Federal Practitioner

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Hello. It’s Mark Kris reporting back after attending the New York Lung Cancer Foundation Summit here in New York. A large amount of discussion went on, but as usual, I was most interested in the perioperative space.

In previous videos, I’ve talked about this ongoing discussion of whether you should operate and give adjuvant therapy or give neoadjuvant therapy, and I’ve addressed that already. One thing I want to bring up – and as we move off of that argument, which frankly doesn’t have an answer today, with neoadjuvant therapy, having all the data to support it – is what are the patterns of recurrence now that we have more successful systemic therapies, both targeted therapies and checkpoint inhibitors?

I was taught early on by my surgical mentors that the issue here was systemic control. While they could do very successful surgery to get high levels of local control, they could not control systemic disease. Sadly, the tools we had early on with chemotherapy were just not good enough. Suddenly, we have better tools to control systemic spread. In the past, the vast majority of occurrences were systemic; they’re now local.

What I think we need to do as a group of practitioners trying to deal with the problems getting in the way of curing our patients is look at what the issue is now. Frankly, the big issue now, as systemic therapy has controlled metastatic disease, is recurrence in the chest.

We give adjuvant osimertinib. Please remember what the numbers are. In the osimertinib arm, of the 11 recurrences reported in the European Society for Medical Oncology presentation a few years back, nine of them were in the chest or mediastinal nodes. In the arm that got no osimertinib afterward, there were 46 recurrences, and 32 of those 46 recurrences were in the chest, either the lung or mediastinal nodes. Therefore, 74% of the recurrences are suddenly in the chest. What’s the issue here?

The issue is we need to find strategies to give better disease control in the chest, as we have made inroads in controlling systemic disease with the targeted therapies in the endothelial growth factor receptor space, and very likely the checkpoint inhibitors, too, as that data kind of filters out. We need to think about how better to get local control.

I think rather than continue to get into this argument of neoadjuvant vs adjuvant, we should move to what’s really hurting our patients. Again, the data I quoted you was from the ADAURA trial, which was adjuvant therapy, and I’m sure the neoadjuvant is going to show the same thing. It’s better systemic therapy but now, more trouble in the chest.

How are we going to deal with that? I’d like to throw out one strategy, and that is to rethink the role of radiation in these patients. Again, if the problem is local in the chest, lung, and lymph nodes, we have to think about local therapy. Yes, we’re not recommending it routinely for everybody, but now that we have better systemic control, we need to rethink our options. The obvious one to rethink is about giving radiotherapy.

We should also use what we learned in the earlier trials, which is that there is harm in giving excessive radiation to the heart. If you avoid the heart, you avoid the harm. We have better planning strategies for stereotactic body radiotherapy and more traditional radiation, and of course, we have proton therapy as well.

As we continue to struggle with the idea of that patient with stage II or III disease, whether to give adjuvant vs neoadjuvant therapy, please remember to consider their risk in 2024. Their risk for first recurrence is in the chest.

What are we going to do to better control disease in the chest? We have a challenge. I’m sure we can meet it if we put our heads together.

Dr. Kris is professor of medicine at Weill Cornell Medical College, and attending physician, Thoracic Oncology Service, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York. He disclosed ties with AstraZeneca, Roche/Genentech, Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Pfizer, and PUMA.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Hello. It’s Mark Kris reporting back after attending the New York Lung Cancer Foundation Summit here in New York. A large amount of discussion went on, but as usual, I was most interested in the perioperative space.

In previous videos, I’ve talked about this ongoing discussion of whether you should operate and give adjuvant therapy or give neoadjuvant therapy, and I’ve addressed that already. One thing I want to bring up – and as we move off of that argument, which frankly doesn’t have an answer today, with neoadjuvant therapy, having all the data to support it – is what are the patterns of recurrence now that we have more successful systemic therapies, both targeted therapies and checkpoint inhibitors?

I was taught early on by my surgical mentors that the issue here was systemic control. While they could do very successful surgery to get high levels of local control, they could not control systemic disease. Sadly, the tools we had early on with chemotherapy were just not good enough. Suddenly, we have better tools to control systemic spread. In the past, the vast majority of occurrences were systemic; they’re now local.

What I think we need to do as a group of practitioners trying to deal with the problems getting in the way of curing our patients is look at what the issue is now. Frankly, the big issue now, as systemic therapy has controlled metastatic disease, is recurrence in the chest.

We give adjuvant osimertinib. Please remember what the numbers are. In the osimertinib arm, of the 11 recurrences reported in the European Society for Medical Oncology presentation a few years back, nine of them were in the chest or mediastinal nodes. In the arm that got no osimertinib afterward, there were 46 recurrences, and 32 of those 46 recurrences were in the chest, either the lung or mediastinal nodes. Therefore, 74% of the recurrences are suddenly in the chest. What’s the issue here?

The issue is we need to find strategies to give better disease control in the chest, as we have made inroads in controlling systemic disease with the targeted therapies in the endothelial growth factor receptor space, and very likely the checkpoint inhibitors, too, as that data kind of filters out. We need to think about how better to get local control.

I think rather than continue to get into this argument of neoadjuvant vs adjuvant, we should move to what’s really hurting our patients. Again, the data I quoted you was from the ADAURA trial, which was adjuvant therapy, and I’m sure the neoadjuvant is going to show the same thing. It’s better systemic therapy but now, more trouble in the chest.

How are we going to deal with that? I’d like to throw out one strategy, and that is to rethink the role of radiation in these patients. Again, if the problem is local in the chest, lung, and lymph nodes, we have to think about local therapy. Yes, we’re not recommending it routinely for everybody, but now that we have better systemic control, we need to rethink our options. The obvious one to rethink is about giving radiotherapy.

We should also use what we learned in the earlier trials, which is that there is harm in giving excessive radiation to the heart. If you avoid the heart, you avoid the harm. We have better planning strategies for stereotactic body radiotherapy and more traditional radiation, and of course, we have proton therapy as well.

As we continue to struggle with the idea of that patient with stage II or III disease, whether to give adjuvant vs neoadjuvant therapy, please remember to consider their risk in 2024. Their risk for first recurrence is in the chest.

What are we going to do to better control disease in the chest? We have a challenge. I’m sure we can meet it if we put our heads together.

Dr. Kris is professor of medicine at Weill Cornell Medical College, and attending physician, Thoracic Oncology Service, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York. He disclosed ties with AstraZeneca, Roche/Genentech, Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Pfizer, and PUMA.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Hello. It’s Mark Kris reporting back after attending the New York Lung Cancer Foundation Summit here in New York. A large amount of discussion went on, but as usual, I was most interested in the perioperative space.

In previous videos, I’ve talked about this ongoing discussion of whether you should operate and give adjuvant therapy or give neoadjuvant therapy, and I’ve addressed that already. One thing I want to bring up – and as we move off of that argument, which frankly doesn’t have an answer today, with neoadjuvant therapy, having all the data to support it – is what are the patterns of recurrence now that we have more successful systemic therapies, both targeted therapies and checkpoint inhibitors?

I was taught early on by my surgical mentors that the issue here was systemic control. While they could do very successful surgery to get high levels of local control, they could not control systemic disease. Sadly, the tools we had early on with chemotherapy were just not good enough. Suddenly, we have better tools to control systemic spread. In the past, the vast majority of occurrences were systemic; they’re now local.

What I think we need to do as a group of practitioners trying to deal with the problems getting in the way of curing our patients is look at what the issue is now. Frankly, the big issue now, as systemic therapy has controlled metastatic disease, is recurrence in the chest.

We give adjuvant osimertinib. Please remember what the numbers are. In the osimertinib arm, of the 11 recurrences reported in the European Society for Medical Oncology presentation a few years back, nine of them were in the chest or mediastinal nodes. In the arm that got no osimertinib afterward, there were 46 recurrences, and 32 of those 46 recurrences were in the chest, either the lung or mediastinal nodes. Therefore, 74% of the recurrences are suddenly in the chest. What’s the issue here?

The issue is we need to find strategies to give better disease control in the chest, as we have made inroads in controlling systemic disease with the targeted therapies in the endothelial growth factor receptor space, and very likely the checkpoint inhibitors, too, as that data kind of filters out. We need to think about how better to get local control.

I think rather than continue to get into this argument of neoadjuvant vs adjuvant, we should move to what’s really hurting our patients. Again, the data I quoted you was from the ADAURA trial, which was adjuvant therapy, and I’m sure the neoadjuvant is going to show the same thing. It’s better systemic therapy but now, more trouble in the chest.

How are we going to deal with that? I’d like to throw out one strategy, and that is to rethink the role of radiation in these patients. Again, if the problem is local in the chest, lung, and lymph nodes, we have to think about local therapy. Yes, we’re not recommending it routinely for everybody, but now that we have better systemic control, we need to rethink our options. The obvious one to rethink is about giving radiotherapy.

We should also use what we learned in the earlier trials, which is that there is harm in giving excessive radiation to the heart. If you avoid the heart, you avoid the harm. We have better planning strategies for stereotactic body radiotherapy and more traditional radiation, and of course, we have proton therapy as well.

As we continue to struggle with the idea of that patient with stage II or III disease, whether to give adjuvant vs neoadjuvant therapy, please remember to consider their risk in 2024. Their risk for first recurrence is in the chest.

What are we going to do to better control disease in the chest? We have a challenge. I’m sure we can meet it if we put our heads together.

Dr. Kris is professor of medicine at Weill Cornell Medical College, and attending physician, Thoracic Oncology Service, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York. He disclosed ties with AstraZeneca, Roche/Genentech, Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Pfizer, and PUMA.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

New and evolving research in locally advanced rectal cancer suggests that selective use of treatments in some patients can achieve outcomes similar to those of standard regimens, according to the chair of the Department of Radiation Oncology at Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina.

Total neoadjuvant therapy (TNT) is the standard treatment that involves systemic chemotherapy and radiation therapy before surgery for patients with locally advanced rectal cancer, Christopher G. Willett, MD, explained, in an interview. However, recent clinical trials support several strategies for “deintensification” of TNT for patients with locally advanced rectal cancer, he said.

Some patients may not require surgery or radiation therapy, or they may not require any treatment modalities including radiation therapy, chemotherapy, and surgery, Dr. Willett continued.

However, “these patients require close surveillance post treatment to identify any recurrence that may require salvage treatment,” he added.

During a presentation at the 2024 National Comprehensive Cancer Network Annual Conference, Dr. Willett primarily discussed the following three strategies for deintensifying overall therapy for locally advanced rectal cancer:

• Selective surgical omission for patients with rectal cancer having a complete clinical response after TNT with close surveillance following treatment.
• Selective omission of radiation therapy for patients with surgery such as sphincter-sparing surgery.
• Selective omission of all treatment modalities (radiation therapy, chemotherapy and surgery). 

Does Watch and Wait Work?

Selective surgical omission, also known as a “watch and wait” or nonoperative management (NOM), involves treating patients with chemotherapy or a combination of chemo and radiation therapy but without surgery, Dr. Willett said during his presentation at the meeting.

Data from the OPRA trial published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology showed that 36% of patients who started on NOM developed tumor regrowth, most of which occurred in the first 2-3 years. Five-year disease-free survival rates were similar in patients who had total mesorectal excision (TME) upfront and those who had salvage TME procedures after tumor regrowth (61% and 62%, respectively). An update to the OPRA trial showed that the clinical outcomes persisted, and the results suggest no significant differences in disease-free survival between upfront surgery vs. watch and wait, Dr. Willett said.
 

Does Selective Omission of Radiotherapy Work?

Selective omission of radiotherapy is another option for reducing the overall treatment burden in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer, Dr. Willett. For these patients, who are at relatively low risk for recurrence, radiation along with surgery may not be needed.

Data from the FOWARC trial, published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology in 2016 and 2019, included 495 patients from 15 centers in China. In the randomized trial, the researchers found no significant difference in the primary outcome of disease-free survival between patients assigned in a 1:1:1 ratio to three arms:

• FOLFOX chemotherapy alone (a combination of chemotherapy drugs including folinic acid, fluorouracil, and oxaliplatin).
• FOLFOX plus chemoradiation.
• FU (fluorouracil)/LV (leucovorin calcium) plus chemoradiation.

Although the data were ultimately inconclusive because of potential staging bias, the findings were “promising for recommending radiation omission in these patients,” Dr. Willett said.

The larger PROSPECT study published in The New England Journal of Medicine in 2023 was similarly encouraging, he said. In this trial, 1194 patients with locally advanced rectal cancer were randomized to FOLFOX or chemoradiation prior to sphincter-sparing surgery. The two groups showed similar 5-year estimated overall survival, complete resection (R0), and pathological complete response.

“These further data support the idea that we don’t need radiotherapy anymore,” Dr. Willett said.

PROSPECT was “a very well-done trial” that also showed important patient reported outcomes, he said. At 12 months after surgery, patients in the chemoradiation group had higher scores on fatigue and neuropathy measures, but less than 15% were severe. Sexual function scores for men and women were worse in the chemoradiation group, although overall health-related quality-of-life scores were not significantly different between the groups, he noted.
 

Does Dropping Everything But Immunotherapy Work?

Research is very preliminary, but a small study of 12 patients with mismatch repair-deficit (MMRd) locally advanced rectal cancer published in The New England Journal of Medicine “lends optimism” to a personalized treatment approach via a programmed death 1 (PD-1) blockade, Dr. Willett said. The “small, but impressive numbers” showed that all 12 patients treated with dostarlimab only (an anti-PD-1 monoclonal antibody) had durable disease control at a follow-up of 6-24 months.

This option is feasible for patients with MMRd locally advanced rectal cancer, Dr. Willett said in an interview. “Patients treated with only dostarlimab (a PD-1 inhibitor) had excellent outcomes and did not require radiation therapy, chemotherapy, and surgery. This is potentially a new paradigm of treatment for MMRd rectal cancer.”

What are the Clinical Implications and Next Steps?

Patients should be carefully evaluated and selected for treatment approaches by experienced multidisciplinary teams with vigilant posttreatment surveillance, including history and physical exam, endoscopy, computed tomography (CT) of the chest, and abdomen and pelvic magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), Dr. Willett said in the interview.

Data on the treatment of patients with MMRd rectal cancer using dostarlimab and other immune checkpoint inhibitors are preliminary; more patients and further follow-up are required, he said. This treatment is applicable to only 5%-10% of patients with rectal cancer, he continued.

“There is a need for biomarkers such as circulating tumor DNA to further aid in selection and monitoring of patients with rectal cancer,” Dr. Willett said.

Other preliminary research is examining circulating tumor DNA analysis to guide adjuvant treatment for patients with resected stage II colon cancer, he noted in his presentation. Currently, ctDNA-driven therapy is not recommended by the NCCN, but more research is needed to determine whether this strategy might be applied to decision-making in rectal cancer patients, especially with watch and wait/nonoperative strategies, he said.
 

What Are the Takeaways for Deintensifying Treatment of Rectal Cancer?

