Breast Cancer

John worked as a handyman and lived on a small sailboat in a marina. When he was diagnosed with metastatic kidney cancer at age 48, he quickly fell through the cracks. He failed to show to appointments and took oral anticancer treatments, but just sporadically. He had Medicaid, so insurance wasn’t the issue. It was everything else.

John was behind on his slip fees; he hadn’t been able to work for some time because of his progressive weakness and pain. He was chronically in danger of getting kicked out of his makeshift home aboard the boat. He had no reliable transportation to the clinic and so he didn’t come to appointments regularly. The specialty pharmacy refused to deliver his expensive oral chemotherapy to his address at the marina. He went days without eating full meals because he was too weak to cook for himself. Plus, he was estranged from his family who were unaware of his illness. His oncologist was overwhelmed trying to take care of him. He had a reasonable chance of achieving disease control on first-line oral therapy, but his problems seemed to hinder these chances at every turn. She was distraught – what could she do?

Enter the team approach. John’s oncologist reached out to our palliative care program for help. We recognized that this was a job too big for us alone so we connected John with the Extensivist Medicine program at UCLA Health, a high-intensity primary care program led by a physician specializing in primary care for high-risk individuals. The program provides wraparound outpatient services for chronically and seriously ill patients, like John, who are at risk for falling through the cracks. John went from receiving very little support to now having an entire team of caring professionals focused on helping him achieve his best possible outcome despite the seriousness of his disease.

He now had the support of a high-functioning team with clearly defined roles. Social work connected him with housing, food, and transportation resources. A nurse called him every day to check in and make sure he was taking medications and reminded him about his upcoming appointments. Case management helped him get needed equipment, such as grab bars and a walker. As his palliative care nurse practitioner, I counseled him on understanding his prognosis and planning ahead for medical emergencies. Our psycho-oncology clinicians helped John reconcile with his family, who were more than willing to take him in once they realized how ill he was. Once these social factors were addressed, John could more easily stay current with his oral chemotherapy, giving him the best chance possible to achieve a robust treatment response that could buy him more time.

And, John did get that time – he got 6 months of improved quality of life, during which he reconnected with his family, including his children, and rebuilt these important relationships. Eventually treatment failed him. His disease, already widely metastatic, became more active and painful. He accepted hospice care at his sister’s house and we transitioned him from our team to the hospice team. He died peacefully surrounded by family.
 

Interprofessional teamwork is fundamental to treat ‘total pain’

None of this would have been possible without the work of high-functioning teams. It is a commonly held belief that interprofessional teamwork is fundamental to the care of patients and families living with serious illness. But why? How did this idea come about? And what evidence is there to support teamwork?

Dame Cicely Saunders, who founded the modern hospice movement in mid-20th century England, embodied the interdisciplinary team by working first as a nurse, then a social worker, and finally as a physician. She wrote about patients’ “total pain,” the crisis of physical, spiritual, social, and emotional distress that many people have at the end of life. She understood that no single health care discipline was adequate to the task of addressing each of these domains equally well. Thus, hospice became synonymous with care provided by a quartet of specialists – physicians, nurses, social workers, and chaplains. Nowadays, there are other specialists that are added to the mix – home health aides, pharmacists, physical and occupational therapists, music and pet therapists, and so on.

But in medicine, like all areas of science, convention and tradition only go so far. What evidence is there to support the work of an interdisciplinary team in managing the distress of patients and families living with advanced illnesses? It turns out that there is good evidence to support the use of high-functioning interdisciplinary teams in the care of the seriously ill. Palliative care is associated with improved patient outcomes, including improvements in symptom control, quality of life, and end of life care, when it is delivered by an interdisciplinary team rather than by a solo practitioner.

You may think that teamwork is most useful for patients like John who have seemingly intractable social barriers. But it is also true that for even patients with many more social advantages teamwork improves quality of life. I got to see this up close recently in my own life.
 

Teamwork improves quality of life

My father recently passed away after a 9-month battle with advanced cancer. He had every advantage possible – financial stability, high health literacy, an incredibly devoted spouse who happens to be an RN, good insurance, and access to top-notch medical care. Yet, even he benefited from a team approach. It started small, with the oncologist and oncology NP providing excellent, patient-centered care. Then it grew to include myself as the daughter/palliative care nurse practitioner who made recommendations for treating his nausea and ensured that his advance directive was completed and uploaded to his chart. When my dad needed physical therapy, the home health agency sent a wonderful physical therapist, who brought all sorts of equipment that kept him more functional than he would have been otherwise. Other family members helped out – my sisters helped connect my dad with a priest who came to the home to provide spiritual care, which was crucial to ensuring that he was at peace. And, in his final days, my dad had the hospice team to help manage his symptoms and his family members to provide hands-on care.

Cancer, as one of my patients once remarked to me, is a “full-contact sport.” Living with advanced cancer touches nearly every aspect of a person’s life. The complexity of cancer care has long necessitated a team approach to planning cancer treatment – known as a tumor board – with medical oncology, radiation oncology, surgery, and pathology all weighing in. It makes sense that patients and their families would also need a team of clinicians representing different specialty areas to assist with the wide array of physical, psychosocial, practical, and spiritual concerns that arise throughout the cancer disease trajectory.

Ms. D’Ambruoso is a hospice and palliative care nurse practitioner for UCLA Health Cancer Care, Santa Monica, Calif.

John worked as a handyman and lived on a small sailboat in a marina. When he was diagnosed with metastatic kidney cancer at age 48, he quickly fell through the cracks. He failed to show to appointments and took oral anticancer treatments, but just sporadically. He had Medicaid, so insurance wasn’t the issue. It was everything else.

John was behind on his slip fees; he hadn’t been able to work for some time because of his progressive weakness and pain. He was chronically in danger of getting kicked out of his makeshift home aboard the boat. He had no reliable transportation to the clinic and so he didn’t come to appointments regularly. The specialty pharmacy refused to deliver his expensive oral chemotherapy to his address at the marina. He went days without eating full meals because he was too weak to cook for himself. Plus, he was estranged from his family who were unaware of his illness. His oncologist was overwhelmed trying to take care of him. He had a reasonable chance of achieving disease control on first-line oral therapy, but his problems seemed to hinder these chances at every turn. She was distraught – what could she do?

Enter the team approach. John’s oncologist reached out to our palliative care program for help. We recognized that this was a job too big for us alone so we connected John with the Extensivist Medicine program at UCLA Health, a high-intensity primary care program led by a physician specializing in primary care for high-risk individuals. The program provides wraparound outpatient services for chronically and seriously ill patients, like John, who are at risk for falling through the cracks. John went from receiving very little support to now having an entire team of caring professionals focused on helping him achieve his best possible outcome despite the seriousness of his disease.

He now had the support of a high-functioning team with clearly defined roles. Social work connected him with housing, food, and transportation resources. A nurse called him every day to check in and make sure he was taking medications and reminded him about his upcoming appointments. Case management helped him get needed equipment, such as grab bars and a walker. As his palliative care nurse practitioner, I counseled him on understanding his prognosis and planning ahead for medical emergencies. Our psycho-oncology clinicians helped John reconcile with his family, who were more than willing to take him in once they realized how ill he was. Once these social factors were addressed, John could more easily stay current with his oral chemotherapy, giving him the best chance possible to achieve a robust treatment response that could buy him more time.

And, John did get that time – he got 6 months of improved quality of life, during which he reconnected with his family, including his children, and rebuilt these important relationships. Eventually treatment failed him. His disease, already widely metastatic, became more active and painful. He accepted hospice care at his sister’s house and we transitioned him from our team to the hospice team. He died peacefully surrounded by family.
 

Interprofessional teamwork is fundamental to treat ‘total pain’

None of this would have been possible without the work of high-functioning teams. It is a commonly held belief that interprofessional teamwork is fundamental to the care of patients and families living with serious illness. But why? How did this idea come about? And what evidence is there to support teamwork?

Dame Cicely Saunders, who founded the modern hospice movement in mid-20th century England, embodied the interdisciplinary team by working first as a nurse, then a social worker, and finally as a physician. She wrote about patients’ “total pain,” the crisis of physical, spiritual, social, and emotional distress that many people have at the end of life. She understood that no single health care discipline was adequate to the task of addressing each of these domains equally well. Thus, hospice became synonymous with care provided by a quartet of specialists – physicians, nurses, social workers, and chaplains. Nowadays, there are other specialists that are added to the mix – home health aides, pharmacists, physical and occupational therapists, music and pet therapists, and so on.

But in medicine, like all areas of science, convention and tradition only go so far. What evidence is there to support the work of an interdisciplinary team in managing the distress of patients and families living with advanced illnesses? It turns out that there is good evidence to support the use of high-functioning interdisciplinary teams in the care of the seriously ill. Palliative care is associated with improved patient outcomes, including improvements in symptom control, quality of life, and end of life care, when it is delivered by an interdisciplinary team rather than by a solo practitioner.

You may think that teamwork is most useful for patients like John who have seemingly intractable social barriers. But it is also true that for even patients with many more social advantages teamwork improves quality of life. I got to see this up close recently in my own life.
 

Teamwork improves quality of life

My father recently passed away after a 9-month battle with advanced cancer. He had every advantage possible – financial stability, high health literacy, an incredibly devoted spouse who happens to be an RN, good insurance, and access to top-notch medical care. Yet, even he benefited from a team approach. It started small, with the oncologist and oncology NP providing excellent, patient-centered care. Then it grew to include myself as the daughter/palliative care nurse practitioner who made recommendations for treating his nausea and ensured that his advance directive was completed and uploaded to his chart. When my dad needed physical therapy, the home health agency sent a wonderful physical therapist, who brought all sorts of equipment that kept him more functional than he would have been otherwise. Other family members helped out – my sisters helped connect my dad with a priest who came to the home to provide spiritual care, which was crucial to ensuring that he was at peace. And, in his final days, my dad had the hospice team to help manage his symptoms and his family members to provide hands-on care.

Cancer, as one of my patients once remarked to me, is a “full-contact sport.” Living with advanced cancer touches nearly every aspect of a person’s life. The complexity of cancer care has long necessitated a team approach to planning cancer treatment – known as a tumor board – with medical oncology, radiation oncology, surgery, and pathology all weighing in. It makes sense that patients and their families would also need a team of clinicians representing different specialty areas to assist with the wide array of physical, psychosocial, practical, and spiritual concerns that arise throughout the cancer disease trajectory.

Ms. D’Ambruoso is a hospice and palliative care nurse practitioner for UCLA Health Cancer Care, Santa Monica, Calif.

John worked as a handyman and lived on a small sailboat in a marina. When he was diagnosed with metastatic kidney cancer at age 48, he quickly fell through the cracks. He failed to show to appointments and took oral anticancer treatments, but just sporadically. He had Medicaid, so insurance wasn’t the issue. It was everything else.

John was behind on his slip fees; he hadn’t been able to work for some time because of his progressive weakness and pain. He was chronically in danger of getting kicked out of his makeshift home aboard the boat. He had no reliable transportation to the clinic and so he didn’t come to appointments regularly. The specialty pharmacy refused to deliver his expensive oral chemotherapy to his address at the marina. He went days without eating full meals because he was too weak to cook for himself. Plus, he was estranged from his family who were unaware of his illness. His oncologist was overwhelmed trying to take care of him. He had a reasonable chance of achieving disease control on first-line oral therapy, but his problems seemed to hinder these chances at every turn. She was distraught – what could she do?

Enter the team approach. John’s oncologist reached out to our palliative care program for help. We recognized that this was a job too big for us alone so we connected John with the Extensivist Medicine program at UCLA Health, a high-intensity primary care program led by a physician specializing in primary care for high-risk individuals. The program provides wraparound outpatient services for chronically and seriously ill patients, like John, who are at risk for falling through the cracks. John went from receiving very little support to now having an entire team of caring professionals focused on helping him achieve his best possible outcome despite the seriousness of his disease.

He now had the support of a high-functioning team with clearly defined roles. Social work connected him with housing, food, and transportation resources. A nurse called him every day to check in and make sure he was taking medications and reminded him about his upcoming appointments. Case management helped him get needed equipment, such as grab bars and a walker. As his palliative care nurse practitioner, I counseled him on understanding his prognosis and planning ahead for medical emergencies. Our psycho-oncology clinicians helped John reconcile with his family, who were more than willing to take him in once they realized how ill he was. Once these social factors were addressed, John could more easily stay current with his oral chemotherapy, giving him the best chance possible to achieve a robust treatment response that could buy him more time.

And, John did get that time – he got 6 months of improved quality of life, during which he reconnected with his family, including his children, and rebuilt these important relationships. Eventually treatment failed him. His disease, already widely metastatic, became more active and painful. He accepted hospice care at his sister’s house and we transitioned him from our team to the hospice team. He died peacefully surrounded by family.
 

