User login
Do Risk-Reducing Surgeries Benefit BRCA Carriers With Early-Onset Breast Cancer History?
according to new data presented at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium (SABCS) 2024.
Having a risk-reducing mastectomy or salpingo-oophorectomy was associated with significantly improved overall survival and disease-free survival in BRCA-mutation carriers who had been diagnosed with a first breast cancer at age ≤ 40 years.
“This global study provides the first evidence that risk-reducing surgeries improve survival outcomes among young BRCA-mutation carriers with a prior history of early-onset breast cancer,” study investigator Matteo Lambertini, MD, PhD, oncologist with the University of Genova–IRCCS Policlinico San Martino Hospital in Genoa, Italy, said in a statement from the SABCS, where he presented the findings. “Considering the unique traits and needs of this younger population, and their high risk for secondary malignancies, it is critical to understand how risk-reducing surgeries affect patient outcomes, so that the risks and benefits of these procedures can be carefully weighed.”
“We hope these findings may help to improve the counseling on cancer-risk management strategies for BRCA carriers with young-onset of breast cancer below the age of 40 years,” Lambertini added during a press briefing.
Various risk-reducing strategies, including risk-reducing surgeries, are recommended for BRCA-mutation carriers without a prior history of cancer, but the impact of these surgeries among younger populations with a history of early-onset breast cancer has been less clear.
The new findings come from the BRCA BCY Collaboration, an international, multicenter, retrospective cohort study of 5290 patients with likely pathogenic/pathogenic germline BRCA1 and/or BRCA2 mutations who were diagnosed with stages I-III breast cancer at ≤ 40 years. The risk-reducing mastectomy analysis included 2910 patients (55%) who underwent the surgery less than 1 year from diagnosis and 2380 who opted not to have the surgery.
Primary endpoint was overall survival, and disease-free survival and breast cancer-free interval were secondary endpoints. Overall survival models were adjusted for the development of distant recurrences or second primary malignancies.
During median follow-up of 5.1 years, patients who underwent risk-reducing mastectomy had a 35% lower risk of dying (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.65) as well as a significant improvement in both disease-free survival (aHR, 0.58) and breast cancer-free interval (aHR, 0.55). The improved outcomes were seen in both BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers, Lambertini reported.
The risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy analysis included 2782 patients who underwent this surgery a median of 3 years from diagnosis and 2508 who did not.
During median follow up of 4.9 years, risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy was associated with a 42% lower risk for death (aHR, 0.58) as well as an improvement in both disease-free survival (aHR, 0.68) and breast cancer-free interval (aHR, 0.65).
For risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy, there was an interaction based on breast cancer subtype and BRCA mutation.
“Specifically, the benefit of risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy was greater for patients with BRCA1 pathogenic variants and for those with triple-negative disease, as compared to those with BRCA2 pathogenic variants or luminal disease,” Lambertini reported.
Overall survival results were similar in patients who underwent one or both surgeries.
Briefing moderator Kate Lathrop, MD, with the University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, noted that this study provides valuable information for counseling younger patients. Having datasets like this helps us give patients “potentially our best estimate of the amount of reduction of risk you could have by having the surgery now.”
In an interview, Freya Schnabel, MD, director of breast surgery at NYU Langone Health’s Perlmutter Cancer Center, New York City, emphasized the importance of early, well-informed decision-making upfront at the time of diagnosis in this patient population.
The benefit of “risk-reducing oophorectomy cannot be overemphasized, even in the presence of a known breast cancer because, as my colleagues and I say — we don’t want to cure their breast cancer and then have them die of ovarian cancer,” said Schnabel, who was not involved in the study.
In terms of prophylactic contralateral mastectomy, Schnabel noted that BRCA-mutation carriers have a “very high” risk for a second primary breast cancer. In her experience, “that’s what drives patients frequently at the time of diagnosis to have bilateral mastectomy because who wants to go through this more than once?”
This is especially true for BRCA1 carriers who have a higher risk for triple-negative breast cancer, which is associated with a worse prognosis and is harder to treat, Schnabel said.
“For these patients, having surgery prevents the patient from getting into a situation where their second primary tumor winds up being biologically more aggressive and then affects their survival,” Schnabel said.
The study was supported by the Italian Association for Cancer Research and the European Society for Medical Oncology. Lambertini reported advisory roles for Roche, Lilly, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Seagen, Gilead, MSD, Exact Sciences, Pierre Fabre, and Menarini. Lathrop consults for TeraSera Pharmaceuticals. Schnabel had no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
according to new data presented at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium (SABCS) 2024.
Having a risk-reducing mastectomy or salpingo-oophorectomy was associated with significantly improved overall survival and disease-free survival in BRCA-mutation carriers who had been diagnosed with a first breast cancer at age ≤ 40 years.
“This global study provides the first evidence that risk-reducing surgeries improve survival outcomes among young BRCA-mutation carriers with a prior history of early-onset breast cancer,” study investigator Matteo Lambertini, MD, PhD, oncologist with the University of Genova–IRCCS Policlinico San Martino Hospital in Genoa, Italy, said in a statement from the SABCS, where he presented the findings. “Considering the unique traits and needs of this younger population, and their high risk for secondary malignancies, it is critical to understand how risk-reducing surgeries affect patient outcomes, so that the risks and benefits of these procedures can be carefully weighed.”
“We hope these findings may help to improve the counseling on cancer-risk management strategies for BRCA carriers with young-onset of breast cancer below the age of 40 years,” Lambertini added during a press briefing.
Various risk-reducing strategies, including risk-reducing surgeries, are recommended for BRCA-mutation carriers without a prior history of cancer, but the impact of these surgeries among younger populations with a history of early-onset breast cancer has been less clear.
The new findings come from the BRCA BCY Collaboration, an international, multicenter, retrospective cohort study of 5290 patients with likely pathogenic/pathogenic germline BRCA1 and/or BRCA2 mutations who were diagnosed with stages I-III breast cancer at ≤ 40 years. The risk-reducing mastectomy analysis included 2910 patients (55%) who underwent the surgery less than 1 year from diagnosis and 2380 who opted not to have the surgery.
Primary endpoint was overall survival, and disease-free survival and breast cancer-free interval were secondary endpoints. Overall survival models were adjusted for the development of distant recurrences or second primary malignancies.
During median follow-up of 5.1 years, patients who underwent risk-reducing mastectomy had a 35% lower risk of dying (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.65) as well as a significant improvement in both disease-free survival (aHR, 0.58) and breast cancer-free interval (aHR, 0.55). The improved outcomes were seen in both BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers, Lambertini reported.
The risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy analysis included 2782 patients who underwent this surgery a median of 3 years from diagnosis and 2508 who did not.
During median follow up of 4.9 years, risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy was associated with a 42% lower risk for death (aHR, 0.58) as well as an improvement in both disease-free survival (aHR, 0.68) and breast cancer-free interval (aHR, 0.65).
For risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy, there was an interaction based on breast cancer subtype and BRCA mutation.
“Specifically, the benefit of risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy was greater for patients with BRCA1 pathogenic variants and for those with triple-negative disease, as compared to those with BRCA2 pathogenic variants or luminal disease,” Lambertini reported.
Overall survival results were similar in patients who underwent one or both surgeries.
Briefing moderator Kate Lathrop, MD, with the University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, noted that this study provides valuable information for counseling younger patients. Having datasets like this helps us give patients “potentially our best estimate of the amount of reduction of risk you could have by having the surgery now.”
In an interview, Freya Schnabel, MD, director of breast surgery at NYU Langone Health’s Perlmutter Cancer Center, New York City, emphasized the importance of early, well-informed decision-making upfront at the time of diagnosis in this patient population.
The benefit of “risk-reducing oophorectomy cannot be overemphasized, even in the presence of a known breast cancer because, as my colleagues and I say — we don’t want to cure their breast cancer and then have them die of ovarian cancer,” said Schnabel, who was not involved in the study.
In terms of prophylactic contralateral mastectomy, Schnabel noted that BRCA-mutation carriers have a “very high” risk for a second primary breast cancer. In her experience, “that’s what drives patients frequently at the time of diagnosis to have bilateral mastectomy because who wants to go through this more than once?”
This is especially true for BRCA1 carriers who have a higher risk for triple-negative breast cancer, which is associated with a worse prognosis and is harder to treat, Schnabel said.
“For these patients, having surgery prevents the patient from getting into a situation where their second primary tumor winds up being biologically more aggressive and then affects their survival,” Schnabel said.
The study was supported by the Italian Association for Cancer Research and the European Society for Medical Oncology. Lambertini reported advisory roles for Roche, Lilly, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Seagen, Gilead, MSD, Exact Sciences, Pierre Fabre, and Menarini. Lathrop consults for TeraSera Pharmaceuticals. Schnabel had no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
according to new data presented at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium (SABCS) 2024.
Having a risk-reducing mastectomy or salpingo-oophorectomy was associated with significantly improved overall survival and disease-free survival in BRCA-mutation carriers who had been diagnosed with a first breast cancer at age ≤ 40 years.
“This global study provides the first evidence that risk-reducing surgeries improve survival outcomes among young BRCA-mutation carriers with a prior history of early-onset breast cancer,” study investigator Matteo Lambertini, MD, PhD, oncologist with the University of Genova–IRCCS Policlinico San Martino Hospital in Genoa, Italy, said in a statement from the SABCS, where he presented the findings. “Considering the unique traits and needs of this younger population, and their high risk for secondary malignancies, it is critical to understand how risk-reducing surgeries affect patient outcomes, so that the risks and benefits of these procedures can be carefully weighed.”
“We hope these findings may help to improve the counseling on cancer-risk management strategies for BRCA carriers with young-onset of breast cancer below the age of 40 years,” Lambertini added during a press briefing.
Various risk-reducing strategies, including risk-reducing surgeries, are recommended for BRCA-mutation carriers without a prior history of cancer, but the impact of these surgeries among younger populations with a history of early-onset breast cancer has been less clear.
The new findings come from the BRCA BCY Collaboration, an international, multicenter, retrospective cohort study of 5290 patients with likely pathogenic/pathogenic germline BRCA1 and/or BRCA2 mutations who were diagnosed with stages I-III breast cancer at ≤ 40 years. The risk-reducing mastectomy analysis included 2910 patients (55%) who underwent the surgery less than 1 year from diagnosis and 2380 who opted not to have the surgery.
Primary endpoint was overall survival, and disease-free survival and breast cancer-free interval were secondary endpoints. Overall survival models were adjusted for the development of distant recurrences or second primary malignancies.
During median follow-up of 5.1 years, patients who underwent risk-reducing mastectomy had a 35% lower risk of dying (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.65) as well as a significant improvement in both disease-free survival (aHR, 0.58) and breast cancer-free interval (aHR, 0.55). The improved outcomes were seen in both BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers, Lambertini reported.
The risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy analysis included 2782 patients who underwent this surgery a median of 3 years from diagnosis and 2508 who did not.
During median follow up of 4.9 years, risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy was associated with a 42% lower risk for death (aHR, 0.58) as well as an improvement in both disease-free survival (aHR, 0.68) and breast cancer-free interval (aHR, 0.65).
For risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy, there was an interaction based on breast cancer subtype and BRCA mutation.
“Specifically, the benefit of risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy was greater for patients with BRCA1 pathogenic variants and for those with triple-negative disease, as compared to those with BRCA2 pathogenic variants or luminal disease,” Lambertini reported.
Overall survival results were similar in patients who underwent one or both surgeries.
Briefing moderator Kate Lathrop, MD, with the University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, noted that this study provides valuable information for counseling younger patients. Having datasets like this helps us give patients “potentially our best estimate of the amount of reduction of risk you could have by having the surgery now.”
In an interview, Freya Schnabel, MD, director of breast surgery at NYU Langone Health’s Perlmutter Cancer Center, New York City, emphasized the importance of early, well-informed decision-making upfront at the time of diagnosis in this patient population.
The benefit of “risk-reducing oophorectomy cannot be overemphasized, even in the presence of a known breast cancer because, as my colleagues and I say — we don’t want to cure their breast cancer and then have them die of ovarian cancer,” said Schnabel, who was not involved in the study.
In terms of prophylactic contralateral mastectomy, Schnabel noted that BRCA-mutation carriers have a “very high” risk for a second primary breast cancer. In her experience, “that’s what drives patients frequently at the time of diagnosis to have bilateral mastectomy because who wants to go through this more than once?”
This is especially true for BRCA1 carriers who have a higher risk for triple-negative breast cancer, which is associated with a worse prognosis and is harder to treat, Schnabel said.
“For these patients, having surgery prevents the patient from getting into a situation where their second primary tumor winds up being biologically more aggressive and then affects their survival,” Schnabel said.
The study was supported by the Italian Association for Cancer Research and the European Society for Medical Oncology. Lambertini reported advisory roles for Roche, Lilly, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Seagen, Gilead, MSD, Exact Sciences, Pierre Fabre, and Menarini. Lathrop consults for TeraSera Pharmaceuticals. Schnabel had no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM SABCS 2024
How Are Patients Managing Intermediate-Risk Prostate Cancer?
TOPLINE:
METHODOLOGY:
- Current guidelines support active surveillance or watchful waiting for select patients with intermediate-risk prostate cancer. These observation strategies may help reduce the adverse effects associated with immediate radical treatment.
- To understand the trends over time in the use of active surveillance and watchful waiting, researchers looked at data of 147,205 individuals with intermediate-risk prostate cancer from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results prostate cancer database between 2010 and 2020 in the United States.
- Criteria for intermediate-risk included Gleason grade group 2 or 3, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels of 10-20 ng/mL, or stage cT2b of the disease. Researchers also included trends for patients with Gleason grade group 1, as a reference group.
- Researchers assessed the temporal trends and factors associated with the selection of active surveillance and watchful waiting in this population.
TAKEAWAY:
- Overall, the rate of active surveillance and watchful waiting more than doubled among intermediate-risk patients from 5% to 12.3% between 2010 and 2020.
- Between 2010 and 2020, the use of active surveillance and watchful waiting increased significantly among patients in Gleason grade group 1 (13.2% to 53.8%) and Gleason grade group 2 (4.0% to 11.6%) but remained stable for those in Gleason grade group 3 (2.5% to 2.8%; P = .85). For those with PSA levels < 10 ng/mL, adoption increased from 3.4% in 2010 to 9.2% in 2020 and more than doubled (9.3% to 20.7%) for those with PSA levels of 10-20 ng/mL.
