AVAHO

Plenty of perks come along with earning a physician’s salary, but a low tax rate isn’t among them. Medscape’s Physicians and Taxes Report 2023 shows that last year, doctors paid an average of nearly $100,000 in state and federal taxes, and three-quarters of them thought that they were paying too much to Uncle Sam. In most cases, it’s impossible to eliminate that tax bill, but physicians told us they have found ways to minimize it.

“The percentage you have to pay in taxes escalates as you earn more money, and most doctors are at the maximum rate,” says Paul Joseph, a certified public accountant and founder of Joseph & Joseph Tax & Payroll in Williamston, Mich. “So every dollar you can deduct from your income is worth more.”

Here’s a look at the seven top tax breaks physician respondents claimed in our tax report, so you can ensure you’re making the most of the tax strategies available to you. To claim most of these options, you’ll need to itemize your deductions when filing your taxes.
 

Contribute to charity

Claimed by 70% of physicians in 2022.

Who’s eligible: Anyone.

How it works: If you itemize your taxes, you can deduct the value of cash, securities, or property donations to 501(c)(3) organizations. You’ll need a receipt from the charity and a third-party appraisal for any property donations worth more than $5,000.

Pro tip: Donating stocks that have appreciated in value can deliver additional tax benefits: You get to write off both the value of the contribution and avoid capital gains taxes that you’d face for selling the security.
 

Contribute to a pre-tax 401(k) account

Claimed by 60% of physicians in 2022.

Who’s eligible: Those who work for a company that sponsors a 401(k) plan.

How it works: Contributions to a 401(k) or 403(b) account come directly out of your paycheck, pre-tax, and grow tax-free until you withdraw them in retirement. Many companies offer a match on contributions. In 2023, you can contribute up to $22,500 ($30,000 if you’re age 50 or older) to a 401(k) account.

Pro tip: If you’re maxing out your 401(k) account, you can stash money in other tax-advantaged accounts such as a health savings account (if you have a high-deductible health plan) or an individual retirement account (IRA). Although employees with access to a 401(k) may not get the pre-tax advantage of the IRA contributions, the money will grow tax-free through retirement, and you may have access to additional investment options unavailable in your workplace plan.

“You want to maximize your retirement contributions,” says Mark Steber, the chief tax information officer for Jackson Hewitt Tax Services. “If you’re not taking full advantage of them, you’re probably leaving some tax dollars on the table.”

If you’re self-employed and don’t have access to a workplace plan, there are several options for tax-advantaged retirement savings, including a SEP IRA and a solo 401(k).
 

Deduct interest on a home mortgage

Claimed by 52% of physicians.

Who’s eligible: Most homeowners who have a mortgage.

How it works: Homeowners can deduct the interest paid on the first $750,000 of their mortgage. (Those who have had the same mortgage since before December 16, 2007, can deduct interest on the first $1 million of their loan.)

Pro tip: If you purchased a home this year and bought points to reduce the rate, you may be able to deduct the cost of those points on your taxes.

Physicians might also be eligible for other home-related tax benefits, such as for green home improvements under the Inflation Reduction Act or for home equity loans used to improve the value of your home.
 

Write off eligible business expenses

Claimed by 46% of physicians.

Who’s eligible: Physicians who own all or a portion of their practice, as well as those who work as consultants or contractors paid with a 1099.

How it works: Doctors who run their business using an LLC or S corporation can itemize the deductions on their Schedule C. There are dozens of deductions that might qualify, including for office space and supplies, medical equipment, uniforms, staff wages and benefits, and state and local tax payments. Physicians who work as consultants can deduct home office expenses, travel costs, and the price of supplies purchased for the job.

“For business expenses, you want to make sure that you’re tracking those expenses on an ongoing basis, rather than trying to reconstruct something at the end of the year from 8 months ago,” Mr. Joseph says. “You want to have a system in place that’s calculating those expenses every single day.”

Pro tip: The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 also allows owners of pass-through businesses to deduct up to 20% of their business income.

“Not all physicians will qualify for that, because they are in a service-based business and many of them make too much money, but it’s always a good idea to look at whether that’s something they’re eligible for and make sure that they claim it,” says Eric Bronnenkant, head of tax at New York–based investment company Betterment.
 

Contribute to a 529 college savings plan

Claimed by 27% of physicians.

Who’s eligible: Those who live in the 37 states that offer a credit or deduction for 529 plan contributions.

How it works: The rules and amounts that qualify vary significantly by state. Most states offer benefits for contributions to in-state accounts only, whereas others offer a tax break for contributions to any 529 account.

Although there is no federal income tax benefit for contributions to a 529 plan, the money grows tax-free until tapped for qualified education expenses, which include both private primary and high school tuition and college costs. Starting in 2024, up to $35,000 in unused funds can roll over into a Roth IRA for the beneficiary.

“It’s not just about the immediate deduction with a 529 account,” says Brian Copeland, partner and director of financial planning with Hightower Wealth Advisors in St. Louis. “It’s not saving you a lot on day one; it’s more about as that account grows, you don’t have to pay taxes on it along the way, so you’re sheltering it from taxes for the 18 years you’re saving for your kids’ college.”

Pro tip: Even if you live in a state without a state income tax or without a tax break for 529 contributions, opening an account can be a smart financial move. Because you don’t need to choose an in-state plan for the tax breaks, look for one that offers low fees and investment options that you like.
 

Sell investments at a loss

Claimed by 22% of physicians.

Who’s eligible: Anyone who has sold stocks, mutual funds, or other investments at a loss.

How it works: After selling a security that has lost value, you can deduct the value of that loss on your taxes to offset capital gains in the same year. If you have more losses than gains, you can use the losses to offset up to $3,000 in ordinary income per year. If you have more than $3,000 in losses, you can carry those losses forward to offset future income or capital gains.

Pro tip: In years with a lot of market volatility, such as this one, there’s potential to engage in “tax loss harvesting” in which you intentionally sell securities that have lost value to realize the losses for the tax benefits. Keep in mind that if you sell a security at a loss, you cannot repurchase the same security within 30 days – the IRS sees that as a “wash sale,” which does not qualify for a capital loss for tax purposes.
 

Contribute to a backdoor Roth IRA

Claimed by 20% of physicians.

Who’s eligible: Anyone who wishes to contribute to a Roth IRA but is not allowed to do so because their income is too high.

How it works: High earners typically don’t qualify for contributions to a Roth IRA, in which contributions go in after taxes but grow tax-free and distributions in retirement are also tax-free. But there are no income requirements for making after-tax contributions to a traditional and then converting it to a Roth IRA.

There are, however, complex tax rules for those who also have a traditional IRA that’s funded with pre-tax dollars. If that’s the case, work with a tax pro or financial advisor to determine whether a backdoor Roth conversion is the most tax-efficient approach for your situation.

Pro tip: A growing number of workplace retirement plans now include an option for Roth contributions. There are no income limits on a Roth 401(k), so contributing to that type of an account could be a smart route for taxpayers for whom a backdoor conversion doesn’t make sense.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Plenty of perks come along with earning a physician’s salary, but a low tax rate isn’t among them. Medscape’s Physicians and Taxes Report 2023 shows that last year, doctors paid an average of nearly $100,000 in state and federal taxes, and three-quarters of them thought that they were paying too much to Uncle Sam. In most cases, it’s impossible to eliminate that tax bill, but physicians told us they have found ways to minimize it.

“The percentage you have to pay in taxes escalates as you earn more money, and most doctors are at the maximum rate,” says Paul Joseph, a certified public accountant and founder of Joseph & Joseph Tax & Payroll in Williamston, Mich. “So every dollar you can deduct from your income is worth more.”

Here’s a look at the seven top tax breaks physician respondents claimed in our tax report, so you can ensure you’re making the most of the tax strategies available to you. To claim most of these options, you’ll need to itemize your deductions when filing your taxes.
 

Contribute to charity

Claimed by 70% of physicians in 2022.

Who’s eligible: Anyone.

How it works: If you itemize your taxes, you can deduct the value of cash, securities, or property donations to 501(c)(3) organizations. You’ll need a receipt from the charity and a third-party appraisal for any property donations worth more than $5,000.

Pro tip: Donating stocks that have appreciated in value can deliver additional tax benefits: You get to write off both the value of the contribution and avoid capital gains taxes that you’d face for selling the security.
 

Contribute to a pre-tax 401(k) account

Claimed by 60% of physicians in 2022.

Who’s eligible: Those who work for a company that sponsors a 401(k) plan.

How it works: Contributions to a 401(k) or 403(b) account come directly out of your paycheck, pre-tax, and grow tax-free until you withdraw them in retirement. Many companies offer a match on contributions. In 2023, you can contribute up to $22,500 ($30,000 if you’re age 50 or older) to a 401(k) account.

Pro tip: If you’re maxing out your 401(k) account, you can stash money in other tax-advantaged accounts such as a health savings account (if you have a high-deductible health plan) or an individual retirement account (IRA). Although employees with access to a 401(k) may not get the pre-tax advantage of the IRA contributions, the money will grow tax-free through retirement, and you may have access to additional investment options unavailable in your workplace plan.

“You want to maximize your retirement contributions,” says Mark Steber, the chief tax information officer for Jackson Hewitt Tax Services. “If you’re not taking full advantage of them, you’re probably leaving some tax dollars on the table.”

If you’re self-employed and don’t have access to a workplace plan, there are several options for tax-advantaged retirement savings, including a SEP IRA and a solo 401(k).
 

Deduct interest on a home mortgage

Claimed by 52% of physicians.

Who’s eligible: Most homeowners who have a mortgage.

How it works: Homeowners can deduct the interest paid on the first $750,000 of their mortgage. (Those who have had the same mortgage since before December 16, 2007, can deduct interest on the first $1 million of their loan.)

Pro tip: If you purchased a home this year and bought points to reduce the rate, you may be able to deduct the cost of those points on your taxes.

Physicians might also be eligible for other home-related tax benefits, such as for green home improvements under the Inflation Reduction Act or for home equity loans used to improve the value of your home.
 

Write off eligible business expenses

Claimed by 46% of physicians.

Who’s eligible: Physicians who own all or a portion of their practice, as well as those who work as consultants or contractors paid with a 1099.

How it works: Doctors who run their business using an LLC or S corporation can itemize the deductions on their Schedule C. There are dozens of deductions that might qualify, including for office space and supplies, medical equipment, uniforms, staff wages and benefits, and state and local tax payments. Physicians who work as consultants can deduct home office expenses, travel costs, and the price of supplies purchased for the job.

“For business expenses, you want to make sure that you’re tracking those expenses on an ongoing basis, rather than trying to reconstruct something at the end of the year from 8 months ago,” Mr. Joseph says. “You want to have a system in place that’s calculating those expenses every single day.”

Pro tip: The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 also allows owners of pass-through businesses to deduct up to 20% of their business income.

“Not all physicians will qualify for that, because they are in a service-based business and many of them make too much money, but it’s always a good idea to look at whether that’s something they’re eligible for and make sure that they claim it,” says Eric Bronnenkant, head of tax at New York–based investment company Betterment.
 

Contribute to a 529 college savings plan

Claimed by 27% of physicians.

Who’s eligible: Those who live in the 37 states that offer a credit or deduction for 529 plan contributions.

How it works: The rules and amounts that qualify vary significantly by state. Most states offer benefits for contributions to in-state accounts only, whereas others offer a tax break for contributions to any 529 account.

Although there is no federal income tax benefit for contributions to a 529 plan, the money grows tax-free until tapped for qualified education expenses, which include both private primary and high school tuition and college costs. Starting in 2024, up to $35,000 in unused funds can roll over into a Roth IRA for the beneficiary.

“It’s not just about the immediate deduction with a 529 account,” says Brian Copeland, partner and director of financial planning with Hightower Wealth Advisors in St. Louis. “It’s not saving you a lot on day one; it’s more about as that account grows, you don’t have to pay taxes on it along the way, so you’re sheltering it from taxes for the 18 years you’re saving for your kids’ college.”

Pro tip: Even if you live in a state without a state income tax or without a tax break for 529 contributions, opening an account can be a smart financial move. Because you don’t need to choose an in-state plan for the tax breaks, look for one that offers low fees and investment options that you like.
 

Sell investments at a loss

Claimed by 22% of physicians.

Who’s eligible: Anyone who has sold stocks, mutual funds, or other investments at a loss.

How it works: After selling a security that has lost value, you can deduct the value of that loss on your taxes to offset capital gains in the same year. If you have more losses than gains, you can use the losses to offset up to $3,000 in ordinary income per year. If you have more than $3,000 in losses, you can carry those losses forward to offset future income or capital gains.

Pro tip: In years with a lot of market volatility, such as this one, there’s potential to engage in “tax loss harvesting” in which you intentionally sell securities that have lost value to realize the losses for the tax benefits. Keep in mind that if you sell a security at a loss, you cannot repurchase the same security within 30 days – the IRS sees that as a “wash sale,” which does not qualify for a capital loss for tax purposes.
 

Contribute to a backdoor Roth IRA

Claimed by 20% of physicians.

Who’s eligible: Anyone who wishes to contribute to a Roth IRA but is not allowed to do so because their income is too high.

How it works: High earners typically don’t qualify for contributions to a Roth IRA, in which contributions go in after taxes but grow tax-free and distributions in retirement are also tax-free. But there are no income requirements for making after-tax contributions to a traditional and then converting it to a Roth IRA.

There are, however, complex tax rules for those who also have a traditional IRA that’s funded with pre-tax dollars. If that’s the case, work with a tax pro or financial advisor to determine whether a backdoor Roth conversion is the most tax-efficient approach for your situation.

Pro tip: A growing number of workplace retirement plans now include an option for Roth contributions. There are no income limits on a Roth 401(k), so contributing to that type of an account could be a smart route for taxpayers for whom a backdoor conversion doesn’t make sense.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Plenty of perks come along with earning a physician’s salary, but a low tax rate isn’t among them. Medscape’s Physicians and Taxes Report 2023 shows that last year, doctors paid an average of nearly $100,000 in state and federal taxes, and three-quarters of them thought that they were paying too much to Uncle Sam. In most cases, it’s impossible to eliminate that tax bill, but physicians told us they have found ways to minimize it.

“The percentage you have to pay in taxes escalates as you earn more money, and most doctors are at the maximum rate,” says Paul Joseph, a certified public accountant and founder of Joseph & Joseph Tax & Payroll in Williamston, Mich. “So every dollar you can deduct from your income is worth more.”

Here’s a look at the seven top tax breaks physician respondents claimed in our tax report, so you can ensure you’re making the most of the tax strategies available to you. To claim most of these options, you’ll need to itemize your deductions when filing your taxes.
 

Contribute to charity

Claimed by 70% of physicians in 2022.

Who’s eligible: Anyone.

How it works: If you itemize your taxes, you can deduct the value of cash, securities, or property donations to 501(c)(3) organizations. You’ll need a receipt from the charity and a third-party appraisal for any property donations worth more than $5,000.

Pro tip: Donating stocks that have appreciated in value can deliver additional tax benefits: You get to write off both the value of the contribution and avoid capital gains taxes that you’d face for selling the security.
 

Contribute to a pre-tax 401(k) account

Claimed by 60% of physicians in 2022.

Who’s eligible: Those who work for a company that sponsors a 401(k) plan.

How it works: Contributions to a 401(k) or 403(b) account come directly out of your paycheck, pre-tax, and grow tax-free until you withdraw them in retirement. Many companies offer a match on contributions. In 2023, you can contribute up to $22,500 ($30,000 if you’re age 50 or older) to a 401(k) account.

Pro tip: If you’re maxing out your 401(k) account, you can stash money in other tax-advantaged accounts such as a health savings account (if you have a high-deductible health plan) or an individual retirement account (IRA). Although employees with access to a 401(k) may not get the pre-tax advantage of the IRA contributions, the money will grow tax-free through retirement, and you may have access to additional investment options unavailable in your workplace plan.

