A recent survey found that less than half of pharmacies in the Washington area had a 30-day supply of either 2.5-mg or 10-mg tablets of oral minoxidil, used for both hair loss and hypertension.

Patients are not finding out until they go to pick up their prescription, which can result in an interruption of treatment – and, potentially a loss of hard-earned hair gain, said Adam Friedman, MD, professor and chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, who was the lead author of the survey, published online on Oct. 26 as a research letter in the Journal of Drugs in Dermatology.

Going off low-dose oral minoxidil may spark a telogen effluvium event, and that is very disappointing to patients, Dr. Friedman told this news organization.

“There needs to be some system that alerts us,” he said. “Even if it’s a minor shortage, just so we’re aware. We can then prepare patients,” he added, noting that it would be better for someone to be taking a lower-than-normal dose rather than no medication at all while they wait for a refill.

Minoxidil has long been approved in a topical formulation to treat androgenetic alopecia, but a low-dose oral form has gained currency in the wake of findings that it might more effectively treat hair loss, and is without side effects. A New York Times article in August 2022 touting low-dose oral minoxidil as a cheap and effective hair loss drug appeared to ignite interest in this option. In May, 2023, researchers reporting in JAMA Network Open demonstrated a significant uptick in prescriptions for oral minoxidil in the wake of the article’s publication.

Oral minoxidil is approved by the Food and Drug Administration only for hypertension, but dermatologists are prescribing it off-label at a lower dose for hair loss. Dr. Friedman said it’s not clear whether the shortages his team found are national in scope, or whether they are a result of increased demand, or other factors.

After several patients told him they were having trouble filling minoxidil prescriptions, and colleagues said they’d had patients with similar experiences, Dr. Friedman and his colleagues undertook the survey. In the first week of October 2023, they contacted 277 pharmacies by phone in Washington and surrounding Virginia and Maryland counties. The pharmacies were CVS, Giant, Walgreens, and Harris Teeter.

Of the 277 pharmacies they contacted, 40% (111) reported availability of 2.5-mg tablets for a 30-day supply, and just under 30% (82) reported having 10-mg tablets for a 30-day supply.

For treating hair loss, most patients are prescribed 2.5-mg pills, with starting doses ranging from 0.625 mg to 5 mg twice a day, Dr. Friedman said. The 10-mg dose is more frequently prescribed for hypertension.

Only 28% (19 of 67) of the Maryland pharmacies had 30-day supplies of 2.5-mg tablets on hand, and just 22% (15) of the Maryland pharmacies had 30-day supplies of 10-mg tablets. In Northern Virginia, 44% (63 of 143) of the pharmacies had 30-day supplies of the 2.5 mg tablets, as did just 43% (29 of 67) of the Washington pharmacies.

Dr. Friedman said he has started giving patients paper prescriptions they can use to shop around, rather than electronically sending a prescription to a particular pharmacy.

Neither the Food and Drug Administration nor the American Society of Health System Pharmacists lists oral minoxidil as a drug in shortage.

Michael Ganio, PharmD, senior director of pharmacy practice and quality for ASHP, said the organization received a report from wholesalers in mid-September showing spotty oral minoxidil availability, with the drug on backorder with some manufacturers.  ASHP's shortages list is compiled from reports from physicians, manufacturers and wholesalers, he said.

Under what he calls "blue sky conditions," pharmacies using a just-in-time inventory model should be able to fill prescriptions within hours or days, which might explain why some pharmacies in the Washington, DC area survey did not have a 30-day supply on hand, he said. However, Dr. Ganio noted that the causes of drug shortages are complex and multi-factorial. For now, he said there have been no oral minoxidil shortage reports since mid-September.

But Dr. Friedman said some of his patients have waited weeks for a new supply – and that no one is aware of the problem until the last moment.

The lack of alerts or transparency “also erodes the physician-patient relationship because there’s this expectation of the patient that we should have known this,” said Dr. Friedman.

Dr. Friedman reports no relevant financial relationships.

This story was updated on 11/2/2023.

A recent survey found that less than half of pharmacies in the Washington area had a 30-day supply of either 2.5-mg or 10-mg tablets of oral minoxidil, used for both hair loss and hypertension.

Patients are not finding out until they go to pick up their prescription, which can result in an interruption of treatment – and, potentially a loss of hard-earned hair gain, said Adam Friedman, MD, professor and chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, who was the lead author of the survey, published online on Oct. 26 as a research letter in the Journal of Drugs in Dermatology.

Going off low-dose oral minoxidil may spark a telogen effluvium event, and that is very disappointing to patients, Dr. Friedman told this news organization.

“There needs to be some system that alerts us,” he said. “Even if it’s a minor shortage, just so we’re aware. We can then prepare patients,” he added, noting that it would be better for someone to be taking a lower-than-normal dose rather than no medication at all while they wait for a refill.

Minoxidil has long been approved in a topical formulation to treat androgenetic alopecia, but a low-dose oral form has gained currency in the wake of findings that it might more effectively treat hair loss, and is without side effects. A New York Times article in August 2022 touting low-dose oral minoxidil as a cheap and effective hair loss drug appeared to ignite interest in this option. In May, 2023, researchers reporting in JAMA Network Open demonstrated a significant uptick in prescriptions for oral minoxidil in the wake of the article’s publication.

Oral minoxidil is approved by the Food and Drug Administration only for hypertension, but dermatologists are prescribing it off-label at a lower dose for hair loss. Dr. Friedman said it’s not clear whether the shortages his team found are national in scope, or whether they are a result of increased demand, or other factors.

After several patients told him they were having trouble filling minoxidil prescriptions, and colleagues said they’d had patients with similar experiences, Dr. Friedman and his colleagues undertook the survey. In the first week of October 2023, they contacted 277 pharmacies by phone in Washington and surrounding Virginia and Maryland counties. The pharmacies were CVS, Giant, Walgreens, and Harris Teeter.

Of the 277 pharmacies they contacted, 40% (111) reported availability of 2.5-mg tablets for a 30-day supply, and just under 30% (82) reported having 10-mg tablets for a 30-day supply.

For treating hair loss, most patients are prescribed 2.5-mg pills, with starting doses ranging from 0.625 mg to 5 mg twice a day, Dr. Friedman said. The 10-mg dose is more frequently prescribed for hypertension.

Only 28% (19 of 67) of the Maryland pharmacies had 30-day supplies of 2.5-mg tablets on hand, and just 22% (15) of the Maryland pharmacies had 30-day supplies of 10-mg tablets. In Northern Virginia, 44% (63 of 143) of the pharmacies had 30-day supplies of the 2.5 mg tablets, as did just 43% (29 of 67) of the Washington pharmacies.

Dr. Friedman said he has started giving patients paper prescriptions they can use to shop around, rather than electronically sending a prescription to a particular pharmacy.

Neither the Food and Drug Administration nor the American Society of Health System Pharmacists lists oral minoxidil as a drug in shortage.

Michael Ganio, PharmD, senior director of pharmacy practice and quality for ASHP, said the organization received a report from wholesalers in mid-September showing spotty oral minoxidil availability, with the drug on backorder with some manufacturers.  ASHP's shortages list is compiled from reports from physicians, manufacturers and wholesalers, he said.

Under what he calls "blue sky conditions," pharmacies using a just-in-time inventory model should be able to fill prescriptions within hours or days, which might explain why some pharmacies in the Washington, DC area survey did not have a 30-day supply on hand, he said. However, Dr. Ganio noted that the causes of drug shortages are complex and multi-factorial. For now, he said there have been no oral minoxidil shortage reports since mid-September.

But Dr. Friedman said some of his patients have waited weeks for a new supply – and that no one is aware of the problem until the last moment.

The lack of alerts or transparency “also erodes the physician-patient relationship because there’s this expectation of the patient that we should have known this,” said Dr. Friedman.

Dr. Friedman reports no relevant financial relationships.

This story was updated on 11/2/2023.

A recent survey found that less than half of pharmacies in the Washington area had a 30-day supply of either 2.5-mg or 10-mg tablets of oral minoxidil, used for both hair loss and hypertension.

Patients are not finding out until they go to pick up their prescription, which can result in an interruption of treatment – and, potentially a loss of hard-earned hair gain, said Adam Friedman, MD, professor and chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, who was the lead author of the survey, published online on Oct. 26 as a research letter in the Journal of Drugs in Dermatology.

Going off low-dose oral minoxidil may spark a telogen effluvium event, and that is very disappointing to patients, Dr. Friedman told this news organization.

“There needs to be some system that alerts us,” he said. “Even if it’s a minor shortage, just so we’re aware. We can then prepare patients,” he added, noting that it would be better for someone to be taking a lower-than-normal dose rather than no medication at all while they wait for a refill.

Minoxidil has long been approved in a topical formulation to treat androgenetic alopecia, but a low-dose oral form has gained currency in the wake of findings that it might more effectively treat hair loss, and is without side effects. A New York Times article in August 2022 touting low-dose oral minoxidil as a cheap and effective hair loss drug appeared to ignite interest in this option. In May, 2023, researchers reporting in JAMA Network Open demonstrated a significant uptick in prescriptions for oral minoxidil in the wake of the article’s publication.

Oral minoxidil is approved by the Food and Drug Administration only for hypertension, but dermatologists are prescribing it off-label at a lower dose for hair loss. Dr. Friedman said it’s not clear whether the shortages his team found are national in scope, or whether they are a result of increased demand, or other factors.

After several patients told him they were having trouble filling minoxidil prescriptions, and colleagues said they’d had patients with similar experiences, Dr. Friedman and his colleagues undertook the survey. In the first week of October 2023, they contacted 277 pharmacies by phone in Washington and surrounding Virginia and Maryland counties. The pharmacies were CVS, Giant, Walgreens, and Harris Teeter.

Of the 277 pharmacies they contacted, 40% (111) reported availability of 2.5-mg tablets for a 30-day supply, and just under 30% (82) reported having 10-mg tablets for a 30-day supply.

For treating hair loss, most patients are prescribed 2.5-mg pills, with starting doses ranging from 0.625 mg to 5 mg twice a day, Dr. Friedman said. The 10-mg dose is more frequently prescribed for hypertension.

Only 28% (19 of 67) of the Maryland pharmacies had 30-day supplies of 2.5-mg tablets on hand, and just 22% (15) of the Maryland pharmacies had 30-day supplies of 10-mg tablets. In Northern Virginia, 44% (63 of 143) of the pharmacies had 30-day supplies of the 2.5 mg tablets, as did just 43% (29 of 67) of the Washington pharmacies.

Dr. Friedman said he has started giving patients paper prescriptions they can use to shop around, rather than electronically sending a prescription to a particular pharmacy.

Neither the Food and Drug Administration nor the American Society of Health System Pharmacists lists oral minoxidil as a drug in shortage.

Michael Ganio, PharmD, senior director of pharmacy practice and quality for ASHP, said the organization received a report from wholesalers in mid-September showing spotty oral minoxidil availability, with the drug on backorder with some manufacturers.  ASHP's shortages list is compiled from reports from physicians, manufacturers and wholesalers, he said.

Under what he calls "blue sky conditions," pharmacies using a just-in-time inventory model should be able to fill prescriptions within hours or days, which might explain why some pharmacies in the Washington, DC area survey did not have a 30-day supply on hand, he said. However, Dr. Ganio noted that the causes of drug shortages are complex and multi-factorial. For now, he said there have been no oral minoxidil shortage reports since mid-September.

But Dr. Friedman said some of his patients have waited weeks for a new supply – and that no one is aware of the problem until the last moment.

The lack of alerts or transparency “also erodes the physician-patient relationship because there’s this expectation of the patient that we should have known this,” said Dr. Friedman.

Dr. Friedman reports no relevant financial relationships.

This story was updated on 11/2/2023.

In a recent editorial, “Is the contemporary mental health crisis among youth due to DMN disruption?” (Current Psychiatry, June 2023, p. 10-11,21, doi:10.12788/cp.0372), Dr. Nasrallah argued that “[Default mode network] DMN deactivation by excessive use of social media may explain the mental health decline in youth.” He proposed that focused attention tasks such as “smartphones, video games, and social media” disrupt the activation of the DMN: “When another brain network, the attention network ... is activated … DMN activity declines.” Dr. Nasrallah then suggested that reduced DMN activity—resulting from focused attention tasks like social media—is associated with mental health problems. Increased DMN activity, on the other hand, is positive, and results from “exercise, daydreaming, and sleep,” activities that “have declined drastically with the widespread use of smartphones, video games, and social media.” Finally, Dr. Nasrallah suggested that DMN activity can be increased via interventions such as meditation and psychedelics. The proposed causal model can therefore be summarized as: focused attention tasks like social media → increased attention network → reduced DMN → mental health problems in youth. This theory is implausible, for 4 reasons.

First, Dr. Nasrallah referred to the well-cited review by Whitfield-Gabrieli et al¹ regarding the relationship between DMN activation and mental health problems. However, this review shows that in mental health problems like “schizophrenia and depression, the DMN is often found to be hyperactivated and hyperconnected.” This stands in contradiction with the theory of decreased DMN activity in youth with mental health problems, and would, according to Dr. Nasrallah’s theory, call for more, not less, social media use.