The global continuum of rectal cancer clinical trials has provided significant evidence that, for select patients, the deintensification of treatment strategies may result in the avoidance of radiation and even avoidance of surgery, which can profoundly improve long-term quality of life, Al B. Benson III, MD, said in an interview.

“A critical takeaway message for clinicians who are determining which individual patient might benefit from a less intensive regimen to treat locally advanced rectal cancer is to first have a multidisciplinary consensus which should encompass review of a rectal MRI, pathology, chest and abdominal imaging, colonoscopy, as well as the patient’s clinical status including comorbidities,” said Dr. Benson, who served as chair of the NCCN Guidelines Panel for Colon/Rectal/Anal Cancers and Small Intestine Adenocarcinoma.

“The location of the rectal tumor (distal versus proximal) and clinical TNM stage also will inform the discussion as to which of the potential total neoadjuvant therapy regimens would be most optimal to reduce the risk of local recurrence and maintain long-term quality of life for the individual patient,” explained Dr. Benson, professor of medicine at Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center of Northwestern University in Chicago.

The effectiveness of less intense treatment for rectal cancer remains a work in progress, Dr. Benson said in an interview. “There is much we still do not know, such as the optimal selection of patients and the durability of this approach over time.”

Patients who undergo watch and wait require intensive follow-up, including sigmoidoscopy, digital rectal exam, and rectal MRI, to detect any evidence of local recurrence that would warrant further intervention, including possible radiation and surgery, he said. A highly skilled multidisciplinary team is a must for individuals who are potential candidates for a less intense treatment regimen, he emphasized.  

The treatment of locally advanced rectal cancer continues to evolve, but there is no question that TNT has transformed patient outcomes, including the ability to deintensify treatment for select patients, Dr. Benson said. 

However, many research gaps remain, Dr. Benson said in an interview. “For the MSI/dMMR patient who has achieved a complete response from immunotherapy we will need more long-term data to determine the durability of a complete clinical response and long-term avoidance of other interventions including radiation, chemotherapy and surgery.

“The wait and watch strategy for the much more common MSS patient also will require much longer follow-up to determine which patients are destined to recur and which are not,” he added.

“The introduction of monitoring with ctDNA determination over time offers an opportunity to streamline surveillance of patients who have completed combination therapy and for those undergoing watch and wait; however, much more information is required to determine which of the various ctDNA assays are most optimal, and the frequency and duration of ctDNA determination that will lend this approach as a standard of care,” Dr. Benson said.

Dr. Willett and Dr. Benson had no financial conflicts to disclose.

New and evolving research in locally advanced rectal cancer suggests that selective use of treatments in some patients can achieve outcomes similar to those of standard regimens, according to the chair of the Department of Radiation Oncology at Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina.

Total neoadjuvant therapy (TNT) is the standard treatment that involves systemic chemotherapy and radiation therapy before surgery for patients with locally advanced rectal cancer, Christopher G. Willett, MD, explained, in an interview. However, recent clinical trials support several strategies for “deintensification” of TNT for patients with locally advanced rectal cancer, he said.

Some patients may not require surgery or radiation therapy, or they may not require any treatment modalities including radiation therapy, chemotherapy, and surgery, Dr. Willett continued.

However, “these patients require close surveillance post treatment to identify any recurrence that may require salvage treatment,” he added.

During a presentation at the 2024 National Comprehensive Cancer Network Annual Conference, Dr. Willett primarily discussed the following three strategies for deintensifying overall therapy for locally advanced rectal cancer:

• Selective surgical omission for patients with rectal cancer having a complete clinical response after TNT with close surveillance following treatment.
• Selective omission of radiation therapy for patients with surgery such as sphincter-sparing surgery.
• Selective omission of all treatment modalities (radiation therapy, chemotherapy and surgery). 

Does Watch and Wait Work?

Selective surgical omission, also known as a “watch and wait” or nonoperative management (NOM), involves treating patients with chemotherapy or a combination of chemo and radiation therapy but without surgery, Dr. Willett said during his presentation at the meeting.

Data from the OPRA trial published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology showed that 36% of patients who started on NOM developed tumor regrowth, most of which occurred in the first 2-3 years. Five-year disease-free survival rates were similar in patients who had total mesorectal excision (TME) upfront and those who had salvage TME procedures after tumor regrowth (61% and 62%, respectively). An update to the OPRA trial showed that the clinical outcomes persisted, and the results suggest no significant differences in disease-free survival between upfront surgery vs. watch and wait, Dr. Willett said.
 

Does Selective Omission of Radiotherapy Work?

Selective omission of radiotherapy is another option for reducing the overall treatment burden in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer, Dr. Willett. For these patients, who are at relatively low risk for recurrence, radiation along with surgery may not be needed.

Data from the FOWARC trial, published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology in 2016 and 2019, included 495 patients from 15 centers in China. In the randomized trial, the researchers found no significant difference in the primary outcome of disease-free survival between patients assigned in a 1:1:1 ratio to three arms:

• FOLFOX chemotherapy alone (a combination of chemotherapy drugs including folinic acid, fluorouracil, and oxaliplatin).
• FOLFOX plus chemoradiation.
• FU (fluorouracil)/LV (leucovorin calcium) plus chemoradiation.

Although the data were ultimately inconclusive because of potential staging bias, the findings were “promising for recommending radiation omission in these patients,” Dr. Willett said.

The larger PROSPECT study published in The New England Journal of Medicine in 2023 was similarly encouraging, he said. In this trial, 1194 patients with locally advanced rectal cancer were randomized to FOLFOX or chemoradiation prior to sphincter-sparing surgery. The two groups showed similar 5-year estimated overall survival, complete resection (R0), and pathological complete response.

“These further data support the idea that we don’t need radiotherapy anymore,” Dr. Willett said.

PROSPECT was “a very well-done trial” that also showed important patient reported outcomes, he said. At 12 months after surgery, patients in the chemoradiation group had higher scores on fatigue and neuropathy measures, but less than 15% were severe. Sexual function scores for men and women were worse in the chemoradiation group, although overall health-related quality-of-life scores were not significantly different between the groups, he noted.
 

Does Dropping Everything But Immunotherapy Work?

Research is very preliminary, but a small study of 12 patients with mismatch repair-deficit (MMRd) locally advanced rectal cancer published in The New England Journal of Medicine “lends optimism” to a personalized treatment approach via a programmed death 1 (PD-1) blockade, Dr. Willett said. The “small, but impressive numbers” showed that all 12 patients treated with dostarlimab only (an anti-PD-1 monoclonal antibody) had durable disease control at a follow-up of 6-24 months.

This option is feasible for patients with MMRd locally advanced rectal cancer, Dr. Willett said in an interview. “Patients treated with only dostarlimab (a PD-1 inhibitor) had excellent outcomes and did not require radiation therapy, chemotherapy, and surgery. This is potentially a new paradigm of treatment for MMRd rectal cancer.”

What are the Clinical Implications and Next Steps?

Patients should be carefully evaluated and selected for treatment approaches by experienced multidisciplinary teams with vigilant posttreatment surveillance, including history and physical exam, endoscopy, computed tomography (CT) of the chest, and abdomen and pelvic magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), Dr. Willett said in the interview.

Data on the treatment of patients with MMRd rectal cancer using dostarlimab and other immune checkpoint inhibitors are preliminary; more patients and further follow-up are required, he said. This treatment is applicable to only 5%-10% of patients with rectal cancer, he continued.

“There is a need for biomarkers such as circulating tumor DNA to further aid in selection and monitoring of patients with rectal cancer,” Dr. Willett said.

Other preliminary research is examining circulating tumor DNA analysis to guide adjuvant treatment for patients with resected stage II colon cancer, he noted in his presentation. Currently, ctDNA-driven therapy is not recommended by the NCCN, but more research is needed to determine whether this strategy might be applied to decision-making in rectal cancer patients, especially with watch and wait/nonoperative strategies, he said.
 

What Are the Takeaways for Deintensifying Treatment of Rectal Cancer?

The global continuum of rectal cancer clinical trials has provided significant evidence that, for select patients, the deintensification of treatment strategies may result in the avoidance of radiation and even avoidance of surgery, which can profoundly improve long-term quality of life, Al B. Benson III, MD, said in an interview.

“A critical takeaway message for clinicians who are determining which individual patient might benefit from a less intensive regimen to treat locally advanced rectal cancer is to first have a multidisciplinary consensus which should encompass review of a rectal MRI, pathology, chest and abdominal imaging, colonoscopy, as well as the patient’s clinical status including comorbidities,” said Dr. Benson, who served as chair of the NCCN Guidelines Panel for Colon/Rectal/Anal Cancers and Small Intestine Adenocarcinoma.

“The location of the rectal tumor (distal versus proximal) and clinical TNM stage also will inform the discussion as to which of the potential total neoadjuvant therapy regimens would be most optimal to reduce the risk of local recurrence and maintain long-term quality of life for the individual patient,” explained Dr. Benson, professor of medicine at Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center of Northwestern University in Chicago.

The effectiveness of less intense treatment for rectal cancer remains a work in progress, Dr. Benson said in an interview. “There is much we still do not know, such as the optimal selection of patients and the durability of this approach over time.”

Patients who undergo watch and wait require intensive follow-up, including sigmoidoscopy, digital rectal exam, and rectal MRI, to detect any evidence of local recurrence that would warrant further intervention, including possible radiation and surgery, he said. A highly skilled multidisciplinary team is a must for individuals who are potential candidates for a less intense treatment regimen, he emphasized.  

The treatment of locally advanced rectal cancer continues to evolve, but there is no question that TNT has transformed patient outcomes, including the ability to deintensify treatment for select patients, Dr. Benson said. 

However, many research gaps remain, Dr. Benson said in an interview. “For the MSI/dMMR patient who has achieved a complete response from immunotherapy we will need more long-term data to determine the durability of a complete clinical response and long-term avoidance of other interventions including radiation, chemotherapy and surgery.

“The wait and watch strategy for the much more common MSS patient also will require much longer follow-up to determine which patients are destined to recur and which are not,” he added.

“The introduction of monitoring with ctDNA determination over time offers an opportunity to streamline surveillance of patients who have completed combination therapy and for those undergoing watch and wait; however, much more information is required to determine which of the various ctDNA assays are most optimal, and the frequency and duration of ctDNA determination that will lend this approach as a standard of care,” Dr. Benson said.

Dr. Willett and Dr. Benson had no financial conflicts to disclose.

New and evolving research in locally advanced rectal cancer suggests that selective use of treatments in some patients can achieve outcomes similar to those of standard regimens, according to the chair of the Department of Radiation Oncology at Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina.

Total neoadjuvant therapy (TNT) is the standard treatment that involves systemic chemotherapy and radiation therapy before surgery for patients with locally advanced rectal cancer, Christopher G. Willett, MD, explained, in an interview. However, recent clinical trials support several strategies for “deintensification” of TNT for patients with locally advanced rectal cancer, he said.

Some patients may not require surgery or radiation therapy, or they may not require any treatment modalities including radiation therapy, chemotherapy, and surgery, Dr. Willett continued.

However, “these patients require close surveillance post treatment to identify any recurrence that may require salvage treatment,” he added.

During a presentation at the 2024 National Comprehensive Cancer Network Annual Conference, Dr. Willett primarily discussed the following three strategies for deintensifying overall therapy for locally advanced rectal cancer:

• Selective surgical omission for patients with rectal cancer having a complete clinical response after TNT with close surveillance following treatment.
• Selective omission of radiation therapy for patients with surgery such as sphincter-sparing surgery.
• Selective omission of all treatment modalities (radiation therapy, chemotherapy and surgery). 

Does Watch and Wait Work?

Selective surgical omission, also known as a “watch and wait” or nonoperative management (NOM), involves treating patients with chemotherapy or a combination of chemo and radiation therapy but without surgery, Dr. Willett said during his presentation at the meeting.

Data from the OPRA trial published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology showed that 36% of patients who started on NOM developed tumor regrowth, most of which occurred in the first 2-3 years. Five-year disease-free survival rates were similar in patients who had total mesorectal excision (TME) upfront and those who had salvage TME procedures after tumor regrowth (61% and 62%, respectively). An update to the OPRA trial showed that the clinical outcomes persisted, and the results suggest no significant differences in disease-free survival between upfront surgery vs. watch and wait, Dr. Willett said.
 

Does Selective Omission of Radiotherapy Work?

Selective omission of radiotherapy is another option for reducing the overall treatment burden in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer, Dr. Willett. For these patients, who are at relatively low risk for recurrence, radiation along with surgery may not be needed.

Data from the FOWARC trial, published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology in 2016 and 2019, included 495 patients from 15 centers in China. In the randomized trial, the researchers found no significant difference in the primary outcome of disease-free survival between patients assigned in a 1:1:1 ratio to three arms:

• FOLFOX chemotherapy alone (a combination of chemotherapy drugs including folinic acid, fluorouracil, and oxaliplatin).
• FOLFOX plus chemoradiation.
• FU (fluorouracil)/LV (leucovorin calcium) plus chemoradiation.

Although the data were ultimately inconclusive because of potential staging bias, the findings were “promising for recommending radiation omission in these patients,” Dr. Willett said.

The larger PROSPECT study published in The New England Journal of Medicine in 2023 was similarly encouraging, he said. In this trial, 1194 patients with locally advanced rectal cancer were randomized to FOLFOX or chemoradiation prior to sphincter-sparing surgery. The two groups showed similar 5-year estimated overall survival, complete resection (R0), and pathological complete response.

“These further data support the idea that we don’t need radiotherapy anymore,” Dr. Willett said.

PROSPECT was “a very well-done trial” that also showed important patient reported outcomes, he said. At 12 months after surgery, patients in the chemoradiation group had higher scores on fatigue and neuropathy measures, but less than 15% were severe. Sexual function scores for men and women were worse in the chemoradiation group, although overall health-related quality-of-life scores were not significantly different between the groups, he noted.
 

Does Dropping Everything But Immunotherapy Work?

Research is very preliminary, but a small study of 12 patients with mismatch repair-deficit (MMRd) locally advanced rectal cancer published in The New England Journal of Medicine “lends optimism” to a personalized treatment approach via a programmed death 1 (PD-1) blockade, Dr. Willett said. The “small, but impressive numbers” showed that all 12 patients treated with dostarlimab only (an anti-PD-1 monoclonal antibody) had durable disease control at a follow-up of 6-24 months.

This option is feasible for patients with MMRd locally advanced rectal cancer, Dr. Willett said in an interview. “Patients treated with only dostarlimab (a PD-1 inhibitor) had excellent outcomes and did not require radiation therapy, chemotherapy, and surgery. This is potentially a new paradigm of treatment for MMRd rectal cancer.”

What are the Clinical Implications and Next Steps?

Patients should be carefully evaluated and selected for treatment approaches by experienced multidisciplinary teams with vigilant posttreatment surveillance, including history and physical exam, endoscopy, computed tomography (CT) of the chest, and abdomen and pelvic magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), Dr. Willett said in the interview.

