Sharon Worcester

In recent years, patients with advanced lung cancer have benefited from the advent of immune therapies and genotype-directed therapies –both of which have led to improved survival rates. But what will lung cancer look like in 2030?

Pasi A. Janne, MD, PhD, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, hopes to see improved access to tumor and blood-based genotyping.

Dr. Janne, who serves as director of the Lowe Center for Thoracic Oncology at Dana-Farber, gave a keynote presentation at the 2022 European Lung Cancer Congress, where he highlighted the need to broaden the scope of targeted therapies, make “great drugs work even better,” improve the ability to treat patients based on risk level, and expand the use of targeted therapies in the adjuvant and neoadjuvant setting to make significant progress in the treatment lung cancer treatment in coming years.

Genotyping is underutilized, he said. A 2019 multicenter study reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology showed that only 54% of 1,203 patients underwent testing for EGFR mutations, 22% were tested for EGFR, ALK, ROS1, and BRAF mutations, and only 7% were tested for all biomarkers recommended by National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines at the time.

That study also showed that only 45% of patients received biomarker-driven treatment, even when driver mutations were detected.

“Immunotherapy was often prescribed instead of targeted therapy, even when molecular results were available,” Dr. Janne said.

Another study, reported at the 2021 ASCO annual meeting, showed some improvement in testing rates, but still, only 37% of patients were tested for all biomarkers as recommended.

Racial disparities in testing have also been observed. Bruno and colleagues found that any next-generation sequencing was performed in 50.1% of White patients, compared with 39.8% of black patients, and NGS prior to first-line therapy was performed in 35.5% and 25.8%, respectively.

The study, also reported at ASCO in 2021, showed that trial participation was observed among 3.9% of White patients and 1.9% of Black patients.

“The studies really highlight the need for increased testing rates and appropriate utilization of testing results to deliver optimal care to our patients with advanced lung cancer. We have a long way to go. To live the promise and appreciate the promise of precision therapy ... we need to be able to offer this testing to all of our patients with lung cancer,” he said.

Dr. Janne reported relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies, including consulting, research support and stock ownership. He also receives postmarketing royalties from Dana-Farber Cancer Institute–owned intellectual property on EGFR mutations.

In recent years, patients with advanced lung cancer have benefited from the advent of immune therapies and genotype-directed therapies –both of which have led to improved survival rates. But what will lung cancer look like in 2030?

Pasi A. Janne, MD, PhD, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, hopes to see improved access to tumor and blood-based genotyping.

Dr. Janne, who serves as director of the Lowe Center for Thoracic Oncology at Dana-Farber, gave a keynote presentation at the 2022 European Lung Cancer Congress, where he highlighted the need to broaden the scope of targeted therapies, make “great drugs work even better,” improve the ability to treat patients based on risk level, and expand the use of targeted therapies in the adjuvant and neoadjuvant setting to make significant progress in the treatment lung cancer treatment in coming years.

Genotyping is underutilized, he said. A 2019 multicenter study reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology showed that only 54% of 1,203 patients underwent testing for EGFR mutations, 22% were tested for EGFR, ALK, ROS1, and BRAF mutations, and only 7% were tested for all biomarkers recommended by National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines at the time.

That study also showed that only 45% of patients received biomarker-driven treatment, even when driver mutations were detected.

“Immunotherapy was often prescribed instead of targeted therapy, even when molecular results were available,” Dr. Janne said.

Another study, reported at the 2021 ASCO annual meeting, showed some improvement in testing rates, but still, only 37% of patients were tested for all biomarkers as recommended.

Racial disparities in testing have also been observed. Bruno and colleagues found that any next-generation sequencing was performed in 50.1% of White patients, compared with 39.8% of black patients, and NGS prior to first-line therapy was performed in 35.5% and 25.8%, respectively.

The study, also reported at ASCO in 2021, showed that trial participation was observed among 3.9% of White patients and 1.9% of Black patients.

“The studies really highlight the need for increased testing rates and appropriate utilization of testing results to deliver optimal care to our patients with advanced lung cancer. We have a long way to go. To live the promise and appreciate the promise of precision therapy ... we need to be able to offer this testing to all of our patients with lung cancer,” he said.

Dr. Janne reported relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies, including consulting, research support and stock ownership. He also receives postmarketing royalties from Dana-Farber Cancer Institute–owned intellectual property on EGFR mutations.

In recent years, patients with advanced lung cancer have benefited from the advent of immune therapies and genotype-directed therapies –both of which have led to improved survival rates. But what will lung cancer look like in 2030?

Pasi A. Janne, MD, PhD, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, hopes to see improved access to tumor and blood-based genotyping.

Dr. Janne, who serves as director of the Lowe Center for Thoracic Oncology at Dana-Farber, gave a keynote presentation at the 2022 European Lung Cancer Congress, where he highlighted the need to broaden the scope of targeted therapies, make “great drugs work even better,” improve the ability to treat patients based on risk level, and expand the use of targeted therapies in the adjuvant and neoadjuvant setting to make significant progress in the treatment lung cancer treatment in coming years.

Genotyping is underutilized, he said. A 2019 multicenter study reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology showed that only 54% of 1,203 patients underwent testing for EGFR mutations, 22% were tested for EGFR, ALK, ROS1, and BRAF mutations, and only 7% were tested for all biomarkers recommended by National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines at the time.

That study also showed that only 45% of patients received biomarker-driven treatment, even when driver mutations were detected.

“Immunotherapy was often prescribed instead of targeted therapy, even when molecular results were available,” Dr. Janne said.

Another study, reported at the 2021 ASCO annual meeting, showed some improvement in testing rates, but still, only 37% of patients were tested for all biomarkers as recommended.

Racial disparities in testing have also been observed. Bruno and colleagues found that any next-generation sequencing was performed in 50.1% of White patients, compared with 39.8% of black patients, and NGS prior to first-line therapy was performed in 35.5% and 25.8%, respectively.

The study, also reported at ASCO in 2021, showed that trial participation was observed among 3.9% of White patients and 1.9% of Black patients.

“The studies really highlight the need for increased testing rates and appropriate utilization of testing results to deliver optimal care to our patients with advanced lung cancer. We have a long way to go. To live the promise and appreciate the promise of precision therapy ... we need to be able to offer this testing to all of our patients with lung cancer,” he said.

Dr. Janne reported relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies, including consulting, research support and stock ownership. He also receives postmarketing royalties from Dana-Farber Cancer Institute–owned intellectual property on EGFR mutations.

Pathological response has emerged as a valuable endpoint and surrogate marker for overall survival in lung cancer studies, but much work remains to be done, said William D. Travis, MD, director of thoracic pathology at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York.

In a keynote address at the 2022 European Lung Cancer Conference, Dr. Travis highlighted advances in the use of pathological response in this setting and outlined areas that need refinement. “Pathologic response after preoperative therapy is important because the extent of pathologic response strongly correlates with improved overall survival, and it is reflective of neoadjuvant therapy. The degree of response is associated with the degree of benefit in survival, and it’s being used as a surrogate for survival in phase 2 and 3 neoadjuvant clinical trials.”

In fact, multiple studies have demonstrated that non–small cell lung cancer patients with 10% or less viable residual tumor after treatment have improved overall survival and disease-free survival, compared with patients who have more residual tumor, he explained.

Recent studies have demonstrated the value of pathological response as an endpoint in the neoadjuvant therapy and molecular targeted therapy setting, he said, citing a study published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology that showed major pathological response rates of 14%-45% and pathological complete response rates up to 29% in patients treated with single-agent checkpoint inhibition.

In the CheckMate 816 trial, both major pathologic response and pathological complete response were significantly higher in patients treated with combination nivolumab and chemotherapy, compared with those treated with chemotherapy alone (37% vs. 8.9% and 24% vs. 2%, respectively).

“This high rate of responses with combined immunotherapy and chemotherapy is quite exciting,” he said.

Dr. Travis also stressed the importance of consulting the current International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer Recommendations for Pathologic Assessment of Lung Cancer Resection Specimens After Neoadjuvant Therapy.

He highlighted several key points regarding pathological response in lung cancer:

• Major pathological response (MPR) is calculated as the estimated size of viable tumor divided by the size of the tumor bed.
• Optimal cutoffs for determining MPR is currently 10%, but recent data suggest that in the conventional chemotherapy setting this may vary by tumor histology, with much higher cutoffs of about 65% for adenocarcinoma.
• Estimating the amount of viable tumor is “quite complicated and requires quite a number of steps,” and one the most important steps is “for the surgeon to the pathologist know that given specimen is from a patient who received neoadjuvant therapy.”
• Determining the border of the tumor bed can be challenging, therefore “resection specimens after neoadjuvant therapy should be sampled to optimize comprehensive gross and histologic assessment of the lung tumor bed for pathologic response ... as outlined in the guidelines.”
• The IASLC panel determined that having a single approach for estimating treatment effect would be best, despite the different therapy types and combinations used, but “it is recognized that there may be certain types of features that need to be addressed,” such as immune cell infiltrates in pats who received immunotherapy.
• The recommendations provide specific guidance for measuring tumor size for staging, including for special circumstances.

As for future direction, Dr. Travis said, “one question is how to assess treatment effect in lymph node samples.

“This is done for lymph nodes in breast cancer but not in lung cancer. We need system[s] for lung cancer.”

Good “infrastructure for pathology departments” is needed to support clinical trials, he said, noting that the team at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center includes physician assistants, tissue procurement staff, frozen section techs, research fellows, and research assistants.

Future work should also aim to standardize pathology assessment for clinical trials, improve the current recommendations, make use of new technology like artificial intelligence, optimize banking protocols and special techniques, and identify radiologic-pathological correlations, he said.

He added that “IASLC is promoting the design and implementation of an international database to collect uniformly clinical and pathologic information with the ultimate goal of fostering collaboration and to facilitate the identification of surrogate endpoints of long-term survival.”

Dr. Travis is a nonpaid pathology consultant for the LCMC3 and LCMC4 trials.

Pathological response has emerged as a valuable endpoint and surrogate marker for overall survival in lung cancer studies, but much work remains to be done, said William D. Travis, MD, director of thoracic pathology at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York.

In a keynote address at the 2022 European Lung Cancer Conference, Dr. Travis highlighted advances in the use of pathological response in this setting and outlined areas that need refinement. “Pathologic response after preoperative therapy is important because the extent of pathologic response strongly correlates with improved overall survival, and it is reflective of neoadjuvant therapy. The degree of response is associated with the degree of benefit in survival, and it’s being used as a surrogate for survival in phase 2 and 3 neoadjuvant clinical trials.”

In fact, multiple studies have demonstrated that non–small cell lung cancer patients with 10% or less viable residual tumor after treatment have improved overall survival and disease-free survival, compared with patients who have more residual tumor, he explained.

Recent studies have demonstrated the value of pathological response as an endpoint in the neoadjuvant therapy and molecular targeted therapy setting, he said, citing a study published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology that showed major pathological response rates of 14%-45% and pathological complete response rates up to 29% in patients treated with single-agent checkpoint inhibition.

In the CheckMate 816 trial, both major pathologic response and pathological complete response were significantly higher in patients treated with combination nivolumab and chemotherapy, compared with those treated with chemotherapy alone (37% vs. 8.9% and 24% vs. 2%, respectively).

“This high rate of responses with combined immunotherapy and chemotherapy is quite exciting,” he said.

Dr. Travis also stressed the importance of consulting the current International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer Recommendations for Pathologic Assessment of Lung Cancer Resection Specimens After Neoadjuvant Therapy.

He highlighted several key points regarding pathological response in lung cancer:

• Major pathological response (MPR) is calculated as the estimated size of viable tumor divided by the size of the tumor bed.
• Optimal cutoffs for determining MPR is currently 10%, but recent data suggest that in the conventional chemotherapy setting this may vary by tumor histology, with much higher cutoffs of about 65% for adenocarcinoma.
• Estimating the amount of viable tumor is “quite complicated and requires quite a number of steps,” and one the most important steps is “for the surgeon to the pathologist know that given specimen is from a patient who received neoadjuvant therapy.”
• Determining the border of the tumor bed can be challenging, therefore “resection specimens after neoadjuvant therapy should be sampled to optimize comprehensive gross and histologic assessment of the lung tumor bed for pathologic response ... as outlined in the guidelines.”
• The IASLC panel determined that having a single approach for estimating treatment effect would be best, despite the different therapy types and combinations used, but “it is recognized that there may be certain types of features that need to be addressed,” such as immune cell infiltrates in pats who received immunotherapy.
• The recommendations provide specific guidance for measuring tumor size for staging, including for special circumstances.

