Victoria Stern

It was 2 a.m. And Rebecca Shatsky, MD, could not sleep.

The breast oncologist was thinking about a patient of hers with metastatic cancer.

The patient’s disease had been asymptomatic for some time. Then without warning, her cancer suddenly exploded. Her bone marrow was failing, and her liver was not far behind.

Dr. Shatsky had a treatment plan ready to go but still, she felt uneasy.

“I had to be honest with her that I didn’t know if this plan would work,” says Dr. Shatsky, a medical oncologist at University of California, San Diego (UCSD).

That night, after visiting the patient in the hospital, Dr. Shatsky lay awake going over her next move, making sure it was the right one and hoping it would help keep the disease at bay.

“It’s so much pressure when someone is depending on you to make life or death decisions,” Dr. Shatsky said.

And in the quiet hours of night, these concerns grow louder.

Dr. Shatsky is not alone. Oncologists face difficult decisions every day, and many wrestle with these choices long after their day in the clinic is over.

“There’s no off button,” says Aaron Goodman, MD, a hematologist at UCSD Health who goes by “Papa Heme” on Twitter. “I’m always thinking about my patients. Constantly.”

The public rarely gets a glimpse of these private moments. On occasion, oncologists will share a personal story, but more often, insights come from broad research on the ethical, emotional, and psychological toll of practicing medicine.

Many oncologists carry this baggage home with them because they have no other option.

“There is simply no time to process the weight of the day when I’ve got seven more patients who need my full attention before lunch,” Mark Lewis, MD, director, department of gastrointestinal oncology, Intermountain Healthcare, Salt Lake City, Utah. “That is why my processing happens outside of the office, when my brain can be quiet.”
 

What am I missing?

Dr. Goodman recognizes the gravity of each decision he makes. He pores over every detail of a patient’s scans, lab results, history, and symptoms.

But no matter how many times he checks and rechecks, one question nags at him: What am I missing?

For Dr. Goodman, this exhaustive level of attention is worth it.

“When errors are made, it’s someone’s life,” Dr. Goodman said. “Nothing would have prepared me for this responsibility. Until it lies on you, it’s impossible to understand how much trust patients put into us.”

That trust becomes most apparent for Dr. Goodman when facing a decision about how to treat a patient with acute myeloid leukemia who’s in remission.

Give more chemotherapy to root out the leukemia cells still lurking in the body, and the patient faces a high risk of the cancer returning. Pick stem cell transplant, and the chance of being cured goes up significantly, but the patient could also die within 100 days of the transplant.

“All together, the data show I’m helping patients with a transplant, but for the individual, I could be causing harm. Someone could be living less because of a decision I made,” Dr. Goodman said.

For patients with advanced cancer, oncologists may need to think several moves ahead. Mapping out a patient’s treatment options can feel like a game of chess. Dr. Shatsky is always trying to anticipate how the tumor will behave, what is driving it, and how lifestyle factors may influence a patient’s response in the present and the future.

“It is a mind game,” she says. “Like in chess, I try to outsmart my opponent. But with advanced cancer, there are not necessarily clear-cut guidelines or one way to manage the disease, and I have to do the best I can with drugs I have.”

That’s the art of oncology: Balancing the many knowns and unknowns of a person’s cancer alongside the toxicities of treatment and a patient’s hopes and goals.

Throughout the year, Don Dizon, MD, will see a number of patients with advanced disease. In these instances, the question he often wrestles with is if the patient can’t be cured, whether more treatment will just cause greater harm.

Dr. Dizon recently faced this dilemma with an older patient with metastatic disease who had not done well with an initial treatment regimen. After outlining the risks for more chemotherapy, he explained one option would be to forgo it and simply treat her symptoms.

“It’s an impossible choice,” says Dr. Dizon, director of women’s cancers at Lifespan Cancer Institute and director of medical oncology at Rhode Island Hospital, Providence.

Chemotherapy can provide symptom relief, but it can also be toxic – and patients may be so frail, they can die from more therapy.

“I told my patient, if in your heart, you want to try more therapy, that’s okay. But it’s also okay if you don’t,” Dr. Dizon recalled.

Her response: “You’re supposed to give me the answer.”

However, for patients approaching the end of life, there often is no right answer. 

“It’s part of the discomfort you live with as a patient and oncologist, and when I leave the clinic, that’s one thing that follows me home,” Dr. Dizon said. “At the end of the day, I need to look in the mirror and know I did the best I could.”
 

The difficult conversation

Every Sunday, Dr. Lewis feels the weight of the week ahead. He and his wife, a pediatrician, call it the “Sunday scaries.”

It’s when Dr. Lewis begins thinking about the delicate conversations to come, rehearsing how he’s going to share the news that a person has advanced cancer or that a cancer, once in remission, has returned.

“Before the pandemic, I had 36 people come to a visit where I delivered some very heavy news and it became a Greek chorus of sobbing,” he recalls.

For every oncologist, delivering bad news is an integral part of the job. But after spending months, sometimes years, with a patient and the family, Dr. Lewis knows how to take the temperature of the room – who will likely prefer a more blunt style and who might need a gentler touch.

“The longer you know a patient and family, the better you can gauge the best approach,” Dr. Lewis said. “And for some, you know it’ll be complete devastation no matter what.”

When Jennifer Lycette, MD, prepares for a difficult conversation, she’ll run down all the possible ways it could go. Sometimes her brain will get stuck in a loop, cycling through the different trajectories on repeat.

“For years, I didn’t know how to cope with that,” said Dr. Lycette, medical director at Providence Oncology and Hematology Care Clinic in Seaside, Ore. “I wasn’t taught the tools to cope with that in my medical training. It took midcareer professional coaching that I sought out on my own to learn to remind myself that no matter what the person says, I have the experience and skill set to handle what comes next and to simply be present in the moment with the patient.”

The question that now sits with Dr. Lycette hours after a visit is what she could have done better. She knows from experience how important it is to choose her words carefully.

Early in her career, Dr. Lycette had a patient with stage IV cancer who wanted to know more about the death process. Because most people ask about pain, she assured him that he likely wouldn’t experience too much pain with his type of cancer.

“It will probably be like falling asleep,” said Dr. Lycette, hoping she was offering comfort. “When I saw him next, he told me he hadn’t slept.”

He was afraid that if he did, he wouldn’t wake up.

In that moment, Dr. Lycette realized the power that her words carry and the importance of trying to understand the inner lives of her patients.
 

Life outside the clinic

Sometimes an oncologist’s late-night ruminations have little to do with cancer itself.

Manali Patel, MD, finds herself worrying if her patients will have enough to eat and whether she will be able to help.

“I was up at 3 a.m. one morning, thinking about how we’re going to fund a project for patients from low-income households who we discovered were experiencing severe food insecurity – what grants we need, what foundations we can work with,” said Dr. Patel, a medical oncologist at Stanford Hospital and Clinics and the VA Palo Alto Health Care System in California.

The past few years of the pandemic have added a new layer of worry for Dr. Patel.

“I don’t want my patients to die from a preventable virus when they’ve already been through so much suffering,” Dr. Patel said.

This thought feeds worries about how her actions outside the clinic could unintentionally harm her patients. Should she go to a big medical conference? A family gathering? The grocery store?

“There are some places you can’t avoid, but these decisions have caused a lot of strife for me,” she said. “The health and safety of our patients – that’s in our wheelhouse – but so many of the policies are outside of our control.”
 

The inevitable losses and the wins

For patients with metastatic disease, eventually the treatment options will run out.

Dr. Shatsky likes to be up front with patients about that reality: “There will come a day when I will tell you there’s nothing more I can do, and you need to trust that I’m being honest with you and that’s the truth.”

For Dr. Goodman, the devastation that bad news brings patients and families is glaring. He knows there will be no more normalcy in their lives.

“I see a lot of suffering, but I know the suffering happens regardless of whether I see it or not,” Dr. Goodman said.

That’s why holding on to the victories can be so important. Dr. Goodman recalled a young patient who came to him with a 20-cm tumor and is now cured. “Had I not met that individual and done what I had done, he’d be dead, but now he’s going to live his life,” Dr. Goodman said. “But I don’t wake up at 2 a.m. thinking about that.”

Dr. Shatsky gets a lot of joy from the wins – the patients who do really well, the times when she can help a friend or colleagues – and those moments go a long way to outweigh the hurt, worry, and workload.

When dealing with so much gray, “the wins are important, knowing you can make a difference is important,” Dr. Dizon said.

And there’s a delicate balance.

“I think patients want an oncologist who cares and is genuinely invested in their outcomes but not someone who is so sad all the time,” Dr. Lewis said. “When I lose a patient, I still grieve each loss, but I can’t mourn every patient’s death like it’s a family member. Otherwise, I’d break.”

What would you do if you had terminal cancer?

Dr. Dizon recalled how a friend handled the news. She went home and made dinner, he said.