Data on the treatment of patients with MMRd rectal cancer using dostarlimab and other immune checkpoint inhibitors are preliminary; more patients and further follow-up are required, he said. This treatment is applicable to only 5%-10% of patients with rectal cancer, he continued.

“There is a need for biomarkers such as circulating tumor DNA to further aid in selection and monitoring of patients with rectal cancer,” Dr. Willett said.

Other preliminary research is examining circulating tumor DNA analysis to guide adjuvant treatment for patients with resected stage II colon cancer, he noted in his presentation. Currently, ctDNA-driven therapy is not recommended by the NCCN, but more research is needed to determine whether this strategy might be applied to decision-making in rectal cancer patients, especially with watch and wait/nonoperative strategies, he said.
 

What Are the Takeaways for Deintensifying Treatment of Rectal Cancer?

The global continuum of rectal cancer clinical trials has provided significant evidence that, for select patients, the deintensification of treatment strategies may result in the avoidance of radiation and even avoidance of surgery, which can profoundly improve long-term quality of life, Al B. Benson III, MD, said in an interview.

“A critical takeaway message for clinicians who are determining which individual patient might benefit from a less intensive regimen to treat locally advanced rectal cancer is to first have a multidisciplinary consensus which should encompass review of a rectal MRI, pathology, chest and abdominal imaging, colonoscopy, as well as the patient’s clinical status including comorbidities,” said Dr. Benson, who served as chair of the NCCN Guidelines Panel for Colon/Rectal/Anal Cancers and Small Intestine Adenocarcinoma.

“The location of the rectal tumor (distal versus proximal) and clinical TNM stage also will inform the discussion as to which of the potential total neoadjuvant therapy regimens would be most optimal to reduce the risk of local recurrence and maintain long-term quality of life for the individual patient,” explained Dr. Benson, professor of medicine at Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center of Northwestern University in Chicago.

The effectiveness of less intense treatment for rectal cancer remains a work in progress, Dr. Benson said in an interview. “There is much we still do not know, such as the optimal selection of patients and the durability of this approach over time.”

Patients who undergo watch and wait require intensive follow-up, including sigmoidoscopy, digital rectal exam, and rectal MRI, to detect any evidence of local recurrence that would warrant further intervention, including possible radiation and surgery, he said. A highly skilled multidisciplinary team is a must for individuals who are potential candidates for a less intense treatment regimen, he emphasized.  

The treatment of locally advanced rectal cancer continues to evolve, but there is no question that TNT has transformed patient outcomes, including the ability to deintensify treatment for select patients, Dr. Benson said. 

However, many research gaps remain, Dr. Benson said in an interview. “For the MSI/dMMR patient who has achieved a complete response from immunotherapy we will need more long-term data to determine the durability of a complete clinical response and long-term avoidance of other interventions including radiation, chemotherapy and surgery.

“The wait and watch strategy for the much more common MSS patient also will require much longer follow-up to determine which patients are destined to recur and which are not,” he added.

“The introduction of monitoring with ctDNA determination over time offers an opportunity to streamline surveillance of patients who have completed combination therapy and for those undergoing watch and wait; however, much more information is required to determine which of the various ctDNA assays are most optimal, and the frequency and duration of ctDNA determination that will lend this approach as a standard of care,” Dr. Benson said.

Dr. Willett and Dr. Benson had no financial conflicts to disclose.

With all the excitement about GLP-1 agonists, I get many questions from providers about which antiobesity drug they should prescribe. I’ll tell you the methods that I use to determine which drug is best for which patient.

Of course, we want to make sure that we’re treating the right condition. If the patient has type 2 diabetes, we tend to give them medication that is indicated for type 2 diabetes. Many GLP-1 agonists are available in a diabetes version and a chronic weight management or obesity version. If a patient has diabetes and obesity, they can receive either one. If a patient has only diabetes but not obesity, they should be prescribed the diabetes version. For obesity without diabetes, we tend to stick with the drugs that are indicated for chronic weight management.

Let’s go through them.

Exenatide. In chronological order of approval, the first GLP-1 drug that was used for diabetes dates back to exenatide (Bydureon). Bydureon had a partner called Byetta (also exenatide), both of which are still on the market but infrequently used. Some patients reported that these medications were inconvenient because they required twice-daily injections and caused painful injection-site nodules.

Diabetes drugs in more common use include liraglutide (Victoza) for type 2 diabetes. It is a daily injection and has various doses. We always start low and increase with tolerance and desired effect for A1c.

Liraglutide. Victoza has an antiobesity counterpart called Saxenda. The Saxenda pen looks very similar to the Victoza pen. It is a daily GLP-1 agonist for chronic weight management. The SCALE trial demonstrated 8%-12% weight loss with Saxenda.

Those are the daily injections: Victoza for diabetes and Saxenda for weight loss.

Our patients are very excited about the advent of weekly injections for diabetes and weight management. Ozempic is very popular. It is a weekly GLP-1 agonist for type 2 diabetes. Many patients come in asking for Ozempic, and we must make sure that we’re moving them in the right direction depending on their condition.

Semaglutide. Ozempic has a few different doses. It is a weekly injection and has been found to be quite efficacious for treating diabetes. The drug’s weight loss counterpart is called Wegovy, which comes in a different pen. Both forms contain the compound semaglutide. While all of these GLP-1 agonists are indicated to treat type 2 diabetes or for weight management, Wegovy has a special indication that none of the others have. In March 2024, Wegovy acquired an indication to decrease cardiac risk in those with a BMI ≥ 27 and a previous cardiac history. This will really change the accessibility of this medication because patients with heart conditions who are on Medicare are expected to have access to Wegovy.

Tirzepatide. Another weekly injection for treatment of type 2 diabetes is called Mounjaro. Its counterpart for weight management is called Zepbound, which was found to have about 20.9% weight loss over 72 weeks. These medications have similar side effects in differing degrees, but the most-often reported are nausea, stool changes, abdominal pain, and reflux. There are some other potential side effects; I recommend that you read the individual prescribing information available for each drug to have more clarity about that.

It is important that we stay on label for using the GLP-1 receptor agonists, for many reasons. One, it increases our patients’ accessibility to the right medication for them, and we can also make sure that we’re treating the patient with the right drug according to the clinical trials. When the clinical trials are done, the study populations demonstrate safety and efficacy for that population. But if we’re prescribing a GLP-1 for a different population, it is considered off-label use.
 

Dr. Lofton, an obesity medicine specialist, is clinical associate professor of surgery and medicine at NYU Grossman School of Medicine, and director of the medical weight management program at NYU Langone Weight Management Center, New York. She disclosed ties to Novo Nordisk and Eli Lilly. This transcript has been edited for clarity.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

With all the excitement about GLP-1 agonists, I get many questions from providers about which antiobesity drug they should prescribe. I’ll tell you the methods that I use to determine which drug is best for which patient.

Of course, we want to make sure that we’re treating the right condition. If the patient has type 2 diabetes, we tend to give them medication that is indicated for type 2 diabetes. Many GLP-1 agonists are available in a diabetes version and a chronic weight management or obesity version. If a patient has diabetes and obesity, they can receive either one. If a patient has only diabetes but not obesity, they should be prescribed the diabetes version. For obesity without diabetes, we tend to stick with the drugs that are indicated for chronic weight management.

Let’s go through them.

Exenatide. In chronological order of approval, the first GLP-1 drug that was used for diabetes dates back to exenatide (Bydureon). Bydureon had a partner called Byetta (also exenatide), both of which are still on the market but infrequently used. Some patients reported that these medications were inconvenient because they required twice-daily injections and caused painful injection-site nodules.

Diabetes drugs in more common use include liraglutide (Victoza) for type 2 diabetes. It is a daily injection and has various doses. We always start low and increase with tolerance and desired effect for A1c.

Liraglutide. Victoza has an antiobesity counterpart called Saxenda. The Saxenda pen looks very similar to the Victoza pen. It is a daily GLP-1 agonist for chronic weight management. The SCALE trial demonstrated 8%-12% weight loss with Saxenda.

Those are the daily injections: Victoza for diabetes and Saxenda for weight loss.

Our patients are very excited about the advent of weekly injections for diabetes and weight management. Ozempic is very popular. It is a weekly GLP-1 agonist for type 2 diabetes. Many patients come in asking for Ozempic, and we must make sure that we’re moving them in the right direction depending on their condition.

Semaglutide. Ozempic has a few different doses. It is a weekly injection and has been found to be quite efficacious for treating diabetes. The drug’s weight loss counterpart is called Wegovy, which comes in a different pen. Both forms contain the compound semaglutide. While all of these GLP-1 agonists are indicated to treat type 2 diabetes or for weight management, Wegovy has a special indication that none of the others have. In March 2024, Wegovy acquired an indication to decrease cardiac risk in those with a BMI ≥ 27 and a previous cardiac history. This will really change the accessibility of this medication because patients with heart conditions who are on Medicare are expected to have access to Wegovy.

Tirzepatide. Another weekly injection for treatment of type 2 diabetes is called Mounjaro. Its counterpart for weight management is called Zepbound, which was found to have about 20.9% weight loss over 72 weeks. These medications have similar side effects in differing degrees, but the most-often reported are nausea, stool changes, abdominal pain, and reflux. There are some other potential side effects; I recommend that you read the individual prescribing information available for each drug to have more clarity about that.

It is important that we stay on label for using the GLP-1 receptor agonists, for many reasons. One, it increases our patients’ accessibility to the right medication for them, and we can also make sure that we’re treating the patient with the right drug according to the clinical trials. When the clinical trials are done, the study populations demonstrate safety and efficacy for that population. But if we’re prescribing a GLP-1 for a different population, it is considered off-label use.
 

Dr. Lofton, an obesity medicine specialist, is clinical associate professor of surgery and medicine at NYU Grossman School of Medicine, and director of the medical weight management program at NYU Langone Weight Management Center, New York. She disclosed ties to Novo Nordisk and Eli Lilly. This transcript has been edited for clarity.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

With all the excitement about GLP-1 agonists, I get many questions from providers about which antiobesity drug they should prescribe. I’ll tell you the methods that I use to determine which drug is best for which patient.

Of course, we want to make sure that we’re treating the right condition. If the patient has type 2 diabetes, we tend to give them medication that is indicated for type 2 diabetes. Many GLP-1 agonists are available in a diabetes version and a chronic weight management or obesity version. If a patient has diabetes and obesity, they can receive either one. If a patient has only diabetes but not obesity, they should be prescribed the diabetes version. For obesity without diabetes, we tend to stick with the drugs that are indicated for chronic weight management.

Let’s go through them.

Exenatide. In chronological order of approval, the first GLP-1 drug that was used for diabetes dates back to exenatide (Bydureon). Bydureon had a partner called Byetta (also exenatide), both of which are still on the market but infrequently used. Some patients reported that these medications were inconvenient because they required twice-daily injections and caused painful injection-site nodules.

Diabetes drugs in more common use include liraglutide (Victoza) for type 2 diabetes. It is a daily injection and has various doses. We always start low and increase with tolerance and desired effect for A1c.

Liraglutide. Victoza has an antiobesity counterpart called Saxenda. The Saxenda pen looks very similar to the Victoza pen. It is a daily GLP-1 agonist for chronic weight management. The SCALE trial demonstrated 8%-12% weight loss with Saxenda.

Those are the daily injections: Victoza for diabetes and Saxenda for weight loss.

Our patients are very excited about the advent of weekly injections for diabetes and weight management. Ozempic is very popular. It is a weekly GLP-1 agonist for type 2 diabetes. Many patients come in asking for Ozempic, and we must make sure that we’re moving them in the right direction depending on their condition.

Semaglutide. Ozempic has a few different doses. It is a weekly injection and has been found to be quite efficacious for treating diabetes. The drug’s weight loss counterpart is called Wegovy, which comes in a different pen. Both forms contain the compound semaglutide. While all of these GLP-1 agonists are indicated to treat type 2 diabetes or for weight management, Wegovy has a special indication that none of the others have. In March 2024, Wegovy acquired an indication to decrease cardiac risk in those with a BMI ≥ 27 and a previous cardiac history. This will really change the accessibility of this medication because patients with heart conditions who are on Medicare are expected to have access to Wegovy.

Tirzepatide. Another weekly injection for treatment of type 2 diabetes is called Mounjaro. Its counterpart for weight management is called Zepbound, which was found to have about 20.9% weight loss over 72 weeks. These medications have similar side effects in differing degrees, but the most-often reported are nausea, stool changes, abdominal pain, and reflux. There are some other potential side effects; I recommend that you read the individual prescribing information available for each drug to have more clarity about that.

It is important that we stay on label for using the GLP-1 receptor agonists, for many reasons. One, it increases our patients’ accessibility to the right medication for them, and we can also make sure that we’re treating the patient with the right drug according to the clinical trials. When the clinical trials are done, the study populations demonstrate safety and efficacy for that population. But if we’re prescribing a GLP-1 for a different population, it is considered off-label use.
 

Dr. Lofton, an obesity medicine specialist, is clinical associate professor of surgery and medicine at NYU Grossman School of Medicine, and director of the medical weight management program at NYU Langone Weight Management Center, New York. She disclosed ties to Novo Nordisk and Eli Lilly. This transcript has been edited for clarity.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved the first-in-class interleukin (IL)-15 superagonist nogapendekin alfa inbakicept-pmln (Anktiva), plus bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG), for the treatment of certain non–muscle-invasive bladder cancers that fail to respond to BCG alone.

Specifically, the agent is approved to treat patients with BCG-unresponsive non–muscle-invasive bladder cancer carcinoma in situ with or without Ta or T1 papillary disease. 

The FDA declined an initial approval for the combination in May 2023 because of deficiencies the agency observed during its prelicense inspection of third-party manufacturing organizations. In October 2023, ImmunityBio resubmitted the Biologics License Application, which was accepted.

The new therapy represents addresses “an unmet need” in this high-risk bladder cancer population, the company stated in a press release announcing the initial study findings. Typically, patients with intermediate or high-risk disease undergo bladder tumor resection followed by treatment with BCG, but the cancer recurs in up to 50% of patients, including those who experience a complete response, explained ImmunityBio, which acquired Altor BioScience. 

Approval was based on findings from the single arm, phase 2/3 open-label QUILT-3.032 study, which included 77 patients with BCG-unresponsive, high-risk disease following transurethral resection. All had Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2. 

Patients received nogapendekin alfa inbakicept-pmln induction via intravesical instillation with BCG followed by maintenance therapy for up to 37 months. 

According to the FDA’s press release, 62% of patients had a complete response, defined as a negative cystoscopy and urine cytology; 58% of those with a complete response had a duration of response lasting at least 12 months and 40% had a duration of response lasting 24 months or longer.

The safety of the combination was evaluated in a cohort of 88 patients. Serious adverse reactions occurred in 16% of patients. The most common treatment-emergent adverse effects included dysuria, pollakiuria, and hematuria, which are associated with intravesical BCG; 86% of these events were grade 1 or 2. Overall, 7% of patients discontinued the combination owing to adverse reactions.

