AVAHO

Prostate cancer will be diagnosed in 12.5% of men during their lifetime. It is the most commonly diagnosed solid organ cancer in men.¹ However, prostate cancer screening for prostate-specific antigen (PSA) remains controversial due to concerns about overdiagnosis, as the overall risk of dying of prostate cancer is only 2.4%.¹

To address the risk and benefits of PSA testing, in 2012 the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommended against routine PSA testing.² Updated 2018 recommendations continued this recommendation in men aged > 70 years but acknowledged a small potential benefit in men aged 55 to 69 years and suggested individualized shared decision making between patient and clinician.³ In addition, American Urological Association (AUA) guidelines for the early detection of prostate cancer recommend against PSA screening in men aged < 40 years or those aged > 70 years, shared decision making for individuals aged 55 to 70 years or in high-risk men aged 40 to 55 years (ie, family history of prostate cancer or African American race).⁴ PSA screening is not recommended for men with a life expectancy shorter than 10 to 15 years aged > 70 years.⁴

The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) is the largest integrated health care system in the US.⁵ In addition, the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Spinal Cord Injury and Disorders System of Care operates 25 centers throughout the US.⁶ Life expectancy following spinal cord injury (SCI) increased significantly through the 1980s but has since plateaued, with life expectancy being impacted by age at injury, completeness of injury, and neurologic level.^7,8 As part of a program of uniform care, all persons with SCI followed at the Spinal Cord Injury and Disorders System of Care centers are offered comprehensive annual evaluations, including screening laboratory tests, such as PSA level.⁹

Patients with SCI present a unique challenge when interpreting PSA levels, given potentially confounding factors, including neurogenic bladder management, high rates of bacteriuria, urinary tract infections (UTIs), testosterone deficiency, and pelvic innervation that differs from the noninjured population.^10,11 Unfortunately, the literature on prostate cancer prevalence and average PSA levels in patients with SCI is limited by the small scope of studies and inconsistent data.^10-16 Therefore, the purpose of the current investigation was to quantify and analyze the rates of annual PSA testing for all men with SCI in the VHA.

Methods

Approval was granted by the Richmond VA Medical Center (VAMC) Institutional Review Board in Virginia, and by the VA Informatics and Computing Infrastructure (VINCI) data access request tracker system for extraction of data from the VA Corporate Data Warehouse. Microsoft Structured Query Language was used for data programming and query design. Statistical analysis was conducted using Stata version 15.1 with assistance from professional biostatisticians.

Only male veterans with a nervous system disorder affecting the spinal cord or with myelopathy were included, based on International Classification of Diseases (ICD) version 9 and 10 codes, corresponding to traumatic and nontraumatic myelopathy. Veterans diagnosed with myelopathy based on ICD codes corresponding to progressive or degenerative myelopathies, such as multiple sclerosis or amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, were excluded.

For each veteran, extracted data included the unique identification number, date of birth, ICD code, date ICD code first appeared, race, gender, death status (yes/no), date of death (when applicable), date of each PSA test, PSA test values, and the VAMC where each test was performed. Only tests for total PSA were included. The date that the ICD code first appeared served as an approximation for the date of SCI. The time frame for the study included all PSA tests in the VINCI database for 2000 through 2017. However, only post-SCI PSA tests were included in the analysis. Duplicate tests (same date/time) were eliminated.

Race is considered a risk factor for prostate cancer only for African American patients, likely due to racial health disparities.¹⁷ Given this, we chose to categorize race as either African American or other, with a third category for missing/inconsistent reporting. Age at time of the PSA test was categorized into 4 groups (≤ 39, 40-54, 55-69, and ≥ 70 years) based on AUA guidelines.⁴ The annual PSA testing rate was calculated for each veteran with SCI as the number of PSA tests per year. A mean annual PSA test rate was then calculated as the weighted (by exposure time) mean value for all annual PSA testing rates from 2000 through 2017 for each age group and race. Annual exposure was calculated for each veteran and defined as the number of days a veteran was eligible to have a PSA test. This started with the date of SCI diagnosis and ended with either the date of death or the date of last PSA. If a veteran moved from one age group to another in 1 year, the first part of this year’s exposure was included in the calculation of the annual PSA testing rate for the younger group and the second part was included for the calculation of the older group. For deceased veterans, the death date was excluded from the exposure period, and their exposure period ended on the day before death.

Statistical Analysis

To compare PSA testing rates between African American race and other races, Poisson regression was used with exposure treated as an offset (exposures were summed across years for each veteran). An indicator (dummy) variable for African American race vs other races was coded, and statistical significance was set at P < .05. To check sensitivity for the Poisson assumption that the mean was equal to the variance, negative binomial regression was used. To assess for geographic PSA testing rate variability, the data were further analyzed based on the locations where PSA tests were performed. This subanalysis was limited to veterans who had all PSA tests in a single station. For each station, the average PSA testing rate was calculated for each veteran, and the mean for all annual PSA testing rates was used to determine station-specific PSA testing rates.

Results

A total of 45,274 veterans were initially identified of which 367 females were excluded (Figure 1).

The PSA testing rate rose for veterans in the age groups ≤ 39, 40 to 54, and 55 to 69 years (Figure 2A).

Discussion

The goal of this study was to establish testing rates and analyze PSA testing trends across races and age groups in veterans with SCI. This is the largest cohort of patients with SCI analyzed in the literature. The key findings of this study were that despite clear AUA guidelines recommending against PSA testing in patients aged ≤ 39 years and ≥ 70 years, there are high rates of testing in veterans with SCI in these age groups (0.46 tests per year in those aged ≤ 39 years and 0.91 tests per year in those aged ≥ 70 years). In terms of race, as expected based on increased risk, African American veterans with SCI had higher PSA test rates.¹⁸ However, the continued increase in PSA testing rate for African American veterans aged ≥ 70 years was unexpected and not seen in other racial groups. As racial disparities are known to affect prostate cancer outcomes in African American men, it is reassuring that PSA testing was actually higher among African American men with SCI in our population, suggesting this vulnerable population is not being left behind in terms of screening.¹⁷ In contrast to other studies that show a lower rate of PSA screening in patients with SCI, our study suggests general PSA overtesting in veterans with SCI and a need for improved education for both veterans and their health care practitioners.¹⁹

Prostate Cancer Incidence

Although the exact mechanism behind alterations in prostate function in the SCI population have yet to be fully elucidated, research suggests that the prostate behaves differently after SCI. Animal models of prostate gland denervation show decreased prostate volume and suggest that SCI may lead to a reduction in prostatic secretory function associated with autonomic dysfunction. Shim and colleagues hypothesized that impaired autonomic prostate innervation alters the prostatic volume and PSA in patients with SCI.¹⁰

Additional studies looking at actual PSA levels in men with SCI reveal conflicting data.^10-15,20 Toricelli and colleagues retrospectively studied 140 men with SCI, of whom 34 had PSA levels available and found that mean PSA was not significantly different for patients with SCI compared with controls, but patients using clean intermittent catheterization had 2-fold higher PSA levels.²¹ In contrast, Konety and colleagues found that mean PSA was not significantly different from uninjured controls in their cohort of 79 patients with SCI, though they did find a correlation between indwelling catheter use and a higher PSA.²²

Studies have shown an overall decreased risk of prostate cancer in patients with SCI, though the mechanism remains unclear. A large cohort study from Taiwan showed a lower risk of prostate cancer for 54,401 patients with SCI with an adjusted hazard ratio of 0.73.²³ Patel and colleagues found the overall rate of prostate cancer in the population of veterans with SCI was lower than the general uninjured VA population, though this study was limited by scope with only 350 patients with SCI.²⁴ A more recent systematic review and meta-analysis of 9 studies evaluating the prevalence of prostate cancer in men with SCI found a reduction of up to 65% in the risk of prostate cancer in men with SCI, and PSA was found to be a poor screening tool for prostate cancer due to large study heterogeneity.¹⁶

PSA Screening

This study identified widespread overscreening using the PSA test in veterans with SCI, which is likely attributable to many factors. Per VHA Directive 1176, all eligible veterans are offered yearly interdisciplinary comprehensive evaluations, including laboratory testing, and as such veterans with SCI have high rates of annual visit attendance due to the complexity of their care.⁹ PSA testing is included in the standard battery of laboratory tests ordered for all patients with SCI during their annual examinations. Additionally, many SCI specialists use the PSA level in patients with SCI for identifying cystitis or prostatitis in patients with colonization who may not experience typical symptoms. Everaert and colleagues demonstrated the clinical utility for localizing UTIs to the upper or lower tract, with elevated PSA indicating prostatitis. They found that serum PSA has a sensitivity of 68% and a specificity of 100% in the differential diagnosis of prostatitis and pyelonephritis.²⁵ As such, the high PSA screening rates may be reflective of diagnostic use for infection rather than for cancer screening.

Likely as a response to the USPSTF recommendations, there has been a national slow decline in overall PSA screening rates since 2012.^26-28 A study from Vetterlein and colleagues examining changes in the PSA screening trends related to USPSTF recommendations found an 8.5% decline in overall PSA screening from 2012 to 2014.²⁹ However, the increase in PSA testing across all ages and races in the VA population with SCI over the same period is not entirely understood and suggests the need for further research and education in this area. Additionally, as factors associated with SCI impact the life expectancy of these patients, further shared decision making is needed in deciding whether to pursue PSA screening in this population to minimize unnecessary screening in patients with a life expectancy of < 10 to 15 years.

Limitations

This study is limited by the use of data identified by ICD codes rather than by review of individual health records. This required the use of decision algorithms for data points, such as the date of SCI. In addition, analysis was not able to capture shared decision making that may have contributed to PSA screening outside the recommended age ranges based on additional risk factors, such as family history of lethal malignancy. Furthermore, a detailed attempt to define specific age-adjusted PSA levels was beyond the scope of this study but will be addressed in later publications. In addition, we did not exclude individuals with a diagnosis of prostate adenocarcinoma, prostatitis, or recurrent UTIs because the onset, duration, and severity of disease could not be definitively ascertained. Finally, veterans with SCI are unique and may not be reflective of individuals with SCI who do not receive care within the VA. However, despite these limitations, this is, to our knowledge, the largest and most comprehensive study evaluating PSA testing rates in individuals with SCI.

Conclusions

Currently, PSA screening is recommended following shared decision making for patients at average risk aged 55 to 70 years. Patients with SCI experience many conditions that may affect PSA values, but data regarding normal PSA ranges and rates of prostate cancer in this population remain sparse. The study demonstrated high rates of overtesting in veterans with SCI, higher than expected testing rates in African American veterans, a paradoxical increase in PSA testing rates after the 2012 publication of the USPSTF PSA guidelines, and wide variability in testing rates depending on VA location.

African American men were tested at higher rates across all age groups, including in patients aged > 70 years. To balance the benefits of detecting clinically significant prostate cancer vs the risks of invasive testing in high-risk populations with SCI, more work is needed to determine the clinical impact of screening practices. Future work is currently ongoing to define age-based PSA values in patients with SCI.

Acknowledgments

This research was supported in part through funding from the Center for Rehabilitation Science and Engineering, Virginia Commonwealth University Health System.

Prostate cancer will be diagnosed in 12.5% of men during their lifetime. It is the most commonly diagnosed solid organ cancer in men.¹ However, prostate cancer screening for prostate-specific antigen (PSA) remains controversial due to concerns about overdiagnosis, as the overall risk of dying of prostate cancer is only 2.4%.¹

To address the risk and benefits of PSA testing, in 2012 the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommended against routine PSA testing.² Updated 2018 recommendations continued this recommendation in men aged > 70 years but acknowledged a small potential benefit in men aged 55 to 69 years and suggested individualized shared decision making between patient and clinician.³ In addition, American Urological Association (AUA) guidelines for the early detection of prostate cancer recommend against PSA screening in men aged < 40 years or those aged > 70 years, shared decision making for individuals aged 55 to 70 years or in high-risk men aged 40 to 55 years (ie, family history of prostate cancer or African American race).⁴ PSA screening is not recommended for men with a life expectancy shorter than 10 to 15 years aged > 70 years.⁴

The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) is the largest integrated health care system in the US.⁵ In addition, the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Spinal Cord Injury and Disorders System of Care operates 25 centers throughout the US.⁶ Life expectancy following spinal cord injury (SCI) increased significantly through the 1980s but has since plateaued, with life expectancy being impacted by age at injury, completeness of injury, and neurologic level.^7,8 As part of a program of uniform care, all persons with SCI followed at the Spinal Cord Injury and Disorders System of Care centers are offered comprehensive annual evaluations, including screening laboratory tests, such as PSA level.⁹

Patients with SCI present a unique challenge when interpreting PSA levels, given potentially confounding factors, including neurogenic bladder management, high rates of bacteriuria, urinary tract infections (UTIs), testosterone deficiency, and pelvic innervation that differs from the noninjured population.^10,11 Unfortunately, the literature on prostate cancer prevalence and average PSA levels in patients with SCI is limited by the small scope of studies and inconsistent data.^10-16 Therefore, the purpose of the current investigation was to quantify and analyze the rates of annual PSA testing for all men with SCI in the VHA.

Methods

Approval was granted by the Richmond VA Medical Center (VAMC) Institutional Review Board in Virginia, and by the VA Informatics and Computing Infrastructure (VINCI) data access request tracker system for extraction of data from the VA Corporate Data Warehouse. Microsoft Structured Query Language was used for data programming and query design. Statistical analysis was conducted using Stata version 15.1 with assistance from professional biostatisticians.

Only male veterans with a nervous system disorder affecting the spinal cord or with myelopathy were included, based on International Classification of Diseases (ICD) version 9 and 10 codes, corresponding to traumatic and nontraumatic myelopathy. Veterans diagnosed with myelopathy based on ICD codes corresponding to progressive or degenerative myelopathies, such as multiple sclerosis or amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, were excluded.

For each veteran, extracted data included the unique identification number, date of birth, ICD code, date ICD code first appeared, race, gender, death status (yes/no), date of death (when applicable), date of each PSA test, PSA test values, and the VAMC where each test was performed. Only tests for total PSA were included. The date that the ICD code first appeared served as an approximation for the date of SCI. The time frame for the study included all PSA tests in the VINCI database for 2000 through 2017. However, only post-SCI PSA tests were included in the analysis. Duplicate tests (same date/time) were eliminated.

Race is considered a risk factor for prostate cancer only for African American patients, likely due to racial health disparities.¹⁷ Given this, we chose to categorize race as either African American or other, with a third category for missing/inconsistent reporting. Age at time of the PSA test was categorized into 4 groups (≤ 39, 40-54, 55-69, and ≥ 70 years) based on AUA guidelines.⁴ The annual PSA testing rate was calculated for each veteran with SCI as the number of PSA tests per year. A mean annual PSA test rate was then calculated as the weighted (by exposure time) mean value for all annual PSA testing rates from 2000 through 2017 for each age group and race. Annual exposure was calculated for each veteran and defined as the number of days a veteran was eligible to have a PSA test. This started with the date of SCI diagnosis and ended with either the date of death or the date of last PSA. If a veteran moved from one age group to another in 1 year, the first part of this year’s exposure was included in the calculation of the annual PSA testing rate for the younger group and the second part was included for the calculation of the older group. For deceased veterans, the death date was excluded from the exposure period, and their exposure period ended on the day before death.

Statistical Analysis

To compare PSA testing rates between African American race and other races, Poisson regression was used with exposure treated as an offset (exposures were summed across years for each veteran). An indicator (dummy) variable for African American race vs other races was coded, and statistical significance was set at P < .05. To check sensitivity for the Poisson assumption that the mean was equal to the variance, negative binomial regression was used. To assess for geographic PSA testing rate variability, the data were further analyzed based on the locations where PSA tests were performed. This subanalysis was limited to veterans who had all PSA tests in a single station. For each station, the average PSA testing rate was calculated for each veteran, and the mean for all annual PSA testing rates was used to determine station-specific PSA testing rates.

Results

A total of 45,274 veterans were initially identified of which 367 females were excluded (Figure 1).

The PSA testing rate rose for veterans in the age groups ≤ 39, 40 to 54, and 55 to 69 years (Figure 2A).

Discussion

The goal of this study was to establish testing rates and analyze PSA testing trends across races and age groups in veterans with SCI. This is the largest cohort of patients with SCI analyzed in the literature. The key findings of this study were that despite clear AUA guidelines recommending against PSA testing in patients aged ≤ 39 years and ≥ 70 years, there are high rates of testing in veterans with SCI in these age groups (0.46 tests per year in those aged ≤ 39 years and 0.91 tests per year in those aged ≥ 70 years). In terms of race, as expected based on increased risk, African American veterans with SCI had higher PSA test rates.¹⁸ However, the continued increase in PSA testing rate for African American veterans aged ≥ 70 years was unexpected and not seen in other racial groups. As racial disparities are known to affect prostate cancer outcomes in African American men, it is reassuring that PSA testing was actually higher among African American men with SCI in our population, suggesting this vulnerable population is not being left behind in terms of screening.¹⁷ In contrast to other studies that show a lower rate of PSA screening in patients with SCI, our study suggests general PSA overtesting in veterans with SCI and a need for improved education for both veterans and their health care practitioners.¹⁹

Prostate Cancer Incidence

Although the exact mechanism behind alterations in prostate function in the SCI population have yet to be fully elucidated, research suggests that the prostate behaves differently after SCI. Animal models of prostate gland denervation show decreased prostate volume and suggest that SCI may lead to a reduction in prostatic secretory function associated with autonomic dysfunction. Shim and colleagues hypothesized that impaired autonomic prostate innervation alters the prostatic volume and PSA in patients with SCI.¹⁰

Additional studies looking at actual PSA levels in men with SCI reveal conflicting data.^10-15,20 Toricelli and colleagues retrospectively studied 140 men with SCI, of whom 34 had PSA levels available and found that mean PSA was not significantly different for patients with SCI compared with controls, but patients using clean intermittent catheterization had 2-fold higher PSA levels.²¹ In contrast, Konety and colleagues found that mean PSA was not significantly different from uninjured controls in their cohort of 79 patients with SCI, though they did find a correlation between indwelling catheter use and a higher PSA.²²

Studies have shown an overall decreased risk of prostate cancer in patients with SCI, though the mechanism remains unclear. A large cohort study from Taiwan showed a lower risk of prostate cancer for 54,401 patients with SCI with an adjusted hazard ratio of 0.73.²³ Patel and colleagues found the overall rate of prostate cancer in the population of veterans with SCI was lower than the general uninjured VA population, though this study was limited by scope with only 350 patients with SCI.²⁴ A more recent systematic review and meta-analysis of 9 studies evaluating the prevalence of prostate cancer in men with SCI found a reduction of up to 65% in the risk of prostate cancer in men with SCI, and PSA was found to be a poor screening tool for prostate cancer due to large study heterogeneity.¹⁶

PSA Screening

This study identified widespread overscreening using the PSA test in veterans with SCI, which is likely attributable to many factors. Per VHA Directive 1176, all eligible veterans are offered yearly interdisciplinary comprehensive evaluations, including laboratory testing, and as such veterans with SCI have high rates of annual visit attendance due to the complexity of their care.⁹ PSA testing is included in the standard battery of laboratory tests ordered for all patients with SCI during their annual examinations. Additionally, many SCI specialists use the PSA level in patients with SCI for identifying cystitis or prostatitis in patients with colonization who may not experience typical symptoms. Everaert and colleagues demonstrated the clinical utility for localizing UTIs to the upper or lower tract, with elevated PSA indicating prostatitis. They found that serum PSA has a sensitivity of 68% and a specificity of 100% in the differential diagnosis of prostatitis and pyelonephritis.²⁵ As such, the high PSA screening rates may be reflective of diagnostic use for infection rather than for cancer screening.

Likely as a response to the USPSTF recommendations, there has been a national slow decline in overall PSA screening rates since 2012.^26-28 A study from Vetterlein and colleagues examining changes in the PSA screening trends related to USPSTF recommendations found an 8.5% decline in overall PSA screening from 2012 to 2014.²⁹ However, the increase in PSA testing across all ages and races in the VA population with SCI over the same period is not entirely understood and suggests the need for further research and education in this area. Additionally, as factors associated with SCI impact the life expectancy of these patients, further shared decision making is needed in deciding whether to pursue PSA screening in this population to minimize unnecessary screening in patients with a life expectancy of < 10 to 15 years.

Limitations

This study is limited by the use of data identified by ICD codes rather than by review of individual health records. This required the use of decision algorithms for data points, such as the date of SCI. In addition, analysis was not able to capture shared decision making that may have contributed to PSA screening outside the recommended age ranges based on additional risk factors, such as family history of lethal malignancy. Furthermore, a detailed attempt to define specific age-adjusted PSA levels was beyond the scope of this study but will be addressed in later publications. In addition, we did not exclude individuals with a diagnosis of prostate adenocarcinoma, prostatitis, or recurrent UTIs because the onset, duration, and severity of disease could not be definitively ascertained. Finally, veterans with SCI are unique and may not be reflective of individuals with SCI who do not receive care within the VA. However, despite these limitations, this is, to our knowledge, the largest and most comprehensive study evaluating PSA testing rates in individuals with SCI.

Conclusions

Currently, PSA screening is recommended following shared decision making for patients at average risk aged 55 to 70 years. Patients with SCI experience many conditions that may affect PSA values, but data regarding normal PSA ranges and rates of prostate cancer in this population remain sparse. The study demonstrated high rates of overtesting in veterans with SCI, higher than expected testing rates in African American veterans, a paradoxical increase in PSA testing rates after the 2012 publication of the USPSTF PSA guidelines, and wide variability in testing rates depending on VA location.

African American men were tested at higher rates across all age groups, including in patients aged > 70 years. To balance the benefits of detecting clinically significant prostate cancer vs the risks of invasive testing in high-risk populations with SCI, more work is needed to determine the clinical impact of screening practices. Future work is currently ongoing to define age-based PSA values in patients with SCI.