Interprofessional teamwork is fundamental to treat ‘total pain’

None of this would have been possible without the work of high-functioning teams. It is a commonly held belief that interprofessional teamwork is fundamental to the care of patients and families living with serious illness. But why? How did this idea come about? And what evidence is there to support teamwork?

Dame Cicely Saunders, who founded the modern hospice movement in mid-20th century England, embodied the interdisciplinary team by working first as a nurse, then a social worker, and finally as a physician. She wrote about patients’ “total pain,” the crisis of physical, spiritual, social, and emotional distress that many people have at the end of life. She understood that no single health care discipline was adequate to the task of addressing each of these domains equally well. Thus, hospice became synonymous with care provided by a quartet of specialists – physicians, nurses, social workers, and chaplains. Nowadays, there are other specialists that are added to the mix – home health aides, pharmacists, physical and occupational therapists, music and pet therapists, and so on.

But in medicine, like all areas of science, convention and tradition only go so far. What evidence is there to support the work of an interdisciplinary team in managing the distress of patients and families living with advanced illnesses? It turns out that there is good evidence to support the use of high-functioning interdisciplinary teams in the care of the seriously ill. Palliative care is associated with improved patient outcomes, including improvements in symptom control, quality of life, and end of life care, when it is delivered by an interdisciplinary team rather than by a solo practitioner.

You may think that teamwork is most useful for patients like John who have seemingly intractable social barriers. But it is also true that for even patients with many more social advantages teamwork improves quality of life. I got to see this up close recently in my own life.
 

Teamwork improves quality of life

My father recently passed away after a 9-month battle with advanced cancer. He had every advantage possible – financial stability, high health literacy, an incredibly devoted spouse who happens to be an RN, good insurance, and access to top-notch medical care. Yet, even he benefited from a team approach. It started small, with the oncologist and oncology NP providing excellent, patient-centered care. Then it grew to include myself as the daughter/palliative care nurse practitioner who made recommendations for treating his nausea and ensured that his advance directive was completed and uploaded to his chart. When my dad needed physical therapy, the home health agency sent a wonderful physical therapist, who brought all sorts of equipment that kept him more functional than he would have been otherwise. Other family members helped out – my sisters helped connect my dad with a priest who came to the home to provide spiritual care, which was crucial to ensuring that he was at peace. And, in his final days, my dad had the hospice team to help manage his symptoms and his family members to provide hands-on care.

Cancer, as one of my patients once remarked to me, is a “full-contact sport.” Living with advanced cancer touches nearly every aspect of a person’s life. The complexity of cancer care has long necessitated a team approach to planning cancer treatment – known as a tumor board – with medical oncology, radiation oncology, surgery, and pathology all weighing in. It makes sense that patients and their families would also need a team of clinicians representing different specialty areas to assist with the wide array of physical, psychosocial, practical, and spiritual concerns that arise throughout the cancer disease trajectory.

Ms. D’Ambruoso is a hospice and palliative care nurse practitioner for UCLA Health Cancer Care, Santa Monica, Calif.

While efficacy and quality of life outcomes are similar across commonly used treatments for endocrine-refractory or triple-negative metastatic breast cancer, the costs of these agents vary widely, a recent analysis reveals.

Notably, the authors found that using standard chemotherapy agents in specific sequences can help reduce overall costs and improve the value of care.

Given “razor thin” differences in outcomes, cost should become a major consideration, the researchers concluded.

“As a society, we urgently need more strategies to reduce cancer drug costs without compromising outcomes, and our analysis provides quantifiable evidence to help providers choose lower priced, but equally effective sequences of drugs,” first author Stephanie B. Wheeler, PhD, from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, explained in a press release.

Although the drugs Dr. Wheeler and colleagues studied are reimbursed in the metastatic breast cancer setting, “the optimal sequencing of them has been unclear, which has led to considerable variation in physician preference and practice,” Dr. Wheeler said.

In the study, published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, Dr. Wheeler and colleagues estimated the cost-effectiveness of different therapeutic options from the first- to third-line setting for this patient population.

The researchers used three dynamic microsimulation computer models to predict how hypothetical sets of 10,000 patients with specific types of metastatic breast cancer would respond to various therapy types and sequences. The cohorts were grouped according to prior chemotherapy exposure: cohort 1 had no taxane or anthracycline exposure, cohort 2 had taxane and anthracycline exposure, and cohort 3 had taxane exposure but was anthracycline naive.

On the basis of feedback from oncologists, the investigators focused on different agents in the three cohorts: paclitaxel, capecitabine, or pegylated liposomal doxorubicin for cohort 1; eribulin, capecitabine, or carboplatin for cohort 2; and pegylated liposomal doxorubicin, capecitabine, or eribulin for cohort 3.

Overall, the models showed “nearly indistinguishable differences” in quality of life. In fact, the “razor-thin incremental differences in quality-adjusted survival” across the treatment sequences often amounted to differences of only a few days or weeks, the authors noted, adding that, even in the most extreme of cases, 3 weeks separated the best and worst options for quality-adjusted life-years.

But the models did show considerable differences in costs.

The authors found that, for cohort 1, treatment with paclitaxel followed by capecitabine and then pegylated liposomal doxorubicin corresponded to the highest expected quality-adjusted life-year gain and the lowest costs – $686 per month versus the highest cost option of $1,765.

For cohort 2, treatment with carboplatin followed by capecitabine and then eribulin corresponded to the highest expected quality-adjusted life-year gain and lowest costs.

For cohort 3, treatment sequences beginning with capecitabine or pegylated liposomal doxorubicin followed by eribulin was most cost effective.

Notably, the authors found that eribulin – the most expensive treatment with a high expected adverse event burden – performed particularly poorly in the two cohorts in which it was evaluated, “suggesting it should be used last in a sequence, on the basis of cost-effectiveness alone.”

In other words, “more spending on cancer care does not necessarily confer greater health benefits,” said Dr. Wheeler, also a professor of health policy.

“I hope our study will help expand the framework that we use to make these decisions from one where we just think about the biologic action of the drug to one where we also consider the bigger picture of what the treatment experience is like for the patient, including their financial burden, investment of time, and side effects,” study coauthor Katherine E. Reeder-Hayes, MD, section chief of breast oncology at UNC, said in the press release.

The results demonstrate that therapeutic decisions in the endocrine-refractory or triple-negative metastatic setting “may prioritize costs without affecting clinical outcomes” and highlight the direct impact that a “high-quality, transparent, and accessible economic analysis” can have on patient care, Scott D. Ramsey, MD, PhD, of Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, and colleagues wrote in an accompanying editorial.

Following the treatment sequences outlined in this study would “reduce patient financial burden and save our health system hundreds of millions of dollars annually,” the editorialists wrote.

As for next steps, Dr. Wheeler and colleagues have developed a financial navigation program to help patients manage their out-of-pocket cancer care costs and are currently scaling up the intervention in nine rural and nonrural oncology practices across North Carolina.

The study was supported by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention through the Prevention Research Centers Program. Dr. Wheeler has received research funding and payment for travel, accommodations, and expenses from Pfizer. Dr. Ramsey has had consulting or advisory roles and has received research funding and/or payment for travel, accommodations, and expenses from Bayer, Genentech, AstraZeneca, Merck, GRAIL, Seattle Genetics, Biovica, and/or Flatiron Health. Because of their editorial roles at the journal, the Journal of Clinical Oncology recused Dr. Wheeler and Dr. Ramsey from having any role in the peer review of their respective manuscripts.

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

While efficacy and quality of life outcomes are similar across commonly used treatments for endocrine-refractory or triple-negative metastatic breast cancer, the costs of these agents vary widely, a recent analysis reveals.

Notably, the authors found that using standard chemotherapy agents in specific sequences can help reduce overall costs and improve the value of care.

Given “razor thin” differences in outcomes, cost should become a major consideration, the researchers concluded.

“As a society, we urgently need more strategies to reduce cancer drug costs without compromising outcomes, and our analysis provides quantifiable evidence to help providers choose lower priced, but equally effective sequences of drugs,” first author Stephanie B. Wheeler, PhD, from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, explained in a press release.

Although the drugs Dr. Wheeler and colleagues studied are reimbursed in the metastatic breast cancer setting, “the optimal sequencing of them has been unclear, which has led to considerable variation in physician preference and practice,” Dr. Wheeler said.

In the study, published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, Dr. Wheeler and colleagues estimated the cost-effectiveness of different therapeutic options from the first- to third-line setting for this patient population.

The researchers used three dynamic microsimulation computer models to predict how hypothetical sets of 10,000 patients with specific types of metastatic breast cancer would respond to various therapy types and sequences. The cohorts were grouped according to prior chemotherapy exposure: cohort 1 had no taxane or anthracycline exposure, cohort 2 had taxane and anthracycline exposure, and cohort 3 had taxane exposure but was anthracycline naive.

On the basis of feedback from oncologists, the investigators focused on different agents in the three cohorts: paclitaxel, capecitabine, or pegylated liposomal doxorubicin for cohort 1; eribulin, capecitabine, or carboplatin for cohort 2; and pegylated liposomal doxorubicin, capecitabine, or eribulin for cohort 3.

Overall, the models showed “nearly indistinguishable differences” in quality of life. In fact, the “razor-thin incremental differences in quality-adjusted survival” across the treatment sequences often amounted to differences of only a few days or weeks, the authors noted, adding that, even in the most extreme of cases, 3 weeks separated the best and worst options for quality-adjusted life-years.

But the models did show considerable differences in costs.

The authors found that, for cohort 1, treatment with paclitaxel followed by capecitabine and then pegylated liposomal doxorubicin corresponded to the highest expected quality-adjusted life-year gain and the lowest costs – $686 per month versus the highest cost option of $1,765.

For cohort 2, treatment with carboplatin followed by capecitabine and then eribulin corresponded to the highest expected quality-adjusted life-year gain and lowest costs.

For cohort 3, treatment sequences beginning with capecitabine or pegylated liposomal doxorubicin followed by eribulin was most cost effective.

Notably, the authors found that eribulin – the most expensive treatment with a high expected adverse event burden – performed particularly poorly in the two cohorts in which it was evaluated, “suggesting it should be used last in a sequence, on the basis of cost-effectiveness alone.”

In other words, “more spending on cancer care does not necessarily confer greater health benefits,” said Dr. Wheeler, also a professor of health policy.

“I hope our study will help expand the framework that we use to make these decisions from one where we just think about the biologic action of the drug to one where we also consider the bigger picture of what the treatment experience is like for the patient, including their financial burden, investment of time, and side effects,” study coauthor Katherine E. Reeder-Hayes, MD, section chief of breast oncology at UNC, said in the press release.

The results demonstrate that therapeutic decisions in the endocrine-refractory or triple-negative metastatic setting “may prioritize costs without affecting clinical outcomes” and highlight the direct impact that a “high-quality, transparent, and accessible economic analysis” can have on patient care, Scott D. Ramsey, MD, PhD, of Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, and colleagues wrote in an accompanying editorial.

Following the treatment sequences outlined in this study would “reduce patient financial burden and save our health system hundreds of millions of dollars annually,” the editorialists wrote.

As for next steps, Dr. Wheeler and colleagues have developed a financial navigation program to help patients manage their out-of-pocket cancer care costs and are currently scaling up the intervention in nine rural and nonrural oncology practices across North Carolina.

The study was supported by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention through the Prevention Research Centers Program. Dr. Wheeler has received research funding and payment for travel, accommodations, and expenses from Pfizer. Dr. Ramsey has had consulting or advisory roles and has received research funding and/or payment for travel, accommodations, and expenses from Bayer, Genentech, AstraZeneca, Merck, GRAIL, Seattle Genetics, Biovica, and/or Flatiron Health. Because of their editorial roles at the journal, the Journal of Clinical Oncology recused Dr. Wheeler and Dr. Ramsey from having any role in the peer review of their respective manuscripts.

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

While efficacy and quality of life outcomes are similar across commonly used treatments for endocrine-refractory or triple-negative metastatic breast cancer, the costs of these agents vary widely, a recent analysis reveals.

Notably, the authors found that using standard chemotherapy agents in specific sequences can help reduce overall costs and improve the value of care.

Given “razor thin” differences in outcomes, cost should become a major consideration, the researchers concluded.

“As a society, we urgently need more strategies to reduce cancer drug costs without compromising outcomes, and our analysis provides quantifiable evidence to help providers choose lower priced, but equally effective sequences of drugs,” first author Stephanie B. Wheeler, PhD, from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, explained in a press release.