As for future direction, Dr. Travis said, “one question is how to assess treatment effect in lymph node samples.

“This is done for lymph nodes in breast cancer but not in lung cancer. We need system[s] for lung cancer.”

Good “infrastructure for pathology departments” is needed to support clinical trials, he said, noting that the team at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center includes physician assistants, tissue procurement staff, frozen section techs, research fellows, and research assistants.

Future work should also aim to standardize pathology assessment for clinical trials, improve the current recommendations, make use of new technology like artificial intelligence, optimize banking protocols and special techniques, and identify radiologic-pathological correlations, he said.

He added that “IASLC is promoting the design and implementation of an international database to collect uniformly clinical and pathologic information with the ultimate goal of fostering collaboration and to facilitate the identification of surrogate endpoints of long-term survival.”

Dr. Travis is a nonpaid pathology consultant for the LCMC3 and LCMC4 trials.

Pathological response has emerged as a valuable endpoint and surrogate marker for overall survival in lung cancer studies, but much work remains to be done, said William D. Travis, MD, director of thoracic pathology at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York.

In a keynote address at the 2022 European Lung Cancer Conference, Dr. Travis highlighted advances in the use of pathological response in this setting and outlined areas that need refinement. “Pathologic response after preoperative therapy is important because the extent of pathologic response strongly correlates with improved overall survival, and it is reflective of neoadjuvant therapy. The degree of response is associated with the degree of benefit in survival, and it’s being used as a surrogate for survival in phase 2 and 3 neoadjuvant clinical trials.”

In fact, multiple studies have demonstrated that non–small cell lung cancer patients with 10% or less viable residual tumor after treatment have improved overall survival and disease-free survival, compared with patients who have more residual tumor, he explained.

Recent studies have demonstrated the value of pathological response as an endpoint in the neoadjuvant therapy and molecular targeted therapy setting, he said, citing a study published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology that showed major pathological response rates of 14%-45% and pathological complete response rates up to 29% in patients treated with single-agent checkpoint inhibition.

In the CheckMate 816 trial, both major pathologic response and pathological complete response were significantly higher in patients treated with combination nivolumab and chemotherapy, compared with those treated with chemotherapy alone (37% vs. 8.9% and 24% vs. 2%, respectively).

“This high rate of responses with combined immunotherapy and chemotherapy is quite exciting,” he said.

Dr. Travis also stressed the importance of consulting the current International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer Recommendations for Pathologic Assessment of Lung Cancer Resection Specimens After Neoadjuvant Therapy.

He highlighted several key points regarding pathological response in lung cancer:

• Major pathological response (MPR) is calculated as the estimated size of viable tumor divided by the size of the tumor bed.
• Optimal cutoffs for determining MPR is currently 10%, but recent data suggest that in the conventional chemotherapy setting this may vary by tumor histology, with much higher cutoffs of about 65% for adenocarcinoma.
• Estimating the amount of viable tumor is “quite complicated and requires quite a number of steps,” and one the most important steps is “for the surgeon to the pathologist know that given specimen is from a patient who received neoadjuvant therapy.”
• Determining the border of the tumor bed can be challenging, therefore “resection specimens after neoadjuvant therapy should be sampled to optimize comprehensive gross and histologic assessment of the lung tumor bed for pathologic response ... as outlined in the guidelines.”
• The IASLC panel determined that having a single approach for estimating treatment effect would be best, despite the different therapy types and combinations used, but “it is recognized that there may be certain types of features that need to be addressed,” such as immune cell infiltrates in pats who received immunotherapy.
• The recommendations provide specific guidance for measuring tumor size for staging, including for special circumstances.

As for future direction, Dr. Travis said, “one question is how to assess treatment effect in lymph node samples.

“This is done for lymph nodes in breast cancer but not in lung cancer. We need system[s] for lung cancer.”

Good “infrastructure for pathology departments” is needed to support clinical trials, he said, noting that the team at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center includes physician assistants, tissue procurement staff, frozen section techs, research fellows, and research assistants.

Future work should also aim to standardize pathology assessment for clinical trials, improve the current recommendations, make use of new technology like artificial intelligence, optimize banking protocols and special techniques, and identify radiologic-pathological correlations, he said.

He added that “IASLC is promoting the design and implementation of an international database to collect uniformly clinical and pathologic information with the ultimate goal of fostering collaboration and to facilitate the identification of surrogate endpoints of long-term survival.”

Dr. Travis is a nonpaid pathology consultant for the LCMC3 and LCMC4 trials.

The preclinical phase of chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) may be exist longer than previously thought, even in adverse-prognostic cases, as suggested by a sequencing analysis of blood samples obtained up to 22 years prior to CLL diagnosis.

Previous analyses showed that monoclonal B-cell lymphocytosis (MBL), a CLL precursor state, has been detected up to 6 years before CLL diagnosis, the investigators explained, noting that “[a]nother prognostically relevant immunogenetic feature of CLL concerns the stereotype of the B-cell receptor immunoglobulins (BcR IG).”

“Indeed, distinct stereotyped subsets can be defined by the expression of shared sequence motifs and are associated with particular presentation and outcomes,” P. Martijn Kolijn, PhD, a researcher in the department of immunology at Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands, and colleagues wrote in a brief report published online in Blood. In an effort to “gain insight into the composition of the BcR IG repertoire during the early stages of CLL,” the investigators utilized next-generation sequencing to analyze 124 blood samples taken from healthy individuals up to 22 years before they received a diagnosis of CLL or small lymphocytic leukemia (SLL). An additional 118 matched control samples were also analyzed.

Study subjects were participants in the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC) cohort.

“First, unsurprisingly, we observed a significant difference in the frequency of the dominant clonotype in CLL patients versus controls with a median frequency of 54.9%, compared to only 0.38% in controls,” they wrote.

Among 28 patients whose lymphocyte counts were measured at baseline, 10 showed evidence of lymphocytosis up to 8 years before CLL diagnosis.

This suggests undiagnosed instances of high-count MBL (cases with a cell count above 0.5x 109 cells/L, which can progress to CLL) or asymptomatic CLL, they explained.

“In contrast, next-generation sequencing results showed detectable skewing of the IGH gene repertoire in 21/28 patients up to 15 years before CLL diagnosis, often in the absence of elevated lymphocyte counts,” they wrote. “Remarkably, some patients with CLL requiring treatment and clinical transformation to an aggressive B-cell lymphoma displayed considerable skewing in the IGH gene repertoire even 16 years before CLL diagnosis.”

Patients with a prediagnostic IGHV-unmutated dominant clonotype had significantly shorter overall survival after CLL diagnosis than did those with an IGHV-mutated clonotype, they noted.

“Furthermore, at early timepoints (>10 years before diagnosis), patients with a high dominant clonotype frequency were more likely to be IGHV mutated, whereas closer to diagnosis this tendency was lost, indicating that the prediagnostic phase may be even longer than 16 years for [mutated] CLL patients,” they added.

The investigators also found that:

• Twenty-five patients carried stereotyped BcR IG up to 17 years prior to CLL diagnosis, and of these, 10 clonotypes were assigned to minor subsets and 15 to major CLL subsets. Among the latter, 14 of the 15 belonged to high-risk subsets, and most of those showed a trend for faster disease evolution.
• High frequency of the dominant clonotype was evident in samples obtained less than 6 years before diagnosis, whereas high-risk stereotyped clonotypes found longer before diagnosis (as early as 16 years) tended to have a lower dominant clonotype frequency (<20% of IGH gene repertoire)
• The stereotyped BcR IG matched the clonotype at diagnosis for both patients with diagnostic material.
• No stereotyped subsets were identified among the dominant clonotypes of the healthy controls.

“To our knowledge, the dynamics of the emergence of biclonality in an MBL patient and subsequent progression to CLL have never been captured in such a convincing manner,” they noted.

The findings “extend current knowledge on the evolution of the IGH repertoire prior to CLL diagnosis, highlighting that even high-risk CLL subtypes may display a prolonged indolent preclinical stage,” they added, speculating that “somatic genetic aberrations, (auto)stimulation, epigenetic and/or microenvironmental influences are required for the transformation into overt CLL.”

The investigators also noted that since the observed skewing in the IGH gene repertoire often occurs prior to B-cell lymphocytosis, they consider the findings “a novel extension to the characterization of MBL.”

“Further studies may prove invaluable in the clinical distinction between ‘progressing’ MBL versus ‘stable’ MBL. Notwithstanding the above, we emphasize that early detection is only warranted if it provides clear benefits to patient care,” they concluded.

In a related commentary, Gerald Marti, MD, PhD, of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, emphasized that the findings “represent the earliest detection of a clonotypic precursor cell for CLL.” .

They also raise new questions and point to new directions for research, Dr. Marti noted.

“Where do we go from here? CLL has a long evolutionary history in which early branching may start as an oligoclonal process (antigen stimulation) and include driver mutations,” he wrote. “A long-term analysis of the B-cell repertoire in familial CLL might shed light on this process. Further clarification of the mechanisms of age-related immune senescence is also of interest.”

The study authors and Dr. Marti reported having no competing financial interests.

The preclinical phase of chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) may be exist longer than previously thought, even in adverse-prognostic cases, as suggested by a sequencing analysis of blood samples obtained up to 22 years prior to CLL diagnosis.

Previous analyses showed that monoclonal B-cell lymphocytosis (MBL), a CLL precursor state, has been detected up to 6 years before CLL diagnosis, the investigators explained, noting that “[a]nother prognostically relevant immunogenetic feature of CLL concerns the stereotype of the B-cell receptor immunoglobulins (BcR IG).”

“Indeed, distinct stereotyped subsets can be defined by the expression of shared sequence motifs and are associated with particular presentation and outcomes,” P. Martijn Kolijn, PhD, a researcher in the department of immunology at Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands, and colleagues wrote in a brief report published online in Blood. In an effort to “gain insight into the composition of the BcR IG repertoire during the early stages of CLL,” the investigators utilized next-generation sequencing to analyze 124 blood samples taken from healthy individuals up to 22 years before they received a diagnosis of CLL or small lymphocytic leukemia (SLL). An additional 118 matched control samples were also analyzed.

Study subjects were participants in the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC) cohort.

“First, unsurprisingly, we observed a significant difference in the frequency of the dominant clonotype in CLL patients versus controls with a median frequency of 54.9%, compared to only 0.38% in controls,” they wrote.

Among 28 patients whose lymphocyte counts were measured at baseline, 10 showed evidence of lymphocytosis up to 8 years before CLL diagnosis.

This suggests undiagnosed instances of high-count MBL (cases with a cell count above 0.5x 109 cells/L, which can progress to CLL) or asymptomatic CLL, they explained.

“In contrast, next-generation sequencing results showed detectable skewing of the IGH gene repertoire in 21/28 patients up to 15 years before CLL diagnosis, often in the absence of elevated lymphocyte counts,” they wrote. “Remarkably, some patients with CLL requiring treatment and clinical transformation to an aggressive B-cell lymphoma displayed considerable skewing in the IGH gene repertoire even 16 years before CLL diagnosis.”

Patients with a prediagnostic IGHV-unmutated dominant clonotype had significantly shorter overall survival after CLL diagnosis than did those with an IGHV-mutated clonotype, they noted.

“Furthermore, at early timepoints (>10 years before diagnosis), patients with a high dominant clonotype frequency were more likely to be IGHV mutated, whereas closer to diagnosis this tendency was lost, indicating that the prediagnostic phase may be even longer than 16 years for [mutated] CLL patients,” they added.

