User login
Brentuximab vedotin boosts elderly Hodgkin survival
For elderly patients with untreated Hodgkin lymphoma (HL), adding brentuximab vedotin (Bv) before and after standard chemotherapy significantly improved survival, a recent study found.
In patients with low comorbidity scores, responses were even more robust, reported Andrew M. Evens, DO, of the Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey in New Brunswick and his colleagues.
“Causes of poor outcomes for older patients with HL are not fully understood but have been attributed to a combination of factors, including presence of comorbidities, poorer performance status, disease and biological differences, inability to tolerate chemotherapy at the full dose, and increased treatment-related toxicities,” the authors wrote in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.
The primary goal of the study was to improve outcomes for untreated, older patients, a group that’s historically been a difficult-to-treat patient population.
The phase 2 trial included 48 elderly patients (median age, 69 years) with Hodgkin lymphoma. All patients underwent geriatric assessment for comorbidities and loss of activities of daily living. Treatment consisted of two doses of Bv followed by six cycles of doxorubicin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine (AVD), then four more doses of Bv (consolidation doses). The primary endpoint was complete remission at completion of AVD. Secondary outcomes included overall response rate, 2-year progression-free survival, 2-year overall survival, and safety.
Just over half of the patients (52%) completed all cycles of therapy, and almost three-quarters (72%) received at least one consolidation dose of Bv.
Among the first 23 evaluable patients, both the complete remission rate and overall response rate were 96%. Intention-to-treat survival rates for all 48 patients were 84% for 2-year progression-free survival and 93% for 2-year overall survival.
Historical 2-year progression-free survival rates in similar elderly patients is poor, at 50%, so the progression-free survival rate of 84% in this study represents a significant improvement. Of note, patients with fewer comorbidities and without loss of instrumental activities of daily living showed more robust responses.
Patients with Cumulative Illness Rating Scale for Geriatrics (CIRS-G) comorbidity scores of less than 10 had a 2-year progression-free survival rate of 100% versus 45% for those with higher scores. Similarly, patients without loss of instrumental activities achieved a progression-free survival rate of 94%versus 25% for those who had lost some instrumental activities.
Grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurred in 42% of patients, with neutropenia being the most common (44%).
“This study represents among the best-reported outcomes to date for untreated older patients with HL,” the investigators concluded.
Seattle Genetics supported the investigator-initiated trial. Dr. Evens reported consulting or advisory relationships with Seattle Genetics and several other companies.
SOURCE: Evens AM et al. J Clin Oncol. 2018 Sep 4. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2018.79.0139
For elderly patients with untreated Hodgkin lymphoma (HL), adding brentuximab vedotin (Bv) before and after standard chemotherapy significantly improved survival, a recent study found.
In patients with low comorbidity scores, responses were even more robust, reported Andrew M. Evens, DO, of the Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey in New Brunswick and his colleagues.
“Causes of poor outcomes for older patients with HL are not fully understood but have been attributed to a combination of factors, including presence of comorbidities, poorer performance status, disease and biological differences, inability to tolerate chemotherapy at the full dose, and increased treatment-related toxicities,” the authors wrote in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.
The primary goal of the study was to improve outcomes for untreated, older patients, a group that’s historically been a difficult-to-treat patient population.
The phase 2 trial included 48 elderly patients (median age, 69 years) with Hodgkin lymphoma. All patients underwent geriatric assessment for comorbidities and loss of activities of daily living. Treatment consisted of two doses of Bv followed by six cycles of doxorubicin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine (AVD), then four more doses of Bv (consolidation doses). The primary endpoint was complete remission at completion of AVD. Secondary outcomes included overall response rate, 2-year progression-free survival, 2-year overall survival, and safety.
Just over half of the patients (52%) completed all cycles of therapy, and almost three-quarters (72%) received at least one consolidation dose of Bv.
Among the first 23 evaluable patients, both the complete remission rate and overall response rate were 96%. Intention-to-treat survival rates for all 48 patients were 84% for 2-year progression-free survival and 93% for 2-year overall survival.
Historical 2-year progression-free survival rates in similar elderly patients is poor, at 50%, so the progression-free survival rate of 84% in this study represents a significant improvement. Of note, patients with fewer comorbidities and without loss of instrumental activities of daily living showed more robust responses.
Patients with Cumulative Illness Rating Scale for Geriatrics (CIRS-G) comorbidity scores of less than 10 had a 2-year progression-free survival rate of 100% versus 45% for those with higher scores. Similarly, patients without loss of instrumental activities achieved a progression-free survival rate of 94%versus 25% for those who had lost some instrumental activities.
Grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurred in 42% of patients, with neutropenia being the most common (44%).
“This study represents among the best-reported outcomes to date for untreated older patients with HL,” the investigators concluded.
Seattle Genetics supported the investigator-initiated trial. Dr. Evens reported consulting or advisory relationships with Seattle Genetics and several other companies.
SOURCE: Evens AM et al. J Clin Oncol. 2018 Sep 4. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2018.79.0139
For elderly patients with untreated Hodgkin lymphoma (HL), adding brentuximab vedotin (Bv) before and after standard chemotherapy significantly improved survival, a recent study found.
In patients with low comorbidity scores, responses were even more robust, reported Andrew M. Evens, DO, of the Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey in New Brunswick and his colleagues.
“Causes of poor outcomes for older patients with HL are not fully understood but have been attributed to a combination of factors, including presence of comorbidities, poorer performance status, disease and biological differences, inability to tolerate chemotherapy at the full dose, and increased treatment-related toxicities,” the authors wrote in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.
The primary goal of the study was to improve outcomes for untreated, older patients, a group that’s historically been a difficult-to-treat patient population.
The phase 2 trial included 48 elderly patients (median age, 69 years) with Hodgkin lymphoma. All patients underwent geriatric assessment for comorbidities and loss of activities of daily living. Treatment consisted of two doses of Bv followed by six cycles of doxorubicin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine (AVD), then four more doses of Bv (consolidation doses). The primary endpoint was complete remission at completion of AVD. Secondary outcomes included overall response rate, 2-year progression-free survival, 2-year overall survival, and safety.
Just over half of the patients (52%) completed all cycles of therapy, and almost three-quarters (72%) received at least one consolidation dose of Bv.
Among the first 23 evaluable patients, both the complete remission rate and overall response rate were 96%. Intention-to-treat survival rates for all 48 patients were 84% for 2-year progression-free survival and 93% for 2-year overall survival.
Historical 2-year progression-free survival rates in similar elderly patients is poor, at 50%, so the progression-free survival rate of 84% in this study represents a significant improvement. Of note, patients with fewer comorbidities and without loss of instrumental activities of daily living showed more robust responses.
Patients with Cumulative Illness Rating Scale for Geriatrics (CIRS-G) comorbidity scores of less than 10 had a 2-year progression-free survival rate of 100% versus 45% for those with higher scores. Similarly, patients without loss of instrumental activities achieved a progression-free survival rate of 94%versus 25% for those who had lost some instrumental activities.
Grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurred in 42% of patients, with neutropenia being the most common (44%).
“This study represents among the best-reported outcomes to date for untreated older patients with HL,” the investigators concluded.
Seattle Genetics supported the investigator-initiated trial. Dr. Evens reported consulting or advisory relationships with Seattle Genetics and several other companies.
SOURCE: Evens AM et al. J Clin Oncol. 2018 Sep 4. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2018.79.0139
FROM JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
Key clinical point:
Major finding: Two-year PFS was 84% for patients treated additionally with Bv, compared with 50% historically for standard therapy.
Study details: A prospective phase 2 study involving 48 elderly patients with Hodgkin lymphoma.
Disclosures: Seattle Genetics supported the investigator-initiated trial. Dr. Evens reported consulting or advisory relationships with Seattle Genetics and several other companies.
Source: Evens AM et al. J Clin Oncol. 2018 Sep 4. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2018.79.0139.
Cheaper drug-eluting stent fares as well as Xience
SAN DIEGO – The Supraflex drug-eluting stent is noninferior to Abbott’s Xience stent, according to results of the TALENT trial. Supfraflex elutes sirolimus from a bioabsorbable polymer, while Xience elutes everolimus from a durable polymer coating.
Stent technology has reached a “safety plateau,” which is leading to decisions based on economic factors, said Patrick Serruys, MD, during a presentation of the results at Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics annual meeting. Dr. Serruys is a professor of cardiology at the National Heart and Lung Institute of Imperial College in London.
The Indian government’s policy also requires companies to prove that their product is noninferior to proven stents. To satisfy that requirement, researchers conducted the Thin Strut Sirolimus-Eluting Stent in All Comers Population vs Everolimus-eluting Stent (TALENT) study. In this trial (NCT02870140), 1,435 patients from 23 sites were randomized to receive either the Supraflex stent, manufactured by India-based SMT, or the Xience stent.
The population was “all comers” who had symptomatic coronary artery disease that qualified for percutaneous coronary interventions, including chronic stable angina, silent ischemia, and acute coronary syndromes. The researchers followed patients out to 3 years.
The two groups were similar in their baseline characteristics, with the exception of previous coronary artery bypass graft, which was more frequent in the Xience group (7.7% versus 4.6%).
The primary endpoint of the study was a composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, and clinically indicated target lesion revascularization (CI-TLR). At 3 years, 5.3% of the Xience group experienced the composite outcome versus 4.9% of the Supraflex group, a nonsignificant difference. The result confirmed the noninferiority of Supraflex at a margin of 4% (P less than .001). When the adverse events were broken down individually in a per-protocol analysis, the only significant difference between the two groups was with respect to CI-TLR, which favored Supraflex (1.2% versus 3.1%; P = .021). There were seven deaths in the Supraflex arm versus two in the Xience group. However, there was no apparent explanation for the difference, and it may have been because of chance, according to Dr. Serruys.
“The performance of Xience was excellent in this trial, at 5.3% it had one of the lowest (adverse outcome rates) I have seen so far, but the Supraflex also did very well,” said Dr. Serruys at a press conference.
The results of the study have implications in countries with capped stent prices or where there are models for competitive pricing. “Market competitiveness may influence future decisions on which stent you use,” said Dr. Serruys.
Because the trial was designed with India’s regulatory environment in mind, it is unlikely to be applicable to marketing approval in the United States, but such inexpensive stents could be coming. They may drive down prices, but they could also have a dark side, according to Dr. Cohen. “The companies that make these kinds of stents don’t do the kind of innovation we’ve come to expect in the field. I don’t know if they can support the R&D programs that the companies that we currently use [can support],” he said.
TALENT was sponsored by SMT, which manufactures Supraflex, and by the European Clinical Research Institute. Dr. Serruys has consulted for, received honoraria from, or served on the speaker’s bureau for Abbott. Dr. Cohen has received grant support from Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, Corvia Medical, and Svelte. He has consulted for, received honoraria, or served on the speaker’s bureau for Edwards Lifesciences and Medtronic.
SAN DIEGO – The Supraflex drug-eluting stent is noninferior to Abbott’s Xience stent, according to results of the TALENT trial. Supfraflex elutes sirolimus from a bioabsorbable polymer, while Xience elutes everolimus from a durable polymer coating.
Stent technology has reached a “safety plateau,” which is leading to decisions based on economic factors, said Patrick Serruys, MD, during a presentation of the results at Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics annual meeting. Dr. Serruys is a professor of cardiology at the National Heart and Lung Institute of Imperial College in London.
The Indian government’s policy also requires companies to prove that their product is noninferior to proven stents. To satisfy that requirement, researchers conducted the Thin Strut Sirolimus-Eluting Stent in All Comers Population vs Everolimus-eluting Stent (TALENT) study. In this trial (NCT02870140), 1,435 patients from 23 sites were randomized to receive either the Supraflex stent, manufactured by India-based SMT, or the Xience stent.
The population was “all comers” who had symptomatic coronary artery disease that qualified for percutaneous coronary interventions, including chronic stable angina, silent ischemia, and acute coronary syndromes. The researchers followed patients out to 3 years.
The two groups were similar in their baseline characteristics, with the exception of previous coronary artery bypass graft, which was more frequent in the Xience group (7.7% versus 4.6%).
The primary endpoint of the study was a composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, and clinically indicated target lesion revascularization (CI-TLR). At 3 years, 5.3% of the Xience group experienced the composite outcome versus 4.9% of the Supraflex group, a nonsignificant difference. The result confirmed the noninferiority of Supraflex at a margin of 4% (P less than .001). When the adverse events were broken down individually in a per-protocol analysis, the only significant difference between the two groups was with respect to CI-TLR, which favored Supraflex (1.2% versus 3.1%; P = .021). There were seven deaths in the Supraflex arm versus two in the Xience group. However, there was no apparent explanation for the difference, and it may have been because of chance, according to Dr. Serruys.
“The performance of Xience was excellent in this trial, at 5.3% it had one of the lowest (adverse outcome rates) I have seen so far, but the Supraflex also did very well,” said Dr. Serruys at a press conference.
The results of the study have implications in countries with capped stent prices or where there are models for competitive pricing. “Market competitiveness may influence future decisions on which stent you use,” said Dr. Serruys.
Because the trial was designed with India’s regulatory environment in mind, it is unlikely to be applicable to marketing approval in the United States, but such inexpensive stents could be coming. They may drive down prices, but they could also have a dark side, according to Dr. Cohen. “The companies that make these kinds of stents don’t do the kind of innovation we’ve come to expect in the field. I don’t know if they can support the R&D programs that the companies that we currently use [can support],” he said.
TALENT was sponsored by SMT, which manufactures Supraflex, and by the European Clinical Research Institute. Dr. Serruys has consulted for, received honoraria from, or served on the speaker’s bureau for Abbott. Dr. Cohen has received grant support from Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, Corvia Medical, and Svelte. He has consulted for, received honoraria, or served on the speaker’s bureau for Edwards Lifesciences and Medtronic.
SAN DIEGO – The Supraflex drug-eluting stent is noninferior to Abbott’s Xience stent, according to results of the TALENT trial. Supfraflex elutes sirolimus from a bioabsorbable polymer, while Xience elutes everolimus from a durable polymer coating.
Stent technology has reached a “safety plateau,” which is leading to decisions based on economic factors, said Patrick Serruys, MD, during a presentation of the results at Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics annual meeting. Dr. Serruys is a professor of cardiology at the National Heart and Lung Institute of Imperial College in London.
The Indian government’s policy also requires companies to prove that their product is noninferior to proven stents. To satisfy that requirement, researchers conducted the Thin Strut Sirolimus-Eluting Stent in All Comers Population vs Everolimus-eluting Stent (TALENT) study. In this trial (NCT02870140), 1,435 patients from 23 sites were randomized to receive either the Supraflex stent, manufactured by India-based SMT, or the Xience stent.