- Higher Gleason grade groups had a significantly lower likelihood of adopting active surveillance or watchful waiting (Gleason grade group 2 vs 1: odds ratio [OR], 0.83; Gleason grade group 3 vs 1: OR, 0.79).
- Hispanic or Latino individuals (OR, 0.98) and non-Hispanic Black individuals (OR, 0.99) were slightly less likely to adopt these strategies than non-Hispanic White individuals.
IN PRACTICE:
“This study found a significant increase in initial active surveillance and watchful waiting for intermediate-risk prostate cancer between 2010 and 2020,” the authors wrote. “Research priorities should include reducing upfront overdiagnosis and better defining criteria for starting and stopping active surveillance and watchful waiting beyond conventional clinical measures such as GGs [Gleason grade groups] or PSA levels alone.”
SOURCE:
This study, led by Ismail Ajjawi, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, was published online in JAMA.
LIMITATIONS:
This study relied on observational data and therefore could not capture various factors influencing clinical decision-making processes. Additionally, the absence of information on patient outcomes restricted the ability to assess the long-term implications of different management strategies.
DISCLOSURES:
This study received financial support from the Urological Research Foundation. Several authors reported having various ties with various sources.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
METHODOLOGY:
- Current guidelines support active surveillance or watchful waiting for select patients with intermediate-risk prostate cancer. These observation strategies may help reduce the adverse effects associated with immediate radical treatment.
- To understand the trends over time in the use of active surveillance and watchful waiting, researchers looked at data of 147,205 individuals with intermediate-risk prostate cancer from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results prostate cancer database between 2010 and 2020 in the United States.
- Criteria for intermediate-risk included Gleason grade group 2 or 3, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels of 10-20 ng/mL, or stage cT2b of the disease. Researchers also included trends for patients with Gleason grade group 1, as a reference group.
- Researchers assessed the temporal trends and factors associated with the selection of active surveillance and watchful waiting in this population.
TAKEAWAY:
- Overall, the rate of active surveillance and watchful waiting more than doubled among intermediate-risk patients from 5% to 12.3% between 2010 and 2020.
- Between 2010 and 2020, the use of active surveillance and watchful waiting increased significantly among patients in Gleason grade group 1 (13.2% to 53.8%) and Gleason grade group 2 (4.0% to 11.6%) but remained stable for those in Gleason grade group 3 (2.5% to 2.8%; P = .85). For those with PSA levels < 10 ng/mL, adoption increased from 3.4% in 2010 to 9.2% in 2020 and more than doubled (9.3% to 20.7%) for those with PSA levels of 10-20 ng/mL.
- Higher Gleason grade groups had a significantly lower likelihood of adopting active surveillance or watchful waiting (Gleason grade group 2 vs 1: odds ratio [OR], 0.83; Gleason grade group 3 vs 1: OR, 0.79).
- Hispanic or Latino individuals (OR, 0.98) and non-Hispanic Black individuals (OR, 0.99) were slightly less likely to adopt these strategies than non-Hispanic White individuals.
IN PRACTICE:
“This study found a significant increase in initial active surveillance and watchful waiting for intermediate-risk prostate cancer between 2010 and 2020,” the authors wrote. “Research priorities should include reducing upfront overdiagnosis and better defining criteria for starting and stopping active surveillance and watchful waiting beyond conventional clinical measures such as GGs [Gleason grade groups] or PSA levels alone.”
SOURCE:
This study, led by Ismail Ajjawi, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, was published online in JAMA.
LIMITATIONS:
This study relied on observational data and therefore could not capture various factors influencing clinical decision-making processes. Additionally, the absence of information on patient outcomes restricted the ability to assess the long-term implications of different management strategies.
DISCLOSURES:
This study received financial support from the Urological Research Foundation. Several authors reported having various ties with various sources.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
METHODOLOGY:
- Current guidelines support active surveillance or watchful waiting for select patients with intermediate-risk prostate cancer. These observation strategies may help reduce the adverse effects associated with immediate radical treatment.
- To understand the trends over time in the use of active surveillance and watchful waiting, researchers looked at data of 147,205 individuals with intermediate-risk prostate cancer from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results prostate cancer database between 2010 and 2020 in the United States.
- Criteria for intermediate-risk included Gleason grade group 2 or 3, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels of 10-20 ng/mL, or stage cT2b of the disease. Researchers also included trends for patients with Gleason grade group 1, as a reference group.
- Researchers assessed the temporal trends and factors associated with the selection of active surveillance and watchful waiting in this population.
TAKEAWAY:
- Overall, the rate of active surveillance and watchful waiting more than doubled among intermediate-risk patients from 5% to 12.3% between 2010 and 2020.
- Between 2010 and 2020, the use of active surveillance and watchful waiting increased significantly among patients in Gleason grade group 1 (13.2% to 53.8%) and Gleason grade group 2 (4.0% to 11.6%) but remained stable for those in Gleason grade group 3 (2.5% to 2.8%; P = .85). For those with PSA levels < 10 ng/mL, adoption increased from 3.4% in 2010 to 9.2% in 2020 and more than doubled (9.3% to 20.7%) for those with PSA levels of 10-20 ng/mL.
- Higher Gleason grade groups had a significantly lower likelihood of adopting active surveillance or watchful waiting (Gleason grade group 2 vs 1: odds ratio [OR], 0.83; Gleason grade group 3 vs 1: OR, 0.79).
- Hispanic or Latino individuals (OR, 0.98) and non-Hispanic Black individuals (OR, 0.99) were slightly less likely to adopt these strategies than non-Hispanic White individuals.
IN PRACTICE:
“This study found a significant increase in initial active surveillance and watchful waiting for intermediate-risk prostate cancer between 2010 and 2020,” the authors wrote. “Research priorities should include reducing upfront overdiagnosis and better defining criteria for starting and stopping active surveillance and watchful waiting beyond conventional clinical measures such as GGs [Gleason grade groups] or PSA levels alone.”
SOURCE:
This study, led by Ismail Ajjawi, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, was published online in JAMA.
LIMITATIONS:
This study relied on observational data and therefore could not capture various factors influencing clinical decision-making processes. Additionally, the absence of information on patient outcomes restricted the ability to assess the long-term implications of different management strategies.
DISCLOSURES:
This study received financial support from the Urological Research Foundation. Several authors reported having various ties with various sources.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
New Cancer Drugs: Do Patients Prefer Faster Access or Clinical Benefit?
When the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) grants cancer drugs accelerated approval, a key aim is to provide patients faster access to therapies that can benefit them.
The downside of a speedier approval timeline, however, is that it’s often not yet clear whether the new drugs will actually allow a patient to live longer or better. Information on overall survival and quality of life typically comes years later, after drugs undergo confirmatory trials, or sometimes not at all, if companies fail to conduct these trials.
During this waiting period, patients may be receiving a cancer drug that provides no real clinical benefit but comes with a host of toxicities.
In fact, the odds are about as good as a coin flip. For cancer drugs that have confirmatory trial data, more than half don’t ultimately provide an overall survival or quality of life benefit.
Inherent to the accelerated approval process is the assumption that patients are willing to accept this uncertainty in exchange for faster access.
But is that really the case?
The researchers asked about 870 adults with experience of cancer challenges — either their own cancer diagnosis or that of family or a close friend — whether they valued faster access or certainty that a drug really works.
In the study, participants imagined they had been diagnosed with cancer and could choose between two cancer drugs under investigation in clinical trials but with uncertain effectiveness, and a current standard treatment. Participants had to make a series of choices based on five scenarios.
The first two scenarios were based on the impact of the current standard treatment: A patient’s life expectancy on the standard treatment (6 months up to 3 years), and a patient’s physical health on the standard treatment (functional status restricted only during strenuous activities up to completely disabled).
The remaining three scenarios dealt with the two new drugs: The effect of the new drugs on a surrogate endpoint, progression-free survival (whether the drugs slowed tumor growth for an extra month or 5 additional months compared with the standard treatment), certainty that slowing tumor growth will improve survival (very low to high), and the wait time to access the drugs (immediately to as long as 2 years).
The researchers assessed the relative importance of survival benefit certainty vs wait time and how that balance shifted depending on the different scenarios.
Overall, the researchers found that, if there was no evidence linking the surrogate endpoint (progression-free survival) to overall survival, patients were willing to wait about 8 months for weak evidence of an overall survival benefit (ie, low certainty the drug will extend survival by 1-5 months), about 16 months for moderate certainty, and almost 22 months for high certainty.
Despite a willingness to wait for greater certainty, participants did value speed as well. Overall, respondents showed a strong preference against a 1-year delay in FDA approval time. People who were aged 55 years or more and were non-White individuals made less than $40,000 year as well as those with the lowest life expectancy on a current standard treatment were most sensitive to wait times while those with better functional status and longer life expectancies on a current treatment were less sensitive to longer wait times.
“Our results indicate that some patients (except those with the poorest prognoses) would find the additional time required to generate evidence on the survival benefit of new cancer drugs an acceptable tradeoff,” the study authors concluded.
Although people do place high value on timely access to new cancer drugs, especially if there are limited treatment options, many are willing to wait for greater certainty that a new drug provides an overall survival benefit, lead author Robin Forrest, MSc, with the Department of Health Policy, London School of Economics in England, said in an interview.
In the study, respondents also did not place significant value on whether the drug substantially slowed cancer growth. “In other words, substantial progression-free survival benefit of a drug did not compensate for lack of certainty about a drug’s benefit on survival in respondents’ drug choices,” the authors explained.
“In an effort to move quickly, we have accepted progression-free survival [as a surrogate endpoint],” Jyoti D. Patel, MD, oncologist with Northwestern Memorial Hospital, Chicago, Illinois, who wasn’t involved in the study. But a growing body of evidence indicates that progression-free survival is often a poor surrogate for overall survival. And what this study suggests is that “patients uniformly care about improvements in overall survival and the quality of that survival,” Patel said.
Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, was not surprised by the findings.
“I always thought this was the real-world scenario, but the problem is the voices of ordinary patients are not heard,” Gyawali, with Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada, who also wasn’t involved in the study, said in an interview.
“What is heard is the loud noise of ‘we need access now, today, yesterday’ — ‘we don’t care if the drug doesn’t improve overall survival, we just need a drug, any drug’ — ‘we don’t care how much it costs, we need access today,’ ” Gyawali said. “Not saying this is wrong, but this is not the representation of all patients.”
However, the voices of patients who are more cautious and want evidence of benefit before accepting toxicities don’t make headlines, he added.
What this survey means from a policy perspective, said Gyawali, is that accelerated approvals that do not mandate survival endpoint in confirmatory trials are ignoring the need of many patients who prioritize certainty of benefit over speed of access.
The study was funded by the London School of Economics and Political Science Phelan United States Centre. Forrest had no relevant disclosures. Gyawali has received consulting fees from Vivio Health. Patel has various relationships with AbbVie, Anheart, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Guardant, Tempus, Sanofi, BluePrint, Takeda, and Gilead.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
When the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) grants cancer drugs accelerated approval, a key aim is to provide patients faster access to therapies that can benefit them.
The downside of a speedier approval timeline, however, is that it’s often not yet clear whether the new drugs will actually allow a patient to live longer or better. Information on overall survival and quality of life typically comes years later, after drugs undergo confirmatory trials, or sometimes not at all, if companies fail to conduct these trials.
During this waiting period, patients may be receiving a cancer drug that provides no real clinical benefit but comes with a host of toxicities.
In fact, the odds are about as good as a coin flip. For cancer drugs that have confirmatory trial data, more than half don’t ultimately provide an overall survival or quality of life benefit.
Inherent to the accelerated approval process is the assumption that patients are willing to accept this uncertainty in exchange for faster access.
But is that really the case?
The researchers asked about 870 adults with experience of cancer challenges — either their own cancer diagnosis or that of family or a close friend — whether they valued faster access or certainty that a drug really works.
In the study, participants imagined they had been diagnosed with cancer and could choose between two cancer drugs under investigation in clinical trials but with uncertain effectiveness, and a current standard treatment. Participants had to make a series of choices based on five scenarios.
The first two scenarios were based on the impact of the current standard treatment: A patient’s life expectancy on the standard treatment (6 months up to 3 years), and a patient’s physical health on the standard treatment (functional status restricted only during strenuous activities up to completely disabled).
The remaining three scenarios dealt with the two new drugs: The effect of the new drugs on a surrogate endpoint, progression-free survival (whether the drugs slowed tumor growth for an extra month or 5 additional months compared with the standard treatment), certainty that slowing tumor growth will improve survival (very low to high), and the wait time to access the drugs (immediately to as long as 2 years).
The researchers assessed the relative importance of survival benefit certainty vs wait time and how that balance shifted depending on the different scenarios.
Overall, the researchers found that, if there was no evidence linking the surrogate endpoint (progression-free survival) to overall survival, patients were willing to wait about 8 months for weak evidence of an overall survival benefit (ie, low certainty the drug will extend survival by 1-5 months), about 16 months for moderate certainty, and almost 22 months for high certainty.
Despite a willingness to wait for greater certainty, participants did value speed as well. Overall, respondents showed a strong preference against a 1-year delay in FDA approval time. People who were aged 55 years or more and were non-White individuals made less than $40,000 year as well as those with the lowest life expectancy on a current standard treatment were most sensitive to wait times while those with better functional status and longer life expectancies on a current treatment were less sensitive to longer wait times.
“Our results indicate that some patients (except those with the poorest prognoses) would find the additional time required to generate evidence on the survival benefit of new cancer drugs an acceptable tradeoff,” the study authors concluded.
Although people do place high value on timely access to new cancer drugs, especially if there are limited treatment options, many are willing to wait for greater certainty that a new drug provides an overall survival benefit, lead author Robin Forrest, MSc, with the Department of Health Policy, London School of Economics in England, said in an interview.
In the study, respondents also did not place significant value on whether the drug substantially slowed cancer growth. “In other words, substantial progression-free survival benefit of a drug did not compensate for lack of certainty about a drug’s benefit on survival in respondents’ drug choices,” the authors explained.
“In an effort to move quickly, we have accepted progression-free survival [as a surrogate endpoint],” Jyoti D. Patel, MD, oncologist with Northwestern Memorial Hospital, Chicago, Illinois, who wasn’t involved in the study. But a growing body of evidence indicates that progression-free survival is often a poor surrogate for overall survival. And what this study suggests is that “patients uniformly care about improvements in overall survival and the quality of that survival,” Patel said.
Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, was not surprised by the findings.
