AVAHO

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

EEG Findings

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

EEG Findings

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

EEG Findings

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Where do the ABC International Consensus Guidelines come from?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

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

Where do the ABC International Consensus Guidelines come from?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

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

Where do the ABC International Consensus Guidelines come from?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Adding low-dose radiation to the current standard first-line treatment, durvalumab plus etoposide-platinum chemotherapy, appears to improve survival outcomes in patients with extensive-stage small cell lung cancer (SCLC), suggested new findings from a small, single-arm study.

The analysis, presented at the 2024 European Lung Cancer Congress, revealed that low-dose radiation improved patients’ median progression-free and overall survival compared with standard first-line treatment, reported in a 2019 trial, lead author Yan Zhang, MD, reported.

The standard first-line treatment results came from the 2019 CASPIAN trial, which found that patients receiving the first-line regimen had a median progression-free survival of 5 months and a median overall survival of 13 months, with 54% of patient alive at 1 year.

The latest data, which included a small cohort of 30 patients, revealed that adding low-dose radiation to the standard first-line therapy led to a higher median progression-free survival of 8.3 months and extended median overall survival beyond the study follow-up period of 17.3 months. Overall, 66% of patients were alive at 1 year.

These are “promising” improvements over CASPIAN, Dr. Zhang, a lung cancer medical oncologist at Sichuan University, Chengdu, China, said at the Congress, which was organized by the European Society for Medical Oncology.

Study discussant Gerry Hanna, PhD, MBBS, a radiation oncologist at Belfast City Hospital, Belfast, Northern Ireland, agreed. Although there were just 30 patients, “you cannot deny these are [strong] results in terms of extensive-stage small cell cancer,” Dr. Hanna said.

Although standard first-line treatment of extensive-stage SCLC is durvalumab plus etoposide-platinum chemotherapy, the benefits aren’t durable for many patients.

This problem led Dr. Zhang and his colleagues to look for ways to improve outcomes. Because the CASPIAN trial did not include radiation to the primary tumor, it seemed a logical strategy to explore.

In the current single-arm study, Dr. Zhang and his team added 15 Gy radiation in five fractions to the primary lung tumors of 30 patients during the first cycle of durvalumab plus etoposide-platinum.

Subjects received 1500 mg of durvalumab plus etoposide-platinum every 3 weeks for four cycles. Low-dose radiation to the primary tumor was delivered over 5 days at the start of treatment. Patients then continued with durvalumab maintenance every 4 weeks until progression or intolerable toxicity.

Six patients (20%) had liver metastases at the baseline, and three (10%) had brain metastases. Over half had prophylactic cranial radiation. Performance scores were 0-1, and all but one of the participants were men.

Six- and 12-month progression-free survival rates were 57% and 40%, respectively. Overall survival was 90% at 6 months and 66% at 12 months. Median overall survival was 13 months in the CASPIAN trial but not reached in Dr. Zhang’s trial after a median follow-up of 17.3 months, with the earliest deaths occurring at 10.8 months.

Grade 3 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 80% of patients, most frequently hematologic toxicities. Five patients (16.7%) had severe adverse reactions to radiation. Although the overall dose of radiation was low, at 3 Gy each, the fractions were on the large side.

Hanna wanted more information on the radiotoxicity issue, but even so, he said that adding low-dose radiation to our durvalumab-chemotherapy doublet warrants further investigation.

Both Dr. Hanna and Dr. Zhang thought that instead of killing cancer cells directly, the greatest benefit of upfront radiation, and the peritumoral inflammation it causes, is to augment durvalumab’s effect.

Overall, Dr. Hanna stressed that we haven’t had results like these before in a SCLC study, particularly for novel agents, let alone radiation.

The study was funded by AstraZeneca, maker of durvalumab. Dr. Zhang and Dr. Hanna didn’t have any relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Adding low-dose radiation to the current standard first-line treatment, durvalumab plus etoposide-platinum chemotherapy, appears to improve survival outcomes in patients with extensive-stage small cell lung cancer (SCLC), suggested new findings from a small, single-arm study.

The analysis, presented at the 2024 European Lung Cancer Congress, revealed that low-dose radiation improved patients’ median progression-free and overall survival compared with standard first-line treatment, reported in a 2019 trial, lead author Yan Zhang, MD, reported.

The standard first-line treatment results came from the 2019 CASPIAN trial, which found that patients receiving the first-line regimen had a median progression-free survival of 5 months and a median overall survival of 13 months, with 54% of patient alive at 1 year.

The latest data, which included a small cohort of 30 patients, revealed that adding low-dose radiation to the standard first-line therapy led to a higher median progression-free survival of 8.3 months and extended median overall survival beyond the study follow-up period of 17.3 months. Overall, 66% of patients were alive at 1 year.

These are “promising” improvements over CASPIAN, Dr. Zhang, a lung cancer medical oncologist at Sichuan University, Chengdu, China, said at the Congress, which was organized by the European Society for Medical Oncology.

Study discussant Gerry Hanna, PhD, MBBS, a radiation oncologist at Belfast City Hospital, Belfast, Northern Ireland, agreed. Although there were just 30 patients, “you cannot deny these are [strong] results in terms of extensive-stage small cell cancer,” Dr. Hanna said.

Although standard first-line treatment of extensive-stage SCLC is durvalumab plus etoposide-platinum chemotherapy, the benefits aren’t durable for many patients.