Ultimately, she lived for many years. She saw her kids get married, met her first grandchild, and had time to prepare, something not everyone gets the chance to do.

That’s why it’s important to “do what you normally do as long as you can,” Dr. Dizon said. “Live your life.”

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

It was 2 a.m. And Rebecca Shatsky, MD, could not sleep.

The breast oncologist was thinking about a patient of hers with metastatic cancer.

The patient’s disease had been asymptomatic for some time. Then without warning, her cancer suddenly exploded. Her bone marrow was failing, and her liver was not far behind.

Dr. Shatsky had a treatment plan ready to go but still, she felt uneasy.

“I had to be honest with her that I didn’t know if this plan would work,” says Dr. Shatsky, a medical oncologist at University of California, San Diego (UCSD).

That night, after visiting the patient in the hospital, Dr. Shatsky lay awake going over her next move, making sure it was the right one and hoping it would help keep the disease at bay.

“It’s so much pressure when someone is depending on you to make life or death decisions,” Dr. Shatsky said.

And in the quiet hours of night, these concerns grow louder.

Dr. Shatsky is not alone. Oncologists face difficult decisions every day, and many wrestle with these choices long after their day in the clinic is over.

“There’s no off button,” says Aaron Goodman, MD, a hematologist at UCSD Health who goes by “Papa Heme” on Twitter. “I’m always thinking about my patients. Constantly.”

The public rarely gets a glimpse of these private moments. On occasion, oncologists will share a personal story, but more often, insights come from broad research on the ethical, emotional, and psychological toll of practicing medicine.

Many oncologists carry this baggage home with them because they have no other option.

“There is simply no time to process the weight of the day when I’ve got seven more patients who need my full attention before lunch,” Mark Lewis, MD, director, department of gastrointestinal oncology, Intermountain Healthcare, Salt Lake City, Utah. “That is why my processing happens outside of the office, when my brain can be quiet.”
 

What am I missing?

Dr. Goodman recognizes the gravity of each decision he makes. He pores over every detail of a patient’s scans, lab results, history, and symptoms.

But no matter how many times he checks and rechecks, one question nags at him: What am I missing?

For Dr. Goodman, this exhaustive level of attention is worth it.

“When errors are made, it’s someone’s life,” Dr. Goodman said. “Nothing would have prepared me for this responsibility. Until it lies on you, it’s impossible to understand how much trust patients put into us.”

That trust becomes most apparent for Dr. Goodman when facing a decision about how to treat a patient with acute myeloid leukemia who’s in remission.

Give more chemotherapy to root out the leukemia cells still lurking in the body, and the patient faces a high risk of the cancer returning. Pick stem cell transplant, and the chance of being cured goes up significantly, but the patient could also die within 100 days of the transplant.

“All together, the data show I’m helping patients with a transplant, but for the individual, I could be causing harm. Someone could be living less because of a decision I made,” Dr. Goodman said.

For patients with advanced cancer, oncologists may need to think several moves ahead. Mapping out a patient’s treatment options can feel like a game of chess. Dr. Shatsky is always trying to anticipate how the tumor will behave, what is driving it, and how lifestyle factors may influence a patient’s response in the present and the future.

“It is a mind game,” she says. “Like in chess, I try to outsmart my opponent. But with advanced cancer, there are not necessarily clear-cut guidelines or one way to manage the disease, and I have to do the best I can with drugs I have.”

That’s the art of oncology: Balancing the many knowns and unknowns of a person’s cancer alongside the toxicities of treatment and a patient’s hopes and goals.

Throughout the year, Don Dizon, MD, will see a number of patients with advanced disease. In these instances, the question he often wrestles with is if the patient can’t be cured, whether more treatment will just cause greater harm.

Dr. Dizon recently faced this dilemma with an older patient with metastatic disease who had not done well with an initial treatment regimen. After outlining the risks for more chemotherapy, he explained one option would be to forgo it and simply treat her symptoms.

“It’s an impossible choice,” says Dr. Dizon, director of women’s cancers at Lifespan Cancer Institute and director of medical oncology at Rhode Island Hospital, Providence.

Chemotherapy can provide symptom relief, but it can also be toxic – and patients may be so frail, they can die from more therapy.

“I told my patient, if in your heart, you want to try more therapy, that’s okay. But it’s also okay if you don’t,” Dr. Dizon recalled.

Her response: “You’re supposed to give me the answer.”

However, for patients approaching the end of life, there often is no right answer. 

“It’s part of the discomfort you live with as a patient and oncologist, and when I leave the clinic, that’s one thing that follows me home,” Dr. Dizon said. “At the end of the day, I need to look in the mirror and know I did the best I could.”
 

The difficult conversation

Every Sunday, Dr. Lewis feels the weight of the week ahead. He and his wife, a pediatrician, call it the “Sunday scaries.”

It’s when Dr. Lewis begins thinking about the delicate conversations to come, rehearsing how he’s going to share the news that a person has advanced cancer or that a cancer, once in remission, has returned.

“Before the pandemic, I had 36 people come to a visit where I delivered some very heavy news and it became a Greek chorus of sobbing,” he recalls.

For every oncologist, delivering bad news is an integral part of the job. But after spending months, sometimes years, with a patient and the family, Dr. Lewis knows how to take the temperature of the room – who will likely prefer a more blunt style and who might need a gentler touch.

“The longer you know a patient and family, the better you can gauge the best approach,” Dr. Lewis said. “And for some, you know it’ll be complete devastation no matter what.”

When Jennifer Lycette, MD, prepares for a difficult conversation, she’ll run down all the possible ways it could go. Sometimes her brain will get stuck in a loop, cycling through the different trajectories on repeat.

“For years, I didn’t know how to cope with that,” said Dr. Lycette, medical director at Providence Oncology and Hematology Care Clinic in Seaside, Ore. “I wasn’t taught the tools to cope with that in my medical training. It took midcareer professional coaching that I sought out on my own to learn to remind myself that no matter what the person says, I have the experience and skill set to handle what comes next and to simply be present in the moment with the patient.”

The question that now sits with Dr. Lycette hours after a visit is what she could have done better. She knows from experience how important it is to choose her words carefully.

Early in her career, Dr. Lycette had a patient with stage IV cancer who wanted to know more about the death process. Because most people ask about pain, she assured him that he likely wouldn’t experience too much pain with his type of cancer.

“It will probably be like falling asleep,” said Dr. Lycette, hoping she was offering comfort. “When I saw him next, he told me he hadn’t slept.”

He was afraid that if he did, he wouldn’t wake up.

In that moment, Dr. Lycette realized the power that her words carry and the importance of trying to understand the inner lives of her patients.
 

Life outside the clinic

Sometimes an oncologist’s late-night ruminations have little to do with cancer itself.

Manali Patel, MD, finds herself worrying if her patients will have enough to eat and whether she will be able to help.

“I was up at 3 a.m. one morning, thinking about how we’re going to fund a project for patients from low-income households who we discovered were experiencing severe food insecurity – what grants we need, what foundations we can work with,” said Dr. Patel, a medical oncologist at Stanford Hospital and Clinics and the VA Palo Alto Health Care System in California.

The past few years of the pandemic have added a new layer of worry for Dr. Patel.

“I don’t want my patients to die from a preventable virus when they’ve already been through so much suffering,” Dr. Patel said.

This thought feeds worries about how her actions outside the clinic could unintentionally harm her patients. Should she go to a big medical conference? A family gathering? The grocery store?

“There are some places you can’t avoid, but these decisions have caused a lot of strife for me,” she said. “The health and safety of our patients – that’s in our wheelhouse – but so many of the policies are outside of our control.”
 

The inevitable losses and the wins

For patients with metastatic disease, eventually the treatment options will run out.

Dr. Shatsky likes to be up front with patients about that reality: “There will come a day when I will tell you there’s nothing more I can do, and you need to trust that I’m being honest with you and that’s the truth.”

For Dr. Goodman, the devastation that bad news brings patients and families is glaring. He knows there will be no more normalcy in their lives.

“I see a lot of suffering, but I know the suffering happens regardless of whether I see it or not,” Dr. Goodman said.

That’s why holding on to the victories can be so important. Dr. Goodman recalled a young patient who came to him with a 20-cm tumor and is now cured. “Had I not met that individual and done what I had done, he’d be dead, but now he’s going to live his life,” Dr. Goodman said. “But I don’t wake up at 2 a.m. thinking about that.”

Dr. Shatsky gets a lot of joy from the wins – the patients who do really well, the times when she can help a friend or colleagues – and those moments go a long way to outweigh the hurt, worry, and workload.

When dealing with so much gray, “the wins are important, knowing you can make a difference is important,” Dr. Dizon said.

And there’s a delicate balance.

“I think patients want an oncologist who cares and is genuinely invested in their outcomes but not someone who is so sad all the time,” Dr. Lewis said. “When I lose a patient, I still grieve each loss, but I can’t mourn every patient’s death like it’s a family member. Otherwise, I’d break.”

