Though lobectomy is the long-held standard of care for people with early stage non–small cell lung cancer, a noninferiority study shows little difference in perioperative morbidity and mortality outcomes when sublobar resections are performed instead.

The study, published online in The Lancet Respiratory Medicine, compared results from 697 functionally and physically fit patients with stage I cancer randomized over a 10-year period to lobar resection (n = 357) or sublobar resection (n = 340). Patients were analyzed for morbidity and mortality outcomes at 30 and 90 days post surgery. Nasser K. Altorki, MD, of Weill Cornell Medicine–New York Presbyterian Hospital, led the study as a post hoc, exploratory analysis of CALGB/Alliance 140503, a multinational phase 3 trial whose primary outcome – still pending – is disease-free survival associated with the two different surgeries.

Dr. Altorki and his colleagues found 30- and 90-day survival to be comparable between surgery types. At 30 days, six patients in the study had died; four in the lobar resection group and two in the sublobar group (1.1% and 0.6%). At 90 days, 10 patients had died, or 1.4% of the cohort; 6 following lobar resection and 4 following sublobar resection. The between-group difference at 30 days was 0.5% (95% confidence interval, –1.1 to 2.3) and at 90 days remained 0.5% (95% CI, –1.5 to 2.6).

Similar rates of serious (grade 3 or worse) adverse advents were seen between surgery groups at 15% and 14%, respectively, and no differences were seen for cardiac or pulmonary complications. In the study, the type of sublobar approach was left to the surgeon’s discretion, and a majority of the sublobar procedures (59%) were found to comprise wedge resections, with the rest segmentectomies. Dr. Altorki and colleagues noted the high rate of wedge resections as striking, because “conventional wisdom … holds that an anatomical segmentectomy, involving individual ligation of segmental vessels and bronchi and wider parenchymal resection, is oncologically superior to nonanatomical wedge resections.” In their analysis the researchers conceded that a three-arm trial allocating patients to lobectomy, segmentectomy, or wedge resection “would have answered more precisely the posited research question,” but said that the sample size needed would have been too large.

The study was funded by the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Altorki reported a research grant from AstraZeneca unrelated to the study; two more coauthors disclosed funding from pharmaceutical or device manufacturers, and an additional 17 coauthors listed no competing interests.

SOURCE: Altorki NK et al. Lancet Respir Med. 2018 Nov 12. doi: 10.1016/S2213-2600(18)30411-9 .

Though lobectomy is the long-held standard of care for people with early stage non–small cell lung cancer, a noninferiority study shows little difference in perioperative morbidity and mortality outcomes when sublobar resections are performed instead.

The study, published online in The Lancet Respiratory Medicine, compared results from 697 functionally and physically fit patients with stage I cancer randomized over a 10-year period to lobar resection (n = 357) or sublobar resection (n = 340). Patients were analyzed for morbidity and mortality outcomes at 30 and 90 days post surgery. Nasser K. Altorki, MD, of Weill Cornell Medicine–New York Presbyterian Hospital, led the study as a post hoc, exploratory analysis of CALGB/Alliance 140503, a multinational phase 3 trial whose primary outcome – still pending – is disease-free survival associated with the two different surgeries.

Dr. Altorki and his colleagues found 30- and 90-day survival to be comparable between surgery types. At 30 days, six patients in the study had died; four in the lobar resection group and two in the sublobar group (1.1% and 0.6%). At 90 days, 10 patients had died, or 1.4% of the cohort; 6 following lobar resection and 4 following sublobar resection. The between-group difference at 30 days was 0.5% (95% confidence interval, –1.1 to 2.3) and at 90 days remained 0.5% (95% CI, –1.5 to 2.6).

Similar rates of serious (grade 3 or worse) adverse advents were seen between surgery groups at 15% and 14%, respectively, and no differences were seen for cardiac or pulmonary complications. In the study, the type of sublobar approach was left to the surgeon’s discretion, and a majority of the sublobar procedures (59%) were found to comprise wedge resections, with the rest segmentectomies. Dr. Altorki and colleagues noted the high rate of wedge resections as striking, because “conventional wisdom … holds that an anatomical segmentectomy, involving individual ligation of segmental vessels and bronchi and wider parenchymal resection, is oncologically superior to nonanatomical wedge resections.” In their analysis the researchers conceded that a three-arm trial allocating patients to lobectomy, segmentectomy, or wedge resection “would have answered more precisely the posited research question,” but said that the sample size needed would have been too large.

The study was funded by the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Altorki reported a research grant from AstraZeneca unrelated to the study; two more coauthors disclosed funding from pharmaceutical or device manufacturers, and an additional 17 coauthors listed no competing interests.

SOURCE: Altorki NK et al. Lancet Respir Med. 2018 Nov 12. doi: 10.1016/S2213-2600(18)30411-9 .

Though lobectomy is the long-held standard of care for people with early stage non–small cell lung cancer, a noninferiority study shows little difference in perioperative morbidity and mortality outcomes when sublobar resections are performed instead.

The study, published online in The Lancet Respiratory Medicine, compared results from 697 functionally and physically fit patients with stage I cancer randomized over a 10-year period to lobar resection (n = 357) or sublobar resection (n = 340). Patients were analyzed for morbidity and mortality outcomes at 30 and 90 days post surgery. Nasser K. Altorki, MD, of Weill Cornell Medicine–New York Presbyterian Hospital, led the study as a post hoc, exploratory analysis of CALGB/Alliance 140503, a multinational phase 3 trial whose primary outcome – still pending – is disease-free survival associated with the two different surgeries.

Dr. Altorki and his colleagues found 30- and 90-day survival to be comparable between surgery types. At 30 days, six patients in the study had died; four in the lobar resection group and two in the sublobar group (1.1% and 0.6%). At 90 days, 10 patients had died, or 1.4% of the cohort; 6 following lobar resection and 4 following sublobar resection. The between-group difference at 30 days was 0.5% (95% confidence interval, –1.1 to 2.3) and at 90 days remained 0.5% (95% CI, –1.5 to 2.6).

Similar rates of serious (grade 3 or worse) adverse advents were seen between surgery groups at 15% and 14%, respectively, and no differences were seen for cardiac or pulmonary complications. In the study, the type of sublobar approach was left to the surgeon’s discretion, and a majority of the sublobar procedures (59%) were found to comprise wedge resections, with the rest segmentectomies. Dr. Altorki and colleagues noted the high rate of wedge resections as striking, because “conventional wisdom … holds that an anatomical segmentectomy, involving individual ligation of segmental vessels and bronchi and wider parenchymal resection, is oncologically superior to nonanatomical wedge resections.” In their analysis the researchers conceded that a three-arm trial allocating patients to lobectomy, segmentectomy, or wedge resection “would have answered more precisely the posited research question,” but said that the sample size needed would have been too large.

The study was funded by the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Altorki reported a research grant from AstraZeneca unrelated to the study; two more coauthors disclosed funding from pharmaceutical or device manufacturers, and an additional 17 coauthors listed no competing interests.

SOURCE: Altorki NK et al. Lancet Respir Med. 2018 Nov 12. doi: 10.1016/S2213-2600(18)30411-9 .

The Food and Drug Administration has approved atezolizumab (Tecentriq) in combination with bevacizumab, paclitaxel, and carboplatin for the first-line treatment of patients with metastatic non-squamous, non-small cell lung cancer (NSq NSCLC) with no EGFR or ALK genomic tumor aberrations.

Approval was based on greater overall survival (OS) among patients receiving the four drug combination, compared with patients who did not receive the checkpoint inhibitor but received the other three drugs in the randomized IMpower150 trial.

For the trial, 1,202 patients with metastatic NSq NSCLC were randomized to three arms for first-line treatment:

• atezolizumab, carboplatin, paclitaxel, and bevacizumab (4-drug regimen);

• atezolizumab, carboplatin and paclitaxel (3-drug regimen); or

• carboplatin, paclitaxel, and bevacizumab (control arm).

Among patients with NSq NSCLC without an EGFR or ALK mutation (87%), the estimated median OS was 19.2 months for patients receiving the 4-drug regimen and 14.7 months for those in the control arm (hazard ratio [HR] 0.78; 95% CI: 0.64, 0.96; P = .016), the FDA said in a press statement announcing the approval.

The median progression-free survival was 8.5 months for patients receiving the 4-drug regimen and 7.0 months for those in the control arm (HR 0.71; 95% CI 0.59, 0.85; P = .0002). The overall response rates were 55% in the 4-drug arm and 42% in the control arm. There were no significant differences in OS or final progression-free survival between the 3-drug arm containing atezolizumab and the control arm.

The most common adverse reactions with atezolizumab were fatigue/asthenia, alopecia, nausea, diarrhea, constipation, decreased appetite, arthralgia, hypertension, and neuropathy. Treatment with atezolizumab was discontinued in 15% of patients due to adverse reactions, the most common reason being pneumonitis.

The recommended atezolizumab dose is 1,200 mg intravenously over 60 minutes every 3 weeks, the FDA said.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved atezolizumab (Tecentriq) in combination with bevacizumab, paclitaxel, and carboplatin for the first-line treatment of patients with metastatic non-squamous, non-small cell lung cancer (NSq NSCLC) with no EGFR or ALK genomic tumor aberrations.

Approval was based on greater overall survival (OS) among patients receiving the four drug combination, compared with patients who did not receive the checkpoint inhibitor but received the other three drugs in the randomized IMpower150 trial.

For the trial, 1,202 patients with metastatic NSq NSCLC were randomized to three arms for first-line treatment:

• atezolizumab, carboplatin, paclitaxel, and bevacizumab (4-drug regimen);

• atezolizumab, carboplatin and paclitaxel (3-drug regimen); or

• carboplatin, paclitaxel, and bevacizumab (control arm).

Among patients with NSq NSCLC without an EGFR or ALK mutation (87%), the estimated median OS was 19.2 months for patients receiving the 4-drug regimen and 14.7 months for those in the control arm (hazard ratio [HR] 0.78; 95% CI: 0.64, 0.96; P = .016), the FDA said in a press statement announcing the approval.