This problem led Dr. Zhang and his colleagues to look for ways to improve outcomes. Because the CASPIAN trial did not include radiation to the primary tumor, it seemed a logical strategy to explore.

In the current single-arm study, Dr. Zhang and his team added 15 Gy radiation in five fractions to the primary lung tumors of 30 patients during the first cycle of durvalumab plus etoposide-platinum.

Subjects received 1500 mg of durvalumab plus etoposide-platinum every 3 weeks for four cycles. Low-dose radiation to the primary tumor was delivered over 5 days at the start of treatment. Patients then continued with durvalumab maintenance every 4 weeks until progression or intolerable toxicity.

Six patients (20%) had liver metastases at the baseline, and three (10%) had brain metastases. Over half had prophylactic cranial radiation. Performance scores were 0-1, and all but one of the participants were men.

Six- and 12-month progression-free survival rates were 57% and 40%, respectively. Overall survival was 90% at 6 months and 66% at 12 months. Median overall survival was 13 months in the CASPIAN trial but not reached in Dr. Zhang’s trial after a median follow-up of 17.3 months, with the earliest deaths occurring at 10.8 months.

Grade 3 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 80% of patients, most frequently hematologic toxicities. Five patients (16.7%) had severe adverse reactions to radiation. Although the overall dose of radiation was low, at 3 Gy each, the fractions were on the large side.

Hanna wanted more information on the radiotoxicity issue, but even so, he said that adding low-dose radiation to our durvalumab-chemotherapy doublet warrants further investigation.

Both Dr. Hanna and Dr. Zhang thought that instead of killing cancer cells directly, the greatest benefit of upfront radiation, and the peritumoral inflammation it causes, is to augment durvalumab’s effect.

Overall, Dr. Hanna stressed that we haven’t had results like these before in a SCLC study, particularly for novel agents, let alone radiation.

The study was funded by AstraZeneca, maker of durvalumab. Dr. Zhang and Dr. Hanna didn’t have any relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Adding low-dose radiation to the current standard first-line treatment, durvalumab plus etoposide-platinum chemotherapy, appears to improve survival outcomes in patients with extensive-stage small cell lung cancer (SCLC), suggested new findings from a small, single-arm study.

The analysis, presented at the 2024 European Lung Cancer Congress, revealed that low-dose radiation improved patients’ median progression-free and overall survival compared with standard first-line treatment, reported in a 2019 trial, lead author Yan Zhang, MD, reported.

The standard first-line treatment results came from the 2019 CASPIAN trial, which found that patients receiving the first-line regimen had a median progression-free survival of 5 months and a median overall survival of 13 months, with 54% of patient alive at 1 year.

The latest data, which included a small cohort of 30 patients, revealed that adding low-dose radiation to the standard first-line therapy led to a higher median progression-free survival of 8.3 months and extended median overall survival beyond the study follow-up period of 17.3 months. Overall, 66% of patients were alive at 1 year.

These are “promising” improvements over CASPIAN, Dr. Zhang, a lung cancer medical oncologist at Sichuan University, Chengdu, China, said at the Congress, which was organized by the European Society for Medical Oncology.

Study discussant Gerry Hanna, PhD, MBBS, a radiation oncologist at Belfast City Hospital, Belfast, Northern Ireland, agreed. Although there were just 30 patients, “you cannot deny these are [strong] results in terms of extensive-stage small cell cancer,” Dr. Hanna said.

Although standard first-line treatment of extensive-stage SCLC is durvalumab plus etoposide-platinum chemotherapy, the benefits aren’t durable for many patients.

This problem led Dr. Zhang and his colleagues to look for ways to improve outcomes. Because the CASPIAN trial did not include radiation to the primary tumor, it seemed a logical strategy to explore.

In the current single-arm study, Dr. Zhang and his team added 15 Gy radiation in five fractions to the primary lung tumors of 30 patients during the first cycle of durvalumab plus etoposide-platinum.

Subjects received 1500 mg of durvalumab plus etoposide-platinum every 3 weeks for four cycles. Low-dose radiation to the primary tumor was delivered over 5 days at the start of treatment. Patients then continued with durvalumab maintenance every 4 weeks until progression or intolerable toxicity.

Six patients (20%) had liver metastases at the baseline, and three (10%) had brain metastases. Over half had prophylactic cranial radiation. Performance scores were 0-1, and all but one of the participants were men.

Six- and 12-month progression-free survival rates were 57% and 40%, respectively. Overall survival was 90% at 6 months and 66% at 12 months. Median overall survival was 13 months in the CASPIAN trial but not reached in Dr. Zhang’s trial after a median follow-up of 17.3 months, with the earliest deaths occurring at 10.8 months.

Grade 3 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 80% of patients, most frequently hematologic toxicities. Five patients (16.7%) had severe adverse reactions to radiation. Although the overall dose of radiation was low, at 3 Gy each, the fractions were on the large side.

Hanna wanted more information on the radiotoxicity issue, but even so, he said that adding low-dose radiation to our durvalumab-chemotherapy doublet warrants further investigation.

Both Dr. Hanna and Dr. Zhang thought that instead of killing cancer cells directly, the greatest benefit of upfront radiation, and the peritumoral inflammation it causes, is to augment durvalumab’s effect.

Overall, Dr. Hanna stressed that we haven’t had results like these before in a SCLC study, particularly for novel agents, let alone radiation.

