prevention, as screening is not effective at reducing death from ovarian cancer. As a result of surgery, many patients become suddenly postmenopausal from losing their ovaries,” Dr. Norquist said in an interview.

Some patients delay surgery out of concern for health and quality of life, including sexual function, she said.

In the study (known as the WISP trial) the researchers compared data from 166 patients who underwent immediate removal of the fallopian tubes and ovaries and 171 who underwent fallopian tube removal and delayed oophorectomy. All patients completed questionnaires about sexual function. The primary outcome was change in sexual function based on the sexual function index (FSFI) from baseline to 6 months after surgery.

Overall, changes in sexual function were significantly greater in the immediate oophorectomy group, compared with the delayed oophorectomy group at 6 months (33% vs 17%) and also at 12 months (43% vs 20%).

A further review of patients using hormone therapy showed that those in the immediate oophorectomy group still had greater decreases in sexual function, compared with the delayed group, though the difference between groups of patients using hormone therapy was less dramatic.

“I was surprised that, even with hormone replacement therapy, patients undergoing removal of the ovaries still had significant detrimental changes to sexual function when compared to those having the tubes removed, although this was even worse in those who could not take HRT,” Dr. Norquist said, in an interview. “I was reassured that menopausal symptoms in general were well managed with HRT, as these patients did not score differently on menopause symptoms, compared with those having their tubes removed,” she said.

Patients deserve accurate information about predicted changes in menopausal symptoms and sexual function as a result of ovary removal, and HRT should be provided when there is no contraindication, Dr. Norquist told this news organization.

Dr. Norquist and colleagues are awaiting the results of clinical trials investigating the safety of salpingectomy with delayed oophorectomy in terms of ovarian cancer prevention, but more research is needed to identify optimal management of the menopausal and sexual side effects associated with surgical menopause, she noted.

“Findings from the WISP study show the importance of hormones in women undergoing prophylactic surgery,” Dr. Dizon said. The findings indicate that salpingectomy has less of a negative influence on sexual function compared to removal of the ovaries, and the impact of hormone therapy and the relatively young age of the patients who took hormones reinforces current knowledge about hormones and sex, he added.
 

Barriers and Solutions

Barriers to asking women with cancer about sexual issues reported by providers include limited time, lack of training in sexual health, a desire to avoid offending the patient or making them uncomfortable, and uncertainty about how to answer the questions, Dr. Lersch and Ms. Dreibelbis wrote in their presentation.

Barriers to asking healthcare providers about their sexual issues reported by patients include the beliefs that the clinician should initiate the discussion, that sexual function will not be taken seriously, and that they might make the provider uncomfortable.

“Fortunately, more information and research has been done on sexual health and gynecological cancer in recent years, so oncologists are becoming more aware of the issues women may have,” said Dr. Lersch who is an oncology nurse practitioner at Providence Franz Cancer Institute in Portland, Oregon, in an interview.

Telling patients early in their cancer treatment about potential sexual side effects and opportunities for help is essential, she added.

Although oncologists have become more aware of the importance of sexual health and well-being for their patients, “I think there has historically been a disconnect in including sexual health education in medical training,” Ms. Dreibelbis said in an interview.

Dr. Lersch and Ms. Dreibelbis advised a multidimensional approach to managing sexual problems in cancer patients that includes consideration of biological and psychological symptoms, but also social, cultural, and interpersonal factors, in their presentation.

Their suggestions include discussing dyspareunia with their patients, asking for details such as whether the pain is internal or external, whether it occurs with activities outside of sex including masturbation, and whether bleeding is present.

Oncology therapies and surgeries can decrease or eliminate an individual’s ability to produce their own lubricant; for example, removal of the cervix eliminates cervical mucous, which helps with internal lubrication, they wrote in their presentation.