Although the drugs Dr. Wheeler and colleagues studied are reimbursed in the metastatic breast cancer setting, “the optimal sequencing of them has been unclear, which has led to considerable variation in physician preference and practice,” Dr. Wheeler said.

In the study, published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, Dr. Wheeler and colleagues estimated the cost-effectiveness of different therapeutic options from the first- to third-line setting for this patient population.

The researchers used three dynamic microsimulation computer models to predict how hypothetical sets of 10,000 patients with specific types of metastatic breast cancer would respond to various therapy types and sequences. The cohorts were grouped according to prior chemotherapy exposure: cohort 1 had no taxane or anthracycline exposure, cohort 2 had taxane and anthracycline exposure, and cohort 3 had taxane exposure but was anthracycline naive.

On the basis of feedback from oncologists, the investigators focused on different agents in the three cohorts: paclitaxel, capecitabine, or pegylated liposomal doxorubicin for cohort 1; eribulin, capecitabine, or carboplatin for cohort 2; and pegylated liposomal doxorubicin, capecitabine, or eribulin for cohort 3.

Overall, the models showed “nearly indistinguishable differences” in quality of life. In fact, the “razor-thin incremental differences in quality-adjusted survival” across the treatment sequences often amounted to differences of only a few days or weeks, the authors noted, adding that, even in the most extreme of cases, 3 weeks separated the best and worst options for quality-adjusted life-years.

But the models did show considerable differences in costs.

The authors found that, for cohort 1, treatment with paclitaxel followed by capecitabine and then pegylated liposomal doxorubicin corresponded to the highest expected quality-adjusted life-year gain and the lowest costs – $686 per month versus the highest cost option of $1,765.

For cohort 2, treatment with carboplatin followed by capecitabine and then eribulin corresponded to the highest expected quality-adjusted life-year gain and lowest costs.

For cohort 3, treatment sequences beginning with capecitabine or pegylated liposomal doxorubicin followed by eribulin was most cost effective.

Notably, the authors found that eribulin – the most expensive treatment with a high expected adverse event burden – performed particularly poorly in the two cohorts in which it was evaluated, “suggesting it should be used last in a sequence, on the basis of cost-effectiveness alone.”

In other words, “more spending on cancer care does not necessarily confer greater health benefits,” said Dr. Wheeler, also a professor of health policy.

“I hope our study will help expand the framework that we use to make these decisions from one where we just think about the biologic action of the drug to one where we also consider the bigger picture of what the treatment experience is like for the patient, including their financial burden, investment of time, and side effects,” study coauthor Katherine E. Reeder-Hayes, MD, section chief of breast oncology at UNC, said in the press release.

The results demonstrate that therapeutic decisions in the endocrine-refractory or triple-negative metastatic setting “may prioritize costs without affecting clinical outcomes” and highlight the direct impact that a “high-quality, transparent, and accessible economic analysis” can have on patient care, Scott D. Ramsey, MD, PhD, of Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, and colleagues wrote in an accompanying editorial.

Following the treatment sequences outlined in this study would “reduce patient financial burden and save our health system hundreds of millions of dollars annually,” the editorialists wrote.

As for next steps, Dr. Wheeler and colleagues have developed a financial navigation program to help patients manage their out-of-pocket cancer care costs and are currently scaling up the intervention in nine rural and nonrural oncology practices across North Carolina.

The study was supported by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention through the Prevention Research Centers Program. Dr. Wheeler has received research funding and payment for travel, accommodations, and expenses from Pfizer. Dr. Ramsey has had consulting or advisory roles and has received research funding and/or payment for travel, accommodations, and expenses from Bayer, Genentech, AstraZeneca, Merck, GRAIL, Seattle Genetics, Biovica, and/or Flatiron Health. Because of their editorial roles at the journal, the Journal of Clinical Oncology recused Dr. Wheeler and Dr. Ramsey from having any role in the peer review of their respective manuscripts.

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

The phase 3 NALA trial² demonstrated superior outcomes with the combination of neratinib plus capecitabine vs lapatinib plus capecitabine among patients with previously treated HER2+ metastatic breast cancer (hazard ratio 0.76; 1-year PFS 29% vs 15%). Findings from a single-center retrospective study including 72 patients with HER2+ advanced breast cancer who received either neratinib plus capecitabine or neratinib alone support efficacy and tolerability in the real-world setting (Cunningham et al). Among all patients, the median PFS was 5.9 months and median OS was 15.0 months; for those with brain metastases (n = 38), median PFS and median OS were 5.7 and 12.5 months, respectively. The gastrointestinal toxicity of neratinib can affect its clinical use, and a total of 64% of patients in this study reported diarrhea (10% reported grade 3) despite using antidiarrheal prophylaxis.

The treatment algorithm for HER2+ metastatic breast cancer has been evolving at a rapid pace, specifically for second-line and beyond. Neratinib remains a relevant therapy choice for these patients. The central nervous system activity of neratinib and other tyrosine kinase inhibitors, such as tucatinib, often make these the preferred treatment options for patients with brain metastases and stimulate the idea of prevention of brain metastases at an earlier time point.

Young women with breast cancer encounter unique challenges related to the stage of life during which they are diagnosed. It is essential to consider the effect of cancer treatment on fertility, including direct effects of chemotherapy and the duration of endocrine therapy (5-10 years) that can delay attempts at conceiving. Potential concerns surrounding fertility preservation (FP) include the theoretical risk of increased estradiol levels and treatment delay to allow these procedures to occur; however, various studies have supported the safety of FP.³

A prospective cohort study including 1257 women of reproductive age who were diagnosed with breast cancer and underwent FP treatment demonstrated similar disease-specific mortality in women who underwent hormonal FP (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0.59; 95% CI 0.32-1.09), those who underwent nonhormonal FP (aHR 0.51, 95% CI 0.20-1.29), and women who did not pursue FP (Marklund et al). Furthermore, among 723 women with detailed information on relapse there was no significant difference in rate of relapse or death among those who underwent hormonal FP (aHR 0.81; 95% CI 0.49-1.37) vs those who underwent nonhormonal FP (aHR 0.75; 95% CI 0.35-1.62).

The growing body of evidence in this field highlights the importance of oncofertility awareness for both patients and providers. Young women diagnosed with breast cancer should be offered referrals to fertility specialists when interested and educated on the safety of these approaches as it relates to breast cancer outcomes.

A multicenter retrospective study compared the efficacy and safety of controlled ovarian hyperstimulation with letrozole (LetCOH) or without letrozole (cCOH) among 97 young women (≤ 40 years) diagnosed with early-stage breast cancer (Goldrat et al). The LetCOH group had lower peak estradiol levels (343 pg/mL vs 1009 pg/mL; P < .001) and higher oocyte maturation rates compared with the cCOH group, but a similar number of mature oocytes collected (P = .281). Disease recurrence occurred more frequently in the LetCOH group than in the cCOH group (17% vs 7.2%), and five patients in total had a distant recurrence (four undergoing LetCOH vs one undergoing cCOH).

The LetCOH group did have larger tumors and a higher number of HER2+ cancers. These findings suggest that a COH protocol using letrozole can yield FP outcomes similar to those of the conventional protocol while minimizing exposure to high levels of estradiol. Extended follow-up and future prospective studies will be essential to gain survival data and further define the roles of various FP procedures.

Additional References

1. Bardia A, Tolaney SM, Loirat D, et al. Sacituzumab govitecan (SG) versus treatment of physician's choice (TPC) in patients (pts) with previously treated, metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (mTNBC): final results from the phase 3 ASCENT study. J Clin Oncol. 2022;40(16 Suppl):107 Doi: 10.1200/JCO.2022.40.16_suppl.1071
2. Saura C, Oliveira M, Feng YH, et al. Neratinib plus capecitabine versus lapatinib plus capecitabine in HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer previously treated with ≥ 2 HER2-directed regimens: phase III NALA trial. J Clin Oncol. 2020;38:3138-3149. Doi: 10.1200/JCO.20.00147
3. Moravek MB, Confino R, Lawson AK, et al. Predictors and outcomes in breast cancer patients who did or did not pursue fertility preservation. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2021;186:429-437. Doi: 10.1007/s10549-020-06031-4

The phase 3 NALA trial² demonstrated superior outcomes with the combination of neratinib plus capecitabine vs lapatinib plus capecitabine among patients with previously treated HER2+ metastatic breast cancer (hazard ratio 0.76; 1-year PFS 29% vs 15%). Findings from a single-center retrospective study including 72 patients with HER2+ advanced breast cancer who received either neratinib plus capecitabine or neratinib alone support efficacy and tolerability in the real-world setting (Cunningham et al). Among all patients, the median PFS was 5.9 months and median OS was 15.0 months; for those with brain metastases (n = 38), median PFS and median OS were 5.7 and 12.5 months, respectively. The gastrointestinal toxicity of neratinib can affect its clinical use, and a total of 64% of patients in this study reported diarrhea (10% reported grade 3) despite using antidiarrheal prophylaxis.

The treatment algorithm for HER2+ metastatic breast cancer has been evolving at a rapid pace, specifically for second-line and beyond. Neratinib remains a relevant therapy choice for these patients. The central nervous system activity of neratinib and other tyrosine kinase inhibitors, such as tucatinib, often make these the preferred treatment options for patients with brain metastases and stimulate the idea of prevention of brain metastases at an earlier time point.

Young women with breast cancer encounter unique challenges related to the stage of life during which they are diagnosed. It is essential to consider the effect of cancer treatment on fertility, including direct effects of chemotherapy and the duration of endocrine therapy (5-10 years) that can delay attempts at conceiving. Potential concerns surrounding fertility preservation (FP) include the theoretical risk of increased estradiol levels and treatment delay to allow these procedures to occur; however, various studies have supported the safety of FP.³

A prospective cohort study including 1257 women of reproductive age who were diagnosed with breast cancer and underwent FP treatment demonstrated similar disease-specific mortality in women who underwent hormonal FP (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0.59; 95% CI 0.32-1.09), those who underwent nonhormonal FP (aHR 0.51, 95% CI 0.20-1.29), and women who did not pursue FP (Marklund et al). Furthermore, among 723 women with detailed information on relapse there was no significant difference in rate of relapse or death among those who underwent hormonal FP (aHR 0.81; 95% CI 0.49-1.37) vs those who underwent nonhormonal FP (aHR 0.75; 95% CI 0.35-1.62).

The growing body of evidence in this field highlights the importance of oncofertility awareness for both patients and providers. Young women diagnosed with breast cancer should be offered referrals to fertility specialists when interested and educated on the safety of these approaches as it relates to breast cancer outcomes.

A multicenter retrospective study compared the efficacy and safety of controlled ovarian hyperstimulation with letrozole (LetCOH) or without letrozole (cCOH) among 97 young women (≤ 40 years) diagnosed with early-stage breast cancer (Goldrat et al). The LetCOH group had lower peak estradiol levels (343 pg/mL vs 1009 pg/mL; P < .001) and higher oocyte maturation rates compared with the cCOH group, but a similar number of mature oocytes collected (P = .281). Disease recurrence occurred more frequently in the LetCOH group than in the cCOH group (17% vs 7.2%), and five patients in total had a distant recurrence (four undergoing LetCOH vs one undergoing cCOH).

The LetCOH group did have larger tumors and a higher number of HER2+ cancers. These findings suggest that a COH protocol using letrozole can yield FP outcomes similar to those of the conventional protocol while minimizing exposure to high levels of estradiol. Extended follow-up and future prospective studies will be essential to gain survival data and further define the roles of various FP procedures.

Additional References

1. Bardia A, Tolaney SM, Loirat D, et al. Sacituzumab govitecan (SG) versus treatment of physician's choice (TPC) in patients (pts) with previously treated, metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (mTNBC): final results from the phase 3 ASCENT study. J Clin Oncol. 2022;40(16 Suppl):107 Doi: 10.1200/JCO.2022.40.16_suppl.1071
2. Saura C, Oliveira M, Feng YH, et al. Neratinib plus capecitabine versus lapatinib plus capecitabine in HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer previously treated with ≥ 2 HER2-directed regimens: phase III NALA trial. J Clin Oncol. 2020;38:3138-3149. Doi: 10.1200/JCO.20.00147
3. Moravek MB, Confino R, Lawson AK, et al. Predictors and outcomes in breast cancer patients who did or did not pursue fertility preservation. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2021;186:429-437. Doi: 10.1007/s10549-020-06031-4

The phase 3 NALA trial² demonstrated superior outcomes with the combination of neratinib plus capecitabine vs lapatinib plus capecitabine among patients with previously treated HER2+ metastatic breast cancer (hazard ratio 0.76; 1-year PFS 29% vs 15%). Findings from a single-center retrospective study including 72 patients with HER2+ advanced breast cancer who received either neratinib plus capecitabine or neratinib alone support efficacy and tolerability in the real-world setting (Cunningham et al). Among all patients, the median PFS was 5.9 months and median OS was 15.0 months; for those with brain metastases (n = 38), median PFS and median OS were 5.7 and 12.5 months, respectively. The gastrointestinal toxicity of neratinib can affect its clinical use, and a total of 64% of patients in this study reported diarrhea (10% reported grade 3) despite using antidiarrheal prophylaxis.

