Does the name Bruce Lipton sound familiar to you? Until a few years ago the only bell that it rang with me was that I had a high school classmate named Bruce Lipton. I recall that his father owned the local grocery store and he was one of the most prolific pranksters in a class with a long history of prank playing. If the name dredges up any associations for you it may because you have heard of a PhD biologist who has written and lectured extensively on epigenetics. You may have even read his most widely published book, “The Biology of Belief.” It turns out the Epigenetics Guy and my high school prankster classmate are one and the same.

After decades of separation – he is in California and I’m here in Maine – we have reconnected via Zoom mini reunions that our class has organized to combat the isolation that has descended on us with the pandemic. While I haven’t read his books, I have watched and listened to some of his podcasts and lectures. The devilish twinkle in his eye in the 1950s and 1960s has provided the scaffolding on which he has built a charismatic and persuasive presentation style.

Bruce was no dummy in school but his early career as a cell biologist doing research in stem-cell function was a surprise to all of us. But then high school reunions are often full of surprises and should serve as good reminders of the danger of profiling and pigeon-holing adolescents.

Professor Lipton’s take on epigenetics boils down to the notion that our genome should merely be considered a blueprint and not the final determinant of who we are and what illnesses befall us. His research and observations suggest to him that there are an uncountable number extragenomic factors, including environmental conditions and our belief systems, that can influence how that blueprint is read and the resulting expression of the genes we have inherited.

At face value, Bruce’s basic premise falls very close to some of the conclusions I have toyed with in an attempt to explain what I have observed doing primary care pediatrics. For example, I have trouble blaming the meteoric rise of the ADHD phenomenon on a genetic mutation. I suspect there are likely to be extragenomic forces coming into play, such as sleep deprivation and changing child-rearing practices. In my Oct. 9, 2020, Letters from Maine column I referred to a Swedish twins study that suggested children from a family with a strong history of depression were more likely to develop depression when raised in an adopted family that experienced domestic turmoil. His philosophy also fits with my sense that I have more control over my own health outcomes than many other people.

However, Professor Lipton and I part company (just philosophically that is) when he slips into hyperbole and applies what he terms as the New Biology too broadly. He may be correct that the revolutionary changes which came in the wake of Watson and Crick’s double helix discovery have resulted in a view of pathophysiology that is overly focused on what we are learning about our genome. On the other hand it is refreshing to hear someone with his charismatic and persuasive skills question the status quo.

If you haven’t listened to what he has to say I urge you to browse the Internet and sample some of his talks. I am sure you will find what he has to say stimulating. I doubt you will buy his whole package but I suspect you may find some bits you can agree with.

It still boils down to the old nature versus nurture argument. He’s all in for nurture. I’m still more comfortable straddling the fence.
 

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].

Does the name Bruce Lipton sound familiar to you? Until a few years ago the only bell that it rang with me was that I had a high school classmate named Bruce Lipton. I recall that his father owned the local grocery store and he was one of the most prolific pranksters in a class with a long history of prank playing. If the name dredges up any associations for you it may because you have heard of a PhD biologist who has written and lectured extensively on epigenetics. You may have even read his most widely published book, “The Biology of Belief.” It turns out the Epigenetics Guy and my high school prankster classmate are one and the same.

After decades of separation – he is in California and I’m here in Maine – we have reconnected via Zoom mini reunions that our class has organized to combat the isolation that has descended on us with the pandemic. While I haven’t read his books, I have watched and listened to some of his podcasts and lectures. The devilish twinkle in his eye in the 1950s and 1960s has provided the scaffolding on which he has built a charismatic and persuasive presentation style.

Bruce was no dummy in school but his early career as a cell biologist doing research in stem-cell function was a surprise to all of us. But then high school reunions are often full of surprises and should serve as good reminders of the danger of profiling and pigeon-holing adolescents.

Professor Lipton’s take on epigenetics boils down to the notion that our genome should merely be considered a blueprint and not the final determinant of who we are and what illnesses befall us. His research and observations suggest to him that there are an uncountable number extragenomic factors, including environmental conditions and our belief systems, that can influence how that blueprint is read and the resulting expression of the genes we have inherited.

At face value, Bruce’s basic premise falls very close to some of the conclusions I have toyed with in an attempt to explain what I have observed doing primary care pediatrics. For example, I have trouble blaming the meteoric rise of the ADHD phenomenon on a genetic mutation. I suspect there are likely to be extragenomic forces coming into play, such as sleep deprivation and changing child-rearing practices. In my Oct. 9, 2020, Letters from Maine column I referred to a Swedish twins study that suggested children from a family with a strong history of depression were more likely to develop depression when raised in an adopted family that experienced domestic turmoil. His philosophy also fits with my sense that I have more control over my own health outcomes than many other people.

However, Professor Lipton and I part company (just philosophically that is) when he slips into hyperbole and applies what he terms as the New Biology too broadly. He may be correct that the revolutionary changes which came in the wake of Watson and Crick’s double helix discovery have resulted in a view of pathophysiology that is overly focused on what we are learning about our genome. On the other hand it is refreshing to hear someone with his charismatic and persuasive skills question the status quo.

If you haven’t listened to what he has to say I urge you to browse the Internet and sample some of his talks. I am sure you will find what he has to say stimulating. I doubt you will buy his whole package but I suspect you may find some bits you can agree with.

It still boils down to the old nature versus nurture argument. He’s all in for nurture. I’m still more comfortable straddling the fence.
 

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].

Does the name Bruce Lipton sound familiar to you? Until a few years ago the only bell that it rang with me was that I had a high school classmate named Bruce Lipton. I recall that his father owned the local grocery store and he was one of the most prolific pranksters in a class with a long history of prank playing. If the name dredges up any associations for you it may because you have heard of a PhD biologist who has written and lectured extensively on epigenetics. You may have even read his most widely published book, “The Biology of Belief.” It turns out the Epigenetics Guy and my high school prankster classmate are one and the same.

After decades of separation – he is in California and I’m here in Maine – we have reconnected via Zoom mini reunions that our class has organized to combat the isolation that has descended on us with the pandemic. While I haven’t read his books, I have watched and listened to some of his podcasts and lectures. The devilish twinkle in his eye in the 1950s and 1960s has provided the scaffolding on which he has built a charismatic and persuasive presentation style.

Bruce was no dummy in school but his early career as a cell biologist doing research in stem-cell function was a surprise to all of us. But then high school reunions are often full of surprises and should serve as good reminders of the danger of profiling and pigeon-holing adolescents.

Professor Lipton’s take on epigenetics boils down to the notion that our genome should merely be considered a blueprint and not the final determinant of who we are and what illnesses befall us. His research and observations suggest to him that there are an uncountable number extragenomic factors, including environmental conditions and our belief systems, that can influence how that blueprint is read and the resulting expression of the genes we have inherited.

At face value, Bruce’s basic premise falls very close to some of the conclusions I have toyed with in an attempt to explain what I have observed doing primary care pediatrics. For example, I have trouble blaming the meteoric rise of the ADHD phenomenon on a genetic mutation. I suspect there are likely to be extragenomic forces coming into play, such as sleep deprivation and changing child-rearing practices. In my Oct. 9, 2020, Letters from Maine column I referred to a Swedish twins study that suggested children from a family with a strong history of depression were more likely to develop depression when raised in an adopted family that experienced domestic turmoil. His philosophy also fits with my sense that I have more control over my own health outcomes than many other people.

However, Professor Lipton and I part company (just philosophically that is) when he slips into hyperbole and applies what he terms as the New Biology too broadly. He may be correct that the revolutionary changes which came in the wake of Watson and Crick’s double helix discovery have resulted in a view of pathophysiology that is overly focused on what we are learning about our genome. On the other hand it is refreshing to hear someone with his charismatic and persuasive skills question the status quo.

If you haven’t listened to what he has to say I urge you to browse the Internet and sample some of his talks. I am sure you will find what he has to say stimulating. I doubt you will buy his whole package but I suspect you may find some bits you can agree with.

It still boils down to the old nature versus nurture argument. He’s all in for nurture. I’m still more comfortable straddling the fence.
 

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].

A third of patients with COVID-19 and thoracic malignancies die, according to updated results from the TERAVOLT registry.

The risk of death was similar across racial and ethnic groups. Factors associated with an increased risk of death were male sex, older age, worse performance scores, and four or more metastatic sites.

“Death rates remain high at 33%, underscoring the importance of COVID-19 vaccination in patients with thoracic cancers, when available,” said Umit Tapan, MD, of Boston University.

Dr. Tapan presented the TERAVOLT update at the 2020 World Congress on Lung Cancer (Abstract P09.18), which was rescheduled for January 2021.

The TERAVOLT registry is a multicenter, observational study with a cross-sectional component and a longitudinal cohort component.

The registry includes patients who have thoracic cancers – non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), small cell lung cancer, mesothelioma, thymic epithelial tumors, and other pulmonary neuroendocrine neoplasms – and a COVID-19 diagnosis, either laboratory confirmed with RT-PCR, suspected with symptoms and contacts, or radiologically suspected cases with lung imaging features consistent with COVID-19 pneumonia and symptoms.

Clinical data were extracted from medical records of consecutive patients from Jan. 1, 2020, and will be collected until the end of pandemic, as declared by the World Health Organization. Data collected include demographics, oncologic history and comorbidities, COVID-19 diagnosis, and course of illness and clinical outcomes.

“The overarching goals of this consortium are to provide data for guidance to oncology professionals on managing patients with thoracic malignancies while understanding the risk factors for morbidity and mortality from this novel virus,” Dr. Tapan said.

Data from TERAVOLT were previously presented at AACR, ASCO, and ESMO last year, as well as published in The Lancet Oncology.

Updated results

Dr. Tapan presented data on 1,011 patients from 120 centers in 19 countries. The patients’ median age was 68 years (range, 28-95 years), and more than half were male (58%). Most patients (72%) were White, 20% were Hispanic/Latino, and 8% were Black/African American.

Most patients had NSCLC (82%), and most had stage IV disease (68%). Patients had received a median of one prior line of therapy.

As in earlier reports of TERAVOLT data, the mortality rate was 33%.

In a multivariate analysis, the following characteristics were associated with an increased risk of death:

• Male sex (odds ratio, 1.4).
• Older age (per 10 years; OR, 1.21).
• Performance score of 1 (OR, 1.73), 2 (OR, 4.74), and 3/4 (OR, 10.7).
• Four or more metastatic sites (OR, 3.05).

The following characteristics were associated with an increased risk of hospitalization in a multivariate analysis:

• Male sex (OR, 1.67).
• Older age (per 10 years; OR, 1.24).
• Performance score of 2 (OR, 4.47) and 3/4 (OR, 9.63).
• Four or more metastatic sites (OR, 4.0).
• Thymic carcinoma (OR, 3.58).
• Receiving radiation (OR, 2.1).

Race and ethnicity did not seem to affect the risk of death or hospitalization, “but we plan to conduct further analysis,” Dr. Tapan said.

Roxana Reyes, MD, of Hospital Clínic de Barcelona, said her hospital sees patients with lung cancer at high risk for COVID-19, but there is no screening program in place.

“We use medical consultations to focus on early diagnosis. We treat COVID-19 complications but lose a lot of patients. There is an opportunity to be found to find these patients sooner,” Dr. Reyes said.

She noted that COVID-19 will likely last a long time, and therefore “we have to protect against it and continue to diagnose lung cancer at earlier stages.”

Dr. Reyes disclosed relationships with Roche, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Merck Sharp & Dohme. Dr. Tapan has no relevant disclosures. The TERAVOLT registry is funded, in part, by the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer.

A third of patients with COVID-19 and thoracic malignancies die, according to updated results from the TERAVOLT registry.

The risk of death was similar across racial and ethnic groups. Factors associated with an increased risk of death were male sex, older age, worse performance scores, and four or more metastatic sites.

“Death rates remain high at 33%, underscoring the importance of COVID-19 vaccination in patients with thoracic cancers, when available,” said Umit Tapan, MD, of Boston University.

Dr. Tapan presented the TERAVOLT update at the 2020 World Congress on Lung Cancer (Abstract P09.18), which was rescheduled for January 2021.

The TERAVOLT registry is a multicenter, observational study with a cross-sectional component and a longitudinal cohort component.

The registry includes patients who have thoracic cancers – non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), small cell lung cancer, mesothelioma, thymic epithelial tumors, and other pulmonary neuroendocrine neoplasms – and a COVID-19 diagnosis, either laboratory confirmed with RT-PCR, suspected with symptoms and contacts, or radiologically suspected cases with lung imaging features consistent with COVID-19 pneumonia and symptoms.