“I always thought this was the real-world scenario, but the problem is the voices of ordinary patients are not heard,” Gyawali, with Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada, who also wasn’t involved in the study, said in an interview.
“What is heard is the loud noise of ‘we need access now, today, yesterday’ — ‘we don’t care if the drug doesn’t improve overall survival, we just need a drug, any drug’ — ‘we don’t care how much it costs, we need access today,’ ” Gyawali said. “Not saying this is wrong, but this is not the representation of all patients.”
However, the voices of patients who are more cautious and want evidence of benefit before accepting toxicities don’t make headlines, he added.
What this survey means from a policy perspective, said Gyawali, is that accelerated approvals that do not mandate survival endpoint in confirmatory trials are ignoring the need of many patients who prioritize certainty of benefit over speed of access.
The study was funded by the London School of Economics and Political Science Phelan United States Centre. Forrest had no relevant disclosures. Gyawali has received consulting fees from Vivio Health. Patel has various relationships with AbbVie, Anheart, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Guardant, Tempus, Sanofi, BluePrint, Takeda, and Gilead.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
When the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) grants cancer drugs accelerated approval, a key aim is to provide patients faster access to therapies that can benefit them.
The downside of a speedier approval timeline, however, is that it’s often not yet clear whether the new drugs will actually allow a patient to live longer or better. Information on overall survival and quality of life typically comes years later, after drugs undergo confirmatory trials, or sometimes not at all, if companies fail to conduct these trials.
During this waiting period, patients may be receiving a cancer drug that provides no real clinical benefit but comes with a host of toxicities.
In fact, the odds are about as good as a coin flip. For cancer drugs that have confirmatory trial data, more than half don’t ultimately provide an overall survival or quality of life benefit.
Inherent to the accelerated approval process is the assumption that patients are willing to accept this uncertainty in exchange for faster access.
But is that really the case?
The researchers asked about 870 adults with experience of cancer challenges — either their own cancer diagnosis or that of family or a close friend — whether they valued faster access or certainty that a drug really works.
In the study, participants imagined they had been diagnosed with cancer and could choose between two cancer drugs under investigation in clinical trials but with uncertain effectiveness, and a current standard treatment. Participants had to make a series of choices based on five scenarios.
The first two scenarios were based on the impact of the current standard treatment: A patient’s life expectancy on the standard treatment (6 months up to 3 years), and a patient’s physical health on the standard treatment (functional status restricted only during strenuous activities up to completely disabled).
The remaining three scenarios dealt with the two new drugs: The effect of the new drugs on a surrogate endpoint, progression-free survival (whether the drugs slowed tumor growth for an extra month or 5 additional months compared with the standard treatment), certainty that slowing tumor growth will improve survival (very low to high), and the wait time to access the drugs (immediately to as long as 2 years).
The researchers assessed the relative importance of survival benefit certainty vs wait time and how that balance shifted depending on the different scenarios.
Overall, the researchers found that, if there was no evidence linking the surrogate endpoint (progression-free survival) to overall survival, patients were willing to wait about 8 months for weak evidence of an overall survival benefit (ie, low certainty the drug will extend survival by 1-5 months), about 16 months for moderate certainty, and almost 22 months for high certainty.
Despite a willingness to wait for greater certainty, participants did value speed as well. Overall, respondents showed a strong preference against a 1-year delay in FDA approval time. People who were aged 55 years or more and were non-White individuals made less than $40,000 year as well as those with the lowest life expectancy on a current standard treatment were most sensitive to wait times while those with better functional status and longer life expectancies on a current treatment were less sensitive to longer wait times.
“Our results indicate that some patients (except those with the poorest prognoses) would find the additional time required to generate evidence on the survival benefit of new cancer drugs an acceptable tradeoff,” the study authors concluded.
Although people do place high value on timely access to new cancer drugs, especially if there are limited treatment options, many are willing to wait for greater certainty that a new drug provides an overall survival benefit, lead author Robin Forrest, MSc, with the Department of Health Policy, London School of Economics in England, said in an interview.
In the study, respondents also did not place significant value on whether the drug substantially slowed cancer growth. “In other words, substantial progression-free survival benefit of a drug did not compensate for lack of certainty about a drug’s benefit on survival in respondents’ drug choices,” the authors explained.
“In an effort to move quickly, we have accepted progression-free survival [as a surrogate endpoint],” Jyoti D. Patel, MD, oncologist with Northwestern Memorial Hospital, Chicago, Illinois, who wasn’t involved in the study. But a growing body of evidence indicates that progression-free survival is often a poor surrogate for overall survival. And what this study suggests is that “patients uniformly care about improvements in overall survival and the quality of that survival,” Patel said.
Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, was not surprised by the findings.
“I always thought this was the real-world scenario, but the problem is the voices of ordinary patients are not heard,” Gyawali, with Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada, who also wasn’t involved in the study, said in an interview.
“What is heard is the loud noise of ‘we need access now, today, yesterday’ — ‘we don’t care if the drug doesn’t improve overall survival, we just need a drug, any drug’ — ‘we don’t care how much it costs, we need access today,’ ” Gyawali said. “Not saying this is wrong, but this is not the representation of all patients.”
However, the voices of patients who are more cautious and want evidence of benefit before accepting toxicities don’t make headlines, he added.
What this survey means from a policy perspective, said Gyawali, is that accelerated approvals that do not mandate survival endpoint in confirmatory trials are ignoring the need of many patients who prioritize certainty of benefit over speed of access.
The study was funded by the London School of Economics and Political Science Phelan United States Centre. Forrest had no relevant disclosures. Gyawali has received consulting fees from Vivio Health. Patel has various relationships with AbbVie, Anheart, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Guardant, Tempus, Sanofi, BluePrint, Takeda, and Gilead.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM THE LANCET ONCOLOGY
Australia Registry Study: Melanoma-Related Deaths Increase at 0.8-mm Breslow Thickness
TOPLINE:
in an Australian study that used registry data.
METHODOLOGY:
- The study analyzed 144,447 individuals (median age, 56 years, 54% men) diagnosed with thin (T1) primary invasive melanomas (Breslow thickness, ≤ 1.0 mm) between 1982 and 2014 from all eight Australian state and territory population-based cancer registries.
- The researchers evaluated the associations between Breslow thickness (< 0.8 mm vs 0.8-1.0 mm) and incidences of melanoma-related and nonmelanoma-related deaths.
- The primary endpoint was time to death attributable to a melanoma-related cause, with death by a nonmelanoma-related cause as a competing event.
TAKEAWAY:
- The 20-year cumulative incidence of melanoma-related deaths was 6.3% for the whole cohort. The incidence was higher for tumors with a thickness of 0.8-1.0 mm (11%) than for those with a thickness < 0.8 mm (5.6%).
- The overall 20-year melanoma-specific survival rate was 95.9%, with rates of 94.2% for tumors < 0.8 mm and 87.8% for tumors measuring 0.8-1.0 mm in thickness. Each 0.1-mm increase in Breslow thickness was associated with worse prognosis.
- A multivariable analysis revealed that a tumor thickness of 0.8-1.0 mm was associated with both a greater absolute risk for melanoma-related deaths (subdistribution hazard ratio, 2.92) and a higher rate of melanoma-related deaths (hazard ratio, 2.98) than a tumor thickness < 0.8 mm.
- The 20-year incidence of death from nonmelanoma-related causes was 23.4%, but the risk for death from these causes showed no significant association with Breslow thickness categories.
IN PRACTICE:
“The findings of this large-scale population–based analysis suggest the separation of risk for patients with melanomas with a Breslow thickness above and below 0.8 mm,” the authors wrote, adding: “These results suggest that a change of the T1 threshold from 1.0 mm to 0.8 mm should be considered when the AJCC [American Joint Committee on Cancer] staging system is next reviewed.”
SOURCE:
The study was led by Serigne N. Lo, PhD, Melanoma Institute Australia, the University of Sydney. It was published online on December 11, 2024, in JAMA Dermatology.
LIMITATIONS:
The study was registry-based and did not capture details such as tumor characteristics and treatment modalities. Inaccuracies in reporting the cause of death may have led to an underestimation of melanoma-specific mortality risks across all thickness groups and an overestimation of nonmelanoma mortality risks.
DISCLOSURES:
The study received funding support from Melanoma Institute Australia and two grants from the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC). Several authors reported receiving grants or personal fees from or having ties with various sources, including NHMRC.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including artificial intelligence, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
in an Australian study that used registry data.
METHODOLOGY:
- The study analyzed 144,447 individuals (median age, 56 years, 54% men) diagnosed with thin (T1) primary invasive melanomas (Breslow thickness, ≤ 1.0 mm) between 1982 and 2014 from all eight Australian state and territory population-based cancer registries.
- The researchers evaluated the associations between Breslow thickness (< 0.8 mm vs 0.8-1.0 mm) and incidences of melanoma-related and nonmelanoma-related deaths.
- The primary endpoint was time to death attributable to a melanoma-related cause, with death by a nonmelanoma-related cause as a competing event.
TAKEAWAY:
- The 20-year cumulative incidence of melanoma-related deaths was 6.3% for the whole cohort. The incidence was higher for tumors with a thickness of 0.8-1.0 mm (11%) than for those with a thickness < 0.8 mm (5.6%).
- The overall 20-year melanoma-specific survival rate was 95.9%, with rates of 94.2% for tumors < 0.8 mm and 87.8% for tumors measuring 0.8-1.0 mm in thickness. Each 0.1-mm increase in Breslow thickness was associated with worse prognosis.
- A multivariable analysis revealed that a tumor thickness of 0.8-1.0 mm was associated with both a greater absolute risk for melanoma-related deaths (subdistribution hazard ratio, 2.92) and a higher rate of melanoma-related deaths (hazard ratio, 2.98) than a tumor thickness < 0.8 mm.
- The 20-year incidence of death from nonmelanoma-related causes was 23.4%, but the risk for death from these causes showed no significant association with Breslow thickness categories.
IN PRACTICE:
“The findings of this large-scale population–based analysis suggest the separation of risk for patients with melanomas with a Breslow thickness above and below 0.8 mm,” the authors wrote, adding: “These results suggest that a change of the T1 threshold from 1.0 mm to 0.8 mm should be considered when the AJCC [American Joint Committee on Cancer] staging system is next reviewed.”
SOURCE:
The study was led by Serigne N. Lo, PhD, Melanoma Institute Australia, the University of Sydney. It was published online on December 11, 2024, in JAMA Dermatology.
LIMITATIONS:
The study was registry-based and did not capture details such as tumor characteristics and treatment modalities. Inaccuracies in reporting the cause of death may have led to an underestimation of melanoma-specific mortality risks across all thickness groups and an overestimation of nonmelanoma mortality risks.
DISCLOSURES:
The study received funding support from Melanoma Institute Australia and two grants from the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC). Several authors reported receiving grants or personal fees from or having ties with various sources, including NHMRC.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including artificial intelligence, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
in an Australian study that used registry data.
METHODOLOGY:
- The study analyzed 144,447 individuals (median age, 56 years, 54% men) diagnosed with thin (T1) primary invasive melanomas (Breslow thickness, ≤ 1.0 mm) between 1982 and 2014 from all eight Australian state and territory population-based cancer registries.
- The researchers evaluated the associations between Breslow thickness (< 0.8 mm vs 0.8-1.0 mm) and incidences of melanoma-related and nonmelanoma-related deaths.
- The primary endpoint was time to death attributable to a melanoma-related cause, with death by a nonmelanoma-related cause as a competing event.
TAKEAWAY:
- The 20-year cumulative incidence of melanoma-related deaths was 6.3% for the whole cohort. The incidence was higher for tumors with a thickness of 0.8-1.0 mm (11%) than for those with a thickness < 0.8 mm (5.6%).
- The overall 20-year melanoma-specific survival rate was 95.9%, with rates of 94.2% for tumors < 0.8 mm and 87.8% for tumors measuring 0.8-1.0 mm in thickness. Each 0.1-mm increase in Breslow thickness was associated with worse prognosis.
- A multivariable analysis revealed that a tumor thickness of 0.8-1.0 mm was associated with both a greater absolute risk for melanoma-related deaths (subdistribution hazard ratio, 2.92) and a higher rate of melanoma-related deaths (hazard ratio, 2.98) than a tumor thickness < 0.8 mm.
- The 20-year incidence of death from nonmelanoma-related causes was 23.4%, but the risk for death from these causes showed no significant association with Breslow thickness categories.
IN PRACTICE:
“The findings of this large-scale population–based analysis suggest the separation of risk for patients with melanomas with a Breslow thickness above and below 0.8 mm,” the authors wrote, adding: “These results suggest that a change of the T1 threshold from 1.0 mm to 0.8 mm should be considered when the AJCC [American Joint Committee on Cancer] staging system is next reviewed.”
SOURCE:
The study was led by Serigne N. Lo, PhD, Melanoma Institute Australia, the University of Sydney. It was published online on December 11, 2024, in JAMA Dermatology.
LIMITATIONS:
The study was registry-based and did not capture details such as tumor characteristics and treatment modalities. Inaccuracies in reporting the cause of death may have led to an underestimation of melanoma-specific mortality risks across all thickness groups and an overestimation of nonmelanoma mortality risks.
DISCLOSURES:
The study received funding support from Melanoma Institute Australia and two grants from the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC). Several authors reported receiving grants or personal fees from or having ties with various sources, including NHMRC.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including artificial intelligence, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
USPSTF Updates Recommendations on Cervical Cancer Screening
The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) has posted a draft updated statement on cervical cancer screening. The statement is open for public comment until January 13, 2025, on the task force’s website.
Nearly all cases of cervical cancer are caused by human papilloma virus (HPV) and most occur in women who have not been regularly screened or appropriately treated, the task force stressed.
New Screening Option
In 2024, there will be an estimated 13,820 new cases of cervical cancer and 4360 deaths.
“Evidence shows that screening saves lives, and all women aged 21-65 need to be screened,” task force member Esa Davis, MD, MPH, FAAFP, a professor of family and community medicine and associate vice president for community health at the University of Maryland, Baltimore, said in an interview. A new feature in the 2024 draft statement endorsing self-collection of cervical samples for HPV testing may facilitate broader screening.
“We hope the new effective option of self-collecting will expand screening and allow even more women to get screened regularly,” Davis said. “Some may feel more comfortable collecting samples themselves, and the collection can be office-based or home-based, but it’s very important that it be done under the direction of a clinician.”