The treatment algorithm for HER2+ metastatic breast cancer has been evolving at a rapid pace, specifically for second-line and beyond. Neratinib remains a relevant therapy choice for these patients. The central nervous system activity of neratinib and other tyrosine kinase inhibitors, such as tucatinib, often make these the preferred treatment options for patients with brain metastases and stimulate the idea of prevention of brain metastases at an earlier time point.

Young women with breast cancer encounter unique challenges related to the stage of life during which they are diagnosed. It is essential to consider the effect of cancer treatment on fertility, including direct effects of chemotherapy and the duration of endocrine therapy (5-10 years) that can delay attempts at conceiving. Potential concerns surrounding fertility preservation (FP) include the theoretical risk of increased estradiol levels and treatment delay to allow these procedures to occur; however, various studies have supported the safety of FP.³

A prospective cohort study including 1257 women of reproductive age who were diagnosed with breast cancer and underwent FP treatment demonstrated similar disease-specific mortality in women who underwent hormonal FP (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0.59; 95% CI 0.32-1.09), those who underwent nonhormonal FP (aHR 0.51, 95% CI 0.20-1.29), and women who did not pursue FP (Marklund et al). Furthermore, among 723 women with detailed information on relapse there was no significant difference in rate of relapse or death among those who underwent hormonal FP (aHR 0.81; 95% CI 0.49-1.37) vs those who underwent nonhormonal FP (aHR 0.75; 95% CI 0.35-1.62).

The growing body of evidence in this field highlights the importance of oncofertility awareness for both patients and providers. Young women diagnosed with breast cancer should be offered referrals to fertility specialists when interested and educated on the safety of these approaches as it relates to breast cancer outcomes.

A multicenter retrospective study compared the efficacy and safety of controlled ovarian hyperstimulation with letrozole (LetCOH) or without letrozole (cCOH) among 97 young women (≤ 40 years) diagnosed with early-stage breast cancer (Goldrat et al). The LetCOH group had lower peak estradiol levels (343 pg/mL vs 1009 pg/mL; P < .001) and higher oocyte maturation rates compared with the cCOH group, but a similar number of mature oocytes collected (P = .281). Disease recurrence occurred more frequently in the LetCOH group than in the cCOH group (17% vs 7.2%), and five patients in total had a distant recurrence (four undergoing LetCOH vs one undergoing cCOH).

The LetCOH group did have larger tumors and a higher number of HER2+ cancers. These findings suggest that a COH protocol using letrozole can yield FP outcomes similar to those of the conventional protocol while minimizing exposure to high levels of estradiol. Extended follow-up and future prospective studies will be essential to gain survival data and further define the roles of various FP procedures.

Additional References

1. Bardia A, Tolaney SM, Loirat D, et al. Sacituzumab govitecan (SG) versus treatment of physician's choice (TPC) in patients (pts) with previously treated, metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (mTNBC): final results from the phase 3 ASCENT study. J Clin Oncol. 2022;40(16 Suppl):107 Doi: 10.1200/JCO.2022.40.16_suppl.1071
2. Saura C, Oliveira M, Feng YH, et al. Neratinib plus capecitabine versus lapatinib plus capecitabine in HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer previously treated with ≥ 2 HER2-directed regimens: phase III NALA trial. J Clin Oncol. 2020;38:3138-3149. Doi: 10.1200/JCO.20.00147
3. Moravek MB, Confino R, Lawson AK, et al. Predictors and outcomes in breast cancer patients who did or did not pursue fertility preservation. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2021;186:429-437. Doi: 10.1007/s10549-020-06031-4

The past decade has witnessed a rapid expansion of genetic tests, including new instruments to inform patients who have been diagnosed with breast cancer about the risk of recurrence and to guide their treatment.

But the clinical significance of many of the inherited mutations that can now be identified remains unclear, and experts are torn on when and how to deploy all the new tests available. Patients are sometimes left paying out-of-pocket for exams that are not yet the standard of care, and even the most up-to-date oncologists may be uncertain how to incorporate the flood of new information into what used to be standard treatment protocols.

A quarter-century ago, Myriad Genetics introduced the first breast cancer genetic test for BRCA mutations, two genes associated with a substantially elevated risk of getting breast cancer, opening the door to a new era in genetic testing. BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations account for as many as half of all hereditary breast cancers, and people with a problematic mutation on one of those genes have a 45%-72% chance of developing breast cancer during their lifetimes. They may also be at higher risk for ovarian and other cancers than people without harmful BRCA mutations.

But the clinical significance is murkier for many other genetic tests.

Testing for BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes used to cost thousands of dollars. Now, for a fraction of that, doctors can order multigene test panels from commercial labs that look for mutations in dozens of genes. Some direct-to-consumer companies offer screening panels for a few hundred dollars, though their reliability varies.

When Jen Carbary was diagnosed with breast cancer in 2017 at age 44, genetic testing identified a mutation in a gene called PALB2 that significantly increases the risk of developing breast cancer. Guidelines suggest that breast cancer patients with a PALB2 mutation, much like those with BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations, consider having a mastectomy to reduce the chance of a breast cancer recurrence.

“I wish genetic testing was the standard of care,” said Ms. Carbary, who owed nothing for the test because her insurer covered the cost.

Ms. Carbary, who lives in Sterling Heights, Mich., said the test results affirmed the decision she had already made to have a double mastectomy and provided important information for family members, including her 21-year-old daughter and 18-year-old son, who will likely be tested in their mid-20s or early 30s.

But some breast cancer experts are concerned that widespread testing may also identify genetic mutations whose impact is unclear, creating anxiety and leading to further testing and to treatment of questionable value that could raise costs for the health care system.

It can also confuse patients.

“It happens a lot, that patients find their way to us after getting confusing results elsewhere,” said Mark Robson, MD, chief of the breast medicine service at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York. Robson said the cancer center has a clinical genetics service, staffed by doctors and genetic counselors, that helps people make decisions about how to manage genetic testing results.

For people diagnosed with breast cancer, many professional groups, including the influential National Comprehensive Cancer Network, recommend limiting testing to certain people, including those with high-risk factors, such as a family history of breast cancer; those who are 45 or younger when they’re diagnosed; and those with Ashkenazi Jewish ancestry.

But in 2019, the American Society of Breast Surgeons recommended a different approach: Offer genetic testing to all patients who are diagnosed with or have a personal history of breast cancer. The recommendation was controversial.

“The NCCN guidelines [cover] most of the women who needed testing, but we wanted to get them all,” said Eric Manahan, MD, a general surgeon in Dalton, Georgia, and a member of the surgeons group’s board of directors.

Mutations on other genes that are associated with breast cancer are much less common than BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations and generally don’t increase the risk of developing breast cancer as much. The cancer-causing impact of these genes may be less clear than that of the BRCA genes, which have been tested for since the mid-1990s.

And the appropriate response to the less common mutations – whether to consider a risk-reducing mastectomy or stepped-up screening – is often unclear.

“Things get sloppier and sloppier when you look at other genes,” said Steven Katz, MD, MPH, a professor of medicine and health management and policy at the University of Michigan. “The risks tend to be lower for different cancers, and less certain and more variable. You might walk away wondering: ‘Why’d I have to know that?’ ”

After people are diagnosed with breast cancer, genetic testing can help inform their decisions about the types of surgery to pursue – for example, a high risk of recurrence or a new breast cancer might persuade some to opt for more extensive surgery, such as a double mastectomy. Testing can also provide important information to family members about their potential cancer risk.

(This type of “germline” genetic testing, as it’s called, looks at mutations in the genes that people inherit from their parents. It is different from genomic tumor tests that look at specific genes or proteins in the cancer cells and can help doctors understand the rate at which the cancer cells are dividing, for example, and the likelihood of a cancer recurrence.)

Increasingly, germline genetic testing can also help guide other treatment decisions. Some patients with metastatic breast cancer who have BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations may be good candidates for poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors, cancer drugs that target tumors with mutations in those genes.

But genetic testing that uncovers inherited mutations in many other genes yields less clearly actionable information, even though positive results may alarm people.

At Memorial Sloan Kettering, cancer specialists focus on “therapeutic actionability,” said Dr. Robson. Will testing help someone decide whether she should get a double mastectomy or provide other important guidance? “A policy of testing everyone will identify very few additional BRCA breast mutations but will cost a lot.”

As a result, doctors are debating how best to deploy and incorporate new genetic knowledge. Insurers are trying to figure out which to pay for.

There is both underuse of tests that science says are relevant and overuse of tests that experts say provide information that can’t be interpreted with any scientific certainty.

The result may be confusion for patients newly diagnosed with breast cancer as they confront the expense of genetic tests and sometimes little guidance on the proper treatment.

Some doctors say the first step is to make sure that the small group of people who would clearly benefit are getting the genetic tests whose meaning is clearly understood. Only 15% of breast cancer patients who met select NCCN testing guidelines for inherited cancer received genetic testing, according to a 2017 study that examined data from a national household health survey between 2005 and 2015.

“I would argue that our focus needs to be on the people who are at high risk for breast cancer that aren’t even identified yet,” said Tuya Pal, MD, associate director for cancer health disparities at Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center and vice chair of the NCCN guidelines panel for genetic/familial high-risk assessment of breast, ovarian, and pancreatic cancers.

Patients may fall through the cracks because no one tells them they should be tested. In one analysis, 56% of high-risk breast cancer patients who didn’t get genetic testing said their doctors didn’t recommend it.

Even if doctors recommend genetic testing, they may lack the expertise to determine which tests people need and how to interpret the results. That’s the role of genetic counselors, but their ranks are stretched thin.

The consequences can be serious. In a study of 666 breast cancer patients who received genetic testing, half of those at average risk for inherited cancer got double mastectomies based on test results that found “variants of uncertain significance,” which aren’t clinically actionable. As many as half of surgeons reported managing such patients the same way as those with cancer-causing mutations.

“The bulk of our research would say that there is still room for improvement in terms of clinicians getting the understanding they need,” said Allison Kurian, MD, director of the women’s clinical cancer genetics program at Stanford (Calif.) University and a coauthor of the study.

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

The past decade has witnessed a rapid expansion of genetic tests, including new instruments to inform patients who have been diagnosed with breast cancer about the risk of recurrence and to guide their treatment.

But the clinical significance of many of the inherited mutations that can now be identified remains unclear, and experts are torn on when and how to deploy all the new tests available. Patients are sometimes left paying out-of-pocket for exams that are not yet the standard of care, and even the most up-to-date oncologists may be uncertain how to incorporate the flood of new information into what used to be standard treatment protocols.

A quarter-century ago, Myriad Genetics introduced the first breast cancer genetic test for BRCA mutations, two genes associated with a substantially elevated risk of getting breast cancer, opening the door to a new era in genetic testing. BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations account for as many as half of all hereditary breast cancers, and people with a problematic mutation on one of those genes have a 45%-72% chance of developing breast cancer during their lifetimes. They may also be at higher risk for ovarian and other cancers than people without harmful BRCA mutations.

But the clinical significance is murkier for many other genetic tests.

Testing for BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes used to cost thousands of dollars. Now, for a fraction of that, doctors can order multigene test panels from commercial labs that look for mutations in dozens of genes. Some direct-to-consumer companies offer screening panels for a few hundred dollars, though their reliability varies.

When Jen Carbary was diagnosed with breast cancer in 2017 at age 44, genetic testing identified a mutation in a gene called PALB2 that significantly increases the risk of developing breast cancer. Guidelines suggest that breast cancer patients with a PALB2 mutation, much like those with BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations, consider having a mastectomy to reduce the chance of a breast cancer recurrence.

“I wish genetic testing was the standard of care,” said Ms. Carbary, who owed nothing for the test because her insurer covered the cost.

Ms. Carbary, who lives in Sterling Heights, Mich., said the test results affirmed the decision she had already made to have a double mastectomy and provided important information for family members, including her 21-year-old daughter and 18-year-old son, who will likely be tested in their mid-20s or early 30s.

But some breast cancer experts are concerned that widespread testing may also identify genetic mutations whose impact is unclear, creating anxiety and leading to further testing and to treatment of questionable value that could raise costs for the health care system.

It can also confuse patients.

