Clinical Edge Journal Scan Commentary

Chemotherapy plays a critical role in the management of patients with advanced gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma, and a fluoropyrimidine and platinum doublet (either oxaliplatin or cisplatin) is the standard regimen used. Chemotherapy is associated with toxicity, which is particularly concerning in frail and older adult patients.¹ A study by Chinen and colleagues specifically looked at the use of platinum chemotherapy agents in the older adult patient population. This retrospective cohort study analyzed survival outcomes and granulocyte colony–stimulating factor (G-CSF) use in 242 patients with advanced gastric cancer who were at least 70 years old and who were treated with either an oxaliplatin- or cisplatin-containing regimen. After propensity score weighting, the study demonstrated that treatment with these agents resulted in similar overall survival, but G-CSF use was more frequent with oxaliplatin use. These results are in line with previous data regarding these agents. In a prospective noninferiority study with a two-by-two design (REAL-2), an oxaliplatin-containing regimen had similar activity to a cisplatin-containing regimen.² However, oxaliplatin use was associated with less neutropenia. Going forward, the use of oxaliplatin should be preferred over cisplatin in older adult patients given its more favorable toxicity profile.

A study by Sotelo and colleagues looked at the presence of gastric preneoplastic lesions in the first-degree relatives of patients with gastric cancer. In this cross-sectional study conducted in Chile, endoscopic evaluation was performed in 110 people eligible for evaluation. Among the participants, 95 cases (86.4%) of preneoplastic lesions were identified, most commonly atrophic gastritis (86.4%) and intestinal metaplasia (82.7%). There was no association with sex, age, or Helicobacter pylori infection. The high rates of these lesions in the study are probably reflective of a high prevalence of gastric cancer in this geographic area. Although the data interpretation is limited by the small study size, these results suggest that endoscopic surveillance of first-degree relatives is warranted in areas of high gastric cancer incidence, and that optimal surveillance protocols, as well as management of these precancerous conditions, should be defined further.

The role of hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) has been controversial in the management of gastric cancer. Thus far, there has not been a definitive study demonstrating a positive impact of HIPEC on survival in patients with this disease. A study by Lee and colleagues looked at the role of prophylactic HIPEC in patients with clinical stage T4 gastric cancer who do not have evidence of distant metastasis. Retrospective analysis included 132 patients with clinical stage T4 gastric cancer who underwent gastrectomy and D2 lymphadenectomy. After propensity score matching to reduce selection bias, the outcomes of 35 patients per cohort (gastrectomy vs gastrectomy plus prophylactic HIPEC) were analyzed. The two groups were well matched in regard to histology, pathologic T and N stage, perioperative therapy, and the type of resection. There was no difference in the incidence of postoperative complications. While the rate of peritoneal recurrences was lower in the HIPEC cohort, there was no difference in the rate of distant metastasis between the two groups. In terms of survival outcomes, the study demonstrated that disease-free survival and overall survival were improved with prophylactic HIPEC. Although firm conclusions cannot be drawn from this small retrospective study, these results suggest that it may be worth further investigating the role of prophylactic HIPEC in a subset of patients with high-risk early-stage disease.

Additional References

1. Hwang IG, Ji JH, Kang JH, et al. A multi-center, open-label, randomized phase III trial of first-line chemotherapy with capecitabine monotherapy versus capecitabine plus oxaliplatin in elderly patients with advanced gastric cancer. J Geriatr Oncol. 2017;8(3):170-175. Doi: 10.1016/j.jgo.2017.01.002

2. Cunningham D, Starling N, Rao S, et al. Capecitabine and oxaliplatin for advanced esophagogastric cancer. N Engl J Med. 2008;358:36-46. Doi:  10.1056/NEJMoa073149

Chemotherapy plays a critical role in the management of patients with advanced gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma, and a fluoropyrimidine and platinum doublet (either oxaliplatin or cisplatin) is the standard regimen used. Chemotherapy is associated with toxicity, which is particularly concerning in frail and older adult patients.¹ A study by Chinen and colleagues specifically looked at the use of platinum chemotherapy agents in the older adult patient population. This retrospective cohort study analyzed survival outcomes and granulocyte colony–stimulating factor (G-CSF) use in 242 patients with advanced gastric cancer who were at least 70 years old and who were treated with either an oxaliplatin- or cisplatin-containing regimen. After propensity score weighting, the study demonstrated that treatment with these agents resulted in similar overall survival, but G-CSF use was more frequent with oxaliplatin use. These results are in line with previous data regarding these agents. In a prospective noninferiority study with a two-by-two design (REAL-2), an oxaliplatin-containing regimen had similar activity to a cisplatin-containing regimen.² However, oxaliplatin use was associated with less neutropenia. Going forward, the use of oxaliplatin should be preferred over cisplatin in older adult patients given its more favorable toxicity profile.