“You want to maximize your retirement contributions,” says Mark Steber, the chief tax information officer for Jackson Hewitt Tax Services. “If you’re not taking full advantage of them, you’re probably leaving some tax dollars on the table.”

If you’re self-employed and don’t have access to a workplace plan, there are several options for tax-advantaged retirement savings, including a SEP IRA and a solo 401(k).
 

Deduct interest on a home mortgage

Claimed by 52% of physicians.

Who’s eligible: Most homeowners who have a mortgage.

How it works: Homeowners can deduct the interest paid on the first $750,000 of their mortgage. (Those who have had the same mortgage since before December 16, 2007, can deduct interest on the first $1 million of their loan.)

Pro tip: If you purchased a home this year and bought points to reduce the rate, you may be able to deduct the cost of those points on your taxes.

Physicians might also be eligible for other home-related tax benefits, such as for green home improvements under the Inflation Reduction Act or for home equity loans used to improve the value of your home.
 

Write off eligible business expenses

Claimed by 46% of physicians.

Who’s eligible: Physicians who own all or a portion of their practice, as well as those who work as consultants or contractors paid with a 1099.

How it works: Doctors who run their business using an LLC or S corporation can itemize the deductions on their Schedule C. There are dozens of deductions that might qualify, including for office space and supplies, medical equipment, uniforms, staff wages and benefits, and state and local tax payments. Physicians who work as consultants can deduct home office expenses, travel costs, and the price of supplies purchased for the job.

“For business expenses, you want to make sure that you’re tracking those expenses on an ongoing basis, rather than trying to reconstruct something at the end of the year from 8 months ago,” Mr. Joseph says. “You want to have a system in place that’s calculating those expenses every single day.”

Pro tip: The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 also allows owners of pass-through businesses to deduct up to 20% of their business income.

“Not all physicians will qualify for that, because they are in a service-based business and many of them make too much money, but it’s always a good idea to look at whether that’s something they’re eligible for and make sure that they claim it,” says Eric Bronnenkant, head of tax at New York–based investment company Betterment.
 

Contribute to a 529 college savings plan

Claimed by 27% of physicians.

Who’s eligible: Those who live in the 37 states that offer a credit or deduction for 529 plan contributions.

How it works: The rules and amounts that qualify vary significantly by state. Most states offer benefits for contributions to in-state accounts only, whereas others offer a tax break for contributions to any 529 account.

Although there is no federal income tax benefit for contributions to a 529 plan, the money grows tax-free until tapped for qualified education expenses, which include both private primary and high school tuition and college costs. Starting in 2024, up to $35,000 in unused funds can roll over into a Roth IRA for the beneficiary.

“It’s not just about the immediate deduction with a 529 account,” says Brian Copeland, partner and director of financial planning with Hightower Wealth Advisors in St. Louis. “It’s not saving you a lot on day one; it’s more about as that account grows, you don’t have to pay taxes on it along the way, so you’re sheltering it from taxes for the 18 years you’re saving for your kids’ college.”

Pro tip: Even if you live in a state without a state income tax or without a tax break for 529 contributions, opening an account can be a smart financial move. Because you don’t need to choose an in-state plan for the tax breaks, look for one that offers low fees and investment options that you like.
 

Sell investments at a loss

Claimed by 22% of physicians.

Who’s eligible: Anyone who has sold stocks, mutual funds, or other investments at a loss.

How it works: After selling a security that has lost value, you can deduct the value of that loss on your taxes to offset capital gains in the same year. If you have more losses than gains, you can use the losses to offset up to $3,000 in ordinary income per year. If you have more than $3,000 in losses, you can carry those losses forward to offset future income or capital gains.

Pro tip: In years with a lot of market volatility, such as this one, there’s potential to engage in “tax loss harvesting” in which you intentionally sell securities that have lost value to realize the losses for the tax benefits. Keep in mind that if you sell a security at a loss, you cannot repurchase the same security within 30 days – the IRS sees that as a “wash sale,” which does not qualify for a capital loss for tax purposes.
 

Contribute to a backdoor Roth IRA

Claimed by 20% of physicians.

Who’s eligible: Anyone who wishes to contribute to a Roth IRA but is not allowed to do so because their income is too high.

How it works: High earners typically don’t qualify for contributions to a Roth IRA, in which contributions go in after taxes but grow tax-free and distributions in retirement are also tax-free. But there are no income requirements for making after-tax contributions to a traditional and then converting it to a Roth IRA.

There are, however, complex tax rules for those who also have a traditional IRA that’s funded with pre-tax dollars. If that’s the case, work with a tax pro or financial advisor to determine whether a backdoor Roth conversion is the most tax-efficient approach for your situation.

Pro tip: A growing number of workplace retirement plans now include an option for Roth contributions. There are no income limits on a Roth 401(k), so contributing to that type of an account could be a smart route for taxpayers for whom a backdoor conversion doesn’t make sense.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Most patients with non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who are long-term responders to immunotherapy will continue receiving treatment beyond 2 years. However, the best available evidence to date indicates that receiving immunotherapy after this 2-year mark likely offers no survival benefit.

Given the data, why do many clinicians keep having their patients receive immunotherapy beyond 2 years?

Is it an overabundance of caution? A desire for more definitive data? Or is it simply a judgment call oncologists make on the basis of the individual patient?

Lova Sun, MD, MSCE, of the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, believes the general inconsistency between the data and clinical practice “likely reflects significant hesitation on the part of clinicians, patients, or both to stop a treatment that is still ‘working.’ ”

H. Jack West, MD, agreed, adding that “in an ambiguous situation, a U.S.-based population is going to err on the side of overtreatment.”

Without “incontrovertible evidence” that immunotherapy should stop at 2 years, “many, many, many patients and clinicians are going to favor continuing ‘doing what you’re doing’ in the absence of either prohibitive toxicity or clinically significant disease progression,” said Dr. West of the City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center, Duarte, Calif.

One factor adding to this ambiguity: Most pivotal studies that examine first-line immunotherapy in NSCLC limit therapy duration to 2 years.

Another key factor is the absence of prospective data as to when to stop treatment for these patients, according to Martin Reck, MD, PhD, head of thoracic oncology at the Lung Clinic Grosshansdorf (Germany).

“We have never prospectively investigated the correlation of the duration of a checkpoint blockade and the efficacy of treatment,” Dr. Reck said. “And this is a big problem.” It means “we really do not know how long we should treat the patient.”

To make matters muddier, some data do suggest that more therapy may be better. The recent Checkmate 153 trial, for instance, found that patients who had no signs of disease progression and who received 1-year fixed-duration nivolumab had significantly shorter progression-free and overall survival than those who received treatment indefinitely.

However, randomized trials with longer-term follow-up suggest durable responses can be maintained for years after immunotherapy is stopped.

Data from the KEYNOTE-024 trial, for instance, showed that more than 45% of patients with metastatic NSCLC and high tumor PD-L1 expression who received pembrolizumab for 2 years remained alive at 5 years without further treatment or disease progression. Another trial, KEYNOTE-407, demonstrated similar 5-year survival outcomes among patients with advanced squamous NSCLC, regardless of PD-L1 status, who completed 2 years of chemotherapy plus pembrolizumab followed by maintenance pembrolizumab.

With these studies, however, “we can only speculate about whether the proportion of patients alive without progression would be substantially higher if treatment with immunotherapy continued longer,” Dr. West wrote in a recent editorial .

Perhaps the most telling data so far come from a recent retrospective analysis from Dr. Sun and colleagues. The researchers directly compared survival outcomes among patients who continued receiving immunotherapy indefinitely with outcomes among patients for whom immunotherapy was discontinued at 2 years.

The JAMA Oncology study, which focused on 706 patients with NSCLC who completed 2 years of therapy, found that only 16% stopped receiving immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy at 2 years, whereas the remaining 84% continued receiving treatment indefinitely.

Among patients who continued receiving immunotherapy for 2 additional years, overall survival was not better than among those who stopped receiving immunotherapy at the 2-year mark. Even among the 11 patients whose condition progressed when therapy was discontinued, most still did well after treatment was resumed.

However, the retrospective design of the study limits its impact.

Without more definitive “data about when the treatment can be stopped,” many continue “indefinitely as long as the patient is tolerating treatment and the disease is not progressing,” Conor E. Steuer, MD, and Suresh S. Ramalingam, MD, of Winship Cancer Institute at Emory University, Atlanta, wrote in a recent review.
 

Impact on practice?

Dr. Sun views her team’s findings not as a recommendation to halt immunotherapy for every patient at 2 years but rather as “one piece of data that may provide reassurance to providers and patients who wish to stop at 2 years.”

Ultimately, however, the decision as to when or whether to stop immunotherapy for long-term responders is “an individualized one that requires shared decision-making and consideration of each patient’s clinical history, preferences, and risk tolerance,” Dr. Sun explained.

Dr. Reck agreed, noting that until prospective trials evaluate a fixed approach, the duration of immunotherapy “has to be determined by the treating physician and the individual patient.”

For a patient with metastatic NSCLC who is having an excellent response to checkpoint blockade, “we are somewhat afraid to stop the immunotherapy,” explained Dr. Reck, “because we are afraid the disease might relapse.” However, he noted, for patients who have a stable response to therapy, it may make sense to consider discontinuing checkpoint blockade.

Outside of survival outcomes, oncologists should also consider quality of life. Stopping treatment at 2 years comes with a “lower risk of toxic effects, less time in treatment for patients, and considerably lower costs for our health care system,” said Dr. West.

But for a fixed strategy to become more standard practice, the burden of proof is high, Dr. West said.

Jonathan W. Goldman, MD, says he understands the mentality, “If it’s going well, why would I change?”

In his experience, at 2 years of immunotherapy, most patients “say they’re feeling great” and “don’t mind coming in every 4 or 6 weeks, depending on the drug,” said Dr. Goldman, director of clinical trials in thoracic oncology at UCLA Medical Center in Santa Monica, Calif.

Dr. Goldman noted that in the future, instead of continuing immunotherapy indefinitely, clinicians may aim to maintain the patient “in the best response possible,” adding an intervention, such as stereotactic body radiotherapy or radiologic ablation, when needed.

“It may be that many of these long-term disease control patients are not cured in a traditional sense,” Dr. Goldman said, “but have controlled cancer that could potentially last years or even decades with ongoing care.”

Dr. Sun has relationships with Regeneron, GenMab, Seagen, and Bayer and has received institutional funding from Blueprint Research, Seagen Research, and IO Biotech Research. Dr. West has relationships with AstraZeneca, Genentech/Roche, Merck, and Regeneron outside the submitted work. Dr. Reck has relationships with Amgen, AstraZeneca, BMS, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Daiichi-Sankyo, GSK, Lilly, Merck, MSD, Mirati, Novartis, Roche Regeneron, and Pfizer.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Most patients with non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who are long-term responders to immunotherapy will continue receiving treatment beyond 2 years. However, the best available evidence to date indicates that receiving immunotherapy after this 2-year mark likely offers no survival benefit.

Given the data, why do many clinicians keep having their patients receive immunotherapy beyond 2 years?

Is it an overabundance of caution? A desire for more definitive data? Or is it simply a judgment call oncologists make on the basis of the individual patient?

Lova Sun, MD, MSCE, of the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, believes the general inconsistency between the data and clinical practice “likely reflects significant hesitation on the part of clinicians, patients, or both to stop a treatment that is still ‘working.’ ”

H. Jack West, MD, agreed, adding that “in an ambiguous situation, a U.S.-based population is going to err on the side of overtreatment.”

Without “incontrovertible evidence” that immunotherapy should stop at 2 years, “many, many, many patients and clinicians are going to favor continuing ‘doing what you’re doing’ in the absence of either prohibitive toxicity or clinically significant disease progression,” said Dr. West of the City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center, Duarte, Calif.

One factor adding to this ambiguity: Most pivotal studies that examine first-line immunotherapy in NSCLC limit therapy duration to 2 years.

Another key factor is the absence of prospective data as to when to stop treatment for these patients, according to Martin Reck, MD, PhD, head of thoracic oncology at the Lung Clinic Grosshansdorf (Germany).

“We have never prospectively investigated the correlation of the duration of a checkpoint blockade and the efficacy of treatment,” Dr. Reck said. “And this is a big problem.” It means “we really do not know how long we should treat the patient.”

To make matters muddier, some data do suggest that more therapy may be better. The recent Checkmate 153 trial, for instance, found that patients who had no signs of disease progression and who received 1-year fixed-duration nivolumab had significantly shorter progression-free and overall survival than those who received treatment indefinitely.

However, randomized trials with longer-term follow-up suggest durable responses can be maintained for years after immunotherapy is stopped.

Data from the KEYNOTE-024 trial, for instance, showed that more than 45% of patients with metastatic NSCLC and high tumor PD-L1 expression who received pembrolizumab for 2 years remained alive at 5 years without further treatment or disease progression. Another trial, KEYNOTE-407, demonstrated similar 5-year survival outcomes among patients with advanced squamous NSCLC, regardless of PD-L1 status, who completed 2 years of chemotherapy plus pembrolizumab followed by maintenance pembrolizumab.

With these studies, however, “we can only speculate about whether the proportion of patients alive without progression would be substantially higher if treatment with immunotherapy continued longer,” Dr. West wrote in a recent editorial .

Perhaps the most telling data so far come from a recent retrospective analysis from Dr. Sun and colleagues. The researchers directly compared survival outcomes among patients who continued receiving immunotherapy indefinitely with outcomes among patients for whom immunotherapy was discontinued at 2 years.

The JAMA Oncology study, which focused on 706 patients with NSCLC who completed 2 years of therapy, found that only 16% stopped receiving immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy at 2 years, whereas the remaining 84% continued receiving treatment indefinitely.

Among patients who continued receiving immunotherapy for 2 additional years, overall survival was not better than among those who stopped receiving immunotherapy at the 2-year mark. Even among the 11 patients whose condition progressed when therapy was discontinued, most still did well after treatment was resumed.

However, the retrospective design of the study limits its impact.

Without more definitive “data about when the treatment can be stopped,” many continue “indefinitely as long as the patient is tolerating treatment and the disease is not progressing,” Conor E. Steuer, MD, and Suresh S. Ramalingam, MD, of Winship Cancer Institute at Emory University, Atlanta, wrote in a recent review.
 

Impact on practice?

Dr. Sun views her team’s findings not as a recommendation to halt immunotherapy for every patient at 2 years but rather as “one piece of data that may provide reassurance to providers and patients who wish to stop at 2 years.”

Ultimately, however, the decision as to when or whether to stop immunotherapy for long-term responders is “an individualized one that requires shared decision-making and consideration of each patient’s clinical history, preferences, and risk tolerance,” Dr. Sun explained.

Dr. Reck agreed, noting that until prospective trials evaluate a fixed approach, the duration of immunotherapy “has to be determined by the treating physician and the individual patient.”

For a patient with metastatic NSCLC who is having an excellent response to checkpoint blockade, “we are somewhat afraid to stop the immunotherapy,” explained Dr. Reck, “because we are afraid the disease might relapse.” However, he noted, for patients who have a stable response to therapy, it may make sense to consider discontinuing checkpoint blockade.

Outside of survival outcomes, oncologists should also consider quality of life. Stopping treatment at 2 years comes with a “lower risk of toxic effects, less time in treatment for patients, and considerably lower costs for our health care system,” said Dr. West.

But for a fixed strategy to become more standard practice, the burden of proof is high, Dr. West said.

Jonathan W. Goldman, MD, says he understands the mentality, “If it’s going well, why would I change?”

In his experience, at 2 years of immunotherapy, most patients “say they’re feeling great” and “don’t mind coming in every 4 or 6 weeks, depending on the drug,” said Dr. Goldman, director of clinical trials in thoracic oncology at UCLA Medical Center in Santa Monica, Calif.