The study was funded by AstraZeneca, maker of durvalumab. Dr. Zhang and Dr. Hanna didn’t have any relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Lowering the recommended age for baseline prostate-specific antigen (PSA) would reduce prostate cancer deaths by about 30% in Black men without significantly increasing the rate of overdiagnosis, according to new screening guidelines from the Prostate Cancer Foundation.

Specifically, baseline PSA testing in Black men should begin at age 40-45, sooner than current guidelines recommend, and should be followed by regular screening intervals, preferably annually, at least until age 70, a multidisciplinary panel of experts and patient advocates determined based on a comprehensive literature review.

The panel’s findings were presented in a poster at the ASCO Genitourinary Cancers Symposium.

“Black men in the United States are considered a high-risk population for being diagnosed with and dying from prostate cancer,” wrote lead author Isla Garraway, MD, PhD, of the University of California, Los Angeles, and colleagues. Specifically, Black men are about two times more likely to be diagnosed with and die from prostate cancer than White men. But, the authors continued, “few guidelines have outlined specific recommendations for PSA-based prostate cancer screening among Black men.”

The US Preventive Services Task Force recommendations, which are currently being updated, set the PSA screening start age at 55. The task force recommendations, which dictate insurance coverage in the United States, acknowledged “a potential mortality benefit for African American men when beginning screening before age 55 years” but did not explicitly recommend screening earlier.

Current guidelines from the American Cancer Society call for discussions about screening in average-risk men to begin at age 50-55. The recommendations do specify lowering the age to 45 for those at a high risk for prostate cancer, which includes Black men as well as those with a first-degree relative diagnosed with prostate cancer before age 65. In some cases, screening can begin at age 40 in the highest risk men — those with more than one first-degree relative who had prostate cancer at a young age.

The Prostate Cancer Foundation “wanted to address the confusion around different guideline statements and the lack of clarity around screening recommendations for Black men,” said William K. Oh, MD, of The Tisch Cancer Institute, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City, who chaired the panel for the new guidelines. “We thus convened a distinguished panel of experts from diverse backgrounds and expertise to create six guidelines statements to help Black men, their families, and their healthcare providers to consider options for prostate cancer screening based on the best available evidence.”

After reviewing 287, the expert panel developed six new guideline statements, reaching at least 80% consensus among panel members, addressing screening for Black men:

• Because Black men are at a high risk for prostate cancer, the benefits of screening generally outweigh the risks.
• PSA testing should be considered first line for prostate cancer screening, although some providers may recommend an optional digital rectal exam in addition to the PSA test.
• Black men should engage in shared decision-making with their healthcare providers and other trusted sources of information to learn about the pros and cons of screening.
• For Black men who elect screening, a baseline PSA test should be done between ages 40 and 45, and annual PSA screening should be strongly considered based on the PSA value and the individual’s health status.
• Black men over age 70 who have been undergoing prostate cancer screening should talk with their healthcare provider about whether to continue PSA testing and make an informed decision based on their age, life expectancy, health status, family history, and prior PSA levels.
• Black men who are at even higher risk due to a strong family history and/or known carriers of high-risk genetic variants should consider initiating annual PSA screening as early as age 40.

These statements are based on “the best available evidence, which overwhelmingly supports the conclusion that Black men in the US could benefit from a risk-adapted PSA screening,” the investigators concluded, noting that the latest evidence “warrants revisiting current recommendations for early [prostate cancer] detection in Black men from other national guideline groups.”

“We believe that the outcome of these more directed guidelines will be to give clarity to these men,” added Oh, who is also chief medical officer for the Prostate Cancer Foundation.

This research was funded by the Prostate Cancer Foundation, National Cancer Institute, Veterans Affairs, Jean Perkins Foundation, and Department of Defense. Garraway reported having no disclosures.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Lowering the recommended age for baseline prostate-specific antigen (PSA) would reduce prostate cancer deaths by about 30% in Black men without significantly increasing the rate of overdiagnosis, according to new screening guidelines from the Prostate Cancer Foundation.

Specifically, baseline PSA testing in Black men should begin at age 40-45, sooner than current guidelines recommend, and should be followed by regular screening intervals, preferably annually, at least until age 70, a multidisciplinary panel of experts and patient advocates determined based on a comprehensive literature review.

The panel’s findings were presented in a poster at the ASCO Genitourinary Cancers Symposium.

“Black men in the United States are considered a high-risk population for being diagnosed with and dying from prostate cancer,” wrote lead author Isla Garraway, MD, PhD, of the University of California, Los Angeles, and colleagues. Specifically, Black men are about two times more likely to be diagnosed with and die from prostate cancer than White men. But, the authors continued, “few guidelines have outlined specific recommendations for PSA-based prostate cancer screening among Black men.”

The US Preventive Services Task Force recommendations, which are currently being updated, set the PSA screening start age at 55. The task force recommendations, which dictate insurance coverage in the United States, acknowledged “a potential mortality benefit for African American men when beginning screening before age 55 years” but did not explicitly recommend screening earlier.

Current guidelines from the American Cancer Society call for discussions about screening in average-risk men to begin at age 50-55. The recommendations do specify lowering the age to 45 for those at a high risk for prostate cancer, which includes Black men as well as those with a first-degree relative diagnosed with prostate cancer before age 65. In some cases, screening can begin at age 40 in the highest risk men — those with more than one first-degree relative who had prostate cancer at a young age.