The recommended dose is 400 mcg administered intravesically with BCG once a week for 6 weeks as induction therapy, with an option for a second induction course if patients don’t achieve a complete response at 3 months. The recommended maintenance therapy dose is 400 mcg with BCG once a week for 3 weeks at months 4, 7, 10, 13, and 19. Patients who achieve a complete response at 25 months and beyond may receive maintenance instillations with BCG once a week for 3 weeks at months 25, 31, and 37. The maximum treatment duration is 37 months.

The FDA recommends discontinuing treatment if disease persists after second induction or owing to disease recurrence, progression, or unacceptable toxicity. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved the first-in-class interleukin (IL)-15 superagonist nogapendekin alfa inbakicept-pmln (Anktiva), plus bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG), for the treatment of certain non–muscle-invasive bladder cancers that fail to respond to BCG alone.

Specifically, the agent is approved to treat patients with BCG-unresponsive non–muscle-invasive bladder cancer carcinoma in situ with or without Ta or T1 papillary disease. 

The FDA declined an initial approval for the combination in May 2023 because of deficiencies the agency observed during its prelicense inspection of third-party manufacturing organizations. In October 2023, ImmunityBio resubmitted the Biologics License Application, which was accepted.

The new therapy represents addresses “an unmet need” in this high-risk bladder cancer population, the company stated in a press release announcing the initial study findings. Typically, patients with intermediate or high-risk disease undergo bladder tumor resection followed by treatment with BCG, but the cancer recurs in up to 50% of patients, including those who experience a complete response, explained ImmunityBio, which acquired Altor BioScience. 

Approval was based on findings from the single arm, phase 2/3 open-label QUILT-3.032 study, which included 77 patients with BCG-unresponsive, high-risk disease following transurethral resection. All had Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2. 

Patients received nogapendekin alfa inbakicept-pmln induction via intravesical instillation with BCG followed by maintenance therapy for up to 37 months. 

According to the FDA’s press release, 62% of patients had a complete response, defined as a negative cystoscopy and urine cytology; 58% of those with a complete response had a duration of response lasting at least 12 months and 40% had a duration of response lasting 24 months or longer.

The safety of the combination was evaluated in a cohort of 88 patients. Serious adverse reactions occurred in 16% of patients. The most common treatment-emergent adverse effects included dysuria, pollakiuria, and hematuria, which are associated with intravesical BCG; 86% of these events were grade 1 or 2. Overall, 7% of patients discontinued the combination owing to adverse reactions.

The recommended dose is 400 mcg administered intravesically with BCG once a week for 6 weeks as induction therapy, with an option for a second induction course if patients don’t achieve a complete response at 3 months. The recommended maintenance therapy dose is 400 mcg with BCG once a week for 3 weeks at months 4, 7, 10, 13, and 19. Patients who achieve a complete response at 25 months and beyond may receive maintenance instillations with BCG once a week for 3 weeks at months 25, 31, and 37. The maximum treatment duration is 37 months.

The FDA recommends discontinuing treatment if disease persists after second induction or owing to disease recurrence, progression, or unacceptable toxicity. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved the first-in-class interleukin (IL)-15 superagonist nogapendekin alfa inbakicept-pmln (Anktiva), plus bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG), for the treatment of certain non–muscle-invasive bladder cancers that fail to respond to BCG alone.

Specifically, the agent is approved to treat patients with BCG-unresponsive non–muscle-invasive bladder cancer carcinoma in situ with or without Ta or T1 papillary disease. 

The FDA declined an initial approval for the combination in May 2023 because of deficiencies the agency observed during its prelicense inspection of third-party manufacturing organizations. In October 2023, ImmunityBio resubmitted the Biologics License Application, which was accepted.

The new therapy represents addresses “an unmet need” in this high-risk bladder cancer population, the company stated in a press release announcing the initial study findings. Typically, patients with intermediate or high-risk disease undergo bladder tumor resection followed by treatment with BCG, but the cancer recurs in up to 50% of patients, including those who experience a complete response, explained ImmunityBio, which acquired Altor BioScience. 

Approval was based on findings from the single arm, phase 2/3 open-label QUILT-3.032 study, which included 77 patients with BCG-unresponsive, high-risk disease following transurethral resection. All had Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2. 

Patients received nogapendekin alfa inbakicept-pmln induction via intravesical instillation with BCG followed by maintenance therapy for up to 37 months. 

According to the FDA’s press release, 62% of patients had a complete response, defined as a negative cystoscopy and urine cytology; 58% of those with a complete response had a duration of response lasting at least 12 months and 40% had a duration of response lasting 24 months or longer.

The safety of the combination was evaluated in a cohort of 88 patients. Serious adverse reactions occurred in 16% of patients. The most common treatment-emergent adverse effects included dysuria, pollakiuria, and hematuria, which are associated with intravesical BCG; 86% of these events were grade 1 or 2. Overall, 7% of patients discontinued the combination owing to adverse reactions.

The recommended dose is 400 mcg administered intravesically with BCG once a week for 6 weeks as induction therapy, with an option for a second induction course if patients don’t achieve a complete response at 3 months. The recommended maintenance therapy dose is 400 mcg with BCG once a week for 3 weeks at months 4, 7, 10, 13, and 19. Patients who achieve a complete response at 25 months and beyond may receive maintenance instillations with BCG once a week for 3 weeks at months 25, 31, and 37. The maximum treatment duration is 37 months.

The FDA recommends discontinuing treatment if disease persists after second induction or owing to disease recurrence, progression, or unacceptable toxicity. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Last year, I concluded a commentary for this news organization on colorectal cancer (CRC) screening guidelines by stating that between stool-based tests, flexible sigmoidoscopy, and colonoscopy, “the best screening test is the test that gets done.” But should that maxim apply to the new blood-based screening test, Guardant Health Shield? This proprietary test, which costs $895 and is not generally covered by insurance, identifies alterations in cell-free DNA that are characteristic of CRC.

Shield’s test characteristics were recently evaluated in a prospective study of more than 10,000 adults aged 45-84 at average risk for CRC. The test had an 87.5% sensitivity for stage I, II, or III colorectal cancer but only a 13% sensitivity for advanced precancerous lesions. Test specificity was 89.6%, meaning that about 1 in 10 participants without CRC or advanced precancerous lesions on colonoscopy had a false-positive result.

Although the Shield blood test has a higher rate of false positives than the traditional fecal immunochemical test (FIT) and lower sensitivity and specificity than a multitarget stool DNA (FIT-DNA) test designed to improve on Cologuard, it meets the previously established criteria set forth by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) to be covered for Medicare beneficiaries at 3-year intervals, pending FDA approval. If public and private payers start covering Shield alongside other CRC screening tests, it presents an opportunity for primary care physicians to reach the approximately 3 in 10 adults between ages 45 and 75 who are not being routinely screened.

A big concern, however, is that the availability of a blood test may cause patients who would have otherwise been screened with colonoscopy or stool tests to switch to the blood test. A cost-effectiveness analysis found that offering a blood test to patients who decline screening colonoscopy saves additional lives, but at the cost of more than $377,000 per life-year gained. Another study relying on three microsimulation models previously utilized by the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) found that annual FIT results in more life-years gained at substantially lower cost than blood-based screening every 3 years “even when uptake of blood-based screening was 20 percentage points higher than uptake of FIT.” As a result, a multidisciplinary expert panel concluded that blood-based screening should not substitute for established CRC screening tests, but instead be offered only to patients who decline those tests.

In practice, this will increase the complexity of the CRC screening conversations we have with patients. We will need to be clear that the blood test is not yet endorsed by the USPSTF or any major guideline group and is a second-line test that will miss most precancerous polyps. As with the stool tests, it is essential to emphasize that a positive result must be followed by diagnostic colonoscopy. To addend the cancer screening maxim I mentioned before, the blood test is not the best test for CRC, but it’s probably better than no test at all.

Dr. Lin is a family physician and associate director, Family Medicine Residency Program, Lancaster General Hospital, Lancaster, Pennsylvania. He blogs at Common Sense Family Doctor.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Last year, I concluded a commentary for this news organization on colorectal cancer (CRC) screening guidelines by stating that between stool-based tests, flexible sigmoidoscopy, and colonoscopy, “the best screening test is the test that gets done.” But should that maxim apply to the new blood-based screening test, Guardant Health Shield? This proprietary test, which costs $895 and is not generally covered by insurance, identifies alterations in cell-free DNA that are characteristic of CRC.

Shield’s test characteristics were recently evaluated in a prospective study of more than 10,000 adults aged 45-84 at average risk for CRC. The test had an 87.5% sensitivity for stage I, II, or III colorectal cancer but only a 13% sensitivity for advanced precancerous lesions. Test specificity was 89.6%, meaning that about 1 in 10 participants without CRC or advanced precancerous lesions on colonoscopy had a false-positive result.

Although the Shield blood test has a higher rate of false positives than the traditional fecal immunochemical test (FIT) and lower sensitivity and specificity than a multitarget stool DNA (FIT-DNA) test designed to improve on Cologuard, it meets the previously established criteria set forth by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) to be covered for Medicare beneficiaries at 3-year intervals, pending FDA approval. If public and private payers start covering Shield alongside other CRC screening tests, it presents an opportunity for primary care physicians to reach the approximately 3 in 10 adults between ages 45 and 75 who are not being routinely screened.

A big concern, however, is that the availability of a blood test may cause patients who would have otherwise been screened with colonoscopy or stool tests to switch to the blood test. A cost-effectiveness analysis found that offering a blood test to patients who decline screening colonoscopy saves additional lives, but at the cost of more than $377,000 per life-year gained. Another study relying on three microsimulation models previously utilized by the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) found that annual FIT results in more life-years gained at substantially lower cost than blood-based screening every 3 years “even when uptake of blood-based screening was 20 percentage points higher than uptake of FIT.” As a result, a multidisciplinary expert panel concluded that blood-based screening should not substitute for established CRC screening tests, but instead be offered only to patients who decline those tests.

In practice, this will increase the complexity of the CRC screening conversations we have with patients. We will need to be clear that the blood test is not yet endorsed by the USPSTF or any major guideline group and is a second-line test that will miss most precancerous polyps. As with the stool tests, it is essential to emphasize that a positive result must be followed by diagnostic colonoscopy. To addend the cancer screening maxim I mentioned before, the blood test is not the best test for CRC, but it’s probably better than no test at all.

Dr. Lin is a family physician and associate director, Family Medicine Residency Program, Lancaster General Hospital, Lancaster, Pennsylvania. He blogs at Common Sense Family Doctor.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Last year, I concluded a commentary for this news organization on colorectal cancer (CRC) screening guidelines by stating that between stool-based tests, flexible sigmoidoscopy, and colonoscopy, “the best screening test is the test that gets done.” But should that maxim apply to the new blood-based screening test, Guardant Health Shield? This proprietary test, which costs $895 and is not generally covered by insurance, identifies alterations in cell-free DNA that are characteristic of CRC.

Shield’s test characteristics were recently evaluated in a prospective study of more than 10,000 adults aged 45-84 at average risk for CRC. The test had an 87.5% sensitivity for stage I, II, or III colorectal cancer but only a 13% sensitivity for advanced precancerous lesions. Test specificity was 89.6%, meaning that about 1 in 10 participants without CRC or advanced precancerous lesions on colonoscopy had a false-positive result.

Although the Shield blood test has a higher rate of false positives than the traditional fecal immunochemical test (FIT) and lower sensitivity and specificity than a multitarget stool DNA (FIT-DNA) test designed to improve on Cologuard, it meets the previously established criteria set forth by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) to be covered for Medicare beneficiaries at 3-year intervals, pending FDA approval. If public and private payers start covering Shield alongside other CRC screening tests, it presents an opportunity for primary care physicians to reach the approximately 3 in 10 adults between ages 45 and 75 who are not being routinely screened.

A big concern, however, is that the availability of a blood test may cause patients who would have otherwise been screened with colonoscopy or stool tests to switch to the blood test. A cost-effectiveness analysis found that offering a blood test to patients who decline screening colonoscopy saves additional lives, but at the cost of more than $377,000 per life-year gained. Another study relying on three microsimulation models previously utilized by the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) found that annual FIT results in more life-years gained at substantially lower cost than blood-based screening every 3 years “even when uptake of blood-based screening was 20 percentage points higher than uptake of FIT.” As a result, a multidisciplinary expert panel concluded that blood-based screening should not substitute for established CRC screening tests, but instead be offered only to patients who decline those tests.

In practice, this will increase the complexity of the CRC screening conversations we have with patients. We will need to be clear that the blood test is not yet endorsed by the USPSTF or any major guideline group and is a second-line test that will miss most precancerous polyps. As with the stool tests, it is essential to emphasize that a positive result must be followed by diagnostic colonoscopy. To addend the cancer screening maxim I mentioned before, the blood test is not the best test for CRC, but it’s probably better than no test at all.

Dr. Lin is a family physician and associate director, Family Medicine Residency Program, Lancaster General Hospital, Lancaster, Pennsylvania. He blogs at Common Sense Family Doctor.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

VIENNA — The glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist semaglutide (Wegovy) not only induced weight loss but also improved knee pain in people with knee osteoarthritis (OA) and obesity, according to results from the STEP 9 study reported at the Osteoarthritis Research Society International (OARSI) 2024  World Congress.

From baseline to week 68, the mean change in knee pain assessed using the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) pain score was a reduction of 41.7 points for semaglutide and a decrease of 27.5 points for a matching placebo. The estimated treatment difference of 14.1 points between the groups was statistically significant (P < .001).

As for weight loss, this also fell by a significantly greater amount in the people treated with semaglutide vs those given placebo, with respective reductions of 13.7% and 3.2% from baseline, with an estimated 10.5% greater weight loss with semaglutide.

Sara Freeman/Medscape Medical News

“The interesting thing is whether there’s a specific action of GLP-1 receptor agonists on the joint, not through the weight loss but by itself,” principal study investigator Henning Bliddal, MD, DMSc, told this news organization ahead of reporting the results at OARSI 2024.

Weight loss is “obviously good” because “the knees suffer from the weight. But whether it’s good for the knee or just for the health or the well-being of the person is another matter,” said Dr. Bliddal, who is director of the Parker Institute at Bispebjerg Frederiksberg Hospital in Copenhagen, Denmark.
 

Not Approved in OA

Semaglutide and other potentially weight loss-inducing drugs are not currently indicated for use specifically in OA, Tonia Vincent, MBBS, PhD, told this news organization, and so “I think we have to be very cautious,” she said.

“Weight loss is one of the few things that has been shown to be successful in clinical trials,” said Dr. Vincent, who is a professor of musculoskeletal biology and an honorary rheumatologist at the Kennedy Institute of Rheumatology at Oxford University in Oxford, England.

“People always feel better too when they lose weight, so that helps manage pain. So, I’d be very surprised if there isn’t a benefit,” she added.