What would you do if you had terminal cancer?

Dr. Dizon recalled how a friend handled the news. She went home and made dinner, he said.

Ultimately, she lived for many years. She saw her kids get married, met her first grandchild, and had time to prepare, something not everyone gets the chance to do.

That’s why it’s important to “do what you normally do as long as you can,” Dr. Dizon said. “Live your life.”

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

It was 2 a.m. And Rebecca Shatsky, MD, could not sleep.

The breast oncologist was thinking about a patient of hers with metastatic cancer.

The patient’s disease had been asymptomatic for some time. Then without warning, her cancer suddenly exploded. Her bone marrow was failing, and her liver was not far behind.

Dr. Shatsky had a treatment plan ready to go but still, she felt uneasy.

“I had to be honest with her that I didn’t know if this plan would work,” says Dr. Shatsky, a medical oncologist at University of California, San Diego (UCSD).

That night, after visiting the patient in the hospital, Dr. Shatsky lay awake going over her next move, making sure it was the right one and hoping it would help keep the disease at bay.

“It’s so much pressure when someone is depending on you to make life or death decisions,” Dr. Shatsky said.

And in the quiet hours of night, these concerns grow louder.

Dr. Shatsky is not alone. Oncologists face difficult decisions every day, and many wrestle with these choices long after their day in the clinic is over.

“There’s no off button,” says Aaron Goodman, MD, a hematologist at UCSD Health who goes by “Papa Heme” on Twitter. “I’m always thinking about my patients. Constantly.”

The public rarely gets a glimpse of these private moments. On occasion, oncologists will share a personal story, but more often, insights come from broad research on the ethical, emotional, and psychological toll of practicing medicine.

Many oncologists carry this baggage home with them because they have no other option.

“There is simply no time to process the weight of the day when I’ve got seven more patients who need my full attention before lunch,” Mark Lewis, MD, director, department of gastrointestinal oncology, Intermountain Healthcare, Salt Lake City, Utah. “That is why my processing happens outside of the office, when my brain can be quiet.”
 

What am I missing?

Dr. Goodman recognizes the gravity of each decision he makes. He pores over every detail of a patient’s scans, lab results, history, and symptoms.

But no matter how many times he checks and rechecks, one question nags at him: What am I missing?

For Dr. Goodman, this exhaustive level of attention is worth it.

“When errors are made, it’s someone’s life,” Dr. Goodman said. “Nothing would have prepared me for this responsibility. Until it lies on you, it’s impossible to understand how much trust patients put into us.”

That trust becomes most apparent for Dr. Goodman when facing a decision about how to treat a patient with acute myeloid leukemia who’s in remission.

Give more chemotherapy to root out the leukemia cells still lurking in the body, and the patient faces a high risk of the cancer returning. Pick stem cell transplant, and the chance of being cured goes up significantly, but the patient could also die within 100 days of the transplant.

“All together, the data show I’m helping patients with a transplant, but for the individual, I could be causing harm. Someone could be living less because of a decision I made,” Dr. Goodman said.

For patients with advanced cancer, oncologists may need to think several moves ahead. Mapping out a patient’s treatment options can feel like a game of chess. Dr. Shatsky is always trying to anticipate how the tumor will behave, what is driving it, and how lifestyle factors may influence a patient’s response in the present and the future.

“It is a mind game,” she says. “Like in chess, I try to outsmart my opponent. But with advanced cancer, there are not necessarily clear-cut guidelines or one way to manage the disease, and I have to do the best I can with drugs I have.”

That’s the art of oncology: Balancing the many knowns and unknowns of a person’s cancer alongside the toxicities of treatment and a patient’s hopes and goals.

Throughout the year, Don Dizon, MD, will see a number of patients with advanced disease. In these instances, the question he often wrestles with is if the patient can’t be cured, whether more treatment will just cause greater harm.

Dr. Dizon recently faced this dilemma with an older patient with metastatic disease who had not done well with an initial treatment regimen. After outlining the risks for more chemotherapy, he explained one option would be to forgo it and simply treat her symptoms.

“It’s an impossible choice,” says Dr. Dizon, director of women’s cancers at Lifespan Cancer Institute and director of medical oncology at Rhode Island Hospital, Providence.

Chemotherapy can provide symptom relief, but it can also be toxic – and patients may be so frail, they can die from more therapy.

“I told my patient, if in your heart, you want to try more therapy, that’s okay. But it’s also okay if you don’t,” Dr. Dizon recalled.

Her response: “You’re supposed to give me the answer.”

However, for patients approaching the end of life, there often is no right answer. 

“It’s part of the discomfort you live with as a patient and oncologist, and when I leave the clinic, that’s one thing that follows me home,” Dr. Dizon said. “At the end of the day, I need to look in the mirror and know I did the best I could.”
 

The difficult conversation

Every Sunday, Dr. Lewis feels the weight of the week ahead. He and his wife, a pediatrician, call it the “Sunday scaries.”

It’s when Dr. Lewis begins thinking about the delicate conversations to come, rehearsing how he’s going to share the news that a person has advanced cancer or that a cancer, once in remission, has returned.

“Before the pandemic, I had 36 people come to a visit where I delivered some very heavy news and it became a Greek chorus of sobbing,” he recalls.

For every oncologist, delivering bad news is an integral part of the job. But after spending months, sometimes years, with a patient and the family, Dr. Lewis knows how to take the temperature of the room – who will likely prefer a more blunt style and who might need a gentler touch.

“The longer you know a patient and family, the better you can gauge the best approach,” Dr. Lewis said. “And for some, you know it’ll be complete devastation no matter what.”

When Jennifer Lycette, MD, prepares for a difficult conversation, she’ll run down all the possible ways it could go. Sometimes her brain will get stuck in a loop, cycling through the different trajectories on repeat.

“For years, I didn’t know how to cope with that,” said Dr. Lycette, medical director at Providence Oncology and Hematology Care Clinic in Seaside, Ore. “I wasn’t taught the tools to cope with that in my medical training. It took midcareer professional coaching that I sought out on my own to learn to remind myself that no matter what the person says, I have the experience and skill set to handle what comes next and to simply be present in the moment with the patient.”

The question that now sits with Dr. Lycette hours after a visit is what she could have done better. She knows from experience how important it is to choose her words carefully.

Early in her career, Dr. Lycette had a patient with stage IV cancer who wanted to know more about the death process. Because most people ask about pain, she assured him that he likely wouldn’t experience too much pain with his type of cancer.

“It will probably be like falling asleep,” said Dr. Lycette, hoping she was offering comfort. “When I saw him next, he told me he hadn’t slept.”

He was afraid that if he did, he wouldn’t wake up.

In that moment, Dr. Lycette realized the power that her words carry and the importance of trying to understand the inner lives of her patients.
 

Life outside the clinic

Sometimes an oncologist’s late-night ruminations have little to do with cancer itself.

Manali Patel, MD, finds herself worrying if her patients will have enough to eat and whether she will be able to help.

“I was up at 3 a.m. one morning, thinking about how we’re going to fund a project for patients from low-income households who we discovered were experiencing severe food insecurity – what grants we need, what foundations we can work with,” said Dr. Patel, a medical oncologist at Stanford Hospital and Clinics and the VA Palo Alto Health Care System in California.

The past few years of the pandemic have added a new layer of worry for Dr. Patel.

“I don’t want my patients to die from a preventable virus when they’ve already been through so much suffering,” Dr. Patel said.

This thought feeds worries about how her actions outside the clinic could unintentionally harm her patients. Should she go to a big medical conference? A family gathering? The grocery store?

“There are some places you can’t avoid, but these decisions have caused a lot of strife for me,” she said. “The health and safety of our patients – that’s in our wheelhouse – but so many of the policies are outside of our control.”
 

The inevitable losses and the wins

For patients with metastatic disease, eventually the treatment options will run out.

Dr. Shatsky likes to be up front with patients about that reality: “There will come a day when I will tell you there’s nothing more I can do, and you need to trust that I’m being honest with you and that’s the truth.”

For Dr. Goodman, the devastation that bad news brings patients and families is glaring. He knows there will be no more normalcy in their lives.

“I see a lot of suffering, but I know the suffering happens regardless of whether I see it or not,” Dr. Goodman said.

That’s why holding on to the victories can be so important. Dr. Goodman recalled a young patient who came to him with a 20-cm tumor and is now cured. “Had I not met that individual and done what I had done, he’d be dead, but now he’s going to live his life,” Dr. Goodman said. “But I don’t wake up at 2 a.m. thinking about that.”

Dr. Shatsky gets a lot of joy from the wins – the patients who do really well, the times when she can help a friend or colleagues – and those moments go a long way to outweigh the hurt, worry, and workload.

When dealing with so much gray, “the wins are important, knowing you can make a difference is important,” Dr. Dizon said.

And there’s a delicate balance.

