A new article in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism (JCEM) addresses unique concerns and considerations regarding diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) in the setting of COVID-19.

Corresponding author Marie E. McDonnell, MD, director of the diabetes program at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, discussed the recommendations with Medscape Medical News and also spoke about the news this week that the corticosteroid dexamethasone reduced death rates in severely ill patients with COVID-19.

The full JCEM article, by lead author Nadine E. Palermo, DO, Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes, and Hypertension, also at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, covers DKA diagnosis and triage, and emphasizes that usual hospital protocols for DKA management may need to be adjusted during COVID-19 to help preserve personal protective equipment and ICU beds.

“Hospitals and clinicians need to be able to quickly identify and manage DKA in COVID patients to save lives. This involves determining the options for management, including when less intensive subcutaneous insulin is indicated, and understanding how to guide patients on avoiding this serious complication,” McDonnell said in an Endocrine Society statement.
 

What about dexamethasone for severe COVID-19 in diabetes?

The new article briefly touches on the fact that upward adjustments to intensive intravenous insulin therapy for DKA may be necessary in patients with COVID-19 who are receiving concomitant corticosteroids or vasopressors.

But it was written prior to the June 16 announcement of the “RECOVERY” trial results with dexamethasone. The UK National Health Service immediately approved the drug’s use in the COVID-19 setting, despite the fact that there has been no published article on the findings yet.

McDonnell told Medscape Medical News that she would need to see formal results to better understand exactly which patients were studied and which ones benefited.

“The peer review will be critical. It looks as if it only benefits people who need respiratory support, but I want to understand that in much more detail,” she said. “If they all had acute respiratory distress syndrome [ARDS],” that’s different.

“There are already some data supporting steroid use in ARDS,” she noted, but added that not all of it suggests benefit.

She pointed to one of several studies now showing that diabetes, and hyperglycemia among people without a prior diabetes diagnosis, are both strong predictors of mortality in hospitalized patients with COVID-19.

“There was a very clear relationship between hyperglycemia and outcomes. We really shouldn’t put people at risk until we have clear data,” she said.

If, once the data are reviewed and appropriate dexamethasone becomes an established treatment for severe COVID-19, hyperglycemia would be a concern among all patients, not just those with previously diagnosed diabetes, she noted.

“We know a good number of people with prediabetes develop hyperglycemia when put on steroids. They can push people over the edge. We’re not going to miss anybody, but treating steroid-induced hyperglycemia is really hard,” McDonnell explained.

She also recommended 2014 guidance from Diabetes UK and the Association of British Clinical Diabetologists, which addresses management of inpatient steroid-induced DKA in patients with and without pre-existing diabetes.

Another major concern, she said, is “patients trying to get dexamethasone when they start to get sick” because this is not the right population to use this agent.

“We worry about people who do not need this drug. If they have diabetes, they put themselves at risk of hyperglycemia, which then increases the risk of severe COVID-19. And then they’re also putting themselves at risk of DKA. It would just be bad medicine,” she said.

Managing DKA in the face of COVID-19: Flexibility is key

In the JCEM article, Palermo and colleagues emphasize that the usual hospital protocols for DKA management may need to be adjusted during COVID-19 in the interest of reducing transmission risk and preserving scare resources.

They provide evidence for alternative treatment strategies, such as the use of subcutaneous rather than intravenous insulin when appropriate.

“We wanted to outline when exactly you should consider nonintensive management strategies for DKA,” McDonnell further explained to Medscape Medical News.

“That would include those with mild or some with moderate DKA. ... The idea is to remind our colleagues about that because hospitals tend to operate on a protocol-driven algorithmic methodology, they can forget to step off the usual care pathway even if evidence supports that,” she said.   

But on the other hand, she also said that, in some very complex or severely ill patients with COVID-19, classical intravenous insulin therapy makes the most sense even if their DKA is mild.
 

The outpatient setting: Prevention and preparation

The new article also addresses several concerns regarding DKA prevention in the outpatient setting.

As with other guidelines, it includes a reminder that patients with diabetes should be advised to discontinue sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors if they become ill with COVID-19, especially if they’re not eating or drinking normally, because they raise the risk for DKA.

Also, for patients with type 1 diabetes, particularly those with a history of repeated DKA, “this is the time to make sure we reach out to patients to refill their insulin prescriptions and address issues related to cost and other access difficulties,” McDonnell said.

The authors also emphasize that insulin starts and education should not be postponed during the pandemic. “Patients identified as meeting criteria to start insulin should be referred for urgent education, either in person or, whenever possible and practical, via video teleconferencing,” they urge.

McDonnell has reported receiving research funding from Novo Nordisk. The other two authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A new article in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism (JCEM) addresses unique concerns and considerations regarding diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) in the setting of COVID-19.

Corresponding author Marie E. McDonnell, MD, director of the diabetes program at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, discussed the recommendations with Medscape Medical News and also spoke about the news this week that the corticosteroid dexamethasone reduced death rates in severely ill patients with COVID-19.

The full JCEM article, by lead author Nadine E. Palermo, DO, Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes, and Hypertension, also at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, covers DKA diagnosis and triage, and emphasizes that usual hospital protocols for DKA management may need to be adjusted during COVID-19 to help preserve personal protective equipment and ICU beds.

“Hospitals and clinicians need to be able to quickly identify and manage DKA in COVID patients to save lives. This involves determining the options for management, including when less intensive subcutaneous insulin is indicated, and understanding how to guide patients on avoiding this serious complication,” McDonnell said in an Endocrine Society statement.
 

What about dexamethasone for severe COVID-19 in diabetes?

The new article briefly touches on the fact that upward adjustments to intensive intravenous insulin therapy for DKA may be necessary in patients with COVID-19 who are receiving concomitant corticosteroids or vasopressors.

But it was written prior to the June 16 announcement of the “RECOVERY” trial results with dexamethasone. The UK National Health Service immediately approved the drug’s use in the COVID-19 setting, despite the fact that there has been no published article on the findings yet.

McDonnell told Medscape Medical News that she would need to see formal results to better understand exactly which patients were studied and which ones benefited.

“The peer review will be critical. It looks as if it only benefits people who need respiratory support, but I want to understand that in much more detail,” she said. “If they all had acute respiratory distress syndrome [ARDS],” that’s different.

“There are already some data supporting steroid use in ARDS,” she noted, but added that not all of it suggests benefit.

She pointed to one of several studies now showing that diabetes, and hyperglycemia among people without a prior diabetes diagnosis, are both strong predictors of mortality in hospitalized patients with COVID-19.

“There was a very clear relationship between hyperglycemia and outcomes. We really shouldn’t put people at risk until we have clear data,” she said.

If, once the data are reviewed and appropriate dexamethasone becomes an established treatment for severe COVID-19, hyperglycemia would be a concern among all patients, not just those with previously diagnosed diabetes, she noted.

“We know a good number of people with prediabetes develop hyperglycemia when put on steroids. They can push people over the edge. We’re not going to miss anybody, but treating steroid-induced hyperglycemia is really hard,” McDonnell explained.

She also recommended 2014 guidance from Diabetes UK and the Association of British Clinical Diabetologists, which addresses management of inpatient steroid-induced DKA in patients with and without pre-existing diabetes.

Another major concern, she said, is “patients trying to get dexamethasone when they start to get sick” because this is not the right population to use this agent.

“We worry about people who do not need this drug. If they have diabetes, they put themselves at risk of hyperglycemia, which then increases the risk of severe COVID-19. And then they’re also putting themselves at risk of DKA. It would just be bad medicine,” she said.

Managing DKA in the face of COVID-19: Flexibility is key

In the JCEM article, Palermo and colleagues emphasize that the usual hospital protocols for DKA management may need to be adjusted during COVID-19 in the interest of reducing transmission risk and preserving scare resources.

They provide evidence for alternative treatment strategies, such as the use of subcutaneous rather than intravenous insulin when appropriate.

“We wanted to outline when exactly you should consider nonintensive management strategies for DKA,” McDonnell further explained to Medscape Medical News.

“That would include those with mild or some with moderate DKA. ... The idea is to remind our colleagues about that because hospitals tend to operate on a protocol-driven algorithmic methodology, they can forget to step off the usual care pathway even if evidence supports that,” she said.   

But on the other hand, she also said that, in some very complex or severely ill patients with COVID-19, classical intravenous insulin therapy makes the most sense even if their DKA is mild.
 

The outpatient setting: Prevention and preparation

The new article also addresses several concerns regarding DKA prevention in the outpatient setting.

As with other guidelines, it includes a reminder that patients with diabetes should be advised to discontinue sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors if they become ill with COVID-19, especially if they’re not eating or drinking normally, because they raise the risk for DKA.

Also, for patients with type 1 diabetes, particularly those with a history of repeated DKA, “this is the time to make sure we reach out to patients to refill their insulin prescriptions and address issues related to cost and other access difficulties,” McDonnell said.

The authors also emphasize that insulin starts and education should not be postponed during the pandemic. “Patients identified as meeting criteria to start insulin should be referred for urgent education, either in person or, whenever possible and practical, via video teleconferencing,” they urge.

McDonnell has reported receiving research funding from Novo Nordisk. The other two authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A new article in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism (JCEM) addresses unique concerns and considerations regarding diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) in the setting of COVID-19.

Corresponding author Marie E. McDonnell, MD, director of the diabetes program at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, discussed the recommendations with Medscape Medical News and also spoke about the news this week that the corticosteroid dexamethasone reduced death rates in severely ill patients with COVID-19.

The full JCEM article, by lead author Nadine E. Palermo, DO, Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes, and Hypertension, also at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, covers DKA diagnosis and triage, and emphasizes that usual hospital protocols for DKA management may need to be adjusted during COVID-19 to help preserve personal protective equipment and ICU beds.

“Hospitals and clinicians need to be able to quickly identify and manage DKA in COVID patients to save lives. This involves determining the options for management, including when less intensive subcutaneous insulin is indicated, and understanding how to guide patients on avoiding this serious complication,” McDonnell said in an Endocrine Society statement.
 

What about dexamethasone for severe COVID-19 in diabetes?

The new article briefly touches on the fact that upward adjustments to intensive intravenous insulin therapy for DKA may be necessary in patients with COVID-19 who are receiving concomitant corticosteroids or vasopressors.

But it was written prior to the June 16 announcement of the “RECOVERY” trial results with dexamethasone. The UK National Health Service immediately approved the drug’s use in the COVID-19 setting, despite the fact that there has been no published article on the findings yet.

McDonnell told Medscape Medical News that she would need to see formal results to better understand exactly which patients were studied and which ones benefited.

“The peer review will be critical. It looks as if it only benefits people who need respiratory support, but I want to understand that in much more detail,” she said. “If they all had acute respiratory distress syndrome [ARDS],” that’s different.

“There are already some data supporting steroid use in ARDS,” she noted, but added that not all of it suggests benefit.

She pointed to one of several studies now showing that diabetes, and hyperglycemia among people without a prior diabetes diagnosis, are both strong predictors of mortality in hospitalized patients with COVID-19.

“There was a very clear relationship between hyperglycemia and outcomes. We really shouldn’t put people at risk until we have clear data,” she said.

If, once the data are reviewed and appropriate dexamethasone becomes an established treatment for severe COVID-19, hyperglycemia would be a concern among all patients, not just those with previously diagnosed diabetes, she noted.

“We know a good number of people with prediabetes develop hyperglycemia when put on steroids. They can push people over the edge. We’re not going to miss anybody, but treating steroid-induced hyperglycemia is really hard,” McDonnell explained.

She also recommended 2014 guidance from Diabetes UK and the Association of British Clinical Diabetologists, which addresses management of inpatient steroid-induced DKA in patients with and without pre-existing diabetes.

Another major concern, she said, is “patients trying to get dexamethasone when they start to get sick” because this is not the right population to use this agent.

“We worry about people who do not need this drug. If they have diabetes, they put themselves at risk of hyperglycemia, which then increases the risk of severe COVID-19. And then they’re also putting themselves at risk of DKA. It would just be bad medicine,” she said.

Managing DKA in the face of COVID-19: Flexibility is key

In the JCEM article, Palermo and colleagues emphasize that the usual hospital protocols for DKA management may need to be adjusted during COVID-19 in the interest of reducing transmission risk and preserving scare resources.

They provide evidence for alternative treatment strategies, such as the use of subcutaneous rather than intravenous insulin when appropriate.

“We wanted to outline when exactly you should consider nonintensive management strategies for DKA,” McDonnell further explained to Medscape Medical News.

“That would include those with mild or some with moderate DKA. ... The idea is to remind our colleagues about that because hospitals tend to operate on a protocol-driven algorithmic methodology, they can forget to step off the usual care pathway even if evidence supports that,” she said.   

But on the other hand, she also said that, in some very complex or severely ill patients with COVID-19, classical intravenous insulin therapy makes the most sense even if their DKA is mild.
 

The outpatient setting: Prevention and preparation

The new article also addresses several concerns regarding DKA prevention in the outpatient setting.

As with other guidelines, it includes a reminder that patients with diabetes should be advised to discontinue sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors if they become ill with COVID-19, especially if they’re not eating or drinking normally, because they raise the risk for DKA.

Also, for patients with type 1 diabetes, particularly those with a history of repeated DKA, “this is the time to make sure we reach out to patients to refill their insulin prescriptions and address issues related to cost and other access difficulties,” McDonnell said.

The authors also emphasize that insulin starts and education should not be postponed during the pandemic. “Patients identified as meeting criteria to start insulin should be referred for urgent education, either in person or, whenever possible and practical, via video teleconferencing,” they urge.

McDonnell has reported receiving research funding from Novo Nordisk. The other two authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Apremilast was highly effective in treating patients with severe recurrent aphthous stomatitis, with rapid response and an excellent safety profile, results from a small pilot study showed.

“Canker sores [aphthous ulcers] are very common, yet are often not well managed as the diagnosis is not always correctly made,” lead study author Alison J. Bruce, MB, ChB, said in an interview following the virtual annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology. “They’re often mistaken for herpes infection and therefore treated with antiviral therapy. Of the available therapies, several have common side effects or require lab monitoring or are not uniformly effective.”

In their poster abstract, Dr. Bruce, of the division of dermatology at the Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Fla., and colleagues noted that, while no principal etiology has been established for recurrent aphthous stomatitis (RAS), immune up-regulation plays a role in the pathogenesis of the condition. “Attacks of RAS may be precipitated by local trauma, stress, food intake, drugs, hormonal changes and vitamin and trace element deficiencies,” they wrote. “Local and systemic conditions and genetic, immunological and microbial factors all may play a role in the pathogenesis.”