The population was “all comers” who had symptomatic coronary artery disease that qualified for percutaneous coronary interventions, including chronic stable angina, silent ischemia, and acute coronary syndromes. The researchers followed patients out to 3 years.
The two groups were similar in their baseline characteristics, with the exception of previous coronary artery bypass graft, which was more frequent in the Xience group (7.7% versus 4.6%).
The primary endpoint of the study was a composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, and clinically indicated target lesion revascularization (CI-TLR). At 3 years, 5.3% of the Xience group experienced the composite outcome versus 4.9% of the Supraflex group, a nonsignificant difference. The result confirmed the noninferiority of Supraflex at a margin of 4% (P less than .001). When the adverse events were broken down individually in a per-protocol analysis, the only significant difference between the two groups was with respect to CI-TLR, which favored Supraflex (1.2% versus 3.1%; P = .021). There were seven deaths in the Supraflex arm versus two in the Xience group. However, there was no apparent explanation for the difference, and it may have been because of chance, according to Dr. Serruys.
“The performance of Xience was excellent in this trial, at 5.3% it had one of the lowest (adverse outcome rates) I have seen so far, but the Supraflex also did very well,” said Dr. Serruys at a press conference.
The results of the study have implications in countries with capped stent prices or where there are models for competitive pricing. “Market competitiveness may influence future decisions on which stent you use,” said Dr. Serruys.
Because the trial was designed with India’s regulatory environment in mind, it is unlikely to be applicable to marketing approval in the United States, but such inexpensive stents could be coming. They may drive down prices, but they could also have a dark side, according to Dr. Cohen. “The companies that make these kinds of stents don’t do the kind of innovation we’ve come to expect in the field. I don’t know if they can support the R&D programs that the companies that we currently use [can support],” he said.
TALENT was sponsored by SMT, which manufactures Supraflex, and by the European Clinical Research Institute. Dr. Serruys has consulted for, received honoraria from, or served on the speaker’s bureau for Abbott. Dr. Cohen has received grant support from Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, Corvia Medical, and Svelte. He has consulted for, received honoraria, or served on the speaker’s bureau for Edwards Lifesciences and Medtronic.
REPORTING FROM TCT 2018
Key clinical point: Equivalent, cheaper stents could put economic pressure on choice of stent.
Major finding: At 1 year, there was no significant difference in a composite of death and cardiac events.
Study details: TALENT, a multicenter, randomized, controlled trial of 1,435 patients.
Disclosures: TALENT was sponsored by SMT, which manufactures Supraflex, and by the European Clinical Research Institute. Dr. Serruys has consulted for, received honoraria from, or served on the speaker’s bureau for Abbott. Dr. Cohen has received grant support from Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, Corvia Medical, and Svelte. He has consulted for, received honoraria from, or served on the speaker’s bureau for Edwards Lifesciences and Medtronic.
Drug-coated stent bests bare metal in patients with high bleeding risk
SAN DIEGO – Positive results of the LEADERS FREE II trial in patients with high bleeding risk undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention may pave the way for approval of a new drug-coated stent in the United States and possibly spell the end for bare-metal stents.
The stent studied – a polymer-free umirolimus-coated stent – is currently marketed in Europe as BioFreedom (Biosensors International). It outperformed a very similar bare-metal stent (Gazelle, manufactured by Biosensors Interventional Technologies) in the randomized LEADERS FREE trial, which was conducted outside the United States (N Engl J Med. 2015 Nov 19;373[21]:2038-47). The single-arm LEADERS FREE II (NCT02843633) trial was undertaken to confirm those findings, assess their generalizability in a North American population, and obtain data to support regulatory approval of the stent in the United States, explained presenting author Mitchell W. Krucoff, MD, a professor of medicine and member in the Duke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University, Durham, N.C. All patients received drug-coated stents because it was considered unethical to randomize any to bare-metal stents after the preceding trial. As in that trial, all patients received 1 month of dual-antiplatelet therapy.
Compared with the 1,211 propensity-matched patients treated with bare metal stents in the LEADERS FREE trial, the 1,203 patients treated with drug-coated stents in the LEADERS FREE II trial had a 33% lower risk of primary safety events (a composite of cardiac death and myocardial infarction) and a 37% lower risk of primary efficacy events (clinically driven target lesion revascularization) at 1 year, according to the study’s main results. Secondary outcomes were all similar or better with the drug-coated stents.
“This study demonstrates reproducibility of the randomized LEADERS FREE findings showing superior safety … and superior effectiveness … of the drug-coated stent over the bare-metal stent,” Dr. Krucoff said. “This study also, by enrolling more than half of patients in North America, supports the generalizability of the findings to patients on both sides of the Atlantic.”
Parsing the findings
When asked whether the Food and Drug Administration should approve this stent and whether he would use it for his patients, Dr. Krucoff gave a “yes, but …” reply. “The but here is, we have a lot to learn in this area. These are patients who by and large have been excluded from every pivotal drug-eluting stent study and every pivotal dual-antiplatelet study,” he elaborated. It is therefore unclear, for example, how the stent will perform as more are treated and what the optimal duration of dual-antiplatelet therapy is. Nonetheless, given that these patients make up a sizable share of the PCI [percutaneous coronary intervention] population and that some centers still commonly use bare-metal stents, “I think bringing this stent forward with a label for 30 days [of dual-antiplatelet therapy] in high bleeding risk patients is a yes.”
“To me, the main driving factor for an expeditious [approval] process is, if you put a conservatively critical eye to this, you could say that LEADERS FREE alerts us to a safety signal [about] our intuitive behavior practice of putting bare-metal stents in patients who we know are at high bleeding risk, so we are only going to treat them with 30 days of dual-antiplatelet therapy. There is actually a safety signal that we are potentially doing harm, based on at least one look at this,” Dr. Krucoff added. “There is no question, I think FDA decisions are primarily driven by safety concerns. The unusual thing here is, it’s not a safety concern as a defect in the device, it’s a safety concern relative to our current practice.”
Trial details
On average, the patients enrolled in LEADERS FREE II were generally similar to counterparts enrolled in LEADERS FREE and had an average of 1.74 factors putting them at high risk for bleeding, according to Dr. Krucoff. Of note, it was an all-comers trial in that there was no restriction on coronary anatomy, lesion complexity, or clinical presentation.
Results reported at the meeting, which was sponsored by the Cardiovascular Research Foundation, showed that the rate of the primary safety endpoint – the composite of cardiac death and myocardial infarction at 1 year – was 8.6% with the drug-coated stent and 12.3% with the bare-metal stent, for an absolute risk difference of –3.7% (hazard ratio, 0.67; P for noninferiority less than .0001; P for superiority = .0025).
Findings were significant for each component individually and were generally consistent across patient subgroups, Dr. Krucoff said. Secondary safety endpoints showed “no sign of a safety signal or concern with the drug-coated stent platform with 30 days of dual-antiplatelet therapy.”
In an additional analysis, the unadjusted rates of the primary safety endpoint were was 8.6% and 9.0% with the drug-coated stent in the LEADERS FREE II and the LEADERS FREE populations, respectively, compared with 12.4% with the bare-metal stent.
The rate of the primary efficacy endpoint – clinically driven target lesion revascularization at 1 year – was 6.1% with the drug-coated stent and 9.3% with the bare-metal stent, for an absolute risk difference of –3.2% (hazard ratio, 0.63; P for superiority = .0111). Findings again were consistently in favor of the drug-coated stent across most patient subgroups, with the exception of patients having renal failure at the time of admission. Secondary efficacy endpoints all significantly favored that stent as well.
The 1-year rates of bleeding overall and by severity were statistically indistinguishable, Dr. Krucoff reported. The rate of severe bleeding – Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) type 3-5 – was 7.0% with the drug-coated stent and 7.3% with the bare metal stent.
Dr. Krucoff disclosed that he has various affiliations and financial relationships with Abbott Vascular, Biosensors, Boston Scientific, CSI, Medtronic, OrbusNeich, and Terumo. The trial was sponsored by Biosensors.
SAN DIEGO – Positive results of the LEADERS FREE II trial in patients with high bleeding risk undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention may pave the way for approval of a new drug-coated stent in the United States and possibly spell the end for bare-metal stents.
The stent studied – a polymer-free umirolimus-coated stent – is currently marketed in Europe as BioFreedom (Biosensors International). It outperformed a very similar bare-metal stent (Gazelle, manufactured by Biosensors Interventional Technologies) in the randomized LEADERS FREE trial, which was conducted outside the United States (N Engl J Med. 2015 Nov 19;373[21]:2038-47). The single-arm LEADERS FREE II (NCT02843633) trial was undertaken to confirm those findings, assess their generalizability in a North American population, and obtain data to support regulatory approval of the stent in the United States, explained presenting author Mitchell W. Krucoff, MD, a professor of medicine and member in the Duke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University, Durham, N.C. All patients received drug-coated stents because it was considered unethical to randomize any to bare-metal stents after the preceding trial. As in that trial, all patients received 1 month of dual-antiplatelet therapy.
Compared with the 1,211 propensity-matched patients treated with bare metal stents in the LEADERS FREE trial, the 1,203 patients treated with drug-coated stents in the LEADERS FREE II trial had a 33% lower risk of primary safety events (a composite of cardiac death and myocardial infarction) and a 37% lower risk of primary efficacy events (clinically driven target lesion revascularization) at 1 year, according to the study’s main results. Secondary outcomes were all similar or better with the drug-coated stents.
“This study demonstrates reproducibility of the randomized LEADERS FREE findings showing superior safety … and superior effectiveness … of the drug-coated stent over the bare-metal stent,” Dr. Krucoff said. “This study also, by enrolling more than half of patients in North America, supports the generalizability of the findings to patients on both sides of the Atlantic.”
Parsing the findings
When asked whether the Food and Drug Administration should approve this stent and whether he would use it for his patients, Dr. Krucoff gave a “yes, but …” reply. “The but here is, we have a lot to learn in this area. These are patients who by and large have been excluded from every pivotal drug-eluting stent study and every pivotal dual-antiplatelet study,” he elaborated. It is therefore unclear, for example, how the stent will perform as more are treated and what the optimal duration of dual-antiplatelet therapy is. Nonetheless, given that these patients make up a sizable share of the PCI [percutaneous coronary intervention] population and that some centers still commonly use bare-metal stents, “I think bringing this stent forward with a label for 30 days [of dual-antiplatelet therapy] in high bleeding risk patients is a yes.”
“To me, the main driving factor for an expeditious [approval] process is, if you put a conservatively critical eye to this, you could say that LEADERS FREE alerts us to a safety signal [about] our intuitive behavior practice of putting bare-metal stents in patients who we know are at high bleeding risk, so we are only going to treat them with 30 days of dual-antiplatelet therapy. There is actually a safety signal that we are potentially doing harm, based on at least one look at this,” Dr. Krucoff added. “There is no question, I think FDA decisions are primarily driven by safety concerns. The unusual thing here is, it’s not a safety concern as a defect in the device, it’s a safety concern relative to our current practice.”
Trial details
On average, the patients enrolled in LEADERS FREE II were generally similar to counterparts enrolled in LEADERS FREE and had an average of 1.74 factors putting them at high risk for bleeding, according to Dr. Krucoff. Of note, it was an all-comers trial in that there was no restriction on coronary anatomy, lesion complexity, or clinical presentation.
Results reported at the meeting, which was sponsored by the Cardiovascular Research Foundation, showed that the rate of the primary safety endpoint – the composite of cardiac death and myocardial infarction at 1 year – was 8.6% with the drug-coated stent and 12.3% with the bare-metal stent, for an absolute risk difference of –3.7% (hazard ratio, 0.67; P for noninferiority less than .0001; P for superiority = .0025).
Findings were significant for each component individually and were generally consistent across patient subgroups, Dr. Krucoff said. Secondary safety endpoints showed “no sign of a safety signal or concern with the drug-coated stent platform with 30 days of dual-antiplatelet therapy.”
In an additional analysis, the unadjusted rates of the primary safety endpoint were was 8.6% and 9.0% with the drug-coated stent in the LEADERS FREE II and the LEADERS FREE populations, respectively, compared with 12.4% with the bare-metal stent.
The rate of the primary efficacy endpoint – clinically driven target lesion revascularization at 1 year – was 6.1% with the drug-coated stent and 9.3% with the bare-metal stent, for an absolute risk difference of –3.2% (hazard ratio, 0.63; P for superiority = .0111). Findings again were consistently in favor of the drug-coated stent across most patient subgroups, with the exception of patients having renal failure at the time of admission. Secondary efficacy endpoints all significantly favored that stent as well.
The 1-year rates of bleeding overall and by severity were statistically indistinguishable, Dr. Krucoff reported. The rate of severe bleeding – Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) type 3-5 – was 7.0% with the drug-coated stent and 7.3% with the bare metal stent.
Dr. Krucoff disclosed that he has various affiliations and financial relationships with Abbott Vascular, Biosensors, Boston Scientific, CSI, Medtronic, OrbusNeich, and Terumo. The trial was sponsored by Biosensors.
SAN DIEGO – Positive results of the LEADERS FREE II trial in patients with high bleeding risk undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention may pave the way for approval of a new drug-coated stent in the United States and possibly spell the end for bare-metal stents.
The stent studied – a polymer-free umirolimus-coated stent – is currently marketed in Europe as BioFreedom (Biosensors International). It outperformed a very similar bare-metal stent (Gazelle, manufactured by Biosensors Interventional Technologies) in the randomized LEADERS FREE trial, which was conducted outside the United States (N Engl J Med. 2015 Nov 19;373[21]:2038-47). The single-arm LEADERS FREE II (NCT02843633) trial was undertaken to confirm those findings, assess their generalizability in a North American population, and obtain data to support regulatory approval of the stent in the United States, explained presenting author Mitchell W. Krucoff, MD, a professor of medicine and member in the Duke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University, Durham, N.C. All patients received drug-coated stents because it was considered unethical to randomize any to bare-metal stents after the preceding trial. As in that trial, all patients received 1 month of dual-antiplatelet therapy.
Compared with the 1,211 propensity-matched patients treated with bare metal stents in the LEADERS FREE trial, the 1,203 patients treated with drug-coated stents in the LEADERS FREE II trial had a 33% lower risk of primary safety events (a composite of cardiac death and myocardial infarction) and a 37% lower risk of primary efficacy events (clinically driven target lesion revascularization) at 1 year, according to the study’s main results. Secondary outcomes were all similar or better with the drug-coated stents.