The investigators also found that:

• Twenty-five patients carried stereotyped BcR IG up to 17 years prior to CLL diagnosis, and of these, 10 clonotypes were assigned to minor subsets and 15 to major CLL subsets. Among the latter, 14 of the 15 belonged to high-risk subsets, and most of those showed a trend for faster disease evolution.
• High frequency of the dominant clonotype was evident in samples obtained less than 6 years before diagnosis, whereas high-risk stereotyped clonotypes found longer before diagnosis (as early as 16 years) tended to have a lower dominant clonotype frequency (<20% of IGH gene repertoire)
• The stereotyped BcR IG matched the clonotype at diagnosis for both patients with diagnostic material.
• No stereotyped subsets were identified among the dominant clonotypes of the healthy controls.

“To our knowledge, the dynamics of the emergence of biclonality in an MBL patient and subsequent progression to CLL have never been captured in such a convincing manner,” they noted.

The findings “extend current knowledge on the evolution of the IGH repertoire prior to CLL diagnosis, highlighting that even high-risk CLL subtypes may display a prolonged indolent preclinical stage,” they added, speculating that “somatic genetic aberrations, (auto)stimulation, epigenetic and/or microenvironmental influences are required for the transformation into overt CLL.”

The investigators also noted that since the observed skewing in the IGH gene repertoire often occurs prior to B-cell lymphocytosis, they consider the findings “a novel extension to the characterization of MBL.”

“Further studies may prove invaluable in the clinical distinction between ‘progressing’ MBL versus ‘stable’ MBL. Notwithstanding the above, we emphasize that early detection is only warranted if it provides clear benefits to patient care,” they concluded.

In a related commentary, Gerald Marti, MD, PhD, of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, emphasized that the findings “represent the earliest detection of a clonotypic precursor cell for CLL.” .

They also raise new questions and point to new directions for research, Dr. Marti noted.

“Where do we go from here? CLL has a long evolutionary history in which early branching may start as an oligoclonal process (antigen stimulation) and include driver mutations,” he wrote. “A long-term analysis of the B-cell repertoire in familial CLL might shed light on this process. Further clarification of the mechanisms of age-related immune senescence is also of interest.”

The study authors and Dr. Marti reported having no competing financial interests.

The preclinical phase of chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) may be exist longer than previously thought, even in adverse-prognostic cases, as suggested by a sequencing analysis of blood samples obtained up to 22 years prior to CLL diagnosis.

Previous analyses showed that monoclonal B-cell lymphocytosis (MBL), a CLL precursor state, has been detected up to 6 years before CLL diagnosis, the investigators explained, noting that “[a]nother prognostically relevant immunogenetic feature of CLL concerns the stereotype of the B-cell receptor immunoglobulins (BcR IG).”

“Indeed, distinct stereotyped subsets can be defined by the expression of shared sequence motifs and are associated with particular presentation and outcomes,” P. Martijn Kolijn, PhD, a researcher in the department of immunology at Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands, and colleagues wrote in a brief report published online in Blood. In an effort to “gain insight into the composition of the BcR IG repertoire during the early stages of CLL,” the investigators utilized next-generation sequencing to analyze 124 blood samples taken from healthy individuals up to 22 years before they received a diagnosis of CLL or small lymphocytic leukemia (SLL). An additional 118 matched control samples were also analyzed.

Study subjects were participants in the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC) cohort.

“First, unsurprisingly, we observed a significant difference in the frequency of the dominant clonotype in CLL patients versus controls with a median frequency of 54.9%, compared to only 0.38% in controls,” they wrote.

Among 28 patients whose lymphocyte counts were measured at baseline, 10 showed evidence of lymphocytosis up to 8 years before CLL diagnosis.

This suggests undiagnosed instances of high-count MBL (cases with a cell count above 0.5x 109 cells/L, which can progress to CLL) or asymptomatic CLL, they explained.

“In contrast, next-generation sequencing results showed detectable skewing of the IGH gene repertoire in 21/28 patients up to 15 years before CLL diagnosis, often in the absence of elevated lymphocyte counts,” they wrote. “Remarkably, some patients with CLL requiring treatment and clinical transformation to an aggressive B-cell lymphoma displayed considerable skewing in the IGH gene repertoire even 16 years before CLL diagnosis.”

Patients with a prediagnostic IGHV-unmutated dominant clonotype had significantly shorter overall survival after CLL diagnosis than did those with an IGHV-mutated clonotype, they noted.

“Furthermore, at early timepoints (>10 years before diagnosis), patients with a high dominant clonotype frequency were more likely to be IGHV mutated, whereas closer to diagnosis this tendency was lost, indicating that the prediagnostic phase may be even longer than 16 years for [mutated] CLL patients,” they added.

The investigators also found that:

• Twenty-five patients carried stereotyped BcR IG up to 17 years prior to CLL diagnosis, and of these, 10 clonotypes were assigned to minor subsets and 15 to major CLL subsets. Among the latter, 14 of the 15 belonged to high-risk subsets, and most of those showed a trend for faster disease evolution.
• High frequency of the dominant clonotype was evident in samples obtained less than 6 years before diagnosis, whereas high-risk stereotyped clonotypes found longer before diagnosis (as early as 16 years) tended to have a lower dominant clonotype frequency (<20% of IGH gene repertoire)
• The stereotyped BcR IG matched the clonotype at diagnosis for both patients with diagnostic material.
• No stereotyped subsets were identified among the dominant clonotypes of the healthy controls.

“To our knowledge, the dynamics of the emergence of biclonality in an MBL patient and subsequent progression to CLL have never been captured in such a convincing manner,” they noted.

The findings “extend current knowledge on the evolution of the IGH repertoire prior to CLL diagnosis, highlighting that even high-risk CLL subtypes may display a prolonged indolent preclinical stage,” they added, speculating that “somatic genetic aberrations, (auto)stimulation, epigenetic and/or microenvironmental influences are required for the transformation into overt CLL.”

The investigators also noted that since the observed skewing in the IGH gene repertoire often occurs prior to B-cell lymphocytosis, they consider the findings “a novel extension to the characterization of MBL.”

“Further studies may prove invaluable in the clinical distinction between ‘progressing’ MBL versus ‘stable’ MBL. Notwithstanding the above, we emphasize that early detection is only warranted if it provides clear benefits to patient care,” they concluded.

In a related commentary, Gerald Marti, MD, PhD, of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, emphasized that the findings “represent the earliest detection of a clonotypic precursor cell for CLL.” .

They also raise new questions and point to new directions for research, Dr. Marti noted.

“Where do we go from here? CLL has a long evolutionary history in which early branching may start as an oligoclonal process (antigen stimulation) and include driver mutations,” he wrote. “A long-term analysis of the B-cell repertoire in familial CLL might shed light on this process. Further clarification of the mechanisms of age-related immune senescence is also of interest.”

The study authors and Dr. Marti reported having no competing financial interests.

Adjuvant pembrolizumab significantly improves disease-free survival (DFS) compared to placebo in patients with early-stage non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who have undergone complete resection, according to findings from the phase 3 PEARLS/KEYNOTE-091 (PEARLS) study.

Patients in the pembrolizumab arm demonstrated median DFS nearly 12 months longer than those in the placebo arm (53.6 vs. 42.0 months). Investigators observed a DFS benefit for patients with any programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression.

“We believe that pembrolizumab has the potential to become a new adjuvant treatment option for patient with [stage IB to IIIA] non–small cell lung cancer following complete resection and adjuvant chemotherapy when recommended,” concluded first author Luis Paz-Ares, MD, chair of the clinical research unit at Hospital Universitario 12 de Octubre, CNIO & Universidad Complutense, Madrid. “Pembrolizumab provided a benefit regardless of pathological stage and PD-L1 progression subgroup.”

The findings were presented by Dr. Paz-Ares at the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) March virtual plenary session and published March 17 in Annals of Oncology.

Pembrolizumab is the standard treatment for patients with advanced NSCLC, but its efficacy in early-stage disease remains unclear. To determine whether patients with early-stage disease benefit from pembrolizumab, Dr. Paz-Ares and colleagues randomized 1,177 adults with stage IB, II, or IIIA NSCLC to 200 mg of pembrolizumab (n = 590) or placebo (n = 587) every 3 weeks.

All patients had Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-1, and any level of PD-L1 expression. Of the study participants, 168 in the pembrolizumab arm and 165 in the placebo arm had PD-L1 expression and a tumor proportion score (TPS) of at least 50%.

Overall, patients receiving pembrolizumab had a DFS of 53.6 months compared to 42.0 months in the placebo arm (hazard ratio [HR], 0.76; P = .0014). The DFS benefit was generally consistent across patients with PD-L1 TPS <1%, 1%-49%, and ≥50%. In the subset of patients with PD-L1 TPS ≥50%, a slightly higher percentage of patients in the pembrolizumab group demonstrated DFS at 18 months (71.7% vs. 70.2%), but the difference did not reach statistical significance (HR, 0.82; P = .14).

Overall survival (OS) at 18 months was 91.7% in the treatment arm and 91.3% in the placebo arm (HR, 0.87; P = .17), but the data were immature.

“The disease-free survival benefit was observed across most prespecified subgroups,” Dr. Paz-Ares said.

No new safety concerns were raised. Grade 3 or greater adverse events occurred in 34.1% of patients in the treatment arm and 25.8% in the placebo arm. Adverse events led to discontinuation in 19.8% of patients receiving pembrolizumab and 5.9% of patients in the placebo group.

Invited discussant Martin Reck, MD, said these findings represent forward progress. “We do see many patients with distant relapse, which indicates that we have to improve our control of the systemic relapse,” said Dr. Reck, head of the department of thoracic oncology and the clinical trial department at the Lungen Clinic Grosshansdorf, Germany.

Prior data provide a rationale for using immune checkpoint inhibition in early-stage NSCLC, and both the PEARLS study and the IMpower010 trial evaluating atezolizumab in a similar setting have demonstrated relevant improvements in DFS.

“I think we are entering the times of perioperative immunotherapies. We are seeing the first signals of efficacy for adjuvant immunotherapy in two large, randomized trials,” Dr. Reck said.

Based on the PEARLS trial results, Dr. Reck said that PD-L1 appears to have predictive and prognostic value but noted that “several other clinical trials say PD-L1 expression is a poor prognostic marker” for sensitivity to immune checkpoint inhibitor. Given this potential inconsistency, Dr. Reck called for further follow-up in this patient population and for studies in larger groups of patients to further delineate the role of PD-L1 as well as EGFR mutations and adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with early NSCLC.

The PEARLS study was funded by Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. Dr. Paz-Ares and Dr. Reck disclosed numerous relationships with pharmaceutical companies.

Adjuvant pembrolizumab significantly improves disease-free survival (DFS) compared to placebo in patients with early-stage non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who have undergone complete resection, according to findings from the phase 3 PEARLS/KEYNOTE-091 (PEARLS) study.

Patients in the pembrolizumab arm demonstrated median DFS nearly 12 months longer than those in the placebo arm (53.6 vs. 42.0 months). Investigators observed a DFS benefit for patients with any programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression.

“We believe that pembrolizumab has the potential to become a new adjuvant treatment option for patient with [stage IB to IIIA] non–small cell lung cancer following complete resection and adjuvant chemotherapy when recommended,” concluded first author Luis Paz-Ares, MD, chair of the clinical research unit at Hospital Universitario 12 de Octubre, CNIO & Universidad Complutense, Madrid. “Pembrolizumab provided a benefit regardless of pathological stage and PD-L1 progression subgroup.”

The findings were presented by Dr. Paz-Ares at the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) March virtual plenary session and published March 17 in Annals of Oncology.

Pembrolizumab is the standard treatment for patients with advanced NSCLC, but its efficacy in early-stage disease remains unclear. To determine whether patients with early-stage disease benefit from pembrolizumab, Dr. Paz-Ares and colleagues randomized 1,177 adults with stage IB, II, or IIIA NSCLC to 200 mg of pembrolizumab (n = 590) or placebo (n = 587) every 3 weeks.

All patients had Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-1, and any level of PD-L1 expression. Of the study participants, 168 in the pembrolizumab arm and 165 in the placebo arm had PD-L1 expression and a tumor proportion score (TPS) of at least 50%.

Overall, patients receiving pembrolizumab had a DFS of 53.6 months compared to 42.0 months in the placebo arm (hazard ratio [HR], 0.76; P = .0014). The DFS benefit was generally consistent across patients with PD-L1 TPS <1%, 1%-49%, and ≥50%. In the subset of patients with PD-L1 TPS ≥50%, a slightly higher percentage of patients in the pembrolizumab group demonstrated DFS at 18 months (71.7% vs. 70.2%), but the difference did not reach statistical significance (HR, 0.82; P = .14).