“I think patients want an oncologist who cares and is genuinely invested in their outcomes but not someone who is so sad all the time,” Dr. Lewis said. “When I lose a patient, I still grieve each loss, but I can’t mourn every patient’s death like it’s a family member. Otherwise, I’d break.”

What would you do if you had terminal cancer?

Dr. Dizon recalled how a friend handled the news. She went home and made dinner, he said.

Ultimately, she lived for many years. She saw her kids get married, met her first grandchild, and had time to prepare, something not everyone gets the chance to do.

That’s why it’s important to “do what you normally do as long as you can,” Dr. Dizon said. “Live your life.”

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

The Food and Drug Administration announced on June 1 it has withdrawn approval of the lymphoma drug umbralisib (Ukoniq) following an investigation into a “possible increased risk of death.”

Umbralisib had received accelerated approval in February 2021 to treat adults with relapsed or refractory marginal zone lymphoma following at least one prior therapy and those with relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma who had received at least three prior therapies.

But safety concerns began to emerge in the phase 3 UNITY-CLL trial, which evaluated the drug in a related cancer type: chronic lymphocytic leukemia.

Last February, the FDA said it was investigating a possible increased risk of death associated with umbralisib.

Five months later, the results are in.

“Updated findings from the UNITY-CLL clinical trial continued to show a possible increased risk of death in patients receiving Ukoniq. As a result, we determined the risks of treatment with Ukoniq outweigh its benefits,” the FDA wrote in a drug safety communication published June 1.

In April, the drug manufacturer, TG Therapeutics, announced it was voluntarily withdrawing umbralisib from the market for its approved uses in marginal zone lymphoma and follicular lymphoma.

The FDA’s safety notice includes instructions for physicians and patients. The FDA urges health care professionals to “stop prescribing Ukoniq and switch patients to alternative treatments” and to “inform patients currently taking Ukoniq of the increased risk of death seen in the clinical trial and advise them to stop taking the medicine.”

In special instances in which a patient may be benefiting from the drug, the company plans to make umbralisib available under expanded access.

The FDA also recommends that patients who discontinue taking the drug dispose of unused umbralisib using a drug take-back location, such as a pharmacy, or throwing it away in the household trash after placing it in a sealed bag mixed with dirt or cat litter and removing personal identification information.

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

The Food and Drug Administration announced on June 1 it has withdrawn approval of the lymphoma drug umbralisib (Ukoniq) following an investigation into a “possible increased risk of death.”

Umbralisib had received accelerated approval in February 2021 to treat adults with relapsed or refractory marginal zone lymphoma following at least one prior therapy and those with relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma who had received at least three prior therapies.

But safety concerns began to emerge in the phase 3 UNITY-CLL trial, which evaluated the drug in a related cancer type: chronic lymphocytic leukemia.

Last February, the FDA said it was investigating a possible increased risk of death associated with umbralisib.

Five months later, the results are in.

“Updated findings from the UNITY-CLL clinical trial continued to show a possible increased risk of death in patients receiving Ukoniq. As a result, we determined the risks of treatment with Ukoniq outweigh its benefits,” the FDA wrote in a drug safety communication published June 1.

In April, the drug manufacturer, TG Therapeutics, announced it was voluntarily withdrawing umbralisib from the market for its approved uses in marginal zone lymphoma and follicular lymphoma.

The FDA’s safety notice includes instructions for physicians and patients. The FDA urges health care professionals to “stop prescribing Ukoniq and switch patients to alternative treatments” and to “inform patients currently taking Ukoniq of the increased risk of death seen in the clinical trial and advise them to stop taking the medicine.”

In special instances in which a patient may be benefiting from the drug, the company plans to make umbralisib available under expanded access.

The FDA also recommends that patients who discontinue taking the drug dispose of unused umbralisib using a drug take-back location, such as a pharmacy, or throwing it away in the household trash after placing it in a sealed bag mixed with dirt or cat litter and removing personal identification information.

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

The Food and Drug Administration announced on June 1 it has withdrawn approval of the lymphoma drug umbralisib (Ukoniq) following an investigation into a “possible increased risk of death.”

Umbralisib had received accelerated approval in February 2021 to treat adults with relapsed or refractory marginal zone lymphoma following at least one prior therapy and those with relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma who had received at least three prior therapies.

But safety concerns began to emerge in the phase 3 UNITY-CLL trial, which evaluated the drug in a related cancer type: chronic lymphocytic leukemia.

Last February, the FDA said it was investigating a possible increased risk of death associated with umbralisib.

Five months later, the results are in.

“Updated findings from the UNITY-CLL clinical trial continued to show a possible increased risk of death in patients receiving Ukoniq. As a result, we determined the risks of treatment with Ukoniq outweigh its benefits,” the FDA wrote in a drug safety communication published June 1.

In April, the drug manufacturer, TG Therapeutics, announced it was voluntarily withdrawing umbralisib from the market for its approved uses in marginal zone lymphoma and follicular lymphoma.

The FDA’s safety notice includes instructions for physicians and patients. The FDA urges health care professionals to “stop prescribing Ukoniq and switch patients to alternative treatments” and to “inform patients currently taking Ukoniq of the increased risk of death seen in the clinical trial and advise them to stop taking the medicine.”

In special instances in which a patient may be benefiting from the drug, the company plans to make umbralisib available under expanded access.

The FDA also recommends that patients who discontinue taking the drug dispose of unused umbralisib using a drug take-back location, such as a pharmacy, or throwing it away in the household trash after placing it in a sealed bag mixed with dirt or cat litter and removing personal identification information.

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

About 5% of people who are eligible to receive lung cancer screening do not live close to a facility and have limited or no access to screening,a recent analysis shows.

That percentage, although quite small, still translates to more than 750,000 individuals who are eligible to receive lung cancer screening but live at least 40 miles from a facility.

Overall, a larger proportion of eligible individuals in rural areas had no access to a facility, but a greater number of people in urban areas had no access, especially at shorter distances.

Understanding access issues is important given that “lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography scanning (LDCT) reduces mortality among high-risk adults, ... [but] annual screening rates remain low,” write study authors Liora Sahar, PhD, of the American Cancer Society in Atlanta, and colleagues.

The study was published online Feb. 15 in the journal Cancer.

It expands on a previous report, which found that “less than 6% of those 55 to 79 years of age do not have access to registry screening facilities”.

The new analysis incorporates the most recent guidelines from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, which lowered the screening age to 50 years and compares access across urban and rural areas.

Dr. Sahar and colleagues calculated the distances from population centers to screening facilities and estimated the number of individuals living within different distances of those facilities – 10, 20, 40, 50, and 100 miles. Geographical subdivisions, or census tracts, were also classified along a spectrum of rural to urban.

The authors found that, overall, about 14.8 million people aged 50-80 years are eligible for lung cancer screening, and 5.1% of that population – or 753,038 individuals – do not live within 40 miles of a facility and have no access to screening.

The proportion of people affected by access issues varies by geographic location. For eligible people living 40 miles or more from a facility, almost 25% (n = 287,803) in rural counties had no access, compared with 1.6% (n = 195,120) in metropolitan areas.

At greater distances to facilities (50 and 100 miles), these proportions diminish. In rural counties, for instance, 16% of eligible individuals (n = 186,401) living 50 or more miles away and 2.8% (n = 33,504) living 100 or more miles away had no access to a facility.

Not surprisingly, across all distances, “there is a significantly higher percentage of rural residents who do not have access to facilities in comparison with those in urban settings,” the authors write. “There are fewer facilities in rural areas, so residents need to travel longer distances to reach a facility.”

Notably, however, distance to a facility was not necessarily the greatest barrier to screening. The authors found a greater number of eligible individuals living in or close to urban areas were not getting screening when facilities were 10 miles away – more than 2.8 million in metropolitan areas versus just over 1 million in rural areas.

“The total number of individuals with no access in urban areas exceeds that of rural individuals, particularly at shorter distances ... [which] reveals an additional underserved population.”

Identifying geographic areas with greater access issues can help researchers address barriers to screening and improve uptake. 

“Areas and local pockets with persistently low or no access across short and long distances should be considered for tailored interventions, such as implementing mobile units, repurposing existing imaging or health facilities, and adding appropriate navigation, radiology, and screening program staff to better support the communities,” the authors conclude.

The study was supported in part by the National Lung Cancer Roundtable. Coauthor Debra S. Dyer, MD, serves on the clinical advisory board for computer software company Imidex and on the GO2 Foundation scientific advisory board; she also serves as a consultant for Lung Ambition Alliance. Coauthor Ella A. Kazerooni, MD, reports past participation on the Bristol Myers Squibb Foundation advisory board. The other authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

About 5% of people who are eligible to receive lung cancer screening do not live close to a facility and have limited or no access to screening,a recent analysis shows.

That percentage, although quite small, still translates to more than 750,000 individuals who are eligible to receive lung cancer screening but live at least 40 miles from a facility.

Overall, a larger proportion of eligible individuals in rural areas had no access to a facility, but a greater number of people in urban areas had no access, especially at shorter distances.