Second, Dr. Nasrallah’s theory implies a substantial relationship between social media use and mental health problems. The latest umbrella review on the topic included 25 reviews, of which the majority found either “inconsistent” results or only “weak evidence” for a relationship.² Additionally, a study of 355,358 adolescents found that digital technology use explains only 0.4% of the variance of well-being.³

Third, there are many focused attention tasks other than video games and social media, such as reading, doing math homework, and playing chess. Dr. Nasrallah’s theory suggests that the World Health Organization should refrain from global efforts to get more kids into schools, given that this would increase the amount of focused attention tasks, reduce DMN activation, and increase the amount of mental health problems.

Fourth, youth mental health problems are multifactorial. Identified predictors include “female gender, low socioeconomic status, higher stress reactivity, conduct issues, substance misuse, and problems in peer and parental relationships.”⁴ Given that these factors are unrelated to the DMN, under-activation of the DMN cannot “explain” the youth mental health crisis, as the editorial suggested.

In a recent editorial, “Is the contemporary mental health crisis among youth due to DMN disruption?” (Current Psychiatry, June 2023, p. 10-11,21, doi:10.12788/cp.0372), Dr. Nasrallah argued that “[Default mode network] DMN deactivation by excessive use of social media may explain the mental health decline in youth.” He proposed that focused attention tasks such as “smartphones, video games, and social media” disrupt the activation of the DMN: “When another brain network, the attention network ... is activated … DMN activity declines.” Dr. Nasrallah then suggested that reduced DMN activity—resulting from focused attention tasks like social media—is associated with mental health problems. Increased DMN activity, on the other hand, is positive, and results from “exercise, daydreaming, and sleep,” activities that “have declined drastically with the widespread use of smartphones, video games, and social media.” Finally, Dr. Nasrallah suggested that DMN activity can be increased via interventions such as meditation and psychedelics. The proposed causal model can therefore be summarized as: focused attention tasks like social media → increased attention network → reduced DMN → mental health problems in youth. This theory is implausible, for 4 reasons.

First, Dr. Nasrallah referred to the well-cited review by Whitfield-Gabrieli et al¹ regarding the relationship between DMN activation and mental health problems. However, this review shows that in mental health problems like “schizophrenia and depression, the DMN is often found to be hyperactivated and hyperconnected.” This stands in contradiction with the theory of decreased DMN activity in youth with mental health problems, and would, according to Dr. Nasrallah’s theory, call for more, not less, social media use.

Second, Dr. Nasrallah’s theory implies a substantial relationship between social media use and mental health problems. The latest umbrella review on the topic included 25 reviews, of which the majority found either “inconsistent” results or only “weak evidence” for a relationship.² Additionally, a study of 355,358 adolescents found that digital technology use explains only 0.4% of the variance of well-being.³

Third, there are many focused attention tasks other than video games and social media, such as reading, doing math homework, and playing chess. Dr. Nasrallah’s theory suggests that the World Health Organization should refrain from global efforts to get more kids into schools, given that this would increase the amount of focused attention tasks, reduce DMN activation, and increase the amount of mental health problems.

Fourth, youth mental health problems are multifactorial. Identified predictors include “female gender, low socioeconomic status, higher stress reactivity, conduct issues, substance misuse, and problems in peer and parental relationships.”⁴ Given that these factors are unrelated to the DMN, under-activation of the DMN cannot “explain” the youth mental health crisis, as the editorial suggested.

In a recent editorial, “Is the contemporary mental health crisis among youth due to DMN disruption?” (Current Psychiatry, June 2023, p. 10-11,21, doi:10.12788/cp.0372), Dr. Nasrallah argued that “[Default mode network] DMN deactivation by excessive use of social media may explain the mental health decline in youth.” He proposed that focused attention tasks such as “smartphones, video games, and social media” disrupt the activation of the DMN: “When another brain network, the attention network ... is activated … DMN activity declines.” Dr. Nasrallah then suggested that reduced DMN activity—resulting from focused attention tasks like social media—is associated with mental health problems. Increased DMN activity, on the other hand, is positive, and results from “exercise, daydreaming, and sleep,” activities that “have declined drastically with the widespread use of smartphones, video games, and social media.” Finally, Dr. Nasrallah suggested that DMN activity can be increased via interventions such as meditation and psychedelics. The proposed causal model can therefore be summarized as: focused attention tasks like social media → increased attention network → reduced DMN → mental health problems in youth. This theory is implausible, for 4 reasons.

First, Dr. Nasrallah referred to the well-cited review by Whitfield-Gabrieli et al¹ regarding the relationship between DMN activation and mental health problems. However, this review shows that in mental health problems like “schizophrenia and depression, the DMN is often found to be hyperactivated and hyperconnected.” This stands in contradiction with the theory of decreased DMN activity in youth with mental health problems, and would, according to Dr. Nasrallah’s theory, call for more, not less, social media use.

Second, Dr. Nasrallah’s theory implies a substantial relationship between social media use and mental health problems. The latest umbrella review on the topic included 25 reviews, of which the majority found either “inconsistent” results or only “weak evidence” for a relationship.² Additionally, a study of 355,358 adolescents found that digital technology use explains only 0.4% of the variance of well-being.³

Third, there are many focused attention tasks other than video games and social media, such as reading, doing math homework, and playing chess. Dr. Nasrallah’s theory suggests that the World Health Organization should refrain from global efforts to get more kids into schools, given that this would increase the amount of focused attention tasks, reduce DMN activation, and increase the amount of mental health problems.

Fourth, youth mental health problems are multifactorial. Identified predictors include “female gender, low socioeconomic status, higher stress reactivity, conduct issues, substance misuse, and problems in peer and parental relationships.”⁴ Given that these factors are unrelated to the DMN, under-activation of the DMN cannot “explain” the youth mental health crisis, as the editorial suggested.

The ZUMA-7 and TRANSFORM studies have been practice-changing for the treatment of relapsed/refractory (R/R) large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL). These studies demonstrated an improvement in outcomes with axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel) and lisocabtagene maraleucel (liso-cel), respectively, as compared with standard-of-care treatment (chemotherapy and autologous stem cell transplantation).^1,2 Patients included in these studies were refractory to their initial therapy or experienced relapse within 12 months and were considered fit for autologous stem cell transplant. It has remained unclear, however, whether patients who are not transplant candidates may also derive benefit and tolerate treatment with chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy. The PILOT study was a single-arm phase 2 study that demonstrated favorable outcomes with liso-cel in this patient population, thus resulting in the approval of liso-cel by the US Food and Drug Administration for this population.³ Recently, the ALYCATE study similarly examined outcomes in transplant-ineligible patients treated with axi-cel (Houot et al). This phase 2 study included 62 patients with high-risk R/R LBCL who underwent leukapheresis and subsequently received second-line axi-cel. The complete metabolic response rate 3 months after axi-cel infusion was 71.0% (95% CI 58.1%-81.8%). At a median 12-month follow-up, the median progression-free survival was 11.8 months (95% CI 8.4-not reached) whereas median overall survival was not reached. Grade ≥ 3 cytokine release syndrome (CRS) and immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome (ICANS) occurred in 8.1% and 14.5% of patients, respectively. Also of note, patients age ≥ 70 years did not show increased toxicity compared with those age < 70 years, with similar rates of CRS, ICANS, and intensive care unit transfer. This study supports the role of axi-cel in the second-line setting, regardless of transplant eligibility.

Another important study recently published for patients with LBCL examined the role of central nervous system (CNS) prophylaxis (Lewis et al). We know that certain patients with LBCL, including those with a high CNS international prognostic index (IPI) score, double-hit lymphoma, or disease involvement of multiple or certain extranodal sites (ie, breast, testes, adrenals, kidney) can be at increased risk for lymphoma spread to the CNS.⁴ Strategies to reduce this risk have subsequently been developed for these high-risk patients, though consensus regarding who should be treated and how best to treat patients has been consistent. Recently, retrospective data have also called into question whether our current approaches meaningfully reduce this risk. One such study was a multicenter, international, retrospective observational study that included 2418 adults with aggressive LBCL and a high risk for CNS progression who were treated with curative-intent anti-CD20–based chemoimmunotherapy and who did or did not receive high-dose methotrexate (HD-MTX). Patients who did vs did not receive HD-MTX had a significantly lower risk for CNS progression (adjusted 5-year risk difference 1.6%; adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0.59; P = .014), but the significance was lost when considering only those patients who achieved a complete response at chemoimmunotherapy completion (adjusted 5-year risk difference 1.4%; aHR 0.74; P = .30). The study was not sufficiently powered to make definitive conclusions for individual risk groups, though there was no obvious reduction in CNS involvement risk in any high-risk subgroup. With an absolute risk reduction of 1.6% with the use of HD-MTX, 63 patients would require treatment to prevent one CNS progression event over 5 years (Lewis et al). Given the absence of prospective, randomized data, these results, though retrospective in nature, call into question the benefit of CNS prophylaxis. The authors suggest that studies evaluating alternative strategies for prophylaxis and tools for early detection of relapse, such as circulating tumor DNA, may be helpful.

Another study worth noting was one exploring Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibition in mantle cell lymphoma (MCL). BTK inhibitors, including zanubrutinib, have emerged as effective therapies for patients with R/R disease. A recent pooled analysis included 112 patients from the BGB-3111-AU-003 and BGB-3111-206 clinical trials who had R/R MCL and received second-line (n = 41) or later-line (n = 71) zanubrutinib (Song et al). At a median follow-up of 35.2 months, patients receiving second-line vs later-line zanubrutinib had significantly improved median overall survival (aHR 0.459; P = .044) and numerically longer median progression-free survival (27.8 vs 22.1 months). Adverse events observed in both groups were consistent with the known safety profile of zanubrutinib. These findings were in line with a prior similar pooled study that demonstrated improved outcomes with second-line ibrutinib for patients with MCL as compared with later-line ibrutinib therapy.⁵ This study, however, did not evaluate the impact on CAR T–cell therapy in MCL, which is also an effective treatment option for patients with R/R disease, and how best to sequence with BTK inhibitors.

Additional References

1.       Locke FL, Miklos DB, Jacobson CA, et al, for All ZUMA-7 Investigators and Contributing Kite Members. Axicabtagene ciloleucel as second-line therapy for large B-cell lymphoma. N Engl J Med. 2022;386:640-654. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2116133

2.       Kamdar M, Solomon SR, Arnason J, et al, for theTRANSFORM Investigators. Lisocabtagene maraleucel versus standard of care with salvage chemotherapy followed by autologous stem cell transplantation as second-line treatment in patients with relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphoma (TRANSFORM): Results from an interim analysis of an open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial. Lancet. 2022;399:2294-2308. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(22)00662-6

3.       Gordon LI, Liu FF, Braverman J, et al. Lisocabtagene maraleucel for second-line relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphoma: Patient-reported outcomes from the PILOT study. Haematologica. 2023 (Aug 31). doi: 10.3324/haematol.2023.283162

4.       Schmitz N, Zeynalova S, Nickelsen M, et al. CNS International Prognostic Index: A risk model for CNS relapse in patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma treated with R-CHOP. J Clin Oncol. 2016;34:3150-3156. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2015.65.6520

5.       Dreyling M, Goy A, Hess G, et al. Long-term outcomes with ibrutinib treatment for patients with relapsed/refractory mantle cell lymphoma: A pooled analysis of 3 clinical trials with nearly 10 years of follow-up. Hemasphere. 2022;6:e712. doi: 10.1097/HS9.0000000000000712

The ZUMA-7 and TRANSFORM studies have been practice-changing for the treatment of relapsed/refractory (R/R) large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL). These studies demonstrated an improvement in outcomes with axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel) and lisocabtagene maraleucel (liso-cel), respectively, as compared with standard-of-care treatment (chemotherapy and autologous stem cell transplantation).^1,2 Patients included in these studies were refractory to their initial therapy or experienced relapse within 12 months and were considered fit for autologous stem cell transplant. It has remained unclear, however, whether patients who are not transplant candidates may also derive benefit and tolerate treatment with chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy. The PILOT study was a single-arm phase 2 study that demonstrated favorable outcomes with liso-cel in this patient population, thus resulting in the approval of liso-cel by the US Food and Drug Administration for this population.³ Recently, the ALYCATE study similarly examined outcomes in transplant-ineligible patients treated with axi-cel (Houot et al). This phase 2 study included 62 patients with high-risk R/R LBCL who underwent leukapheresis and subsequently received second-line axi-cel. The complete metabolic response rate 3 months after axi-cel infusion was 71.0% (95% CI 58.1%-81.8%). At a median 12-month follow-up, the median progression-free survival was 11.8 months (95% CI 8.4-not reached) whereas median overall survival was not reached. Grade ≥ 3 cytokine release syndrome (CRS) and immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome (ICANS) occurred in 8.1% and 14.5% of patients, respectively. Also of note, patients age ≥ 70 years did not show increased toxicity compared with those age < 70 years, with similar rates of CRS, ICANS, and intensive care unit transfer. This study supports the role of axi-cel in the second-line setting, regardless of transplant eligibility.