In agreement is Diego Aviles, MD, an assistant professor and a gynecologic oncologist with UTHealth Houston. “Self-collection will absolutely expand screening. I think it’s an incredible advancement in medicine that patients are able to collect in the comfort of their own homes with no need to come into the office for an uncomfortable pelvic exam,” he said in an interview. “This empowers the patient and gives her a choice.”
As to concern about potential error, he added that while this is a concern on paper, “a lot of studies have shown that self-collection is just as effective doctor collection.”
Largely consistent with the task force’s 2018 screening recommendations, the updated suggestions also align with those of other organizations such as the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), Davis said.
Christopher M. Zahn, MD, ACOG’s chief of clinical practice and health equity and quality, stressed the importance of cervical cancer screening and said his organization will be reviewing the USPSTF recommendations. He urges ACOG members to consider them and offer their comments on the public-input platform.
Drawing on the latest evidence, the task force is also highlighting for the first time that stand-alone HPV screening gives women aged 30-65 years the best balance of benefits and harms when it comes to finding and preventing cervical cancer, while continuing to reinforce that Pap testing and co-testing are also effective screening options for these women.
The current draft statement applies to cisgender women and those assigned female sex at birth, including transgender men and nonbinary individuals. The recommendations do not apply to women at increased risk of cervical cancer such as those with HIV infection, a compromised immune system, or a history of treatment for precancerous lesions or cervical cancer.
Based on a review of evidence on the benefits and harms of screening, the USPSTF’s independent panel of national experts proposed the following:
Recommendations for Screening (Based on Grade A Evidence):
- Ages 21-65 years: All women should get screened regularly for this preventable disease.
- Ages 21-29 years: All women in this age group should undergo a Pap test every 3 years but do not need HPV testing. “In this age group most HPV infections will go away on their own because young women have strong immune systems. Older women are likely to have HPV that lasts longer and so they need testing for the virus,” Davis said.
- Ages 30-65 years: As noted, HPV screening gives women in this age category the best balance of benefits and harms in terms of preventing and finding cervical cancer. Pap testing or co-testing (Pap tests and HPV tests) are also effective screening options for this population. Ideally, these women should have an HPV test every 5 years or, alternatively, a Pap test every 3 years, or a combined HPV and Pap test every 5 years (co-testing).
Recommendations Against Screening (No Benefit or Benefit Outweighed by Harms — Grade D evidence):
- Women aged less than 21 years: Screening is not necessary.
- Other women not needing screening: Nor is screening necessary for those of any age who have had a total hysterectomy with removal of the cervix and those aged > 65 years who have had regular screenings with normal results. That means normal results from their last three Pap tests or their last two HPV tests, completed in the past 10 years, with at least one of the tests done in the past 5 years.
- Women aged 65 or more: These women should continue screening only if they have not been screened regularly or have had abnormal results in the past decade such as a high-grade precancerous lesion (cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or 3) or cervical cancer.
Davis noted that none of the current recommendations are likely to be controversial or to spark pushback. “But,” said Aviles, “any time I see recent change in medicine, there’s always a little bit of pushback and it may take some time for everyone to be comfortable with the self-collection option. The recommendations still give doctors the grace to use the screening test they feel comfortable with, but I think eventually everyone will get on board with self-collection.”
As for the future, he added, “Over the next few years we’ll have to look at women who are on immune-weakening medications like Skyrizi [risankizumab] for skin conditions like psoriasis. These are commonly used in young people and can increase the risk of cervical cancer. I haven’t seen a lot of conversation about this, but patients should be aware of this risk and recommendations for this group should be different than for the general population.”
The USPSTF also noted a need to assess the magnitude of the incremental benefit and harms of screening and the interval of multiple rounds of HPV-primary screening in HPV-vaccinated cohorts in US populations.
Davis, Aviles, and Zahn and had no relevant competing interests to disclose.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) has posted a draft updated statement on cervical cancer screening. The statement is open for public comment until January 13, 2025, on the task force’s website.
Nearly all cases of cervical cancer are caused by human papilloma virus (HPV) and most occur in women who have not been regularly screened or appropriately treated, the task force stressed.
New Screening Option
In 2024, there will be an estimated 13,820 new cases of cervical cancer and 4360 deaths.
“Evidence shows that screening saves lives, and all women aged 21-65 need to be screened,” task force member Esa Davis, MD, MPH, FAAFP, a professor of family and community medicine and associate vice president for community health at the University of Maryland, Baltimore, said in an interview. A new feature in the 2024 draft statement endorsing self-collection of cervical samples for HPV testing may facilitate broader screening.
“We hope the new effective option of self-collecting will expand screening and allow even more women to get screened regularly,” Davis said. “Some may feel more comfortable collecting samples themselves, and the collection can be office-based or home-based, but it’s very important that it be done under the direction of a clinician.”
In agreement is Diego Aviles, MD, an assistant professor and a gynecologic oncologist with UTHealth Houston. “Self-collection will absolutely expand screening. I think it’s an incredible advancement in medicine that patients are able to collect in the comfort of their own homes with no need to come into the office for an uncomfortable pelvic exam,” he said in an interview. “This empowers the patient and gives her a choice.”
As to concern about potential error, he added that while this is a concern on paper, “a lot of studies have shown that self-collection is just as effective doctor collection.”
Largely consistent with the task force’s 2018 screening recommendations, the updated suggestions also align with those of other organizations such as the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), Davis said.
Christopher M. Zahn, MD, ACOG’s chief of clinical practice and health equity and quality, stressed the importance of cervical cancer screening and said his organization will be reviewing the USPSTF recommendations. He urges ACOG members to consider them and offer their comments on the public-input platform.
Drawing on the latest evidence, the task force is also highlighting for the first time that stand-alone HPV screening gives women aged 30-65 years the best balance of benefits and harms when it comes to finding and preventing cervical cancer, while continuing to reinforce that Pap testing and co-testing are also effective screening options for these women.
The current draft statement applies to cisgender women and those assigned female sex at birth, including transgender men and nonbinary individuals. The recommendations do not apply to women at increased risk of cervical cancer such as those with HIV infection, a compromised immune system, or a history of treatment for precancerous lesions or cervical cancer.
Based on a review of evidence on the benefits and harms of screening, the USPSTF’s independent panel of national experts proposed the following:
Recommendations for Screening (Based on Grade A Evidence):
- Ages 21-65 years: All women should get screened regularly for this preventable disease.
- Ages 21-29 years: All women in this age group should undergo a Pap test every 3 years but do not need HPV testing. “In this age group most HPV infections will go away on their own because young women have strong immune systems. Older women are likely to have HPV that lasts longer and so they need testing for the virus,” Davis said.
- Ages 30-65 years: As noted, HPV screening gives women in this age category the best balance of benefits and harms in terms of preventing and finding cervical cancer. Pap testing or co-testing (Pap tests and HPV tests) are also effective screening options for this population. Ideally, these women should have an HPV test every 5 years or, alternatively, a Pap test every 3 years, or a combined HPV and Pap test every 5 years (co-testing).
Recommendations Against Screening (No Benefit or Benefit Outweighed by Harms — Grade D evidence):
- Women aged less than 21 years: Screening is not necessary.
- Other women not needing screening: Nor is screening necessary for those of any age who have had a total hysterectomy with removal of the cervix and those aged > 65 years who have had regular screenings with normal results. That means normal results from their last three Pap tests or their last two HPV tests, completed in the past 10 years, with at least one of the tests done in the past 5 years.
- Women aged 65 or more: These women should continue screening only if they have not been screened regularly or have had abnormal results in the past decade such as a high-grade precancerous lesion (cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or 3) or cervical cancer.
Davis noted that none of the current recommendations are likely to be controversial or to spark pushback. “But,” said Aviles, “any time I see recent change in medicine, there’s always a little bit of pushback and it may take some time for everyone to be comfortable with the self-collection option. The recommendations still give doctors the grace to use the screening test they feel comfortable with, but I think eventually everyone will get on board with self-collection.”
As for the future, he added, “Over the next few years we’ll have to look at women who are on immune-weakening medications like Skyrizi [risankizumab] for skin conditions like psoriasis. These are commonly used in young people and can increase the risk of cervical cancer. I haven’t seen a lot of conversation about this, but patients should be aware of this risk and recommendations for this group should be different than for the general population.”
The USPSTF also noted a need to assess the magnitude of the incremental benefit and harms of screening and the interval of multiple rounds of HPV-primary screening in HPV-vaccinated cohorts in US populations.
Davis, Aviles, and Zahn and had no relevant competing interests to disclose.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) has posted a draft updated statement on cervical cancer screening. The statement is open for public comment until January 13, 2025, on the task force’s website.
Nearly all cases of cervical cancer are caused by human papilloma virus (HPV) and most occur in women who have not been regularly screened or appropriately treated, the task force stressed.
New Screening Option
In 2024, there will be an estimated 13,820 new cases of cervical cancer and 4360 deaths.
“Evidence shows that screening saves lives, and all women aged 21-65 need to be screened,” task force member Esa Davis, MD, MPH, FAAFP, a professor of family and community medicine and associate vice president for community health at the University of Maryland, Baltimore, said in an interview. A new feature in the 2024 draft statement endorsing self-collection of cervical samples for HPV testing may facilitate broader screening.
“We hope the new effective option of self-collecting will expand screening and allow even more women to get screened regularly,” Davis said. “Some may feel more comfortable collecting samples themselves, and the collection can be office-based or home-based, but it’s very important that it be done under the direction of a clinician.”
In agreement is Diego Aviles, MD, an assistant professor and a gynecologic oncologist with UTHealth Houston. “Self-collection will absolutely expand screening. I think it’s an incredible advancement in medicine that patients are able to collect in the comfort of their own homes with no need to come into the office for an uncomfortable pelvic exam,” he said in an interview. “This empowers the patient and gives her a choice.”
As to concern about potential error, he added that while this is a concern on paper, “a lot of studies have shown that self-collection is just as effective doctor collection.”
Largely consistent with the task force’s 2018 screening recommendations, the updated suggestions also align with those of other organizations such as the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), Davis said.
Christopher M. Zahn, MD, ACOG’s chief of clinical practice and health equity and quality, stressed the importance of cervical cancer screening and said his organization will be reviewing the USPSTF recommendations. He urges ACOG members to consider them and offer their comments on the public-input platform.
Drawing on the latest evidence, the task force is also highlighting for the first time that stand-alone HPV screening gives women aged 30-65 years the best balance of benefits and harms when it comes to finding and preventing cervical cancer, while continuing to reinforce that Pap testing and co-testing are also effective screening options for these women.
The current draft statement applies to cisgender women and those assigned female sex at birth, including transgender men and nonbinary individuals. The recommendations do not apply to women at increased risk of cervical cancer such as those with HIV infection, a compromised immune system, or a history of treatment for precancerous lesions or cervical cancer.
Based on a review of evidence on the benefits and harms of screening, the USPSTF’s independent panel of national experts proposed the following:
Recommendations for Screening (Based on Grade A Evidence):
- Ages 21-65 years: All women should get screened regularly for this preventable disease.
- Ages 21-29 years: All women in this age group should undergo a Pap test every 3 years but do not need HPV testing. “In this age group most HPV infections will go away on their own because young women have strong immune systems. Older women are likely to have HPV that lasts longer and so they need testing for the virus,” Davis said.
- Ages 30-65 years: As noted, HPV screening gives women in this age category the best balance of benefits and harms in terms of preventing and finding cervical cancer. Pap testing or co-testing (Pap tests and HPV tests) are also effective screening options for this population. Ideally, these women should have an HPV test every 5 years or, alternatively, a Pap test every 3 years, or a combined HPV and Pap test every 5 years (co-testing).
Recommendations Against Screening (No Benefit or Benefit Outweighed by Harms — Grade D evidence):
- Women aged less than 21 years: Screening is not necessary.
- Other women not needing screening: Nor is screening necessary for those of any age who have had a total hysterectomy with removal of the cervix and those aged > 65 years who have had regular screenings with normal results. That means normal results from their last three Pap tests or their last two HPV tests, completed in the past 10 years, with at least one of the tests done in the past 5 years.
- Women aged 65 or more: These women should continue screening only if they have not been screened regularly or have had abnormal results in the past decade such as a high-grade precancerous lesion (cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or 3) or cervical cancer.
Davis noted that none of the current recommendations are likely to be controversial or to spark pushback. “But,” said Aviles, “any time I see recent change in medicine, there’s always a little bit of pushback and it may take some time for everyone to be comfortable with the self-collection option. The recommendations still give doctors the grace to use the screening test they feel comfortable with, but I think eventually everyone will get on board with self-collection.”
As for the future, he added, “Over the next few years we’ll have to look at women who are on immune-weakening medications like Skyrizi [risankizumab] for skin conditions like psoriasis. These are commonly used in young people and can increase the risk of cervical cancer. I haven’t seen a lot of conversation about this, but patients should be aware of this risk and recommendations for this group should be different than for the general population.”
The USPSTF also noted a need to assess the magnitude of the incremental benefit and harms of screening and the interval of multiple rounds of HPV-primary screening in HPV-vaccinated cohorts in US populations.
Davis, Aviles, and Zahn and had no relevant competing interests to disclose.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Dying in the Hospital: A Necessary Choice?
More than a third of all patients with cancer die in hospitals, a figure that has increased slightly in recent years, while deaths at home have decreased. These findings come from a recent study published in Cancer Epidemiology, which analyzed data on the different places in Italy where end of life occurs.
“Place of death is relevant both for individuals and for the society. Home is universally considered the optimal place of death, while dying in a hospital may be a signal of inappropriate end-of-life care,” wrote the authors, led by Gianmauro Numico, MD, head of the Oncology Department at the Santa Croce e Carle General Hospital in Cuneo, Italy.
“Despite the general trend toward strengthening community-based networks and the increasing number of hospice and long-term care facilities, we oncologists are facing an opposite trend, with many patients spending their last days in the hospital,” Numico explained to Univadis Italy. This observation led to the questions that prompted the study: Is this only a perception among doctors, or is it a real phenomenon? If the latter, why is it happening?
What’s Preferable
For their analysis, Numico and colleagues relied on death certificates published by the Italian National Institute of Statistics from 2015 to 2019, excluding data from the pandemic years to avoid potential biases.
The analysis of data pertaining to cancer deaths revealed that approximately 35% of Italian patients with cancer die in hospitals, with a slight increase over the study period. Of the patients who die elsewhere, 40% die at home and 20% die in hospice or other long-term care facilities. Home deaths have decreased by 3.09%, while those in hospices and long-term care facilities have increased by 2.71%, and hospital deaths have risen by 0.3%.