Understanding access issues is important given that “lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography scanning (LDCT) reduces mortality among high-risk adults, ... [but] annual screening rates remain low,” write study authors Liora Sahar, PhD, of the American Cancer Society in Atlanta, and colleagues.

The study was published online Feb. 15 in the journal Cancer.

It expands on a previous report, which found that “less than 6% of those 55 to 79 years of age do not have access to registry screening facilities”.

The new analysis incorporates the most recent guidelines from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, which lowered the screening age to 50 years and compares access across urban and rural areas.

Dr. Sahar and colleagues calculated the distances from population centers to screening facilities and estimated the number of individuals living within different distances of those facilities – 10, 20, 40, 50, and 100 miles. Geographical subdivisions, or census tracts, were also classified along a spectrum of rural to urban.

The authors found that, overall, about 14.8 million people aged 50-80 years are eligible for lung cancer screening, and 5.1% of that population – or 753,038 individuals – do not live within 40 miles of a facility and have no access to screening.

The proportion of people affected by access issues varies by geographic location. For eligible people living 40 miles or more from a facility, almost 25% (n = 287,803) in rural counties had no access, compared with 1.6% (n = 195,120) in metropolitan areas.

At greater distances to facilities (50 and 100 miles), these proportions diminish. In rural counties, for instance, 16% of eligible individuals (n = 186,401) living 50 or more miles away and 2.8% (n = 33,504) living 100 or more miles away had no access to a facility.

Not surprisingly, across all distances, “there is a significantly higher percentage of rural residents who do not have access to facilities in comparison with those in urban settings,” the authors write. “There are fewer facilities in rural areas, so residents need to travel longer distances to reach a facility.”

Notably, however, distance to a facility was not necessarily the greatest barrier to screening. The authors found a greater number of eligible individuals living in or close to urban areas were not getting screening when facilities were 10 miles away – more than 2.8 million in metropolitan areas versus just over 1 million in rural areas.

“The total number of individuals with no access in urban areas exceeds that of rural individuals, particularly at shorter distances ... [which] reveals an additional underserved population.”

Identifying geographic areas with greater access issues can help researchers address barriers to screening and improve uptake. 

“Areas and local pockets with persistently low or no access across short and long distances should be considered for tailored interventions, such as implementing mobile units, repurposing existing imaging or health facilities, and adding appropriate navigation, radiology, and screening program staff to better support the communities,” the authors conclude.

The study was supported in part by the National Lung Cancer Roundtable. Coauthor Debra S. Dyer, MD, serves on the clinical advisory board for computer software company Imidex and on the GO2 Foundation scientific advisory board; she also serves as a consultant for Lung Ambition Alliance. Coauthor Ella A. Kazerooni, MD, reports past participation on the Bristol Myers Squibb Foundation advisory board. The other authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

About 5% of people who are eligible to receive lung cancer screening do not live close to a facility and have limited or no access to screening,a recent analysis shows.

That percentage, although quite small, still translates to more than 750,000 individuals who are eligible to receive lung cancer screening but live at least 40 miles from a facility.

Overall, a larger proportion of eligible individuals in rural areas had no access to a facility, but a greater number of people in urban areas had no access, especially at shorter distances.

Understanding access issues is important given that “lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography scanning (LDCT) reduces mortality among high-risk adults, ... [but] annual screening rates remain low,” write study authors Liora Sahar, PhD, of the American Cancer Society in Atlanta, and colleagues.

The study was published online Feb. 15 in the journal Cancer.

It expands on a previous report, which found that “less than 6% of those 55 to 79 years of age do not have access to registry screening facilities”.

The new analysis incorporates the most recent guidelines from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, which lowered the screening age to 50 years and compares access across urban and rural areas.

Dr. Sahar and colleagues calculated the distances from population centers to screening facilities and estimated the number of individuals living within different distances of those facilities – 10, 20, 40, 50, and 100 miles. Geographical subdivisions, or census tracts, were also classified along a spectrum of rural to urban.

The authors found that, overall, about 14.8 million people aged 50-80 years are eligible for lung cancer screening, and 5.1% of that population – or 753,038 individuals – do not live within 40 miles of a facility and have no access to screening.

The proportion of people affected by access issues varies by geographic location. For eligible people living 40 miles or more from a facility, almost 25% (n = 287,803) in rural counties had no access, compared with 1.6% (n = 195,120) in metropolitan areas.

At greater distances to facilities (50 and 100 miles), these proportions diminish. In rural counties, for instance, 16% of eligible individuals (n = 186,401) living 50 or more miles away and 2.8% (n = 33,504) living 100 or more miles away had no access to a facility.

Not surprisingly, across all distances, “there is a significantly higher percentage of rural residents who do not have access to facilities in comparison with those in urban settings,” the authors write. “There are fewer facilities in rural areas, so residents need to travel longer distances to reach a facility.”

Notably, however, distance to a facility was not necessarily the greatest barrier to screening. The authors found a greater number of eligible individuals living in or close to urban areas were not getting screening when facilities were 10 miles away – more than 2.8 million in metropolitan areas versus just over 1 million in rural areas.

“The total number of individuals with no access in urban areas exceeds that of rural individuals, particularly at shorter distances ... [which] reveals an additional underserved population.”

Identifying geographic areas with greater access issues can help researchers address barriers to screening and improve uptake. 

“Areas and local pockets with persistently low or no access across short and long distances should be considered for tailored interventions, such as implementing mobile units, repurposing existing imaging or health facilities, and adding appropriate navigation, radiology, and screening program staff to better support the communities,” the authors conclude.

The study was supported in part by the National Lung Cancer Roundtable. Coauthor Debra S. Dyer, MD, serves on the clinical advisory board for computer software company Imidex and on the GO2 Foundation scientific advisory board; she also serves as a consultant for Lung Ambition Alliance. Coauthor Ella A. Kazerooni, MD, reports past participation on the Bristol Myers Squibb Foundation advisory board. The other authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The Food and Drug Administration announced on Feb. 3 its investigation into “a possible increased risk of death” associated with the lymphoma drug umbralisib (Ukoniq).

The FDA granted accelerated approval to umbralisib in February 2021 for patients with two types of lymphoma: Adults with relapsed or refractory marginal zone lymphoma who received at least one prior therapy, and those with relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma who received at least three prior therapies.

According to the FDA, the possible increased risk of death arose from early findings in a phase 3 trial evaluating the drug in a related type of cancer: chronic lymphocytic leukemia.

“Because of the seriousness of this safety concern and the similarities between the two types of cancer for which this drug is approved and the type of cancer that was studied in the clinical trial, we are alerting patients and health care professionals that we are reevaluating this risk against the benefits of Ukoniq [umbralisib] for its approved uses,” the FDA safety communication states.

The FDA said it performed an initial review of data from the phase 3, randomized controlled UNITY trial, which is evaluating the efficacy of umbralisib plus a monoclonal antibody in patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia.

“The results showed a possible increased risk of death in patients receiving the combination of Ukoniq [umbralisib] and the monoclonal antibody compared to the control arm,” according to the FDA. “Those receiving the combination of Ukoniq [umbralisib] and the monoclonal antibody also experienced more serious adverse events than those in the control arm.”

Although the drug has not been approved for patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia, the FDA believes the findings could “have implications for its approved uses” in marginal zone lymphoma and follicular lymphoma.

However, the phase 2 trial that led to February 2021 approvals found the drug’s safety profile to be “manageable,” with serious adverse reactions reported in 18% of patients receiving the dual oral inhibitor of phosphoinositide 3 kinase delta and casein kinase 1 epsilon. These adverse reactions included diarrhea-colitis (4%), pneumonia (3%), sepsis (2%), and urinary tract infection (2%); however, no elevated risk of death was indicated in that analysis.

The FDA noted it will continue to evaluate the results from the phase 3 UNITY trial in chronic lymphocytic leukemia and has suspended enrollment of new patients in other ongoing clinical trials of the drug.

The FDA stated that it would communicate its “final conclusions and recommendations when we have completed our review.” In the meantime, the agency asks health care professionals to review how patients receiving umbralisib are faring and discuss “the risks and benefits of continuing” versus switching to other treatments.

The FDA also asks clinicians and patients to report side effects involving the drug to the FDA MedWatch program.

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

The Food and Drug Administration announced on Feb. 3 its investigation into “a possible increased risk of death” associated with the lymphoma drug umbralisib (Ukoniq).

The FDA granted accelerated approval to umbralisib in February 2021 for patients with two types of lymphoma: Adults with relapsed or refractory marginal zone lymphoma who received at least one prior therapy, and those with relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma who received at least three prior therapies.

According to the FDA, the possible increased risk of death arose from early findings in a phase 3 trial evaluating the drug in a related type of cancer: chronic lymphocytic leukemia.