“It happens a lot, that patients find their way to us after getting confusing results elsewhere,” said Mark Robson, MD, chief of the breast medicine service at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York. Robson said the cancer center has a clinical genetics service, staffed by doctors and genetic counselors, that helps people make decisions about how to manage genetic testing results.

For people diagnosed with breast cancer, many professional groups, including the influential National Comprehensive Cancer Network, recommend limiting testing to certain people, including those with high-risk factors, such as a family history of breast cancer; those who are 45 or younger when they’re diagnosed; and those with Ashkenazi Jewish ancestry.

But in 2019, the American Society of Breast Surgeons recommended a different approach: Offer genetic testing to all patients who are diagnosed with or have a personal history of breast cancer. The recommendation was controversial.

“The NCCN guidelines [cover] most of the women who needed testing, but we wanted to get them all,” said Eric Manahan, MD, a general surgeon in Dalton, Georgia, and a member of the surgeons group’s board of directors.

Mutations on other genes that are associated with breast cancer are much less common than BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations and generally don’t increase the risk of developing breast cancer as much. The cancer-causing impact of these genes may be less clear than that of the BRCA genes, which have been tested for since the mid-1990s.

And the appropriate response to the less common mutations – whether to consider a risk-reducing mastectomy or stepped-up screening – is often unclear.

“Things get sloppier and sloppier when you look at other genes,” said Steven Katz, MD, MPH, a professor of medicine and health management and policy at the University of Michigan. “The risks tend to be lower for different cancers, and less certain and more variable. You might walk away wondering: ‘Why’d I have to know that?’ ”

After people are diagnosed with breast cancer, genetic testing can help inform their decisions about the types of surgery to pursue – for example, a high risk of recurrence or a new breast cancer might persuade some to opt for more extensive surgery, such as a double mastectomy. Testing can also provide important information to family members about their potential cancer risk.

(This type of “germline” genetic testing, as it’s called, looks at mutations in the genes that people inherit from their parents. It is different from genomic tumor tests that look at specific genes or proteins in the cancer cells and can help doctors understand the rate at which the cancer cells are dividing, for example, and the likelihood of a cancer recurrence.)

Increasingly, germline genetic testing can also help guide other treatment decisions. Some patients with metastatic breast cancer who have BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations may be good candidates for poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors, cancer drugs that target tumors with mutations in those genes.

But genetic testing that uncovers inherited mutations in many other genes yields less clearly actionable information, even though positive results may alarm people.

At Memorial Sloan Kettering, cancer specialists focus on “therapeutic actionability,” said Dr. Robson. Will testing help someone decide whether she should get a double mastectomy or provide other important guidance? “A policy of testing everyone will identify very few additional BRCA breast mutations but will cost a lot.”

As a result, doctors are debating how best to deploy and incorporate new genetic knowledge. Insurers are trying to figure out which to pay for.

There is both underuse of tests that science says are relevant and overuse of tests that experts say provide information that can’t be interpreted with any scientific certainty.

The result may be confusion for patients newly diagnosed with breast cancer as they confront the expense of genetic tests and sometimes little guidance on the proper treatment.

Some doctors say the first step is to make sure that the small group of people who would clearly benefit are getting the genetic tests whose meaning is clearly understood. Only 15% of breast cancer patients who met select NCCN testing guidelines for inherited cancer received genetic testing, according to a 2017 study that examined data from a national household health survey between 2005 and 2015.

“I would argue that our focus needs to be on the people who are at high risk for breast cancer that aren’t even identified yet,” said Tuya Pal, MD, associate director for cancer health disparities at Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center and vice chair of the NCCN guidelines panel for genetic/familial high-risk assessment of breast, ovarian, and pancreatic cancers.

Patients may fall through the cracks because no one tells them they should be tested. In one analysis, 56% of high-risk breast cancer patients who didn’t get genetic testing said their doctors didn’t recommend it.

Even if doctors recommend genetic testing, they may lack the expertise to determine which tests people need and how to interpret the results. That’s the role of genetic counselors, but their ranks are stretched thin.

The consequences can be serious. In a study of 666 breast cancer patients who received genetic testing, half of those at average risk for inherited cancer got double mastectomies based on test results that found “variants of uncertain significance,” which aren’t clinically actionable. As many as half of surgeons reported managing such patients the same way as those with cancer-causing mutations.

“The bulk of our research would say that there is still room for improvement in terms of clinicians getting the understanding they need,” said Allison Kurian, MD, director of the women’s clinical cancer genetics program at Stanford (Calif.) University and a coauthor of the study.

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

The past decade has witnessed a rapid expansion of genetic tests, including new instruments to inform patients who have been diagnosed with breast cancer about the risk of recurrence and to guide their treatment.

But the clinical significance of many of the inherited mutations that can now be identified remains unclear, and experts are torn on when and how to deploy all the new tests available. Patients are sometimes left paying out-of-pocket for exams that are not yet the standard of care, and even the most up-to-date oncologists may be uncertain how to incorporate the flood of new information into what used to be standard treatment protocols.

A quarter-century ago, Myriad Genetics introduced the first breast cancer genetic test for BRCA mutations, two genes associated with a substantially elevated risk of getting breast cancer, opening the door to a new era in genetic testing. BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations account for as many as half of all hereditary breast cancers, and people with a problematic mutation on one of those genes have a 45%-72% chance of developing breast cancer during their lifetimes. They may also be at higher risk for ovarian and other cancers than people without harmful BRCA mutations.

But the clinical significance is murkier for many other genetic tests.

Testing for BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes used to cost thousands of dollars. Now, for a fraction of that, doctors can order multigene test panels from commercial labs that look for mutations in dozens of genes. Some direct-to-consumer companies offer screening panels for a few hundred dollars, though their reliability varies.

When Jen Carbary was diagnosed with breast cancer in 2017 at age 44, genetic testing identified a mutation in a gene called PALB2 that significantly increases the risk of developing breast cancer. Guidelines suggest that breast cancer patients with a PALB2 mutation, much like those with BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations, consider having a mastectomy to reduce the chance of a breast cancer recurrence.

“I wish genetic testing was the standard of care,” said Ms. Carbary, who owed nothing for the test because her insurer covered the cost.

Ms. Carbary, who lives in Sterling Heights, Mich., said the test results affirmed the decision she had already made to have a double mastectomy and provided important information for family members, including her 21-year-old daughter and 18-year-old son, who will likely be tested in their mid-20s or early 30s.

But some breast cancer experts are concerned that widespread testing may also identify genetic mutations whose impact is unclear, creating anxiety and leading to further testing and to treatment of questionable value that could raise costs for the health care system.

It can also confuse patients.

“It happens a lot, that patients find their way to us after getting confusing results elsewhere,” said Mark Robson, MD, chief of the breast medicine service at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York. Robson said the cancer center has a clinical genetics service, staffed by doctors and genetic counselors, that helps people make decisions about how to manage genetic testing results.

For people diagnosed with breast cancer, many professional groups, including the influential National Comprehensive Cancer Network, recommend limiting testing to certain people, including those with high-risk factors, such as a family history of breast cancer; those who are 45 or younger when they’re diagnosed; and those with Ashkenazi Jewish ancestry.

But in 2019, the American Society of Breast Surgeons recommended a different approach: Offer genetic testing to all patients who are diagnosed with or have a personal history of breast cancer. The recommendation was controversial.

“The NCCN guidelines [cover] most of the women who needed testing, but we wanted to get them all,” said Eric Manahan, MD, a general surgeon in Dalton, Georgia, and a member of the surgeons group’s board of directors.

Mutations on other genes that are associated with breast cancer are much less common than BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations and generally don’t increase the risk of developing breast cancer as much. The cancer-causing impact of these genes may be less clear than that of the BRCA genes, which have been tested for since the mid-1990s.

And the appropriate response to the less common mutations – whether to consider a risk-reducing mastectomy or stepped-up screening – is often unclear.

“Things get sloppier and sloppier when you look at other genes,” said Steven Katz, MD, MPH, a professor of medicine and health management and policy at the University of Michigan. “The risks tend to be lower for different cancers, and less certain and more variable. You might walk away wondering: ‘Why’d I have to know that?’ ”

After people are diagnosed with breast cancer, genetic testing can help inform their decisions about the types of surgery to pursue – for example, a high risk of recurrence or a new breast cancer might persuade some to opt for more extensive surgery, such as a double mastectomy. Testing can also provide important information to family members about their potential cancer risk.

(This type of “germline” genetic testing, as it’s called, looks at mutations in the genes that people inherit from their parents. It is different from genomic tumor tests that look at specific genes or proteins in the cancer cells and can help doctors understand the rate at which the cancer cells are dividing, for example, and the likelihood of a cancer recurrence.)

Increasingly, germline genetic testing can also help guide other treatment decisions. Some patients with metastatic breast cancer who have BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations may be good candidates for poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors, cancer drugs that target tumors with mutations in those genes.

But genetic testing that uncovers inherited mutations in many other genes yields less clearly actionable information, even though positive results may alarm people.

At Memorial Sloan Kettering, cancer specialists focus on “therapeutic actionability,” said Dr. Robson. Will testing help someone decide whether she should get a double mastectomy or provide other important guidance? “A policy of testing everyone will identify very few additional BRCA breast mutations but will cost a lot.”

As a result, doctors are debating how best to deploy and incorporate new genetic knowledge. Insurers are trying to figure out which to pay for.

There is both underuse of tests that science says are relevant and overuse of tests that experts say provide information that can’t be interpreted with any scientific certainty.

The result may be confusion for patients newly diagnosed with breast cancer as they confront the expense of genetic tests and sometimes little guidance on the proper treatment.

Some doctors say the first step is to make sure that the small group of people who would clearly benefit are getting the genetic tests whose meaning is clearly understood. Only 15% of breast cancer patients who met select NCCN testing guidelines for inherited cancer received genetic testing, according to a 2017 study that examined data from a national household health survey between 2005 and 2015.

“I would argue that our focus needs to be on the people who are at high risk for breast cancer that aren’t even identified yet,” said Tuya Pal, MD, associate director for cancer health disparities at Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center and vice chair of the NCCN guidelines panel for genetic/familial high-risk assessment of breast, ovarian, and pancreatic cancers.

Patients may fall through the cracks because no one tells them they should be tested. In one analysis, 56% of high-risk breast cancer patients who didn’t get genetic testing said their doctors didn’t recommend it.

Even if doctors recommend genetic testing, they may lack the expertise to determine which tests people need and how to interpret the results. That’s the role of genetic counselors, but their ranks are stretched thin.

The consequences can be serious. In a study of 666 breast cancer patients who received genetic testing, half of those at average risk for inherited cancer got double mastectomies based on test results that found “variants of uncertain significance,” which aren’t clinically actionable. As many as half of surgeons reported managing such patients the same way as those with cancer-causing mutations.

“The bulk of our research would say that there is still room for improvement in terms of clinicians getting the understanding they need,” said Allison Kurian, MD, director of the women’s clinical cancer genetics program at Stanford (Calif.) University and a coauthor of the study.

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

High body mass index (BMI) values are associated with higher survival among metastatic cancer patients treated with first- and second-line immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), but the relationship was only present in males.

That is the conclusion of a new retrospective analysis presented during a poster session given at the annual meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology. The study sought to better understand ICI outcomes. “These are complex new treatments and, because they harness the immune system, no two patients are likely to respond in the same way. BMI has previously been associated with improved survival in patients with advanced lung cancer treated with immunotherapy. However, the reasons behind this observation, and the implications for treatment are unknown, as is whether this observation is specific for patients with only certain types of cancers,” study author Dwight Owen, MD, said in an email.

He pointed out that the retrospective nature of the findings means that they have no immediate clinical implications. “The reason for the discrepancy in males remains unclear. Although our study included a relatively large number of patients, it is a heterogenous cohort and there may be confounding factors that we haven’t recognized, so these findings need to be replicated in larger cohorts,” said Dr. Owen, a medical oncologist with The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbus.

Asked if there is a potential biological explanation for a difference between males and females, Dr. Owen said that this is an area of intense research. One recent study examined whether androgen could help explain why men are more likely than women to both develop and have more aggressive nonreproductive cancers. They concluded that androgen receptor signaling may be leading to loss of effector and proliferative potential of CD8+ T cells in the tumor microenvironment. Once exhausted, these cells do not respond well to stimulation that can occur after ICI treatment.

On the opposite end of the spectrum, cancer cachexia is also a key subject of study. It is characterized by weight loss and is associated with worse clinical outcomes. A cachexia mouse model found that weight loss can lead to more clearance of immune checkpoint antibodies.

Still, much more work needs to be done. “For now, how BMI, obesity, and cachexia relate to other factors, for instance the microbiome and tumor immunogenicity, are still not fully understood,” Dr. Owen said.
 