Acknowledgments

This research was supported in part through funding from the Center for Rehabilitation Science and Engineering, Virginia Commonwealth University Health System.

Prostate cancer will be diagnosed in 12.5% of men during their lifetime. It is the most commonly diagnosed solid organ cancer in men.¹ However, prostate cancer screening for prostate-specific antigen (PSA) remains controversial due to concerns about overdiagnosis, as the overall risk of dying of prostate cancer is only 2.4%.¹

To address the risk and benefits of PSA testing, in 2012 the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommended against routine PSA testing.² Updated 2018 recommendations continued this recommendation in men aged > 70 years but acknowledged a small potential benefit in men aged 55 to 69 years and suggested individualized shared decision making between patient and clinician.³ In addition, American Urological Association (AUA) guidelines for the early detection of prostate cancer recommend against PSA screening in men aged < 40 years or those aged > 70 years, shared decision making for individuals aged 55 to 70 years or in high-risk men aged 40 to 55 years (ie, family history of prostate cancer or African American race).⁴ PSA screening is not recommended for men with a life expectancy shorter than 10 to 15 years aged > 70 years.⁴

The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) is the largest integrated health care system in the US.⁵ In addition, the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Spinal Cord Injury and Disorders System of Care operates 25 centers throughout the US.⁶ Life expectancy following spinal cord injury (SCI) increased significantly through the 1980s but has since plateaued, with life expectancy being impacted by age at injury, completeness of injury, and neurologic level.^7,8 As part of a program of uniform care, all persons with SCI followed at the Spinal Cord Injury and Disorders System of Care centers are offered comprehensive annual evaluations, including screening laboratory tests, such as PSA level.⁹

Patients with SCI present a unique challenge when interpreting PSA levels, given potentially confounding factors, including neurogenic bladder management, high rates of bacteriuria, urinary tract infections (UTIs), testosterone deficiency, and pelvic innervation that differs from the noninjured population.^10,11 Unfortunately, the literature on prostate cancer prevalence and average PSA levels in patients with SCI is limited by the small scope of studies and inconsistent data.^10-16 Therefore, the purpose of the current investigation was to quantify and analyze the rates of annual PSA testing for all men with SCI in the VHA.

Methods

Approval was granted by the Richmond VA Medical Center (VAMC) Institutional Review Board in Virginia, and by the VA Informatics and Computing Infrastructure (VINCI) data access request tracker system for extraction of data from the VA Corporate Data Warehouse. Microsoft Structured Query Language was used for data programming and query design. Statistical analysis was conducted using Stata version 15.1 with assistance from professional biostatisticians.

Only male veterans with a nervous system disorder affecting the spinal cord or with myelopathy were included, based on International Classification of Diseases (ICD) version 9 and 10 codes, corresponding to traumatic and nontraumatic myelopathy. Veterans diagnosed with myelopathy based on ICD codes corresponding to progressive or degenerative myelopathies, such as multiple sclerosis or amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, were excluded.

For each veteran, extracted data included the unique identification number, date of birth, ICD code, date ICD code first appeared, race, gender, death status (yes/no), date of death (when applicable), date of each PSA test, PSA test values, and the VAMC where each test was performed. Only tests for total PSA were included. The date that the ICD code first appeared served as an approximation for the date of SCI. The time frame for the study included all PSA tests in the VINCI database for 2000 through 2017. However, only post-SCI PSA tests were included in the analysis. Duplicate tests (same date/time) were eliminated.

Race is considered a risk factor for prostate cancer only for African American patients, likely due to racial health disparities.¹⁷ Given this, we chose to categorize race as either African American or other, with a third category for missing/inconsistent reporting. Age at time of the PSA test was categorized into 4 groups (≤ 39, 40-54, 55-69, and ≥ 70 years) based on AUA guidelines.⁴ The annual PSA testing rate was calculated for each veteran with SCI as the number of PSA tests per year. A mean annual PSA test rate was then calculated as the weighted (by exposure time) mean value for all annual PSA testing rates from 2000 through 2017 for each age group and race. Annual exposure was calculated for each veteran and defined as the number of days a veteran was eligible to have a PSA test. This started with the date of SCI diagnosis and ended with either the date of death or the date of last PSA. If a veteran moved from one age group to another in 1 year, the first part of this year’s exposure was included in the calculation of the annual PSA testing rate for the younger group and the second part was included for the calculation of the older group. For deceased veterans, the death date was excluded from the exposure period, and their exposure period ended on the day before death.

Statistical Analysis

To compare PSA testing rates between African American race and other races, Poisson regression was used with exposure treated as an offset (exposures were summed across years for each veteran). An indicator (dummy) variable for African American race vs other races was coded, and statistical significance was set at P < .05. To check sensitivity for the Poisson assumption that the mean was equal to the variance, negative binomial regression was used. To assess for geographic PSA testing rate variability, the data were further analyzed based on the locations where PSA tests were performed. This subanalysis was limited to veterans who had all PSA tests in a single station. For each station, the average PSA testing rate was calculated for each veteran, and the mean for all annual PSA testing rates was used to determine station-specific PSA testing rates.

Results

A total of 45,274 veterans were initially identified of which 367 females were excluded (Figure 1).

The PSA testing rate rose for veterans in the age groups ≤ 39, 40 to 54, and 55 to 69 years (Figure 2A).

Discussion

The goal of this study was to establish testing rates and analyze PSA testing trends across races and age groups in veterans with SCI. This is the largest cohort of patients with SCI analyzed in the literature. The key findings of this study were that despite clear AUA guidelines recommending against PSA testing in patients aged ≤ 39 years and ≥ 70 years, there are high rates of testing in veterans with SCI in these age groups (0.46 tests per year in those aged ≤ 39 years and 0.91 tests per year in those aged ≥ 70 years). In terms of race, as expected based on increased risk, African American veterans with SCI had higher PSA test rates.¹⁸ However, the continued increase in PSA testing rate for African American veterans aged ≥ 70 years was unexpected and not seen in other racial groups. As racial disparities are known to affect prostate cancer outcomes in African American men, it is reassuring that PSA testing was actually higher among African American men with SCI in our population, suggesting this vulnerable population is not being left behind in terms of screening.¹⁷ In contrast to other studies that show a lower rate of PSA screening in patients with SCI, our study suggests general PSA overtesting in veterans with SCI and a need for improved education for both veterans and their health care practitioners.¹⁹

Prostate Cancer Incidence

Although the exact mechanism behind alterations in prostate function in the SCI population have yet to be fully elucidated, research suggests that the prostate behaves differently after SCI. Animal models of prostate gland denervation show decreased prostate volume and suggest that SCI may lead to a reduction in prostatic secretory function associated with autonomic dysfunction. Shim and colleagues hypothesized that impaired autonomic prostate innervation alters the prostatic volume and PSA in patients with SCI.¹⁰

Additional studies looking at actual PSA levels in men with SCI reveal conflicting data.^10-15,20 Toricelli and colleagues retrospectively studied 140 men with SCI, of whom 34 had PSA levels available and found that mean PSA was not significantly different for patients with SCI compared with controls, but patients using clean intermittent catheterization had 2-fold higher PSA levels.²¹ In contrast, Konety and colleagues found that mean PSA was not significantly different from uninjured controls in their cohort of 79 patients with SCI, though they did find a correlation between indwelling catheter use and a higher PSA.²²

Studies have shown an overall decreased risk of prostate cancer in patients with SCI, though the mechanism remains unclear. A large cohort study from Taiwan showed a lower risk of prostate cancer for 54,401 patients with SCI with an adjusted hazard ratio of 0.73.²³ Patel and colleagues found the overall rate of prostate cancer in the population of veterans with SCI was lower than the general uninjured VA population, though this study was limited by scope with only 350 patients with SCI.²⁴ A more recent systematic review and meta-analysis of 9 studies evaluating the prevalence of prostate cancer in men with SCI found a reduction of up to 65% in the risk of prostate cancer in men with SCI, and PSA was found to be a poor screening tool for prostate cancer due to large study heterogeneity.¹⁶

PSA Screening

This study identified widespread overscreening using the PSA test in veterans with SCI, which is likely attributable to many factors. Per VHA Directive 1176, all eligible veterans are offered yearly interdisciplinary comprehensive evaluations, including laboratory testing, and as such veterans with SCI have high rates of annual visit attendance due to the complexity of their care.⁹ PSA testing is included in the standard battery of laboratory tests ordered for all patients with SCI during their annual examinations. Additionally, many SCI specialists use the PSA level in patients with SCI for identifying cystitis or prostatitis in patients with colonization who may not experience typical symptoms. Everaert and colleagues demonstrated the clinical utility for localizing UTIs to the upper or lower tract, with elevated PSA indicating prostatitis. They found that serum PSA has a sensitivity of 68% and a specificity of 100% in the differential diagnosis of prostatitis and pyelonephritis.²⁵ As such, the high PSA screening rates may be reflective of diagnostic use for infection rather than for cancer screening.

Likely as a response to the USPSTF recommendations, there has been a national slow decline in overall PSA screening rates since 2012.^26-28 A study from Vetterlein and colleagues examining changes in the PSA screening trends related to USPSTF recommendations found an 8.5% decline in overall PSA screening from 2012 to 2014.²⁹ However, the increase in PSA testing across all ages and races in the VA population with SCI over the same period is not entirely understood and suggests the need for further research and education in this area. Additionally, as factors associated with SCI impact the life expectancy of these patients, further shared decision making is needed in deciding whether to pursue PSA screening in this population to minimize unnecessary screening in patients with a life expectancy of < 10 to 15 years.

Limitations

This study is limited by the use of data identified by ICD codes rather than by review of individual health records. This required the use of decision algorithms for data points, such as the date of SCI. In addition, analysis was not able to capture shared decision making that may have contributed to PSA screening outside the recommended age ranges based on additional risk factors, such as family history of lethal malignancy. Furthermore, a detailed attempt to define specific age-adjusted PSA levels was beyond the scope of this study but will be addressed in later publications. In addition, we did not exclude individuals with a diagnosis of prostate adenocarcinoma, prostatitis, or recurrent UTIs because the onset, duration, and severity of disease could not be definitively ascertained. Finally, veterans with SCI are unique and may not be reflective of individuals with SCI who do not receive care within the VA. However, despite these limitations, this is, to our knowledge, the largest and most comprehensive study evaluating PSA testing rates in individuals with SCI.

Conclusions

Currently, PSA screening is recommended following shared decision making for patients at average risk aged 55 to 70 years. Patients with SCI experience many conditions that may affect PSA values, but data regarding normal PSA ranges and rates of prostate cancer in this population remain sparse. The study demonstrated high rates of overtesting in veterans with SCI, higher than expected testing rates in African American veterans, a paradoxical increase in PSA testing rates after the 2012 publication of the USPSTF PSA guidelines, and wide variability in testing rates depending on VA location.

African American men were tested at higher rates across all age groups, including in patients aged > 70 years. To balance the benefits of detecting clinically significant prostate cancer vs the risks of invasive testing in high-risk populations with SCI, more work is needed to determine the clinical impact of screening practices. Future work is currently ongoing to define age-based PSA values in patients with SCI.

Acknowledgments

This research was supported in part through funding from the Center for Rehabilitation Science and Engineering, Virginia Commonwealth University Health System.

Most cancer treatment regimens include the administration of several chemotherapeutic agents. Drug-drug interactions (DDIs) can increase the risk of fatal adverse events and reduce therapeutic efficacy.^1,2 Erlotinib, gefitinib, afatinib, osimertinib, and icotinib are epidermal growth factor receptor–tyrosine kinase inhibitors (EGFR-TKIs) that have proven efficacy for treating advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Erlotinib strongly inhibits cytochrome P450 (CYP) isoenzymes CYP 1A1, moderately inhibits CYP 3A4 and 2C8, and induces CYP 1A1 and 1A2.² Gefitinib weakly inhibits CYP 2C19 and 2D6.² CYP 3A4 inducers and inhibitors affect metabolism of both erlotinib and gefitinib.^3,4

Erlotinib and gefitinib are first-generation EGFR-TKIs and have been approved for NSCLC treatment by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). These agents have been used since the early 2000s and increase the possibility of long-term response and survival.^2,5,6 EGFR-TKIs have a range of potential DDIs, including interactions with CYP-dependent metabolism, uridine diphosphate-glucuronosyltransferase, and transporter proteins.² Few retrospective studies have focused on the therapeutic efficacy of erlotinib, gefitinib,or the combination of these agents.^7-14

DDIs from cancer and noncancer therapies could lead to treatment discontinuation and affect patient outcomes. The goals for this study were to perform a broad-scale retrospective analysis focused on investigating prescribed drugs used with erlotinib and gefitinib and determine patient outcomes as obtained through several Military Health System (MHS) databases. Our investigation focused on (1) the functions of these drugs; (2) identifying adverse effects (AEs) that patients experienced; (3) evaluating differences when these drugs are used alone vs concomitantly, and between the completed vs discontinued treatment groups; (4) identifying all drugs used during erlotinib or gefitinib treatment; and (5) evaluating DDIs with antidepressants.

This retrospective study was performed at the Department of Research Programs at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center (WRNMMC) in Bethesda, Maryland. The WRNMMC Institutional Review Board approved the study protocol and ensured compliance with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act as an exempt protocol. The Joint Pathology Center of the US Department of Defense (DoD) Cancer Registry and MHS data experts from the Comprehensive Ambulatory/Professional Encounter Record (CAPER) and the Pharmacy Data Transaction Service (PDTS) provided data for the analysis.

Methods

The DoD Cancer Registry Program was established in 1986 by the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs. The registry currently contains data from 1998 to 2023. CAPER and PDTS are part of the MHS Data Repository/Management Analysis and Reporting Tool database. Each observation in the CAPER record represents an ambulatory encounter at a military treatment facility (MTF). CAPER records are available from 2003 to 2023.

Each observation in the PDTS record represents an outpatient prescription filled for an MHS beneficiary at MTFs through the TRICARE mail-order program or a retail pharmacy in the United States. Missing from this record are prescriptions filled at civilian pharmacies outside the United States and inpatient pharmacy prescriptions. The MHS Data Repository PDTS record is available from 2002 to 2023. The Composite Health Care System—the legacy system—is being replaced by GENESIS at MTFs.

Data Extraction Design

The study design involved a cross-sectional analysis. We requested data extraction for erlotinib and gefitinib from 1998 to 2021. Data from the DoD Cancer Registry were used to identify patients who received cancer treatment. Once patients were identified, the CAPER database was searched for diagnoses to identify other health conditions, while the PDTS database was used to populate a list of prescription medications filled during chemotherapy treatment.

Data collected from the Joint Pathology Center included cancer treatment (alone or concomitant), cancer information (cancer types and stages), demographics (sex, age at diagnosis), and physicians’ comments on AEs. Collected data from the MHS include diagnosis and filled prescription history from initiation to completion of the therapy period (or a buffer of 6 months after the initial period). We used all collected data in this analysis. The only exclusion criterion was a provided physician’s note commenting that the patient did not use erlotinib or gefitinib.

Data Extraction Analysis

The Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program Coding and Staging Manual 2016 and the International Classification of Diseases for Oncology (ICD-O) were used to decode disease and cancer types.^15,16 Data sorting and analysis were performed using Microsoft Excel. The percentage for the total was calculated by using the total number of patients or data available within the gefitinib and erlotinib groups divided by total number of patients or data variables. The subgroup percentage was calculated by using the number of patients or data available within the subgroup divided by the total number of patients in that subgroup.

In alone vs concomitant and completed vs discontinued treatment groups, a 2-tailed, 2-sample z test was used to calculate P to determine statistical significance (P < .05) using a statistics website.¹⁷ Concomitant was defined as erlotinib or gefitinib taken with other medication(s) before, after, or at the same time as cancer therapy. For the retrospective data analysis, physicians’ notes with “.”, “,”, “/”, “;”, (period, comma, forward slash, semicolon) or space between medication names were interpreted as concurrent, while “+”, “-/+” (plus, minus/plus), or and between drug names were interpreted as combined. Completed treatment was defined as erlotinib or gefitinib as the last medication the patient took without recorded AEs; switching or experiencing AEs was defined as discontinued treatment.

Results

Erlotinib

The Joint Pathology Center provided 387 entries for 382 patients aged 21 to 93 years (mean, 65 years) who were treated systemically with erlotinib from January 1, 2001, to December 31, 2020. Five patients had duplicate entries because they had different cancer sites. There were 287 patients (74%) with lung cancer, 61 (16%) with pancreatic cancer, and 39 (10%) with other cancers. For lung cancer, there were 118 patients (30%) for the upper lobe, 78 (20%) for the lower lobe, and 60 (16%) not otherwise specified (NOS). Other lung cancer sites had fewer patients: 21 (5%) middle lobe lung, 6 (2%) overlapping lung lesion(s), and 4 (1%) main bronchus of the lung. For pancreatic cancer, there were 27 patients (7%) for the head of the pancreas, 10 (3%) pancreas NOS, 9 (2%) body of the pancreas, 9 (2%) tail of the pancreas, 4 (1%) overlapping lesions of the pancreas, 1 (< 1%) pancreatic duct, and 1 (< 1%) other specified parts of the pancreas

There were 342 patients (88%) who were aged > 50 years; 186 male patients (48%) and 201 female patients (52%). There were 293 patients (76%) who had a cancer diagnosis of stage III or IV disease and 94 (24%) who had a cancer diagnosis of stage ≤ II (combination of data for stage 0, 1, and 2, not applicable, and unknown). For their systemic treatment, 161 patients (42%) were treated with erlotinib alone and 226 (58%) received erlotinib concomitantly with additional chemotherapy.

Among the 123 patients who discontinued their treatment, 101 switched treatment with no AEs notes, 22 died or experienced fatigue with blurry vision, constipation, nonspecific gastrointestinal effects, grade-4 diarrhea (as defined by the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events), or developed a pleural fluid, pneumonitis, renal failure, skin swelling and facial rash, and unknown AEs of discontinuation. Patients who discontinued treatment because of unknown AEs had physicians’ notes that detailed emergency department visits, peripheral vascular disease, progressive disease, and treatment cessation, but did not specify the exact symptom(s) that led to discontinuation. The causes of death are unknown because they were not detailed in the available notes or databases. The overall results in this retrospective review cannot establish causality between taking erlotinib or gefitinib and death.

Gefitinib

In September 2021, the Joint Pathology Center provided 33 entries for 33 patients who were systemically treated with gefitinib from January 1, 2002, to December 31, 2017. The patient ages ranged from 49 to 89 years with a mean age of 66 years. There were 31 (94%) and 2 (6%) patients with lung and other cancers, respectively. The upper lobe, lower lobe, and lung NOS had the most patients: 14 (42%), 8 (24%), and 6 (18%), respectively.

There were 31 patients (94%) who were aged > 50 years; 15 were male (45%) and 18 were female (55%). There were 26 patients (79%) who had a cancer diagnosis of stage III or IV disease. Nineteen patients (58%) were treated with gefitinib alone, and 14 (42%) were treated with gefitinib concomitantly with additional chemotherapy. Thirty-one patients (94%) were treated for lung cancer (Table 2). Thirty-three patients are a small sample size to determine whether patients were likely to stop gefitinib if used concomitantly with other drugs. Among the patients treated with gefitinib monotherapy, 5% (n = 1) stopped treatment, whereas 29% (n = 4) of patients treated concomitantly discontinued treatment (P = .06). All comparisons for gefitinib yielded insignificant P values. Physicians’ notes indicated that the reasons for gefitinib discontinuation were life-altering pruritis and unknown (progressive disease outcome) (Table 3).

Management Analysis and Reporting Tool Database

MHS data analysts provided data on diagnoses for 348 patients among 415 submitted, with 232 and 112 patients completing and discontinuing erlotinib or gefitinib treatment, respectively. Each patient had 1 to 104 (completed treatment group) and 1 to 157 (discontinued treatment group) unique health conditions documented. The MHS reported 1319 unique-diagnosis conditions for the completed group and 1266 for the discontinued group. Patients with additional health issues stopped chemotherapy use more often than those without; P < .001 for the completed group (232 patients, 1319 diagnoses) vs the discontinued group (112 patients, 1266 diagnoses). The mean (SD) number of diagnoses was 19 (17) for the completed and 30 (22) for the discontinued treatment groups (Figure).

MHS data was provided for patients who filled erlotinib (n = 240) or gefitinib (n = 18). Among the 258 patients, there were 179 and 79 patients in the completed and discontinued treatment groups, respectively. Each patient filled 1 to 75 (for the completed treatment group) and 3 to 103 (for the discontinued treatment group) prescription drugs. There were 805 unique-filled prescriptions for the completed and 670 for the discontinued group. Patients in the discontinued group filled more prescriptions than those who completed treatment; P < .001 for the completed group (179 patients,805 drugs) vs the discontinued group (79 patients, 670 drugs).

The mean (SD) number of filled prescription drugs was 19 (11) for the completed group and 29 (18) for the discontinued treatment group. The 5 most filled prescriptions with erlotinib from 258 patients with PDTS data were ondansetron (151 prescriptions, 10 recorded AEs), dexamethasone (119 prescriptions, 9 recorded AEs), prochlorperazine (105 prescriptions, 15 recorded AEs), oxycodone (99 prescriptions, 1 AE), and docusate (96 prescriptions, 7 recorded AEs).

Discussion

The difference between erlotinib and gefitinib data can be attributed to the FDA approval date and gefitinib’s association with a higher frequency of hepatotoxicity.^18-20 The FDA designated gefitinib as an orphan drug for EGFR mutation–positive NSCLC treatment. Gefitinib first received accelerated approval in 2003 for the treatment of locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC. Gefitinib then was voluntarily withdrawn from the market following confirmatory clinical trials that did not verify clinical benefit.

The current approval is for a different patient population—previously untreated, metastatic EGFR exon 19 or 21 L858R mutation—than the 2003 approval.^4,6 There was no record of gefitinib use after 2017 in our study.