For patients with dyspareunia, Dr. Lersch and Ms. Dreibelbis recommend a vaginal moisturizer especially formulated for vaginal tissue that can be absorbed by the mucosal tissue of the vagina. Use of this type of product can increase the effectiveness of lubricants and help restore integrity of the vaginal tissue. Such moisturizers are available as gels, creams, or suppositories over the counter, and do not contain hormones.

Vaginal estrogen can be helpful for burning, itching, irritation, tissue fragility, and pain with sex, according to Dr. Lersch and Ms. Dreibelbis. Adequate estrogen therapy can promote normalization of vaginal pH and microflora, as well increase vaginal secretion and reduce pain and dryness with intercourse, the presenters stated in their presentation. In addition, dilator therapy can be used to help prevent vaginal stenosis, and penetration bumpers can help relieve discomfort during intercourse, they wrote.

Looking ahead, more research is needed to serve a wider patient population, Ms. Dreibelbis said, in an interview.

“LGBTQIA [individuals] have not been included in sexual health research and there are more people than ever who identify within this group of people. I know there has also been some very early work on shielding the clitoris from the impacts of radiation, and I believe this is extremely important up-and-coming research,” she said.

Dr. Lersch, Ms. Dreibelbi, Dr. Dizon, Dr. Norquist, Ms. Brewer, and Dr. Mehta had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Many women with cancer want advice for managing sexual function issues, and clinicians are tuning in, new studies suggest.

Decreased sexual function is a side effect of many types of cancer, notably uterine, cervical, ovarian, and breast cancer, that often goes unaddressed, according to the authors of several studies presented at the Society of Gynecologic Oncology (SGO)’s Annual Meeting on Women’s Cancer.

Patients want to talk about sex, but not necessarily at the start of their diagnosis or treatment, suggest the findings of a study presented at the meeting. Jesse T. Brewer of Weill Cornell Medicine in New York City and colleagues enrolled 63 patients who underwent surgery with documented hereditary breast cancer, ovarian cancer, or Lynch syndrome in a cross-sectional survey.

Overall, 86% said that sexuality and intimacy were very or somewhat important, and 78% said that the healthcare team addressing the issue was very or somewhat important, the researchers found. However, only 40% of the respondents said that they wanted to discuss sexuality at the time of diagnosis because the idea was too overwhelming.

Oncologists are more aware of sexual side effects and the potential for sexual issues that persist long after treatment, but many patients may not have opportunities to talk about sexual concerns, said Don S. Dizon, MD, an oncologist specializing in women’s cancers at Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island, in an interview.

“It is important that we [oncologists] be the ones to open the door to these conversations; people with cancer will not bring it up spontaneously, for fear of making their provider uncomfortable, especially if they’ve never been asked about it before,” Dr. Dizon said in an interview.

He advised clinicians to find a network within their health systems so they can refer patients to specialized services, such as sex therapy, couples counseling, pelvic rehabilitation, or menopausal experts as needed.

In another study presented at the meeting, Naaman Mehta, MD, of NYU Langone Health, and colleagues reviewed data from 166 healthcare providers who completed a 23-item survey about evaluating and managing sexual health concerns of their patients. Most of the respondents were gynecologic oncologists (93.4%), but one radiation oncologist and 10 other healthcare providers also completed the survey.

Overall, approximately 60% of the respondents routinely asked about the sexual health concerns of their patients, and 98% of these said they believed that sexual health discussions should be held with a gynecologic oncologist. Just over half (54%) also said that the patient should be the one to initiate a discussion of sexual health concerns.

Female providers were significantly more likely to discuss sexual health with patients, compared with male providers, after controlling for the hospital setting and training level, the researchers noted (odds ratio, 1.4;P < .01).

The results suggest a need for more ways to integrate sexual health screening into gynecologic oncologic clinics, the researchers concluded.

The provider survey findings are similar to the results of a survey conducted by Dr. Dizon and colleagues in 2007. In that study, less than half of respondents took a sexual history, but 80% felt there was insufficient time to explore sexual issues.