The study data

The researchers analyzed data from 688 patients with metastatic cancer treated at their center between 2011 and 2017. 94% were White and 5% were Black. 41% were female and the mean age was 61.9 years. The mean BMI was 28.8 kg/m²; 40% of patients had melanoma, 23% had non–small cell lung cancer, 10% had renal cancer, and 27% had another form of cancer.

For every unit decrease in BMI, the researchers observed a 1.8% decrease in mortality (hazard ratio, 0.982; P = .007). Patients with a BMI of 40 or above had better survival than all other patients grouped by 5 BMI increments (that is, 35-40, 30-35, etc.). When separated by sex, males had a significant decrease in mortality for every increase in BMI unit (HR, 0.964; P = .004), but there was no significant difference among women (HR, 1.003; P = .706). The relationship in men held up after adjustment for Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group score, line of therapy, and cancer type (HR, 0.979; P = .0308). The researchers also looked at a separate cohort of 185 normal weight and 15 obese (BMI ≥ 40) NSCLC patients. Median survival was 27.5 months in the obese group and 9.1 months in the normal weight group (HR, 0.474; 95% CI, 0.232-0.969).

Dr. Owen has received research funding through his institution from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Genentech, Pfizer, Palobiofarma, and Onc.AI.

High body mass index (BMI) values are associated with higher survival among metastatic cancer patients treated with first- and second-line immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), but the relationship was only present in males.

That is the conclusion of a new retrospective analysis presented during a poster session given at the annual meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology. The study sought to better understand ICI outcomes. “These are complex new treatments and, because they harness the immune system, no two patients are likely to respond in the same way. BMI has previously been associated with improved survival in patients with advanced lung cancer treated with immunotherapy. However, the reasons behind this observation, and the implications for treatment are unknown, as is whether this observation is specific for patients with only certain types of cancers,” study author Dwight Owen, MD, said in an email.

He pointed out that the retrospective nature of the findings means that they have no immediate clinical implications. “The reason for the discrepancy in males remains unclear. Although our study included a relatively large number of patients, it is a heterogenous cohort and there may be confounding factors that we haven’t recognized, so these findings need to be replicated in larger cohorts,” said Dr. Owen, a medical oncologist with The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbus.

Asked if there is a potential biological explanation for a difference between males and females, Dr. Owen said that this is an area of intense research. One recent study examined whether androgen could help explain why men are more likely than women to both develop and have more aggressive nonreproductive cancers. They concluded that androgen receptor signaling may be leading to loss of effector and proliferative potential of CD8+ T cells in the tumor microenvironment. Once exhausted, these cells do not respond well to stimulation that can occur after ICI treatment.

On the opposite end of the spectrum, cancer cachexia is also a key subject of study. It is characterized by weight loss and is associated with worse clinical outcomes. A cachexia mouse model found that weight loss can lead to more clearance of immune checkpoint antibodies.

Still, much more work needs to be done. “For now, how BMI, obesity, and cachexia relate to other factors, for instance the microbiome and tumor immunogenicity, are still not fully understood,” Dr. Owen said.
 

The study data

The researchers analyzed data from 688 patients with metastatic cancer treated at their center between 2011 and 2017. 94% were White and 5% were Black. 41% were female and the mean age was 61.9 years. The mean BMI was 28.8 kg/m²; 40% of patients had melanoma, 23% had non–small cell lung cancer, 10% had renal cancer, and 27% had another form of cancer.

For every unit decrease in BMI, the researchers observed a 1.8% decrease in mortality (hazard ratio, 0.982; P = .007). Patients with a BMI of 40 or above had better survival than all other patients grouped by 5 BMI increments (that is, 35-40, 30-35, etc.). When separated by sex, males had a significant decrease in mortality for every increase in BMI unit (HR, 0.964; P = .004), but there was no significant difference among women (HR, 1.003; P = .706). The relationship in men held up after adjustment for Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group score, line of therapy, and cancer type (HR, 0.979; P = .0308). The researchers also looked at a separate cohort of 185 normal weight and 15 obese (BMI ≥ 40) NSCLC patients. Median survival was 27.5 months in the obese group and 9.1 months in the normal weight group (HR, 0.474; 95% CI, 0.232-0.969).

Dr. Owen has received research funding through his institution from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Genentech, Pfizer, Palobiofarma, and Onc.AI.

High body mass index (BMI) values are associated with higher survival among metastatic cancer patients treated with first- and second-line immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), but the relationship was only present in males.

That is the conclusion of a new retrospective analysis presented during a poster session given at the annual meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology. The study sought to better understand ICI outcomes. “These are complex new treatments and, because they harness the immune system, no two patients are likely to respond in the same way. BMI has previously been associated with improved survival in patients with advanced lung cancer treated with immunotherapy. However, the reasons behind this observation, and the implications for treatment are unknown, as is whether this observation is specific for patients with only certain types of cancers,” study author Dwight Owen, MD, said in an email.

He pointed out that the retrospective nature of the findings means that they have no immediate clinical implications. “The reason for the discrepancy in males remains unclear. Although our study included a relatively large number of patients, it is a heterogenous cohort and there may be confounding factors that we haven’t recognized, so these findings need to be replicated in larger cohorts,” said Dr. Owen, a medical oncologist with The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbus.

Asked if there is a potential biological explanation for a difference between males and females, Dr. Owen said that this is an area of intense research. One recent study examined whether androgen could help explain why men are more likely than women to both develop and have more aggressive nonreproductive cancers. They concluded that androgen receptor signaling may be leading to loss of effector and proliferative potential of CD8+ T cells in the tumor microenvironment. Once exhausted, these cells do not respond well to stimulation that can occur after ICI treatment.

On the opposite end of the spectrum, cancer cachexia is also a key subject of study. It is characterized by weight loss and is associated with worse clinical outcomes. A cachexia mouse model found that weight loss can lead to more clearance of immune checkpoint antibodies.

Still, much more work needs to be done. “For now, how BMI, obesity, and cachexia relate to other factors, for instance the microbiome and tumor immunogenicity, are still not fully understood,” Dr. Owen said.
 

The study data

The researchers analyzed data from 688 patients with metastatic cancer treated at their center between 2011 and 2017. 94% were White and 5% were Black. 41% were female and the mean age was 61.9 years. The mean BMI was 28.8 kg/m²; 40% of patients had melanoma, 23% had non–small cell lung cancer, 10% had renal cancer, and 27% had another form of cancer.

For every unit decrease in BMI, the researchers observed a 1.8% decrease in mortality (hazard ratio, 0.982; P = .007). Patients with a BMI of 40 or above had better survival than all other patients grouped by 5 BMI increments (that is, 35-40, 30-35, etc.). When separated by sex, males had a significant decrease in mortality for every increase in BMI unit (HR, 0.964; P = .004), but there was no significant difference among women (HR, 1.003; P = .706). The relationship in men held up after adjustment for Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group score, line of therapy, and cancer type (HR, 0.979; P = .0308). The researchers also looked at a separate cohort of 185 normal weight and 15 obese (BMI ≥ 40) NSCLC patients. Median survival was 27.5 months in the obese group and 9.1 months in the normal weight group (HR, 0.474; 95% CI, 0.232-0.969).

Dr. Owen has received research funding through his institution from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Genentech, Pfizer, Palobiofarma, and Onc.AI.

PARIS – If results of phase 3, randomized clinical trials are the gold standard for cancer drug approvals, then single-arm trials are at best a bronze or even brass standard, with results that should only be used, under certain conditions, for accelerated approvals that should then be followed by confirmatory studies.

In fact, many drugs approved over the last decade based solely on data from single-arm trials have been subsequently withdrawn when put through the rigors of a head-to-head randomized controlled trial, according to Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, from the department of oncology at Queen’s University, Kingston, Ont.

“Single-arm trials are not meant to provide confirmatory evidence sufficient for approval; However, that ship has sailed, and we have several drugs that are approved on the basis of single-arm trials, but we need to make sure that those approvals are accelerated or conditional approvals, not regular approval,” he said in a presentation included in a special session on drug approvals at the European Society for Medical Oncology Congress.

“We should not allow premature regular approval based on single-arm trials, because once a drug gets conditional approval, access is not an issue. Patients will have access to the drug anyway, but we should ensure that robust evidence follows, and long-term follow-up data are needed to develop confidence in the efficacy outcomes that are seen in single-arm trials,” he said.

In many cases, single-arm trials are large enough or of long enough duration that investigators could have reasonably performed a randomized controlled trial (RCT) in the first place, Dr. Gyawali added.
 

Why do single-arm trials?

The term “single-arm registration trial” is something of an oxymoron, he said, noting that the purpose of such trials should be whether to take the drug to a phase 3, randomized trial. But as authors of a 2019 study in JAMA Network Open showed, of a sample of phase 3 RCTs, 42% did not have a prior phase 2 trial, and 28% had a negative phase 2 trial. Single-arm trials may be acceptable for conditional drug approvals if all of the following conditions are met:

• A RCT is not possible because the disease is rare or randomization would be unethical.
• The safety of the drug is established and its potential benefits outweigh its risks.
• The drug is associated with a high and durable overall or objective response rate.
• The mechanism of action is supported by a strong scientific rationale, and if the drug may meet an unmet medical need.

Survival endpoints won’t do

Efficacy endpoints typically used in RCTs, such as progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) can be misleading because they may be a result of the natural history of the disease and not the drug being tested, whereas ORRs are almost certainly reflective of the action of the drug itself, because spontaneous tumor regression is a rare phenomenon, Dr. Gyawali said.

He cautioned, however, that the ORR of placebo is not zero percent. For example in a 2018 study of sorafenib (Nexavar) versus placebo for advanced or refractory desmoid tumors, the ORR with the active drug was 33%, and the ORR for placebo was 20%.

It’s also open to question, he said, what constitutes an acceptably high ORR and duration of response, pointing to Food and Drug Administration accelerated approval of an indication for nivolumab (Opdivo) for treatment of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) that had progressed on sorafenib. In the single-arm trial used as the basis for approval, the ORRs as assessed by an independent central review committee blinded to the results was 14.3%.

“So, nivolumab in hepatocellular cancer was approved on the basis of a response rate lower than that of placebo, albeit in a different tumor. But the point I’m trying to show here is we don’t have a good definition of what is a good response rate,” he said.

In July 2021, Bristol-Myers Squibb voluntarily withdrew the HCC indication for nivolumab, following negative results of the CheckMate 459 trial and a 5-4 vote against continuing the accelerated approval.
 

On second thought ...

Citing data compiled by Nathan I. Cherny, MD, from Shaare Zedek Medical Center, Jerusalem, Dr. Gyawali noted that 58 of 161 FDA approvals from 2017 to 2021 of drugs for adult solid tumors were based on single-arm trials. Of the 58 drugs, 39 received accelerated approvals, and 19 received regular approvals; of the 39 that received accelerated approvals, 4 were subsequently withdrawn, 8 were converted to regular approvals, and the remainder continued as accelerated approvals.

Interestingly, the median response rate among all the drugs was 40%, and did not differ between the type of approval received, suggesting that response rates are not predictive of whether a drug will receive a conditional or full-fledged go-ahead.
 

What’s rare and safe?

The definition of a rare disease in the United States is one that affects fewer than 40,000 per year, and in Europe it’s an incidence rate of less than 6 per 100,000 population, Dr. Gyawali noted. But he argued that even non–small cell lung cancer, the most common form of cancer in the world, could be considered rare if it is broken down into subtypes that are treated according to specific mutations that may occur in a relatively small number of patients.

He also noted that a specific drug’s safety, one of the most important criteria for granting approval to a drug based on a single-arm trial, can be difficult to judge without adequate controls for comparison.
 

Cherry-picking patients

Winette van der Graaf, MD, president of the European Organization for the Research and Treatment of Cancer, who attended the session where Dr. Gyawali’s presentation was played, said in an interview that clinicians should cast a critical eye on how trials are designed and conducted, including patient selection and choice of endpoints.

“One of the most obvious things to be concerned about is that we’re still having patients with good performance status enrolled, mostly PS 0 or 1, so how representative are these clinical trials for the patients we see in front of us on a daily basis?” she said.

“The other question is radiological endpoints, which we focus on with OS and PFS are most important for patients, especially if you consider that if patients may have asymptomatic disease, and we are only treating them with potentially toxic medication, what are we doing for them? Median overall survival when you look at all of these trials is only 4 months, so we really need to take into account how we affect patients in clinical trials,” she added.

Dr. van der Graaf emphasized that clinical trial investigators need to more routinely incorporate quality of life measures and other patient-reported outcomes in clinical trial results to help regulators and clinicians in practice get a better sense of the true clinical benefit of a new drug.