“Because of the seriousness of this safety concern and the similarities between the two types of cancer for which this drug is approved and the type of cancer that was studied in the clinical trial, we are alerting patients and health care professionals that we are reevaluating this risk against the benefits of Ukoniq [umbralisib] for its approved uses,” the FDA safety communication states.

The FDA said it performed an initial review of data from the phase 3, randomized controlled UNITY trial, which is evaluating the efficacy of umbralisib plus a monoclonal antibody in patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia.

“The results showed a possible increased risk of death in patients receiving the combination of Ukoniq [umbralisib] and the monoclonal antibody compared to the control arm,” according to the FDA. “Those receiving the combination of Ukoniq [umbralisib] and the monoclonal antibody also experienced more serious adverse events than those in the control arm.”

Although the drug has not been approved for patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia, the FDA believes the findings could “have implications for its approved uses” in marginal zone lymphoma and follicular lymphoma.

However, the phase 2 trial that led to February 2021 approvals found the drug’s safety profile to be “manageable,” with serious adverse reactions reported in 18% of patients receiving the dual oral inhibitor of phosphoinositide 3 kinase delta and casein kinase 1 epsilon. These adverse reactions included diarrhea-colitis (4%), pneumonia (3%), sepsis (2%), and urinary tract infection (2%); however, no elevated risk of death was indicated in that analysis.

The FDA noted it will continue to evaluate the results from the phase 3 UNITY trial in chronic lymphocytic leukemia and has suspended enrollment of new patients in other ongoing clinical trials of the drug.

The FDA stated that it would communicate its “final conclusions and recommendations when we have completed our review.” In the meantime, the agency asks health care professionals to review how patients receiving umbralisib are faring and discuss “the risks and benefits of continuing” versus switching to other treatments.

The FDA also asks clinicians and patients to report side effects involving the drug to the FDA MedWatch program.

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

The Food and Drug Administration announced on Feb. 3 its investigation into “a possible increased risk of death” associated with the lymphoma drug umbralisib (Ukoniq).

The FDA granted accelerated approval to umbralisib in February 2021 for patients with two types of lymphoma: Adults with relapsed or refractory marginal zone lymphoma who received at least one prior therapy, and those with relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma who received at least three prior therapies.

According to the FDA, the possible increased risk of death arose from early findings in a phase 3 trial evaluating the drug in a related type of cancer: chronic lymphocytic leukemia.

“Because of the seriousness of this safety concern and the similarities between the two types of cancer for which this drug is approved and the type of cancer that was studied in the clinical trial, we are alerting patients and health care professionals that we are reevaluating this risk against the benefits of Ukoniq [umbralisib] for its approved uses,” the FDA safety communication states.

The FDA said it performed an initial review of data from the phase 3, randomized controlled UNITY trial, which is evaluating the efficacy of umbralisib plus a monoclonal antibody in patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia.

“The results showed a possible increased risk of death in patients receiving the combination of Ukoniq [umbralisib] and the monoclonal antibody compared to the control arm,” according to the FDA. “Those receiving the combination of Ukoniq [umbralisib] and the monoclonal antibody also experienced more serious adverse events than those in the control arm.”

Although the drug has not been approved for patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia, the FDA believes the findings could “have implications for its approved uses” in marginal zone lymphoma and follicular lymphoma.

However, the phase 2 trial that led to February 2021 approvals found the drug’s safety profile to be “manageable,” with serious adverse reactions reported in 18% of patients receiving the dual oral inhibitor of phosphoinositide 3 kinase delta and casein kinase 1 epsilon. These adverse reactions included diarrhea-colitis (4%), pneumonia (3%), sepsis (2%), and urinary tract infection (2%); however, no elevated risk of death was indicated in that analysis.

The FDA noted it will continue to evaluate the results from the phase 3 UNITY trial in chronic lymphocytic leukemia and has suspended enrollment of new patients in other ongoing clinical trials of the drug.

The FDA stated that it would communicate its “final conclusions and recommendations when we have completed our review.” In the meantime, the agency asks health care professionals to review how patients receiving umbralisib are faring and discuss “the risks and benefits of continuing” versus switching to other treatments.

The FDA also asks clinicians and patients to report side effects involving the drug to the FDA MedWatch program.

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

Treating triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC), one of the more lethal breast cancer subtypes, remains a challenge. By definition, TNBC lacks the three telltale molecular signatures known to spur tumor growth: estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR), and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2). A growing amount of literature shows that these frequently aggressive tumors harbor a rich array of molecular characteristics but no clear oncogenic driver.

“TNBC is incredibly heterogeneous, which makes it challenging to treat,” said Rita Nanda, MD, director of the breast oncology program and associate professor of medicine at the University of Chicago. “We have subsets of TNBC that don’t respond to currently available therapies and, as of yet, have no identifiable therapeutic targets.”

Overall, about 40% of patients with TNBC show a pathologic complete response after first-line neoadjuvant chemotherapy – typically anthracycline and taxane-based agents. But for 50% of patients, chemotherapy leaves behind substantial residual cancer tissue. These patients subsequently face a 40%-80% risk for recurrence and progression to advanced disease.

When triple-negative disease metastasizes, survival rates plummet. The most recent data from the National Cancer Institute, which tracked patients by stage of diagnosis between 2010 and 2016, showed steep declines in 5-year survival as TNBC progressed from local (91.2%) to regional (65%) to advanced-stage disease (11.5%).

Experts have started to make headway identifying and targeting different molecular features of advanced TNBC. These approaches often focus on three key areas: targeting cell surface proteins or oncogenes, stimulating an anticancer immune response, or inhibiting an overactive signaling pathway.

“For a patient with metastatic breast cancer, finding a molecular target or an oncogenic driver is essential,” said Kelly McCann, MD, PhD, a hematologist/oncologist in the department of medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles. “Because TNBC encompasses many different molecular subsets of breast cancer, the development of effective new therapeutics is going to depend on subdividing TNBC into categories with more clear targets.”
 

A targeted strategy

The Food and Drug Administration’s approval of sacituzumab govitecan, the first antibody-drug conjugate to treat metastatic TNBC, marked an important addition to the TNBC drug armamentarium. “Sacituzumab govitecan is one of the most exciting drugs available for the treatment of metastatic disease,” Dr. Nanda said.

Sacituzumab govitecan, approved as third-line therapy for metastatic TNBC, works by targeting the cell surface protein TROP2, expressed in about 88% of TNBC tumors but rarely in healthy cells.

In the phase 1/2 ASCENT trial, the median progression-free survival was 5.5 months and overall survival was 13.0 months in 108 patients with metastatic TNBC who had received at least two therapies prior to sacituzumab govitecan.

A subsequent phase 3 trial showed progression-free survival of 5.6 months with sacituzumab govitecan and 1.7 months with physician’s choice of chemotherapy. The median overall survival was 12.1 months and 6.7 months, respectively.

But, according to the analysis, TROP2 expression did not necessarily predict who would benefit from sacituzumab govitecan. A biomarker study revealed that although patients with moderate to high TROP2 expression exhibited the strongest treatment response, those with low TROP2 expression also survived longer when given sacituzumab govitecan, compared with chemotherapy alone.

In other words, “patients did better on sacituzumab govitecan regardless of TROP2 expression, which suggests we do not have a good biomarker for identifying who will benefit,” Dr. Nanda said.

Two other investigational antibody-drug conjugates, trastuzumab deruxtecan and ladiratuzumab vedotin, show promise in the metastatic space as well. For instance, the recent phase 2 trial evaluating trastuzumab deruxtecan in patients with HER2-positive breast cancer reported treatment response in 44% of patients with HER2-low tumors.

Given that about 36.6% of TNBC tumors exhibit low levels of HER2 expression, “trastuzumab deruxtecan represents potential in treating HER2-low TNBC,” said Yuan Yuan, MD, PhD, medical oncologist at City of Hope, a comprehensive cancer center in Los Angeles County.

Early results from a phase 1b study showed that trastuzumab deruxtecan produced a response rate of 37% in patients with HER2-low breast cancer.

Investigators are now recruiting for an open-label phase 3 trial to determine whether trastuzumab deruxtecan extends survival in patients with HER2-low metastatic breast cancers.
 

Immunotherapy advances

Immune checkpoint inhibitors represent another promising treatment avenue for metastatic TNBC. Pembrolizumab and atezolizumab, recently approved by the FDA, show moderate progression-free and overall survival benefits in patients with metastatic TNBC expressing PD-L1. Estimates of PD-L1 immune cells present in TNBC tumors vary widely, from about 20% to 65%.

Yet, data on which patients will benefit are not so clear-cut. “These drugs give us more choices and represent the fast-evolving therapeutic landscape in TNBC, but they also leave a lot of unanswered questions about PD-L1 as a biomarker,” Dr. Yuan said.