Another important study recently published for patients with LBCL examined the role of central nervous system (CNS) prophylaxis (Lewis et al). We know that certain patients with LBCL, including those with a high CNS international prognostic index (IPI) score, double-hit lymphoma, or disease involvement of multiple or certain extranodal sites (ie, breast, testes, adrenals, kidney) can be at increased risk for lymphoma spread to the CNS.⁴ Strategies to reduce this risk have subsequently been developed for these high-risk patients, though consensus regarding who should be treated and how best to treat patients has been consistent. Recently, retrospective data have also called into question whether our current approaches meaningfully reduce this risk. One such study was a multicenter, international, retrospective observational study that included 2418 adults with aggressive LBCL and a high risk for CNS progression who were treated with curative-intent anti-CD20–based chemoimmunotherapy and who did or did not receive high-dose methotrexate (HD-MTX). Patients who did vs did not receive HD-MTX had a significantly lower risk for CNS progression (adjusted 5-year risk difference 1.6%; adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0.59; P = .014), but the significance was lost when considering only those patients who achieved a complete response at chemoimmunotherapy completion (adjusted 5-year risk difference 1.4%; aHR 0.74; P = .30). The study was not sufficiently powered to make definitive conclusions for individual risk groups, though there was no obvious reduction in CNS involvement risk in any high-risk subgroup. With an absolute risk reduction of 1.6% with the use of HD-MTX, 63 patients would require treatment to prevent one CNS progression event over 5 years (Lewis et al). Given the absence of prospective, randomized data, these results, though retrospective in nature, call into question the benefit of CNS prophylaxis. The authors suggest that studies evaluating alternative strategies for prophylaxis and tools for early detection of relapse, such as circulating tumor DNA, may be helpful.

Another study worth noting was one exploring Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibition in mantle cell lymphoma (MCL). BTK inhibitors, including zanubrutinib, have emerged as effective therapies for patients with R/R disease. A recent pooled analysis included 112 patients from the BGB-3111-AU-003 and BGB-3111-206 clinical trials who had R/R MCL and received second-line (n = 41) or later-line (n = 71) zanubrutinib (Song et al). At a median follow-up of 35.2 months, patients receiving second-line vs later-line zanubrutinib had significantly improved median overall survival (aHR 0.459; P = .044) and numerically longer median progression-free survival (27.8 vs 22.1 months). Adverse events observed in both groups were consistent with the known safety profile of zanubrutinib. These findings were in line with a prior similar pooled study that demonstrated improved outcomes with second-line ibrutinib for patients with MCL as compared with later-line ibrutinib therapy.⁵ This study, however, did not evaluate the impact on CAR T–cell therapy in MCL, which is also an effective treatment option for patients with R/R disease, and how best to sequence with BTK inhibitors.

Additional References

1.       Locke FL, Miklos DB, Jacobson CA, et al, for All ZUMA-7 Investigators and Contributing Kite Members. Axicabtagene ciloleucel as second-line therapy for large B-cell lymphoma. N Engl J Med. 2022;386:640-654. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2116133

2.       Kamdar M, Solomon SR, Arnason J, et al, for theTRANSFORM Investigators. Lisocabtagene maraleucel versus standard of care with salvage chemotherapy followed by autologous stem cell transplantation as second-line treatment in patients with relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphoma (TRANSFORM): Results from an interim analysis of an open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial. Lancet. 2022;399:2294-2308. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(22)00662-6

3.       Gordon LI, Liu FF, Braverman J, et al. Lisocabtagene maraleucel for second-line relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphoma: Patient-reported outcomes from the PILOT study. Haematologica. 2023 (Aug 31). doi: 10.3324/haematol.2023.283162

4.       Schmitz N, Zeynalova S, Nickelsen M, et al. CNS International Prognostic Index: A risk model for CNS relapse in patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma treated with R-CHOP. J Clin Oncol. 2016;34:3150-3156. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2015.65.6520

5.       Dreyling M, Goy A, Hess G, et al. Long-term outcomes with ibrutinib treatment for patients with relapsed/refractory mantle cell lymphoma: A pooled analysis of 3 clinical trials with nearly 10 years of follow-up. Hemasphere. 2022;6:e712. doi: 10.1097/HS9.0000000000000712

The ZUMA-7 and TRANSFORM studies have been practice-changing for the treatment of relapsed/refractory (R/R) large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL). These studies demonstrated an improvement in outcomes with axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel) and lisocabtagene maraleucel (liso-cel), respectively, as compared with standard-of-care treatment (chemotherapy and autologous stem cell transplantation).^1,2 Patients included in these studies were refractory to their initial therapy or experienced relapse within 12 months and were considered fit for autologous stem cell transplant. It has remained unclear, however, whether patients who are not transplant candidates may also derive benefit and tolerate treatment with chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy. The PILOT study was a single-arm phase 2 study that demonstrated favorable outcomes with liso-cel in this patient population, thus resulting in the approval of liso-cel by the US Food and Drug Administration for this population.³ Recently, the ALYCATE study similarly examined outcomes in transplant-ineligible patients treated with axi-cel (Houot et al). This phase 2 study included 62 patients with high-risk R/R LBCL who underwent leukapheresis and subsequently received second-line axi-cel. The complete metabolic response rate 3 months after axi-cel infusion was 71.0% (95% CI 58.1%-81.8%). At a median 12-month follow-up, the median progression-free survival was 11.8 months (95% CI 8.4-not reached) whereas median overall survival was not reached. Grade ≥ 3 cytokine release syndrome (CRS) and immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome (ICANS) occurred in 8.1% and 14.5% of patients, respectively. Also of note, patients age ≥ 70 years did not show increased toxicity compared with those age < 70 years, with similar rates of CRS, ICANS, and intensive care unit transfer. This study supports the role of axi-cel in the second-line setting, regardless of transplant eligibility.

Another important study recently published for patients with LBCL examined the role of central nervous system (CNS) prophylaxis (Lewis et al). We know that certain patients with LBCL, including those with a high CNS international prognostic index (IPI) score, double-hit lymphoma, or disease involvement of multiple or certain extranodal sites (ie, breast, testes, adrenals, kidney) can be at increased risk for lymphoma spread to the CNS.⁴ Strategies to reduce this risk have subsequently been developed for these high-risk patients, though consensus regarding who should be treated and how best to treat patients has been consistent. Recently, retrospective data have also called into question whether our current approaches meaningfully reduce this risk. One such study was a multicenter, international, retrospective observational study that included 2418 adults with aggressive LBCL and a high risk for CNS progression who were treated with curative-intent anti-CD20–based chemoimmunotherapy and who did or did not receive high-dose methotrexate (HD-MTX). Patients who did vs did not receive HD-MTX had a significantly lower risk for CNS progression (adjusted 5-year risk difference 1.6%; adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0.59; P = .014), but the significance was lost when considering only those patients who achieved a complete response at chemoimmunotherapy completion (adjusted 5-year risk difference 1.4%; aHR 0.74; P = .30). The study was not sufficiently powered to make definitive conclusions for individual risk groups, though there was no obvious reduction in CNS involvement risk in any high-risk subgroup. With an absolute risk reduction of 1.6% with the use of HD-MTX, 63 patients would require treatment to prevent one CNS progression event over 5 years (Lewis et al). Given the absence of prospective, randomized data, these results, though retrospective in nature, call into question the benefit of CNS prophylaxis. The authors suggest that studies evaluating alternative strategies for prophylaxis and tools for early detection of relapse, such as circulating tumor DNA, may be helpful.

Another study worth noting was one exploring Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibition in mantle cell lymphoma (MCL). BTK inhibitors, including zanubrutinib, have emerged as effective therapies for patients with R/R disease. A recent pooled analysis included 112 patients from the BGB-3111-AU-003 and BGB-3111-206 clinical trials who had R/R MCL and received second-line (n = 41) or later-line (n = 71) zanubrutinib (Song et al). At a median follow-up of 35.2 months, patients receiving second-line vs later-line zanubrutinib had significantly improved median overall survival (aHR 0.459; P = .044) and numerically longer median progression-free survival (27.8 vs 22.1 months). Adverse events observed in both groups were consistent with the known safety profile of zanubrutinib. These findings were in line with a prior similar pooled study that demonstrated improved outcomes with second-line ibrutinib for patients with MCL as compared with later-line ibrutinib therapy.⁵ This study, however, did not evaluate the impact on CAR T–cell therapy in MCL, which is also an effective treatment option for patients with R/R disease, and how best to sequence with BTK inhibitors.

Additional References

1.       Locke FL, Miklos DB, Jacobson CA, et al, for All ZUMA-7 Investigators and Contributing Kite Members. Axicabtagene ciloleucel as second-line therapy for large B-cell lymphoma. N Engl J Med. 2022;386:640-654. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2116133

2.       Kamdar M, Solomon SR, Arnason J, et al, for theTRANSFORM Investigators. Lisocabtagene maraleucel versus standard of care with salvage chemotherapy followed by autologous stem cell transplantation as second-line treatment in patients with relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphoma (TRANSFORM): Results from an interim analysis of an open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial. Lancet. 2022;399:2294-2308. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(22)00662-6

3.       Gordon LI, Liu FF, Braverman J, et al. Lisocabtagene maraleucel for second-line relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphoma: Patient-reported outcomes from the PILOT study. Haematologica. 2023 (Aug 31). doi: 10.3324/haematol.2023.283162

4.       Schmitz N, Zeynalova S, Nickelsen M, et al. CNS International Prognostic Index: A risk model for CNS relapse in patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma treated with R-CHOP. J Clin Oncol. 2016;34:3150-3156. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2015.65.6520

5.       Dreyling M, Goy A, Hess G, et al. Long-term outcomes with ibrutinib treatment for patients with relapsed/refractory mantle cell lymphoma: A pooled analysis of 3 clinical trials with nearly 10 years of follow-up. Hemasphere. 2022;6:e712. doi: 10.1097/HS9.0000000000000712

Given the frequency of autoimmune conditions in women, the possible effects of estrogen and hormonal therapy exposure over the lifespan on the development of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) has long been of interest. Prior studies have identified a potential increase in RA risk in older women taking estrogen replacement. Hadizadeh and colleagues used the UK Biobank to identify cases of RA among over 236,000 women taking oral contraceptives and over 102,000 women taking hormone replacement therapy. Oral contraceptive use was associated with lower risk for RA (hazard ratio [HR] 0.89), whereas hormone replacement therapy was associated with higher risk for RA (HR 1.16) compared with women who had never used these therapies. Exogenous estrogen exposure may affect the development of RA, but the potential mechanisms (including the effect on systemic inflammation) remain unclear.

Among the multitude of studies on a treat-to-target (T2T) strategy in RA, a recent cluster randomized trial by Bessette and colleagues compared use of abatacept in 284 patients treated by 44 physicians. Patients assigned to both T2T and routine care had significant improvement in RA disease activity (as measured by the Clinical Disease Activity Index) with abatacept, with close to 40% in low disease activity at 12 months. Those treated with routine care experienced significant improvements in RA disease activity at 12 months of abatacept treatment. T2T was associated with slightly higher odds of low disease activity and a shorter time to Simplified Disease Activity Index remission (14 vs 19 months). With T2T being largely accepted as a standard of care on the basis of prior studies, this study raises the question of why little difference was seen between the two groups — perhaps it was related to the use of abatacept. It is unlikely to further change the standard of care to reduce use of disease activity measures.

To better understand refractory or difficult-to-treat (D2T) RA, Jung and colleagues used the KOBIO (KOrean College of Rheumatology BIOlogics) registry to compare characteristics of patients with D2T RA vs those who respond more readily to therapy. Of the 2321 patients included in the study, about 12% (271) had D2T RA. Patients with D2T RA tended to be younger and have longer disease duration, as well as a negative rheumatoid factor (RF); less use of conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARD); and, as expected, higher disease activity measures. Given that about 80% of patients were seropositive for RF and the fact that patients with D2T RA tended to have higher inflammatory markers (erythrocyte sedimentation rate and C-reactive protein), it is not likely that patients were misclassified with RA. The reason why patients with D2T RA had less csDMARD use is not clear, but prior studies have supported early and aggressive use of csDMARD for best outcomes. The study did suggest that patients with D2T RA stayed on Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor therapy the longest, and perhaps similar studies in future will help outline the best treatment strategy for patients with D2T RA and persistently high disease activity.

Finally, in a post hoc analysis of the ORAL Start trial of the JAK inhibitor tofacitinib vs methotrexate, Ciurea and colleagues looked at paired joint pathology scores (PJPS) — swollen and tender joint counts with left and right pooled — over the course of the 12-month study. Patients receiving tofacitinib had overall improved PJPS, though patients receiving methotrexate had more improvement in the foot. These findings, generally supporting those of the initial study, are unlikely to further change therapy.

Given the frequency of autoimmune conditions in women, the possible effects of estrogen and hormonal therapy exposure over the lifespan on the development of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) has long been of interest. Prior studies have identified a potential increase in RA risk in older women taking estrogen replacement. Hadizadeh and colleagues used the UK Biobank to identify cases of RA among over 236,000 women taking oral contraceptives and over 102,000 women taking hormone replacement therapy. Oral contraceptive use was associated with lower risk for RA (hazard ratio [HR] 0.89), whereas hormone replacement therapy was associated with higher risk for RA (HR 1.16) compared with women who had never used these therapies. Exogenous estrogen exposure may affect the development of RA, but the potential mechanisms (including the effect on systemic inflammation) remain unclear.