The Prostate Cancer Foundation “wanted to address the confusion around different guideline statements and the lack of clarity around screening recommendations for Black men,” said William K. Oh, MD, of The Tisch Cancer Institute, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City, who chaired the panel for the new guidelines. “We thus convened a distinguished panel of experts from diverse backgrounds and expertise to create six guidelines statements to help Black men, their families, and their healthcare providers to consider options for prostate cancer screening based on the best available evidence.”

After reviewing 287, the expert panel developed six new guideline statements, reaching at least 80% consensus among panel members, addressing screening for Black men:

• Because Black men are at a high risk for prostate cancer, the benefits of screening generally outweigh the risks.
• PSA testing should be considered first line for prostate cancer screening, although some providers may recommend an optional digital rectal exam in addition to the PSA test.
• Black men should engage in shared decision-making with their healthcare providers and other trusted sources of information to learn about the pros and cons of screening.
• For Black men who elect screening, a baseline PSA test should be done between ages 40 and 45, and annual PSA screening should be strongly considered based on the PSA value and the individual’s health status.
• Black men over age 70 who have been undergoing prostate cancer screening should talk with their healthcare provider about whether to continue PSA testing and make an informed decision based on their age, life expectancy, health status, family history, and prior PSA levels.
• Black men who are at even higher risk due to a strong family history and/or known carriers of high-risk genetic variants should consider initiating annual PSA screening as early as age 40.

These statements are based on “the best available evidence, which overwhelmingly supports the conclusion that Black men in the US could benefit from a risk-adapted PSA screening,” the investigators concluded, noting that the latest evidence “warrants revisiting current recommendations for early [prostate cancer] detection in Black men from other national guideline groups.”

“We believe that the outcome of these more directed guidelines will be to give clarity to these men,” added Oh, who is also chief medical officer for the Prostate Cancer Foundation.

This research was funded by the Prostate Cancer Foundation, National Cancer Institute, Veterans Affairs, Jean Perkins Foundation, and Department of Defense. Garraway reported having no disclosures.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Lowering the recommended age for baseline prostate-specific antigen (PSA) would reduce prostate cancer deaths by about 30% in Black men without significantly increasing the rate of overdiagnosis, according to new screening guidelines from the Prostate Cancer Foundation.

Specifically, baseline PSA testing in Black men should begin at age 40-45, sooner than current guidelines recommend, and should be followed by regular screening intervals, preferably annually, at least until age 70, a multidisciplinary panel of experts and patient advocates determined based on a comprehensive literature review.

The panel’s findings were presented in a poster at the ASCO Genitourinary Cancers Symposium.

“Black men in the United States are considered a high-risk population for being diagnosed with and dying from prostate cancer,” wrote lead author Isla Garraway, MD, PhD, of the University of California, Los Angeles, and colleagues. Specifically, Black men are about two times more likely to be diagnosed with and die from prostate cancer than White men. But, the authors continued, “few guidelines have outlined specific recommendations for PSA-based prostate cancer screening among Black men.”

The US Preventive Services Task Force recommendations, which are currently being updated, set the PSA screening start age at 55. The task force recommendations, which dictate insurance coverage in the United States, acknowledged “a potential mortality benefit for African American men when beginning screening before age 55 years” but did not explicitly recommend screening earlier.

Current guidelines from the American Cancer Society call for discussions about screening in average-risk men to begin at age 50-55. The recommendations do specify lowering the age to 45 for those at a high risk for prostate cancer, which includes Black men as well as those with a first-degree relative diagnosed with prostate cancer before age 65. In some cases, screening can begin at age 40 in the highest risk men — those with more than one first-degree relative who had prostate cancer at a young age.

The Prostate Cancer Foundation “wanted to address the confusion around different guideline statements and the lack of clarity around screening recommendations for Black men,” said William K. Oh, MD, of The Tisch Cancer Institute, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City, who chaired the panel for the new guidelines. “We thus convened a distinguished panel of experts from diverse backgrounds and expertise to create six guidelines statements to help Black men, their families, and their healthcare providers to consider options for prostate cancer screening based on the best available evidence.”

After reviewing 287, the expert panel developed six new guideline statements, reaching at least 80% consensus among panel members, addressing screening for Black men:

• Because Black men are at a high risk for prostate cancer, the benefits of screening generally outweigh the risks.
• PSA testing should be considered first line for prostate cancer screening, although some providers may recommend an optional digital rectal exam in addition to the PSA test.
• Black men should engage in shared decision-making with their healthcare providers and other trusted sources of information to learn about the pros and cons of screening.
• For Black men who elect screening, a baseline PSA test should be done between ages 40 and 45, and annual PSA screening should be strongly considered based on the PSA value and the individual’s health status.
• Black men over age 70 who have been undergoing prostate cancer screening should talk with their healthcare provider about whether to continue PSA testing and make an informed decision based on their age, life expectancy, health status, family history, and prior PSA levels.
• Black men who are at even higher risk due to a strong family history and/or known carriers of high-risk genetic variants should consider initiating annual PSA screening as early as age 40.

These statements are based on “the best available evidence, which overwhelmingly supports the conclusion that Black men in the US could benefit from a risk-adapted PSA screening,” the investigators concluded, noting that the latest evidence “warrants revisiting current recommendations for early [prostate cancer] detection in Black men from other national guideline groups.”

