Breast Cancer

The number of same-day discharges has grown with the increase in robotic-assisted surgeries and advances in imaging and pressures to reduce hospital costs. COVID-19 has, perhaps temporarily, increased the same-day surgery numbers as surgeries have been restricted and hospital beds are needed for COVID-19 patients.

Urologist Ronney Abaza, MD, a robotic surgery specialist in Dublin, Ohio, and colleagues, reviewed robotic surgeries at their hospital during COVID-19 restrictions on surgery in Ohio between March 17 and June 5, 2020, and compared them with robotic procedures before COVID-19 and after restrictions were lifted. They published their results in Urology.

Since 2016, the hospital has offered the option of same-day discharge (SDD) to all robotic urologic surgery patients, regardless of procedure or patient-specific factors.

Among patients who had surgery during COVID-19 restrictions, 98% (87/89 patients) opted for SDD versus 52% in the group having surgery before the restrictions (P < .00001). After the COVID-19 surgery restrictions were lifted, the higher rate of SDD remained at 98%.

“There were no differences in 30-day complications or readmissions between SDD and overnight patients,” the authors write.
 

The right patient, the right motivation for successful surgery

Brian Lane, MD, PhD, a urologic oncologist with Spectrum Health in Grand Rapids, Michigan, told this news organization that, for nephrectomies, uptake of same-day discharge will continue to be slow.

“You have to have the right patient, the right patient motivation, and the surgery has to go smoothly,” he said. “If you start sending everyone home the same day, you will certainly see readmissions,” he said.

Dr. Lane is part of the Michigan Urologic Surgery Improvement Collaborative and he said the group recently looked at same-day discharge outcomes after robotic prostatectomies with SDD as compared with 1-2 nights in the hospital.

The work has not yet been published but, “There was a slight signal that there were increased readmissions with same-day discharge vs. 0-1 day,” he said.

A paper on outcomes of same-day discharge in total knee arthroplasty in the Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery found a higher risk of perioperative complications “including component failure, surgical site infection, knee stiffness, and deep vein thrombosis.” Researchers compared outcomes between 4,391 patients who underwent outpatient TKA and 128,951 patients who underwent inpatient TKA.

But for other many surgeries, same-day discharge numbers are increasing without worsening outcomes.

A paper in the Journal of Robotic Surgery found that same-day discharge following robotic-assisted endometrial cancer staging is “safe and feasible.”

Stephen Bradley, MD, MPH, with the Minneapolis Heart Institute in Minneapolis, and colleagues write in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology: Cardiovascular Interventions that they found a large increase in the use of same-day discharge after elective percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) was not associated with worse 30-day mortality rates or readmission.

In that study, 114,461 patients were discharged the same day they underwent PCI. The proportion of patients who had a same-day discharge increased from 4.5% in 2009 to 28.6% in the fourth quarter of 2017.

Risk-adjusted 30-day mortality did not change in that time, while risk-adjusted rehospitalization decreased over time and more quickly when patients had same-day discharge.

Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, MPH, and Jonathan G. Sung, MBCHB, both of Brigham and Women’s Hospital Heart & Vascular Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, wrote in an accompanying article that, “Advances in the devices and techniques of PCI have improved the safety and efficacy of the procedure. In selected patients, same-day discharge has become possible, and overnight in-hospital observation can be avoided. By reducing unnecessary hospital stays, both patients and hospitals could benefit.”

Evan Garden, a medical student at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York, presented findings at the American Urological Association 2021 annual meeting that show patients selected for same-day discharge after partial or radical nephrectomy did not have increased rates of postoperative complications or readmissions in the immediate postoperative period, compared with standard discharge of 1-3 days.
 

Case studies in nephrectomy

While several case studies have looked at the feasibility and safety of performing partial and radical nephrectomy with same-day discharge in select cases, “this topic has not been addressed on a national level,” Mr. Garden said.

Few patients who have partial or radical nephrectomies have same-day discharges. The researchers found that fewer than 1% of patients who have either procedure in the sample studied were discharged the same day.

Researchers used the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database, a nationally representative deidentified database that prospectively tracks patient characteristics and 30-day perioperative outcomes for major inpatient and outpatient surgical procedures at more than 700 hospitals.

They extracted all minimally invasive partial and radical nephrectomies from 2012 to 2019 and refined the cohort to 28,140 patients who were theoretically eligible for same-day discharge: Of those, 237 (0.8%) had SSD, and 27,903 (99.2%) had a standard-length discharge (SLD).

The team found that there were no differences in 30-day complications or readmissions between same-day discharge (Clavien-Dindo [CD] I/II, 4.22%; CD III, 0%; CD IV, 1.27%; readmission, 4.64%); and SLD (CD I/II, 4.11%; CD III, 0.95%; CD IV, 0.79%; readmission, 3.90%; all P > .05).

Controlling for demographic and clinical variables, SDD was not associated with greater risk of 30-day complications or readmissions (CD I/II: odds ratio, 1.08; 95% confidence interval, 0.57-2.048; P = .813; CD IV: OR 1.699; 95% CI, 0.537-5.375; P = .367; readmission: OR, 1.254; 95% CI, 0.681-2.31; P = .467).

Mr. Garden and coauthors report no relevant financial relationships.

Dr. Lane reports no relevant financial relationships.

The number of same-day discharges has grown with the increase in robotic-assisted surgeries and advances in imaging and pressures to reduce hospital costs. COVID-19 has, perhaps temporarily, increased the same-day surgery numbers as surgeries have been restricted and hospital beds are needed for COVID-19 patients.

Urologist Ronney Abaza, MD, a robotic surgery specialist in Dublin, Ohio, and colleagues, reviewed robotic surgeries at their hospital during COVID-19 restrictions on surgery in Ohio between March 17 and June 5, 2020, and compared them with robotic procedures before COVID-19 and after restrictions were lifted. They published their results in Urology.

Since 2016, the hospital has offered the option of same-day discharge (SDD) to all robotic urologic surgery patients, regardless of procedure or patient-specific factors.

Among patients who had surgery during COVID-19 restrictions, 98% (87/89 patients) opted for SDD versus 52% in the group having surgery before the restrictions (P < .00001). After the COVID-19 surgery restrictions were lifted, the higher rate of SDD remained at 98%.

“There were no differences in 30-day complications or readmissions between SDD and overnight patients,” the authors write.
 

The right patient, the right motivation for successful surgery

Brian Lane, MD, PhD, a urologic oncologist with Spectrum Health in Grand Rapids, Michigan, told this news organization that, for nephrectomies, uptake of same-day discharge will continue to be slow.

“You have to have the right patient, the right patient motivation, and the surgery has to go smoothly,” he said. “If you start sending everyone home the same day, you will certainly see readmissions,” he said.

Dr. Lane is part of the Michigan Urologic Surgery Improvement Collaborative and he said the group recently looked at same-day discharge outcomes after robotic prostatectomies with SDD as compared with 1-2 nights in the hospital.

The work has not yet been published but, “There was a slight signal that there were increased readmissions with same-day discharge vs. 0-1 day,” he said.

A paper on outcomes of same-day discharge in total knee arthroplasty in the Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery found a higher risk of perioperative complications “including component failure, surgical site infection, knee stiffness, and deep vein thrombosis.” Researchers compared outcomes between 4,391 patients who underwent outpatient TKA and 128,951 patients who underwent inpatient TKA.

But for other many surgeries, same-day discharge numbers are increasing without worsening outcomes.

A paper in the Journal of Robotic Surgery found that same-day discharge following robotic-assisted endometrial cancer staging is “safe and feasible.”

Stephen Bradley, MD, MPH, with the Minneapolis Heart Institute in Minneapolis, and colleagues write in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology: Cardiovascular Interventions that they found a large increase in the use of same-day discharge after elective percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) was not associated with worse 30-day mortality rates or readmission.

In that study, 114,461 patients were discharged the same day they underwent PCI. The proportion of patients who had a same-day discharge increased from 4.5% in 2009 to 28.6% in the fourth quarter of 2017.

Risk-adjusted 30-day mortality did not change in that time, while risk-adjusted rehospitalization decreased over time and more quickly when patients had same-day discharge.

Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, MPH, and Jonathan G. Sung, MBCHB, both of Brigham and Women’s Hospital Heart & Vascular Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, wrote in an accompanying article that, “Advances in the devices and techniques of PCI have improved the safety and efficacy of the procedure. In selected patients, same-day discharge has become possible, and overnight in-hospital observation can be avoided. By reducing unnecessary hospital stays, both patients and hospitals could benefit.”

Evan Garden, a medical student at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York, presented findings at the American Urological Association 2021 annual meeting that show patients selected for same-day discharge after partial or radical nephrectomy did not have increased rates of postoperative complications or readmissions in the immediate postoperative period, compared with standard discharge of 1-3 days.
 

Case studies in nephrectomy

While several case studies have looked at the feasibility and safety of performing partial and radical nephrectomy with same-day discharge in select cases, “this topic has not been addressed on a national level,” Mr. Garden said.

Few patients who have partial or radical nephrectomies have same-day discharges. The researchers found that fewer than 1% of patients who have either procedure in the sample studied were discharged the same day.

Researchers used the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database, a nationally representative deidentified database that prospectively tracks patient characteristics and 30-day perioperative outcomes for major inpatient and outpatient surgical procedures at more than 700 hospitals.

They extracted all minimally invasive partial and radical nephrectomies from 2012 to 2019 and refined the cohort to 28,140 patients who were theoretically eligible for same-day discharge: Of those, 237 (0.8%) had SSD, and 27,903 (99.2%) had a standard-length discharge (SLD).

The team found that there were no differences in 30-day complications or readmissions between same-day discharge (Clavien-Dindo [CD] I/II, 4.22%; CD III, 0%; CD IV, 1.27%; readmission, 4.64%); and SLD (CD I/II, 4.11%; CD III, 0.95%; CD IV, 0.79%; readmission, 3.90%; all P > .05).

Controlling for demographic and clinical variables, SDD was not associated with greater risk of 30-day complications or readmissions (CD I/II: odds ratio, 1.08; 95% confidence interval, 0.57-2.048; P = .813; CD IV: OR 1.699; 95% CI, 0.537-5.375; P = .367; readmission: OR, 1.254; 95% CI, 0.681-2.31; P = .467).

Mr. Garden and coauthors report no relevant financial relationships.

Dr. Lane reports no relevant financial relationships.

The number of same-day discharges has grown with the increase in robotic-assisted surgeries and advances in imaging and pressures to reduce hospital costs. COVID-19 has, perhaps temporarily, increased the same-day surgery numbers as surgeries have been restricted and hospital beds are needed for COVID-19 patients.

Urologist Ronney Abaza, MD, a robotic surgery specialist in Dublin, Ohio, and colleagues, reviewed robotic surgeries at their hospital during COVID-19 restrictions on surgery in Ohio between March 17 and June 5, 2020, and compared them with robotic procedures before COVID-19 and after restrictions were lifted. They published their results in Urology.

Since 2016, the hospital has offered the option of same-day discharge (SDD) to all robotic urologic surgery patients, regardless of procedure or patient-specific factors.

Among patients who had surgery during COVID-19 restrictions, 98% (87/89 patients) opted for SDD versus 52% in the group having surgery before the restrictions (P < .00001). After the COVID-19 surgery restrictions were lifted, the higher rate of SDD remained at 98%.

“There were no differences in 30-day complications or readmissions between SDD and overnight patients,” the authors write.
 

The right patient, the right motivation for successful surgery

Brian Lane, MD, PhD, a urologic oncologist with Spectrum Health in Grand Rapids, Michigan, told this news organization that, for nephrectomies, uptake of same-day discharge will continue to be slow.

“You have to have the right patient, the right patient motivation, and the surgery has to go smoothly,” he said. “If you start sending everyone home the same day, you will certainly see readmissions,” he said.

Dr. Lane is part of the Michigan Urologic Surgery Improvement Collaborative and he said the group recently looked at same-day discharge outcomes after robotic prostatectomies with SDD as compared with 1-2 nights in the hospital.

The work has not yet been published but, “There was a slight signal that there were increased readmissions with same-day discharge vs. 0-1 day,” he said.

A paper on outcomes of same-day discharge in total knee arthroplasty in the Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery found a higher risk of perioperative complications “including component failure, surgical site infection, knee stiffness, and deep vein thrombosis.” Researchers compared outcomes between 4,391 patients who underwent outpatient TKA and 128,951 patients who underwent inpatient TKA.

But for other many surgeries, same-day discharge numbers are increasing without worsening outcomes.

A paper in the Journal of Robotic Surgery found that same-day discharge following robotic-assisted endometrial cancer staging is “safe and feasible.”

Stephen Bradley, MD, MPH, with the Minneapolis Heart Institute in Minneapolis, and colleagues write in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology: Cardiovascular Interventions that they found a large increase in the use of same-day discharge after elective percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) was not associated with worse 30-day mortality rates or readmission.

In that study, 114,461 patients were discharged the same day they underwent PCI. The proportion of patients who had a same-day discharge increased from 4.5% in 2009 to 28.6% in the fourth quarter of 2017.

Risk-adjusted 30-day mortality did not change in that time, while risk-adjusted rehospitalization decreased over time and more quickly when patients had same-day discharge.

Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, MPH, and Jonathan G. Sung, MBCHB, both of Brigham and Women’s Hospital Heart & Vascular Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, wrote in an accompanying article that, “Advances in the devices and techniques of PCI have improved the safety and efficacy of the procedure. In selected patients, same-day discharge has become possible, and overnight in-hospital observation can be avoided. By reducing unnecessary hospital stays, both patients and hospitals could benefit.”

Evan Garden, a medical student at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York, presented findings at the American Urological Association 2021 annual meeting that show patients selected for same-day discharge after partial or radical nephrectomy did not have increased rates of postoperative complications or readmissions in the immediate postoperative period, compared with standard discharge of 1-3 days.
 

Case studies in nephrectomy

While several case studies have looked at the feasibility and safety of performing partial and radical nephrectomy with same-day discharge in select cases, “this topic has not been addressed on a national level,” Mr. Garden said.

Few patients who have partial or radical nephrectomies have same-day discharges. The researchers found that fewer than 1% of patients who have either procedure in the sample studied were discharged the same day.

Researchers used the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database, a nationally representative deidentified database that prospectively tracks patient characteristics and 30-day perioperative outcomes for major inpatient and outpatient surgical procedures at more than 700 hospitals.

They extracted all minimally invasive partial and radical nephrectomies from 2012 to 2019 and refined the cohort to 28,140 patients who were theoretically eligible for same-day discharge: Of those, 237 (0.8%) had SSD, and 27,903 (99.2%) had a standard-length discharge (SLD).

The team found that there were no differences in 30-day complications or readmissions between same-day discharge (Clavien-Dindo [CD] I/II, 4.22%; CD III, 0%; CD IV, 1.27%; readmission, 4.64%); and SLD (CD I/II, 4.11%; CD III, 0.95%; CD IV, 0.79%; readmission, 3.90%; all P > .05).

Controlling for demographic and clinical variables, SDD was not associated with greater risk of 30-day complications or readmissions (CD I/II: odds ratio, 1.08; 95% confidence interval, 0.57-2.048; P = .813; CD IV: OR 1.699; 95% CI, 0.537-5.375; P = .367; readmission: OR, 1.254; 95% CI, 0.681-2.31; P = .467).

Mr. Garden and coauthors report no relevant financial relationships.

Dr. Lane reports no relevant financial relationships.

The Food and Drug Administration on Oct. 27 announced stronger safety requirements for breast implants, restricting sales of implants only to providers and health facilities that review potential risks of the devices with patients before surgery, via a “Patient Decision Checklist.” The agency also placed a boxed warning – the strongest warning that the FDA requires – on all legally marketed breast implants.

“Protecting patients’ health when they are treated with a medical device is our most important priority,” Binita Ashar, MD, director of the Office of Surgical and Infection Control Devices in the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health, said in a press release. “In recent years, the FDA has sought more ways to increase patients’ access to clear and understandable information about the benefits and risks of breast implants. By strengthening the safety requirements for manufacturers, the FDA is working to close information gaps for anyone who may be considering breast implant surgery.”

This announcement comes 10 years after the FDA issued a comprehensive safety update on silicone gel–filled implants, which reported a possible association between these devices and anaplastic large cell lymphoma (ALCL). The studies reviewed in the 2011 document also noted that a “significant percentage of women who receive silicone gel–filled breast implants experience complications and adverse outcomes,” the most common being repeat operation, implant removal, rupture, or capsular contracture (scar tissue tightening around the implant).

Breast augmentation has been one of the top five cosmetic procedures in the United States since 2006, according to the American Society for Plastic Surgery, with more than 400,000 people getting breast implants in 2019. Nearly 300,000 were for cosmetic reasons, and more than 100,000 were for breast reconstruction after mastectomies.

In 2019, the FDA proposed adding a boxed warning for breast implants, stating that the devices do not last an entire lifetime; that over time the risk for complications increases; and that breast implants have been associated with ALCL, and also may be associated with systemic symptoms such as fatigue, joint pain, and brain fog. The Oct. 27 FDA action now requires that manufacturers update breast implant packaging to include that information in a boxed warning, as well as the following:

• A patient-decision checklist
• Updated silicone gel–filled breast implant rupture screening recommendations
• A device description including materials used in the device
• Patient device ID cards

The updated label changes must be present on manufacturers’ websites in 30 days, the FDA said.

The new requirements have received largely positive reactions from both physicians and patient organizations. In an emailed statement to this news organization, Lynn Jeffers, MD, MBA, the immediate past president of the American Society of Plastic Surgeons, said that “ASPS has always supported patients being fully informed about their choices and the risks, benefits, and alternatives of the options available. “We look forward to our continued collaboration with the FDA on the safety of implants and other devices.”