Among the multitude of studies on a treat-to-target (T2T) strategy in RA, a recent cluster randomized trial by Bessette and colleagues compared use of abatacept in 284 patients treated by 44 physicians. Patients assigned to both T2T and routine care had significant improvement in RA disease activity (as measured by the Clinical Disease Activity Index) with abatacept, with close to 40% in low disease activity at 12 months. Those treated with routine care experienced significant improvements in RA disease activity at 12 months of abatacept treatment. T2T was associated with slightly higher odds of low disease activity and a shorter time to Simplified Disease Activity Index remission (14 vs 19 months). With T2T being largely accepted as a standard of care on the basis of prior studies, this study raises the question of why little difference was seen between the two groups — perhaps it was related to the use of abatacept. It is unlikely to further change the standard of care to reduce use of disease activity measures.

To better understand refractory or difficult-to-treat (D2T) RA, Jung and colleagues used the KOBIO (KOrean College of Rheumatology BIOlogics) registry to compare characteristics of patients with D2T RA vs those who respond more readily to therapy. Of the 2321 patients included in the study, about 12% (271) had D2T RA. Patients with D2T RA tended to be younger and have longer disease duration, as well as a negative rheumatoid factor (RF); less use of conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARD); and, as expected, higher disease activity measures. Given that about 80% of patients were seropositive for RF and the fact that patients with D2T RA tended to have higher inflammatory markers (erythrocyte sedimentation rate and C-reactive protein), it is not likely that patients were misclassified with RA. The reason why patients with D2T RA had less csDMARD use is not clear, but prior studies have supported early and aggressive use of csDMARD for best outcomes. The study did suggest that patients with D2T RA stayed on Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor therapy the longest, and perhaps similar studies in future will help outline the best treatment strategy for patients with D2T RA and persistently high disease activity.

Finally, in a post hoc analysis of the ORAL Start trial of the JAK inhibitor tofacitinib vs methotrexate, Ciurea and colleagues looked at paired joint pathology scores (PJPS) — swollen and tender joint counts with left and right pooled — over the course of the 12-month study. Patients receiving tofacitinib had overall improved PJPS, though patients receiving methotrexate had more improvement in the foot. These findings, generally supporting those of the initial study, are unlikely to further change therapy.

Given the frequency of autoimmune conditions in women, the possible effects of estrogen and hormonal therapy exposure over the lifespan on the development of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) has long been of interest. Prior studies have identified a potential increase in RA risk in older women taking estrogen replacement. Hadizadeh and colleagues used the UK Biobank to identify cases of RA among over 236,000 women taking oral contraceptives and over 102,000 women taking hormone replacement therapy. Oral contraceptive use was associated with lower risk for RA (hazard ratio [HR] 0.89), whereas hormone replacement therapy was associated with higher risk for RA (HR 1.16) compared with women who had never used these therapies. Exogenous estrogen exposure may affect the development of RA, but the potential mechanisms (including the effect on systemic inflammation) remain unclear.

Among the multitude of studies on a treat-to-target (T2T) strategy in RA, a recent cluster randomized trial by Bessette and colleagues compared use of abatacept in 284 patients treated by 44 physicians. Patients assigned to both T2T and routine care had significant improvement in RA disease activity (as measured by the Clinical Disease Activity Index) with abatacept, with close to 40% in low disease activity at 12 months. Those treated with routine care experienced significant improvements in RA disease activity at 12 months of abatacept treatment. T2T was associated with slightly higher odds of low disease activity and a shorter time to Simplified Disease Activity Index remission (14 vs 19 months). With T2T being largely accepted as a standard of care on the basis of prior studies, this study raises the question of why little difference was seen between the two groups — perhaps it was related to the use of abatacept. It is unlikely to further change the standard of care to reduce use of disease activity measures.

To better understand refractory or difficult-to-treat (D2T) RA, Jung and colleagues used the KOBIO (KOrean College of Rheumatology BIOlogics) registry to compare characteristics of patients with D2T RA vs those who respond more readily to therapy. Of the 2321 patients included in the study, about 12% (271) had D2T RA. Patients with D2T RA tended to be younger and have longer disease duration, as well as a negative rheumatoid factor (RF); less use of conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARD); and, as expected, higher disease activity measures. Given that about 80% of patients were seropositive for RF and the fact that patients with D2T RA tended to have higher inflammatory markers (erythrocyte sedimentation rate and C-reactive protein), it is not likely that patients were misclassified with RA. The reason why patients with D2T RA had less csDMARD use is not clear, but prior studies have supported early and aggressive use of csDMARD for best outcomes. The study did suggest that patients with D2T RA stayed on Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor therapy the longest, and perhaps similar studies in future will help outline the best treatment strategy for patients with D2T RA and persistently high disease activity.

Finally, in a post hoc analysis of the ORAL Start trial of the JAK inhibitor tofacitinib vs methotrexate, Ciurea and colleagues looked at paired joint pathology scores (PJPS) — swollen and tender joint counts with left and right pooled — over the course of the 12-month study. Patients receiving tofacitinib had overall improved PJPS, though patients receiving methotrexate had more improvement in the foot. These findings, generally supporting those of the initial study, are unlikely to further change therapy.

A new artificial intelligence (AI) model can detect the deadliest skin cancer with 100% accuracy, highlighting the rapid improvement of AI in medicine, say researchers from the United Kingdom. AI detected more than 99% of all skin cancers.

The researchers tested the AI by integrating it into a clinical diagnosis process – anticipating a future in which AI helps doctors catch skin cancer faster and triage patients.

Skin cancer is the most common cancer in the United States;  one in five 5 Americans develop skin cancer by age 70. With melanoma, the deadliest skin cancer, the 5-year survival rate is better than 99% if caught early, though only about three-quarters of melanomas are caught at this stage.

Amid rising skin cancer rates come concerns that the number of dermatologists in the workforce isn’t keeping pace. That may be why the average wait time for a dermatology appointment is trending up – in 2022, it reached 34.5 days.

The study, which was presented at the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology Congress recently and has not yet been published, involved 6,900 patients in the United Kingdom with suspected skin cancer. The patients had been referred by their primary care physicians. The researchers took images of the suspicious areas and uploaded them to the AI software. The AI’s assessment was then shared with a dermatologist.

“Note that the diagnosis issued by the AI was not hidden from the dermatologist doing the second assessment,” said lead researcher Kashini Andrew, MBBS, a dermatologist and specialist registrar at University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust.

Dr. Andrew acknowledged that this may have influenced the dermatologist’s opinion. But that’s the vision of how doctors could use this tool.

The AI caught 59 of 59 melanomas and 189 of 190 total skin cancers (99.5%). (The one case that the AI missed was caught by the dermatologist.) It also flagged 541 of 585 precancerous lesions (92.5%). This represented a big improvement from a 2021 version of the model, which detected 86% of melanomas, 84% of all skin cancers, and 54% of precancerous lesions.

Over the 10-month period of the study, the system saved more than 1,000 face-to-face consultations, freeing dermatologists’ time to catch more cancers and serve more patients.

Limitations

The patients in the study were from “one hospital in a single region of the UK,” and the sample was not large enough to allow broad statements to be made about the use of AI in dermatology, Dr. Andrew said.

But it can open the conversation. Roxana Daneshjou, MD, PhD, a dermatologist at Stanford (Calif.) University who has studied the pros and cons of AI in medicine, had some concerns. For one thing, doctors can gather more in-depth information during an in-person exam than AI can glean from a photo, Dr. Daneshjou noted. They can examine skin texture, gather patient history, and take photos with special lighting and magnification.

Christopher Smith

And the AI needs to get better at ruling out malignancy, Dr. Daneshjou said. In this study, the AI identified 75% of benign lesions, a decline from the earlier version. The researchers noted in the abstract that this is a potential trade-off for increased sensitivity.

“[Unnecessary] biopsies can clog up the health care system, cost money, and cause stress and scarring,” said Dr. Daneshjou. “You don’t want to increase the burden of that.”

Still, if AI software such as the kind used in the study proves just as accurate in larger, more diverse sample sizes, then it could be a powerful tool for triage, Dr. Daneshjou said. “If AI gets particularly good at finding malignancy and also ruling it out, that would be a win.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A new artificial intelligence (AI) model can detect the deadliest skin cancer with 100% accuracy, highlighting the rapid improvement of AI in medicine, say researchers from the United Kingdom. AI detected more than 99% of all skin cancers.

The researchers tested the AI by integrating it into a clinical diagnosis process – anticipating a future in which AI helps doctors catch skin cancer faster and triage patients.

Skin cancer is the most common cancer in the United States;  one in five 5 Americans develop skin cancer by age 70. With melanoma, the deadliest skin cancer, the 5-year survival rate is better than 99% if caught early, though only about three-quarters of melanomas are caught at this stage.

Amid rising skin cancer rates come concerns that the number of dermatologists in the workforce isn’t keeping pace. That may be why the average wait time for a dermatology appointment is trending up – in 2022, it reached 34.5 days.

The study, which was presented at the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology Congress recently and has not yet been published, involved 6,900 patients in the United Kingdom with suspected skin cancer. The patients had been referred by their primary care physicians. The researchers took images of the suspicious areas and uploaded them to the AI software. The AI’s assessment was then shared with a dermatologist.

“Note that the diagnosis issued by the AI was not hidden from the dermatologist doing the second assessment,” said lead researcher Kashini Andrew, MBBS, a dermatologist and specialist registrar at University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust.

Dr. Andrew acknowledged that this may have influenced the dermatologist’s opinion. But that’s the vision of how doctors could use this tool.

The AI caught 59 of 59 melanomas and 189 of 190 total skin cancers (99.5%). (The one case that the AI missed was caught by the dermatologist.) It also flagged 541 of 585 precancerous lesions (92.5%). This represented a big improvement from a 2021 version of the model, which detected 86% of melanomas, 84% of all skin cancers, and 54% of precancerous lesions.

Over the 10-month period of the study, the system saved more than 1,000 face-to-face consultations, freeing dermatologists’ time to catch more cancers and serve more patients.

Limitations

The patients in the study were from “one hospital in a single region of the UK,” and the sample was not large enough to allow broad statements to be made about the use of AI in dermatology, Dr. Andrew said.

But it can open the conversation. Roxana Daneshjou, MD, PhD, a dermatologist at Stanford (Calif.) University who has studied the pros and cons of AI in medicine, had some concerns. For one thing, doctors can gather more in-depth information during an in-person exam than AI can glean from a photo, Dr. Daneshjou noted. They can examine skin texture, gather patient history, and take photos with special lighting and magnification.

Christopher Smith

And the AI needs to get better at ruling out malignancy, Dr. Daneshjou said. In this study, the AI identified 75% of benign lesions, a decline from the earlier version. The researchers noted in the abstract that this is a potential trade-off for increased sensitivity.

“[Unnecessary] biopsies can clog up the health care system, cost money, and cause stress and scarring,” said Dr. Daneshjou. “You don’t want to increase the burden of that.”

Still, if AI software such as the kind used in the study proves just as accurate in larger, more diverse sample sizes, then it could be a powerful tool for triage, Dr. Daneshjou said. “If AI gets particularly good at finding malignancy and also ruling it out, that would be a win.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A new artificial intelligence (AI) model can detect the deadliest skin cancer with 100% accuracy, highlighting the rapid improvement of AI in medicine, say researchers from the United Kingdom. AI detected more than 99% of all skin cancers.

The researchers tested the AI by integrating it into a clinical diagnosis process – anticipating a future in which AI helps doctors catch skin cancer faster and triage patients.

Skin cancer is the most common cancer in the United States;  one in five 5 Americans develop skin cancer by age 70. With melanoma, the deadliest skin cancer, the 5-year survival rate is better than 99% if caught early, though only about three-quarters of melanomas are caught at this stage.

Amid rising skin cancer rates come concerns that the number of dermatologists in the workforce isn’t keeping pace. That may be why the average wait time for a dermatology appointment is trending up – in 2022, it reached 34.5 days.

The study, which was presented at the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology Congress recently and has not yet been published, involved 6,900 patients in the United Kingdom with suspected skin cancer. The patients had been referred by their primary care physicians. The researchers took images of the suspicious areas and uploaded them to the AI software. The AI’s assessment was then shared with a dermatologist.

“Note that the diagnosis issued by the AI was not hidden from the dermatologist doing the second assessment,” said lead researcher Kashini Andrew, MBBS, a dermatologist and specialist registrar at University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust.

Dr. Andrew acknowledged that this may have influenced the dermatologist’s opinion. But that’s the vision of how doctors could use this tool.

The AI caught 59 of 59 melanomas and 189 of 190 total skin cancers (99.5%). (The one case that the AI missed was caught by the dermatologist.) It also flagged 541 of 585 precancerous lesions (92.5%). This represented a big improvement from a 2021 version of the model, which detected 86% of melanomas, 84% of all skin cancers, and 54% of precancerous lesions.

Over the 10-month period of the study, the system saved more than 1,000 face-to-face consultations, freeing dermatologists’ time to catch more cancers and serve more patients.