“I just think we need to know more about the long-term use of these drugs, whether the healthcare system can afford them, and how we would ration them.”
 

Previous Work

The STEP 9 study is not the first time that Dr. Bliddal has investigated the effects of a GLP-1 receptor agonist in people with knee OA, but it is the first to have shown a significant effect on knee pain.

Previously, results from the LOSEIT trial with liraglutide demonstrated that, after an 8-week dietary intervention run-in phase, people who were treated with the GLP-1 receptor agonist lost an average of 2.8 kg in body weight over a period of 1 year, vs a 1.2 kg gain in the placebo group. Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Scores, however, were largely unaffected.

“The study was more or less negative for knee pain because at that time we had to pretreat patients with some kind of weight loss before they were allowed to have the liraglutide,” Dr. Bliddal said.

“There’s so many different considerations with diets and the different ways that [dietary modification] is performed, that could be part of the explanation why some people didn’t find the pain relief,” Dr. Bliddal suggested.
 

STEP 9 Study Design

No pre-study dietary intervention was required in the STEP 9 trial, although a reduced-calorie diet and increased physical exercise were used alongside both semaglutide and placebo treatment.

STEP 9 was a multicenter, multinational phase 3 clinical trial that enrolled people if they had a body mass index (BMI) of > 30, had a clinical diagnosis of knee OA with moderate radiographic changes (Kellgren-Lawrence grade of 2-3), and were experiencing knee pain.

In addition to a baseline WOMAC pain score of at least 40 points (where 0 represents no and 100 the worst pain), the participants had to have a WOMAC numerical rating scale (NRS) score of ≥ 3.1.

A total of 407 participants were recruited and randomly allocated, 2:1, to receive once-weekly subcutaneous injections of either semaglutide 2.4 mg or placebo for a total of 68 weeks.

Dr. Bliddal presented demographic information only for the study population as a whole, showing that the mean was 56 years, 81.6% were women, 60.9% were White, 11.8% Native American, 7.6% Black, and 19.7% of other ethnic origin.

Moreover, the mean bodyweight at baseline was 108.6 kg, and the mean baseline BMI was 40.3, with 75% of participants having a BMI ≥ 35. The mean waist circumference was 118.7 cm. The mean baseline WOMAC pain score was 70.9.
 

Other Findings

In addition to the reductions seen in the coprimary endpoints of weight loss and knee pain, the WOMAC physical function score was also reduced from baseline to week 68 to a greater degree in the semaglutide than placebo arm, by a respective 41.5 vs 26.7 points, with a significant estimated treatment difference of -14.9 points.

“The use of pain medication went down as well; you can see the drop was faster in the semaglutide group than the placebo group, and it was maintained throughout the study,” Dr. Bliddal said during his presentation. He noted that patients had to temporarily stop taking pain relievers such as acetaminophen 3 days before their pain was assessed.

Additional findings reported in the abstract, but not presented at the meeting, were a significant estimated treatment difference of -1.0 in NRS pain intensity, more people treated with semaglutide than placebo achieving ≥ 5% (87.0% vs 29.2%) or ≥ 10% (70.4% vs 9.2%) weight loss.

“Safety and tolerability with semaglutide were consistent with the global STEP program and the GLP-1 receptor agonist class in general,” Dr. Bliddal reported.

Serious adverse events occurred in a respective 10.0% and 8.1% of participants, and adverse events leading to discontinuation were recorded in 6.7% and 3%. Around one third (2.2%) of those leading to discontinuation in the semaglutide arm were gastrointestinal adverse events.

The STEP 9 study was funded by Novo Nordisk. Henning is a principal investigator for the trial and acknowledged that research grants were received from Novo Nordisk to his institution, as well as consulting fees and honoraria. He has also received congress and travel support from Contura. Dr. Vincent was not involved in the study and had no relevant conflicts of interest to disclose.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

VIENNA — The glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist semaglutide (Wegovy) not only induced weight loss but also improved knee pain in people with knee osteoarthritis (OA) and obesity, according to results from the STEP 9 study reported at the Osteoarthritis Research Society International (OARSI) 2024  World Congress.

From baseline to week 68, the mean change in knee pain assessed using the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) pain score was a reduction of 41.7 points for semaglutide and a decrease of 27.5 points for a matching placebo. The estimated treatment difference of 14.1 points between the groups was statistically significant (P < .001).

As for weight loss, this also fell by a significantly greater amount in the people treated with semaglutide vs those given placebo, with respective reductions of 13.7% and 3.2% from baseline, with an estimated 10.5% greater weight loss with semaglutide.

Sara Freeman/Medscape Medical News

“The interesting thing is whether there’s a specific action of GLP-1 receptor agonists on the joint, not through the weight loss but by itself,” principal study investigator Henning Bliddal, MD, DMSc, told this news organization ahead of reporting the results at OARSI 2024.

Weight loss is “obviously good” because “the knees suffer from the weight. But whether it’s good for the knee or just for the health or the well-being of the person is another matter,” said Dr. Bliddal, who is director of the Parker Institute at Bispebjerg Frederiksberg Hospital in Copenhagen, Denmark.
 

Not Approved in OA

Semaglutide and other potentially weight loss-inducing drugs are not currently indicated for use specifically in OA, Tonia Vincent, MBBS, PhD, told this news organization, and so “I think we have to be very cautious,” she said.

“Weight loss is one of the few things that has been shown to be successful in clinical trials,” said Dr. Vincent, who is a professor of musculoskeletal biology and an honorary rheumatologist at the Kennedy Institute of Rheumatology at Oxford University in Oxford, England.

“People always feel better too when they lose weight, so that helps manage pain. So, I’d be very surprised if there isn’t a benefit,” she added.

“I just think we need to know more about the long-term use of these drugs, whether the healthcare system can afford them, and how we would ration them.”
 

Previous Work

The STEP 9 study is not the first time that Dr. Bliddal has investigated the effects of a GLP-1 receptor agonist in people with knee OA, but it is the first to have shown a significant effect on knee pain.

Previously, results from the LOSEIT trial with liraglutide demonstrated that, after an 8-week dietary intervention run-in phase, people who were treated with the GLP-1 receptor agonist lost an average of 2.8 kg in body weight over a period of 1 year, vs a 1.2 kg gain in the placebo group. Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Scores, however, were largely unaffected.

“The study was more or less negative for knee pain because at that time we had to pretreat patients with some kind of weight loss before they were allowed to have the liraglutide,” Dr. Bliddal said.

“There’s so many different considerations with diets and the different ways that [dietary modification] is performed, that could be part of the explanation why some people didn’t find the pain relief,” Dr. Bliddal suggested.
 

STEP 9 Study Design

No pre-study dietary intervention was required in the STEP 9 trial, although a reduced-calorie diet and increased physical exercise were used alongside both semaglutide and placebo treatment.

STEP 9 was a multicenter, multinational phase 3 clinical trial that enrolled people if they had a body mass index (BMI) of > 30, had a clinical diagnosis of knee OA with moderate radiographic changes (Kellgren-Lawrence grade of 2-3), and were experiencing knee pain.

In addition to a baseline WOMAC pain score of at least 40 points (where 0 represents no and 100 the worst pain), the participants had to have a WOMAC numerical rating scale (NRS) score of ≥ 3.1.

A total of 407 participants were recruited and randomly allocated, 2:1, to receive once-weekly subcutaneous injections of either semaglutide 2.4 mg or placebo for a total of 68 weeks.

Dr. Bliddal presented demographic information only for the study population as a whole, showing that the mean was 56 years, 81.6% were women, 60.9% were White, 11.8% Native American, 7.6% Black, and 19.7% of other ethnic origin.

Moreover, the mean bodyweight at baseline was 108.6 kg, and the mean baseline BMI was 40.3, with 75% of participants having a BMI ≥ 35. The mean waist circumference was 118.7 cm. The mean baseline WOMAC pain score was 70.9.
 

Other Findings

In addition to the reductions seen in the coprimary endpoints of weight loss and knee pain, the WOMAC physical function score was also reduced from baseline to week 68 to a greater degree in the semaglutide than placebo arm, by a respective 41.5 vs 26.7 points, with a significant estimated treatment difference of -14.9 points.

“The use of pain medication went down as well; you can see the drop was faster in the semaglutide group than the placebo group, and it was maintained throughout the study,” Dr. Bliddal said during his presentation. He noted that patients had to temporarily stop taking pain relievers such as acetaminophen 3 days before their pain was assessed.

Additional findings reported in the abstract, but not presented at the meeting, were a significant estimated treatment difference of -1.0 in NRS pain intensity, more people treated with semaglutide than placebo achieving ≥ 5% (87.0% vs 29.2%) or ≥ 10% (70.4% vs 9.2%) weight loss.

“Safety and tolerability with semaglutide were consistent with the global STEP program and the GLP-1 receptor agonist class in general,” Dr. Bliddal reported.

Serious adverse events occurred in a respective 10.0% and 8.1% of participants, and adverse events leading to discontinuation were recorded in 6.7% and 3%. Around one third (2.2%) of those leading to discontinuation in the semaglutide arm were gastrointestinal adverse events.

The STEP 9 study was funded by Novo Nordisk. Henning is a principal investigator for the trial and acknowledged that research grants were received from Novo Nordisk to his institution, as well as consulting fees and honoraria. He has also received congress and travel support from Contura. Dr. Vincent was not involved in the study and had no relevant conflicts of interest to disclose.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

VIENNA — The glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist semaglutide (Wegovy) not only induced weight loss but also improved knee pain in people with knee osteoarthritis (OA) and obesity, according to results from the STEP 9 study reported at the Osteoarthritis Research Society International (OARSI) 2024  World Congress.

From baseline to week 68, the mean change in knee pain assessed using the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) pain score was a reduction of 41.7 points for semaglutide and a decrease of 27.5 points for a matching placebo. The estimated treatment difference of 14.1 points between the groups was statistically significant (P < .001).

As for weight loss, this also fell by a significantly greater amount in the people treated with semaglutide vs those given placebo, with respective reductions of 13.7% and 3.2% from baseline, with an estimated 10.5% greater weight loss with semaglutide.

Sara Freeman/Medscape Medical News

“The interesting thing is whether there’s a specific action of GLP-1 receptor agonists on the joint, not through the weight loss but by itself,” principal study investigator Henning Bliddal, MD, DMSc, told this news organization ahead of reporting the results at OARSI 2024.

Weight loss is “obviously good” because “the knees suffer from the weight. But whether it’s good for the knee or just for the health or the well-being of the person is another matter,” said Dr. Bliddal, who is director of the Parker Institute at Bispebjerg Frederiksberg Hospital in Copenhagen, Denmark.
 

Not Approved in OA

Semaglutide and other potentially weight loss-inducing drugs are not currently indicated for use specifically in OA, Tonia Vincent, MBBS, PhD, told this news organization, and so “I think we have to be very cautious,” she said.

“Weight loss is one of the few things that has been shown to be successful in clinical trials,” said Dr. Vincent, who is a professor of musculoskeletal biology and an honorary rheumatologist at the Kennedy Institute of Rheumatology at Oxford University in Oxford, England.

“People always feel better too when they lose weight, so that helps manage pain. So, I’d be very surprised if there isn’t a benefit,” she added.

“I just think we need to know more about the long-term use of these drugs, whether the healthcare system can afford them, and how we would ration them.”
 

Previous Work

The STEP 9 study is not the first time that Dr. Bliddal has investigated the effects of a GLP-1 receptor agonist in people with knee OA, but it is the first to have shown a significant effect on knee pain.

Previously, results from the LOSEIT trial with liraglutide demonstrated that, after an 8-week dietary intervention run-in phase, people who were treated with the GLP-1 receptor agonist lost an average of 2.8 kg in body weight over a period of 1 year, vs a 1.2 kg gain in the placebo group. Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Scores, however, were largely unaffected.

“The study was more or less negative for knee pain because at that time we had to pretreat patients with some kind of weight loss before they were allowed to have the liraglutide,” Dr. Bliddal said.

“There’s so many different considerations with diets and the different ways that [dietary modification] is performed, that could be part of the explanation why some people didn’t find the pain relief,” Dr. Bliddal suggested.
 

STEP 9 Study Design

No pre-study dietary intervention was required in the STEP 9 trial, although a reduced-calorie diet and increased physical exercise were used alongside both semaglutide and placebo treatment.

STEP 9 was a multicenter, multinational phase 3 clinical trial that enrolled people if they had a body mass index (BMI) of > 30, had a clinical diagnosis of knee OA with moderate radiographic changes (Kellgren-Lawrence grade of 2-3), and were experiencing knee pain.

In addition to a baseline WOMAC pain score of at least 40 points (where 0 represents no and 100 the worst pain), the participants had to have a WOMAC numerical rating scale (NRS) score of ≥ 3.1.

A total of 407 participants were recruited and randomly allocated, 2:1, to receive once-weekly subcutaneous injections of either semaglutide 2.4 mg or placebo for a total of 68 weeks.

Dr. Bliddal presented demographic information only for the study population as a whole, showing that the mean was 56 years, 81.6% were women, 60.9% were White, 11.8% Native American, 7.6% Black, and 19.7% of other ethnic origin.

Moreover, the mean bodyweight at baseline was 108.6 kg, and the mean baseline BMI was 40.3, with 75% of participants having a BMI ≥ 35. The mean waist circumference was 118.7 cm. The mean baseline WOMAC pain score was 70.9.
 

Other Findings

In addition to the reductions seen in the coprimary endpoints of weight loss and knee pain, the WOMAC physical function score was also reduced from baseline to week 68 to a greater degree in the semaglutide than placebo arm, by a respective 41.5 vs 26.7 points, with a significant estimated treatment difference of -14.9 points.

“The use of pain medication went down as well; you can see the drop was faster in the semaglutide group than the placebo group, and it was maintained throughout the study,” Dr. Bliddal said during his presentation. He noted that patients had to temporarily stop taking pain relievers such as acetaminophen 3 days before their pain was assessed.

Additional findings reported in the abstract, but not presented at the meeting, were a significant estimated treatment difference of -1.0 in NRS pain intensity, more people treated with semaglutide than placebo achieving ≥ 5% (87.0% vs 29.2%) or ≥ 10% (70.4% vs 9.2%) weight loss.

“Safety and tolerability with semaglutide were consistent with the global STEP program and the GLP-1 receptor agonist class in general,” Dr. Bliddal reported.

Serious adverse events occurred in a respective 10.0% and 8.1% of participants, and adverse events leading to discontinuation were recorded in 6.7% and 3%. Around one third (2.2%) of those leading to discontinuation in the semaglutide arm were gastrointestinal adverse events.

The STEP 9 study was funded by Novo Nordisk. Henning is a principal investigator for the trial and acknowledged that research grants were received from Novo Nordisk to his institution, as well as consulting fees and honoraria. He has also received congress and travel support from Contura. Dr. Vincent was not involved in the study and had no relevant conflicts of interest to disclose.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Recent headlines scream that we have an obesity problem and that carbs are the culprit for the problem. That leads me to ask: How did we get to blaming carbs as the enemy in the war against obesity?