“We believe that the outcome of these more directed guidelines will be to give clarity to these men,” added Oh, who is also chief medical officer for the Prostate Cancer Foundation.

This research was funded by the Prostate Cancer Foundation, National Cancer Institute, Veterans Affairs, Jean Perkins Foundation, and Department of Defense. Garraway reported having no disclosures.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A new way of using artificial intelligence (AI) can predict breast cancer 5 years in advance with impressive accuracy — and unlike previous AI models, we know how this one works.

The new AI system, called AsymMirai, simplifies previous models by solely comparing differences between right and left breasts to predict risk. It could potentially save lives, prevent unnecessary testing, and save the healthcare system money, its creators say.

“With traditional AI, you ask it a question and it spits out an answer, but no one really knows how it makes its decisions. It’s a black box,” said Jon Donnelly, a PhD student in the department of computer science at Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, and first author on a new paper in Radiology describing the model.

“With our approach, people know how the algorithm comes up with its output so they can fact-check it and trust it,” he said.

One in eight women will develop invasive breast cancer, and 1 in 39 will die from it. Mammograms miss about 20% of breast cancers. (The shortcomings of genetic screening and mammograms received extra attention recently when actress Olivia Munn disclosed that she’d been treated for an aggressive form of breast cancer despite a normal mammogram and a negative genetic test.)

The model could help doctors bring the often-abstract idea of AI to the bedside in a meaningful way, said radiologist Vivianne Freitas, MD, assistant professor of medical imaging at the University of Toronto.

“This marks a new chapter in the field of AI,” said Dr. Freitas, who authored an editorial lauding the new paper. “It makes AI more tangible and understandable, thereby improving its potential for acceptance.”
 

AI as a Second Set of Eyes

Mr. Donnelly described AsymMirai as a simpler, more transparent, and easier-to-use version of Mirai, a breakthrough AI model which made headlines in 2021 with its promise to determine with unprecedented accuracy whether a patient is likely to get breast cancer within the next 5 years.

Mirai identified up to twice as many future cancer diagnoses as the conventional risk calculator Tyrer-Cuzick. It also maintained accuracy across a diverse set of patients — a notable plus for two fields (AI and healthcare) notorious for delivering poorer results for minorities.

Tyrer-Cuzick and other lower-tech risk calculators use personal and family history to statistically calculate risk. Mirai, on the other hand, analyzes countless bits of raw data embedded in a mammogram to decipher patterns a radiologist’s eyes may not catch. Four images, including two angles from each breast, are fed into the model, which produces a score between 0 and 1 to indicate the person’s risk of getting breast cancer in 1, 3, or 5 years.

But even Mirai’s creators have conceded they didn’t know exactly how it arrives at that score — a fact that has fueled hesitancy among clinicians.

Study coauthor Fides Schwartz, MD, a radiologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, said researchers were able to crack the code on Mirai’s “black box,” finding that its scores were largely determined by assessing subtle differences between right breast tissue and left breast tissue.

Knowing this, the research team simplified the model to predict risk based solely on “local bilateral dissimilarity.” AsymMirai was born.

The team then used AsymMirai to look back at > 200,000 mammograms from nearly 82,000 patients. They found it worked nearly as well as its predecessor, assigning a higher risk to those who would go on to develop cancer 66% of the time (vs Mirai’s 71%). In patients where it noticed the same asymmetry multiple years in a row it worked even better, with an 88% chance of giving people who would develop cancer later a higher score than those who would not.

“We found that we can, with surprisingly high accuracy, predict whether a woman will develop cancer in the next 1-5 years based solely on localized differences between her left and right breast tissue,” said Mr. Donnelly.

Dr. Schwartz imagines a day when radiologists could use the model to help develop personalized screening strategies for patients. Doctors might advise those with higher scores to get screened more often than guidelines suggest, supplement mammograms with an MRI , and keep a close watch on trouble spots identified by AI.

“For people with really low risk, on the other hand, maybe we can save them an annual exam that’s not super pleasant and might not be necessary,” said Dr. Schwartz.
 

Cautious Optimism

Robert Smith, PhD, senior vice president of early cancer detection science at the American Cancer Society, noted that AI has been used for decades to try to reduce radiologists’ workload and improve diagnoses.

“But AI just never really lived up to its fullest potential,” Dr. Smith said, “quite often because it was being used as a crutch by inexperienced radiologists who, instead of interpreting the mammogram and then seeing what AI had to say ended up letting AI do most of the work which, frankly, just wasn’t that accurate.”

He’s hopeful that newer, more sophisticated iterations of AI medical imaging platforms (roughly 18-20 models are in development) can ultimately save women’s lives, particularly in areas where radiologists are in short supply.

But he believes it will be a long time before doctors, or their patients, are willing to risk postponing a mammogram based on an algorithm.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A new way of using artificial intelligence (AI) can predict breast cancer 5 years in advance with impressive accuracy — and unlike previous AI models, we know how this one works.

The new AI system, called AsymMirai, simplifies previous models by solely comparing differences between right and left breasts to predict risk. It could potentially save lives, prevent unnecessary testing, and save the healthcare system money, its creators say.

“With traditional AI, you ask it a question and it spits out an answer, but no one really knows how it makes its decisions. It’s a black box,” said Jon Donnelly, a PhD student in the department of computer science at Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, and first author on a new paper in Radiology describing the model.

“With our approach, people know how the algorithm comes up with its output so they can fact-check it and trust it,” he said.