Limitations

The patients in the study were from “one hospital in a single region of the UK,” and the sample was not large enough to allow broad statements to be made about the use of AI in dermatology, Dr. Andrew said.

But it can open the conversation. Roxana Daneshjou, MD, PhD, a dermatologist at Stanford (Calif.) University who has studied the pros and cons of AI in medicine, had some concerns. For one thing, doctors can gather more in-depth information during an in-person exam than AI can glean from a photo, Dr. Daneshjou noted. They can examine skin texture, gather patient history, and take photos with special lighting and magnification.

Christopher Smith

And the AI needs to get better at ruling out malignancy, Dr. Daneshjou said. In this study, the AI identified 75% of benign lesions, a decline from the earlier version. The researchers noted in the abstract that this is a potential trade-off for increased sensitivity.

“[Unnecessary] biopsies can clog up the health care system, cost money, and cause stress and scarring,” said Dr. Daneshjou. “You don’t want to increase the burden of that.”

Still, if AI software such as the kind used in the study proves just as accurate in larger, more diverse sample sizes, then it could be a powerful tool for triage, Dr. Daneshjou said. “If AI gets particularly good at finding malignancy and also ruling it out, that would be a win.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

New research suggests terminating metformin may raise the risk for dementia in older adults with type 2 diabetes, providing more evidence of metformin’s potential neuroprotective effects.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers evaluated the association between discontinuing metformin for reasons unrelated to kidney dysfunction and dementia incidence.
• The cohort included 12,220 Kaiser Permanente Northern California members who stopped metformin early (with normal kidney function) and 29,126 routine metformin users.
• The cohort of early terminators was 46% women with an average age of 59 years at the start of metformin prescription. The cohort continuing metformin was 47% women, with a start age of 61 years.

TAKEAWAY:

• Adults who stopped metformin early were 21% more likely to be diagnosed with dementia during follow up (hazard ratio, 1.21; 95% confidence interval, 1.12-1.30), compared with routine metformin users.
• This association was largely independent of changes in A1c level and insulin usage.

IN PRACTICE:

The findings “corroborate the largely consistent evidence from other observational studies showing an association between metformin use and lower dementia incidence [and] may have important implications for clinical treatment of adults with diabetes,” the authors write.

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Scott Zimmerman, MPH, University of California, San Francisco, was published online  in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

Dementia diagnosis was obtained based on medical records. Factors such as race, ethnicity, or time on metformin were not evaluated. Information on the exact reason for stopping metformin was not available.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by grants from the National Institutes of Health, National Institute on Aging. Mr. Zimmerman owns stock in AbbVie, Gilead Sciences, CRISPR Therapeutics, and Abbott Laboratories. Disclosure for the other study authors can be found with the original article.

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

TOPLINE:

New research suggests terminating metformin may raise the risk for dementia in older adults with type 2 diabetes, providing more evidence of metformin’s potential neuroprotective effects.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers evaluated the association between discontinuing metformin for reasons unrelated to kidney dysfunction and dementia incidence.
• The cohort included 12,220 Kaiser Permanente Northern California members who stopped metformin early (with normal kidney function) and 29,126 routine metformin users.
• The cohort of early terminators was 46% women with an average age of 59 years at the start of metformin prescription. The cohort continuing metformin was 47% women, with a start age of 61 years.

TAKEAWAY:

• Adults who stopped metformin early were 21% more likely to be diagnosed with dementia during follow up (hazard ratio, 1.21; 95% confidence interval, 1.12-1.30), compared with routine metformin users.
• This association was largely independent of changes in A1c level and insulin usage.

IN PRACTICE:

The findings “corroborate the largely consistent evidence from other observational studies showing an association between metformin use and lower dementia incidence [and] may have important implications for clinical treatment of adults with diabetes,” the authors write.

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Scott Zimmerman, MPH, University of California, San Francisco, was published online  in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

Dementia diagnosis was obtained based on medical records. Factors such as race, ethnicity, or time on metformin were not evaluated. Information on the exact reason for stopping metformin was not available.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by grants from the National Institutes of Health, National Institute on Aging. Mr. Zimmerman owns stock in AbbVie, Gilead Sciences, CRISPR Therapeutics, and Abbott Laboratories. Disclosure for the other study authors can be found with the original article.

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

TOPLINE:

New research suggests terminating metformin may raise the risk for dementia in older adults with type 2 diabetes, providing more evidence of metformin’s potential neuroprotective effects.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers evaluated the association between discontinuing metformin for reasons unrelated to kidney dysfunction and dementia incidence.
• The cohort included 12,220 Kaiser Permanente Northern California members who stopped metformin early (with normal kidney function) and 29,126 routine metformin users.
• The cohort of early terminators was 46% women with an average age of 59 years at the start of metformin prescription. The cohort continuing metformin was 47% women, with a start age of 61 years.

TAKEAWAY:

• Adults who stopped metformin early were 21% more likely to be diagnosed with dementia during follow up (hazard ratio, 1.21; 95% confidence interval, 1.12-1.30), compared with routine metformin users.
• This association was largely independent of changes in A1c level and insulin usage.

IN PRACTICE:

The findings “corroborate the largely consistent evidence from other observational studies showing an association between metformin use and lower dementia incidence [and] may have important implications for clinical treatment of adults with diabetes,” the authors write.

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Scott Zimmerman, MPH, University of California, San Francisco, was published online  in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

Dementia diagnosis was obtained based on medical records. Factors such as race, ethnicity, or time on metformin were not evaluated. Information on the exact reason for stopping metformin was not available.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by grants from the National Institutes of Health, National Institute on Aging. Mr. Zimmerman owns stock in AbbVie, Gilead Sciences, CRISPR Therapeutics, and Abbott Laboratories. Disclosure for the other study authors can be found with the original article.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved ustekinumab-auub (Wezlana) as a biosimilar to ustekinumab (Stelara) for the treatment of multiple inflammatory conditions. This is the first approval for a ustekinumab biosimilar in the United States.

Ustekinumab-auub was also granted an interchangeability designation, meaning that, depending on state law, a pharmacist may substitute the biosimilar for the reference product without consulting the prescribing provider.

“Today’s approval exemplifies the FDA’s longstanding commitment to support a competitive marketplace for biological products,” Sarah Yim, MD, director of the Office of Therapeutic Biologics and Biosimilars in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said in a statement. “This approval can empower patients by helping to increase access to safe, effective, and high-quality medications at potentially lower cost.”

Ustekinumab, manufactured by Johnson & Johnson, targets interleukin-12 and IL-23 and was first approved in 2009. Ustekinumab-auub was developed by Amgen.

Ustekinumab-auub is approved for the treatment of adult patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis who are candidates for phototherapy or systemic therapy, active psoriatic arthritis, moderate to severely active Crohn’s disease, and moderate to severely active ulcerative colitis. It is also approved for pediatric patients aged 6 years and older with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis who are candidates for phototherapy or systemic therapy and active psoriatic arthritis.

The approval was based on “comprehensive review of scientific evidence,” including “comparisons of the products on an analytical level using an extensive battery of chemical and biological tests and biological assays that confirmed similarity in the structural and functional features of Wezlana and Stelara (including those known to impact safety and efficacy), and comparative human pharmacokinetic data, clinical immunogenicity data, and other clinical safety and effectiveness data,” the FDA said.

Some common side effects of ustekinumab-auub include nasopharyngitis, upper respiratory tract infection, headache, fatigue, and nausea. The most severe side effect of the biosimilar, as with the reference drug ustekinumab, is infection.

The product launch of ustekinumab-auub will be delayed as a part of a settlement of Johnson & Johnson’s lawsuit against Amgen, according to Reuters. The details of the settlement are confidential, but it was stated that the biosimilar would be available by Jan. 1, 2025.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved ustekinumab-auub (Wezlana) as a biosimilar to ustekinumab (Stelara) for the treatment of multiple inflammatory conditions. This is the first approval for a ustekinumab biosimilar in the United States.

Ustekinumab-auub was also granted an interchangeability designation, meaning that, depending on state law, a pharmacist may substitute the biosimilar for the reference product without consulting the prescribing provider.

“Today’s approval exemplifies the FDA’s longstanding commitment to support a competitive marketplace for biological products,” Sarah Yim, MD, director of the Office of Therapeutic Biologics and Biosimilars in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said in a statement. “This approval can empower patients by helping to increase access to safe, effective, and high-quality medications at potentially lower cost.”

Ustekinumab, manufactured by Johnson & Johnson, targets interleukin-12 and IL-23 and was first approved in 2009. Ustekinumab-auub was developed by Amgen.

Ustekinumab-auub is approved for the treatment of adult patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis who are candidates for phototherapy or systemic therapy, active psoriatic arthritis, moderate to severely active Crohn’s disease, and moderate to severely active ulcerative colitis. It is also approved for pediatric patients aged 6 years and older with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis who are candidates for phototherapy or systemic therapy and active psoriatic arthritis.

The approval was based on “comprehensive review of scientific evidence,” including “comparisons of the products on an analytical level using an extensive battery of chemical and biological tests and biological assays that confirmed similarity in the structural and functional features of Wezlana and Stelara (including those known to impact safety and efficacy), and comparative human pharmacokinetic data, clinical immunogenicity data, and other clinical safety and effectiveness data,” the FDA said.

Some common side effects of ustekinumab-auub include nasopharyngitis, upper respiratory tract infection, headache, fatigue, and nausea. The most severe side effect of the biosimilar, as with the reference drug ustekinumab, is infection.

The product launch of ustekinumab-auub will be delayed as a part of a settlement of Johnson & Johnson’s lawsuit against Amgen, according to Reuters. The details of the settlement are confidential, but it was stated that the biosimilar would be available by Jan. 1, 2025.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved ustekinumab-auub (Wezlana) as a biosimilar to ustekinumab (Stelara) for the treatment of multiple inflammatory conditions. This is the first approval for a ustekinumab biosimilar in the United States.

Ustekinumab-auub was also granted an interchangeability designation, meaning that, depending on state law, a pharmacist may substitute the biosimilar for the reference product without consulting the prescribing provider.

“Today’s approval exemplifies the FDA’s longstanding commitment to support a competitive marketplace for biological products,” Sarah Yim, MD, director of the Office of Therapeutic Biologics and Biosimilars in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said in a statement. “This approval can empower patients by helping to increase access to safe, effective, and high-quality medications at potentially lower cost.”

Ustekinumab, manufactured by Johnson & Johnson, targets interleukin-12 and IL-23 and was first approved in 2009. Ustekinumab-auub was developed by Amgen.

Ustekinumab-auub is approved for the treatment of adult patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis who are candidates for phototherapy or systemic therapy, active psoriatic arthritis, moderate to severely active Crohn’s disease, and moderate to severely active ulcerative colitis. It is also approved for pediatric patients aged 6 years and older with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis who are candidates for phototherapy or systemic therapy and active psoriatic arthritis.

The approval was based on “comprehensive review of scientific evidence,” including “comparisons of the products on an analytical level using an extensive battery of chemical and biological tests and biological assays that confirmed similarity in the structural and functional features of Wezlana and Stelara (including those known to impact safety and efficacy), and comparative human pharmacokinetic data, clinical immunogenicity data, and other clinical safety and effectiveness data,” the FDA said.

Some common side effects of ustekinumab-auub include nasopharyngitis, upper respiratory tract infection, headache, fatigue, and nausea. The most severe side effect of the biosimilar, as with the reference drug ustekinumab, is infection.

The product launch of ustekinumab-auub will be delayed as a part of a settlement of Johnson & Johnson’s lawsuit against Amgen, according to Reuters. The details of the settlement are confidential, but it was stated that the biosimilar would be available by Jan. 1, 2025.

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

TOPLINE:

Severe mental illness (SMI) has been linked to a 50% increased risk for all-cause mortality risk after COVID-19, a large population-based study suggests.

METHODOLOGY:

• Investigators analyzed data from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink database, which contains health information on 13.5 million patients receiving care from family practices in England and Northern Ireland.
• The study included participants with SMI, including schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, and bipolar disorder.
• Participants were aged 5 years or older with a SARS-CoV-2 infection recorded between Feb. 1, 2020, and March 31, 2021, spanning two waves of the pandemic.
• Death rates among participants with SMI and COVID-19 (n = 7,150; 56% female) were compared with those in a control group of participants without SMI who had been diagnosed with COVID-19 (n = 650,000; 55% female).

TAKEAWAY:

• Participants with SMI and COVID-19 had a 53% higher risk for death than those in the non-SMI control group (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.53; 95% confidence interval, 1.39-1.68).
• Black Caribbean/Black African participants were more likely than White participants to die of COVID-19 (aHR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.12-1.34), although ethnicity was not recorded in 30% of participants.
• After SARS-CoV-2 infection, for every additional multimorbid condition, the aHR for death increased by 6% in the SMI group and 16% in the non-SMI group (P = .001). Some of these conditions included hypertension, heart disease, diabetes, kidney disease, depression, and anxiety.

IN PRACTICE:

“From a public health perspective, our study has emphasized the need for early and timely preventative interventions (e.g. vaccination) for the SMI population. Future studies are needed to disentangle the complex biological and psychosocial factors, and health care pathways, that have led to the greater mortality rates in the SMI population,” the authors write.