Overall survival (OS) at 18 months was 91.7% in the treatment arm and 91.3% in the placebo arm (HR, 0.87; P = .17), but the data were immature.

“The disease-free survival benefit was observed across most prespecified subgroups,” Dr. Paz-Ares said.

No new safety concerns were raised. Grade 3 or greater adverse events occurred in 34.1% of patients in the treatment arm and 25.8% in the placebo arm. Adverse events led to discontinuation in 19.8% of patients receiving pembrolizumab and 5.9% of patients in the placebo group.

Invited discussant Martin Reck, MD, said these findings represent forward progress. “We do see many patients with distant relapse, which indicates that we have to improve our control of the systemic relapse,” said Dr. Reck, head of the department of thoracic oncology and the clinical trial department at the Lungen Clinic Grosshansdorf, Germany.

Prior data provide a rationale for using immune checkpoint inhibition in early-stage NSCLC, and both the PEARLS study and the IMpower010 trial evaluating atezolizumab in a similar setting have demonstrated relevant improvements in DFS.

“I think we are entering the times of perioperative immunotherapies. We are seeing the first signals of efficacy for adjuvant immunotherapy in two large, randomized trials,” Dr. Reck said.

Based on the PEARLS trial results, Dr. Reck said that PD-L1 appears to have predictive and prognostic value but noted that “several other clinical trials say PD-L1 expression is a poor prognostic marker” for sensitivity to immune checkpoint inhibitor. Given this potential inconsistency, Dr. Reck called for further follow-up in this patient population and for studies in larger groups of patients to further delineate the role of PD-L1 as well as EGFR mutations and adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with early NSCLC.

The PEARLS study was funded by Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. Dr. Paz-Ares and Dr. Reck disclosed numerous relationships with pharmaceutical companies.

Adjuvant pembrolizumab significantly improves disease-free survival (DFS) compared to placebo in patients with early-stage non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who have undergone complete resection, according to findings from the phase 3 PEARLS/KEYNOTE-091 (PEARLS) study.

Patients in the pembrolizumab arm demonstrated median DFS nearly 12 months longer than those in the placebo arm (53.6 vs. 42.0 months). Investigators observed a DFS benefit for patients with any programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression.

“We believe that pembrolizumab has the potential to become a new adjuvant treatment option for patient with [stage IB to IIIA] non–small cell lung cancer following complete resection and adjuvant chemotherapy when recommended,” concluded first author Luis Paz-Ares, MD, chair of the clinical research unit at Hospital Universitario 12 de Octubre, CNIO & Universidad Complutense, Madrid. “Pembrolizumab provided a benefit regardless of pathological stage and PD-L1 progression subgroup.”

The findings were presented by Dr. Paz-Ares at the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) March virtual plenary session and published March 17 in Annals of Oncology.

Pembrolizumab is the standard treatment for patients with advanced NSCLC, but its efficacy in early-stage disease remains unclear. To determine whether patients with early-stage disease benefit from pembrolizumab, Dr. Paz-Ares and colleagues randomized 1,177 adults with stage IB, II, or IIIA NSCLC to 200 mg of pembrolizumab (n = 590) or placebo (n = 587) every 3 weeks.

All patients had Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-1, and any level of PD-L1 expression. Of the study participants, 168 in the pembrolizumab arm and 165 in the placebo arm had PD-L1 expression and a tumor proportion score (TPS) of at least 50%.

Overall, patients receiving pembrolizumab had a DFS of 53.6 months compared to 42.0 months in the placebo arm (hazard ratio [HR], 0.76; P = .0014). The DFS benefit was generally consistent across patients with PD-L1 TPS <1%, 1%-49%, and ≥50%. In the subset of patients with PD-L1 TPS ≥50%, a slightly higher percentage of patients in the pembrolizumab group demonstrated DFS at 18 months (71.7% vs. 70.2%), but the difference did not reach statistical significance (HR, 0.82; P = .14).

Overall survival (OS) at 18 months was 91.7% in the treatment arm and 91.3% in the placebo arm (HR, 0.87; P = .17), but the data were immature.

“The disease-free survival benefit was observed across most prespecified subgroups,” Dr. Paz-Ares said.

No new safety concerns were raised. Grade 3 or greater adverse events occurred in 34.1% of patients in the treatment arm and 25.8% in the placebo arm. Adverse events led to discontinuation in 19.8% of patients receiving pembrolizumab and 5.9% of patients in the placebo group.

Invited discussant Martin Reck, MD, said these findings represent forward progress. “We do see many patients with distant relapse, which indicates that we have to improve our control of the systemic relapse,” said Dr. Reck, head of the department of thoracic oncology and the clinical trial department at the Lungen Clinic Grosshansdorf, Germany.

Prior data provide a rationale for using immune checkpoint inhibition in early-stage NSCLC, and both the PEARLS study and the IMpower010 trial evaluating atezolizumab in a similar setting have demonstrated relevant improvements in DFS.

“I think we are entering the times of perioperative immunotherapies. We are seeing the first signals of efficacy for adjuvant immunotherapy in two large, randomized trials,” Dr. Reck said.

Based on the PEARLS trial results, Dr. Reck said that PD-L1 appears to have predictive and prognostic value but noted that “several other clinical trials say PD-L1 expression is a poor prognostic marker” for sensitivity to immune checkpoint inhibitor. Given this potential inconsistency, Dr. Reck called for further follow-up in this patient population and for studies in larger groups of patients to further delineate the role of PD-L1 as well as EGFR mutations and adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with early NSCLC.

The PEARLS study was funded by Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. Dr. Paz-Ares and Dr. Reck disclosed numerous relationships with pharmaceutical companies.

The 5 days that she spent at her mother’s bedside were eye-opening for an oncologist used to being on the other side of the clinician–patient relationship.

“As a physician, I thought I had a unique perspective of things that were done well – and things that were not,” commented Pamela Kunz, MD.

Dr. Kunz, who was named the 2021 Woman Oncologist of the Year, is director of the Center for Gastrointestinal Cancers at Smilow Cancer Hospital and of the Yale Cancer Center, New Haven, Conn.

But she was propelled into quite a different role when her mother was admitted to the hospital.

Her mom, who has trouble hearing, was easily confused by jargon and by “all of the people coming in and out with no introductions,” she explained.

“She needed someone to translate what was going on because she didn’t feel well,” she added.

Seeing inpatient care through her mother’s eyes was enlightening, and at times it was “shocking to be on the other side.”

Physicians get used to “checking boxes, getting through the day,” she said. “It’s easy to forget the human side.”

“Seeing a loved one sick, [struggling] through this – I just wished I had seen things done differently,” added Dr. Kunz.

The experience prompted Dr. Kunz to share several “communication pearls” via Twitter. Her thread has since garnered thousands of “likes” and scores of comments and retweets.

She began the Twitter thread explaining what prompted her comments:

“I spent many hours last week observing the practice of medicine while sitting at my mom’s hospital bedside and was reminded of some important communication pearls. Some musings ...”

“1. Introduce yourself by full name, role, and team and have ID badges visible. It can get very confusing for [patients] and family members with the number of people in and out of rooms. E.g. ‘My name is Dr. X. I’m the intern on the primary internal medicine team.’

2.  End your patient visit with a summary of the plan for the day.

3. Avoid medical jargon & speak slowly, clearly, and logically. Remember you are a teacher for your [patients] and their family.

4. Masks make it harder to hear, especially for [patients] with hearing loss (and they no longer have the aid of lip reading).

5. Many older [patients] get confused in the hospital. Repetition is a good thing.

6. Speak to a family member at least once per day to relay the plan.

7. Try to avoid last minute or surprise discharges – they make [patients] and family members anxious. Talk about discharge planning from day 1 and what milestones must occur prior to a safe discharge. ‘In order for you to leave the hospital, X, Y, X must happen.’

8. Talk with your [patients] about something other than what brought them to the hospital (a tip I once learned from a wise mentor).

9.  When possible, sit at eye level with your patient (I love these stools from @YNHH).

10. Take time to listen.”

Dr. Kunz closed with her golden rule: “Lastly, treat your patients how you would want your own family member treated.”

Twitter user @BrunaPellini replied: “I love this, especially ‘Treat your patients how you would want your own family member treated.’ My mom and grandma always said that to me since I was a med student, and this is definitely one of my core values.”

Other clinicians shared similar experiences, and some added to Dr. Kunz’s list.

“Agree entirely, love the list – and while none of us can always practice perfectly, my experiences with my own mother’s illness taught me an enormous amount about communication,” @hoperugo responded.

Twitter user @mariejacork added: “Everyone in health care please read ... if you are lucky enough to not have had a loved one unwell in hospital, these may get forgotten. Having sat with my dad for a few days before he died a few years ago, I felt a lot of these, and it changed my practice forever.”

@bjcohenmd provided additional advice: “And use the dry erase board that should be in every room. Never start a medication without explaining it. Many docs will see the patient and then go to the computer, decide to order a med, but never go back to explain it.”

Patients also shared experiences and offered suggestions.

“As a chronic pain patient I’d add – we know it’s frustrating you can’t cure us but PLEASE do not SIGH if we say something didn’t work or [tell] us to be more positive. Just say ‘I know this is very hard, I’m here to listen.’ We don’t expect a cure, we do expect to be believed,” said @ppenguinsmt. “It makes me feel like I’m causing distress to you if I say the pain has been unrelenting. I leave feeling worse. ...You may have heard 10 [people] in pain before me but this is MY only [appointment].”

Twitter user @KatieCahoots added: “These are perfect. I wish doctors would do this not only in the hospital but in the doctor’s office, as well. I would add one caveat: When you try not to use medical jargon, don’t dumb it down as though I don’t know anything about science or haven’t done any of my own research.”

Dr. Kunz said she was taken aback but pleased by the response to her Tweet.

“It’s an example of the human side of medicine, so it resonates with physicians and with patients,” she commented. Seeing through her mom’s eyes how care was provided made her realize that medical training should include more emphasis on communication, including “real-time feedback to interns, residents, fellows, and students.”

Yes, it takes time, and “we don’t all have a lot of extra time,” she acknowledged.

“But some of these elements don’t take that much more time to do. They can help build trust and can, in the long run, actually save time if patients understand and family members feel engaged and like they are participants,” she said. “I think a little time investment will go a long way.”

In her case, she very much appreciated the one trainee who tried to call her and update her about her mother’s care each afternoon. “I really valued that,” she said.

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

The 5 days that she spent at her mother’s bedside were eye-opening for an oncologist used to being on the other side of the clinician–patient relationship.

“As a physician, I thought I had a unique perspective of things that were done well – and things that were not,” commented Pamela Kunz, MD.

Dr. Kunz, who was named the 2021 Woman Oncologist of the Year, is director of the Center for Gastrointestinal Cancers at Smilow Cancer Hospital and of the Yale Cancer Center, New Haven, Conn.

But she was propelled into quite a different role when her mother was admitted to the hospital.

Her mom, who has trouble hearing, was easily confused by jargon and by “all of the people coming in and out with no introductions,” she explained.

“She needed someone to translate what was going on because she didn’t feel well,” she added.

Seeing inpatient care through her mother’s eyes was enlightening, and at times it was “shocking to be on the other side.”

Physicians get used to “checking boxes, getting through the day,” she said. “It’s easy to forget the human side.”

“Seeing a loved one sick, [struggling] through this – I just wished I had seen things done differently,” added Dr. Kunz.

The experience prompted Dr. Kunz to share several “communication pearls” via Twitter. Her thread has since garnered thousands of “likes” and scores of comments and retweets.

She began the Twitter thread explaining what prompted her comments:

“I spent many hours last week observing the practice of medicine while sitting at my mom’s hospital bedside and was reminded of some important communication pearls. Some musings ...”

“1. Introduce yourself by full name, role, and team and have ID badges visible. It can get very confusing for [patients] and family members with the number of people in and out of rooms. E.g. ‘My name is Dr. X. I’m the intern on the primary internal medicine team.’