Clinical data were extracted from medical records of consecutive patients from Jan. 1, 2020, and will be collected until the end of pandemic, as declared by the World Health Organization. Data collected include demographics, oncologic history and comorbidities, COVID-19 diagnosis, and course of illness and clinical outcomes.

“The overarching goals of this consortium are to provide data for guidance to oncology professionals on managing patients with thoracic malignancies while understanding the risk factors for morbidity and mortality from this novel virus,” Dr. Tapan said.

Data from TERAVOLT were previously presented at AACR, ASCO, and ESMO last year, as well as published in The Lancet Oncology.

Updated results

Dr. Tapan presented data on 1,011 patients from 120 centers in 19 countries. The patients’ median age was 68 years (range, 28-95 years), and more than half were male (58%). Most patients (72%) were White, 20% were Hispanic/Latino, and 8% were Black/African American.

Most patients had NSCLC (82%), and most had stage IV disease (68%). Patients had received a median of one prior line of therapy.

As in earlier reports of TERAVOLT data, the mortality rate was 33%.

In a multivariate analysis, the following characteristics were associated with an increased risk of death:

• Male sex (odds ratio, 1.4).
• Older age (per 10 years; OR, 1.21).
• Performance score of 1 (OR, 1.73), 2 (OR, 4.74), and 3/4 (OR, 10.7).
• Four or more metastatic sites (OR, 3.05).

The following characteristics were associated with an increased risk of hospitalization in a multivariate analysis:

• Male sex (OR, 1.67).
• Older age (per 10 years; OR, 1.24).
• Performance score of 2 (OR, 4.47) and 3/4 (OR, 9.63).
• Four or more metastatic sites (OR, 4.0).
• Thymic carcinoma (OR, 3.58).
• Receiving radiation (OR, 2.1).

Race and ethnicity did not seem to affect the risk of death or hospitalization, “but we plan to conduct further analysis,” Dr. Tapan said.

Roxana Reyes, MD, of Hospital Clínic de Barcelona, said her hospital sees patients with lung cancer at high risk for COVID-19, but there is no screening program in place.

“We use medical consultations to focus on early diagnosis. We treat COVID-19 complications but lose a lot of patients. There is an opportunity to be found to find these patients sooner,” Dr. Reyes said.

She noted that COVID-19 will likely last a long time, and therefore “we have to protect against it and continue to diagnose lung cancer at earlier stages.”

Dr. Reyes disclosed relationships with Roche, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Merck Sharp & Dohme. Dr. Tapan has no relevant disclosures. The TERAVOLT registry is funded, in part, by the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer.

A third of patients with COVID-19 and thoracic malignancies die, according to updated results from the TERAVOLT registry.

The risk of death was similar across racial and ethnic groups. Factors associated with an increased risk of death were male sex, older age, worse performance scores, and four or more metastatic sites.

“Death rates remain high at 33%, underscoring the importance of COVID-19 vaccination in patients with thoracic cancers, when available,” said Umit Tapan, MD, of Boston University.

Dr. Tapan presented the TERAVOLT update at the 2020 World Congress on Lung Cancer (Abstract P09.18), which was rescheduled for January 2021.

The TERAVOLT registry is a multicenter, observational study with a cross-sectional component and a longitudinal cohort component.

The registry includes patients who have thoracic cancers – non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), small cell lung cancer, mesothelioma, thymic epithelial tumors, and other pulmonary neuroendocrine neoplasms – and a COVID-19 diagnosis, either laboratory confirmed with RT-PCR, suspected with symptoms and contacts, or radiologically suspected cases with lung imaging features consistent with COVID-19 pneumonia and symptoms.

Clinical data were extracted from medical records of consecutive patients from Jan. 1, 2020, and will be collected until the end of pandemic, as declared by the World Health Organization. Data collected include demographics, oncologic history and comorbidities, COVID-19 diagnosis, and course of illness and clinical outcomes.

“The overarching goals of this consortium are to provide data for guidance to oncology professionals on managing patients with thoracic malignancies while understanding the risk factors for morbidity and mortality from this novel virus,” Dr. Tapan said.

Data from TERAVOLT were previously presented at AACR, ASCO, and ESMO last year, as well as published in The Lancet Oncology.

Updated results

Dr. Tapan presented data on 1,011 patients from 120 centers in 19 countries. The patients’ median age was 68 years (range, 28-95 years), and more than half were male (58%). Most patients (72%) were White, 20% were Hispanic/Latino, and 8% were Black/African American.

Most patients had NSCLC (82%), and most had stage IV disease (68%). Patients had received a median of one prior line of therapy.

As in earlier reports of TERAVOLT data, the mortality rate was 33%.

In a multivariate analysis, the following characteristics were associated with an increased risk of death:

• Male sex (odds ratio, 1.4).
• Older age (per 10 years; OR, 1.21).
• Performance score of 1 (OR, 1.73), 2 (OR, 4.74), and 3/4 (OR, 10.7).
• Four or more metastatic sites (OR, 3.05).

The following characteristics were associated with an increased risk of hospitalization in a multivariate analysis:

• Male sex (OR, 1.67).
• Older age (per 10 years; OR, 1.24).
• Performance score of 2 (OR, 4.47) and 3/4 (OR, 9.63).
• Four or more metastatic sites (OR, 4.0).
• Thymic carcinoma (OR, 3.58).
• Receiving radiation (OR, 2.1).

Race and ethnicity did not seem to affect the risk of death or hospitalization, “but we plan to conduct further analysis,” Dr. Tapan said.

Roxana Reyes, MD, of Hospital Clínic de Barcelona, said her hospital sees patients with lung cancer at high risk for COVID-19, but there is no screening program in place.

“We use medical consultations to focus on early diagnosis. We treat COVID-19 complications but lose a lot of patients. There is an opportunity to be found to find these patients sooner,” Dr. Reyes said.

She noted that COVID-19 will likely last a long time, and therefore “we have to protect against it and continue to diagnose lung cancer at earlier stages.”

Dr. Reyes disclosed relationships with Roche, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Merck Sharp & Dohme. Dr. Tapan has no relevant disclosures. The TERAVOLT registry is funded, in part, by the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer.

In the first ever placebo-controlled phase 3 trial in patients with relapsed mesothelioma, immunotherapy with nivolumab significantly improved both overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS).

The CONFIRM trial involved 330 previously treated patients with mesothelioma who were randomly assigned to nivolumab or placebo for 1 year or until progression or unacceptable toxicity.

Although recruitment to the study was stopped early because of the COVID-19 pandemic, enough data accrued to show that nivolumab improved overall survival by 28% over placebo, and increased PFS by 39%.

“Nivolumab was deemed a safe and effective treatment and should be considered a new treatment option for patients with relapsed mesothelioma,” said principal investigator Dean A. Fennell, MD, PhD, professor and consultant in thoracic medical oncology, University of Leicester (England).

He presented the results at the 2020 World Conference on Lung Cancer, which was rescheduled for January 2021.

Rina Hui, MD, PhD, Crown Princess Mary Cancer Centre, Westmead Hospital, Sydney, who was not involved in the study, said that these results had been a “long time coming.”

CONFIRM has added “important, encouraging data on immunotherapy in the salvage setting,” Dr. Hui said, noting that two-thirds of patients had received two or more prior lines of therapy.

Dr. Fennel noted that “a significant clinical benefit was observed in the epithelioid subtype” of the disease but not in patients with nonepithelioid disease.

However, there was “no evidence” to support programmed death–ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression as predictive of outcomes, he added, which does appear to be the case in some trials on lung cancer and other tumors.

Commenting on these observations, Dr. Hui said that PD-L1 as a predictive biomarker in mesothelioma has been “controversial,” and she emphasized that the results from CONFIRM indicate “no evidence of PD-L1 being predictive.”

However, Dr. Hui questioned the other observation that clinical benefit appeared to be seen only in the epithelioid subtype.

She emphasized that nonepithelioid disease is known to be a “more aggressive, chemoresistant subtype ... with a steep decline in the survival curves.

“Therefore, a lot of patients would not have made it to a subsequent-line clinical trial, explaining why there were only 12% in the CONFIRM study,” and so the sample size may be “too small to detect a difference in outcome,” Dr. Hui said.

Consequently, Dr. Hui said she “would not deny patients with nonepithelioid histology from considering nivolumab in the salvage setting.”

She argued that there was “no clear predictive biomarker for patient selection” emerging from the CONFIRM data.

She agreed that, in patients with mesothelioma who have progressed following platinum/pemetrexed-based chemotherapy as in the first line, “monotherapy nivolumab now can be considered as a treatment option in the second- ... or third-line setting, after second-line chemotherapy”.

However, outstanding questions remain, including whether nivolumab “provides better outcomes than second-line single agent chemotherapy or second-line gemcitabine with the [vascular endothelial growth factor receptor] inhibitor ramucirumab.”

It may also be that nivolumab plus ipilimumab might be superior to nivolumab alone in the salvage setting.

But a more fundamental question is what should be considered for salvage therapy if nivolumab and ipilimumab have already been used in the first-line setting, Dr. Hui said.

Results of first-line immunotherapy combination trials are “eagerly awaited ... to determine and develop other salvage treatments,” she commented.

Responding on Twitter, Riyaz Shah, MD, PhD, consultant medical oncologist, Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust in Royal Tunbridge Wells, England, echoed these comments, saying that the results were “very exciting,” but he also “can’t wait to see the first-line chemo–immunotherapy data.”

Stephen V. Liu, MD, director of thoracic oncology at Georgetown University, Washington, commented on Twitter that there was “not a lot of safety data” in the presentation and awaits their eventual publication.

He added that it is “good to have a positive trial” in relapsed mesothelioma, “though the first-line studies will decrease the eventual impact as immunotherapy becomes involved earlier in treatment.”

 

Details of the CONFIRM results 

Relapsed mesothelioma is an “unmet need,” and, until now, “there have been no phase 3 trials which have demonstrated improved overall survival,” Dr. Fennell said in his presentation.

However, three phase 2 trials have shown that immune checkpoint targeting via PD-1 has shown useful clinical activity as a monotherapy in the relapsed setting, and one of these trials has led to approval of nivolumab in Japan for this indication.

CONFIRM was an investigator-initiated phase 3 trial in patients with relapsed mesothelioma who had received more than one prior line of therapy and had a good performance status.

Recruitment began in April 2017, and the “target sample size was 336 patients,” Dr. Fennell said, but the trial was “halted at 332 patients (in March 2020) due to the peaking of the COVID-19 pandemic in the U.K.”

“However, at the time, it was felt there were sufficient events” to justify the current analysis of the coprimary endpoints of PFS and OS, despite the latter being 59 events short of the target of 291.

Dr. Fennell said that baseline characteristics were “generally well balanced” between the nivolumab (n = 221) and placebo (n = 111) arms.

However, there were more patients with a PD-L1 tumor proportion score (TPS) of at least 1% among the patients given nivolumab, at 37% versus 29% in the placebo arm.

After a median follow-up of 17.1 months in the nivolumab arm and 14.2 months in the placebo group, overall survival was significantly longer with the active treatment, at 9.2 months versus 6.6 months with placebo (hazard ratio, 0.72; P = .018).

The proportion of patients alive at 12 months was 39.5% in the nivolumab group and 26.9% in patients given placebo. Investigator-assessed PFS was also significantly longer with nivolumab, at 3.0 months versus 1.8 months with placebo (HR, 0.61; P < .001).

The proportion of patients disease free at 12 months was 14.5% with active treatment versus 4.9% months with the placebo.

“The role for PD-L1 as a potential biomarker was assessed,” Dr. Fennell said, using the Dako 22C3 antibody, with 150 nivolumab and 84 placebo patients divided into those with a TPS <1% or ≥1%.

He noted that PD-L1 expression in the tumor “did not predict survival for patients in the CONFIRM trial,” with neither PD-L1 positive nor PD-L1 negative patients demonstrating a significant improvement in overall survival with nivolumab vs placebo.

“For histology, epithelioid mesothelioma patients benefited from nivolumab,” Dr. Fennell continued, with a hazard ratio for death of 0.71 versus placebo (P = .021). “However, for the nonepithelioid subgroup, in this immature survival analysis ... the P value was not significant,” but this was a small subgroup of patients (12% in both nivolumab and placebo groups).