The study also highlighted notable geographical differences: Hospital deaths are more frequent in the north, while in the south, home deaths remain predominant, although hospital admissions are on the rise. “These differences reflect not only access to facilities but also cultural and social variables,” explained Numico. “Some end-of-life issues with cancer patients are more straightforward, while others are difficult to manage outside the hospital,” he said, recalling that many family members and caregivers are afraid they won’t be able to care for their loved ones properly without the support of an appropriate facility and skilled personnel.
Social factors also contribute to the increased use of hospitals for end-of-life care: Without a social and family network, it is often impossible to manage the final stages of life at home. “We cannot guarantee that dying at home is better for everyone; in some cases, the home cannot provide the necessary care and emotional support,” Numico added.
Attitudes Need Change
Looking beyond Italy, it is clear that this trend exists in other countries as well. For example, in the Netherlands — where community-based care is highly developed and includes practices such as euthanasia — hospital death rates are higher than those in Italy. In the United States, the trend is different, but this is largely due to the structure of the US healthcare system, where patients bear much of the financial burden of hospital admissions.
“The basic requests of patients and families are clear: They want a safe place that is adequately staffed and where the patient won’t suffer,” said Numico, questioning whether the home is truly the best place to die. “In reality, this is not always the case, and it’s important to focus on the quality of care in the final days rather than just the place of care,” he added.
Ruling out hospitals a priori as a place to die is not a winning strategy, according to the expert. Instead of trying to reverse the trend, he suggests integrating the hospital into a care network that prioritizes the patient’s well-being, regardless of the setting. “Our goal should not be to eliminate hospital deaths — a common request from hospital administrations — but rather to ensure that end-of-life care in hospitals is a dignified experience that respects the needs of the dying and their loved ones,” Numico said. “We must ensure that, wherever the end-of-life process occurs, it should happen in the best way possible, and the hospital must be a part of this overall framework,” he concluded.
This story was translated from Univadis Italy using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
More than a third of all patients with cancer die in hospitals, a figure that has increased slightly in recent years, while deaths at home have decreased. These findings come from a recent study published in Cancer Epidemiology, which analyzed data on the different places in Italy where end of life occurs.
“Place of death is relevant both for individuals and for the society. Home is universally considered the optimal place of death, while dying in a hospital may be a signal of inappropriate end-of-life care,” wrote the authors, led by Gianmauro Numico, MD, head of the Oncology Department at the Santa Croce e Carle General Hospital in Cuneo, Italy.
“Despite the general trend toward strengthening community-based networks and the increasing number of hospice and long-term care facilities, we oncologists are facing an opposite trend, with many patients spending their last days in the hospital,” Numico explained to Univadis Italy. This observation led to the questions that prompted the study: Is this only a perception among doctors, or is it a real phenomenon? If the latter, why is it happening?
What’s Preferable
For their analysis, Numico and colleagues relied on death certificates published by the Italian National Institute of Statistics from 2015 to 2019, excluding data from the pandemic years to avoid potential biases.
The analysis of data pertaining to cancer deaths revealed that approximately 35% of Italian patients with cancer die in hospitals, with a slight increase over the study period. Of the patients who die elsewhere, 40% die at home and 20% die in hospice or other long-term care facilities. Home deaths have decreased by 3.09%, while those in hospices and long-term care facilities have increased by 2.71%, and hospital deaths have risen by 0.3%.
The study also highlighted notable geographical differences: Hospital deaths are more frequent in the north, while in the south, home deaths remain predominant, although hospital admissions are on the rise. “These differences reflect not only access to facilities but also cultural and social variables,” explained Numico. “Some end-of-life issues with cancer patients are more straightforward, while others are difficult to manage outside the hospital,” he said, recalling that many family members and caregivers are afraid they won’t be able to care for their loved ones properly without the support of an appropriate facility and skilled personnel.
Social factors also contribute to the increased use of hospitals for end-of-life care: Without a social and family network, it is often impossible to manage the final stages of life at home. “We cannot guarantee that dying at home is better for everyone; in some cases, the home cannot provide the necessary care and emotional support,” Numico added.
Attitudes Need Change
Looking beyond Italy, it is clear that this trend exists in other countries as well. For example, in the Netherlands — where community-based care is highly developed and includes practices such as euthanasia — hospital death rates are higher than those in Italy. In the United States, the trend is different, but this is largely due to the structure of the US healthcare system, where patients bear much of the financial burden of hospital admissions.
“The basic requests of patients and families are clear: They want a safe place that is adequately staffed and where the patient won’t suffer,” said Numico, questioning whether the home is truly the best place to die. “In reality, this is not always the case, and it’s important to focus on the quality of care in the final days rather than just the place of care,” he added.
Ruling out hospitals a priori as a place to die is not a winning strategy, according to the expert. Instead of trying to reverse the trend, he suggests integrating the hospital into a care network that prioritizes the patient’s well-being, regardless of the setting. “Our goal should not be to eliminate hospital deaths — a common request from hospital administrations — but rather to ensure that end-of-life care in hospitals is a dignified experience that respects the needs of the dying and their loved ones,” Numico said. “We must ensure that, wherever the end-of-life process occurs, it should happen in the best way possible, and the hospital must be a part of this overall framework,” he concluded.
This story was translated from Univadis Italy using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
More than a third of all patients with cancer die in hospitals, a figure that has increased slightly in recent years, while deaths at home have decreased. These findings come from a recent study published in Cancer Epidemiology, which analyzed data on the different places in Italy where end of life occurs.
“Place of death is relevant both for individuals and for the society. Home is universally considered the optimal place of death, while dying in a hospital may be a signal of inappropriate end-of-life care,” wrote the authors, led by Gianmauro Numico, MD, head of the Oncology Department at the Santa Croce e Carle General Hospital in Cuneo, Italy.
“Despite the general trend toward strengthening community-based networks and the increasing number of hospice and long-term care facilities, we oncologists are facing an opposite trend, with many patients spending their last days in the hospital,” Numico explained to Univadis Italy. This observation led to the questions that prompted the study: Is this only a perception among doctors, or is it a real phenomenon? If the latter, why is it happening?
What’s Preferable
For their analysis, Numico and colleagues relied on death certificates published by the Italian National Institute of Statistics from 2015 to 2019, excluding data from the pandemic years to avoid potential biases.
The analysis of data pertaining to cancer deaths revealed that approximately 35% of Italian patients with cancer die in hospitals, with a slight increase over the study period. Of the patients who die elsewhere, 40% die at home and 20% die in hospice or other long-term care facilities. Home deaths have decreased by 3.09%, while those in hospices and long-term care facilities have increased by 2.71%, and hospital deaths have risen by 0.3%.
The study also highlighted notable geographical differences: Hospital deaths are more frequent in the north, while in the south, home deaths remain predominant, although hospital admissions are on the rise. “These differences reflect not only access to facilities but also cultural and social variables,” explained Numico. “Some end-of-life issues with cancer patients are more straightforward, while others are difficult to manage outside the hospital,” he said, recalling that many family members and caregivers are afraid they won’t be able to care for their loved ones properly without the support of an appropriate facility and skilled personnel.
Social factors also contribute to the increased use of hospitals for end-of-life care: Without a social and family network, it is often impossible to manage the final stages of life at home. “We cannot guarantee that dying at home is better for everyone; in some cases, the home cannot provide the necessary care and emotional support,” Numico added.
Attitudes Need Change
Looking beyond Italy, it is clear that this trend exists in other countries as well. For example, in the Netherlands — where community-based care is highly developed and includes practices such as euthanasia — hospital death rates are higher than those in Italy. In the United States, the trend is different, but this is largely due to the structure of the US healthcare system, where patients bear much of the financial burden of hospital admissions.
“The basic requests of patients and families are clear: They want a safe place that is adequately staffed and where the patient won’t suffer,” said Numico, questioning whether the home is truly the best place to die. “In reality, this is not always the case, and it’s important to focus on the quality of care in the final days rather than just the place of care,” he added.
Ruling out hospitals a priori as a place to die is not a winning strategy, according to the expert. Instead of trying to reverse the trend, he suggests integrating the hospital into a care network that prioritizes the patient’s well-being, regardless of the setting. “Our goal should not be to eliminate hospital deaths — a common request from hospital administrations — but rather to ensure that end-of-life care in hospitals is a dignified experience that respects the needs of the dying and their loved ones,” Numico said. “We must ensure that, wherever the end-of-life process occurs, it should happen in the best way possible, and the hospital must be a part of this overall framework,” he concluded.
This story was translated from Univadis Italy using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Could Diet and Gut Bacteria Be Fueling Early CRC?
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
I’d like to reflect a little on the ever-rising incidence of early-onset colorectal cancer. I saw two patients in the clinic on Friday, both in their early thirties, presenting with stage IV disease. Both had young families — a disaster.
This is an issue that we must address, I think, epidemiologically. We know that and currently, around 200,000 such cases are diagnosed every year, but it is said to increase unquestionably.
The epidemiologists, I think, correctly have identified that this sharp, rapid increase does imply that there is a new environmental change that is underpinning or underscoring this rise in early-onset disease.
There’s a fantastic team that has been put together by Paul Brennan, Mike Stratton, and colleagues, a collaborative group of epidemiologists, geneticists, and bioinformaticians, who are looking at a global study to try to understand the basis of early-onset colorectal cancer. Their approach is to combine conventional epidemiology, genomics, and fantastic computational support to try to unpick the mutational signatures involved.
The dominant hypothesis is that, over the past 20-25 years or so, there has been a change in diet that has allowed an alteration in the gut microbiome such that we now harbor, in some cases, more bacteria capable of manufacturing, synthesizing, and releasing mutagenic chemicals. There’s a subtype of Escherichia coli which manufactures one such mutagen called colibactin.
Again, through some of the painstaking, extraordinary work that Mike Stratton and colleagues have done at the Sanger Institute, they have managed to, using a variety of different techniques — in vitro, observational, and so on — relate exposure to the mutagen colibactin to a particular mutational signature.
They plan to do a large global study — one of the strengths — involving many different countries around the globe, collect material from older colorectal cancer patients and early-onset colorectal cancer patients, and undertake a staggeringly large mutational study to see if the mutational signature associated with colibactin is more highly represented in these early-onset cases. The hypothesis is that, if you’re exposed to this mutagen in childhood, then it increases the tumor mutational burden and therefore the likelihood of developing cancer at an earlier age.
All of us believe that converting a normal cell into a tumor cell usually requires five or six or seven separate mutational events occurring at random. The earlier these occur, the greater the tumor, the greater the normal single-cellular mutational burden, and the more likely it is to develop cancer sooner rather than later.
This is a fantastically interesting study, and it’s the way ahead with modern genetic epidemiology, one would say. We wish them well. This will be a 3- to 5-year truly international effort, bringing together a genuinely internationally outstanding research team. We hope that they are able to shed more light on the epidemiology of this early-onset disease, because only by understanding can we deflect and deal with it.
Knowledge is power, as I’ve said many times before. If we understand the underlying epidemiology, that will allow us to intervene, one would hope, and avoid the chaotic disaster of my clinic on Friday, with these two young patients with an extremely limited lifespan and large families who will be left bereft in having lost a parent.
More power to the team. We wish them well with the study, but again, this is a pointer to the future, one would hope, of modern genetic computational epidemiology.
I’d be really interested in any ideas or comments that you might have. Are you in the field? Are you seeing more young patients? Do you have any ideas or hypotheses of your own around the microbiome and what bugs might be involved and so on?
Dr. Kerr, Professor, Nuffield Department of Clinical Laboratory Science, University of Oxford, England; Professor of Cancer Medicine, Oxford Cancer Centre, Oxford, United Kingdom, has disclosed relevant financial relationships with Celleron Therapeutics, Oxford Cancer Biomarkers, Afrox, GlaxoSmithKline, Bayer, Genomic Health, Merck Serono, and Roche.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
I’d like to reflect a little on the ever-rising incidence of early-onset colorectal cancer. I saw two patients in the clinic on Friday, both in their early thirties, presenting with stage IV disease. Both had young families — a disaster.
This is an issue that we must address, I think, epidemiologically. We know that and currently, around 200,000 such cases are diagnosed every year, but it is said to increase unquestionably.
The epidemiologists, I think, correctly have identified that this sharp, rapid increase does imply that there is a new environmental change that is underpinning or underscoring this rise in early-onset disease.
There’s a fantastic team that has been put together by Paul Brennan, Mike Stratton, and colleagues, a collaborative group of epidemiologists, geneticists, and bioinformaticians, who are looking at a global study to try to understand the basis of early-onset colorectal cancer. Their approach is to combine conventional epidemiology, genomics, and fantastic computational support to try to unpick the mutational signatures involved.
The dominant hypothesis is that, over the past 20-25 years or so, there has been a change in diet that has allowed an alteration in the gut microbiome such that we now harbor, in some cases, more bacteria capable of manufacturing, synthesizing, and releasing mutagenic chemicals. There’s a subtype of Escherichia coli which manufactures one such mutagen called colibactin.
Again, through some of the painstaking, extraordinary work that Mike Stratton and colleagues have done at the Sanger Institute, they have managed to, using a variety of different techniques — in vitro, observational, and so on — relate exposure to the mutagen colibactin to a particular mutational signature.
They plan to do a large global study — one of the strengths — involving many different countries around the globe, collect material from older colorectal cancer patients and early-onset colorectal cancer patients, and undertake a staggeringly large mutational study to see if the mutational signature associated with colibactin is more highly represented in these early-onset cases. The hypothesis is that, if you’re exposed to this mutagen in childhood, then it increases the tumor mutational burden and therefore the likelihood of developing cancer at an earlier age.
All of us believe that converting a normal cell into a tumor cell usually requires five or six or seven separate mutational events occurring at random. The earlier these occur, the greater the tumor, the greater the normal single-cellular mutational burden, and the more likely it is to develop cancer sooner rather than later.
This is a fantastically interesting study, and it’s the way ahead with modern genetic epidemiology, one would say. We wish them well. This will be a 3- to 5-year truly international effort, bringing together a genuinely internationally outstanding research team. We hope that they are able to shed more light on the epidemiology of this early-onset disease, because only by understanding can we deflect and deal with it.
Knowledge is power, as I’ve said many times before. If we understand the underlying epidemiology, that will allow us to intervene, one would hope, and avoid the chaotic disaster of my clinic on Friday, with these two young patients with an extremely limited lifespan and large families who will be left bereft in having lost a parent.
More power to the team. We wish them well with the study, but again, this is a pointer to the future, one would hope, of modern genetic computational epidemiology.