2.  End your patient visit with a summary of the plan for the day.

3. Avoid medical jargon & speak slowly, clearly, and logically. Remember you are a teacher for your [patients] and their family.

4. Masks make it harder to hear, especially for [patients] with hearing loss (and they no longer have the aid of lip reading).

5. Many older [patients] get confused in the hospital. Repetition is a good thing.

6. Speak to a family member at least once per day to relay the plan.

7. Try to avoid last minute or surprise discharges – they make [patients] and family members anxious. Talk about discharge planning from day 1 and what milestones must occur prior to a safe discharge. ‘In order for you to leave the hospital, X, Y, X must happen.’

8. Talk with your [patients] about something other than what brought them to the hospital (a tip I once learned from a wise mentor).

9.  When possible, sit at eye level with your patient (I love these stools from @YNHH).

10. Take time to listen.”

Dr. Kunz closed with her golden rule: “Lastly, treat your patients how you would want your own family member treated.”

Twitter user @BrunaPellini replied: “I love this, especially ‘Treat your patients how you would want your own family member treated.’ My mom and grandma always said that to me since I was a med student, and this is definitely one of my core values.”

Other clinicians shared similar experiences, and some added to Dr. Kunz’s list.

“Agree entirely, love the list – and while none of us can always practice perfectly, my experiences with my own mother’s illness taught me an enormous amount about communication,” @hoperugo responded.

Twitter user @mariejacork added: “Everyone in health care please read ... if you are lucky enough to not have had a loved one unwell in hospital, these may get forgotten. Having sat with my dad for a few days before he died a few years ago, I felt a lot of these, and it changed my practice forever.”

@bjcohenmd provided additional advice: “And use the dry erase board that should be in every room. Never start a medication without explaining it. Many docs will see the patient and then go to the computer, decide to order a med, but never go back to explain it.”

Patients also shared experiences and offered suggestions.

“As a chronic pain patient I’d add – we know it’s frustrating you can’t cure us but PLEASE do not SIGH if we say something didn’t work or [tell] us to be more positive. Just say ‘I know this is very hard, I’m here to listen.’ We don’t expect a cure, we do expect to be believed,” said @ppenguinsmt. “It makes me feel like I’m causing distress to you if I say the pain has been unrelenting. I leave feeling worse. ...You may have heard 10 [people] in pain before me but this is MY only [appointment].”

Twitter user @KatieCahoots added: “These are perfect. I wish doctors would do this not only in the hospital but in the doctor’s office, as well. I would add one caveat: When you try not to use medical jargon, don’t dumb it down as though I don’t know anything about science or haven’t done any of my own research.”

Dr. Kunz said she was taken aback but pleased by the response to her Tweet.

“It’s an example of the human side of medicine, so it resonates with physicians and with patients,” she commented. Seeing through her mom’s eyes how care was provided made her realize that medical training should include more emphasis on communication, including “real-time feedback to interns, residents, fellows, and students.”

Yes, it takes time, and “we don’t all have a lot of extra time,” she acknowledged.

“But some of these elements don’t take that much more time to do. They can help build trust and can, in the long run, actually save time if patients understand and family members feel engaged and like they are participants,” she said. “I think a little time investment will go a long way.”

In her case, she very much appreciated the one trainee who tried to call her and update her about her mother’s care each afternoon. “I really valued that,” she said.

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

The 5 days that she spent at her mother’s bedside were eye-opening for an oncologist used to being on the other side of the clinician–patient relationship.

“As a physician, I thought I had a unique perspective of things that were done well – and things that were not,” commented Pamela Kunz, MD.

Dr. Kunz, who was named the 2021 Woman Oncologist of the Year, is director of the Center for Gastrointestinal Cancers at Smilow Cancer Hospital and of the Yale Cancer Center, New Haven, Conn.

But she was propelled into quite a different role when her mother was admitted to the hospital.

Her mom, who has trouble hearing, was easily confused by jargon and by “all of the people coming in and out with no introductions,” she explained.

“She needed someone to translate what was going on because she didn’t feel well,” she added.

Seeing inpatient care through her mother’s eyes was enlightening, and at times it was “shocking to be on the other side.”

Physicians get used to “checking boxes, getting through the day,” she said. “It’s easy to forget the human side.”

“Seeing a loved one sick, [struggling] through this – I just wished I had seen things done differently,” added Dr. Kunz.

The experience prompted Dr. Kunz to share several “communication pearls” via Twitter. Her thread has since garnered thousands of “likes” and scores of comments and retweets.

She began the Twitter thread explaining what prompted her comments:

“I spent many hours last week observing the practice of medicine while sitting at my mom’s hospital bedside and was reminded of some important communication pearls. Some musings ...”

“1. Introduce yourself by full name, role, and team and have ID badges visible. It can get very confusing for [patients] and family members with the number of people in and out of rooms. E.g. ‘My name is Dr. X. I’m the intern on the primary internal medicine team.’

2.  End your patient visit with a summary of the plan for the day.

3. Avoid medical jargon & speak slowly, clearly, and logically. Remember you are a teacher for your [patients] and their family.

4. Masks make it harder to hear, especially for [patients] with hearing loss (and they no longer have the aid of lip reading).

5. Many older [patients] get confused in the hospital. Repetition is a good thing.

6. Speak to a family member at least once per day to relay the plan.

7. Try to avoid last minute or surprise discharges – they make [patients] and family members anxious. Talk about discharge planning from day 1 and what milestones must occur prior to a safe discharge. ‘In order for you to leave the hospital, X, Y, X must happen.’

8. Talk with your [patients] about something other than what brought them to the hospital (a tip I once learned from a wise mentor).

9.  When possible, sit at eye level with your patient (I love these stools from @YNHH).

10. Take time to listen.”

Dr. Kunz closed with her golden rule: “Lastly, treat your patients how you would want your own family member treated.”

Twitter user @BrunaPellini replied: “I love this, especially ‘Treat your patients how you would want your own family member treated.’ My mom and grandma always said that to me since I was a med student, and this is definitely one of my core values.”

Other clinicians shared similar experiences, and some added to Dr. Kunz’s list.

“Agree entirely, love the list – and while none of us can always practice perfectly, my experiences with my own mother’s illness taught me an enormous amount about communication,” @hoperugo responded.

Twitter user @mariejacork added: “Everyone in health care please read ... if you are lucky enough to not have had a loved one unwell in hospital, these may get forgotten. Having sat with my dad for a few days before he died a few years ago, I felt a lot of these, and it changed my practice forever.”

@bjcohenmd provided additional advice: “And use the dry erase board that should be in every room. Never start a medication without explaining it. Many docs will see the patient and then go to the computer, decide to order a med, but never go back to explain it.”

Patients also shared experiences and offered suggestions.

“As a chronic pain patient I’d add – we know it’s frustrating you can’t cure us but PLEASE do not SIGH if we say something didn’t work or [tell] us to be more positive. Just say ‘I know this is very hard, I’m here to listen.’ We don’t expect a cure, we do expect to be believed,” said @ppenguinsmt. “It makes me feel like I’m causing distress to you if I say the pain has been unrelenting. I leave feeling worse. ...You may have heard 10 [people] in pain before me but this is MY only [appointment].”

Twitter user @KatieCahoots added: “These are perfect. I wish doctors would do this not only in the hospital but in the doctor’s office, as well. I would add one caveat: When you try not to use medical jargon, don’t dumb it down as though I don’t know anything about science or haven’t done any of my own research.”

Dr. Kunz said she was taken aback but pleased by the response to her Tweet.

“It’s an example of the human side of medicine, so it resonates with physicians and with patients,” she commented. Seeing through her mom’s eyes how care was provided made her realize that medical training should include more emphasis on communication, including “real-time feedback to interns, residents, fellows, and students.”

Yes, it takes time, and “we don’t all have a lot of extra time,” she acknowledged.

“But some of these elements don’t take that much more time to do. They can help build trust and can, in the long run, actually save time if patients understand and family members feel engaged and like they are participants,” she said. “I think a little time investment will go a long way.”

In her case, she very much appreciated the one trainee who tried to call her and update her about her mother’s care each afternoon. “I really valued that,” she said.

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

Cancer significantly raises a patient’s risk for cardiovascular morbidity and mortality, particularly within the first year after diagnosis and irrespective of cancer type, according to a population-based study.

The retrospective analysis, which included data from more than 200,000 patients with cancer, found that a new cancer diagnosis significantly increased the risk of cardiovascular (CV) death (hazard ratio [HR], 1.33) as well as other CV events, including stroke (HR, 1.44), heart failure (HR, 1.62) and pulmonary embolism (HR, 3.43).

From the results, the researchers concluded that a “new cancer diagnosis is independently associated with a significantly increased risk for cardiovascular death and nonfatal morbidity regardless of cancer site.”

The findings were published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology: CardioOncology (2022 Mar;4[1]:85-94).

Patients with cancer and cancer survivors are known to have an increased risk for heart failure, but evidence on the risk for other CV outcomes remains less clear. In addition, the authors noted, many cancer therapies – including chest irradiation and chemotherapy – can increase a person’s risk of incident CV disease during treatment and after, but data on the long-term CV risk among cancer survivors conflict.

D. Ian Paterson, MD, of the University of Alberta, Edmonton, and coauthors wanted to clarify how a new cancer diagnosis at various sites and stages might affect a person’s risk for fatal and nonfatal CV events over the long term.

The current analysis included data from 224,016 patients with a new cancer diagnosis identified from an administrative database of more than 4.5 million adults residing in Alberta. The researcher identified 73,360 CV deaths and 470,481 nonfatal CV events between April 2007 and December 2018.

Comparing CV events in those with and in those without cancer, the authors found that patients with cancer had a 33% increased risk for CV mortality over the 12-year study follow-up, after adjusting for sociodemographic data and comorbidities (HR, 1.33; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.29-1.37). Patients with cancer also had an increased risk for stroke (HR, 1.44), heart failure (HR, 1.62) and pulmonary embolism (HR, 3.43), though not myocardial infarction (HR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.97 – 1.05), compared to those without cancer.

The extent of the risk varied somewhat by cancer stage, time from diagnosis, and cancer type.

A new cancer diagnosis put patients at a significantly higher risk of CV mortality, heart failure, stroke, or pulmonary embolism, regardless of the cancer site, but the risk of CV events was highest for patients with genitourinary, gastrointestinal, thoracic, nervous system, and hematologic malignancies. These patients accounted for more than half of the cancer cohort and more than 70% of the incident CV burden.

Patients with more advanced cancer were at the highest risk for poor CV outcomes, but even those with very early-stage disease faced an elevated risk.

The risk for CV events was greatest in the first year following a cancer diagnosis for all outcomes (HRs, 1.24-8.36) but remained significantly elevated for CV death, heart failure, and pulmonary embolism a decade later.

Overall, the authors concluded that “patients with cancer constitute a high-risk population for CV disease” over the long term and suggested that those with cancer “may benefit from comanagement that includes cardiologists as well as stroke and thrombosis specialists.”

In an accompanying editorial, Hiroshi Ohtsu of Juntendo University in Tokyo, and colleagues concluded that the work “has remarkable strengths” and important clinical implications. However, they said that additional steps may be warranted before translating these findings to clinical practice.

For example, the study is limited by its retrospective population-based design and the lack of data on cancer therapy as well as on several patient factors, including ethnicity, smoking, and physical activity.

The study authors agreed, noting that future work should evaluate how cancer therapies and other potential contributors to poor CV outcomes influence patients’ risk.

“Such work would potentially lead to better prediction of CV risk for patients with cancer and survivors and improved prevention and treatment strategies,” they wrote.

The study was supported by a foundation grant from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. The editorial was supported in part by funding to individual authors from the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science/Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare, and the Agency for Medical Research and Development.

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

Cancer significantly raises a patient’s risk for cardiovascular morbidity and mortality, particularly within the first year after diagnosis and irrespective of cancer type, according to a population-based study.

The retrospective analysis, which included data from more than 200,000 patients with cancer, found that a new cancer diagnosis significantly increased the risk of cardiovascular (CV) death (hazard ratio [HR], 1.33) as well as other CV events, including stroke (HR, 1.44), heart failure (HR, 1.62) and pulmonary embolism (HR, 3.43).