The median progression-free survival was 8.5 months for patients receiving the 4-drug regimen and 7.0 months for those in the control arm (HR 0.71; 95% CI 0.59, 0.85; P = .0002). The overall response rates were 55% in the 4-drug arm and 42% in the control arm. There were no significant differences in OS or final progression-free survival between the 3-drug arm containing atezolizumab and the control arm.

The most common adverse reactions with atezolizumab were fatigue/asthenia, alopecia, nausea, diarrhea, constipation, decreased appetite, arthralgia, hypertension, and neuropathy. Treatment with atezolizumab was discontinued in 15% of patients due to adverse reactions, the most common reason being pneumonitis.

The recommended atezolizumab dose is 1,200 mg intravenously over 60 minutes every 3 weeks, the FDA said.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved atezolizumab (Tecentriq) in combination with bevacizumab, paclitaxel, and carboplatin for the first-line treatment of patients with metastatic non-squamous, non-small cell lung cancer (NSq NSCLC) with no EGFR or ALK genomic tumor aberrations.

Approval was based on greater overall survival (OS) among patients receiving the four drug combination, compared with patients who did not receive the checkpoint inhibitor but received the other three drugs in the randomized IMpower150 trial.

For the trial, 1,202 patients with metastatic NSq NSCLC were randomized to three arms for first-line treatment:

• atezolizumab, carboplatin, paclitaxel, and bevacizumab (4-drug regimen);

• atezolizumab, carboplatin and paclitaxel (3-drug regimen); or

• carboplatin, paclitaxel, and bevacizumab (control arm).

Among patients with NSq NSCLC without an EGFR or ALK mutation (87%), the estimated median OS was 19.2 months for patients receiving the 4-drug regimen and 14.7 months for those in the control arm (hazard ratio [HR] 0.78; 95% CI: 0.64, 0.96; P = .016), the FDA said in a press statement announcing the approval.

The median progression-free survival was 8.5 months for patients receiving the 4-drug regimen and 7.0 months for those in the control arm (HR 0.71; 95% CI 0.59, 0.85; P = .0002). The overall response rates were 55% in the 4-drug arm and 42% in the control arm. There were no significant differences in OS or final progression-free survival between the 3-drug arm containing atezolizumab and the control arm.

The most common adverse reactions with atezolizumab were fatigue/asthenia, alopecia, nausea, diarrhea, constipation, decreased appetite, arthralgia, hypertension, and neuropathy. Treatment with atezolizumab was discontinued in 15% of patients due to adverse reactions, the most common reason being pneumonitis.

The recommended atezolizumab dose is 1,200 mg intravenously over 60 minutes every 3 weeks, the FDA said.

SAN ANTONIO – Extending treatment with adjuvant anastrozole (Arimidex) to 10 years led to significantly higher rates of disease-free and distant disease-free survival in postmenopausal women with hormone receptor–positive breast cancer in the prospective, randomized, open-label phase 3 Arimidex Extended Adjuvant Randomized Study (AERAS).

After a median of 4.9 years of follow-up, the primary endpoint of disease-free survival (DFS) was 91.9% in 840 women who were randomized to continue receiving anastrozole for an additional 5 years versus 84.4% in 843 who stopped after the initial 5 years (hazard ratio, 0.548; P = .0004), Shoichiro Ohtani, MD, reported at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium.

The rate of 5-year distant DFS was 97.2% vs. 94.3% in the groups, respectively (HR, 0.514; P = .0077), said Dr. Ohtani, of Hiroshima City (Japan) Hiroshima Citizens Hospital.

“As we expected, there was no difference between the two groups in overall survival,” he said; overall survival was 99.5% and 99.6% in the groups, respectively (HR, 1.389; P = .665).

Study subjects were postmenopausal patients with stages I-III hormone receptor-positive breast cancer (HR+ BC) with a median age of 64 years who were disease-free after 5 years of either anastrozole alone or tamoxifen for 2-3 years followed by anastrozole 2-3 years. They were enrolled between November 2007 and November 2012.

Treatment with an aromatase inhibitor such as anastrozole for up to 5 years either as up-front monotherapy or after 2-3 years of tamoxifen therapy is the treatment of choice for HR+ BC in postmenopausal women, but it was thought that extending aromatase inhibitor therapy to 10 years might reduce the risk of breast cancer recurrence, Dr. Ohtani explained.

Indeed, while women randomized to extended anastrozole treatment in the current study experienced more bone-related adverse events, including arthralgia (19.2% vs. 11.7%), stiff joints (11.7% vs. 4.9%), bone fractures (2.8% vs. 1.1%), and new-onset osteoporosis (33% vs. 28%) than did those in the group that stopped anastrozole at 5 years, extended treatment significantly reduced recurrence rates.

The findings show that extended adjuvant anastrozole treatment for an additional 5 years after initial treatment is safe and provides important DFS and distant DFS benefits, he concluded.

Dr. Ohtani has received speaker fees from CHUGAI, Astra Zeneca, Novartis,and Ezai.

SOURCE: Ohtani S et al. SABCS 2018, Abstract GS3-04.

SAN ANTONIO – Extending treatment with adjuvant anastrozole (Arimidex) to 10 years led to significantly higher rates of disease-free and distant disease-free survival in postmenopausal women with hormone receptor–positive breast cancer in the prospective, randomized, open-label phase 3 Arimidex Extended Adjuvant Randomized Study (AERAS).

After a median of 4.9 years of follow-up, the primary endpoint of disease-free survival (DFS) was 91.9% in 840 women who were randomized to continue receiving anastrozole for an additional 5 years versus 84.4% in 843 who stopped after the initial 5 years (hazard ratio, 0.548; P = .0004), Shoichiro Ohtani, MD, reported at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium.

The rate of 5-year distant DFS was 97.2% vs. 94.3% in the groups, respectively (HR, 0.514; P = .0077), said Dr. Ohtani, of Hiroshima City (Japan) Hiroshima Citizens Hospital.

“As we expected, there was no difference between the two groups in overall survival,” he said; overall survival was 99.5% and 99.6% in the groups, respectively (HR, 1.389; P = .665).

Study subjects were postmenopausal patients with stages I-III hormone receptor-positive breast cancer (HR+ BC) with a median age of 64 years who were disease-free after 5 years of either anastrozole alone or tamoxifen for 2-3 years followed by anastrozole 2-3 years. They were enrolled between November 2007 and November 2012.

Treatment with an aromatase inhibitor such as anastrozole for up to 5 years either as up-front monotherapy or after 2-3 years of tamoxifen therapy is the treatment of choice for HR+ BC in postmenopausal women, but it was thought that extending aromatase inhibitor therapy to 10 years might reduce the risk of breast cancer recurrence, Dr. Ohtani explained.

Indeed, while women randomized to extended anastrozole treatment in the current study experienced more bone-related adverse events, including arthralgia (19.2% vs. 11.7%), stiff joints (11.7% vs. 4.9%), bone fractures (2.8% vs. 1.1%), and new-onset osteoporosis (33% vs. 28%) than did those in the group that stopped anastrozole at 5 years, extended treatment significantly reduced recurrence rates.

The findings show that extended adjuvant anastrozole treatment for an additional 5 years after initial treatment is safe and provides important DFS and distant DFS benefits, he concluded.

Dr. Ohtani has received speaker fees from CHUGAI, Astra Zeneca, Novartis,and Ezai.

SOURCE: Ohtani S et al. SABCS 2018, Abstract GS3-04.

SAN ANTONIO – Extending treatment with adjuvant anastrozole (Arimidex) to 10 years led to significantly higher rates of disease-free and distant disease-free survival in postmenopausal women with hormone receptor–positive breast cancer in the prospective, randomized, open-label phase 3 Arimidex Extended Adjuvant Randomized Study (AERAS).

After a median of 4.9 years of follow-up, the primary endpoint of disease-free survival (DFS) was 91.9% in 840 women who were randomized to continue receiving anastrozole for an additional 5 years versus 84.4% in 843 who stopped after the initial 5 years (hazard ratio, 0.548; P = .0004), Shoichiro Ohtani, MD, reported at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium.

The rate of 5-year distant DFS was 97.2% vs. 94.3% in the groups, respectively (HR, 0.514; P = .0077), said Dr. Ohtani, of Hiroshima City (Japan) Hiroshima Citizens Hospital.

“As we expected, there was no difference between the two groups in overall survival,” he said; overall survival was 99.5% and 99.6% in the groups, respectively (HR, 1.389; P = .665).

Study subjects were postmenopausal patients with stages I-III hormone receptor-positive breast cancer (HR+ BC) with a median age of 64 years who were disease-free after 5 years of either anastrozole alone or tamoxifen for 2-3 years followed by anastrozole 2-3 years. They were enrolled between November 2007 and November 2012.

Treatment with an aromatase inhibitor such as anastrozole for up to 5 years either as up-front monotherapy or after 2-3 years of tamoxifen therapy is the treatment of choice for HR+ BC in postmenopausal women, but it was thought that extending aromatase inhibitor therapy to 10 years might reduce the risk of breast cancer recurrence, Dr. Ohtani explained.

Indeed, while women randomized to extended anastrozole treatment in the current study experienced more bone-related adverse events, including arthralgia (19.2% vs. 11.7%), stiff joints (11.7% vs. 4.9%), bone fractures (2.8% vs. 1.1%), and new-onset osteoporosis (33% vs. 28%) than did those in the group that stopped anastrozole at 5 years, extended treatment significantly reduced recurrence rates.

The findings show that extended adjuvant anastrozole treatment for an additional 5 years after initial treatment is safe and provides important DFS and distant DFS benefits, he concluded.

Dr. Ohtani has received speaker fees from CHUGAI, Astra Zeneca, Novartis,and Ezai.

SOURCE: Ohtani S et al. SABCS 2018, Abstract GS3-04.

SAN ANTONIO – Good old tamoxifen, there’s life in the old girl yet: A 3-year course of low-dose tamoxifen – one-fourth of the standard dose – reduced the risk of breast intraepithelial neoplasia (IEN) recurrence by half, compared with placebo.

And although the patient numbers were relatively small, tamoxifen at 5 mg/day also reduced the risk of contralateral breast cancer by 75%, results of the TAM01 study showed.