“It is critical to understand that people with cancer do not expect their oncologists to be sexual health experts, but as with all other side effects caused by treatment and the diagnosis, we can be the ones who recognize it,” Dr. Dizon noted, in an interview.
 

Common Complaints and Causes

In Dr. Dizon’s experience, local symptoms including vaginal dryness, pain with penetration, and vaginal thinning, are common sexual complaints in women with cancer, as are systemic issues such as lack of interest and menopause-type symptoms.

“For those undergoing radiation, the vaginal tunnel can actually develop adhesions, and if not treated proactively this can lead to vaginal stenosis,” said Dr. Dizon, who was not involved in the studies presented at the meeting.

Comorbidities such as diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and musculoskeletal conditions can contribute to sexual issues in women with cancer, according to Nora Lersch, DNP, FNP-BC, AOCNP, and Nicole Dreibelbis, CRNP, the authors of other research presented at the meeting.

Culture, religion, fitness level, history of sexual violence, and gender spectrum health also play a role, as do anxiety and depression, dementia, and substance abuse disorders, the authors wrote in their presentation, “Prioritizing Sexual Health in Gynecological Oncology Care.”

Low libido is a frequent complaint across all cancer types, Ms. Dreibelbis, a nurse practitioner specializing in gynecologic oncology at the UPMC Hillman Cancer Center, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, said in an interview.

“Breast cancer patients, especially those on [aromatase inhibitor] therapy, often experience vaginal dryness and therefore dyspareunia,” she added.

The pelvic floor muscles, with their important role in sexual response, can be weakened by cancer treatment or surgery, and the pudendal nerves, which are the primary nerves responsible for sexual response in women, can be affected as well, Dr. Lersch and Ms. Dreibelbis wrote.
 

Taking Sex Seriously

Researchers are exploring the impact of different cancer prevention treatments for women to mitigate sexual side effects, as illustrated by another study presented at the meeting.

Dr. Barbara Norquist, MD, a gynecologic oncologist at the University of Washington, Seattle, and colleagues compared the sexual function and menopausal symptoms of patients at high risk of ovarian carcinoma who underwent either interval salpingectomy/delayed oophorectomy (ISDO) or risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy (RRSO).

“For patients at high risk for ovarian cancer, surgical removal of the tubes and ovaries is the mainstay of prevention, as screening is not effective at reducing death from ovarian cancer. As a result of surgery, many patients become suddenly postmenopausal from losing their ovaries,” Dr. Norquist said in an interview.

Some patients delay surgery out of concern for health and quality of life, including sexual function, she said.

In the study (known as the WISP trial) the researchers compared data from 166 patients who underwent immediate removal of the fallopian tubes and ovaries and 171 who underwent fallopian tube removal and delayed oophorectomy. All patients completed questionnaires about sexual function. The primary outcome was change in sexual function based on the sexual function index (FSFI) from baseline to 6 months after surgery.

Overall, changes in sexual function were significantly greater in the immediate oophorectomy group, compared with the delayed oophorectomy group at 6 months (33% vs 17%) and also at 12 months (43% vs 20%).

A further review of patients using hormone therapy showed that those in the immediate oophorectomy group still had greater decreases in sexual function, compared with the delayed group, though the difference between groups of patients using hormone therapy was less dramatic.

“I was surprised that, even with hormone replacement therapy, patients undergoing removal of the ovaries still had significant detrimental changes to sexual function when compared to those having the tubes removed, although this was even worse in those who could not take HRT,” Dr. Norquist said, in an interview. “I was reassured that menopausal symptoms in general were well managed with HRT, as these patients did not score differently on menopause symptoms, compared with those having their tubes removed,” she said.

Patients deserve accurate information about predicted changes in menopausal symptoms and sexual function as a result of ovary removal, and HRT should be provided when there is no contraindication, Dr. Norquist told this news organization.

Dr. Norquist and colleagues are awaiting the results of clinical trials investigating the safety of salpingectomy with delayed oophorectomy in terms of ovarian cancer prevention, but more research is needed to identify optimal management of the menopausal and sexual side effects associated with surgical menopause, she noted.