“This study demonstrates reproducibility of the randomized LEADERS FREE findings showing superior safety … and superior effectiveness … of the drug-coated stent over the bare-metal stent,” Dr. Krucoff said. “This study also, by enrolling more than half of patients in North America, supports the generalizability of the findings to patients on both sides of the Atlantic.”
Parsing the findings
When asked whether the Food and Drug Administration should approve this stent and whether he would use it for his patients, Dr. Krucoff gave a “yes, but …” reply. “The but here is, we have a lot to learn in this area. These are patients who by and large have been excluded from every pivotal drug-eluting stent study and every pivotal dual-antiplatelet study,” he elaborated. It is therefore unclear, for example, how the stent will perform as more are treated and what the optimal duration of dual-antiplatelet therapy is. Nonetheless, given that these patients make up a sizable share of the PCI [percutaneous coronary intervention] population and that some centers still commonly use bare-metal stents, “I think bringing this stent forward with a label for 30 days [of dual-antiplatelet therapy] in high bleeding risk patients is a yes.”
“To me, the main driving factor for an expeditious [approval] process is, if you put a conservatively critical eye to this, you could say that LEADERS FREE alerts us to a safety signal [about] our intuitive behavior practice of putting bare-metal stents in patients who we know are at high bleeding risk, so we are only going to treat them with 30 days of dual-antiplatelet therapy. There is actually a safety signal that we are potentially doing harm, based on at least one look at this,” Dr. Krucoff added. “There is no question, I think FDA decisions are primarily driven by safety concerns. The unusual thing here is, it’s not a safety concern as a defect in the device, it’s a safety concern relative to our current practice.”
Trial details
On average, the patients enrolled in LEADERS FREE II were generally similar to counterparts enrolled in LEADERS FREE and had an average of 1.74 factors putting them at high risk for bleeding, according to Dr. Krucoff. Of note, it was an all-comers trial in that there was no restriction on coronary anatomy, lesion complexity, or clinical presentation.
Results reported at the meeting, which was sponsored by the Cardiovascular Research Foundation, showed that the rate of the primary safety endpoint – the composite of cardiac death and myocardial infarction at 1 year – was 8.6% with the drug-coated stent and 12.3% with the bare-metal stent, for an absolute risk difference of –3.7% (hazard ratio, 0.67; P for noninferiority less than .0001; P for superiority = .0025).
Findings were significant for each component individually and were generally consistent across patient subgroups, Dr. Krucoff said. Secondary safety endpoints showed “no sign of a safety signal or concern with the drug-coated stent platform with 30 days of dual-antiplatelet therapy.”
In an additional analysis, the unadjusted rates of the primary safety endpoint were was 8.6% and 9.0% with the drug-coated stent in the LEADERS FREE II and the LEADERS FREE populations, respectively, compared with 12.4% with the bare-metal stent.
The rate of the primary efficacy endpoint – clinically driven target lesion revascularization at 1 year – was 6.1% with the drug-coated stent and 9.3% with the bare-metal stent, for an absolute risk difference of –3.2% (hazard ratio, 0.63; P for superiority = .0111). Findings again were consistently in favor of the drug-coated stent across most patient subgroups, with the exception of patients having renal failure at the time of admission. Secondary efficacy endpoints all significantly favored that stent as well.
The 1-year rates of bleeding overall and by severity were statistically indistinguishable, Dr. Krucoff reported. The rate of severe bleeding – Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) type 3-5 – was 7.0% with the drug-coated stent and 7.3% with the bare metal stent.
Dr. Krucoff disclosed that he has various affiliations and financial relationships with Abbott Vascular, Biosensors, Boston Scientific, CSI, Medtronic, OrbusNeich, and Terumo. The trial was sponsored by Biosensors.
REPORTING FROM TCT 2018
Key clinical point: The polymer-free umirolimus (Biolimus A9)–coated stent is superior to the bare-metal stent in patients at high bleeding risk when used with a month of dual-antiplatelet therapy.
Major finding: The drug-coated stent reduced 1-year risks of the composite of cardiac death and MI by 33% and clinically driven target lesion revascularization by 37% when compared with matched controls.
Study details: A single-arm trial of 1,203 patients at high bleeding risk undergoing PCI who were given drug-coated stents with 1 month of dual-antiplatelet therapy who were compared with 1,211 propensity-matched historical control patients given bare-metal stents (LEADERS FREE II trial).
Disclosures: Dr. Krucoff has various affiliations/financial relationships with Abbott Vascular, Biosensors, Boston Scientific, CSI, Medtronic, OrbusNeich, and Terumo. The trial was sponsored by Biosensors.
Uveal melanoma: NCCN provides first pathway-based guidelines
ORLANDO – Uveal melanoma has little in common with it’s cutaneous namesake, and its distinct characteristics necessitated the development of specific guidelines for diagnosis and management, which were released earlier this year by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN).
Unlike cutaneous melanoma, uveal melanoma is usually treated with radiotherapy rather than surgery, and primary treatment is based on tumor size, according to Christopher A. Barker, MD, a radiation oncologist and director of clinical investigations in the department of radiation at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York.
Further, molecular testing aids in prognosis in uveal melanoma but not in predicting treatment response as it can in cutaneous disease, and recurrences of uveal melanoma are typically distant – usually occurring in the liver – rather than in the skin or lymph nodes as with cutaneous melanoma.
These and other diagnosis- and treatment-related issues are outlined in the new guidelines, which are the first developed by the NCCN for uveal melanoma.
Guidelines exist in several countries, including Australia, the United Kingdom, Canada, and the United States (published by The American Brachytherapy Society), but until now none have provided pathway-based strategies for the management of all stages of this rare disease that affects about 1 in 200,000 Americans, typically Caucasians in their 50s, 60s, or 70s, Dr. Barker, a member of the NCCN Melanoma guidelines panel and the uveal melanoma subcommittee, said at the NCCN’s annual meeting where he presented the guidelines.
The median age of diagnosis is 60 years, he noted.
The NCCN guidelines specifically address melanoma arising in the choroid and ciliary body of the uvea. The choroid is the predominant site of uveal melanoma origin, and tumors arising there may involve the ciliary body as well, although the latter is a rare site of melanoma origin. The iris is also a rare site of origin, and tumors arising there are typically indolent in nature and thus are not part of the new guidelines, he explained.
Risk factors include choroidal nevi, ocular melanocytosis, and familial uveal melanoma associated with germline BAP1 mutation, neurofibromatosis, or dysplastic nevus syndrome; cutaneous melanoma is not a risk factor, he said.
The guidelines address clinical presentation, diagnostic work-up, and staging; primary treatments; and metastatic risks and follow-up imaging.
Presentation, diagnosis, and staging
About two-thirds of patients with uveal melanoma present because of changes in their vision, and about a third present with no new symptoms and are diagnosed during routine evaluation, Dr. Barker said.
“History and physical exam, and specifically attention to any prior malignancies, is important,” he said. “A comprehensive eye examination is absolutely vital to the evaluation and staging of patients with uveal melanoma.”
Numerous additional testing options, including autofluorescence of the ocular fundus, retinal fluorescein angiography of the ocular fundus, and transillumination, among others, are listed in the guidelines, which note that MRI is sometimes needed to confirm diagnosis.
Biopsies, however, are generally only performed to confirm diagnosis if needed or for prognostic analysis for risk stratification.
Staging is determined mainly by tumor size, which is known to be associated with outcomes in patients with uveal melanoma, and is based on criteria from both the Collaborative Ocular Melanoma Study (COMS) staging system and the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) staging manual, Dr. Barker said.
The COMS system was developed based on separate studies of small, medium, and large tumors and helped define primary tumor management and establish existing standards of care. The AJCC system was developed subsequently and focuses more on tumor features that may improve clinical predictions.
Primary treatments
Options for primary treatment for small tumors (largest diameter 5-16 mm and thickness less than 2.5 mm) include plaque brachytherapy, partical beam radiation, and laser ablation in highly select patients. For medium tumors (18mm or less at largest diameter and thickness of 2.5-10 mm), they include plaque brachytherapy, particle beam radiation, and enucleation, according to the guidelines.
Large tumors can be treated with radiotherapy (preferably particle beam radiation, Dr. Barker said) or enucleation. Large tumors are those greater than 18mm with any thickness, those with thickness greater than 10mm with any diameter, and those with thickness greater than 8mm with optic nerve involvement.
In patients for whom surgical removal is selected, “ there are a few unusual situations where additional local adjuvant therapy might be considered,” Dr. Barker said, explaining, for example, that the presence of microscopically positive or close margins after enucleation without evidence of gross residual disease in the orbit may be observed or may warrant map biopsy and/or particle beam or photon beam radiotherapy to the orbit.
For visible extraocular tumors or suspicion of gross disease in the orbit, biopsy of the extraocular tissue is recommended when possible, along with either intraoperative cryotherapy, orbital exenteration, or particle beam or photon beam radiotherapy to the orbit, he added.
Metastatic risks and follow-up imaging
Recent studies, including Cancer Genome Atlas Research Network studies, have elucidated the genomics of both uveal and cutaneous melanomas, and they show “a completely different mutation spectrum” for uveal melanoma, Dr. Barker said.
These genomic studies demonstrate that cutaneous melanoma involves mutations that predict response to certain treatments, while those found in uveal melanoma do not, but they are, however, associated with the probability of metastasis, he said.
For example, various studies have shown that BRAF mutation in cutaneous melanoma predicts response to RAF or MEK inhibition and that the overall number of mutations in cutaneous melanoma may predict response to immunotherapy.
In uveal melanoma, alterations in ElFAX1, SF3B1, or BAP1 have been shown to indicate low, intermediate, and high risk of metastasis, respectively.
Other factors associated with the risk of metastasis after primary tumor treatment in uveal melanoma include clinical factors (tumor size, ciliary body involvement, and extraocular extension); histopathologic factors (spindle or epithelioid cell type); and cytogenetics (status of chromosomes 3, 6, and 8), he said.
An AJCC Ophthalmic Oncology Task Force study published in 2015, for example, showed that the 5-year metastasis-free survival was 97% for AJCC stage T1 disease, 85% for stage T2, 77% for stage T3, and 61% for stage T4. T-stage modifiers, which are based on particular tumor characteristics, such as ciliary body involvement (CBI) and extraocular extension (EXE), were also associated with the risk of distant metastasis: 5-year metastasis-free survival was 90%, 72%, 54% and 33% for AJCC T_a (no CBI or EXE), T_b (CBI only), T_c (EXE only), and T_d tumors (CBI and EXE), respectively.
Follow-up imaging after primary tumor treatment should be based on the most likely site of metastatic recurrence, which is the liver in 90% of uveal melanoma metastases.
“For this reason, surveillance of high-risk patients with uveal melanoma should include specific imaging of the liver,” Dr. Barker said, who noted that the NCCN risk stratification–based surveillance guidelines categorize patients as either low, medium, or high risk for metastasis based on the various characteristics that can affect risk.
“These risk groups help clinicians identify how often imaging should be performed in their surveillance strategy,” he said, adding that those who are high risk based on BAP1 mutation, PRAME mutation, CBI, or EXE, for example, should undergo imaging to evaluate signs or symptoms every 3-6 months for 5 years, every 6-12 months for 10 years, and then as clinically indicated thereafter.
The guideline calls for less stringent imaging for low- and medium-risk patients.
“Now, what happens when distant metastases are identified? Unfortunately there is no single systemic therapy that has proven to be most effective for uveal melanoma,” he said. “For this reason, the NCCN guideline encourages clinical trial participation whenever possible for patients who develop distant metastasis.”
This is because drugs effective for cutaneous melanoma are far less effective for uveal melanoma, but do elicit response in some patients and can be considered, he explained.
“Moreover, because the liver is the site of metastasis most often, and is often the exclusive site of metastasis, liver metastasis–directed therapy is considered part of the management of patients with uveal melanoma,” he said, adding that this can involve resection, ablation, chemo/radio embolization, or regional perfusion.”
The NCCN Uveal Melanoma Guidelines were developed by a panel of experts from various institutions based on the available evidence and on consensus; they are category 2A (based on lower-level evidence with uniform NCCN consensus that the intervention is appropriate).
Dr. Barker reported receiving clinical research support from Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Elekta, Merck, University of California San Francisco, and University of Florida Health Cancer Center Orlando, and serving as an advisor, consultant, or expert witness for Pfizer.
ORLANDO – Uveal melanoma has little in common with it’s cutaneous namesake, and its distinct characteristics necessitated the development of specific guidelines for diagnosis and management, which were released earlier this year by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN).
Unlike cutaneous melanoma, uveal melanoma is usually treated with radiotherapy rather than surgery, and primary treatment is based on tumor size, according to Christopher A. Barker, MD, a radiation oncologist and director of clinical investigations in the department of radiation at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York.
Further, molecular testing aids in prognosis in uveal melanoma but not in predicting treatment response as it can in cutaneous disease, and recurrences of uveal melanoma are typically distant – usually occurring in the liver – rather than in the skin or lymph nodes as with cutaneous melanoma.
These and other diagnosis- and treatment-related issues are outlined in the new guidelines, which are the first developed by the NCCN for uveal melanoma.
Guidelines exist in several countries, including Australia, the United Kingdom, Canada, and the United States (published by The American Brachytherapy Society), but until now none have provided pathway-based strategies for the management of all stages of this rare disease that affects about 1 in 200,000 Americans, typically Caucasians in their 50s, 60s, or 70s, Dr. Barker, a member of the NCCN Melanoma guidelines panel and the uveal melanoma subcommittee, said at the NCCN’s annual meeting where he presented the guidelines.
The median age of diagnosis is 60 years, he noted.
The NCCN guidelines specifically address melanoma arising in the choroid and ciliary body of the uvea. The choroid is the predominant site of uveal melanoma origin, and tumors arising there may involve the ciliary body as well, although the latter is a rare site of melanoma origin. The iris is also a rare site of origin, and tumors arising there are typically indolent in nature and thus are not part of the new guidelines, he explained.
Risk factors include choroidal nevi, ocular melanocytosis, and familial uveal melanoma associated with germline BAP1 mutation, neurofibromatosis, or dysplastic nevus syndrome; cutaneous melanoma is not a risk factor, he said.
The guidelines address clinical presentation, diagnostic work-up, and staging; primary treatments; and metastatic risks and follow-up imaging.
Presentation, diagnosis, and staging
About two-thirds of patients with uveal melanoma present because of changes in their vision, and about a third present with no new symptoms and are diagnosed during routine evaluation, Dr. Barker said.
“History and physical exam, and specifically attention to any prior malignancies, is important,” he said. “A comprehensive eye examination is absolutely vital to the evaluation and staging of patients with uveal melanoma.”