Among 500 patients with either atypical ductal hyperplasia (ADH), ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), or lobular carcinoma in situ (LCIS) randomized either to tamoxifen 5 mg/day for 3 years or placebo, there were 28 cases of either invasive breast cancer or recurrent DCIS in patients after a median follow-up of 5.1 years for patients assigned to placebo, compared with 14 events for patients assigned to tamoxifen, translating into a hazard ratio of 0.48 (P = .024), reported Andrea De Censi, MD, from Ospidali Galliera in Genoa, Italy, at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium.

“We think our results have external validity because of the pragmatic nature of the study and the easy accessibility of the drug, and so they are generalizable,” he said, adding that “our findings are applicable in clinical practice from tomorrow [on].”

Despite concerns about the known carcinogenic and cardiovascular side effects of tamoxifen, there were no significant differences in either the rate of endometrial cancer or of deep vein thrombosis (DVT)/pulmonary embolism between the groups, and there was only a borderline increase in hot flashes among patients randomized to tamoxifen.

IEN accounts for approximately 15%-25% of all breast neoplasms. Although tamoxifen has a long track record of efficacy in prevention of recurrence, its side effects, including increased risk of endometrial cancer and thrombotic events as well as menopausal-type symptoms, have dissuaded some clinicians from prescribing it and scared some patients away from taking it.

Dr. De Censi and his colleagues conducted a phase 3 trial comparing tamoxifen 5 mg daily with placebo in 500 women with hormone-sensitive breast IEN following surgery. Women with grade 3 disease, positive margins, or comedo/necrosis DCIS received radiotherapy.

The patients were followed every 6 months, and had annual mammograms for at least 5 years after randomization.

As noted before, after 5.1 years median follow-up the primary endpoint of invasive breast cancer or DCIS had occurred in 28 patients on placebo versus 14 on tamoxifen, for an HR of 0.48. The respective incidences of contralateral breast cancer were 12 and 3, translating into a HR for tamoxifen at 0.24 (P = .018).

There were no statistically significant differences in serious adverse events between groups, including endometrial cancer (one in the tamoxifen group vs. one in the placebo group), DVT/PE (one in each group), other neoplasms (four vs. six cases, respectively), coronary heart disease (two cases each), other nonfatal events (three vs. five), or deaths (one vs. two).

“If we compare these findings with the NSABP-P1 prevention trial with a dose of 20 mg per day we would expect 2.7 endometrial cancers on tamoxifen, and 2.4 DVT or pulmonary emboli,” Dr. De Censi said in a briefing prior to his presentation of the data in a general session.

Patient-reported daily hot flashes occurred slightly but significantly more often with tamoxifen (P = .05). But when the frequency of reported hot flashes was multiplied by the intensity, the difference between the arms was not significant.

There were no significant differences between the groups for the patient-reported outcomes of vaginal dryness or pain at intercourse, or of musculoskeletal pain/arthralgia. Treatment adherence over 3 years did not differ between the groups.

Dr. De Censi noted that because 5 mg tablets of tamoxifen are not currently available, investigators recommend either cutting 10 mg tablets in half or taking the 10-mg dose every other day.

Virginia Kaklamani, MD, leader of the breast cancer program at the University of Texas, San Antonio, who moderated the briefing, commented that the study provides valuable information about the dosing of this time-tested drug.

“When you look at drug development, in many cases we rush these drugs out and we don’t pay attention to the dose that’s needed – we pay attention to the dose that’s not very toxic, and so many of the drugs that we use we end up using them at higher doses than we need to use them,” she said.

“A drug doesn’t work if you don’t take it, and so if you can find ways to take the drug, like in giving it at lower doses, then these women are going to benefit,” Dr. Kaklamani added.

She said that based on these data she would “definitely” give patients with ADH and LCIS lower doses of tamoxifen, and while she wants to see more data on DCIS patients with further follow-up, “if I have a DCIS patient who’s not tolerating tamoxifen at the 20 mg dose, I’d be extremely happy lowering to 5 mg.”

Sandhya Pruthi, MD, from the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, who was not involved in the study, said in an interview that, while she was impressed by both the reduction in risk and the favorable side effect profile, the patient sample was too small to draw firm conclusions.

“Could I go back to the clinic and tell all my patients who are taking 20 mg of tamoxifen that you can now cut your dose in half to 10 mg or even to the 5-mg dose based on this trial? That would I think be a little premature,” she said.

“Where I would like to go with this is that we do a larger trial – a randomized, controlled trial,” Dr. Pruthi added.

The TAM01 study was supported by the Italian Ministry of Health, Italian Association for Cancer Research, and the Italian League Against Cancer. Dr. De Censi and his coauthors reported having no direct conflicts of interest. Dr. Kaklamani and Dr. Pruthi reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: De Censi A et al. SABCS 2018, Abstract GS3-01.

SAN ANTONIO – Good old tamoxifen, there’s life in the old girl yet: A 3-year course of low-dose tamoxifen – one-fourth of the standard dose – reduced the risk of breast intraepithelial neoplasia (IEN) recurrence by half, compared with placebo.

And although the patient numbers were relatively small, tamoxifen at 5 mg/day also reduced the risk of contralateral breast cancer by 75%, results of the TAM01 study showed.

Among 500 patients with either atypical ductal hyperplasia (ADH), ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), or lobular carcinoma in situ (LCIS) randomized either to tamoxifen 5 mg/day for 3 years or placebo, there were 28 cases of either invasive breast cancer or recurrent DCIS in patients after a median follow-up of 5.1 years for patients assigned to placebo, compared with 14 events for patients assigned to tamoxifen, translating into a hazard ratio of 0.48 (P = .024), reported Andrea De Censi, MD, from Ospidali Galliera in Genoa, Italy, at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium.

“We think our results have external validity because of the pragmatic nature of the study and the easy accessibility of the drug, and so they are generalizable,” he said, adding that “our findings are applicable in clinical practice from tomorrow [on].”

Despite concerns about the known carcinogenic and cardiovascular side effects of tamoxifen, there were no significant differences in either the rate of endometrial cancer or of deep vein thrombosis (DVT)/pulmonary embolism between the groups, and there was only a borderline increase in hot flashes among patients randomized to tamoxifen.

IEN accounts for approximately 15%-25% of all breast neoplasms. Although tamoxifen has a long track record of efficacy in prevention of recurrence, its side effects, including increased risk of endometrial cancer and thrombotic events as well as menopausal-type symptoms, have dissuaded some clinicians from prescribing it and scared some patients away from taking it.

Dr. De Censi and his colleagues conducted a phase 3 trial comparing tamoxifen 5 mg daily with placebo in 500 women with hormone-sensitive breast IEN following surgery. Women with grade 3 disease, positive margins, or comedo/necrosis DCIS received radiotherapy.

The patients were followed every 6 months, and had annual mammograms for at least 5 years after randomization.

As noted before, after 5.1 years median follow-up the primary endpoint of invasive breast cancer or DCIS had occurred in 28 patients on placebo versus 14 on tamoxifen, for an HR of 0.48. The respective incidences of contralateral breast cancer were 12 and 3, translating into a HR for tamoxifen at 0.24 (P = .018).

There were no statistically significant differences in serious adverse events between groups, including endometrial cancer (one in the tamoxifen group vs. one in the placebo group), DVT/PE (one in each group), other neoplasms (four vs. six cases, respectively), coronary heart disease (two cases each), other nonfatal events (three vs. five), or deaths (one vs. two).

“If we compare these findings with the NSABP-P1 prevention trial with a dose of 20 mg per day we would expect 2.7 endometrial cancers on tamoxifen, and 2.4 DVT or pulmonary emboli,” Dr. De Censi said in a briefing prior to his presentation of the data in a general session.

Patient-reported daily hot flashes occurred slightly but significantly more often with tamoxifen (P = .05). But when the frequency of reported hot flashes was multiplied by the intensity, the difference between the arms was not significant.

There were no significant differences between the groups for the patient-reported outcomes of vaginal dryness or pain at intercourse, or of musculoskeletal pain/arthralgia. Treatment adherence over 3 years did not differ between the groups.

Dr. De Censi noted that because 5 mg tablets of tamoxifen are not currently available, investigators recommend either cutting 10 mg tablets in half or taking the 10-mg dose every other day.

Virginia Kaklamani, MD, leader of the breast cancer program at the University of Texas, San Antonio, who moderated the briefing, commented that the study provides valuable information about the dosing of this time-tested drug.

“When you look at drug development, in many cases we rush these drugs out and we don’t pay attention to the dose that’s needed – we pay attention to the dose that’s not very toxic, and so many of the drugs that we use we end up using them at higher doses than we need to use them,” she said.

“A drug doesn’t work if you don’t take it, and so if you can find ways to take the drug, like in giving it at lower doses, then these women are going to benefit,” Dr. Kaklamani added.

She said that based on these data she would “definitely” give patients with ADH and LCIS lower doses of tamoxifen, and while she wants to see more data on DCIS patients with further follow-up, “if I have a DCIS patient who’s not tolerating tamoxifen at the 20 mg dose, I’d be extremely happy lowering to 5 mg.”

Sandhya Pruthi, MD, from the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, who was not involved in the study, said in an interview that, while she was impressed by both the reduction in risk and the favorable side effect profile, the patient sample was too small to draw firm conclusions.

“Could I go back to the clinic and tell all my patients who are taking 20 mg of tamoxifen that you can now cut your dose in half to 10 mg or even to the 5-mg dose based on this trial? That would I think be a little premature,” she said.

“Where I would like to go with this is that we do a larger trial – a randomized, controlled trial,” Dr. Pruthi added.

The TAM01 study was supported by the Italian Ministry of Health, Italian Association for Cancer Research, and the Italian League Against Cancer. Dr. De Censi and his coauthors reported having no direct conflicts of interest. Dr. Kaklamani and Dr. Pruthi reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: De Censi A et al. SABCS 2018, Abstract GS3-01.

SAN ANTONIO – Good old tamoxifen, there’s life in the old girl yet: A 3-year course of low-dose tamoxifen – one-fourth of the standard dose – reduced the risk of breast intraepithelial neoplasia (IEN) recurrence by half, compared with placebo.

And although the patient numbers were relatively small, tamoxifen at 5 mg/day also reduced the risk of contralateral breast cancer by 75%, results of the TAM01 study showed.