The safety analysis revealed that the proportion of patients with any serious adverse events, of any grade or grade 3 or higher, was almost identical between the active and placebo arms, Dr. Fennel reported. There were five deaths (3.6%) related to a serious adverse event in the nivolumab arm and four (5.3%) in the placebo group.

This research was funded by the Stand Up to Cancer campaign for Cancer Research UK, supported by Cancer Research UK core funding at the Southampton Clinical Trials Unit, and investigator-initiated support from Bristol-Myers Squibb for free drug labeling and distribution and funding for RECIST reporting. Dr. Fennell reported relationships with Astex Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Atara Biotherapeutics, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Clovis Oncology, Eli Lilly, Inventiva, Lab 21, Merck, and Roche. Dr. Hui reported relationships with AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and Seagen.

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

In the first ever placebo-controlled phase 3 trial in patients with relapsed mesothelioma, immunotherapy with nivolumab significantly improved both overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS).

The CONFIRM trial involved 330 previously treated patients with mesothelioma who were randomly assigned to nivolumab or placebo for 1 year or until progression or unacceptable toxicity.

Although recruitment to the study was stopped early because of the COVID-19 pandemic, enough data accrued to show that nivolumab improved overall survival by 28% over placebo, and increased PFS by 39%.

“Nivolumab was deemed a safe and effective treatment and should be considered a new treatment option for patients with relapsed mesothelioma,” said principal investigator Dean A. Fennell, MD, PhD, professor and consultant in thoracic medical oncology, University of Leicester (England).

He presented the results at the 2020 World Conference on Lung Cancer, which was rescheduled for January 2021.

Rina Hui, MD, PhD, Crown Princess Mary Cancer Centre, Westmead Hospital, Sydney, who was not involved in the study, said that these results had been a “long time coming.”

CONFIRM has added “important, encouraging data on immunotherapy in the salvage setting,” Dr. Hui said, noting that two-thirds of patients had received two or more prior lines of therapy.

Dr. Fennel noted that “a significant clinical benefit was observed in the epithelioid subtype” of the disease but not in patients with nonepithelioid disease.

However, there was “no evidence” to support programmed death–ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression as predictive of outcomes, he added, which does appear to be the case in some trials on lung cancer and other tumors.

Commenting on these observations, Dr. Hui said that PD-L1 as a predictive biomarker in mesothelioma has been “controversial,” and she emphasized that the results from CONFIRM indicate “no evidence of PD-L1 being predictive.”

However, Dr. Hui questioned the other observation that clinical benefit appeared to be seen only in the epithelioid subtype.

She emphasized that nonepithelioid disease is known to be a “more aggressive, chemoresistant subtype ... with a steep decline in the survival curves.

“Therefore, a lot of patients would not have made it to a subsequent-line clinical trial, explaining why there were only 12% in the CONFIRM study,” and so the sample size may be “too small to detect a difference in outcome,” Dr. Hui said.

Consequently, Dr. Hui said she “would not deny patients with nonepithelioid histology from considering nivolumab in the salvage setting.”

She argued that there was “no clear predictive biomarker for patient selection” emerging from the CONFIRM data.

She agreed that, in patients with mesothelioma who have progressed following platinum/pemetrexed-based chemotherapy as in the first line, “monotherapy nivolumab now can be considered as a treatment option in the second- ... or third-line setting, after second-line chemotherapy”.

However, outstanding questions remain, including whether nivolumab “provides better outcomes than second-line single agent chemotherapy or second-line gemcitabine with the [vascular endothelial growth factor receptor] inhibitor ramucirumab.”

It may also be that nivolumab plus ipilimumab might be superior to nivolumab alone in the salvage setting.

But a more fundamental question is what should be considered for salvage therapy if nivolumab and ipilimumab have already been used in the first-line setting, Dr. Hui said.

Results of first-line immunotherapy combination trials are “eagerly awaited ... to determine and develop other salvage treatments,” she commented.

Responding on Twitter, Riyaz Shah, MD, PhD, consultant medical oncologist, Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust in Royal Tunbridge Wells, England, echoed these comments, saying that the results were “very exciting,” but he also “can’t wait to see the first-line chemo–immunotherapy data.”

Stephen V. Liu, MD, director of thoracic oncology at Georgetown University, Washington, commented on Twitter that there was “not a lot of safety data” in the presentation and awaits their eventual publication.

He added that it is “good to have a positive trial” in relapsed mesothelioma, “though the first-line studies will decrease the eventual impact as immunotherapy becomes involved earlier in treatment.”

 

Details of the CONFIRM results 

Relapsed mesothelioma is an “unmet need,” and, until now, “there have been no phase 3 trials which have demonstrated improved overall survival,” Dr. Fennell said in his presentation.

However, three phase 2 trials have shown that immune checkpoint targeting via PD-1 has shown useful clinical activity as a monotherapy in the relapsed setting, and one of these trials has led to approval of nivolumab in Japan for this indication.

CONFIRM was an investigator-initiated phase 3 trial in patients with relapsed mesothelioma who had received more than one prior line of therapy and had a good performance status.

Recruitment began in April 2017, and the “target sample size was 336 patients,” Dr. Fennell said, but the trial was “halted at 332 patients (in March 2020) due to the peaking of the COVID-19 pandemic in the U.K.”

“However, at the time, it was felt there were sufficient events” to justify the current analysis of the coprimary endpoints of PFS and OS, despite the latter being 59 events short of the target of 291.

Dr. Fennell said that baseline characteristics were “generally well balanced” between the nivolumab (n = 221) and placebo (n = 111) arms.

However, there were more patients with a PD-L1 tumor proportion score (TPS) of at least 1% among the patients given nivolumab, at 37% versus 29% in the placebo arm.

After a median follow-up of 17.1 months in the nivolumab arm and 14.2 months in the placebo group, overall survival was significantly longer with the active treatment, at 9.2 months versus 6.6 months with placebo (hazard ratio, 0.72; P = .018).

The proportion of patients alive at 12 months was 39.5% in the nivolumab group and 26.9% in patients given placebo. Investigator-assessed PFS was also significantly longer with nivolumab, at 3.0 months versus 1.8 months with placebo (HR, 0.61; P < .001).

The proportion of patients disease free at 12 months was 14.5% with active treatment versus 4.9% months with the placebo.

“The role for PD-L1 as a potential biomarker was assessed,” Dr. Fennell said, using the Dako 22C3 antibody, with 150 nivolumab and 84 placebo patients divided into those with a TPS <1% or ≥1%.

He noted that PD-L1 expression in the tumor “did not predict survival for patients in the CONFIRM trial,” with neither PD-L1 positive nor PD-L1 negative patients demonstrating a significant improvement in overall survival with nivolumab vs placebo.

“For histology, epithelioid mesothelioma patients benefited from nivolumab,” Dr. Fennell continued, with a hazard ratio for death of 0.71 versus placebo (P = .021). “However, for the nonepithelioid subgroup, in this immature survival analysis ... the P value was not significant,” but this was a small subgroup of patients (12% in both nivolumab and placebo groups).

The safety analysis revealed that the proportion of patients with any serious adverse events, of any grade or grade 3 or higher, was almost identical between the active and placebo arms, Dr. Fennel reported. There were five deaths (3.6%) related to a serious adverse event in the nivolumab arm and four (5.3%) in the placebo group.

This research was funded by the Stand Up to Cancer campaign for Cancer Research UK, supported by Cancer Research UK core funding at the Southampton Clinical Trials Unit, and investigator-initiated support from Bristol-Myers Squibb for free drug labeling and distribution and funding for RECIST reporting. Dr. Fennell reported relationships with Astex Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Atara Biotherapeutics, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Clovis Oncology, Eli Lilly, Inventiva, Lab 21, Merck, and Roche. Dr. Hui reported relationships with AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and Seagen.

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

In the first ever placebo-controlled phase 3 trial in patients with relapsed mesothelioma, immunotherapy with nivolumab significantly improved both overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS).

The CONFIRM trial involved 330 previously treated patients with mesothelioma who were randomly assigned to nivolumab or placebo for 1 year or until progression or unacceptable toxicity.

Although recruitment to the study was stopped early because of the COVID-19 pandemic, enough data accrued to show that nivolumab improved overall survival by 28% over placebo, and increased PFS by 39%.

“Nivolumab was deemed a safe and effective treatment and should be considered a new treatment option for patients with relapsed mesothelioma,” said principal investigator Dean A. Fennell, MD, PhD, professor and consultant in thoracic medical oncology, University of Leicester (England).

He presented the results at the 2020 World Conference on Lung Cancer, which was rescheduled for January 2021.

Rina Hui, MD, PhD, Crown Princess Mary Cancer Centre, Westmead Hospital, Sydney, who was not involved in the study, said that these results had been a “long time coming.”

CONFIRM has added “important, encouraging data on immunotherapy in the salvage setting,” Dr. Hui said, noting that two-thirds of patients had received two or more prior lines of therapy.

Dr. Fennel noted that “a significant clinical benefit was observed in the epithelioid subtype” of the disease but not in patients with nonepithelioid disease.

However, there was “no evidence” to support programmed death–ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression as predictive of outcomes, he added, which does appear to be the case in some trials on lung cancer and other tumors.

Commenting on these observations, Dr. Hui said that PD-L1 as a predictive biomarker in mesothelioma has been “controversial,” and she emphasized that the results from CONFIRM indicate “no evidence of PD-L1 being predictive.”

However, Dr. Hui questioned the other observation that clinical benefit appeared to be seen only in the epithelioid subtype.

She emphasized that nonepithelioid disease is known to be a “more aggressive, chemoresistant subtype ... with a steep decline in the survival curves.

“Therefore, a lot of patients would not have made it to a subsequent-line clinical trial, explaining why there were only 12% in the CONFIRM study,” and so the sample size may be “too small to detect a difference in outcome,” Dr. Hui said.

Consequently, Dr. Hui said she “would not deny patients with nonepithelioid histology from considering nivolumab in the salvage setting.”

She argued that there was “no clear predictive biomarker for patient selection” emerging from the CONFIRM data.

She agreed that, in patients with mesothelioma who have progressed following platinum/pemetrexed-based chemotherapy as in the first line, “monotherapy nivolumab now can be considered as a treatment option in the second- ... or third-line setting, after second-line chemotherapy”.

However, outstanding questions remain, including whether nivolumab “provides better outcomes than second-line single agent chemotherapy or second-line gemcitabine with the [vascular endothelial growth factor receptor] inhibitor ramucirumab.”

It may also be that nivolumab plus ipilimumab might be superior to nivolumab alone in the salvage setting.

But a more fundamental question is what should be considered for salvage therapy if nivolumab and ipilimumab have already been used in the first-line setting, Dr. Hui said.

Results of first-line immunotherapy combination trials are “eagerly awaited ... to determine and develop other salvage treatments,” she commented.

Responding on Twitter, Riyaz Shah, MD, PhD, consultant medical oncologist, Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust in Royal Tunbridge Wells, England, echoed these comments, saying that the results were “very exciting,” but he also “can’t wait to see the first-line chemo–immunotherapy data.”

Stephen V. Liu, MD, director of thoracic oncology at Georgetown University, Washington, commented on Twitter that there was “not a lot of safety data” in the presentation and awaits their eventual publication.

He added that it is “good to have a positive trial” in relapsed mesothelioma, “though the first-line studies will decrease the eventual impact as immunotherapy becomes involved earlier in treatment.”

 

Details of the CONFIRM results 

Relapsed mesothelioma is an “unmet need,” and, until now, “there have been no phase 3 trials which have demonstrated improved overall survival,” Dr. Fennell said in his presentation.

However, three phase 2 trials have shown that immune checkpoint targeting via PD-1 has shown useful clinical activity as a monotherapy in the relapsed setting, and one of these trials has led to approval of nivolumab in Japan for this indication.

CONFIRM was an investigator-initiated phase 3 trial in patients with relapsed mesothelioma who had received more than one prior line of therapy and had a good performance status.

Recruitment began in April 2017, and the “target sample size was 336 patients,” Dr. Fennell said, but the trial was “halted at 332 patients (in March 2020) due to the peaking of the COVID-19 pandemic in the U.K.”

“However, at the time, it was felt there were sufficient events” to justify the current analysis of the coprimary endpoints of PFS and OS, despite the latter being 59 events short of the target of 291.

Dr. Fennell said that baseline characteristics were “generally well balanced” between the nivolumab (n = 221) and placebo (n = 111) arms.

However, there were more patients with a PD-L1 tumor proportion score (TPS) of at least 1% among the patients given nivolumab, at 37% versus 29% in the placebo arm.