Erlotinib is a reversible EGFR-TKI that is approved by the FDA as first-line (maintenance) or second-line treatment (after progression following at least 1 earlier chemotherapy regimen) for patients with metastatic NSCLC who harbor EGFR exon 19 deletions or exon 21 L858R substitution mutations, as detected by an FDA-approved test.³ Since 2005, the FDA also approved erlotinib for first-line treatment of patients with locally advanced, unresectable, or metastatic pancreatic cancer in combination with gemcitabine.³ Without FDA indication, erlotinib is used for colorectal, head and neck, ovarian carcinoma, pancreatic carcinoma, and breast cancer.²¹

Erlotinib and gefitinib are not considered first-line treatments in EGFR exon 19 or 21–mutated NSCLC because osimertinib was approved in 2018. Targeted therapies for EGFR mutation continue to advance at a fast pace, with amivantamab and mobocertinib now FDA approved for EGFR exon 20 insertion–mutated NSCLC.

Erlotinib Use

Thirty-nine patients (10%) in this study were prescribed erlotinib for off-label indications. Erlotinib was used alone or in combination with bevacizumab, capecitabine, cisplatin, denosumab, docetaxel, gemcitabine, and the MEK-inhibitor selumetinib. Erlotinib combined with cisplatin, denosumab, docetaxel, and gemcitabine had no recorded AEs, with 10 data entries for gemcitabine and 1 for other drugs. Three patients received bevacizumab and erlotinib, and 1 patient (diagnosed with kidney NOS) showed rash or facial swelling/erythema and diffuse body itching then stable disease after 2 cycles.

One patient (diagnosed with cancer located at the pancreas head) was bridged with capecitabine and erlotinib when going on a vacation, then received FOLFIRINOX (a combination chemotherapy regimen containing folinic acid [leucovorin], fluorouracil, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin), which led to significant fatigue, blurry vision, and constipation. One patient was treated for lung NOS with the MEK-inhibitor selumetinib plus erlotinib and developed pneumonitis following treatment.

Because oncologists followed guidelines and protocols in systemic treatment, DDIs of erlotinib concurrently (before or after) and in combination with cancer drugs were unlikely. Further investigation is needed for several 1:1:1 DDIs with noncancer drugs. A retrospective overview is not a randomized clinical study; therefore, analysis is limited. Data from the MHS were obtained solely from notes from physicians who treated the patients; therefore, exact information explaining whether a patient completed treatment or had to withdraw could not be extrapolated (ie, blood/plasma samples were not obtained to confirm).

Discontinued Treatment

The reasons for treatment discontinuation with erlotinib or gefitinib varied among patients, with no consistent AE or cause. Most data were for switching treatments after discontinuing treatment with erlotinib (101 of 123 patients) and gefitinib (2 of 5 patients). This is not surprising given the widely recognized pillars of therapy for NSCLC: chemotherapy, target therapy, and immunotherapy.²² From the MHS records, the reasons patients switched treatment of erlotinib or gefitinib were not listed or listed as due to negative EGFR testing, lack of responsiveness, or enrollment in a different treatment.

Physicians’ notes on AEs were not detailed in most cases. Notes for gastrointestinal effects, life-altering pruritis, intolerance, peripheral vascular disease, pneumonitis, and progressive disease described the change in status or appearance of a new medical condition but did not indicate whether erlotinib or gefitinib caused the changes or worsened a pre-existing condition.

The causes of AEs were not described in the available notes or the databases. This retrospective data analysis only focused on identifying drugs involved with erlotinib and gefitinib treatment; further mapping of DDIs among patients experiencing AEs needs to be performed, then in vitro data testing before researchers can reach a conclusion.

DDIs With Antidepressants

We used the PDTS database to evaluate patients who experienced AEs, excluding patients who switched treatment. Thirteen patients filled a prescription for erlotinib and reported taking 220 cancer and noncancer prescription drugs. One patient (pruritis) was taking gefitinib along with 16 noncancer prescription drugs.

Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and other antidepressants have been implicated in CYP 2D6 inhibition and DDIs.^48,49 Losartan is a widely used antihypertensive drug with a favorable DDI profile.⁵⁰Erlotinib and gefitinib are primarily metabolized via CYP 2D6 and 3A4 pathways. DDIs from in vitro human hepatocytes assays revealed that gefitinib had significant metabolic changes in a 1:1 (P < .05) combination with paroxetine or sertraline, and a 1:1:1 combination with losartan and fluoxetine, fluvoxamine, paroxetine, or sertraline. Citalopram and venlafaxine seemed to be unaffected by any combination (P ≥ .05).⁵¹ Erlotinib with fluoxetine or losartan 1:1 yielded insignificant differences in metabolism for all drugs (P ≥ .05). Three drug combinations of 1:1:1 involving fluoxetine and losartan with erlotinib yielded significant degrees of inhibition of fluoxetine and losartan metabolism (P < .05) but not erlotinib.⁵²

Our data showed that 16 antidepressants (amitriptyline, bupropion, citalopram, desvenlafaxine, duloxetine, escitalopram, imipramine, fluoxetine, fluvoxamine, mirtazapine, nortriptyline, paroxetine, phenelzine, sertraline, trazodone, and venlafaxine) were recorded with concomitant erlotinib or gefitinib from initiation to completion of therapy or a buffer of 6 months from the first diagnosis date. Based on the date dispensed and days’ supply, only escitalopram could be used in combination with gefitinib treatment. The one patient who filled a prescription for gefitinib and escitalopram completed treatment without recorded AEs. PDTS database confirmed that patients experienced AEs with 5 antidepressants (amitriptyline, mirtazapine, paroxetine, trazodone, and venlafaxine) with concomitant erlotinib use.

Based on the date dispensed and days’ supply, only trazodone could be used in combination with erlotinib. PDTS database showed that cancer drugs (erlotinib and megestrol) and 39 noncancer drugs (including acetaminophen, azithromycin, dexamethasone, hydrocortisone, and polyethylene glycol) were filled by 1 patient whose physician noted skin rash. Another limitation of using databases to reflect clinical practice is that although megestrol is listed as a cancer drug by code in the PDTS database, it is not used for nonendometrial or gynecologic cancers. However, because of the PDTS database classification, megestrol is classified as a cancer drug in this retrospective review.

This retrospective review found no significant DDIs for erlotinib or gefitinib, with 1 antidepressant taken by 1 patient for each respective treatment. The degree of inhibition and induction for escitalopram and trazodone are categorized as weak, minimal, or none; therefore, while 1:1 DDIs might be little or no effect, 1:1:1 combination DDIs could have a different outcome. This retrospective data collection cannot be linked to the in­ vitro hepatocyte DDIs from erlotinib and gefitinib in previous studies.^51,52

Conclusions

This retrospective study describes erlotinib and gefitinib use in the MHS and their potential for DDIs. Because of military service requirements, people who are qualified to serve must be healthy or have either controlled or nonactive medical diagnoses and be physically fit. Consequently, our patient population had fewer common medical illnesses, such as diabetes and obesity, compared with the general population. Most noncancer drugs mentioned in this study are not known CYP metabolizers; therefore, recorded AEs alone cannot conclusively determine whether there is a DDI among erlotinib or gefitinib and noncancer drugs. Antidepressants generally are safe but have boxed warnings in the US for increased risk of suicidal ideation in young people.^53,54 This retrospective study did not find statistically significant DDIs for erlotinib or gefitinib with antidepressants. Based on this retrospective data analysis, future in vitro testing is needed to assess DDIs for erlotinib or gefitinib and cancer or noncancer drugs identified in this study.

Acknowledgments

The Department of Research Program funds at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center supported this protocol. We sincerely appreciate the contribution of data extraction from the Joint Pathology Center teams (Francisco J. Rentas, John D. McGeeney, Kimberly M. Greenfield, Beatriz A. Hallo, and Johnny P. Beason) and the MHS database personnel (Maj Ryan Costantino, Lee Ann Zarzabal, Brandon Jenkins, and Alex Rittel). We gratefully thank you for the protocol support from the Department of Research programs: CDR Wesley R. Campbell, CDR Ling Ye, Yaling Zhou, Elizabeth Schafer, Robert Roogow, Micah Stretch, Diane Beaner, Adrienne Woodard, David L. Evers, and Paula Amann.

Most cancer treatment regimens include the administration of several chemotherapeutic agents. Drug-drug interactions (DDIs) can increase the risk of fatal adverse events and reduce therapeutic efficacy.^1,2 Erlotinib, gefitinib, afatinib, osimertinib, and icotinib are epidermal growth factor receptor–tyrosine kinase inhibitors (EGFR-TKIs) that have proven efficacy for treating advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Erlotinib strongly inhibits cytochrome P450 (CYP) isoenzymes CYP 1A1, moderately inhibits CYP 3A4 and 2C8, and induces CYP 1A1 and 1A2.² Gefitinib weakly inhibits CYP 2C19 and 2D6.² CYP 3A4 inducers and inhibitors affect metabolism of both erlotinib and gefitinib.^3,4

Erlotinib and gefitinib are first-generation EGFR-TKIs and have been approved for NSCLC treatment by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). These agents have been used since the early 2000s and increase the possibility of long-term response and survival.^2,5,6 EGFR-TKIs have a range of potential DDIs, including interactions with CYP-dependent metabolism, uridine diphosphate-glucuronosyltransferase, and transporter proteins.² Few retrospective studies have focused on the therapeutic efficacy of erlotinib, gefitinib,or the combination of these agents.^7-14

DDIs from cancer and noncancer therapies could lead to treatment discontinuation and affect patient outcomes. The goals for this study were to perform a broad-scale retrospective analysis focused on investigating prescribed drugs used with erlotinib and gefitinib and determine patient outcomes as obtained through several Military Health System (MHS) databases. Our investigation focused on (1) the functions of these drugs; (2) identifying adverse effects (AEs) that patients experienced; (3) evaluating differences when these drugs are used alone vs concomitantly, and between the completed vs discontinued treatment groups; (4) identifying all drugs used during erlotinib or gefitinib treatment; and (5) evaluating DDIs with antidepressants.

This retrospective study was performed at the Department of Research Programs at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center (WRNMMC) in Bethesda, Maryland. The WRNMMC Institutional Review Board approved the study protocol and ensured compliance with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act as an exempt protocol. The Joint Pathology Center of the US Department of Defense (DoD) Cancer Registry and MHS data experts from the Comprehensive Ambulatory/Professional Encounter Record (CAPER) and the Pharmacy Data Transaction Service (PDTS) provided data for the analysis.

Methods

The DoD Cancer Registry Program was established in 1986 by the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs. The registry currently contains data from 1998 to 2023. CAPER and PDTS are part of the MHS Data Repository/Management Analysis and Reporting Tool database. Each observation in the CAPER record represents an ambulatory encounter at a military treatment facility (MTF). CAPER records are available from 2003 to 2023.

Each observation in the PDTS record represents an outpatient prescription filled for an MHS beneficiary at MTFs through the TRICARE mail-order program or a retail pharmacy in the United States. Missing from this record are prescriptions filled at civilian pharmacies outside the United States and inpatient pharmacy prescriptions. The MHS Data Repository PDTS record is available from 2002 to 2023. The Composite Health Care System—the legacy system—is being replaced by GENESIS at MTFs.

Data Extraction Design

The study design involved a cross-sectional analysis. We requested data extraction for erlotinib and gefitinib from 1998 to 2021. Data from the DoD Cancer Registry were used to identify patients who received cancer treatment. Once patients were identified, the CAPER database was searched for diagnoses to identify other health conditions, while the PDTS database was used to populate a list of prescription medications filled during chemotherapy treatment.

Data collected from the Joint Pathology Center included cancer treatment (alone or concomitant), cancer information (cancer types and stages), demographics (sex, age at diagnosis), and physicians’ comments on AEs. Collected data from the MHS include diagnosis and filled prescription history from initiation to completion of the therapy period (or a buffer of 6 months after the initial period). We used all collected data in this analysis. The only exclusion criterion was a provided physician’s note commenting that the patient did not use erlotinib or gefitinib.

Data Extraction Analysis

The Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program Coding and Staging Manual 2016 and the International Classification of Diseases for Oncology (ICD-O) were used to decode disease and cancer types.^15,16 Data sorting and analysis were performed using Microsoft Excel. The percentage for the total was calculated by using the total number of patients or data available within the gefitinib and erlotinib groups divided by total number of patients or data variables. The subgroup percentage was calculated by using the number of patients or data available within the subgroup divided by the total number of patients in that subgroup.

In alone vs concomitant and completed vs discontinued treatment groups, a 2-tailed, 2-sample z test was used to calculate P to determine statistical significance (P < .05) using a statistics website.¹⁷ Concomitant was defined as erlotinib or gefitinib taken with other medication(s) before, after, or at the same time as cancer therapy. For the retrospective data analysis, physicians’ notes with “.”, “,”, “/”, “;”, (period, comma, forward slash, semicolon) or space between medication names were interpreted as concurrent, while “+”, “-/+” (plus, minus/plus), or and between drug names were interpreted as combined. Completed treatment was defined as erlotinib or gefitinib as the last medication the patient took without recorded AEs; switching or experiencing AEs was defined as discontinued treatment.

Results

Erlotinib

The Joint Pathology Center provided 387 entries for 382 patients aged 21 to 93 years (mean, 65 years) who were treated systemically with erlotinib from January 1, 2001, to December 31, 2020. Five patients had duplicate entries because they had different cancer sites. There were 287 patients (74%) with lung cancer, 61 (16%) with pancreatic cancer, and 39 (10%) with other cancers. For lung cancer, there were 118 patients (30%) for the upper lobe, 78 (20%) for the lower lobe, and 60 (16%) not otherwise specified (NOS). Other lung cancer sites had fewer patients: 21 (5%) middle lobe lung, 6 (2%) overlapping lung lesion(s), and 4 (1%) main bronchus of the lung. For pancreatic cancer, there were 27 patients (7%) for the head of the pancreas, 10 (3%) pancreas NOS, 9 (2%) body of the pancreas, 9 (2%) tail of the pancreas, 4 (1%) overlapping lesions of the pancreas, 1 (< 1%) pancreatic duct, and 1 (< 1%) other specified parts of the pancreas

There were 342 patients (88%) who were aged > 50 years; 186 male patients (48%) and 201 female patients (52%). There were 293 patients (76%) who had a cancer diagnosis of stage III or IV disease and 94 (24%) who had a cancer diagnosis of stage ≤ II (combination of data for stage 0, 1, and 2, not applicable, and unknown). For their systemic treatment, 161 patients (42%) were treated with erlotinib alone and 226 (58%) received erlotinib concomitantly with additional chemotherapy.

Among the 123 patients who discontinued their treatment, 101 switched treatment with no AEs notes, 22 died or experienced fatigue with blurry vision, constipation, nonspecific gastrointestinal effects, grade-4 diarrhea (as defined by the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events), or developed a pleural fluid, pneumonitis, renal failure, skin swelling and facial rash, and unknown AEs of discontinuation. Patients who discontinued treatment because of unknown AEs had physicians’ notes that detailed emergency department visits, peripheral vascular disease, progressive disease, and treatment cessation, but did not specify the exact symptom(s) that led to discontinuation. The causes of death are unknown because they were not detailed in the available notes or databases. The overall results in this retrospective review cannot establish causality between taking erlotinib or gefitinib and death.

Gefitinib

In September 2021, the Joint Pathology Center provided 33 entries for 33 patients who were systemically treated with gefitinib from January 1, 2002, to December 31, 2017. The patient ages ranged from 49 to 89 years with a mean age of 66 years. There were 31 (94%) and 2 (6%) patients with lung and other cancers, respectively. The upper lobe, lower lobe, and lung NOS had the most patients: 14 (42%), 8 (24%), and 6 (18%), respectively.

There were 31 patients (94%) who were aged > 50 years; 15 were male (45%) and 18 were female (55%). There were 26 patients (79%) who had a cancer diagnosis of stage III or IV disease. Nineteen patients (58%) were treated with gefitinib alone, and 14 (42%) were treated with gefitinib concomitantly with additional chemotherapy. Thirty-one patients (94%) were treated for lung cancer (Table 2). Thirty-three patients are a small sample size to determine whether patients were likely to stop gefitinib if used concomitantly with other drugs. Among the patients treated with gefitinib monotherapy, 5% (n = 1) stopped treatment, whereas 29% (n = 4) of patients treated concomitantly discontinued treatment (P = .06). All comparisons for gefitinib yielded insignificant P values. Physicians’ notes indicated that the reasons for gefitinib discontinuation were life-altering pruritis and unknown (progressive disease outcome) (Table 3).

Management Analysis and Reporting Tool Database

MHS data analysts provided data on diagnoses for 348 patients among 415 submitted, with 232 and 112 patients completing and discontinuing erlotinib or gefitinib treatment, respectively. Each patient had 1 to 104 (completed treatment group) and 1 to 157 (discontinued treatment group) unique health conditions documented. The MHS reported 1319 unique-diagnosis conditions for the completed group and 1266 for the discontinued group. Patients with additional health issues stopped chemotherapy use more often than those without; P < .001 for the completed group (232 patients, 1319 diagnoses) vs the discontinued group (112 patients, 1266 diagnoses). The mean (SD) number of diagnoses was 19 (17) for the completed and 30 (22) for the discontinued treatment groups (Figure).

MHS data was provided for patients who filled erlotinib (n = 240) or gefitinib (n = 18). Among the 258 patients, there were 179 and 79 patients in the completed and discontinued treatment groups, respectively. Each patient filled 1 to 75 (for the completed treatment group) and 3 to 103 (for the discontinued treatment group) prescription drugs. There were 805 unique-filled prescriptions for the completed and 670 for the discontinued group. Patients in the discontinued group filled more prescriptions than those who completed treatment; P < .001 for the completed group (179 patients,805 drugs) vs the discontinued group (79 patients, 670 drugs).

The mean (SD) number of filled prescription drugs was 19 (11) for the completed group and 29 (18) for the discontinued treatment group. The 5 most filled prescriptions with erlotinib from 258 patients with PDTS data were ondansetron (151 prescriptions, 10 recorded AEs), dexamethasone (119 prescriptions, 9 recorded AEs), prochlorperazine (105 prescriptions, 15 recorded AEs), oxycodone (99 prescriptions, 1 AE), and docusate (96 prescriptions, 7 recorded AEs).

Discussion

The difference between erlotinib and gefitinib data can be attributed to the FDA approval date and gefitinib’s association with a higher frequency of hepatotoxicity.^18-20 The FDA designated gefitinib as an orphan drug for EGFR mutation–positive NSCLC treatment. Gefitinib first received accelerated approval in 2003 for the treatment of locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC. Gefitinib then was voluntarily withdrawn from the market following confirmatory clinical trials that did not verify clinical benefit.

The current approval is for a different patient population—previously untreated, metastatic EGFR exon 19 or 21 L858R mutation—than the 2003 approval.^4,6 There was no record of gefitinib use after 2017 in our study.

Erlotinib is a reversible EGFR-TKI that is approved by the FDA as first-line (maintenance) or second-line treatment (after progression following at least 1 earlier chemotherapy regimen) for patients with metastatic NSCLC who harbor EGFR exon 19 deletions or exon 21 L858R substitution mutations, as detected by an FDA-approved test.³ Since 2005, the FDA also approved erlotinib for first-line treatment of patients with locally advanced, unresectable, or metastatic pancreatic cancer in combination with gemcitabine.³ Without FDA indication, erlotinib is used for colorectal, head and neck, ovarian carcinoma, pancreatic carcinoma, and breast cancer.²¹

Erlotinib and gefitinib are not considered first-line treatments in EGFR exon 19 or 21–mutated NSCLC because osimertinib was approved in 2018. Targeted therapies for EGFR mutation continue to advance at a fast pace, with amivantamab and mobocertinib now FDA approved for EGFR exon 20 insertion–mutated NSCLC.

Erlotinib Use

Thirty-nine patients (10%) in this study were prescribed erlotinib for off-label indications. Erlotinib was used alone or in combination with bevacizumab, capecitabine, cisplatin, denosumab, docetaxel, gemcitabine, and the MEK-inhibitor selumetinib. Erlotinib combined with cisplatin, denosumab, docetaxel, and gemcitabine had no recorded AEs, with 10 data entries for gemcitabine and 1 for other drugs. Three patients received bevacizumab and erlotinib, and 1 patient (diagnosed with kidney NOS) showed rash or facial swelling/erythema and diffuse body itching then stable disease after 2 cycles.

One patient (diagnosed with cancer located at the pancreas head) was bridged with capecitabine and erlotinib when going on a vacation, then received FOLFIRINOX (a combination chemotherapy regimen containing folinic acid [leucovorin], fluorouracil, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin), which led to significant fatigue, blurry vision, and constipation. One patient was treated for lung NOS with the MEK-inhibitor selumetinib plus erlotinib and developed pneumonitis following treatment.

Because oncologists followed guidelines and protocols in systemic treatment, DDIs of erlotinib concurrently (before or after) and in combination with cancer drugs were unlikely. Further investigation is needed for several 1:1:1 DDIs with noncancer drugs. A retrospective overview is not a randomized clinical study; therefore, analysis is limited. Data from the MHS were obtained solely from notes from physicians who treated the patients; therefore, exact information explaining whether a patient completed treatment or had to withdraw could not be extrapolated (ie, blood/plasma samples were not obtained to confirm).

Discontinued Treatment

The reasons for treatment discontinuation with erlotinib or gefitinib varied among patients, with no consistent AE or cause. Most data were for switching treatments after discontinuing treatment with erlotinib (101 of 123 patients) and gefitinib (2 of 5 patients). This is not surprising given the widely recognized pillars of therapy for NSCLC: chemotherapy, target therapy, and immunotherapy.²² From the MHS records, the reasons patients switched treatment of erlotinib or gefitinib were not listed or listed as due to negative EGFR testing, lack of responsiveness, or enrollment in a different treatment.