I’d be really interested in any ideas or comments that you might have. Are you in the field? Are you seeing more young patients? Do you have any ideas or hypotheses of your own around the microbiome and what bugs might be involved and so on?
Dr. Kerr, Professor, Nuffield Department of Clinical Laboratory Science, University of Oxford, England; Professor of Cancer Medicine, Oxford Cancer Centre, Oxford, United Kingdom, has disclosed relevant financial relationships with Celleron Therapeutics, Oxford Cancer Biomarkers, Afrox, GlaxoSmithKline, Bayer, Genomic Health, Merck Serono, and Roche.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
I’d like to reflect a little on the ever-rising incidence of early-onset colorectal cancer. I saw two patients in the clinic on Friday, both in their early thirties, presenting with stage IV disease. Both had young families — a disaster.
This is an issue that we must address, I think, epidemiologically. We know that and currently, around 200,000 such cases are diagnosed every year, but it is said to increase unquestionably.
The epidemiologists, I think, correctly have identified that this sharp, rapid increase does imply that there is a new environmental change that is underpinning or underscoring this rise in early-onset disease.
There’s a fantastic team that has been put together by Paul Brennan, Mike Stratton, and colleagues, a collaborative group of epidemiologists, geneticists, and bioinformaticians, who are looking at a global study to try to understand the basis of early-onset colorectal cancer. Their approach is to combine conventional epidemiology, genomics, and fantastic computational support to try to unpick the mutational signatures involved.
The dominant hypothesis is that, over the past 20-25 years or so, there has been a change in diet that has allowed an alteration in the gut microbiome such that we now harbor, in some cases, more bacteria capable of manufacturing, synthesizing, and releasing mutagenic chemicals. There’s a subtype of Escherichia coli which manufactures one such mutagen called colibactin.
Again, through some of the painstaking, extraordinary work that Mike Stratton and colleagues have done at the Sanger Institute, they have managed to, using a variety of different techniques — in vitro, observational, and so on — relate exposure to the mutagen colibactin to a particular mutational signature.
They plan to do a large global study — one of the strengths — involving many different countries around the globe, collect material from older colorectal cancer patients and early-onset colorectal cancer patients, and undertake a staggeringly large mutational study to see if the mutational signature associated with colibactin is more highly represented in these early-onset cases. The hypothesis is that, if you’re exposed to this mutagen in childhood, then it increases the tumor mutational burden and therefore the likelihood of developing cancer at an earlier age.
All of us believe that converting a normal cell into a tumor cell usually requires five or six or seven separate mutational events occurring at random. The earlier these occur, the greater the tumor, the greater the normal single-cellular mutational burden, and the more likely it is to develop cancer sooner rather than later.
This is a fantastically interesting study, and it’s the way ahead with modern genetic epidemiology, one would say. We wish them well. This will be a 3- to 5-year truly international effort, bringing together a genuinely internationally outstanding research team. We hope that they are able to shed more light on the epidemiology of this early-onset disease, because only by understanding can we deflect and deal with it.
Knowledge is power, as I’ve said many times before. If we understand the underlying epidemiology, that will allow us to intervene, one would hope, and avoid the chaotic disaster of my clinic on Friday, with these two young patients with an extremely limited lifespan and large families who will be left bereft in having lost a parent.
More power to the team. We wish them well with the study, but again, this is a pointer to the future, one would hope, of modern genetic computational epidemiology.
I’d be really interested in any ideas or comments that you might have. Are you in the field? Are you seeing more young patients? Do you have any ideas or hypotheses of your own around the microbiome and what bugs might be involved and so on?
Dr. Kerr, Professor, Nuffield Department of Clinical Laboratory Science, University of Oxford, England; Professor of Cancer Medicine, Oxford Cancer Centre, Oxford, United Kingdom, has disclosed relevant financial relationships with Celleron Therapeutics, Oxford Cancer Biomarkers, Afrox, GlaxoSmithKline, Bayer, Genomic Health, Merck Serono, and Roche.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Intratumoral Dendritic Cell Therapy Shows Promise in Early-Stage ERBB2-Positive Breast Cancer
TOPLINE:
The higher dose (100 million cells) shows enhanced immune effector recruitment and significant tumor regression before chemotherapy initiation.
METHODOLOGY:
- ERBB2-positive breast cancer survival has improved with anti-ERBB2 antibodies trastuzumab and pertuzumab, but for a pathologic complete response, chemotherapy remains necessary, which comes with significant toxic effects.
- A phase 1, nonrandomized clinical trial enrolled 12 patients with early-stage ERBB2-positive breast cancer in Tampa, Florida, from October 2021 to October 2022.
- Participants received intratumoral (IT) cDC1 injections weekly for 6 weeks at two dose levels (50 million cells for dose level 1 and 100 million cells for dose level 2), with six patients in each group.
- Starting from day 1 of the cDC1 injections, treatment included trastuzumab (8-mg/kg loading dose, then 6 mg/kg) and pertuzumab (840-mg loading dose, then 420 mg) administered intravenously every 3 weeks for six cycles, followed by paclitaxel (80 mg/m2) weekly for 12 weeks and surgery with lumpectomy or mastectomy.
- Primary outcomes measured safety and immune response of increasing doses of cDC1 combined with anti-ERBB2 antibodies before neoadjuvant chemotherapy; secondary outcomes assessed antitumor efficacy through breast MRI and residual cancer burden at surgery.
TAKEAWAY:
- IT delivery of ERBB2 cDC1 was safe and not associated with any dose-limiting toxic effects. The most frequent adverse events attributed to cDC1 were grade 1-2 chills (50%), fatigue (41.7%), headache (33%), and injection-site reactions (33%).
- Dose level 2 showed enhanced recruitment of adaptive CD3, CD4, and CD8 T cells and B cells within the tumor microenvironment (TME), along with increased innate gamma delta T cells and natural killer T cells.
- Breast MRI revealed nine objective responses, including six partial responses and three complete responses, with three cases of stable disease.
- Following surgery, 7 of 12 patients (58%) achieved a pathologic complete response, including all 3 hormone receptor–negative patients and 4 of the 9 hormone receptor–positive patients.
IN PRACTICE:
“Overall, the clinical data shown here demonstrate the effects of combining ERBB2 antibodies with IT [intratumoral] delivery of targeted cDC1 to enhance immune cell infiltration within the TME [tumor microenvironment] and subsequently induce tumor regression before chemotherapy,” wrote the authors, who noted they will be testing the higher dose for an ongoing phase 2 trial with an additional 41 patients.
SOURCE:
The study was led by Hyo S. Han, MD, of H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute in Tampa, Florida. It was published online on December 5, 2024, in JAMA Oncology.
LIMITATIONS:
Because only two dose levels of cDC1 were tested, it remains unclear whether higher doses or different administration schedules could further enhance immune response. Additionally, the nonrandomized design prevents definitive conclusions about whether the clinical benefits were solely from the anti-ERBB2 antibodies. The small sample size also makes it difficult to determine if the pathologic complete responses were primarily due to the 12 weeks of trastuzumab/pertuzumab/paclitaxel treatment.
DISCLOSURES:
This study was funded by the Moffitt Breast Cancer Research Fund, Shula Fund, and Pennies in Action. Several authors reported research support and personal and consulting fees from US funding agencies and multiple pharmaceutical companies outside of the submitted work, as well as related intellectual property and patents.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
The higher dose (100 million cells) shows enhanced immune effector recruitment and significant tumor regression before chemotherapy initiation.
METHODOLOGY:
- ERBB2-positive breast cancer survival has improved with anti-ERBB2 antibodies trastuzumab and pertuzumab, but for a pathologic complete response, chemotherapy remains necessary, which comes with significant toxic effects.
- A phase 1, nonrandomized clinical trial enrolled 12 patients with early-stage ERBB2-positive breast cancer in Tampa, Florida, from October 2021 to October 2022.
- Participants received intratumoral (IT) cDC1 injections weekly for 6 weeks at two dose levels (50 million cells for dose level 1 and 100 million cells for dose level 2), with six patients in each group.
- Starting from day 1 of the cDC1 injections, treatment included trastuzumab (8-mg/kg loading dose, then 6 mg/kg) and pertuzumab (840-mg loading dose, then 420 mg) administered intravenously every 3 weeks for six cycles, followed by paclitaxel (80 mg/m2) weekly for 12 weeks and surgery with lumpectomy or mastectomy.
- Primary outcomes measured safety and immune response of increasing doses of cDC1 combined with anti-ERBB2 antibodies before neoadjuvant chemotherapy; secondary outcomes assessed antitumor efficacy through breast MRI and residual cancer burden at surgery.
TAKEAWAY:
- IT delivery of ERBB2 cDC1 was safe and not associated with any dose-limiting toxic effects. The most frequent adverse events attributed to cDC1 were grade 1-2 chills (50%), fatigue (41.7%), headache (33%), and injection-site reactions (33%).
- Dose level 2 showed enhanced recruitment of adaptive CD3, CD4, and CD8 T cells and B cells within the tumor microenvironment (TME), along with increased innate gamma delta T cells and natural killer T cells.
- Breast MRI revealed nine objective responses, including six partial responses and three complete responses, with three cases of stable disease.
- Following surgery, 7 of 12 patients (58%) achieved a pathologic complete response, including all 3 hormone receptor–negative patients and 4 of the 9 hormone receptor–positive patients.
IN PRACTICE:
“Overall, the clinical data shown here demonstrate the effects of combining ERBB2 antibodies with IT [intratumoral] delivery of targeted cDC1 to enhance immune cell infiltration within the TME [tumor microenvironment] and subsequently induce tumor regression before chemotherapy,” wrote the authors, who noted they will be testing the higher dose for an ongoing phase 2 trial with an additional 41 patients.
SOURCE:
The study was led by Hyo S. Han, MD, of H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute in Tampa, Florida. It was published online on December 5, 2024, in JAMA Oncology.
LIMITATIONS:
Because only two dose levels of cDC1 were tested, it remains unclear whether higher doses or different administration schedules could further enhance immune response. Additionally, the nonrandomized design prevents definitive conclusions about whether the clinical benefits were solely from the anti-ERBB2 antibodies. The small sample size also makes it difficult to determine if the pathologic complete responses were primarily due to the 12 weeks of trastuzumab/pertuzumab/paclitaxel treatment.
DISCLOSURES:
This study was funded by the Moffitt Breast Cancer Research Fund, Shula Fund, and Pennies in Action. Several authors reported research support and personal and consulting fees from US funding agencies and multiple pharmaceutical companies outside of the submitted work, as well as related intellectual property and patents.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
The higher dose (100 million cells) shows enhanced immune effector recruitment and significant tumor regression before chemotherapy initiation.
METHODOLOGY:
- ERBB2-positive breast cancer survival has improved with anti-ERBB2 antibodies trastuzumab and pertuzumab, but for a pathologic complete response, chemotherapy remains necessary, which comes with significant toxic effects.
- A phase 1, nonrandomized clinical trial enrolled 12 patients with early-stage ERBB2-positive breast cancer in Tampa, Florida, from October 2021 to October 2022.
- Participants received intratumoral (IT) cDC1 injections weekly for 6 weeks at two dose levels (50 million cells for dose level 1 and 100 million cells for dose level 2), with six patients in each group.
- Starting from day 1 of the cDC1 injections, treatment included trastuzumab (8-mg/kg loading dose, then 6 mg/kg) and pertuzumab (840-mg loading dose, then 420 mg) administered intravenously every 3 weeks for six cycles, followed by paclitaxel (80 mg/m2) weekly for 12 weeks and surgery with lumpectomy or mastectomy.
- Primary outcomes measured safety and immune response of increasing doses of cDC1 combined with anti-ERBB2 antibodies before neoadjuvant chemotherapy; secondary outcomes assessed antitumor efficacy through breast MRI and residual cancer burden at surgery.
TAKEAWAY:
- IT delivery of ERBB2 cDC1 was safe and not associated with any dose-limiting toxic effects. The most frequent adverse events attributed to cDC1 were grade 1-2 chills (50%), fatigue (41.7%), headache (33%), and injection-site reactions (33%).
- Dose level 2 showed enhanced recruitment of adaptive CD3, CD4, and CD8 T cells and B cells within the tumor microenvironment (TME), along with increased innate gamma delta T cells and natural killer T cells.
- Breast MRI revealed nine objective responses, including six partial responses and three complete responses, with three cases of stable disease.
- Following surgery, 7 of 12 patients (58%) achieved a pathologic complete response, including all 3 hormone receptor–negative patients and 4 of the 9 hormone receptor–positive patients.
IN PRACTICE:
“Overall, the clinical data shown here demonstrate the effects of combining ERBB2 antibodies with IT [intratumoral] delivery of targeted cDC1 to enhance immune cell infiltration within the TME [tumor microenvironment] and subsequently induce tumor regression before chemotherapy,” wrote the authors, who noted they will be testing the higher dose for an ongoing phase 2 trial with an additional 41 patients.
SOURCE:
The study was led by Hyo S. Han, MD, of H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute in Tampa, Florida. It was published online on December 5, 2024, in JAMA Oncology.
LIMITATIONS:
Because only two dose levels of cDC1 were tested, it remains unclear whether higher doses or different administration schedules could further enhance immune response. Additionally, the nonrandomized design prevents definitive conclusions about whether the clinical benefits were solely from the anti-ERBB2 antibodies. The small sample size also makes it difficult to determine if the pathologic complete responses were primarily due to the 12 weeks of trastuzumab/pertuzumab/paclitaxel treatment.
DISCLOSURES:
This study was funded by the Moffitt Breast Cancer Research Fund, Shula Fund, and Pennies in Action. Several authors reported research support and personal and consulting fees from US funding agencies and multiple pharmaceutical companies outside of the submitted work, as well as related intellectual property and patents.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FDA Approves Durvalumab for Limited-Stage SCLC
The Food and Drug Administration approval makes the monoclonal antibody — which is already approved for multiple tumor types — the first immunotherapy regimen approved in this setting, AstraZeneca noted in a press release.
“Durvalumab is the first and only systemic treatment following curative-intent, platinum-based chemoradiotherapy to show improved survival for patients with this aggressive form of lung cancer,” international coordinating investigator on the trial, Suresh Senan, PhD, stated in the press release. “This finding represents the first advance for this disease in 4 decades.”
Approval, which followed Priority Review and Breakthrough Therapy Designation, was based on findings from the phase 3 ADRIATIC trial showing a 27% reduction in the risk for death with durvalumab vs placebo.