“Findings from the WISP study show the importance of hormones in women undergoing prophylactic surgery,” Dr. Dizon said. The findings indicate that salpingectomy has less of a negative influence on sexual function compared to removal of the ovaries, and the impact of hormone therapy and the relatively young age of the patients who took hormones reinforces current knowledge about hormones and sex, he added.
 

Barriers and Solutions

Barriers to asking women with cancer about sexual issues reported by providers include limited time, lack of training in sexual health, a desire to avoid offending the patient or making them uncomfortable, and uncertainty about how to answer the questions, Dr. Lersch and Ms. Dreibelbis wrote in their presentation.

Barriers to asking healthcare providers about their sexual issues reported by patients include the beliefs that the clinician should initiate the discussion, that sexual function will not be taken seriously, and that they might make the provider uncomfortable.

“Fortunately, more information and research has been done on sexual health and gynecological cancer in recent years, so oncologists are becoming more aware of the issues women may have,” said Dr. Lersch who is an oncology nurse practitioner at Providence Franz Cancer Institute in Portland, Oregon, in an interview.

Telling patients early in their cancer treatment about potential sexual side effects and opportunities for help is essential, she added.

Although oncologists have become more aware of the importance of sexual health and well-being for their patients, “I think there has historically been a disconnect in including sexual health education in medical training,” Ms. Dreibelbis said in an interview.

Dr. Lersch and Ms. Dreibelbis advised a multidimensional approach to managing sexual problems in cancer patients that includes consideration of biological and psychological symptoms, but also social, cultural, and interpersonal factors, in their presentation.

Their suggestions include discussing dyspareunia with their patients, asking for details such as whether the pain is internal or external, whether it occurs with activities outside of sex including masturbation, and whether bleeding is present.

Oncology therapies and surgeries can decrease or eliminate an individual’s ability to produce their own lubricant; for example, removal of the cervix eliminates cervical mucous, which helps with internal lubrication, they wrote in their presentation.

For patients with dyspareunia, Dr. Lersch and Ms. Dreibelbis recommend a vaginal moisturizer especially formulated for vaginal tissue that can be absorbed by the mucosal tissue of the vagina. Use of this type of product can increase the effectiveness of lubricants and help restore integrity of the vaginal tissue. Such moisturizers are available as gels, creams, or suppositories over the counter, and do not contain hormones.

Vaginal estrogen can be helpful for burning, itching, irritation, tissue fragility, and pain with sex, according to Dr. Lersch and Ms. Dreibelbis. Adequate estrogen therapy can promote normalization of vaginal pH and microflora, as well increase vaginal secretion and reduce pain and dryness with intercourse, the presenters stated in their presentation. In addition, dilator therapy can be used to help prevent vaginal stenosis, and penetration bumpers can help relieve discomfort during intercourse, they wrote.

Looking ahead, more research is needed to serve a wider patient population, Ms. Dreibelbis said, in an interview.

“LGBTQIA [individuals] have not been included in sexual health research and there are more people than ever who identify within this group of people. I know there has also been some very early work on shielding the clitoris from the impacts of radiation, and I believe this is extremely important up-and-coming research,” she said.

Dr. Lersch, Ms. Dreibelbi, Dr. Dizon, Dr. Norquist, Ms. Brewer, and Dr. Mehta had no financial conflicts to disclose.

TOPLINE: 

“Optimizing vaccination status should be considered a key element in the care of patients with cancer,” according to the authors of newly released American of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) guidelines. Optimizing vaccination status includes ensuring patients and household members receive recommended vaccines and adjusting this strategy depending on patients’ underlying immune status and their anticancer therapy.