Dr. Gyawali did not disclose a funding source for his presentation. He reported consulting fees from Vivio Health and research grants from the American Society of Clinical Oncology. Dr. van der Graaf reported no conflicts of interest.

PARIS – If results of phase 3, randomized clinical trials are the gold standard for cancer drug approvals, then single-arm trials are at best a bronze or even brass standard, with results that should only be used, under certain conditions, for accelerated approvals that should then be followed by confirmatory studies.

In fact, many drugs approved over the last decade based solely on data from single-arm trials have been subsequently withdrawn when put through the rigors of a head-to-head randomized controlled trial, according to Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, from the department of oncology at Queen’s University, Kingston, Ont.

“Single-arm trials are not meant to provide confirmatory evidence sufficient for approval; However, that ship has sailed, and we have several drugs that are approved on the basis of single-arm trials, but we need to make sure that those approvals are accelerated or conditional approvals, not regular approval,” he said in a presentation included in a special session on drug approvals at the European Society for Medical Oncology Congress.

“We should not allow premature regular approval based on single-arm trials, because once a drug gets conditional approval, access is not an issue. Patients will have access to the drug anyway, but we should ensure that robust evidence follows, and long-term follow-up data are needed to develop confidence in the efficacy outcomes that are seen in single-arm trials,” he said.

In many cases, single-arm trials are large enough or of long enough duration that investigators could have reasonably performed a randomized controlled trial (RCT) in the first place, Dr. Gyawali added.
 

Why do single-arm trials?

The term “single-arm registration trial” is something of an oxymoron, he said, noting that the purpose of such trials should be whether to take the drug to a phase 3, randomized trial. But as authors of a 2019 study in JAMA Network Open showed, of a sample of phase 3 RCTs, 42% did not have a prior phase 2 trial, and 28% had a negative phase 2 trial. Single-arm trials may be acceptable for conditional drug approvals if all of the following conditions are met:

• A RCT is not possible because the disease is rare or randomization would be unethical.
• The safety of the drug is established and its potential benefits outweigh its risks.
• The drug is associated with a high and durable overall or objective response rate.
• The mechanism of action is supported by a strong scientific rationale, and if the drug may meet an unmet medical need.

Survival endpoints won’t do

Efficacy endpoints typically used in RCTs, such as progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) can be misleading because they may be a result of the natural history of the disease and not the drug being tested, whereas ORRs are almost certainly reflective of the action of the drug itself, because spontaneous tumor regression is a rare phenomenon, Dr. Gyawali said.

He cautioned, however, that the ORR of placebo is not zero percent. For example in a 2018 study of sorafenib (Nexavar) versus placebo for advanced or refractory desmoid tumors, the ORR with the active drug was 33%, and the ORR for placebo was 20%.

It’s also open to question, he said, what constitutes an acceptably high ORR and duration of response, pointing to Food and Drug Administration accelerated approval of an indication for nivolumab (Opdivo) for treatment of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) that had progressed on sorafenib. In the single-arm trial used as the basis for approval, the ORRs as assessed by an independent central review committee blinded to the results was 14.3%.

“So, nivolumab in hepatocellular cancer was approved on the basis of a response rate lower than that of placebo, albeit in a different tumor. But the point I’m trying to show here is we don’t have a good definition of what is a good response rate,” he said.

In July 2021, Bristol-Myers Squibb voluntarily withdrew the HCC indication for nivolumab, following negative results of the CheckMate 459 trial and a 5-4 vote against continuing the accelerated approval.
 

On second thought ...

Citing data compiled by Nathan I. Cherny, MD, from Shaare Zedek Medical Center, Jerusalem, Dr. Gyawali noted that 58 of 161 FDA approvals from 2017 to 2021 of drugs for adult solid tumors were based on single-arm trials. Of the 58 drugs, 39 received accelerated approvals, and 19 received regular approvals; of the 39 that received accelerated approvals, 4 were subsequently withdrawn, 8 were converted to regular approvals, and the remainder continued as accelerated approvals.

Interestingly, the median response rate among all the drugs was 40%, and did not differ between the type of approval received, suggesting that response rates are not predictive of whether a drug will receive a conditional or full-fledged go-ahead.
 

What’s rare and safe?

The definition of a rare disease in the United States is one that affects fewer than 40,000 per year, and in Europe it’s an incidence rate of less than 6 per 100,000 population, Dr. Gyawali noted. But he argued that even non–small cell lung cancer, the most common form of cancer in the world, could be considered rare if it is broken down into subtypes that are treated according to specific mutations that may occur in a relatively small number of patients.

He also noted that a specific drug’s safety, one of the most important criteria for granting approval to a drug based on a single-arm trial, can be difficult to judge without adequate controls for comparison.
 

Cherry-picking patients

Winette van der Graaf, MD, president of the European Organization for the Research and Treatment of Cancer, who attended the session where Dr. Gyawali’s presentation was played, said in an interview that clinicians should cast a critical eye on how trials are designed and conducted, including patient selection and choice of endpoints.

“One of the most obvious things to be concerned about is that we’re still having patients with good performance status enrolled, mostly PS 0 or 1, so how representative are these clinical trials for the patients we see in front of us on a daily basis?” she said.

“The other question is radiological endpoints, which we focus on with OS and PFS are most important for patients, especially if you consider that if patients may have asymptomatic disease, and we are only treating them with potentially toxic medication, what are we doing for them? Median overall survival when you look at all of these trials is only 4 months, so we really need to take into account how we affect patients in clinical trials,” she added.

Dr. van der Graaf emphasized that clinical trial investigators need to more routinely incorporate quality of life measures and other patient-reported outcomes in clinical trial results to help regulators and clinicians in practice get a better sense of the true clinical benefit of a new drug.

Dr. Gyawali did not disclose a funding source for his presentation. He reported consulting fees from Vivio Health and research grants from the American Society of Clinical Oncology. Dr. van der Graaf reported no conflicts of interest.

PARIS – If results of phase 3, randomized clinical trials are the gold standard for cancer drug approvals, then single-arm trials are at best a bronze or even brass standard, with results that should only be used, under certain conditions, for accelerated approvals that should then be followed by confirmatory studies.

In fact, many drugs approved over the last decade based solely on data from single-arm trials have been subsequently withdrawn when put through the rigors of a head-to-head randomized controlled trial, according to Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, from the department of oncology at Queen’s University, Kingston, Ont.

“Single-arm trials are not meant to provide confirmatory evidence sufficient for approval; However, that ship has sailed, and we have several drugs that are approved on the basis of single-arm trials, but we need to make sure that those approvals are accelerated or conditional approvals, not regular approval,” he said in a presentation included in a special session on drug approvals at the European Society for Medical Oncology Congress.

“We should not allow premature regular approval based on single-arm trials, because once a drug gets conditional approval, access is not an issue. Patients will have access to the drug anyway, but we should ensure that robust evidence follows, and long-term follow-up data are needed to develop confidence in the efficacy outcomes that are seen in single-arm trials,” he said.

In many cases, single-arm trials are large enough or of long enough duration that investigators could have reasonably performed a randomized controlled trial (RCT) in the first place, Dr. Gyawali added.
 

Why do single-arm trials?

The term “single-arm registration trial” is something of an oxymoron, he said, noting that the purpose of such trials should be whether to take the drug to a phase 3, randomized trial. But as authors of a 2019 study in JAMA Network Open showed, of a sample of phase 3 RCTs, 42% did not have a prior phase 2 trial, and 28% had a negative phase 2 trial. Single-arm trials may be acceptable for conditional drug approvals if all of the following conditions are met:

• A RCT is not possible because the disease is rare or randomization would be unethical.
• The safety of the drug is established and its potential benefits outweigh its risks.
• The drug is associated with a high and durable overall or objective response rate.
• The mechanism of action is supported by a strong scientific rationale, and if the drug may meet an unmet medical need.

Survival endpoints won’t do

Efficacy endpoints typically used in RCTs, such as progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) can be misleading because they may be a result of the natural history of the disease and not the drug being tested, whereas ORRs are almost certainly reflective of the action of the drug itself, because spontaneous tumor regression is a rare phenomenon, Dr. Gyawali said.

He cautioned, however, that the ORR of placebo is not zero percent. For example in a 2018 study of sorafenib (Nexavar) versus placebo for advanced or refractory desmoid tumors, the ORR with the active drug was 33%, and the ORR for placebo was 20%.

It’s also open to question, he said, what constitutes an acceptably high ORR and duration of response, pointing to Food and Drug Administration accelerated approval of an indication for nivolumab (Opdivo) for treatment of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) that had progressed on sorafenib. In the single-arm trial used as the basis for approval, the ORRs as assessed by an independent central review committee blinded to the results was 14.3%.

“So, nivolumab in hepatocellular cancer was approved on the basis of a response rate lower than that of placebo, albeit in a different tumor. But the point I’m trying to show here is we don’t have a good definition of what is a good response rate,” he said.

In July 2021, Bristol-Myers Squibb voluntarily withdrew the HCC indication for nivolumab, following negative results of the CheckMate 459 trial and a 5-4 vote against continuing the accelerated approval.
 

On second thought ...

Citing data compiled by Nathan I. Cherny, MD, from Shaare Zedek Medical Center, Jerusalem, Dr. Gyawali noted that 58 of 161 FDA approvals from 2017 to 2021 of drugs for adult solid tumors were based on single-arm trials. Of the 58 drugs, 39 received accelerated approvals, and 19 received regular approvals; of the 39 that received accelerated approvals, 4 were subsequently withdrawn, 8 were converted to regular approvals, and the remainder continued as accelerated approvals.

Interestingly, the median response rate among all the drugs was 40%, and did not differ between the type of approval received, suggesting that response rates are not predictive of whether a drug will receive a conditional or full-fledged go-ahead.
 

What’s rare and safe?

The definition of a rare disease in the United States is one that affects fewer than 40,000 per year, and in Europe it’s an incidence rate of less than 6 per 100,000 population, Dr. Gyawali noted. But he argued that even non–small cell lung cancer, the most common form of cancer in the world, could be considered rare if it is broken down into subtypes that are treated according to specific mutations that may occur in a relatively small number of patients.

He also noted that a specific drug’s safety, one of the most important criteria for granting approval to a drug based on a single-arm trial, can be difficult to judge without adequate controls for comparison.
 

Cherry-picking patients

Winette van der Graaf, MD, president of the European Organization for the Research and Treatment of Cancer, who attended the session where Dr. Gyawali’s presentation was played, said in an interview that clinicians should cast a critical eye on how trials are designed and conducted, including patient selection and choice of endpoints.

“One of the most obvious things to be concerned about is that we’re still having patients with good performance status enrolled, mostly PS 0 or 1, so how representative are these clinical trials for the patients we see in front of us on a daily basis?” she said.

“The other question is radiological endpoints, which we focus on with OS and PFS are most important for patients, especially if you consider that if patients may have asymptomatic disease, and we are only treating them with potentially toxic medication, what are we doing for them? Median overall survival when you look at all of these trials is only 4 months, so we really need to take into account how we affect patients in clinical trials,” she added.

Dr. van der Graaf emphasized that clinical trial investigators need to more routinely incorporate quality of life measures and other patient-reported outcomes in clinical trial results to help regulators and clinicians in practice get a better sense of the true clinical benefit of a new drug.

Dr. Gyawali did not disclose a funding source for his presentation. He reported consulting fees from Vivio Health and research grants from the American Society of Clinical Oncology. Dr. van der Graaf reported no conflicts of interest.

Key clinical point: Several preoperative and postoperative factors predict the risk for arm lymphedema in patients who undergo breast cancer (BC) surgery.

Major finding: Young age (<60 years; P < .001), high body mass index (P < .001), advanced preoperative T and N classifications (P ≤ .01), total mastectomy (P < .001), axillary dissection (P < .001), and collagen disease (P = .024) were the preoperative risk factors for lymphedema. Postoperative bleeding (P   =   .017), chemotherapy (P < .001), and radiotherapy (P < .001) were among the postoperative risk factors for lymphedema.

Study details: Findings are from a nationwide retrospective cohort study including 84,022 women who underwent BC surgery, of which 1547 patients received treatments for lymphedema.

Disclosures: This work was supported by the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare, Japan, and other sources. N Michihata declared serving as an employee at The University of Tokyo.

Source: Konishi T et al. Risk factors for arm lymphedema following breast cancer surgery: A Japanese nationwide database study of 84,022 patients. Breast Cancer. 2022 (Aug 23). Doi: 10.1007/s12282-022-01395-5.

Key clinical point: Several preoperative and postoperative factors predict the risk for arm lymphedema in patients who undergo breast cancer (BC) surgery.