SOURCE:

Jayati Das-Munshi, MD, of Kings College London, led the study, which was published online in the British Journal of Psychiatry. The study was funded by the Health Foundation.

LIMITATIONS:

COVID-19 may have been underdiagnosed or underreported in the records studied. Also, investigators did not have information about cause of death.

DISCLOSURES:

One author received funding from Janssen, GSK, and Takeda. All other authors declared no conflicts of interest.

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

TOPLINE:

Severe mental illness (SMI) has been linked to a 50% increased risk for all-cause mortality risk after COVID-19, a large population-based study suggests.

METHODOLOGY:

• Investigators analyzed data from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink database, which contains health information on 13.5 million patients receiving care from family practices in England and Northern Ireland.
• The study included participants with SMI, including schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, and bipolar disorder.
• Participants were aged 5 years or older with a SARS-CoV-2 infection recorded between Feb. 1, 2020, and March 31, 2021, spanning two waves of the pandemic.
• Death rates among participants with SMI and COVID-19 (n = 7,150; 56% female) were compared with those in a control group of participants without SMI who had been diagnosed with COVID-19 (n = 650,000; 55% female).

TAKEAWAY:

• Participants with SMI and COVID-19 had a 53% higher risk for death than those in the non-SMI control group (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.53; 95% confidence interval, 1.39-1.68).
• Black Caribbean/Black African participants were more likely than White participants to die of COVID-19 (aHR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.12-1.34), although ethnicity was not recorded in 30% of participants.
• After SARS-CoV-2 infection, for every additional multimorbid condition, the aHR for death increased by 6% in the SMI group and 16% in the non-SMI group (P = .001). Some of these conditions included hypertension, heart disease, diabetes, kidney disease, depression, and anxiety.

IN PRACTICE:

“From a public health perspective, our study has emphasized the need for early and timely preventative interventions (e.g. vaccination) for the SMI population. Future studies are needed to disentangle the complex biological and psychosocial factors, and health care pathways, that have led to the greater mortality rates in the SMI population,” the authors write.

SOURCE:

Jayati Das-Munshi, MD, of Kings College London, led the study, which was published online in the British Journal of Psychiatry. The study was funded by the Health Foundation.

LIMITATIONS:

COVID-19 may have been underdiagnosed or underreported in the records studied. Also, investigators did not have information about cause of death.

DISCLOSURES:

One author received funding from Janssen, GSK, and Takeda. All other authors declared no conflicts of interest.

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

TOPLINE:

Severe mental illness (SMI) has been linked to a 50% increased risk for all-cause mortality risk after COVID-19, a large population-based study suggests.

METHODOLOGY:

• Investigators analyzed data from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink database, which contains health information on 13.5 million patients receiving care from family practices in England and Northern Ireland.
• The study included participants with SMI, including schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, and bipolar disorder.
• Participants were aged 5 years or older with a SARS-CoV-2 infection recorded between Feb. 1, 2020, and March 31, 2021, spanning two waves of the pandemic.
• Death rates among participants with SMI and COVID-19 (n = 7,150; 56% female) were compared with those in a control group of participants without SMI who had been diagnosed with COVID-19 (n = 650,000; 55% female).

TAKEAWAY:

• Participants with SMI and COVID-19 had a 53% higher risk for death than those in the non-SMI control group (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.53; 95% confidence interval, 1.39-1.68).
• Black Caribbean/Black African participants were more likely than White participants to die of COVID-19 (aHR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.12-1.34), although ethnicity was not recorded in 30% of participants.
• After SARS-CoV-2 infection, for every additional multimorbid condition, the aHR for death increased by 6% in the SMI group and 16% in the non-SMI group (P = .001). Some of these conditions included hypertension, heart disease, diabetes, kidney disease, depression, and anxiety.

IN PRACTICE:

“From a public health perspective, our study has emphasized the need for early and timely preventative interventions (e.g. vaccination) for the SMI population. Future studies are needed to disentangle the complex biological and psychosocial factors, and health care pathways, that have led to the greater mortality rates in the SMI population,” the authors write.

SOURCE:

Jayati Das-Munshi, MD, of Kings College London, led the study, which was published online in the British Journal of Psychiatry. The study was funded by the Health Foundation.

LIMITATIONS:

COVID-19 may have been underdiagnosed or underreported in the records studied. Also, investigators did not have information about cause of death.

DISCLOSURES:

One author received funding from Janssen, GSK, and Takeda. All other authors declared no conflicts of interest.

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

The increasing recognition of institutional and interpersonal racism and its harmful impact on patients and patient outcomes, physician and trainee working environment, and well-being has spurred the development of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives.

Vidyard Video

Highlighting the importance of DEI across all aspects of medicine is long overdue, and the field of gastroenterology is no exception. Diversity in the gastroenterology workforce still has significant room for improvement with only 12% of all gastroenterology fellows in 2018 identifying as Black, Latino/a/x, American Indian or Alaskan Native, or Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander.¹ Moreover, only 4.4% of practicing gastroenterologists identify as Black, 6.7% identify as Latino/a/x, 0.1% as American Indian or Alaskan Native, and 0.003% as Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander.²

Washington University School of Medicine

The intensified focus on diversity in GI is welcomed, but increasing physician workforce diversity is only one of the necessary steps. If our ultimate goal is to improve health outcomes and achieve health equity for historically marginalized racial, ethnic, and socioeconomically disadvantaged communities, we must critically evaluate the path beyond just enhancing workforce diversity.

Black and Latino/a/x physicians are more likely to care for historically marginalized communities,³ which has been shown to improve all-cause mortality and reduce racial disparities.⁴ Additionally, diverse work teams are more innovative and productive.⁵ Therefore, expanding diversity must include 1) providing equitable policies and access to opportunities and promotions; 2) building inclusive environments in our institutions and practices; and 3) providing space for all people to feel like they can belong, feel respected at work, and genuinely have their opinions and ideas valued. What diversity, equity, inclusion, and belonging provide for us and our patients are avenues to thrive, solve complex problems, and tackle prominent issues within our institutions, workplaces, and communities.

Pancreatic Cancer Action Network (PanCAN)

To this end, many academic centers, hospitals, and private practice entities have produced a flurry of new DEI initiatives coupled with titles and roles. Some of these roles have thankfully brought recognition and economic compensation to the people doing this work. Still, as an early career gastroenterologist, you may be offered or are considering taking on a DEI role during your early career. As two underrepresented minority women in medicine who took on DEI roles with their first jobs, we wanted to highlight a few aspects to think about during your early career:
 

Does the DEI role come with resources?

Historically, DEI efforts were treated as “extra work,” or an activity that was done using one’s own personal time. In addition, this work called upon the small number of physicians underrepresented in medicine, largely uncompensated and with an exorbitant minority tax during a critical moment in establishing their early careers. DEI should no longer be seen as an extracurricular activity but as a vital component of an institution’s success.

If you are considering a DEI role, the first question to ask is, “Does this role come with extra compensation or protected time?” We highly recommend not taking on the role if the answer is no. If your institution or employer is only offering increased minority tax, you are being set up to either fail, burn out, or both. Your employer or institution does not appear to value your time or effort in DEI, and you should interpret their lack of compensation or protected time as such.

If the answer is yes, then here are a few other things to consider: Is there institutional support for you to be successful in your new role? As DEI work challenges you to come up with solutions to combat years of historic marginalization for racial and ethnic minorities, this work can sometimes feel overwhelming and isolating. The importance of the DEI community and mentorship within and outside your institution is critical. You should consider joining DEI working groups or committees through GI national societies, the Association of American Medical Colleges, or the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education. You can also connect with a fantastic network of people engaged in this work via social media and lean on friends and colleagues leading similar initiatives across the country.

Other critical logistical questions are if your role will come with administrative support, whether there is a budget for programs or events, and whether your institution/employer will support you in seeking continued professional development for your DEI role.⁶
 

 

 

Make sure to understand the “ask” from your division, department, or company.

Before confirming you are willing to take on this role, get a clear vision of what you are being asked to accomplish. There are so many opportunities to improve the DEI landscape. Therefore, knowing what you are specifically being asked to do will be critical to your success.

Are you being asked to work on diversity?

Does your institution want you to focus on and improve the recruitment and retention of trainees, physicians, or staff underrepresented in medicine? If so, you will need to have access to all the prior work and statistics. Capture the landscape before your interventions (% underrepresented in medicine [URiM] trainees, % URiM faculty at each level, % of URiM trainees retained as faculty, % of URiM faculty being promoted each year, etc.) This will allow you to determine the outcomes of your proposed improvements or programs.

Is your employer focused on equity?

Are you being asked to think about ways to operationalize improved patient health equity, or are you being asked to build equitable opportunities/programs for career advancement for URiMs at your institution? For either equity issue, you first need to understand the scope of the problem to ask for the necessary resources for a potential solution. Discuss timeline expectations, as equity work is a marathon and may take years to move the needle on any particular issue. This timeline is also critical for your employer to be aware of and support, as unrealistic timelines and expectations will also set you up for failure.

Or, are you being asked to concentrate on inclusion?

Does your institution need an assessment of how inclusive the climate is for trainees, staff, or physicians? Does this assessment align with your division or department’s impression, and how do you plan to work toward potential solutions for improvement?

Although diversity, equity, and inclusion are interconnected entities, they all have distinct objectives and solutions. It is essential to understand your vision and your employer’s vision for this role. If they are not aligned, having early and in-depth conversations about aligning your visions will set you on a path to success in your early career.
 

Know your why or more importantly, your who?

Early career physicians who are considering taking on DEI work do so for a reason. Being passionate about this type of work is usually born from a personal experience or your deep-rooted values. For us, experiencing and witnessing health disparities for our family members and people who look like us are what initially fueled our passion for this work. Additional experiences with trainees and patients keep us invigorated to continue highlighting the importance of DEI and encourage others to be passionate about DEI’s huge value added. As DEI work can come with challenges, remembering and re-centering on why you are passionate about this work or who you are engaging in this work for can keep you going.

There are several aspects to consider before taking on a DEI role, but overall, the work is rewarding and can be a great addition to the building blocks of your early career. In the short term, you build a DEI community network of peers, mentors, colleagues, and friends beyond your immediate institution and specialty. You also can demonstrate your leadership skills and potential early on in your career. In the long-term, engaging in these types of roles helps build a climate and culture that is conducive to enacting change for our patients and communities, including advancing healthcare equity and working toward recruitment, retention, and expansion efforts for our trainees and faculty. Overall, we think this type of work in your early career can be an integral part of your personal and professional development, while also having an impact that ripples beyond the walls of the endoscopy suite.



Dr. Fritz is an assistant professor of medicine in the division of gastroenterology at Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis. Dr. Rodriguez is a gastroenterologist with Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston. Neither Dr. Rodriguez nor Dr. Fritz disclosed no conflicts of interest.

 

 

References

1. Santhosh L,Babik JM. Trends in racial and ethnic diversity in internal medicine subspecialty fellowships from 2006 to 2018. JAMA Network Open 2020;3:e1920482-e1920482.

2. Colleges AoAM. Physician Specialty Data Report/Active physicians who identified as Black or African-American, 2021. 2022.

3. Komaromy M et al. The role of black and Hispanic physicians in providing health care for underserved populations. New England Journal of Medicine 1996;334:1305-10.

4. Snyder JE et al. Black representation in the primary care physician workforce and its association with population life expectancy and mortality rates in the US. JAMA Network Open 2023;6:e236687-e236687.

5. Page S. Diversity bonuses and the business case. The Diversity Bonus: Princeton University Press, 2017:184-208.

6. Vela MB et al. Diversity, equity, and inclusion officer position available: Proceed with caution. Journal of Graduate Medical Education 2021;13:771-3.


 

Helpful resources

Diversity and Inclusion Toolkit Resources, AAMC

Blackinggastro.org, The Association of Black Gastroenterologists and Hepatologists (ABGH)

Podcast: Clinical Problem Solvers: Anti-Racism in Medicine

The increasing recognition of institutional and interpersonal racism and its harmful impact on patients and patient outcomes, physician and trainee working environment, and well-being has spurred the development of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives.

Vidyard Video

Highlighting the importance of DEI across all aspects of medicine is long overdue, and the field of gastroenterology is no exception. Diversity in the gastroenterology workforce still has significant room for improvement with only 12% of all gastroenterology fellows in 2018 identifying as Black, Latino/a/x, American Indian or Alaskan Native, or Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander.¹ Moreover, only 4.4% of practicing gastroenterologists identify as Black, 6.7% identify as Latino/a/x, 0.1% as American Indian or Alaskan Native, and 0.003% as Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander.²

Washington University School of Medicine

The intensified focus on diversity in GI is welcomed, but increasing physician workforce diversity is only one of the necessary steps. If our ultimate goal is to improve health outcomes and achieve health equity for historically marginalized racial, ethnic, and socioeconomically disadvantaged communities, we must critically evaluate the path beyond just enhancing workforce diversity.