Apremilast, a phosphodiesterase-4 inhibitor, down-regulates inflammatory response by modulating expression of tumor necrosis factor–alpha; interferon-gamma; and interleukin-2, IL-12, IL-17, and IL-23. It is approved by the Food and Drug Administration for treating plaque psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis, and in July 2019, was approved for treating ulcers associated with Behçet’s disease, in adults.*

For the pilot study, the researchers enrolled 15 patients with RAS to receive apremilast 30 mg twice daily for 15 weeks after 1 week titration. To be eligible for the trial, patients must have had monthly oral ulcers in preceding 6 months, at least two ulcers in previous 4 weeks prior to enrollment at baseline, at least three ulcers during flares, inadequate control with topical therapy, and no evidence of systemic disease. They excluded patients on immune-modulating therapy or systemic steroids, pregnant or breastfeeding women, those with a systemic infection, those with a history of recurrent bacterial, viral, fungal, or mycobacterial infection, those with a history of depression, as well as those with a known malignancy or vitamin deficiencies. Patients were assessed monthly, evaluating number of ulcers, visual analog pain scale, physician’s global assessment and Chronic Oral Mucosal Disease Questionnaire (COMDQ).

Dr. Bruce and colleagues found that, within 4 weeks of therapy, complete clearance of RAS lesions occurred in all patients except one in whom ulcers were reported to be less severe. That patient had considerable reduction in number, size, and duration of oral ulcers. Remission in all patients was sustained during 16 weeks of treatment. COMDQ responses improved considerably from baseline to week 8, and this was continued until week 16.

“Onset of response [to apremilast] was rapid,” Dr. Bruce said. “For many other therapies, patients are counseled that [they] may take several weeks to become effective. Response was also dramatic. Almost all patients had complete remission from their ulcers, compared with other therapies where oftentimes reduction or attenuation is achieved, as opposed to complete resolution. There was a suggestion that a lower dose [of apremilast] may still be effective. This adds to our ‘toolbox’ of therapeutic options.”

The most common adverse effects were nausea/vomiting and headache, but these were mild and tolerable and generally resolved by week 4.

The researchers acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including its small sample size. “The challenge will most likely be insurance coverage,” Dr. Bruce said. “This is unfortunate, as it would be ideal to offer a safe treatment without the need for monitoring.”

The investigator-initiated study was supported by Celgene. The researchers reported having no financial disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Bruce AJ et al. AAD 20, Abstract 17701.
*Correction 6/23/2020: An earlier version of this story misstated the approved indications for apremilast.

Apremilast was highly effective in treating patients with severe recurrent aphthous stomatitis, with rapid response and an excellent safety profile, results from a small pilot study showed.

“Canker sores [aphthous ulcers] are very common, yet are often not well managed as the diagnosis is not always correctly made,” lead study author Alison J. Bruce, MB, ChB, said in an interview following the virtual annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology. “They’re often mistaken for herpes infection and therefore treated with antiviral therapy. Of the available therapies, several have common side effects or require lab monitoring or are not uniformly effective.”

In their poster abstract, Dr. Bruce, of the division of dermatology at the Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Fla., and colleagues noted that, while no principal etiology has been established for recurrent aphthous stomatitis (RAS), immune up-regulation plays a role in the pathogenesis of the condition. “Attacks of RAS may be precipitated by local trauma, stress, food intake, drugs, hormonal changes and vitamin and trace element deficiencies,” they wrote. “Local and systemic conditions and genetic, immunological and microbial factors all may play a role in the pathogenesis.”

Apremilast, a phosphodiesterase-4 inhibitor, down-regulates inflammatory response by modulating expression of tumor necrosis factor–alpha; interferon-gamma; and interleukin-2, IL-12, IL-17, and IL-23. It is approved by the Food and Drug Administration for treating plaque psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis, and in July 2019, was approved for treating ulcers associated with Behçet’s disease, in adults.*

For the pilot study, the researchers enrolled 15 patients with RAS to receive apremilast 30 mg twice daily for 15 weeks after 1 week titration. To be eligible for the trial, patients must have had monthly oral ulcers in preceding 6 months, at least two ulcers in previous 4 weeks prior to enrollment at baseline, at least three ulcers during flares, inadequate control with topical therapy, and no evidence of systemic disease. They excluded patients on immune-modulating therapy or systemic steroids, pregnant or breastfeeding women, those with a systemic infection, those with a history of recurrent bacterial, viral, fungal, or mycobacterial infection, those with a history of depression, as well as those with a known malignancy or vitamin deficiencies. Patients were assessed monthly, evaluating number of ulcers, visual analog pain scale, physician’s global assessment and Chronic Oral Mucosal Disease Questionnaire (COMDQ).

Dr. Bruce and colleagues found that, within 4 weeks of therapy, complete clearance of RAS lesions occurred in all patients except one in whom ulcers were reported to be less severe. That patient had considerable reduction in number, size, and duration of oral ulcers. Remission in all patients was sustained during 16 weeks of treatment. COMDQ responses improved considerably from baseline to week 8, and this was continued until week 16.

“Onset of response [to apremilast] was rapid,” Dr. Bruce said. “For many other therapies, patients are counseled that [they] may take several weeks to become effective. Response was also dramatic. Almost all patients had complete remission from their ulcers, compared with other therapies where oftentimes reduction or attenuation is achieved, as opposed to complete resolution. There was a suggestion that a lower dose [of apremilast] may still be effective. This adds to our ‘toolbox’ of therapeutic options.”

The most common adverse effects were nausea/vomiting and headache, but these were mild and tolerable and generally resolved by week 4.

The researchers acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including its small sample size. “The challenge will most likely be insurance coverage,” Dr. Bruce said. “This is unfortunate, as it would be ideal to offer a safe treatment without the need for monitoring.”

The investigator-initiated study was supported by Celgene. The researchers reported having no financial disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Bruce AJ et al. AAD 20, Abstract 17701.
*Correction 6/23/2020: An earlier version of this story misstated the approved indications for apremilast.

Apremilast was highly effective in treating patients with severe recurrent aphthous stomatitis, with rapid response and an excellent safety profile, results from a small pilot study showed.

“Canker sores [aphthous ulcers] are very common, yet are often not well managed as the diagnosis is not always correctly made,” lead study author Alison J. Bruce, MB, ChB, said in an interview following the virtual annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology. “They’re often mistaken for herpes infection and therefore treated with antiviral therapy. Of the available therapies, several have common side effects or require lab monitoring or are not uniformly effective.”

In their poster abstract, Dr. Bruce, of the division of dermatology at the Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Fla., and colleagues noted that, while no principal etiology has been established for recurrent aphthous stomatitis (RAS), immune up-regulation plays a role in the pathogenesis of the condition. “Attacks of RAS may be precipitated by local trauma, stress, food intake, drugs, hormonal changes and vitamin and trace element deficiencies,” they wrote. “Local and systemic conditions and genetic, immunological and microbial factors all may play a role in the pathogenesis.”

Apremilast, a phosphodiesterase-4 inhibitor, down-regulates inflammatory response by modulating expression of tumor necrosis factor–alpha; interferon-gamma; and interleukin-2, IL-12, IL-17, and IL-23. It is approved by the Food and Drug Administration for treating plaque psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis, and in July 2019, was approved for treating ulcers associated with Behçet’s disease, in adults.*

For the pilot study, the researchers enrolled 15 patients with RAS to receive apremilast 30 mg twice daily for 15 weeks after 1 week titration. To be eligible for the trial, patients must have had monthly oral ulcers in preceding 6 months, at least two ulcers in previous 4 weeks prior to enrollment at baseline, at least three ulcers during flares, inadequate control with topical therapy, and no evidence of systemic disease. They excluded patients on immune-modulating therapy or systemic steroids, pregnant or breastfeeding women, those with a systemic infection, those with a history of recurrent bacterial, viral, fungal, or mycobacterial infection, those with a history of depression, as well as those with a known malignancy or vitamin deficiencies. Patients were assessed monthly, evaluating number of ulcers, visual analog pain scale, physician’s global assessment and Chronic Oral Mucosal Disease Questionnaire (COMDQ).

Dr. Bruce and colleagues found that, within 4 weeks of therapy, complete clearance of RAS lesions occurred in all patients except one in whom ulcers were reported to be less severe. That patient had considerable reduction in number, size, and duration of oral ulcers. Remission in all patients was sustained during 16 weeks of treatment. COMDQ responses improved considerably from baseline to week 8, and this was continued until week 16.

“Onset of response [to apremilast] was rapid,” Dr. Bruce said. “For many other therapies, patients are counseled that [they] may take several weeks to become effective. Response was also dramatic. Almost all patients had complete remission from their ulcers, compared with other therapies where oftentimes reduction or attenuation is achieved, as opposed to complete resolution. There was a suggestion that a lower dose [of apremilast] may still be effective. This adds to our ‘toolbox’ of therapeutic options.”

The most common adverse effects were nausea/vomiting and headache, but these were mild and tolerable and generally resolved by week 4.

The researchers acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including its small sample size. “The challenge will most likely be insurance coverage,” Dr. Bruce said. “This is unfortunate, as it would be ideal to offer a safe treatment without the need for monitoring.”

The investigator-initiated study was supported by Celgene. The researchers reported having no financial disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Bruce AJ et al. AAD 20, Abstract 17701.
*Correction 6/23/2020: An earlier version of this story misstated the approved indications for apremilast.

Maryland psychiatrist Annette Hanson, MD, hasn’t changed her morning routine much since the coronavirus pandemic began. She still avoids putting on a necklace or earrings, which could be torn away or used as a ligature, and heads to work.

The only difference is that Dr. Hanson wears easy-to-clean scrubs instead of business attire. “That way I can strip down and shower as soon as I get home. I’m not sure that’s necessary, but I’m being cautious,” said Dr. Hanson, a forensic psychiatrist who is an assistant professor of psychiatry at the University of Maryland and at Johns Hopkins University, both in Baltimore.

As many of her colleagues shelter in place and work from home with the help of telemedicine, prison psychiatrists such as Dr. Hanson continue to evaluate and treat patients in person – behind bars. That hasn’t changed. But so much else has, from the elimination of family visits to the suspension of many court hearings, leaving already vulnerable inmates in limbo.

“Prisons continue to be a poor place to receive mental health care. The setting is destructive to physical and mental health, and the pandemic has made it worse,” said Bandy X. Lee, MD, MDiv, of Yale University, New Haven, Conn., who treats inmates in several states.

Like the inmates they treat, prison psychiatrists are facing unique challenges that test their powers of creativity and resilience. “The most challenging part is to continue care in a system that has essentially been frozen in place,” Dr. Hanson said.

As of June 9, nearly 44,000 inmates in federal and state prisons had tested positive for coronavirus, according to the Associated Press and the Marshall Project. At least 500 people have died. Those numbers do not include inmates and staff members in local jails or juvenile detention centers.

Statistics about COVID-19 in prison staff members are incomplete since only 20 states reported them, and it’s not clear where they contracted the virus. Even so, at least 9,180 cases in staff members were reported, along with 38 deaths, the AP/Marshall Project report.

Using telemedicine is impossible at many jails and prisons, forcing many psychiatrists to protect themselves and their patients as best they can. At the Los Angeles County Jail, which does not use telemedicine, group sessions have been greatly reduced. Instead, psychiatrists are spending more time talking to inmates at the doors to cells or modules, said supervising psychiatrist Joseph R. Simpson, MD, PhD.

The risk of transmission still exists, he said. “Our health system has a comprehensive testing, monitoring, and isolation system in place now to slow the spread and flatten the curve,” Dr. Simpson said. “However, once COVID enters any correctional facility, preventing it from spreading entirely is difficult or impossible given the nature of the living arrangements.”

In interviews, psychiatrists said inmates are more stressed by the limitations spawned by the pandemic than the risk of infection. Many facilities have banned in-person visits, and telephone calls are an expensive alternative, said Nicolas Badre, MD, who treats inmates at jails in the San Diego region.

“That one lifeline you had is no longer there. The second lifeline is that your public defender will get you a plea deal, but they’ve postponed hearings,” he said. “I’ve seen cases of folks who are more anxious and more depressed because COVID is delaying their case or because they’re unable to speak with their families and friends.”

Restrictions on contact with people on the outside are especially difficult for inmates at risk of psychosis, Dr. Badre said. “You add those two [limitations], and how does that not sound to someone with schizophrenia like the government is out to get you? And when someone asks you to wear a mask, how do you trust them?”

According to Dr. Lee, some patients with severe mental illness are unable to comprehend the risk of the pandemic, and they fail to protect themselves. While she’s begun to rely on telemedicine, “it’s a very blunt instrument. Many of my patients are very sick and less able to interact with a screen. And sometimes you’re exhausted at the end of the day because you’ve been yelling at the screen and trying different ways to gain the attention of individuals who are responding to external stimuli and can’t engage.”

The pandemic has improved conditions in prisons and jails on one front: Many are releasing inmates to lower the risk of spreading infection. And Dr. Badre said, “a lot of people are doing just fine, finding themselves to be completely resilient and finding meaning at this time.”

Other than anxiety, the psychiatrists did not report seeing higher percentages of any specific conditions. And they said they are not prescribing any more medications than before COVID-19. But many of the perennial treatments for anxiety – improving the diet, getting out and exercising, developing a hobby, reaching out to others – can be difficult at the best of times behind bars. Those treatments might be impossible now.

At the juvenile justice system in the Chicago area, for example, the pandemic has forced the cancellation of activities such as writing, taking art classes, and barber training. In-person visits are banned, too. “For a lot of them, seeing their family relieves stress, makes them feel more hopeful. It gives them a sense of normalcy to hug their mom,” said Yana Oskin, MD.

But it’s still possible to urge the young people to read, write, work with puzzles, and exercise daily even if it’s just in their rooms, she said. “While their movements have been limited, they do still get to go outside. If they can’t go to the gym, the recreation specialist comes to their pod.”

And while some psychiatrists and older inmates might not be thrilled to have to adjust to therapy via screen during the pandemic, young people are a different story. Dr. Oskin is working with them via telemedicine, which allowed at least one inmate to gain a kind of victory.

“We have an assistant who sets up Skype visits, and the camera was not angled properly,” she recalled. “She couldn’t figure out. The kid sat down and fixed it in 2 seconds.”

Dr. Hanson is the coauthor of “Committed: The Battle Over Involuntary Psychiatric Care” (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University, 2016). She has no other disclosures. Dr. Lee is the author of “Violence: An Interdisciplinary Approach to Causes, Consequences and Cures” (Wiley Blackwell, 2019). She has no other disclosures. Dr. Simpson is coauthor of “Neuroimaging in Forensic Psychiatry: From the Clinic to the Courtroom” (Wiley Blackwell, 2012). He has no other disclosures. Dr. Badre and Dr. Oskin reported no disclosures.

Maryland psychiatrist Annette Hanson, MD, hasn’t changed her morning routine much since the coronavirus pandemic began. She still avoids putting on a necklace or earrings, which could be torn away or used as a ligature, and heads to work.