Take two recent phase 3 trials evaluating atezolizumab: IMpassion130 and IMpassion131. In IMpassion130, patients with PDL1–positive tumors exhibited significantly longer median overall survival on atezolizumab plus nab-paclitaxel (25.0 months) compared with nab-paclitaxel alone (15.5 months). As with the trend observed in the TROP2 data for sacituzumab govitecan, all patients survived longer on atezolizumab plus nab-paclitaxel regardless of PD-L1 status: 21.3 months vs. 17.6 months with nab-paclitaxel alone.

However, in IMpassion131, neither progression-free survival nor overall survival significantly improved in the PD-L1–positive group receiving atezolizumab plus paclitaxel compared with paclitaxel alone: Progression-free survival was 5.7 months vs. 6 months, respectively, and overall survival was 28.3 months vs. 22.1 months.

“It is unclear why this study failed to demonstrate a significant improvement in progression-free survival with the addition of atezolizumab to paclitaxel,” Dr. Nanda said. “Perhaps the negative finding has to do with how the trial was conducted, or perhaps the PD-L1 assay used is an unreliable biomarker of immunotherapy benefit.”
 

Continued efforts to understand TNBC

Given the diversity of metastatic TNBC and the absence of clear molecular targets, researchers are exploring a host of therapeutic strategies in addition to antibody-drug conjugates and immunotherapies.

On the oncogene front, researchers are investigating common mutations in TNBC. About 11% of TNBC tumors, for instance, carry germline mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2. These tumors may be more likely to respond to platinum agents and PARP inhibitors, such as FDA-approved olaparib. In a phase 3 trial, patients with metastatic HER2-negative breast cancer and a germline BRCA mutation who received olaparib exhibited a 2.8-month longer median progression-free survival and a 42% reduced risk for disease progression or death compared with those on standard chemotherapy.

When considering signaling pathways, the PI3K/AKT/mTOR pathway has been the target of numerous clinical trials. Dysregulation of signaling through the PI3K and AKT signaling pathway occurs in 25%-30% of patients with advanced TNBC, and AKT inhibitors have been shown to extend survival in these patients. Data show, for instance, that adding capivasertib to first-line paclitaxel therapy in patients with metastatic TNBC led to longer overall survival – 19.1 months vs. 12.6 with placebo plus paclitaxel – with better survival results in patients with PIK3CA/AKT1/PTEN altered tumors.

But there’s more to learn about treating metastatic TNBC. “Relapses tend to occur early in TNBC, and some tumors are inherently resistant to chemotherapy from the get-go,” said Charles Shapiro, MD, medical oncologist, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York. “Understanding the causes of drug response and resistance in patients with metastatic TNBC represents the holy grail.”

Dr. Nanda agreed, noting that advancing treatments for TNBC will hinge on identifying the key factors driving metastasis. “For TNBC, we are still trying to elucidate the best molecular targets, while at the same time trying to identify robust biomarkers to predict benefit from therapies we already have available,” she said.

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

Treating triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC), one of the more lethal breast cancer subtypes, remains a challenge. By definition, TNBC lacks the three telltale molecular signatures known to spur tumor growth: estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR), and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2). A growing amount of literature shows that these frequently aggressive tumors harbor a rich array of molecular characteristics but no clear oncogenic driver.

“TNBC is incredibly heterogeneous, which makes it challenging to treat,” said Rita Nanda, MD, director of the breast oncology program and associate professor of medicine at the University of Chicago. “We have subsets of TNBC that don’t respond to currently available therapies and, as of yet, have no identifiable therapeutic targets.”

Overall, about 40% of patients with TNBC show a pathologic complete response after first-line neoadjuvant chemotherapy – typically anthracycline and taxane-based agents. But for 50% of patients, chemotherapy leaves behind substantial residual cancer tissue. These patients subsequently face a 40%-80% risk for recurrence and progression to advanced disease.

When triple-negative disease metastasizes, survival rates plummet. The most recent data from the National Cancer Institute, which tracked patients by stage of diagnosis between 2010 and 2016, showed steep declines in 5-year survival as TNBC progressed from local (91.2%) to regional (65%) to advanced-stage disease (11.5%).

Experts have started to make headway identifying and targeting different molecular features of advanced TNBC. These approaches often focus on three key areas: targeting cell surface proteins or oncogenes, stimulating an anticancer immune response, or inhibiting an overactive signaling pathway.

“For a patient with metastatic breast cancer, finding a molecular target or an oncogenic driver is essential,” said Kelly McCann, MD, PhD, a hematologist/oncologist in the department of medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles. “Because TNBC encompasses many different molecular subsets of breast cancer, the development of effective new therapeutics is going to depend on subdividing TNBC into categories with more clear targets.”
 

A targeted strategy

The Food and Drug Administration’s approval of sacituzumab govitecan, the first antibody-drug conjugate to treat metastatic TNBC, marked an important addition to the TNBC drug armamentarium. “Sacituzumab govitecan is one of the most exciting drugs available for the treatment of metastatic disease,” Dr. Nanda said.

Sacituzumab govitecan, approved as third-line therapy for metastatic TNBC, works by targeting the cell surface protein TROP2, expressed in about 88% of TNBC tumors but rarely in healthy cells.

In the phase 1/2 ASCENT trial, the median progression-free survival was 5.5 months and overall survival was 13.0 months in 108 patients with metastatic TNBC who had received at least two therapies prior to sacituzumab govitecan.

A subsequent phase 3 trial showed progression-free survival of 5.6 months with sacituzumab govitecan and 1.7 months with physician’s choice of chemotherapy. The median overall survival was 12.1 months and 6.7 months, respectively.

But, according to the analysis, TROP2 expression did not necessarily predict who would benefit from sacituzumab govitecan. A biomarker study revealed that although patients with moderate to high TROP2 expression exhibited the strongest treatment response, those with low TROP2 expression also survived longer when given sacituzumab govitecan, compared with chemotherapy alone.

In other words, “patients did better on sacituzumab govitecan regardless of TROP2 expression, which suggests we do not have a good biomarker for identifying who will benefit,” Dr. Nanda said.

Two other investigational antibody-drug conjugates, trastuzumab deruxtecan and ladiratuzumab vedotin, show promise in the metastatic space as well. For instance, the recent phase 2 trial evaluating trastuzumab deruxtecan in patients with HER2-positive breast cancer reported treatment response in 44% of patients with HER2-low tumors.

Given that about 36.6% of TNBC tumors exhibit low levels of HER2 expression, “trastuzumab deruxtecan represents potential in treating HER2-low TNBC,” said Yuan Yuan, MD, PhD, medical oncologist at City of Hope, a comprehensive cancer center in Los Angeles County.

Early results from a phase 1b study showed that trastuzumab deruxtecan produced a response rate of 37% in patients with HER2-low breast cancer.

Investigators are now recruiting for an open-label phase 3 trial to determine whether trastuzumab deruxtecan extends survival in patients with HER2-low metastatic breast cancers.
 

Immunotherapy advances

Immune checkpoint inhibitors represent another promising treatment avenue for metastatic TNBC. Pembrolizumab and atezolizumab, recently approved by the FDA, show moderate progression-free and overall survival benefits in patients with metastatic TNBC expressing PD-L1. Estimates of PD-L1 immune cells present in TNBC tumors vary widely, from about 20% to 65%.

Yet, data on which patients will benefit are not so clear-cut. “These drugs give us more choices and represent the fast-evolving therapeutic landscape in TNBC, but they also leave a lot of unanswered questions about PD-L1 as a biomarker,” Dr. Yuan said.

Take two recent phase 3 trials evaluating atezolizumab: IMpassion130 and IMpassion131. In IMpassion130, patients with PDL1–positive tumors exhibited significantly longer median overall survival on atezolizumab plus nab-paclitaxel (25.0 months) compared with nab-paclitaxel alone (15.5 months). As with the trend observed in the TROP2 data for sacituzumab govitecan, all patients survived longer on atezolizumab plus nab-paclitaxel regardless of PD-L1 status: 21.3 months vs. 17.6 months with nab-paclitaxel alone.

However, in IMpassion131, neither progression-free survival nor overall survival significantly improved in the PD-L1–positive group receiving atezolizumab plus paclitaxel compared with paclitaxel alone: Progression-free survival was 5.7 months vs. 6 months, respectively, and overall survival was 28.3 months vs. 22.1 months.

“It is unclear why this study failed to demonstrate a significant improvement in progression-free survival with the addition of atezolizumab to paclitaxel,” Dr. Nanda said. “Perhaps the negative finding has to do with how the trial was conducted, or perhaps the PD-L1 assay used is an unreliable biomarker of immunotherapy benefit.”
 

Continued efforts to understand TNBC

Given the diversity of metastatic TNBC and the absence of clear molecular targets, researchers are exploring a host of therapeutic strategies in addition to antibody-drug conjugates and immunotherapies.