One in eight women will develop invasive breast cancer, and 1 in 39 will die from it. Mammograms miss about 20% of breast cancers. (The shortcomings of genetic screening and mammograms received extra attention recently when actress Olivia Munn disclosed that she’d been treated for an aggressive form of breast cancer despite a normal mammogram and a negative genetic test.)

The model could help doctors bring the often-abstract idea of AI to the bedside in a meaningful way, said radiologist Vivianne Freitas, MD, assistant professor of medical imaging at the University of Toronto.

“This marks a new chapter in the field of AI,” said Dr. Freitas, who authored an editorial lauding the new paper. “It makes AI more tangible and understandable, thereby improving its potential for acceptance.”
 

AI as a Second Set of Eyes

Mr. Donnelly described AsymMirai as a simpler, more transparent, and easier-to-use version of Mirai, a breakthrough AI model which made headlines in 2021 with its promise to determine with unprecedented accuracy whether a patient is likely to get breast cancer within the next 5 years.

Mirai identified up to twice as many future cancer diagnoses as the conventional risk calculator Tyrer-Cuzick. It also maintained accuracy across a diverse set of patients — a notable plus for two fields (AI and healthcare) notorious for delivering poorer results for minorities.

Tyrer-Cuzick and other lower-tech risk calculators use personal and family history to statistically calculate risk. Mirai, on the other hand, analyzes countless bits of raw data embedded in a mammogram to decipher patterns a radiologist’s eyes may not catch. Four images, including two angles from each breast, are fed into the model, which produces a score between 0 and 1 to indicate the person’s risk of getting breast cancer in 1, 3, or 5 years.

But even Mirai’s creators have conceded they didn’t know exactly how it arrives at that score — a fact that has fueled hesitancy among clinicians.

Study coauthor Fides Schwartz, MD, a radiologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, said researchers were able to crack the code on Mirai’s “black box,” finding that its scores were largely determined by assessing subtle differences between right breast tissue and left breast tissue.

Knowing this, the research team simplified the model to predict risk based solely on “local bilateral dissimilarity.” AsymMirai was born.

The team then used AsymMirai to look back at > 200,000 mammograms from nearly 82,000 patients. They found it worked nearly as well as its predecessor, assigning a higher risk to those who would go on to develop cancer 66% of the time (vs Mirai’s 71%). In patients where it noticed the same asymmetry multiple years in a row it worked even better, with an 88% chance of giving people who would develop cancer later a higher score than those who would not.

“We found that we can, with surprisingly high accuracy, predict whether a woman will develop cancer in the next 1-5 years based solely on localized differences between her left and right breast tissue,” said Mr. Donnelly.

Dr. Schwartz imagines a day when radiologists could use the model to help develop personalized screening strategies for patients. Doctors might advise those with higher scores to get screened more often than guidelines suggest, supplement mammograms with an MRI , and keep a close watch on trouble spots identified by AI.

“For people with really low risk, on the other hand, maybe we can save them an annual exam that’s not super pleasant and might not be necessary,” said Dr. Schwartz.
 

Cautious Optimism

Robert Smith, PhD, senior vice president of early cancer detection science at the American Cancer Society, noted that AI has been used for decades to try to reduce radiologists’ workload and improve diagnoses.

“But AI just never really lived up to its fullest potential,” Dr. Smith said, “quite often because it was being used as a crutch by inexperienced radiologists who, instead of interpreting the mammogram and then seeing what AI had to say ended up letting AI do most of the work which, frankly, just wasn’t that accurate.”

He’s hopeful that newer, more sophisticated iterations of AI medical imaging platforms (roughly 18-20 models are in development) can ultimately save women’s lives, particularly in areas where radiologists are in short supply.

But he believes it will be a long time before doctors, or their patients, are willing to risk postponing a mammogram based on an algorithm.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A new way of using artificial intelligence (AI) can predict breast cancer 5 years in advance with impressive accuracy — and unlike previous AI models, we know how this one works.

The new AI system, called AsymMirai, simplifies previous models by solely comparing differences between right and left breasts to predict risk. It could potentially save lives, prevent unnecessary testing, and save the healthcare system money, its creators say.

“With traditional AI, you ask it a question and it spits out an answer, but no one really knows how it makes its decisions. It’s a black box,” said Jon Donnelly, a PhD student in the department of computer science at Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, and first author on a new paper in Radiology describing the model.

“With our approach, people know how the algorithm comes up with its output so they can fact-check it and trust it,” he said.

One in eight women will develop invasive breast cancer, and 1 in 39 will die from it. Mammograms miss about 20% of breast cancers. (The shortcomings of genetic screening and mammograms received extra attention recently when actress Olivia Munn disclosed that she’d been treated for an aggressive form of breast cancer despite a normal mammogram and a negative genetic test.)

The model could help doctors bring the often-abstract idea of AI to the bedside in a meaningful way, said radiologist Vivianne Freitas, MD, assistant professor of medical imaging at the University of Toronto.

“This marks a new chapter in the field of AI,” said Dr. Freitas, who authored an editorial lauding the new paper. “It makes AI more tangible and understandable, thereby improving its potential for acceptance.”
 

AI as a Second Set of Eyes

Mr. Donnelly described AsymMirai as a simpler, more transparent, and easier-to-use version of Mirai, a breakthrough AI model which made headlines in 2021 with its promise to determine with unprecedented accuracy whether a patient is likely to get breast cancer within the next 5 years.