Black and Latino/a/x physicians are more likely to care for historically marginalized communities,³ which has been shown to improve all-cause mortality and reduce racial disparities.⁴ Additionally, diverse work teams are more innovative and productive.⁵ Therefore, expanding diversity must include 1) providing equitable policies and access to opportunities and promotions; 2) building inclusive environments in our institutions and practices; and 3) providing space for all people to feel like they can belong, feel respected at work, and genuinely have their opinions and ideas valued. What diversity, equity, inclusion, and belonging provide for us and our patients are avenues to thrive, solve complex problems, and tackle prominent issues within our institutions, workplaces, and communities.

Pancreatic Cancer Action Network (PanCAN)

To this end, many academic centers, hospitals, and private practice entities have produced a flurry of new DEI initiatives coupled with titles and roles. Some of these roles have thankfully brought recognition and economic compensation to the people doing this work. Still, as an early career gastroenterologist, you may be offered or are considering taking on a DEI role during your early career. As two underrepresented minority women in medicine who took on DEI roles with their first jobs, we wanted to highlight a few aspects to think about during your early career:
 

Does the DEI role come with resources?

Historically, DEI efforts were treated as “extra work,” or an activity that was done using one’s own personal time. In addition, this work called upon the small number of physicians underrepresented in medicine, largely uncompensated and with an exorbitant minority tax during a critical moment in establishing their early careers. DEI should no longer be seen as an extracurricular activity but as a vital component of an institution’s success.

If you are considering a DEI role, the first question to ask is, “Does this role come with extra compensation or protected time?” We highly recommend not taking on the role if the answer is no. If your institution or employer is only offering increased minority tax, you are being set up to either fail, burn out, or both. Your employer or institution does not appear to value your time or effort in DEI, and you should interpret their lack of compensation or protected time as such.

If the answer is yes, then here are a few other things to consider: Is there institutional support for you to be successful in your new role? As DEI work challenges you to come up with solutions to combat years of historic marginalization for racial and ethnic minorities, this work can sometimes feel overwhelming and isolating. The importance of the DEI community and mentorship within and outside your institution is critical. You should consider joining DEI working groups or committees through GI national societies, the Association of American Medical Colleges, or the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education. You can also connect with a fantastic network of people engaged in this work via social media and lean on friends and colleagues leading similar initiatives across the country.

Other critical logistical questions are if your role will come with administrative support, whether there is a budget for programs or events, and whether your institution/employer will support you in seeking continued professional development for your DEI role.⁶
 

 

 

Make sure to understand the “ask” from your division, department, or company.

Before confirming you are willing to take on this role, get a clear vision of what you are being asked to accomplish. There are so many opportunities to improve the DEI landscape. Therefore, knowing what you are specifically being asked to do will be critical to your success.

Are you being asked to work on diversity?

Does your institution want you to focus on and improve the recruitment and retention of trainees, physicians, or staff underrepresented in medicine? If so, you will need to have access to all the prior work and statistics. Capture the landscape before your interventions (% underrepresented in medicine [URiM] trainees, % URiM faculty at each level, % of URiM trainees retained as faculty, % of URiM faculty being promoted each year, etc.) This will allow you to determine the outcomes of your proposed improvements or programs.

Is your employer focused on equity?

Are you being asked to think about ways to operationalize improved patient health equity, or are you being asked to build equitable opportunities/programs for career advancement for URiMs at your institution? For either equity issue, you first need to understand the scope of the problem to ask for the necessary resources for a potential solution. Discuss timeline expectations, as equity work is a marathon and may take years to move the needle on any particular issue. This timeline is also critical for your employer to be aware of and support, as unrealistic timelines and expectations will also set you up for failure.

Or, are you being asked to concentrate on inclusion?

Does your institution need an assessment of how inclusive the climate is for trainees, staff, or physicians? Does this assessment align with your division or department’s impression, and how do you plan to work toward potential solutions for improvement?

Although diversity, equity, and inclusion are interconnected entities, they all have distinct objectives and solutions. It is essential to understand your vision and your employer’s vision for this role. If they are not aligned, having early and in-depth conversations about aligning your visions will set you on a path to success in your early career.
 

Know your why or more importantly, your who?

Early career physicians who are considering taking on DEI work do so for a reason. Being passionate about this type of work is usually born from a personal experience or your deep-rooted values. For us, experiencing and witnessing health disparities for our family members and people who look like us are what initially fueled our passion for this work. Additional experiences with trainees and patients keep us invigorated to continue highlighting the importance of DEI and encourage others to be passionate about DEI’s huge value added. As DEI work can come with challenges, remembering and re-centering on why you are passionate about this work or who you are engaging in this work for can keep you going.

There are several aspects to consider before taking on a DEI role, but overall, the work is rewarding and can be a great addition to the building blocks of your early career. In the short term, you build a DEI community network of peers, mentors, colleagues, and friends beyond your immediate institution and specialty. You also can demonstrate your leadership skills and potential early on in your career. In the long-term, engaging in these types of roles helps build a climate and culture that is conducive to enacting change for our patients and communities, including advancing healthcare equity and working toward recruitment, retention, and expansion efforts for our trainees and faculty. Overall, we think this type of work in your early career can be an integral part of your personal and professional development, while also having an impact that ripples beyond the walls of the endoscopy suite.



Dr. Fritz is an assistant professor of medicine in the division of gastroenterology at Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis. Dr. Rodriguez is a gastroenterologist with Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston. Neither Dr. Rodriguez nor Dr. Fritz disclosed no conflicts of interest.

 

 

References

1. Santhosh L,Babik JM. Trends in racial and ethnic diversity in internal medicine subspecialty fellowships from 2006 to 2018. JAMA Network Open 2020;3:e1920482-e1920482.

2. Colleges AoAM. Physician Specialty Data Report/Active physicians who identified as Black or African-American, 2021. 2022.

3. Komaromy M et al. The role of black and Hispanic physicians in providing health care for underserved populations. New England Journal of Medicine 1996;334:1305-10.

4. Snyder JE et al. Black representation in the primary care physician workforce and its association with population life expectancy and mortality rates in the US. JAMA Network Open 2023;6:e236687-e236687.

5. Page S. Diversity bonuses and the business case. The Diversity Bonus: Princeton University Press, 2017:184-208.

6. Vela MB et al. Diversity, equity, and inclusion officer position available: Proceed with caution. Journal of Graduate Medical Education 2021;13:771-3.


 

Helpful resources

Diversity and Inclusion Toolkit Resources, AAMC

Blackinggastro.org, The Association of Black Gastroenterologists and Hepatologists (ABGH)

Podcast: Clinical Problem Solvers: Anti-Racism in Medicine

The increasing recognition of institutional and interpersonal racism and its harmful impact on patients and patient outcomes, physician and trainee working environment, and well-being has spurred the development of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives.

Vidyard Video

Highlighting the importance of DEI across all aspects of medicine is long overdue, and the field of gastroenterology is no exception. Diversity in the gastroenterology workforce still has significant room for improvement with only 12% of all gastroenterology fellows in 2018 identifying as Black, Latino/a/x, American Indian or Alaskan Native, or Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander.¹ Moreover, only 4.4% of practicing gastroenterologists identify as Black, 6.7% identify as Latino/a/x, 0.1% as American Indian or Alaskan Native, and 0.003% as Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander.²

Washington University School of Medicine

The intensified focus on diversity in GI is welcomed, but increasing physician workforce diversity is only one of the necessary steps. If our ultimate goal is to improve health outcomes and achieve health equity for historically marginalized racial, ethnic, and socioeconomically disadvantaged communities, we must critically evaluate the path beyond just enhancing workforce diversity.

Black and Latino/a/x physicians are more likely to care for historically marginalized communities,³ which has been shown to improve all-cause mortality and reduce racial disparities.⁴ Additionally, diverse work teams are more innovative and productive.⁵ Therefore, expanding diversity must include 1) providing equitable policies and access to opportunities and promotions; 2) building inclusive environments in our institutions and practices; and 3) providing space for all people to feel like they can belong, feel respected at work, and genuinely have their opinions and ideas valued. What diversity, equity, inclusion, and belonging provide for us and our patients are avenues to thrive, solve complex problems, and tackle prominent issues within our institutions, workplaces, and communities.

Pancreatic Cancer Action Network (PanCAN)

To this end, many academic centers, hospitals, and private practice entities have produced a flurry of new DEI initiatives coupled with titles and roles. Some of these roles have thankfully brought recognition and economic compensation to the people doing this work. Still, as an early career gastroenterologist, you may be offered or are considering taking on a DEI role during your early career. As two underrepresented minority women in medicine who took on DEI roles with their first jobs, we wanted to highlight a few aspects to think about during your early career:
 

Does the DEI role come with resources?

Historically, DEI efforts were treated as “extra work,” or an activity that was done using one’s own personal time. In addition, this work called upon the small number of physicians underrepresented in medicine, largely uncompensated and with an exorbitant minority tax during a critical moment in establishing their early careers. DEI should no longer be seen as an extracurricular activity but as a vital component of an institution’s success.

If you are considering a DEI role, the first question to ask is, “Does this role come with extra compensation or protected time?” We highly recommend not taking on the role if the answer is no. If your institution or employer is only offering increased minority tax, you are being set up to either fail, burn out, or both. Your employer or institution does not appear to value your time or effort in DEI, and you should interpret their lack of compensation or protected time as such.

If the answer is yes, then here are a few other things to consider: Is there institutional support for you to be successful in your new role? As DEI work challenges you to come up with solutions to combat years of historic marginalization for racial and ethnic minorities, this work can sometimes feel overwhelming and isolating. The importance of the DEI community and mentorship within and outside your institution is critical. You should consider joining DEI working groups or committees through GI national societies, the Association of American Medical Colleges, or the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education. You can also connect with a fantastic network of people engaged in this work via social media and lean on friends and colleagues leading similar initiatives across the country.

Other critical logistical questions are if your role will come with administrative support, whether there is a budget for programs or events, and whether your institution/employer will support you in seeking continued professional development for your DEI role.⁶
 

 

 

Make sure to understand the “ask” from your division, department, or company.

Before confirming you are willing to take on this role, get a clear vision of what you are being asked to accomplish. There are so many opportunities to improve the DEI landscape. Therefore, knowing what you are specifically being asked to do will be critical to your success.

Are you being asked to work on diversity?

Does your institution want you to focus on and improve the recruitment and retention of trainees, physicians, or staff underrepresented in medicine? If so, you will need to have access to all the prior work and statistics. Capture the landscape before your interventions (% underrepresented in medicine [URiM] trainees, % URiM faculty at each level, % of URiM trainees retained as faculty, % of URiM faculty being promoted each year, etc.) This will allow you to determine the outcomes of your proposed improvements or programs.

Is your employer focused on equity?

Are you being asked to think about ways to operationalize improved patient health equity, or are you being asked to build equitable opportunities/programs for career advancement for URiMs at your institution? For either equity issue, you first need to understand the scope of the problem to ask for the necessary resources for a potential solution. Discuss timeline expectations, as equity work is a marathon and may take years to move the needle on any particular issue. This timeline is also critical for your employer to be aware of and support, as unrealistic timelines and expectations will also set you up for failure.

Or, are you being asked to concentrate on inclusion?

Does your institution need an assessment of how inclusive the climate is for trainees, staff, or physicians? Does this assessment align with your division or department’s impression, and how do you plan to work toward potential solutions for improvement?

Although diversity, equity, and inclusion are interconnected entities, they all have distinct objectives and solutions. It is essential to understand your vision and your employer’s vision for this role. If they are not aligned, having early and in-depth conversations about aligning your visions will set you on a path to success in your early career.
 

Know your why or more importantly, your who?

Early career physicians who are considering taking on DEI work do so for a reason. Being passionate about this type of work is usually born from a personal experience or your deep-rooted values. For us, experiencing and witnessing health disparities for our family members and people who look like us are what initially fueled our passion for this work. Additional experiences with trainees and patients keep us invigorated to continue highlighting the importance of DEI and encourage others to be passionate about DEI’s huge value added. As DEI work can come with challenges, remembering and re-centering on why you are passionate about this work or who you are engaging in this work for can keep you going.

There are several aspects to consider before taking on a DEI role, but overall, the work is rewarding and can be a great addition to the building blocks of your early career. In the short term, you build a DEI community network of peers, mentors, colleagues, and friends beyond your immediate institution and specialty. You also can demonstrate your leadership skills and potential early on in your career. In the long-term, engaging in these types of roles helps build a climate and culture that is conducive to enacting change for our patients and communities, including advancing healthcare equity and working toward recruitment, retention, and expansion efforts for our trainees and faculty. Overall, we think this type of work in your early career can be an integral part of your personal and professional development, while also having an impact that ripples beyond the walls of the endoscopy suite.



Dr. Fritz is an assistant professor of medicine in the division of gastroenterology at Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis. Dr. Rodriguez is a gastroenterologist with Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston. Neither Dr. Rodriguez nor Dr. Fritz disclosed no conflicts of interest.

 

 

References

1. Santhosh L,Babik JM. Trends in racial and ethnic diversity in internal medicine subspecialty fellowships from 2006 to 2018. JAMA Network Open 2020;3:e1920482-e1920482.

2. Colleges AoAM. Physician Specialty Data Report/Active physicians who identified as Black or African-American, 2021. 2022.

3. Komaromy M et al. The role of black and Hispanic physicians in providing health care for underserved populations. New England Journal of Medicine 1996;334:1305-10.