Maria Gmitro, president and cofounder of the Breast Implant Safety Alliance, an all-volunteer nonprofit based in Charleston, S.C., said that some of the language in the patient checklist could be stronger, especially when referring to breast implant–associated ALCL.

To inform patients of risks more clearly, “it’s the words like ‘associated with’ that we feel need to be stronger” she said in an interview. She also noted that women who already have breast implants may not be aware of these potential complications, which these new FDA requirements do not address.

But overall, the nonprofit was “thrilled” with the announcement, Ms. Gmitro said. “Placing restrictions on breast implants is a really big step, and we applaud the FDA’s efforts. This is information that every patient considering breast implants should know, and we’ve been advocating for better informed consent.”

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

The Food and Drug Administration on Oct. 27 announced stronger safety requirements for breast implants, restricting sales of implants only to providers and health facilities that review potential risks of the devices with patients before surgery, via a “Patient Decision Checklist.” The agency also placed a boxed warning – the strongest warning that the FDA requires – on all legally marketed breast implants.

“Protecting patients’ health when they are treated with a medical device is our most important priority,” Binita Ashar, MD, director of the Office of Surgical and Infection Control Devices in the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health, said in a press release. “In recent years, the FDA has sought more ways to increase patients’ access to clear and understandable information about the benefits and risks of breast implants. By strengthening the safety requirements for manufacturers, the FDA is working to close information gaps for anyone who may be considering breast implant surgery.”

This announcement comes 10 years after the FDA issued a comprehensive safety update on silicone gel–filled implants, which reported a possible association between these devices and anaplastic large cell lymphoma (ALCL). The studies reviewed in the 2011 document also noted that a “significant percentage of women who receive silicone gel–filled breast implants experience complications and adverse outcomes,” the most common being repeat operation, implant removal, rupture, or capsular contracture (scar tissue tightening around the implant).

Breast augmentation has been one of the top five cosmetic procedures in the United States since 2006, according to the American Society for Plastic Surgery, with more than 400,000 people getting breast implants in 2019. Nearly 300,000 were for cosmetic reasons, and more than 100,000 were for breast reconstruction after mastectomies.

In 2019, the FDA proposed adding a boxed warning for breast implants, stating that the devices do not last an entire lifetime; that over time the risk for complications increases; and that breast implants have been associated with ALCL, and also may be associated with systemic symptoms such as fatigue, joint pain, and brain fog. The Oct. 27 FDA action now requires that manufacturers update breast implant packaging to include that information in a boxed warning, as well as the following:

• A patient-decision checklist
• Updated silicone gel–filled breast implant rupture screening recommendations
• A device description including materials used in the device
• Patient device ID cards

The updated label changes must be present on manufacturers’ websites in 30 days, the FDA said.

The new requirements have received largely positive reactions from both physicians and patient organizations. In an emailed statement to this news organization, Lynn Jeffers, MD, MBA, the immediate past president of the American Society of Plastic Surgeons, said that “ASPS has always supported patients being fully informed about their choices and the risks, benefits, and alternatives of the options available. “We look forward to our continued collaboration with the FDA on the safety of implants and other devices.”

Maria Gmitro, president and cofounder of the Breast Implant Safety Alliance, an all-volunteer nonprofit based in Charleston, S.C., said that some of the language in the patient checklist could be stronger, especially when referring to breast implant–associated ALCL.

To inform patients of risks more clearly, “it’s the words like ‘associated with’ that we feel need to be stronger” she said in an interview. She also noted that women who already have breast implants may not be aware of these potential complications, which these new FDA requirements do not address.

But overall, the nonprofit was “thrilled” with the announcement, Ms. Gmitro said. “Placing restrictions on breast implants is a really big step, and we applaud the FDA’s efforts. This is information that every patient considering breast implants should know, and we’ve been advocating for better informed consent.”

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

The Food and Drug Administration on Oct. 27 announced stronger safety requirements for breast implants, restricting sales of implants only to providers and health facilities that review potential risks of the devices with patients before surgery, via a “Patient Decision Checklist.” The agency also placed a boxed warning – the strongest warning that the FDA requires – on all legally marketed breast implants.

“Protecting patients’ health when they are treated with a medical device is our most important priority,” Binita Ashar, MD, director of the Office of Surgical and Infection Control Devices in the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health, said in a press release. “In recent years, the FDA has sought more ways to increase patients’ access to clear and understandable information about the benefits and risks of breast implants. By strengthening the safety requirements for manufacturers, the FDA is working to close information gaps for anyone who may be considering breast implant surgery.”

This announcement comes 10 years after the FDA issued a comprehensive safety update on silicone gel–filled implants, which reported a possible association between these devices and anaplastic large cell lymphoma (ALCL). The studies reviewed in the 2011 document also noted that a “significant percentage of women who receive silicone gel–filled breast implants experience complications and adverse outcomes,” the most common being repeat operation, implant removal, rupture, or capsular contracture (scar tissue tightening around the implant).

Breast augmentation has been one of the top five cosmetic procedures in the United States since 2006, according to the American Society for Plastic Surgery, with more than 400,000 people getting breast implants in 2019. Nearly 300,000 were for cosmetic reasons, and more than 100,000 were for breast reconstruction after mastectomies.

In 2019, the FDA proposed adding a boxed warning for breast implants, stating that the devices do not last an entire lifetime; that over time the risk for complications increases; and that breast implants have been associated with ALCL, and also may be associated with systemic symptoms such as fatigue, joint pain, and brain fog. The Oct. 27 FDA action now requires that manufacturers update breast implant packaging to include that information in a boxed warning, as well as the following:

• A patient-decision checklist
• Updated silicone gel–filled breast implant rupture screening recommendations
• A device description including materials used in the device
• Patient device ID cards

The updated label changes must be present on manufacturers’ websites in 30 days, the FDA said.

The new requirements have received largely positive reactions from both physicians and patient organizations. In an emailed statement to this news organization, Lynn Jeffers, MD, MBA, the immediate past president of the American Society of Plastic Surgeons, said that “ASPS has always supported patients being fully informed about their choices and the risks, benefits, and alternatives of the options available. “We look forward to our continued collaboration with the FDA on the safety of implants and other devices.”

Maria Gmitro, president and cofounder of the Breast Implant Safety Alliance, an all-volunteer nonprofit based in Charleston, S.C., said that some of the language in the patient checklist could be stronger, especially when referring to breast implant–associated ALCL.

To inform patients of risks more clearly, “it’s the words like ‘associated with’ that we feel need to be stronger” she said in an interview. She also noted that women who already have breast implants may not be aware of these potential complications, which these new FDA requirements do not address.

But overall, the nonprofit was “thrilled” with the announcement, Ms. Gmitro said. “Placing restrictions on breast implants is a really big step, and we applaud the FDA’s efforts. This is information that every patient considering breast implants should know, and we’ve been advocating for better informed consent.”

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

In patients with advanced cancer who are prescribed immune checkpoint inhibitors, comedications must be carefully assessed before patients start ICI therapy, most notably proton pump inhibitors, glucocorticoids, antibiotics, and psychotropic drugs.

“Our results confirm the detrimental impact on oncological outcomes of antibiotics and glucocorticoids at a dosage ≥10 mg/day when given within 1 month before or after ICI onset,” Marie Kostine, MD, of Bordeaux (France) University Hospital, and colleagues wrote in the European Journal of Cancer. “Moreover, we show that other comedications may significantly alter the antitumoral response of ICI, such as proton pump inhibitors, psychotropic drugs, morphine, aspirin, and insulin, whereas others seem to have no impact.”

While immune checkpoint inhibitors are transforming the treatment of advanced cancers, gut microbiota composition is an important determinant of response to ICIs. Antibiotic treatments are known to alter the gut microbiota. Other drugs, such as proton pump inhibitors, antidiabetic agents, aspirin, NSAIDs, glucocorticoids, immunomodulators, psychotropic drugs, and analgesics, have been associated with changes in microbiome composition. Since many patients with advanced cancer are exposed to such drugs, this study looked at the possible influence of these comedications on the antitumor effect and safety of ICIs.

The observational study included 635 patients with advanced cancer treated with ICIs between May 2015 and September 2017. Comedications given within 1 month before or 1 month after the first administration of an ICI were reviewed from medical records. Psychotropic drugs, proton pump inhibitors, ACE inhibitors and/or angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs), glucocorticoids, antibiotics, statins, and morphine were the most prescribed comedications.

Baseline use of antibiotics, glucocorticoids greater than 10 mg/day, proton pump inhibitors, psychotropic drugs, morphine, and insulin was associated with decreased overall survival and tumor response. However, the coadministration of statins, ACE inhibitors and/or ARBs, NSAIDs, aspirin, and oral diabetes drugs did not impact patient outcomes. Additionally, treatments that altered the response to ICIs were associated with a decreased incidence of immune-related adverse events.

“These results suggest some practical advice in a patient candidate to ICIs,” the authors wrote. “First, antibiotic treatment should be limited to documented infections,” and “withdrawal of proton pump inhibitors and psychotropic drugs should be considered.

“Regarding baseline glucocorticoids use, the cutoff of 10 mg/day should be respected, considering the deleterious effect of higher dosage. Moreover, because of the lack of impact of inhaled or topical glucocorticoids, local routes should be preferred,” the authors wrote. “Conversely, our study brings reassuring data regarding the use of glucocorticoids for the management of immune-related adverse events, which did not alter ICI efficacy, confirming previous reports.”

The authors noted that the observational nature of the study does not allow any causal conclusion, adding that it remains unknown whether the effect of comedications “on cancer outcomes is thoroughly mediated by changes in microbiota or other immunomodulatory properties.”

Along with the retrospective design, study limitations included reporting bias and missing data on baseline comedications, specific prognostic factors and cancer outcomes.

The authors noted no conflicts of interest.

In patients with advanced cancer who are prescribed immune checkpoint inhibitors, comedications must be carefully assessed before patients start ICI therapy, most notably proton pump inhibitors, glucocorticoids, antibiotics, and psychotropic drugs.

“Our results confirm the detrimental impact on oncological outcomes of antibiotics and glucocorticoids at a dosage ≥10 mg/day when given within 1 month before or after ICI onset,” Marie Kostine, MD, of Bordeaux (France) University Hospital, and colleagues wrote in the European Journal of Cancer. “Moreover, we show that other comedications may significantly alter the antitumoral response of ICI, such as proton pump inhibitors, psychotropic drugs, morphine, aspirin, and insulin, whereas others seem to have no impact.”

While immune checkpoint inhibitors are transforming the treatment of advanced cancers, gut microbiota composition is an important determinant of response to ICIs. Antibiotic treatments are known to alter the gut microbiota. Other drugs, such as proton pump inhibitors, antidiabetic agents, aspirin, NSAIDs, glucocorticoids, immunomodulators, psychotropic drugs, and analgesics, have been associated with changes in microbiome composition. Since many patients with advanced cancer are exposed to such drugs, this study looked at the possible influence of these comedications on the antitumor effect and safety of ICIs.

The observational study included 635 patients with advanced cancer treated with ICIs between May 2015 and September 2017. Comedications given within 1 month before or 1 month after the first administration of an ICI were reviewed from medical records. Psychotropic drugs, proton pump inhibitors, ACE inhibitors and/or angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs), glucocorticoids, antibiotics, statins, and morphine were the most prescribed comedications.

Baseline use of antibiotics, glucocorticoids greater than 10 mg/day, proton pump inhibitors, psychotropic drugs, morphine, and insulin was associated with decreased overall survival and tumor response. However, the coadministration of statins, ACE inhibitors and/or ARBs, NSAIDs, aspirin, and oral diabetes drugs did not impact patient outcomes. Additionally, treatments that altered the response to ICIs were associated with a decreased incidence of immune-related adverse events.

“These results suggest some practical advice in a patient candidate to ICIs,” the authors wrote. “First, antibiotic treatment should be limited to documented infections,” and “withdrawal of proton pump inhibitors and psychotropic drugs should be considered.

“Regarding baseline glucocorticoids use, the cutoff of 10 mg/day should be respected, considering the deleterious effect of higher dosage. Moreover, because of the lack of impact of inhaled or topical glucocorticoids, local routes should be preferred,” the authors wrote. “Conversely, our study brings reassuring data regarding the use of glucocorticoids for the management of immune-related adverse events, which did not alter ICI efficacy, confirming previous reports.”

The authors noted that the observational nature of the study does not allow any causal conclusion, adding that it remains unknown whether the effect of comedications “on cancer outcomes is thoroughly mediated by changes in microbiota or other immunomodulatory properties.”

Along with the retrospective design, study limitations included reporting bias and missing data on baseline comedications, specific prognostic factors and cancer outcomes.

The authors noted no conflicts of interest.

In patients with advanced cancer who are prescribed immune checkpoint inhibitors, comedications must be carefully assessed before patients start ICI therapy, most notably proton pump inhibitors, glucocorticoids, antibiotics, and psychotropic drugs.

“Our results confirm the detrimental impact on oncological outcomes of antibiotics and glucocorticoids at a dosage ≥10 mg/day when given within 1 month before or after ICI onset,” Marie Kostine, MD, of Bordeaux (France) University Hospital, and colleagues wrote in the European Journal of Cancer. “Moreover, we show that other comedications may significantly alter the antitumoral response of ICI, such as proton pump inhibitors, psychotropic drugs, morphine, aspirin, and insulin, whereas others seem to have no impact.”

While immune checkpoint inhibitors are transforming the treatment of advanced cancers, gut microbiota composition is an important determinant of response to ICIs. Antibiotic treatments are known to alter the gut microbiota. Other drugs, such as proton pump inhibitors, antidiabetic agents, aspirin, NSAIDs, glucocorticoids, immunomodulators, psychotropic drugs, and analgesics, have been associated with changes in microbiome composition. Since many patients with advanced cancer are exposed to such drugs, this study looked at the possible influence of these comedications on the antitumor effect and safety of ICIs.

The observational study included 635 patients with advanced cancer treated with ICIs between May 2015 and September 2017. Comedications given within 1 month before or 1 month after the first administration of an ICI were reviewed from medical records. Psychotropic drugs, proton pump inhibitors, ACE inhibitors and/or angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs), glucocorticoids, antibiotics, statins, and morphine were the most prescribed comedications.

Baseline use of antibiotics, glucocorticoids greater than 10 mg/day, proton pump inhibitors, psychotropic drugs, morphine, and insulin was associated with decreased overall survival and tumor response. However, the coadministration of statins, ACE inhibitors and/or ARBs, NSAIDs, aspirin, and oral diabetes drugs did not impact patient outcomes. Additionally, treatments that altered the response to ICIs were associated with a decreased incidence of immune-related adverse events.

“These results suggest some practical advice in a patient candidate to ICIs,” the authors wrote. “First, antibiotic treatment should be limited to documented infections,” and “withdrawal of proton pump inhibitors and psychotropic drugs should be considered.

“Regarding baseline glucocorticoids use, the cutoff of 10 mg/day should be respected, considering the deleterious effect of higher dosage. Moreover, because of the lack of impact of inhaled or topical glucocorticoids, local routes should be preferred,” the authors wrote. “Conversely, our study brings reassuring data regarding the use of glucocorticoids for the management of immune-related adverse events, which did not alter ICI efficacy, confirming previous reports.”

The authors noted that the observational nature of the study does not allow any causal conclusion, adding that it remains unknown whether the effect of comedications “on cancer outcomes is thoroughly mediated by changes in microbiota or other immunomodulatory properties.”

Along with the retrospective design, study limitations included reporting bias and missing data on baseline comedications, specific prognostic factors and cancer outcomes.

The authors noted no conflicts of interest.

The use of robotically assisted surgical devices for benign and malignant tumors is here to stay, but the decision to perform robot-assisted surgery should be driven by clinical outcomes, not convenience, physicians say.

“The problem in minimally invasive surgery, especially in cancer surgery, is that the concept has been flip-flopped,” said Hooman Noorchashm, MD, PhD, a retired cardiothoracic surgeon turned patient advocate. “The main purpose of surgery should be removal of diseased tissue or repair of damaged tissue with adequate safety. The size of the incision on that triage scheme is secondary.”

In 2013, Dr. Noorchashm’s wife, Amy Reed, MD, an anesthesiologist, had a hysterectomy for treatment of severe uterine fibroids. The surgery was performed with a laparoscopic power morcellator, which led to the dissemination of cells from a previously undetected abdominal lesion. She was later diagnosed with stage 4 leiomyosarcoma and died in May 2017.

Dr. Noorchashm said the problem with robotic surgery isn’t the technology itself or how it’s used, but why it’s used in the first place. “Not only was there an extreme level of laxity with respect to the malignant potential of fibroids, but also that the size of the incision supersedes the safety of the procedure.”

The ultimate goal of oncologic surgery is to achieve an en bloc resection with clean surgical margins and removal of the tumor intact, Dr. Noorchashm said. The only scientific way of showing the benefits or therapeutic equivalence of new technology is through noninferiority comparison trials.
 

Robotic surgery inching toward $14 billion in revenue by 2028

Although robotic surgical technology has been in use since the 1990s, the technology is still considered to be its infancy. The first Food and Drug Administration–approved robotics platform, the da Vinci Surgical System (Intuitive Surgical) was approved by the FDA in 2000. And, now, with its patent expiring in 2022, competitors will be developing and launching new products for abdominal and colorectal surgery, partial knee replacements, cardiovascular procedures, head and neck surgery, and spinal procedures.

Robotic surgery is a rapidly expanding area with new product launches announced daily. In August 2021, the market research firm Grand View Research, reported the surgical robot marketplace is projected to reach $14 billion by 2028, up from $3.6 billion this year.