Physicians’ notes on AEs were not detailed in most cases. Notes for gastrointestinal effects, life-altering pruritis, intolerance, peripheral vascular disease, pneumonitis, and progressive disease described the change in status or appearance of a new medical condition but did not indicate whether erlotinib or gefitinib caused the changes or worsened a pre-existing condition.

The causes of AEs were not described in the available notes or the databases. This retrospective data analysis only focused on identifying drugs involved with erlotinib and gefitinib treatment; further mapping of DDIs among patients experiencing AEs needs to be performed, then in vitro data testing before researchers can reach a conclusion.

DDIs With Antidepressants

We used the PDTS database to evaluate patients who experienced AEs, excluding patients who switched treatment. Thirteen patients filled a prescription for erlotinib and reported taking 220 cancer and noncancer prescription drugs. One patient (pruritis) was taking gefitinib along with 16 noncancer prescription drugs.

Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and other antidepressants have been implicated in CYP 2D6 inhibition and DDIs.^48,49 Losartan is a widely used antihypertensive drug with a favorable DDI profile.⁵⁰Erlotinib and gefitinib are primarily metabolized via CYP 2D6 and 3A4 pathways. DDIs from in vitro human hepatocytes assays revealed that gefitinib had significant metabolic changes in a 1:1 (P < .05) combination with paroxetine or sertraline, and a 1:1:1 combination with losartan and fluoxetine, fluvoxamine, paroxetine, or sertraline. Citalopram and venlafaxine seemed to be unaffected by any combination (P ≥ .05).⁵¹ Erlotinib with fluoxetine or losartan 1:1 yielded insignificant differences in metabolism for all drugs (P ≥ .05). Three drug combinations of 1:1:1 involving fluoxetine and losartan with erlotinib yielded significant degrees of inhibition of fluoxetine and losartan metabolism (P < .05) but not erlotinib.⁵²

Our data showed that 16 antidepressants (amitriptyline, bupropion, citalopram, desvenlafaxine, duloxetine, escitalopram, imipramine, fluoxetine, fluvoxamine, mirtazapine, nortriptyline, paroxetine, phenelzine, sertraline, trazodone, and venlafaxine) were recorded with concomitant erlotinib or gefitinib from initiation to completion of therapy or a buffer of 6 months from the first diagnosis date. Based on the date dispensed and days’ supply, only escitalopram could be used in combination with gefitinib treatment. The one patient who filled a prescription for gefitinib and escitalopram completed treatment without recorded AEs. PDTS database confirmed that patients experienced AEs with 5 antidepressants (amitriptyline, mirtazapine, paroxetine, trazodone, and venlafaxine) with concomitant erlotinib use.

Based on the date dispensed and days’ supply, only trazodone could be used in combination with erlotinib. PDTS database showed that cancer drugs (erlotinib and megestrol) and 39 noncancer drugs (including acetaminophen, azithromycin, dexamethasone, hydrocortisone, and polyethylene glycol) were filled by 1 patient whose physician noted skin rash. Another limitation of using databases to reflect clinical practice is that although megestrol is listed as a cancer drug by code in the PDTS database, it is not used for nonendometrial or gynecologic cancers. However, because of the PDTS database classification, megestrol is classified as a cancer drug in this retrospective review.

This retrospective review found no significant DDIs for erlotinib or gefitinib, with 1 antidepressant taken by 1 patient for each respective treatment. The degree of inhibition and induction for escitalopram and trazodone are categorized as weak, minimal, or none; therefore, while 1:1 DDIs might be little or no effect, 1:1:1 combination DDIs could have a different outcome. This retrospective data collection cannot be linked to the in­ vitro hepatocyte DDIs from erlotinib and gefitinib in previous studies.^51,52

Conclusions

This retrospective study describes erlotinib and gefitinib use in the MHS and their potential for DDIs. Because of military service requirements, people who are qualified to serve must be healthy or have either controlled or nonactive medical diagnoses and be physically fit. Consequently, our patient population had fewer common medical illnesses, such as diabetes and obesity, compared with the general population. Most noncancer drugs mentioned in this study are not known CYP metabolizers; therefore, recorded AEs alone cannot conclusively determine whether there is a DDI among erlotinib or gefitinib and noncancer drugs. Antidepressants generally are safe but have boxed warnings in the US for increased risk of suicidal ideation in young people.^53,54 This retrospective study did not find statistically significant DDIs for erlotinib or gefitinib with antidepressants. Based on this retrospective data analysis, future in vitro testing is needed to assess DDIs for erlotinib or gefitinib and cancer or noncancer drugs identified in this study.

Acknowledgments

The Department of Research Program funds at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center supported this protocol. We sincerely appreciate the contribution of data extraction from the Joint Pathology Center teams (Francisco J. Rentas, John D. McGeeney, Kimberly M. Greenfield, Beatriz A. Hallo, and Johnny P. Beason) and the MHS database personnel (Maj Ryan Costantino, Lee Ann Zarzabal, Brandon Jenkins, and Alex Rittel). We gratefully thank you for the protocol support from the Department of Research programs: CDR Wesley R. Campbell, CDR Ling Ye, Yaling Zhou, Elizabeth Schafer, Robert Roogow, Micah Stretch, Diane Beaner, Adrienne Woodard, David L. Evers, and Paula Amann.

Most cancer treatment regimens include the administration of several chemotherapeutic agents. Drug-drug interactions (DDIs) can increase the risk of fatal adverse events and reduce therapeutic efficacy.^1,2 Erlotinib, gefitinib, afatinib, osimertinib, and icotinib are epidermal growth factor receptor–tyrosine kinase inhibitors (EGFR-TKIs) that have proven efficacy for treating advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Erlotinib strongly inhibits cytochrome P450 (CYP) isoenzymes CYP 1A1, moderately inhibits CYP 3A4 and 2C8, and induces CYP 1A1 and 1A2.² Gefitinib weakly inhibits CYP 2C19 and 2D6.² CYP 3A4 inducers and inhibitors affect metabolism of both erlotinib and gefitinib.^3,4

Erlotinib and gefitinib are first-generation EGFR-TKIs and have been approved for NSCLC treatment by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). These agents have been used since the early 2000s and increase the possibility of long-term response and survival.^2,5,6 EGFR-TKIs have a range of potential DDIs, including interactions with CYP-dependent metabolism, uridine diphosphate-glucuronosyltransferase, and transporter proteins.² Few retrospective studies have focused on the therapeutic efficacy of erlotinib, gefitinib,or the combination of these agents.^7-14

DDIs from cancer and noncancer therapies could lead to treatment discontinuation and affect patient outcomes. The goals for this study were to perform a broad-scale retrospective analysis focused on investigating prescribed drugs used with erlotinib and gefitinib and determine patient outcomes as obtained through several Military Health System (MHS) databases. Our investigation focused on (1) the functions of these drugs; (2) identifying adverse effects (AEs) that patients experienced; (3) evaluating differences when these drugs are used alone vs concomitantly, and between the completed vs discontinued treatment groups; (4) identifying all drugs used during erlotinib or gefitinib treatment; and (5) evaluating DDIs with antidepressants.

This retrospective study was performed at the Department of Research Programs at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center (WRNMMC) in Bethesda, Maryland. The WRNMMC Institutional Review Board approved the study protocol and ensured compliance with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act as an exempt protocol. The Joint Pathology Center of the US Department of Defense (DoD) Cancer Registry and MHS data experts from the Comprehensive Ambulatory/Professional Encounter Record (CAPER) and the Pharmacy Data Transaction Service (PDTS) provided data for the analysis.

Methods

The DoD Cancer Registry Program was established in 1986 by the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs. The registry currently contains data from 1998 to 2023. CAPER and PDTS are part of the MHS Data Repository/Management Analysis and Reporting Tool database. Each observation in the CAPER record represents an ambulatory encounter at a military treatment facility (MTF). CAPER records are available from 2003 to 2023.

Each observation in the PDTS record represents an outpatient prescription filled for an MHS beneficiary at MTFs through the TRICARE mail-order program or a retail pharmacy in the United States. Missing from this record are prescriptions filled at civilian pharmacies outside the United States and inpatient pharmacy prescriptions. The MHS Data Repository PDTS record is available from 2002 to 2023. The Composite Health Care System—the legacy system—is being replaced by GENESIS at MTFs.

Data Extraction Design

The study design involved a cross-sectional analysis. We requested data extraction for erlotinib and gefitinib from 1998 to 2021. Data from the DoD Cancer Registry were used to identify patients who received cancer treatment. Once patients were identified, the CAPER database was searched for diagnoses to identify other health conditions, while the PDTS database was used to populate a list of prescription medications filled during chemotherapy treatment.

Data collected from the Joint Pathology Center included cancer treatment (alone or concomitant), cancer information (cancer types and stages), demographics (sex, age at diagnosis), and physicians’ comments on AEs. Collected data from the MHS include diagnosis and filled prescription history from initiation to completion of the therapy period (or a buffer of 6 months after the initial period). We used all collected data in this analysis. The only exclusion criterion was a provided physician’s note commenting that the patient did not use erlotinib or gefitinib.

Data Extraction Analysis

The Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program Coding and Staging Manual 2016 and the International Classification of Diseases for Oncology (ICD-O) were used to decode disease and cancer types.^15,16 Data sorting and analysis were performed using Microsoft Excel. The percentage for the total was calculated by using the total number of patients or data available within the gefitinib and erlotinib groups divided by total number of patients or data variables. The subgroup percentage was calculated by using the number of patients or data available within the subgroup divided by the total number of patients in that subgroup.

In alone vs concomitant and completed vs discontinued treatment groups, a 2-tailed, 2-sample z test was used to calculate P to determine statistical significance (P < .05) using a statistics website.¹⁷ Concomitant was defined as erlotinib or gefitinib taken with other medication(s) before, after, or at the same time as cancer therapy. For the retrospective data analysis, physicians’ notes with “.”, “,”, “/”, “;”, (period, comma, forward slash, semicolon) or space between medication names were interpreted as concurrent, while “+”, “-/+” (plus, minus/plus), or and between drug names were interpreted as combined. Completed treatment was defined as erlotinib or gefitinib as the last medication the patient took without recorded AEs; switching or experiencing AEs was defined as discontinued treatment.

Results

Erlotinib

The Joint Pathology Center provided 387 entries for 382 patients aged 21 to 93 years (mean, 65 years) who were treated systemically with erlotinib from January 1, 2001, to December 31, 2020. Five patients had duplicate entries because they had different cancer sites. There were 287 patients (74%) with lung cancer, 61 (16%) with pancreatic cancer, and 39 (10%) with other cancers. For lung cancer, there were 118 patients (30%) for the upper lobe, 78 (20%) for the lower lobe, and 60 (16%) not otherwise specified (NOS). Other lung cancer sites had fewer patients: 21 (5%) middle lobe lung, 6 (2%) overlapping lung lesion(s), and 4 (1%) main bronchus of the lung. For pancreatic cancer, there were 27 patients (7%) for the head of the pancreas, 10 (3%) pancreas NOS, 9 (2%) body of the pancreas, 9 (2%) tail of the pancreas, 4 (1%) overlapping lesions of the pancreas, 1 (< 1%) pancreatic duct, and 1 (< 1%) other specified parts of the pancreas

There were 342 patients (88%) who were aged > 50 years; 186 male patients (48%) and 201 female patients (52%). There were 293 patients (76%) who had a cancer diagnosis of stage III or IV disease and 94 (24%) who had a cancer diagnosis of stage ≤ II (combination of data for stage 0, 1, and 2, not applicable, and unknown). For their systemic treatment, 161 patients (42%) were treated with erlotinib alone and 226 (58%) received erlotinib concomitantly with additional chemotherapy.

Among the 123 patients who discontinued their treatment, 101 switched treatment with no AEs notes, 22 died or experienced fatigue with blurry vision, constipation, nonspecific gastrointestinal effects, grade-4 diarrhea (as defined by the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events), or developed a pleural fluid, pneumonitis, renal failure, skin swelling and facial rash, and unknown AEs of discontinuation. Patients who discontinued treatment because of unknown AEs had physicians’ notes that detailed emergency department visits, peripheral vascular disease, progressive disease, and treatment cessation, but did not specify the exact symptom(s) that led to discontinuation. The causes of death are unknown because they were not detailed in the available notes or databases. The overall results in this retrospective review cannot establish causality between taking erlotinib or gefitinib and death.

Gefitinib

In September 2021, the Joint Pathology Center provided 33 entries for 33 patients who were systemically treated with gefitinib from January 1, 2002, to December 31, 2017. The patient ages ranged from 49 to 89 years with a mean age of 66 years. There were 31 (94%) and 2 (6%) patients with lung and other cancers, respectively. The upper lobe, lower lobe, and lung NOS had the most patients: 14 (42%), 8 (24%), and 6 (18%), respectively.

There were 31 patients (94%) who were aged > 50 years; 15 were male (45%) and 18 were female (55%). There were 26 patients (79%) who had a cancer diagnosis of stage III or IV disease. Nineteen patients (58%) were treated with gefitinib alone, and 14 (42%) were treated with gefitinib concomitantly with additional chemotherapy. Thirty-one patients (94%) were treated for lung cancer (Table 2). Thirty-three patients are a small sample size to determine whether patients were likely to stop gefitinib if used concomitantly with other drugs. Among the patients treated with gefitinib monotherapy, 5% (n = 1) stopped treatment, whereas 29% (n = 4) of patients treated concomitantly discontinued treatment (P = .06). All comparisons for gefitinib yielded insignificant P values. Physicians’ notes indicated that the reasons for gefitinib discontinuation were life-altering pruritis and unknown (progressive disease outcome) (Table 3).

Management Analysis and Reporting Tool Database

MHS data analysts provided data on diagnoses for 348 patients among 415 submitted, with 232 and 112 patients completing and discontinuing erlotinib or gefitinib treatment, respectively. Each patient had 1 to 104 (completed treatment group) and 1 to 157 (discontinued treatment group) unique health conditions documented. The MHS reported 1319 unique-diagnosis conditions for the completed group and 1266 for the discontinued group. Patients with additional health issues stopped chemotherapy use more often than those without; P < .001 for the completed group (232 patients, 1319 diagnoses) vs the discontinued group (112 patients, 1266 diagnoses). The mean (SD) number of diagnoses was 19 (17) for the completed and 30 (22) for the discontinued treatment groups (Figure).

MHS data was provided for patients who filled erlotinib (n = 240) or gefitinib (n = 18). Among the 258 patients, there were 179 and 79 patients in the completed and discontinued treatment groups, respectively. Each patient filled 1 to 75 (for the completed treatment group) and 3 to 103 (for the discontinued treatment group) prescription drugs. There were 805 unique-filled prescriptions for the completed and 670 for the discontinued group. Patients in the discontinued group filled more prescriptions than those who completed treatment; P < .001 for the completed group (179 patients,805 drugs) vs the discontinued group (79 patients, 670 drugs).

The mean (SD) number of filled prescription drugs was 19 (11) for the completed group and 29 (18) for the discontinued treatment group. The 5 most filled prescriptions with erlotinib from 258 patients with PDTS data were ondansetron (151 prescriptions, 10 recorded AEs), dexamethasone (119 prescriptions, 9 recorded AEs), prochlorperazine (105 prescriptions, 15 recorded AEs), oxycodone (99 prescriptions, 1 AE), and docusate (96 prescriptions, 7 recorded AEs).

Discussion

The difference between erlotinib and gefitinib data can be attributed to the FDA approval date and gefitinib’s association with a higher frequency of hepatotoxicity.^18-20 The FDA designated gefitinib as an orphan drug for EGFR mutation–positive NSCLC treatment. Gefitinib first received accelerated approval in 2003 for the treatment of locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC. Gefitinib then was voluntarily withdrawn from the market following confirmatory clinical trials that did not verify clinical benefit.

The current approval is for a different patient population—previously untreated, metastatic EGFR exon 19 or 21 L858R mutation—than the 2003 approval.^4,6 There was no record of gefitinib use after 2017 in our study.

Erlotinib is a reversible EGFR-TKI that is approved by the FDA as first-line (maintenance) or second-line treatment (after progression following at least 1 earlier chemotherapy regimen) for patients with metastatic NSCLC who harbor EGFR exon 19 deletions or exon 21 L858R substitution mutations, as detected by an FDA-approved test.³ Since 2005, the FDA also approved erlotinib for first-line treatment of patients with locally advanced, unresectable, or metastatic pancreatic cancer in combination with gemcitabine.³ Without FDA indication, erlotinib is used for colorectal, head and neck, ovarian carcinoma, pancreatic carcinoma, and breast cancer.²¹

Erlotinib and gefitinib are not considered first-line treatments in EGFR exon 19 or 21–mutated NSCLC because osimertinib was approved in 2018. Targeted therapies for EGFR mutation continue to advance at a fast pace, with amivantamab and mobocertinib now FDA approved for EGFR exon 20 insertion–mutated NSCLC.

Erlotinib Use

Thirty-nine patients (10%) in this study were prescribed erlotinib for off-label indications. Erlotinib was used alone or in combination with bevacizumab, capecitabine, cisplatin, denosumab, docetaxel, gemcitabine, and the MEK-inhibitor selumetinib. Erlotinib combined with cisplatin, denosumab, docetaxel, and gemcitabine had no recorded AEs, with 10 data entries for gemcitabine and 1 for other drugs. Three patients received bevacizumab and erlotinib, and 1 patient (diagnosed with kidney NOS) showed rash or facial swelling/erythema and diffuse body itching then stable disease after 2 cycles.

One patient (diagnosed with cancer located at the pancreas head) was bridged with capecitabine and erlotinib when going on a vacation, then received FOLFIRINOX (a combination chemotherapy regimen containing folinic acid [leucovorin], fluorouracil, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin), which led to significant fatigue, blurry vision, and constipation. One patient was treated for lung NOS with the MEK-inhibitor selumetinib plus erlotinib and developed pneumonitis following treatment.

Because oncologists followed guidelines and protocols in systemic treatment, DDIs of erlotinib concurrently (before or after) and in combination with cancer drugs were unlikely. Further investigation is needed for several 1:1:1 DDIs with noncancer drugs. A retrospective overview is not a randomized clinical study; therefore, analysis is limited. Data from the MHS were obtained solely from notes from physicians who treated the patients; therefore, exact information explaining whether a patient completed treatment or had to withdraw could not be extrapolated (ie, blood/plasma samples were not obtained to confirm).

Discontinued Treatment

The reasons for treatment discontinuation with erlotinib or gefitinib varied among patients, with no consistent AE or cause. Most data were for switching treatments after discontinuing treatment with erlotinib (101 of 123 patients) and gefitinib (2 of 5 patients). This is not surprising given the widely recognized pillars of therapy for NSCLC: chemotherapy, target therapy, and immunotherapy.²² From the MHS records, the reasons patients switched treatment of erlotinib or gefitinib were not listed or listed as due to negative EGFR testing, lack of responsiveness, or enrollment in a different treatment.

Physicians’ notes on AEs were not detailed in most cases. Notes for gastrointestinal effects, life-altering pruritis, intolerance, peripheral vascular disease, pneumonitis, and progressive disease described the change in status or appearance of a new medical condition but did not indicate whether erlotinib or gefitinib caused the changes or worsened a pre-existing condition.

The causes of AEs were not described in the available notes or the databases. This retrospective data analysis only focused on identifying drugs involved with erlotinib and gefitinib treatment; further mapping of DDIs among patients experiencing AEs needs to be performed, then in vitro data testing before researchers can reach a conclusion.

DDIs With Antidepressants

We used the PDTS database to evaluate patients who experienced AEs, excluding patients who switched treatment. Thirteen patients filled a prescription for erlotinib and reported taking 220 cancer and noncancer prescription drugs. One patient (pruritis) was taking gefitinib along with 16 noncancer prescription drugs.

Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and other antidepressants have been implicated in CYP 2D6 inhibition and DDIs.^48,49 Losartan is a widely used antihypertensive drug with a favorable DDI profile.⁵⁰Erlotinib and gefitinib are primarily metabolized via CYP 2D6 and 3A4 pathways. DDIs from in vitro human hepatocytes assays revealed that gefitinib had significant metabolic changes in a 1:1 (P < .05) combination with paroxetine or sertraline, and a 1:1:1 combination with losartan and fluoxetine, fluvoxamine, paroxetine, or sertraline. Citalopram and venlafaxine seemed to be unaffected by any combination (P ≥ .05).⁵¹ Erlotinib with fluoxetine or losartan 1:1 yielded insignificant differences in metabolism for all drugs (P ≥ .05). Three drug combinations of 1:1:1 involving fluoxetine and losartan with erlotinib yielded significant degrees of inhibition of fluoxetine and losartan metabolism (P < .05) but not erlotinib.⁵²

Our data showed that 16 antidepressants (amitriptyline, bupropion, citalopram, desvenlafaxine, duloxetine, escitalopram, imipramine, fluoxetine, fluvoxamine, mirtazapine, nortriptyline, paroxetine, phenelzine, sertraline, trazodone, and venlafaxine) were recorded with concomitant erlotinib or gefitinib from initiation to completion of therapy or a buffer of 6 months from the first diagnosis date. Based on the date dispensed and days’ supply, only escitalopram could be used in combination with gefitinib treatment. The one patient who filled a prescription for gefitinib and escitalopram completed treatment without recorded AEs. PDTS database confirmed that patients experienced AEs with 5 antidepressants (amitriptyline, mirtazapine, paroxetine, trazodone, and venlafaxine) with concomitant erlotinib use.

Based on the date dispensed and days’ supply, only trazodone could be used in combination with erlotinib. PDTS database showed that cancer drugs (erlotinib and megestrol) and 39 noncancer drugs (including acetaminophen, azithromycin, dexamethasone, hydrocortisone, and polyethylene glycol) were filled by 1 patient whose physician noted skin rash. Another limitation of using databases to reflect clinical practice is that although megestrol is listed as a cancer drug by code in the PDTS database, it is not used for nonendometrial or gynecologic cancers. However, because of the PDTS database classification, megestrol is classified as a cancer drug in this retrospective review.