Among 500 patients with either atypical ductal hyperplasia (ADH), ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), or lobular carcinoma in situ (LCIS) randomized either to tamoxifen 5 mg/day for 3 years or placebo, there were 28 cases of either invasive breast cancer or recurrent DCIS in patients after a median follow-up of 5.1 years for patients assigned to placebo, compared with 14 events for patients assigned to tamoxifen, translating into a hazard ratio of 0.48 (P = .024), reported Andrea De Censi, MD, from Ospidali Galliera in Genoa, Italy, at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium.

“We think our results have external validity because of the pragmatic nature of the study and the easy accessibility of the drug, and so they are generalizable,” he said, adding that “our findings are applicable in clinical practice from tomorrow [on].”

Despite concerns about the known carcinogenic and cardiovascular side effects of tamoxifen, there were no significant differences in either the rate of endometrial cancer or of deep vein thrombosis (DVT)/pulmonary embolism between the groups, and there was only a borderline increase in hot flashes among patients randomized to tamoxifen.

IEN accounts for approximately 15%-25% of all breast neoplasms. Although tamoxifen has a long track record of efficacy in prevention of recurrence, its side effects, including increased risk of endometrial cancer and thrombotic events as well as menopausal-type symptoms, have dissuaded some clinicians from prescribing it and scared some patients away from taking it.

Dr. De Censi and his colleagues conducted a phase 3 trial comparing tamoxifen 5 mg daily with placebo in 500 women with hormone-sensitive breast IEN following surgery. Women with grade 3 disease, positive margins, or comedo/necrosis DCIS received radiotherapy.

The patients were followed every 6 months, and had annual mammograms for at least 5 years after randomization.

As noted before, after 5.1 years median follow-up the primary endpoint of invasive breast cancer or DCIS had occurred in 28 patients on placebo versus 14 on tamoxifen, for an HR of 0.48. The respective incidences of contralateral breast cancer were 12 and 3, translating into a HR for tamoxifen at 0.24 (P = .018).

There were no statistically significant differences in serious adverse events between groups, including endometrial cancer (one in the tamoxifen group vs. one in the placebo group), DVT/PE (one in each group), other neoplasms (four vs. six cases, respectively), coronary heart disease (two cases each), other nonfatal events (three vs. five), or deaths (one vs. two).

“If we compare these findings with the NSABP-P1 prevention trial with a dose of 20 mg per day we would expect 2.7 endometrial cancers on tamoxifen, and 2.4 DVT or pulmonary emboli,” Dr. De Censi said in a briefing prior to his presentation of the data in a general session.

Patient-reported daily hot flashes occurred slightly but significantly more often with tamoxifen (P = .05). But when the frequency of reported hot flashes was multiplied by the intensity, the difference between the arms was not significant.

There were no significant differences between the groups for the patient-reported outcomes of vaginal dryness or pain at intercourse, or of musculoskeletal pain/arthralgia. Treatment adherence over 3 years did not differ between the groups.

Dr. De Censi noted that because 5 mg tablets of tamoxifen are not currently available, investigators recommend either cutting 10 mg tablets in half or taking the 10-mg dose every other day.

Virginia Kaklamani, MD, leader of the breast cancer program at the University of Texas, San Antonio, who moderated the briefing, commented that the study provides valuable information about the dosing of this time-tested drug.

“When you look at drug development, in many cases we rush these drugs out and we don’t pay attention to the dose that’s needed – we pay attention to the dose that’s not very toxic, and so many of the drugs that we use we end up using them at higher doses than we need to use them,” she said.

“A drug doesn’t work if you don’t take it, and so if you can find ways to take the drug, like in giving it at lower doses, then these women are going to benefit,” Dr. Kaklamani added.

She said that based on these data she would “definitely” give patients with ADH and LCIS lower doses of tamoxifen, and while she wants to see more data on DCIS patients with further follow-up, “if I have a DCIS patient who’s not tolerating tamoxifen at the 20 mg dose, I’d be extremely happy lowering to 5 mg.”

Sandhya Pruthi, MD, from the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, who was not involved in the study, said in an interview that, while she was impressed by both the reduction in risk and the favorable side effect profile, the patient sample was too small to draw firm conclusions.

“Could I go back to the clinic and tell all my patients who are taking 20 mg of tamoxifen that you can now cut your dose in half to 10 mg or even to the 5-mg dose based on this trial? That would I think be a little premature,” she said.

“Where I would like to go with this is that we do a larger trial – a randomized, controlled trial,” Dr. Pruthi added.

The TAM01 study was supported by the Italian Ministry of Health, Italian Association for Cancer Research, and the Italian League Against Cancer. Dr. De Censi and his coauthors reported having no direct conflicts of interest. Dr. Kaklamani and Dr. Pruthi reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: De Censi A et al. SABCS 2018, Abstract GS3-01.

MONTREAL – A randomized trial designed to definitively test the efficacy of mechanical thrombectomy for treating acute ischemic strokes caused by basilar artery occlusion fell victim to slow recruitment and crossovers that muddied the intention-to-treat results, but the per-protocol and as-treated analyses both showed that thrombectomy was superior to best medical therapy in a multicenter, randomized study with 131 Chinese patients.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

“Our findings should be considered in the context of the best evidence currently available, and progressive loss of equipoise for endovascular therapy for severe, large-vessel occlusion strokes,” Raul G. Nogueira, MD, said at the World Stroke Congress. “This was not a perfect trial, but it’s the best data we have, by far, at least for now” on the value of mechanical thrombectomy for treating acute ischemic stroke caused by a basilar artery occlusion, added Dr. Nogueira, professor of neurology and director of the neuroendovascular service at Emory University, Atlanta.

In the study’s per-protocol analysis, which considered patients who received their randomized treatment, the study’s primary endpoint of a modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score of 0-3 at 90 days after treatment was 44% in 63 patients who underwent thrombectomy and 26% in 51 patients randomized to best medical therapy who remained on that regimen, a statistically significant difference, Dr. Nogueira reported. In the as-treated analysis, which considered all enrolled patients based on the treatment they actually received regardless of randomization group, 77 patients treated with thrombectomy had a 47% rate of achieving the primary outcome, compared with 24% of 54 controls, also a statistically significant difference.

In contrast, the prespecified primary analysis for the study, the intention-to-treat analysis that considered patients based on their randomization assignment regardless of the treatment they actually received, showed that after 90 days the rate of patients with a mRS score of 0-3 was 42% in 66 thrombectomy patients and 32% among 65 controls, a difference that was not significant; this is a finding that, from a purist’s standpoint, makes the trial’s result neutral. The per-protocol and as-treated analyses were also prespecified steps in the study’s design, but not primary endpoints.

Despite the shortcoming for the primary analysis, Dr. Nogueira said that he found the per-protocol and as-treated findings very persuasive. “I personally could not randomize these patients” in the future to not receive mechanical thrombectomy, he confessed from the podium.

The BEST trial randomized 131 patients at any of 28 Chinese sites between April 2015 and September 2017. Patients had to enter within 8 hours of stroke onset. The original trial design called for enrolling 344 patients, but the steering committee decided in 2017 to prematurely stop the study because of a progressive drop in enrollment of patients, and “excessive” crossovers from the control arm to thrombectomy, a total of 14 patients. During the final month of the trial, 6 of 10 patients assigned by randomization to receive best medical care instead underwent thrombectomy. “At that point, we pretty much had to stop,” Dr. Nogueira said. Enrolled patients averaged about 65 years old, about 90% had a basilar artery occlusion and about 10% a vertebral artery occlusion, about 30% received intravenous alteplase, and the median National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score at entry was about 30.

The major adverse effect from thrombectomy seen in the study was symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage, which occurred in 5 of the 77 patients (6%) actually treated with thrombectomy, compared with none of the 54 patients not treated with thrombectomy. This modest rate of intracranial hemorrhages was “not unexpected,” Dr. Nogueira noted.

Acute ischemic strokes caused by a basilar artery occlusion are relatively uncommon, accounting for about 1% of all acute ischemic strokes and 5%-10% of acute ischemic strokes caused by occlusion of a proximal intracranial artery. But when these strokes occur, they are a “neurological catastrophe,” Dr. Nogueira said, causing severe disability or mortality in about 70% of patients.

BEST had no commercial funding. Dr. Nogueira reported no disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Nogueira RG et al. Int J Stroke. 2018;13(2_suppl):227, Abstract 978.


 

MONTREAL – A randomized trial designed to definitively test the efficacy of mechanical thrombectomy for treating acute ischemic strokes caused by basilar artery occlusion fell victim to slow recruitment and crossovers that muddied the intention-to-treat results, but the per-protocol and as-treated analyses both showed that thrombectomy was superior to best medical therapy in a multicenter, randomized study with 131 Chinese patients.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

“Our findings should be considered in the context of the best evidence currently available, and progressive loss of equipoise for endovascular therapy for severe, large-vessel occlusion strokes,” Raul G. Nogueira, MD, said at the World Stroke Congress. “This was not a perfect trial, but it’s the best data we have, by far, at least for now” on the value of mechanical thrombectomy for treating acute ischemic stroke caused by a basilar artery occlusion, added Dr. Nogueira, professor of neurology and director of the neuroendovascular service at Emory University, Atlanta.

In the study’s per-protocol analysis, which considered patients who received their randomized treatment, the study’s primary endpoint of a modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score of 0-3 at 90 days after treatment was 44% in 63 patients who underwent thrombectomy and 26% in 51 patients randomized to best medical therapy who remained on that regimen, a statistically significant difference, Dr. Nogueira reported. In the as-treated analysis, which considered all enrolled patients based on the treatment they actually received regardless of randomization group, 77 patients treated with thrombectomy had a 47% rate of achieving the primary outcome, compared with 24% of 54 controls, also a statistically significant difference.

In contrast, the prespecified primary analysis for the study, the intention-to-treat analysis that considered patients based on their randomization assignment regardless of the treatment they actually received, showed that after 90 days the rate of patients with a mRS score of 0-3 was 42% in 66 thrombectomy patients and 32% among 65 controls, a difference that was not significant; this is a finding that, from a purist’s standpoint, makes the trial’s result neutral. The per-protocol and as-treated analyses were also prespecified steps in the study’s design, but not primary endpoints.