From the results, the researchers concluded that a “new cancer diagnosis is independently associated with a significantly increased risk for cardiovascular death and nonfatal morbidity regardless of cancer site.”

The findings were published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology: CardioOncology (2022 Mar;4[1]:85-94).

Patients with cancer and cancer survivors are known to have an increased risk for heart failure, but evidence on the risk for other CV outcomes remains less clear. In addition, the authors noted, many cancer therapies – including chest irradiation and chemotherapy – can increase a person’s risk of incident CV disease during treatment and after, but data on the long-term CV risk among cancer survivors conflict.

D. Ian Paterson, MD, of the University of Alberta, Edmonton, and coauthors wanted to clarify how a new cancer diagnosis at various sites and stages might affect a person’s risk for fatal and nonfatal CV events over the long term.

The current analysis included data from 224,016 patients with a new cancer diagnosis identified from an administrative database of more than 4.5 million adults residing in Alberta. The researcher identified 73,360 CV deaths and 470,481 nonfatal CV events between April 2007 and December 2018.

Comparing CV events in those with and in those without cancer, the authors found that patients with cancer had a 33% increased risk for CV mortality over the 12-year study follow-up, after adjusting for sociodemographic data and comorbidities (HR, 1.33; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.29-1.37). Patients with cancer also had an increased risk for stroke (HR, 1.44), heart failure (HR, 1.62) and pulmonary embolism (HR, 3.43), though not myocardial infarction (HR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.97 – 1.05), compared to those without cancer.

The extent of the risk varied somewhat by cancer stage, time from diagnosis, and cancer type.

A new cancer diagnosis put patients at a significantly higher risk of CV mortality, heart failure, stroke, or pulmonary embolism, regardless of the cancer site, but the risk of CV events was highest for patients with genitourinary, gastrointestinal, thoracic, nervous system, and hematologic malignancies. These patients accounted for more than half of the cancer cohort and more than 70% of the incident CV burden.

Patients with more advanced cancer were at the highest risk for poor CV outcomes, but even those with very early-stage disease faced an elevated risk.

The risk for CV events was greatest in the first year following a cancer diagnosis for all outcomes (HRs, 1.24-8.36) but remained significantly elevated for CV death, heart failure, and pulmonary embolism a decade later.

Overall, the authors concluded that “patients with cancer constitute a high-risk population for CV disease” over the long term and suggested that those with cancer “may benefit from comanagement that includes cardiologists as well as stroke and thrombosis specialists.”

In an accompanying editorial, Hiroshi Ohtsu of Juntendo University in Tokyo, and colleagues concluded that the work “has remarkable strengths” and important clinical implications. However, they said that additional steps may be warranted before translating these findings to clinical practice.

For example, the study is limited by its retrospective population-based design and the lack of data on cancer therapy as well as on several patient factors, including ethnicity, smoking, and physical activity.

The study authors agreed, noting that future work should evaluate how cancer therapies and other potential contributors to poor CV outcomes influence patients’ risk.

“Such work would potentially lead to better prediction of CV risk for patients with cancer and survivors and improved prevention and treatment strategies,” they wrote.

The study was supported by a foundation grant from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. The editorial was supported in part by funding to individual authors from the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science/Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare, and the Agency for Medical Research and Development.

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

Cancer significantly raises a patient’s risk for cardiovascular morbidity and mortality, particularly within the first year after diagnosis and irrespective of cancer type, according to a population-based study.

The retrospective analysis, which included data from more than 200,000 patients with cancer, found that a new cancer diagnosis significantly increased the risk of cardiovascular (CV) death (hazard ratio [HR], 1.33) as well as other CV events, including stroke (HR, 1.44), heart failure (HR, 1.62) and pulmonary embolism (HR, 3.43).

From the results, the researchers concluded that a “new cancer diagnosis is independently associated with a significantly increased risk for cardiovascular death and nonfatal morbidity regardless of cancer site.”

The findings were published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology: CardioOncology (2022 Mar;4[1]:85-94).

Patients with cancer and cancer survivors are known to have an increased risk for heart failure, but evidence on the risk for other CV outcomes remains less clear. In addition, the authors noted, many cancer therapies – including chest irradiation and chemotherapy – can increase a person’s risk of incident CV disease during treatment and after, but data on the long-term CV risk among cancer survivors conflict.

D. Ian Paterson, MD, of the University of Alberta, Edmonton, and coauthors wanted to clarify how a new cancer diagnosis at various sites and stages might affect a person’s risk for fatal and nonfatal CV events over the long term.

The current analysis included data from 224,016 patients with a new cancer diagnosis identified from an administrative database of more than 4.5 million adults residing in Alberta. The researcher identified 73,360 CV deaths and 470,481 nonfatal CV events between April 2007 and December 2018.

Comparing CV events in those with and in those without cancer, the authors found that patients with cancer had a 33% increased risk for CV mortality over the 12-year study follow-up, after adjusting for sociodemographic data and comorbidities (HR, 1.33; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.29-1.37). Patients with cancer also had an increased risk for stroke (HR, 1.44), heart failure (HR, 1.62) and pulmonary embolism (HR, 3.43), though not myocardial infarction (HR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.97 – 1.05), compared to those without cancer.

The extent of the risk varied somewhat by cancer stage, time from diagnosis, and cancer type.

A new cancer diagnosis put patients at a significantly higher risk of CV mortality, heart failure, stroke, or pulmonary embolism, regardless of the cancer site, but the risk of CV events was highest for patients with genitourinary, gastrointestinal, thoracic, nervous system, and hematologic malignancies. These patients accounted for more than half of the cancer cohort and more than 70% of the incident CV burden.

Patients with more advanced cancer were at the highest risk for poor CV outcomes, but even those with very early-stage disease faced an elevated risk.

The risk for CV events was greatest in the first year following a cancer diagnosis for all outcomes (HRs, 1.24-8.36) but remained significantly elevated for CV death, heart failure, and pulmonary embolism a decade later.

Overall, the authors concluded that “patients with cancer constitute a high-risk population for CV disease” over the long term and suggested that those with cancer “may benefit from comanagement that includes cardiologists as well as stroke and thrombosis specialists.”

In an accompanying editorial, Hiroshi Ohtsu of Juntendo University in Tokyo, and colleagues concluded that the work “has remarkable strengths” and important clinical implications. However, they said that additional steps may be warranted before translating these findings to clinical practice.

For example, the study is limited by its retrospective population-based design and the lack of data on cancer therapy as well as on several patient factors, including ethnicity, smoking, and physical activity.

The study authors agreed, noting that future work should evaluate how cancer therapies and other potential contributors to poor CV outcomes influence patients’ risk.

“Such work would potentially lead to better prediction of CV risk for patients with cancer and survivors and improved prevention and treatment strategies,” they wrote.

The study was supported by a foundation grant from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. The editorial was supported in part by funding to individual authors from the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science/Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare, and the Agency for Medical Research and Development.

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

The PARP inhibitor olaparib (Lynparza) is now approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for use in early-stage breast cancer and later-stage disease. Specifically, the new approval is for the adjuvant treatment of adult patients with high-risk early-stage HER2-negative, BRCA-mutated breast cancer who have completed chemotherapy and local treatment.

The FDA also approved BRACAnalysis CDx (Myriad Genetics), a companion diagnostic test to identify patients who may benefit from olaparib.

The latest approval was based on phase 3 OlympiA trial results, which showed a 42% improvement in invasive and distant disease-free survival with olaparib in comparison with placebo. Data from OlympiaA and other clinical studies also confirm BRACAnalysis CDx as “an effective test for patients deciding on their best treatment options,” Myriad Genetics noted in a press release.

The OlympiA results, as reported by this news organization, were presented during the plenary session of the American Society of Clinical Oncology 2021 annual meeting and were published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Those findings prompted an ASCO “rapid recommendation” updating of ASCO’s 2020 guidelines for the management of hereditary breast cancer.

The latest results from OlympiA show that olaparib reduced the risk of death by 32% (hazard ratio, 0.68) in comparison with placebo, according to a company press release announcing the approval. Overall survival data are slated for presentation at a European Society for Medical Oncology Virtual Plenary session on March 16, 2022.

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

The PARP inhibitor olaparib (Lynparza) is now approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for use in early-stage breast cancer and later-stage disease. Specifically, the new approval is for the adjuvant treatment of adult patients with high-risk early-stage HER2-negative, BRCA-mutated breast cancer who have completed chemotherapy and local treatment.

The FDA also approved BRACAnalysis CDx (Myriad Genetics), a companion diagnostic test to identify patients who may benefit from olaparib.

The latest approval was based on phase 3 OlympiA trial results, which showed a 42% improvement in invasive and distant disease-free survival with olaparib in comparison with placebo. Data from OlympiaA and other clinical studies also confirm BRACAnalysis CDx as “an effective test for patients deciding on their best treatment options,” Myriad Genetics noted in a press release.

The OlympiA results, as reported by this news organization, were presented during the plenary session of the American Society of Clinical Oncology 2021 annual meeting and were published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Those findings prompted an ASCO “rapid recommendation” updating of ASCO’s 2020 guidelines for the management of hereditary breast cancer.

The latest results from OlympiA show that olaparib reduced the risk of death by 32% (hazard ratio, 0.68) in comparison with placebo, according to a company press release announcing the approval. Overall survival data are slated for presentation at a European Society for Medical Oncology Virtual Plenary session on March 16, 2022.

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

The PARP inhibitor olaparib (Lynparza) is now approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for use in early-stage breast cancer and later-stage disease. Specifically, the new approval is for the adjuvant treatment of adult patients with high-risk early-stage HER2-negative, BRCA-mutated breast cancer who have completed chemotherapy and local treatment.

The FDA also approved BRACAnalysis CDx (Myriad Genetics), a companion diagnostic test to identify patients who may benefit from olaparib.

The latest approval was based on phase 3 OlympiA trial results, which showed a 42% improvement in invasive and distant disease-free survival with olaparib in comparison with placebo. Data from OlympiaA and other clinical studies also confirm BRACAnalysis CDx as “an effective test for patients deciding on their best treatment options,” Myriad Genetics noted in a press release.

The OlympiA results, as reported by this news organization, were presented during the plenary session of the American Society of Clinical Oncology 2021 annual meeting and were published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Those findings prompted an ASCO “rapid recommendation” updating of ASCO’s 2020 guidelines for the management of hereditary breast cancer.

The latest results from OlympiA show that olaparib reduced the risk of death by 32% (hazard ratio, 0.68) in comparison with placebo, according to a company press release announcing the approval. Overall survival data are slated for presentation at a European Society for Medical Oncology Virtual Plenary session on March 16, 2022.

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

A large-scale meta-analysis has verified that the gut microbiome does influence patients’s response to immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy in advanced melanoma, but the relationship appears to be more complex than previously thought.

Overall, researchers identified a panel of species, including Roseburia spp. and Akkermansia muciniphila, associated with responses to ICI therapy. However, no single species was a “fully consistent biomarker” across the studies, the authors explain.

This “machine learning analysis confirmed the link between the microbiome and overall response rates (ORRs) and progression-free survival (PFS) with ICIs but also revealed limited reproducibility of microbiome-based signatures across cohorts,” Karla A. Lee, PhD, a clinical research fellow at King’s College London, and colleagues report. The results suggest that “the microbiome is predictive of response in some, but not all, cohorts.”

The findings were published online Feb. 28 in Nature Medicine.

Despite recent advances in targeted therapies for melanoma, less than half of the those who receive a single-agent ICI respond, and those who receive combination ICI therapy often suffer from severe drug toxicity problems. That is why finding patients more likely to respond to a single-agent ICI has become a priority.

Previous studies have identified the gut microbiome as “a potential biomarker of response, as well as a therapeutic target” in melanoma and other malignancies, but “little consensus exists on which microbiome characteristics are associated with treatment responses in the human setting,” the authors explain.

To further clarify the microbiome–immunotherapy relationship, the researchers performed metagenomic sequencing of stool samples collected from 165 ICI-naive patients with unresectable stage III or IV cutaneous melanoma from 5 observational cohorts in the Netherlands, United Kingdom, and Spain. These data were integrated with 147 samples from publicly available datasets.