Numerous additional testing options, including autofluorescence of the ocular fundus, retinal fluorescein angiography of the ocular fundus, and transillumination, among others, are listed in the guidelines, which note that MRI is sometimes needed to confirm diagnosis.
Biopsies, however, are generally only performed to confirm diagnosis if needed or for prognostic analysis for risk stratification.
Staging is determined mainly by tumor size, which is known to be associated with outcomes in patients with uveal melanoma, and is based on criteria from both the Collaborative Ocular Melanoma Study (COMS) staging system and the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) staging manual, Dr. Barker said.
The COMS system was developed based on separate studies of small, medium, and large tumors and helped define primary tumor management and establish existing standards of care. The AJCC system was developed subsequently and focuses more on tumor features that may improve clinical predictions.
Primary treatments
Options for primary treatment for small tumors (largest diameter 5-16 mm and thickness less than 2.5 mm) include plaque brachytherapy, partical beam radiation, and laser ablation in highly select patients. For medium tumors (18mm or less at largest diameter and thickness of 2.5-10 mm), they include plaque brachytherapy, particle beam radiation, and enucleation, according to the guidelines.
Large tumors can be treated with radiotherapy (preferably particle beam radiation, Dr. Barker said) or enucleation. Large tumors are those greater than 18mm with any thickness, those with thickness greater than 10mm with any diameter, and those with thickness greater than 8mm with optic nerve involvement.
In patients for whom surgical removal is selected, “ there are a few unusual situations where additional local adjuvant therapy might be considered,” Dr. Barker said, explaining, for example, that the presence of microscopically positive or close margins after enucleation without evidence of gross residual disease in the orbit may be observed or may warrant map biopsy and/or particle beam or photon beam radiotherapy to the orbit.
For visible extraocular tumors or suspicion of gross disease in the orbit, biopsy of the extraocular tissue is recommended when possible, along with either intraoperative cryotherapy, orbital exenteration, or particle beam or photon beam radiotherapy to the orbit, he added.
Metastatic risks and follow-up imaging
Recent studies, including Cancer Genome Atlas Research Network studies, have elucidated the genomics of both uveal and cutaneous melanomas, and they show “a completely different mutation spectrum” for uveal melanoma, Dr. Barker said.
These genomic studies demonstrate that cutaneous melanoma involves mutations that predict response to certain treatments, while those found in uveal melanoma do not, but they are, however, associated with the probability of metastasis, he said.
For example, various studies have shown that BRAF mutation in cutaneous melanoma predicts response to RAF or MEK inhibition and that the overall number of mutations in cutaneous melanoma may predict response to immunotherapy.
In uveal melanoma, alterations in ElFAX1, SF3B1, or BAP1 have been shown to indicate low, intermediate, and high risk of metastasis, respectively.
Other factors associated with the risk of metastasis after primary tumor treatment in uveal melanoma include clinical factors (tumor size, ciliary body involvement, and extraocular extension); histopathologic factors (spindle or epithelioid cell type); and cytogenetics (status of chromosomes 3, 6, and 8), he said.
An AJCC Ophthalmic Oncology Task Force study published in 2015, for example, showed that the 5-year metastasis-free survival was 97% for AJCC stage T1 disease, 85% for stage T2, 77% for stage T3, and 61% for stage T4. T-stage modifiers, which are based on particular tumor characteristics, such as ciliary body involvement (CBI) and extraocular extension (EXE), were also associated with the risk of distant metastasis: 5-year metastasis-free survival was 90%, 72%, 54% and 33% for AJCC T_a (no CBI or EXE), T_b (CBI only), T_c (EXE only), and T_d tumors (CBI and EXE), respectively.
Follow-up imaging after primary tumor treatment should be based on the most likely site of metastatic recurrence, which is the liver in 90% of uveal melanoma metastases.
“For this reason, surveillance of high-risk patients with uveal melanoma should include specific imaging of the liver,” Dr. Barker said, who noted that the NCCN risk stratification–based surveillance guidelines categorize patients as either low, medium, or high risk for metastasis based on the various characteristics that can affect risk.
“These risk groups help clinicians identify how often imaging should be performed in their surveillance strategy,” he said, adding that those who are high risk based on BAP1 mutation, PRAME mutation, CBI, or EXE, for example, should undergo imaging to evaluate signs or symptoms every 3-6 months for 5 years, every 6-12 months for 10 years, and then as clinically indicated thereafter.
The guideline calls for less stringent imaging for low- and medium-risk patients.
“Now, what happens when distant metastases are identified? Unfortunately there is no single systemic therapy that has proven to be most effective for uveal melanoma,” he said. “For this reason, the NCCN guideline encourages clinical trial participation whenever possible for patients who develop distant metastasis.”
This is because drugs effective for cutaneous melanoma are far less effective for uveal melanoma, but do elicit response in some patients and can be considered, he explained.
“Moreover, because the liver is the site of metastasis most often, and is often the exclusive site of metastasis, liver metastasis–directed therapy is considered part of the management of patients with uveal melanoma,” he said, adding that this can involve resection, ablation, chemo/radio embolization, or regional perfusion.”
The NCCN Uveal Melanoma Guidelines were developed by a panel of experts from various institutions based on the available evidence and on consensus; they are category 2A (based on lower-level evidence with uniform NCCN consensus that the intervention is appropriate).
Dr. Barker reported receiving clinical research support from Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Elekta, Merck, University of California San Francisco, and University of Florida Health Cancer Center Orlando, and serving as an advisor, consultant, or expert witness for Pfizer.
ORLANDO – Uveal melanoma has little in common with it’s cutaneous namesake, and its distinct characteristics necessitated the development of specific guidelines for diagnosis and management, which were released earlier this year by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN).
Unlike cutaneous melanoma, uveal melanoma is usually treated with radiotherapy rather than surgery, and primary treatment is based on tumor size, according to Christopher A. Barker, MD, a radiation oncologist and director of clinical investigations in the department of radiation at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York.
Further, molecular testing aids in prognosis in uveal melanoma but not in predicting treatment response as it can in cutaneous disease, and recurrences of uveal melanoma are typically distant – usually occurring in the liver – rather than in the skin or lymph nodes as with cutaneous melanoma.
These and other diagnosis- and treatment-related issues are outlined in the new guidelines, which are the first developed by the NCCN for uveal melanoma.
Guidelines exist in several countries, including Australia, the United Kingdom, Canada, and the United States (published by The American Brachytherapy Society), but until now none have provided pathway-based strategies for the management of all stages of this rare disease that affects about 1 in 200,000 Americans, typically Caucasians in their 50s, 60s, or 70s, Dr. Barker, a member of the NCCN Melanoma guidelines panel and the uveal melanoma subcommittee, said at the NCCN’s annual meeting where he presented the guidelines.
The median age of diagnosis is 60 years, he noted.
The NCCN guidelines specifically address melanoma arising in the choroid and ciliary body of the uvea. The choroid is the predominant site of uveal melanoma origin, and tumors arising there may involve the ciliary body as well, although the latter is a rare site of melanoma origin. The iris is also a rare site of origin, and tumors arising there are typically indolent in nature and thus are not part of the new guidelines, he explained.
Risk factors include choroidal nevi, ocular melanocytosis, and familial uveal melanoma associated with germline BAP1 mutation, neurofibromatosis, or dysplastic nevus syndrome; cutaneous melanoma is not a risk factor, he said.
The guidelines address clinical presentation, diagnostic work-up, and staging; primary treatments; and metastatic risks and follow-up imaging.
Presentation, diagnosis, and staging
About two-thirds of patients with uveal melanoma present because of changes in their vision, and about a third present with no new symptoms and are diagnosed during routine evaluation, Dr. Barker said.
“History and physical exam, and specifically attention to any prior malignancies, is important,” he said. “A comprehensive eye examination is absolutely vital to the evaluation and staging of patients with uveal melanoma.”
Numerous additional testing options, including autofluorescence of the ocular fundus, retinal fluorescein angiography of the ocular fundus, and transillumination, among others, are listed in the guidelines, which note that MRI is sometimes needed to confirm diagnosis.
Biopsies, however, are generally only performed to confirm diagnosis if needed or for prognostic analysis for risk stratification.
Staging is determined mainly by tumor size, which is known to be associated with outcomes in patients with uveal melanoma, and is based on criteria from both the Collaborative Ocular Melanoma Study (COMS) staging system and the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) staging manual, Dr. Barker said.
The COMS system was developed based on separate studies of small, medium, and large tumors and helped define primary tumor management and establish existing standards of care. The AJCC system was developed subsequently and focuses more on tumor features that may improve clinical predictions.
Primary treatments
Options for primary treatment for small tumors (largest diameter 5-16 mm and thickness less than 2.5 mm) include plaque brachytherapy, partical beam radiation, and laser ablation in highly select patients. For medium tumors (18mm or less at largest diameter and thickness of 2.5-10 mm), they include plaque brachytherapy, particle beam radiation, and enucleation, according to the guidelines.
Large tumors can be treated with radiotherapy (preferably particle beam radiation, Dr. Barker said) or enucleation. Large tumors are those greater than 18mm with any thickness, those with thickness greater than 10mm with any diameter, and those with thickness greater than 8mm with optic nerve involvement.
In patients for whom surgical removal is selected, “ there are a few unusual situations where additional local adjuvant therapy might be considered,” Dr. Barker said, explaining, for example, that the presence of microscopically positive or close margins after enucleation without evidence of gross residual disease in the orbit may be observed or may warrant map biopsy and/or particle beam or photon beam radiotherapy to the orbit.
For visible extraocular tumors or suspicion of gross disease in the orbit, biopsy of the extraocular tissue is recommended when possible, along with either intraoperative cryotherapy, orbital exenteration, or particle beam or photon beam radiotherapy to the orbit, he added.
Metastatic risks and follow-up imaging
Recent studies, including Cancer Genome Atlas Research Network studies, have elucidated the genomics of both uveal and cutaneous melanomas, and they show “a completely different mutation spectrum” for uveal melanoma, Dr. Barker said.
These genomic studies demonstrate that cutaneous melanoma involves mutations that predict response to certain treatments, while those found in uveal melanoma do not, but they are, however, associated with the probability of metastasis, he said.
For example, various studies have shown that BRAF mutation in cutaneous melanoma predicts response to RAF or MEK inhibition and that the overall number of mutations in cutaneous melanoma may predict response to immunotherapy.
In uveal melanoma, alterations in ElFAX1, SF3B1, or BAP1 have been shown to indicate low, intermediate, and high risk of metastasis, respectively.
Other factors associated with the risk of metastasis after primary tumor treatment in uveal melanoma include clinical factors (tumor size, ciliary body involvement, and extraocular extension); histopathologic factors (spindle or epithelioid cell type); and cytogenetics (status of chromosomes 3, 6, and 8), he said.
An AJCC Ophthalmic Oncology Task Force study published in 2015, for example, showed that the 5-year metastasis-free survival was 97% for AJCC stage T1 disease, 85% for stage T2, 77% for stage T3, and 61% for stage T4. T-stage modifiers, which are based on particular tumor characteristics, such as ciliary body involvement (CBI) and extraocular extension (EXE), were also associated with the risk of distant metastasis: 5-year metastasis-free survival was 90%, 72%, 54% and 33% for AJCC T_a (no CBI or EXE), T_b (CBI only), T_c (EXE only), and T_d tumors (CBI and EXE), respectively.
Follow-up imaging after primary tumor treatment should be based on the most likely site of metastatic recurrence, which is the liver in 90% of uveal melanoma metastases.
“For this reason, surveillance of high-risk patients with uveal melanoma should include specific imaging of the liver,” Dr. Barker said, who noted that the NCCN risk stratification–based surveillance guidelines categorize patients as either low, medium, or high risk for metastasis based on the various characteristics that can affect risk.
“These risk groups help clinicians identify how often imaging should be performed in their surveillance strategy,” he said, adding that those who are high risk based on BAP1 mutation, PRAME mutation, CBI, or EXE, for example, should undergo imaging to evaluate signs or symptoms every 3-6 months for 5 years, every 6-12 months for 10 years, and then as clinically indicated thereafter.
The guideline calls for less stringent imaging for low- and medium-risk patients.
“Now, what happens when distant metastases are identified? Unfortunately there is no single systemic therapy that has proven to be most effective for uveal melanoma,” he said. “For this reason, the NCCN guideline encourages clinical trial participation whenever possible for patients who develop distant metastasis.”
This is because drugs effective for cutaneous melanoma are far less effective for uveal melanoma, but do elicit response in some patients and can be considered, he explained.
“Moreover, because the liver is the site of metastasis most often, and is often the exclusive site of metastasis, liver metastasis–directed therapy is considered part of the management of patients with uveal melanoma,” he said, adding that this can involve resection, ablation, chemo/radio embolization, or regional perfusion.”
The NCCN Uveal Melanoma Guidelines were developed by a panel of experts from various institutions based on the available evidence and on consensus; they are category 2A (based on lower-level evidence with uniform NCCN consensus that the intervention is appropriate).
Dr. Barker reported receiving clinical research support from Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Elekta, Merck, University of California San Francisco, and University of Florida Health Cancer Center Orlando, and serving as an advisor, consultant, or expert witness for Pfizer.
EXPERT ANALYSIS FROM THE NCCN ANNUAL CONFERENCE
IMPERIAL: Eluvia stent tops Zilver PTX for PAD
SAN DIEGO – In the first randomized, head-to-head trial of drug-releasing stents for above-the-knee femoropopliteal peripheral artery disease (PAD), Boston Scientific’s polymer-coated, paclitaxel-eluting stent outperformed Cook Medical’s polymer-free, paclitaxel-coated stent.
At 12 months, primary patency was 86.8% (231/266) in the Eluvia group, versus 81.5% (106/130) among those randomized to Zilver PTX. About 5% of Eluvia patients (14/273) and 9% of patients in the Zilver PTX arm (12/133) had a major adverse event, defined as death within a month or target limb amputation or revascularization through 12 months. Both outcomes were statistically significant at P less than .0001. Overall, 4.5% of Eluvia patients (13/287) required target lesion revascularization, compared with 9% of Zilver PTX patients (13/145).
“These data suggest the Boston Scientific product is superior. Unless there are big differences in cost or technical aspects of the procedure, I would foresee a fairly substantial shift to” Eluvia if it’s approved, which seems likely, said interventional cardiologist David Cohen, MD, of Saint Luke’s Mid America Heart Institute, Kansas City, Mo., who comoderated the study presentation at the Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics annual meeting.