Dr. Goldman noted that in the future, instead of continuing immunotherapy indefinitely, clinicians may aim to maintain the patient “in the best response possible,” adding an intervention, such as stereotactic body radiotherapy or radiologic ablation, when needed.

“It may be that many of these long-term disease control patients are not cured in a traditional sense,” Dr. Goldman said, “but have controlled cancer that could potentially last years or even decades with ongoing care.”

Dr. Sun has relationships with Regeneron, GenMab, Seagen, and Bayer and has received institutional funding from Blueprint Research, Seagen Research, and IO Biotech Research. Dr. West has relationships with AstraZeneca, Genentech/Roche, Merck, and Regeneron outside the submitted work. Dr. Reck has relationships with Amgen, AstraZeneca, BMS, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Daiichi-Sankyo, GSK, Lilly, Merck, MSD, Mirati, Novartis, Roche Regeneron, and Pfizer.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Most patients with non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who are long-term responders to immunotherapy will continue receiving treatment beyond 2 years. However, the best available evidence to date indicates that receiving immunotherapy after this 2-year mark likely offers no survival benefit.

Given the data, why do many clinicians keep having their patients receive immunotherapy beyond 2 years?

Is it an overabundance of caution? A desire for more definitive data? Or is it simply a judgment call oncologists make on the basis of the individual patient?

Lova Sun, MD, MSCE, of the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, believes the general inconsistency between the data and clinical practice “likely reflects significant hesitation on the part of clinicians, patients, or both to stop a treatment that is still ‘working.’ ”

H. Jack West, MD, agreed, adding that “in an ambiguous situation, a U.S.-based population is going to err on the side of overtreatment.”

Without “incontrovertible evidence” that immunotherapy should stop at 2 years, “many, many, many patients and clinicians are going to favor continuing ‘doing what you’re doing’ in the absence of either prohibitive toxicity or clinically significant disease progression,” said Dr. West of the City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center, Duarte, Calif.

One factor adding to this ambiguity: Most pivotal studies that examine first-line immunotherapy in NSCLC limit therapy duration to 2 years.

Another key factor is the absence of prospective data as to when to stop treatment for these patients, according to Martin Reck, MD, PhD, head of thoracic oncology at the Lung Clinic Grosshansdorf (Germany).

“We have never prospectively investigated the correlation of the duration of a checkpoint blockade and the efficacy of treatment,” Dr. Reck said. “And this is a big problem.” It means “we really do not know how long we should treat the patient.”

To make matters muddier, some data do suggest that more therapy may be better. The recent Checkmate 153 trial, for instance, found that patients who had no signs of disease progression and who received 1-year fixed-duration nivolumab had significantly shorter progression-free and overall survival than those who received treatment indefinitely.

However, randomized trials with longer-term follow-up suggest durable responses can be maintained for years after immunotherapy is stopped.

Data from the KEYNOTE-024 trial, for instance, showed that more than 45% of patients with metastatic NSCLC and high tumor PD-L1 expression who received pembrolizumab for 2 years remained alive at 5 years without further treatment or disease progression. Another trial, KEYNOTE-407, demonstrated similar 5-year survival outcomes among patients with advanced squamous NSCLC, regardless of PD-L1 status, who completed 2 years of chemotherapy plus pembrolizumab followed by maintenance pembrolizumab.

With these studies, however, “we can only speculate about whether the proportion of patients alive without progression would be substantially higher if treatment with immunotherapy continued longer,” Dr. West wrote in a recent editorial .

Perhaps the most telling data so far come from a recent retrospective analysis from Dr. Sun and colleagues. The researchers directly compared survival outcomes among patients who continued receiving immunotherapy indefinitely with outcomes among patients for whom immunotherapy was discontinued at 2 years.

The JAMA Oncology study, which focused on 706 patients with NSCLC who completed 2 years of therapy, found that only 16% stopped receiving immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy at 2 years, whereas the remaining 84% continued receiving treatment indefinitely.

Among patients who continued receiving immunotherapy for 2 additional years, overall survival was not better than among those who stopped receiving immunotherapy at the 2-year mark. Even among the 11 patients whose condition progressed when therapy was discontinued, most still did well after treatment was resumed.

However, the retrospective design of the study limits its impact.

Without more definitive “data about when the treatment can be stopped,” many continue “indefinitely as long as the patient is tolerating treatment and the disease is not progressing,” Conor E. Steuer, MD, and Suresh S. Ramalingam, MD, of Winship Cancer Institute at Emory University, Atlanta, wrote in a recent review.
 

Impact on practice?

Dr. Sun views her team’s findings not as a recommendation to halt immunotherapy for every patient at 2 years but rather as “one piece of data that may provide reassurance to providers and patients who wish to stop at 2 years.”

Ultimately, however, the decision as to when or whether to stop immunotherapy for long-term responders is “an individualized one that requires shared decision-making and consideration of each patient’s clinical history, preferences, and risk tolerance,” Dr. Sun explained.

Dr. Reck agreed, noting that until prospective trials evaluate a fixed approach, the duration of immunotherapy “has to be determined by the treating physician and the individual patient.”

For a patient with metastatic NSCLC who is having an excellent response to checkpoint blockade, “we are somewhat afraid to stop the immunotherapy,” explained Dr. Reck, “because we are afraid the disease might relapse.” However, he noted, for patients who have a stable response to therapy, it may make sense to consider discontinuing checkpoint blockade.

Outside of survival outcomes, oncologists should also consider quality of life. Stopping treatment at 2 years comes with a “lower risk of toxic effects, less time in treatment for patients, and considerably lower costs for our health care system,” said Dr. West.

But for a fixed strategy to become more standard practice, the burden of proof is high, Dr. West said.

Jonathan W. Goldman, MD, says he understands the mentality, “If it’s going well, why would I change?”

In his experience, at 2 years of immunotherapy, most patients “say they’re feeling great” and “don’t mind coming in every 4 or 6 weeks, depending on the drug,” said Dr. Goldman, director of clinical trials in thoracic oncology at UCLA Medical Center in Santa Monica, Calif.

Dr. Goldman noted that in the future, instead of continuing immunotherapy indefinitely, clinicians may aim to maintain the patient “in the best response possible,” adding an intervention, such as stereotactic body radiotherapy or radiologic ablation, when needed.

“It may be that many of these long-term disease control patients are not cured in a traditional sense,” Dr. Goldman said, “but have controlled cancer that could potentially last years or even decades with ongoing care.”

Dr. Sun has relationships with Regeneron, GenMab, Seagen, and Bayer and has received institutional funding from Blueprint Research, Seagen Research, and IO Biotech Research. Dr. West has relationships with AstraZeneca, Genentech/Roche, Merck, and Regeneron outside the submitted work. Dr. Reck has relationships with Amgen, AstraZeneca, BMS, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Daiichi-Sankyo, GSK, Lilly, Merck, MSD, Mirati, Novartis, Roche Regeneron, and Pfizer.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Long-term follow-up from the CheckMate 227 study has revealed lasting benefit from the combination of the CTLA-4 inhibitor ipilimumab (IPI) and the PD-1 inhibitor nivolumab (NIVO) in non-small cell lung cancer. After 6 years, previous tumor response, tumor burden reduction, and baseline health-related quality of life all correlated with overall survival, according to the latest analysis from the study.

“Patients treated with NIVO-IPI versus chemotherapy continue to derive long term durable efficacy benefit in CheckMate 227, regardless of PD-L1 expression. This represents the longest ever reported follow-up across phase three studies of frontline immunotherapy in patients with metastatic non–small cell lung cancer, and this further highlights the clinical benefit of frontline NIVO-IPI as a treatment in these patients with metastatic non–small cell lung cancer, regardless of the PD-L1 expression,” said Solange Peters, MD, PhD, during a presentation of the latest analysis at the annual World Conference on Lung Cancer. Dr. Peters is a professor of oncology at Lausanne (Switzerland) University Hospital.

The combination of nivolumab and ipilimumab has shown long-term survival benefit in other cancer types, including advanced melanoma, advanced renal cell carcinoma, and unresectable pleural mesothelioma.

The same session featured other studies demonstrating positive outcomes of immunotherapy in NSCLC. Serving as a discussant, Ferdinandos Skoulidis MD, PhD, commented, “I would argue that we are now at an inflection point where we can claim that we are altering the natural history of the disease for a subset of patients.” Dr. Skoulidis is an associate professor of thoracic oncology at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center.
 

Updated results

CheckMate 227 enrolled patients with metastatic or recurrent NSCLC, excluding those with EGFR/ALK alterations. Patients with PD-L1 expression greater than or equal to 1% (PD-L1 positive, n = 1,189) were randomized to NIVO-IPI, NIVO, or chemotherapy. Patients with PD-L1 expression less than 1% (n = 550, PD-L1 negative) were randomized to NIVO-IPI, NIVO plus chemotherapy, or chemotherapy alone. The 5-year landmark analysis, which was published by the National Center for Biotechnology Information, showed overall survival rate of 24% among PD-L1 greater than or equal to 1% patients (PD-L1 positive) and 19% in PD-L1 less than 1% (PD-L1 negative) patients who received IPI-NIVO therapy, compared with 14% and 7%, respectively, in the chemotherapy only groups.

At WCLC, Dr. Peters presented data extending to 6 years of follow-up, as well as exploratory analyses. At 6 years of follow-up, in PD-L1 positive patients, 22% of the NIVO-IPI group remained alive, versus 13% of the chemotherapy group (hazard ratio, 0.78; 95% confidence interval, 0.67-0.91), while there was no significant improvement in OS for nivolumab alone, compared with chemotherapy. In the PD-L1 negative group, 16% were alive at 6 years in the IPI-NIVO group (HR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.52-0.81), as were 10% in NIVO plus chemotherapy (HR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.64-0.98) group, versus 5% in the chemotherapy group. The benefit of NIVO-IPI was significant in both squamous and non-squamous tumors for both PDL1-positive and PD-L1 negative patients.

At 6 years follow-up, 27% of PD-L1 positive patients who responded to NIVO-IPI remained in response, versus 22% in the NIVO group and 4% in the chemotherapy only group. Among PD-L1 negative patients, 25% of combination therapy responders remained in response at 6 years, while there were 10% still in response among the NIVO group, and none in the chemotherapy only group.
 

Exploratory analyses

Dr. Peters presented a slide showing tumor burden reductions occurring in responders. “What has to be concluded from this very interesting graph is that there are more, deeper responses in the NIVO-IPI versus chemotherapy. Very importantly, too, this is strongly correlated with survival. In both treatment arms, a high magnitude of tumor burden reduction is correlated with an improved survival,” said Dr. Peters. Specifically, among PD-L1 positive patients with more than 80% tumor reduction, survival was 59% at 6 years (95% CI, 44-71%). The figure was 68% in the NIVO only arm (95% CI, 47-82%), and 42% in the chemotherapy only arm (95% CI, 15-66%).

Among PD-L1 negative patients, “there are more, deeper responses in NIVO-IPI versus chemotherapy. That is very clear. And probably differently from the positive PD-L1 arm, the tumor burden reduction is correlated with survival but really only strongly observed in the NIVO-IPI arm,” said Dr. Peters. The figure was 20% in the nivolumab arm (95% CI, 3-48%) and 0% in the chemotherapy only arm (95% CI, not available). “So really something is correlating the tumor burden reduction with the outcome and specifically correlating it in the negative PD-L1 with the treatment of NIVO-IPI,” said Dr. Peters.

The researchers also noted longer progression-free survival and overall response rate in the NIVO-IPI group than the chemotherapy group in both PD-L1 positive and PD-L1 negative patients.

With respect to health-related quality of life, the researchers found a correlation between higher scores at baseline on the EQ-5D-3L scale and overall survival in the chemotherapy group (HR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.51-0.74) and a trend in the NIVO-IPI group (HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.69-1.01). “So this baseline history, the quality of life, is correlated with the outcome regardless of the treatment you deliver,” said Dr. Peters.
 

Personalizing immunotherapy in NSCLC

In his comments, Dr. Skoulidis highlighted the length of responses. “Most importantly, approximately 50% of these patients that are alive at six years are also disease free, suggesting that we are indeed making a dent on the natural history of the disease for these patients,” he said.

He also made a case for personalizing immunotherapy and suggested that CheckMate 227 could provide some guidance. “Ipilimumab/nivolumab – the CheckMate 227 regimen – appears to be particularly active in terms of inducing long-term, long-lasting responses and overall survival in patients harboring tumors that are negative for PD-L1,” he said.

Dr. Skoulidis also highlighted the 16% six-year overall survival among PD-L1 negative patients who received NIVO-IPI, calling it “impressive.” Of those who responded, 25% continued to respond at 6 years. “This is particularly notable in the subset of patients with squamous histology and lack of PD-L1 expression, where the six year overall survival rate with NIVO-IPI versus chemo was 18% versus 4%. So perhaps in patients with squamous histology and lack of PD-L1 expression, NIVO-IPI might represent a favorable regimen to improve long term outcomes,” said Dr. Skoulidis.

CheckMate 227 was funded by Bristol Myers Sqiubb. Dr. Peters has financial relationships with a wide range of pharmaceutical companies, including Bristol Myers Squibb. Dr. Skoulidis has financial relationships with Moderna, BioNTech, Amgen, Intellisphere, Navire, BeiGene, Medscape, Calithera Biosciences, Tango Therapeutics, Guardant Health, Novartis, AIMM Therapeutics, Mirati Therapeutics, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck, and Pfizer.

Long-term follow-up from the CheckMate 227 study has revealed lasting benefit from the combination of the CTLA-4 inhibitor ipilimumab (IPI) and the PD-1 inhibitor nivolumab (NIVO) in non-small cell lung cancer. After 6 years, previous tumor response, tumor burden reduction, and baseline health-related quality of life all correlated with overall survival, according to the latest analysis from the study.

“Patients treated with NIVO-IPI versus chemotherapy continue to derive long term durable efficacy benefit in CheckMate 227, regardless of PD-L1 expression. This represents the longest ever reported follow-up across phase three studies of frontline immunotherapy in patients with metastatic non–small cell lung cancer, and this further highlights the clinical benefit of frontline NIVO-IPI as a treatment in these patients with metastatic non–small cell lung cancer, regardless of the PD-L1 expression,” said Solange Peters, MD, PhD, during a presentation of the latest analysis at the annual World Conference on Lung Cancer. Dr. Peters is a professor of oncology at Lausanne (Switzerland) University Hospital.

The combination of nivolumab and ipilimumab has shown long-term survival benefit in other cancer types, including advanced melanoma, advanced renal cell carcinoma, and unresectable pleural mesothelioma.

The same session featured other studies demonstrating positive outcomes of immunotherapy in NSCLC. Serving as a discussant, Ferdinandos Skoulidis MD, PhD, commented, “I would argue that we are now at an inflection point where we can claim that we are altering the natural history of the disease for a subset of patients.” Dr. Skoulidis is an associate professor of thoracic oncology at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center.
 

Updated results

CheckMate 227 enrolled patients with metastatic or recurrent NSCLC, excluding those with EGFR/ALK alterations. Patients with PD-L1 expression greater than or equal to 1% (PD-L1 positive, n = 1,189) were randomized to NIVO-IPI, NIVO, or chemotherapy. Patients with PD-L1 expression less than 1% (n = 550, PD-L1 negative) were randomized to NIVO-IPI, NIVO plus chemotherapy, or chemotherapy alone. The 5-year landmark analysis, which was published by the National Center for Biotechnology Information, showed overall survival rate of 24% among PD-L1 greater than or equal to 1% patients (PD-L1 positive) and 19% in PD-L1 less than 1% (PD-L1 negative) patients who received IPI-NIVO therapy, compared with 14% and 7%, respectively, in the chemotherapy only groups.