First, the authors highlighted the variability in findings across these observational studies. For instance, they analyzed stool samples from one UK-based observational study of patients with melanoma (PRIMM-UK) and found a small but statistically significant difference in the microbiome composition of immunotherapy responders versus nonresponders (P = .05) but did not find such an association in a parallel study in the Netherlands (PRIMM-NL, P = .61).

The investigators also explored biomarkers of response across different cohorts and found several standouts. In trials using ORR as an endpoint, two uncultivated Roseburia species (CAG:182 and CAG:471) were associated with responses to ICIs. For patients with available PFS data, Phascolarctobacterium succinatutens and Lactobacillus vaginalis were “enriched in responders” across 7 datasets and significant in 3 of the 8 meta-analysis approaches. A muciniphila and Dorea formicigenerans were also associated with ORR and PFS at 12 months in several meta-analyses.

However, “no single bacterium was a fully consistent biomarker of response across all datasets,” the authors wrote.

Still, the findings could have important implications for the more than 50% of patients with advanced melanoma who don’t respond to single-agent ICI therapy.

“Our study shows that studying the microbiome is important to improve and personalize immunotherapy treatments for melanoma,” study coauthor Nicola Segata, PhD, principal investigator in the Laboratory of Computational Metagenomics, University of Trento, Italy, said in a press release. “However, it also suggests that because of the person-to-person variability of the gut microbiome, even larger studies must be carried out to understand the specific gut microbial features that are more likely to lead to a positive response to immunotherapy.”

Coauthor Tim Spector, PhD, head of the Department of Twin Research & Genetic Epidemiology at King’s College London, added that “the ultimate goal is to identify which specific features of the microbiome are directly influencing the clinical benefits of immunotherapy to exploit these features in new personalized approaches to support cancer immunotherapy.”

In the meantime, he said, “this study highlights the potential impact of good diet and gut health on chances of survival in patients undergoing immunotherapy.”

This study was coordinated by King’s College London, CIBIO Department of the University of Trento and European Institute of Oncology in Italy, and the University of Groningen in the Netherlands, and was funded by the Seerave Foundation. Dr. Lee, Dr. Segata, and Dr. Spector have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A large-scale meta-analysis has verified that the gut microbiome does influence patients’s response to immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy in advanced melanoma, but the relationship appears to be more complex than previously thought.

Overall, researchers identified a panel of species, including Roseburia spp. and Akkermansia muciniphila, associated with responses to ICI therapy. However, no single species was a “fully consistent biomarker” across the studies, the authors explain.

This “machine learning analysis confirmed the link between the microbiome and overall response rates (ORRs) and progression-free survival (PFS) with ICIs but also revealed limited reproducibility of microbiome-based signatures across cohorts,” Karla A. Lee, PhD, a clinical research fellow at King’s College London, and colleagues report. The results suggest that “the microbiome is predictive of response in some, but not all, cohorts.”

The findings were published online Feb. 28 in Nature Medicine.

Despite recent advances in targeted therapies for melanoma, less than half of the those who receive a single-agent ICI respond, and those who receive combination ICI therapy often suffer from severe drug toxicity problems. That is why finding patients more likely to respond to a single-agent ICI has become a priority.

Previous studies have identified the gut microbiome as “a potential biomarker of response, as well as a therapeutic target” in melanoma and other malignancies, but “little consensus exists on which microbiome characteristics are associated with treatment responses in the human setting,” the authors explain.

To further clarify the microbiome–immunotherapy relationship, the researchers performed metagenomic sequencing of stool samples collected from 165 ICI-naive patients with unresectable stage III or IV cutaneous melanoma from 5 observational cohorts in the Netherlands, United Kingdom, and Spain. These data were integrated with 147 samples from publicly available datasets.

First, the authors highlighted the variability in findings across these observational studies. For instance, they analyzed stool samples from one UK-based observational study of patients with melanoma (PRIMM-UK) and found a small but statistically significant difference in the microbiome composition of immunotherapy responders versus nonresponders (P = .05) but did not find such an association in a parallel study in the Netherlands (PRIMM-NL, P = .61).

The investigators also explored biomarkers of response across different cohorts and found several standouts. In trials using ORR as an endpoint, two uncultivated Roseburia species (CAG:182 and CAG:471) were associated with responses to ICIs. For patients with available PFS data, Phascolarctobacterium succinatutens and Lactobacillus vaginalis were “enriched in responders” across 7 datasets and significant in 3 of the 8 meta-analysis approaches. A muciniphila and Dorea formicigenerans were also associated with ORR and PFS at 12 months in several meta-analyses.

However, “no single bacterium was a fully consistent biomarker of response across all datasets,” the authors wrote.

Still, the findings could have important implications for the more than 50% of patients with advanced melanoma who don’t respond to single-agent ICI therapy.

“Our study shows that studying the microbiome is important to improve and personalize immunotherapy treatments for melanoma,” study coauthor Nicola Segata, PhD, principal investigator in the Laboratory of Computational Metagenomics, University of Trento, Italy, said in a press release. “However, it also suggests that because of the person-to-person variability of the gut microbiome, even larger studies must be carried out to understand the specific gut microbial features that are more likely to lead to a positive response to immunotherapy.”

Coauthor Tim Spector, PhD, head of the Department of Twin Research & Genetic Epidemiology at King’s College London, added that “the ultimate goal is to identify which specific features of the microbiome are directly influencing the clinical benefits of immunotherapy to exploit these features in new personalized approaches to support cancer immunotherapy.”

In the meantime, he said, “this study highlights the potential impact of good diet and gut health on chances of survival in patients undergoing immunotherapy.”

This study was coordinated by King’s College London, CIBIO Department of the University of Trento and European Institute of Oncology in Italy, and the University of Groningen in the Netherlands, and was funded by the Seerave Foundation. Dr. Lee, Dr. Segata, and Dr. Spector have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A large-scale meta-analysis has verified that the gut microbiome does influence patients’s response to immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy in advanced melanoma, but the relationship appears to be more complex than previously thought.

Overall, researchers identified a panel of species, including Roseburia spp. and Akkermansia muciniphila, associated with responses to ICI therapy. However, no single species was a “fully consistent biomarker” across the studies, the authors explain.

This “machine learning analysis confirmed the link between the microbiome and overall response rates (ORRs) and progression-free survival (PFS) with ICIs but also revealed limited reproducibility of microbiome-based signatures across cohorts,” Karla A. Lee, PhD, a clinical research fellow at King’s College London, and colleagues report. The results suggest that “the microbiome is predictive of response in some, but not all, cohorts.”

The findings were published online Feb. 28 in Nature Medicine.

Despite recent advances in targeted therapies for melanoma, less than half of the those who receive a single-agent ICI respond, and those who receive combination ICI therapy often suffer from severe drug toxicity problems. That is why finding patients more likely to respond to a single-agent ICI has become a priority.

Previous studies have identified the gut microbiome as “a potential biomarker of response, as well as a therapeutic target” in melanoma and other malignancies, but “little consensus exists on which microbiome characteristics are associated with treatment responses in the human setting,” the authors explain.

To further clarify the microbiome–immunotherapy relationship, the researchers performed metagenomic sequencing of stool samples collected from 165 ICI-naive patients with unresectable stage III or IV cutaneous melanoma from 5 observational cohorts in the Netherlands, United Kingdom, and Spain. These data were integrated with 147 samples from publicly available datasets.

First, the authors highlighted the variability in findings across these observational studies. For instance, they analyzed stool samples from one UK-based observational study of patients with melanoma (PRIMM-UK) and found a small but statistically significant difference in the microbiome composition of immunotherapy responders versus nonresponders (P = .05) but did not find such an association in a parallel study in the Netherlands (PRIMM-NL, P = .61).

The investigators also explored biomarkers of response across different cohorts and found several standouts. In trials using ORR as an endpoint, two uncultivated Roseburia species (CAG:182 and CAG:471) were associated with responses to ICIs. For patients with available PFS data, Phascolarctobacterium succinatutens and Lactobacillus vaginalis were “enriched in responders” across 7 datasets and significant in 3 of the 8 meta-analysis approaches. A muciniphila and Dorea formicigenerans were also associated with ORR and PFS at 12 months in several meta-analyses.

However, “no single bacterium was a fully consistent biomarker of response across all datasets,” the authors wrote.

Still, the findings could have important implications for the more than 50% of patients with advanced melanoma who don’t respond to single-agent ICI therapy.

“Our study shows that studying the microbiome is important to improve and personalize immunotherapy treatments for melanoma,” study coauthor Nicola Segata, PhD, principal investigator in the Laboratory of Computational Metagenomics, University of Trento, Italy, said in a press release. “However, it also suggests that because of the person-to-person variability of the gut microbiome, even larger studies must be carried out to understand the specific gut microbial features that are more likely to lead to a positive response to immunotherapy.”

Coauthor Tim Spector, PhD, head of the Department of Twin Research & Genetic Epidemiology at King’s College London, added that “the ultimate goal is to identify which specific features of the microbiome are directly influencing the clinical benefits of immunotherapy to exploit these features in new personalized approaches to support cancer immunotherapy.”

In the meantime, he said, “this study highlights the potential impact of good diet and gut health on chances of survival in patients undergoing immunotherapy.”

This study was coordinated by King’s College London, CIBIO Department of the University of Trento and European Institute of Oncology in Italy, and the University of Groningen in the Netherlands, and was funded by the Seerave Foundation. Dr. Lee, Dr. Segata, and Dr. Spector have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Weight-related risk for gastrointestinal cancers is driven in part by sex, a retrospective study of more than 287,000 outpatients in Germany suggests.

The results show, for instance, that obesity increases the risk of colon cancer in both men and women but increases the risk of rectal and liver cancers in men only.

“Our data suggest that obesity represents a decisive risk factor for the development of colon, rectal, and liver cancer, partly in a sex-dependent manner,” Sven H. Loosen, MD, of Heinrich Heine University, Düsseldorf, Germany, and colleagues write.

The study was published online Feb. 13 in Cancers.

Among 287,357 adults from the Disease Analyzers database, Dr. Loosen and colleagues compared the development of GI cancers in preobese (body mass index, 25-30 kg/m²) and obese (BMI, 30 mg/m² or greater) individuals to that of individuals of normal weight (BMI, 18.5-25 kg/m²).

For colon cancer, the authors observed a stepwise increase in the proportion of diagnoses, from 0.5% and 0.64% in normal weight women and men, respectively, to 0.71% and 0.91% in obese women and men, respectively. In multivariable regression models, that translated to a significantly increased risk of colon cancer in obese women (odds ratio, 1.23; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.48) and obese men (OR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.17-1.74).

However, multivariable regression models showed that associations between obesity and rectal and liver cancers occurred only in men (OR, 1.36 and 1.79, respectively).

Notably, the authors also observed a negative association between pre-obesity and stomach cancer in men (OR, 0.65) and obesity and pancreatic cancer in women (OR, 0.61).

In other words, women and men with excess body fat may be “protected” from developing these conditions, “highlighting the complexity of the association between BMI and cancer in the different sexes,” the authors write.

These findings could have implications for prevention and lifestyle programs, the authors say.

“Since pre-obesity and obesity are modifiable risk factors, the current results may help to establish appropriate prevention and lifestyle programs to reduce the high morbidity and mortality of GI tumors in the future,” they conclude. They suggest that some “overweight patients might be presented in a specific interdisciplinary ‘metabolic board’ comprising oncologists and physicians specialized in preventive medicine.”

No specific funding related to this study has been disclosed. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Weight-related risk for gastrointestinal cancers is driven in part by sex, a retrospective study of more than 287,000 outpatients in Germany suggests.

The results show, for instance, that obesity increases the risk of colon cancer in both men and women but increases the risk of rectal and liver cancers in men only.

“Our data suggest that obesity represents a decisive risk factor for the development of colon, rectal, and liver cancer, partly in a sex-dependent manner,” Sven H. Loosen, MD, of Heinrich Heine University, Düsseldorf, Germany, and colleagues write.

The study was published online Feb. 13 in Cancers.

Among 287,357 adults from the Disease Analyzers database, Dr. Loosen and colleagues compared the development of GI cancers in preobese (body mass index, 25-30 kg/m²) and obese (BMI, 30 mg/m² or greater) individuals to that of individuals of normal weight (BMI, 18.5-25 kg/m²).