“This new era of robotic-assisted surgery attracts both surgeons and patients. Robotic surgery has reshaped our surgeries over the last 2 decades, and robots are now used in almost in every surgical field. Still, as surgeons, we continue to look – with great interest – to new robotic companies that may be able to provide better robots in a more cost-effective manner,” wrote urologists Ahmad Almujalhem and Koon Ho Rha in a review published in the journal BJUI Compass.

However, the authors wrote that, although the market is competitive, cost remains an issue, as are competing interests. In addition, many companies are creating replicas of existing technologies instead of focusing on new designs and new technology. “Although the da Vinci system propelled many robots to market, there has been no significant improvement in the console,” they added.

The technology is attractive to both surgeons and patients. “Surgeons are attracted to newer technologies, better vision, and easier learning curves. Patients are also attracted to robotic surgery, as this technology is considered state of the art and is associated with reduced pain and scar size,” the authors wrote.
 

Outcomes depend on many variables

In terms of outcomes, the literature is mixed. It largely depends on a number of variables from the site of surgery, the type of cancer, technology used, and the surgeon’s skill.

Jung Mogg Kim, MD, PhD, a microbiologist with Hanyang University, Seoul, South Korea, published a systemic review and meta-analysis of 27 clinical reports in PLoS ONE assessing clinical outcomes. They found that robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery did not result in statistically superior outcomes, compared with conventional laparoscopic surgery, except for lower estimated blood loss with robots. Operative time and total complications rates were “significantly more favorable” with conventional laparoscopic procedures.

Thomas E. Ahlering, MD, a robotic prostatectomy specialist at the University of California, Irvine, explained that the success or failure of robot-assisted surgery can be highly dependent on the body site and tumor type.

“The oncologic outcome, as long as the surgeon is up to speed, is not going to be better, but the goal is to be as good,” he said in an interview.

In most cases, Dr. Ahlering said, the goal of surgery is to remove a viable tumor with clean margins while leaving the organ intact. But in prostate surgery, the goal is to remove the entire organ while trying to preserve urinary continence and sexual function.

“One of the biggest benefits of the robot is that we’re able to use it in a laparoscopic environment meaning that we need a pneumoperitoneum [which] dramatically decreases bleeding. In prostate cancer, the area is so highly vascular that bleeding is a major issue,” he said.

The same benefits of reduced bleeding, improved visualization, and precision are also seen with robotic-assisted surgery for renal cancer, he noted.

He also emphasized that positive surgical margins, while less desirable than complete elimination of malignant cells, is not nearly as dire in prostate cancer as it is in surgery for other malignancies, such as soft-tissue sarcomas.

“The majority of cases are never going to recur, and if they do recur they essentially never lead to metastatic disease to bone, much less to prostate cancer–related death. The only thing they can do is slightly increase the PSA [prostate-specific antigen] recurrence,” he said.

Assuming that outcomes are comparable between an open procedure, conventional laparoscopic procedure, or robot-assisted approach, surgeons “will almost all go for the robot. It’s easier on the surgeon and it’s easier on the system,” Dr. Ahlering said.

In skilled hands for select patients, the use of a carefully researched and well-designed surgical assistive device can result in outcomes that are comparable with those seen in open surgical procedures, with robot-assisted surgery offering the possibility of less perioperative bleeding, lower postoperative morbidity, and faster recovery times.

“In our program we have been using robots to perform robotic radical prostatectomy and nephron-sparing surgery – partial nephrectomy and we’re also using them to perform intracorporeal bowel reconstruction and robotic radical cystectomy,” said Ashutosh Tewari, MD, of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.

Robot-assisted surgery can be used “anywhere where you have to be selective, anywhere where you have to be reconstructive, anywhere where [assisted] vision can help, anywhere where the lack of bleeding will be of help to patients, and anywhere where a smaller incision can achieve the same goals,” Dr. Tewari said in an interview. Dr. Tewari’s Mount Sinai colleagues reported at the 2021 American Urological Association annual meeting, robotic-assisted salvage radical and partial nephrectomies were found to be safe and feasible procedures in patients with metachronous kidney tumors. For patients with early invasive cancer (stage pT1), oncologic outcomes with robotic-assisted partial nephrectomy were similar to those of patients who underwent radical surgery. The authors concluded that salvage robotic-assisted partial nephrectomy “can be considered in this group of patients due to the risk of future recurrences and need to preserve renal function.”

The National Comprehensive Cancer Network guideline for prostate cancer, updated in September 2021, states that “laparoscopic and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy are commonly used and are considered comparable to conventional approaches in experienced hands.”

In 2018, researchers in a multinational comparison trial reported that patients with cervical cancer who were randomly assigned to minimally invasive robot-assisted radical hysterectomy had significantly lower rates of both disease-free survival and overall survival than women randomized to open abdominal radical hysterectomy. The study results were published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The use of robotically assisted surgical (RAS) devices could possibly create a “shielding layer” between the surgical team and patient reducing the risk of infection, according to Ajmal Zemmar, MD, PhD, FMH, a neurosurgeon with the University of Louisville (Ky.) Dr. Zemmar and colleagues recently published a perspective in Nature Machine Intelligence on trends in the use of surgical robots.

“In the operating theatre, robots can place intravascular lines, intubate the patient and manage the airway. The integration of a robot as a shielding layer, physically separating the health care worker and patient, is a powerful tool to combat the omnipresent fear of pathogen contamination and maintain surgical volumes,” Dr. Zemmar and colleagues wrote.
 

Surgical vs. clinical outcomes

In July 2021, this news organization reported that clinical trials of RAS for nipple-sparing mastectomy procedures were looking primarily at cosmetic or surgical outcomes and were not collecting cancer outcomes and if they were, it was secondary to cosmetic or surgical outcomes.

The FDA followed up by issuing a safety communication in August warning patients and providers that neither the safety nor efficacy of RAS for use in mastectomy procedures or treatment of breast cancer have been established.

“In addition, the FDA is aware of allegations that clinical studies are being conducted using RAS devices to perform mastectomies for the prevention or treatment of cancer without the FDA oversight required for such significant risk studies,” the communication stated.

Dr. Tewari disclosed relationships with various companies. Dr. Noorchashm had no relevant disclosures. Dr. Ahlering disclosed past funding or other considerations from Intuitive Robotics.

The use of robotically assisted surgical devices for benign and malignant tumors is here to stay, but the decision to perform robot-assisted surgery should be driven by clinical outcomes, not convenience, physicians say.

“The problem in minimally invasive surgery, especially in cancer surgery, is that the concept has been flip-flopped,” said Hooman Noorchashm, MD, PhD, a retired cardiothoracic surgeon turned patient advocate. “The main purpose of surgery should be removal of diseased tissue or repair of damaged tissue with adequate safety. The size of the incision on that triage scheme is secondary.”

In 2013, Dr. Noorchashm’s wife, Amy Reed, MD, an anesthesiologist, had a hysterectomy for treatment of severe uterine fibroids. The surgery was performed with a laparoscopic power morcellator, which led to the dissemination of cells from a previously undetected abdominal lesion. She was later diagnosed with stage 4 leiomyosarcoma and died in May 2017.

Dr. Noorchashm said the problem with robotic surgery isn’t the technology itself or how it’s used, but why it’s used in the first place. “Not only was there an extreme level of laxity with respect to the malignant potential of fibroids, but also that the size of the incision supersedes the safety of the procedure.”

The ultimate goal of oncologic surgery is to achieve an en bloc resection with clean surgical margins and removal of the tumor intact, Dr. Noorchashm said. The only scientific way of showing the benefits or therapeutic equivalence of new technology is through noninferiority comparison trials.
 

Robotic surgery inching toward $14 billion in revenue by 2028

Although robotic surgical technology has been in use since the 1990s, the technology is still considered to be its infancy. The first Food and Drug Administration–approved robotics platform, the da Vinci Surgical System (Intuitive Surgical) was approved by the FDA in 2000. And, now, with its patent expiring in 2022, competitors will be developing and launching new products for abdominal and colorectal surgery, partial knee replacements, cardiovascular procedures, head and neck surgery, and spinal procedures.

Robotic surgery is a rapidly expanding area with new product launches announced daily. In August 2021, the market research firm Grand View Research, reported the surgical robot marketplace is projected to reach $14 billion by 2028, up from $3.6 billion this year.

“This new era of robotic-assisted surgery attracts both surgeons and patients. Robotic surgery has reshaped our surgeries over the last 2 decades, and robots are now used in almost in every surgical field. Still, as surgeons, we continue to look – with great interest – to new robotic companies that may be able to provide better robots in a more cost-effective manner,” wrote urologists Ahmad Almujalhem and Koon Ho Rha in a review published in the journal BJUI Compass.

However, the authors wrote that, although the market is competitive, cost remains an issue, as are competing interests. In addition, many companies are creating replicas of existing technologies instead of focusing on new designs and new technology. “Although the da Vinci system propelled many robots to market, there has been no significant improvement in the console,” they added.

The technology is attractive to both surgeons and patients. “Surgeons are attracted to newer technologies, better vision, and easier learning curves. Patients are also attracted to robotic surgery, as this technology is considered state of the art and is associated with reduced pain and scar size,” the authors wrote.
 

Outcomes depend on many variables

In terms of outcomes, the literature is mixed. It largely depends on a number of variables from the site of surgery, the type of cancer, technology used, and the surgeon’s skill.

Jung Mogg Kim, MD, PhD, a microbiologist with Hanyang University, Seoul, South Korea, published a systemic review and meta-analysis of 27 clinical reports in PLoS ONE assessing clinical outcomes. They found that robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery did not result in statistically superior outcomes, compared with conventional laparoscopic surgery, except for lower estimated blood loss with robots. Operative time and total complications rates were “significantly more favorable” with conventional laparoscopic procedures.

Thomas E. Ahlering, MD, a robotic prostatectomy specialist at the University of California, Irvine, explained that the success or failure of robot-assisted surgery can be highly dependent on the body site and tumor type.

“The oncologic outcome, as long as the surgeon is up to speed, is not going to be better, but the goal is to be as good,” he said in an interview.

In most cases, Dr. Ahlering said, the goal of surgery is to remove a viable tumor with clean margins while leaving the organ intact. But in prostate surgery, the goal is to remove the entire organ while trying to preserve urinary continence and sexual function.

“One of the biggest benefits of the robot is that we’re able to use it in a laparoscopic environment meaning that we need a pneumoperitoneum [which] dramatically decreases bleeding. In prostate cancer, the area is so highly vascular that bleeding is a major issue,” he said.

The same benefits of reduced bleeding, improved visualization, and precision are also seen with robotic-assisted surgery for renal cancer, he noted.

He also emphasized that positive surgical margins, while less desirable than complete elimination of malignant cells, is not nearly as dire in prostate cancer as it is in surgery for other malignancies, such as soft-tissue sarcomas.

“The majority of cases are never going to recur, and if they do recur they essentially never lead to metastatic disease to bone, much less to prostate cancer–related death. The only thing they can do is slightly increase the PSA [prostate-specific antigen] recurrence,” he said.

Assuming that outcomes are comparable between an open procedure, conventional laparoscopic procedure, or robot-assisted approach, surgeons “will almost all go for the robot. It’s easier on the surgeon and it’s easier on the system,” Dr. Ahlering said.

In skilled hands for select patients, the use of a carefully researched and well-designed surgical assistive device can result in outcomes that are comparable with those seen in open surgical procedures, with robot-assisted surgery offering the possibility of less perioperative bleeding, lower postoperative morbidity, and faster recovery times.

“In our program we have been using robots to perform robotic radical prostatectomy and nephron-sparing surgery – partial nephrectomy and we’re also using them to perform intracorporeal bowel reconstruction and robotic radical cystectomy,” said Ashutosh Tewari, MD, of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.

Robot-assisted surgery can be used “anywhere where you have to be selective, anywhere where you have to be reconstructive, anywhere where [assisted] vision can help, anywhere where the lack of bleeding will be of help to patients, and anywhere where a smaller incision can achieve the same goals,” Dr. Tewari said in an interview. Dr. Tewari’s Mount Sinai colleagues reported at the 2021 American Urological Association annual meeting, robotic-assisted salvage radical and partial nephrectomies were found to be safe and feasible procedures in patients with metachronous kidney tumors. For patients with early invasive cancer (stage pT1), oncologic outcomes with robotic-assisted partial nephrectomy were similar to those of patients who underwent radical surgery. The authors concluded that salvage robotic-assisted partial nephrectomy “can be considered in this group of patients due to the risk of future recurrences and need to preserve renal function.”

The National Comprehensive Cancer Network guideline for prostate cancer, updated in September 2021, states that “laparoscopic and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy are commonly used and are considered comparable to conventional approaches in experienced hands.”

In 2018, researchers in a multinational comparison trial reported that patients with cervical cancer who were randomly assigned to minimally invasive robot-assisted radical hysterectomy had significantly lower rates of both disease-free survival and overall survival than women randomized to open abdominal radical hysterectomy. The study results were published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The use of robotically assisted surgical (RAS) devices could possibly create a “shielding layer” between the surgical team and patient reducing the risk of infection, according to Ajmal Zemmar, MD, PhD, FMH, a neurosurgeon with the University of Louisville (Ky.) Dr. Zemmar and colleagues recently published a perspective in Nature Machine Intelligence on trends in the use of surgical robots.

“In the operating theatre, robots can place intravascular lines, intubate the patient and manage the airway. The integration of a robot as a shielding layer, physically separating the health care worker and patient, is a powerful tool to combat the omnipresent fear of pathogen contamination and maintain surgical volumes,” Dr. Zemmar and colleagues wrote.
 

Surgical vs. clinical outcomes

In July 2021, this news organization reported that clinical trials of RAS for nipple-sparing mastectomy procedures were looking primarily at cosmetic or surgical outcomes and were not collecting cancer outcomes and if they were, it was secondary to cosmetic or surgical outcomes.

The FDA followed up by issuing a safety communication in August warning patients and providers that neither the safety nor efficacy of RAS for use in mastectomy procedures or treatment of breast cancer have been established.

“In addition, the FDA is aware of allegations that clinical studies are being conducted using RAS devices to perform mastectomies for the prevention or treatment of cancer without the FDA oversight required for such significant risk studies,” the communication stated.

Dr. Tewari disclosed relationships with various companies. Dr. Noorchashm had no relevant disclosures. Dr. Ahlering disclosed past funding or other considerations from Intuitive Robotics.

The use of robotically assisted surgical devices for benign and malignant tumors is here to stay, but the decision to perform robot-assisted surgery should be driven by clinical outcomes, not convenience, physicians say.

“The problem in minimally invasive surgery, especially in cancer surgery, is that the concept has been flip-flopped,” said Hooman Noorchashm, MD, PhD, a retired cardiothoracic surgeon turned patient advocate. “The main purpose of surgery should be removal of diseased tissue or repair of damaged tissue with adequate safety. The size of the incision on that triage scheme is secondary.”

In 2013, Dr. Noorchashm’s wife, Amy Reed, MD, an anesthesiologist, had a hysterectomy for treatment of severe uterine fibroids. The surgery was performed with a laparoscopic power morcellator, which led to the dissemination of cells from a previously undetected abdominal lesion. She was later diagnosed with stage 4 leiomyosarcoma and died in May 2017.

Dr. Noorchashm said the problem with robotic surgery isn’t the technology itself or how it’s used, but why it’s used in the first place. “Not only was there an extreme level of laxity with respect to the malignant potential of fibroids, but also that the size of the incision supersedes the safety of the procedure.”

The ultimate goal of oncologic surgery is to achieve an en bloc resection with clean surgical margins and removal of the tumor intact, Dr. Noorchashm said. The only scientific way of showing the benefits or therapeutic equivalence of new technology is through noninferiority comparison trials.
 

Robotic surgery inching toward $14 billion in revenue by 2028

Although robotic surgical technology has been in use since the 1990s, the technology is still considered to be its infancy. The first Food and Drug Administration–approved robotics platform, the da Vinci Surgical System (Intuitive Surgical) was approved by the FDA in 2000. And, now, with its patent expiring in 2022, competitors will be developing and launching new products for abdominal and colorectal surgery, partial knee replacements, cardiovascular procedures, head and neck surgery, and spinal procedures.

Robotic surgery is a rapidly expanding area with new product launches announced daily. In August 2021, the market research firm Grand View Research, reported the surgical robot marketplace is projected to reach $14 billion by 2028, up from $3.6 billion this year.

“This new era of robotic-assisted surgery attracts both surgeons and patients. Robotic surgery has reshaped our surgeries over the last 2 decades, and robots are now used in almost in every surgical field. Still, as surgeons, we continue to look – with great interest – to new robotic companies that may be able to provide better robots in a more cost-effective manner,” wrote urologists Ahmad Almujalhem and Koon Ho Rha in a review published in the journal BJUI Compass.

However, the authors wrote that, although the market is competitive, cost remains an issue, as are competing interests. In addition, many companies are creating replicas of existing technologies instead of focusing on new designs and new technology. “Although the da Vinci system propelled many robots to market, there has been no significant improvement in the console,” they added.

The technology is attractive to both surgeons and patients. “Surgeons are attracted to newer technologies, better vision, and easier learning curves. Patients are also attracted to robotic surgery, as this technology is considered state of the art and is associated with reduced pain and scar size,” the authors wrote.
 

Outcomes depend on many variables

In terms of outcomes, the literature is mixed. It largely depends on a number of variables from the site of surgery, the type of cancer, technology used, and the surgeon’s skill.

Jung Mogg Kim, MD, PhD, a microbiologist with Hanyang University, Seoul, South Korea, published a systemic review and meta-analysis of 27 clinical reports in PLoS ONE assessing clinical outcomes. They found that robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery did not result in statistically superior outcomes, compared with conventional laparoscopic surgery, except for lower estimated blood loss with robots. Operative time and total complications rates were “significantly more favorable” with conventional laparoscopic procedures.