At WCLC, Dr. Peters presented data extending to 6 years of follow-up, as well as exploratory analyses. At 6 years of follow-up, in PD-L1 positive patients, 22% of the NIVO-IPI group remained alive, versus 13% of the chemotherapy group (hazard ratio, 0.78; 95% confidence interval, 0.67-0.91), while there was no significant improvement in OS for nivolumab alone, compared with chemotherapy. In the PD-L1 negative group, 16% were alive at 6 years in the IPI-NIVO group (HR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.52-0.81), as were 10% in NIVO plus chemotherapy (HR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.64-0.98) group, versus 5% in the chemotherapy group. The benefit of NIVO-IPI was significant in both squamous and non-squamous tumors for both PDL1-positive and PD-L1 negative patients.

At 6 years follow-up, 27% of PD-L1 positive patients who responded to NIVO-IPI remained in response, versus 22% in the NIVO group and 4% in the chemotherapy only group. Among PD-L1 negative patients, 25% of combination therapy responders remained in response at 6 years, while there were 10% still in response among the NIVO group, and none in the chemotherapy only group.
 

Exploratory analyses

Dr. Peters presented a slide showing tumor burden reductions occurring in responders. “What has to be concluded from this very interesting graph is that there are more, deeper responses in the NIVO-IPI versus chemotherapy. Very importantly, too, this is strongly correlated with survival. In both treatment arms, a high magnitude of tumor burden reduction is correlated with an improved survival,” said Dr. Peters. Specifically, among PD-L1 positive patients with more than 80% tumor reduction, survival was 59% at 6 years (95% CI, 44-71%). The figure was 68% in the NIVO only arm (95% CI, 47-82%), and 42% in the chemotherapy only arm (95% CI, 15-66%).

Among PD-L1 negative patients, “there are more, deeper responses in NIVO-IPI versus chemotherapy. That is very clear. And probably differently from the positive PD-L1 arm, the tumor burden reduction is correlated with survival but really only strongly observed in the NIVO-IPI arm,” said Dr. Peters. The figure was 20% in the nivolumab arm (95% CI, 3-48%) and 0% in the chemotherapy only arm (95% CI, not available). “So really something is correlating the tumor burden reduction with the outcome and specifically correlating it in the negative PD-L1 with the treatment of NIVO-IPI,” said Dr. Peters.

The researchers also noted longer progression-free survival and overall response rate in the NIVO-IPI group than the chemotherapy group in both PD-L1 positive and PD-L1 negative patients.

With respect to health-related quality of life, the researchers found a correlation between higher scores at baseline on the EQ-5D-3L scale and overall survival in the chemotherapy group (HR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.51-0.74) and a trend in the NIVO-IPI group (HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.69-1.01). “So this baseline history, the quality of life, is correlated with the outcome regardless of the treatment you deliver,” said Dr. Peters.
 

Personalizing immunotherapy in NSCLC

In his comments, Dr. Skoulidis highlighted the length of responses. “Most importantly, approximately 50% of these patients that are alive at six years are also disease free, suggesting that we are indeed making a dent on the natural history of the disease for these patients,” he said.

He also made a case for personalizing immunotherapy and suggested that CheckMate 227 could provide some guidance. “Ipilimumab/nivolumab – the CheckMate 227 regimen – appears to be particularly active in terms of inducing long-term, long-lasting responses and overall survival in patients harboring tumors that are negative for PD-L1,” he said.

Dr. Skoulidis also highlighted the 16% six-year overall survival among PD-L1 negative patients who received NIVO-IPI, calling it “impressive.” Of those who responded, 25% continued to respond at 6 years. “This is particularly notable in the subset of patients with squamous histology and lack of PD-L1 expression, where the six year overall survival rate with NIVO-IPI versus chemo was 18% versus 4%. So perhaps in patients with squamous histology and lack of PD-L1 expression, NIVO-IPI might represent a favorable regimen to improve long term outcomes,” said Dr. Skoulidis.

CheckMate 227 was funded by Bristol Myers Sqiubb. Dr. Peters has financial relationships with a wide range of pharmaceutical companies, including Bristol Myers Squibb. Dr. Skoulidis has financial relationships with Moderna, BioNTech, Amgen, Intellisphere, Navire, BeiGene, Medscape, Calithera Biosciences, Tango Therapeutics, Guardant Health, Novartis, AIMM Therapeutics, Mirati Therapeutics, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck, and Pfizer.

Long-term follow-up from the CheckMate 227 study has revealed lasting benefit from the combination of the CTLA-4 inhibitor ipilimumab (IPI) and the PD-1 inhibitor nivolumab (NIVO) in non-small cell lung cancer. After 6 years, previous tumor response, tumor burden reduction, and baseline health-related quality of life all correlated with overall survival, according to the latest analysis from the study.

“Patients treated with NIVO-IPI versus chemotherapy continue to derive long term durable efficacy benefit in CheckMate 227, regardless of PD-L1 expression. This represents the longest ever reported follow-up across phase three studies of frontline immunotherapy in patients with metastatic non–small cell lung cancer, and this further highlights the clinical benefit of frontline NIVO-IPI as a treatment in these patients with metastatic non–small cell lung cancer, regardless of the PD-L1 expression,” said Solange Peters, MD, PhD, during a presentation of the latest analysis at the annual World Conference on Lung Cancer. Dr. Peters is a professor of oncology at Lausanne (Switzerland) University Hospital.

The combination of nivolumab and ipilimumab has shown long-term survival benefit in other cancer types, including advanced melanoma, advanced renal cell carcinoma, and unresectable pleural mesothelioma.

The same session featured other studies demonstrating positive outcomes of immunotherapy in NSCLC. Serving as a discussant, Ferdinandos Skoulidis MD, PhD, commented, “I would argue that we are now at an inflection point where we can claim that we are altering the natural history of the disease for a subset of patients.” Dr. Skoulidis is an associate professor of thoracic oncology at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center.
 

Updated results

CheckMate 227 enrolled patients with metastatic or recurrent NSCLC, excluding those with EGFR/ALK alterations. Patients with PD-L1 expression greater than or equal to 1% (PD-L1 positive, n = 1,189) were randomized to NIVO-IPI, NIVO, or chemotherapy. Patients with PD-L1 expression less than 1% (n = 550, PD-L1 negative) were randomized to NIVO-IPI, NIVO plus chemotherapy, or chemotherapy alone. The 5-year landmark analysis, which was published by the National Center for Biotechnology Information, showed overall survival rate of 24% among PD-L1 greater than or equal to 1% patients (PD-L1 positive) and 19% in PD-L1 less than 1% (PD-L1 negative) patients who received IPI-NIVO therapy, compared with 14% and 7%, respectively, in the chemotherapy only groups.

At WCLC, Dr. Peters presented data extending to 6 years of follow-up, as well as exploratory analyses. At 6 years of follow-up, in PD-L1 positive patients, 22% of the NIVO-IPI group remained alive, versus 13% of the chemotherapy group (hazard ratio, 0.78; 95% confidence interval, 0.67-0.91), while there was no significant improvement in OS for nivolumab alone, compared with chemotherapy. In the PD-L1 negative group, 16% were alive at 6 years in the IPI-NIVO group (HR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.52-0.81), as were 10% in NIVO plus chemotherapy (HR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.64-0.98) group, versus 5% in the chemotherapy group. The benefit of NIVO-IPI was significant in both squamous and non-squamous tumors for both PDL1-positive and PD-L1 negative patients.

At 6 years follow-up, 27% of PD-L1 positive patients who responded to NIVO-IPI remained in response, versus 22% in the NIVO group and 4% in the chemotherapy only group. Among PD-L1 negative patients, 25% of combination therapy responders remained in response at 6 years, while there were 10% still in response among the NIVO group, and none in the chemotherapy only group.
 

Exploratory analyses

Dr. Peters presented a slide showing tumor burden reductions occurring in responders. “What has to be concluded from this very interesting graph is that there are more, deeper responses in the NIVO-IPI versus chemotherapy. Very importantly, too, this is strongly correlated with survival. In both treatment arms, a high magnitude of tumor burden reduction is correlated with an improved survival,” said Dr. Peters. Specifically, among PD-L1 positive patients with more than 80% tumor reduction, survival was 59% at 6 years (95% CI, 44-71%). The figure was 68% in the NIVO only arm (95% CI, 47-82%), and 42% in the chemotherapy only arm (95% CI, 15-66%).

Among PD-L1 negative patients, “there are more, deeper responses in NIVO-IPI versus chemotherapy. That is very clear. And probably differently from the positive PD-L1 arm, the tumor burden reduction is correlated with survival but really only strongly observed in the NIVO-IPI arm,” said Dr. Peters. The figure was 20% in the nivolumab arm (95% CI, 3-48%) and 0% in the chemotherapy only arm (95% CI, not available). “So really something is correlating the tumor burden reduction with the outcome and specifically correlating it in the negative PD-L1 with the treatment of NIVO-IPI,” said Dr. Peters.

The researchers also noted longer progression-free survival and overall response rate in the NIVO-IPI group than the chemotherapy group in both PD-L1 positive and PD-L1 negative patients.

With respect to health-related quality of life, the researchers found a correlation between higher scores at baseline on the EQ-5D-3L scale and overall survival in the chemotherapy group (HR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.51-0.74) and a trend in the NIVO-IPI group (HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.69-1.01). “So this baseline history, the quality of life, is correlated with the outcome regardless of the treatment you deliver,” said Dr. Peters.
 

Personalizing immunotherapy in NSCLC

In his comments, Dr. Skoulidis highlighted the length of responses. “Most importantly, approximately 50% of these patients that are alive at six years are also disease free, suggesting that we are indeed making a dent on the natural history of the disease for these patients,” he said.

He also made a case for personalizing immunotherapy and suggested that CheckMate 227 could provide some guidance. “Ipilimumab/nivolumab – the CheckMate 227 regimen – appears to be particularly active in terms of inducing long-term, long-lasting responses and overall survival in patients harboring tumors that are negative for PD-L1,” he said.

Dr. Skoulidis also highlighted the 16% six-year overall survival among PD-L1 negative patients who received NIVO-IPI, calling it “impressive.” Of those who responded, 25% continued to respond at 6 years. “This is particularly notable in the subset of patients with squamous histology and lack of PD-L1 expression, where the six year overall survival rate with NIVO-IPI versus chemo was 18% versus 4%. So perhaps in patients with squamous histology and lack of PD-L1 expression, NIVO-IPI might represent a favorable regimen to improve long term outcomes,” said Dr. Skoulidis.

CheckMate 227 was funded by Bristol Myers Sqiubb. Dr. Peters has financial relationships with a wide range of pharmaceutical companies, including Bristol Myers Squibb. Dr. Skoulidis has financial relationships with Moderna, BioNTech, Amgen, Intellisphere, Navire, BeiGene, Medscape, Calithera Biosciences, Tango Therapeutics, Guardant Health, Novartis, AIMM Therapeutics, Mirati Therapeutics, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck, and Pfizer.

The Food and Drug Administration on Sept. 15 approved the Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor momelotinib (Ojjaara) for myelofibrosis patients with anemia, according to a press release from maker GSK.

Momelotinib is the fourth JAK inhibitor to be approved by the agency for myelofibrosis but the only one indicated for patients with hemoglobin levels below 10 g/dL.

It’s an important development because, while JAK inhibitors are standard treatment for myelofibrosis, those previously approved for the uncommon blood cancer can cause cytopenia, particularly anemia, which, ironically, is also a hallmark of myelofibrosis itself.

This issue makes using JAK inhibitors for myelofibrosis challenging, according to Anthony Hunter, MD, a myeloid malignancies specialist at Emory University, Atlanta, who spoke on the topic recently at the annual meeting of the Society of Hematologic Oncology in Houston. “Momelotinib is an important emerging agent for these more anemic patients.” Momelotinib has a spleen response comparable with ruxolitinib – the first JAK inhibitor approved for myelofibrosis in the United States – and significantly higher rates of transfusion independence, although lower rates of symptom control, he said.

In GSK’s press release, hematologist/oncologist Ruben Mesa, MD, executive director of Atrium Health Wake Forest Baptist Comprehensive Cancer Center, Winston-Salem, N.C., said that, “with momelotinib, we have the potential to establish a new standard of care for myelofibrosis patients with anemia.”

Momelotinib’s specific indication is for “the treatment of intermediate or high-risk myelofibrosis, including primary myelofibrosis or secondary myelofibrosis (post–polycythemia vera and post–essential thrombocythemia), in adults with anemia.”

The once-daily oral medication was approved based on two trials. One trial, MOMENTUM, showed statistically significant response with respect to constitutional symptoms, splenic response, and transfusion independence in anemic patients treated with momelotinib versus danazol.

An anemic subset of the SIMPLIFY-1 trial showed comparable spleen volume reduction versus ruxolitinib but a numerically lower symptom response rate.

The most common momelotinib adverse reactions in trials were thrombocytopenia, hemorrhage, bacterial infection, fatigue, dizziness, diarrhea, and nausea.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration on Sept. 15 approved the Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor momelotinib (Ojjaara) for myelofibrosis patients with anemia, according to a press release from maker GSK.

Momelotinib is the fourth JAK inhibitor to be approved by the agency for myelofibrosis but the only one indicated for patients with hemoglobin levels below 10 g/dL.

It’s an important development because, while JAK inhibitors are standard treatment for myelofibrosis, those previously approved for the uncommon blood cancer can cause cytopenia, particularly anemia, which, ironically, is also a hallmark of myelofibrosis itself.

This issue makes using JAK inhibitors for myelofibrosis challenging, according to Anthony Hunter, MD, a myeloid malignancies specialist at Emory University, Atlanta, who spoke on the topic recently at the annual meeting of the Society of Hematologic Oncology in Houston. “Momelotinib is an important emerging agent for these more anemic patients.” Momelotinib has a spleen response comparable with ruxolitinib – the first JAK inhibitor approved for myelofibrosis in the United States – and significantly higher rates of transfusion independence, although lower rates of symptom control, he said.

In GSK’s press release, hematologist/oncologist Ruben Mesa, MD, executive director of Atrium Health Wake Forest Baptist Comprehensive Cancer Center, Winston-Salem, N.C., said that, “with momelotinib, we have the potential to establish a new standard of care for myelofibrosis patients with anemia.”

Momelotinib’s specific indication is for “the treatment of intermediate or high-risk myelofibrosis, including primary myelofibrosis or secondary myelofibrosis (post–polycythemia vera and post–essential thrombocythemia), in adults with anemia.”

The once-daily oral medication was approved based on two trials. One trial, MOMENTUM, showed statistically significant response with respect to constitutional symptoms, splenic response, and transfusion independence in anemic patients treated with momelotinib versus danazol.

An anemic subset of the SIMPLIFY-1 trial showed comparable spleen volume reduction versus ruxolitinib but a numerically lower symptom response rate.

The most common momelotinib adverse reactions in trials were thrombocytopenia, hemorrhage, bacterial infection, fatigue, dizziness, diarrhea, and nausea.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration on Sept. 15 approved the Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor momelotinib (Ojjaara) for myelofibrosis patients with anemia, according to a press release from maker GSK.

Momelotinib is the fourth JAK inhibitor to be approved by the agency for myelofibrosis but the only one indicated for patients with hemoglobin levels below 10 g/dL.

It’s an important development because, while JAK inhibitors are standard treatment for myelofibrosis, those previously approved for the uncommon blood cancer can cause cytopenia, particularly anemia, which, ironically, is also a hallmark of myelofibrosis itself.