After a median follow-up of 17.1 months in the nivolumab arm and 14.2 months in the placebo group, overall survival was significantly longer with the active treatment, at 9.2 months versus 6.6 months with placebo (hazard ratio, 0.72; P = .018).

The proportion of patients alive at 12 months was 39.5% in the nivolumab group and 26.9% in patients given placebo. Investigator-assessed PFS was also significantly longer with nivolumab, at 3.0 months versus 1.8 months with placebo (HR, 0.61; P < .001).

The proportion of patients disease free at 12 months was 14.5% with active treatment versus 4.9% months with the placebo.

“The role for PD-L1 as a potential biomarker was assessed,” Dr. Fennell said, using the Dako 22C3 antibody, with 150 nivolumab and 84 placebo patients divided into those with a TPS <1% or ≥1%.

He noted that PD-L1 expression in the tumor “did not predict survival for patients in the CONFIRM trial,” with neither PD-L1 positive nor PD-L1 negative patients demonstrating a significant improvement in overall survival with nivolumab vs placebo.

“For histology, epithelioid mesothelioma patients benefited from nivolumab,” Dr. Fennell continued, with a hazard ratio for death of 0.71 versus placebo (P = .021). “However, for the nonepithelioid subgroup, in this immature survival analysis ... the P value was not significant,” but this was a small subgroup of patients (12% in both nivolumab and placebo groups).

The safety analysis revealed that the proportion of patients with any serious adverse events, of any grade or grade 3 or higher, was almost identical between the active and placebo arms, Dr. Fennel reported. There were five deaths (3.6%) related to a serious adverse event in the nivolumab arm and four (5.3%) in the placebo group.

This research was funded by the Stand Up to Cancer campaign for Cancer Research UK, supported by Cancer Research UK core funding at the Southampton Clinical Trials Unit, and investigator-initiated support from Bristol-Myers Squibb for free drug labeling and distribution and funding for RECIST reporting. Dr. Fennell reported relationships with Astex Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Atara Biotherapeutics, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Clovis Oncology, Eli Lilly, Inventiva, Lab 21, Merck, and Roche. Dr. Hui reported relationships with AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and Seagen.

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

Screening for lung cancer with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) has thus far been targeted at individuals who smoke or have smoked, but the incidence of lung cancer has been found to be increasing among people who have never smoked, and they too should undergo screening, suggest researchers from Taiwan.

“Lung cancer in never-smokers is a global rising threat,” said lead researcher Pan-Chyr Yang, MD, PhD, chair professor at the National Taiwan University Hospital and academician of Academia Sinica, Taiwan.

In Taiwan, more than half of the cases of lung cancer occur in never-smokers; among female lung cancer patients, 93% are never-smokers.

The incidence of lung cancer – in particular, adenocarcinoma – is increasing in Taiwan, even though the prevalence of smoking has fallen dramatically in men in recent years and has remained low in women.

At the 2020 World Conference on Lung Cancer, which was rescheduled for January 2021, Dr. Yang presented new results that suggest “LDCT screening for never-smokers with high risk may be feasible.”

The Taiwan Lung Cancer Screening in Never-Smoker Trial (TALENT) recruited over 12,000 individuals aged 55-70 years who had never smoked or had done so more than 15 years previously and had risk factors such as a family history of the disease or passive smoke exposure, or who had regularly been exposed to frying food.

Participants underwent LDCT after chest x-ray, followed by biopsy if necessary.

These procedures detected largely invasive lung cancer in 2.6% of participants. Tumors were of stage 0-I in 95% of cases.

The lung cancer detection rate of 2.6% in TALENT in never-smokers is higher than has been found in large studies of smokers, including the 1.1% rate recorded in the NLST study and the 0.9% seen in the NELSON study.

The key factor associated with increased prevalence of lung cancer was a first-degree family history of the disease, Dr. Yang reported.

Notably, having a sister with lung cancer increased the risk for the disease by 78%. Having an affected brother doubled the risk. An increase in the number of first-degree relatives with lung cancer also significantly increased the risk.
 

More research needed

The TALENT study “provides new, very original evidence on lung cancer risks, and therefore lung cancer screening eligibility could be redefined in Asia, or at least in East Asia,” said the discussant for the paper, Ugo Pastorino, MD, director of thoracic surgery at IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori Foundation, Milan.

However, he said that “more research is needed on lung cancer biology in nonsmokers.”

There is currently no follow-up or mortality data, and given the proportion of patients who underwent invasive procedures, it could be that more than 40% of those procedures were carried out in individuals with benign disease, he cautioned.

On Twitter, Stephen V. Liu, MD, director of thoracic oncology at Georgetown University, Washington, said that although family history “emerges” from the study as a potential risk factor for lung cancer, “this analysis would be much more insightful with genomic analyses of these cancers.”

Devika Das, MD, clinical assistant professor of hematology and oncology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, said that the study is “interesting,” given the rise of adenocarcinoma among never-smokers.

She agreed that further details and long-term outcomes are needed and said the key learning point was the need for a “robust” study of the biology of lung cancer in this population.

Lillian Leigh, an Australian lawyer and a lung cancer patient advocate, said the study “provides new evidence” on lung cancer risks.

“As an Asian never-smoker living with lung cancer, the TALENT trial results give me hope,” she said.
 

Details of TALENT findings

The TALENT study recruited individuals aged 55-70 years at 17 medical centers between February 2015 and July 2019.

Participants were required to be never-smokers or to have a smoking history of less than 10 pack-years and to have quit the habit more than 15 years previously.

They also had to have one of the following risk factors:

• Family history of lung cancer in up to third-degree relatives, in which case younger patients could be recruited.
• Environmental (passive) tobacco smoking history.
• Chronic lung disease, namely,  or .
• A cooking index ≥110, defined as 2/7 × the number of days of frying per week × the number of years cooking.
• Cooking without ventilation.

The participants underwent chest x-ray. If the x-ray proved negative, the team performed standard LDCT, examined blood and urine samples for lung cancer biomarkers, and administered standard questionnaires.

Participants who were found on LDCT to have solid or part-solid nodules greater than 6 mm in diameter or pure ground-glass nodules greater than 5 mm in diameter underwent biopsy or standard follow-up.

Individuals whose initial chest x-ray was positive underwent standard contrast-enhanced chest CT prior to biopsy or standard follow-up.

Of 13,207 individuals initially screened, 12,011 were enrolled. Of those, 73.8% were women. The mean age was 61.2 years, and 93.3% were never-smokers.

Among the participants, 46.4% had a first-degree family history of lung cancer; 3.0% had a second-degree family history; and 0.5% had a third-degree family history.

Environmental tobacco exposure was recorded in 83.2% of patients. Chronic lung disease was present in 9.8%; 36.7% had a cooking index ≥110; and 1.8 cooked without ventilation.

Dr. Yang said LDCT results were positive for 17.4% of patients, and 3.4% underwent invasive procedures.

Overall, lung cancer was detected in 313 participants (2.6%). Invasive lung cancer was detected in 255 (2.1%). Of those, 17.9% had multiple primary lung cancers.

Strikingly, 96.5% of the confirmed lung cancer cases were stage 0-I. The majority were stage IA, “which is higher than in other studies that have focused on heavy smokers,” Dr. Yang said. More than half of cases (58.5%) were invasive adenocarcinomas.

The prevalence of lung cancer was significantly higher among people who had a family history of the disease, at 3.2%, vs. 2.0% in those without, at a relative risk of 1.61 (P < .001).

The prevalence was higher still in individuals who had a first-degree family history of lung cancer, at 3.3%, giving a relative risk of 1.69 in comparison with those who did not have a family history (P < .001). The findings were nonsignificant for second- and third-degree relatives.

The relative risk increased even further when the first-degree relative who had a history of lung cancer was a sister, at 1.78 (P < .001), or a brother, at 2.00 (P < .001).

The relative risk was slightly lower if the patient’s relative was the mother, at 1.43 (P = .010), and was nonsignificant if the relative was the father (P = .077).

The risk for lung cancer also increased with an increase in the number of first-degree relatives with the disease, rising from 3.1% with one relative to 4.0% with two relatives, 6.7% with three relatives, and 9.1% with at least four relatives (P < .001). A similar pattern was seen for invasive lung cancer.

The other risk factors included in the study, such as environmental tobacco exposure, chronic lung disease, and cooking index, were not significantly associated with the prevalence of lung cancer.

No funding for the study has been disclosed. Dr. Yang has received honoraria from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer, Merck, Eli Lilly, Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, and ONO Pharma and has served on the advisory board of OBI Pharma, CHO Pharma, and Lin BioScience. Dr. Pastorino has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Screening for lung cancer with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) has thus far been targeted at individuals who smoke or have smoked, but the incidence of lung cancer has been found to be increasing among people who have never smoked, and they too should undergo screening, suggest researchers from Taiwan.

“Lung cancer in never-smokers is a global rising threat,” said lead researcher Pan-Chyr Yang, MD, PhD, chair professor at the National Taiwan University Hospital and academician of Academia Sinica, Taiwan.

In Taiwan, more than half of the cases of lung cancer occur in never-smokers; among female lung cancer patients, 93% are never-smokers.

The incidence of lung cancer – in particular, adenocarcinoma – is increasing in Taiwan, even though the prevalence of smoking has fallen dramatically in men in recent years and has remained low in women.

At the 2020 World Conference on Lung Cancer, which was rescheduled for January 2021, Dr. Yang presented new results that suggest “LDCT screening for never-smokers with high risk may be feasible.”

The Taiwan Lung Cancer Screening in Never-Smoker Trial (TALENT) recruited over 12,000 individuals aged 55-70 years who had never smoked or had done so more than 15 years previously and had risk factors such as a family history of the disease or passive smoke exposure, or who had regularly been exposed to frying food.

Participants underwent LDCT after chest x-ray, followed by biopsy if necessary.

These procedures detected largely invasive lung cancer in 2.6% of participants. Tumors were of stage 0-I in 95% of cases.

The lung cancer detection rate of 2.6% in TALENT in never-smokers is higher than has been found in large studies of smokers, including the 1.1% rate recorded in the NLST study and the 0.9% seen in the NELSON study.

The key factor associated with increased prevalence of lung cancer was a first-degree family history of the disease, Dr. Yang reported.

Notably, having a sister with lung cancer increased the risk for the disease by 78%. Having an affected brother doubled the risk. An increase in the number of first-degree relatives with lung cancer also significantly increased the risk.
 

More research needed

The TALENT study “provides new, very original evidence on lung cancer risks, and therefore lung cancer screening eligibility could be redefined in Asia, or at least in East Asia,” said the discussant for the paper, Ugo Pastorino, MD, director of thoracic surgery at IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori Foundation, Milan.

However, he said that “more research is needed on lung cancer biology in nonsmokers.”

There is currently no follow-up or mortality data, and given the proportion of patients who underwent invasive procedures, it could be that more than 40% of those procedures were carried out in individuals with benign disease, he cautioned.

On Twitter, Stephen V. Liu, MD, director of thoracic oncology at Georgetown University, Washington, said that although family history “emerges” from the study as a potential risk factor for lung cancer, “this analysis would be much more insightful with genomic analyses of these cancers.”

Devika Das, MD, clinical assistant professor of hematology and oncology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, said that the study is “interesting,” given the rise of adenocarcinoma among never-smokers.

She agreed that further details and long-term outcomes are needed and said the key learning point was the need for a “robust” study of the biology of lung cancer in this population.

Lillian Leigh, an Australian lawyer and a lung cancer patient advocate, said the study “provides new evidence” on lung cancer risks.

“As an Asian never-smoker living with lung cancer, the TALENT trial results give me hope,” she said.
 

Details of TALENT findings

The TALENT study recruited individuals aged 55-70 years at 17 medical centers between February 2015 and July 2019.

Participants were required to be never-smokers or to have a smoking history of less than 10 pack-years and to have quit the habit more than 15 years previously.

They also had to have one of the following risk factors:

• Family history of lung cancer in up to third-degree relatives, in which case younger patients could be recruited.
• Environmental (passive) tobacco smoking history.
• Chronic lung disease, namely,  or .
• A cooking index ≥110, defined as 2/7 × the number of days of frying per week × the number of years cooking.
• Cooking without ventilation.

The participants underwent chest x-ray. If the x-ray proved negative, the team performed standard LDCT, examined blood and urine samples for lung cancer biomarkers, and administered standard questionnaires.