The only difference is that Dr. Hanson wears easy-to-clean scrubs instead of business attire. “That way I can strip down and shower as soon as I get home. I’m not sure that’s necessary, but I’m being cautious,” said Dr. Hanson, a forensic psychiatrist who is an assistant professor of psychiatry at the University of Maryland and at Johns Hopkins University, both in Baltimore.

As many of her colleagues shelter in place and work from home with the help of telemedicine, prison psychiatrists such as Dr. Hanson continue to evaluate and treat patients in person – behind bars. That hasn’t changed. But so much else has, from the elimination of family visits to the suspension of many court hearings, leaving already vulnerable inmates in limbo.

“Prisons continue to be a poor place to receive mental health care. The setting is destructive to physical and mental health, and the pandemic has made it worse,” said Bandy X. Lee, MD, MDiv, of Yale University, New Haven, Conn., who treats inmates in several states.

Like the inmates they treat, prison psychiatrists are facing unique challenges that test their powers of creativity and resilience. “The most challenging part is to continue care in a system that has essentially been frozen in place,” Dr. Hanson said.

As of June 9, nearly 44,000 inmates in federal and state prisons had tested positive for coronavirus, according to the Associated Press and the Marshall Project. At least 500 people have died. Those numbers do not include inmates and staff members in local jails or juvenile detention centers.

Statistics about COVID-19 in prison staff members are incomplete since only 20 states reported them, and it’s not clear where they contracted the virus. Even so, at least 9,180 cases in staff members were reported, along with 38 deaths, the AP/Marshall Project report.

Using telemedicine is impossible at many jails and prisons, forcing many psychiatrists to protect themselves and their patients as best they can. At the Los Angeles County Jail, which does not use telemedicine, group sessions have been greatly reduced. Instead, psychiatrists are spending more time talking to inmates at the doors to cells or modules, said supervising psychiatrist Joseph R. Simpson, MD, PhD.

The risk of transmission still exists, he said. “Our health system has a comprehensive testing, monitoring, and isolation system in place now to slow the spread and flatten the curve,” Dr. Simpson said. “However, once COVID enters any correctional facility, preventing it from spreading entirely is difficult or impossible given the nature of the living arrangements.”

In interviews, psychiatrists said inmates are more stressed by the limitations spawned by the pandemic than the risk of infection. Many facilities have banned in-person visits, and telephone calls are an expensive alternative, said Nicolas Badre, MD, who treats inmates at jails in the San Diego region.

“That one lifeline you had is no longer there. The second lifeline is that your public defender will get you a plea deal, but they’ve postponed hearings,” he said. “I’ve seen cases of folks who are more anxious and more depressed because COVID is delaying their case or because they’re unable to speak with their families and friends.”

Restrictions on contact with people on the outside are especially difficult for inmates at risk of psychosis, Dr. Badre said. “You add those two [limitations], and how does that not sound to someone with schizophrenia like the government is out to get you? And when someone asks you to wear a mask, how do you trust them?”

According to Dr. Lee, some patients with severe mental illness are unable to comprehend the risk of the pandemic, and they fail to protect themselves. While she’s begun to rely on telemedicine, “it’s a very blunt instrument. Many of my patients are very sick and less able to interact with a screen. And sometimes you’re exhausted at the end of the day because you’ve been yelling at the screen and trying different ways to gain the attention of individuals who are responding to external stimuli and can’t engage.”

The pandemic has improved conditions in prisons and jails on one front: Many are releasing inmates to lower the risk of spreading infection. And Dr. Badre said, “a lot of people are doing just fine, finding themselves to be completely resilient and finding meaning at this time.”

Other than anxiety, the psychiatrists did not report seeing higher percentages of any specific conditions. And they said they are not prescribing any more medications than before COVID-19. But many of the perennial treatments for anxiety – improving the diet, getting out and exercising, developing a hobby, reaching out to others – can be difficult at the best of times behind bars. Those treatments might be impossible now.

At the juvenile justice system in the Chicago area, for example, the pandemic has forced the cancellation of activities such as writing, taking art classes, and barber training. In-person visits are banned, too. “For a lot of them, seeing their family relieves stress, makes them feel more hopeful. It gives them a sense of normalcy to hug their mom,” said Yana Oskin, MD.

But it’s still possible to urge the young people to read, write, work with puzzles, and exercise daily even if it’s just in their rooms, she said. “While their movements have been limited, they do still get to go outside. If they can’t go to the gym, the recreation specialist comes to their pod.”

And while some psychiatrists and older inmates might not be thrilled to have to adjust to therapy via screen during the pandemic, young people are a different story. Dr. Oskin is working with them via telemedicine, which allowed at least one inmate to gain a kind of victory.

“We have an assistant who sets up Skype visits, and the camera was not angled properly,” she recalled. “She couldn’t figure out. The kid sat down and fixed it in 2 seconds.”

Dr. Hanson is the coauthor of “Committed: The Battle Over Involuntary Psychiatric Care” (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University, 2016). She has no other disclosures. Dr. Lee is the author of “Violence: An Interdisciplinary Approach to Causes, Consequences and Cures” (Wiley Blackwell, 2019). She has no other disclosures. Dr. Simpson is coauthor of “Neuroimaging in Forensic Psychiatry: From the Clinic to the Courtroom” (Wiley Blackwell, 2012). He has no other disclosures. Dr. Badre and Dr. Oskin reported no disclosures.

Maryland psychiatrist Annette Hanson, MD, hasn’t changed her morning routine much since the coronavirus pandemic began. She still avoids putting on a necklace or earrings, which could be torn away or used as a ligature, and heads to work.

The only difference is that Dr. Hanson wears easy-to-clean scrubs instead of business attire. “That way I can strip down and shower as soon as I get home. I’m not sure that’s necessary, but I’m being cautious,” said Dr. Hanson, a forensic psychiatrist who is an assistant professor of psychiatry at the University of Maryland and at Johns Hopkins University, both in Baltimore.

As many of her colleagues shelter in place and work from home with the help of telemedicine, prison psychiatrists such as Dr. Hanson continue to evaluate and treat patients in person – behind bars. That hasn’t changed. But so much else has, from the elimination of family visits to the suspension of many court hearings, leaving already vulnerable inmates in limbo.

“Prisons continue to be a poor place to receive mental health care. The setting is destructive to physical and mental health, and the pandemic has made it worse,” said Bandy X. Lee, MD, MDiv, of Yale University, New Haven, Conn., who treats inmates in several states.

Like the inmates they treat, prison psychiatrists are facing unique challenges that test their powers of creativity and resilience. “The most challenging part is to continue care in a system that has essentially been frozen in place,” Dr. Hanson said.

As of June 9, nearly 44,000 inmates in federal and state prisons had tested positive for coronavirus, according to the Associated Press and the Marshall Project. At least 500 people have died. Those numbers do not include inmates and staff members in local jails or juvenile detention centers.

Statistics about COVID-19 in prison staff members are incomplete since only 20 states reported them, and it’s not clear where they contracted the virus. Even so, at least 9,180 cases in staff members were reported, along with 38 deaths, the AP/Marshall Project report.

Using telemedicine is impossible at many jails and prisons, forcing many psychiatrists to protect themselves and their patients as best they can. At the Los Angeles County Jail, which does not use telemedicine, group sessions have been greatly reduced. Instead, psychiatrists are spending more time talking to inmates at the doors to cells or modules, said supervising psychiatrist Joseph R. Simpson, MD, PhD.

The risk of transmission still exists, he said. “Our health system has a comprehensive testing, monitoring, and isolation system in place now to slow the spread and flatten the curve,” Dr. Simpson said. “However, once COVID enters any correctional facility, preventing it from spreading entirely is difficult or impossible given the nature of the living arrangements.”

In interviews, psychiatrists said inmates are more stressed by the limitations spawned by the pandemic than the risk of infection. Many facilities have banned in-person visits, and telephone calls are an expensive alternative, said Nicolas Badre, MD, who treats inmates at jails in the San Diego region.

“That one lifeline you had is no longer there. The second lifeline is that your public defender will get you a plea deal, but they’ve postponed hearings,” he said. “I’ve seen cases of folks who are more anxious and more depressed because COVID is delaying their case or because they’re unable to speak with their families and friends.”

Restrictions on contact with people on the outside are especially difficult for inmates at risk of psychosis, Dr. Badre said. “You add those two [limitations], and how does that not sound to someone with schizophrenia like the government is out to get you? And when someone asks you to wear a mask, how do you trust them?”

According to Dr. Lee, some patients with severe mental illness are unable to comprehend the risk of the pandemic, and they fail to protect themselves. While she’s begun to rely on telemedicine, “it’s a very blunt instrument. Many of my patients are very sick and less able to interact with a screen. And sometimes you’re exhausted at the end of the day because you’ve been yelling at the screen and trying different ways to gain the attention of individuals who are responding to external stimuli and can’t engage.”

The pandemic has improved conditions in prisons and jails on one front: Many are releasing inmates to lower the risk of spreading infection. And Dr. Badre said, “a lot of people are doing just fine, finding themselves to be completely resilient and finding meaning at this time.”

Other than anxiety, the psychiatrists did not report seeing higher percentages of any specific conditions. And they said they are not prescribing any more medications than before COVID-19. But many of the perennial treatments for anxiety – improving the diet, getting out and exercising, developing a hobby, reaching out to others – can be difficult at the best of times behind bars. Those treatments might be impossible now.

At the juvenile justice system in the Chicago area, for example, the pandemic has forced the cancellation of activities such as writing, taking art classes, and barber training. In-person visits are banned, too. “For a lot of them, seeing their family relieves stress, makes them feel more hopeful. It gives them a sense of normalcy to hug their mom,” said Yana Oskin, MD.

But it’s still possible to urge the young people to read, write, work with puzzles, and exercise daily even if it’s just in their rooms, she said. “While their movements have been limited, they do still get to go outside. If they can’t go to the gym, the recreation specialist comes to their pod.”

And while some psychiatrists and older inmates might not be thrilled to have to adjust to therapy via screen during the pandemic, young people are a different story. Dr. Oskin is working with them via telemedicine, which allowed at least one inmate to gain a kind of victory.

“We have an assistant who sets up Skype visits, and the camera was not angled properly,” she recalled. “She couldn’t figure out. The kid sat down and fixed it in 2 seconds.”

Dr. Hanson is the coauthor of “Committed: The Battle Over Involuntary Psychiatric Care” (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University, 2016). She has no other disclosures. Dr. Lee is the author of “Violence: An Interdisciplinary Approach to Causes, Consequences and Cures” (Wiley Blackwell, 2019). She has no other disclosures. Dr. Simpson is coauthor of “Neuroimaging in Forensic Psychiatry: From the Clinic to the Courtroom” (Wiley Blackwell, 2012). He has no other disclosures. Dr. Badre and Dr. Oskin reported no disclosures.

Sequential chemoradiation may improve disease-free survival (DFS) among patients with early-stage cervical cancer who have undergone radical hysterectomy, the phase 3 STARS trial suggests.

In the study’s intent-to-treat (ITT) population, the 3-year DFS rate was significantly higher among patients who received sequential chemoradiation than among patients who received concurrent chemoradiation or radiation alone.

“After an adjustment for baseline presence of lymph node metastasis, we found that sequential chemoradiation decreased, by 40% to 50%, the recurrence risk, compared with the other two groups,” said investigator He Huang, MD, of Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center in Guangzhou, China.

Dr. Huang presented these findings as part of the American Society of Clinical Oncology virtual scientific program.
 

Study rationale and details

“As we know, early-stage cervical cancer can be cured after treatment,” Dr. Huang said. “However, the risk of recurrence remains higher among patients with high-risk factors, including lymph node metastases, positive surgical margins, and parametrial invasion. Postoperative adjuvant radiation and chemotherapy may result in favorable survival for patients with high-risk factors.”

Although the efficacy of concurrent radiation with single-agent cisplatin has been demonstrated in primary treatment for local advanced cervical cancer, it has not been assessed as adjuvant treatment for early-stage cervical cancer in a randomized, controlled trial, Dr. Huang explained.

“Another question is whether patients with intermediate-risk factors could benefit from the concurrent chemotherapy [with] radiation,” he said. “So far, we don’t have enough evidence.”

To gain some insight, Dr. Huang and colleagues initiated the STARS trial. The trial enrolled patients with stage IB1-IIA2 cervical cancer and at least one adverse risk factor after radical hysterectomy. Patients had a median age of 48 years, and most had stage IB1 or IIA1 disease.

The patients were randomized 1:1:1 to receive radiation alone, concurrent chemoradiation, or sequential chemoradiation.

All patients received pelvic radiation at 45-50 Gy. Patients in the concurrent chemoradiation arm also received five doses of weekly cisplatin at 30-40 mg/m².

Patients in the sequential chemoradiation arm received 60-75 mg/m² of weekly cisplatin plus 135-175 mg/m² of paclitaxel in 21-day cycles, with two cycles given before and two cycles given after radiotherapy.

The treatment groups were comparable with respect to histologic subtypes, lymphovascular invasion rates, parametrial or surgical margin involvement, deep stromal involvement, tumor grade, minimally invasive surgery rates, and neoadjuvant chemotherapy, Dr. Huang said. He added, however, that lymph node metastasis was lowest in the radiation-only arm.
 

DFS results

In the ITT population, patients who received sequential chemoradiation had significantly better DFS compared with patients in the other treatment arms. The ITT population included 353 patients in the sequential chemoradiation arm, 345 patients in the concurrent chemoradiation arm, and 350 patients in the radiation-only arm.

The 3-year DFS rates were 90% in patients randomized to sequential chemoradiation, 85% in patients randomized to concurrent chemoradiation, and 82% in patients randomized to radiation alone (hazard ratios, 0.52 for sequential chemoradiation vs. radiation alone and 0.65 for sequential vs. concurrent chemoradiation; P = .03).

Subgroup analyses showed a DFS benefit with sequential chemoradiation versus radiation alone across histology types, tumor grades, and tumor size, Dr. Huang noted.

In the per-protocol population, sequential chemoradiation was associated with better DFS when compared with radiation alone. However, there were no significant differences between the sequential and concurrent chemoradiation arms or the concurrent chemoradiation and radiation-only arms.

The per-protocol population included 235 patients in the sequential chemoradiation arm, 190 patients in the concurrent chemoradiation arm, and 324 patients in the radiation-only arm.

In the per-protocol population, the 3-year DFS rates were 91% in patients randomized to sequential chemoradiation, 86% in patients randomized to concurrent chemoradiation, and 82% in patients randomized to radiation alone (HRs, 0.47 for sequential vs. radiation alone and 0.67 for sequential vs. concurrent; P = .026).

In the overall population, DFS was superior among patients with intermediate-risk versus high-risk factors. The 3-year DFS rates were 90% and 74%, respectively (P < .05).
 