This issue makes using JAK inhibitors for myelofibrosis challenging, according to Anthony Hunter, MD, a myeloid malignancies specialist at Emory University, Atlanta, who spoke on the topic recently at the annual meeting of the Society of Hematologic Oncology in Houston. “Momelotinib is an important emerging agent for these more anemic patients.” Momelotinib has a spleen response comparable with ruxolitinib – the first JAK inhibitor approved for myelofibrosis in the United States – and significantly higher rates of transfusion independence, although lower rates of symptom control, he said.

In GSK’s press release, hematologist/oncologist Ruben Mesa, MD, executive director of Atrium Health Wake Forest Baptist Comprehensive Cancer Center, Winston-Salem, N.C., said that, “with momelotinib, we have the potential to establish a new standard of care for myelofibrosis patients with anemia.”

Momelotinib’s specific indication is for “the treatment of intermediate or high-risk myelofibrosis, including primary myelofibrosis or secondary myelofibrosis (post–polycythemia vera and post–essential thrombocythemia), in adults with anemia.”

The once-daily oral medication was approved based on two trials. One trial, MOMENTUM, showed statistically significant response with respect to constitutional symptoms, splenic response, and transfusion independence in anemic patients treated with momelotinib versus danazol.

An anemic subset of the SIMPLIFY-1 trial showed comparable spleen volume reduction versus ruxolitinib but a numerically lower symptom response rate.

The most common momelotinib adverse reactions in trials were thrombocytopenia, hemorrhage, bacterial infection, fatigue, dizziness, diarrhea, and nausea.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Currently, more than 3.8 million breast cancer survivors reside in the United States, reflecting high prevalence as well as cure rates for this common malignancy.

When over-the-counter measures including vaginal lubricants and moisturizers are not adequate, vaginal estrogen may be a highly effective treatment for genitourinary syndrome of menopause (GSM), a common condition associated with hypoestrogenism that impairs sexual function and quality of life.

Use of vaginal formulations does not result in systemic levels of estrogen above the normal postmenopausal range. Nonetheless, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration lists a history of breast cancer as a contraindication to the use of all systemic as well as vaginal estrogens.

In premenopausal women, chemotherapy for breast cancer often results in early menopause. Aromatase inhibitors, although effective in preventing recurrent disease in menopausal women, exacerbate GSM. These factors result in a high prevalence of GSM in breast cancer survivors.

Because the safety of vaginal estrogen in the setting of breast cancer is uncertain, investigators at Johns Hopkins conducted a cohort study using claims-based data from more than 200 million U.S. patients that identified women with GSM who had previously been diagnosed with breast cancer. Among some 42,000 women diagnosed with GSM after breast cancer, 5% had three or more prescriptions and were considered vaginal estrogen users.

No significant differences were noted in recurrence-free survival between the vaginal estrogen group and the no estrogen group. At 5 and 10 years of follow-up, use of vaginal estrogen was not associated with higher all-cause mortality. Among women with estrogen receptor–positive tumors, risk for breast cancer recurrence was similar between estrogen users and nonusers.

However, concomitant use of vaginal estrogen and aromatase inhibitors was associated with a higher risk for breast cancer recurrence than was use of vaginal estrogen alone.

Although this important study’s findings have the limitations characteristic of observational studies, its large size and careful analyses suggest that in selected well-counseled breast cancer survivors, off-label use of vaginal estrogen may safely improve their sexual function and quality of life.

Dr. Kaunitz is associate chairman, department of obstetrics and gynecology, University of Florida College of Medicine, Jacksonville. This transcript has been edited for clarity. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Currently, more than 3.8 million breast cancer survivors reside in the United States, reflecting high prevalence as well as cure rates for this common malignancy.

When over-the-counter measures including vaginal lubricants and moisturizers are not adequate, vaginal estrogen may be a highly effective treatment for genitourinary syndrome of menopause (GSM), a common condition associated with hypoestrogenism that impairs sexual function and quality of life.

Use of vaginal formulations does not result in systemic levels of estrogen above the normal postmenopausal range. Nonetheless, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration lists a history of breast cancer as a contraindication to the use of all systemic as well as vaginal estrogens.

In premenopausal women, chemotherapy for breast cancer often results in early menopause. Aromatase inhibitors, although effective in preventing recurrent disease in menopausal women, exacerbate GSM. These factors result in a high prevalence of GSM in breast cancer survivors.

Because the safety of vaginal estrogen in the setting of breast cancer is uncertain, investigators at Johns Hopkins conducted a cohort study using claims-based data from more than 200 million U.S. patients that identified women with GSM who had previously been diagnosed with breast cancer. Among some 42,000 women diagnosed with GSM after breast cancer, 5% had three or more prescriptions and were considered vaginal estrogen users.

No significant differences were noted in recurrence-free survival between the vaginal estrogen group and the no estrogen group. At 5 and 10 years of follow-up, use of vaginal estrogen was not associated with higher all-cause mortality. Among women with estrogen receptor–positive tumors, risk for breast cancer recurrence was similar between estrogen users and nonusers.

However, concomitant use of vaginal estrogen and aromatase inhibitors was associated with a higher risk for breast cancer recurrence than was use of vaginal estrogen alone.

Although this important study’s findings have the limitations characteristic of observational studies, its large size and careful analyses suggest that in selected well-counseled breast cancer survivors, off-label use of vaginal estrogen may safely improve their sexual function and quality of life.

Dr. Kaunitz is associate chairman, department of obstetrics and gynecology, University of Florida College of Medicine, Jacksonville. This transcript has been edited for clarity. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Currently, more than 3.8 million breast cancer survivors reside in the United States, reflecting high prevalence as well as cure rates for this common malignancy.

When over-the-counter measures including vaginal lubricants and moisturizers are not adequate, vaginal estrogen may be a highly effective treatment for genitourinary syndrome of menopause (GSM), a common condition associated with hypoestrogenism that impairs sexual function and quality of life.

Use of vaginal formulations does not result in systemic levels of estrogen above the normal postmenopausal range. Nonetheless, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration lists a history of breast cancer as a contraindication to the use of all systemic as well as vaginal estrogens.

In premenopausal women, chemotherapy for breast cancer often results in early menopause. Aromatase inhibitors, although effective in preventing recurrent disease in menopausal women, exacerbate GSM. These factors result in a high prevalence of GSM in breast cancer survivors.

Because the safety of vaginal estrogen in the setting of breast cancer is uncertain, investigators at Johns Hopkins conducted a cohort study using claims-based data from more than 200 million U.S. patients that identified women with GSM who had previously been diagnosed with breast cancer. Among some 42,000 women diagnosed with GSM after breast cancer, 5% had three or more prescriptions and were considered vaginal estrogen users.

No significant differences were noted in recurrence-free survival between the vaginal estrogen group and the no estrogen group. At 5 and 10 years of follow-up, use of vaginal estrogen was not associated with higher all-cause mortality. Among women with estrogen receptor–positive tumors, risk for breast cancer recurrence was similar between estrogen users and nonusers.

However, concomitant use of vaginal estrogen and aromatase inhibitors was associated with a higher risk for breast cancer recurrence than was use of vaginal estrogen alone.

Although this important study’s findings have the limitations characteristic of observational studies, its large size and careful analyses suggest that in selected well-counseled breast cancer survivors, off-label use of vaginal estrogen may safely improve their sexual function and quality of life.

Dr. Kaunitz is associate chairman, department of obstetrics and gynecology, University of Florida College of Medicine, Jacksonville. This transcript has been edited for clarity. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Fear and a lack of health-related knowledge pose significant barriers to preventative cancer care access and effectiveness, recent survey data from The Harris Poll suggests.

The survey, commissioned by Bayer U.S. to identify patient behaviors and care barriers, indicates that more than one in four adults in the United States (27%) would rather not know if they have cancer, and nearly a third (31%) – particularly younger patients aged 18-44 years – avoid going to the doctor because they are afraid of what they might learn.

Similarly, 26% of 2,079 respondents said that fear and anxiety are the main reasons why they don’t make or keep doctor appointments. Those with lower household income and education levels, those with children under age 18 years, and Hispanic adults were most likely to cite this reason.

Almost half (up to 49%) lacked knowledge about certain cancers and risk factors.

For example, 48% of respondents were unaware that breast density affects breast cancer risk and diagnosis, and 38% said they were not very knowledgeable about breast cancer.

Regarding prostate cancer, 49% were unaware that race impacts risk and 49% said they were not knowledgeable about the disease.

The survey highlighted a lack of trust in treatments and health care processes among most adults, especially those with lower income and education levels. Overall, 53% said they have little or no trust in treatments developed by pharmaceutical companies, and 31% said they have little or no trust in medical tests, test results, and other medical processes.

The findings of the survey, which was conducted online June 6-8, 2023, among U.S. adults aged 18 years and older, underscore the need to better educate individuals about cancer risk factors and the benefits of preventative care.

“The increase of fear and anxiety, heightened by a lack of education and in some cases trust barriers, creates an environment where people may not access basic preventative care to ensure early diagnosis,” Sebastian Guth, president of Bayer U.S. and Pharmaceuticals North America, stated in a press release. “This is compounded by the fact that around 27.4 million people of all ages (8.3%) don’t have access to health insurance.

“Companies like Bayer have a responsibility to provide resources that increase health education on the importance of understanding disease risks, early disease screenings, and preventative health care,” Mr. Guth added, noting that the company is partnering with multiple patient advocacy groups to increase trust, awareness, and knowledge “to help individuals understand the resources available to them and their risks for a specific disease.”

Public health initiatives have had mixed results with respect to changing patient behaviors over time, but Breast Cancer Awareness Month (BCAM) in October of each year is a stand-out initiative that could serve as a model for other patient education initiatives, according to a 2022 study.

The Google trends analysis showed that from 2012 to 2021, BCAM was associated with improved public awareness of breast cancer, whereas Lung Cancer Awareness Month and Prostate Cancer Awareness Month had no impact on lung and prostate cancer awareness, respectively, over time, reported Yoshita Nishimura, MD, of Okayama University Graduate School of Medicine, Dentistry, and Pharmaceutical Sciences in Japan, and Jared D. Acoba, MD, of the University of Hawaii, Honolulu.

Dr. Nishimura and Dr. Acoba concluded that the success of BCAM, which was launched in 1985 and is now led by the National Breast Cancer Foundation, is likely a result of “the effective involvement of non-medical industries, influencers affected by breast cancer, and an awareness symbol.”

As for the role of physicians in raising awareness and increasing knowledge at the patient level, various guidelines focus on assessing patient needs and readiness to learn, communicating clearly, and identifying barriers, such as a lack of support and low health literacy.

An American Society of Clinical Oncology consensus guideline for physician-patient communication, for example, provides guidance on core communication skills that apply across the continuum of care, as well as specific topics to address, such as patient goals, treatment options, and support systems – all with an eye toward using “effective communication to optimize the patient-clinician relationship, patient and clinician well-being and family well-being.”

Fear and a lack of health-related knowledge pose significant barriers to preventative cancer care access and effectiveness, recent survey data from The Harris Poll suggests.

The survey, commissioned by Bayer U.S. to identify patient behaviors and care barriers, indicates that more than one in four adults in the United States (27%) would rather not know if they have cancer, and nearly a third (31%) – particularly younger patients aged 18-44 years – avoid going to the doctor because they are afraid of what they might learn.

Similarly, 26% of 2,079 respondents said that fear and anxiety are the main reasons why they don’t make or keep doctor appointments. Those with lower household income and education levels, those with children under age 18 years, and Hispanic adults were most likely to cite this reason.

Almost half (up to 49%) lacked knowledge about certain cancers and risk factors.

For example, 48% of respondents were unaware that breast density affects breast cancer risk and diagnosis, and 38% said they were not very knowledgeable about breast cancer.

Regarding prostate cancer, 49% were unaware that race impacts risk and 49% said they were not knowledgeable about the disease.

The survey highlighted a lack of trust in treatments and health care processes among most adults, especially those with lower income and education levels. Overall, 53% said they have little or no trust in treatments developed by pharmaceutical companies, and 31% said they have little or no trust in medical tests, test results, and other medical processes.

The findings of the survey, which was conducted online June 6-8, 2023, among U.S. adults aged 18 years and older, underscore the need to better educate individuals about cancer risk factors and the benefits of preventative care.

“The increase of fear and anxiety, heightened by a lack of education and in some cases trust barriers, creates an environment where people may not access basic preventative care to ensure early diagnosis,” Sebastian Guth, president of Bayer U.S. and Pharmaceuticals North America, stated in a press release. “This is compounded by the fact that around 27.4 million people of all ages (8.3%) don’t have access to health insurance.

“Companies like Bayer have a responsibility to provide resources that increase health education on the importance of understanding disease risks, early disease screenings, and preventative health care,” Mr. Guth added, noting that the company is partnering with multiple patient advocacy groups to increase trust, awareness, and knowledge “to help individuals understand the resources available to them and their risks for a specific disease.”

Public health initiatives have had mixed results with respect to changing patient behaviors over time, but Breast Cancer Awareness Month (BCAM) in October of each year is a stand-out initiative that could serve as a model for other patient education initiatives, according to a 2022 study.

The Google trends analysis showed that from 2012 to 2021, BCAM was associated with improved public awareness of breast cancer, whereas Lung Cancer Awareness Month and Prostate Cancer Awareness Month had no impact on lung and prostate cancer awareness, respectively, over time, reported Yoshita Nishimura, MD, of Okayama University Graduate School of Medicine, Dentistry, and Pharmaceutical Sciences in Japan, and Jared D. Acoba, MD, of the University of Hawaii, Honolulu.

Dr. Nishimura and Dr. Acoba concluded that the success of BCAM, which was launched in 1985 and is now led by the National Breast Cancer Foundation, is likely a result of “the effective involvement of non-medical industries, influencers affected by breast cancer, and an awareness symbol.”

As for the role of physicians in raising awareness and increasing knowledge at the patient level, various guidelines focus on assessing patient needs and readiness to learn, communicating clearly, and identifying barriers, such as a lack of support and low health literacy.

An American Society of Clinical Oncology consensus guideline for physician-patient communication, for example, provides guidance on core communication skills that apply across the continuum of care, as well as specific topics to address, such as patient goals, treatment options, and support systems – all with an eye toward using “effective communication to optimize the patient-clinician relationship, patient and clinician well-being and family well-being.”

Fear and a lack of health-related knowledge pose significant barriers to preventative cancer care access and effectiveness, recent survey data from The Harris Poll suggests.

The survey, commissioned by Bayer U.S. to identify patient behaviors and care barriers, indicates that more than one in four adults in the United States (27%) would rather not know if they have cancer, and nearly a third (31%) – particularly younger patients aged 18-44 years – avoid going to the doctor because they are afraid of what they might learn.

Similarly, 26% of 2,079 respondents said that fear and anxiety are the main reasons why they don’t make or keep doctor appointments. Those with lower household income and education levels, those with children under age 18 years, and Hispanic adults were most likely to cite this reason.

Almost half (up to 49%) lacked knowledge about certain cancers and risk factors.

For example, 48% of respondents were unaware that breast density affects breast cancer risk and diagnosis, and 38% said they were not very knowledgeable about breast cancer.

Regarding prostate cancer, 49% were unaware that race impacts risk and 49% said they were not knowledgeable about the disease.

The survey highlighted a lack of trust in treatments and health care processes among most adults, especially those with lower income and education levels. Overall, 53% said they have little or no trust in treatments developed by pharmaceutical companies, and 31% said they have little or no trust in medical tests, test results, and other medical processes.

The findings of the survey, which was conducted online June 6-8, 2023, among U.S. adults aged 18 years and older, underscore the need to better educate individuals about cancer risk factors and the benefits of preventative care.

“The increase of fear and anxiety, heightened by a lack of education and in some cases trust barriers, creates an environment where people may not access basic preventative care to ensure early diagnosis,” Sebastian Guth, president of Bayer U.S. and Pharmaceuticals North America, stated in a press release. “This is compounded by the fact that around 27.4 million people of all ages (8.3%) don’t have access to health insurance.