There were six cases of aneurysmal degeneration with Eluvia, but none with Zilver PTX. All six patients were patent at 1 year, without revascularization or stent thrombosis. It’s too early to know what to make of the finding. The planned 5-year follow-up should shed some light on the issue, Dr. Gray said.
At present, there’s no clear algorithm for above-the-knee PAD. Balloons and stents – both drug-releasing and bare – are all in play, and new devices are on the way. “With a head-to-head trial like this, we are staring to pare down all the noise in the market place. I think for long complicated lesions, I would be very surprised if we don’t start seeing more drug-eluting stents, because the results are so good. Drug-coated balloons are useful, but they take a little bit longer and a little more nuance,” especially when stent are used to touch up the results, he said.
“If [Boston Scientific] prices this at a premium and my doctors come to me and say ‘You’ve got to let us buy this,’ it’s going to be a hard sell for me,” said Dr. Jaff, a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and president of the nearby Newton-Wellesley Hospital in Newton, Mass.
As for shifting away from drug-coated balloons, which are an increasingly popular option, a head-to-head trial is in order. If it turns out Eluvia doesn’t “have a huge advantage, I’d start off with a drug-coated balloon. You leave yourself every option going down the road if it fails. If you have a stent that fails, it’s harder to work with,” he said.
About two-thirds of the subjects were men, and the mean age was about 68 years. Most patients in both arms had marked improvements in symptoms and walking ability after stent placement. Rates of stent thrombosis were low, at about 2% with Eluvia versus 4% with Zilver PTX, a statistically nonsignificant difference.
The IMPERIAL results were published online simultaneously with Dr. Gray’s presentation (Lancet. 2018 Sep 22. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736[18]32262-1).
The work was funded and conducted by Boston Scientific. Dr. Gray and Dr. Jaffe are advisors to the company. Most of the other investigators disclosed financial ties to company, and one was an employee. Dr. Cohen wasn’t involved in the work. The TCT meeting was sponsored by the Cardiovascular Research Foundation.
SAN DIEGO – In the first randomized, head-to-head trial of drug-releasing stents for above-the-knee femoropopliteal peripheral artery disease (PAD), Boston Scientific’s polymer-coated, paclitaxel-eluting stent outperformed Cook Medical’s polymer-free, paclitaxel-coated stent.
At 12 months, primary patency was 86.8% (231/266) in the Eluvia group, versus 81.5% (106/130) among those randomized to Zilver PTX. About 5% of Eluvia patients (14/273) and 9% of patients in the Zilver PTX arm (12/133) had a major adverse event, defined as death within a month or target limb amputation or revascularization through 12 months. Both outcomes were statistically significant at P less than .0001. Overall, 4.5% of Eluvia patients (13/287) required target lesion revascularization, compared with 9% of Zilver PTX patients (13/145).
“These data suggest the Boston Scientific product is superior. Unless there are big differences in cost or technical aspects of the procedure, I would foresee a fairly substantial shift to” Eluvia if it’s approved, which seems likely, said interventional cardiologist David Cohen, MD, of Saint Luke’s Mid America Heart Institute, Kansas City, Mo., who comoderated the study presentation at the Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics annual meeting.
There were six cases of aneurysmal degeneration with Eluvia, but none with Zilver PTX. All six patients were patent at 1 year, without revascularization or stent thrombosis. It’s too early to know what to make of the finding. The planned 5-year follow-up should shed some light on the issue, Dr. Gray said.
At present, there’s no clear algorithm for above-the-knee PAD. Balloons and stents – both drug-releasing and bare – are all in play, and new devices are on the way. “With a head-to-head trial like this, we are staring to pare down all the noise in the market place. I think for long complicated lesions, I would be very surprised if we don’t start seeing more drug-eluting stents, because the results are so good. Drug-coated balloons are useful, but they take a little bit longer and a little more nuance,” especially when stent are used to touch up the results, he said.
“If [Boston Scientific] prices this at a premium and my doctors come to me and say ‘You’ve got to let us buy this,’ it’s going to be a hard sell for me,” said Dr. Jaff, a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and president of the nearby Newton-Wellesley Hospital in Newton, Mass.
As for shifting away from drug-coated balloons, which are an increasingly popular option, a head-to-head trial is in order. If it turns out Eluvia doesn’t “have a huge advantage, I’d start off with a drug-coated balloon. You leave yourself every option going down the road if it fails. If you have a stent that fails, it’s harder to work with,” he said.
About two-thirds of the subjects were men, and the mean age was about 68 years. Most patients in both arms had marked improvements in symptoms and walking ability after stent placement. Rates of stent thrombosis were low, at about 2% with Eluvia versus 4% with Zilver PTX, a statistically nonsignificant difference.
The IMPERIAL results were published online simultaneously with Dr. Gray’s presentation (Lancet. 2018 Sep 22. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736[18]32262-1).
The work was funded and conducted by Boston Scientific. Dr. Gray and Dr. Jaffe are advisors to the company. Most of the other investigators disclosed financial ties to company, and one was an employee. Dr. Cohen wasn’t involved in the work. The TCT meeting was sponsored by the Cardiovascular Research Foundation.
SAN DIEGO – In the first randomized, head-to-head trial of drug-releasing stents for above-the-knee femoropopliteal peripheral artery disease (PAD), Boston Scientific’s polymer-coated, paclitaxel-eluting stent outperformed Cook Medical’s polymer-free, paclitaxel-coated stent.
At 12 months, primary patency was 86.8% (231/266) in the Eluvia group, versus 81.5% (106/130) among those randomized to Zilver PTX. About 5% of Eluvia patients (14/273) and 9% of patients in the Zilver PTX arm (12/133) had a major adverse event, defined as death within a month or target limb amputation or revascularization through 12 months. Both outcomes were statistically significant at P less than .0001. Overall, 4.5% of Eluvia patients (13/287) required target lesion revascularization, compared with 9% of Zilver PTX patients (13/145).
“These data suggest the Boston Scientific product is superior. Unless there are big differences in cost or technical aspects of the procedure, I would foresee a fairly substantial shift to” Eluvia if it’s approved, which seems likely, said interventional cardiologist David Cohen, MD, of Saint Luke’s Mid America Heart Institute, Kansas City, Mo., who comoderated the study presentation at the Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics annual meeting.
There were six cases of aneurysmal degeneration with Eluvia, but none with Zilver PTX. All six patients were patent at 1 year, without revascularization or stent thrombosis. It’s too early to know what to make of the finding. The planned 5-year follow-up should shed some light on the issue, Dr. Gray said.
At present, there’s no clear algorithm for above-the-knee PAD. Balloons and stents – both drug-releasing and bare – are all in play, and new devices are on the way. “With a head-to-head trial like this, we are staring to pare down all the noise in the market place. I think for long complicated lesions, I would be very surprised if we don’t start seeing more drug-eluting stents, because the results are so good. Drug-coated balloons are useful, but they take a little bit longer and a little more nuance,” especially when stent are used to touch up the results, he said.
“If [Boston Scientific] prices this at a premium and my doctors come to me and say ‘You’ve got to let us buy this,’ it’s going to be a hard sell for me,” said Dr. Jaff, a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and president of the nearby Newton-Wellesley Hospital in Newton, Mass.
As for shifting away from drug-coated balloons, which are an increasingly popular option, a head-to-head trial is in order. If it turns out Eluvia doesn’t “have a huge advantage, I’d start off with a drug-coated balloon. You leave yourself every option going down the road if it fails. If you have a stent that fails, it’s harder to work with,” he said.
About two-thirds of the subjects were men, and the mean age was about 68 years. Most patients in both arms had marked improvements in symptoms and walking ability after stent placement. Rates of stent thrombosis were low, at about 2% with Eluvia versus 4% with Zilver PTX, a statistically nonsignificant difference.
The IMPERIAL results were published online simultaneously with Dr. Gray’s presentation (Lancet. 2018 Sep 22. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736[18]32262-1).
The work was funded and conducted by Boston Scientific. Dr. Gray and Dr. Jaffe are advisors to the company. Most of the other investigators disclosed financial ties to company, and one was an employee. Dr. Cohen wasn’t involved in the work. The TCT meeting was sponsored by the Cardiovascular Research Foundation.
REPORTING FROM TCT 2018
Key clinical point: A drug-eluting stent under development for peripheral artery disease outperformed the only one currently on the market in the United States.
Major finding: At 12 months, primary patency was 86.8% in the Eluvia group versus 81.5% among those randomized to Zilver PTX.
Study details: IMPERIAL was a head-to-head randomized trial with 465 subjects comparing two stents for femoropopliteal PAD.
Disclosures: The work was funded and conducted by Boston Scientific. Most of the investigators disclosed financial ties to company; one was an employee.
First combo trial of mTOR/BRAF inhibition shows potential
A combination of the mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitor everolimus and the BRAF inhibitor vemurafenib appears safe for patients with advanced, BRAF-mutated, solid tumors that had progressed on BRAF and/or MEK therapy, investigators reported.
The combination provided partial responses in a variety of tumor types, and half of the patients achieved stable disease, reported Vivek Subbiah, MD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston and his coauthors.
“Activation of alternative parallel signaling pathways such as the PI3K–mTOR pathway have been hypothesized to contribute to primary and acquired resistance to BRAF-targeted therapy,” the authors wrote in JCO Precision Oncology. Preclinical studies have supported this hypothesis, which led to the present study; it is the first to evaluate a combination of a BRAF inhibitor and an mTOR inhibitor.
The open-label, phase 1 trial included 20 patients with BRAF-mutated, advanced cancer that had progressed on BRAF and/or MEK therapy. Solid tumor types included melanoma (n = 7), glioma (n = 5), thyroid cancer (n = 4), appendiceal carcinoma (n = 1), colorectal cancer (n = 1), non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC; n =1), and cancer of unknown primary (n = 1). More than half of the patients had already been treated with surgery, clinical trial therapy, radiation therapy, or chemotherapy. The median adult age was 64 years; two pediatric patients were aged 10 and 13 years.
Dose-escalation revealed a maximum-tolerated dose of everolimus 5 mg orally once a day and vemurafenib 720 mg orally twice a day. Across doses, the most common grade 3 adverse events were fatigue (20%) and rash (15%), followed distantly by anemia, thrombocytopenia, hyperglycemia, or hypertriglyceridemia, which occurred in one patient each.
Responses were evaluated in 18 patients. Of these, 22% had partial responses and 50% achieved stable disease. Partial responses occurred in patients with pleomorphic xanthoastrocytoma, optic nerve glioma, melanoma, and NSCLC.
“Our trial demonstrates that the combination of vemurafenib and everolimus can be tolerated in patients with advanced malignancies,” the authors concluded. “Our trial also demonstrates that the addition of an mTOR inhibitor to everolimus treatment is able to overcome resistance to BRAF and/or MEK inhibition in a subset of patients with BRAF-mutant advanced cancers.”
The authors reported affiliations with Baxter, Bayer, Novartis, Roche, Trovagene, and others.
SOURCE: Subbiah V et al. JCO Prec Oncol. 2018 Sep 13. doi: 10.1200/PO.18.00189.
A combination of the mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitor everolimus and the BRAF inhibitor vemurafenib appears safe for patients with advanced, BRAF-mutated, solid tumors that had progressed on BRAF and/or MEK therapy, investigators reported.
The combination provided partial responses in a variety of tumor types, and half of the patients achieved stable disease, reported Vivek Subbiah, MD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston and his coauthors.
“Activation of alternative parallel signaling pathways such as the PI3K–mTOR pathway have been hypothesized to contribute to primary and acquired resistance to BRAF-targeted therapy,” the authors wrote in JCO Precision Oncology. Preclinical studies have supported this hypothesis, which led to the present study; it is the first to evaluate a combination of a BRAF inhibitor and an mTOR inhibitor.
The open-label, phase 1 trial included 20 patients with BRAF-mutated, advanced cancer that had progressed on BRAF and/or MEK therapy. Solid tumor types included melanoma (n = 7), glioma (n = 5), thyroid cancer (n = 4), appendiceal carcinoma (n = 1), colorectal cancer (n = 1), non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC; n =1), and cancer of unknown primary (n = 1). More than half of the patients had already been treated with surgery, clinical trial therapy, radiation therapy, or chemotherapy. The median adult age was 64 years; two pediatric patients were aged 10 and 13 years.
Dose-escalation revealed a maximum-tolerated dose of everolimus 5 mg orally once a day and vemurafenib 720 mg orally twice a day. Across doses, the most common grade 3 adverse events were fatigue (20%) and rash (15%), followed distantly by anemia, thrombocytopenia, hyperglycemia, or hypertriglyceridemia, which occurred in one patient each.
Responses were evaluated in 18 patients. Of these, 22% had partial responses and 50% achieved stable disease. Partial responses occurred in patients with pleomorphic xanthoastrocytoma, optic nerve glioma, melanoma, and NSCLC.
“Our trial demonstrates that the combination of vemurafenib and everolimus can be tolerated in patients with advanced malignancies,” the authors concluded. “Our trial also demonstrates that the addition of an mTOR inhibitor to everolimus treatment is able to overcome resistance to BRAF and/or MEK inhibition in a subset of patients with BRAF-mutant advanced cancers.”
The authors reported affiliations with Baxter, Bayer, Novartis, Roche, Trovagene, and others.
SOURCE: Subbiah V et al. JCO Prec Oncol. 2018 Sep 13. doi: 10.1200/PO.18.00189.
A combination of the mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitor everolimus and the BRAF inhibitor vemurafenib appears safe for patients with advanced, BRAF-mutated, solid tumors that had progressed on BRAF and/or MEK therapy, investigators reported.
The combination provided partial responses in a variety of tumor types, and half of the patients achieved stable disease, reported Vivek Subbiah, MD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston and his coauthors.
“Activation of alternative parallel signaling pathways such as the PI3K–mTOR pathway have been hypothesized to contribute to primary and acquired resistance to BRAF-targeted therapy,” the authors wrote in JCO Precision Oncology. Preclinical studies have supported this hypothesis, which led to the present study; it is the first to evaluate a combination of a BRAF inhibitor and an mTOR inhibitor.
The open-label, phase 1 trial included 20 patients with BRAF-mutated, advanced cancer that had progressed on BRAF and/or MEK therapy. Solid tumor types included melanoma (n = 7), glioma (n = 5), thyroid cancer (n = 4), appendiceal carcinoma (n = 1), colorectal cancer (n = 1), non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC; n =1), and cancer of unknown primary (n = 1). More than half of the patients had already been treated with surgery, clinical trial therapy, radiation therapy, or chemotherapy. The median adult age was 64 years; two pediatric patients were aged 10 and 13 years.