Thomas E. Ahlering, MD, a robotic prostatectomy specialist at the University of California, Irvine, explained that the success or failure of robot-assisted surgery can be highly dependent on the body site and tumor type.

“The oncologic outcome, as long as the surgeon is up to speed, is not going to be better, but the goal is to be as good,” he said in an interview.

In most cases, Dr. Ahlering said, the goal of surgery is to remove a viable tumor with clean margins while leaving the organ intact. But in prostate surgery, the goal is to remove the entire organ while trying to preserve urinary continence and sexual function.

“One of the biggest benefits of the robot is that we’re able to use it in a laparoscopic environment meaning that we need a pneumoperitoneum [which] dramatically decreases bleeding. In prostate cancer, the area is so highly vascular that bleeding is a major issue,” he said.

The same benefits of reduced bleeding, improved visualization, and precision are also seen with robotic-assisted surgery for renal cancer, he noted.

He also emphasized that positive surgical margins, while less desirable than complete elimination of malignant cells, is not nearly as dire in prostate cancer as it is in surgery for other malignancies, such as soft-tissue sarcomas.

“The majority of cases are never going to recur, and if they do recur they essentially never lead to metastatic disease to bone, much less to prostate cancer–related death. The only thing they can do is slightly increase the PSA [prostate-specific antigen] recurrence,” he said.

Assuming that outcomes are comparable between an open procedure, conventional laparoscopic procedure, or robot-assisted approach, surgeons “will almost all go for the robot. It’s easier on the surgeon and it’s easier on the system,” Dr. Ahlering said.

In skilled hands for select patients, the use of a carefully researched and well-designed surgical assistive device can result in outcomes that are comparable with those seen in open surgical procedures, with robot-assisted surgery offering the possibility of less perioperative bleeding, lower postoperative morbidity, and faster recovery times.

“In our program we have been using robots to perform robotic radical prostatectomy and nephron-sparing surgery – partial nephrectomy and we’re also using them to perform intracorporeal bowel reconstruction and robotic radical cystectomy,” said Ashutosh Tewari, MD, of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.

Robot-assisted surgery can be used “anywhere where you have to be selective, anywhere where you have to be reconstructive, anywhere where [assisted] vision can help, anywhere where the lack of bleeding will be of help to patients, and anywhere where a smaller incision can achieve the same goals,” Dr. Tewari said in an interview. Dr. Tewari’s Mount Sinai colleagues reported at the 2021 American Urological Association annual meeting, robotic-assisted salvage radical and partial nephrectomies were found to be safe and feasible procedures in patients with metachronous kidney tumors. For patients with early invasive cancer (stage pT1), oncologic outcomes with robotic-assisted partial nephrectomy were similar to those of patients who underwent radical surgery. The authors concluded that salvage robotic-assisted partial nephrectomy “can be considered in this group of patients due to the risk of future recurrences and need to preserve renal function.”

The National Comprehensive Cancer Network guideline for prostate cancer, updated in September 2021, states that “laparoscopic and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy are commonly used and are considered comparable to conventional approaches in experienced hands.”

In 2018, researchers in a multinational comparison trial reported that patients with cervical cancer who were randomly assigned to minimally invasive robot-assisted radical hysterectomy had significantly lower rates of both disease-free survival and overall survival than women randomized to open abdominal radical hysterectomy. The study results were published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The use of robotically assisted surgical (RAS) devices could possibly create a “shielding layer” between the surgical team and patient reducing the risk of infection, according to Ajmal Zemmar, MD, PhD, FMH, a neurosurgeon with the University of Louisville (Ky.) Dr. Zemmar and colleagues recently published a perspective in Nature Machine Intelligence on trends in the use of surgical robots.

“In the operating theatre, robots can place intravascular lines, intubate the patient and manage the airway. The integration of a robot as a shielding layer, physically separating the health care worker and patient, is a powerful tool to combat the omnipresent fear of pathogen contamination and maintain surgical volumes,” Dr. Zemmar and colleagues wrote.
 

Surgical vs. clinical outcomes

In July 2021, this news organization reported that clinical trials of RAS for nipple-sparing mastectomy procedures were looking primarily at cosmetic or surgical outcomes and were not collecting cancer outcomes and if they were, it was secondary to cosmetic or surgical outcomes.

The FDA followed up by issuing a safety communication in August warning patients and providers that neither the safety nor efficacy of RAS for use in mastectomy procedures or treatment of breast cancer have been established.

“In addition, the FDA is aware of allegations that clinical studies are being conducted using RAS devices to perform mastectomies for the prevention or treatment of cancer without the FDA oversight required for such significant risk studies,” the communication stated.

Dr. Tewari disclosed relationships with various companies. Dr. Noorchashm had no relevant disclosures. Dr. Ahlering disclosed past funding or other considerations from Intuitive Robotics.

In the first study of its kind, women with a breast cancer diagnosis who recalled eating nuts were found to have a significantly better disease-free survival over a 10-year study period, compared with those who said they had not eaten nuts.

PxHere

There was also an improvement in overall survival, but this was not statistically significant.

The finding comes from a study of more than 3,000 patients conducted in China, published online in the International Journal of Cancer. Patients were queried about nut consumption on only one occasion, 5 years after their breast cancer diagnosis. 

The investigators report a dose-response pattern between nut eating and the risk of both breast cancer recurrence and overall mortality, with those consuming the largest amounts having the lowest risks.

“Nuts are important components of healthy diets. Promoting this modifiable lifestyle factor should be emphasized in breast cancer survivor guidelines,” conclude Xiao-Ou Shu, MD, PhD, of Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., and colleagues in the study.

“The association for disease-free survival is quite strong and robust,” Dr. Shu told this news organization.

However, as with all observational studies, this report shows an association and not causation.

“Based upon this study alone, the evidence is weak,” said Wendy Chen, MD, MPH, a breast oncologist at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, who was approached for comment.  

The people who consumed nuts generally had more education, higher income, lower body mass index, earlier-stage cancers, and more physically active lives – all factors associated with better breast cancer survival, she observed. “The authors tried to control for these factors,” Dr. Chen acknowledged. But it’s hard to know whether nut consumption was “truly” the difference maker, she said.

Furthermore, the study population is also “a bit unusual” because people had to survive 5 years after diagnosis to be included in the analysis – and thus is not representative of breast cancer survivors, she noted.

Erin Van Blarigan, PhD, an epidemiologist at the University of California, San Francisco, described the overall evidence of the beneficial relationship between nut eating and breast cancer – including this study – as “limited.” She previously led a study that observed benefits of nut intake for patients with colon cancer.

Dr. Van Blarigan also noted that nut intake in this study was “very low” – with the median intake less than one serving per week.

She also offered some general advice about eating nuts.  

“Nuts are an energy-dense food, so portion sizes should be kept small,” she said, explaining a portion should be about 1 ounce or 1/4 cup of nuts or 1-2 tablespoons of nut butter.

A little may go a long way, she suggested, as research to date “suggests only small amounts may be needed to gain potential benefits.”

The level of nut consumption was low in the Chinese study population (median = 17.3 grams/week) compared with the 42.5 grams/week recommended by the American Heart Association, the study authors acknowledge.

“Nuts, particularly tree nuts, are expensive in China. Traditionally, nut consumption level has been low among Chinese, particularly in the old generation,” commented Dr. Shu.
 

Study authors did an adjusted analysis

The new study was conducted among 3,449 participants of the Shanghai Breast Cancer Survival Study.

Nut consumption (including peanuts and tree nuts such as walnuts) was assessed with a food questionnaire at 5 years post-diagnosis.

An analysis was conducted at 10 years post-diagnosis (and 5 years after the diet questionnaire). At this 10-year mark, there were 252 breast cancer-specific deaths. Among 3,274 survivors without previous recurrence at the dietary assessment, 209 went on to develop breast cancer-specific events – either recurrence, metastasis, or breast cancer mortality.

Nut consumers had higher overall survival (93.7% vs. 89%; P = .003) and disease-free survival (94.1% vs. 86.2%; P <.001) rates than nonconsumers.

However, the two groups had many differences, as noted by the authors and outside experts.

The consumers had a younger age at diagnosis, lower BMI, higher total energy intake, higher diet quality score, and higher soy food intake. In addition, nut consumers were more likely to have a higher education, personal income, and physical activity level (≥7.5 metabolic equivalent of task-hour/week) as well as to have received immunotherapy.

So the investigators adjusted for many of those variables and found that nut consumption was associated with significantly better disease-free survival (hazard ratio, 0.52; 95% confidence interval, 0.35-0.75), but a nonsignificantly improved overall survival (HR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.66-1.23), as noted above.

Analyses by amount of nut intake showed a dose-response relationship for both overall survival (P trend = .022) and disease-free survival (P trend = .003).

The authors say that “there has been no strong evidence to support individual food items in favor of breast cancer survival,” citing a 2018 report entitled “Diet, Nutrition, Physical Activity and Breast Cancer Survivors” from the World Cancer Research Fund/American Institute for Cancer Research.

The new study provides evidence that nuts may be such a food, they say, while also calling for studies to confirm their findings.

Study limitations include that fact that the statuses of recurrence and metastasis were self-reported. Misclassification, particularly regarding the event date, is likely, the team says.

The study authors and Dr. Van Blarigan and Dr. Chen have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

In the first study of its kind, women with a breast cancer diagnosis who recalled eating nuts were found to have a significantly better disease-free survival over a 10-year study period, compared with those who said they had not eaten nuts.

PxHere

There was also an improvement in overall survival, but this was not statistically significant.

The finding comes from a study of more than 3,000 patients conducted in China, published online in the International Journal of Cancer. Patients were queried about nut consumption on only one occasion, 5 years after their breast cancer diagnosis. 

The investigators report a dose-response pattern between nut eating and the risk of both breast cancer recurrence and overall mortality, with those consuming the largest amounts having the lowest risks.

“Nuts are important components of healthy diets. Promoting this modifiable lifestyle factor should be emphasized in breast cancer survivor guidelines,” conclude Xiao-Ou Shu, MD, PhD, of Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., and colleagues in the study.

“The association for disease-free survival is quite strong and robust,” Dr. Shu told this news organization.

However, as with all observational studies, this report shows an association and not causation.

“Based upon this study alone, the evidence is weak,” said Wendy Chen, MD, MPH, a breast oncologist at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, who was approached for comment.  

The people who consumed nuts generally had more education, higher income, lower body mass index, earlier-stage cancers, and more physically active lives – all factors associated with better breast cancer survival, she observed. “The authors tried to control for these factors,” Dr. Chen acknowledged. But it’s hard to know whether nut consumption was “truly” the difference maker, she said.

Furthermore, the study population is also “a bit unusual” because people had to survive 5 years after diagnosis to be included in the analysis – and thus is not representative of breast cancer survivors, she noted.

Erin Van Blarigan, PhD, an epidemiologist at the University of California, San Francisco, described the overall evidence of the beneficial relationship between nut eating and breast cancer – including this study – as “limited.” She previously led a study that observed benefits of nut intake for patients with colon cancer.

Dr. Van Blarigan also noted that nut intake in this study was “very low” – with the median intake less than one serving per week.

She also offered some general advice about eating nuts.  

“Nuts are an energy-dense food, so portion sizes should be kept small,” she said, explaining a portion should be about 1 ounce or 1/4 cup of nuts or 1-2 tablespoons of nut butter.

A little may go a long way, she suggested, as research to date “suggests only small amounts may be needed to gain potential benefits.”

The level of nut consumption was low in the Chinese study population (median = 17.3 grams/week) compared with the 42.5 grams/week recommended by the American Heart Association, the study authors acknowledge.

“Nuts, particularly tree nuts, are expensive in China. Traditionally, nut consumption level has been low among Chinese, particularly in the old generation,” commented Dr. Shu.
 

Study authors did an adjusted analysis

The new study was conducted among 3,449 participants of the Shanghai Breast Cancer Survival Study.

Nut consumption (including peanuts and tree nuts such as walnuts) was assessed with a food questionnaire at 5 years post-diagnosis.

An analysis was conducted at 10 years post-diagnosis (and 5 years after the diet questionnaire). At this 10-year mark, there were 252 breast cancer-specific deaths. Among 3,274 survivors without previous recurrence at the dietary assessment, 209 went on to develop breast cancer-specific events – either recurrence, metastasis, or breast cancer mortality.

Nut consumers had higher overall survival (93.7% vs. 89%; P = .003) and disease-free survival (94.1% vs. 86.2%; P <.001) rates than nonconsumers.

However, the two groups had many differences, as noted by the authors and outside experts.

The consumers had a younger age at diagnosis, lower BMI, higher total energy intake, higher diet quality score, and higher soy food intake. In addition, nut consumers were more likely to have a higher education, personal income, and physical activity level (≥7.5 metabolic equivalent of task-hour/week) as well as to have received immunotherapy.

So the investigators adjusted for many of those variables and found that nut consumption was associated with significantly better disease-free survival (hazard ratio, 0.52; 95% confidence interval, 0.35-0.75), but a nonsignificantly improved overall survival (HR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.66-1.23), as noted above.

Analyses by amount of nut intake showed a dose-response relationship for both overall survival (P trend = .022) and disease-free survival (P trend = .003).

The authors say that “there has been no strong evidence to support individual food items in favor of breast cancer survival,” citing a 2018 report entitled “Diet, Nutrition, Physical Activity and Breast Cancer Survivors” from the World Cancer Research Fund/American Institute for Cancer Research.

The new study provides evidence that nuts may be such a food, they say, while also calling for studies to confirm their findings.

Study limitations include that fact that the statuses of recurrence and metastasis were self-reported. Misclassification, particularly regarding the event date, is likely, the team says.

The study authors and Dr. Van Blarigan and Dr. Chen have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

In the first study of its kind, women with a breast cancer diagnosis who recalled eating nuts were found to have a significantly better disease-free survival over a 10-year study period, compared with those who said they had not eaten nuts.

PxHere

There was also an improvement in overall survival, but this was not statistically significant.

The finding comes from a study of more than 3,000 patients conducted in China, published online in the International Journal of Cancer. Patients were queried about nut consumption on only one occasion, 5 years after their breast cancer diagnosis. 

The investigators report a dose-response pattern between nut eating and the risk of both breast cancer recurrence and overall mortality, with those consuming the largest amounts having the lowest risks.

“Nuts are important components of healthy diets. Promoting this modifiable lifestyle factor should be emphasized in breast cancer survivor guidelines,” conclude Xiao-Ou Shu, MD, PhD, of Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., and colleagues in the study.

“The association for disease-free survival is quite strong and robust,” Dr. Shu told this news organization.

However, as with all observational studies, this report shows an association and not causation.

“Based upon this study alone, the evidence is weak,” said Wendy Chen, MD, MPH, a breast oncologist at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, who was approached for comment.  

The people who consumed nuts generally had more education, higher income, lower body mass index, earlier-stage cancers, and more physically active lives – all factors associated with better breast cancer survival, she observed. “The authors tried to control for these factors,” Dr. Chen acknowledged. But it’s hard to know whether nut consumption was “truly” the difference maker, she said.

Furthermore, the study population is also “a bit unusual” because people had to survive 5 years after diagnosis to be included in the analysis – and thus is not representative of breast cancer survivors, she noted.

Erin Van Blarigan, PhD, an epidemiologist at the University of California, San Francisco, described the overall evidence of the beneficial relationship between nut eating and breast cancer – including this study – as “limited.” She previously led a study that observed benefits of nut intake for patients with colon cancer.

Dr. Van Blarigan also noted that nut intake in this study was “very low” – with the median intake less than one serving per week.

She also offered some general advice about eating nuts.  

“Nuts are an energy-dense food, so portion sizes should be kept small,” she said, explaining a portion should be about 1 ounce or 1/4 cup of nuts or 1-2 tablespoons of nut butter.

A little may go a long way, she suggested, as research to date “suggests only small amounts may be needed to gain potential benefits.”

The level of nut consumption was low in the Chinese study population (median = 17.3 grams/week) compared with the 42.5 grams/week recommended by the American Heart Association, the study authors acknowledge.

“Nuts, particularly tree nuts, are expensive in China. Traditionally, nut consumption level has been low among Chinese, particularly in the old generation,” commented Dr. Shu.
 

Study authors did an adjusted analysis

The new study was conducted among 3,449 participants of the Shanghai Breast Cancer Survival Study.

Nut consumption (including peanuts and tree nuts such as walnuts) was assessed with a food questionnaire at 5 years post-diagnosis.

An analysis was conducted at 10 years post-diagnosis (and 5 years after the diet questionnaire). At this 10-year mark, there were 252 breast cancer-specific deaths. Among 3,274 survivors without previous recurrence at the dietary assessment, 209 went on to develop breast cancer-specific events – either recurrence, metastasis, or breast cancer mortality.

Nut consumers had higher overall survival (93.7% vs. 89%; P = .003) and disease-free survival (94.1% vs. 86.2%; P <.001) rates than nonconsumers.

However, the two groups had many differences, as noted by the authors and outside experts.

The consumers had a younger age at diagnosis, lower BMI, higher total energy intake, higher diet quality score, and higher soy food intake. In addition, nut consumers were more likely to have a higher education, personal income, and physical activity level (≥7.5 metabolic equivalent of task-hour/week) as well as to have received immunotherapy.

So the investigators adjusted for many of those variables and found that nut consumption was associated with significantly better disease-free survival (hazard ratio, 0.52; 95% confidence interval, 0.35-0.75), but a nonsignificantly improved overall survival (HR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.66-1.23), as noted above.

Analyses by amount of nut intake showed a dose-response relationship for both overall survival (P trend = .022) and disease-free survival (P trend = .003).