“Companies like Bayer have a responsibility to provide resources that increase health education on the importance of understanding disease risks, early disease screenings, and preventative health care,” Mr. Guth added, noting that the company is partnering with multiple patient advocacy groups to increase trust, awareness, and knowledge “to help individuals understand the resources available to them and their risks for a specific disease.”

Public health initiatives have had mixed results with respect to changing patient behaviors over time, but Breast Cancer Awareness Month (BCAM) in October of each year is a stand-out initiative that could serve as a model for other patient education initiatives, according to a 2022 study.

The Google trends analysis showed that from 2012 to 2021, BCAM was associated with improved public awareness of breast cancer, whereas Lung Cancer Awareness Month and Prostate Cancer Awareness Month had no impact on lung and prostate cancer awareness, respectively, over time, reported Yoshita Nishimura, MD, of Okayama University Graduate School of Medicine, Dentistry, and Pharmaceutical Sciences in Japan, and Jared D. Acoba, MD, of the University of Hawaii, Honolulu.

Dr. Nishimura and Dr. Acoba concluded that the success of BCAM, which was launched in 1985 and is now led by the National Breast Cancer Foundation, is likely a result of “the effective involvement of non-medical industries, influencers affected by breast cancer, and an awareness symbol.”

As for the role of physicians in raising awareness and increasing knowledge at the patient level, various guidelines focus on assessing patient needs and readiness to learn, communicating clearly, and identifying barriers, such as a lack of support and low health literacy.

An American Society of Clinical Oncology consensus guideline for physician-patient communication, for example, provides guidance on core communication skills that apply across the continuum of care, as well as specific topics to address, such as patient goals, treatment options, and support systems – all with an eye toward using “effective communication to optimize the patient-clinician relationship, patient and clinician well-being and family well-being.”

Proposed updates to the tumor-node-metastasis (TNM) classification for lung cancer will affect the way patients are staged, experts say.

The updates for the 9th edition of the TNM Classification of Malignant Tumors: Lung Cancer were presented at the annual World Conference on Lung Cancer. The final version will be published Jan. 1, 2024.

The core proposed change, according to Hisao Asamura, MD, chair of the IASLC Staging and Prognostic Factors Committee, is to divide N2 and M1c disease into two subcategories, while leaving the T descriptors unchanged.

This update is based on large survival differences among patients with these tumor characteristics, following an analysis of outcomes in more than 87,000 individuals diagnosed with lung cancer.

Session cochair Ramón Rami-Porta, MD, PhD, explained that previous editions of the classification were based on “pathologic stage, not clinical stage” but ultimately “we could not validate those findings” clinically.

“This is the first time that some sort of very simple quantification” of lung tumors “could be validated at the clinical stage as well,” which means that clinical staging can improve all over the world, said Dr. Rami-Porta, medical oncologist at Hospital Universitari Mútua Terrassa (Spain).

Session cochair Paul Van Schil, MD, PhD, of Antwerp (the Netherlands) University Hospital explained that the proposed changes reflect what clinicians already see in their daily practice.

The latest TNM classification included data submitted on 124,581 patients diagnosed with lung cancer between 2011 and 2019, 56% of whom were from Asia/Australia, 25% from Europe, and 16% from North America.

Overall, 87,339 patients were included in the analysis – 83% with non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and 7% with small cell lung cancer (SCLC). Most (62%) underwent surgery, either alone (47%), alongside chemotherapy (13%), or plus radiotherapy (2%). A minority (13%) received chemotherapy alone, and 13% received all three modalities.

The committee working on the update to the TNM classification had 112 members and comprised 14 subcommittees, which focused on different aspects of diagnosing and assessing the disease.

The committee agreed there should be no changes to the T category in the upcoming 9th Edition.

Evaluating the T category, some members expressed concern that patients with T3 disease embedded in the chest wall have worse survival outcomes than those with other forms of T3 disease. But, Dr. Asamura explained, the pathological versus clinical findings were inconsistent.

On pathological assessment, patients with T3 disease in the chest wall had a worse prognosis but clinical assessment indicated no survival difference. Given the lack of consensus, “we do not recommend any changes” to the current criteria, said Dr. Asamura.

Turning to the N category, Dr. Asamura explained that N2 disease will be divided into two subcategories: N2a, categorized by single N2 station involvement, and N2b, defined as multiple N2 station involvement.

Further analysis indicated that the estimated 5-year survival was significantly worse for patients with N2b disease on clinical assessment (31% vs. 42% with N2a disease; hazard ratio for death, 1.27; P < .0001) and on pathological assessment (HR, 1.46; P < .0001).

The committee also proposed a change to the M category, dividing M1c disease into two subcategories:

• M1c1 – defined as multiple extrathoracic metastases in a single organ system
• M1c2 – defined as multiple extrathoracic metastases in multiple organ systems

This change was driven by estimates of 5-year survival among patients with M1c1 (27%) versus M1c2 disease (19%). Compared with M1b disease, M1c1 was associated with a lower risk for death than M1c2 disease (HR, 1.27 vs. 1.39).

These changes, particularly those for the N category, will have a notable impact on how patients are staged, Dr. Asamura said.

Dividing the N2 category into N2a and N2b disease will push patients with T1, N1 disease from the IIB category (8th edition) to the IIA category (9th edition). The 8th edition categorized all T1, N2 patients as IIIA but the new edition would categorize patients with T1, N2a disease as IIB overall and those with N2b disease as IIIA. And patients with T2, N2a disease will be staged as IIIA — the same category as T2, N2 disease in the 8th edition – while those with N2b disease will be staged as IIIB.

By contrast, the division of M1c into M1c1 and M1c2 disease will not affect a patient’s overall stage, which will be IVB in all cases.

Upal Basu Roy, PhD, MPH, who was not part of the committee, said the TNM classification stage of cancers is “incredibly important in cataloguing the extent of disease” and to “decide the optimal treatment option.”

TNM classification is also “used to describe the burden of disease to be eligible for a clinical trial,” said Dr. Roy, executive director of research, LUNGevity Foundation, Chicago.

The changes in N staging may require sampling more lymph nodes than the current sampling frame of six, Dr. Roy said, adding that “surgeons and pathologists may need to be educated about the need for additional sampling.”

The subcategories for M1c disease will also need to be aligned with definitions of oligometastatic disease. “This is critical,” Dr. Roy said, as this staging may affect treatment choices.

No funding was declared. Dr. Asamura declares relationships with Medtronic, Taiho Pharmaceutical, Johnson & Johnson, Lily, Astellas, and Ono Pharmaceutical. Dr. Roy declared no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Proposed updates to the tumor-node-metastasis (TNM) classification for lung cancer will affect the way patients are staged, experts say.

The updates for the 9th edition of the TNM Classification of Malignant Tumors: Lung Cancer were presented at the annual World Conference on Lung Cancer. The final version will be published Jan. 1, 2024.

The core proposed change, according to Hisao Asamura, MD, chair of the IASLC Staging and Prognostic Factors Committee, is to divide N2 and M1c disease into two subcategories, while leaving the T descriptors unchanged.

This update is based on large survival differences among patients with these tumor characteristics, following an analysis of outcomes in more than 87,000 individuals diagnosed with lung cancer.

Session cochair Ramón Rami-Porta, MD, PhD, explained that previous editions of the classification were based on “pathologic stage, not clinical stage” but ultimately “we could not validate those findings” clinically.

“This is the first time that some sort of very simple quantification” of lung tumors “could be validated at the clinical stage as well,” which means that clinical staging can improve all over the world, said Dr. Rami-Porta, medical oncologist at Hospital Universitari Mútua Terrassa (Spain).

Session cochair Paul Van Schil, MD, PhD, of Antwerp (the Netherlands) University Hospital explained that the proposed changes reflect what clinicians already see in their daily practice.

The latest TNM classification included data submitted on 124,581 patients diagnosed with lung cancer between 2011 and 2019, 56% of whom were from Asia/Australia, 25% from Europe, and 16% from North America.

Overall, 87,339 patients were included in the analysis – 83% with non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and 7% with small cell lung cancer (SCLC). Most (62%) underwent surgery, either alone (47%), alongside chemotherapy (13%), or plus radiotherapy (2%). A minority (13%) received chemotherapy alone, and 13% received all three modalities.

The committee working on the update to the TNM classification had 112 members and comprised 14 subcommittees, which focused on different aspects of diagnosing and assessing the disease.

The committee agreed there should be no changes to the T category in the upcoming 9th Edition.

Evaluating the T category, some members expressed concern that patients with T3 disease embedded in the chest wall have worse survival outcomes than those with other forms of T3 disease. But, Dr. Asamura explained, the pathological versus clinical findings were inconsistent.

On pathological assessment, patients with T3 disease in the chest wall had a worse prognosis but clinical assessment indicated no survival difference. Given the lack of consensus, “we do not recommend any changes” to the current criteria, said Dr. Asamura.

Turning to the N category, Dr. Asamura explained that N2 disease will be divided into two subcategories: N2a, categorized by single N2 station involvement, and N2b, defined as multiple N2 station involvement.

Further analysis indicated that the estimated 5-year survival was significantly worse for patients with N2b disease on clinical assessment (31% vs. 42% with N2a disease; hazard ratio for death, 1.27; P < .0001) and on pathological assessment (HR, 1.46; P < .0001).

The committee also proposed a change to the M category, dividing M1c disease into two subcategories:

• M1c1 – defined as multiple extrathoracic metastases in a single organ system
• M1c2 – defined as multiple extrathoracic metastases in multiple organ systems

This change was driven by estimates of 5-year survival among patients with M1c1 (27%) versus M1c2 disease (19%). Compared with M1b disease, M1c1 was associated with a lower risk for death than M1c2 disease (HR, 1.27 vs. 1.39).

These changes, particularly those for the N category, will have a notable impact on how patients are staged, Dr. Asamura said.

Dividing the N2 category into N2a and N2b disease will push patients with T1, N1 disease from the IIB category (8th edition) to the IIA category (9th edition). The 8th edition categorized all T1, N2 patients as IIIA but the new edition would categorize patients with T1, N2a disease as IIB overall and those with N2b disease as IIIA. And patients with T2, N2a disease will be staged as IIIA — the same category as T2, N2 disease in the 8th edition – while those with N2b disease will be staged as IIIB.

By contrast, the division of M1c into M1c1 and M1c2 disease will not affect a patient’s overall stage, which will be IVB in all cases.

Upal Basu Roy, PhD, MPH, who was not part of the committee, said the TNM classification stage of cancers is “incredibly important in cataloguing the extent of disease” and to “decide the optimal treatment option.”

TNM classification is also “used to describe the burden of disease to be eligible for a clinical trial,” said Dr. Roy, executive director of research, LUNGevity Foundation, Chicago.

The changes in N staging may require sampling more lymph nodes than the current sampling frame of six, Dr. Roy said, adding that “surgeons and pathologists may need to be educated about the need for additional sampling.”

The subcategories for M1c disease will also need to be aligned with definitions of oligometastatic disease. “This is critical,” Dr. Roy said, as this staging may affect treatment choices.

No funding was declared. Dr. Asamura declares relationships with Medtronic, Taiho Pharmaceutical, Johnson & Johnson, Lily, Astellas, and Ono Pharmaceutical. Dr. Roy declared no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Proposed updates to the tumor-node-metastasis (TNM) classification for lung cancer will affect the way patients are staged, experts say.

The updates for the 9th edition of the TNM Classification of Malignant Tumors: Lung Cancer were presented at the annual World Conference on Lung Cancer. The final version will be published Jan. 1, 2024.

The core proposed change, according to Hisao Asamura, MD, chair of the IASLC Staging and Prognostic Factors Committee, is to divide N2 and M1c disease into two subcategories, while leaving the T descriptors unchanged.

This update is based on large survival differences among patients with these tumor characteristics, following an analysis of outcomes in more than 87,000 individuals diagnosed with lung cancer.

Session cochair Ramón Rami-Porta, MD, PhD, explained that previous editions of the classification were based on “pathologic stage, not clinical stage” but ultimately “we could not validate those findings” clinically.

“This is the first time that some sort of very simple quantification” of lung tumors “could be validated at the clinical stage as well,” which means that clinical staging can improve all over the world, said Dr. Rami-Porta, medical oncologist at Hospital Universitari Mútua Terrassa (Spain).

Session cochair Paul Van Schil, MD, PhD, of Antwerp (the Netherlands) University Hospital explained that the proposed changes reflect what clinicians already see in their daily practice.

The latest TNM classification included data submitted on 124,581 patients diagnosed with lung cancer between 2011 and 2019, 56% of whom were from Asia/Australia, 25% from Europe, and 16% from North America.

Overall, 87,339 patients were included in the analysis – 83% with non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and 7% with small cell lung cancer (SCLC). Most (62%) underwent surgery, either alone (47%), alongside chemotherapy (13%), or plus radiotherapy (2%). A minority (13%) received chemotherapy alone, and 13% received all three modalities.

The committee working on the update to the TNM classification had 112 members and comprised 14 subcommittees, which focused on different aspects of diagnosing and assessing the disease.

The committee agreed there should be no changes to the T category in the upcoming 9th Edition.

Evaluating the T category, some members expressed concern that patients with T3 disease embedded in the chest wall have worse survival outcomes than those with other forms of T3 disease. But, Dr. Asamura explained, the pathological versus clinical findings were inconsistent.

On pathological assessment, patients with T3 disease in the chest wall had a worse prognosis but clinical assessment indicated no survival difference. Given the lack of consensus, “we do not recommend any changes” to the current criteria, said Dr. Asamura.

Turning to the N category, Dr. Asamura explained that N2 disease will be divided into two subcategories: N2a, categorized by single N2 station involvement, and N2b, defined as multiple N2 station involvement.

Further analysis indicated that the estimated 5-year survival was significantly worse for patients with N2b disease on clinical assessment (31% vs. 42% with N2a disease; hazard ratio for death, 1.27; P < .0001) and on pathological assessment (HR, 1.46; P < .0001).

The committee also proposed a change to the M category, dividing M1c disease into two subcategories:

• M1c1 – defined as multiple extrathoracic metastases in a single organ system
• M1c2 – defined as multiple extrathoracic metastases in multiple organ systems

This change was driven by estimates of 5-year survival among patients with M1c1 (27%) versus M1c2 disease (19%). Compared with M1b disease, M1c1 was associated with a lower risk for death than M1c2 disease (HR, 1.27 vs. 1.39).

These changes, particularly those for the N category, will have a notable impact on how patients are staged, Dr. Asamura said.

Dividing the N2 category into N2a and N2b disease will push patients with T1, N1 disease from the IIB category (8th edition) to the IIA category (9th edition). The 8th edition categorized all T1, N2 patients as IIIA but the new edition would categorize patients with T1, N2a disease as IIB overall and those with N2b disease as IIIA. And patients with T2, N2a disease will be staged as IIIA — the same category as T2, N2 disease in the 8th edition – while those with N2b disease will be staged as IIIB.

By contrast, the division of M1c into M1c1 and M1c2 disease will not affect a patient’s overall stage, which will be IVB in all cases.

Upal Basu Roy, PhD, MPH, who was not part of the committee, said the TNM classification stage of cancers is “incredibly important in cataloguing the extent of disease” and to “decide the optimal treatment option.”

TNM classification is also “used to describe the burden of disease to be eligible for a clinical trial,” said Dr. Roy, executive director of research, LUNGevity Foundation, Chicago.

The changes in N staging may require sampling more lymph nodes than the current sampling frame of six, Dr. Roy said, adding that “surgeons and pathologists may need to be educated about the need for additional sampling.”

The subcategories for M1c disease will also need to be aligned with definitions of oligometastatic disease. “This is critical,” Dr. Roy said, as this staging may affect treatment choices.