Participants who were found on LDCT to have solid or part-solid nodules greater than 6 mm in diameter or pure ground-glass nodules greater than 5 mm in diameter underwent biopsy or standard follow-up.

Individuals whose initial chest x-ray was positive underwent standard contrast-enhanced chest CT prior to biopsy or standard follow-up.

Of 13,207 individuals initially screened, 12,011 were enrolled. Of those, 73.8% were women. The mean age was 61.2 years, and 93.3% were never-smokers.

Among the participants, 46.4% had a first-degree family history of lung cancer; 3.0% had a second-degree family history; and 0.5% had a third-degree family history.

Environmental tobacco exposure was recorded in 83.2% of patients. Chronic lung disease was present in 9.8%; 36.7% had a cooking index ≥110; and 1.8 cooked without ventilation.

Dr. Yang said LDCT results were positive for 17.4% of patients, and 3.4% underwent invasive procedures.

Overall, lung cancer was detected in 313 participants (2.6%). Invasive lung cancer was detected in 255 (2.1%). Of those, 17.9% had multiple primary lung cancers.

Strikingly, 96.5% of the confirmed lung cancer cases were stage 0-I. The majority were stage IA, “which is higher than in other studies that have focused on heavy smokers,” Dr. Yang said. More than half of cases (58.5%) were invasive adenocarcinomas.

The prevalence of lung cancer was significantly higher among people who had a family history of the disease, at 3.2%, vs. 2.0% in those without, at a relative risk of 1.61 (P < .001).

The prevalence was higher still in individuals who had a first-degree family history of lung cancer, at 3.3%, giving a relative risk of 1.69 in comparison with those who did not have a family history (P < .001). The findings were nonsignificant for second- and third-degree relatives.

The relative risk increased even further when the first-degree relative who had a history of lung cancer was a sister, at 1.78 (P < .001), or a brother, at 2.00 (P < .001).

The relative risk was slightly lower if the patient’s relative was the mother, at 1.43 (P = .010), and was nonsignificant if the relative was the father (P = .077).

The risk for lung cancer also increased with an increase in the number of first-degree relatives with the disease, rising from 3.1% with one relative to 4.0% with two relatives, 6.7% with three relatives, and 9.1% with at least four relatives (P < .001). A similar pattern was seen for invasive lung cancer.

The other risk factors included in the study, such as environmental tobacco exposure, chronic lung disease, and cooking index, were not significantly associated with the prevalence of lung cancer.

No funding for the study has been disclosed. Dr. Yang has received honoraria from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer, Merck, Eli Lilly, Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, and ONO Pharma and has served on the advisory board of OBI Pharma, CHO Pharma, and Lin BioScience. Dr. Pastorino has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Screening for lung cancer with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) has thus far been targeted at individuals who smoke or have smoked, but the incidence of lung cancer has been found to be increasing among people who have never smoked, and they too should undergo screening, suggest researchers from Taiwan.

“Lung cancer in never-smokers is a global rising threat,” said lead researcher Pan-Chyr Yang, MD, PhD, chair professor at the National Taiwan University Hospital and academician of Academia Sinica, Taiwan.

In Taiwan, more than half of the cases of lung cancer occur in never-smokers; among female lung cancer patients, 93% are never-smokers.

The incidence of lung cancer – in particular, adenocarcinoma – is increasing in Taiwan, even though the prevalence of smoking has fallen dramatically in men in recent years and has remained low in women.

At the 2020 World Conference on Lung Cancer, which was rescheduled for January 2021, Dr. Yang presented new results that suggest “LDCT screening for never-smokers with high risk may be feasible.”

The Taiwan Lung Cancer Screening in Never-Smoker Trial (TALENT) recruited over 12,000 individuals aged 55-70 years who had never smoked or had done so more than 15 years previously and had risk factors such as a family history of the disease or passive smoke exposure, or who had regularly been exposed to frying food.

Participants underwent LDCT after chest x-ray, followed by biopsy if necessary.

These procedures detected largely invasive lung cancer in 2.6% of participants. Tumors were of stage 0-I in 95% of cases.

The lung cancer detection rate of 2.6% in TALENT in never-smokers is higher than has been found in large studies of smokers, including the 1.1% rate recorded in the NLST study and the 0.9% seen in the NELSON study.

The key factor associated with increased prevalence of lung cancer was a first-degree family history of the disease, Dr. Yang reported.

Notably, having a sister with lung cancer increased the risk for the disease by 78%. Having an affected brother doubled the risk. An increase in the number of first-degree relatives with lung cancer also significantly increased the risk.
 

More research needed

The TALENT study “provides new, very original evidence on lung cancer risks, and therefore lung cancer screening eligibility could be redefined in Asia, or at least in East Asia,” said the discussant for the paper, Ugo Pastorino, MD, director of thoracic surgery at IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori Foundation, Milan.

However, he said that “more research is needed on lung cancer biology in nonsmokers.”

There is currently no follow-up or mortality data, and given the proportion of patients who underwent invasive procedures, it could be that more than 40% of those procedures were carried out in individuals with benign disease, he cautioned.

On Twitter, Stephen V. Liu, MD, director of thoracic oncology at Georgetown University, Washington, said that although family history “emerges” from the study as a potential risk factor for lung cancer, “this analysis would be much more insightful with genomic analyses of these cancers.”

Devika Das, MD, clinical assistant professor of hematology and oncology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, said that the study is “interesting,” given the rise of adenocarcinoma among never-smokers.

She agreed that further details and long-term outcomes are needed and said the key learning point was the need for a “robust” study of the biology of lung cancer in this population.

Lillian Leigh, an Australian lawyer and a lung cancer patient advocate, said the study “provides new evidence” on lung cancer risks.

“As an Asian never-smoker living with lung cancer, the TALENT trial results give me hope,” she said.
 

Details of TALENT findings

The TALENT study recruited individuals aged 55-70 years at 17 medical centers between February 2015 and July 2019.

Participants were required to be never-smokers or to have a smoking history of less than 10 pack-years and to have quit the habit more than 15 years previously.

They also had to have one of the following risk factors:

• Family history of lung cancer in up to third-degree relatives, in which case younger patients could be recruited.
• Environmental (passive) tobacco smoking history.
• Chronic lung disease, namely,  or .
• A cooking index ≥110, defined as 2/7 × the number of days of frying per week × the number of years cooking.
• Cooking without ventilation.

The participants underwent chest x-ray. If the x-ray proved negative, the team performed standard LDCT, examined blood and urine samples for lung cancer biomarkers, and administered standard questionnaires.

Participants who were found on LDCT to have solid or part-solid nodules greater than 6 mm in diameter or pure ground-glass nodules greater than 5 mm in diameter underwent biopsy or standard follow-up.

Individuals whose initial chest x-ray was positive underwent standard contrast-enhanced chest CT prior to biopsy or standard follow-up.

Of 13,207 individuals initially screened, 12,011 were enrolled. Of those, 73.8% were women. The mean age was 61.2 years, and 93.3% were never-smokers.

Among the participants, 46.4% had a first-degree family history of lung cancer; 3.0% had a second-degree family history; and 0.5% had a third-degree family history.

Environmental tobacco exposure was recorded in 83.2% of patients. Chronic lung disease was present in 9.8%; 36.7% had a cooking index ≥110; and 1.8 cooked without ventilation.

Dr. Yang said LDCT results were positive for 17.4% of patients, and 3.4% underwent invasive procedures.

Overall, lung cancer was detected in 313 participants (2.6%). Invasive lung cancer was detected in 255 (2.1%). Of those, 17.9% had multiple primary lung cancers.

Strikingly, 96.5% of the confirmed lung cancer cases were stage 0-I. The majority were stage IA, “which is higher than in other studies that have focused on heavy smokers,” Dr. Yang said. More than half of cases (58.5%) were invasive adenocarcinomas.

The prevalence of lung cancer was significantly higher among people who had a family history of the disease, at 3.2%, vs. 2.0% in those without, at a relative risk of 1.61 (P < .001).

The prevalence was higher still in individuals who had a first-degree family history of lung cancer, at 3.3%, giving a relative risk of 1.69 in comparison with those who did not have a family history (P < .001). The findings were nonsignificant for second- and third-degree relatives.

The relative risk increased even further when the first-degree relative who had a history of lung cancer was a sister, at 1.78 (P < .001), or a brother, at 2.00 (P < .001).

The relative risk was slightly lower if the patient’s relative was the mother, at 1.43 (P = .010), and was nonsignificant if the relative was the father (P = .077).

The risk for lung cancer also increased with an increase in the number of first-degree relatives with the disease, rising from 3.1% with one relative to 4.0% with two relatives, 6.7% with three relatives, and 9.1% with at least four relatives (P < .001). A similar pattern was seen for invasive lung cancer.

The other risk factors included in the study, such as environmental tobacco exposure, chronic lung disease, and cooking index, were not significantly associated with the prevalence of lung cancer.

No funding for the study has been disclosed. Dr. Yang has received honoraria from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer, Merck, Eli Lilly, Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, and ONO Pharma and has served on the advisory board of OBI Pharma, CHO Pharma, and Lin BioScience. Dr. Pastorino has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has granted accelerated approval for tepotinib (TEPMETKO) for the treatment of adults with metastatic non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) harboring MET exon 14 skipping alterations.

Tepotinib is the first once-daily oral MET inhibitor approved for this patient population, and the approval applies to both treatment-naive and previously treated patients with NSCLC.

The approval was supported by results from the ongoing phase 2 VISION trial. Tepotinib produced an overall response rate of 43% in both treatment-naive patients (n = 69) and previously treated patients (n = 83) in this trial. The median duration of response was 10.8 months and 11.1 months, respectively.

Results of the primary analysis were published in The New England Journal of Medicine last year.

Study subjects received the recommended dose of 450 mg taken as two 225-mg tablets once daily with food until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Adverse reactions occurring in at least 20% of patients included edema, fatigue, nausea, diarrhea, musculoskeletal pain, and dyspnea. Interstitial lung disease, hepatotoxicity, and embryo-fetal toxicity also have been reported with tepotinib.

Continued approval of tepotinib “may be contingent upon verification and description of clinical benefit in confirmatory trials,” the FDA stated in an approval announcement.

EMD Serono, the drug’s maker, also announced the approval in a press statement, calling tepotinib “an important and welcome new therapeutic option for patients with metastatic NSCLC harboring these genetic mutations.”

“METex14 skipping occurs in approximately 3% to 4% of NSCLC cases, and patients with this aggressive lung cancer are often elderly and face a poor clinical prognosis,” Paul K. Paik, MD, the VISION primary investigator and clinical director of the thoracic oncology service at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, said in the statement.

“There is a pressing need for targeted treatments that have the potential to generate durable antitumor activity and improve the lives of patients with this challenging disease,” he added.

Andrea Ferris, president and chief executive officer of the nonprofit LUNGevity Foundation, further noted the “powerful progress” made in recent years with respect to understanding genetic mutations in NSCLC.

“The availability of a new precision medicine for NSCLC with METex14 skipping alterations advances patient access to targeted treatment and underscores the importance of routine comprehensive biomarker testing for patients with this challenging cancer,” she said in the statement.

Tepotinib was approved in Japan in March 2020. The drug previously received breakthrough therapy designation and orphan drug designation from the FDA. A marketing authorization application for tepotinib was validated by the European Medicines Agency in November 2020 for a similar indication, EMD Serono reported, adding that applications “have also been submitted in Australia, Switzerland, and Canada under the FDA’s Project Orbis initiative, which provides a framework for concurrent submission and review of oncology medicines among international partners.”

Other phase 2 studies of tepotinib are ongoing. The INSIGHT 2 study is designed to test tepotinib in combination with osimertinib in MET amplified, advanced, or metastatic NSCLC with activating EGFR mutations that has progressed following first-line treatment with osimertinib. The PERSPECTIVE study is designed to test tepotinib in combination with cetuximab in patients with RAS/BRAF wild-type left-sided metastatic colorectal cancer with acquired resistance to anti-EGFR antibody targeting therapy due to MET amplification.

For more details on tepotinib, see the full prescribing information.

[email protected]

The Food and Drug Administration has granted accelerated approval for tepotinib (TEPMETKO) for the treatment of adults with metastatic non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) harboring MET exon 14 skipping alterations.

Tepotinib is the first once-daily oral MET inhibitor approved for this patient population, and the approval applies to both treatment-naive and previously treated patients with NSCLC.