Findings from the trial were reported during a plenary session at the 2024 American Society of Clinical Oncology conference, and subsequently published in The New England Journal of Medicine.
In 730 patients with LS-SCLC who were randomized 1:1:1 to receive single-agent durvalumab, durvalumab in combination with tremelimumab, or placebo, overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were significantly improved with durvalumab alone vs placebo (hazard ratio, 0.73 and 0.76, for OS and PFS, respectively). Median OS was 55.9 months vs 33.4 months with durvalumab vs placebo, and PFS was 16.6 vs 9.2 months, respectively.
Senan, a professor of clinical experimental radiotherapy at the Amsterdam University Medical Center in the Netherlands, noted in the press release that 57% of patients were still alive at 3 years after being treated with durvalumab, which underscores the practice-changing potential of this medicine in this setting.
“This new treatment option is a game changer for patients with limited-stage small cell lung cancer, a disease known for its high rate of recurrence,” Dusty Donaldson, founder and executive director of the nonprofit advocacy organization LiveLung, stated in the release. “Historically, more often than not, clinical trials to identify new treatment options for this type of cancer have failed to show benefit. We are therefore so excited that many more people will now have the opportunity to access this immunotherapy treatment that holds the potential to significantly improve outcomes.”
Adverse reactions occurring in at least 20% of patients in the ADRIATIC trial included pneumonitis or radiation pneumonitis and fatigue.
The recommended durvalumab dose, according to prescribing information, is 1500 mg every 4 weeks for patients weighing at least 30 kg and 20 mg/kg every 4 weeks for those weighing less than 30 kg, until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity or a maximum of 24 months.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The Food and Drug Administration approval makes the monoclonal antibody — which is already approved for multiple tumor types — the first immunotherapy regimen approved in this setting, AstraZeneca noted in a press release.
“Durvalumab is the first and only systemic treatment following curative-intent, platinum-based chemoradiotherapy to show improved survival for patients with this aggressive form of lung cancer,” international coordinating investigator on the trial, Suresh Senan, PhD, stated in the press release. “This finding represents the first advance for this disease in 4 decades.”
Approval, which followed Priority Review and Breakthrough Therapy Designation, was based on findings from the phase 3 ADRIATIC trial showing a 27% reduction in the risk for death with durvalumab vs placebo.
Findings from the trial were reported during a plenary session at the 2024 American Society of Clinical Oncology conference, and subsequently published in The New England Journal of Medicine.
In 730 patients with LS-SCLC who were randomized 1:1:1 to receive single-agent durvalumab, durvalumab in combination with tremelimumab, or placebo, overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were significantly improved with durvalumab alone vs placebo (hazard ratio, 0.73 and 0.76, for OS and PFS, respectively). Median OS was 55.9 months vs 33.4 months with durvalumab vs placebo, and PFS was 16.6 vs 9.2 months, respectively.
Senan, a professor of clinical experimental radiotherapy at the Amsterdam University Medical Center in the Netherlands, noted in the press release that 57% of patients were still alive at 3 years after being treated with durvalumab, which underscores the practice-changing potential of this medicine in this setting.
“This new treatment option is a game changer for patients with limited-stage small cell lung cancer, a disease known for its high rate of recurrence,” Dusty Donaldson, founder and executive director of the nonprofit advocacy organization LiveLung, stated in the release. “Historically, more often than not, clinical trials to identify new treatment options for this type of cancer have failed to show benefit. We are therefore so excited that many more people will now have the opportunity to access this immunotherapy treatment that holds the potential to significantly improve outcomes.”
Adverse reactions occurring in at least 20% of patients in the ADRIATIC trial included pneumonitis or radiation pneumonitis and fatigue.
The recommended durvalumab dose, according to prescribing information, is 1500 mg every 4 weeks for patients weighing at least 30 kg and 20 mg/kg every 4 weeks for those weighing less than 30 kg, until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity or a maximum of 24 months.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The Food and Drug Administration approval makes the monoclonal antibody — which is already approved for multiple tumor types — the first immunotherapy regimen approved in this setting, AstraZeneca noted in a press release.
“Durvalumab is the first and only systemic treatment following curative-intent, platinum-based chemoradiotherapy to show improved survival for patients with this aggressive form of lung cancer,” international coordinating investigator on the trial, Suresh Senan, PhD, stated in the press release. “This finding represents the first advance for this disease in 4 decades.”
Approval, which followed Priority Review and Breakthrough Therapy Designation, was based on findings from the phase 3 ADRIATIC trial showing a 27% reduction in the risk for death with durvalumab vs placebo.
Findings from the trial were reported during a plenary session at the 2024 American Society of Clinical Oncology conference, and subsequently published in The New England Journal of Medicine.
In 730 patients with LS-SCLC who were randomized 1:1:1 to receive single-agent durvalumab, durvalumab in combination with tremelimumab, or placebo, overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were significantly improved with durvalumab alone vs placebo (hazard ratio, 0.73 and 0.76, for OS and PFS, respectively). Median OS was 55.9 months vs 33.4 months with durvalumab vs placebo, and PFS was 16.6 vs 9.2 months, respectively.
Senan, a professor of clinical experimental radiotherapy at the Amsterdam University Medical Center in the Netherlands, noted in the press release that 57% of patients were still alive at 3 years after being treated with durvalumab, which underscores the practice-changing potential of this medicine in this setting.
“This new treatment option is a game changer for patients with limited-stage small cell lung cancer, a disease known for its high rate of recurrence,” Dusty Donaldson, founder and executive director of the nonprofit advocacy organization LiveLung, stated in the release. “Historically, more often than not, clinical trials to identify new treatment options for this type of cancer have failed to show benefit. We are therefore so excited that many more people will now have the opportunity to access this immunotherapy treatment that holds the potential to significantly improve outcomes.”
Adverse reactions occurring in at least 20% of patients in the ADRIATIC trial included pneumonitis or radiation pneumonitis and fatigue.
The recommended durvalumab dose, according to prescribing information, is 1500 mg every 4 weeks for patients weighing at least 30 kg and 20 mg/kg every 4 weeks for those weighing less than 30 kg, until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity or a maximum of 24 months.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
New Cancer Vaccines on the Horizon: Renewed Hope or Hype?
Vaccines for treating and preventing cancer have long been considered a holy grail in oncology.
But aside from a few notable exceptions — including the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine, which has dramatically reduced the incidence of HPV-related cancers, and a Bacillus Calmette-Guerin vaccine, which helps prevent early-stage bladder cancer recurrence — most have failed to deliver.
Following a string of disappointments over the past decade, recent advances in the immunotherapy space are bringing renewed hope for progress.
In an American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) series earlier in 2024, Catherine J. Wu, MD, predicted big strides for cancer vaccines, especially for personalized vaccines that target patient-specific neoantigens — the proteins that form on cancer cells — as well as vaccines that can treat diverse tumor types.
said Wu, the Lavine Family Chair of Preventative Cancer Therapies at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, Massachusetts.
A prime example is a personalized, messenger RNA (mRNA)–based vaccine designed to prevent melanoma recurrence. The mRNA-4157 vaccine encodes up to 34 different patient-specific neoantigens.
“This is one of the most exciting developments in modern cancer therapy,” said Lawrence Young, a virologist and professor of molecular oncology at the University of Warwick, Coventry, England, who commented on the investigational vaccine via the UK-based Science Media Centre.
Other promising options are on the horizon as well. In August, BioNTech announced a phase 1 global trial to study BNT116 — a vaccine to treat non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). BNT116, like mRNA-4157, targets specific antigens in the lung cancer cells.
“This technology is the next big phase of cancer treatment,” Siow Ming Lee, MD, a consultant medical oncologist at University College London Hospitals in England, which is leading the UK trial for the lung cancer and melanoma vaccines, told The Guardian. “We are now entering this very exciting new era of mRNA-based immunotherapy clinical trials to investigate the treatment of lung cancer.”
Still, these predictions have a familiar ring. While the prospects are exciting, delivering on them is another story. There are simply no guarantees these strategies will work as hoped.
Then: Where We Were
Cancer vaccine research began to ramp up in the 2000s, and in 2006, the first-generation HPV vaccine, Gardasil, was approved. Gardasil prevents infection from four strains of HPV that cause about 80% of cervical cancer cases.
In 2010, the Food and Drug Administration approved sipuleucel-T, the first therapeutic cancer vaccine, which improved overall survival in patients with hormone-refractory prostate cancer.
Researchers predicted this approval would “pave the way for developing innovative, next generation of vaccines with enhanced antitumor potency.”
In a 2015 AACR research forecast report, Drew Pardoll, MD, PhD, co-director of the Cancer Immunology and Hematopoiesis Program at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, said that “we can expect to see encouraging results from studies using cancer vaccines.”
Despite the excitement surrounding cancer vaccines alongside a few successes, the next decade brought a longer string of late-phase disappointments.
In 2016, the phase 3 ACT IV trial of a therapeutic vaccine to treat glioblastoma multiforme (CDX-110) was terminated after it failed to demonstrate improved survival.
In 2017, a phase 3 trial of the therapeutic pancreatic cancer vaccine, GVAX, was stopped early for lack of efficacy.
That year, an attenuated Listeria monocytogenes vaccine to treat pancreatic cancer and mesothelioma also failed to come to fruition. In late 2017, concerns over listeria infections prompted Aduro Biotech to cancel its listeria-based cancer treatment program.
In 2018, a phase 3 trial of belagenpumatucel-L, a therapeutic NSCLC vaccine, failed to demonstrate a significant improvement in survival and further study was discontinued.
And in 2019, a vaccine targeting MAGE-A3, a cancer-testis antigen present in multiple tumor types, failed to meet endpoints for improved survival in a phase 3 trial, leading to discontinuation of the vaccine program.
But these disappointments and failures are normal parts of medical research and drug development and have allowed for incremental advances that helped fuel renewed interest and hope for cancer vaccines, when the timing was right, explained vaccine pioneer Larry W. Kwak, MD, PhD, deputy director of the Comprehensive Cancer Center at City of Hope, Duarte, California.
When it comes to vaccine progress, timing makes a difference. In 2011, Kwak and colleagues published promising phase 3 trial results on a personalized vaccine. The vaccine was a patient-specific tumor-derived antigen for patients with follicular lymphoma in their first remission following chemotherapy. Patients who received the vaccine demonstrated significantly longer disease-free survival.
But, at the time, personalized vaccines faced strong headwinds due, largely, to high costs, and commercial interest failed to materialize. “That’s been the major hurdle for a long time,” said Kwak.
Now, however, interest has returned alongside advances in technology and research. The big shift has been the emergence of lower-cost rapid-production mRNA and DNA platforms and a better understanding of how vaccines and potent immune stimulants, like checkpoint inhibitors, can work together to improve outcomes, he explained.
“The timing wasn’t right” back then, Kwak noted. “Now, it’s a different environment and a different time.”
A Turning Point?
Indeed, a decade later, cancer vaccine development appears to be headed in a more promising direction.
Among key cancer vaccines to watch is the mRNA-4157 vaccine, developed by Merck and Moderna, designed to prevent melanoma recurrence. In a recent phase 2 study, patients receiving the mRNA-4157 vaccine alongside pembrolizumab had nearly half the risk for melanoma recurrence or death at 3 years compared with those receiving pembrolizumab alone. Investigators are now evaluating the vaccine in a global phase 3 study in patients with high-risk, stage IIB to IV melanoma following surgery.
Another one to watch is the BNT116 NSCLC vaccine from BioNTech. This vaccine presents the immune system with NSCLC tumor markers to encourage the body to fight cancer cells expressing those markers while ignoring healthy cells. BioNTech also launched a global clinical trial for its vaccine this year.
Other notables include a pancreatic cancer mRNA vaccine, which has shown promising early results in a small trial of 16 patients. Of 16 patients who received the vaccine alongside chemotherapy and after surgery and immunotherapy, 8 responded. Of these eight, six remained recurrence free at 3 years. Investigators noted that the vaccine appeared to stimulate a durable T-cell response in patients who responded.
Kwak has also continued his work on lymphoma vaccines. In August, his team published promising first-in-human data on the use of personalized neoantigen vaccines as an early intervention in untreated patients with lymphoplasmacytic lymphoma. Among nine asymptomatic patients who received the vaccine, all achieved stable disease or better, with no dose-limiting toxicities. One patient had a minor response, and the median time to progression was greater than 72 months.
“The current setting is more for advanced disease,” Kwak explained. “It’s a tougher task, but combined with checkpoint blockade, it may be potent enough to work.”
Still, caution is important. Despite early promise, it’s too soon to tell which, if any, of these investigational vaccines will pan out in the long run. Like investigational drugs, cancer vaccines may show big promising initially but then fail in larger trials.
One key to success, according to Kwak, is to design trials so that even negative results will inform next steps.
But, he noted, failures in large clinical trials will “put a chilling effect on cancer vaccine research again.”
“That’s what keeps me up at night,” he said. “We know the science is fundamentally sound and we have seen glimpses over decades of research that cancer vaccines can work, so it’s really just a matter of tweaking things to optimize trial design.”
Companies tend to design trials to test if a vaccine works or not, without trying to understand why, he said.
“What we need to do is design those so that we can learn from negative results,” he said. That’s what he and his colleagues attempted to do in their recent trial. “We didn’t just look at clinical results; we’re interrogating the actual tumor environment to understand what worked and didn’t and how to tweak that for the next trial.”
Kwak and his colleagues found, for instance, that the vaccine had a greater effect on B cell–derived tumor cells than on cells of plasma origin, so “the most rational design for the next iteration is to combine the vaccine with agents that work directly against plasma cells,” he explained.
As for what’s next, Kwak said: “We’re just focused on trying to do good science and understand. We’ve seen glimpses of success. That’s where we are.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Vaccines for treating and preventing cancer have long been considered a holy grail in oncology.
But aside from a few notable exceptions — including the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine, which has dramatically reduced the incidence of HPV-related cancers, and a Bacillus Calmette-Guerin vaccine, which helps prevent early-stage bladder cancer recurrence — most have failed to deliver.
Following a string of disappointments over the past decade, recent advances in the immunotherapy space are bringing renewed hope for progress.
In an American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) series earlier in 2024, Catherine J. Wu, MD, predicted big strides for cancer vaccines, especially for personalized vaccines that target patient-specific neoantigens — the proteins that form on cancer cells — as well as vaccines that can treat diverse tumor types.
said Wu, the Lavine Family Chair of Preventative Cancer Therapies at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, Massachusetts.