No funding was declared. Dr. Asamura declares relationships with Medtronic, Taiho Pharmaceutical, Johnson & Johnson, Lily, Astellas, and Ono Pharmaceutical. Dr. Roy declared no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

INTRODUCTION

Urinary bladder is an extremely rare site of extrapulmonary small cell cancer (EPSCC). Unlike small cell lung cancer (SCLC), there is no clear guideline for prophylactic cranial irradiation (PCI) for EPSCC. In this case report and literature review, we discuss small cell cancer of urinary bladder (SCCUB) and the role of PCI in SCCUB.

CASE PRESENTATION

A 74-year-old male presented with gross hematuria and an unremarkable physical examination. CT showed 1.7 cm right anterolateral bladder wall thickening. Cystoscopy revealed a 2-3 cm high-grade bladder lesion. Pathology from transurethral resection of the tumor was consistent with T1N0M0 small cell carcinoma. MRI brain and FDG-PET showed no extravesical disease. Patient received four cycles of neoadjuvant carboplatin/etoposide per his preference as he wanted to protect his hearing due to his profession followed by radical cystoprostatectomy. Post-op pathology showed clear margins. We decided to forego PCI in favor of interval surveillance with MRI and follow- up images remain negative for distant metastases.

DISCUSSION

EPSCC accounts for 2.5-5% of all SCC, very rare in male genitourinary tract. Treatment approach is derived from SCLC, guided by extent of disease and patient’s functional status. Role of PCI in EPSCC has not been clearly described, and even less evidence is available for SCCUB. From a review of eleven studies in PubMed for the role of PCI in SCCUB or EPSCC, we found that SCCUB has lower incidence of brain metastases than SCLC. One study suggested that SCCUB arises from totipotent cells in the submucosa, unlike Kulchitsky cell origin of SCLC. This difference might explain the difference in their metastatic behavior. With this background, PCI is not routinely recommended for limited- stage SCCUB. There might still be a role for PCI in extensive SCCUB with high metastatic burden. More studies are needed to update the guidelines for the role of PCI for these tumors.

CONCLUSIONS

Per this literature review, PCI is not routinely recommended for SCCUB, likely due to different cells of origin compared to SCLC. Future studies should focus on characterizing differences in their metastatic behavior and updating guidelines for PCI for SCCUB.

INTRODUCTION

Urinary bladder is an extremely rare site of extrapulmonary small cell cancer (EPSCC). Unlike small cell lung cancer (SCLC), there is no clear guideline for prophylactic cranial irradiation (PCI) for EPSCC. In this case report and literature review, we discuss small cell cancer of urinary bladder (SCCUB) and the role of PCI in SCCUB.

CASE PRESENTATION

A 74-year-old male presented with gross hematuria and an unremarkable physical examination. CT showed 1.7 cm right anterolateral bladder wall thickening. Cystoscopy revealed a 2-3 cm high-grade bladder lesion. Pathology from transurethral resection of the tumor was consistent with T1N0M0 small cell carcinoma. MRI brain and FDG-PET showed no extravesical disease. Patient received four cycles of neoadjuvant carboplatin/etoposide per his preference as he wanted to protect his hearing due to his profession followed by radical cystoprostatectomy. Post-op pathology showed clear margins. We decided to forego PCI in favor of interval surveillance with MRI and follow- up images remain negative for distant metastases.

DISCUSSION

EPSCC accounts for 2.5-5% of all SCC, very rare in male genitourinary tract. Treatment approach is derived from SCLC, guided by extent of disease and patient’s functional status. Role of PCI in EPSCC has not been clearly described, and even less evidence is available for SCCUB. From a review of eleven studies in PubMed for the role of PCI in SCCUB or EPSCC, we found that SCCUB has lower incidence of brain metastases than SCLC. One study suggested that SCCUB arises from totipotent cells in the submucosa, unlike Kulchitsky cell origin of SCLC. This difference might explain the difference in their metastatic behavior. With this background, PCI is not routinely recommended for limited- stage SCCUB. There might still be a role for PCI in extensive SCCUB with high metastatic burden. More studies are needed to update the guidelines for the role of PCI for these tumors.

CONCLUSIONS

Per this literature review, PCI is not routinely recommended for SCCUB, likely due to different cells of origin compared to SCLC. Future studies should focus on characterizing differences in their metastatic behavior and updating guidelines for PCI for SCCUB.

INTRODUCTION

Urinary bladder is an extremely rare site of extrapulmonary small cell cancer (EPSCC). Unlike small cell lung cancer (SCLC), there is no clear guideline for prophylactic cranial irradiation (PCI) for EPSCC. In this case report and literature review, we discuss small cell cancer of urinary bladder (SCCUB) and the role of PCI in SCCUB.

CASE PRESENTATION

A 74-year-old male presented with gross hematuria and an unremarkable physical examination. CT showed 1.7 cm right anterolateral bladder wall thickening. Cystoscopy revealed a 2-3 cm high-grade bladder lesion. Pathology from transurethral resection of the tumor was consistent with T1N0M0 small cell carcinoma. MRI brain and FDG-PET showed no extravesical disease. Patient received four cycles of neoadjuvant carboplatin/etoposide per his preference as he wanted to protect his hearing due to his profession followed by radical cystoprostatectomy. Post-op pathology showed clear margins. We decided to forego PCI in favor of interval surveillance with MRI and follow- up images remain negative for distant metastases.

DISCUSSION

EPSCC accounts for 2.5-5% of all SCC, very rare in male genitourinary tract. Treatment approach is derived from SCLC, guided by extent of disease and patient’s functional status. Role of PCI in EPSCC has not been clearly described, and even less evidence is available for SCCUB. From a review of eleven studies in PubMed for the role of PCI in SCCUB or EPSCC, we found that SCCUB has lower incidence of brain metastases than SCLC. One study suggested that SCCUB arises from totipotent cells in the submucosa, unlike Kulchitsky cell origin of SCLC. This difference might explain the difference in their metastatic behavior. With this background, PCI is not routinely recommended for limited- stage SCCUB. There might still be a role for PCI in extensive SCCUB with high metastatic burden. More studies are needed to update the guidelines for the role of PCI for these tumors.

CONCLUSIONS

Per this literature review, PCI is not routinely recommended for SCCUB, likely due to different cells of origin compared to SCLC. Future studies should focus on characterizing differences in their metastatic behavior and updating guidelines for PCI for SCCUB.

In resectable non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), neoadjuvant durvalumab in combination with chemotherapy had no effect on surgical outcomes, according to the most recent analysis of data from the phase 3 AEGEAN study.

“In terms of cancellation of surgery, surgical delay, surgically related adverse events, complications, operation time, and operation procedure, there was no difference between the durvalumab group and the placebo group. In addition, the R0 resection rate was numerically higher in the durvalumab group. These [results] indicate that adding perioperative durvalumab did not adversely affect surgical outcomes,” wrote Tetsuya Mitsudomi, MD, PhD, who presented the new results at the annual World Conference on Lung Cancer, in an email. The topline results of AEGEAN were presented earlier this year at AACR 2023, which showed that the regimen combined with adjuvant durvalumab improved event-free survival (EFS) and pathologic complete response (pCR), compared with chemotherapy plus placebo.

Dr. Mitsudomi also pointed out that AEGEAN is one of the first studies looking at immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) in the perioperative settings that demonstrated improved EFS and pCR with no effect on surgical outcomes. Previously, the CheckMate 816 study demonstrated efficacy of neoadjuvant ICI alone.

“The AEGEAN study showed that neoadjuvant plus adjuvant ICI is another option for these patients. However, no one knows who should receive the postoperative ICI in addition to neoadjuvant ICI, because there are no trials including ongoing ones that ask this question,” wrote Dr. Mitsudomi.

The phase 3 AEGEAN study included 740 patients who were randomized to durvalumab or placebo. The median age was 65.0 years in both groups, and 33.3% and 33.4% of patients in each group respectively had fewer than 1% of tumor cells that expressed PD-L1. Expression in 1-49% of tumor cells occurred in 36.9% and 38.0% respectively, and expression ≥ 50% occurred in 29.8% and 28.6%.

Prior to surgery, 84.7% of the durvalumab arm completed four cycles of chemotherapy, as did 87.2% in the placebo arm. The proportion of patients undergoing surgery was 80.6% and 80.7% in the two arms, respectively, and surgical completion was achieved in 77.6% and 76.7%. The durvalumab arm and placebo arm had similar median times from last neoadjuvant treatment to surgery (34.0 days for both) and median time from surgery to first adjuvant dose (50.0 versus 52.0 days).

Among patients with stage II NSCLC, 84.3% in the durvalumab arm underwent surgery, versus 88.9% in the placebo arm. Among patients with stage III disease, the numbers were 79.2% and 77.4%, respectively. There was no surgical delay in 82.7% of patients in the durvalumab arm, compared with 77.8% in the placebo arm. The most common reason for surgical delay was logistical reasons. Mediastinal lymph node dissection was completed in 86.6% of the durvalumab arm and 84.7% of the placebo arm. In both groups where surgery was completed, R0 resection rates were over 90% overall as well as in both stage I and stage II patients. Following surgery, adverse events possibly related to surgery occurred in 40.2% of the durvalumab group and 39.2% of the placebo group. The most common surgical adverse events occurred at similar frequency between groups.

After the presentation, Solange Peters, MD, PhD, served as a discussant. She pointed out other studies that have examined ICI therapy for NSCLC in both the neoadjuvant and adjuvant setting, including Keynote-671 (pembrolizumab), Neotorch (toripalimab), CheckMate 77T (nivolumab), and Impower030 (atezolizumab). She pointed out that AEGEAN, Keynote-671, CheckMate 816, and NeoTorch all had similar trial designs and showed similar magnitude of benefit. “We have a growing paradigm [for combining neoadjuvant and adjuvant ICI therapy]. We are quite all convinced in the community that there is a biological rationale to use neoadjuvant immunotherapy because of the fit immune system, because of the presence of the neoantigens within the tumor at the time of the start of neoadjuvant treatment, [leading to] better priming of immune cells,” said Dr. Peters, who is a professor of medical oncology at University Hospital of Lausanne, Switzerland.

About one in five patients across the trials who would be eligible for surgery never undergo it, but there is promising data from CheckMate 816 that neoadjuvant ICB may improve the odds of surgery, according to Dr. Solange. The AEGEAN data produced some “quite interesting” data about the reasons that patients don’t make it to surgery, as it showed that 8%-10% of patients don’t reach surgery because of progression, but 10%-15% may fall out because they turned out not to be a good candidate for surgery. “I think we probably have to blame the enthusiasm we have to add all these patients into the trial, hoping for the best for the patient but maybe making a wrong selection,” said Dr. Peters.

The study was funded by AstraZeneca. Dr. Mitsudomi has received speaker fees, honoraria, or research funding from AstraZeneca, Chugai, Ono, Bristol Myers Squibb, and MSD. Dr. Peters has financial relationships with AstraZeneca as well as a wide range of other pharmaceutical companies.

In resectable non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), neoadjuvant durvalumab in combination with chemotherapy had no effect on surgical outcomes, according to the most recent analysis of data from the phase 3 AEGEAN study.

“In terms of cancellation of surgery, surgical delay, surgically related adverse events, complications, operation time, and operation procedure, there was no difference between the durvalumab group and the placebo group. In addition, the R0 resection rate was numerically higher in the durvalumab group. These [results] indicate that adding perioperative durvalumab did not adversely affect surgical outcomes,” wrote Tetsuya Mitsudomi, MD, PhD, who presented the new results at the annual World Conference on Lung Cancer, in an email. The topline results of AEGEAN were presented earlier this year at AACR 2023, which showed that the regimen combined with adjuvant durvalumab improved event-free survival (EFS) and pathologic complete response (pCR), compared with chemotherapy plus placebo.

Dr. Mitsudomi also pointed out that AEGEAN is one of the first studies looking at immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) in the perioperative settings that demonstrated improved EFS and pCR with no effect on surgical outcomes. Previously, the CheckMate 816 study demonstrated efficacy of neoadjuvant ICI alone.

“The AEGEAN study showed that neoadjuvant plus adjuvant ICI is another option for these patients. However, no one knows who should receive the postoperative ICI in addition to neoadjuvant ICI, because there are no trials including ongoing ones that ask this question,” wrote Dr. Mitsudomi.

The phase 3 AEGEAN study included 740 patients who were randomized to durvalumab or placebo. The median age was 65.0 years in both groups, and 33.3% and 33.4% of patients in each group respectively had fewer than 1% of tumor cells that expressed PD-L1. Expression in 1-49% of tumor cells occurred in 36.9% and 38.0% respectively, and expression ≥ 50% occurred in 29.8% and 28.6%.

Prior to surgery, 84.7% of the durvalumab arm completed four cycles of chemotherapy, as did 87.2% in the placebo arm. The proportion of patients undergoing surgery was 80.6% and 80.7% in the two arms, respectively, and surgical completion was achieved in 77.6% and 76.7%. The durvalumab arm and placebo arm had similar median times from last neoadjuvant treatment to surgery (34.0 days for both) and median time from surgery to first adjuvant dose (50.0 versus 52.0 days).

Among patients with stage II NSCLC, 84.3% in the durvalumab arm underwent surgery, versus 88.9% in the placebo arm. Among patients with stage III disease, the numbers were 79.2% and 77.4%, respectively. There was no surgical delay in 82.7% of patients in the durvalumab arm, compared with 77.8% in the placebo arm. The most common reason for surgical delay was logistical reasons. Mediastinal lymph node dissection was completed in 86.6% of the durvalumab arm and 84.7% of the placebo arm. In both groups where surgery was completed, R0 resection rates were over 90% overall as well as in both stage I and stage II patients. Following surgery, adverse events possibly related to surgery occurred in 40.2% of the durvalumab group and 39.2% of the placebo group. The most common surgical adverse events occurred at similar frequency between groups.

After the presentation, Solange Peters, MD, PhD, served as a discussant. She pointed out other studies that have examined ICI therapy for NSCLC in both the neoadjuvant and adjuvant setting, including Keynote-671 (pembrolizumab), Neotorch (toripalimab), CheckMate 77T (nivolumab), and Impower030 (atezolizumab). She pointed out that AEGEAN, Keynote-671, CheckMate 816, and NeoTorch all had similar trial designs and showed similar magnitude of benefit. “We have a growing paradigm [for combining neoadjuvant and adjuvant ICI therapy]. We are quite all convinced in the community that there is a biological rationale to use neoadjuvant immunotherapy because of the fit immune system, because of the presence of the neoantigens within the tumor at the time of the start of neoadjuvant treatment, [leading to] better priming of immune cells,” said Dr. Peters, who is a professor of medical oncology at University Hospital of Lausanne, Switzerland.

About one in five patients across the trials who would be eligible for surgery never undergo it, but there is promising data from CheckMate 816 that neoadjuvant ICB may improve the odds of surgery, according to Dr. Solange. The AEGEAN data produced some “quite interesting” data about the reasons that patients don’t make it to surgery, as it showed that 8%-10% of patients don’t reach surgery because of progression, but 10%-15% may fall out because they turned out not to be a good candidate for surgery. “I think we probably have to blame the enthusiasm we have to add all these patients into the trial, hoping for the best for the patient but maybe making a wrong selection,” said Dr. Peters.

The study was funded by AstraZeneca. Dr. Mitsudomi has received speaker fees, honoraria, or research funding from AstraZeneca, Chugai, Ono, Bristol Myers Squibb, and MSD. Dr. Peters has financial relationships with AstraZeneca as well as a wide range of other pharmaceutical companies.

In resectable non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), neoadjuvant durvalumab in combination with chemotherapy had no effect on surgical outcomes, according to the most recent analysis of data from the phase 3 AEGEAN study.