The approval was supported by results from the ongoing phase 2 VISION trial. Tepotinib produced an overall response rate of 43% in both treatment-naive patients (n = 69) and previously treated patients (n = 83) in this trial. The median duration of response was 10.8 months and 11.1 months, respectively.

Results of the primary analysis were published in The New England Journal of Medicine last year.

Study subjects received the recommended dose of 450 mg taken as two 225-mg tablets once daily with food until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Adverse reactions occurring in at least 20% of patients included edema, fatigue, nausea, diarrhea, musculoskeletal pain, and dyspnea. Interstitial lung disease, hepatotoxicity, and embryo-fetal toxicity also have been reported with tepotinib.

Continued approval of tepotinib “may be contingent upon verification and description of clinical benefit in confirmatory trials,” the FDA stated in an approval announcement.

EMD Serono, the drug’s maker, also announced the approval in a press statement, calling tepotinib “an important and welcome new therapeutic option for patients with metastatic NSCLC harboring these genetic mutations.”

“METex14 skipping occurs in approximately 3% to 4% of NSCLC cases, and patients with this aggressive lung cancer are often elderly and face a poor clinical prognosis,” Paul K. Paik, MD, the VISION primary investigator and clinical director of the thoracic oncology service at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, said in the statement.

“There is a pressing need for targeted treatments that have the potential to generate durable antitumor activity and improve the lives of patients with this challenging disease,” he added.

Andrea Ferris, president and chief executive officer of the nonprofit LUNGevity Foundation, further noted the “powerful progress” made in recent years with respect to understanding genetic mutations in NSCLC.

“The availability of a new precision medicine for NSCLC with METex14 skipping alterations advances patient access to targeted treatment and underscores the importance of routine comprehensive biomarker testing for patients with this challenging cancer,” she said in the statement.

Tepotinib was approved in Japan in March 2020. The drug previously received breakthrough therapy designation and orphan drug designation from the FDA. A marketing authorization application for tepotinib was validated by the European Medicines Agency in November 2020 for a similar indication, EMD Serono reported, adding that applications “have also been submitted in Australia, Switzerland, and Canada under the FDA’s Project Orbis initiative, which provides a framework for concurrent submission and review of oncology medicines among international partners.”

Other phase 2 studies of tepotinib are ongoing. The INSIGHT 2 study is designed to test tepotinib in combination with osimertinib in MET amplified, advanced, or metastatic NSCLC with activating EGFR mutations that has progressed following first-line treatment with osimertinib. The PERSPECTIVE study is designed to test tepotinib in combination with cetuximab in patients with RAS/BRAF wild-type left-sided metastatic colorectal cancer with acquired resistance to anti-EGFR antibody targeting therapy due to MET amplification.

For more details on tepotinib, see the full prescribing information.

[email protected]

The Food and Drug Administration has granted accelerated approval for tepotinib (TEPMETKO) for the treatment of adults with metastatic non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) harboring MET exon 14 skipping alterations.

Tepotinib is the first once-daily oral MET inhibitor approved for this patient population, and the approval applies to both treatment-naive and previously treated patients with NSCLC.

The approval was supported by results from the ongoing phase 2 VISION trial. Tepotinib produced an overall response rate of 43% in both treatment-naive patients (n = 69) and previously treated patients (n = 83) in this trial. The median duration of response was 10.8 months and 11.1 months, respectively.

Results of the primary analysis were published in The New England Journal of Medicine last year.

Study subjects received the recommended dose of 450 mg taken as two 225-mg tablets once daily with food until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Adverse reactions occurring in at least 20% of patients included edema, fatigue, nausea, diarrhea, musculoskeletal pain, and dyspnea. Interstitial lung disease, hepatotoxicity, and embryo-fetal toxicity also have been reported with tepotinib.

Continued approval of tepotinib “may be contingent upon verification and description of clinical benefit in confirmatory trials,” the FDA stated in an approval announcement.

EMD Serono, the drug’s maker, also announced the approval in a press statement, calling tepotinib “an important and welcome new therapeutic option for patients with metastatic NSCLC harboring these genetic mutations.”

“METex14 skipping occurs in approximately 3% to 4% of NSCLC cases, and patients with this aggressive lung cancer are often elderly and face a poor clinical prognosis,” Paul K. Paik, MD, the VISION primary investigator and clinical director of the thoracic oncology service at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, said in the statement.

“There is a pressing need for targeted treatments that have the potential to generate durable antitumor activity and improve the lives of patients with this challenging disease,” he added.

Andrea Ferris, president and chief executive officer of the nonprofit LUNGevity Foundation, further noted the “powerful progress” made in recent years with respect to understanding genetic mutations in NSCLC.

“The availability of a new precision medicine for NSCLC with METex14 skipping alterations advances patient access to targeted treatment and underscores the importance of routine comprehensive biomarker testing for patients with this challenging cancer,” she said in the statement.

Tepotinib was approved in Japan in March 2020. The drug previously received breakthrough therapy designation and orphan drug designation from the FDA. A marketing authorization application for tepotinib was validated by the European Medicines Agency in November 2020 for a similar indication, EMD Serono reported, adding that applications “have also been submitted in Australia, Switzerland, and Canada under the FDA’s Project Orbis initiative, which provides a framework for concurrent submission and review of oncology medicines among international partners.”

Other phase 2 studies of tepotinib are ongoing. The INSIGHT 2 study is designed to test tepotinib in combination with osimertinib in MET amplified, advanced, or metastatic NSCLC with activating EGFR mutations that has progressed following first-line treatment with osimertinib. The PERSPECTIVE study is designed to test tepotinib in combination with cetuximab in patients with RAS/BRAF wild-type left-sided metastatic colorectal cancer with acquired resistance to anti-EGFR antibody targeting therapy due to MET amplification.

For more details on tepotinib, see the full prescribing information.

[email protected]

Lung cancer experts have been rejoicing over new longer-term results that continue to show the combination of immunotherapy and chemotherapy doubles survival, compared with chemotherapy alone.

The results are from a 4-year follow-up of 160 patients with previously untreated stage IV non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) taking part in the KEYNOTE-189 trial of immunotherapy with pembrolizumab plus pemetrexed–platinum chemotherapy versus chemotherapy plus placebo.

After a median follow-up of 46.3 months, the median overall survival (OS) in the intention-to-treat population was 22.0 months with the combination versus 10.6 months with chemotherapy alone (hazard ratio, 0.60).

A similar pattern was seen for progression-free survival (PFS), with patients receiving the combination having a longer median PFS, at 9.0 months versus 4.9 months with chemotherapy alone (HR, 0.50).

“Stellar data,” Riyaz Shah, MD, PhD, consultant medical oncologist, Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust, Royal Tunbridge Wells, England, exclaimed on Twitter.

He described the results for the programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression subgroups as “astonishing” and singled out the performance of the combination therapy in patients with very low (<1%) tumor PD-L1 expression, showing more than 23% of patients were alive at 3 years versus just over 5% in the group given chemotherapy alone.

Charu Aggarwal, MD, MPH, Leslye M. Heisler associate professor for lung cancer excellence, Penn Medicine, Philadelphia, said the outcomes with the combination of chemotherapy and immunotherapy were “terrific.”

Sandip P. Patel, MD, medical oncologist, associate professor of medicine, University of California, San Diego, agreed that these long-term results were “very impressive.” However, he noted the “full effect” of chemotherapy plus immunotherapy has not “fully been captured in our overall cancer mortality statistics in the U.S. yet.”

The new results were presented at the 2020 World Conference on Lung Cancer, which was rescheduled for January 2021.

Previous results from KEYNOTE-189 had already demonstrated that, after a median follow-up of 10.5 months, adding pembrolizumab to chemotherapy significantly improves both OS and PFS, compared with chemotherapy alone.

The latest results show that the combination “continued to provide overall survival and progression-free survival benefit” in extended follow-up, said study presenter Jhanelle Elaine Gray, MD, chair, department of thoracic oncology, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa.

The 3-year OS rate with pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy, compared with chemotherapy alone was 31.3% versus 17.4%, and the estimated 3-year PFS was 11.8% versus 1.3%.

Substantial improvements were even seen in patients with tumors that had a low level of PD-L1 expression (measured as the PD-L1 tumor proportion score [TPS]).

Dr. Gray highlighted the finding that the survival benefit with pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy was seen regardless of PD-L1 expression in the tumor, with a hazard ratio versus chemotherapy alone of 0.71 in patients with a TPS ≥ 50%, 0.66 in those with a TPS of 1%-49%, and 0.52 in patients with a TPS less than 1%. A similar pattern was seen with PFS, with a hazard ratio of 0.36 in patients with a TPS of at least 50%, 0.54 in those with a TPS of 1%-49%, and 0.68 in patients with a TPS less than 1%.

In addition, overall response rate and duration of response were also improved with combination therapy, regardless of tumor PD-L1 expression.

Among 56 patients who completed 35 cycles of pembrolizumab, the objective response rate was 87.5% (with 10.7% having a complete response and 76.8% a partial response).

At the data cutoff, 45 patients were alive, 28 did not have progressive disease, and seven had started a second course of pembrolizumab.

The side effect profile of the combination was “manageable,” Dr. Gray reported.

The combination arm was associated with more grade 3-5 treatment-related adverse events than the chemotherapy alone arm, at 52.1% versus 42.1%, and more grade 3-5 immune-related adverse events and infusion reactions, at 27.7% versus 13.4%.

Events leading to treatment discontinuation were also more common with pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy than chemotherapy, at 27.4% versus 9.9%.

The combination of pembrolizumab plus pemetrexed-platinum has already become “a standard-of-care therapy for patients with newly diagnosed metastatic nonsquamous NSCLC,” Dr. Gray commented.

The study was funded by Merck. Dr. Gray disclosed relationships with Array, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Genentech, and Merck.

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

Lung cancer experts have been rejoicing over new longer-term results that continue to show the combination of immunotherapy and chemotherapy doubles survival, compared with chemotherapy alone.

The results are from a 4-year follow-up of 160 patients with previously untreated stage IV non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) taking part in the KEYNOTE-189 trial of immunotherapy with pembrolizumab plus pemetrexed–platinum chemotherapy versus chemotherapy plus placebo.

After a median follow-up of 46.3 months, the median overall survival (OS) in the intention-to-treat population was 22.0 months with the combination versus 10.6 months with chemotherapy alone (hazard ratio, 0.60).

A similar pattern was seen for progression-free survival (PFS), with patients receiving the combination having a longer median PFS, at 9.0 months versus 4.9 months with chemotherapy alone (HR, 0.50).

“Stellar data,” Riyaz Shah, MD, PhD, consultant medical oncologist, Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust, Royal Tunbridge Wells, England, exclaimed on Twitter.

He described the results for the programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression subgroups as “astonishing” and singled out the performance of the combination therapy in patients with very low (<1%) tumor PD-L1 expression, showing more than 23% of patients were alive at 3 years versus just over 5% in the group given chemotherapy alone.

Charu Aggarwal, MD, MPH, Leslye M. Heisler associate professor for lung cancer excellence, Penn Medicine, Philadelphia, said the outcomes with the combination of chemotherapy and immunotherapy were “terrific.”

Sandip P. Patel, MD, medical oncologist, associate professor of medicine, University of California, San Diego, agreed that these long-term results were “very impressive.” However, he noted the “full effect” of chemotherapy plus immunotherapy has not “fully been captured in our overall cancer mortality statistics in the U.S. yet.”

The new results were presented at the 2020 World Conference on Lung Cancer, which was rescheduled for January 2021.

Previous results from KEYNOTE-189 had already demonstrated that, after a median follow-up of 10.5 months, adding pembrolizumab to chemotherapy significantly improves both OS and PFS, compared with chemotherapy alone.

The latest results show that the combination “continued to provide overall survival and progression-free survival benefit” in extended follow-up, said study presenter Jhanelle Elaine Gray, MD, chair, department of thoracic oncology, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa.

The 3-year OS rate with pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy, compared with chemotherapy alone was 31.3% versus 17.4%, and the estimated 3-year PFS was 11.8% versus 1.3%.

Substantial improvements were even seen in patients with tumors that had a low level of PD-L1 expression (measured as the PD-L1 tumor proportion score [TPS]).

Dr. Gray highlighted the finding that the survival benefit with pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy was seen regardless of PD-L1 expression in the tumor, with a hazard ratio versus chemotherapy alone of 0.71 in patients with a TPS ≥ 50%, 0.66 in those with a TPS of 1%-49%, and 0.52 in patients with a TPS less than 1%. A similar pattern was seen with PFS, with a hazard ratio of 0.36 in patients with a TPS of at least 50%, 0.54 in those with a TPS of 1%-49%, and 0.68 in patients with a TPS less than 1%.