Dose-escalation revealed a maximum-tolerated dose of everolimus 5 mg orally once a day and vemurafenib 720 mg orally twice a day. Across doses, the most common grade 3 adverse events were fatigue (20%) and rash (15%), followed distantly by anemia, thrombocytopenia, hyperglycemia, or hypertriglyceridemia, which occurred in one patient each.
Responses were evaluated in 18 patients. Of these, 22% had partial responses and 50% achieved stable disease. Partial responses occurred in patients with pleomorphic xanthoastrocytoma, optic nerve glioma, melanoma, and NSCLC.
“Our trial demonstrates that the combination of vemurafenib and everolimus can be tolerated in patients with advanced malignancies,” the authors concluded. “Our trial also demonstrates that the addition of an mTOR inhibitor to everolimus treatment is able to overcome resistance to BRAF and/or MEK inhibition in a subset of patients with BRAF-mutant advanced cancers.”
The authors reported affiliations with Baxter, Bayer, Novartis, Roche, Trovagene, and others.
SOURCE: Subbiah V et al. JCO Prec Oncol. 2018 Sep 13. doi: 10.1200/PO.18.00189.
FROM JCO PRECISION ONCOLOGY
Key clinical point: A combination of the mTOR inhibitor everolimus and the BRAF inhibitor vemurafenib is safe and effective against some treatment-refractory, BRAF-mutated solid tumors.
Major finding: Twenty-two percent (22%) of patients had a partial response to therapy.
Study details: A phase I, dose-escalation trial involving 20 patients with advanced, BRAF-mutated cancer that had progressed on MEK and/or BRAF inhibitor therapy.
Disclosures: The authors reported affiliations with Bayer, Baxter, Novartis, Roche, Trovagene, and others.
Source: Subbiah V et al. JCO Prec Oncol. 2018 Sep 13. doi: 10.1200/PO.18.00189.
Residents curb IV antibiotic overuse in children
ATLANTA – It took less than a year to curb overuse of intravenous antibiotics at the Cincinnati Children’s Hospital, according to a report given at the Pediatric Hospital Medicine meeting.
Overuse of IV antibiotics – continuing IV formulations when oral formulations would work just as well – is a widespread concern in hospital medicine. Patients can often be switched to an oral antibiotic after an initial IV course. It lowers costs, lessens the risk of antimicrobial resistance, and reduces IV complications, but timely transitions don’t always happen.
They certainly weren’t happening at Cincinnati Children’s. “Despite a strong antimicrobial stewardship program, we identified a problem with overuse of IV antibiotics. The majority of pediatric patients admitted to an in-hospital service were started on IV antibiotics regardless of diagnosis or condition. Conversion to enteral antibiotics was often not considered until the day of discharge, even if patients were taking other enteral medications earlier in the admission,” said project leader Sonya Girdwood, MD, a research fellow at the hospital.
To get a handle on the problem, her team focused on two common IV antibiotics, ampicillin and clindamycin, that have oral equivalents with equal bioavailability: amoxicillin in the case of ampicillin, and oral clindamycin. To further define the project, they zeroed in on two common indications: clindamycin for uncomplicated skin and soft-tissue infections, and ampicillin for community-acquired pneumonia, in children over 2 months old.
The team figured that, if patients were able to take other oral medications, they should also be able to take oral antibiotics, so the goal of the project was to increase the rate of antibiotics given orally in children who were taking other enteral medications.
That percentage was 44% at baseline, and increased to 80% by month 8, saving an estimated $30,000 annually. There was no increase in 30-day readmissions. Length of stay held steady overall at about a day and half, but Dr. Girdwood suspected it might have been reduced for cellulitis.
Improvement efforts focused on residents and started in January 2017. Among the first lessons was that IV ampicillin is about 21 times more expensive than amoxicillin and that IV clindamycin is about twice as expensive as its oral formulation.
Residents were tasked with forming a plan at admission to transition children to oral antibiotics as soon as possible and to discuss those plans with attending physicians in preround huddles. Often, “this led to [transition] orders being placed even before rounds started,” Dr. Girdwood said.
A time was set up during evening huddles – 10 p.m. – for residents working overnight to discuss transition timing with attending. Failures – patients still on IV clindamycin or ampicillin when they were taking oral meds – were identified and shared with resident teams.
The gains have been maintained for almost a year with little backsliding; residents are reminded weekly of transition goals.
Children with skin and soft-tissue infections with bone or eye involvement were excluded from the project, along with pneumonia patients with chest tubes or complex or loculated effusions requiring a surgery consult.
There was no external funding, and the investigators had no disclosures.
ATLANTA – It took less than a year to curb overuse of intravenous antibiotics at the Cincinnati Children’s Hospital, according to a report given at the Pediatric Hospital Medicine meeting.
Overuse of IV antibiotics – continuing IV formulations when oral formulations would work just as well – is a widespread concern in hospital medicine. Patients can often be switched to an oral antibiotic after an initial IV course. It lowers costs, lessens the risk of antimicrobial resistance, and reduces IV complications, but timely transitions don’t always happen.
They certainly weren’t happening at Cincinnati Children’s. “Despite a strong antimicrobial stewardship program, we identified a problem with overuse of IV antibiotics. The majority of pediatric patients admitted to an in-hospital service were started on IV antibiotics regardless of diagnosis or condition. Conversion to enteral antibiotics was often not considered until the day of discharge, even if patients were taking other enteral medications earlier in the admission,” said project leader Sonya Girdwood, MD, a research fellow at the hospital.
To get a handle on the problem, her team focused on two common IV antibiotics, ampicillin and clindamycin, that have oral equivalents with equal bioavailability: amoxicillin in the case of ampicillin, and oral clindamycin. To further define the project, they zeroed in on two common indications: clindamycin for uncomplicated skin and soft-tissue infections, and ampicillin for community-acquired pneumonia, in children over 2 months old.
The team figured that, if patients were able to take other oral medications, they should also be able to take oral antibiotics, so the goal of the project was to increase the rate of antibiotics given orally in children who were taking other enteral medications.
That percentage was 44% at baseline, and increased to 80% by month 8, saving an estimated $30,000 annually. There was no increase in 30-day readmissions. Length of stay held steady overall at about a day and half, but Dr. Girdwood suspected it might have been reduced for cellulitis.
Improvement efforts focused on residents and started in January 2017. Among the first lessons was that IV ampicillin is about 21 times more expensive than amoxicillin and that IV clindamycin is about twice as expensive as its oral formulation.
Residents were tasked with forming a plan at admission to transition children to oral antibiotics as soon as possible and to discuss those plans with attending physicians in preround huddles. Often, “this led to [transition] orders being placed even before rounds started,” Dr. Girdwood said.
A time was set up during evening huddles – 10 p.m. – for residents working overnight to discuss transition timing with attending. Failures – patients still on IV clindamycin or ampicillin when they were taking oral meds – were identified and shared with resident teams.
The gains have been maintained for almost a year with little backsliding; residents are reminded weekly of transition goals.
Children with skin and soft-tissue infections with bone or eye involvement were excluded from the project, along with pneumonia patients with chest tubes or complex or loculated effusions requiring a surgery consult.
There was no external funding, and the investigators had no disclosures.
ATLANTA – It took less than a year to curb overuse of intravenous antibiotics at the Cincinnati Children’s Hospital, according to a report given at the Pediatric Hospital Medicine meeting.
Overuse of IV antibiotics – continuing IV formulations when oral formulations would work just as well – is a widespread concern in hospital medicine. Patients can often be switched to an oral antibiotic after an initial IV course. It lowers costs, lessens the risk of antimicrobial resistance, and reduces IV complications, but timely transitions don’t always happen.
They certainly weren’t happening at Cincinnati Children’s. “Despite a strong antimicrobial stewardship program, we identified a problem with overuse of IV antibiotics. The majority of pediatric patients admitted to an in-hospital service were started on IV antibiotics regardless of diagnosis or condition. Conversion to enteral antibiotics was often not considered until the day of discharge, even if patients were taking other enteral medications earlier in the admission,” said project leader Sonya Girdwood, MD, a research fellow at the hospital.
To get a handle on the problem, her team focused on two common IV antibiotics, ampicillin and clindamycin, that have oral equivalents with equal bioavailability: amoxicillin in the case of ampicillin, and oral clindamycin. To further define the project, they zeroed in on two common indications: clindamycin for uncomplicated skin and soft-tissue infections, and ampicillin for community-acquired pneumonia, in children over 2 months old.
The team figured that, if patients were able to take other oral medications, they should also be able to take oral antibiotics, so the goal of the project was to increase the rate of antibiotics given orally in children who were taking other enteral medications.
That percentage was 44% at baseline, and increased to 80% by month 8, saving an estimated $30,000 annually. There was no increase in 30-day readmissions. Length of stay held steady overall at about a day and half, but Dr. Girdwood suspected it might have been reduced for cellulitis.
Improvement efforts focused on residents and started in January 2017. Among the first lessons was that IV ampicillin is about 21 times more expensive than amoxicillin and that IV clindamycin is about twice as expensive as its oral formulation.
Residents were tasked with forming a plan at admission to transition children to oral antibiotics as soon as possible and to discuss those plans with attending physicians in preround huddles. Often, “this led to [transition] orders being placed even before rounds started,” Dr. Girdwood said.
A time was set up during evening huddles – 10 p.m. – for residents working overnight to discuss transition timing with attending. Failures – patients still on IV clindamycin or ampicillin when they were taking oral meds – were identified and shared with resident teams.
The gains have been maintained for almost a year with little backsliding; residents are reminded weekly of transition goals.
Children with skin and soft-tissue infections with bone or eye involvement were excluded from the project, along with pneumonia patients with chest tubes or complex or loculated effusions requiring a surgery consult.
There was no external funding, and the investigators had no disclosures.
REPORTING FROM PHM 2018
Key clinical point:
Major finding: The percentage of antibiotics given orally to children who were taking other enteral medications rose from 44% to 80% over 8 months, saving an estimated $30,000 annually.
Study details: Quality improvement project
Disclosures: There was no external funding, and the investigators didn’t have any disclosures.
CHMP supports new indication for venetoclax
The European Medicines Agency’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) has recommended that the European Commission (EC) approve a new indication for venetoclax (Venclyxto®).
AbbVie is seeking EC approval for venetoclax in combination with rituximab for the treatment of patients with relapsed/refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) who have received at least one prior therapy.
The EC typically makes an approval decision within 67 days of the CHMP’s opinion.
The EC’s decision will apply to the European Union, Norway, Iceland, and Liechtenstein.
Venetoclax is already EC-approved as monotherapy for:
- Adults with CLL who have 17p deletion or TP53 mutation and are unsuitable for or have failed treatment with a B-cell receptor pathway inhibitor
- Adults with CLL who do not have 17p deletion or TP53 mutation but have failed both chemoimmunotherapy and a B-cell receptor pathway inhibitor.
The CHMP’s recommendation to approve venetoclax in combination with rituximab is supported by the phase 3 MURANO trial. Results from MURANO were published in The New England Journal of Medicine in March.
The trial included 389 CLL patients who were randomized to receive venetoclax plus rituximab (VEN+R) or bendamustine plus rituximab (B+R). The median follow-up was 23.8 months.
According to investigators, the median progression-free survival was not reached in the VEN+R arm and was 17.0 months in the B+R arm (hazard ratio, 0.17; P<0.0001).
According to an independent review committee, the median progression-free survival was not reached in the VEN+R arm and was 18.1 months in the B+R arm (hazard ratio, 0.20; P<0.0001).
Grade 3/4 adverse events (AEs) with at least a 2% difference in incidence between the treatment groups (in the VEN+R and B+R arms, respectively) included:
- Neutropenia (57.7% and 38.8%)
- Infections and infestations (17.5% and 21.8%)
- Anemia (10.8% and 13.8%)
- Thrombocytopenia (5.7% and 10.1%)
- Febrile neutropenia (3.6% and 9.6%)
- Pneumonia (5.2% and 8.0%)
- Infusion-related reaction (1.5% and 5.3%)
- Tumor lysis syndrome (3.1% and 1.1%)
- Hypotension (0% and 2.7%)
- Hyperglycemia (2.1% and 0%)
- Hypogammaglobulinemia (2.1% and 0%).
Serious AEs with at least a 2% difference in incidence between the treatment groups (in the VEN+R and B+R arms, respectively) were:
- Pneumonia (8.2% and 8.0%)
- Febrile neutropenia (3.6% and 8.5%)
- Pyrexia (2.6% and 6.9%)
- Anemia (1.5% and 2.7%)
- Infusion-related reaction (0.5% and 3.2%)
- Sepsis (0.5% and 2.1%)
- Tumor lysis syndrome (2.1% and 0.5%)
- Hypotension (0% and 2.7%).
Fatal AEs occurred in 5.2% of patients in the VEN+R arm and 5.9% in the B+R arm.
Fatal AEs in the VEN+R arm included pneumonia (n=3), sepsis (n=1), thrombocytopenia (n=1), cardiac failure (n=1), myocardial infarction (n=1), sudden cardiac death (n=1), colorectal cancer (n=1), status epilepticus (n=1), and acute respiratory failure (n=1). Two cases of pneumonia occurred in the setting of progression/Richter transformation.
The European Medicines Agency’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) has recommended that the European Commission (EC) approve a new indication for venetoclax (Venclyxto®).
AbbVie is seeking EC approval for venetoclax in combination with rituximab for the treatment of patients with relapsed/refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) who have received at least one prior therapy.
The EC typically makes an approval decision within 67 days of the CHMP’s opinion.
The EC’s decision will apply to the European Union, Norway, Iceland, and Liechtenstein.
Venetoclax is already EC-approved as monotherapy for:
- Adults with CLL who have 17p deletion or TP53 mutation and are unsuitable for or have failed treatment with a B-cell receptor pathway inhibitor
- Adults with CLL who do not have 17p deletion or TP53 mutation but have failed both chemoimmunotherapy and a B-cell receptor pathway inhibitor.
The CHMP’s recommendation to approve venetoclax in combination with rituximab is supported by the phase 3 MURANO trial. Results from MURANO were published in The New England Journal of Medicine in March.
The trial included 389 CLL patients who were randomized to receive venetoclax plus rituximab (VEN+R) or bendamustine plus rituximab (B+R). The median follow-up was 23.8 months.
According to investigators, the median progression-free survival was not reached in the VEN+R arm and was 17.0 months in the B+R arm (hazard ratio, 0.17; P<0.0001).
According to an independent review committee, the median progression-free survival was not reached in the VEN+R arm and was 18.1 months in the B+R arm (hazard ratio, 0.20; P<0.0001).