A prime example is a personalized, messenger RNA (mRNA)–based vaccine designed to prevent melanoma recurrence. The mRNA-4157 vaccine encodes up to 34 different patient-specific neoantigens.
“This is one of the most exciting developments in modern cancer therapy,” said Lawrence Young, a virologist and professor of molecular oncology at the University of Warwick, Coventry, England, who commented on the investigational vaccine via the UK-based Science Media Centre.
Other promising options are on the horizon as well. In August, BioNTech announced a phase 1 global trial to study BNT116 — a vaccine to treat non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). BNT116, like mRNA-4157, targets specific antigens in the lung cancer cells.
“This technology is the next big phase of cancer treatment,” Siow Ming Lee, MD, a consultant medical oncologist at University College London Hospitals in England, which is leading the UK trial for the lung cancer and melanoma vaccines, told The Guardian. “We are now entering this very exciting new era of mRNA-based immunotherapy clinical trials to investigate the treatment of lung cancer.”
Still, these predictions have a familiar ring. While the prospects are exciting, delivering on them is another story. There are simply no guarantees these strategies will work as hoped.
Then: Where We Were
Cancer vaccine research began to ramp up in the 2000s, and in 2006, the first-generation HPV vaccine, Gardasil, was approved. Gardasil prevents infection from four strains of HPV that cause about 80% of cervical cancer cases.
In 2010, the Food and Drug Administration approved sipuleucel-T, the first therapeutic cancer vaccine, which improved overall survival in patients with hormone-refractory prostate cancer.
Researchers predicted this approval would “pave the way for developing innovative, next generation of vaccines with enhanced antitumor potency.”
In a 2015 AACR research forecast report, Drew Pardoll, MD, PhD, co-director of the Cancer Immunology and Hematopoiesis Program at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, said that “we can expect to see encouraging results from studies using cancer vaccines.”
Despite the excitement surrounding cancer vaccines alongside a few successes, the next decade brought a longer string of late-phase disappointments.
In 2016, the phase 3 ACT IV trial of a therapeutic vaccine to treat glioblastoma multiforme (CDX-110) was terminated after it failed to demonstrate improved survival.
In 2017, a phase 3 trial of the therapeutic pancreatic cancer vaccine, GVAX, was stopped early for lack of efficacy.
That year, an attenuated Listeria monocytogenes vaccine to treat pancreatic cancer and mesothelioma also failed to come to fruition. In late 2017, concerns over listeria infections prompted Aduro Biotech to cancel its listeria-based cancer treatment program.
In 2018, a phase 3 trial of belagenpumatucel-L, a therapeutic NSCLC vaccine, failed to demonstrate a significant improvement in survival and further study was discontinued.
And in 2019, a vaccine targeting MAGE-A3, a cancer-testis antigen present in multiple tumor types, failed to meet endpoints for improved survival in a phase 3 trial, leading to discontinuation of the vaccine program.
But these disappointments and failures are normal parts of medical research and drug development and have allowed for incremental advances that helped fuel renewed interest and hope for cancer vaccines, when the timing was right, explained vaccine pioneer Larry W. Kwak, MD, PhD, deputy director of the Comprehensive Cancer Center at City of Hope, Duarte, California.
When it comes to vaccine progress, timing makes a difference. In 2011, Kwak and colleagues published promising phase 3 trial results on a personalized vaccine. The vaccine was a patient-specific tumor-derived antigen for patients with follicular lymphoma in their first remission following chemotherapy. Patients who received the vaccine demonstrated significantly longer disease-free survival.
But, at the time, personalized vaccines faced strong headwinds due, largely, to high costs, and commercial interest failed to materialize. “That’s been the major hurdle for a long time,” said Kwak.
Now, however, interest has returned alongside advances in technology and research. The big shift has been the emergence of lower-cost rapid-production mRNA and DNA platforms and a better understanding of how vaccines and potent immune stimulants, like checkpoint inhibitors, can work together to improve outcomes, he explained.
“The timing wasn’t right” back then, Kwak noted. “Now, it’s a different environment and a different time.”
A Turning Point?
Indeed, a decade later, cancer vaccine development appears to be headed in a more promising direction.
Among key cancer vaccines to watch is the mRNA-4157 vaccine, developed by Merck and Moderna, designed to prevent melanoma recurrence. In a recent phase 2 study, patients receiving the mRNA-4157 vaccine alongside pembrolizumab had nearly half the risk for melanoma recurrence or death at 3 years compared with those receiving pembrolizumab alone. Investigators are now evaluating the vaccine in a global phase 3 study in patients with high-risk, stage IIB to IV melanoma following surgery.
Another one to watch is the BNT116 NSCLC vaccine from BioNTech. This vaccine presents the immune system with NSCLC tumor markers to encourage the body to fight cancer cells expressing those markers while ignoring healthy cells. BioNTech also launched a global clinical trial for its vaccine this year.
Other notables include a pancreatic cancer mRNA vaccine, which has shown promising early results in a small trial of 16 patients. Of 16 patients who received the vaccine alongside chemotherapy and after surgery and immunotherapy, 8 responded. Of these eight, six remained recurrence free at 3 years. Investigators noted that the vaccine appeared to stimulate a durable T-cell response in patients who responded.
Kwak has also continued his work on lymphoma vaccines. In August, his team published promising first-in-human data on the use of personalized neoantigen vaccines as an early intervention in untreated patients with lymphoplasmacytic lymphoma. Among nine asymptomatic patients who received the vaccine, all achieved stable disease or better, with no dose-limiting toxicities. One patient had a minor response, and the median time to progression was greater than 72 months.
“The current setting is more for advanced disease,” Kwak explained. “It’s a tougher task, but combined with checkpoint blockade, it may be potent enough to work.”
Still, caution is important. Despite early promise, it’s too soon to tell which, if any, of these investigational vaccines will pan out in the long run. Like investigational drugs, cancer vaccines may show big promising initially but then fail in larger trials.
One key to success, according to Kwak, is to design trials so that even negative results will inform next steps.
But, he noted, failures in large clinical trials will “put a chilling effect on cancer vaccine research again.”
“That’s what keeps me up at night,” he said. “We know the science is fundamentally sound and we have seen glimpses over decades of research that cancer vaccines can work, so it’s really just a matter of tweaking things to optimize trial design.”
Companies tend to design trials to test if a vaccine works or not, without trying to understand why, he said.
“What we need to do is design those so that we can learn from negative results,” he said. That’s what he and his colleagues attempted to do in their recent trial. “We didn’t just look at clinical results; we’re interrogating the actual tumor environment to understand what worked and didn’t and how to tweak that for the next trial.”
Kwak and his colleagues found, for instance, that the vaccine had a greater effect on B cell–derived tumor cells than on cells of plasma origin, so “the most rational design for the next iteration is to combine the vaccine with agents that work directly against plasma cells,” he explained.
As for what’s next, Kwak said: “We’re just focused on trying to do good science and understand. We’ve seen glimpses of success. That’s where we are.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Vaccines for treating and preventing cancer have long been considered a holy grail in oncology.
But aside from a few notable exceptions — including the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine, which has dramatically reduced the incidence of HPV-related cancers, and a Bacillus Calmette-Guerin vaccine, which helps prevent early-stage bladder cancer recurrence — most have failed to deliver.
Following a string of disappointments over the past decade, recent advances in the immunotherapy space are bringing renewed hope for progress.
In an American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) series earlier in 2024, Catherine J. Wu, MD, predicted big strides for cancer vaccines, especially for personalized vaccines that target patient-specific neoantigens — the proteins that form on cancer cells — as well as vaccines that can treat diverse tumor types.
said Wu, the Lavine Family Chair of Preventative Cancer Therapies at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, Massachusetts.
A prime example is a personalized, messenger RNA (mRNA)–based vaccine designed to prevent melanoma recurrence. The mRNA-4157 vaccine encodes up to 34 different patient-specific neoantigens.
“This is one of the most exciting developments in modern cancer therapy,” said Lawrence Young, a virologist and professor of molecular oncology at the University of Warwick, Coventry, England, who commented on the investigational vaccine via the UK-based Science Media Centre.
Other promising options are on the horizon as well. In August, BioNTech announced a phase 1 global trial to study BNT116 — a vaccine to treat non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). BNT116, like mRNA-4157, targets specific antigens in the lung cancer cells.
“This technology is the next big phase of cancer treatment,” Siow Ming Lee, MD, a consultant medical oncologist at University College London Hospitals in England, which is leading the UK trial for the lung cancer and melanoma vaccines, told The Guardian. “We are now entering this very exciting new era of mRNA-based immunotherapy clinical trials to investigate the treatment of lung cancer.”
Still, these predictions have a familiar ring. While the prospects are exciting, delivering on them is another story. There are simply no guarantees these strategies will work as hoped.
Then: Where We Were
Cancer vaccine research began to ramp up in the 2000s, and in 2006, the first-generation HPV vaccine, Gardasil, was approved. Gardasil prevents infection from four strains of HPV that cause about 80% of cervical cancer cases.
In 2010, the Food and Drug Administration approved sipuleucel-T, the first therapeutic cancer vaccine, which improved overall survival in patients with hormone-refractory prostate cancer.
Researchers predicted this approval would “pave the way for developing innovative, next generation of vaccines with enhanced antitumor potency.”
In a 2015 AACR research forecast report, Drew Pardoll, MD, PhD, co-director of the Cancer Immunology and Hematopoiesis Program at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, said that “we can expect to see encouraging results from studies using cancer vaccines.”
Despite the excitement surrounding cancer vaccines alongside a few successes, the next decade brought a longer string of late-phase disappointments.
In 2016, the phase 3 ACT IV trial of a therapeutic vaccine to treat glioblastoma multiforme (CDX-110) was terminated after it failed to demonstrate improved survival.
In 2017, a phase 3 trial of the therapeutic pancreatic cancer vaccine, GVAX, was stopped early for lack of efficacy.
That year, an attenuated Listeria monocytogenes vaccine to treat pancreatic cancer and mesothelioma also failed to come to fruition. In late 2017, concerns over listeria infections prompted Aduro Biotech to cancel its listeria-based cancer treatment program.
In 2018, a phase 3 trial of belagenpumatucel-L, a therapeutic NSCLC vaccine, failed to demonstrate a significant improvement in survival and further study was discontinued.
And in 2019, a vaccine targeting MAGE-A3, a cancer-testis antigen present in multiple tumor types, failed to meet endpoints for improved survival in a phase 3 trial, leading to discontinuation of the vaccine program.
But these disappointments and failures are normal parts of medical research and drug development and have allowed for incremental advances that helped fuel renewed interest and hope for cancer vaccines, when the timing was right, explained vaccine pioneer Larry W. Kwak, MD, PhD, deputy director of the Comprehensive Cancer Center at City of Hope, Duarte, California.
When it comes to vaccine progress, timing makes a difference. In 2011, Kwak and colleagues published promising phase 3 trial results on a personalized vaccine. The vaccine was a patient-specific tumor-derived antigen for patients with follicular lymphoma in their first remission following chemotherapy. Patients who received the vaccine demonstrated significantly longer disease-free survival.
But, at the time, personalized vaccines faced strong headwinds due, largely, to high costs, and commercial interest failed to materialize. “That’s been the major hurdle for a long time,” said Kwak.
Now, however, interest has returned alongside advances in technology and research. The big shift has been the emergence of lower-cost rapid-production mRNA and DNA platforms and a better understanding of how vaccines and potent immune stimulants, like checkpoint inhibitors, can work together to improve outcomes, he explained.
“The timing wasn’t right” back then, Kwak noted. “Now, it’s a different environment and a different time.”
A Turning Point?
Indeed, a decade later, cancer vaccine development appears to be headed in a more promising direction.
Among key cancer vaccines to watch is the mRNA-4157 vaccine, developed by Merck and Moderna, designed to prevent melanoma recurrence. In a recent phase 2 study, patients receiving the mRNA-4157 vaccine alongside pembrolizumab had nearly half the risk for melanoma recurrence or death at 3 years compared with those receiving pembrolizumab alone. Investigators are now evaluating the vaccine in a global phase 3 study in patients with high-risk, stage IIB to IV melanoma following surgery.
Another one to watch is the BNT116 NSCLC vaccine from BioNTech. This vaccine presents the immune system with NSCLC tumor markers to encourage the body to fight cancer cells expressing those markers while ignoring healthy cells. BioNTech also launched a global clinical trial for its vaccine this year.
Other notables include a pancreatic cancer mRNA vaccine, which has shown promising early results in a small trial of 16 patients. Of 16 patients who received the vaccine alongside chemotherapy and after surgery and immunotherapy, 8 responded. Of these eight, six remained recurrence free at 3 years. Investigators noted that the vaccine appeared to stimulate a durable T-cell response in patients who responded.
Kwak has also continued his work on lymphoma vaccines. In August, his team published promising first-in-human data on the use of personalized neoantigen vaccines as an early intervention in untreated patients with lymphoplasmacytic lymphoma. Among nine asymptomatic patients who received the vaccine, all achieved stable disease or better, with no dose-limiting toxicities. One patient had a minor response, and the median time to progression was greater than 72 months.
“The current setting is more for advanced disease,” Kwak explained. “It’s a tougher task, but combined with checkpoint blockade, it may be potent enough to work.”
Still, caution is important. Despite early promise, it’s too soon to tell which, if any, of these investigational vaccines will pan out in the long run. Like investigational drugs, cancer vaccines may show big promising initially but then fail in larger trials.
One key to success, according to Kwak, is to design trials so that even negative results will inform next steps.
But, he noted, failures in large clinical trials will “put a chilling effect on cancer vaccine research again.”
“That’s what keeps me up at night,” he said. “We know the science is fundamentally sound and we have seen glimpses over decades of research that cancer vaccines can work, so it’s really just a matter of tweaking things to optimize trial design.”
Companies tend to design trials to test if a vaccine works or not, without trying to understand why, he said.
“What we need to do is design those so that we can learn from negative results,” he said. That’s what he and his colleagues attempted to do in their recent trial. “We didn’t just look at clinical results; we’re interrogating the actual tumor environment to understand what worked and didn’t and how to tweak that for the next trial.”
Kwak and his colleagues found, for instance, that the vaccine had a greater effect on B cell–derived tumor cells than on cells of plasma origin, so “the most rational design for the next iteration is to combine the vaccine with agents that work directly against plasma cells,” he explained.
As for what’s next, Kwak said: “We’re just focused on trying to do good science and understand. We’ve seen glimpses of success. That’s where we are.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.