First, a quick review of the history of diet and macronutrient content.

A long time ago, prehistoric humans foraged and hunted for food. Protein and fat were procured from animal meat, which was very important for encephalization, or evolutionary increase in the complexity or relative size of the brain. Most of the requirements for protein and iron were satisfied by hunting and eating land animals as well as consuming marine life that washed up on shore.

Carbohydrates in the form of plant foods served as the only sources of energy available to prehistoric hunter-gatherers, which offset the high protein content of the rest of their diet. These were only available during spring and summer.

Then, about 10,000 years ago, plant and animal agriculture began, and humans saw a permanent shift in the macronutrient content of our daily intake so that it was more consistent and stable. Initially, the nutrient characteristic changes were subtle, going from wild food to cultivated food with the Agricultural Revolution in the mid-17th century. Then, it changed even more rapidly less than 200 years ago with the Industrial Revolution, resulting in semiprocessed and ultraprocessed foods.

This change in food intake altered human physiology, with major changes in our digestive, immune, and neural physiology and an increase in chronic disease prevalence. The last 50 years has seen an increase in obesity in the United States, along with increases in chronic disease such as type 2 diabetes, which leads cardiovascular disease and certain cancers. 
 

Back to Carbohydrates: Do We Need Them? How Much? What Kind?

The increase in the macronutrient content of the food we eat containing saturated fat and refined carbohydrates and sugars represents a major change and is arguably the smoking gun of the obesity epidemic. Unfortunately, ultraprocessed foods have become a staple of the standard American or Western diet. 

Ultraprocessed foods such as cakes, cookies, crackers, sugary breakfast cereals, pizza, potato chips, soft drinks, and ice cream are eons away from our prehistoric diet of wild game, nuts, fruits, and berries, at which time, our digestive immune and nervous systems evolved. The pace at which ultraprocessed foods have entered our diet outpaces the time necessary for adaptation of our digestive systems and genes to these foods. They are indeed pathogenic in this context. 

So when was the time when humans consumed an “optimal” diet? This is hard to say because during the time of brain evolution, we needed protein and iron and succumbed to infections and trauma. In the early 1900s, we continued to succumb to infection until the discovery of antibiotics. Soon thereafter, industrialization and processed foods led to weight gain and the chronic diseases of the cardiovascular system and type 2 diabetes. 

Carbohydrates provide calories and fiber and some micronutrients, which are needed for energy, metabolism, and bowel and immune health. But how much do we need? 

Currently in the United States, the percentage of total food energy derived from the three major macronutrients is: carbohydrates, 51.8%; fat, 32.8%; and protein, 15.4%. Current advice for a healthy diet to lower risk for cardiovascular disease is to limit fat intake to 30% of total energy, protein to 15%, and to increase complex carbohydrates to 55%-60% of total energy. But we also need to qualify this in terms of the quality of the macronutrient, particularly carbohydrates. 

In addition to the quality, the macronutrient content of the diet has varied considerably from our prehistoric times when dietary protein intakes were high at 19%-35% of energy at the expense of carbohydrate (22%-40% of energy). 

If our genes haven’t kept up with industrialization, then why do we need so many carbohydrates to equate to 55%-60% of energy? Is it possible that we are confusing what is available with what we actually need? What do I mean by this?

We certainly have changed the landscape of the world due to agriculture, which has allowed us to procreate and feed ourselves, and certainly, industrialization has increased the availability of accessible cheap food. Protein in the form of meat, fish, and fowl are harder to get in industrialized nations as are fruits and vegetables. These macronutrients were the foods of our ancestors. It may be that a healthy diet is considered the one that is available. 

For instance, the Mediterranean diet is somewhat higher in fat content, 40%-50% fat (mostly mono and unsaturated), and similar in protein content but lower in carbohydrate content than the typical Western diet. The Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension (DASH) diet is lower in fat at 25% total calories, is higher in carbohydrates at 55%, and is lower in protein, but this diet was generated in the United States, therefore it is more Western. 

We need high-quality protein for organ and muscle function, high-quality unsaturated and monounsaturated fats for brain function and cellular functions, and high-quality complex carbohydrates for energy and gut health as well as micronutrients for many cellular functions. A ketogenic diet is not sustainable in the long-term for these reasons: chiefly the need for some carbohydrates for gut health and micronutrients. 

How much carbohydrate content is needed should take into consideration energy expenditure as well as micronutrients and fiber intake. Protein and fat can contribute to energy production but not as readily as carbohydrates that can quickly restore glycogen in the muscle and liver. What’s interesting is that our ancestors were able to hunt and run away from danger with the small amounts of carbohydrates from plants and berries plus the protein and fat intake from animals and fish — but the Olympics weren’t a thing then!

It may be another 200,000 years before our genes catch up to ultraprocessed foods and the simple carbohydrates and sugars contained in these products. Evidence suggests that ultraprocessed foods cause inflammation in organs like the liver, adipose tissue, the heart, and even the brain. In the brain, this inflammation may be what’s causing us to defend a higher body weight set point in this environment of easily obtained highly palatable ultraprocessed foods. 

Let’s not wait until our genes catch up and our bodies tolerate junk food without disease progression. It could be like waiting for Godot!

Dr. Apovian is professor of medicine, Harvard Medical School, and codirector, Center for Weight Management and Wellness, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts. She disclosed ties to Altimmune, CinFina Pharma, Cowen and Company, EPG Communication Holdings, Form Health, Gelesis, and L-Nutra.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Recent headlines scream that we have an obesity problem and that carbs are the culprit for the problem. That leads me to ask: How did we get to blaming carbs as the enemy in the war against obesity?

First, a quick review of the history of diet and macronutrient content.

A long time ago, prehistoric humans foraged and hunted for food. Protein and fat were procured from animal meat, which was very important for encephalization, or evolutionary increase in the complexity or relative size of the brain. Most of the requirements for protein and iron were satisfied by hunting and eating land animals as well as consuming marine life that washed up on shore.

Carbohydrates in the form of plant foods served as the only sources of energy available to prehistoric hunter-gatherers, which offset the high protein content of the rest of their diet. These were only available during spring and summer.

Then, about 10,000 years ago, plant and animal agriculture began, and humans saw a permanent shift in the macronutrient content of our daily intake so that it was more consistent and stable. Initially, the nutrient characteristic changes were subtle, going from wild food to cultivated food with the Agricultural Revolution in the mid-17th century. Then, it changed even more rapidly less than 200 years ago with the Industrial Revolution, resulting in semiprocessed and ultraprocessed foods.

This change in food intake altered human physiology, with major changes in our digestive, immune, and neural physiology and an increase in chronic disease prevalence. The last 50 years has seen an increase in obesity in the United States, along with increases in chronic disease such as type 2 diabetes, which leads cardiovascular disease and certain cancers. 
 

Back to Carbohydrates: Do We Need Them? How Much? What Kind?

The increase in the macronutrient content of the food we eat containing saturated fat and refined carbohydrates and sugars represents a major change and is arguably the smoking gun of the obesity epidemic. Unfortunately, ultraprocessed foods have become a staple of the standard American or Western diet. 

Ultraprocessed foods such as cakes, cookies, crackers, sugary breakfast cereals, pizza, potato chips, soft drinks, and ice cream are eons away from our prehistoric diet of wild game, nuts, fruits, and berries, at which time, our digestive immune and nervous systems evolved. The pace at which ultraprocessed foods have entered our diet outpaces the time necessary for adaptation of our digestive systems and genes to these foods. They are indeed pathogenic in this context. 

So when was the time when humans consumed an “optimal” diet? This is hard to say because during the time of brain evolution, we needed protein and iron and succumbed to infections and trauma. In the early 1900s, we continued to succumb to infection until the discovery of antibiotics. Soon thereafter, industrialization and processed foods led to weight gain and the chronic diseases of the cardiovascular system and type 2 diabetes. 

Carbohydrates provide calories and fiber and some micronutrients, which are needed for energy, metabolism, and bowel and immune health. But how much do we need? 

Currently in the United States, the percentage of total food energy derived from the three major macronutrients is: carbohydrates, 51.8%; fat, 32.8%; and protein, 15.4%. Current advice for a healthy diet to lower risk for cardiovascular disease is to limit fat intake to 30% of total energy, protein to 15%, and to increase complex carbohydrates to 55%-60% of total energy. But we also need to qualify this in terms of the quality of the macronutrient, particularly carbohydrates. 

In addition to the quality, the macronutrient content of the diet has varied considerably from our prehistoric times when dietary protein intakes were high at 19%-35% of energy at the expense of carbohydrate (22%-40% of energy). 

If our genes haven’t kept up with industrialization, then why do we need so many carbohydrates to equate to 55%-60% of energy? Is it possible that we are confusing what is available with what we actually need? What do I mean by this?

We certainly have changed the landscape of the world due to agriculture, which has allowed us to procreate and feed ourselves, and certainly, industrialization has increased the availability of accessible cheap food. Protein in the form of meat, fish, and fowl are harder to get in industrialized nations as are fruits and vegetables. These macronutrients were the foods of our ancestors. It may be that a healthy diet is considered the one that is available. 

For instance, the Mediterranean diet is somewhat higher in fat content, 40%-50% fat (mostly mono and unsaturated), and similar in protein content but lower in carbohydrate content than the typical Western diet. The Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension (DASH) diet is lower in fat at 25% total calories, is higher in carbohydrates at 55%, and is lower in protein, but this diet was generated in the United States, therefore it is more Western. 

We need high-quality protein for organ and muscle function, high-quality unsaturated and monounsaturated fats for brain function and cellular functions, and high-quality complex carbohydrates for energy and gut health as well as micronutrients for many cellular functions. A ketogenic diet is not sustainable in the long-term for these reasons: chiefly the need for some carbohydrates for gut health and micronutrients. 

How much carbohydrate content is needed should take into consideration energy expenditure as well as micronutrients and fiber intake. Protein and fat can contribute to energy production but not as readily as carbohydrates that can quickly restore glycogen in the muscle and liver. What’s interesting is that our ancestors were able to hunt and run away from danger with the small amounts of carbohydrates from plants and berries plus the protein and fat intake from animals and fish — but the Olympics weren’t a thing then!

It may be another 200,000 years before our genes catch up to ultraprocessed foods and the simple carbohydrates and sugars contained in these products. Evidence suggests that ultraprocessed foods cause inflammation in organs like the liver, adipose tissue, the heart, and even the brain. In the brain, this inflammation may be what’s causing us to defend a higher body weight set point in this environment of easily obtained highly palatable ultraprocessed foods. 

Let’s not wait until our genes catch up and our bodies tolerate junk food without disease progression. It could be like waiting for Godot!

Dr. Apovian is professor of medicine, Harvard Medical School, and codirector, Center for Weight Management and Wellness, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts. She disclosed ties to Altimmune, CinFina Pharma, Cowen and Company, EPG Communication Holdings, Form Health, Gelesis, and L-Nutra.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Recent headlines scream that we have an obesity problem and that carbs are the culprit for the problem. That leads me to ask: How did we get to blaming carbs as the enemy in the war against obesity?

First, a quick review of the history of diet and macronutrient content.

A long time ago, prehistoric humans foraged and hunted for food. Protein and fat were procured from animal meat, which was very important for encephalization, or evolutionary increase in the complexity or relative size of the brain. Most of the requirements for protein and iron were satisfied by hunting and eating land animals as well as consuming marine life that washed up on shore.

Carbohydrates in the form of plant foods served as the only sources of energy available to prehistoric hunter-gatherers, which offset the high protein content of the rest of their diet. These were only available during spring and summer.

Then, about 10,000 years ago, plant and animal agriculture began, and humans saw a permanent shift in the macronutrient content of our daily intake so that it was more consistent and stable. Initially, the nutrient characteristic changes were subtle, going from wild food to cultivated food with the Agricultural Revolution in the mid-17th century. Then, it changed even more rapidly less than 200 years ago with the Industrial Revolution, resulting in semiprocessed and ultraprocessed foods.

This change in food intake altered human physiology, with major changes in our digestive, immune, and neural physiology and an increase in chronic disease prevalence. The last 50 years has seen an increase in obesity in the United States, along with increases in chronic disease such as type 2 diabetes, which leads cardiovascular disease and certain cancers. 
 

Back to Carbohydrates: Do We Need Them? How Much? What Kind?

The increase in the macronutrient content of the food we eat containing saturated fat and refined carbohydrates and sugars represents a major change and is arguably the smoking gun of the obesity epidemic. Unfortunately, ultraprocessed foods have become a staple of the standard American or Western diet. 

Ultraprocessed foods such as cakes, cookies, crackers, sugary breakfast cereals, pizza, potato chips, soft drinks, and ice cream are eons away from our prehistoric diet of wild game, nuts, fruits, and berries, at which time, our digestive immune and nervous systems evolved. The pace at which ultraprocessed foods have entered our diet outpaces the time necessary for adaptation of our digestive systems and genes to these foods. They are indeed pathogenic in this context. 

So when was the time when humans consumed an “optimal” diet? This is hard to say because during the time of brain evolution, we needed protein and iron and succumbed to infections and trauma. In the early 1900s, we continued to succumb to infection until the discovery of antibiotics. Soon thereafter, industrialization and processed foods led to weight gain and the chronic diseases of the cardiovascular system and type 2 diabetes. 

Carbohydrates provide calories and fiber and some micronutrients, which are needed for energy, metabolism, and bowel and immune health. But how much do we need? 

Currently in the United States, the percentage of total food energy derived from the three major macronutrients is: carbohydrates, 51.8%; fat, 32.8%; and protein, 15.4%. Current advice for a healthy diet to lower risk for cardiovascular disease is to limit fat intake to 30% of total energy, protein to 15%, and to increase complex carbohydrates to 55%-60% of total energy. But we also need to qualify this in terms of the quality of the macronutrient, particularly carbohydrates. 

In addition to the quality, the macronutrient content of the diet has varied considerably from our prehistoric times when dietary protein intakes were high at 19%-35% of energy at the expense of carbohydrate (22%-40% of energy). 

If our genes haven’t kept up with industrialization, then why do we need so many carbohydrates to equate to 55%-60% of energy? Is it possible that we are confusing what is available with what we actually need? What do I mean by this?

We certainly have changed the landscape of the world due to agriculture, which has allowed us to procreate and feed ourselves, and certainly, industrialization has increased the availability of accessible cheap food. Protein in the form of meat, fish, and fowl are harder to get in industrialized nations as are fruits and vegetables. These macronutrients were the foods of our ancestors. It may be that a healthy diet is considered the one that is available. 

For instance, the Mediterranean diet is somewhat higher in fat content, 40%-50% fat (mostly mono and unsaturated), and similar in protein content but lower in carbohydrate content than the typical Western diet. The Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension (DASH) diet is lower in fat at 25% total calories, is higher in carbohydrates at 55%, and is lower in protein, but this diet was generated in the United States, therefore it is more Western. 