METHODOLOGY: 

• “Infections are the second most common cause of noncancer-related mortality within the first year after a cancer diagnosis,” highlighting the need for oncologists to help ensure patients are up to date on key vaccines, an ASCO panel of experts wrote. 
• The expert panel reviewed the existing evidence and made recommendations to guide vaccination of adults with solid tumors or hematologic malignancies, including those who received hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation (HSCT), chimeric antigen T-cell (CAR T-cell) therapy and B-cell-depleting therapy, as well as guide vaccination of their household contacts. 
• The panel reviewed 102 publications, including 24 systematic reviews, 14 randomized controlled trials, and 64 nonrandomized studies. 
• Vaccines evaluated included those for COVID-19, influenza, hepatitis A and B, respiratory syncytial virus, Tdap, human papillomavirus, inactivated polio, and rabies. 
• The authors noted that patients’ underlying immune status and their cancer therapy could affect vaccination and revaccination strategies compared with recommendations for a general adult population without cancer. 

TAKEAWAY:

• The first step is to determine patients’ vaccination status and ensure adults newly diagnosed with cancer (as well as their household contacts) are up to date on seasonal and age or risk-based vaccines before starting their cancer treatment. If there are gaps, patients would ideally receive their vaccinations 2-4 weeks before their cancer treatment begins; however, non-live vaccines can be given during or after treatment. 
• The authors recommended complete revaccination of patients 6-12 months following HSCT to restore vaccine-induced immunity. The caveats: COVID-19, influenza, and pneumococcal vaccines can be given as early as 3 months after transplant, and patients should receive live and live attenuated vaccines only in the absence of active GVHD or immunosuppression and only ≥ 2 years following HSCT. 
• After CAR T-cell therapy directed against B-cell antigens (CD19/BCMA), patients should not receive influenza and COVID-19 vaccines sooner than 3 months after completing therapy and nonlive vaccines should not be given before 6 months. 
• After B-cell depleting therapy, revaccinate patients for COVID-19 only and no sooner than 6 months after completing treatment. Long-term survivors of hematologic cancer with or without active disease or those with long-standing B-cell dysfunction or hypogammaglobulinemia from therapy or B-cell lineage malignancies should receive the recommended nonlive vaccines. 
• Adults with solid and hematologic cancers traveling to an area of risk should follow the CDC standard recommendations for the destination. Hepatitis A, intramuscular typhoid vaccine, inactivated polio, hepatitis B, rabies, meningococcal, and nonlive Japanese encephalitis vaccines are safe. 

IN PRACTICE:

“Enhancing vaccine uptake against preventable illnesses will help the community and improve the quality of care for patients with cancer,” the authors said. “Clinicians play a critical role in helping the patient and caregiver to understand the potential benefits and risks of recommended vaccination[s]. In addition, clinicians should provide authoritative resources, such as fact-based vaccine informational handouts and Internet sites, to help patients and caregivers learn more about the topic.”

SOURCE:

Mini Kamboj, MD, with Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City, and Elise Kohn, MD, with the National Cancer Institute, Rockville, Maryland, served as cochairs for the expert panel. The guideline was published March 18 in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

The evidence for some vaccines in cancer patients continues to evolve, particularly for new vaccines like COVID-19 vaccines.

DISCLOSURES:

This research had no commercial funding. Disclosures for the guideline panel are available with the original article.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE: 

“Optimizing vaccination status should be considered a key element in the care of patients with cancer,” according to the authors of newly released American of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) guidelines. Optimizing vaccination status includes ensuring patients and household members receive recommended vaccines and adjusting this strategy depending on patients’ underlying immune status and their anticancer therapy.

METHODOLOGY: 

• “Infections are the second most common cause of noncancer-related mortality within the first year after a cancer diagnosis,” highlighting the need for oncologists to help ensure patients are up to date on key vaccines, an ASCO panel of experts wrote. 
• The expert panel reviewed the existing evidence and made recommendations to guide vaccination of adults with solid tumors or hematologic malignancies, including those who received hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation (HSCT), chimeric antigen T-cell (CAR T-cell) therapy and B-cell-depleting therapy, as well as guide vaccination of their household contacts. 
• The panel reviewed 102 publications, including 24 systematic reviews, 14 randomized controlled trials, and 64 nonrandomized studies. 
• Vaccines evaluated included those for COVID-19, influenza, hepatitis A and B, respiratory syncytial virus, Tdap, human papillomavirus, inactivated polio, and rabies. 
• The authors noted that patients’ underlying immune status and their cancer therapy could affect vaccination and revaccination strategies compared with recommendations for a general adult population without cancer. 