Despite the shortcoming for the primary analysis, Dr. Nogueira said that he found the per-protocol and as-treated findings very persuasive. “I personally could not randomize these patients” in the future to not receive mechanical thrombectomy, he confessed from the podium.

The BEST trial randomized 131 patients at any of 28 Chinese sites between April 2015 and September 2017. Patients had to enter within 8 hours of stroke onset. The original trial design called for enrolling 344 patients, but the steering committee decided in 2017 to prematurely stop the study because of a progressive drop in enrollment of patients, and “excessive” crossovers from the control arm to thrombectomy, a total of 14 patients. During the final month of the trial, 6 of 10 patients assigned by randomization to receive best medical care instead underwent thrombectomy. “At that point, we pretty much had to stop,” Dr. Nogueira said. Enrolled patients averaged about 65 years old, about 90% had a basilar artery occlusion and about 10% a vertebral artery occlusion, about 30% received intravenous alteplase, and the median National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score at entry was about 30.

The major adverse effect from thrombectomy seen in the study was symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage, which occurred in 5 of the 77 patients (6%) actually treated with thrombectomy, compared with none of the 54 patients not treated with thrombectomy. This modest rate of intracranial hemorrhages was “not unexpected,” Dr. Nogueira noted.

Acute ischemic strokes caused by a basilar artery occlusion are relatively uncommon, accounting for about 1% of all acute ischemic strokes and 5%-10% of acute ischemic strokes caused by occlusion of a proximal intracranial artery. But when these strokes occur, they are a “neurological catastrophe,” Dr. Nogueira said, causing severe disability or mortality in about 70% of patients.

BEST had no commercial funding. Dr. Nogueira reported no disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Nogueira RG et al. Int J Stroke. 2018;13(2_suppl):227, Abstract 978.


 

MONTREAL – A randomized trial designed to definitively test the efficacy of mechanical thrombectomy for treating acute ischemic strokes caused by basilar artery occlusion fell victim to slow recruitment and crossovers that muddied the intention-to-treat results, but the per-protocol and as-treated analyses both showed that thrombectomy was superior to best medical therapy in a multicenter, randomized study with 131 Chinese patients.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

“Our findings should be considered in the context of the best evidence currently available, and progressive loss of equipoise for endovascular therapy for severe, large-vessel occlusion strokes,” Raul G. Nogueira, MD, said at the World Stroke Congress. “This was not a perfect trial, but it’s the best data we have, by far, at least for now” on the value of mechanical thrombectomy for treating acute ischemic stroke caused by a basilar artery occlusion, added Dr. Nogueira, professor of neurology and director of the neuroendovascular service at Emory University, Atlanta.

In the study’s per-protocol analysis, which considered patients who received their randomized treatment, the study’s primary endpoint of a modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score of 0-3 at 90 days after treatment was 44% in 63 patients who underwent thrombectomy and 26% in 51 patients randomized to best medical therapy who remained on that regimen, a statistically significant difference, Dr. Nogueira reported. In the as-treated analysis, which considered all enrolled patients based on the treatment they actually received regardless of randomization group, 77 patients treated with thrombectomy had a 47% rate of achieving the primary outcome, compared with 24% of 54 controls, also a statistically significant difference.

In contrast, the prespecified primary analysis for the study, the intention-to-treat analysis that considered patients based on their randomization assignment regardless of the treatment they actually received, showed that after 90 days the rate of patients with a mRS score of 0-3 was 42% in 66 thrombectomy patients and 32% among 65 controls, a difference that was not significant; this is a finding that, from a purist’s standpoint, makes the trial’s result neutral. The per-protocol and as-treated analyses were also prespecified steps in the study’s design, but not primary endpoints.

Despite the shortcoming for the primary analysis, Dr. Nogueira said that he found the per-protocol and as-treated findings very persuasive. “I personally could not randomize these patients” in the future to not receive mechanical thrombectomy, he confessed from the podium.

The BEST trial randomized 131 patients at any of 28 Chinese sites between April 2015 and September 2017. Patients had to enter within 8 hours of stroke onset. The original trial design called for enrolling 344 patients, but the steering committee decided in 2017 to prematurely stop the study because of a progressive drop in enrollment of patients, and “excessive” crossovers from the control arm to thrombectomy, a total of 14 patients. During the final month of the trial, 6 of 10 patients assigned by randomization to receive best medical care instead underwent thrombectomy. “At that point, we pretty much had to stop,” Dr. Nogueira said. Enrolled patients averaged about 65 years old, about 90% had a basilar artery occlusion and about 10% a vertebral artery occlusion, about 30% received intravenous alteplase, and the median National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score at entry was about 30.

The major adverse effect from thrombectomy seen in the study was symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage, which occurred in 5 of the 77 patients (6%) actually treated with thrombectomy, compared with none of the 54 patients not treated with thrombectomy. This modest rate of intracranial hemorrhages was “not unexpected,” Dr. Nogueira noted.

Acute ischemic strokes caused by a basilar artery occlusion are relatively uncommon, accounting for about 1% of all acute ischemic strokes and 5%-10% of acute ischemic strokes caused by occlusion of a proximal intracranial artery. But when these strokes occur, they are a “neurological catastrophe,” Dr. Nogueira said, causing severe disability or mortality in about 70% of patients.

BEST had no commercial funding. Dr. Nogueira reported no disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Nogueira RG et al. Int J Stroke. 2018;13(2_suppl):227, Abstract 978.


 

CHICAGO – A recent history of GI bleeding or malignancy may not be a valid contraindication to thrombolytic therapy in patients with an acute ischemic stroke, based on a review of outcomes from more than 40,000 U.S. stroke patients.

The analysis showed that, among 40,396 U.S. patients who had an acute ischemic stroke during 2009-2015 and received timely treatment with alteplase, “we did not find statistically significant increased rates of in-hospital mortality or bleeding” in the small number of patients who received alteplase (Activase) despite a recent GI bleed or diagnosed GI malignancy, Taku Inohara, MD, said at the American Heart Association scientific sessions. The 2018 Guidelines for the Early Management of Patients With Acute Ischemic Stroke deemed thrombolytic therapy with alteplase in these types of patients contraindicated, based on consensus expert opinion (Stroke. 2018 March;49[3]:e66-e110).

“Further study is needed to evaluate the safety of recombinant tissue–type plasminogen activator [alteplase] in this specific population,” suggested Dr. Inohara, a cardiologist and research fellow at Duke University, Durham, N.C.

His analysis used data collected by the Get With the Guidelines–Stroke program, a voluntary quality promotion and improvement program that during 2009-2015 included records for more than 633,000 U.S. stroke patients that could be linked with records kept by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. From this database, 40,396 patients (6%) treated with alteplase within 4.5 hours of stroke onset were identified. The alteplase-treated patients included 93 with a diagnosis code during the prior year for a GI malignancy and 43 with a diagnostic code within the prior 21 days for a GI bleed.


Dr. Inohara and his associates determined patients’ mortality during their stroke hospitalization, as well as several measures of functional recovery at hospital discharge and thrombolysis-related complications. For each of these endpoints, the rate among patients with a GI malignancy, a GI bleed, or the rate among a combined group of both patients showed no statistically significant differences, compared with the more than 40,000 other patients without a GI complication after adjustment for several demographic and clinical between-group differences. However, Dr. Inohara cautioned that residual or unmeasured confounding may exist that distorts these findings. The rate of in-hospital mortality, the prespecified primary endpoint for the analysis, was 10% among patients with either type of GI complication and 9% in those without. The rate of serious thrombolysis-related complications was 7% in the patients with GI disease and 9% in those without.

In a separate analysis of the complete database of more than 633,000 patients, Dr. Inohara and his associates found 148 patients who had either a GI bleed or malignancy and otherwise qualified for thrombolytic therapy but did not receive this treatment. This meant that overall, in this large U.S. experience, 136 of 284 (48%) acute ischemic stroke patients who qualified for thrombolysis but had a GI complication nonetheless received thrombolysis. Further analysis showed that the patients not treated with thrombolysis had at admission an average National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score of 11, compared with an average score of 14 among patients who received thrombolysis.

This apparent selection for thrombolytic treatment of patients with more severe strokes “may have overestimated risk in the patients with GI disease,” Dr. Inohara said.

Dr. Inohara reported receiving research funding from Boston Scientific.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Inohara T et al. Circulation. 2018 Nov 6;138[suppl 1], Abstract 12291.

CHICAGO – A recent history of GI bleeding or malignancy may not be a valid contraindication to thrombolytic therapy in patients with an acute ischemic stroke, based on a review of outcomes from more than 40,000 U.S. stroke patients.

The analysis showed that, among 40,396 U.S. patients who had an acute ischemic stroke during 2009-2015 and received timely treatment with alteplase, “we did not find statistically significant increased rates of in-hospital mortality or bleeding” in the small number of patients who received alteplase (Activase) despite a recent GI bleed or diagnosed GI malignancy, Taku Inohara, MD, said at the American Heart Association scientific sessions. The 2018 Guidelines for the Early Management of Patients With Acute Ischemic Stroke deemed thrombolytic therapy with alteplase in these types of patients contraindicated, based on consensus expert opinion (Stroke. 2018 March;49[3]:e66-e110).

“Further study is needed to evaluate the safety of recombinant tissue–type plasminogen activator [alteplase] in this specific population,” suggested Dr. Inohara, a cardiologist and research fellow at Duke University, Durham, N.C.

His analysis used data collected by the Get With the Guidelines–Stroke program, a voluntary quality promotion and improvement program that during 2009-2015 included records for more than 633,000 U.S. stroke patients that could be linked with records kept by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. From this database, 40,396 patients (6%) treated with alteplase within 4.5 hours of stroke onset were identified. The alteplase-treated patients included 93 with a diagnosis code during the prior year for a GI malignancy and 43 with a diagnostic code within the prior 21 days for a GI bleed.