The authors say that “there has been no strong evidence to support individual food items in favor of breast cancer survival,” citing a 2018 report entitled “Diet, Nutrition, Physical Activity and Breast Cancer Survivors” from the World Cancer Research Fund/American Institute for Cancer Research.

The new study provides evidence that nuts may be such a food, they say, while also calling for studies to confirm their findings.

Study limitations include that fact that the statuses of recurrence and metastasis were self-reported. Misclassification, particularly regarding the event date, is likely, the team says.

The study authors and Dr. Van Blarigan and Dr. Chen have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

In patients with breast cancer, an impaired white-matter microstructure, identified by neuroimaging before chemotherapy, may be a risk factor for cognitive decline after chemotherapy.

“Cognitive decline is frequently observed after chemotherapy,” according to Michiel B. de Ruiter, PhD, a research scientist with the Netherlands Cancer Institute in Amsterdam. He specializes in cognitive neuroscience and was the lead author of a study published online Sept. 30, 2021, in the Journal of Clinical Oncology. Dr. de Ruiter and colleagues found that fractional anisotropy may demonstrate a low brain white-matter reserve which could be a risk factor for cognitive decline after chemotherapy for breast cancer treatment.

Cognitive decline after chemotherapy has been reported in 20%-40% of patients with cancer affecting quality of life and daily living skills. Studies have suggested that genetic makeup, advanced age, fatigue, and premorbid intelligence quotient are risk factors for chemotherapy-associated cognitive decline. Changes in the microstructure of brain white matter, known as brain reserve, have been reported after exposure to chemotherapy, but its link to cognitive decline is understudied. Several studies outside of oncology have used MRI to derive fractional anisotropy as a measure for brain reserve.

In the new JCO study, researchers examined fractional anisotropy, as measured by MRI, before chemotherapy. The analysis included 49 patients who underwent neuropsychological tests before treatment with anthracycline-based chemotherapy, then again at 6 months and 2 years after chemotherapy.

The results were compared with those of patients with breast cancer who did not receive systemic therapy and then with a control group consisting of patients without cancer.

A low fractional anisotropy score suggested cognitive decline more than 3 years after receiving chemotherapy treatment. The finding was independent of age, premorbid intelligence quotient, baseline fatigue and baseline cognitive complaints. And, having low premorbid intelligence quotient was an independent risk factor for chemotherapy-associated cognitive decline, which the authors said is in line with previous findings.

Fractional anisotropy did not predict cognitive decline in patients who did not receive systemic therapy, as well as patients in the control group.

The findings could possibly lead to the development a pretreatment assessment to screen for patients who may at risk for cognitive decline, the authors wrote. “Clinically validated assessments of white-matter reserve as assessed with an MRI scan may be part of a pretreatment screening. This could also aid in early identification of cognitive decline after chemotherapy, allowing targeted and early interventions to improve cognitive problems,” such as psychoeducation and cognitive rehabilitation.

No potential conflicts of interest were reported.

In patients with breast cancer, an impaired white-matter microstructure, identified by neuroimaging before chemotherapy, may be a risk factor for cognitive decline after chemotherapy.

“Cognitive decline is frequently observed after chemotherapy,” according to Michiel B. de Ruiter, PhD, a research scientist with the Netherlands Cancer Institute in Amsterdam. He specializes in cognitive neuroscience and was the lead author of a study published online Sept. 30, 2021, in the Journal of Clinical Oncology. Dr. de Ruiter and colleagues found that fractional anisotropy may demonstrate a low brain white-matter reserve which could be a risk factor for cognitive decline after chemotherapy for breast cancer treatment.

Cognitive decline after chemotherapy has been reported in 20%-40% of patients with cancer affecting quality of life and daily living skills. Studies have suggested that genetic makeup, advanced age, fatigue, and premorbid intelligence quotient are risk factors for chemotherapy-associated cognitive decline. Changes in the microstructure of brain white matter, known as brain reserve, have been reported after exposure to chemotherapy, but its link to cognitive decline is understudied. Several studies outside of oncology have used MRI to derive fractional anisotropy as a measure for brain reserve.

In the new JCO study, researchers examined fractional anisotropy, as measured by MRI, before chemotherapy. The analysis included 49 patients who underwent neuropsychological tests before treatment with anthracycline-based chemotherapy, then again at 6 months and 2 years after chemotherapy.

The results were compared with those of patients with breast cancer who did not receive systemic therapy and then with a control group consisting of patients without cancer.

A low fractional anisotropy score suggested cognitive decline more than 3 years after receiving chemotherapy treatment. The finding was independent of age, premorbid intelligence quotient, baseline fatigue and baseline cognitive complaints. And, having low premorbid intelligence quotient was an independent risk factor for chemotherapy-associated cognitive decline, which the authors said is in line with previous findings.

Fractional anisotropy did not predict cognitive decline in patients who did not receive systemic therapy, as well as patients in the control group.

The findings could possibly lead to the development a pretreatment assessment to screen for patients who may at risk for cognitive decline, the authors wrote. “Clinically validated assessments of white-matter reserve as assessed with an MRI scan may be part of a pretreatment screening. This could also aid in early identification of cognitive decline after chemotherapy, allowing targeted and early interventions to improve cognitive problems,” such as psychoeducation and cognitive rehabilitation.

No potential conflicts of interest were reported.

In patients with breast cancer, an impaired white-matter microstructure, identified by neuroimaging before chemotherapy, may be a risk factor for cognitive decline after chemotherapy.

“Cognitive decline is frequently observed after chemotherapy,” according to Michiel B. de Ruiter, PhD, a research scientist with the Netherlands Cancer Institute in Amsterdam. He specializes in cognitive neuroscience and was the lead author of a study published online Sept. 30, 2021, in the Journal of Clinical Oncology. Dr. de Ruiter and colleagues found that fractional anisotropy may demonstrate a low brain white-matter reserve which could be a risk factor for cognitive decline after chemotherapy for breast cancer treatment.

Cognitive decline after chemotherapy has been reported in 20%-40% of patients with cancer affecting quality of life and daily living skills. Studies have suggested that genetic makeup, advanced age, fatigue, and premorbid intelligence quotient are risk factors for chemotherapy-associated cognitive decline. Changes in the microstructure of brain white matter, known as brain reserve, have been reported after exposure to chemotherapy, but its link to cognitive decline is understudied. Several studies outside of oncology have used MRI to derive fractional anisotropy as a measure for brain reserve.

In the new JCO study, researchers examined fractional anisotropy, as measured by MRI, before chemotherapy. The analysis included 49 patients who underwent neuropsychological tests before treatment with anthracycline-based chemotherapy, then again at 6 months and 2 years after chemotherapy.

The results were compared with those of patients with breast cancer who did not receive systemic therapy and then with a control group consisting of patients without cancer.

A low fractional anisotropy score suggested cognitive decline more than 3 years after receiving chemotherapy treatment. The finding was independent of age, premorbid intelligence quotient, baseline fatigue and baseline cognitive complaints. And, having low premorbid intelligence quotient was an independent risk factor for chemotherapy-associated cognitive decline, which the authors said is in line with previous findings.

Fractional anisotropy did not predict cognitive decline in patients who did not receive systemic therapy, as well as patients in the control group.

The findings could possibly lead to the development a pretreatment assessment to screen for patients who may at risk for cognitive decline, the authors wrote. “Clinically validated assessments of white-matter reserve as assessed with an MRI scan may be part of a pretreatment screening. This could also aid in early identification of cognitive decline after chemotherapy, allowing targeted and early interventions to improve cognitive problems,” such as psychoeducation and cognitive rehabilitation.

No potential conflicts of interest were reported.

For women with breast cancer who undergo mastectomy and opt for implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR), the use of a mesh device does not appear to offer any advantage over conventional techniques.

A European study involving 155 women found that the use of acellular dermal matrix (ADM) did not lead to fewer reoperations, nor was it superior in terms of health-related quality of life or patient-reported cosmetic outcomes.

“We feel that women considering implant-based reconstructions for breast cancer should be informed about the lack of evidence supporting its advantage,” said lead author Fredrik Lohmander MD, department of breast and endocrine surgery, section of breast urgery, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm.

It is difficult to say generally whether ADM should be used in IBBR, he noted. “We can only conclude from our trial that there is no hard evidence that ADM is beneficial when performing breast reconstructions with implants,” he said in an interview. “In selected patients, ADM might be indicated.”

The study was conducted in Sweden and the United Kingdom. “Mostly because of high costs, ADM in implant-based breast reconstructions in Sweden is not frequently used,” Dr. Lohmander said. “It is slightly more common in the U.K., but much more common in the U.S.A.”

Although biological meshes have received regulatory approval by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for reconstructive purposes, ADM has not been approved for use in breast reconstruction surgery, and its use in this setting is off label.

The study was published online October 1 in JAMA Network Open.
 

Any advantage to using mesh device?

Previous studies of ADMs suggested that the mesh device conferred several benefits, including superior cosmetic results, less need for tissue expanders, fewer elective reoperations, and less capsular contracture. The use of a mesh device also enlarges the subpectoral pocket, which allows for larger fixed-volume implants, the authors note.

However, these suggested advantages have not been universally accepted, and the authors note that there have been reports of associated harm, such as higher rates of infection and implant loss.

The new study included 135 women from five centers in Sweden and the United Kingdom. The patients had breast cancer and had planned to undergo mastectomy and immediate IBBR between 2014 and May 2017.

The primary endpoint was the number of repeat surgeries at 2 years.

At the 2-year follow-up, 31 patients (48%) in the ADM group had undergone at least one reoperation on the ipsilateral side, vs 35 (54%) in the control group (P = .54). Results were similar for the contralateral side: 34 (53%) vs 31 (48%).

Two patients in the ADM group and three patients in the control group underwent a risk-reducing mastectomy on the contralateral side. These five surgeries were included in the final analysis.

For nine patients (14%) in the ADM arm, the implant was removed. Four of the removals took place within 6 months after early surgical complications. In the control group, seven patients (11%) underwent implant removal; four were removed within 6 months, owing to early surgical complications.

The secondary endpoint was postoperative health-related quality of life, including perception of body image and satisfaction with cosmetic outcome. There were no significant differences between the two groups.

Some questions remain

Approached for comment on the study, Sameer A. Patel, MD, FACS, chief of plastic and reconstructive surgery at Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, noted that the practice of using AMD for breast reconstruction is quite common in the United States, so these data are informative and add to the current understanding of the value of ADM in breast reconstruction. “The study hypothesized that the use of ADM would reduce the number of reoperations within the first 24 months, which it did not,” he said. “This is despite the fact that the ADM group had a significantly higher number of direct-to-implant reconstructions.”

Importantly, the study showed that patient-reported outcomes, as opposed to surgeon’s evaluation of outcomes, were also not different for the most part between the two groups, Dr. Patel pointed out. “The only exception of small favorable advantage in the ADM group was for fitting bras,” he said.

However, there were limitations to the study’s endpoint. “I would add that there are some purported advantages of using ADM, such as reduction in postoperative pain and reduction in length of hospital stay, which are not evaluated by this study,” Patel explained. “Also, I am not certain that they can conclude from this study that capsular contracture is not reduced, because it is not designed to evaluate that.”

But the biggest limitation is one that study authors point out in their discussion at the end of the article, he added. “The use of prepectoral reconstruction is rapidly replacing the dual plane reconstruction that this paper used in the ADM group,” Dr. Patel said. “The role of ADM in prepectoral reconstruction is somewhat different than in the dual plane reconstruction, and so these results may not necessarily be extrapolated to prepectoral reconstruction.”

The study was funded with grants from the Swedish Breast Cancer Association and Stockholm City Council. The trial was initiated by Karolinska University Hospital and Karolinska Institutet. Acelity (an Allergan company) supplied the study with acellular dermal matrix meshes. Dr. Lohmander and Dr. Patel have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

For women with breast cancer who undergo mastectomy and opt for implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR), the use of a mesh device does not appear to offer any advantage over conventional techniques.

A European study involving 155 women found that the use of acellular dermal matrix (ADM) did not lead to fewer reoperations, nor was it superior in terms of health-related quality of life or patient-reported cosmetic outcomes.

“We feel that women considering implant-based reconstructions for breast cancer should be informed about the lack of evidence supporting its advantage,” said lead author Fredrik Lohmander MD, department of breast and endocrine surgery, section of breast urgery, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm.

It is difficult to say generally whether ADM should be used in IBBR, he noted. “We can only conclude from our trial that there is no hard evidence that ADM is beneficial when performing breast reconstructions with implants,” he said in an interview. “In selected patients, ADM might be indicated.”

The study was conducted in Sweden and the United Kingdom. “Mostly because of high costs, ADM in implant-based breast reconstructions in Sweden is not frequently used,” Dr. Lohmander said. “It is slightly more common in the U.K., but much more common in the U.S.A.”

Although biological meshes have received regulatory approval by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for reconstructive purposes, ADM has not been approved for use in breast reconstruction surgery, and its use in this setting is off label.

The study was published online October 1 in JAMA Network Open.
 

Any advantage to using mesh device?

Previous studies of ADMs suggested that the mesh device conferred several benefits, including superior cosmetic results, less need for tissue expanders, fewer elective reoperations, and less capsular contracture. The use of a mesh device also enlarges the subpectoral pocket, which allows for larger fixed-volume implants, the authors note.

However, these suggested advantages have not been universally accepted, and the authors note that there have been reports of associated harm, such as higher rates of infection and implant loss.

The new study included 135 women from five centers in Sweden and the United Kingdom. The patients had breast cancer and had planned to undergo mastectomy and immediate IBBR between 2014 and May 2017.

The primary endpoint was the number of repeat surgeries at 2 years.

At the 2-year follow-up, 31 patients (48%) in the ADM group had undergone at least one reoperation on the ipsilateral side, vs 35 (54%) in the control group (P = .54). Results were similar for the contralateral side: 34 (53%) vs 31 (48%).

Two patients in the ADM group and three patients in the control group underwent a risk-reducing mastectomy on the contralateral side. These five surgeries were included in the final analysis.

For nine patients (14%) in the ADM arm, the implant was removed. Four of the removals took place within 6 months after early surgical complications. In the control group, seven patients (11%) underwent implant removal; four were removed within 6 months, owing to early surgical complications.

The secondary endpoint was postoperative health-related quality of life, including perception of body image and satisfaction with cosmetic outcome. There were no significant differences between the two groups.

Some questions remain

Approached for comment on the study, Sameer A. Patel, MD, FACS, chief of plastic and reconstructive surgery at Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, noted that the practice of using AMD for breast reconstruction is quite common in the United States, so these data are informative and add to the current understanding of the value of ADM in breast reconstruction. “The study hypothesized that the use of ADM would reduce the number of reoperations within the first 24 months, which it did not,” he said. “This is despite the fact that the ADM group had a significantly higher number of direct-to-implant reconstructions.”

Importantly, the study showed that patient-reported outcomes, as opposed to surgeon’s evaluation of outcomes, were also not different for the most part between the two groups, Dr. Patel pointed out. “The only exception of small favorable advantage in the ADM group was for fitting bras,” he said.

However, there were limitations to the study’s endpoint. “I would add that there are some purported advantages of using ADM, such as reduction in postoperative pain and reduction in length of hospital stay, which are not evaluated by this study,” Patel explained. “Also, I am not certain that they can conclude from this study that capsular contracture is not reduced, because it is not designed to evaluate that.”

But the biggest limitation is one that study authors point out in their discussion at the end of the article, he added. “The use of prepectoral reconstruction is rapidly replacing the dual plane reconstruction that this paper used in the ADM group,” Dr. Patel said. “The role of ADM in prepectoral reconstruction is somewhat different than in the dual plane reconstruction, and so these results may not necessarily be extrapolated to prepectoral reconstruction.”

The study was funded with grants from the Swedish Breast Cancer Association and Stockholm City Council. The trial was initiated by Karolinska University Hospital and Karolinska Institutet. Acelity (an Allergan company) supplied the study with acellular dermal matrix meshes. Dr. Lohmander and Dr. Patel have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

For women with breast cancer who undergo mastectomy and opt for implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR), the use of a mesh device does not appear to offer any advantage over conventional techniques.

A European study involving 155 women found that the use of acellular dermal matrix (ADM) did not lead to fewer reoperations, nor was it superior in terms of health-related quality of life or patient-reported cosmetic outcomes.

“We feel that women considering implant-based reconstructions for breast cancer should be informed about the lack of evidence supporting its advantage,” said lead author Fredrik Lohmander MD, department of breast and endocrine surgery, section of breast urgery, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm.

It is difficult to say generally whether ADM should be used in IBBR, he noted. “We can only conclude from our trial that there is no hard evidence that ADM is beneficial when performing breast reconstructions with implants,” he said in an interview. “In selected patients, ADM might be indicated.”

The study was conducted in Sweden and the United Kingdom. “Mostly because of high costs, ADM in implant-based breast reconstructions in Sweden is not frequently used,” Dr. Lohmander said. “It is slightly more common in the U.K., but much more common in the U.S.A.”

Although biological meshes have received regulatory approval by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for reconstructive purposes, ADM has not been approved for use in breast reconstruction surgery, and its use in this setting is off label.

The study was published online October 1 in JAMA Network Open.
 

Any advantage to using mesh device?

Previous studies of ADMs suggested that the mesh device conferred several benefits, including superior cosmetic results, less need for tissue expanders, fewer elective reoperations, and less capsular contracture. The use of a mesh device also enlarges the subpectoral pocket, which allows for larger fixed-volume implants, the authors note.

However, these suggested advantages have not been universally accepted, and the authors note that there have been reports of associated harm, such as higher rates of infection and implant loss.