TAKEAWAY:

• The first step is to determine patients’ vaccination status and ensure adults newly diagnosed with cancer (as well as their household contacts) are up to date on seasonal and age or risk-based vaccines before starting their cancer treatment. If there are gaps, patients would ideally receive their vaccinations 2-4 weeks before their cancer treatment begins; however, non-live vaccines can be given during or after treatment. 
• The authors recommended complete revaccination of patients 6-12 months following HSCT to restore vaccine-induced immunity. The caveats: COVID-19, influenza, and pneumococcal vaccines can be given as early as 3 months after transplant, and patients should receive live and live attenuated vaccines only in the absence of active GVHD or immunosuppression and only ≥ 2 years following HSCT. 
• After CAR T-cell therapy directed against B-cell antigens (CD19/BCMA), patients should not receive influenza and COVID-19 vaccines sooner than 3 months after completing therapy and nonlive vaccines should not be given before 6 months. 
• After B-cell depleting therapy, revaccinate patients for COVID-19 only and no sooner than 6 months after completing treatment. Long-term survivors of hematologic cancer with or without active disease or those with long-standing B-cell dysfunction or hypogammaglobulinemia from therapy or B-cell lineage malignancies should receive the recommended nonlive vaccines. 
• Adults with solid and hematologic cancers traveling to an area of risk should follow the CDC standard recommendations for the destination. Hepatitis A, intramuscular typhoid vaccine, inactivated polio, hepatitis B, rabies, meningococcal, and nonlive Japanese encephalitis vaccines are safe. 

IN PRACTICE:

“Enhancing vaccine uptake against preventable illnesses will help the community and improve the quality of care for patients with cancer,” the authors said. “Clinicians play a critical role in helping the patient and caregiver to understand the potential benefits and risks of recommended vaccination[s]. In addition, clinicians should provide authoritative resources, such as fact-based vaccine informational handouts and Internet sites, to help patients and caregivers learn more about the topic.”

SOURCE:

Mini Kamboj, MD, with Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City, and Elise Kohn, MD, with the National Cancer Institute, Rockville, Maryland, served as cochairs for the expert panel. The guideline was published March 18 in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

The evidence for some vaccines in cancer patients continues to evolve, particularly for new vaccines like COVID-19 vaccines.

DISCLOSURES:

This research had no commercial funding. Disclosures for the guideline panel are available with the original article.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE: 

“Optimizing vaccination status should be considered a key element in the care of patients with cancer,” according to the authors of newly released American of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) guidelines. Optimizing vaccination status includes ensuring patients and household members receive recommended vaccines and adjusting this strategy depending on patients’ underlying immune status and their anticancer therapy.

METHODOLOGY: 

• “Infections are the second most common cause of noncancer-related mortality within the first year after a cancer diagnosis,” highlighting the need for oncologists to help ensure patients are up to date on key vaccines, an ASCO panel of experts wrote. 
• The expert panel reviewed the existing evidence and made recommendations to guide vaccination of adults with solid tumors or hematologic malignancies, including those who received hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation (HSCT), chimeric antigen T-cell (CAR T-cell) therapy and B-cell-depleting therapy, as well as guide vaccination of their household contacts. 
• The panel reviewed 102 publications, including 24 systematic reviews, 14 randomized controlled trials, and 64 nonrandomized studies. 
• Vaccines evaluated included those for COVID-19, influenza, hepatitis A and B, respiratory syncytial virus, Tdap, human papillomavirus, inactivated polio, and rabies. 
• The authors noted that patients’ underlying immune status and their cancer therapy could affect vaccination and revaccination strategies compared with recommendations for a general adult population without cancer. 