Dr. Inohara and his associates determined patients’ mortality during their stroke hospitalization, as well as several measures of functional recovery at hospital discharge and thrombolysis-related complications. For each of these endpoints, the rate among patients with a GI malignancy, a GI bleed, or the rate among a combined group of both patients showed no statistically significant differences, compared with the more than 40,000 other patients without a GI complication after adjustment for several demographic and clinical between-group differences. However, Dr. Inohara cautioned that residual or unmeasured confounding may exist that distorts these findings. The rate of in-hospital mortality, the prespecified primary endpoint for the analysis, was 10% among patients with either type of GI complication and 9% in those without. The rate of serious thrombolysis-related complications was 7% in the patients with GI disease and 9% in those without.

In a separate analysis of the complete database of more than 633,000 patients, Dr. Inohara and his associates found 148 patients who had either a GI bleed or malignancy and otherwise qualified for thrombolytic therapy but did not receive this treatment. This meant that overall, in this large U.S. experience, 136 of 284 (48%) acute ischemic stroke patients who qualified for thrombolysis but had a GI complication nonetheless received thrombolysis. Further analysis showed that the patients not treated with thrombolysis had at admission an average National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score of 11, compared with an average score of 14 among patients who received thrombolysis.

This apparent selection for thrombolytic treatment of patients with more severe strokes “may have overestimated risk in the patients with GI disease,” Dr. Inohara said.

Dr. Inohara reported receiving research funding from Boston Scientific.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Inohara T et al. Circulation. 2018 Nov 6;138[suppl 1], Abstract 12291.

CHICAGO – A recent history of GI bleeding or malignancy may not be a valid contraindication to thrombolytic therapy in patients with an acute ischemic stroke, based on a review of outcomes from more than 40,000 U.S. stroke patients.

The analysis showed that, among 40,396 U.S. patients who had an acute ischemic stroke during 2009-2015 and received timely treatment with alteplase, “we did not find statistically significant increased rates of in-hospital mortality or bleeding” in the small number of patients who received alteplase (Activase) despite a recent GI bleed or diagnosed GI malignancy, Taku Inohara, MD, said at the American Heart Association scientific sessions. The 2018 Guidelines for the Early Management of Patients With Acute Ischemic Stroke deemed thrombolytic therapy with alteplase in these types of patients contraindicated, based on consensus expert opinion (Stroke. 2018 March;49[3]:e66-e110).

“Further study is needed to evaluate the safety of recombinant tissue–type plasminogen activator [alteplase] in this specific population,” suggested Dr. Inohara, a cardiologist and research fellow at Duke University, Durham, N.C.

His analysis used data collected by the Get With the Guidelines–Stroke program, a voluntary quality promotion and improvement program that during 2009-2015 included records for more than 633,000 U.S. stroke patients that could be linked with records kept by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. From this database, 40,396 patients (6%) treated with alteplase within 4.5 hours of stroke onset were identified. The alteplase-treated patients included 93 with a diagnosis code during the prior year for a GI malignancy and 43 with a diagnostic code within the prior 21 days for a GI bleed.


Dr. Inohara and his associates determined patients’ mortality during their stroke hospitalization, as well as several measures of functional recovery at hospital discharge and thrombolysis-related complications. For each of these endpoints, the rate among patients with a GI malignancy, a GI bleed, or the rate among a combined group of both patients showed no statistically significant differences, compared with the more than 40,000 other patients without a GI complication after adjustment for several demographic and clinical between-group differences. However, Dr. Inohara cautioned that residual or unmeasured confounding may exist that distorts these findings. The rate of in-hospital mortality, the prespecified primary endpoint for the analysis, was 10% among patients with either type of GI complication and 9% in those without. The rate of serious thrombolysis-related complications was 7% in the patients with GI disease and 9% in those without.

In a separate analysis of the complete database of more than 633,000 patients, Dr. Inohara and his associates found 148 patients who had either a GI bleed or malignancy and otherwise qualified for thrombolytic therapy but did not receive this treatment. This meant that overall, in this large U.S. experience, 136 of 284 (48%) acute ischemic stroke patients who qualified for thrombolysis but had a GI complication nonetheless received thrombolysis. Further analysis showed that the patients not treated with thrombolysis had at admission an average National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score of 11, compared with an average score of 14 among patients who received thrombolysis.

This apparent selection for thrombolytic treatment of patients with more severe strokes “may have overestimated risk in the patients with GI disease,” Dr. Inohara said.

Dr. Inohara reported receiving research funding from Boston Scientific.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Inohara T et al. Circulation. 2018 Nov 6;138[suppl 1], Abstract 12291.

Carol Bernstein, MD, joins Nick Andrews to talk about the difference between physician burnout and depression. Dr. Bernstein is a professor at NYU Langone in New York City and has been a guest on the MDedge Psychcast.
Apple Podcasts
Google Podcasts


 

Carol Bernstein, MD, joins Nick Andrews to talk about the difference between physician burnout and depression. Dr. Bernstein is a professor at NYU Langone in New York City and has been a guest on the MDedge Psychcast.
Apple Podcasts
Google Podcasts


 

Carol Bernstein, MD, joins Nick Andrews to talk about the difference between physician burnout and depression. Dr. Bernstein is a professor at NYU Langone in New York City and has been a guest on the MDedge Psychcast.
Apple Podcasts
Google Podcasts


 

A new proposal aims to move clinicians away from the keyboard and back to face time with patients. Also today, diuretics are linked to diabetic amputations in type 2 diabetes, pausing direct acting oral anticoagulants show favorable outcomes for atrial fibrillation, and while therapy has matured for patients with HCV, there are still issues with access.

Amazon Alexa

Apple Podcasts

Google Podcasts

Spotify
 

A new proposal aims to move clinicians away from the keyboard and back to face time with patients. Also today, diuretics are linked to diabetic amputations in type 2 diabetes, pausing direct acting oral anticoagulants show favorable outcomes for atrial fibrillation, and while therapy has matured for patients with HCV, there are still issues with access.

Amazon Alexa

Apple Podcasts

Google Podcasts

Spotify
 

A new proposal aims to move clinicians away from the keyboard and back to face time with patients. Also today, diuretics are linked to diabetic amputations in type 2 diabetes, pausing direct acting oral anticoagulants show favorable outcomes for atrial fibrillation, and while therapy has matured for patients with HCV, there are still issues with access.

Amazon Alexa

Apple Podcasts

Google Podcasts

Spotify
 

Photo by Jen Smith

SAN DIEGO—An algorithm has proven effective for identifying differentiation syndrome (DS) in patients taking ivosidenib or enasidenib, according to a speaker at the 2018 ASH Annual Meeting.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently announced that DS is going unnoticed in some patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) who are taking the IDH2 inhibitor enasidenib (Idhifa) or the IDH1 inhibitor ivosidenib (Tibsovo).

Though both drug labels include boxed warnings detailing the risk of DS, the FDA found evidence to suggest that DS is underdiagnosed, which can result in fatalities.

The FDA performed a systematic analysis of DS in AML patients taking either drug to determine if an algorithm could uncover a higher incidence of DS than was previously reported.

Kelly J. Norsworthy, MD, of the FDA, described the results of this analysis at ASH as abstract 288.

The analysis included patients with relapsed/refractory AML treated on a phase 1 study of ivosidenib (NCT02074839, AG120-C-001) and a phase 1/2 study of enasidenib (NCT01915498, AG221-C-001).

There were 179 patients treated with the approved dose of ivosidenib and 214 treated with the approved dose of enasidenib.

The researchers searched for DS events in the first 90 days of therapy. Patients were categorized as having DS if they had at least one investigator-reported DS event (IDH DS or retinoic acid syndrome) or if they had at least two signs or symptoms of DS, according to revised Montesinos criteria, within 7 days.

The signs/symptoms included:

• Dyspnea
• Unexplained fever
• Weight gain
• Unexplained hypotension
• Acute renal failure
• Pulmonary infiltrates or pleuropericardial effusion
• Multiple organ dysfunction.

“We added an event for multiple organ dysfunction since this adverse event could satisfy multiple Montesinos criteria,” Dr. Norsworthy said.

“Although leukocytosis is not a diagnostic criterion for DS, it is frequently seen in association with DS, so we performed an additional query for concomitant leukocytosis,” she added.

The researchers looked for adverse events of leukocytosis, hyperleukocytosis, white blood cell count increase, and leukocyte count greater than 10 Gi/L within 7 days of clinical signs/symptoms.

DS incidence

The algorithm suggested 40% of patients in each treatment group had potential DS—72 of 179 patients treated with ivosidenib and 86 of 214 patients treated with enasidenib.

“We reviewed case narratives and laboratory data from the algorithmically defined cases of DS to adjudicate whether cases were DS or unlikely DS due to an alternative explanation, most commonly due to a clinical course inconsistent with DS or confirmed infection,” Dr. Norsworthy said.

The reviewer-adjudicated incidence of DS was 19% in both groups—34 patients on ivosidenib and 41 patients on enasidenib.

“This contrasts with the DS incidence of 11% to 14% reported by investigators,” Dr. Norsworthy said. “Thus, there was a subset of patients where the syndrome was not recognized by investigators.”

Characteristics of DS

The median time to DS onset in this analysis was 20 days (range, 1 to 78) in the ivosidenib group and 19 days in the enasidenib group (range, 1 to 86).

In both treatment groups, most patients had moderate DS—71% (n=24) in the ivosidenib group and 80% (n=33) in the enasidenib group. Moderate DS was defined as meeting two to three of the aforementioned criteria for DS.

Fewer patients had severe DS (four or more criteria)—24% (n=8) in the ivosidenib group and 12% (n=5) in the enasidenib group.

For the remaining patients, DS severity could not be determined—6% (n=2) in the ivosidenib group and 10% (n=4) in the enasidenib group. These were investigator-reported cases of DS.

Most DS cases in the ivosidenib and enasidenib groups—68% (n=23) and 66% (n=27), respectively— included grade 3 or higher adverse reactions.

Two patients in each group died of DS—6% and 5%, respectively. Only one of these cases was recognized as DS and treated with steroids, Dr. Norsworthy noted.

She also pointed out that most patients with DS had leukocytosis—79% (n=27) in the ivosidenib group and 61% (n=25) in the enasidenib group.

In addition, rates of complete response (CR) and CR with incomplete hematologic recovery (CRh) were numerically lower among patients with DS, although the confidence intervals (CI) overlap.

Among patients on ivosidenib, the CR/CRh rate was 18% (95% CI, 7-35) in those with DS and 36% (95% CI, 28-45) in those without DS.