Major finding: Young age (<60 years; P < .001), high body mass index (P < .001), advanced preoperative T and N classifications (P ≤ .01), total mastectomy (P < .001), axillary dissection (P < .001), and collagen disease (P = .024) were the preoperative risk factors for lymphedema. Postoperative bleeding (P   =   .017), chemotherapy (P < .001), and radiotherapy (P < .001) were among the postoperative risk factors for lymphedema.

Study details: Findings are from a nationwide retrospective cohort study including 84,022 women who underwent BC surgery, of which 1547 patients received treatments for lymphedema.

Disclosures: This work was supported by the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare, Japan, and other sources. N Michihata declared serving as an employee at The University of Tokyo.

Source: Konishi T et al. Risk factors for arm lymphedema following breast cancer surgery: A Japanese nationwide database study of 84,022 patients. Breast Cancer. 2022 (Aug 23). Doi: 10.1007/s12282-022-01395-5.

Key clinical point: Several preoperative and postoperative factors predict the risk for arm lymphedema in patients who undergo breast cancer (BC) surgery.

Major finding: Young age (<60 years; P < .001), high body mass index (P < .001), advanced preoperative T and N classifications (P ≤ .01), total mastectomy (P < .001), axillary dissection (P < .001), and collagen disease (P = .024) were the preoperative risk factors for lymphedema. Postoperative bleeding (P   =   .017), chemotherapy (P < .001), and radiotherapy (P < .001) were among the postoperative risk factors for lymphedema.

Study details: Findings are from a nationwide retrospective cohort study including 84,022 women who underwent BC surgery, of which 1547 patients received treatments for lymphedema.

Disclosures: This work was supported by the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare, Japan, and other sources. N Michihata declared serving as an employee at The University of Tokyo.

Source: Konishi T et al. Risk factors for arm lymphedema following breast cancer surgery: A Japanese nationwide database study of 84,022 patients. Breast Cancer. 2022 (Aug 23). Doi: 10.1007/s12282-022-01395-5.

Key clinical point: Letrozole-associated controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (LetCOH) was as effective as conventional controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (cCOH) for fertility preservation (FP) and minimized the risk for supraphysiologic estrogen exposure; however, more patients in the LetCOH group relapsed.

Major finding: In the LetCOH vs cCOH group, estradiol peak at the ovulation trigger was lower, but oocyte maturation rates were significantly higher (P < .001), and the final number of mature oocytes collected was comparable (P   =   .281). Disease recurrence occurred in 17% and 7.2% of patients in the LetCOH and cCOH groups, respectively.

Study details: Findings are from a retrospective observational study including 97 patients with nonmetastatic breast cancer (BC) who were ≤ 40 years old and had undergone FP with LetCOH (n = 41) or cCOH (n = 56) before receiving chemotherapy.

Disclosures: This study did not receive any funding. I Demeestere declared receiving honoraria and support and serving as a consultant or advisor for several sources outside this work.

Source: Goldrat O et al. Efficacy and safety of controlled ovarian hyperstimulation with or without letrozole for fertility preservation in breast cancer patients: A multicenter retrospective study. Eur J Cancer. 2022;174:134-141 (Aug 20). Doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2022.07.017

Key clinical point: Letrozole-associated controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (LetCOH) was as effective as conventional controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (cCOH) for fertility preservation (FP) and minimized the risk for supraphysiologic estrogen exposure; however, more patients in the LetCOH group relapsed.

Major finding: In the LetCOH vs cCOH group, estradiol peak at the ovulation trigger was lower, but oocyte maturation rates were significantly higher (P < .001), and the final number of mature oocytes collected was comparable (P   =   .281). Disease recurrence occurred in 17% and 7.2% of patients in the LetCOH and cCOH groups, respectively.

Study details: Findings are from a retrospective observational study including 97 patients with nonmetastatic breast cancer (BC) who were ≤ 40 years old and had undergone FP with LetCOH (n = 41) or cCOH (n = 56) before receiving chemotherapy.

Disclosures: This study did not receive any funding. I Demeestere declared receiving honoraria and support and serving as a consultant or advisor for several sources outside this work.

Source: Goldrat O et al. Efficacy and safety of controlled ovarian hyperstimulation with or without letrozole for fertility preservation in breast cancer patients: A multicenter retrospective study. Eur J Cancer. 2022;174:134-141 (Aug 20). Doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2022.07.017

Key clinical point: Letrozole-associated controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (LetCOH) was as effective as conventional controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (cCOH) for fertility preservation (FP) and minimized the risk for supraphysiologic estrogen exposure; however, more patients in the LetCOH group relapsed.

Major finding: In the LetCOH vs cCOH group, estradiol peak at the ovulation trigger was lower, but oocyte maturation rates were significantly higher (P < .001), and the final number of mature oocytes collected was comparable (P   =   .281). Disease recurrence occurred in 17% and 7.2% of patients in the LetCOH and cCOH groups, respectively.

Study details: Findings are from a retrospective observational study including 97 patients with nonmetastatic breast cancer (BC) who were ≤ 40 years old and had undergone FP with LetCOH (n = 41) or cCOH (n = 56) before receiving chemotherapy.

Disclosures: This study did not receive any funding. I Demeestere declared receiving honoraria and support and serving as a consultant or advisor for several sources outside this work.

Source: Goldrat O et al. Efficacy and safety of controlled ovarian hyperstimulation with or without letrozole for fertility preservation in breast cancer patients: A multicenter retrospective study. Eur J Cancer. 2022;174:134-141 (Aug 20). Doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2022.07.017

Key clinical point: Women who were diagnosed with breast cancer (BC) at a young age and underwent fertility preservation (FP) did not experience any increased risk for disease-specific mortality or relapse.

Major finding: Compared with women who did not undergo FP, disease-specific mortality was similar in women who underwent hormonal FP (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0.59; 95% CI 0.32-1.09) and nonhormonal FP (aHR 0.51; 95% CI 0.20-1.29). Hormonal (aHR 0.81; 95% CI 0.49-1.37) and nonhormonal (aHR 0.75; 95% CI 0.35-1.62) FP were associated with similar relapse or death rates in a subcohort of 723 women with complete relapse information.

Study details: Findings are from an analysis of a population-based nationwide cohort study including 1275 women of reproductive age (18-44 years old) who were diagnosed with BC, of which 425 women received hormonal (n = 367) or nonhormonal (n = 58) FP treatment.

Disclosures: This study was supported by the Swedish Cancer Society and other sources. Prof. Bergh declared receiving grants and personal fees from several sources.

Source: Marklund A et al. Relapse rates and disease-specific mortality following procedures for fertility preservation at time of breast cancer diagnosis. JAMA Oncol. 2022 (Aug 25). Doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2022.3677

Key clinical point: Women who were diagnosed with breast cancer (BC) at a young age and underwent fertility preservation (FP) did not experience any increased risk for disease-specific mortality or relapse.

Major finding: Compared with women who did not undergo FP, disease-specific mortality was similar in women who underwent hormonal FP (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0.59; 95% CI 0.32-1.09) and nonhormonal FP (aHR 0.51; 95% CI 0.20-1.29). Hormonal (aHR 0.81; 95% CI 0.49-1.37) and nonhormonal (aHR 0.75; 95% CI 0.35-1.62) FP were associated with similar relapse or death rates in a subcohort of 723 women with complete relapse information.

Study details: Findings are from an analysis of a population-based nationwide cohort study including 1275 women of reproductive age (18-44 years old) who were diagnosed with BC, of which 425 women received hormonal (n = 367) or nonhormonal (n = 58) FP treatment.

Disclosures: This study was supported by the Swedish Cancer Society and other sources. Prof. Bergh declared receiving grants and personal fees from several sources.

Source: Marklund A et al. Relapse rates and disease-specific mortality following procedures for fertility preservation at time of breast cancer diagnosis. JAMA Oncol. 2022 (Aug 25). Doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2022.3677

Key clinical point: Women who were diagnosed with breast cancer (BC) at a young age and underwent fertility preservation (FP) did not experience any increased risk for disease-specific mortality or relapse.

Major finding: Compared with women who did not undergo FP, disease-specific mortality was similar in women who underwent hormonal FP (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0.59; 95% CI 0.32-1.09) and nonhormonal FP (aHR 0.51; 95% CI 0.20-1.29). Hormonal (aHR 0.81; 95% CI 0.49-1.37) and nonhormonal (aHR 0.75; 95% CI 0.35-1.62) FP were associated with similar relapse or death rates in a subcohort of 723 women with complete relapse information.

Study details: Findings are from an analysis of a population-based nationwide cohort study including 1275 women of reproductive age (18-44 years old) who were diagnosed with BC, of which 425 women received hormonal (n = 367) or nonhormonal (n = 58) FP treatment.

Disclosures: This study was supported by the Swedish Cancer Society and other sources. Prof. Bergh declared receiving grants and personal fees from several sources.

Source: Marklund A et al. Relapse rates and disease-specific mortality following procedures for fertility preservation at time of breast cancer diagnosis. JAMA Oncol. 2022 (Aug 25). Doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2022.3677

Key clinical point: In estrogen receptor-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor-positive (ER+/HER2+) breast cancer (BC), HER2-enriched (HER2-E) tumors were more likely to respond poorly to aromatase inhibitor (AI) therapy and pose an increased risk for disease recurrence.

Major finding: AI-treated HER2-E tumors were associated with poorer Ki67 response and higher Ki67 expression level at 2-weeks timepoint compared with luminal A and B tumors (odds ratio 1.52-12.31; false discovery rate < 0.0001). HER2-E subtype was an independent predictor of shorter time to recurrence (hazard ratio 2.55; P   =   .022).

Study details: Findings are from the phase 3 POETIC trial including 342 patients with early ER+/HER2+ BC who were assigned to 2 weeks of perisurgical AI (n = 237) or no AI (n = 105).

Disclosures: This study was funded by Cancer Research UK. Some authors declared holding or filing patents or receiving grants, nonfinancial support, consulting fees, honoraria, or research funding from several sources.

Source: Bergamino MA et al. HER2-enriched subtype and novel molecular subgroups drive aromatase inhibitor resistance and an increased risk of relapse in early ER+/HER2+ breast cancer. EBioMedicine. 2022;83:104205 (Aug 16). Doi: 10.1016/j.ebiom.2022.104205

Key clinical point: In estrogen receptor-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor-positive (ER+/HER2+) breast cancer (BC), HER2-enriched (HER2-E) tumors were more likely to respond poorly to aromatase inhibitor (AI) therapy and pose an increased risk for disease recurrence.

Major finding: AI-treated HER2-E tumors were associated with poorer Ki67 response and higher Ki67 expression level at 2-weeks timepoint compared with luminal A and B tumors (odds ratio 1.52-12.31; false discovery rate < 0.0001). HER2-E subtype was an independent predictor of shorter time to recurrence (hazard ratio 2.55; P   =   .022).

Study details: Findings are from the phase 3 POETIC trial including 342 patients with early ER+/HER2+ BC who were assigned to 2 weeks of perisurgical AI (n = 237) or no AI (n = 105).

Disclosures: This study was funded by Cancer Research UK. Some authors declared holding or filing patents or receiving grants, nonfinancial support, consulting fees, honoraria, or research funding from several sources.

Source: Bergamino MA et al. HER2-enriched subtype and novel molecular subgroups drive aromatase inhibitor resistance and an increased risk of relapse in early ER+/HER2+ breast cancer. EBioMedicine. 2022;83:104205 (Aug 16). Doi: 10.1016/j.ebiom.2022.104205

Key clinical point: In estrogen receptor-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor-positive (ER+/HER2+) breast cancer (BC), HER2-enriched (HER2-E) tumors were more likely to respond poorly to aromatase inhibitor (AI) therapy and pose an increased risk for disease recurrence.

Major finding: AI-treated HER2-E tumors were associated with poorer Ki67 response and higher Ki67 expression level at 2-weeks timepoint compared with luminal A and B tumors (odds ratio 1.52-12.31; false discovery rate < 0.0001). HER2-E subtype was an independent predictor of shorter time to recurrence (hazard ratio 2.55; P   =   .022).

Study details: Findings are from the phase 3 POETIC trial including 342 patients with early ER+/HER2+ BC who were assigned to 2 weeks of perisurgical AI (n = 237) or no AI (n = 105).

Disclosures: This study was funded by Cancer Research UK. Some authors declared holding or filing patents or receiving grants, nonfinancial support, consulting fees, honoraria, or research funding from several sources.

Source: Bergamino MA et al. HER2-enriched subtype and novel molecular subgroups drive aromatase inhibitor resistance and an increased risk of relapse in early ER+/HER2+ breast cancer. EBioMedicine. 2022;83:104205 (Aug 16). Doi: 10.1016/j.ebiom.2022.104205