We need high-quality protein for organ and muscle function, high-quality unsaturated and monounsaturated fats for brain function and cellular functions, and high-quality complex carbohydrates for energy and gut health as well as micronutrients for many cellular functions. A ketogenic diet is not sustainable in the long-term for these reasons: chiefly the need for some carbohydrates for gut health and micronutrients. 

How much carbohydrate content is needed should take into consideration energy expenditure as well as micronutrients and fiber intake. Protein and fat can contribute to energy production but not as readily as carbohydrates that can quickly restore glycogen in the muscle and liver. What’s interesting is that our ancestors were able to hunt and run away from danger with the small amounts of carbohydrates from plants and berries plus the protein and fat intake from animals and fish — but the Olympics weren’t a thing then!

It may be another 200,000 years before our genes catch up to ultraprocessed foods and the simple carbohydrates and sugars contained in these products. Evidence suggests that ultraprocessed foods cause inflammation in organs like the liver, adipose tissue, the heart, and even the brain. In the brain, this inflammation may be what’s causing us to defend a higher body weight set point in this environment of easily obtained highly palatable ultraprocessed foods. 

Let’s not wait until our genes catch up and our bodies tolerate junk food without disease progression. It could be like waiting for Godot!

Dr. Apovian is professor of medicine, Harvard Medical School, and codirector, Center for Weight Management and Wellness, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts. She disclosed ties to Altimmune, CinFina Pharma, Cowen and Company, EPG Communication Holdings, Form Health, Gelesis, and L-Nutra.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A new three-phase screening protocol that incorporates a PSA test, a four-kallikrein panel, and an MRI scan appears to improve the prostate cancer detection rate among men invited to participate in a single screening compared with those not invited, according to preliminary findings from the Finnish ProScreen randomized clinical trial.

METHODOLOGY:

• Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening is currently recommended for men in the United States starting at age 55. However, the test is controversial, in large part because it often detects prostate cancer that is not clinically relevant and may lead to overtreatment of men with low-grade disease.
• The current ProScreen trial assessed a screening intervention that aims to reduce unnecessary diagnoses of prostate cancer but still catch relevant cancers and reduce prostate cancer mortality.
• The researchers randomized 60,745 eligible men aged 50-63 years to be invited to a three-phase screening intervention (n = 15,201) or to be part of a control group that was not invited to screen (n = 45,544).
• The screening group who agreed to participate (n = 7744) first underwent a PSA test. Those with a PSA of ≥ 3.0 ng/mL then underwent a four-kallikrein panel to identify high-grade prostate cancer. Those with a kallikrein panel risk score of 7.5% or higher underwent an MRI of the prostate gland.
• Targeted biopsies were performed in those with abnormal prostate gland findings on MRI. Most patients with a negative MRI were not recommended for systematic biopsy unless they had a PSA density of ≥ 0.15 ng/mL.

TAKEAWAY:

• Among the 7744 invited men who agreed to the three-phase screening protocol (51%), ultimately 209 (2.7% of all screened participants) had a targeted transrectal prostate biopsy. Overall, 136 of the biopsies (65%) detected cancer — 32 low-grade and 128 high-grade prostate cancers, for cumulative incidence rates of 0.41% and 1.65%, respectively.
• Over a 3.2-year median follow-up among the 7457 invited men who refused screening, seven low-grade and 44 high-grade prostate cancers were detected (cumulative incidence rates, 0.1% and 0.6%, respectively).
• Among the entire invited screening group, 39 low-grade (cumulative incidence, 0.26%) and 172 high-grade prostate cancers (cumulative incidence, 1.13%) were detected.
• Among men in the control group, 65 low-grade prostate cancers were ultimately identified and 282 high-grade. The risk difference between the invited screening group and control group was 0.11% for low-grade disease and 0.51% for high-grade disease. Compared with the control group, the intervention led to the detection of one additional low-grade prostate cancer per 909 men invited to screen and one additional high-grade prostate cancer per 196 men invited.

IN PRACTICE:

The three-phase screening approach used in this study detected additional cancers, compared with a control group not invited for screening, but “these results are descriptive and should be interpreted provisionally pending results from the trial on the primary outcomes of prostate cancer mortality,” the investigators said.

SOURCE:

This study was conducted by the ProScreen Trial Investigators, including first author Anssi Auvinen, MD, PhD, of Tampere University, Tampere, Finland, and was published online in JAMAalongside an accompanying editorial.

LIMITATIONS:

Absolute differences between the two randomized groups in this study were small and had unclear clinical importance. Prior screening was reported by several participants and may have reduced cancer detection. The results are based on a single invitation for screening, meaning some high-grade cancers were likely missed; subsequent screening invitations may identify missed cancers. No data were available on cancers missed at screening, and interval cancer incidence is needed to assess sensitivity of the screening protocol used in the study.

DISCLOSURES:

The ProScreen trial is funded by grants from the Academy of Finland, the Finnish Cancer Foundation, the Jane and Aatos Erkko Foundation, the Finland State Research Funding, Helsinki University Hospital, the Sigrid Jusélius Foundation, and the Päivikki and Sakari Sohlberg Foundation. Dr. Auvinen reported having no disclosures. Multiple co-authors reported associations outside the submitted work. The full list of author disclosures is included with the full text of the article.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A new three-phase screening protocol that incorporates a PSA test, a four-kallikrein panel, and an MRI scan appears to improve the prostate cancer detection rate among men invited to participate in a single screening compared with those not invited, according to preliminary findings from the Finnish ProScreen randomized clinical trial.

METHODOLOGY:

• Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening is currently recommended for men in the United States starting at age 55. However, the test is controversial, in large part because it often detects prostate cancer that is not clinically relevant and may lead to overtreatment of men with low-grade disease.
• The current ProScreen trial assessed a screening intervention that aims to reduce unnecessary diagnoses of prostate cancer but still catch relevant cancers and reduce prostate cancer mortality.
• The researchers randomized 60,745 eligible men aged 50-63 years to be invited to a three-phase screening intervention (n = 15,201) or to be part of a control group that was not invited to screen (n = 45,544).
• The screening group who agreed to participate (n = 7744) first underwent a PSA test. Those with a PSA of ≥ 3.0 ng/mL then underwent a four-kallikrein panel to identify high-grade prostate cancer. Those with a kallikrein panel risk score of 7.5% or higher underwent an MRI of the prostate gland.
• Targeted biopsies were performed in those with abnormal prostate gland findings on MRI. Most patients with a negative MRI were not recommended for systematic biopsy unless they had a PSA density of ≥ 0.15 ng/mL.

TAKEAWAY:

• Among the 7744 invited men who agreed to the three-phase screening protocol (51%), ultimately 209 (2.7% of all screened participants) had a targeted transrectal prostate biopsy. Overall, 136 of the biopsies (65%) detected cancer — 32 low-grade and 128 high-grade prostate cancers, for cumulative incidence rates of 0.41% and 1.65%, respectively.
• Over a 3.2-year median follow-up among the 7457 invited men who refused screening, seven low-grade and 44 high-grade prostate cancers were detected (cumulative incidence rates, 0.1% and 0.6%, respectively).
• Among the entire invited screening group, 39 low-grade (cumulative incidence, 0.26%) and 172 high-grade prostate cancers (cumulative incidence, 1.13%) were detected.
• Among men in the control group, 65 low-grade prostate cancers were ultimately identified and 282 high-grade. The risk difference between the invited screening group and control group was 0.11% for low-grade disease and 0.51% for high-grade disease. Compared with the control group, the intervention led to the detection of one additional low-grade prostate cancer per 909 men invited to screen and one additional high-grade prostate cancer per 196 men invited.

IN PRACTICE:

The three-phase screening approach used in this study detected additional cancers, compared with a control group not invited for screening, but “these results are descriptive and should be interpreted provisionally pending results from the trial on the primary outcomes of prostate cancer mortality,” the investigators said.

SOURCE:

This study was conducted by the ProScreen Trial Investigators, including first author Anssi Auvinen, MD, PhD, of Tampere University, Tampere, Finland, and was published online in JAMAalongside an accompanying editorial.

LIMITATIONS:

Absolute differences between the two randomized groups in this study were small and had unclear clinical importance. Prior screening was reported by several participants and may have reduced cancer detection. The results are based on a single invitation for screening, meaning some high-grade cancers were likely missed; subsequent screening invitations may identify missed cancers. No data were available on cancers missed at screening, and interval cancer incidence is needed to assess sensitivity of the screening protocol used in the study.

DISCLOSURES:

The ProScreen trial is funded by grants from the Academy of Finland, the Finnish Cancer Foundation, the Jane and Aatos Erkko Foundation, the Finland State Research Funding, Helsinki University Hospital, the Sigrid Jusélius Foundation, and the Päivikki and Sakari Sohlberg Foundation. Dr. Auvinen reported having no disclosures. Multiple co-authors reported associations outside the submitted work. The full list of author disclosures is included with the full text of the article.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A new three-phase screening protocol that incorporates a PSA test, a four-kallikrein panel, and an MRI scan appears to improve the prostate cancer detection rate among men invited to participate in a single screening compared with those not invited, according to preliminary findings from the Finnish ProScreen randomized clinical trial.

METHODOLOGY:

• Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening is currently recommended for men in the United States starting at age 55. However, the test is controversial, in large part because it often detects prostate cancer that is not clinically relevant and may lead to overtreatment of men with low-grade disease.
• The current ProScreen trial assessed a screening intervention that aims to reduce unnecessary diagnoses of prostate cancer but still catch relevant cancers and reduce prostate cancer mortality.
• The researchers randomized 60,745 eligible men aged 50-63 years to be invited to a three-phase screening intervention (n = 15,201) or to be part of a control group that was not invited to screen (n = 45,544).
• The screening group who agreed to participate (n = 7744) first underwent a PSA test. Those with a PSA of ≥ 3.0 ng/mL then underwent a four-kallikrein panel to identify high-grade prostate cancer. Those with a kallikrein panel risk score of 7.5% or higher underwent an MRI of the prostate gland.
• Targeted biopsies were performed in those with abnormal prostate gland findings on MRI. Most patients with a negative MRI were not recommended for systematic biopsy unless they had a PSA density of ≥ 0.15 ng/mL.

TAKEAWAY:

• Among the 7744 invited men who agreed to the three-phase screening protocol (51%), ultimately 209 (2.7% of all screened participants) had a targeted transrectal prostate biopsy. Overall, 136 of the biopsies (65%) detected cancer — 32 low-grade and 128 high-grade prostate cancers, for cumulative incidence rates of 0.41% and 1.65%, respectively.
• Over a 3.2-year median follow-up among the 7457 invited men who refused screening, seven low-grade and 44 high-grade prostate cancers were detected (cumulative incidence rates, 0.1% and 0.6%, respectively).
• Among the entire invited screening group, 39 low-grade (cumulative incidence, 0.26%) and 172 high-grade prostate cancers (cumulative incidence, 1.13%) were detected.
• Among men in the control group, 65 low-grade prostate cancers were ultimately identified and 282 high-grade. The risk difference between the invited screening group and control group was 0.11% for low-grade disease and 0.51% for high-grade disease. Compared with the control group, the intervention led to the detection of one additional low-grade prostate cancer per 909 men invited to screen and one additional high-grade prostate cancer per 196 men invited.

IN PRACTICE:

The three-phase screening approach used in this study detected additional cancers, compared with a control group not invited for screening, but “these results are descriptive and should be interpreted provisionally pending results from the trial on the primary outcomes of prostate cancer mortality,” the investigators said.

SOURCE:

This study was conducted by the ProScreen Trial Investigators, including first author Anssi Auvinen, MD, PhD, of Tampere University, Tampere, Finland, and was published online in JAMAalongside an accompanying editorial.

LIMITATIONS:

Absolute differences between the two randomized groups in this study were small and had unclear clinical importance. Prior screening was reported by several participants and may have reduced cancer detection. The results are based on a single invitation for screening, meaning some high-grade cancers were likely missed; subsequent screening invitations may identify missed cancers. No data were available on cancers missed at screening, and interval cancer incidence is needed to assess sensitivity of the screening protocol used in the study.

DISCLOSURES:

The ProScreen trial is funded by grants from the Academy of Finland, the Finnish Cancer Foundation, the Jane and Aatos Erkko Foundation, the Finland State Research Funding, Helsinki University Hospital, the Sigrid Jusélius Foundation, and the Päivikki and Sakari Sohlberg Foundation. Dr. Auvinen reported having no disclosures. Multiple co-authors reported associations outside the submitted work. The full list of author disclosures is included with the full text of the article.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

There have been many attempts to use immunotherapy to improve outcomes in pancreatic cancer, but they haven’t worked out.

The trials, however, have focused on adding immune checkpoint inhibitors to chemotherapy in metastatic disease, leaving open the question of whether immunotherapy might have a role in the neoadjuvant setting before surgery.

In the first study to test the hypothesis, Zev A. Wainberg, MD, a gastrointestinal medical oncologist at the University of California Los Angeles, reported promising results at the American Association for Cancer Research annual meeting.

The small, single arm pilot study included 28 patients with borderline resectable pancreatic cancer, meaning that tumors had some degree of vascular involvement. About 20% of pancreatic tumors are borderline resectable, Dr. Wainberg said.

Patients received 480 mg of nivolumab intravenously every 4 weeks plus mFOLFIRINOX chemotherapy (oxaliplatin, irinotecan, leucovorin, and 5-fluorouracil) on days 1 and 15 of the 28-day cycle.

Patients who downstaged to resectable disease after three cycles went on to surgery; if not, treatment continued for another 3 months. The median number of cycles was 5.5, and almost all patients completed at least 3.

Overall, 19 of the 22 patients who proceeded to surgery (86%) had a pathologic response to neoadjuvant treatment with nivolumab: 2 complete responses, 2 near-complete responses, and 15 partial responses.

Among patients receiving surgery, 21 had R0 resections, meaning negative surgical margins with no tumor left behind. This is key because R0 resections predict longer survival, and “every effort should be made to achieve” this outcome, Dr. Wainberg said. The remaining patient had an R1 resection.

Median progression-free survival was 21.9 months among all patients and 27.3 months among the 22 patients who had resections.

Median overall survival was 34.6 months across the entire group and 44 months among those who had surgery. Overall, 82% of patients were alive at 12 months, and 77% were alive at 18 months.

The study outcomes, especially among the surgery cohort, stand in contrast to those observed in patients who receive the current standard neoadjuvant regimen for borderline resectable pancreatic cancer, mFOLFIRINOX alone, with studies finding a median overall survival of 29.8 months.

Adding nivolumab to neoadjuvant treatment also did not increase side effects. More than half of patients had grade 3 or worse adverse events, but they were all related to mFOLFIRINOX. There were no significant surgical complications, including no grade 2 or higher fistulas.

“We are very pleased” with the outcomes, Dr. Wainberg said. “We need to be studying [immune checkpoint inhibitors] earlier on in both borderline and locally advanced disease. Pancreatic cancer needs all the help it can get to engage immunity.”