This retrospective review found no significant DDIs for erlotinib or gefitinib, with 1 antidepressant taken by 1 patient for each respective treatment. The degree of inhibition and induction for escitalopram and trazodone are categorized as weak, minimal, or none; therefore, while 1:1 DDIs might be little or no effect, 1:1:1 combination DDIs could have a different outcome. This retrospective data collection cannot be linked to the in­ vitro hepatocyte DDIs from erlotinib and gefitinib in previous studies.^51,52

Conclusions

This retrospective study describes erlotinib and gefitinib use in the MHS and their potential for DDIs. Because of military service requirements, people who are qualified to serve must be healthy or have either controlled or nonactive medical diagnoses and be physically fit. Consequently, our patient population had fewer common medical illnesses, such as diabetes and obesity, compared with the general population. Most noncancer drugs mentioned in this study are not known CYP metabolizers; therefore, recorded AEs alone cannot conclusively determine whether there is a DDI among erlotinib or gefitinib and noncancer drugs. Antidepressants generally are safe but have boxed warnings in the US for increased risk of suicidal ideation in young people.^53,54 This retrospective study did not find statistically significant DDIs for erlotinib or gefitinib with antidepressants. Based on this retrospective data analysis, future in vitro testing is needed to assess DDIs for erlotinib or gefitinib and cancer or noncancer drugs identified in this study.

Acknowledgments

The Department of Research Program funds at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center supported this protocol. We sincerely appreciate the contribution of data extraction from the Joint Pathology Center teams (Francisco J. Rentas, John D. McGeeney, Kimberly M. Greenfield, Beatriz A. Hallo, and Johnny P. Beason) and the MHS database personnel (Maj Ryan Costantino, Lee Ann Zarzabal, Brandon Jenkins, and Alex Rittel). We gratefully thank you for the protocol support from the Department of Research programs: CDR Wesley R. Campbell, CDR Ling Ye, Yaling Zhou, Elizabeth Schafer, Robert Roogow, Micah Stretch, Diane Beaner, Adrienne Woodard, David L. Evers, and Paula Amann.

The Food and Drug Administration has granted accelerated approval to the off-the-shelf biologic agent elranatamab (Elrexfio) for the treatment of relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma.

The B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA) CD3-targeted bispecific antibody (BsAb) was given Priority Review in February and had previously received Breakthrough Therapy Designation for relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM), according to Pfizer.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

FDA approval was based on favorable response and duration of response rates in the single-arm, phase 2 MagnetisMM-3 trial. The trial showed meaningful responses in heavily pretreated patients with RRMM who received elranatamab as their first BCMA-directed therapy.

The overall response rate in 97 BCMA-naive patients (cohort A) who previously received at least four lines of therapy, including a proteasome inhibitor, an immunomodulatory agent, and an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody, was 58%, with an estimated 82% maintaining the response for 9 months or longer. Median time to first response was 1.2 months.

In 63 patients who received at least four prior lines of therapy, which also included a BCMA-directed therapy, the overall response rate was 33% after median follow-up of 10.2 months. An estimated 84% maintained a response for at least 9 months.

Elranatamab was given subcutaneously at a dose of 76 mg weekly on a 28-day cycle with a step-up priming dose regimen. The priming regimen included 12 mg and 32 mg doses on days 1 and 4, respectively, during cycle 1. Patients who received at least six cycles and showed at least a partial response for 2 or more months had a biweekly dosing interval.

Elranatamab carries a boxed warning for cytokine release syndrome (CRS) and neurologic toxicity, as well as warnings and precautions for infections, neutropenia, hepatotoxicity, and embryo–fetal toxicity. Therefore, the agent is available only through a restricted Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS).

The boxed warning is included in the full prescribing information.

A confirmatory trial to gather additional safety and efficacy data was launched in 2022. Continued FDA approval is contingent on confirmed safety and efficacy data.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has granted accelerated approval to the off-the-shelf biologic agent elranatamab (Elrexfio) for the treatment of relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma.

The B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA) CD3-targeted bispecific antibody (BsAb) was given Priority Review in February and had previously received Breakthrough Therapy Designation for relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM), according to Pfizer.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

FDA approval was based on favorable response and duration of response rates in the single-arm, phase 2 MagnetisMM-3 trial. The trial showed meaningful responses in heavily pretreated patients with RRMM who received elranatamab as their first BCMA-directed therapy.

The overall response rate in 97 BCMA-naive patients (cohort A) who previously received at least four lines of therapy, including a proteasome inhibitor, an immunomodulatory agent, and an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody, was 58%, with an estimated 82% maintaining the response for 9 months or longer. Median time to first response was 1.2 months.

In 63 patients who received at least four prior lines of therapy, which also included a BCMA-directed therapy, the overall response rate was 33% after median follow-up of 10.2 months. An estimated 84% maintained a response for at least 9 months.

Elranatamab was given subcutaneously at a dose of 76 mg weekly on a 28-day cycle with a step-up priming dose regimen. The priming regimen included 12 mg and 32 mg doses on days 1 and 4, respectively, during cycle 1. Patients who received at least six cycles and showed at least a partial response for 2 or more months had a biweekly dosing interval.

Elranatamab carries a boxed warning for cytokine release syndrome (CRS) and neurologic toxicity, as well as warnings and precautions for infections, neutropenia, hepatotoxicity, and embryo–fetal toxicity. Therefore, the agent is available only through a restricted Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS).

The boxed warning is included in the full prescribing information.

A confirmatory trial to gather additional safety and efficacy data was launched in 2022. Continued FDA approval is contingent on confirmed safety and efficacy data.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has granted accelerated approval to the off-the-shelf biologic agent elranatamab (Elrexfio) for the treatment of relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma.

The B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA) CD3-targeted bispecific antibody (BsAb) was given Priority Review in February and had previously received Breakthrough Therapy Designation for relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM), according to Pfizer.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

FDA approval was based on favorable response and duration of response rates in the single-arm, phase 2 MagnetisMM-3 trial. The trial showed meaningful responses in heavily pretreated patients with RRMM who received elranatamab as their first BCMA-directed therapy.

The overall response rate in 97 BCMA-naive patients (cohort A) who previously received at least four lines of therapy, including a proteasome inhibitor, an immunomodulatory agent, and an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody, was 58%, with an estimated 82% maintaining the response for 9 months or longer. Median time to first response was 1.2 months.

In 63 patients who received at least four prior lines of therapy, which also included a BCMA-directed therapy, the overall response rate was 33% after median follow-up of 10.2 months. An estimated 84% maintained a response for at least 9 months.

Elranatamab was given subcutaneously at a dose of 76 mg weekly on a 28-day cycle with a step-up priming dose regimen. The priming regimen included 12 mg and 32 mg doses on days 1 and 4, respectively, during cycle 1. Patients who received at least six cycles and showed at least a partial response for 2 or more months had a biweekly dosing interval.

Elranatamab carries a boxed warning for cytokine release syndrome (CRS) and neurologic toxicity, as well as warnings and precautions for infections, neutropenia, hepatotoxicity, and embryo–fetal toxicity. Therefore, the agent is available only through a restricted Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS).

The boxed warning is included in the full prescribing information.

A confirmatory trial to gather additional safety and efficacy data was launched in 2022. Continued FDA approval is contingent on confirmed safety and efficacy data.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved niraparib and abiraterone acetate (Akeega, Janssen Pharmaceuticals) to treat BRCA-positive, metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer in adult patients with deleterious or suspected deleterious disease, as determined by an FDA-approved test.

The once-daily dual-action tablet is the first-and-only orally administered treatment combining the PARP inhibitor niraparib with abiraterone acetate.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

The FDA’s approval was based on findings from the phase 3 MAGNITUDE precision medicine study, a randomized, placebo-controlled trial with 423 patients, 225 (53%) of whom had BRCA gene mutations as determined using a tissue assay such as FoundationOne CDx.

Among the subgroup with a BRCA mutation, radiographic progression-free survival was a median of 16.6 months vs. 10.9 months (hazard ratio [HR], 0.53; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.36-0.79; P = .0014). In this subgroup, an exploratory overall survival analysis demonstrated a median of 30.4 months vs. 28.6 months (HR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.55-1.12), favoring the treatment arm.

Although the overall cohort (those with and without BRCA mutations) demonstrated a significant improvement in radiographic progression-free survival, the subgroup with non-BRCA homologous recombination repair mutations did not demonstrate a significant improvement in radiographic progression-free survival, which indicates that the benefit observed was “primarily attributed” to the results in the subgroup of patients with BRCA mutations, according to the FDA.

The safety profile of niraparib and abiraterone acetate plus prednisone was consistent with the known safety profile of each FDA-approved monotherapy. Serious adverse events occurred in 41% of patients in the treatment arm. These most often included musculoskeletal pain (44% vs. 42%), fatigue (43% vs. 30%), constipation (34% vs. 20%), hypertension (33% vs. 27%), and nausea (33% vs. 21%).

An adverse reaction led to permanent discontinuation of treatment in 15% of patients.

“As a physician, identifying patients with a worse prognosis is a priority, especially those whose cancers have a BRCA mutation,” principal investigator Kim Chi, MD, stated in the Janssen press release. “We prospectively designed the MAGNITUDE study to identify the subset of patients most likely to benefit from targeted treatment with AKEEGA and to help us understand how we can potentially achieve better health outcomes for patients.”

About 10%-15% of patients who develop metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer have BRCA gene alterations, and those patients are more likely to have aggressive disease, poor outcomes, and shorter survival. Therefore, this new agent “brings an important treatment option to patients with prostate cancer as they consider their road ahead,” said Shelby Moneer, vice president of patient programs and education at ZERO Prostate Cancer.

The prescribing information lists the recommended dose at 200 mg niraparib and 1,000 mg abiraterone once daily in combination with 10 mg of prednisone daily until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Patients should also receive a gonadotropin-releasing hormone analog concurrently or should have had bilateral orchiectomy.

Health care professionals should report all serious adverse events suspected to be associated with the use of any medicine and device by using the FDA’s MedWatch Reporting System or by calling 1-800-FDA-1088.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved niraparib and abiraterone acetate (Akeega, Janssen Pharmaceuticals) to treat BRCA-positive, metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer in adult patients with deleterious or suspected deleterious disease, as determined by an FDA-approved test.

The once-daily dual-action tablet is the first-and-only orally administered treatment combining the PARP inhibitor niraparib with abiraterone acetate.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

The FDA’s approval was based on findings from the phase 3 MAGNITUDE precision medicine study, a randomized, placebo-controlled trial with 423 patients, 225 (53%) of whom had BRCA gene mutations as determined using a tissue assay such as FoundationOne CDx.

Among the subgroup with a BRCA mutation, radiographic progression-free survival was a median of 16.6 months vs. 10.9 months (hazard ratio [HR], 0.53; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.36-0.79; P = .0014). In this subgroup, an exploratory overall survival analysis demonstrated a median of 30.4 months vs. 28.6 months (HR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.55-1.12), favoring the treatment arm.

Although the overall cohort (those with and without BRCA mutations) demonstrated a significant improvement in radiographic progression-free survival, the subgroup with non-BRCA homologous recombination repair mutations did not demonstrate a significant improvement in radiographic progression-free survival, which indicates that the benefit observed was “primarily attributed” to the results in the subgroup of patients with BRCA mutations, according to the FDA.

The safety profile of niraparib and abiraterone acetate plus prednisone was consistent with the known safety profile of each FDA-approved monotherapy. Serious adverse events occurred in 41% of patients in the treatment arm. These most often included musculoskeletal pain (44% vs. 42%), fatigue (43% vs. 30%), constipation (34% vs. 20%), hypertension (33% vs. 27%), and nausea (33% vs. 21%).

An adverse reaction led to permanent discontinuation of treatment in 15% of patients.

“As a physician, identifying patients with a worse prognosis is a priority, especially those whose cancers have a BRCA mutation,” principal investigator Kim Chi, MD, stated in the Janssen press release. “We prospectively designed the MAGNITUDE study to identify the subset of patients most likely to benefit from targeted treatment with AKEEGA and to help us understand how we can potentially achieve better health outcomes for patients.”

About 10%-15% of patients who develop metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer have BRCA gene alterations, and those patients are more likely to have aggressive disease, poor outcomes, and shorter survival. Therefore, this new agent “brings an important treatment option to patients with prostate cancer as they consider their road ahead,” said Shelby Moneer, vice president of patient programs and education at ZERO Prostate Cancer.

The prescribing information lists the recommended dose at 200 mg niraparib and 1,000 mg abiraterone once daily in combination with 10 mg of prednisone daily until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Patients should also receive a gonadotropin-releasing hormone analog concurrently or should have had bilateral orchiectomy.

Health care professionals should report all serious adverse events suspected to be associated with the use of any medicine and device by using the FDA’s MedWatch Reporting System or by calling 1-800-FDA-1088.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved niraparib and abiraterone acetate (Akeega, Janssen Pharmaceuticals) to treat BRCA-positive, metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer in adult patients with deleterious or suspected deleterious disease, as determined by an FDA-approved test.

The once-daily dual-action tablet is the first-and-only orally administered treatment combining the PARP inhibitor niraparib with abiraterone acetate.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

The FDA’s approval was based on findings from the phase 3 MAGNITUDE precision medicine study, a randomized, placebo-controlled trial with 423 patients, 225 (53%) of whom had BRCA gene mutations as determined using a tissue assay such as FoundationOne CDx.

Among the subgroup with a BRCA mutation, radiographic progression-free survival was a median of 16.6 months vs. 10.9 months (hazard ratio [HR], 0.53; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.36-0.79; P = .0014). In this subgroup, an exploratory overall survival analysis demonstrated a median of 30.4 months vs. 28.6 months (HR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.55-1.12), favoring the treatment arm.

Although the overall cohort (those with and without BRCA mutations) demonstrated a significant improvement in radiographic progression-free survival, the subgroup with non-BRCA homologous recombination repair mutations did not demonstrate a significant improvement in radiographic progression-free survival, which indicates that the benefit observed was “primarily attributed” to the results in the subgroup of patients with BRCA mutations, according to the FDA.

The safety profile of niraparib and abiraterone acetate plus prednisone was consistent with the known safety profile of each FDA-approved monotherapy. Serious adverse events occurred in 41% of patients in the treatment arm. These most often included musculoskeletal pain (44% vs. 42%), fatigue (43% vs. 30%), constipation (34% vs. 20%), hypertension (33% vs. 27%), and nausea (33% vs. 21%).

An adverse reaction led to permanent discontinuation of treatment in 15% of patients.

“As a physician, identifying patients with a worse prognosis is a priority, especially those whose cancers have a BRCA mutation,” principal investigator Kim Chi, MD, stated in the Janssen press release. “We prospectively designed the MAGNITUDE study to identify the subset of patients most likely to benefit from targeted treatment with AKEEGA and to help us understand how we can potentially achieve better health outcomes for patients.”

About 10%-15% of patients who develop metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer have BRCA gene alterations, and those patients are more likely to have aggressive disease, poor outcomes, and shorter survival. Therefore, this new agent “brings an important treatment option to patients with prostate cancer as they consider their road ahead,” said Shelby Moneer, vice president of patient programs and education at ZERO Prostate Cancer.

The prescribing information lists the recommended dose at 200 mg niraparib and 1,000 mg abiraterone once daily in combination with 10 mg of prednisone daily until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Patients should also receive a gonadotropin-releasing hormone analog concurrently or should have had bilateral orchiectomy.

Health care professionals should report all serious adverse events suspected to be associated with the use of any medicine and device by using the FDA’s MedWatch Reporting System or by calling 1-800-FDA-1088.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has granted accelerated approval to talquetamab-tgvs (Talvey, Janssen Biotech, Inc), a first-in-class bispecific antibody targeting the GPRC5D receptor, for heavily pretreated adults with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma.

Patients must have received at least four prior lines of therapy, including a proteasome inhibitor, an immunomodulatory agent, and an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody.

The agent, which also received breakthrough and orphan drug designation, is available only through the Tecvayli-Talvey Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) because of a boxed warning for life-threatening or fatal cytokine release syndrome (CRS) and neurological toxicity, including immune effector cell–associated neurotoxicity (ICANS), the FDA announced.

Talquetamab-tgvs was evaluated in the single-arm, open-label MonumenTAL-1 study of 187 patients who had previously been treated with at least four prior systemic therapies.

The overall response rate in 100 patients who received a subcutaneous dose of 0.4 mg/kg weekly was 73% and median duration of response was 9.5 months. The overall response rate in 87 patients who received a subcutaneous dose of 0.8 mg/kg biweekly was 73.6%, with about 85% of responders maintaining their response for at least 9 months. In this group, the median duration of response was not estimable.

Patients in the 0.4 mg/kg weekly dose group were treated following two step-up doses in the first week of therapy, and those in the 0.8 mg/kg biweekly group were treated following three step-up doses, until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

Adverse reactions occurring in at least 20% of the 339 patients in the safety population included CRS, dysgeusia (foul, metallic taste sensation), nail disorder, musculoskeletal pain, skin disorder, rash, fatigue, decreased weight, dry mouth, pyrexia, xerosis, dysphagia, upper respiratory tract infection, and diarrhea.

Both the weekly 0.4 mg/kg and biweekly 0.8 mg/kg doses are recommended. The full dosing schedule is included in the prescribing information.

The approval follows a series of market withdrawals for other multiple myeloma drugs that initially received accelerated FDA approval. For instance, the FDA recently requested withdrawal of melphalan flufenamide (Pepaxto) after 2021 confirmatory trial results showed an increased risk of death. This agent had received accelerated approval in 2021. GlaxoSmithKline’s blood cancer drugs panobinostat (Farydak) and belantamab mafodotin-blmf (Blenrep) were also withdrawn based on confirmatory trial results.

Continued approval of talquetemab-tgvs for this indication is also contingent on verifying efficacy in confirmatory trials.

The new treatment approach represents a “welcome addition to the myeloma community,” Michael Andreini, president and chief executive officer of the Multiple Myeloma Research Foundation stated in a Janssen press release. “Although options for the treatment of multiple myeloma have expanded significantly in recent years, the disease remains incurable, and therefore, patients are in need of new treatment options.”

Health care professionals should report all serious adverse events suspected to be associated with the use of any medicine and device to FDA’s MedWatch Reporting System or by calling 1-800-FDA-1088.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has granted accelerated approval to talquetamab-tgvs (Talvey, Janssen Biotech, Inc), a first-in-class bispecific antibody targeting the GPRC5D receptor, for heavily pretreated adults with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma.

Patients must have received at least four prior lines of therapy, including a proteasome inhibitor, an immunomodulatory agent, and an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody.

The agent, which also received breakthrough and orphan drug designation, is available only through the Tecvayli-Talvey Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) because of a boxed warning for life-threatening or fatal cytokine release syndrome (CRS) and neurological toxicity, including immune effector cell–associated neurotoxicity (ICANS), the FDA announced.

Talquetamab-tgvs was evaluated in the single-arm, open-label MonumenTAL-1 study of 187 patients who had previously been treated with at least four prior systemic therapies.

The overall response rate in 100 patients who received a subcutaneous dose of 0.4 mg/kg weekly was 73% and median duration of response was 9.5 months. The overall response rate in 87 patients who received a subcutaneous dose of 0.8 mg/kg biweekly was 73.6%, with about 85% of responders maintaining their response for at least 9 months. In this group, the median duration of response was not estimable.

Patients in the 0.4 mg/kg weekly dose group were treated following two step-up doses in the first week of therapy, and those in the 0.8 mg/kg biweekly group were treated following three step-up doses, until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

Adverse reactions occurring in at least 20% of the 339 patients in the safety population included CRS, dysgeusia (foul, metallic taste sensation), nail disorder, musculoskeletal pain, skin disorder, rash, fatigue, decreased weight, dry mouth, pyrexia, xerosis, dysphagia, upper respiratory tract infection, and diarrhea.

Both the weekly 0.4 mg/kg and biweekly 0.8 mg/kg doses are recommended. The full dosing schedule is included in the prescribing information.

The approval follows a series of market withdrawals for other multiple myeloma drugs that initially received accelerated FDA approval. For instance, the FDA recently requested withdrawal of melphalan flufenamide (Pepaxto) after 2021 confirmatory trial results showed an increased risk of death. This agent had received accelerated approval in 2021. GlaxoSmithKline’s blood cancer drugs panobinostat (Farydak) and belantamab mafodotin-blmf (Blenrep) were also withdrawn based on confirmatory trial results.

Continued approval of talquetemab-tgvs for this indication is also contingent on verifying efficacy in confirmatory trials.

The new treatment approach represents a “welcome addition to the myeloma community,” Michael Andreini, president and chief executive officer of the Multiple Myeloma Research Foundation stated in a Janssen press release. “Although options for the treatment of multiple myeloma have expanded significantly in recent years, the disease remains incurable, and therefore, patients are in need of new treatment options.”

Health care professionals should report all serious adverse events suspected to be associated with the use of any medicine and device to FDA’s MedWatch Reporting System or by calling 1-800-FDA-1088.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has granted accelerated approval to talquetamab-tgvs (Talvey, Janssen Biotech, Inc), a first-in-class bispecific antibody targeting the GPRC5D receptor, for heavily pretreated adults with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma.

Patients must have received at least four prior lines of therapy, including a proteasome inhibitor, an immunomodulatory agent, and an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody.

The agent, which also received breakthrough and orphan drug designation, is available only through the Tecvayli-Talvey Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) because of a boxed warning for life-threatening or fatal cytokine release syndrome (CRS) and neurological toxicity, including immune effector cell–associated neurotoxicity (ICANS), the FDA announced.

Talquetamab-tgvs was evaluated in the single-arm, open-label MonumenTAL-1 study of 187 patients who had previously been treated with at least four prior systemic therapies.

The overall response rate in 100 patients who received a subcutaneous dose of 0.4 mg/kg weekly was 73% and median duration of response was 9.5 months. The overall response rate in 87 patients who received a subcutaneous dose of 0.8 mg/kg biweekly was 73.6%, with about 85% of responders maintaining their response for at least 9 months. In this group, the median duration of response was not estimable.