TAKEAWAY:

• The first step is to determine patients’ vaccination status and ensure adults newly diagnosed with cancer (as well as their household contacts) are up to date on seasonal and age or risk-based vaccines before starting their cancer treatment. If there are gaps, patients would ideally receive their vaccinations 2-4 weeks before their cancer treatment begins; however, non-live vaccines can be given during or after treatment. 
• The authors recommended complete revaccination of patients 6-12 months following HSCT to restore vaccine-induced immunity. The caveats: COVID-19, influenza, and pneumococcal vaccines can be given as early as 3 months after transplant, and patients should receive live and live attenuated vaccines only in the absence of active GVHD or immunosuppression and only ≥ 2 years following HSCT. 
• After CAR T-cell therapy directed against B-cell antigens (CD19/BCMA), patients should not receive influenza and COVID-19 vaccines sooner than 3 months after completing therapy and nonlive vaccines should not be given before 6 months. 
• After B-cell depleting therapy, revaccinate patients for COVID-19 only and no sooner than 6 months after completing treatment. Long-term survivors of hematologic cancer with or without active disease or those with long-standing B-cell dysfunction or hypogammaglobulinemia from therapy or B-cell lineage malignancies should receive the recommended nonlive vaccines. 
• Adults with solid and hematologic cancers traveling to an area of risk should follow the CDC standard recommendations for the destination. Hepatitis A, intramuscular typhoid vaccine, inactivated polio, hepatitis B, rabies, meningococcal, and nonlive Japanese encephalitis vaccines are safe. 

IN PRACTICE:

“Enhancing vaccine uptake against preventable illnesses will help the community and improve the quality of care for patients with cancer,” the authors said. “Clinicians play a critical role in helping the patient and caregiver to understand the potential benefits and risks of recommended vaccination[s]. In addition, clinicians should provide authoritative resources, such as fact-based vaccine informational handouts and Internet sites, to help patients and caregivers learn more about the topic.”

SOURCE:

Mini Kamboj, MD, with Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City, and Elise Kohn, MD, with the National Cancer Institute, Rockville, Maryland, served as cochairs for the expert panel. The guideline was published March 18 in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

The evidence for some vaccines in cancer patients continues to evolve, particularly for new vaccines like COVID-19 vaccines.

DISCLOSURES:

This research had no commercial funding. Disclosures for the guideline panel are available with the original article.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AGA Institute

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

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

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

Comparing CRC Screening Methods

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Additional Considerations

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

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

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

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

University of California San Diego

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

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

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

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

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

AGA Institute

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

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

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

Comparing CRC Screening Methods

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Additional Considerations

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

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

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

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

University of California San Diego

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

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

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

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

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

AGA Institute

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

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

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

Comparing CRC Screening Methods

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Additional Considerations

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

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

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

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

University of California San Diego

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

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

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

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

Cervical Screening Does Not Detect Ovarian Cancer

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

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

Recognizing the Red Flags

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

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

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

Persistent Systems Over Age 50

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

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

Other symptoms could include:

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

Diagnosis Challenges Similar in US

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

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

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

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

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

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

Weight Gain May Also be a Sign

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

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

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

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

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

Cervical Screening Does Not Detect Ovarian Cancer

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

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

Recognizing the Red Flags

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

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

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

Persistent Systems Over Age 50

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

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

Other symptoms could include:

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

Diagnosis Challenges Similar in US

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

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

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

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

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

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

Weight Gain May Also be a Sign

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

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

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

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

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

Cervical Screening Does Not Detect Ovarian Cancer

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

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

Recognizing the Red Flags

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

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

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

Persistent Systems Over Age 50

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

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

Other symptoms could include:

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

Diagnosis Challenges Similar in US

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

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

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

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

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

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

Weight Gain May Also be a Sign

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

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

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