The new study included 135 women from five centers in Sweden and the United Kingdom. The patients had breast cancer and had planned to undergo mastectomy and immediate IBBR between 2014 and May 2017.

The primary endpoint was the number of repeat surgeries at 2 years.

At the 2-year follow-up, 31 patients (48%) in the ADM group had undergone at least one reoperation on the ipsilateral side, vs 35 (54%) in the control group (P = .54). Results were similar for the contralateral side: 34 (53%) vs 31 (48%).

Two patients in the ADM group and three patients in the control group underwent a risk-reducing mastectomy on the contralateral side. These five surgeries were included in the final analysis.

For nine patients (14%) in the ADM arm, the implant was removed. Four of the removals took place within 6 months after early surgical complications. In the control group, seven patients (11%) underwent implant removal; four were removed within 6 months, owing to early surgical complications.

The secondary endpoint was postoperative health-related quality of life, including perception of body image and satisfaction with cosmetic outcome. There were no significant differences between the two groups.

Some questions remain

Approached for comment on the study, Sameer A. Patel, MD, FACS, chief of plastic and reconstructive surgery at Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, noted that the practice of using AMD for breast reconstruction is quite common in the United States, so these data are informative and add to the current understanding of the value of ADM in breast reconstruction. “The study hypothesized that the use of ADM would reduce the number of reoperations within the first 24 months, which it did not,” he said. “This is despite the fact that the ADM group had a significantly higher number of direct-to-implant reconstructions.”

Importantly, the study showed that patient-reported outcomes, as opposed to surgeon’s evaluation of outcomes, were also not different for the most part between the two groups, Dr. Patel pointed out. “The only exception of small favorable advantage in the ADM group was for fitting bras,” he said.

However, there were limitations to the study’s endpoint. “I would add that there are some purported advantages of using ADM, such as reduction in postoperative pain and reduction in length of hospital stay, which are not evaluated by this study,” Patel explained. “Also, I am not certain that they can conclude from this study that capsular contracture is not reduced, because it is not designed to evaluate that.”

But the biggest limitation is one that study authors point out in their discussion at the end of the article, he added. “The use of prepectoral reconstruction is rapidly replacing the dual plane reconstruction that this paper used in the ADM group,” Dr. Patel said. “The role of ADM in prepectoral reconstruction is somewhat different than in the dual plane reconstruction, and so these results may not necessarily be extrapolated to prepectoral reconstruction.”

The study was funded with grants from the Swedish Breast Cancer Association and Stockholm City Council. The trial was initiated by Karolinska University Hospital and Karolinska Institutet. Acelity (an Allergan company) supplied the study with acellular dermal matrix meshes. Dr. Lohmander and Dr. Patel have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The CDK4/6 inhibitor abemaciclib (Verzenio) has been approved for use in early breast cancer for certain patients. One expert has described the drug as the first advance for this patient population in 20 years.

Abemaciclib had already been approved for use in the treatment of HR+, HER2– advanced or metastatic breast cancer.

Now it is also approved for use in HR+, HER2– early breast cancer for patients who have high-risk, node-positive disease and whose tumors have a Ki-67 score of 20% or higher, as determined by a U.S. Food and Drug Administration–approved test.

The FDA also approved the Ki-67 IHC MIB-1 pharmDx (Dako Omnis) assay for use as a companion diagnostic test.

This is the first CDK4/6 inhibitor to be approved for use in this patient population.

Approximately 70% of all breast cancers are of the HR+, HER2– subtype.

The approval is based on some of the results from the monarchE study, which was presented last year at the annual meeting of the European Society of Medical Oncology and was simultaneously published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

The results showed that the addition of abemaciclib to endocrine therapy (tamoxifen or aromatase inhibitors) significantly improved invasive disease-free survival (IDFS), which was defined on the basis of the length of time before breast cancer comes back, any new cancer develops, or death.

The 2-year IDFS rates were 92.2% with the combination vs. 88.7% for endocrine therapy alone for the overall patient population.

“This is the first time in more than 20 years that we have seen an advance in the adjuvant treatment of this form of breast cancer,” lead investigator Stephen Johnston, MD, PhD, from the Royal Marsden Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, said at the meeting, as reported at the time by this news organization.

Reacting to the findings, Giuseppe Curigliano, MD, PhD, head of the division of early drug development at the European Institute of Oncology, Milan, said, “This is a very important trial and the findings will change practice.”

He predicted that once the drug is approved for use in high-risk HR+, HER2– early breast cancer, “the new standard of care for these patients will be to add 2 years of abemaciclib to endocrine therapy.”

In a press release about the new approval from the manufacturer (Lilly), another investigator on the monarchE study, Sara M. Tolaney, MD, MPH, Harvard Medical School and the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, agreed that the results are practice changing. She said that the combination of abemaciclib and endocrine therapy is a potential new standard of care for this patient population. “We are encouraged by the marked reduction in the risk of recurrence even beyond the 2-year treatment period in these patients, and I’m grateful to be able to offer this as a treatment option to my patients,” she said.

On Twitter, she commented that restricting the indication to patients who show Ki67 ≥20% is “interesting,” inasmuch as benefits were seen in patients with both low and high Ki67.

Hal Burstein, MD, from Dana-Farber, also found this detail “interesting, as Ki67 testing remains a very controversial topic and difficult to standardize.”

Replying, Pedro Exman, MD, from the Hospital Alemão Oswaldo Cruz, in São Paulo, said: “Does it make sense to approve only in a subset of patients based in a positive subgroup analysis of a positive ITT study that was not even described in the JCO publication?”

Other experts said they were eagerly awaiting further results, particularly on overall survival, from the monarchE trial. New data are due to be presented on Oct. 14 at an ESMO virtual plenary session.

Commenting late last year about these results, George W. Sledge Jr, MD, professor of medicine at Stanford University Medical Center, Palo Alto, Calif., said that the median follow-up time “is still quite short for a study of ER+ adjuvant therapy, where the majority of recurrences and deaths occur after 5 years in many studies.”

Consequently, “we still have a long way to go to understand the ultimate effects of CDK4/6 inhibition on early-stage ER+ breast cancer, particularly on late recurrences,” he told this news organization at the time.

Agreed, said C. Kent Osborne, MD, codirector of the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium and founding director of the Duncan Cancer Center at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Tex. The results are “very encouraging, especially in the subgroup of tumors with high proliferation” (identified by the K1-67 score).

However, Dr. Osborne also urged caution in the interpretation of the results, “given the still rather short follow-up, given that that ER+ disease is known for its persistent recurrence rate, even past 10 years.”

He also noted that “this class of inhibitors is likely cytostatic, rather than cytocidal, meaning that it blocks cell proliferation rather than killing the cells.” Questions therefore remain over whether the survival curves for combination therapy will come together with those for endocrine therapy alone once patients stop taking the drug.


 

Study details

The monarchE trial involved patients with HR+, HER2–, high-risk early breast cancer who had undergone surgery and, as indicated, radiotherapy and/or adjuvant/neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Patients with four or more positive nodes or one to three nodes and either tumors of size ≥5 cm, histologic grade 3, or central Ki-67 ≥20% were eligible; 5,637 patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive standard-of-care adjuvant endocrine therapy (ET) with or without abemaciclib (150 mg twice daily for 2 years).

A preplanned interim analysis was carried out after 323 IDFS events were observed in the intent-to-treat population. The results, as published last year in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, show that abemaciclib plus ET yielded superior IDFS in comparison with ET alone (P = .01; hazard ratio, 0.75; 95% confidence interval, 0.60-0.93), with 2-year IDFS rates of 92.2% vs. 88.7%.

In the press release announcing the approval of the new indication, the manufacturer notes that the approval was based on the results from a subgroup of 2,003 patients whose tumors had a Ki-67 score of ≥20% and who were also at high risk for recurrence (≥four positive axillary lymph nodes [ALN], or one-three positive ALN with grade 3 disease and/or tumor size ≥5 cm).

There was a statistically significant improvement in IDFS for this prespecified subgroup of patients (HR, 0.643; 95% CI, 0.475-0.872; P = .0042).

With additional follow-up, conducted post hoc, the results showed a 37% decrease in the risk for breast cancer recurrence or death, compared with ET alone (HR, 0.626; 95% CI, 0.49-0.80) and an absolute benefit in IDFS event rate of 7.1% at 3 years. IDFS was 86.1% for abemaciclib plus ET vs. 79.0% for ET alone.

Adverse reactions from monarchE were consistent with the known safety profile for abemaciclib, the company noted. Safety and tolerability were evaluated in 5,591 patients. The most common adverse reactions reported (≥10%) with abemaciclib plus ET vs. ET alone were diarrhea (84% vs. 9%), infections (51% vs. 39%), neutropenia (46% vs. 6%), fatigue (41% vs. 18%), leukopenia (38% vs. 7%), nausea (30% vs. 9%), anemia (24% vs. 4%), headache (20% vs. 15%), vomiting (18% vs. 4.6%), stomatitis (14% vs. 5%), lymphopenia (14% vs. 3%), thrombocytopenia (13% vs. 2%), decreased appetite (12% vs. 2.4%), increased ALT (12% vs. 6%), increased AST (12% vs. 5%), dizziness (11% vs. 7%), rash (11% vs. 4.5%), and alopecia (11% vs. 2.7 %).

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

The CDK4/6 inhibitor abemaciclib (Verzenio) has been approved for use in early breast cancer for certain patients. One expert has described the drug as the first advance for this patient population in 20 years.

Abemaciclib had already been approved for use in the treatment of HR+, HER2– advanced or metastatic breast cancer.

Now it is also approved for use in HR+, HER2– early breast cancer for patients who have high-risk, node-positive disease and whose tumors have a Ki-67 score of 20% or higher, as determined by a U.S. Food and Drug Administration–approved test.

The FDA also approved the Ki-67 IHC MIB-1 pharmDx (Dako Omnis) assay for use as a companion diagnostic test.

This is the first CDK4/6 inhibitor to be approved for use in this patient population.

Approximately 70% of all breast cancers are of the HR+, HER2– subtype.

The approval is based on some of the results from the monarchE study, which was presented last year at the annual meeting of the European Society of Medical Oncology and was simultaneously published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

The results showed that the addition of abemaciclib to endocrine therapy (tamoxifen or aromatase inhibitors) significantly improved invasive disease-free survival (IDFS), which was defined on the basis of the length of time before breast cancer comes back, any new cancer develops, or death.

The 2-year IDFS rates were 92.2% with the combination vs. 88.7% for endocrine therapy alone for the overall patient population.

“This is the first time in more than 20 years that we have seen an advance in the adjuvant treatment of this form of breast cancer,” lead investigator Stephen Johnston, MD, PhD, from the Royal Marsden Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, said at the meeting, as reported at the time by this news organization.

Reacting to the findings, Giuseppe Curigliano, MD, PhD, head of the division of early drug development at the European Institute of Oncology, Milan, said, “This is a very important trial and the findings will change practice.”

He predicted that once the drug is approved for use in high-risk HR+, HER2– early breast cancer, “the new standard of care for these patients will be to add 2 years of abemaciclib to endocrine therapy.”

In a press release about the new approval from the manufacturer (Lilly), another investigator on the monarchE study, Sara M. Tolaney, MD, MPH, Harvard Medical School and the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, agreed that the results are practice changing. She said that the combination of abemaciclib and endocrine therapy is a potential new standard of care for this patient population. “We are encouraged by the marked reduction in the risk of recurrence even beyond the 2-year treatment period in these patients, and I’m grateful to be able to offer this as a treatment option to my patients,” she said.

On Twitter, she commented that restricting the indication to patients who show Ki67 ≥20% is “interesting,” inasmuch as benefits were seen in patients with both low and high Ki67.

Hal Burstein, MD, from Dana-Farber, also found this detail “interesting, as Ki67 testing remains a very controversial topic and difficult to standardize.”

Replying, Pedro Exman, MD, from the Hospital Alemão Oswaldo Cruz, in São Paulo, said: “Does it make sense to approve only in a subset of patients based in a positive subgroup analysis of a positive ITT study that was not even described in the JCO publication?”

Other experts said they were eagerly awaiting further results, particularly on overall survival, from the monarchE trial. New data are due to be presented on Oct. 14 at an ESMO virtual plenary session.

Commenting late last year about these results, George W. Sledge Jr, MD, professor of medicine at Stanford University Medical Center, Palo Alto, Calif., said that the median follow-up time “is still quite short for a study of ER+ adjuvant therapy, where the majority of recurrences and deaths occur after 5 years in many studies.”

Consequently, “we still have a long way to go to understand the ultimate effects of CDK4/6 inhibition on early-stage ER+ breast cancer, particularly on late recurrences,” he told this news organization at the time.

Agreed, said C. Kent Osborne, MD, codirector of the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium and founding director of the Duncan Cancer Center at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Tex. The results are “very encouraging, especially in the subgroup of tumors with high proliferation” (identified by the K1-67 score).

However, Dr. Osborne also urged caution in the interpretation of the results, “given the still rather short follow-up, given that that ER+ disease is known for its persistent recurrence rate, even past 10 years.”

He also noted that “this class of inhibitors is likely cytostatic, rather than cytocidal, meaning that it blocks cell proliferation rather than killing the cells.” Questions therefore remain over whether the survival curves for combination therapy will come together with those for endocrine therapy alone once patients stop taking the drug.


 

Study details

The monarchE trial involved patients with HR+, HER2–, high-risk early breast cancer who had undergone surgery and, as indicated, radiotherapy and/or adjuvant/neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Patients with four or more positive nodes or one to three nodes and either tumors of size ≥5 cm, histologic grade 3, or central Ki-67 ≥20% were eligible; 5,637 patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive standard-of-care adjuvant endocrine therapy (ET) with or without abemaciclib (150 mg twice daily for 2 years).

A preplanned interim analysis was carried out after 323 IDFS events were observed in the intent-to-treat population. The results, as published last year in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, show that abemaciclib plus ET yielded superior IDFS in comparison with ET alone (P = .01; hazard ratio, 0.75; 95% confidence interval, 0.60-0.93), with 2-year IDFS rates of 92.2% vs. 88.7%.

In the press release announcing the approval of the new indication, the manufacturer notes that the approval was based on the results from a subgroup of 2,003 patients whose tumors had a Ki-67 score of ≥20% and who were also at high risk for recurrence (≥four positive axillary lymph nodes [ALN], or one-three positive ALN with grade 3 disease and/or tumor size ≥5 cm).

There was a statistically significant improvement in IDFS for this prespecified subgroup of patients (HR, 0.643; 95% CI, 0.475-0.872; P = .0042).

With additional follow-up, conducted post hoc, the results showed a 37% decrease in the risk for breast cancer recurrence or death, compared with ET alone (HR, 0.626; 95% CI, 0.49-0.80) and an absolute benefit in IDFS event rate of 7.1% at 3 years. IDFS was 86.1% for abemaciclib plus ET vs. 79.0% for ET alone.

Adverse reactions from monarchE were consistent with the known safety profile for abemaciclib, the company noted. Safety and tolerability were evaluated in 5,591 patients. The most common adverse reactions reported (≥10%) with abemaciclib plus ET vs. ET alone were diarrhea (84% vs. 9%), infections (51% vs. 39%), neutropenia (46% vs. 6%), fatigue (41% vs. 18%), leukopenia (38% vs. 7%), nausea (30% vs. 9%), anemia (24% vs. 4%), headache (20% vs. 15%), vomiting (18% vs. 4.6%), stomatitis (14% vs. 5%), lymphopenia (14% vs. 3%), thrombocytopenia (13% vs. 2%), decreased appetite (12% vs. 2.4%), increased ALT (12% vs. 6%), increased AST (12% vs. 5%), dizziness (11% vs. 7%), rash (11% vs. 4.5%), and alopecia (11% vs. 2.7 %).

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

The CDK4/6 inhibitor abemaciclib (Verzenio) has been approved for use in early breast cancer for certain patients. One expert has described the drug as the first advance for this patient population in 20 years.

Abemaciclib had already been approved for use in the treatment of HR+, HER2– advanced or metastatic breast cancer.

Now it is also approved for use in HR+, HER2– early breast cancer for patients who have high-risk, node-positive disease and whose tumors have a Ki-67 score of 20% or higher, as determined by a U.S. Food and Drug Administration–approved test.

The FDA also approved the Ki-67 IHC MIB-1 pharmDx (Dako Omnis) assay for use as a companion diagnostic test.

This is the first CDK4/6 inhibitor to be approved for use in this patient population.

Approximately 70% of all breast cancers are of the HR+, HER2– subtype.

The approval is based on some of the results from the monarchE study, which was presented last year at the annual meeting of the European Society of Medical Oncology and was simultaneously published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

The results showed that the addition of abemaciclib to endocrine therapy (tamoxifen or aromatase inhibitors) significantly improved invasive disease-free survival (IDFS), which was defined on the basis of the length of time before breast cancer comes back, any new cancer develops, or death.

The 2-year IDFS rates were 92.2% with the combination vs. 88.7% for endocrine therapy alone for the overall patient population.

“This is the first time in more than 20 years that we have seen an advance in the adjuvant treatment of this form of breast cancer,” lead investigator Stephen Johnston, MD, PhD, from the Royal Marsden Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, said at the meeting, as reported at the time by this news organization.

Reacting to the findings, Giuseppe Curigliano, MD, PhD, head of the division of early drug development at the European Institute of Oncology, Milan, said, “This is a very important trial and the findings will change practice.”

He predicted that once the drug is approved for use in high-risk HR+, HER2– early breast cancer, “the new standard of care for these patients will be to add 2 years of abemaciclib to endocrine therapy.”