Patients in the 0.4 mg/kg weekly dose group were treated following two step-up doses in the first week of therapy, and those in the 0.8 mg/kg biweekly group were treated following three step-up doses, until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

Adverse reactions occurring in at least 20% of the 339 patients in the safety population included CRS, dysgeusia (foul, metallic taste sensation), nail disorder, musculoskeletal pain, skin disorder, rash, fatigue, decreased weight, dry mouth, pyrexia, xerosis, dysphagia, upper respiratory tract infection, and diarrhea.

Both the weekly 0.4 mg/kg and biweekly 0.8 mg/kg doses are recommended. The full dosing schedule is included in the prescribing information.

The approval follows a series of market withdrawals for other multiple myeloma drugs that initially received accelerated FDA approval. For instance, the FDA recently requested withdrawal of melphalan flufenamide (Pepaxto) after 2021 confirmatory trial results showed an increased risk of death. This agent had received accelerated approval in 2021. GlaxoSmithKline’s blood cancer drugs panobinostat (Farydak) and belantamab mafodotin-blmf (Blenrep) were also withdrawn based on confirmatory trial results.

Continued approval of talquetemab-tgvs for this indication is also contingent on verifying efficacy in confirmatory trials.

The new treatment approach represents a “welcome addition to the myeloma community,” Michael Andreini, president and chief executive officer of the Multiple Myeloma Research Foundation stated in a Janssen press release. “Although options for the treatment of multiple myeloma have expanded significantly in recent years, the disease remains incurable, and therefore, patients are in need of new treatment options.”

Health care professionals should report all serious adverse events suspected to be associated with the use of any medicine and device to FDA’s MedWatch Reporting System or by calling 1-800-FDA-1088.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

I’d like to discuss an article that’s appeared recently in The Lancet. It looks at the impact of minimum unit pricing for alcohol on alcohol-related deaths and hospital admissions in Scotland, my home country. Why is that important to me as a cancer doctor? We know that alcohol underpins epidemiologically a whole range of different tumor types.

Anyway, it’s a really interesting experiment. It also looks at the impact of governments and health policy. In 2018, the Scottish government introduced a minimum unit pricing for alcohol of around $0.60 per unit of alcohol. The idea was that if you drive up the price of getting access to alcohol, that should reduce harm, deaths, and hospital admissions.

Wyper and colleagues did a rather nice controlled, time-interrupted series. The legislation was introduced in 2018, so they looked at our public-health databases, hospital admissions, deaths, and so on for the time span from 2012 to 2018, then for about 3 years after the introduction of legislation in 2018. They used England as a control.

They showed that there was a reduction in fully alcohol-attributed deaths by 13.4% in Scotland, and a reduction in chronic hospital admissions related to alcohol by almost 10%. It works.

What was also interesting was that the benefits were confined to the lower socioeconomic classes. One could argue, whether intended or otherwise, that this was a health-policy intervention targeted at the lower socioeconomic classes. Perhaps, one would hope as a consequence that this would reduce the health equity gap.

We know that the differences in Scotland are remarkable. When we compare the highest with the lowest socioeconomic classes, there’s a 4- to 4.5-fold difference in likelihood of death benefiting, of course, the wealthy. The health-equity gap between rich and poor is getting wider, not becoming narrower. Interventions of this sort make a difference.

Of course, there’s good evidence from other areas in which price control can make a difference. Tobacco is perhaps the best example of it. People have also talked about sugar or fat taxes to see whether their actions reduce levels of obesity, overeating, and other problems.

It’s a really nice study, with very compelling data, very well worked out in terms of the methodology and statistics. There are lives saved and lives prolonged.

What it doesn’t do is tell us about the amount of alcohol that people were taking. It shows that if you are less well off and the price of alcohol goes up, you’ve got less money to spend on alcohol. Therefore, that reduction results in the reduction in harm associated with it.

What’s really interesting is something I hadn’t realized about what’s called the alcohol-harm paradox. When you look at drinkers across the socioeconomic spectrum, including wealthy and poor drinkers, even for those who have exactly the same consumption of alcohol, there seems to be significantly more harm done to the poor than to the wealthy.

There may be some behavioral explanations for this, but they don’t explain all the difference. More work needs to be done there. It’s a really interesting story and I think a brave policy put forward by the Scottish government, which has returned rewards and is something that one would consider replicating around the world to see what other benefits might accrue from it.

I’m very interested to watch further forward over the next 2 decades to see what impact, if any, this alcohol-pricing legislation has on the incidence of cancer, looking at breast cancer, some gastrointestinal tumors, and so on, in which we know alcohol plays a part in their carcinogenesis.

Dr. Kerris a professor of cancer medicine at the University of Oxford (England). He reported conflicts of interest with Celleron Therapeutics, Oxford Cancer Biomarkers, Afrox, GlaxoSmithKline, Bayer, Genomic Health, Merck Serono, and Roche.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

I’d like to discuss an article that’s appeared recently in The Lancet. It looks at the impact of minimum unit pricing for alcohol on alcohol-related deaths and hospital admissions in Scotland, my home country. Why is that important to me as a cancer doctor? We know that alcohol underpins epidemiologically a whole range of different tumor types.

Anyway, it’s a really interesting experiment. It also looks at the impact of governments and health policy. In 2018, the Scottish government introduced a minimum unit pricing for alcohol of around $0.60 per unit of alcohol. The idea was that if you drive up the price of getting access to alcohol, that should reduce harm, deaths, and hospital admissions.

Wyper and colleagues did a rather nice controlled, time-interrupted series. The legislation was introduced in 2018, so they looked at our public-health databases, hospital admissions, deaths, and so on for the time span from 2012 to 2018, then for about 3 years after the introduction of legislation in 2018. They used England as a control.

They showed that there was a reduction in fully alcohol-attributed deaths by 13.4% in Scotland, and a reduction in chronic hospital admissions related to alcohol by almost 10%. It works.

What was also interesting was that the benefits were confined to the lower socioeconomic classes. One could argue, whether intended or otherwise, that this was a health-policy intervention targeted at the lower socioeconomic classes. Perhaps, one would hope as a consequence that this would reduce the health equity gap.

We know that the differences in Scotland are remarkable. When we compare the highest with the lowest socioeconomic classes, there’s a 4- to 4.5-fold difference in likelihood of death benefiting, of course, the wealthy. The health-equity gap between rich and poor is getting wider, not becoming narrower. Interventions of this sort make a difference.

Of course, there’s good evidence from other areas in which price control can make a difference. Tobacco is perhaps the best example of it. People have also talked about sugar or fat taxes to see whether their actions reduce levels of obesity, overeating, and other problems.

It’s a really nice study, with very compelling data, very well worked out in terms of the methodology and statistics. There are lives saved and lives prolonged.

What it doesn’t do is tell us about the amount of alcohol that people were taking. It shows that if you are less well off and the price of alcohol goes up, you’ve got less money to spend on alcohol. Therefore, that reduction results in the reduction in harm associated with it.

What’s really interesting is something I hadn’t realized about what’s called the alcohol-harm paradox. When you look at drinkers across the socioeconomic spectrum, including wealthy and poor drinkers, even for those who have exactly the same consumption of alcohol, there seems to be significantly more harm done to the poor than to the wealthy.

There may be some behavioral explanations for this, but they don’t explain all the difference. More work needs to be done there. It’s a really interesting story and I think a brave policy put forward by the Scottish government, which has returned rewards and is something that one would consider replicating around the world to see what other benefits might accrue from it.

I’m very interested to watch further forward over the next 2 decades to see what impact, if any, this alcohol-pricing legislation has on the incidence of cancer, looking at breast cancer, some gastrointestinal tumors, and so on, in which we know alcohol plays a part in their carcinogenesis.

Dr. Kerris a professor of cancer medicine at the University of Oxford (England). He reported conflicts of interest with Celleron Therapeutics, Oxford Cancer Biomarkers, Afrox, GlaxoSmithKline, Bayer, Genomic Health, Merck Serono, and Roche.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

I’d like to discuss an article that’s appeared recently in The Lancet. It looks at the impact of minimum unit pricing for alcohol on alcohol-related deaths and hospital admissions in Scotland, my home country. Why is that important to me as a cancer doctor? We know that alcohol underpins epidemiologically a whole range of different tumor types.

Anyway, it’s a really interesting experiment. It also looks at the impact of governments and health policy. In 2018, the Scottish government introduced a minimum unit pricing for alcohol of around $0.60 per unit of alcohol. The idea was that if you drive up the price of getting access to alcohol, that should reduce harm, deaths, and hospital admissions.

Wyper and colleagues did a rather nice controlled, time-interrupted series. The legislation was introduced in 2018, so they looked at our public-health databases, hospital admissions, deaths, and so on for the time span from 2012 to 2018, then for about 3 years after the introduction of legislation in 2018. They used England as a control.

They showed that there was a reduction in fully alcohol-attributed deaths by 13.4% in Scotland, and a reduction in chronic hospital admissions related to alcohol by almost 10%. It works.

What was also interesting was that the benefits were confined to the lower socioeconomic classes. One could argue, whether intended or otherwise, that this was a health-policy intervention targeted at the lower socioeconomic classes. Perhaps, one would hope as a consequence that this would reduce the health equity gap.

We know that the differences in Scotland are remarkable. When we compare the highest with the lowest socioeconomic classes, there’s a 4- to 4.5-fold difference in likelihood of death benefiting, of course, the wealthy. The health-equity gap between rich and poor is getting wider, not becoming narrower. Interventions of this sort make a difference.

Of course, there’s good evidence from other areas in which price control can make a difference. Tobacco is perhaps the best example of it. People have also talked about sugar or fat taxes to see whether their actions reduce levels of obesity, overeating, and other problems.

It’s a really nice study, with very compelling data, very well worked out in terms of the methodology and statistics. There are lives saved and lives prolonged.

What it doesn’t do is tell us about the amount of alcohol that people were taking. It shows that if you are less well off and the price of alcohol goes up, you’ve got less money to spend on alcohol. Therefore, that reduction results in the reduction in harm associated with it.

What’s really interesting is something I hadn’t realized about what’s called the alcohol-harm paradox. When you look at drinkers across the socioeconomic spectrum, including wealthy and poor drinkers, even for those who have exactly the same consumption of alcohol, there seems to be significantly more harm done to the poor than to the wealthy.

There may be some behavioral explanations for this, but they don’t explain all the difference. More work needs to be done there. It’s a really interesting story and I think a brave policy put forward by the Scottish government, which has returned rewards and is something that one would consider replicating around the world to see what other benefits might accrue from it.

I’m very interested to watch further forward over the next 2 decades to see what impact, if any, this alcohol-pricing legislation has on the incidence of cancer, looking at breast cancer, some gastrointestinal tumors, and so on, in which we know alcohol plays a part in their carcinogenesis.

Dr. Kerris a professor of cancer medicine at the University of Oxford (England). He reported conflicts of interest with Celleron Therapeutics, Oxford Cancer Biomarkers, Afrox, GlaxoSmithKline, Bayer, Genomic Health, Merck Serono, and Roche.

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

Drinking sugar-laden beverages on a regular basis may increase the risk for liver cancer and death from chronic liver disease, new research suggests.

The observational analyses revealed that postmenopausal women who consumed at least one sugar-sweetened beverage daily had an 85% higher risk of developing liver cancer and a 68% higher risk of dying from chronic liver disease, compared with those who consumed three servings or fewer per month.

Lori Martin/Fotolia.com

“If our findings are confirmed, reducing sugar-sweetened beverage consumption might serve as a public health strategy to reduce liver disease burden,” first author Longgang Zhao, PhD, with Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, said in an interview.

When looking at consumption of artificially sweetened drinks, however, Dr. Zhao and colleagues found no strong association between intake and risk for liver cancer or death from chronic liver disease. Because the sample size for the artificially sweetened beverage analysis was limited, Dr. Zhao said, “these results should be interpreted with caution and additional studies are needed to confirm our study findings.”

The new study was published online in JAMA.

About 40% of people with liver cancer do not have one of the well-known disease risk factors, such as chronic hepatitis B or C infection, type 2 diabetes, or obesity. In the current analysis, Dr. Zhao and colleagues wanted to determine whether sugar-sweetened or artificially sweetened beverages, consumed by a large swath of the population, could be a risk factor for liver cancer or chronic liver disease.

Two previous studies have found only a “potential association” between sugar-sweetened beverage intake and a person’s risk for liver cancer, the authors explained.

In July, the International Agency for Research on Cancer officially classified the artificial sweetener aspartame as a possible carcinogen, but cancer epidemiologist Paul Pharoah, MD, PhD, commented that “the evidence that aspartame causes primary liver cancer, or any other cancer in humans, is very weak.”

To provide greater clarity about a potential link, the study team used the Women’s Health Initiative to evaluate sugary beverage consumption among 98,786 postmenopausal women and artificially sweetened drink intake among 64,787 followed for up to a median of 20.9 years. The primary outcomes were liver cancer incidence and mortality from chronic liver disease, defined as nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, liver fibrosis, cirrhosis, alcoholic liver diseases, and chronic hepatitis.

Among these women, nearly 7% consumed at least one sugar-sweetened beverage daily and 13% consumed one or more artificially sweetened beverage servings daily.

Over the follow-up period, 207 women developed liver cancer and 148 died from chronic liver disease in the sugary beverage group while 133 women developed liver cancer and 74 died from chronic liver disease in the artificial sugar group.

Compared with women consuming three servings or fewer of sugar-sweetened beverages per month, those consuming one or more servings per day had a significantly higher risk for liver cancer (18.0 vs. 10.3 per 100,000; adjusted hazard ratio, 1.85; P = .01) and for chronic liver disease mortality (17.7 vs. 7.1 per 100,000; aHR, 1.68; P = .04).

Compared with women consuming three servings or fewer of artificially sweetened beverages per month, those drinking one or more servings per day did not have a significantly increased risk for liver cancer (11.8 vs. 10.2 per 100,000; aHR, 1.17; P = .55) or chronic liver disease mortality (7.1 vs. 5.3 per 100,000; aHR 0.95; P = .88).

The authors noted several limitations to the study, including not tracking potential changes in beverage consumption over time or details on the specific sugar content or sweetener types consumed.

Corresponding author Xuehong Zhang, ScD, also with Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, said it’s not surprising that sugar-sweetened beverages may raise the risk of adverse liver outcomes.

“Intake of sugar-sweetened beverage[s], a postulated risk factor for obesity, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease, may drive insulin resistance and inflammation, which are strongly implicated in liver carcinogenesis and liver health,” Dr. Zhang said in an interview.

The lack of an association between artificially sweetened beverages and liver outcomes is also not particularly surprising, Dr. Zhang said, “given that the consumption level of artificially sweetened beverages is low, the sample size is relatively small,” and “the dose response relationship remains unknown.”

Nancy S. Reau, MD, who was not involved in the research, said the authors should be “congratulated for trying to clarify liver-related health risk related to artificial or sugar-sweetened beverages.”

In her view, the most important finding is the association between daily consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages and liver health.

“Regardless of whether this is a surrogate marker for liver disease risk (such as fatty liver disease) or a consequence of the drink itself, it is an easy measure for clinicians to capture and an easy behavior for patients to modify,” Dr. Reau, a hepatologist at Rush Medical College, Chicago, said in an interview.

However, Dr. Reau noted, “I do not feel that this article can be used to advocate for artificially sweetened beverages as a substitute.”

It is possible, she explained, that this population was too small to see a significant signal between artificially sweetened beverages and liver health. Plus, “natural, low-caloric beverages as part of a healthy diet combined with exercise are always going to be ideal.”

Weighing in as well, Dale Shepard, MD, PhD, a medical oncologist at the Cleveland Clinic, noted that “this is another study that points to the need for moderation.”

In his view, avoiding excess consumption of sugary or artificially sweetened drinks is the best course of action, but other factors, such as smoking, excessive alcohol, sun exposure without adequate sunscreen, obesity, and inactivity “are more likely to increase one’s risk for cancer,” Dr. Shepard said.

In a statement from the U.K.-based Science Media Centre, Pauline Emmett, PhD, from the University of Bristol (England), commented that this is a “good-quality” study and “the authors have been very careful not to speculate.”

“The main limitation is that this is observational data which provides associations which suggest a relationship but cannot tell if it is causal,” Dr. Emmett said. However, “we know from a body of evidence that it is worth thinking twice before choosing to drink sugar-sweetened beverages every day.”

The study had no commercial funding. Dr. Zhao, Dr. Zhang, Dr. Reau, and Dr. Shepard reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Emmett is a member of the European Food Safety Authority working group on dietary sugars.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Drinking sugar-laden beverages on a regular basis may increase the risk for liver cancer and death from chronic liver disease, new research suggests.

The observational analyses revealed that postmenopausal women who consumed at least one sugar-sweetened beverage daily had an 85% higher risk of developing liver cancer and a 68% higher risk of dying from chronic liver disease, compared with those who consumed three servings or fewer per month.

Lori Martin/Fotolia.com

“If our findings are confirmed, reducing sugar-sweetened beverage consumption might serve as a public health strategy to reduce liver disease burden,” first author Longgang Zhao, PhD, with Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, said in an interview.

When looking at consumption of artificially sweetened drinks, however, Dr. Zhao and colleagues found no strong association between intake and risk for liver cancer or death from chronic liver disease. Because the sample size for the artificially sweetened beverage analysis was limited, Dr. Zhao said, “these results should be interpreted with caution and additional studies are needed to confirm our study findings.”

The new study was published online in JAMA.

About 40% of people with liver cancer do not have one of the well-known disease risk factors, such as chronic hepatitis B or C infection, type 2 diabetes, or obesity. In the current analysis, Dr. Zhao and colleagues wanted to determine whether sugar-sweetened or artificially sweetened beverages, consumed by a large swath of the population, could be a risk factor for liver cancer or chronic liver disease.

Two previous studies have found only a “potential association” between sugar-sweetened beverage intake and a person’s risk for liver cancer, the authors explained.

In July, the International Agency for Research on Cancer officially classified the artificial sweetener aspartame as a possible carcinogen, but cancer epidemiologist Paul Pharoah, MD, PhD, commented that “the evidence that aspartame causes primary liver cancer, or any other cancer in humans, is very weak.”

To provide greater clarity about a potential link, the study team used the Women’s Health Initiative to evaluate sugary beverage consumption among 98,786 postmenopausal women and artificially sweetened drink intake among 64,787 followed for up to a median of 20.9 years. The primary outcomes were liver cancer incidence and mortality from chronic liver disease, defined as nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, liver fibrosis, cirrhosis, alcoholic liver diseases, and chronic hepatitis.

Among these women, nearly 7% consumed at least one sugar-sweetened beverage daily and 13% consumed one or more artificially sweetened beverage servings daily.

Over the follow-up period, 207 women developed liver cancer and 148 died from chronic liver disease in the sugary beverage group while 133 women developed liver cancer and 74 died from chronic liver disease in the artificial sugar group.

Compared with women consuming three servings or fewer of sugar-sweetened beverages per month, those consuming one or more servings per day had a significantly higher risk for liver cancer (18.0 vs. 10.3 per 100,000; adjusted hazard ratio, 1.85; P = .01) and for chronic liver disease mortality (17.7 vs. 7.1 per 100,000; aHR, 1.68; P = .04).

Compared with women consuming three servings or fewer of artificially sweetened beverages per month, those drinking one or more servings per day did not have a significantly increased risk for liver cancer (11.8 vs. 10.2 per 100,000; aHR, 1.17; P = .55) or chronic liver disease mortality (7.1 vs. 5.3 per 100,000; aHR 0.95; P = .88).

The authors noted several limitations to the study, including not tracking potential changes in beverage consumption over time or details on the specific sugar content or sweetener types consumed.

Corresponding author Xuehong Zhang, ScD, also with Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, said it’s not surprising that sugar-sweetened beverages may raise the risk of adverse liver outcomes.

“Intake of sugar-sweetened beverage[s], a postulated risk factor for obesity, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease, may drive insulin resistance and inflammation, which are strongly implicated in liver carcinogenesis and liver health,” Dr. Zhang said in an interview.

The lack of an association between artificially sweetened beverages and liver outcomes is also not particularly surprising, Dr. Zhang said, “given that the consumption level of artificially sweetened beverages is low, the sample size is relatively small,” and “the dose response relationship remains unknown.”

Nancy S. Reau, MD, who was not involved in the research, said the authors should be “congratulated for trying to clarify liver-related health risk related to artificial or sugar-sweetened beverages.”

In her view, the most important finding is the association between daily consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages and liver health.

“Regardless of whether this is a surrogate marker for liver disease risk (such as fatty liver disease) or a consequence of the drink itself, it is an easy measure for clinicians to capture and an easy behavior for patients to modify,” Dr. Reau, a hepatologist at Rush Medical College, Chicago, said in an interview.

However, Dr. Reau noted, “I do not feel that this article can be used to advocate for artificially sweetened beverages as a substitute.”

It is possible, she explained, that this population was too small to see a significant signal between artificially sweetened beverages and liver health. Plus, “natural, low-caloric beverages as part of a healthy diet combined with exercise are always going to be ideal.”

Weighing in as well, Dale Shepard, MD, PhD, a medical oncologist at the Cleveland Clinic, noted that “this is another study that points to the need for moderation.”

In his view, avoiding excess consumption of sugary or artificially sweetened drinks is the best course of action, but other factors, such as smoking, excessive alcohol, sun exposure without adequate sunscreen, obesity, and inactivity “are more likely to increase one’s risk for cancer,” Dr. Shepard said.

In a statement from the U.K.-based Science Media Centre, Pauline Emmett, PhD, from the University of Bristol (England), commented that this is a “good-quality” study and “the authors have been very careful not to speculate.”