Grade 3/4 adverse events (AEs) with at least a 2% difference in incidence between the treatment groups (in the VEN+R and B+R arms, respectively) included:
- Neutropenia (57.7% and 38.8%)
- Infections and infestations (17.5% and 21.8%)
- Anemia (10.8% and 13.8%)
- Thrombocytopenia (5.7% and 10.1%)
- Febrile neutropenia (3.6% and 9.6%)
- Pneumonia (5.2% and 8.0%)
- Infusion-related reaction (1.5% and 5.3%)
- Tumor lysis syndrome (3.1% and 1.1%)
- Hypotension (0% and 2.7%)
- Hyperglycemia (2.1% and 0%)
- Hypogammaglobulinemia (2.1% and 0%).
Serious AEs with at least a 2% difference in incidence between the treatment groups (in the VEN+R and B+R arms, respectively) were:
- Pneumonia (8.2% and 8.0%)
- Febrile neutropenia (3.6% and 8.5%)
- Pyrexia (2.6% and 6.9%)
- Anemia (1.5% and 2.7%)
- Infusion-related reaction (0.5% and 3.2%)
- Sepsis (0.5% and 2.1%)
- Tumor lysis syndrome (2.1% and 0.5%)
- Hypotension (0% and 2.7%).
Fatal AEs occurred in 5.2% of patients in the VEN+R arm and 5.9% in the B+R arm.
Fatal AEs in the VEN+R arm included pneumonia (n=3), sepsis (n=1), thrombocytopenia (n=1), cardiac failure (n=1), myocardial infarction (n=1), sudden cardiac death (n=1), colorectal cancer (n=1), status epilepticus (n=1), and acute respiratory failure (n=1). Two cases of pneumonia occurred in the setting of progression/Richter transformation.
The European Medicines Agency’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) has recommended that the European Commission (EC) approve a new indication for venetoclax (Venclyxto®).
AbbVie is seeking EC approval for venetoclax in combination with rituximab for the treatment of patients with relapsed/refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) who have received at least one prior therapy.
The EC typically makes an approval decision within 67 days of the CHMP’s opinion.
The EC’s decision will apply to the European Union, Norway, Iceland, and Liechtenstein.
Venetoclax is already EC-approved as monotherapy for:
- Adults with CLL who have 17p deletion or TP53 mutation and are unsuitable for or have failed treatment with a B-cell receptor pathway inhibitor
- Adults with CLL who do not have 17p deletion or TP53 mutation but have failed both chemoimmunotherapy and a B-cell receptor pathway inhibitor.
The CHMP’s recommendation to approve venetoclax in combination with rituximab is supported by the phase 3 MURANO trial. Results from MURANO were published in The New England Journal of Medicine in March.
The trial included 389 CLL patients who were randomized to receive venetoclax plus rituximab (VEN+R) or bendamustine plus rituximab (B+R). The median follow-up was 23.8 months.
According to investigators, the median progression-free survival was not reached in the VEN+R arm and was 17.0 months in the B+R arm (hazard ratio, 0.17; P<0.0001).
According to an independent review committee, the median progression-free survival was not reached in the VEN+R arm and was 18.1 months in the B+R arm (hazard ratio, 0.20; P<0.0001).
Grade 3/4 adverse events (AEs) with at least a 2% difference in incidence between the treatment groups (in the VEN+R and B+R arms, respectively) included:
- Neutropenia (57.7% and 38.8%)
- Infections and infestations (17.5% and 21.8%)
- Anemia (10.8% and 13.8%)
- Thrombocytopenia (5.7% and 10.1%)
- Febrile neutropenia (3.6% and 9.6%)
- Pneumonia (5.2% and 8.0%)
- Infusion-related reaction (1.5% and 5.3%)
- Tumor lysis syndrome (3.1% and 1.1%)
- Hypotension (0% and 2.7%)
- Hyperglycemia (2.1% and 0%)
- Hypogammaglobulinemia (2.1% and 0%).
Serious AEs with at least a 2% difference in incidence between the treatment groups (in the VEN+R and B+R arms, respectively) were:
- Pneumonia (8.2% and 8.0%)
- Febrile neutropenia (3.6% and 8.5%)
- Pyrexia (2.6% and 6.9%)
- Anemia (1.5% and 2.7%)
- Infusion-related reaction (0.5% and 3.2%)
- Sepsis (0.5% and 2.1%)
- Tumor lysis syndrome (2.1% and 0.5%)
- Hypotension (0% and 2.7%).
Fatal AEs occurred in 5.2% of patients in the VEN+R arm and 5.9% in the B+R arm.
Fatal AEs in the VEN+R arm included pneumonia (n=3), sepsis (n=1), thrombocytopenia (n=1), cardiac failure (n=1), myocardial infarction (n=1), sudden cardiac death (n=1), colorectal cancer (n=1), status epilepticus (n=1), and acute respiratory failure (n=1). Two cases of pneumonia occurred in the setting of progression/Richter transformation.
Obesity plays role in sleep-disordered breathing in pregnancy
The relationship between hypertension during pregnancy and sleep-disordered breathing may be partly mediated by obesity, new research suggests.
An article published in the Journal of Sleep Research details the results of a case-control study in 80 pregnant women – 40 normotensive and 40 with either gestational hypertension or preeclampsia – who were matched on body mass index.
Nearly half of the women in the study (45%) met the criteria for sleep-disordered breathing – defined as a respiratory disturbance index of 5 or above. The incidence was higher among women with hypertension (53%) than among women in the normotensive control group (38%), but the difference was not statistically significant.
There were also no significant differences in median respiratory disturbance index or apnea-hypopnea index between the hypertension and control groups.
However, the incidence of more severe sleep-disordered breathing – a respiratory disturbance index of at least 10 – was significantly greater in the hypertensive group (35% vs. 14%; P = .04). The women with pregnancy-related hypertension also had significantly higher respiratory disturbance index during non–rapid eye movement sleep and when they were sleeping on their back.
The severity of hypertensive disease did not affect the prevalence of sleep-disordered breathing.
Danielle L. Wilson of the Institute for Breathing and Sleep at Austin Health in Melbourne and her coauthors wrote that, while previous research has pointed to a link between hypertension in pregnancy and sleep-disordered breathing, this is the first study to explore the potential confounding role of obesity.
“We found SDB [sleep-disordered breathing] to be more common in our control group than in previous studies, confirming that BMI is an important covariate that requires evaluation in future studies exploring the relationship between SDB and HDP [hypertension during pregnancy],” they reported. “SDB may be a mechanism by which obesity and adverse perinatal outcomes are linked, but given the important contribution of obesity to both SDB and HDP, failing to adjust for this covariate will overestimate the strength of association between SDB and HDP.”
However, they acknowledged there was a significant association between moderate to severe sleep-disordered breathing and hypertension in pregnancy. They suggested this might be a means to increase women’s uptake of clinical review with a sleep physician, which was very low in the study despite it being offered to all women.
“Better engagement may be more likely for women with more severe disease if stronger links with adverse pregnancy outcome are demonstrated,” they wrote.
The study was supported by the Austin Medical Research Foundation and the Medical Research Foundation for Women and Babies. One author declared a scholarship from a research funding body, and two declared unrelated research support from private industry. No other conflicts of interest were declared.
SOURCE: Wilson D et al. J Sleep Research. 2018 Oct;27(5):e12656.
The relationship between hypertension during pregnancy and sleep-disordered breathing may be partly mediated by obesity, new research suggests.
An article published in the Journal of Sleep Research details the results of a case-control study in 80 pregnant women – 40 normotensive and 40 with either gestational hypertension or preeclampsia – who were matched on body mass index.
Nearly half of the women in the study (45%) met the criteria for sleep-disordered breathing – defined as a respiratory disturbance index of 5 or above. The incidence was higher among women with hypertension (53%) than among women in the normotensive control group (38%), but the difference was not statistically significant.
There were also no significant differences in median respiratory disturbance index or apnea-hypopnea index between the hypertension and control groups.
However, the incidence of more severe sleep-disordered breathing – a respiratory disturbance index of at least 10 – was significantly greater in the hypertensive group (35% vs. 14%; P = .04). The women with pregnancy-related hypertension also had significantly higher respiratory disturbance index during non–rapid eye movement sleep and when they were sleeping on their back.
The severity of hypertensive disease did not affect the prevalence of sleep-disordered breathing.
Danielle L. Wilson of the Institute for Breathing and Sleep at Austin Health in Melbourne and her coauthors wrote that, while previous research has pointed to a link between hypertension in pregnancy and sleep-disordered breathing, this is the first study to explore the potential confounding role of obesity.
“We found SDB [sleep-disordered breathing] to be more common in our control group than in previous studies, confirming that BMI is an important covariate that requires evaluation in future studies exploring the relationship between SDB and HDP [hypertension during pregnancy],” they reported. “SDB may be a mechanism by which obesity and adverse perinatal outcomes are linked, but given the important contribution of obesity to both SDB and HDP, failing to adjust for this covariate will overestimate the strength of association between SDB and HDP.”
However, they acknowledged there was a significant association between moderate to severe sleep-disordered breathing and hypertension in pregnancy. They suggested this might be a means to increase women’s uptake of clinical review with a sleep physician, which was very low in the study despite it being offered to all women.
“Better engagement may be more likely for women with more severe disease if stronger links with adverse pregnancy outcome are demonstrated,” they wrote.
The study was supported by the Austin Medical Research Foundation and the Medical Research Foundation for Women and Babies. One author declared a scholarship from a research funding body, and two declared unrelated research support from private industry. No other conflicts of interest were declared.
SOURCE: Wilson D et al. J Sleep Research. 2018 Oct;27(5):e12656.
The relationship between hypertension during pregnancy and sleep-disordered breathing may be partly mediated by obesity, new research suggests.
An article published in the Journal of Sleep Research details the results of a case-control study in 80 pregnant women – 40 normotensive and 40 with either gestational hypertension or preeclampsia – who were matched on body mass index.
Nearly half of the women in the study (45%) met the criteria for sleep-disordered breathing – defined as a respiratory disturbance index of 5 or above. The incidence was higher among women with hypertension (53%) than among women in the normotensive control group (38%), but the difference was not statistically significant.
There were also no significant differences in median respiratory disturbance index or apnea-hypopnea index between the hypertension and control groups.
However, the incidence of more severe sleep-disordered breathing – a respiratory disturbance index of at least 10 – was significantly greater in the hypertensive group (35% vs. 14%; P = .04). The women with pregnancy-related hypertension also had significantly higher respiratory disturbance index during non–rapid eye movement sleep and when they were sleeping on their back.
The severity of hypertensive disease did not affect the prevalence of sleep-disordered breathing.
Danielle L. Wilson of the Institute for Breathing and Sleep at Austin Health in Melbourne and her coauthors wrote that, while previous research has pointed to a link between hypertension in pregnancy and sleep-disordered breathing, this is the first study to explore the potential confounding role of obesity.
“We found SDB [sleep-disordered breathing] to be more common in our control group than in previous studies, confirming that BMI is an important covariate that requires evaluation in future studies exploring the relationship between SDB and HDP [hypertension during pregnancy],” they reported. “SDB may be a mechanism by which obesity and adverse perinatal outcomes are linked, but given the important contribution of obesity to both SDB and HDP, failing to adjust for this covariate will overestimate the strength of association between SDB and HDP.”
However, they acknowledged there was a significant association between moderate to severe sleep-disordered breathing and hypertension in pregnancy. They suggested this might be a means to increase women’s uptake of clinical review with a sleep physician, which was very low in the study despite it being offered to all women.
“Better engagement may be more likely for women with more severe disease if stronger links with adverse pregnancy outcome are demonstrated,” they wrote.
The study was supported by the Austin Medical Research Foundation and the Medical Research Foundation for Women and Babies. One author declared a scholarship from a research funding body, and two declared unrelated research support from private industry. No other conflicts of interest were declared.
SOURCE: Wilson D et al. J Sleep Research. 2018 Oct;27(5):e12656.
FROM JOURNAL OF SLEEP RESEARCH
Key clinical point:
Major finding: The relationship between hypertension in pregnancy and sleep-disordered breathing is only significant for more severe sleep-disordered breathing.
Study details: Prospective case-control study in 80 pregnant women.
Disclosures: The study was supported by the Austin Medical Research Foundation and the Medical Research Foundation for Women and Babies. One author declared a scholarship from a research funding body, and two declared unrelated research support from private industry. No other conflicts of interest were declared.
Source: Wilson D et al. J Sleep Research. 2018 Oct;27(5):e12656.
Rivaroxaban bonus: Early unmasking of occult GI cancers
MUNICH – The increased risk of major GI bleeding documented with dual-antiplatelet therapy using rivaroxaban and aspirin when compared with aspirin alone for vascular protection in the previously reported massive COMPASS trial may turn out to be a blessing in disguise.
“Among COMPASS patients with vascular disease receiving long-term antithrombotic therapy, more than 1 in 5 new diagnoses of cancer are preceded by bleeding. GI and GU bleeding are powerful and relatively specific predictors of new GI and GU cancer diagnoses, respectively, and more than 75% of these cancers diagnosed after bleeding are diagnosed within 6 months of the bleed,” John W. Eikelboom, MD, reported at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.
These findings strongly suggest that rivaroxaban (Xarelto), a direct-acting oral anticoagulant (DOAC), may be unmasking occult GI and GU cancers earlier than the malignancies would otherwise have declared themselves.
“Although overall cancer rates were similar in the three treatment groups [rivaroxaban at 2.5 mg twice daily plus aspirin at 100 mg/day, rivaroxaban monotherapy at 5 mg twice daily, or aspirin alone at 100 mg/day], the early increase in GI bleeding with rivaroxaban-based therapy resulted in earlier diagnosis of GI cancer in these patients. By reducing major cardiovascular events and mortality, the combination of rivaroxaban and aspirin already produces a clear net benefit, and by unmasking GI cancers at an earlier stage, the combination could potentially lead to the added benefit of improved GI cancer outcomes,” commented Dr. Eikelboom, a hematologist at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ont., and lead investigator of the previously published COMPASS trial (N Engl J Med. 2017 Oct 5;377[14]:1319-30).
This possibility that unmasking of occult GI cancer might result in improved survival deserves to be a high research priority in light of the enormous death toll caused by colorectal cancer. Planned longer-term follow-up of the COMPASS participants should be helpful in this regard, he added.
This new COMPASS finding effectively makes a silk purse out of a sow’s ear. When the primary outcomes of COMPASS were announced, many physicians reasoned that if the other commercially available DOACs also outperform warfarin but don’t pose a significantly increased threat of serious bleeding events, why not preferentially turn to them rather than rivaroxaban in patients with high HAS-BLED scores? But now rivaroxaban’s increased GI bleeding risk has begun to look like a potentially important advantage.