Mirai identified up to twice as many future cancer diagnoses as the conventional risk calculator Tyrer-Cuzick. It also maintained accuracy across a diverse set of patients — a notable plus for two fields (AI and healthcare) notorious for delivering poorer results for minorities.

Tyrer-Cuzick and other lower-tech risk calculators use personal and family history to statistically calculate risk. Mirai, on the other hand, analyzes countless bits of raw data embedded in a mammogram to decipher patterns a radiologist’s eyes may not catch. Four images, including two angles from each breast, are fed into the model, which produces a score between 0 and 1 to indicate the person’s risk of getting breast cancer in 1, 3, or 5 years.

But even Mirai’s creators have conceded they didn’t know exactly how it arrives at that score — a fact that has fueled hesitancy among clinicians.

Study coauthor Fides Schwartz, MD, a radiologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, said researchers were able to crack the code on Mirai’s “black box,” finding that its scores were largely determined by assessing subtle differences between right breast tissue and left breast tissue.

Knowing this, the research team simplified the model to predict risk based solely on “local bilateral dissimilarity.” AsymMirai was born.

The team then used AsymMirai to look back at > 200,000 mammograms from nearly 82,000 patients. They found it worked nearly as well as its predecessor, assigning a higher risk to those who would go on to develop cancer 66% of the time (vs Mirai’s 71%). In patients where it noticed the same asymmetry multiple years in a row it worked even better, with an 88% chance of giving people who would develop cancer later a higher score than those who would not.

“We found that we can, with surprisingly high accuracy, predict whether a woman will develop cancer in the next 1-5 years based solely on localized differences between her left and right breast tissue,” said Mr. Donnelly.

Dr. Schwartz imagines a day when radiologists could use the model to help develop personalized screening strategies for patients. Doctors might advise those with higher scores to get screened more often than guidelines suggest, supplement mammograms with an MRI , and keep a close watch on trouble spots identified by AI.

“For people with really low risk, on the other hand, maybe we can save them an annual exam that’s not super pleasant and might not be necessary,” said Dr. Schwartz.
 

Cautious Optimism

Robert Smith, PhD, senior vice president of early cancer detection science at the American Cancer Society, noted that AI has been used for decades to try to reduce radiologists’ workload and improve diagnoses.

“But AI just never really lived up to its fullest potential,” Dr. Smith said, “quite often because it was being used as a crutch by inexperienced radiologists who, instead of interpreting the mammogram and then seeing what AI had to say ended up letting AI do most of the work which, frankly, just wasn’t that accurate.”

He’s hopeful that newer, more sophisticated iterations of AI medical imaging platforms (roughly 18-20 models are in development) can ultimately save women’s lives, particularly in areas where radiologists are in short supply.

But he believes it will be a long time before doctors, or their patients, are willing to risk postponing a mammogram based on an algorithm.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A comprehensive model considering patient age, diabetes, colonoscopy indications, and polyp findings can predict colorectal cancer (CRC) risk more accurately than the solely polyp-based model in patients with a first diagnosis of adenoma on colonoscopy.

METHODOLOGY:

• Because colonoscopy surveillance guidelines relying solely on previous polyp findings to assess CRC risk are imprecise, researchers developed and tested a comprehensive risk prediction model from a list of CRC-related predictors that included patient characteristics and clinical factors in addition to polyp findings.
• The comprehensive model included baseline colonoscopy indication, age group, diabetes diagnosis, and polyp findings (adenoma with advanced histology, polyp size ≥ 10 mm, and sessile serrated or traditional serrated adenoma).
• They randomly assigned 95,001 patients (mean age, 61.9 years; 45.5% women) who underwent colonoscopy with polypectomy to remove a conventional adenoma into two cohorts: Model development (66,500) and internal validation (28,501).
• In both cohorts, researchers compared the performance of the polyp findings-only method against the comprehensive model in predicting CRC, defined as an adenocarcinoma of the colon or rectum diagnosed a year after the baseline colonoscopy.

TAKEAWAY:

• During the follow-up period starting 1 year after colonoscopy, 495 patients were diagnosed with CRC; 354 were in the development cohort and 141 were in the validation cohort.
• The comprehensive model demonstrated better predictive performance than the traditional polyp-based model in the development cohort (area under the curve [AUC], 0.71 vs 0.61) and in the validation cohort (AUC, 0.7 vs 0.62).
• The difference in the Akaike Information Criterion values between the comprehensive and polyp models was 45.7, much above the threshold of 10, strongly indicating the superior performance of the comprehensive model.

IN PRACTICE:

“Improving the ability to accurately predict the patients at highest risk for CRC after polypectomy is critically important, given the considerable costs and resources associated with treating CRC and the better prognosis associated with early cancer detection. The current findings provide proof of concept that inclusion of CRC risk factors beyond prior polyp findings has the potential to improve post-colonoscopy risk stratification,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Jeffrey K. Lee, MD, MPH, Division of Research, Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Oakland, California, was published online in The American Journal of Gastroenterology.