Overall survival and safety

As for overall survival (OS), sequential chemoradiation showed a trend toward improvement at 5 years, compared with the other treatment groups. However, the differences were not statistically significant in either the ITT or per-protocol populations.

In the ITT population, the 5-year OS was 92% in the sequential chemoradiation arm, 89% in the concurrent chemoradiation arm, and 88% in the radiation-only arm. In the per-protocol population, the 5-year OS rates were 93%, 90%, and 88%, respectively.

Patients with intermediate-risk factors had a more favorable OS. The 5-year OS rate was 93% in patients with intermediate-risk factors and 81% in patients with high-risk factors (P < .05).

Dr. Huang noted that patients in the radiation-only arm experienced fewer grade 3-4 adverse events than the other patients. Less neutropenia, nausea, and vomiting were observed in the radiation-only arm.

There was more grade 3-4 nausea and vomiting in the concurrent chemoradiation arm than in the sequential chemoradiation arm.

However, Dr. Huang noted that “adding chemotherapy to radiation did not impact the patients’ quality of life in the long-term compared with radiation alone.

“In this study, sequential chemoradiation resulted in a better disease-free survival and a lower risk of cancer death for cervical cancer patients with adverse pathological factors,” he said. “We believe that sequential chemoradiation could be an optimal option for post-operative adjuvant treatment.”

This study was sponsored by Sun Yat-sen University in collaboration with Guangdong Provincial People’s Hospital, First Affiliated Hospital/Sun Yat-Sen University, Shenzhen People’s Hospital, and Cancer Hospital of Guangxi Medical University. Dr. Huang reported receiving honoraria, travel, accommodations, and expenses from AstraZeneca.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Huang H et al. ASCO 2020, Abstract 6007.

Sequential chemoradiation may improve disease-free survival (DFS) among patients with early-stage cervical cancer who have undergone radical hysterectomy, the phase 3 STARS trial suggests.

In the study’s intent-to-treat (ITT) population, the 3-year DFS rate was significantly higher among patients who received sequential chemoradiation than among patients who received concurrent chemoradiation or radiation alone.

“After an adjustment for baseline presence of lymph node metastasis, we found that sequential chemoradiation decreased, by 40% to 50%, the recurrence risk, compared with the other two groups,” said investigator He Huang, MD, of Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center in Guangzhou, China.

Dr. Huang presented these findings as part of the American Society of Clinical Oncology virtual scientific program.
 

Study rationale and details

“As we know, early-stage cervical cancer can be cured after treatment,” Dr. Huang said. “However, the risk of recurrence remains higher among patients with high-risk factors, including lymph node metastases, positive surgical margins, and parametrial invasion. Postoperative adjuvant radiation and chemotherapy may result in favorable survival for patients with high-risk factors.”

Although the efficacy of concurrent radiation with single-agent cisplatin has been demonstrated in primary treatment for local advanced cervical cancer, it has not been assessed as adjuvant treatment for early-stage cervical cancer in a randomized, controlled trial, Dr. Huang explained.

“Another question is whether patients with intermediate-risk factors could benefit from the concurrent chemotherapy [with] radiation,” he said. “So far, we don’t have enough evidence.”

To gain some insight, Dr. Huang and colleagues initiated the STARS trial. The trial enrolled patients with stage IB1-IIA2 cervical cancer and at least one adverse risk factor after radical hysterectomy. Patients had a median age of 48 years, and most had stage IB1 or IIA1 disease.

The patients were randomized 1:1:1 to receive radiation alone, concurrent chemoradiation, or sequential chemoradiation.

All patients received pelvic radiation at 45-50 Gy. Patients in the concurrent chemoradiation arm also received five doses of weekly cisplatin at 30-40 mg/m².

Patients in the sequential chemoradiation arm received 60-75 mg/m² of weekly cisplatin plus 135-175 mg/m² of paclitaxel in 21-day cycles, with two cycles given before and two cycles given after radiotherapy.

The treatment groups were comparable with respect to histologic subtypes, lymphovascular invasion rates, parametrial or surgical margin involvement, deep stromal involvement, tumor grade, minimally invasive surgery rates, and neoadjuvant chemotherapy, Dr. Huang said. He added, however, that lymph node metastasis was lowest in the radiation-only arm.
 

DFS results

In the ITT population, patients who received sequential chemoradiation had significantly better DFS compared with patients in the other treatment arms. The ITT population included 353 patients in the sequential chemoradiation arm, 345 patients in the concurrent chemoradiation arm, and 350 patients in the radiation-only arm.

The 3-year DFS rates were 90% in patients randomized to sequential chemoradiation, 85% in patients randomized to concurrent chemoradiation, and 82% in patients randomized to radiation alone (hazard ratios, 0.52 for sequential chemoradiation vs. radiation alone and 0.65 for sequential vs. concurrent chemoradiation; P = .03).

Subgroup analyses showed a DFS benefit with sequential chemoradiation versus radiation alone across histology types, tumor grades, and tumor size, Dr. Huang noted.

In the per-protocol population, sequential chemoradiation was associated with better DFS when compared with radiation alone. However, there were no significant differences between the sequential and concurrent chemoradiation arms or the concurrent chemoradiation and radiation-only arms.

The per-protocol population included 235 patients in the sequential chemoradiation arm, 190 patients in the concurrent chemoradiation arm, and 324 patients in the radiation-only arm.

In the per-protocol population, the 3-year DFS rates were 91% in patients randomized to sequential chemoradiation, 86% in patients randomized to concurrent chemoradiation, and 82% in patients randomized to radiation alone (HRs, 0.47 for sequential vs. radiation alone and 0.67 for sequential vs. concurrent; P = .026).

In the overall population, DFS was superior among patients with intermediate-risk versus high-risk factors. The 3-year DFS rates were 90% and 74%, respectively (P < .05).
 

Overall survival and safety

As for overall survival (OS), sequential chemoradiation showed a trend toward improvement at 5 years, compared with the other treatment groups. However, the differences were not statistically significant in either the ITT or per-protocol populations.

In the ITT population, the 5-year OS was 92% in the sequential chemoradiation arm, 89% in the concurrent chemoradiation arm, and 88% in the radiation-only arm. In the per-protocol population, the 5-year OS rates were 93%, 90%, and 88%, respectively.

Patients with intermediate-risk factors had a more favorable OS. The 5-year OS rate was 93% in patients with intermediate-risk factors and 81% in patients with high-risk factors (P < .05).

Dr. Huang noted that patients in the radiation-only arm experienced fewer grade 3-4 adverse events than the other patients. Less neutropenia, nausea, and vomiting were observed in the radiation-only arm.

There was more grade 3-4 nausea and vomiting in the concurrent chemoradiation arm than in the sequential chemoradiation arm.

However, Dr. Huang noted that “adding chemotherapy to radiation did not impact the patients’ quality of life in the long-term compared with radiation alone.

“In this study, sequential chemoradiation resulted in a better disease-free survival and a lower risk of cancer death for cervical cancer patients with adverse pathological factors,” he said. “We believe that sequential chemoradiation could be an optimal option for post-operative adjuvant treatment.”

This study was sponsored by Sun Yat-sen University in collaboration with Guangdong Provincial People’s Hospital, First Affiliated Hospital/Sun Yat-Sen University, Shenzhen People’s Hospital, and Cancer Hospital of Guangxi Medical University. Dr. Huang reported receiving honoraria, travel, accommodations, and expenses from AstraZeneca.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Huang H et al. ASCO 2020, Abstract 6007.

Sequential chemoradiation may improve disease-free survival (DFS) among patients with early-stage cervical cancer who have undergone radical hysterectomy, the phase 3 STARS trial suggests.

In the study’s intent-to-treat (ITT) population, the 3-year DFS rate was significantly higher among patients who received sequential chemoradiation than among patients who received concurrent chemoradiation or radiation alone.

“After an adjustment for baseline presence of lymph node metastasis, we found that sequential chemoradiation decreased, by 40% to 50%, the recurrence risk, compared with the other two groups,” said investigator He Huang, MD, of Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center in Guangzhou, China.

Dr. Huang presented these findings as part of the American Society of Clinical Oncology virtual scientific program.
 

Study rationale and details

“As we know, early-stage cervical cancer can be cured after treatment,” Dr. Huang said. “However, the risk of recurrence remains higher among patients with high-risk factors, including lymph node metastases, positive surgical margins, and parametrial invasion. Postoperative adjuvant radiation and chemotherapy may result in favorable survival for patients with high-risk factors.”

Although the efficacy of concurrent radiation with single-agent cisplatin has been demonstrated in primary treatment for local advanced cervical cancer, it has not been assessed as adjuvant treatment for early-stage cervical cancer in a randomized, controlled trial, Dr. Huang explained.

“Another question is whether patients with intermediate-risk factors could benefit from the concurrent chemotherapy [with] radiation,” he said. “So far, we don’t have enough evidence.”

To gain some insight, Dr. Huang and colleagues initiated the STARS trial. The trial enrolled patients with stage IB1-IIA2 cervical cancer and at least one adverse risk factor after radical hysterectomy. Patients had a median age of 48 years, and most had stage IB1 or IIA1 disease.

The patients were randomized 1:1:1 to receive radiation alone, concurrent chemoradiation, or sequential chemoradiation.

All patients received pelvic radiation at 45-50 Gy. Patients in the concurrent chemoradiation arm also received five doses of weekly cisplatin at 30-40 mg/m².

Patients in the sequential chemoradiation arm received 60-75 mg/m² of weekly cisplatin plus 135-175 mg/m² of paclitaxel in 21-day cycles, with two cycles given before and two cycles given after radiotherapy.

The treatment groups were comparable with respect to histologic subtypes, lymphovascular invasion rates, parametrial or surgical margin involvement, deep stromal involvement, tumor grade, minimally invasive surgery rates, and neoadjuvant chemotherapy, Dr. Huang said. He added, however, that lymph node metastasis was lowest in the radiation-only arm.
 

DFS results

In the ITT population, patients who received sequential chemoradiation had significantly better DFS compared with patients in the other treatment arms. The ITT population included 353 patients in the sequential chemoradiation arm, 345 patients in the concurrent chemoradiation arm, and 350 patients in the radiation-only arm.

The 3-year DFS rates were 90% in patients randomized to sequential chemoradiation, 85% in patients randomized to concurrent chemoradiation, and 82% in patients randomized to radiation alone (hazard ratios, 0.52 for sequential chemoradiation vs. radiation alone and 0.65 for sequential vs. concurrent chemoradiation; P = .03).

Subgroup analyses showed a DFS benefit with sequential chemoradiation versus radiation alone across histology types, tumor grades, and tumor size, Dr. Huang noted.

In the per-protocol population, sequential chemoradiation was associated with better DFS when compared with radiation alone. However, there were no significant differences between the sequential and concurrent chemoradiation arms or the concurrent chemoradiation and radiation-only arms.

The per-protocol population included 235 patients in the sequential chemoradiation arm, 190 patients in the concurrent chemoradiation arm, and 324 patients in the radiation-only arm.

In the per-protocol population, the 3-year DFS rates were 91% in patients randomized to sequential chemoradiation, 86% in patients randomized to concurrent chemoradiation, and 82% in patients randomized to radiation alone (HRs, 0.47 for sequential vs. radiation alone and 0.67 for sequential vs. concurrent; P = .026).

In the overall population, DFS was superior among patients with intermediate-risk versus high-risk factors. The 3-year DFS rates were 90% and 74%, respectively (P < .05).
 

Overall survival and safety

As for overall survival (OS), sequential chemoradiation showed a trend toward improvement at 5 years, compared with the other treatment groups. However, the differences were not statistically significant in either the ITT or per-protocol populations.

In the ITT population, the 5-year OS was 92% in the sequential chemoradiation arm, 89% in the concurrent chemoradiation arm, and 88% in the radiation-only arm. In the per-protocol population, the 5-year OS rates were 93%, 90%, and 88%, respectively.

Patients with intermediate-risk factors had a more favorable OS. The 5-year OS rate was 93% in patients with intermediate-risk factors and 81% in patients with high-risk factors (P < .05).

Dr. Huang noted that patients in the radiation-only arm experienced fewer grade 3-4 adverse events than the other patients. Less neutropenia, nausea, and vomiting were observed in the radiation-only arm.

There was more grade 3-4 nausea and vomiting in the concurrent chemoradiation arm than in the sequential chemoradiation arm.

However, Dr. Huang noted that “adding chemotherapy to radiation did not impact the patients’ quality of life in the long-term compared with radiation alone.

“In this study, sequential chemoradiation resulted in a better disease-free survival and a lower risk of cancer death for cervical cancer patients with adverse pathological factors,” he said. “We believe that sequential chemoradiation could be an optimal option for post-operative adjuvant treatment.”

This study was sponsored by Sun Yat-sen University in collaboration with Guangdong Provincial People’s Hospital, First Affiliated Hospital/Sun Yat-Sen University, Shenzhen People’s Hospital, and Cancer Hospital of Guangxi Medical University. Dr. Huang reported receiving honoraria, travel, accommodations, and expenses from AstraZeneca.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Huang H et al. ASCO 2020, Abstract 6007.

Key clinical point: Periconceptional rituximab is a highly effective and safe treatment for women with suboptimally controlled multiple sclerosis (MS).

Major finding: Among 38 live births, 3 deliveries were preterm (including 1 set of twins), 1 baby was admitted for perinatal ischemic stroke, and 1 twin died after 6 days from an intraventricular hemorrhage. Fifteen women reported at least one first-trimester miscarriage, of whom 8 had a history of infertility. No stillbirths, chorioamnionitis, or major malformations were recorded. Only 2 women experienced relapses, one during pregnancy and the other postpartum.

Study details: The data come from a study of 55 women with MS (74 pregnancies) treated with at least 1 dose of rituximab infusion before conception.

Disclosures: This study was supported in part by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute.

Some of the investigators reported receiving research grants from multiple pharmaceutical companies.

Citation: Smith JB et al. Neurol Neuroimmunol Neuroinflamm. 2020 May 01. doi: 10.1212/NXI.0000000000000734.

Key clinical point: Periconceptional rituximab is a highly effective and safe treatment for women with suboptimally controlled multiple sclerosis (MS).

Major finding: Among 38 live births, 3 deliveries were preterm (including 1 set of twins), 1 baby was admitted for perinatal ischemic stroke, and 1 twin died after 6 days from an intraventricular hemorrhage. Fifteen women reported at least one first-trimester miscarriage, of whom 8 had a history of infertility. No stillbirths, chorioamnionitis, or major malformations were recorded. Only 2 women experienced relapses, one during pregnancy and the other postpartum.

Study details: The data come from a study of 55 women with MS (74 pregnancies) treated with at least 1 dose of rituximab infusion before conception.