In a press release about the new approval from the manufacturer (Lilly), another investigator on the monarchE study, Sara M. Tolaney, MD, MPH, Harvard Medical School and the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, agreed that the results are practice changing. She said that the combination of abemaciclib and endocrine therapy is a potential new standard of care for this patient population. “We are encouraged by the marked reduction in the risk of recurrence even beyond the 2-year treatment period in these patients, and I’m grateful to be able to offer this as a treatment option to my patients,” she said.

On Twitter, she commented that restricting the indication to patients who show Ki67 ≥20% is “interesting,” inasmuch as benefits were seen in patients with both low and high Ki67.

Hal Burstein, MD, from Dana-Farber, also found this detail “interesting, as Ki67 testing remains a very controversial topic and difficult to standardize.”

Replying, Pedro Exman, MD, from the Hospital Alemão Oswaldo Cruz, in São Paulo, said: “Does it make sense to approve only in a subset of patients based in a positive subgroup analysis of a positive ITT study that was not even described in the JCO publication?”

Other experts said they were eagerly awaiting further results, particularly on overall survival, from the monarchE trial. New data are due to be presented on Oct. 14 at an ESMO virtual plenary session.

Commenting late last year about these results, George W. Sledge Jr, MD, professor of medicine at Stanford University Medical Center, Palo Alto, Calif., said that the median follow-up time “is still quite short for a study of ER+ adjuvant therapy, where the majority of recurrences and deaths occur after 5 years in many studies.”

Consequently, “we still have a long way to go to understand the ultimate effects of CDK4/6 inhibition on early-stage ER+ breast cancer, particularly on late recurrences,” he told this news organization at the time.

Agreed, said C. Kent Osborne, MD, codirector of the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium and founding director of the Duncan Cancer Center at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Tex. The results are “very encouraging, especially in the subgroup of tumors with high proliferation” (identified by the K1-67 score).

However, Dr. Osborne also urged caution in the interpretation of the results, “given the still rather short follow-up, given that that ER+ disease is known for its persistent recurrence rate, even past 10 years.”

He also noted that “this class of inhibitors is likely cytostatic, rather than cytocidal, meaning that it blocks cell proliferation rather than killing the cells.” Questions therefore remain over whether the survival curves for combination therapy will come together with those for endocrine therapy alone once patients stop taking the drug.


 

Study details

The monarchE trial involved patients with HR+, HER2–, high-risk early breast cancer who had undergone surgery and, as indicated, radiotherapy and/or adjuvant/neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Patients with four or more positive nodes or one to three nodes and either tumors of size ≥5 cm, histologic grade 3, or central Ki-67 ≥20% were eligible; 5,637 patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive standard-of-care adjuvant endocrine therapy (ET) with or without abemaciclib (150 mg twice daily for 2 years).

A preplanned interim analysis was carried out after 323 IDFS events were observed in the intent-to-treat population. The results, as published last year in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, show that abemaciclib plus ET yielded superior IDFS in comparison with ET alone (P = .01; hazard ratio, 0.75; 95% confidence interval, 0.60-0.93), with 2-year IDFS rates of 92.2% vs. 88.7%.

In the press release announcing the approval of the new indication, the manufacturer notes that the approval was based on the results from a subgroup of 2,003 patients whose tumors had a Ki-67 score of ≥20% and who were also at high risk for recurrence (≥four positive axillary lymph nodes [ALN], or one-three positive ALN with grade 3 disease and/or tumor size ≥5 cm).

There was a statistically significant improvement in IDFS for this prespecified subgroup of patients (HR, 0.643; 95% CI, 0.475-0.872; P = .0042).

With additional follow-up, conducted post hoc, the results showed a 37% decrease in the risk for breast cancer recurrence or death, compared with ET alone (HR, 0.626; 95% CI, 0.49-0.80) and an absolute benefit in IDFS event rate of 7.1% at 3 years. IDFS was 86.1% for abemaciclib plus ET vs. 79.0% for ET alone.

Adverse reactions from monarchE were consistent with the known safety profile for abemaciclib, the company noted. Safety and tolerability were evaluated in 5,591 patients. The most common adverse reactions reported (≥10%) with abemaciclib plus ET vs. ET alone were diarrhea (84% vs. 9%), infections (51% vs. 39%), neutropenia (46% vs. 6%), fatigue (41% vs. 18%), leukopenia (38% vs. 7%), nausea (30% vs. 9%), anemia (24% vs. 4%), headache (20% vs. 15%), vomiting (18% vs. 4.6%), stomatitis (14% vs. 5%), lymphopenia (14% vs. 3%), thrombocytopenia (13% vs. 2%), decreased appetite (12% vs. 2.4%), increased ALT (12% vs. 6%), increased AST (12% vs. 5%), dizziness (11% vs. 7%), rash (11% vs. 4.5%), and alopecia (11% vs. 2.7 %).

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

Which of the following statements about breast density is TRUE?

_{Text copyright DenseBreast-info.org.}

Answer

D. The risks associated with dense breast tissue are 2-fold: Dense tissue can mask cancer on a mammogram, and having dense breasts also increases the risk of developing breast cancer. As breast density increases, the sensitivity of mammography decreases, and the risk of developing breast cancer increases.

A woman’s breast density is usually determined by a radiologist’s visual evaluation of the mammogram. Breast density also can be measured quantitatively by computer software or estimated on computed tomography scan or magnetic resonance imaging. Breast density cannot be determined by the way a breast looks or feels.

Breast density and mammographic sensitivity

Cancers can be hidden or “masked” by dense tissue. On a mammogram, cancer is white. Normal dense tissue also appears white. If a cancer develops in an area of normal dense tissue, it can be harder or sometimes impossible to see it on the mammogram, like trying to see a snowman in a blizzard. As breast density increases, the ability to see cancer on mammography decreases (FIGURE 1).

Standard 2D mammography has been shown to miss about 40% of cancers present in women with extremely dense breasts and 25% of cancers present in women with heterogeneously dense breasts.^1-6 A cancer still can be masked on tomosynthesis (3D mammography) if it occurs in an area of dense tissue (where breast cancers more commonly occur), and tomosynthesis does not improve cancer detection appreciably in women with extremely dense breasts. To find cancer in a woman with dense breasts, additional screening beyond mammography should be considered.

Breast density and breast cancer risk

Dense breast tissue not only reduces mammography effectiveness, it also is a risk factor for the development of breast cancer: the denser the breast, the higher the risk.⁷ A meta-analysis across many studies concluded that magnitude of risk increases with each increase in density category, and women with extremely dense breasts (category D) have a 4-fold greater risk of developing breast cancer than do women with fatty breasts (category A), with upper limit of nearly 6-fold greater risk (FIGURE 2).⁸

Most women do not have fatty breasts, however. More women have breasts with scattered fibroglandular density.⁹ Women with heterogeneously dense breasts (category C) have about a 1.5-fold greater risk of developing breast cancer than those with scattered fibroglandular density (category B), while women with extremely dense breasts (category D) have about a 2-fold greater risk.

There are probably several reasons that dense tissue increases breast cancer risk. One is that cancers arise microscopically in the glandular tissue. The more glandular tissue, the more susceptible tissue where cancer can develop. Glandular cells divide with hormonal stimulation throughout a woman’s lifetime, and each time a cell divides, “mistakes” can be made. An accumulation of mistakes can result in cancer. The more glandular the tissue, the greater the breast cancer risk. Women who have had breast reduction experience a reduced risk for breast cancer: thus, even a reduced absolute amount of glandular tissue reduces the risk for breast cancer. The second is that the local environment around the glands may produce certain growth hormones that stimulate cells to divide, and this is observed with fibrous breast tissue more than fatty breast tissue. ●

Which of the following statements about breast density is TRUE?

_{Text copyright DenseBreast-info.org.}

Answer

D. The risks associated with dense breast tissue are 2-fold: Dense tissue can mask cancer on a mammogram, and having dense breasts also increases the risk of developing breast cancer. As breast density increases, the sensitivity of mammography decreases, and the risk of developing breast cancer increases.

A woman’s breast density is usually determined by a radiologist’s visual evaluation of the mammogram. Breast density also can be measured quantitatively by computer software or estimated on computed tomography scan or magnetic resonance imaging. Breast density cannot be determined by the way a breast looks or feels.

Breast density and mammographic sensitivity

Cancers can be hidden or “masked” by dense tissue. On a mammogram, cancer is white. Normal dense tissue also appears white. If a cancer develops in an area of normal dense tissue, it can be harder or sometimes impossible to see it on the mammogram, like trying to see a snowman in a blizzard. As breast density increases, the ability to see cancer on mammography decreases (FIGURE 1).

Standard 2D mammography has been shown to miss about 40% of cancers present in women with extremely dense breasts and 25% of cancers present in women with heterogeneously dense breasts.^1-6 A cancer still can be masked on tomosynthesis (3D mammography) if it occurs in an area of dense tissue (where breast cancers more commonly occur), and tomosynthesis does not improve cancer detection appreciably in women with extremely dense breasts. To find cancer in a woman with dense breasts, additional screening beyond mammography should be considered.

Breast density and breast cancer risk

Dense breast tissue not only reduces mammography effectiveness, it also is a risk factor for the development of breast cancer: the denser the breast, the higher the risk.⁷ A meta-analysis across many studies concluded that magnitude of risk increases with each increase in density category, and women with extremely dense breasts (category D) have a 4-fold greater risk of developing breast cancer than do women with fatty breasts (category A), with upper limit of nearly 6-fold greater risk (FIGURE 2).⁸

Most women do not have fatty breasts, however. More women have breasts with scattered fibroglandular density.⁹ Women with heterogeneously dense breasts (category C) have about a 1.5-fold greater risk of developing breast cancer than those with scattered fibroglandular density (category B), while women with extremely dense breasts (category D) have about a 2-fold greater risk.

There are probably several reasons that dense tissue increases breast cancer risk. One is that cancers arise microscopically in the glandular tissue. The more glandular tissue, the more susceptible tissue where cancer can develop. Glandular cells divide with hormonal stimulation throughout a woman’s lifetime, and each time a cell divides, “mistakes” can be made. An accumulation of mistakes can result in cancer. The more glandular the tissue, the greater the breast cancer risk. Women who have had breast reduction experience a reduced risk for breast cancer: thus, even a reduced absolute amount of glandular tissue reduces the risk for breast cancer. The second is that the local environment around the glands may produce certain growth hormones that stimulate cells to divide, and this is observed with fibrous breast tissue more than fatty breast tissue. ●

Which of the following statements about breast density is TRUE?

_{Text copyright DenseBreast-info.org.}

Answer

D. The risks associated with dense breast tissue are 2-fold: Dense tissue can mask cancer on a mammogram, and having dense breasts also increases the risk of developing breast cancer. As breast density increases, the sensitivity of mammography decreases, and the risk of developing breast cancer increases.

A woman’s breast density is usually determined by a radiologist’s visual evaluation of the mammogram. Breast density also can be measured quantitatively by computer software or estimated on computed tomography scan or magnetic resonance imaging. Breast density cannot be determined by the way a breast looks or feels.

Breast density and mammographic sensitivity

Cancers can be hidden or “masked” by dense tissue. On a mammogram, cancer is white. Normal dense tissue also appears white. If a cancer develops in an area of normal dense tissue, it can be harder or sometimes impossible to see it on the mammogram, like trying to see a snowman in a blizzard. As breast density increases, the ability to see cancer on mammography decreases (FIGURE 1).

Standard 2D mammography has been shown to miss about 40% of cancers present in women with extremely dense breasts and 25% of cancers present in women with heterogeneously dense breasts.^1-6 A cancer still can be masked on tomosynthesis (3D mammography) if it occurs in an area of dense tissue (where breast cancers more commonly occur), and tomosynthesis does not improve cancer detection appreciably in women with extremely dense breasts. To find cancer in a woman with dense breasts, additional screening beyond mammography should be considered.

Breast density and breast cancer risk

Dense breast tissue not only reduces mammography effectiveness, it also is a risk factor for the development of breast cancer: the denser the breast, the higher the risk.⁷ A meta-analysis across many studies concluded that magnitude of risk increases with each increase in density category, and women with extremely dense breasts (category D) have a 4-fold greater risk of developing breast cancer than do women with fatty breasts (category A), with upper limit of nearly 6-fold greater risk (FIGURE 2).⁸

Most women do not have fatty breasts, however. More women have breasts with scattered fibroglandular density.⁹ Women with heterogeneously dense breasts (category C) have about a 1.5-fold greater risk of developing breast cancer than those with scattered fibroglandular density (category B), while women with extremely dense breasts (category D) have about a 2-fold greater risk.

There are probably several reasons that dense tissue increases breast cancer risk. One is that cancers arise microscopically in the glandular tissue. The more glandular tissue, the more susceptible tissue where cancer can develop. Glandular cells divide with hormonal stimulation throughout a woman’s lifetime, and each time a cell divides, “mistakes” can be made. An accumulation of mistakes can result in cancer. The more glandular the tissue, the greater the breast cancer risk. Women who have had breast reduction experience a reduced risk for breast cancer: thus, even a reduced absolute amount of glandular tissue reduces the risk for breast cancer. The second is that the local environment around the glands may produce certain growth hormones that stimulate cells to divide, and this is observed with fibrous breast tissue more than fatty breast tissue. ●

Identifying biomarkers in metastatic breast cancer (MBC) has become an integral part of choosing treatments and understanding disease progression. The American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guideline, published in 2015, recommends an initial biopsy to confirm estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR), or human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) status as well as repeat biopsies to watch for receptor status changes over time.
 

“Decisions concerning the initiation of systemic therapy or selection of systemic therapy for metastatic breast cancer should be guided by ER, PR, and HER2 status in conjunction with clinical evaluation, judgment, and the patient’s goals for care,” according to the guideline authors.Along with tumor subtypes, experts continue to identify a host of other actionable targets that can shape treatment decisions. This news organization reached out to Kelly McCann, MD, PhD, a hematologist and oncologist in the department of medicine at the David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, to explore the role biomarker testing plays in managing MBC.

Question: How important is biomarker testing in guiding MBC treatments? Is there a standard or recommended process?

Dr. McCann: Biomarker testing is essential to breast cancer treatment and the development of targeted therapies. Oncologists typically identify a tumor’s canonical biomarkers — ER, PR, and HER2 — using immunohistochemistry or fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) testing and then try to match the tumor biology to drugs that target that subtype.

For tumors that lack canonical biomarkers — for example, triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) — I send the tumor tissue for next-generation sequencing at the time of metastatic diagnosis to identify a wider range of potential targets or oncogenic drivers, such as somatic or germline mutations in homologous recombination repair genes ( BRCA1, BRCA2, and PALB2 ) or mutations in the PI3K/AKT/mTOR pathway.

In our attempts to define tumor biology and design a treatment strategy, two additional issues quickly arise. First, tumors are heterogeneous from the start. Second, tumors evolve.

Let’s start with how we define or subtype a tumor. Would you walk us through this process?

Defining a breast tumor can be tricky because these cancers often don’t fit neatly into predefined categories. Let’s take the estrogen receptor. In clinical trials, we need to define the cutoff for what constitutes ER-positive MBC or TNBC. Some trials define ER-positive as 1% or greater, others define it as 10% or greater.

But is a PR- and HER2-negative tumor with 1% or even 5% ER expression really ER-positive in the biological or prognostic sense? Probably not. A tumor with less than 10% ER expression, for instance, will actually behave like a triple-negative tumor. Instead of choosing a regimen targeting the ER-positive cells, I’ll lean more toward cytotoxic chemotherapy, the standard treatment for TNBC.

Tumors may have multiple drivers as well. What are some aberrations in addition to the main subtypes?

Tumors also often harbor more than one targetable driver. For instance, PIK3CA gene mutations are present in about 40% of hormone receptor–positive, HER2-negative tumors. Activating mutations in ESR1 develop in anywhere from 10% to 50% of MBCs as a resistance mechanism to estrogen deprivation therapy, conferring estrogen independence to the cells. Activating mutations in ERBB2, which essentially turns HER2 into an active receptor, are found in 2%-4% of breast cancers, including ER-positive, HER2-mutant breast cancers, and are enriched in lobular breast cancers, which are typically ER positive, HER2 negative.

What about tumor evolution, given the growing body of evidence that biomarker status in MBC can change over time?

Patients with MBC often have several active areas of cancer, and these areas will evolve differently. During each line of treatment, some metastases will develop resistance and others won’t. For instance, if my patient’s liver metastases start to grow, I will change therapy immediately. If, however, a single bone metastasis begins to grow and the liver metastases have responded well, I might consider local therapy — such as radiation — to target that bone metastasis, though this particular approach hasn’t been formally studied.

Ultimately, we can expect tumors to change over time as they become more biologically aggressive or resistant to current therapy. The most common biomarker change is probably loss of ER or PR expression, but the frequency of ER, PR, or HER2 biomarker changes is still not well understood.

Resistance mutations can also happen. When, for instance, activating mutations in ESR1 occur, the estrogen receptor becomes independent of estrogen and tumors then develop resistance to endocrine therapies. We see a similar problem arise in metastatic prostate cancer. With chronic testosterone deprivation, eventually the androgen receptor evolves to become independent of testosterone in a stage known as castrate-resistant prostate cancer.

Which biomarkers or combinations of biomarkers can be paired with an approved treatment?

We have a range of treatments targeting ER-positive and HER2-positive MBC in particular. For tumors harboring additional targetable mutations, preliminary data suggest that HER2-targeted tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs), such as tucatinib and neratinib, are effective against activating mutations in ERBB2.

The PI3K inhibitor alpelisib in combination with fulvestrant has been approved for patients with ER-positive, HER2-negative MBC and mutations in PIK3CA. The mTOR inhibitor everolimus plus exemestane is an option for patients with ER-positive, HER2-negative. And for those with activating mutations in ESR1, I switch patients to a selective estrogen receptor degrader, such as fulvestrant.