“In terms of cancellation of surgery, surgical delay, surgically related adverse events, complications, operation time, and operation procedure, there was no difference between the durvalumab group and the placebo group. In addition, the R0 resection rate was numerically higher in the durvalumab group. These [results] indicate that adding perioperative durvalumab did not adversely affect surgical outcomes,” wrote Tetsuya Mitsudomi, MD, PhD, who presented the new results at the annual World Conference on Lung Cancer, in an email. The topline results of AEGEAN were presented earlier this year at AACR 2023, which showed that the regimen combined with adjuvant durvalumab improved event-free survival (EFS) and pathologic complete response (pCR), compared with chemotherapy plus placebo.

Dr. Mitsudomi also pointed out that AEGEAN is one of the first studies looking at immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) in the perioperative settings that demonstrated improved EFS and pCR with no effect on surgical outcomes. Previously, the CheckMate 816 study demonstrated efficacy of neoadjuvant ICI alone.

“The AEGEAN study showed that neoadjuvant plus adjuvant ICI is another option for these patients. However, no one knows who should receive the postoperative ICI in addition to neoadjuvant ICI, because there are no trials including ongoing ones that ask this question,” wrote Dr. Mitsudomi.

The phase 3 AEGEAN study included 740 patients who were randomized to durvalumab or placebo. The median age was 65.0 years in both groups, and 33.3% and 33.4% of patients in each group respectively had fewer than 1% of tumor cells that expressed PD-L1. Expression in 1-49% of tumor cells occurred in 36.9% and 38.0% respectively, and expression ≥ 50% occurred in 29.8% and 28.6%.

Prior to surgery, 84.7% of the durvalumab arm completed four cycles of chemotherapy, as did 87.2% in the placebo arm. The proportion of patients undergoing surgery was 80.6% and 80.7% in the two arms, respectively, and surgical completion was achieved in 77.6% and 76.7%. The durvalumab arm and placebo arm had similar median times from last neoadjuvant treatment to surgery (34.0 days for both) and median time from surgery to first adjuvant dose (50.0 versus 52.0 days).

Among patients with stage II NSCLC, 84.3% in the durvalumab arm underwent surgery, versus 88.9% in the placebo arm. Among patients with stage III disease, the numbers were 79.2% and 77.4%, respectively. There was no surgical delay in 82.7% of patients in the durvalumab arm, compared with 77.8% in the placebo arm. The most common reason for surgical delay was logistical reasons. Mediastinal lymph node dissection was completed in 86.6% of the durvalumab arm and 84.7% of the placebo arm. In both groups where surgery was completed, R0 resection rates were over 90% overall as well as in both stage I and stage II patients. Following surgery, adverse events possibly related to surgery occurred in 40.2% of the durvalumab group and 39.2% of the placebo group. The most common surgical adverse events occurred at similar frequency between groups.

After the presentation, Solange Peters, MD, PhD, served as a discussant. She pointed out other studies that have examined ICI therapy for NSCLC in both the neoadjuvant and adjuvant setting, including Keynote-671 (pembrolizumab), Neotorch (toripalimab), CheckMate 77T (nivolumab), and Impower030 (atezolizumab). She pointed out that AEGEAN, Keynote-671, CheckMate 816, and NeoTorch all had similar trial designs and showed similar magnitude of benefit. “We have a growing paradigm [for combining neoadjuvant and adjuvant ICI therapy]. We are quite all convinced in the community that there is a biological rationale to use neoadjuvant immunotherapy because of the fit immune system, because of the presence of the neoantigens within the tumor at the time of the start of neoadjuvant treatment, [leading to] better priming of immune cells,” said Dr. Peters, who is a professor of medical oncology at University Hospital of Lausanne, Switzerland.

About one in five patients across the trials who would be eligible for surgery never undergo it, but there is promising data from CheckMate 816 that neoadjuvant ICB may improve the odds of surgery, according to Dr. Solange. The AEGEAN data produced some “quite interesting” data about the reasons that patients don’t make it to surgery, as it showed that 8%-10% of patients don’t reach surgery because of progression, but 10%-15% may fall out because they turned out not to be a good candidate for surgery. “I think we probably have to blame the enthusiasm we have to add all these patients into the trial, hoping for the best for the patient but maybe making a wrong selection,” said Dr. Peters.

The study was funded by AstraZeneca. Dr. Mitsudomi has received speaker fees, honoraria, or research funding from AstraZeneca, Chugai, Ono, Bristol Myers Squibb, and MSD. Dr. Peters has financial relationships with AstraZeneca as well as a wide range of other pharmaceutical companies.

A debate in Houston at the annual meeting of the Society of Hematologic Oncology tackled a vexing issue in hematology: Should smoldering myeloma be treated?

Hematologist Sagar Lonial, MD, a multiple myeloma specialist and researcher at Emory University, Atlanta, argued for treatment. Hematologist Angela Dispenzieri, MD, also a myeloma researcher and specialist at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., took the opposing side, arguing for watchful waiting.

The two experts based their arguments largely on the same two studies, the only randomized trials to tackle the issue to date. While Dr. Dispenzieri focused on their shortcomings, Dr. Lonial focused on their strengths.

In a poll after the debate, about a third of audience members agreed that watchful waiting is the way to go, but about two-thirds favored a personalized approach to smoldering myeloma treatment based on patient risk.

“I’m taking this as a win,” Dr. Lonial said.

Different interpretations of two trials

The first of the two trials recruited from 2007 to 2010 and was conducted in Spain and Portugal. Fifty-seven high-risk patients were randomized to lenalidomide plus dexamethasone (Len-Dex) for up to 2 years; 62 others were randomized to observation.

At 3 years, 70% of observed patients had progressed to multiple myeloma versus only 20% in the Len-Dex group; 82% of Len-Dex patients were alive at data cut-off in 2015 versus 64% of observation patients.

The second, more recent trial, which was led by Dr. Lonial, randomized 92 intermediate or high-risk smoldering myeloma patients to lenalidomide alone for a median of 2 years and 90 others to observation. Three-year progression-free survival (PFS) was 91% in the treatment arm versus 66% with observation. Overall survival data have not yet been reported.

Dr. Dispenzieri acknowledged that the results from Spain and Portugal are impressive. “Treating with Len-Dex gives you a far superior freedom from progression. ... Overall survival was better too.” Results for Len-Dex were “fantastic,” she said.

However, the trial was done before myeloma-defining event criteria existed, so it’s very likely that the treatment arm in the Spanish study included actual myeloma cases, she said.

About 46% of treated patients in Dr. Lonial’s study met the current definition for high risk for progression based on the 2-20-20 rule, which Dr. Dispenzieri helped develop. Although there was an improvement in PFS in the high-risk group, there was no significant improvement for intermediate- and low-risk subjects. Also, more than 80% of observed patients hadn’t progressed by 2 years, and overall survival data are missing.

Meanwhile, treated patients in both trials had more adverse events, including secondary malignancies, and there’s the possibility that early treatment may make patients resistant to treatment later on when they progress to multiple myeloma, although that didn’t seem to happen in the Spanish trial.

“Of course, we want to prevent morbidity, of course we would love to cure the disease,” but “should we treat high-risk smoldering myeloma patients based on overall survival data from a trial of” just 119 “patients that may have been contaminated with actual myeloma” cases? Is it ethical to treat low- and intermediate-risk patients who have only a 50% chance of developing myeloma after 10 years?”

Her answer to both questions was “no and no. ... There’s just a lot of work to be done” to better understand the condition and when and how to intervene. In the meantime, “don’t treat smoldering melanoma patients” outside of a trial, she said.

“First, do no harm,” Dr. Dispenzieri cautioned in her final slide.

Dr. Lonial said he agreed with many of Dr. Dispenzieri’s points, but disagreed with her conclusion not to treat.

“Everybody can always be critical of randomized trials, but at the end of the day, we now have two randomized phase 3 trials comparing early intervention with no intervention demonstrating a significant delay in developing myeloma. I think it’s time to end the ‘we need more data; we need more trials.’ It’s time for us to take a stand.”

He argued for 2 years of lenalidomide for patients who meet the 2-20-20 high-risk definition, based on the median time people were treated in his trial.

He said he discusses the option “with every smoldering patient [who] walks in to see me” if they aren’t eligible for a trial.

Dr. Lonial mentioned his team is currently pulling together longer-term survival data for their trial.

A debate in Houston at the annual meeting of the Society of Hematologic Oncology tackled a vexing issue in hematology: Should smoldering myeloma be treated?

Hematologist Sagar Lonial, MD, a multiple myeloma specialist and researcher at Emory University, Atlanta, argued for treatment. Hematologist Angela Dispenzieri, MD, also a myeloma researcher and specialist at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., took the opposing side, arguing for watchful waiting.

The two experts based their arguments largely on the same two studies, the only randomized trials to tackle the issue to date. While Dr. Dispenzieri focused on their shortcomings, Dr. Lonial focused on their strengths.

In a poll after the debate, about a third of audience members agreed that watchful waiting is the way to go, but about two-thirds favored a personalized approach to smoldering myeloma treatment based on patient risk.

“I’m taking this as a win,” Dr. Lonial said.

Different interpretations of two trials

The first of the two trials recruited from 2007 to 2010 and was conducted in Spain and Portugal. Fifty-seven high-risk patients were randomized to lenalidomide plus dexamethasone (Len-Dex) for up to 2 years; 62 others were randomized to observation.

At 3 years, 70% of observed patients had progressed to multiple myeloma versus only 20% in the Len-Dex group; 82% of Len-Dex patients were alive at data cut-off in 2015 versus 64% of observation patients.

The second, more recent trial, which was led by Dr. Lonial, randomized 92 intermediate or high-risk smoldering myeloma patients to lenalidomide alone for a median of 2 years and 90 others to observation. Three-year progression-free survival (PFS) was 91% in the treatment arm versus 66% with observation. Overall survival data have not yet been reported.

Dr. Dispenzieri acknowledged that the results from Spain and Portugal are impressive. “Treating with Len-Dex gives you a far superior freedom from progression. ... Overall survival was better too.” Results for Len-Dex were “fantastic,” she said.

However, the trial was done before myeloma-defining event criteria existed, so it’s very likely that the treatment arm in the Spanish study included actual myeloma cases, she said.

About 46% of treated patients in Dr. Lonial’s study met the current definition for high risk for progression based on the 2-20-20 rule, which Dr. Dispenzieri helped develop. Although there was an improvement in PFS in the high-risk group, there was no significant improvement for intermediate- and low-risk subjects. Also, more than 80% of observed patients hadn’t progressed by 2 years, and overall survival data are missing.

Meanwhile, treated patients in both trials had more adverse events, including secondary malignancies, and there’s the possibility that early treatment may make patients resistant to treatment later on when they progress to multiple myeloma, although that didn’t seem to happen in the Spanish trial.

“Of course, we want to prevent morbidity, of course we would love to cure the disease,” but “should we treat high-risk smoldering myeloma patients based on overall survival data from a trial of” just 119 “patients that may have been contaminated with actual myeloma” cases? Is it ethical to treat low- and intermediate-risk patients who have only a 50% chance of developing myeloma after 10 years?”

Her answer to both questions was “no and no. ... There’s just a lot of work to be done” to better understand the condition and when and how to intervene. In the meantime, “don’t treat smoldering melanoma patients” outside of a trial, she said.

“First, do no harm,” Dr. Dispenzieri cautioned in her final slide.

Dr. Lonial said he agreed with many of Dr. Dispenzieri’s points, but disagreed with her conclusion not to treat.

“Everybody can always be critical of randomized trials, but at the end of the day, we now have two randomized phase 3 trials comparing early intervention with no intervention demonstrating a significant delay in developing myeloma. I think it’s time to end the ‘we need more data; we need more trials.’ It’s time for us to take a stand.”

He argued for 2 years of lenalidomide for patients who meet the 2-20-20 high-risk definition, based on the median time people were treated in his trial.

He said he discusses the option “with every smoldering patient [who] walks in to see me” if they aren’t eligible for a trial.

Dr. Lonial mentioned his team is currently pulling together longer-term survival data for their trial.

A debate in Houston at the annual meeting of the Society of Hematologic Oncology tackled a vexing issue in hematology: Should smoldering myeloma be treated?

Hematologist Sagar Lonial, MD, a multiple myeloma specialist and researcher at Emory University, Atlanta, argued for treatment. Hematologist Angela Dispenzieri, MD, also a myeloma researcher and specialist at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., took the opposing side, arguing for watchful waiting.

The two experts based their arguments largely on the same two studies, the only randomized trials to tackle the issue to date. While Dr. Dispenzieri focused on their shortcomings, Dr. Lonial focused on their strengths.

In a poll after the debate, about a third of audience members agreed that watchful waiting is the way to go, but about two-thirds favored a personalized approach to smoldering myeloma treatment based on patient risk.

“I’m taking this as a win,” Dr. Lonial said.

Different interpretations of two trials

The first of the two trials recruited from 2007 to 2010 and was conducted in Spain and Portugal. Fifty-seven high-risk patients were randomized to lenalidomide plus dexamethasone (Len-Dex) for up to 2 years; 62 others were randomized to observation.

At 3 years, 70% of observed patients had progressed to multiple myeloma versus only 20% in the Len-Dex group; 82% of Len-Dex patients were alive at data cut-off in 2015 versus 64% of observation patients.

The second, more recent trial, which was led by Dr. Lonial, randomized 92 intermediate or high-risk smoldering myeloma patients to lenalidomide alone for a median of 2 years and 90 others to observation. Three-year progression-free survival (PFS) was 91% in the treatment arm versus 66% with observation. Overall survival data have not yet been reported.

Dr. Dispenzieri acknowledged that the results from Spain and Portugal are impressive. “Treating with Len-Dex gives you a far superior freedom from progression. ... Overall survival was better too.” Results for Len-Dex were “fantastic,” she said.

However, the trial was done before myeloma-defining event criteria existed, so it’s very likely that the treatment arm in the Spanish study included actual myeloma cases, she said.

About 46% of treated patients in Dr. Lonial’s study met the current definition for high risk for progression based on the 2-20-20 rule, which Dr. Dispenzieri helped develop. Although there was an improvement in PFS in the high-risk group, there was no significant improvement for intermediate- and low-risk subjects. Also, more than 80% of observed patients hadn’t progressed by 2 years, and overall survival data are missing.

Meanwhile, treated patients in both trials had more adverse events, including secondary malignancies, and there’s the possibility that early treatment may make patients resistant to treatment later on when they progress to multiple myeloma, although that didn’t seem to happen in the Spanish trial.

“Of course, we want to prevent morbidity, of course we would love to cure the disease,” but “should we treat high-risk smoldering myeloma patients based on overall survival data from a trial of” just 119 “patients that may have been contaminated with actual myeloma” cases? Is it ethical to treat low- and intermediate-risk patients who have only a 50% chance of developing myeloma after 10 years?”

Her answer to both questions was “no and no. ... There’s just a lot of work to be done” to better understand the condition and when and how to intervene. In the meantime, “don’t treat smoldering melanoma patients” outside of a trial, she said.

“First, do no harm,” Dr. Dispenzieri cautioned in her final slide.

Dr. Lonial said he agreed with many of Dr. Dispenzieri’s points, but disagreed with her conclusion not to treat.

“Everybody can always be critical of randomized trials, but at the end of the day, we now have two randomized phase 3 trials comparing early intervention with no intervention demonstrating a significant delay in developing myeloma. I think it’s time to end the ‘we need more data; we need more trials.’ It’s time for us to take a stand.”

He argued for 2 years of lenalidomide for patients who meet the 2-20-20 high-risk definition, based on the median time people were treated in his trial.

He said he discusses the option “with every smoldering patient [who] walks in to see me” if they aren’t eligible for a trial.

Dr. Lonial mentioned his team is currently pulling together longer-term survival data for their trial.