LIMITATIONS:

External validation of the model’s performance is needed in different practice settings. The generalizability of the findings is limited because the study population did not include individuals without a prior adenoma or those with an isolated serrated polyp. Moreover, the examination of polyp size > 20 mm as a potential predictor of CRC was precluded due to incomplete data.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was conducted within the National Cancer Institute–funded Population-Based Research to Optimize the Screening Process II consortium and funded by a career development grant from the National Cancer Institute to Lee. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A comprehensive model considering patient age, diabetes, colonoscopy indications, and polyp findings can predict colorectal cancer (CRC) risk more accurately than the solely polyp-based model in patients with a first diagnosis of adenoma on colonoscopy.

METHODOLOGY:

• Because colonoscopy surveillance guidelines relying solely on previous polyp findings to assess CRC risk are imprecise, researchers developed and tested a comprehensive risk prediction model from a list of CRC-related predictors that included patient characteristics and clinical factors in addition to polyp findings.
• The comprehensive model included baseline colonoscopy indication, age group, diabetes diagnosis, and polyp findings (adenoma with advanced histology, polyp size ≥ 10 mm, and sessile serrated or traditional serrated adenoma).
• They randomly assigned 95,001 patients (mean age, 61.9 years; 45.5% women) who underwent colonoscopy with polypectomy to remove a conventional adenoma into two cohorts: Model development (66,500) and internal validation (28,501).
• In both cohorts, researchers compared the performance of the polyp findings-only method against the comprehensive model in predicting CRC, defined as an adenocarcinoma of the colon or rectum diagnosed a year after the baseline colonoscopy.

TAKEAWAY:

• During the follow-up period starting 1 year after colonoscopy, 495 patients were diagnosed with CRC; 354 were in the development cohort and 141 were in the validation cohort.
• The comprehensive model demonstrated better predictive performance than the traditional polyp-based model in the development cohort (area under the curve [AUC], 0.71 vs 0.61) and in the validation cohort (AUC, 0.7 vs 0.62).
• The difference in the Akaike Information Criterion values between the comprehensive and polyp models was 45.7, much above the threshold of 10, strongly indicating the superior performance of the comprehensive model.

IN PRACTICE:

“Improving the ability to accurately predict the patients at highest risk for CRC after polypectomy is critically important, given the considerable costs and resources associated with treating CRC and the better prognosis associated with early cancer detection. The current findings provide proof of concept that inclusion of CRC risk factors beyond prior polyp findings has the potential to improve post-colonoscopy risk stratification,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Jeffrey K. Lee, MD, MPH, Division of Research, Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Oakland, California, was published online in The American Journal of Gastroenterology.

LIMITATIONS:

External validation of the model’s performance is needed in different practice settings. The generalizability of the findings is limited because the study population did not include individuals without a prior adenoma or those with an isolated serrated polyp. Moreover, the examination of polyp size > 20 mm as a potential predictor of CRC was precluded due to incomplete data.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was conducted within the National Cancer Institute–funded Population-Based Research to Optimize the Screening Process II consortium and funded by a career development grant from the National Cancer Institute to Lee. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A comprehensive model considering patient age, diabetes, colonoscopy indications, and polyp findings can predict colorectal cancer (CRC) risk more accurately than the solely polyp-based model in patients with a first diagnosis of adenoma on colonoscopy.

METHODOLOGY:

• Because colonoscopy surveillance guidelines relying solely on previous polyp findings to assess CRC risk are imprecise, researchers developed and tested a comprehensive risk prediction model from a list of CRC-related predictors that included patient characteristics and clinical factors in addition to polyp findings.
• The comprehensive model included baseline colonoscopy indication, age group, diabetes diagnosis, and polyp findings (adenoma with advanced histology, polyp size ≥ 10 mm, and sessile serrated or traditional serrated adenoma).
• They randomly assigned 95,001 patients (mean age, 61.9 years; 45.5% women) who underwent colonoscopy with polypectomy to remove a conventional adenoma into two cohorts: Model development (66,500) and internal validation (28,501).
• In both cohorts, researchers compared the performance of the polyp findings-only method against the comprehensive model in predicting CRC, defined as an adenocarcinoma of the colon or rectum diagnosed a year after the baseline colonoscopy.

TAKEAWAY:

• During the follow-up period starting 1 year after colonoscopy, 495 patients were diagnosed with CRC; 354 were in the development cohort and 141 were in the validation cohort.
• The comprehensive model demonstrated better predictive performance than the traditional polyp-based model in the development cohort (area under the curve [AUC], 0.71 vs 0.61) and in the validation cohort (AUC, 0.7 vs 0.62).
• The difference in the Akaike Information Criterion values between the comprehensive and polyp models was 45.7, much above the threshold of 10, strongly indicating the superior performance of the comprehensive model.

IN PRACTICE:

“Improving the ability to accurately predict the patients at highest risk for CRC after polypectomy is critically important, given the considerable costs and resources associated with treating CRC and the better prognosis associated with early cancer detection. The current findings provide proof of concept that inclusion of CRC risk factors beyond prior polyp findings has the potential to improve post-colonoscopy risk stratification,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Jeffrey K. Lee, MD, MPH, Division of Research, Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Oakland, California, was published online in The American Journal of Gastroenterology.

LIMITATIONS:

External validation of the model’s performance is needed in different practice settings. The generalizability of the findings is limited because the study population did not include individuals without a prior adenoma or those with an isolated serrated polyp. Moreover, the examination of polyp size > 20 mm as a potential predictor of CRC was precluded due to incomplete data.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was conducted within the National Cancer Institute–funded Population-Based Research to Optimize the Screening Process II consortium and funded by a career development grant from the National Cancer Institute to Lee. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.