PARP inhibitors, including olaparib or talazoparib, target metastatic HR-positive disease or TNBC with deleterious germline BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations. Sacituzumab govitecan has been approved for treating metastatic TNBC and targets the cell surface protein TROP2, expressed in almost 90% of TNBC tumors.

What targets, on the other hand, are less informative for treatment choice?

When we order next-generation sequencing, we also will get a list of possible targets for which there are currently no therapeutic options, but there may be in the future. I find this knowledge is helpful. For example, an activating mutation in KRAS tells me that the cancer has a very strong oncogenic driver that I won›t be able to target. I know that activating KRAS mutations in lung cancer and colon cancer portend a poorer prognosis, which helps me to prepare the patient and family.

Atezolizumab in combination with paclitaxel has been FDA-approved for PD-L1 TNBC in the first-line setting, though data show that immune checkpoint inhibitors may be effective even without PD-L1 expression. Although cell surface protein TROP2 has emerged as a target in recent years, its expression is so common in TNBC that confirmatory testing for TROP2 expression is not required to prescribe sacituzumab govitecan.

What factors do you weigh when selecting among the large number of tests available for tumor testing?

We have many biomarker tests available, but the National Comprehensive Cancer Network does not have guidelines for tumor genetics testing in breast cancer. That means insurance does not have to cover the cost, and many companies don’t. Ultimately, though, drug companies and some testing companies have an incentive to cover the cost themselves because a companion diagnostic might be linked to their drug — therascreen PIK3CA RGQ PCR kit for alpelisib, for instance.

I tend not to use a companion diagnostic test because I want more information with a wider panel. The tumor tests I often use are FoundationOne CDx, Caris Molecular Intelligence, and Tempus. I use Tempus because their financial aid is very generous and almost all of my patients qualify to be tested for less than $100. For germline genetic testing, Invitae, Myriad, and Color are also options. Invitae and Color are about $250 out of pocket without insurance. Many academic centers have their own gene panels as well. 

How far have we come in identifying biomarkers in MBC?

Targeted treatment for breast cancer has advanced significantly since doing my PhD research in cancer biology about 15 years ago. Of course, targeted therapies for ER-positive and HER2-amplified cancers were available at that point, but many more have been developed. The most significant advance has been the development of efficient and affordable genome sequencing, which has led to these large panels and identification of therapeutic targets. We’ve also expanded our knowledge of genetic predispositions for breast cancer beyond BRCA1 and BRCA2, which not only allows us to preemptively advise patients and their families about cancer risks and recommendations for cancer screening, but also to select a therapy to target a cancer’s DNA repair deficits.

I feel that we are in an exciting discovery phase in oncology. We currently rely on biomarkers to manage MBC and will continue to refine our strategies and develop more effective drug therapies as we identify more oncogenic drivers, tumor-specific proteins, and cancer cell vulnerabilities.

Identifying biomarkers in metastatic breast cancer (MBC) has become an integral part of choosing treatments and understanding disease progression. The American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guideline, published in 2015, recommends an initial biopsy to confirm estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR), or human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) status as well as repeat biopsies to watch for receptor status changes over time.
 

“Decisions concerning the initiation of systemic therapy or selection of systemic therapy for metastatic breast cancer should be guided by ER, PR, and HER2 status in conjunction with clinical evaluation, judgment, and the patient’s goals for care,” according to the guideline authors.Along with tumor subtypes, experts continue to identify a host of other actionable targets that can shape treatment decisions. This news organization reached out to Kelly McCann, MD, PhD, a hematologist and oncologist in the department of medicine at the David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, to explore the role biomarker testing plays in managing MBC.

Question: How important is biomarker testing in guiding MBC treatments? Is there a standard or recommended process?

Dr. McCann: Biomarker testing is essential to breast cancer treatment and the development of targeted therapies. Oncologists typically identify a tumor’s canonical biomarkers — ER, PR, and HER2 — using immunohistochemistry or fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) testing and then try to match the tumor biology to drugs that target that subtype.

For tumors that lack canonical biomarkers — for example, triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) — I send the tumor tissue for next-generation sequencing at the time of metastatic diagnosis to identify a wider range of potential targets or oncogenic drivers, such as somatic or germline mutations in homologous recombination repair genes ( BRCA1, BRCA2, and PALB2 ) or mutations in the PI3K/AKT/mTOR pathway.

In our attempts to define tumor biology and design a treatment strategy, two additional issues quickly arise. First, tumors are heterogeneous from the start. Second, tumors evolve.

Let’s start with how we define or subtype a tumor. Would you walk us through this process?

Defining a breast tumor can be tricky because these cancers often don’t fit neatly into predefined categories. Let’s take the estrogen receptor. In clinical trials, we need to define the cutoff for what constitutes ER-positive MBC or TNBC. Some trials define ER-positive as 1% or greater, others define it as 10% or greater.

But is a PR- and HER2-negative tumor with 1% or even 5% ER expression really ER-positive in the biological or prognostic sense? Probably not. A tumor with less than 10% ER expression, for instance, will actually behave like a triple-negative tumor. Instead of choosing a regimen targeting the ER-positive cells, I’ll lean more toward cytotoxic chemotherapy, the standard treatment for TNBC.

Tumors may have multiple drivers as well. What are some aberrations in addition to the main subtypes?

Tumors also often harbor more than one targetable driver. For instance, PIK3CA gene mutations are present in about 40% of hormone receptor–positive, HER2-negative tumors. Activating mutations in ESR1 develop in anywhere from 10% to 50% of MBCs as a resistance mechanism to estrogen deprivation therapy, conferring estrogen independence to the cells. Activating mutations in ERBB2, which essentially turns HER2 into an active receptor, are found in 2%-4% of breast cancers, including ER-positive, HER2-mutant breast cancers, and are enriched in lobular breast cancers, which are typically ER positive, HER2 negative.

What about tumor evolution, given the growing body of evidence that biomarker status in MBC can change over time?

Patients with MBC often have several active areas of cancer, and these areas will evolve differently. During each line of treatment, some metastases will develop resistance and others won’t. For instance, if my patient’s liver metastases start to grow, I will change therapy immediately. If, however, a single bone metastasis begins to grow and the liver metastases have responded well, I might consider local therapy — such as radiation — to target that bone metastasis, though this particular approach hasn’t been formally studied.

Ultimately, we can expect tumors to change over time as they become more biologically aggressive or resistant to current therapy. The most common biomarker change is probably loss of ER or PR expression, but the frequency of ER, PR, or HER2 biomarker changes is still not well understood.

Resistance mutations can also happen. When, for instance, activating mutations in ESR1 occur, the estrogen receptor becomes independent of estrogen and tumors then develop resistance to endocrine therapies. We see a similar problem arise in metastatic prostate cancer. With chronic testosterone deprivation, eventually the androgen receptor evolves to become independent of testosterone in a stage known as castrate-resistant prostate cancer.

Which biomarkers or combinations of biomarkers can be paired with an approved treatment?

We have a range of treatments targeting ER-positive and HER2-positive MBC in particular. For tumors harboring additional targetable mutations, preliminary data suggest that HER2-targeted tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs), such as tucatinib and neratinib, are effective against activating mutations in ERBB2.

The PI3K inhibitor alpelisib in combination with fulvestrant has been approved for patients with ER-positive, HER2-negative MBC and mutations in PIK3CA. The mTOR inhibitor everolimus plus exemestane is an option for patients with ER-positive, HER2-negative. And for those with activating mutations in ESR1, I switch patients to a selective estrogen receptor degrader, such as fulvestrant.

PARP inhibitors, including olaparib or talazoparib, target metastatic HR-positive disease or TNBC with deleterious germline BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations. Sacituzumab govitecan has been approved for treating metastatic TNBC and targets the cell surface protein TROP2, expressed in almost 90% of TNBC tumors.

What targets, on the other hand, are less informative for treatment choice?

When we order next-generation sequencing, we also will get a list of possible targets for which there are currently no therapeutic options, but there may be in the future. I find this knowledge is helpful. For example, an activating mutation in KRAS tells me that the cancer has a very strong oncogenic driver that I won›t be able to target. I know that activating KRAS mutations in lung cancer and colon cancer portend a poorer prognosis, which helps me to prepare the patient and family.

Atezolizumab in combination with paclitaxel has been FDA-approved for PD-L1 TNBC in the first-line setting, though data show that immune checkpoint inhibitors may be effective even without PD-L1 expression. Although cell surface protein TROP2 has emerged as a target in recent years, its expression is so common in TNBC that confirmatory testing for TROP2 expression is not required to prescribe sacituzumab govitecan.

What factors do you weigh when selecting among the large number of tests available for tumor testing?

We have many biomarker tests available, but the National Comprehensive Cancer Network does not have guidelines for tumor genetics testing in breast cancer. That means insurance does not have to cover the cost, and many companies don’t. Ultimately, though, drug companies and some testing companies have an incentive to cover the cost themselves because a companion diagnostic might be linked to their drug — therascreen PIK3CA RGQ PCR kit for alpelisib, for instance.

I tend not to use a companion diagnostic test because I want more information with a wider panel. The tumor tests I often use are FoundationOne CDx, Caris Molecular Intelligence, and Tempus. I use Tempus because their financial aid is very generous and almost all of my patients qualify to be tested for less than $100. For germline genetic testing, Invitae, Myriad, and Color are also options. Invitae and Color are about $250 out of pocket without insurance. Many academic centers have their own gene panels as well. 

How far have we come in identifying biomarkers in MBC?

Targeted treatment for breast cancer has advanced significantly since doing my PhD research in cancer biology about 15 years ago. Of course, targeted therapies for ER-positive and HER2-amplified cancers were available at that point, but many more have been developed. The most significant advance has been the development of efficient and affordable genome sequencing, which has led to these large panels and identification of therapeutic targets. We’ve also expanded our knowledge of genetic predispositions for breast cancer beyond BRCA1 and BRCA2, which not only allows us to preemptively advise patients and their families about cancer risks and recommendations for cancer screening, but also to select a therapy to target a cancer’s DNA repair deficits.

I feel that we are in an exciting discovery phase in oncology. We currently rely on biomarkers to manage MBC and will continue to refine our strategies and develop more effective drug therapies as we identify more oncogenic drivers, tumor-specific proteins, and cancer cell vulnerabilities.

Identifying biomarkers in metastatic breast cancer (MBC) has become an integral part of choosing treatments and understanding disease progression. The American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guideline, published in 2015, recommends an initial biopsy to confirm estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR), or human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) status as well as repeat biopsies to watch for receptor status changes over time.
 

“Decisions concerning the initiation of systemic therapy or selection of systemic therapy for metastatic breast cancer should be guided by ER, PR, and HER2 status in conjunction with clinical evaluation, judgment, and the patient’s goals for care,” according to the guideline authors.Along with tumor subtypes, experts continue to identify a host of other actionable targets that can shape treatment decisions. This news organization reached out to Kelly McCann, MD, PhD, a hematologist and oncologist in the department of medicine at the David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, to explore the role biomarker testing plays in managing MBC.

Question: How important is biomarker testing in guiding MBC treatments? Is there a standard or recommended process?

Dr. McCann: Biomarker testing is essential to breast cancer treatment and the development of targeted therapies. Oncologists typically identify a tumor’s canonical biomarkers — ER, PR, and HER2 — using immunohistochemistry or fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) testing and then try to match the tumor biology to drugs that target that subtype.

For tumors that lack canonical biomarkers — for example, triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) — I send the tumor tissue for next-generation sequencing at the time of metastatic diagnosis to identify a wider range of potential targets or oncogenic drivers, such as somatic or germline mutations in homologous recombination repair genes ( BRCA1, BRCA2, and PALB2 ) or mutations in the PI3K/AKT/mTOR pathway.

In our attempts to define tumor biology and design a treatment strategy, two additional issues quickly arise. First, tumors are heterogeneous from the start. Second, tumors evolve.

Let’s start with how we define or subtype a tumor. Would you walk us through this process?

Defining a breast tumor can be tricky because these cancers often don’t fit neatly into predefined categories. Let’s take the estrogen receptor. In clinical trials, we need to define the cutoff for what constitutes ER-positive MBC or TNBC. Some trials define ER-positive as 1% or greater, others define it as 10% or greater.

But is a PR- and HER2-negative tumor with 1% or even 5% ER expression really ER-positive in the biological or prognostic sense? Probably not. A tumor with less than 10% ER expression, for instance, will actually behave like a triple-negative tumor. Instead of choosing a regimen targeting the ER-positive cells, I’ll lean more toward cytotoxic chemotherapy, the standard treatment for TNBC.

Tumors may have multiple drivers as well. What are some aberrations in addition to the main subtypes?

Tumors also often harbor more than one targetable driver. For instance, PIK3CA gene mutations are present in about 40% of hormone receptor–positive, HER2-negative tumors. Activating mutations in ESR1 develop in anywhere from 10% to 50% of MBCs as a resistance mechanism to estrogen deprivation therapy, conferring estrogen independence to the cells. Activating mutations in ERBB2, which essentially turns HER2 into an active receptor, are found in 2%-4% of breast cancers, including ER-positive, HER2-mutant breast cancers, and are enriched in lobular breast cancers, which are typically ER positive, HER2 negative.

What about tumor evolution, given the growing body of evidence that biomarker status in MBC can change over time?

Patients with MBC often have several active areas of cancer, and these areas will evolve differently. During each line of treatment, some metastases will develop resistance and others won’t. For instance, if my patient’s liver metastases start to grow, I will change therapy immediately. If, however, a single bone metastasis begins to grow and the liver metastases have responded well, I might consider local therapy — such as radiation — to target that bone metastasis, though this particular approach hasn’t been formally studied.

Ultimately, we can expect tumors to change over time as they become more biologically aggressive or resistant to current therapy. The most common biomarker change is probably loss of ER or PR expression, but the frequency of ER, PR, or HER2 biomarker changes is still not well understood.

Resistance mutations can also happen. When, for instance, activating mutations in ESR1 occur, the estrogen receptor becomes independent of estrogen and tumors then develop resistance to endocrine therapies. We see a similar problem arise in metastatic prostate cancer. With chronic testosterone deprivation, eventually the androgen receptor evolves to become independent of testosterone in a stage known as castrate-resistant prostate cancer.

Which biomarkers or combinations of biomarkers can be paired with an approved treatment?

We have a range of treatments targeting ER-positive and HER2-positive MBC in particular. For tumors harboring additional targetable mutations, preliminary data suggest that HER2-targeted tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs), such as tucatinib and neratinib, are effective against activating mutations in ERBB2.

The PI3K inhibitor alpelisib in combination with fulvestrant has been approved for patients with ER-positive, HER2-negative MBC and mutations in PIK3CA. The mTOR inhibitor everolimus plus exemestane is an option for patients with ER-positive, HER2-negative. And for those with activating mutations in ESR1, I switch patients to a selective estrogen receptor degrader, such as fulvestrant.

PARP inhibitors, including olaparib or talazoparib, target metastatic HR-positive disease or TNBC with deleterious germline BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations. Sacituzumab govitecan has been approved for treating metastatic TNBC and targets the cell surface protein TROP2, expressed in almost 90% of TNBC tumors.

What targets, on the other hand, are less informative for treatment choice?

When we order next-generation sequencing, we also will get a list of possible targets for which there are currently no therapeutic options, but there may be in the future. I find this knowledge is helpful. For example, an activating mutation in KRAS tells me that the cancer has a very strong oncogenic driver that I won›t be able to target. I know that activating KRAS mutations in lung cancer and colon cancer portend a poorer prognosis, which helps me to prepare the patient and family.

Atezolizumab in combination with paclitaxel has been FDA-approved for PD-L1 TNBC in the first-line setting, though data show that immune checkpoint inhibitors may be effective even without PD-L1 expression. Although cell surface protein TROP2 has emerged as a target in recent years, its expression is so common in TNBC that confirmatory testing for TROP2 expression is not required to prescribe sacituzumab govitecan.

What factors do you weigh when selecting among the large number of tests available for tumor testing?

We have many biomarker tests available, but the National Comprehensive Cancer Network does not have guidelines for tumor genetics testing in breast cancer. That means insurance does not have to cover the cost, and many companies don’t. Ultimately, though, drug companies and some testing companies have an incentive to cover the cost themselves because a companion diagnostic might be linked to their drug — therascreen PIK3CA RGQ PCR kit for alpelisib, for instance.

I tend not to use a companion diagnostic test because I want more information with a wider panel. The tumor tests I often use are FoundationOne CDx, Caris Molecular Intelligence, and Tempus. I use Tempus because their financial aid is very generous and almost all of my patients qualify to be tested for less than $100. For germline genetic testing, Invitae, Myriad, and Color are also options. Invitae and Color are about $250 out of pocket without insurance. Many academic centers have their own gene panels as well. 

How far have we come in identifying biomarkers in MBC?

Targeted treatment for breast cancer has advanced significantly since doing my PhD research in cancer biology about 15 years ago. Of course, targeted therapies for ER-positive and HER2-amplified cancers were available at that point, but many more have been developed. The most significant advance has been the development of efficient and affordable genome sequencing, which has led to these large panels and identification of therapeutic targets. We’ve also expanded our knowledge of genetic predispositions for breast cancer beyond BRCA1 and BRCA2, which not only allows us to preemptively advise patients and their families about cancer risks and recommendations for cancer screening, but also to select a therapy to target a cancer’s DNA repair deficits.

I feel that we are in an exciting discovery phase in oncology. We currently rely on biomarkers to manage MBC and will continue to refine our strategies and develop more effective drug therapies as we identify more oncogenic drivers, tumor-specific proteins, and cancer cell vulnerabilities.