On the oncogene front, researchers are investigating common mutations in TNBC. About 11% of TNBC tumors, for instance, carry germline mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2. These tumors may be more likely to respond to platinum agents and PARP inhibitors, such as FDA-approved olaparib. In a phase 3 trial, patients with metastatic HER2-negative breast cancer and a germline BRCA mutation who received olaparib exhibited a 2.8-month longer median progression-free survival and a 42% reduced risk for disease progression or death compared with those on standard chemotherapy.

When considering signaling pathways, the PI3K/AKT/mTOR pathway has been the target of numerous clinical trials. Dysregulation of signaling through the PI3K and AKT signaling pathway occurs in 25%-30% of patients with advanced TNBC, and AKT inhibitors have been shown to extend survival in these patients. Data show, for instance, that adding capivasertib to first-line paclitaxel therapy in patients with metastatic TNBC led to longer overall survival – 19.1 months vs. 12.6 with placebo plus paclitaxel – with better survival results in patients with PIK3CA/AKT1/PTEN altered tumors.

But there’s more to learn about treating metastatic TNBC. “Relapses tend to occur early in TNBC, and some tumors are inherently resistant to chemotherapy from the get-go,” said Charles Shapiro, MD, medical oncologist, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York. “Understanding the causes of drug response and resistance in patients with metastatic TNBC represents the holy grail.”

Dr. Nanda agreed, noting that advancing treatments for TNBC will hinge on identifying the key factors driving metastasis. “For TNBC, we are still trying to elucidate the best molecular targets, while at the same time trying to identify robust biomarkers to predict benefit from therapies we already have available,” she said.

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

Treating triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC), one of the more lethal breast cancer subtypes, remains a challenge. By definition, TNBC lacks the three telltale molecular signatures known to spur tumor growth: estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR), and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2). A growing amount of literature shows that these frequently aggressive tumors harbor a rich array of molecular characteristics but no clear oncogenic driver.

“TNBC is incredibly heterogeneous, which makes it challenging to treat,” said Rita Nanda, MD, director of the breast oncology program and associate professor of medicine at the University of Chicago. “We have subsets of TNBC that don’t respond to currently available therapies and, as of yet, have no identifiable therapeutic targets.”

Overall, about 40% of patients with TNBC show a pathologic complete response after first-line neoadjuvant chemotherapy – typically anthracycline and taxane-based agents. But for 50% of patients, chemotherapy leaves behind substantial residual cancer tissue. These patients subsequently face a 40%-80% risk for recurrence and progression to advanced disease.

When triple-negative disease metastasizes, survival rates plummet. The most recent data from the National Cancer Institute, which tracked patients by stage of diagnosis between 2010 and 2016, showed steep declines in 5-year survival as TNBC progressed from local (91.2%) to regional (65%) to advanced-stage disease (11.5%).

Experts have started to make headway identifying and targeting different molecular features of advanced TNBC. These approaches often focus on three key areas: targeting cell surface proteins or oncogenes, stimulating an anticancer immune response, or inhibiting an overactive signaling pathway.

“For a patient with metastatic breast cancer, finding a molecular target or an oncogenic driver is essential,” said Kelly McCann, MD, PhD, a hematologist/oncologist in the department of medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles. “Because TNBC encompasses many different molecular subsets of breast cancer, the development of effective new therapeutics is going to depend on subdividing TNBC into categories with more clear targets.”
 

A targeted strategy

The Food and Drug Administration’s approval of sacituzumab govitecan, the first antibody-drug conjugate to treat metastatic TNBC, marked an important addition to the TNBC drug armamentarium. “Sacituzumab govitecan is one of the most exciting drugs available for the treatment of metastatic disease,” Dr. Nanda said.

Sacituzumab govitecan, approved as third-line therapy for metastatic TNBC, works by targeting the cell surface protein TROP2, expressed in about 88% of TNBC tumors but rarely in healthy cells.

In the phase 1/2 ASCENT trial, the median progression-free survival was 5.5 months and overall survival was 13.0 months in 108 patients with metastatic TNBC who had received at least two therapies prior to sacituzumab govitecan.

A subsequent phase 3 trial showed progression-free survival of 5.6 months with sacituzumab govitecan and 1.7 months with physician’s choice of chemotherapy. The median overall survival was 12.1 months and 6.7 months, respectively.

But, according to the analysis, TROP2 expression did not necessarily predict who would benefit from sacituzumab govitecan. A biomarker study revealed that although patients with moderate to high TROP2 expression exhibited the strongest treatment response, those with low TROP2 expression also survived longer when given sacituzumab govitecan, compared with chemotherapy alone.

In other words, “patients did better on sacituzumab govitecan regardless of TROP2 expression, which suggests we do not have a good biomarker for identifying who will benefit,” Dr. Nanda said.

Two other investigational antibody-drug conjugates, trastuzumab deruxtecan and ladiratuzumab vedotin, show promise in the metastatic space as well. For instance, the recent phase 2 trial evaluating trastuzumab deruxtecan in patients with HER2-positive breast cancer reported treatment response in 44% of patients with HER2-low tumors.

Given that about 36.6% of TNBC tumors exhibit low levels of HER2 expression, “trastuzumab deruxtecan represents potential in treating HER2-low TNBC,” said Yuan Yuan, MD, PhD, medical oncologist at City of Hope, a comprehensive cancer center in Los Angeles County.

Early results from a phase 1b study showed that trastuzumab deruxtecan produced a response rate of 37% in patients with HER2-low breast cancer.

Investigators are now recruiting for an open-label phase 3 trial to determine whether trastuzumab deruxtecan extends survival in patients with HER2-low metastatic breast cancers.
 

Immunotherapy advances

Immune checkpoint inhibitors represent another promising treatment avenue for metastatic TNBC. Pembrolizumab and atezolizumab, recently approved by the FDA, show moderate progression-free and overall survival benefits in patients with metastatic TNBC expressing PD-L1. Estimates of PD-L1 immune cells present in TNBC tumors vary widely, from about 20% to 65%.

Yet, data on which patients will benefit are not so clear-cut. “These drugs give us more choices and represent the fast-evolving therapeutic landscape in TNBC, but they also leave a lot of unanswered questions about PD-L1 as a biomarker,” Dr. Yuan said.

Take two recent phase 3 trials evaluating atezolizumab: IMpassion130 and IMpassion131. In IMpassion130, patients with PDL1–positive tumors exhibited significantly longer median overall survival on atezolizumab plus nab-paclitaxel (25.0 months) compared with nab-paclitaxel alone (15.5 months). As with the trend observed in the TROP2 data for sacituzumab govitecan, all patients survived longer on atezolizumab plus nab-paclitaxel regardless of PD-L1 status: 21.3 months vs. 17.6 months with nab-paclitaxel alone.

However, in IMpassion131, neither progression-free survival nor overall survival significantly improved in the PD-L1–positive group receiving atezolizumab plus paclitaxel compared with paclitaxel alone: Progression-free survival was 5.7 months vs. 6 months, respectively, and overall survival was 28.3 months vs. 22.1 months.

“It is unclear why this study failed to demonstrate a significant improvement in progression-free survival with the addition of atezolizumab to paclitaxel,” Dr. Nanda said. “Perhaps the negative finding has to do with how the trial was conducted, or perhaps the PD-L1 assay used is an unreliable biomarker of immunotherapy benefit.”
 

Continued efforts to understand TNBC

Given the diversity of metastatic TNBC and the absence of clear molecular targets, researchers are exploring a host of therapeutic strategies in addition to antibody-drug conjugates and immunotherapies.

On the oncogene front, researchers are investigating common mutations in TNBC. About 11% of TNBC tumors, for instance, carry germline mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2. These tumors may be more likely to respond to platinum agents and PARP inhibitors, such as FDA-approved olaparib. In a phase 3 trial, patients with metastatic HER2-negative breast cancer and a germline BRCA mutation who received olaparib exhibited a 2.8-month longer median progression-free survival and a 42% reduced risk for disease progression or death compared with those on standard chemotherapy.

When considering signaling pathways, the PI3K/AKT/mTOR pathway has been the target of numerous clinical trials. Dysregulation of signaling through the PI3K and AKT signaling pathway occurs in 25%-30% of patients with advanced TNBC, and AKT inhibitors have been shown to extend survival in these patients. Data show, for instance, that adding capivasertib to first-line paclitaxel therapy in patients with metastatic TNBC led to longer overall survival – 19.1 months vs. 12.6 with placebo plus paclitaxel – with better survival results in patients with PIK3CA/AKT1/PTEN altered tumors.

But there’s more to learn about treating metastatic TNBC. “Relapses tend to occur early in TNBC, and some tumors are inherently resistant to chemotherapy from the get-go,” said Charles Shapiro, MD, medical oncologist, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York. “Understanding the causes of drug response and resistance in patients with metastatic TNBC represents the holy grail.”

Dr. Nanda agreed, noting that advancing treatments for TNBC will hinge on identifying the key factors driving metastasis. “For TNBC, we are still trying to elucidate the best molecular targets, while at the same time trying to identify robust biomarkers to predict benefit from therapies we already have available,” she said.

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