“The main limitation is that this is observational data which provides associations which suggest a relationship but cannot tell if it is causal,” Dr. Emmett said. However, “we know from a body of evidence that it is worth thinking twice before choosing to drink sugar-sweetened beverages every day.”

The study had no commercial funding. Dr. Zhao, Dr. Zhang, Dr. Reau, and Dr. Shepard reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Emmett is a member of the European Food Safety Authority working group on dietary sugars.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Drinking sugar-laden beverages on a regular basis may increase the risk for liver cancer and death from chronic liver disease, new research suggests.

The observational analyses revealed that postmenopausal women who consumed at least one sugar-sweetened beverage daily had an 85% higher risk of developing liver cancer and a 68% higher risk of dying from chronic liver disease, compared with those who consumed three servings or fewer per month.

Lori Martin/Fotolia.com

“If our findings are confirmed, reducing sugar-sweetened beverage consumption might serve as a public health strategy to reduce liver disease burden,” first author Longgang Zhao, PhD, with Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, said in an interview.

When looking at consumption of artificially sweetened drinks, however, Dr. Zhao and colleagues found no strong association between intake and risk for liver cancer or death from chronic liver disease. Because the sample size for the artificially sweetened beverage analysis was limited, Dr. Zhao said, “these results should be interpreted with caution and additional studies are needed to confirm our study findings.”

The new study was published online in JAMA.

About 40% of people with liver cancer do not have one of the well-known disease risk factors, such as chronic hepatitis B or C infection, type 2 diabetes, or obesity. In the current analysis, Dr. Zhao and colleagues wanted to determine whether sugar-sweetened or artificially sweetened beverages, consumed by a large swath of the population, could be a risk factor for liver cancer or chronic liver disease.

Two previous studies have found only a “potential association” between sugar-sweetened beverage intake and a person’s risk for liver cancer, the authors explained.

In July, the International Agency for Research on Cancer officially classified the artificial sweetener aspartame as a possible carcinogen, but cancer epidemiologist Paul Pharoah, MD, PhD, commented that “the evidence that aspartame causes primary liver cancer, or any other cancer in humans, is very weak.”

To provide greater clarity about a potential link, the study team used the Women’s Health Initiative to evaluate sugary beverage consumption among 98,786 postmenopausal women and artificially sweetened drink intake among 64,787 followed for up to a median of 20.9 years. The primary outcomes were liver cancer incidence and mortality from chronic liver disease, defined as nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, liver fibrosis, cirrhosis, alcoholic liver diseases, and chronic hepatitis.

Among these women, nearly 7% consumed at least one sugar-sweetened beverage daily and 13% consumed one or more artificially sweetened beverage servings daily.

Over the follow-up period, 207 women developed liver cancer and 148 died from chronic liver disease in the sugary beverage group while 133 women developed liver cancer and 74 died from chronic liver disease in the artificial sugar group.

Compared with women consuming three servings or fewer of sugar-sweetened beverages per month, those consuming one or more servings per day had a significantly higher risk for liver cancer (18.0 vs. 10.3 per 100,000; adjusted hazard ratio, 1.85; P = .01) and for chronic liver disease mortality (17.7 vs. 7.1 per 100,000; aHR, 1.68; P = .04).

Compared with women consuming three servings or fewer of artificially sweetened beverages per month, those drinking one or more servings per day did not have a significantly increased risk for liver cancer (11.8 vs. 10.2 per 100,000; aHR, 1.17; P = .55) or chronic liver disease mortality (7.1 vs. 5.3 per 100,000; aHR 0.95; P = .88).

The authors noted several limitations to the study, including not tracking potential changes in beverage consumption over time or details on the specific sugar content or sweetener types consumed.

Corresponding author Xuehong Zhang, ScD, also with Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, said it’s not surprising that sugar-sweetened beverages may raise the risk of adverse liver outcomes.

“Intake of sugar-sweetened beverage[s], a postulated risk factor for obesity, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease, may drive insulin resistance and inflammation, which are strongly implicated in liver carcinogenesis and liver health,” Dr. Zhang said in an interview.

The lack of an association between artificially sweetened beverages and liver outcomes is also not particularly surprising, Dr. Zhang said, “given that the consumption level of artificially sweetened beverages is low, the sample size is relatively small,” and “the dose response relationship remains unknown.”

Nancy S. Reau, MD, who was not involved in the research, said the authors should be “congratulated for trying to clarify liver-related health risk related to artificial or sugar-sweetened beverages.”

In her view, the most important finding is the association between daily consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages and liver health.

“Regardless of whether this is a surrogate marker for liver disease risk (such as fatty liver disease) or a consequence of the drink itself, it is an easy measure for clinicians to capture and an easy behavior for patients to modify,” Dr. Reau, a hepatologist at Rush Medical College, Chicago, said in an interview.

However, Dr. Reau noted, “I do not feel that this article can be used to advocate for artificially sweetened beverages as a substitute.”

It is possible, she explained, that this population was too small to see a significant signal between artificially sweetened beverages and liver health. Plus, “natural, low-caloric beverages as part of a healthy diet combined with exercise are always going to be ideal.”

Weighing in as well, Dale Shepard, MD, PhD, a medical oncologist at the Cleveland Clinic, noted that “this is another study that points to the need for moderation.”

In his view, avoiding excess consumption of sugary or artificially sweetened drinks is the best course of action, but other factors, such as smoking, excessive alcohol, sun exposure without adequate sunscreen, obesity, and inactivity “are more likely to increase one’s risk for cancer,” Dr. Shepard said.

In a statement from the U.K.-based Science Media Centre, Pauline Emmett, PhD, from the University of Bristol (England), commented that this is a “good-quality” study and “the authors have been very careful not to speculate.”

“The main limitation is that this is observational data which provides associations which suggest a relationship but cannot tell if it is causal,” Dr. Emmett said. However, “we know from a body of evidence that it is worth thinking twice before choosing to drink sugar-sweetened beverages every day.”

The study had no commercial funding. Dr. Zhao, Dr. Zhang, Dr. Reau, and Dr. Shepard reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Emmett is a member of the European Food Safety Authority working group on dietary sugars.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Smokers with extreme phenotypes of high and low risk of developing tobacco-associated lung cancer have different genetic profiles, according to a multidisciplinary study conducted by specialists from the Cancer Center at the University of Navarra Clinic (CUN). The results were presented at the annual meeting of the American Society for Clinical Oncology. 

Ana Patiño García, PhD, director of the genomic medicine unit at the CUN and a coordinator of the research, explained in an interview the main reason why this study was conducted. “This study came straight out of the oncology clinic, where we are constantly encountering patients with lung cancer who have never smoked or who have smoked very little, while we also all know people who have smoked a lot throughout their lifetime and have never developed cancer. This observation has led us to ask whether there are genetic factors that increase or decrease the risk of cancer and protect people against this disease.”

José Luis Pérez Gracia, MD, PhD, oncologist, coordinator of the oncology trials department at the CUN and another of the individuals responsible for this research, said: “This is the first study to validate genetic factors associated with people who appear to be resistant to developing tobacco-related lung cancer or who, on the other hand, are at high risk of developing this disease.”
 

Pioneering approach 

Earlier evidence showed that some smokers develop cancer, and others don’t. “This is a very well-known fact, since everyone knows about some elderly person who has been a heavy smoker and has never developed lung cancer,” said Dr. Pérez. “Unfortunately, we oncologists encounter young smokers who have been diagnosed with this disease. However, despite the importance of understanding the causes behind these phenotypes, it is a question that has never been studied from a genetic standpoint.”

The study was conducted using DNA from 133 heavy smokers who had not developed lung cancer at a mean age of 80 years, and from another 116 heavy smokers who had developed this type of cancer at a mean age of 50 years. This DNA was sequenced using next-generation techniques, and the results were analyzed using bioinformatics and artificial intelligence systems in collaboration with the University of Navarra Applied Medical Research Center and the University of Navarra School of Engineering.

When asked how this methodology could be applied to support other research conducted along these lines, Dr. Patiño said, “The most novel thing about this research is actually its approach. It’s based on groups at the extremes, defined by the patient’s age at the time of developing lung cancer and how much they had smoked. This type of comparative design is called extreme phenotypes, and its main distinguishing characteristic – which is also its most limiting characteristic – is choosing cases and controls well. Obviously, with today’s next-generation sequencing technologies, we achieve a quantity and quality of data that would have been unattainable in years gone by.”

Speaking to the role played by bioinformatics and artificial intelligence in this research, Dr. Patiño explained that they are fairly new techniques. “In fact, these technologies could be thought of as spearheading a lot of the biomedical research being done today. They’ve also somewhat set the stage for the paradigm shift where the investigator asks the data a question, and in the case of artificial intelligence, it’s the data that answer.”
 

Pinpointing genetic differences

In his analysis of the most noteworthy data and conclusions from this research, Dr. Pérez noted, “The most significant thing we’ve seen is that both populations have genetic differences. This suggests that our hypothesis is correct. Of course, more studies including a larger number of individuals will be needed to confirm these findings. For the first time, our work has laid the foundation for developing this line of research.” 

“Many genetic variants that we have identified as differentials in cases and controls are found in genes relevant to the immune system (HLA system), in genes related to functional pathways that are often altered in tumor development, and in structural proteins and in genes related to cell mobility,” emphasized Dr. Patiño.

Many of the genetic characteristics that were discovered are located in genes with functions related to cancer development, such as immune response, repair of genetic material, regulation of inflammation, etc. This finding is highly significant, said Dr. Pérez. “However, we must remember that these phenotypes may be attributable to multiple causes, not just one cause.”

Furthermore, the specialist explained the next steps to be taken in the context of the line opened up by this research. “First, we must expand these studies, including more individuals with, if possible, even more extreme phenotypes: more smokers who are older and younger, respectively. Once the statistical evidence is stronger, we must also confirm that the alterations observed in lab-based studies truly impact gene function.”
 

Earlier diagnosis 

The clinician also discussed the potential ways that the conclusions of this study could be applied to clinical practice now and in the future, and how the conclusions could benefit these patients. “The results of our line of research may help in early identification of those individuals at high risk of developing lung cancer if they smoke, so that they could be included in prevention programs to keep them from smoking or to help them stop smoking,” said Dr. Pérez. “It would also allow for early diagnosis of cancer at a time when there is a much higher chance of curing it. 

“However, the most important thing is that our study may allow us to better understand the mechanisms by which cancer arises and especially why some people do not develop it. This [understanding] could lead to new diagnostic techniques and new treatments for this disease. The techniques needed to develop this line of research (bioinformatic mass sequencing and artificial intelligence) are available and becoming more reliable and more accessible every day. So, we believe our strategy is very realistic,” he added.

Although the line of research opened up by this study depicts a new scenario, the specialists still must face several challenges to discover why some smokers are more likely than others to develop lung cancer.

“There are many lines of research in this regard,” said Dr. Pérez. “But to name a few, I would draw attention to the need to increase the number of cases and controls to improve the comparison, study patients with other tumors related to tobacco use, ask new questions using the data we have already collected, and apply other genomic techniques that would allow us to perform additional studies of genetic variants that have not yet been studied. And, of course, we need to use functional studies to expand our understanding of the function and activity of the genes that have already been identified.” 

Dr. Patiño and Dr. Pérez declared that they have no relevant financial conflicts of interest.

This article was translated from the Medscape Spanish Edition. A version appeared on Medscape.com.

Smokers with extreme phenotypes of high and low risk of developing tobacco-associated lung cancer have different genetic profiles, according to a multidisciplinary study conducted by specialists from the Cancer Center at the University of Navarra Clinic (CUN). The results were presented at the annual meeting of the American Society for Clinical Oncology. 

Ana Patiño García, PhD, director of the genomic medicine unit at the CUN and a coordinator of the research, explained in an interview the main reason why this study was conducted. “This study came straight out of the oncology clinic, where we are constantly encountering patients with lung cancer who have never smoked or who have smoked very little, while we also all know people who have smoked a lot throughout their lifetime and have never developed cancer. This observation has led us to ask whether there are genetic factors that increase or decrease the risk of cancer and protect people against this disease.”

José Luis Pérez Gracia, MD, PhD, oncologist, coordinator of the oncology trials department at the CUN and another of the individuals responsible for this research, said: “This is the first study to validate genetic factors associated with people who appear to be resistant to developing tobacco-related lung cancer or who, on the other hand, are at high risk of developing this disease.”
 

Pioneering approach 

Earlier evidence showed that some smokers develop cancer, and others don’t. “This is a very well-known fact, since everyone knows about some elderly person who has been a heavy smoker and has never developed lung cancer,” said Dr. Pérez. “Unfortunately, we oncologists encounter young smokers who have been diagnosed with this disease. However, despite the importance of understanding the causes behind these phenotypes, it is a question that has never been studied from a genetic standpoint.”

The study was conducted using DNA from 133 heavy smokers who had not developed lung cancer at a mean age of 80 years, and from another 116 heavy smokers who had developed this type of cancer at a mean age of 50 years. This DNA was sequenced using next-generation techniques, and the results were analyzed using bioinformatics and artificial intelligence systems in collaboration with the University of Navarra Applied Medical Research Center and the University of Navarra School of Engineering.

When asked how this methodology could be applied to support other research conducted along these lines, Dr. Patiño said, “The most novel thing about this research is actually its approach. It’s based on groups at the extremes, defined by the patient’s age at the time of developing lung cancer and how much they had smoked. This type of comparative design is called extreme phenotypes, and its main distinguishing characteristic – which is also its most limiting characteristic – is choosing cases and controls well. Obviously, with today’s next-generation sequencing technologies, we achieve a quantity and quality of data that would have been unattainable in years gone by.”

Speaking to the role played by bioinformatics and artificial intelligence in this research, Dr. Patiño explained that they are fairly new techniques. “In fact, these technologies could be thought of as spearheading a lot of the biomedical research being done today. They’ve also somewhat set the stage for the paradigm shift where the investigator asks the data a question, and in the case of artificial intelligence, it’s the data that answer.”
 

Pinpointing genetic differences

In his analysis of the most noteworthy data and conclusions from this research, Dr. Pérez noted, “The most significant thing we’ve seen is that both populations have genetic differences. This suggests that our hypothesis is correct. Of course, more studies including a larger number of individuals will be needed to confirm these findings. For the first time, our work has laid the foundation for developing this line of research.” 

“Many genetic variants that we have identified as differentials in cases and controls are found in genes relevant to the immune system (HLA system), in genes related to functional pathways that are often altered in tumor development, and in structural proteins and in genes related to cell mobility,” emphasized Dr. Patiño.

Many of the genetic characteristics that were discovered are located in genes with functions related to cancer development, such as immune response, repair of genetic material, regulation of inflammation, etc. This finding is highly significant, said Dr. Pérez. “However, we must remember that these phenotypes may be attributable to multiple causes, not just one cause.”

Furthermore, the specialist explained the next steps to be taken in the context of the line opened up by this research. “First, we must expand these studies, including more individuals with, if possible, even more extreme phenotypes: more smokers who are older and younger, respectively. Once the statistical evidence is stronger, we must also confirm that the alterations observed in lab-based studies truly impact gene function.”
 

Earlier diagnosis 

The clinician also discussed the potential ways that the conclusions of this study could be applied to clinical practice now and in the future, and how the conclusions could benefit these patients. “The results of our line of research may help in early identification of those individuals at high risk of developing lung cancer if they smoke, so that they could be included in prevention programs to keep them from smoking or to help them stop smoking,” said Dr. Pérez. “It would also allow for early diagnosis of cancer at a time when there is a much higher chance of curing it. 

“However, the most important thing is that our study may allow us to better understand the mechanisms by which cancer arises and especially why some people do not develop it. This [understanding] could lead to new diagnostic techniques and new treatments for this disease. The techniques needed to develop this line of research (bioinformatic mass sequencing and artificial intelligence) are available and becoming more reliable and more accessible every day. So, we believe our strategy is very realistic,” he added.

Although the line of research opened up by this study depicts a new scenario, the specialists still must face several challenges to discover why some smokers are more likely than others to develop lung cancer.

“There are many lines of research in this regard,” said Dr. Pérez. “But to name a few, I would draw attention to the need to increase the number of cases and controls to improve the comparison, study patients with other tumors related to tobacco use, ask new questions using the data we have already collected, and apply other genomic techniques that would allow us to perform additional studies of genetic variants that have not yet been studied. And, of course, we need to use functional studies to expand our understanding of the function and activity of the genes that have already been identified.” 

Dr. Patiño and Dr. Pérez declared that they have no relevant financial conflicts of interest.

This article was translated from the Medscape Spanish Edition. A version appeared on Medscape.com.

Smokers with extreme phenotypes of high and low risk of developing tobacco-associated lung cancer have different genetic profiles, according to a multidisciplinary study conducted by specialists from the Cancer Center at the University of Navarra Clinic (CUN). The results were presented at the annual meeting of the American Society for Clinical Oncology. 

Ana Patiño García, PhD, director of the genomic medicine unit at the CUN and a coordinator of the research, explained in an interview the main reason why this study was conducted. “This study came straight out of the oncology clinic, where we are constantly encountering patients with lung cancer who have never smoked or who have smoked very little, while we also all know people who have smoked a lot throughout their lifetime and have never developed cancer. This observation has led us to ask whether there are genetic factors that increase or decrease the risk of cancer and protect people against this disease.”

José Luis Pérez Gracia, MD, PhD, oncologist, coordinator of the oncology trials department at the CUN and another of the individuals responsible for this research, said: “This is the first study to validate genetic factors associated with people who appear to be resistant to developing tobacco-related lung cancer or who, on the other hand, are at high risk of developing this disease.”
 

Pioneering approach 

Earlier evidence showed that some smokers develop cancer, and others don’t. “This is a very well-known fact, since everyone knows about some elderly person who has been a heavy smoker and has never developed lung cancer,” said Dr. Pérez. “Unfortunately, we oncologists encounter young smokers who have been diagnosed with this disease. However, despite the importance of understanding the causes behind these phenotypes, it is a question that has never been studied from a genetic standpoint.”

The study was conducted using DNA from 133 heavy smokers who had not developed lung cancer at a mean age of 80 years, and from another 116 heavy smokers who had developed this type of cancer at a mean age of 50 years. This DNA was sequenced using next-generation techniques, and the results were analyzed using bioinformatics and artificial intelligence systems in collaboration with the University of Navarra Applied Medical Research Center and the University of Navarra School of Engineering.

When asked how this methodology could be applied to support other research conducted along these lines, Dr. Patiño said, “The most novel thing about this research is actually its approach. It’s based on groups at the extremes, defined by the patient’s age at the time of developing lung cancer and how much they had smoked. This type of comparative design is called extreme phenotypes, and its main distinguishing characteristic – which is also its most limiting characteristic – is choosing cases and controls well. Obviously, with today’s next-generation sequencing technologies, we achieve a quantity and quality of data that would have been unattainable in years gone by.”

Speaking to the role played by bioinformatics and artificial intelligence in this research, Dr. Patiño explained that they are fairly new techniques. “In fact, these technologies could be thought of as spearheading a lot of the biomedical research being done today. They’ve also somewhat set the stage for the paradigm shift where the investigator asks the data a question, and in the case of artificial intelligence, it’s the data that answer.”
 

Pinpointing genetic differences

In his analysis of the most noteworthy data and conclusions from this research, Dr. Pérez noted, “The most significant thing we’ve seen is that both populations have genetic differences. This suggests that our hypothesis is correct. Of course, more studies including a larger number of individuals will be needed to confirm these findings. For the first time, our work has laid the foundation for developing this line of research.” 

“Many genetic variants that we have identified as differentials in cases and controls are found in genes relevant to the immune system (HLA system), in genes related to functional pathways that are often altered in tumor development, and in structural proteins and in genes related to cell mobility,” emphasized Dr. Patiño.

Many of the genetic characteristics that were discovered are located in genes with functions related to cancer development, such as immune response, repair of genetic material, regulation of inflammation, etc. This finding is highly significant, said Dr. Pérez. “However, we must remember that these phenotypes may be attributable to multiple causes, not just one cause.”

Furthermore, the specialist explained the next steps to be taken in the context of the line opened up by this research. “First, we must expand these studies, including more individuals with, if possible, even more extreme phenotypes: more smokers who are older and younger, respectively. Once the statistical evidence is stronger, we must also confirm that the alterations observed in lab-based studies truly impact gene function.”
 

Earlier diagnosis 

The clinician also discussed the potential ways that the conclusions of this study could be applied to clinical practice now and in the future, and how the conclusions could benefit these patients. “The results of our line of research may help in early identification of those individuals at high risk of developing lung cancer if they smoke, so that they could be included in prevention programs to keep them from smoking or to help them stop smoking,” said Dr. Pérez. “It would also allow for early diagnosis of cancer at a time when there is a much higher chance of curing it. 

“However, the most important thing is that our study may allow us to better understand the mechanisms by which cancer arises and especially why some people do not develop it. This [understanding] could lead to new diagnostic techniques and new treatments for this disease. The techniques needed to develop this line of research (bioinformatic mass sequencing and artificial intelligence) are available and becoming more reliable and more accessible every day. So, we believe our strategy is very realistic,” he added.

Although the line of research opened up by this study depicts a new scenario, the specialists still must face several challenges to discover why some smokers are more likely than others to develop lung cancer.

“There are many lines of research in this regard,” said Dr. Pérez. “But to name a few, I would draw attention to the need to increase the number of cases and controls to improve the comparison, study patients with other tumors related to tobacco use, ask new questions using the data we have already collected, and apply other genomic techniques that would allow us to perform additional studies of genetic variants that have not yet been studied. And, of course, we need to use functional studies to expand our understanding of the function and activity of the genes that have already been identified.” 

Dr. Patiño and Dr. Pérez declared that they have no relevant financial conflicts of interest.

This article was translated from the Medscape Spanish Edition. A version appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Most women with breast cancer who received scalp cooling did not perceive benefits in preventing hair loss, overall quality of life, body image, and other outcomes, compared with those who opted to forgo scalp cooling.