In addition, overall response rate and duration of response were also improved with combination therapy, regardless of tumor PD-L1 expression.

Among 56 patients who completed 35 cycles of pembrolizumab, the objective response rate was 87.5% (with 10.7% having a complete response and 76.8% a partial response).

At the data cutoff, 45 patients were alive, 28 did not have progressive disease, and seven had started a second course of pembrolizumab.

The side effect profile of the combination was “manageable,” Dr. Gray reported.

The combination arm was associated with more grade 3-5 treatment-related adverse events than the chemotherapy alone arm, at 52.1% versus 42.1%, and more grade 3-5 immune-related adverse events and infusion reactions, at 27.7% versus 13.4%.

Events leading to treatment discontinuation were also more common with pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy than chemotherapy, at 27.4% versus 9.9%.

The combination of pembrolizumab plus pemetrexed-platinum has already become “a standard-of-care therapy for patients with newly diagnosed metastatic nonsquamous NSCLC,” Dr. Gray commented.

The study was funded by Merck. Dr. Gray disclosed relationships with Array, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Genentech, and Merck.

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

Lung cancer experts have been rejoicing over new longer-term results that continue to show the combination of immunotherapy and chemotherapy doubles survival, compared with chemotherapy alone.

The results are from a 4-year follow-up of 160 patients with previously untreated stage IV non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) taking part in the KEYNOTE-189 trial of immunotherapy with pembrolizumab plus pemetrexed–platinum chemotherapy versus chemotherapy plus placebo.

After a median follow-up of 46.3 months, the median overall survival (OS) in the intention-to-treat population was 22.0 months with the combination versus 10.6 months with chemotherapy alone (hazard ratio, 0.60).

A similar pattern was seen for progression-free survival (PFS), with patients receiving the combination having a longer median PFS, at 9.0 months versus 4.9 months with chemotherapy alone (HR, 0.50).

“Stellar data,” Riyaz Shah, MD, PhD, consultant medical oncologist, Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust, Royal Tunbridge Wells, England, exclaimed on Twitter.

He described the results for the programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression subgroups as “astonishing” and singled out the performance of the combination therapy in patients with very low (<1%) tumor PD-L1 expression, showing more than 23% of patients were alive at 3 years versus just over 5% in the group given chemotherapy alone.

Charu Aggarwal, MD, MPH, Leslye M. Heisler associate professor for lung cancer excellence, Penn Medicine, Philadelphia, said the outcomes with the combination of chemotherapy and immunotherapy were “terrific.”

Sandip P. Patel, MD, medical oncologist, associate professor of medicine, University of California, San Diego, agreed that these long-term results were “very impressive.” However, he noted the “full effect” of chemotherapy plus immunotherapy has not “fully been captured in our overall cancer mortality statistics in the U.S. yet.”

The new results were presented at the 2020 World Conference on Lung Cancer, which was rescheduled for January 2021.

Previous results from KEYNOTE-189 had already demonstrated that, after a median follow-up of 10.5 months, adding pembrolizumab to chemotherapy significantly improves both OS and PFS, compared with chemotherapy alone.

The latest results show that the combination “continued to provide overall survival and progression-free survival benefit” in extended follow-up, said study presenter Jhanelle Elaine Gray, MD, chair, department of thoracic oncology, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa.

The 3-year OS rate with pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy, compared with chemotherapy alone was 31.3% versus 17.4%, and the estimated 3-year PFS was 11.8% versus 1.3%.

Substantial improvements were even seen in patients with tumors that had a low level of PD-L1 expression (measured as the PD-L1 tumor proportion score [TPS]).

Dr. Gray highlighted the finding that the survival benefit with pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy was seen regardless of PD-L1 expression in the tumor, with a hazard ratio versus chemotherapy alone of 0.71 in patients with a TPS ≥ 50%, 0.66 in those with a TPS of 1%-49%, and 0.52 in patients with a TPS less than 1%. A similar pattern was seen with PFS, with a hazard ratio of 0.36 in patients with a TPS of at least 50%, 0.54 in those with a TPS of 1%-49%, and 0.68 in patients with a TPS less than 1%.

In addition, overall response rate and duration of response were also improved with combination therapy, regardless of tumor PD-L1 expression.

Among 56 patients who completed 35 cycles of pembrolizumab, the objective response rate was 87.5% (with 10.7% having a complete response and 76.8% a partial response).

At the data cutoff, 45 patients were alive, 28 did not have progressive disease, and seven had started a second course of pembrolizumab.

The side effect profile of the combination was “manageable,” Dr. Gray reported.

The combination arm was associated with more grade 3-5 treatment-related adverse events than the chemotherapy alone arm, at 52.1% versus 42.1%, and more grade 3-5 immune-related adverse events and infusion reactions, at 27.7% versus 13.4%.

Events leading to treatment discontinuation were also more common with pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy than chemotherapy, at 27.4% versus 9.9%.

The combination of pembrolizumab plus pemetrexed-platinum has already become “a standard-of-care therapy for patients with newly diagnosed metastatic nonsquamous NSCLC,” Dr. Gray commented.

The study was funded by Merck. Dr. Gray disclosed relationships with Array, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Genentech, and Merck.

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

The suspicion raised by the dermoscopy results led to a shave biopsy, which confirmed the diagnosis of squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) in situ, also known as Bowen disease.

Bowen disease typically manifests as a scaly erythematous patch, often on sun-exposed skin. If untreated, these lesions have the potential to develop into invasive SCCs. Generally, the lesions are preceded by the formation of actinic keratosis (AK). In a 2009 trial performed by the Department of Veterans Affairs, up to 65% of SCCs were found to have previously been diagnosed as AK lesions.¹

The selection of treatments includes excision, electrodessication and curettage, cryotherapy, and topical options such as fluorouracil bid for 4 weeks or imiquimod qd for 9 weeks.

After the physician outlined the treatment options, this patient opted for an elliptical excision. At the patient’s next follow-up appointment, she was found to have multiple AKs on her face; they were treated with cryotherapy. Patients with a diagnosis of precancerous or cancerous skin lesions are at high risk for additional AKs and skin cancer, so they should be counseled regarding the use of sun protective measures and the importance of annual screening for new lesions.

‌

Image courtesy of Carlos Cano, MD, and text courtesy of Carlos Cano, MD, and Daniel Stulberg, MD, FAAFP, Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of New Mexico School of Medicine, Albuquerque.

The suspicion raised by the dermoscopy results led to a shave biopsy, which confirmed the diagnosis of squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) in situ, also known as Bowen disease.

Bowen disease typically manifests as a scaly erythematous patch, often on sun-exposed skin. If untreated, these lesions have the potential to develop into invasive SCCs. Generally, the lesions are preceded by the formation of actinic keratosis (AK). In a 2009 trial performed by the Department of Veterans Affairs, up to 65% of SCCs were found to have previously been diagnosed as AK lesions.¹

The selection of treatments includes excision, electrodessication and curettage, cryotherapy, and topical options such as fluorouracil bid for 4 weeks or imiquimod qd for 9 weeks.

After the physician outlined the treatment options, this patient opted for an elliptical excision. At the patient’s next follow-up appointment, she was found to have multiple AKs on her face; they were treated with cryotherapy. Patients with a diagnosis of precancerous or cancerous skin lesions are at high risk for additional AKs and skin cancer, so they should be counseled regarding the use of sun protective measures and the importance of annual screening for new lesions.

‌

Image courtesy of Carlos Cano, MD, and text courtesy of Carlos Cano, MD, and Daniel Stulberg, MD, FAAFP, Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of New Mexico School of Medicine, Albuquerque.

The suspicion raised by the dermoscopy results led to a shave biopsy, which confirmed the diagnosis of squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) in situ, also known as Bowen disease.

Bowen disease typically manifests as a scaly erythematous patch, often on sun-exposed skin. If untreated, these lesions have the potential to develop into invasive SCCs. Generally, the lesions are preceded by the formation of actinic keratosis (AK). In a 2009 trial performed by the Department of Veterans Affairs, up to 65% of SCCs were found to have previously been diagnosed as AK lesions.¹

The selection of treatments includes excision, electrodessication and curettage, cryotherapy, and topical options such as fluorouracil bid for 4 weeks or imiquimod qd for 9 weeks.

After the physician outlined the treatment options, this patient opted for an elliptical excision. At the patient’s next follow-up appointment, she was found to have multiple AKs on her face; they were treated with cryotherapy. Patients with a diagnosis of precancerous or cancerous skin lesions are at high risk for additional AKs and skin cancer, so they should be counseled regarding the use of sun protective measures and the importance of annual screening for new lesions.

‌

Image courtesy of Carlos Cano, MD, and text courtesy of Carlos Cano, MD, and Daniel Stulberg, MD, FAAFP, Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of New Mexico School of Medicine, Albuquerque.

Adults who eat three slices of white bread daily have a significantly increased risk for dying from cardiovascular causes.

MikeyGen73/Getty Images

That’s one finding from an assessment of a more than 137,000 people in 21 countries that documented a clear link between a high level of consumption of refined grains and a significantly increased risk for death from any cause or major cardiovascular disease (CVD) event during a median follow-up of 9.5 years.

The results showed that people who reported eating at least 350 g (seven servings) of refined grain daily had a significant 29% increased risk of either death or a major CVD event (MI, stroke, or heart failure), compared with those who consumed less than one serving per day (fewer than 50 g) of refined grain after adjustment for multiple potential confounders, according to a report from the Prospective Urban Rural Epidemiology (PURE) study published in the BMJ on Feb. 3, 2021.

The analysis also showed no significant association between levels of whole grains or white rice in the diet and CVD events. Rice was considered a separate grain in the analysis because nearly two-thirds of the PURE study population reside in Asia, where rice is a staple food.

The findings show that “reduction in the quantity of refined grains and sugar, and improvement in the quality of carbohydrates is essential for better health outcomes, although we do not suggest complete elimination of refined grains,” said Mahshid Dehghan, PhD, lead investigator for this report and a researcher in nutrition epidemiology at the Population Health Research Institute of McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont.
 

‘Widely applicable’ results from large, diverse study

Although prior evidence had already shown the CVD risk from eating larger amounts of refined grains, “our findings are robust and more widely applicable because our large study recorded over 9,000 deaths and 3,500 major CVD events across a broad range of refined grain intake, and in a variety of different settings and cultures with varying dietary patterns,” Dr. Dehghan said in an interview.

“This is an important paper, with the strength of data from diverse countries. The associations are robust,” commented Dariush Mozaffarian, MD, DrPH, professor and dean of the Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy at Tufts University, Boston, who was not involved in the new report.

“The public and the public health community think about added sugar in food as harmful, but starch has gotten a free pass,” he said in an interview. Recently revised U.S. dietary guidelines recommend that refined grains constitute less than half of a person’s carbohydrate consumption, but that limitation remains set too high, Dr. Mozaffarian cautioned. A much safer daily consumption limit would cap refined grains to no more than one serving a day.

The data for the current PURE analysis came from more than 148,000 people aged 35-70 years at entry in 21 geographically and economically diverse countries. Excluding patients with known CVD at baseline left a cohort of 137,130 people.

The results showed no significant association between the quantity of whole grains consumed and the main outcome, nor a link between higher amounts of white rice consumption and the main outcome.

“Our findings suggest that intake of up to 350 g of cooked rice daily may not pose a significant health risk,” said Dr. Dehghan.

Refined grains produce a glucose surge

Dr. Dehghan and associates speculated that possible explanations for their findings are that “varieties of rice such as long-grain rice and especially parboiled white rice may have both a definite glycemic advantage and an overall nutritional advantage over refined wheat products. Also, depending on the culture and the nature of the rice eaten, rice may be displacing less desirable foods.”

In contrast, refined grains undergo “rapid action by digestive enzymes and quick absorption from the small intestines [that] could lead to an increase in postprandial blood glucose concentrations. The rise in glucose concentrations increases the insulin concentrations, which leads to hypoglycemia, lipolysis, and the stimulation of hunger and food intake,” the authors wrote.

“It’s similar to eating sugar, or candy,” noted Dr. Mozaffarian, as refined grain “is 100% glucose.” Whole grains differ by entering the gut packaged in cell structures that slow digestion and avoid delivering sugar in an unnaturally rapid way.

“We are providing new evidence, and we hope that dietary guidelines in North America encourage individuals to lower their refined grain and sugar intake,” Dr. Dehghan said.