Among patients on enasidenib, the CR/CRh rate was 18% (95% CI, 7-33) in those with DS and 25% (95% CI, 18-32) in those without DS.

“[F]irm conclusions regarding the impact on response cannot be inferred based on this post-hoc subgroup analysis,” Dr. Norsworthy stressed.

Predicting DS

Dr. Norsworthy noted that baseline patient and disease characteristics were similar between patients with and without DS.

The researchers did see a trend toward higher blasts in the marrow and peripheral blood as well as higher white blood cell counts at baseline among patients with DS.

“However, there did not appear to be a distinct baseline white blood cell count or absolute blast cell count cutoff above which DS was more common,” Dr. Norsworthy said.

She added that the patient numbers are small, so it’s not possible to make firm conclusions about prognostic factors for DS.

In closing, Dr. Norsworthy said the algorithmic approach used here “led to the recognition of additional cases of DS not identified by investigators or review committee determination for patients treated with the IDH inhibitors ivo and ena.”

“Increased recognition of the signs and symptoms of DS through the framework of the Montesinos criteria may lead to early diagnosis and treatment, which may decrease severe complications and mortality. Furthermore, integration of the algorithm into clinical trials of differentiating therapies, in a prospective fashion, may help to systematically monitor the incidence and severity of DS.”

Dr. Norsworthy declared no conflicts of interest.

Photo by Jen Smith

SAN DIEGO—An algorithm has proven effective for identifying differentiation syndrome (DS) in patients taking ivosidenib or enasidenib, according to a speaker at the 2018 ASH Annual Meeting.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently announced that DS is going unnoticed in some patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) who are taking the IDH2 inhibitor enasidenib (Idhifa) or the IDH1 inhibitor ivosidenib (Tibsovo).

Though both drug labels include boxed warnings detailing the risk of DS, the FDA found evidence to suggest that DS is underdiagnosed, which can result in fatalities.

The FDA performed a systematic analysis of DS in AML patients taking either drug to determine if an algorithm could uncover a higher incidence of DS than was previously reported.

Kelly J. Norsworthy, MD, of the FDA, described the results of this analysis at ASH as abstract 288.

The analysis included patients with relapsed/refractory AML treated on a phase 1 study of ivosidenib (NCT02074839, AG120-C-001) and a phase 1/2 study of enasidenib (NCT01915498, AG221-C-001).

There were 179 patients treated with the approved dose of ivosidenib and 214 treated with the approved dose of enasidenib.

The researchers searched for DS events in the first 90 days of therapy. Patients were categorized as having DS if they had at least one investigator-reported DS event (IDH DS or retinoic acid syndrome) or if they had at least two signs or symptoms of DS, according to revised Montesinos criteria, within 7 days.

The signs/symptoms included:

• Dyspnea
• Unexplained fever
• Weight gain
• Unexplained hypotension
• Acute renal failure
• Pulmonary infiltrates or pleuropericardial effusion
• Multiple organ dysfunction.

“We added an event for multiple organ dysfunction since this adverse event could satisfy multiple Montesinos criteria,” Dr. Norsworthy said.

“Although leukocytosis is not a diagnostic criterion for DS, it is frequently seen in association with DS, so we performed an additional query for concomitant leukocytosis,” she added.

The researchers looked for adverse events of leukocytosis, hyperleukocytosis, white blood cell count increase, and leukocyte count greater than 10 Gi/L within 7 days of clinical signs/symptoms.

DS incidence

The algorithm suggested 40% of patients in each treatment group had potential DS—72 of 179 patients treated with ivosidenib and 86 of 214 patients treated with enasidenib.

“We reviewed case narratives and laboratory data from the algorithmically defined cases of DS to adjudicate whether cases were DS or unlikely DS due to an alternative explanation, most commonly due to a clinical course inconsistent with DS or confirmed infection,” Dr. Norsworthy said.

The reviewer-adjudicated incidence of DS was 19% in both groups—34 patients on ivosidenib and 41 patients on enasidenib.

“This contrasts with the DS incidence of 11% to 14% reported by investigators,” Dr. Norsworthy said. “Thus, there was a subset of patients where the syndrome was not recognized by investigators.”

Characteristics of DS

The median time to DS onset in this analysis was 20 days (range, 1 to 78) in the ivosidenib group and 19 days in the enasidenib group (range, 1 to 86).

In both treatment groups, most patients had moderate DS—71% (n=24) in the ivosidenib group and 80% (n=33) in the enasidenib group. Moderate DS was defined as meeting two to three of the aforementioned criteria for DS.

Fewer patients had severe DS (four or more criteria)—24% (n=8) in the ivosidenib group and 12% (n=5) in the enasidenib group.

For the remaining patients, DS severity could not be determined—6% (n=2) in the ivosidenib group and 10% (n=4) in the enasidenib group. These were investigator-reported cases of DS.

Most DS cases in the ivosidenib and enasidenib groups—68% (n=23) and 66% (n=27), respectively— included grade 3 or higher adverse reactions.

Two patients in each group died of DS—6% and 5%, respectively. Only one of these cases was recognized as DS and treated with steroids, Dr. Norsworthy noted.

She also pointed out that most patients with DS had leukocytosis—79% (n=27) in the ivosidenib group and 61% (n=25) in the enasidenib group.

In addition, rates of complete response (CR) and CR with incomplete hematologic recovery (CRh) were numerically lower among patients with DS, although the confidence intervals (CI) overlap.

Among patients on ivosidenib, the CR/CRh rate was 18% (95% CI, 7-35) in those with DS and 36% (95% CI, 28-45) in those without DS.

Among patients on enasidenib, the CR/CRh rate was 18% (95% CI, 7-33) in those with DS and 25% (95% CI, 18-32) in those without DS.

“[F]irm conclusions regarding the impact on response cannot be inferred based on this post-hoc subgroup analysis,” Dr. Norsworthy stressed.

Predicting DS

Dr. Norsworthy noted that baseline patient and disease characteristics were similar between patients with and without DS.

The researchers did see a trend toward higher blasts in the marrow and peripheral blood as well as higher white blood cell counts at baseline among patients with DS.

“However, there did not appear to be a distinct baseline white blood cell count or absolute blast cell count cutoff above which DS was more common,” Dr. Norsworthy said.

She added that the patient numbers are small, so it’s not possible to make firm conclusions about prognostic factors for DS.

In closing, Dr. Norsworthy said the algorithmic approach used here “led to the recognition of additional cases of DS not identified by investigators or review committee determination for patients treated with the IDH inhibitors ivo and ena.”

“Increased recognition of the signs and symptoms of DS through the framework of the Montesinos criteria may lead to early diagnosis and treatment, which may decrease severe complications and mortality. Furthermore, integration of the algorithm into clinical trials of differentiating therapies, in a prospective fashion, may help to systematically monitor the incidence and severity of DS.”

Dr. Norsworthy declared no conflicts of interest.

Photo by Jen Smith

SAN DIEGO—An algorithm has proven effective for identifying differentiation syndrome (DS) in patients taking ivosidenib or enasidenib, according to a speaker at the 2018 ASH Annual Meeting.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently announced that DS is going unnoticed in some patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) who are taking the IDH2 inhibitor enasidenib (Idhifa) or the IDH1 inhibitor ivosidenib (Tibsovo).

Though both drug labels include boxed warnings detailing the risk of DS, the FDA found evidence to suggest that DS is underdiagnosed, which can result in fatalities.

The FDA performed a systematic analysis of DS in AML patients taking either drug to determine if an algorithm could uncover a higher incidence of DS than was previously reported.

Kelly J. Norsworthy, MD, of the FDA, described the results of this analysis at ASH as abstract 288.

The analysis included patients with relapsed/refractory AML treated on a phase 1 study of ivosidenib (NCT02074839, AG120-C-001) and a phase 1/2 study of enasidenib (NCT01915498, AG221-C-001).

There were 179 patients treated with the approved dose of ivosidenib and 214 treated with the approved dose of enasidenib.

The researchers searched for DS events in the first 90 days of therapy. Patients were categorized as having DS if they had at least one investigator-reported DS event (IDH DS or retinoic acid syndrome) or if they had at least two signs or symptoms of DS, according to revised Montesinos criteria, within 7 days.

The signs/symptoms included:

• Dyspnea
• Unexplained fever
• Weight gain
• Unexplained hypotension
• Acute renal failure
• Pulmonary infiltrates or pleuropericardial effusion
• Multiple organ dysfunction.

“We added an event for multiple organ dysfunction since this adverse event could satisfy multiple Montesinos criteria,” Dr. Norsworthy said.

“Although leukocytosis is not a diagnostic criterion for DS, it is frequently seen in association with DS, so we performed an additional query for concomitant leukocytosis,” she added.

The researchers looked for adverse events of leukocytosis, hyperleukocytosis, white blood cell count increase, and leukocyte count greater than 10 Gi/L within 7 days of clinical signs/symptoms.

DS incidence

The algorithm suggested 40% of patients in each treatment group had potential DS—72 of 179 patients treated with ivosidenib and 86 of 214 patients treated with enasidenib.

“We reviewed case narratives and laboratory data from the algorithmically defined cases of DS to adjudicate whether cases were DS or unlikely DS due to an alternative explanation, most commonly due to a clinical course inconsistent with DS or confirmed infection,” Dr. Norsworthy said.

The reviewer-adjudicated incidence of DS was 19% in both groups—34 patients on ivosidenib and 41 patients on enasidenib.

“This contrasts with the DS incidence of 11% to 14% reported by investigators,” Dr. Norsworthy said. “Thus, there was a subset of patients where the syndrome was not recognized by investigators.”

Characteristics of DS

The median time to DS onset in this analysis was 20 days (range, 1 to 78) in the ivosidenib group and 19 days in the enasidenib group (range, 1 to 86).

In both treatment groups, most patients had moderate DS—71% (n=24) in the ivosidenib group and 80% (n=33) in the enasidenib group. Moderate DS was defined as meeting two to three of the aforementioned criteria for DS.

Fewer patients had severe DS (four or more criteria)—24% (n=8) in the ivosidenib group and 12% (n=5) in the enasidenib group.