Disclosures: This study was supported in part by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute.

Some of the investigators reported receiving research grants from multiple pharmaceutical companies.

Citation: Smith JB et al. Neurol Neuroimmunol Neuroinflamm. 2020 May 01. doi: 10.1212/NXI.0000000000000734.

Key clinical point: Periconceptional rituximab is a highly effective and safe treatment for women with suboptimally controlled multiple sclerosis (MS).

Major finding: Among 38 live births, 3 deliveries were preterm (including 1 set of twins), 1 baby was admitted for perinatal ischemic stroke, and 1 twin died after 6 days from an intraventricular hemorrhage. Fifteen women reported at least one first-trimester miscarriage, of whom 8 had a history of infertility. No stillbirths, chorioamnionitis, or major malformations were recorded. Only 2 women experienced relapses, one during pregnancy and the other postpartum.

Study details: The data come from a study of 55 women with MS (74 pregnancies) treated with at least 1 dose of rituximab infusion before conception.

Disclosures: This study was supported in part by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute.

Some of the investigators reported receiving research grants from multiple pharmaceutical companies.

Citation: Smith JB et al. Neurol Neuroimmunol Neuroinflamm. 2020 May 01. doi: 10.1212/NXI.0000000000000734.

Key clinical point: Patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) are at an increased risk of cardiovascular and cerebrovascular diseases that traditional risk factors do not fully explain.

Major finding: Compared with people without MS, patients with MS had increased risks for coronary syndrome (hazard ratio [HR], 1.28), cerebrovascular disease (HR, 1.59), any macrovascular disease (HR, 1.32), all-cause mortality (HR, 3.46), and cardiovascular disease mortality (HR, 1.47).

Study details: This population-based, retrospective matched cohort study conducted in England included 12,251 patients with MS and 72,572 people without MS.

Disclosures: The presenting author had no disclosures. Two coauthors received research funding/support from various organizations.

Citation: Palladino R et al. JAMA Neurol. 2020 May 04. doi: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2020.0664. 

Key clinical point: Patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) are at an increased risk of cardiovascular and cerebrovascular diseases that traditional risk factors do not fully explain.

Major finding: Compared with people without MS, patients with MS had increased risks for coronary syndrome (hazard ratio [HR], 1.28), cerebrovascular disease (HR, 1.59), any macrovascular disease (HR, 1.32), all-cause mortality (HR, 3.46), and cardiovascular disease mortality (HR, 1.47).

Study details: This population-based, retrospective matched cohort study conducted in England included 12,251 patients with MS and 72,572 people without MS.

Disclosures: The presenting author had no disclosures. Two coauthors received research funding/support from various organizations.

Citation: Palladino R et al. JAMA Neurol. 2020 May 04. doi: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2020.0664. 

Key clinical point: Patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) are at an increased risk of cardiovascular and cerebrovascular diseases that traditional risk factors do not fully explain.

Major finding: Compared with people without MS, patients with MS had increased risks for coronary syndrome (hazard ratio [HR], 1.28), cerebrovascular disease (HR, 1.59), any macrovascular disease (HR, 1.32), all-cause mortality (HR, 3.46), and cardiovascular disease mortality (HR, 1.47).

Study details: This population-based, retrospective matched cohort study conducted in England included 12,251 patients with MS and 72,572 people without MS.

Disclosures: The presenting author had no disclosures. Two coauthors received research funding/support from various organizations.

Citation: Palladino R et al. JAMA Neurol. 2020 May 04. doi: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2020.0664. 

Key findings in metastatic breast cancer, presented at the ASCO 2020 Virtual Annual Meeting, ranged across all tumor subtypes.

Arguably, the top news in breast cancer was a plenary presentation addressing the role of locoregional therapy in advanced disease. Dr. Harold Burstein, of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, comments that this study indicates systemic therapy as the mainstay treatment for woman with newly diagnosed advanced disease and a tumor in the breast.

In triple-negative breast cancer, Dr. Burstein highlights two studies. The KEYNOTE-355 study validates the addition of a checkpoint inhibitor in first-line therapy in women whose tumors are PD-L1 positive. The intriguing results of the SWOG S1416 trial, Dr. Burstein comments, suggest the use of PARP inhibition may extend beyond BRCA1 and BRCA2 breast cancers.

In HER2-positive breast cancer, an update of the HER2CLIMB study indicates that the combination of tucatinib, trastuzumab, and capecitabine continues to benefit women with HER2-positive disease. Dr. Burstein expects this combination will be a new standard of care, particularly in women with brain metastases.

As for ER-positive breast cancer, Dr. Burstein reviews the BYLieve trial. Results of this study suggest alpelisib has activity in women with a PIK3CA mutation who have already received a CDK4/6 inhibitor.

Harold J. Burstein, Md, PhD

Professor, Department of Medicine, Harvard Medical School; Institute Physician, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts. Harold J. Burstein, MD, PhD, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

Key findings in metastatic breast cancer, presented at the ASCO 2020 Virtual Annual Meeting, ranged across all tumor subtypes.

Arguably, the top news in breast cancer was a plenary presentation addressing the role of locoregional therapy in advanced disease. Dr. Harold Burstein, of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, comments that this study indicates systemic therapy as the mainstay treatment for woman with newly diagnosed advanced disease and a tumor in the breast.

In triple-negative breast cancer, Dr. Burstein highlights two studies. The KEYNOTE-355 study validates the addition of a checkpoint inhibitor in first-line therapy in women whose tumors are PD-L1 positive. The intriguing results of the SWOG S1416 trial, Dr. Burstein comments, suggest the use of PARP inhibition may extend beyond BRCA1 and BRCA2 breast cancers.

In HER2-positive breast cancer, an update of the HER2CLIMB study indicates that the combination of tucatinib, trastuzumab, and capecitabine continues to benefit women with HER2-positive disease. Dr. Burstein expects this combination will be a new standard of care, particularly in women with brain metastases.

As for ER-positive breast cancer, Dr. Burstein reviews the BYLieve trial. Results of this study suggest alpelisib has activity in women with a PIK3CA mutation who have already received a CDK4/6 inhibitor.

Harold J. Burstein, Md, PhD

Professor, Department of Medicine, Harvard Medical School; Institute Physician, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts. Harold J. Burstein, MD, PhD, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

Key findings in metastatic breast cancer, presented at the ASCO 2020 Virtual Annual Meeting, ranged across all tumor subtypes.

Arguably, the top news in breast cancer was a plenary presentation addressing the role of locoregional therapy in advanced disease. Dr. Harold Burstein, of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, comments that this study indicates systemic therapy as the mainstay treatment for woman with newly diagnosed advanced disease and a tumor in the breast.

In triple-negative breast cancer, Dr. Burstein highlights two studies. The KEYNOTE-355 study validates the addition of a checkpoint inhibitor in first-line therapy in women whose tumors are PD-L1 positive. The intriguing results of the SWOG S1416 trial, Dr. Burstein comments, suggest the use of PARP inhibition may extend beyond BRCA1 and BRCA2 breast cancers.

In HER2-positive breast cancer, an update of the HER2CLIMB study indicates that the combination of tucatinib, trastuzumab, and capecitabine continues to benefit women with HER2-positive disease. Dr. Burstein expects this combination will be a new standard of care, particularly in women with brain metastases.

As for ER-positive breast cancer, Dr. Burstein reviews the BYLieve trial. Results of this study suggest alpelisib has activity in women with a PIK3CA mutation who have already received a CDK4/6 inhibitor.

Harold J. Burstein, Md, PhD

Professor, Department of Medicine, Harvard Medical School; Institute Physician, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts. Harold J. Burstein, MD, PhD, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

Intranasal butorphanol is a fast-acting and effective acute rescue therapy for patients with the toughest cases of intractable chronic itch, Shawn G. Kwatra, MD, reported at the virtual annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.

Dr. Kwatra, a dermatologist at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, where he heads a specialized pruritus clinic, presented a retrospective study of 16 such patients treated with inhaled butorphanol. All had been responsive to a minimum of four antipruritic medications.

This is one of the largest-ever reported series of patients treated with intranasal butorphanol as acute rescue therapy for intractable itch, and it provides a strong signal of efficacy, he said in an interview.

Indeed, 11 of the 16 patients reported marked improvement in their itch after introduction of short-term treatment with butorphanol nasal spray, 1 reported no improvement, and 4 were lost to follow-up.

Itch, Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI), and Beck Depression Inventory scores were formally measured prior to introduction of short-term inhaled butorphanol and again at follow-up appointments at 4-6 weeks. The mean self-reported itch numeric rating scale score improved from a mean of 9.8 out of a possible 10 at baseline to 4.6 at follow-up. The reduction in itch was accompanied by major improvements in quality of life: the mean DLQI score dropped from 20.2 to 10.8, while the Beck Depression Inventory score went from 22.1 – typically interpreted as an indicator of moderate depression – to 14.2.

Three patients reported insomnia and/or lightheadedness they attributed to inhaled butorphanol.

The patients with chronic refractory itch had a wide range of associated underlying diagnoses. These included primary sclerosing cholangitis, trigeminal trophic syndrome, brachioradial pruritus, neuropathic pruritus, prurigo nodularis, chronic idiopathic urticaria, chronic aquagenic pruritus, atopic dermatitis, and itch induced by programmed death–1 immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy. It will take large randomized, controlled trials to determine which of these types of chronic pruritus benefit most from intranasal butorphanol, according to Dr. Kwatra.

Since butorphanol is a narcotic analgesic ill-suited to applications other than as short-term acute rescue therapy, there is a pressing unmet need for new therapies specifically targeting chronic itch as a symptom, he added. Several promising agents are advancing through the drug development pipeline.

Dr. Kwatra reported having no financial conflicts regarding this study, conducted free of commercial support.
 

[email protected]

Intranasal butorphanol is a fast-acting and effective acute rescue therapy for patients with the toughest cases of intractable chronic itch, Shawn G. Kwatra, MD, reported at the virtual annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.

Dr. Kwatra, a dermatologist at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, where he heads a specialized pruritus clinic, presented a retrospective study of 16 such patients treated with inhaled butorphanol. All had been responsive to a minimum of four antipruritic medications.

This is one of the largest-ever reported series of patients treated with intranasal butorphanol as acute rescue therapy for intractable itch, and it provides a strong signal of efficacy, he said in an interview.

Indeed, 11 of the 16 patients reported marked improvement in their itch after introduction of short-term treatment with butorphanol nasal spray, 1 reported no improvement, and 4 were lost to follow-up.

Itch, Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI), and Beck Depression Inventory scores were formally measured prior to introduction of short-term inhaled butorphanol and again at follow-up appointments at 4-6 weeks. The mean self-reported itch numeric rating scale score improved from a mean of 9.8 out of a possible 10 at baseline to 4.6 at follow-up. The reduction in itch was accompanied by major improvements in quality of life: the mean DLQI score dropped from 20.2 to 10.8, while the Beck Depression Inventory score went from 22.1 – typically interpreted as an indicator of moderate depression – to 14.2.

Three patients reported insomnia and/or lightheadedness they attributed to inhaled butorphanol.

The patients with chronic refractory itch had a wide range of associated underlying diagnoses. These included primary sclerosing cholangitis, trigeminal trophic syndrome, brachioradial pruritus, neuropathic pruritus, prurigo nodularis, chronic idiopathic urticaria, chronic aquagenic pruritus, atopic dermatitis, and itch induced by programmed death–1 immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy. It will take large randomized, controlled trials to determine which of these types of chronic pruritus benefit most from intranasal butorphanol, according to Dr. Kwatra.

Since butorphanol is a narcotic analgesic ill-suited to applications other than as short-term acute rescue therapy, there is a pressing unmet need for new therapies specifically targeting chronic itch as a symptom, he added. Several promising agents are advancing through the drug development pipeline.

Dr. Kwatra reported having no financial conflicts regarding this study, conducted free of commercial support.
 

[email protected]

Intranasal butorphanol is a fast-acting and effective acute rescue therapy for patients with the toughest cases of intractable chronic itch, Shawn G. Kwatra, MD, reported at the virtual annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.

Dr. Kwatra, a dermatologist at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, where he heads a specialized pruritus clinic, presented a retrospective study of 16 such patients treated with inhaled butorphanol. All had been responsive to a minimum of four antipruritic medications.

This is one of the largest-ever reported series of patients treated with intranasal butorphanol as acute rescue therapy for intractable itch, and it provides a strong signal of efficacy, he said in an interview.

Indeed, 11 of the 16 patients reported marked improvement in their itch after introduction of short-term treatment with butorphanol nasal spray, 1 reported no improvement, and 4 were lost to follow-up.

Itch, Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI), and Beck Depression Inventory scores were formally measured prior to introduction of short-term inhaled butorphanol and again at follow-up appointments at 4-6 weeks. The mean self-reported itch numeric rating scale score improved from a mean of 9.8 out of a possible 10 at baseline to 4.6 at follow-up. The reduction in itch was accompanied by major improvements in quality of life: the mean DLQI score dropped from 20.2 to 10.8, while the Beck Depression Inventory score went from 22.1 – typically interpreted as an indicator of moderate depression – to 14.2.

Three patients reported insomnia and/or lightheadedness they attributed to inhaled butorphanol.

The patients with chronic refractory itch had a wide range of associated underlying diagnoses. These included primary sclerosing cholangitis, trigeminal trophic syndrome, brachioradial pruritus, neuropathic pruritus, prurigo nodularis, chronic idiopathic urticaria, chronic aquagenic pruritus, atopic dermatitis, and itch induced by programmed death–1 immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy. It will take large randomized, controlled trials to determine which of these types of chronic pruritus benefit most from intranasal butorphanol, according to Dr. Kwatra.

Since butorphanol is a narcotic analgesic ill-suited to applications other than as short-term acute rescue therapy, there is a pressing unmet need for new therapies specifically targeting chronic itch as a symptom, he added. Several promising agents are advancing through the drug development pipeline.

Dr. Kwatra reported having no financial conflicts regarding this study, conducted free of commercial support.
 

[email protected]

Adding tiragolumab to first-line treatment with atezolizumab improves outcomes in patients with PD-L1–positive non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), according to updated results from the phase 2 CITYSCAPE study.

Patients who received tiragolumab, an anti-TIGIT antibody, in combination with atezolizumab, a PD-L1 inhibitor, had superior overall response rates (ORR) and progression-free survival (PFS), when compared with results of patients who received placebo with atezolizumab.

Melissa L. Johnson, MD, of the Sarah Cannon Research Institute in Nashville, Tenn., presented these results as part of the American Society of Clinical Oncology virtual scientific program.

Dr. Johnson explained that TIGIT is an immunomodulatory receptor present on activated T cells and natural killer cells in multiple cancers, including NSCLC.