PURE has received partial funding with unrestricted grants from several drug companies. Dr. Dehghan had no disclosures. Dr. Mozaffarian has been an adviser to or has received personal fees from several food companies, but had no relevant disclosures.

[email protected]
 

Adults who eat three slices of white bread daily have a significantly increased risk for dying from cardiovascular causes.

MikeyGen73/Getty Images

That’s one finding from an assessment of a more than 137,000 people in 21 countries that documented a clear link between a high level of consumption of refined grains and a significantly increased risk for death from any cause or major cardiovascular disease (CVD) event during a median follow-up of 9.5 years.

The results showed that people who reported eating at least 350 g (seven servings) of refined grain daily had a significant 29% increased risk of either death or a major CVD event (MI, stroke, or heart failure), compared with those who consumed less than one serving per day (fewer than 50 g) of refined grain after adjustment for multiple potential confounders, according to a report from the Prospective Urban Rural Epidemiology (PURE) study published in the BMJ on Feb. 3, 2021.

The analysis also showed no significant association between levels of whole grains or white rice in the diet and CVD events. Rice was considered a separate grain in the analysis because nearly two-thirds of the PURE study population reside in Asia, where rice is a staple food.

The findings show that “reduction in the quantity of refined grains and sugar, and improvement in the quality of carbohydrates is essential for better health outcomes, although we do not suggest complete elimination of refined grains,” said Mahshid Dehghan, PhD, lead investigator for this report and a researcher in nutrition epidemiology at the Population Health Research Institute of McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont.
 

‘Widely applicable’ results from large, diverse study

Although prior evidence had already shown the CVD risk from eating larger amounts of refined grains, “our findings are robust and more widely applicable because our large study recorded over 9,000 deaths and 3,500 major CVD events across a broad range of refined grain intake, and in a variety of different settings and cultures with varying dietary patterns,” Dr. Dehghan said in an interview.

“This is an important paper, with the strength of data from diverse countries. The associations are robust,” commented Dariush Mozaffarian, MD, DrPH, professor and dean of the Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy at Tufts University, Boston, who was not involved in the new report.

“The public and the public health community think about added sugar in food as harmful, but starch has gotten a free pass,” he said in an interview. Recently revised U.S. dietary guidelines recommend that refined grains constitute less than half of a person’s carbohydrate consumption, but that limitation remains set too high, Dr. Mozaffarian cautioned. A much safer daily consumption limit would cap refined grains to no more than one serving a day.

The data for the current PURE analysis came from more than 148,000 people aged 35-70 years at entry in 21 geographically and economically diverse countries. Excluding patients with known CVD at baseline left a cohort of 137,130 people.

The results showed no significant association between the quantity of whole grains consumed and the main outcome, nor a link between higher amounts of white rice consumption and the main outcome.

“Our findings suggest that intake of up to 350 g of cooked rice daily may not pose a significant health risk,” said Dr. Dehghan.

Refined grains produce a glucose surge

Dr. Dehghan and associates speculated that possible explanations for their findings are that “varieties of rice such as long-grain rice and especially parboiled white rice may have both a definite glycemic advantage and an overall nutritional advantage over refined wheat products. Also, depending on the culture and the nature of the rice eaten, rice may be displacing less desirable foods.”

In contrast, refined grains undergo “rapid action by digestive enzymes and quick absorption from the small intestines [that] could lead to an increase in postprandial blood glucose concentrations. The rise in glucose concentrations increases the insulin concentrations, which leads to hypoglycemia, lipolysis, and the stimulation of hunger and food intake,” the authors wrote.

“It’s similar to eating sugar, or candy,” noted Dr. Mozaffarian, as refined grain “is 100% glucose.” Whole grains differ by entering the gut packaged in cell structures that slow digestion and avoid delivering sugar in an unnaturally rapid way.

“We are providing new evidence, and we hope that dietary guidelines in North America encourage individuals to lower their refined grain and sugar intake,” Dr. Dehghan said.

PURE has received partial funding with unrestricted grants from several drug companies. Dr. Dehghan had no disclosures. Dr. Mozaffarian has been an adviser to or has received personal fees from several food companies, but had no relevant disclosures.

[email protected]
 

Adults who eat three slices of white bread daily have a significantly increased risk for dying from cardiovascular causes.

MikeyGen73/Getty Images

That’s one finding from an assessment of a more than 137,000 people in 21 countries that documented a clear link between a high level of consumption of refined grains and a significantly increased risk for death from any cause or major cardiovascular disease (CVD) event during a median follow-up of 9.5 years.

The results showed that people who reported eating at least 350 g (seven servings) of refined grain daily had a significant 29% increased risk of either death or a major CVD event (MI, stroke, or heart failure), compared with those who consumed less than one serving per day (fewer than 50 g) of refined grain after adjustment for multiple potential confounders, according to a report from the Prospective Urban Rural Epidemiology (PURE) study published in the BMJ on Feb. 3, 2021.

The analysis also showed no significant association between levels of whole grains or white rice in the diet and CVD events. Rice was considered a separate grain in the analysis because nearly two-thirds of the PURE study population reside in Asia, where rice is a staple food.

The findings show that “reduction in the quantity of refined grains and sugar, and improvement in the quality of carbohydrates is essential for better health outcomes, although we do not suggest complete elimination of refined grains,” said Mahshid Dehghan, PhD, lead investigator for this report and a researcher in nutrition epidemiology at the Population Health Research Institute of McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont.
 

‘Widely applicable’ results from large, diverse study

Although prior evidence had already shown the CVD risk from eating larger amounts of refined grains, “our findings are robust and more widely applicable because our large study recorded over 9,000 deaths and 3,500 major CVD events across a broad range of refined grain intake, and in a variety of different settings and cultures with varying dietary patterns,” Dr. Dehghan said in an interview.

“This is an important paper, with the strength of data from diverse countries. The associations are robust,” commented Dariush Mozaffarian, MD, DrPH, professor and dean of the Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy at Tufts University, Boston, who was not involved in the new report.

“The public and the public health community think about added sugar in food as harmful, but starch has gotten a free pass,” he said in an interview. Recently revised U.S. dietary guidelines recommend that refined grains constitute less than half of a person’s carbohydrate consumption, but that limitation remains set too high, Dr. Mozaffarian cautioned. A much safer daily consumption limit would cap refined grains to no more than one serving a day.

The data for the current PURE analysis came from more than 148,000 people aged 35-70 years at entry in 21 geographically and economically diverse countries. Excluding patients with known CVD at baseline left a cohort of 137,130 people.

The results showed no significant association between the quantity of whole grains consumed and the main outcome, nor a link between higher amounts of white rice consumption and the main outcome.

“Our findings suggest that intake of up to 350 g of cooked rice daily may not pose a significant health risk,” said Dr. Dehghan.

Refined grains produce a glucose surge

Dr. Dehghan and associates speculated that possible explanations for their findings are that “varieties of rice such as long-grain rice and especially parboiled white rice may have both a definite glycemic advantage and an overall nutritional advantage over refined wheat products. Also, depending on the culture and the nature of the rice eaten, rice may be displacing less desirable foods.”

In contrast, refined grains undergo “rapid action by digestive enzymes and quick absorption from the small intestines [that] could lead to an increase in postprandial blood glucose concentrations. The rise in glucose concentrations increases the insulin concentrations, which leads to hypoglycemia, lipolysis, and the stimulation of hunger and food intake,” the authors wrote.

“It’s similar to eating sugar, or candy,” noted Dr. Mozaffarian, as refined grain “is 100% glucose.” Whole grains differ by entering the gut packaged in cell structures that slow digestion and avoid delivering sugar in an unnaturally rapid way.

“We are providing new evidence, and we hope that dietary guidelines in North America encourage individuals to lower their refined grain and sugar intake,” Dr. Dehghan said.

PURE has received partial funding with unrestricted grants from several drug companies. Dr. Dehghan had no disclosures. Dr. Mozaffarian has been an adviser to or has received personal fees from several food companies, but had no relevant disclosures.

[email protected]
 

Despite a drop in the number of weekly COVID-19 cases, children made up a larger share of cases for the fourth consecutive week, according to a report from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

Just over 140,000 new cases of COVID-19 in children were reported for the week of Jan. 22-28, down from 165,000 the week before and down from the record high of 211,000 2 weeks earlier, the AAP and the CHA said in their weekly COVID-19 report.

Since the beginning of January, however, the proportion of weekly cases occurring in children has risen from 12.9% to 15.1%, based on data collected by the AAP/CHA from the health department websites of 49 states (excluding New York), the District of Columbia, New York City, Puerto Rico, and Guam.

Since the beginning of the pandemic, 2.81 million children have been infected by the coronavirus, representing 12.8% of the total for all ages, which is almost 22 million. The cumulative rate since the start of the pandemic passed 3,700 cases per 100,000 children after increasing by 5.2% over the previous week, the AAP and CHA said in their report.

Cumulative hospitalizations in children just passed 11,000 in the 24 states (and New York City) that are reporting data for children, which represents 1.8% of COVID-19–related admissions for all ages, a proportion that has not changed since mid-November. Ten more deaths in children were reported during Jan. 22-28, bringing the total to 215 in the 43 states, along with New York City and Guam, that are tracking mortality.

In the 10 states that are reporting data on testing, rates of positive results in children range from 7.1% in Indiana, in which children make up the largest proportion of total tests performed (18.1%) to 28.4% in Iowa, where children make up the smallest proportion of tests (6.0%), the AAP and CHA said.

[email protected]

Despite a drop in the number of weekly COVID-19 cases, children made up a larger share of cases for the fourth consecutive week, according to a report from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

Just over 140,000 new cases of COVID-19 in children were reported for the week of Jan. 22-28, down from 165,000 the week before and down from the record high of 211,000 2 weeks earlier, the AAP and the CHA said in their weekly COVID-19 report.

Since the beginning of January, however, the proportion of weekly cases occurring in children has risen from 12.9% to 15.1%, based on data collected by the AAP/CHA from the health department websites of 49 states (excluding New York), the District of Columbia, New York City, Puerto Rico, and Guam.

Since the beginning of the pandemic, 2.81 million children have been infected by the coronavirus, representing 12.8% of the total for all ages, which is almost 22 million. The cumulative rate since the start of the pandemic passed 3,700 cases per 100,000 children after increasing by 5.2% over the previous week, the AAP and CHA said in their report.

Cumulative hospitalizations in children just passed 11,000 in the 24 states (and New York City) that are reporting data for children, which represents 1.8% of COVID-19–related admissions for all ages, a proportion that has not changed since mid-November. Ten more deaths in children were reported during Jan. 22-28, bringing the total to 215 in the 43 states, along with New York City and Guam, that are tracking mortality.

In the 10 states that are reporting data on testing, rates of positive results in children range from 7.1% in Indiana, in which children make up the largest proportion of total tests performed (18.1%) to 28.4% in Iowa, where children make up the smallest proportion of tests (6.0%), the AAP and CHA said.

[email protected]

Despite a drop in the number of weekly COVID-19 cases, children made up a larger share of cases for the fourth consecutive week, according to a report from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

Just over 140,000 new cases of COVID-19 in children were reported for the week of Jan. 22-28, down from 165,000 the week before and down from the record high of 211,000 2 weeks earlier, the AAP and the CHA said in their weekly COVID-19 report.

Since the beginning of January, however, the proportion of weekly cases occurring in children has risen from 12.9% to 15.1%, based on data collected by the AAP/CHA from the health department websites of 49 states (excluding New York), the District of Columbia, New York City, Puerto Rico, and Guam.

Since the beginning of the pandemic, 2.81 million children have been infected by the coronavirus, representing 12.8% of the total for all ages, which is almost 22 million. The cumulative rate since the start of the pandemic passed 3,700 cases per 100,000 children after increasing by 5.2% over the previous week, the AAP and CHA said in their report.

Cumulative hospitalizations in children just passed 11,000 in the 24 states (and New York City) that are reporting data for children, which represents 1.8% of COVID-19–related admissions for all ages, a proportion that has not changed since mid-November. Ten more deaths in children were reported during Jan. 22-28, bringing the total to 215 in the 43 states, along with New York City and Guam, that are tracking mortality.

In the 10 states that are reporting data on testing, rates of positive results in children range from 7.1% in Indiana, in which children make up the largest proportion of total tests performed (18.1%) to 28.4% in Iowa, where children make up the smallest proportion of tests (6.0%), the AAP and CHA said.

[email protected]