For the remaining patients, DS severity could not be determined—6% (n=2) in the ivosidenib group and 10% (n=4) in the enasidenib group. These were investigator-reported cases of DS.

Most DS cases in the ivosidenib and enasidenib groups—68% (n=23) and 66% (n=27), respectively— included grade 3 or higher adverse reactions.

Two patients in each group died of DS—6% and 5%, respectively. Only one of these cases was recognized as DS and treated with steroids, Dr. Norsworthy noted.

She also pointed out that most patients with DS had leukocytosis—79% (n=27) in the ivosidenib group and 61% (n=25) in the enasidenib group.

In addition, rates of complete response (CR) and CR with incomplete hematologic recovery (CRh) were numerically lower among patients with DS, although the confidence intervals (CI) overlap.

Among patients on ivosidenib, the CR/CRh rate was 18% (95% CI, 7-35) in those with DS and 36% (95% CI, 28-45) in those without DS.

Among patients on enasidenib, the CR/CRh rate was 18% (95% CI, 7-33) in those with DS and 25% (95% CI, 18-32) in those without DS.

“[F]irm conclusions regarding the impact on response cannot be inferred based on this post-hoc subgroup analysis,” Dr. Norsworthy stressed.

Predicting DS

Dr. Norsworthy noted that baseline patient and disease characteristics were similar between patients with and without DS.

The researchers did see a trend toward higher blasts in the marrow and peripheral blood as well as higher white blood cell counts at baseline among patients with DS.

“However, there did not appear to be a distinct baseline white blood cell count or absolute blast cell count cutoff above which DS was more common,” Dr. Norsworthy said.

She added that the patient numbers are small, so it’s not possible to make firm conclusions about prognostic factors for DS.

In closing, Dr. Norsworthy said the algorithmic approach used here “led to the recognition of additional cases of DS not identified by investigators or review committee determination for patients treated with the IDH inhibitors ivo and ena.”

“Increased recognition of the signs and symptoms of DS through the framework of the Montesinos criteria may lead to early diagnosis and treatment, which may decrease severe complications and mortality. Furthermore, integration of the algorithm into clinical trials of differentiating therapies, in a prospective fashion, may help to systematically monitor the incidence and severity of DS.”

Dr. Norsworthy declared no conflicts of interest.

Photo courtesy of ASH

SAN DIEGO—A recurrent mutation in BCL2, the therapeutic target of venetoclax, appears to be a major contributor to drug resistance in patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), investigators reported.

The mutation has been detected in some patients with CLL up to 2 years before resistance to venetoclax actually develops, according to Piers Blombery, MBBS, of the Peter MacCallum Cancer Center in Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.

“We have identified the first acquired BCL2 mutation developed in patients clinically treated with venetoclax,” he said during the late-breaking abstracts session at the 2018 ASH Annual Meeting.

The mutation, which the investigators have labeled BCL2 Gly101Val, “is a recurrent and frequent mediator of resistance and may be detected years before clinical relapse occurs,” Dr. Blombery added.

A paper on the mutation was published in Cancer Discovery to coincide with the presentation at ASH (abstract LBA-7).

Despite the demonstrated efficacy of venetoclax as continuous therapy in patients with relapsed or refractory CLL, the majority of patients experience disease progression, prompting the investigators to explore molecular mechanisms of secondary resistance.

To do this, they analyzed paired samples from 15 patients with CLL, enrolled in clinical trials of venetoclax, collected both before the start of venetoclax therapy and at the time of disease progression.

In seven patients, the investigators identified a novel mutation that showed up at the time of progression but was absent from the pre-venetoclax samples.

The mutation first became detectable from about 19 to 42 months after the start of therapy and preceded clinical progression by as much as 25 months, the investigators found.

They pinned the mutation down to the BH3-binding groove on BCL2, the same molecular site targeted by venetoclax. They found the mutation was not present in samples from 96 patients with venetoclax-naive CLL nor in any other B-cell malignancies.

Searches for references to the mutation in both a cancer database (COSMIC) and a population database (gnomAD) came up empty.

In other experiments, the investigators determined that cell lines overexpressing BCL2 Gly101Val are resistant to venetoclax, and, in the presence of venetoclax in vitro, BCL2 Gly101Val-expressing cells have a growth advantage compared with wild-type cells.

Additionally, they showed that the mutation results in impaired venetoclax binding in vitro.

“BCL2 Gly101Val is observed subclonally, implicating multiple mechanisms of venetoclax resistance in the same patient,” Dr. Blombery said.

He added that the identification of the resistance mutation is a strong rationale for using combination therapy to treat patients with relapsed or refractory CLL to help prevent or attenuate selection pressures that lead to resistance.

Dr. Blombery reported having no relevant disclosures. The investigators were supported by the Wilson Center for Lymphoma Genomics, Snowdome Foundation, National Health Medical Research Council, Leukemia and Lymphoma Society, Leukemia Foundation, Cancer Council of Victoria, and Australian Cancer Research Foundation.

Photo courtesy of ASH

SAN DIEGO—A recurrent mutation in BCL2, the therapeutic target of venetoclax, appears to be a major contributor to drug resistance in patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), investigators reported.

The mutation has been detected in some patients with CLL up to 2 years before resistance to venetoclax actually develops, according to Piers Blombery, MBBS, of the Peter MacCallum Cancer Center in Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.

“We have identified the first acquired BCL2 mutation developed in patients clinically treated with venetoclax,” he said during the late-breaking abstracts session at the 2018 ASH Annual Meeting.

The mutation, which the investigators have labeled BCL2 Gly101Val, “is a recurrent and frequent mediator of resistance and may be detected years before clinical relapse occurs,” Dr. Blombery added.

A paper on the mutation was published in Cancer Discovery to coincide with the presentation at ASH (abstract LBA-7).

Despite the demonstrated efficacy of venetoclax as continuous therapy in patients with relapsed or refractory CLL, the majority of patients experience disease progression, prompting the investigators to explore molecular mechanisms of secondary resistance.

To do this, they analyzed paired samples from 15 patients with CLL, enrolled in clinical trials of venetoclax, collected both before the start of venetoclax therapy and at the time of disease progression.

In seven patients, the investigators identified a novel mutation that showed up at the time of progression but was absent from the pre-venetoclax samples.

The mutation first became detectable from about 19 to 42 months after the start of therapy and preceded clinical progression by as much as 25 months, the investigators found.

They pinned the mutation down to the BH3-binding groove on BCL2, the same molecular site targeted by venetoclax. They found the mutation was not present in samples from 96 patients with venetoclax-naive CLL nor in any other B-cell malignancies.

Searches for references to the mutation in both a cancer database (COSMIC) and a population database (gnomAD) came up empty.

In other experiments, the investigators determined that cell lines overexpressing BCL2 Gly101Val are resistant to venetoclax, and, in the presence of venetoclax in vitro, BCL2 Gly101Val-expressing cells have a growth advantage compared with wild-type cells.

Additionally, they showed that the mutation results in impaired venetoclax binding in vitro.

“BCL2 Gly101Val is observed subclonally, implicating multiple mechanisms of venetoclax resistance in the same patient,” Dr. Blombery said.

He added that the identification of the resistance mutation is a strong rationale for using combination therapy to treat patients with relapsed or refractory CLL to help prevent or attenuate selection pressures that lead to resistance.

Dr. Blombery reported having no relevant disclosures. The investigators were supported by the Wilson Center for Lymphoma Genomics, Snowdome Foundation, National Health Medical Research Council, Leukemia and Lymphoma Society, Leukemia Foundation, Cancer Council of Victoria, and Australian Cancer Research Foundation.

Photo courtesy of ASH

SAN DIEGO—A recurrent mutation in BCL2, the therapeutic target of venetoclax, appears to be a major contributor to drug resistance in patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), investigators reported.

The mutation has been detected in some patients with CLL up to 2 years before resistance to venetoclax actually develops, according to Piers Blombery, MBBS, of the Peter MacCallum Cancer Center in Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.

“We have identified the first acquired BCL2 mutation developed in patients clinically treated with venetoclax,” he said during the late-breaking abstracts session at the 2018 ASH Annual Meeting.

The mutation, which the investigators have labeled BCL2 Gly101Val, “is a recurrent and frequent mediator of resistance and may be detected years before clinical relapse occurs,” Dr. Blombery added.

A paper on the mutation was published in Cancer Discovery to coincide with the presentation at ASH (abstract LBA-7).

Despite the demonstrated efficacy of venetoclax as continuous therapy in patients with relapsed or refractory CLL, the majority of patients experience disease progression, prompting the investigators to explore molecular mechanisms of secondary resistance.

To do this, they analyzed paired samples from 15 patients with CLL, enrolled in clinical trials of venetoclax, collected both before the start of venetoclax therapy and at the time of disease progression.

In seven patients, the investigators identified a novel mutation that showed up at the time of progression but was absent from the pre-venetoclax samples.

The mutation first became detectable from about 19 to 42 months after the start of therapy and preceded clinical progression by as much as 25 months, the investigators found.

They pinned the mutation down to the BH3-binding groove on BCL2, the same molecular site targeted by venetoclax. They found the mutation was not present in samples from 96 patients with venetoclax-naive CLL nor in any other B-cell malignancies.

Searches for references to the mutation in both a cancer database (COSMIC) and a population database (gnomAD) came up empty.

In other experiments, the investigators determined that cell lines overexpressing BCL2 Gly101Val are resistant to venetoclax, and, in the presence of venetoclax in vitro, BCL2 Gly101Val-expressing cells have a growth advantage compared with wild-type cells.

Additionally, they showed that the mutation results in impaired venetoclax binding in vitro.

“BCL2 Gly101Val is observed subclonally, implicating multiple mechanisms of venetoclax resistance in the same patient,” Dr. Blombery said.

He added that the identification of the resistance mutation is a strong rationale for using combination therapy to treat patients with relapsed or refractory CLL to help prevent or attenuate selection pressures that lead to resistance.

Dr. Blombery reported having no relevant disclosures. The investigators were supported by the Wilson Center for Lymphoma Genomics, Snowdome Foundation, National Health Medical Research Council, Leukemia and Lymphoma Society, Leukemia Foundation, Cancer Council of Victoria, and Australian Cancer Research Foundation.