“TIGIT inhibits T cells and natural killer cells by binding to its ligand PVR on tumor cells and antigen-presenting cells,” she said. “TIGIT expression strongly correlates with PD-1 expression, sometimes on the same tumor-infiltrating T cells in lung cancer. So the hypothesis of this trial was that anti-TIGIT antibodies, which prevent TIGIT from binding to its ligand, could restore the antitumor response and could complement the activity of anti–PD-L1/PD-1 antibodies.”

Dr. Johnson noted that combination anti–TIGIT/PD-L1 antibody treatment synergistically improved tumor control and prolonged survival over either antibody alone in preclinical models (Cancer Cell. 2014 Dec 8;26[6]:923-937). In addition, tiragolumab has been evaluated in a phase 1 study, both as monotherapy and in combination with atezolizumab, in multiple solid tumors (NCT02794571).

The phase 2 CITYSCAPE study (NCT03563716) was initiated to confirm the efficacy and safety of tiragolumab plus atezolizumab versus placebo plus atezolizumab for the first-line treatment of NSCLC, Dr. Johnson said.

CITYSCAPE enrolled 135 patients with chemotherapy-naive, PD-L1–positive, locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC. Patients did not have EGFR or ALK alterations.

Half of patients (n = 68) were randomized to receive tiragolumab at 600 mg plus atezolizumab at 1,200 mg, both given on day 1 of every 3-week cycle. The other half of patients (n = 67) were randomized to receive atezolizumab at the same dose and schedule plus placebo.
 

ORR and PFS

The study’s primary analysis was conducted in June 2019 at a median follow-up of 5.9 months. At that time, the ORR and PFS data showed an early benefit with tiragolumab. The ORR was 31% in the tiragolumab arm and 16% in the placebo arm. The median PFS was 5.42 months and 3.58 months, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.57).

With an additional 6 months of follow-up, the tiragolumab benefit persisted, Dr. Johnson said. The updated ORR in the intent-to-treat population was 37% in the tiragolumab arm and 21% in the placebo arm. The median PFS was 5.6 months and 3.9 months, respectively (HR, 0.58).

The tiragolumab combination showed “clinically meaningful” improvements in ORR and PFS, Dr. Johnson said. She also noted “a greater magnitude of improvement” was seen in patients with a PD-L1 tumor proportion score of 50% or greater.

There were 29 patients in each treatment arm with a PD-L1 tumor proportion score of 50% or greater. Among these patients, the ORR was 66% in the tiragolumab arm and 24% in the placebo arm. The median PFS was not reached and 4.1 months, respectively (HR, 0.30).

There were no significant differences in ORR or PFS among patients with PD-L1 tumor proportion scores below 50%, Dr. Johnson noted.

She added that duration of response and overall survival data are not yet mature and will be presented at a future conference.
 

Adverse events

As reported in the primary analysis, tiragolumab plus atezolizumab had a tolerable safety profile, Dr. Johnson said.

“Despite a near doubling of the median treatment duration [at the updated analysis], there were similar numbers of any-cause adverse events, grade 3-5 adverse events, and serious adverse events,” she said.

Overall, adverse events occurred in 99% of patients in the tiragolumab arm and 96% of those in the placebo arm. Rates of grade 3-5 adverse events were 48% and 44%, respectively. Rates of serious adverse events were 37% and 35%, respectively.

A higher frequency of adverse events in the tiragolumab arm was related to an increase in immune-related events, including infusion reactions, pruritus, rash, arthralgia, and nephritis. This makes sense because the patients in that group were receiving two active immunotherapies, Dr. Johnson said.
 

Data inspire cautious optimism

The safety and activity of tiragolumab plus atezolizumab are “to be confirmed in an ongoing phase 3 study called SKYSCRAPER-01 [NCT04294810],” Dr. Johnson said.

Invited discussant Grace K. Dy, MD, of Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center in Buffalo, N.Y., said the ORRs in CITYSCAPE have “generated a lot of buzz,” but she urged caution pending phase 3 results.

“While we are all excited by the data and want to see a winner, we should be careful, as speed can also crash and burn,” she said. “We have plenty of examples of promising studies that collapsed in later phase trials.”

There is room, however, for cautious optimism that the combination is a promising advance “as long as no prognostic or confounding variable is determined later on to be nonrandomly distributed between the groups to account for the difference seen,” Dr. Dy said.

She also noted that “the distribution of favorable or unfavorable mutations between the groups is unknown, and understanding this will be relevant.”

Preclinical data suggest the presence of DNM1 expression is crucial for maximizing the effect of TIGIT blockade, and tumor MHC class 1 expression appears to be reduced alongside reductions in DNM1 expression in the intratumoral natural kill cells in lung cancer specimens, Dr. Dy explained.

“Assessment of these biomarkers will be instructive,” she said. “More recent data also appear to implicate a paradoxical role of soluble CD155 or PVR ligand in actually inhibiting DNM1, so the effect of systemic TIGIT blockade may be mitigated if there is rebound increase of counterbalancing signals by increased secretion of soluble CD155, and we look forward to more data in the future regarding this.”

CITYSCAPE was sponsored by Genentech. Dr. Johnson disclosed relationships with Genentech and numerous other companies. Dr. Dy disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Takeda, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Regeneron, and Tesaro.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Rodriguez-Abreu D et al. ASCO 2020, Abstract 9503.

Adding tiragolumab to first-line treatment with atezolizumab improves outcomes in patients with PD-L1–positive non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), according to updated results from the phase 2 CITYSCAPE study.

Patients who received tiragolumab, an anti-TIGIT antibody, in combination with atezolizumab, a PD-L1 inhibitor, had superior overall response rates (ORR) and progression-free survival (PFS), when compared with results of patients who received placebo with atezolizumab.

Melissa L. Johnson, MD, of the Sarah Cannon Research Institute in Nashville, Tenn., presented these results as part of the American Society of Clinical Oncology virtual scientific program.

Dr. Johnson explained that TIGIT is an immunomodulatory receptor present on activated T cells and natural killer cells in multiple cancers, including NSCLC.

“TIGIT inhibits T cells and natural killer cells by binding to its ligand PVR on tumor cells and antigen-presenting cells,” she said. “TIGIT expression strongly correlates with PD-1 expression, sometimes on the same tumor-infiltrating T cells in lung cancer. So the hypothesis of this trial was that anti-TIGIT antibodies, which prevent TIGIT from binding to its ligand, could restore the antitumor response and could complement the activity of anti–PD-L1/PD-1 antibodies.”

Dr. Johnson noted that combination anti–TIGIT/PD-L1 antibody treatment synergistically improved tumor control and prolonged survival over either antibody alone in preclinical models (Cancer Cell. 2014 Dec 8;26[6]:923-937). In addition, tiragolumab has been evaluated in a phase 1 study, both as monotherapy and in combination with atezolizumab, in multiple solid tumors (NCT02794571).

The phase 2 CITYSCAPE study (NCT03563716) was initiated to confirm the efficacy and safety of tiragolumab plus atezolizumab versus placebo plus atezolizumab for the first-line treatment of NSCLC, Dr. Johnson said.

CITYSCAPE enrolled 135 patients with chemotherapy-naive, PD-L1–positive, locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC. Patients did not have EGFR or ALK alterations.

Half of patients (n = 68) were randomized to receive tiragolumab at 600 mg plus atezolizumab at 1,200 mg, both given on day 1 of every 3-week cycle. The other half of patients (n = 67) were randomized to receive atezolizumab at the same dose and schedule plus placebo.
 

ORR and PFS

The study’s primary analysis was conducted in June 2019 at a median follow-up of 5.9 months. At that time, the ORR and PFS data showed an early benefit with tiragolumab. The ORR was 31% in the tiragolumab arm and 16% in the placebo arm. The median PFS was 5.42 months and 3.58 months, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.57).

With an additional 6 months of follow-up, the tiragolumab benefit persisted, Dr. Johnson said. The updated ORR in the intent-to-treat population was 37% in the tiragolumab arm and 21% in the placebo arm. The median PFS was 5.6 months and 3.9 months, respectively (HR, 0.58).

The tiragolumab combination showed “clinically meaningful” improvements in ORR and PFS, Dr. Johnson said. She also noted “a greater magnitude of improvement” was seen in patients with a PD-L1 tumor proportion score of 50% or greater.

There were 29 patients in each treatment arm with a PD-L1 tumor proportion score of 50% or greater. Among these patients, the ORR was 66% in the tiragolumab arm and 24% in the placebo arm. The median PFS was not reached and 4.1 months, respectively (HR, 0.30).

There were no significant differences in ORR or PFS among patients with PD-L1 tumor proportion scores below 50%, Dr. Johnson noted.

She added that duration of response and overall survival data are not yet mature and will be presented at a future conference.
 

Adverse events

As reported in the primary analysis, tiragolumab plus atezolizumab had a tolerable safety profile, Dr. Johnson said.

“Despite a near doubling of the median treatment duration [at the updated analysis], there were similar numbers of any-cause adverse events, grade 3-5 adverse events, and serious adverse events,” she said.

Overall, adverse events occurred in 99% of patients in the tiragolumab arm and 96% of those in the placebo arm. Rates of grade 3-5 adverse events were 48% and 44%, respectively. Rates of serious adverse events were 37% and 35%, respectively.

A higher frequency of adverse events in the tiragolumab arm was related to an increase in immune-related events, including infusion reactions, pruritus, rash, arthralgia, and nephritis. This makes sense because the patients in that group were receiving two active immunotherapies, Dr. Johnson said.
 

Data inspire cautious optimism

The safety and activity of tiragolumab plus atezolizumab are “to be confirmed in an ongoing phase 3 study called SKYSCRAPER-01 [NCT04294810],” Dr. Johnson said.

Invited discussant Grace K. Dy, MD, of Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center in Buffalo, N.Y., said the ORRs in CITYSCAPE have “generated a lot of buzz,” but she urged caution pending phase 3 results.

“While we are all excited by the data and want to see a winner, we should be careful, as speed can also crash and burn,” she said. “We have plenty of examples of promising studies that collapsed in later phase trials.”

There is room, however, for cautious optimism that the combination is a promising advance “as long as no prognostic or confounding variable is determined later on to be nonrandomly distributed between the groups to account for the difference seen,” Dr. Dy said.

She also noted that “the distribution of favorable or unfavorable mutations between the groups is unknown, and understanding this will be relevant.”

Preclinical data suggest the presence of DNM1 expression is crucial for maximizing the effect of TIGIT blockade, and tumor MHC class 1 expression appears to be reduced alongside reductions in DNM1 expression in the intratumoral natural kill cells in lung cancer specimens, Dr. Dy explained.

“Assessment of these biomarkers will be instructive,” she said. “More recent data also appear to implicate a paradoxical role of soluble CD155 or PVR ligand in actually inhibiting DNM1, so the effect of systemic TIGIT blockade may be mitigated if there is rebound increase of counterbalancing signals by increased secretion of soluble CD155, and we look forward to more data in the future regarding this.”

CITYSCAPE was sponsored by Genentech. Dr. Johnson disclosed relationships with Genentech and numerous other companies. Dr. Dy disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Takeda, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Regeneron, and Tesaro.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Rodriguez-Abreu D et al. ASCO 2020, Abstract 9503.

Adding tiragolumab to first-line treatment with atezolizumab improves outcomes in patients with PD-L1–positive non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), according to updated results from the phase 2 CITYSCAPE study.

Patients who received tiragolumab, an anti-TIGIT antibody, in combination with atezolizumab, a PD-L1 inhibitor, had superior overall response rates (ORR) and progression-free survival (PFS), when compared with results of patients who received placebo with atezolizumab.

Melissa L. Johnson, MD, of the Sarah Cannon Research Institute in Nashville, Tenn., presented these results as part of the American Society of Clinical Oncology virtual scientific program.

Dr. Johnson explained that TIGIT is an immunomodulatory receptor present on activated T cells and natural killer cells in multiple cancers, including NSCLC.

“TIGIT inhibits T cells and natural killer cells by binding to its ligand PVR on tumor cells and antigen-presenting cells,” she said. “TIGIT expression strongly correlates with PD-1 expression, sometimes on the same tumor-infiltrating T cells in lung cancer. So the hypothesis of this trial was that anti-TIGIT antibodies, which prevent TIGIT from binding to its ligand, could restore the antitumor response and could complement the activity of anti–PD-L1/PD-1 antibodies.”

Dr. Johnson noted that combination anti–TIGIT/PD-L1 antibody treatment synergistically improved tumor control and prolonged survival over either antibody alone in preclinical models (Cancer Cell. 2014 Dec 8;26[6]:923-937). In addition, tiragolumab has been evaluated in a phase 1 study, both as monotherapy and in combination with atezolizumab, in multiple solid tumors (NCT02794571).

The phase 2 CITYSCAPE study (NCT03563716) was initiated to confirm the efficacy and safety of tiragolumab plus atezolizumab versus placebo plus atezolizumab for the first-line treatment of NSCLC, Dr. Johnson said.

CITYSCAPE enrolled 135 patients with chemotherapy-naive, PD-L1–positive, locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC. Patients did not have EGFR or ALK alterations.

Half of patients (n = 68) were randomized to receive tiragolumab at 600 mg plus atezolizumab at 1,200 mg, both given on day 1 of every 3-week cycle. The other half of patients (n = 67) were randomized to receive atezolizumab at the same dose and schedule plus placebo.
 

ORR and PFS

The study’s primary analysis was conducted in June 2019 at a median follow-up of 5.9 months. At that time, the ORR and PFS data showed an early benefit with tiragolumab. The ORR was 31% in the tiragolumab arm and 16% in the placebo arm. The median PFS was 5.42 months and 3.58 months, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.57).

With an additional 6 months of follow-up, the tiragolumab benefit persisted, Dr. Johnson said. The updated ORR in the intent-to-treat population was 37% in the tiragolumab arm and 21% in the placebo arm. The median PFS was 5.6 months and 3.9 months, respectively (HR, 0.58).

The tiragolumab combination showed “clinically meaningful” improvements in ORR and PFS, Dr. Johnson said. She also noted “a greater magnitude of improvement” was seen in patients with a PD-L1 tumor proportion score of 50% or greater.

There were 29 patients in each treatment arm with a PD-L1 tumor proportion score of 50% or greater. Among these patients, the ORR was 66% in the tiragolumab arm and 24% in the placebo arm. The median PFS was not reached and 4.1 months, respectively (HR, 0.30).

There were no significant differences in ORR or PFS among patients with PD-L1 tumor proportion scores below 50%, Dr. Johnson noted.

She added that duration of response and overall survival data are not yet mature and will be presented at a future conference.
 

Adverse events

As reported in the primary analysis, tiragolumab plus atezolizumab had a tolerable safety profile, Dr. Johnson said.

“Despite a near doubling of the median treatment duration [at the updated analysis], there were similar numbers of any-cause adverse events, grade 3-5 adverse events, and serious adverse events,” she said.