METHODOLOGY:

• Although studies have demonstrated the effectiveness of scalp cooling to reduce hair loss during breast cancer chemotherapy, most were in the setting of single-agent regimens instead of much more commonly used combined chemotherapy, and few studies assessed patients’ subjective experience.
• To get a real-world sense of the treatment, investigators compared outcomes in 75 women who opted to use the Orbis Paxman cooling cap during taxane/anthracycline-based chemotherapy sessions with 38 women with breast cancer patients who declined to use the cooling cap.
• The women were surveyed for hair loss perception, functional health, and body image at baseline, midchemotherapy, and at their last chemotherapy cycle, as well as at 3 months and 6-9 months following chemotherapy.
• The women were treated at the Medical University of Innsbruck, Austria, for various stages of breast cancer; about half were premenopausal.

TAKEAWAY:

• There was no significant difference between the scalp-cooling and control groups in patient-reported hair loss (P = .831), overall quality of life (P = .627), emotional functioning (P = .737), social functioning (P = .635), and body image (P = .463).
• On average, women stayed on treatment with the cooling cap for about 40% of the duration of their chemotherapy.
• Overall, 53 of 75 women (70.7%) stopped scalp cooling early, with most (73.9%) citing alopecia as the primary reason; only 30% completed treatment.

IN PRACTICE:

“The efficacy and tolerability of [scalp cooling] applied in a clinical routine setting ... appeared to be limited,” the authors concluded. “The further determination and up-front definition of criteria prognostic for effectiveness of [scalp cooling] may be helpful to identify patient subgroups that may experience a treatment benefit.”

SOURCE:

The work, led by Christine Brunner, Medical University of Innsbruck, Austria, was published in Breast Cancer: Targets and Therapy.

LIMITATIONS:

• Shorter intervals between surveys might have given a more granular understanding of patients’ experiences with scalp cooling.
• There were no biomarker assessments to help identify patients more likely to benefit.

DISCLOSURES:

The work was supported by the Medical University of Innsbruck. Dr. Brunner disclosed a grant from Paxman UK, maker of the cooling cap used in the study. Another investigator disclosed personal fees from AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Gilead, Lilly, Novartis, and Sirius.

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

TOPLINE:

Most women with breast cancer who received scalp cooling did not perceive benefits in preventing hair loss, overall quality of life, body image, and other outcomes, compared with those who opted to forgo scalp cooling.

METHODOLOGY:

• Although studies have demonstrated the effectiveness of scalp cooling to reduce hair loss during breast cancer chemotherapy, most were in the setting of single-agent regimens instead of much more commonly used combined chemotherapy, and few studies assessed patients’ subjective experience.
• To get a real-world sense of the treatment, investigators compared outcomes in 75 women who opted to use the Orbis Paxman cooling cap during taxane/anthracycline-based chemotherapy sessions with 38 women with breast cancer patients who declined to use the cooling cap.
• The women were surveyed for hair loss perception, functional health, and body image at baseline, midchemotherapy, and at their last chemotherapy cycle, as well as at 3 months and 6-9 months following chemotherapy.
• The women were treated at the Medical University of Innsbruck, Austria, for various stages of breast cancer; about half were premenopausal.

TAKEAWAY:

• There was no significant difference between the scalp-cooling and control groups in patient-reported hair loss (P = .831), overall quality of life (P = .627), emotional functioning (P = .737), social functioning (P = .635), and body image (P = .463).
• On average, women stayed on treatment with the cooling cap for about 40% of the duration of their chemotherapy.
• Overall, 53 of 75 women (70.7%) stopped scalp cooling early, with most (73.9%) citing alopecia as the primary reason; only 30% completed treatment.

IN PRACTICE:

“The efficacy and tolerability of [scalp cooling] applied in a clinical routine setting ... appeared to be limited,” the authors concluded. “The further determination and up-front definition of criteria prognostic for effectiveness of [scalp cooling] may be helpful to identify patient subgroups that may experience a treatment benefit.”

SOURCE:

The work, led by Christine Brunner, Medical University of Innsbruck, Austria, was published in Breast Cancer: Targets and Therapy.

LIMITATIONS:

• Shorter intervals between surveys might have given a more granular understanding of patients’ experiences with scalp cooling.
• There were no biomarker assessments to help identify patients more likely to benefit.

DISCLOSURES:

The work was supported by the Medical University of Innsbruck. Dr. Brunner disclosed a grant from Paxman UK, maker of the cooling cap used in the study. Another investigator disclosed personal fees from AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Gilead, Lilly, Novartis, and Sirius.

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

TOPLINE:

Most women with breast cancer who received scalp cooling did not perceive benefits in preventing hair loss, overall quality of life, body image, and other outcomes, compared with those who opted to forgo scalp cooling.

METHODOLOGY:

• Although studies have demonstrated the effectiveness of scalp cooling to reduce hair loss during breast cancer chemotherapy, most were in the setting of single-agent regimens instead of much more commonly used combined chemotherapy, and few studies assessed patients’ subjective experience.
• To get a real-world sense of the treatment, investigators compared outcomes in 75 women who opted to use the Orbis Paxman cooling cap during taxane/anthracycline-based chemotherapy sessions with 38 women with breast cancer patients who declined to use the cooling cap.
• The women were surveyed for hair loss perception, functional health, and body image at baseline, midchemotherapy, and at their last chemotherapy cycle, as well as at 3 months and 6-9 months following chemotherapy.
• The women were treated at the Medical University of Innsbruck, Austria, for various stages of breast cancer; about half were premenopausal.

TAKEAWAY:

• There was no significant difference between the scalp-cooling and control groups in patient-reported hair loss (P = .831), overall quality of life (P = .627), emotional functioning (P = .737), social functioning (P = .635), and body image (P = .463).
• On average, women stayed on treatment with the cooling cap for about 40% of the duration of their chemotherapy.
• Overall, 53 of 75 women (70.7%) stopped scalp cooling early, with most (73.9%) citing alopecia as the primary reason; only 30% completed treatment.

IN PRACTICE:

“The efficacy and tolerability of [scalp cooling] applied in a clinical routine setting ... appeared to be limited,” the authors concluded. “The further determination and up-front definition of criteria prognostic for effectiveness of [scalp cooling] may be helpful to identify patient subgroups that may experience a treatment benefit.”

SOURCE:

The work, led by Christine Brunner, Medical University of Innsbruck, Austria, was published in Breast Cancer: Targets and Therapy.

LIMITATIONS:

• Shorter intervals between surveys might have given a more granular understanding of patients’ experiences with scalp cooling.
• There were no biomarker assessments to help identify patients more likely to benefit.

DISCLOSURES:

The work was supported by the Medical University of Innsbruck. Dr. Brunner disclosed a grant from Paxman UK, maker of the cooling cap used in the study. Another investigator disclosed personal fees from AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Gilead, Lilly, Novartis, and Sirius.

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

A new interim analysis of a large randomized, phase 3 trial provides more evidence that a combination of ibrutinib and rituximab is a better option for younger patients with untreated chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) than the once-standard combination of fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab (FCR).

The analysis of the open-label FLAIR trial, published in The Lancet Oncology, tracked 771 patients with CLL for a median follow-up of 53 months (interquartile ratio, 41-61 months) and found that median progression-free survival was not reached with ibrutinib/rituximab versus 67 months with FCR (hazard ratio, 0.44, P < .0001).

“This paper is another confirmation to say that Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitors are more powerful than even our strongest chemoimmunotherapy. That’s very reassuring,” said hematologist/oncologist Jan A. Burger, MD, PhD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, in an interview. He did not take part in the analysis but is familiar with its findings.

There are caveats to the study. More patients in the ibrutinib/rituximab arm died of cardiac events, possibly reflecting a known risk of those drugs. And for unclear reasons, there was no difference in overall survival – a secondary endpoint – between the groups. The study authors speculate that this may be because some patients on FCR progressed and turned to effective second-line drugs.

Still, the findings are consistent with the landmark E1912 trial, the authors wrote, and adds “to a body of evidence that suggests that the use of ibrutinib-based regimens should be considered for patients with previously untreated CLL, especially those with IGHV-unmutated CLL.”

The study, partially funded by industry, was led by Peter Hillmen, PhD, of Leeds (England) Cancer Center.

According to Dr. Burger, FCR was the standard treatment for younger, fitter patients with CLL about 10-15 years ago. Then Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitors such as ibrutinib entered the picture. But, as the new report notes, initial studies focused on older patients who weren’t considered fit enough to tolerate FCR.

The new study, like the E1912 trial, aimed to compare ibrutinib-rituximab versus FCR in younger, fitter patients.

From 2014 to 2018, researchers assigned 771 patients (median age, 62 years; IQR 56-67; 73% male; 95% White; 66% with World Health Organization performance status, 0) to FCR (n = 385) or ibrutinib/rituximab (n = 386).

Nearly three-quarters (74%) in the FCR group received six cycles of therapy, and 97% of those in the ibrutinib-rituximab group received six cycles of rituximab. Those in the ibrutinib-rituximab group also received daily doses of ibrutinib. Doses could be modified. The data cutoff was May 24, 2021.

Notably, there was no improvement in overall survival in the ibrutinib/rituximab group: 92.1% of patients lived 4 years versus 93.5% in the FCR group. This contrasts with an improvement in overall survival in the earlier E1912 study in the ibrutinib/rituximab group.

However, the study authors noted that overall survival in the FCR group is higher than in earlier studies, perhaps reflecting the wider availability of targeted therapy. The final study analysis will offer more insight into overall survival.

In an interview, hematologist David A. Bond, MD, of Ohio State University, Columbus, who is familiar with the study findings, said “the lack of an improvement in overall survival could be due to differences in available treatments at relapse, as the FLAIR study was conducted more recently than the prior E1912 study.” He added that “the younger ages in the E1912 study may have led to less risk for cardiovascular events or deaths for the patients treated with ibrutinib in the E1912 study.”

The previous E1912 trial showed a larger effect for ibrutinib/rituximab versus FCR on progression-free survival (HR, 0.37, P < .001 for E1912 and HR, 0.44, P< .0001 for the FLAIR trial). However, the study authors noted that FLAIR trial had older subjects (mean age, 62 vs 56.7 in the E1912 trial.)

As for grade 3 or 4 adverse events, leukopenia was most common in the FCR group (n = 203, 54%), compared with the ibrutinib/rituximab group (n = 55, 14%). Serious adverse events were reported in 205 (53%) of patients in the ibrutinib/rituximab group versus 203 (54%) patients in the FCR group.

All-cause infections, myelodysplastic syndrome, acute myeloid leukemia, Richter’s transformation, and other diagnosed cancers were rare but more common in the FCR group. Deaths from COVID-19 were the same at 3 in each group; 2 of 29 deaths in the FCR group and 3 of 30 deaths in the ibrutinib/rituximab group were considered to be likely linked to treatment.

Sudden unexplained or cardiac deaths were more common in the ibrutinib-rituximab group (n = 8, 2%) vs. the FCR group (n = 2, less than 1%).

Dr. Bond said “one of the takeaways for practicing hematologists from the FLAIR study is that cardiovascular complications and sudden cardiac death are clearly an issue for older patients with hypertension treated with ibrutinib. Patients should be monitored for signs or symptoms of cardiovascular disease and have close management of blood pressure.” 

Dr. Burger also noted that cardiac problems are a known risk of ibrutinib. “Fortunately, we have second-generation Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitors that could be chosen for patients when we are worried about side effects.”

He said that chemotherapy remains the preferred – or only – treatment in some parts of the world. And patients may prefer FCR to ibrutinib because of the latter drug’s side effects or a preference for therapy that doesn’t take as long.

The study was funded by Cancer Research UK and Janssen. The study authors reported relationships with companies such as Lilly, Janssen, AbbVie, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Gilead, and many others. Dr. Burger reports financial support for clinical trials from Pharmacyclics, AstraZeneca, Biogen, and Janssen. Dr. Bond reported no disclosures.

A new interim analysis of a large randomized, phase 3 trial provides more evidence that a combination of ibrutinib and rituximab is a better option for younger patients with untreated chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) than the once-standard combination of fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab (FCR).

The analysis of the open-label FLAIR trial, published in The Lancet Oncology, tracked 771 patients with CLL for a median follow-up of 53 months (interquartile ratio, 41-61 months) and found that median progression-free survival was not reached with ibrutinib/rituximab versus 67 months with FCR (hazard ratio, 0.44, P < .0001).

“This paper is another confirmation to say that Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitors are more powerful than even our strongest chemoimmunotherapy. That’s very reassuring,” said hematologist/oncologist Jan A. Burger, MD, PhD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, in an interview. He did not take part in the analysis but is familiar with its findings.

There are caveats to the study. More patients in the ibrutinib/rituximab arm died of cardiac events, possibly reflecting a known risk of those drugs. And for unclear reasons, there was no difference in overall survival – a secondary endpoint – between the groups. The study authors speculate that this may be because some patients on FCR progressed and turned to effective second-line drugs.

Still, the findings are consistent with the landmark E1912 trial, the authors wrote, and adds “to a body of evidence that suggests that the use of ibrutinib-based regimens should be considered for patients with previously untreated CLL, especially those with IGHV-unmutated CLL.”

The study, partially funded by industry, was led by Peter Hillmen, PhD, of Leeds (England) Cancer Center.

According to Dr. Burger, FCR was the standard treatment for younger, fitter patients with CLL about 10-15 years ago. Then Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitors such as ibrutinib entered the picture. But, as the new report notes, initial studies focused on older patients who weren’t considered fit enough to tolerate FCR.

The new study, like the E1912 trial, aimed to compare ibrutinib-rituximab versus FCR in younger, fitter patients.

From 2014 to 2018, researchers assigned 771 patients (median age, 62 years; IQR 56-67; 73% male; 95% White; 66% with World Health Organization performance status, 0) to FCR (n = 385) or ibrutinib/rituximab (n = 386).

Nearly three-quarters (74%) in the FCR group received six cycles of therapy, and 97% of those in the ibrutinib-rituximab group received six cycles of rituximab. Those in the ibrutinib-rituximab group also received daily doses of ibrutinib. Doses could be modified. The data cutoff was May 24, 2021.

Notably, there was no improvement in overall survival in the ibrutinib/rituximab group: 92.1% of patients lived 4 years versus 93.5% in the FCR group. This contrasts with an improvement in overall survival in the earlier E1912 study in the ibrutinib/rituximab group.

However, the study authors noted that overall survival in the FCR group is higher than in earlier studies, perhaps reflecting the wider availability of targeted therapy. The final study analysis will offer more insight into overall survival.

In an interview, hematologist David A. Bond, MD, of Ohio State University, Columbus, who is familiar with the study findings, said “the lack of an improvement in overall survival could be due to differences in available treatments at relapse, as the FLAIR study was conducted more recently than the prior E1912 study.” He added that “the younger ages in the E1912 study may have led to less risk for cardiovascular events or deaths for the patients treated with ibrutinib in the E1912 study.”

The previous E1912 trial showed a larger effect for ibrutinib/rituximab versus FCR on progression-free survival (HR, 0.37, P < .001 for E1912 and HR, 0.44, P< .0001 for the FLAIR trial). However, the study authors noted that FLAIR trial had older subjects (mean age, 62 vs 56.7 in the E1912 trial.)

As for grade 3 or 4 adverse events, leukopenia was most common in the FCR group (n = 203, 54%), compared with the ibrutinib/rituximab group (n = 55, 14%). Serious adverse events were reported in 205 (53%) of patients in the ibrutinib/rituximab group versus 203 (54%) patients in the FCR group.

All-cause infections, myelodysplastic syndrome, acute myeloid leukemia, Richter’s transformation, and other diagnosed cancers were rare but more common in the FCR group. Deaths from COVID-19 were the same at 3 in each group; 2 of 29 deaths in the FCR group and 3 of 30 deaths in the ibrutinib/rituximab group were considered to be likely linked to treatment.

Sudden unexplained or cardiac deaths were more common in the ibrutinib-rituximab group (n = 8, 2%) vs. the FCR group (n = 2, less than 1%).

Dr. Bond said “one of the takeaways for practicing hematologists from the FLAIR study is that cardiovascular complications and sudden cardiac death are clearly an issue for older patients with hypertension treated with ibrutinib. Patients should be monitored for signs or symptoms of cardiovascular disease and have close management of blood pressure.” 

Dr. Burger also noted that cardiac problems are a known risk of ibrutinib. “Fortunately, we have second-generation Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitors that could be chosen for patients when we are worried about side effects.”

He said that chemotherapy remains the preferred – or only – treatment in some parts of the world. And patients may prefer FCR to ibrutinib because of the latter drug’s side effects or a preference for therapy that doesn’t take as long.

The study was funded by Cancer Research UK and Janssen. The study authors reported relationships with companies such as Lilly, Janssen, AbbVie, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Gilead, and many others. Dr. Burger reports financial support for clinical trials from Pharmacyclics, AstraZeneca, Biogen, and Janssen. Dr. Bond reported no disclosures.

A new interim analysis of a large randomized, phase 3 trial provides more evidence that a combination of ibrutinib and rituximab is a better option for younger patients with untreated chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) than the once-standard combination of fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab (FCR).

The analysis of the open-label FLAIR trial, published in The Lancet Oncology, tracked 771 patients with CLL for a median follow-up of 53 months (interquartile ratio, 41-61 months) and found that median progression-free survival was not reached with ibrutinib/rituximab versus 67 months with FCR (hazard ratio, 0.44, P < .0001).

“This paper is another confirmation to say that Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitors are more powerful than even our strongest chemoimmunotherapy. That’s very reassuring,” said hematologist/oncologist Jan A. Burger, MD, PhD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, in an interview. He did not take part in the analysis but is familiar with its findings.

There are caveats to the study. More patients in the ibrutinib/rituximab arm died of cardiac events, possibly reflecting a known risk of those drugs. And for unclear reasons, there was no difference in overall survival – a secondary endpoint – between the groups. The study authors speculate that this may be because some patients on FCR progressed and turned to effective second-line drugs.

Still, the findings are consistent with the landmark E1912 trial, the authors wrote, and adds “to a body of evidence that suggests that the use of ibrutinib-based regimens should be considered for patients with previously untreated CLL, especially those with IGHV-unmutated CLL.”

The study, partially funded by industry, was led by Peter Hillmen, PhD, of Leeds (England) Cancer Center.

According to Dr. Burger, FCR was the standard treatment for younger, fitter patients with CLL about 10-15 years ago. Then Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitors such as ibrutinib entered the picture. But, as the new report notes, initial studies focused on older patients who weren’t considered fit enough to tolerate FCR.

The new study, like the E1912 trial, aimed to compare ibrutinib-rituximab versus FCR in younger, fitter patients.

From 2014 to 2018, researchers assigned 771 patients (median age, 62 years; IQR 56-67; 73% male; 95% White; 66% with World Health Organization performance status, 0) to FCR (n = 385) or ibrutinib/rituximab (n = 386).

Nearly three-quarters (74%) in the FCR group received six cycles of therapy, and 97% of those in the ibrutinib-rituximab group received six cycles of rituximab. Those in the ibrutinib-rituximab group also received daily doses of ibrutinib. Doses could be modified. The data cutoff was May 24, 2021.

Notably, there was no improvement in overall survival in the ibrutinib/rituximab group: 92.1% of patients lived 4 years versus 93.5% in the FCR group. This contrasts with an improvement in overall survival in the earlier E1912 study in the ibrutinib/rituximab group.

However, the study authors noted that overall survival in the FCR group is higher than in earlier studies, perhaps reflecting the wider availability of targeted therapy. The final study analysis will offer more insight into overall survival.

In an interview, hematologist David A. Bond, MD, of Ohio State University, Columbus, who is familiar with the study findings, said “the lack of an improvement in overall survival could be due to differences in available treatments at relapse, as the FLAIR study was conducted more recently than the prior E1912 study.” He added that “the younger ages in the E1912 study may have led to less risk for cardiovascular events or deaths for the patients treated with ibrutinib in the E1912 study.”

The previous E1912 trial showed a larger effect for ibrutinib/rituximab versus FCR on progression-free survival (HR, 0.37, P < .001 for E1912 and HR, 0.44, P< .0001 for the FLAIR trial). However, the study authors noted that FLAIR trial had older subjects (mean age, 62 vs 56.7 in the E1912 trial.)

As for grade 3 or 4 adverse events, leukopenia was most common in the FCR group (n = 203, 54%), compared with the ibrutinib/rituximab group (n = 55, 14%). Serious adverse events were reported in 205 (53%) of patients in the ibrutinib/rituximab group versus 203 (54%) patients in the FCR group.

All-cause infections, myelodysplastic syndrome, acute myeloid leukemia, Richter’s transformation, and other diagnosed cancers were rare but more common in the FCR group. Deaths from COVID-19 were the same at 3 in each group; 2 of 29 deaths in the FCR group and 3 of 30 deaths in the ibrutinib/rituximab group were considered to be likely linked to treatment.

Sudden unexplained or cardiac deaths were more common in the ibrutinib-rituximab group (n = 8, 2%) vs. the FCR group (n = 2, less than 1%).

Dr. Bond said “one of the takeaways for practicing hematologists from the FLAIR study is that cardiovascular complications and sudden cardiac death are clearly an issue for older patients with hypertension treated with ibrutinib. Patients should be monitored for signs or symptoms of cardiovascular disease and have close management of blood pressure.” 

Dr. Burger also noted that cardiac problems are a known risk of ibrutinib. “Fortunately, we have second-generation Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitors that could be chosen for patients when we are worried about side effects.”

He said that chemotherapy remains the preferred – or only – treatment in some parts of the world. And patients may prefer FCR to ibrutinib because of the latter drug’s side effects or a preference for therapy that doesn’t take as long.

The study was funded by Cancer Research UK and Janssen. The study authors reported relationships with companies such as Lilly, Janssen, AbbVie, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Gilead, and many others. Dr. Burger reports financial support for clinical trials from Pharmacyclics, AstraZeneca, Biogen, and Janssen. Dr. Bond reported no disclosures.