For colon cancer, the authors observed a stepwise increase in the proportion of diagnoses, from 0.5% and 0.64% in normal weight women and men, respectively, to 0.71% and 0.91% in obese women and men, respectively. In multivariable regression models, that translated to a significantly increased risk of colon cancer in obese women (odds ratio, 1.23; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.48) and obese men (OR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.17-1.74).

However, multivariable regression models showed that associations between obesity and rectal and liver cancers occurred only in men (OR, 1.36 and 1.79, respectively).

Notably, the authors also observed a negative association between pre-obesity and stomach cancer in men (OR, 0.65) and obesity and pancreatic cancer in women (OR, 0.61).

In other words, women and men with excess body fat may be “protected” from developing these conditions, “highlighting the complexity of the association between BMI and cancer in the different sexes,” the authors write.

These findings could have implications for prevention and lifestyle programs, the authors say.

“Since pre-obesity and obesity are modifiable risk factors, the current results may help to establish appropriate prevention and lifestyle programs to reduce the high morbidity and mortality of GI tumors in the future,” they conclude. They suggest that some “overweight patients might be presented in a specific interdisciplinary ‘metabolic board’ comprising oncologists and physicians specialized in preventive medicine.”

No specific funding related to this study has been disclosed. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Weight-related risk for gastrointestinal cancers is driven in part by sex, a retrospective study of more than 287,000 outpatients in Germany suggests.

The results show, for instance, that obesity increases the risk of colon cancer in both men and women but increases the risk of rectal and liver cancers in men only.

“Our data suggest that obesity represents a decisive risk factor for the development of colon, rectal, and liver cancer, partly in a sex-dependent manner,” Sven H. Loosen, MD, of Heinrich Heine University, Düsseldorf, Germany, and colleagues write.

The study was published online Feb. 13 in Cancers.

Among 287,357 adults from the Disease Analyzers database, Dr. Loosen and colleagues compared the development of GI cancers in preobese (body mass index, 25-30 kg/m²) and obese (BMI, 30 mg/m² or greater) individuals to that of individuals of normal weight (BMI, 18.5-25 kg/m²).

For colon cancer, the authors observed a stepwise increase in the proportion of diagnoses, from 0.5% and 0.64% in normal weight women and men, respectively, to 0.71% and 0.91% in obese women and men, respectively. In multivariable regression models, that translated to a significantly increased risk of colon cancer in obese women (odds ratio, 1.23; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.48) and obese men (OR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.17-1.74).

However, multivariable regression models showed that associations between obesity and rectal and liver cancers occurred only in men (OR, 1.36 and 1.79, respectively).

Notably, the authors also observed a negative association between pre-obesity and stomach cancer in men (OR, 0.65) and obesity and pancreatic cancer in women (OR, 0.61).

In other words, women and men with excess body fat may be “protected” from developing these conditions, “highlighting the complexity of the association between BMI and cancer in the different sexes,” the authors write.

These findings could have implications for prevention and lifestyle programs, the authors say.

“Since pre-obesity and obesity are modifiable risk factors, the current results may help to establish appropriate prevention and lifestyle programs to reduce the high morbidity and mortality of GI tumors in the future,” they conclude. They suggest that some “overweight patients might be presented in a specific interdisciplinary ‘metabolic board’ comprising oncologists and physicians specialized in preventive medicine.”

No specific funding related to this study has been disclosed. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

U.S. prices for brand-name lung cancer drugs generally increased between 2015 and 2020 without evidence of price competition, a cross-sectional analysis revealed.

The findings underscore the need for price reform, according to the investigators, who analyzed prices for 17 brand-name medications used for treating metastatic non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

Prices increased during the study period and correlated within each drug class, Aakash Desai, MBBS, and colleagues from the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., found.

“Because numerous new drugs have been approved for the treatment of NSCLC in recent years, we sought to specifically study the price competition among drugs used to treat this cancer subtype,” they explained, noting that for most drug classes price increases outpaced changes in the consumer price index for prescription medications and the inflation rate.

The findings were published Jan. 25, 2022, in JAMA Network Open.

Multiple brand-name medications across several drug classes, including four immune checkpoint inhibitors (pembrolizumab, nivolumab, atezolizumab, and durvalumab), five epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitors (gefitinib, afatinib, erlotinib, osimertinib, and dacomitinib), five anaplastic lymphoma kinase inhibitors (crizotinib, ceritinib, alectinib, brigatinib, and lorlatinib), two BRAF inhibitors (dabrafenib, vemurafenib), and one MEK inhibitor (trametinib) were included in the analysis.

Median Pearson correlation coefficients approached 1.0 for all drug classes, indicating that prices increased despite within-class drug competition. Median values ranged from 0.898 for epidermal growth factor inhibitors to 0.999 for anaplastic lymphoma kinase inhibitors and BRAF and MEK inhibitors, the investigators found.

Median compounded annual growth rates (CAGRs) were 1.81% for immune checkpoint inhibitors, 2.56% for epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitors, 2.46% for anaplastic lymphoma kinase and ROS1 inhibitors, and 3.06% for BRAF and MEK inhibitors.

“With the exception of the immunotherapy class, the median cost CAGR outpaced the annual growth rate of the consumer price index for prescription drugs at 2.10% and, for all classes, the average yearly inflation rate of 1.75% during the same period,” they wrote.

Also of note, only one price decrease occurred among all therapeutic classes studied.

“This was observed for erlotinib between 2019 and 2020, and it corresponded with the introduction of a generic competitor to the market,” the authors said.

The findings are reminiscent of an earlier study that showed a 25% increase in the price of 24 patented injectable anticancer agents in the United States over a period of 8 years after launch.

“These increases in cost were not offset by supplemental U.S. Food and Drug Administration approvals, new competitors, or new off-label indications. Thus, price increases over time were not substantially reduced by market competition and increased at similar rates among drugs within the same class,” they wrote, adding that “although one might expect oncology drug prices to decrease over time after market entry, the list price of most anticancer agents increases paradoxically.”

The “lock-step price increases” observed without evidence of price competition in this analysis raise concerns about the affordability of promising oncology drugs, they said, concluding that “academic, industry, and government partnerships should be developed to address the high costs of prescription oncology drugs, which may soon be unaffordable for most patients if the trends discovered in the present study continue.”

Dr. Desai reported having no disclosures.

U.S. prices for brand-name lung cancer drugs generally increased between 2015 and 2020 without evidence of price competition, a cross-sectional analysis revealed.

The findings underscore the need for price reform, according to the investigators, who analyzed prices for 17 brand-name medications used for treating metastatic non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

Prices increased during the study period and correlated within each drug class, Aakash Desai, MBBS, and colleagues from the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., found.

“Because numerous new drugs have been approved for the treatment of NSCLC in recent years, we sought to specifically study the price competition among drugs used to treat this cancer subtype,” they explained, noting that for most drug classes price increases outpaced changes in the consumer price index for prescription medications and the inflation rate.

The findings were published Jan. 25, 2022, in JAMA Network Open.

Multiple brand-name medications across several drug classes, including four immune checkpoint inhibitors (pembrolizumab, nivolumab, atezolizumab, and durvalumab), five epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitors (gefitinib, afatinib, erlotinib, osimertinib, and dacomitinib), five anaplastic lymphoma kinase inhibitors (crizotinib, ceritinib, alectinib, brigatinib, and lorlatinib), two BRAF inhibitors (dabrafenib, vemurafenib), and one MEK inhibitor (trametinib) were included in the analysis.

Median Pearson correlation coefficients approached 1.0 for all drug classes, indicating that prices increased despite within-class drug competition. Median values ranged from 0.898 for epidermal growth factor inhibitors to 0.999 for anaplastic lymphoma kinase inhibitors and BRAF and MEK inhibitors, the investigators found.

Median compounded annual growth rates (CAGRs) were 1.81% for immune checkpoint inhibitors, 2.56% for epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitors, 2.46% for anaplastic lymphoma kinase and ROS1 inhibitors, and 3.06% for BRAF and MEK inhibitors.

“With the exception of the immunotherapy class, the median cost CAGR outpaced the annual growth rate of the consumer price index for prescription drugs at 2.10% and, for all classes, the average yearly inflation rate of 1.75% during the same period,” they wrote.

Also of note, only one price decrease occurred among all therapeutic classes studied.

“This was observed for erlotinib between 2019 and 2020, and it corresponded with the introduction of a generic competitor to the market,” the authors said.

The findings are reminiscent of an earlier study that showed a 25% increase in the price of 24 patented injectable anticancer agents in the United States over a period of 8 years after launch.

“These increases in cost were not offset by supplemental U.S. Food and Drug Administration approvals, new competitors, or new off-label indications. Thus, price increases over time were not substantially reduced by market competition and increased at similar rates among drugs within the same class,” they wrote, adding that “although one might expect oncology drug prices to decrease over time after market entry, the list price of most anticancer agents increases paradoxically.”

The “lock-step price increases” observed without evidence of price competition in this analysis raise concerns about the affordability of promising oncology drugs, they said, concluding that “academic, industry, and government partnerships should be developed to address the high costs of prescription oncology drugs, which may soon be unaffordable for most patients if the trends discovered in the present study continue.”

Dr. Desai reported having no disclosures.

U.S. prices for brand-name lung cancer drugs generally increased between 2015 and 2020 without evidence of price competition, a cross-sectional analysis revealed.

The findings underscore the need for price reform, according to the investigators, who analyzed prices for 17 brand-name medications used for treating metastatic non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

Prices increased during the study period and correlated within each drug class, Aakash Desai, MBBS, and colleagues from the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., found.

“Because numerous new drugs have been approved for the treatment of NSCLC in recent years, we sought to specifically study the price competition among drugs used to treat this cancer subtype,” they explained, noting that for most drug classes price increases outpaced changes in the consumer price index for prescription medications and the inflation rate.

The findings were published Jan. 25, 2022, in JAMA Network Open.

Multiple brand-name medications across several drug classes, including four immune checkpoint inhibitors (pembrolizumab, nivolumab, atezolizumab, and durvalumab), five epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitors (gefitinib, afatinib, erlotinib, osimertinib, and dacomitinib), five anaplastic lymphoma kinase inhibitors (crizotinib, ceritinib, alectinib, brigatinib, and lorlatinib), two BRAF inhibitors (dabrafenib, vemurafenib), and one MEK inhibitor (trametinib) were included in the analysis.

Median Pearson correlation coefficients approached 1.0 for all drug classes, indicating that prices increased despite within-class drug competition. Median values ranged from 0.898 for epidermal growth factor inhibitors to 0.999 for anaplastic lymphoma kinase inhibitors and BRAF and MEK inhibitors, the investigators found.

Median compounded annual growth rates (CAGRs) were 1.81% for immune checkpoint inhibitors, 2.56% for epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitors, 2.46% for anaplastic lymphoma kinase and ROS1 inhibitors, and 3.06% for BRAF and MEK inhibitors.

“With the exception of the immunotherapy class, the median cost CAGR outpaced the annual growth rate of the consumer price index for prescription drugs at 2.10% and, for all classes, the average yearly inflation rate of 1.75% during the same period,” they wrote.

Also of note, only one price decrease occurred among all therapeutic classes studied.

“This was observed for erlotinib between 2019 and 2020, and it corresponded with the introduction of a generic competitor to the market,” the authors said.

The findings are reminiscent of an earlier study that showed a 25% increase in the price of 24 patented injectable anticancer agents in the United States over a period of 8 years after launch.

“These increases in cost were not offset by supplemental U.S. Food and Drug Administration approvals, new competitors, or new off-label indications. Thus, price increases over time were not substantially reduced by market competition and increased at similar rates among drugs within the same class,” they wrote, adding that “although one might expect oncology drug prices to decrease over time after market entry, the list price of most anticancer agents increases paradoxically.”

The “lock-step price increases” observed without evidence of price competition in this analysis raise concerns about the affordability of promising oncology drugs, they said, concluding that “academic, industry, and government partnerships should be developed to address the high costs of prescription oncology drugs, which may soon be unaffordable for most patients if the trends discovered in the present study continue.”

Dr. Desai reported having no disclosures.