Overall, adverse events occurred in 99% of patients in the tiragolumab arm and 96% of those in the placebo arm. Rates of grade 3-5 adverse events were 48% and 44%, respectively. Rates of serious adverse events were 37% and 35%, respectively.

A higher frequency of adverse events in the tiragolumab arm was related to an increase in immune-related events, including infusion reactions, pruritus, rash, arthralgia, and nephritis. This makes sense because the patients in that group were receiving two active immunotherapies, Dr. Johnson said.
 

Data inspire cautious optimism

The safety and activity of tiragolumab plus atezolizumab are “to be confirmed in an ongoing phase 3 study called SKYSCRAPER-01 [NCT04294810],” Dr. Johnson said.

Invited discussant Grace K. Dy, MD, of Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center in Buffalo, N.Y., said the ORRs in CITYSCAPE have “generated a lot of buzz,” but she urged caution pending phase 3 results.

“While we are all excited by the data and want to see a winner, we should be careful, as speed can also crash and burn,” she said. “We have plenty of examples of promising studies that collapsed in later phase trials.”

There is room, however, for cautious optimism that the combination is a promising advance “as long as no prognostic or confounding variable is determined later on to be nonrandomly distributed between the groups to account for the difference seen,” Dr. Dy said.

She also noted that “the distribution of favorable or unfavorable mutations between the groups is unknown, and understanding this will be relevant.”

Preclinical data suggest the presence of DNM1 expression is crucial for maximizing the effect of TIGIT blockade, and tumor MHC class 1 expression appears to be reduced alongside reductions in DNM1 expression in the intratumoral natural kill cells in lung cancer specimens, Dr. Dy explained.

“Assessment of these biomarkers will be instructive,” she said. “More recent data also appear to implicate a paradoxical role of soluble CD155 or PVR ligand in actually inhibiting DNM1, so the effect of systemic TIGIT blockade may be mitigated if there is rebound increase of counterbalancing signals by increased secretion of soluble CD155, and we look forward to more data in the future regarding this.”

CITYSCAPE was sponsored by Genentech. Dr. Johnson disclosed relationships with Genentech and numerous other companies. Dr. Dy disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Takeda, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Regeneron, and Tesaro.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Rodriguez-Abreu D et al. ASCO 2020, Abstract 9503.

Despite mounting evidence that low-dose CT screening reduces lung cancer mortality in people at high risk, the uptake of screening in the United States has been slow, and some researchers caution that the risks involved need to be better understood.

It has been almost 10 years since the landmark National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) provided the scientific evidence used by the United States Preventive Services Task Force to recommend annual screening for adults 55 to 80 years of age who have a 30 pack-year smoking history and currently smoke or have quit in the previous 15 years.

But just 4.2% of Americans who qualified for screening in 2018 were tested, according to an American Lung Association report. If everyone at high risk had been tested, 48,000 American lives could have been saved.

Final results from the NELSON trial, published earlier this year, support those from NLST.

Mortality was 24% lower with low-dose CT screening than with no screening in the NELSON cohort, which consisted of 13,195 men and 2594 women at high risk for lung cancer because they were current or former smokers.

“With the NELSON results, the efficacy of low-dose CT screening for lung cancer is confirmed,” wrote the authors of an editorial accompanying the NELSON results. “Our job is no longer to assess whether low-dose CT screening for lung cancer works: it does. Our job is to identify the target population in which it will be acceptable and cost-effective.”

That sentiment is echoed by Michael Gould, MD, from Kaiser Permanente Southern California.

“Lo and behold, we have confirmation of NLST results from NELSON,” Dr. Gould said in an interview. “Now that we have consistent data from the NELSON confirmatory trial, can we finally believe NLST?”

Even though NELSON confirms the benefits of screening in clinical trials, many questions remain about how lung cancer screening translates into everyday practice, said Dr. Gould, who had been scheduled to discuss the trials and the state of lung screening at the American Thoracic Society 2020 International Conference, which will now run virtually in August.

For starters, the target population needs more scrutiny. Research has shown that, outside of clinical trials, the harms of screening can sometimes outweigh the benefits.

In 2018, the rate of overdiagnosis was shown to be 67.2% in the Danish Lung Cancer Screening Trial (DLCST).

And 56% of people screened with low-dose CT had false-positive results that required follow-up testing and procedures, according to a 2017 study of current and former heavy smokers. That rate is more than double the 18.5% false-positive rate in NLST.

“Only 20% of NLST participants were over age 65,” Dr. Gould said. “The NELSON cohort was younger.”

And although the USPSTF recommends lung screening in high-risk people, “there were some in the NLST cohort whose risk was not particularly high.” Others in the trial, he said, had a high risk, but some of those had one or more comorbid conditions, “so the risk was unbalanced.

“Risk is more complicated than simply saying that anyone who meets the NLST criteria should get scanned,” he added.

Weighing risks and benefits needs to be done on a patient-by-patient basis, Dr. Gould said. “Do they have the ability to tolerate surgery? What’s important to them? We can’t just say, ‘you have a 30-pack-year history, go get a test’.”

Often, he said, it’s the people who have the most to gain from screening who are also at highest risk from biopsies and surgical and nonsurgical treatments because of comorbidities.

The NLST population might also have cast a wider net for those eligible for screening; NELSON had a lower threshold for amount smoked (30 vs. 15 pack-years). “NLST points to scanning a bigger population and lighter smokers,” Dr. Gould said.
 

Psychological risks of screening

Neither the NLST nor NELSON reported relevant psychological aspects of harm from CT screening for lung cancer, two researchers reported in a letter responding to the NELSON findings.

The trial-participation request letters, which were sent to 606,409 people in the general population, “in order to identify 15,792 persons (2.6%) who were eligible to participate, may have caused fear,” wrote Jes Lindholt, MD, DMSc, and Rikke Søgaard, PhD, from Odense University Hospital in Denmark.

“That raises the question: Do people want to be screened? I can’t understand why the US and Britain consider it so definitive to start a screening program,” Dr. Lindholt said in an interview.

In addition to a psychological cost, he questioned the financial cost-benefit ratio of a screening program. “What strikes me is that they haven’t done any cost analysis on any of these randomized trials.”

“Of the 203 men who got the diagnosis of lung cancer, 160 (78.8%) died from lung cancer. Whether screening actually improved or prolonged their remaining lifetime should be considered,” Dr. Lindholt and Dr. Søgaard wrote.
 

Challenges of implementation

Despite the extensive trials, there are still questions about how to implement screening in the real world. “Did NLST select patients who were, on average, healthier and less likely to have complications?” Dr. Gould asked.

Everyday practice might not find the same favorable outcomes as NLST. “Can the results of the NTLST be replicated in real-world settings? Not yet,” he said. Hospitals and health systems are struggling to implement screening.

Follow-up and tracking are not where they should be. General practitioners don’t have the same resources as the NLST researchers had, he explained. They were able to remind patients to come back for another test and call them with the results, all under the umbrella of implementation, “and they’re still not on target.”

Getting people scanned is key, said Michael Barry, MD, from Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, who is a current member of the USPSTF and is working on new lung cancer screening recommendations to be published this summer.

“We have an implementation problem,” he said. “The heavier smokers are being way underscreened.”

People need to have more information to review the pros and cons of screening, Dr. Barry said. “We’ve got large trials that show that benefits outweigh the harms, but we could benefit from implementation research. This is an issue for many screening tasks.”

Eight million Americans meet the eligibility requirements for lung cancer screening with low-dose CT, according to a 2019 report from the American College of Radiology.

Screening tests are covered by Medicare, but getting people to the clinic has not been easy. In 2018, Saved by the Scan, a big-budget national advertising campaign launched by the ALA, featured ex-smokers who survived lung cancer because of early detection with a low-dose CT scan, as reported by Medscape Medical News.

And many people being scanned are not part of the USPSTF target group. In 2017, lung cancer screening was reported “by 12.5% of smokers who met USPSTF criteria and 7.9% of smokers aged 55-80 years who did not meet USPSTF criteria,” according to a recent analysis of data from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System published by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The CDC report concludes that some people are being screened without needing screening, and that “avoidance of screening inconsistent with USPSTF criteria could reduce the potential for harms such as overdiagnosis and overtreatment.”

Dr. Gould said he agrees that this factor needs to be looked at. “There is underutilization in those who need screening, and maybe overscreening in those who aren’t at risk.”

There are also epidemiologic data that show that black Americans are at higher risk at a younger age for the same level of smoking. “So should there be a lower threshold for smoking and lower age, particularly in the African American population?” Dr. Gould asked.

The NELSON trial had significant results in a population younger than that in NLST, he pointed out. “That needs to be considered.”
 

Smokers dismiss medical advice

People in the high-risk group need to better understand the benefits of screening, said Christine D. Berg, MD, an NLST researcher from the National Cancer Institute.

“We know the uptake of lung cancer screening has been slow,” she said.

She described encouraging her neighbor, a heavy smoker, to get screened. “But she said she didn’t want to know if she had lung cancer, so she didn’t go.”

“Now she’s dead,” Dr. Berg continued. Unfortunately, “what we see is that those who continue to smoke, and smoke heavily, are not likely to heed medical advice.”

The fear of finding out you have lung cancer needs to be overcome, she said. Smokers need to understand that they can add a decade to their lives if lung cancer is detected early.

Some places in the United States have better screening rates than others. “We see a lot of variation from state to state,” she said. For instance, in Massachusetts, 12.3% of high-risk people have been screened; in Nevada, the rate is just 0.5%.

There are many reasons for that. First, there are logistics. Screening covered by Medicare must be done in a certified center “with good equipment and that can track results,” Dr. Berg said. That might be one hurdle. But the greater hurdle is the patients themselves.

There are studies that point to risks associated with invasive procedures, such as biopsy after screening, which can lead to complications, even when no cancer is found. “My answer to that is, if you need a biopsy, check the data. The Society of Thoracic Surgeons has a database of all the complications, and it’s publicly accessible. You can find hospitals in your region that report data,” she explained, and “that have highest volume and lowest complication rates.”

Second, imaging has improved since the NLST trial. “We have a better ability to estimate cancer in the nodules we find,” Dr. Berg explained. Nodules that previously needed a biopsy to confirm malignancy can now be assessed with AI and machine learning.

“I think the probability of false positives and problems from biopsy have changed dramatically over the last 10 years,” she said.

And we are catching more lung cancer earlier and saving lives. Overall, early detection is increasing, and late-stage detection is decreasing. “We’re bending the curve, making progress,” she said.

In 2019, the 5-year survival rate for lung cancer was 21.7%, up from 17.2% a decade earlier, according to the ALA. Much of that is because of early diagnosis, when the disease is still curable, which could be related to increased screening.

“NELSON showed benefit to CT screening and is useful in helping convince some of the skeptics,” Dr. Berg said.

Diagnosis is also improving with new technologies. Electronic health records can be scanned to identify patients at increased risk, and patient portals can send reminders, notifications, and other educational information to encourage patients to discuss options with their doctor, which could improve the national lung cancer prognosis, Dr. Gould said.

At the end of the day, it still comes down to the patient and doctor having a conversation about the risks and benefits.

“But we have to get to that point,” Dr. Gould said. “We need to continue to develop tools to facilitate that conversation. It’s complicated, and there’s a lot of information to weigh.”

“We’re still working out how to do that,” he added.

Dr. Barry, Dr. Gould, and Dr. Berg have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Despite mounting evidence that low-dose CT screening reduces lung cancer mortality in people at high risk, the uptake of screening in the United States has been slow, and some researchers caution that the risks involved need to be better understood.

It has been almost 10 years since the landmark National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) provided the scientific evidence used by the United States Preventive Services Task Force to recommend annual screening for adults 55 to 80 years of age who have a 30 pack-year smoking history and currently smoke or have quit in the previous 15 years.

But just 4.2% of Americans who qualified for screening in 2018 were tested, according to an American Lung Association report. If everyone at high risk had been tested, 48,000 American lives could have been saved.

Final results from the NELSON trial, published earlier this year, support those from NLST.

Mortality was 24% lower with low-dose CT screening than with no screening in the NELSON cohort, which consisted of 13,195 men and 2594 women at high risk for lung cancer because they were current or former smokers.

“With the NELSON results, the efficacy of low-dose CT screening for lung cancer is confirmed,” wrote the authors of an editorial accompanying the NELSON results. “Our job is no longer to assess whether low-dose CT screening for lung cancer works: it does. Our job is to identify the target population in which it will be acceptable and cost-effective.”

That sentiment is echoed by Michael Gould, MD, from Kaiser Permanente Southern California.

“Lo and behold, we have confirmation of NLST results from NELSON,” Dr. Gould said in an interview. “Now that we have consistent data from the NELSON confirmatory trial, can we finally believe NLST?”

Even though NELSON confirms the benefits of screening in clinical trials, many questions remain about how lung cancer screening translates into everyday practice, said Dr. Gould, who had been scheduled to discuss the trials and the state of lung screening at the American Thoracic Society 2020 International Conference, which will now run virtually in August.

For starters, the target population needs more scrutiny. Research has shown that, outside of clinical trials, the harms of screening can sometimes outweigh the benefits.

In 2018, the rate of overdiagnosis was shown to be 67.2% in the Danish Lung Cancer Screening Trial (DLCST).

And 56% of people screened with low-dose CT had false-positive results that required follow-up testing and procedures, according to a 2017 study of current and former heavy smokers. That rate is more than double the 18.5% false-positive rate in NLST.

“Only 20% of NLST participants were over age 65,” Dr. Gould said. “The NELSON cohort was younger.”

And although the USPSTF recommends lung screening in high-risk people, “there were some in the NLST cohort whose risk was not particularly high.” Others in the trial, he said, had a high risk, but some of those had one or more comorbid conditions, “so the risk was unbalanced.

“Risk is more complicated than simply saying that anyone who meets the NLST criteria should get scanned,” he added.

Weighing risks and benefits needs to be done on a patient-by-patient basis, Dr. Gould said. “Do they have the ability to tolerate surgery? What’s important to them? We can’t just say, ‘you have a 30-pack-year history, go get a test’.”

Often, he said, it’s the people who have the most to gain from screening who are also at highest risk from biopsies and surgical and nonsurgical treatments because of comorbidities.

The NLST population might also have cast a wider net for those eligible for screening; NELSON had a lower threshold for amount smoked (30 vs. 15 pack-years). “NLST points to scanning a bigger population and lighter smokers,” Dr. Gould said.
 

Psychological risks of screening

Neither the NLST nor NELSON reported relevant psychological aspects of harm from CT screening for lung cancer, two researchers reported in a letter responding to the NELSON findings.

The trial-participation request letters, which were sent to 606,409 people in the general population, “in order to identify 15,792 persons (2.6%) who were eligible to participate, may have caused fear,” wrote Jes Lindholt, MD, DMSc, and Rikke Søgaard, PhD, from Odense University Hospital in Denmark.