4. Snyder JE et al. Black representation in the primary care physician workforce and its association with population life expectancy and mortality rates in the US. JAMA Network Open 2023;6:e236687-e236687.

5. Page S. Diversity bonuses and the business case. The Diversity Bonus: Princeton University Press, 2017:184-208.

6. Vela MB et al. Diversity, equity, and inclusion officer position available: Proceed with caution. Journal of Graduate Medical Education 2021;13:771-3.


 

Helpful resources

Diversity and Inclusion Toolkit Resources, AAMC

Blackinggastro.org, The Association of Black Gastroenterologists and Hepatologists (ABGH)

Podcast: Clinical Problem Solvers: Anti-Racism in Medicine

The antibody-drug conjugate tisotumab vedotin bested chemotherapy for the second- or third-line treatment of recurrent/metastatic cervical cancer in the InnovaTV 301 trial, which was presented at the European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO) Congress 2023.

Median overall survival (OS) was 11.5 months among 253 women randomized to tisotumab vedotin (TV) monotherapy versus 9.5 months among 249 randomized to investigators’ choice of chemotherapy, a 30% reduction in the risk of death (P = .0038).

Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 4.2 months with TV versus 2.9 months with chemotherapy (P < .0001), but survival benefits were not statistically significant in a number of subgroups.

Nonetheless, “tisotumab vedotin should be considered as a potential new standard of care for patients who have progressed after first-line systemic therapy,” said lead investigator Ignace Vergote, MD, PhD, a gynecologic oncologist and researcher at the Catholic University of Leuven, Belgium, who presented the findings.
 

New and emerging options

The trial serves as the confirmation the Food and Drug Administration required when it gave TV accelerated approval in 2021 for recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer (r/m CC) that’s progressed during or after first-line treatment, an approval based on response rates in an earlier phase 2 trial, the InnovaTV 204 study.

TV is the only antibody-drug conjugate approved for the indication, but another agent is also under investigation, the anti-PD-1 cemiplimab. It’s not yet approved for r/m CC, but it is approved in the United States for locally advanced/metastatic basal cell carcinoma, cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma, and non–small cell lung cancer.

Cemiplimab outcomes were similar to TV’s in a phase 3 trial following progression on first-line treatment without anti-PD-1 therapy, with a median OS of 12 months with cemiplimab versus 8.5 months with investigators’ choice of chemotherapy.

Pembrolizumab is also approved as monotherapy for r/m CC for PD-L1 positive women after progression on or during first-line treatment based on response outcomes, not survival.

The question now is how to pick among the various options, said Krishnansu Tewari, MD, a gynecologic oncologist and researcher at the University of California, Irvine, who discussed InnovaTV 301 at the meeting.

In the second line for r/m CC, “we can hypothetically consider” TV monotherapy; pembrolizumab in PD-L1-positive women not previously exposed to a checkpoint inhibitor (CPI); cemiplimab in women not previously exposed to a CPI, and perhaps TV plus pembrolizumab, also in women new to CPIs.

It remains particularly unclear at the moment how to select between TV and cemiplimab monotherapy, if cemiplimab is approved for the indication.

One difference is that unlike in the cemiplimab trial, 28.1% of women treated with TV in the phase 3 trial had been on an anti-PD-(L)1 in the first line. However, although PFS benefits were statistically significant for TV after checkpoint inhibitor exposure, OS benefit was not.

Regarding cost, TV was administered at 2 mg/kg every 3 weeks in Innova; 40 mg costs around $7,000.

Cemiplimab was dosed at 350 mg every 3 weeks in its trial; a single dose costs over $10,000.
 

Subgroups fall short of statistical significance

In InnovaTV 301, 12-month OS was about 48.7% with TV versus 35% with chemotherapy; 6-month PFS was 30.4% with TV versus 18.9%.

The PFS benefit with TV did not reach statistical significance among the 35.2% of women who had not been treated with bevacizumab in the first-line, and there was no OS benefit or trend to benefit (HR 1.0) for them.

In addition to women previously treated with an anti-PD-1, OS benefits with TV were not statistically significant among the 54.2% of women with baseline performance scores of 0; the 36.8% with adeno or adenosquamous carcinoma, and the 62.8% who had been on one prior systemic regimen instead two.

Women in the trial were a median of 50 years old, and fewer than 7% were from the United States. Investigator choice of chemotherapy included topotecan, vinorelbine, gemcitabine, irinotecan, or pemetrexed.

The rate of grade 3 or higher adverse events was 29.2% with TV and 45.2% with chemotherapy.

The known side effects of TV were all higher than in the chemotherapy arm, including grade 3 or worse peripheral neuropathy (5.2%), ocular events (3.2%), and bleeding (0.8%).

The study was funded in part by Genmab and SeaGen, the companies co-developing TV. Dr. Vergote is an adviser to both companies and many others. Dr. Tewari is an adviser/consultant, researcher, and speaker for SeaGen and Genmab as well as for Merck, AstraZeneca, and other companies.

The antibody-drug conjugate tisotumab vedotin bested chemotherapy for the second- or third-line treatment of recurrent/metastatic cervical cancer in the InnovaTV 301 trial, which was presented at the European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO) Congress 2023.

Median overall survival (OS) was 11.5 months among 253 women randomized to tisotumab vedotin (TV) monotherapy versus 9.5 months among 249 randomized to investigators’ choice of chemotherapy, a 30% reduction in the risk of death (P = .0038).

Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 4.2 months with TV versus 2.9 months with chemotherapy (P < .0001), but survival benefits were not statistically significant in a number of subgroups.

Nonetheless, “tisotumab vedotin should be considered as a potential new standard of care for patients who have progressed after first-line systemic therapy,” said lead investigator Ignace Vergote, MD, PhD, a gynecologic oncologist and researcher at the Catholic University of Leuven, Belgium, who presented the findings.
 

New and emerging options

The trial serves as the confirmation the Food and Drug Administration required when it gave TV accelerated approval in 2021 for recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer (r/m CC) that’s progressed during or after first-line treatment, an approval based on response rates in an earlier phase 2 trial, the InnovaTV 204 study.

TV is the only antibody-drug conjugate approved for the indication, but another agent is also under investigation, the anti-PD-1 cemiplimab. It’s not yet approved for r/m CC, but it is approved in the United States for locally advanced/metastatic basal cell carcinoma, cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma, and non–small cell lung cancer.

Cemiplimab outcomes were similar to TV’s in a phase 3 trial following progression on first-line treatment without anti-PD-1 therapy, with a median OS of 12 months with cemiplimab versus 8.5 months with investigators’ choice of chemotherapy.

Pembrolizumab is also approved as monotherapy for r/m CC for PD-L1 positive women after progression on or during first-line treatment based on response outcomes, not survival.

The question now is how to pick among the various options, said Krishnansu Tewari, MD, a gynecologic oncologist and researcher at the University of California, Irvine, who discussed InnovaTV 301 at the meeting.

In the second line for r/m CC, “we can hypothetically consider” TV monotherapy; pembrolizumab in PD-L1-positive women not previously exposed to a checkpoint inhibitor (CPI); cemiplimab in women not previously exposed to a CPI, and perhaps TV plus pembrolizumab, also in women new to CPIs.

It remains particularly unclear at the moment how to select between TV and cemiplimab monotherapy, if cemiplimab is approved for the indication.

One difference is that unlike in the cemiplimab trial, 28.1% of women treated with TV in the phase 3 trial had been on an anti-PD-(L)1 in the first line. However, although PFS benefits were statistically significant for TV after checkpoint inhibitor exposure, OS benefit was not.

Regarding cost, TV was administered at 2 mg/kg every 3 weeks in Innova; 40 mg costs around $7,000.

Cemiplimab was dosed at 350 mg every 3 weeks in its trial; a single dose costs over $10,000.
 

Subgroups fall short of statistical significance

In InnovaTV 301, 12-month OS was about 48.7% with TV versus 35% with chemotherapy; 6-month PFS was 30.4% with TV versus 18.9%.

The PFS benefit with TV did not reach statistical significance among the 35.2% of women who had not been treated with bevacizumab in the first-line, and there was no OS benefit or trend to benefit (HR 1.0) for them.

In addition to women previously treated with an anti-PD-1, OS benefits with TV were not statistically significant among the 54.2% of women with baseline performance scores of 0; the 36.8% with adeno or adenosquamous carcinoma, and the 62.8% who had been on one prior systemic regimen instead two.

Women in the trial were a median of 50 years old, and fewer than 7% were from the United States. Investigator choice of chemotherapy included topotecan, vinorelbine, gemcitabine, irinotecan, or pemetrexed.

The rate of grade 3 or higher adverse events was 29.2% with TV and 45.2% with chemotherapy.

The known side effects of TV were all higher than in the chemotherapy arm, including grade 3 or worse peripheral neuropathy (5.2%), ocular events (3.2%), and bleeding (0.8%).

The study was funded in part by Genmab and SeaGen, the companies co-developing TV. Dr. Vergote is an adviser to both companies and many others. Dr. Tewari is an adviser/consultant, researcher, and speaker for SeaGen and Genmab as well as for Merck, AstraZeneca, and other companies.

The antibody-drug conjugate tisotumab vedotin bested chemotherapy for the second- or third-line treatment of recurrent/metastatic cervical cancer in the InnovaTV 301 trial, which was presented at the European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO) Congress 2023.

Median overall survival (OS) was 11.5 months among 253 women randomized to tisotumab vedotin (TV) monotherapy versus 9.5 months among 249 randomized to investigators’ choice of chemotherapy, a 30% reduction in the risk of death (P = .0038).

Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 4.2 months with TV versus 2.9 months with chemotherapy (P < .0001), but survival benefits were not statistically significant in a number of subgroups.

Nonetheless, “tisotumab vedotin should be considered as a potential new standard of care for patients who have progressed after first-line systemic therapy,” said lead investigator Ignace Vergote, MD, PhD, a gynecologic oncologist and researcher at the Catholic University of Leuven, Belgium, who presented the findings.
 

New and emerging options

The trial serves as the confirmation the Food and Drug Administration required when it gave TV accelerated approval in 2021 for recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer (r/m CC) that’s progressed during or after first-line treatment, an approval based on response rates in an earlier phase 2 trial, the InnovaTV 204 study.

TV is the only antibody-drug conjugate approved for the indication, but another agent is also under investigation, the anti-PD-1 cemiplimab. It’s not yet approved for r/m CC, but it is approved in the United States for locally advanced/metastatic basal cell carcinoma, cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma, and non–small cell lung cancer.

Cemiplimab outcomes were similar to TV’s in a phase 3 trial following progression on first-line treatment without anti-PD-1 therapy, with a median OS of 12 months with cemiplimab versus 8.5 months with investigators’ choice of chemotherapy.

Pembrolizumab is also approved as monotherapy for r/m CC for PD-L1 positive women after progression on or during first-line treatment based on response outcomes, not survival.

The question now is how to pick among the various options, said Krishnansu Tewari, MD, a gynecologic oncologist and researcher at the University of California, Irvine, who discussed InnovaTV 301 at the meeting.

In the second line for r/m CC, “we can hypothetically consider” TV monotherapy; pembrolizumab in PD-L1-positive women not previously exposed to a checkpoint inhibitor (CPI); cemiplimab in women not previously exposed to a CPI, and perhaps TV plus pembrolizumab, also in women new to CPIs.

It remains particularly unclear at the moment how to select between TV and cemiplimab monotherapy, if cemiplimab is approved for the indication.

One difference is that unlike in the cemiplimab trial, 28.1% of women treated with TV in the phase 3 trial had been on an anti-PD-(L)1 in the first line. However, although PFS benefits were statistically significant for TV after checkpoint inhibitor exposure, OS benefit was not.

Regarding cost, TV was administered at 2 mg/kg every 3 weeks in Innova; 40 mg costs around $7,000.

Cemiplimab was dosed at 350 mg every 3 weeks in its trial; a single dose costs over $10,000.
 

Subgroups fall short of statistical significance

In InnovaTV 301, 12-month OS was about 48.7% with TV versus 35% with chemotherapy; 6-month PFS was 30.4% with TV versus 18.9%.

The PFS benefit with TV did not reach statistical significance among the 35.2% of women who had not been treated with bevacizumab in the first-line, and there was no OS benefit or trend to benefit (HR 1.0) for them.

In addition to women previously treated with an anti-PD-1, OS benefits with TV were not statistically significant among the 54.2% of women with baseline performance scores of 0; the 36.8% with adeno or adenosquamous carcinoma, and the 62.8% who had been on one prior systemic regimen instead two.

Women in the trial were a median of 50 years old, and fewer than 7% were from the United States. Investigator choice of chemotherapy included topotecan, vinorelbine, gemcitabine, irinotecan, or pemetrexed.

The rate of grade 3 or higher adverse events was 29.2% with TV and 45.2% with chemotherapy.

The known side effects of TV were all higher than in the chemotherapy arm, including grade 3 or worse peripheral neuropathy (5.2%), ocular events (3.2%), and bleeding (0.8%).

The study was funded in part by Genmab and SeaGen, the companies co-developing TV. Dr. Vergote is an adviser to both companies and many others. Dr. Tewari is an adviser/consultant, researcher, and speaker for SeaGen and Genmab as well as for Merck, AstraZeneca, and other companies.