As previously reported, COMPASS participants on rivaroxaban plus aspirin had a 3.1% major bleeding rate as defined according to modified International Society on Thrombosis and Hemostasis criteria, for a statistically significant 70% increase in risk, compared with the 1.9% rate in patients on aspirin alone. Rivaroxaban monotherapy also was associated with increased bleeding risk. Of note, most of the excess in bleeding involved GI bleeding, and it was front-loaded during the first year of the trial. Also, reassuringly, there was no increased incidence of intracranial or fatal bleeding in patients on rivaroxaban.
A total of 1,082 patients were diagnosed with a new cancer during 23 months of follow-up. Nearly a quarter (23%) of the new GI cancers and 45% of the new GU cancers were diagnosed after bleeding from those sites.
The incidence of GI cancer diagnosed after GI bleeding was 7.8%, whereas patients with no prior GI bleeding had a mere 0.9% rate of newly diagnosed GI cancer during the study period. Thus, roughly 1 out of every 12 cases of GI bleeding was associated with diagnosis of a new GI cancer, and GI bleeding was associated with a 13-fold increased risk of subsequent GI cancer diagnosis. Put another way, the number of cases of GI bleeding occurring in patients on rivaroxaban that needed to be investigated in order to find one new GI cancer was 12.
Similarly, 13% of COMPASS participants who developed GU bleeding were subsequently diagnosed with a new GU cancer, compared with just 0.3% of subjects without GU bleeding. That translates into an 83.4-fold increased risk of GU cancer in patients with GU bleeding.
In contrast, the incidence of non-GI cancer following a GI bleed was 1.5%, while the rate was 1.0% in patients with no prior GI bleeding.
“That relationship was much weaker, with an odds ratio of 1.77, indicating that the relationship between GI bleeding and GI cancer is not only very strong but it’s rather specific,” according to Dr. Eikelboom.
Of GI cancers associated with a prior major GI bleed, 77% were diagnosed within 6 months following the bleed, as were nearly 89% of GU cancers. Another 9%-10% were diagnosed 6-12 months after the bleeding event.
“The implication for clinical practice is certainly that in patients who have GI or GU bleeding while receiving antithrombotic therapy, we should conduct a vigorous search for underlying cancer in the same organ system,” he concluded.
Discussant Lars C. Wallentin, MD, concurred. He called it a wake-up call for cardiologists to broaden their horizons and recognize that their elderly patients with vascular disease also are at substantial competing risk for major noncardiovascular diseases – and that his colleagues may have an important role to play in earlier cancer diagnoses.
He and his coinvestigators in the RE-LY (Randomized Evaluation of Long-Term Anticoagulant Therapy) study made a similar point in their investigation of 18,113 patients with atrial fibrillation on oral anticoagulation for stroke protection. In that randomized trial of dabigatran (Pradaxa) versus warfarin, roughly 1 in 12 major GI bleeding events was found to be related to an occult colorectal or gastric cancer (Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2017 May;15[5]:682-90).
“The data are very consistent. The message to cardiologists is that no bleeding should be disregarded in patients on oral anticoagulation,” declared Dr. Wallentin, professor of cardiology at Uppsala (Sweden) University.
COMPASS was sponsored by Bayer. Dr. Eikelboom reported receiving research grants from that company and more than half a dozen others.
MUNICH – The increased risk of major GI bleeding documented with dual-antiplatelet therapy using rivaroxaban and aspirin when compared with aspirin alone for vascular protection in the previously reported massive COMPASS trial may turn out to be a blessing in disguise.
“Among COMPASS patients with vascular disease receiving long-term antithrombotic therapy, more than 1 in 5 new diagnoses of cancer are preceded by bleeding. GI and GU bleeding are powerful and relatively specific predictors of new GI and GU cancer diagnoses, respectively, and more than 75% of these cancers diagnosed after bleeding are diagnosed within 6 months of the bleed,” John W. Eikelboom, MD, reported at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.
These findings strongly suggest that rivaroxaban (Xarelto), a direct-acting oral anticoagulant (DOAC), may be unmasking occult GI and GU cancers earlier than the malignancies would otherwise have declared themselves.
“Although overall cancer rates were similar in the three treatment groups [rivaroxaban at 2.5 mg twice daily plus aspirin at 100 mg/day, rivaroxaban monotherapy at 5 mg twice daily, or aspirin alone at 100 mg/day], the early increase in GI bleeding with rivaroxaban-based therapy resulted in earlier diagnosis of GI cancer in these patients. By reducing major cardiovascular events and mortality, the combination of rivaroxaban and aspirin already produces a clear net benefit, and by unmasking GI cancers at an earlier stage, the combination could potentially lead to the added benefit of improved GI cancer outcomes,” commented Dr. Eikelboom, a hematologist at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ont., and lead investigator of the previously published COMPASS trial (N Engl J Med. 2017 Oct 5;377[14]:1319-30).
This possibility that unmasking of occult GI cancer might result in improved survival deserves to be a high research priority in light of the enormous death toll caused by colorectal cancer. Planned longer-term follow-up of the COMPASS participants should be helpful in this regard, he added.
This new COMPASS finding effectively makes a silk purse out of a sow’s ear. When the primary outcomes of COMPASS were announced, many physicians reasoned that if the other commercially available DOACs also outperform warfarin but don’t pose a significantly increased threat of serious bleeding events, why not preferentially turn to them rather than rivaroxaban in patients with high HAS-BLED scores? But now rivaroxaban’s increased GI bleeding risk has begun to look like a potentially important advantage.
As previously reported, COMPASS participants on rivaroxaban plus aspirin had a 3.1% major bleeding rate as defined according to modified International Society on Thrombosis and Hemostasis criteria, for a statistically significant 70% increase in risk, compared with the 1.9% rate in patients on aspirin alone. Rivaroxaban monotherapy also was associated with increased bleeding risk. Of note, most of the excess in bleeding involved GI bleeding, and it was front-loaded during the first year of the trial. Also, reassuringly, there was no increased incidence of intracranial or fatal bleeding in patients on rivaroxaban.
A total of 1,082 patients were diagnosed with a new cancer during 23 months of follow-up. Nearly a quarter (23%) of the new GI cancers and 45% of the new GU cancers were diagnosed after bleeding from those sites.
The incidence of GI cancer diagnosed after GI bleeding was 7.8%, whereas patients with no prior GI bleeding had a mere 0.9% rate of newly diagnosed GI cancer during the study period. Thus, roughly 1 out of every 12 cases of GI bleeding was associated with diagnosis of a new GI cancer, and GI bleeding was associated with a 13-fold increased risk of subsequent GI cancer diagnosis. Put another way, the number of cases of GI bleeding occurring in patients on rivaroxaban that needed to be investigated in order to find one new GI cancer was 12.
Similarly, 13% of COMPASS participants who developed GU bleeding were subsequently diagnosed with a new GU cancer, compared with just 0.3% of subjects without GU bleeding. That translates into an 83.4-fold increased risk of GU cancer in patients with GU bleeding.
In contrast, the incidence of non-GI cancer following a GI bleed was 1.5%, while the rate was 1.0% in patients with no prior GI bleeding.
“That relationship was much weaker, with an odds ratio of 1.77, indicating that the relationship between GI bleeding and GI cancer is not only very strong but it’s rather specific,” according to Dr. Eikelboom.
Of GI cancers associated with a prior major GI bleed, 77% were diagnosed within 6 months following the bleed, as were nearly 89% of GU cancers. Another 9%-10% were diagnosed 6-12 months after the bleeding event.
“The implication for clinical practice is certainly that in patients who have GI or GU bleeding while receiving antithrombotic therapy, we should conduct a vigorous search for underlying cancer in the same organ system,” he concluded.
Discussant Lars C. Wallentin, MD, concurred. He called it a wake-up call for cardiologists to broaden their horizons and recognize that their elderly patients with vascular disease also are at substantial competing risk for major noncardiovascular diseases – and that his colleagues may have an important role to play in earlier cancer diagnoses.
He and his coinvestigators in the RE-LY (Randomized Evaluation of Long-Term Anticoagulant Therapy) study made a similar point in their investigation of 18,113 patients with atrial fibrillation on oral anticoagulation for stroke protection. In that randomized trial of dabigatran (Pradaxa) versus warfarin, roughly 1 in 12 major GI bleeding events was found to be related to an occult colorectal or gastric cancer (Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2017 May;15[5]:682-90).
“The data are very consistent. The message to cardiologists is that no bleeding should be disregarded in patients on oral anticoagulation,” declared Dr. Wallentin, professor of cardiology at Uppsala (Sweden) University.
COMPASS was sponsored by Bayer. Dr. Eikelboom reported receiving research grants from that company and more than half a dozen others.
MUNICH – The increased risk of major GI bleeding documented with dual-antiplatelet therapy using rivaroxaban and aspirin when compared with aspirin alone for vascular protection in the previously reported massive COMPASS trial may turn out to be a blessing in disguise.
“Among COMPASS patients with vascular disease receiving long-term antithrombotic therapy, more than 1 in 5 new diagnoses of cancer are preceded by bleeding. GI and GU bleeding are powerful and relatively specific predictors of new GI and GU cancer diagnoses, respectively, and more than 75% of these cancers diagnosed after bleeding are diagnosed within 6 months of the bleed,” John W. Eikelboom, MD, reported at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.
These findings strongly suggest that rivaroxaban (Xarelto), a direct-acting oral anticoagulant (DOAC), may be unmasking occult GI and GU cancers earlier than the malignancies would otherwise have declared themselves.
“Although overall cancer rates were similar in the three treatment groups [rivaroxaban at 2.5 mg twice daily plus aspirin at 100 mg/day, rivaroxaban monotherapy at 5 mg twice daily, or aspirin alone at 100 mg/day], the early increase in GI bleeding with rivaroxaban-based therapy resulted in earlier diagnosis of GI cancer in these patients. By reducing major cardiovascular events and mortality, the combination of rivaroxaban and aspirin already produces a clear net benefit, and by unmasking GI cancers at an earlier stage, the combination could potentially lead to the added benefit of improved GI cancer outcomes,” commented Dr. Eikelboom, a hematologist at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ont., and lead investigator of the previously published COMPASS trial (N Engl J Med. 2017 Oct 5;377[14]:1319-30).
This possibility that unmasking of occult GI cancer might result in improved survival deserves to be a high research priority in light of the enormous death toll caused by colorectal cancer. Planned longer-term follow-up of the COMPASS participants should be helpful in this regard, he added.
This new COMPASS finding effectively makes a silk purse out of a sow’s ear. When the primary outcomes of COMPASS were announced, many physicians reasoned that if the other commercially available DOACs also outperform warfarin but don’t pose a significantly increased threat of serious bleeding events, why not preferentially turn to them rather than rivaroxaban in patients with high HAS-BLED scores? But now rivaroxaban’s increased GI bleeding risk has begun to look like a potentially important advantage.
As previously reported, COMPASS participants on rivaroxaban plus aspirin had a 3.1% major bleeding rate as defined according to modified International Society on Thrombosis and Hemostasis criteria, for a statistically significant 70% increase in risk, compared with the 1.9% rate in patients on aspirin alone. Rivaroxaban monotherapy also was associated with increased bleeding risk. Of note, most of the excess in bleeding involved GI bleeding, and it was front-loaded during the first year of the trial. Also, reassuringly, there was no increased incidence of intracranial or fatal bleeding in patients on rivaroxaban.
A total of 1,082 patients were diagnosed with a new cancer during 23 months of follow-up. Nearly a quarter (23%) of the new GI cancers and 45% of the new GU cancers were diagnosed after bleeding from those sites.
The incidence of GI cancer diagnosed after GI bleeding was 7.8%, whereas patients with no prior GI bleeding had a mere 0.9% rate of newly diagnosed GI cancer during the study period. Thus, roughly 1 out of every 12 cases of GI bleeding was associated with diagnosis of a new GI cancer, and GI bleeding was associated with a 13-fold increased risk of subsequent GI cancer diagnosis. Put another way, the number of cases of GI bleeding occurring in patients on rivaroxaban that needed to be investigated in order to find one new GI cancer was 12.
Similarly, 13% of COMPASS participants who developed GU bleeding were subsequently diagnosed with a new GU cancer, compared with just 0.3% of subjects without GU bleeding. That translates into an 83.4-fold increased risk of GU cancer in patients with GU bleeding.
In contrast, the incidence of non-GI cancer following a GI bleed was 1.5%, while the rate was 1.0% in patients with no prior GI bleeding.
“That relationship was much weaker, with an odds ratio of 1.77, indicating that the relationship between GI bleeding and GI cancer is not only very strong but it’s rather specific,” according to Dr. Eikelboom.
Of GI cancers associated with a prior major GI bleed, 77% were diagnosed within 6 months following the bleed, as were nearly 89% of GU cancers. Another 9%-10% were diagnosed 6-12 months after the bleeding event.
“The implication for clinical practice is certainly that in patients who have GI or GU bleeding while receiving antithrombotic therapy, we should conduct a vigorous search for underlying cancer in the same organ system,” he concluded.
Discussant Lars C. Wallentin, MD, concurred. He called it a wake-up call for cardiologists to broaden their horizons and recognize that their elderly patients with vascular disease also are at substantial competing risk for major noncardiovascular diseases – and that his colleagues may have an important role to play in earlier cancer diagnoses.
He and his coinvestigators in the RE-LY (Randomized Evaluation of Long-Term Anticoagulant Therapy) study made a similar point in their investigation of 18,113 patients with atrial fibrillation on oral anticoagulation for stroke protection. In that randomized trial of dabigatran (Pradaxa) versus warfarin, roughly 1 in 12 major GI bleeding events was found to be related to an occult colorectal or gastric cancer (Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2017 May;15[5]:682-90).
“The data are very consistent. The message to cardiologists is that no bleeding should be disregarded in patients on oral anticoagulation,” declared Dr. Wallentin, professor of cardiology at Uppsala (Sweden) University.
COMPASS was sponsored by Bayer. Dr. Eikelboom reported receiving research grants from that company and more than half a dozen others.
REPORTING FROM THE ESC CONGRESS 2018
Key clinical point:
Major finding: Among patients on rivaroxaban, 1 in 12 GI bleeding events was associated with an occult GI cancer.
Study details: This was a secondary analysis looking at cancers in COMPASS, a randomized trial of more than 27,000 patients on rivaroxaban and/or aspirin for vascular prevention.
Disclosures: The presenter reported receiving research grants from Bayer, which sponsored the COMPASS trial.