Moderator Alice Ho, MD, a radiation oncologist at Duke University in Durham, North Carolina, called the R0 resection rate “stunning” in a “field that very much needs improvements and advancements.”

Dr. Ho also noted that the trial raises “a lot of interesting questions.”

For instance, why exactly is the addition of nivolumab seemingly improving outcomes?

The combination neoadjuvant therapy appeared to increase tertiary lymphoid structures, plasma cells, and CD4+ T cells — all indications that immunotherapy is having a positive impact — but the treatment also seemed to upregulate pathways for adenosine, an immunosuppressant associated with worse responses to checkpoint blockade.

A larger study is already in the works. In addition to a PD-1 blocker and mFOLFIRINOX, patients will receive a CD73 inhibitor to block adenosine production, Dr. Wainberg said.

Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS) provided the nivolumab used in the study. Dr. Wainberg is a consultant for and reported research funding from BMS and other companies. Dr. Ho had no relevant disclosures.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

There have been many attempts to use immunotherapy to improve outcomes in pancreatic cancer, but they haven’t worked out.

The trials, however, have focused on adding immune checkpoint inhibitors to chemotherapy in metastatic disease, leaving open the question of whether immunotherapy might have a role in the neoadjuvant setting before surgery.

In the first study to test the hypothesis, Zev A. Wainberg, MD, a gastrointestinal medical oncologist at the University of California Los Angeles, reported promising results at the American Association for Cancer Research annual meeting.

The small, single arm pilot study included 28 patients with borderline resectable pancreatic cancer, meaning that tumors had some degree of vascular involvement. About 20% of pancreatic tumors are borderline resectable, Dr. Wainberg said.

Patients received 480 mg of nivolumab intravenously every 4 weeks plus mFOLFIRINOX chemotherapy (oxaliplatin, irinotecan, leucovorin, and 5-fluorouracil) on days 1 and 15 of the 28-day cycle.

Patients who downstaged to resectable disease after three cycles went on to surgery; if not, treatment continued for another 3 months. The median number of cycles was 5.5, and almost all patients completed at least 3.

Overall, 19 of the 22 patients who proceeded to surgery (86%) had a pathologic response to neoadjuvant treatment with nivolumab: 2 complete responses, 2 near-complete responses, and 15 partial responses.

Among patients receiving surgery, 21 had R0 resections, meaning negative surgical margins with no tumor left behind. This is key because R0 resections predict longer survival, and “every effort should be made to achieve” this outcome, Dr. Wainberg said. The remaining patient had an R1 resection.

Median progression-free survival was 21.9 months among all patients and 27.3 months among the 22 patients who had resections.

Median overall survival was 34.6 months across the entire group and 44 months among those who had surgery. Overall, 82% of patients were alive at 12 months, and 77% were alive at 18 months.

The study outcomes, especially among the surgery cohort, stand in contrast to those observed in patients who receive the current standard neoadjuvant regimen for borderline resectable pancreatic cancer, mFOLFIRINOX alone, with studies finding a median overall survival of 29.8 months.

Adding nivolumab to neoadjuvant treatment also did not increase side effects. More than half of patients had grade 3 or worse adverse events, but they were all related to mFOLFIRINOX. There were no significant surgical complications, including no grade 2 or higher fistulas.

“We are very pleased” with the outcomes, Dr. Wainberg said. “We need to be studying [immune checkpoint inhibitors] earlier on in both borderline and locally advanced disease. Pancreatic cancer needs all the help it can get to engage immunity.”

Moderator Alice Ho, MD, a radiation oncologist at Duke University in Durham, North Carolina, called the R0 resection rate “stunning” in a “field that very much needs improvements and advancements.”

Dr. Ho also noted that the trial raises “a lot of interesting questions.”

For instance, why exactly is the addition of nivolumab seemingly improving outcomes?

The combination neoadjuvant therapy appeared to increase tertiary lymphoid structures, plasma cells, and CD4+ T cells — all indications that immunotherapy is having a positive impact — but the treatment also seemed to upregulate pathways for adenosine, an immunosuppressant associated with worse responses to checkpoint blockade.

A larger study is already in the works. In addition to a PD-1 blocker and mFOLFIRINOX, patients will receive a CD73 inhibitor to block adenosine production, Dr. Wainberg said.

Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS) provided the nivolumab used in the study. Dr. Wainberg is a consultant for and reported research funding from BMS and other companies. Dr. Ho had no relevant disclosures.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

There have been many attempts to use immunotherapy to improve outcomes in pancreatic cancer, but they haven’t worked out.

The trials, however, have focused on adding immune checkpoint inhibitors to chemotherapy in metastatic disease, leaving open the question of whether immunotherapy might have a role in the neoadjuvant setting before surgery.

In the first study to test the hypothesis, Zev A. Wainberg, MD, a gastrointestinal medical oncologist at the University of California Los Angeles, reported promising results at the American Association for Cancer Research annual meeting.

The small, single arm pilot study included 28 patients with borderline resectable pancreatic cancer, meaning that tumors had some degree of vascular involvement. About 20% of pancreatic tumors are borderline resectable, Dr. Wainberg said.

Patients received 480 mg of nivolumab intravenously every 4 weeks plus mFOLFIRINOX chemotherapy (oxaliplatin, irinotecan, leucovorin, and 5-fluorouracil) on days 1 and 15 of the 28-day cycle.

Patients who downstaged to resectable disease after three cycles went on to surgery; if not, treatment continued for another 3 months. The median number of cycles was 5.5, and almost all patients completed at least 3.

Overall, 19 of the 22 patients who proceeded to surgery (86%) had a pathologic response to neoadjuvant treatment with nivolumab: 2 complete responses, 2 near-complete responses, and 15 partial responses.

Among patients receiving surgery, 21 had R0 resections, meaning negative surgical margins with no tumor left behind. This is key because R0 resections predict longer survival, and “every effort should be made to achieve” this outcome, Dr. Wainberg said. The remaining patient had an R1 resection.

Median progression-free survival was 21.9 months among all patients and 27.3 months among the 22 patients who had resections.

Median overall survival was 34.6 months across the entire group and 44 months among those who had surgery. Overall, 82% of patients were alive at 12 months, and 77% were alive at 18 months.

The study outcomes, especially among the surgery cohort, stand in contrast to those observed in patients who receive the current standard neoadjuvant regimen for borderline resectable pancreatic cancer, mFOLFIRINOX alone, with studies finding a median overall survival of 29.8 months.

Adding nivolumab to neoadjuvant treatment also did not increase side effects. More than half of patients had grade 3 or worse adverse events, but they were all related to mFOLFIRINOX. There were no significant surgical complications, including no grade 2 or higher fistulas.

“We are very pleased” with the outcomes, Dr. Wainberg said. “We need to be studying [immune checkpoint inhibitors] earlier on in both borderline and locally advanced disease. Pancreatic cancer needs all the help it can get to engage immunity.”

Moderator Alice Ho, MD, a radiation oncologist at Duke University in Durham, North Carolina, called the R0 resection rate “stunning” in a “field that very much needs improvements and advancements.”

Dr. Ho also noted that the trial raises “a lot of interesting questions.”

For instance, why exactly is the addition of nivolumab seemingly improving outcomes?

The combination neoadjuvant therapy appeared to increase tertiary lymphoid structures, plasma cells, and CD4+ T cells — all indications that immunotherapy is having a positive impact — but the treatment also seemed to upregulate pathways for adenosine, an immunosuppressant associated with worse responses to checkpoint blockade.

A larger study is already in the works. In addition to a PD-1 blocker and mFOLFIRINOX, patients will receive a CD73 inhibitor to block adenosine production, Dr. Wainberg said.

Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS) provided the nivolumab used in the study. Dr. Wainberg is a consultant for and reported research funding from BMS and other companies. Dr. Ho had no relevant disclosures.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The latest research supports immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy for clear cell and non–clear cell renal cell carcinoma, but patient selection is key to optimize outcomes, according to a medical oncologist from the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston.

Michael Serzan, MD, who works in the Lank Center for Genitourinary Oncology at the institute, stated this at the 2024 National Comprehensive Cancer Network Annual Conference, during a presentation.

A systematic review and meta-analysis published in 2022 in European Urology Open Science summarized six randomized controlled trials with a total of 5121 adult patients. In the review, the researchers found that immune checkpoint inhibitors plus vascular endothelial growth factor tyrosine kinase inhibitors (VEGF TKI) were associated with consistent improvements across all risk groups for metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

Additional newer research supports the use of immunotherapy combinations or other immunotherapy plus tyrosine kinase inhibitors as first-line or adjuvant treatments for renal cell carcinoma, Dr. Serzan said during an interview. However, more genomic and histology-directed therapies are needed, he noted.
 

Tips for Evaluating Risk When Treating Renal Cell Carcinoma?

For patients with localized clear cell renal cell carcinoma who have undergone partial or radical nephrectomy, there are several models that estimate the risk of recurrence based on pathologic tumor stage, grade, histology, invasion, and the extent of necrosis, Dr. Serzan said. These models can help guide selection of patients who may be at high risk of recurrence and, therefore, may benefit from adjuvant therapy.

For patients with metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma, the IMDC and MSKCC prognostic models stratify patients to favorable, intermediate, and poor risk groups based on clinical and lab factors. The IMDC risk stratification model is used as a prognostic model to stratify patients diagnosed with metastatic kidney cancer, Dr. Serzan said.
 

What Research Supports Treatments for Clear Cell and Non–Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma?

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved pembrolizumab in 2021 for the adjuvant treatment of renal cell carcinoma (RCC) in patients with intermediate-risk or high-risk of recurrence after nephrectomy or after nephrectomy and resection of metastatic lesions.

Pembrolizumab is the first adjuvant therapy shown to significantly improve overall survival in these patients, Dr. Serzan said. In the KEYNOTE-564 study, published in 2024 in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, pembrolizumab demonstrated an improvement in disease free survival as well as overall survival when compared with placebo.

Several similar studies of adjuvant immune checkpoint inhibitors for renal cell carcinoma involving atezolizumab vs. placebo, nivolumab plus ipilimumab vs. placebo, and nivolumab vs. observation have not shown significant benefits in terms of disease-free survival, Dr. Serzan noted.

The current NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology for Kidney Cancer (Version: 3.2024), which were updated this year, support the use of adjuvant pembrolizumab for patients with stage II, III, or IV clear cell renal cell carcinoma after partial or radical nephrectomy, he said.

Looking ahead, biomarkers are needed to understand the risk of recurrence, and which patients benefit from adjuvant pembrolizumab, Dr. Serzan added.
 

Where Do VEGF-TKIs Fit In?

VEGF is a treatment target for renal cancer, and angiogenesis inhibition with VEGF TKIs continues to be a subject for study, Dr. Serzan said. In the CABOSUN study, published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology in 2017, patients were randomized to cabozantinib or sunitinib. Progression-free survival was significantly greater in the cabozantinib group, but overall survival was similar between the groups.

In another randomized trial, the CheckMate 214 study, patients received either sunitinib or a combination of nivolumab plus ipilimumab in four doses given every 3 weeks, followed by nivolumab alone every 2 weeks, and these patients were stratified by risk, Dr. Serzan noted.

The median progression-free survival was 12.4 months in the combination group vs. 8.5 months in the sunitinib group for patients at intermediate or poor risk of recurrence. The median progression-free survival was significantly greater in sunitinib patients with favorable risk vs. combination patients with favorable risk (28.9 months vs. 12.4 months).

Overall survival was higher for all patients with combination therapy vs. sunitinib regardless of risk stratification.

Dr. Serzan reviewed the pros of VEGF/PD1 (programmed death-ligand 1) combinations as including a high response rate (generally 52%-72%) and a low rate of primary progressive disease (5%-12%), as well as favorable progression-free and overall survival and low rates of immune-related adverse events.

However, cons of this treatment include lack of data on treatment-free survival as well as the decrease in progression-free survival and overall survival hazard ratios over time and potential chronic VEGF/TKI toxicities, he said.
 

What Treatments Are Recommended for Metastatic Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma Now?

Clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) is the most prevalent histological subtype of kidney cancer, accounting for 70%-75% of cases, and these patients are prone to metastasis, recurrence, and resistance to radiotherapy and chemotherapy, according to authors of a recent review published in Frontiers in Oncology.

Dr. Serzan shared his preferred protocol for treatment-naive metastatic ccRCC patients, based on the NCCN guidelines for Kidney Cancer (Version: 3.2024) that had been updated in 2024.

For those with sarcomatoid features, he favors the use of nivolumab/ipilimumab combination, while those without sarcomatoid features, if highly symptomatic, may be treated with any of several combinations: nivolumab/ipilimumab, axitinib/pembrolizumab, cabozantinib/nivolumab, or lenvatinib/pembrolizumab.

For asymptomatic patients without sarcomatoid features, treatment depends on eligibility for immune checkpoint inhibitors or ipilimumab, Dr. Serzan said. His first choice for those eligible is nivolumab/ipilimumab; those not eligible for ipilimumab could receive nivolumab, pembrolizumab, axitinib/pembrolizumab, cabozantinib/nivolumab, or lenvatinib/pembrolizumab.

For patients not eligible for ICIs because of uncontrolled autoimmune disease, or high-dose glucocorticoids, Dr. Serzan recommended treatment with cabozantinib, lenvatinib/everolimus, pazopanib, or sunitinib.
 

What are Some Takeaway Points About Immunotherapy and Renal Cell Carcinoma?

“Immunotherapy has revolutionized treatment for renal cell carcinoma, with significant increases in overall survival, and a small but consistent cure fraction that was unimaginable 10 years ago,” Eric Jonasch, MD, of The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center and vice-chair of the NCCN Guidelines Panel for Kidney Cancer, said in an interview.

However, challenges to implementing new treatments in clinical practice are ongoing, he said. The major challenges facing clinicians, patients, and their families include the cost of therapy, logistics of treatment administration, and managing toxicities, Dr. Jonasch said.  

Patient selection is key to optimize outcomes with immunotherapy, and shared decision-making is essential to ensure that choice of therapy matches patient expectations and needs — and to maintain clear and open channels of communication while patients are on therapy, Dr. Jonasch said. “In my clinic, we empower patients to take treatment breaks to manage side effects, thereby optimizing quality of life while maintaining treatment efficacy,” he said.

Although significant progress has been made in managing renal cell carcinoma, more research is needed to increase the proportion of patients cured, said Dr. Jonasch. “A clearer understanding of the determinants of response and resistance, which will be driven by information rich clinical trials, will help move us in that direction,” he said.

Dr. Serzan had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Jonasch disclosed research support from AbbVie, Arrowhead, Aveo, BMS, Corvus, Merck, NiKang, ProfoundBio, and Telix, as well as honoraria from Aveo, Eisai, Exelixis, GlaxoSmithKline, Ipsen, Merck, Novartis, NiKang, and Takeda.