“That raises the question: Do people want to be screened? I can’t understand why the US and Britain consider it so definitive to start a screening program,” Dr. Lindholt said in an interview.

In addition to a psychological cost, he questioned the financial cost-benefit ratio of a screening program. “What strikes me is that they haven’t done any cost analysis on any of these randomized trials.”

“Of the 203 men who got the diagnosis of lung cancer, 160 (78.8%) died from lung cancer. Whether screening actually improved or prolonged their remaining lifetime should be considered,” Dr. Lindholt and Dr. Søgaard wrote.
 

Challenges of implementation

Despite the extensive trials, there are still questions about how to implement screening in the real world. “Did NLST select patients who were, on average, healthier and less likely to have complications?” Dr. Gould asked.

Everyday practice might not find the same favorable outcomes as NLST. “Can the results of the NTLST be replicated in real-world settings? Not yet,” he said. Hospitals and health systems are struggling to implement screening.

Follow-up and tracking are not where they should be. General practitioners don’t have the same resources as the NLST researchers had, he explained. They were able to remind patients to come back for another test and call them with the results, all under the umbrella of implementation, “and they’re still not on target.”

Getting people scanned is key, said Michael Barry, MD, from Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, who is a current member of the USPSTF and is working on new lung cancer screening recommendations to be published this summer.

“We have an implementation problem,” he said. “The heavier smokers are being way underscreened.”

People need to have more information to review the pros and cons of screening, Dr. Barry said. “We’ve got large trials that show that benefits outweigh the harms, but we could benefit from implementation research. This is an issue for many screening tasks.”

Eight million Americans meet the eligibility requirements for lung cancer screening with low-dose CT, according to a 2019 report from the American College of Radiology.

Screening tests are covered by Medicare, but getting people to the clinic has not been easy. In 2018, Saved by the Scan, a big-budget national advertising campaign launched by the ALA, featured ex-smokers who survived lung cancer because of early detection with a low-dose CT scan, as reported by Medscape Medical News.

And many people being scanned are not part of the USPSTF target group. In 2017, lung cancer screening was reported “by 12.5% of smokers who met USPSTF criteria and 7.9% of smokers aged 55-80 years who did not meet USPSTF criteria,” according to a recent analysis of data from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System published by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The CDC report concludes that some people are being screened without needing screening, and that “avoidance of screening inconsistent with USPSTF criteria could reduce the potential for harms such as overdiagnosis and overtreatment.”

Dr. Gould said he agrees that this factor needs to be looked at. “There is underutilization in those who need screening, and maybe overscreening in those who aren’t at risk.”

There are also epidemiologic data that show that black Americans are at higher risk at a younger age for the same level of smoking. “So should there be a lower threshold for smoking and lower age, particularly in the African American population?” Dr. Gould asked.

The NELSON trial had significant results in a population younger than that in NLST, he pointed out. “That needs to be considered.”
 

Smokers dismiss medical advice

People in the high-risk group need to better understand the benefits of screening, said Christine D. Berg, MD, an NLST researcher from the National Cancer Institute.

“We know the uptake of lung cancer screening has been slow,” she said.

She described encouraging her neighbor, a heavy smoker, to get screened. “But she said she didn’t want to know if she had lung cancer, so she didn’t go.”

“Now she’s dead,” Dr. Berg continued. Unfortunately, “what we see is that those who continue to smoke, and smoke heavily, are not likely to heed medical advice.”

The fear of finding out you have lung cancer needs to be overcome, she said. Smokers need to understand that they can add a decade to their lives if lung cancer is detected early.

Some places in the United States have better screening rates than others. “We see a lot of variation from state to state,” she said. For instance, in Massachusetts, 12.3% of high-risk people have been screened; in Nevada, the rate is just 0.5%.

There are many reasons for that. First, there are logistics. Screening covered by Medicare must be done in a certified center “with good equipment and that can track results,” Dr. Berg said. That might be one hurdle. But the greater hurdle is the patients themselves.

There are studies that point to risks associated with invasive procedures, such as biopsy after screening, which can lead to complications, even when no cancer is found. “My answer to that is, if you need a biopsy, check the data. The Society of Thoracic Surgeons has a database of all the complications, and it’s publicly accessible. You can find hospitals in your region that report data,” she explained, and “that have highest volume and lowest complication rates.”

Second, imaging has improved since the NLST trial. “We have a better ability to estimate cancer in the nodules we find,” Dr. Berg explained. Nodules that previously needed a biopsy to confirm malignancy can now be assessed with AI and machine learning.

“I think the probability of false positives and problems from biopsy have changed dramatically over the last 10 years,” she said.

And we are catching more lung cancer earlier and saving lives. Overall, early detection is increasing, and late-stage detection is decreasing. “We’re bending the curve, making progress,” she said.

In 2019, the 5-year survival rate for lung cancer was 21.7%, up from 17.2% a decade earlier, according to the ALA. Much of that is because of early diagnosis, when the disease is still curable, which could be related to increased screening.

“NELSON showed benefit to CT screening and is useful in helping convince some of the skeptics,” Dr. Berg said.

Diagnosis is also improving with new technologies. Electronic health records can be scanned to identify patients at increased risk, and patient portals can send reminders, notifications, and other educational information to encourage patients to discuss options with their doctor, which could improve the national lung cancer prognosis, Dr. Gould said.

At the end of the day, it still comes down to the patient and doctor having a conversation about the risks and benefits.

“But we have to get to that point,” Dr. Gould said. “We need to continue to develop tools to facilitate that conversation. It’s complicated, and there’s a lot of information to weigh.”

“We’re still working out how to do that,” he added.

Dr. Barry, Dr. Gould, and Dr. Berg have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Despite mounting evidence that low-dose CT screening reduces lung cancer mortality in people at high risk, the uptake of screening in the United States has been slow, and some researchers caution that the risks involved need to be better understood.

It has been almost 10 years since the landmark National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) provided the scientific evidence used by the United States Preventive Services Task Force to recommend annual screening for adults 55 to 80 years of age who have a 30 pack-year smoking history and currently smoke or have quit in the previous 15 years.

But just 4.2% of Americans who qualified for screening in 2018 were tested, according to an American Lung Association report. If everyone at high risk had been tested, 48,000 American lives could have been saved.

Final results from the NELSON trial, published earlier this year, support those from NLST.

Mortality was 24% lower with low-dose CT screening than with no screening in the NELSON cohort, which consisted of 13,195 men and 2594 women at high risk for lung cancer because they were current or former smokers.

“With the NELSON results, the efficacy of low-dose CT screening for lung cancer is confirmed,” wrote the authors of an editorial accompanying the NELSON results. “Our job is no longer to assess whether low-dose CT screening for lung cancer works: it does. Our job is to identify the target population in which it will be acceptable and cost-effective.”

That sentiment is echoed by Michael Gould, MD, from Kaiser Permanente Southern California.

“Lo and behold, we have confirmation of NLST results from NELSON,” Dr. Gould said in an interview. “Now that we have consistent data from the NELSON confirmatory trial, can we finally believe NLST?”

Even though NELSON confirms the benefits of screening in clinical trials, many questions remain about how lung cancer screening translates into everyday practice, said Dr. Gould, who had been scheduled to discuss the trials and the state of lung screening at the American Thoracic Society 2020 International Conference, which will now run virtually in August.

For starters, the target population needs more scrutiny. Research has shown that, outside of clinical trials, the harms of screening can sometimes outweigh the benefits.

In 2018, the rate of overdiagnosis was shown to be 67.2% in the Danish Lung Cancer Screening Trial (DLCST).

And 56% of people screened with low-dose CT had false-positive results that required follow-up testing and procedures, according to a 2017 study of current and former heavy smokers. That rate is more than double the 18.5% false-positive rate in NLST.

“Only 20% of NLST participants were over age 65,” Dr. Gould said. “The NELSON cohort was younger.”

And although the USPSTF recommends lung screening in high-risk people, “there were some in the NLST cohort whose risk was not particularly high.” Others in the trial, he said, had a high risk, but some of those had one or more comorbid conditions, “so the risk was unbalanced.

“Risk is more complicated than simply saying that anyone who meets the NLST criteria should get scanned,” he added.

Weighing risks and benefits needs to be done on a patient-by-patient basis, Dr. Gould said. “Do they have the ability to tolerate surgery? What’s important to them? We can’t just say, ‘you have a 30-pack-year history, go get a test’.”

Often, he said, it’s the people who have the most to gain from screening who are also at highest risk from biopsies and surgical and nonsurgical treatments because of comorbidities.

The NLST population might also have cast a wider net for those eligible for screening; NELSON had a lower threshold for amount smoked (30 vs. 15 pack-years). “NLST points to scanning a bigger population and lighter smokers,” Dr. Gould said.
 

Psychological risks of screening

Neither the NLST nor NELSON reported relevant psychological aspects of harm from CT screening for lung cancer, two researchers reported in a letter responding to the NELSON findings.

The trial-participation request letters, which were sent to 606,409 people in the general population, “in order to identify 15,792 persons (2.6%) who were eligible to participate, may have caused fear,” wrote Jes Lindholt, MD, DMSc, and Rikke Søgaard, PhD, from Odense University Hospital in Denmark.

“That raises the question: Do people want to be screened? I can’t understand why the US and Britain consider it so definitive to start a screening program,” Dr. Lindholt said in an interview.

In addition to a psychological cost, he questioned the financial cost-benefit ratio of a screening program. “What strikes me is that they haven’t done any cost analysis on any of these randomized trials.”

“Of the 203 men who got the diagnosis of lung cancer, 160 (78.8%) died from lung cancer. Whether screening actually improved or prolonged their remaining lifetime should be considered,” Dr. Lindholt and Dr. Søgaard wrote.
 

Challenges of implementation

Despite the extensive trials, there are still questions about how to implement screening in the real world. “Did NLST select patients who were, on average, healthier and less likely to have complications?” Dr. Gould asked.

Everyday practice might not find the same favorable outcomes as NLST. “Can the results of the NTLST be replicated in real-world settings? Not yet,” he said. Hospitals and health systems are struggling to implement screening.

Follow-up and tracking are not where they should be. General practitioners don’t have the same resources as the NLST researchers had, he explained. They were able to remind patients to come back for another test and call them with the results, all under the umbrella of implementation, “and they’re still not on target.”

Getting people scanned is key, said Michael Barry, MD, from Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, who is a current member of the USPSTF and is working on new lung cancer screening recommendations to be published this summer.

“We have an implementation problem,” he said. “The heavier smokers are being way underscreened.”

People need to have more information to review the pros and cons of screening, Dr. Barry said. “We’ve got large trials that show that benefits outweigh the harms, but we could benefit from implementation research. This is an issue for many screening tasks.”

Eight million Americans meet the eligibility requirements for lung cancer screening with low-dose CT, according to a 2019 report from the American College of Radiology.

Screening tests are covered by Medicare, but getting people to the clinic has not been easy. In 2018, Saved by the Scan, a big-budget national advertising campaign launched by the ALA, featured ex-smokers who survived lung cancer because of early detection with a low-dose CT scan, as reported by Medscape Medical News.

And many people being scanned are not part of the USPSTF target group. In 2017, lung cancer screening was reported “by 12.5% of smokers who met USPSTF criteria and 7.9% of smokers aged 55-80 years who did not meet USPSTF criteria,” according to a recent analysis of data from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System published by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The CDC report concludes that some people are being screened without needing screening, and that “avoidance of screening inconsistent with USPSTF criteria could reduce the potential for harms such as overdiagnosis and overtreatment.”

Dr. Gould said he agrees that this factor needs to be looked at. “There is underutilization in those who need screening, and maybe overscreening in those who aren’t at risk.”

There are also epidemiologic data that show that black Americans are at higher risk at a younger age for the same level of smoking. “So should there be a lower threshold for smoking and lower age, particularly in the African American population?” Dr. Gould asked.

The NELSON trial had significant results in a population younger than that in NLST, he pointed out. “That needs to be considered.”
 

Smokers dismiss medical advice

People in the high-risk group need to better understand the benefits of screening, said Christine D. Berg, MD, an NLST researcher from the National Cancer Institute.

“We know the uptake of lung cancer screening has been slow,” she said.

She described encouraging her neighbor, a heavy smoker, to get screened. “But she said she didn’t want to know if she had lung cancer, so she didn’t go.”

“Now she’s dead,” Dr. Berg continued. Unfortunately, “what we see is that those who continue to smoke, and smoke heavily, are not likely to heed medical advice.”

The fear of finding out you have lung cancer needs to be overcome, she said. Smokers need to understand that they can add a decade to their lives if lung cancer is detected early.

Some places in the United States have better screening rates than others. “We see a lot of variation from state to state,” she said. For instance, in Massachusetts, 12.3% of high-risk people have been screened; in Nevada, the rate is just 0.5%.

There are many reasons for that. First, there are logistics. Screening covered by Medicare must be done in a certified center “with good equipment and that can track results,” Dr. Berg said. That might be one hurdle. But the greater hurdle is the patients themselves.

There are studies that point to risks associated with invasive procedures, such as biopsy after screening, which can lead to complications, even when no cancer is found. “My answer to that is, if you need a biopsy, check the data. The Society of Thoracic Surgeons has a database of all the complications, and it’s publicly accessible. You can find hospitals in your region that report data,” she explained, and “that have highest volume and lowest complication rates.”

Second, imaging has improved since the NLST trial. “We have a better ability to estimate cancer in the nodules we find,” Dr. Berg explained. Nodules that previously needed a biopsy to confirm malignancy can now be assessed with AI and machine learning.

“I think the probability of false positives and problems from biopsy have changed dramatically over the last 10 years,” she said.

And we are catching more lung cancer earlier and saving lives. Overall, early detection is increasing, and late-stage detection is decreasing. “We’re bending the curve, making progress,” she said.

In 2019, the 5-year survival rate for lung cancer was 21.7%, up from 17.2% a decade earlier, according to the ALA. Much of that is because of early diagnosis, when the disease is still curable, which could be related to increased screening.

“NELSON showed benefit to CT screening and is useful in helping convince some of the skeptics,” Dr. Berg said.

Diagnosis is also improving with new technologies. Electronic health records can be scanned to identify patients at increased risk, and patient portals can send reminders, notifications, and other educational information to encourage patients to discuss options with their doctor, which could improve the national lung cancer prognosis, Dr. Gould said.

At the end of the day, it still comes down to the patient and doctor having a conversation about the risks and benefits.

“But we have to get to that point,” Dr. Gould said. “We need to continue to develop tools to facilitate that conversation. It’s complicated, and there’s a lot of information to weigh.”

“We’re still working out how to do that,” he added.

Dr. Barry, Dr. Gould, and Dr. Berg have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.