A study by Sotelo and colleagues looked at the presence of gastric preneoplastic lesions in the first-degree relatives of patients with gastric cancer. In this cross-sectional study conducted in Chile, endoscopic evaluation was performed in 110 people eligible for evaluation. Among the participants, 95 cases (86.4%) of preneoplastic lesions were identified, most commonly atrophic gastritis (86.4%) and intestinal metaplasia (82.7%). There was no association with sex, age, or Helicobacter pylori infection. The high rates of these lesions in the study are probably reflective of a high prevalence of gastric cancer in this geographic area. Although the data interpretation is limited by the small study size, these results suggest that endoscopic surveillance of first-degree relatives is warranted in areas of high gastric cancer incidence, and that optimal surveillance protocols, as well as management of these precancerous conditions, should be defined further.

The role of hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) has been controversial in the management of gastric cancer. Thus far, there has not been a definitive study demonstrating a positive impact of HIPEC on survival in patients with this disease. A study by Lee and colleagues looked at the role of prophylactic HIPEC in patients with clinical stage T4 gastric cancer who do not have evidence of distant metastasis. Retrospective analysis included 132 patients with clinical stage T4 gastric cancer who underwent gastrectomy and D2 lymphadenectomy. After propensity score matching to reduce selection bias, the outcomes of 35 patients per cohort (gastrectomy vs gastrectomy plus prophylactic HIPEC) were analyzed. The two groups were well matched in regard to histology, pathologic T and N stage, perioperative therapy, and the type of resection. There was no difference in the incidence of postoperative complications. While the rate of peritoneal recurrences was lower in the HIPEC cohort, there was no difference in the rate of distant metastasis between the two groups. In terms of survival outcomes, the study demonstrated that disease-free survival and overall survival were improved with prophylactic HIPEC. Although firm conclusions cannot be drawn from this small retrospective study, these results suggest that it may be worth further investigating the role of prophylactic HIPEC in a subset of patients with high-risk early-stage disease.

Additional References

1. Hwang IG, Ji JH, Kang JH, et al. A multi-center, open-label, randomized phase III trial of first-line chemotherapy with capecitabine monotherapy versus capecitabine plus oxaliplatin in elderly patients with advanced gastric cancer. J Geriatr Oncol. 2017;8(3):170-175. Doi: 10.1016/j.jgo.2017.01.002

2. Cunningham D, Starling N, Rao S, et al. Capecitabine and oxaliplatin for advanced esophagogastric cancer. N Engl J Med. 2008;358:36-46. Doi:  10.1056/NEJMoa073149

Chemotherapy plays a critical role in the management of patients with advanced gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma, and a fluoropyrimidine and platinum doublet (either oxaliplatin or cisplatin) is the standard regimen used. Chemotherapy is associated with toxicity, which is particularly concerning in frail and older adult patients.¹ A study by Chinen and colleagues specifically looked at the use of platinum chemotherapy agents in the older adult patient population. This retrospective cohort study analyzed survival outcomes and granulocyte colony–stimulating factor (G-CSF) use in 242 patients with advanced gastric cancer who were at least 70 years old and who were treated with either an oxaliplatin- or cisplatin-containing regimen. After propensity score weighting, the study demonstrated that treatment with these agents resulted in similar overall survival, but G-CSF use was more frequent with oxaliplatin use. These results are in line with previous data regarding these agents. In a prospective noninferiority study with a two-by-two design (REAL-2), an oxaliplatin-containing regimen had similar activity to a cisplatin-containing regimen.² However, oxaliplatin use was associated with less neutropenia. Going forward, the use of oxaliplatin should be preferred over cisplatin in older adult patients given its more favorable toxicity profile.

A study by Sotelo and colleagues looked at the presence of gastric preneoplastic lesions in the first-degree relatives of patients with gastric cancer. In this cross-sectional study conducted in Chile, endoscopic evaluation was performed in 110 people eligible for evaluation. Among the participants, 95 cases (86.4%) of preneoplastic lesions were identified, most commonly atrophic gastritis (86.4%) and intestinal metaplasia (82.7%). There was no association with sex, age, or Helicobacter pylori infection. The high rates of these lesions in the study are probably reflective of a high prevalence of gastric cancer in this geographic area. Although the data interpretation is limited by the small study size, these results suggest that endoscopic surveillance of first-degree relatives is warranted in areas of high gastric cancer incidence, and that optimal surveillance protocols, as well as management of these precancerous conditions, should be defined further.

The role of hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) has been controversial in the management of gastric cancer. Thus far, there has not been a definitive study demonstrating a positive impact of HIPEC on survival in patients with this disease. A study by Lee and colleagues looked at the role of prophylactic HIPEC in patients with clinical stage T4 gastric cancer who do not have evidence of distant metastasis. Retrospective analysis included 132 patients with clinical stage T4 gastric cancer who underwent gastrectomy and D2 lymphadenectomy. After propensity score matching to reduce selection bias, the outcomes of 35 patients per cohort (gastrectomy vs gastrectomy plus prophylactic HIPEC) were analyzed. The two groups were well matched in regard to histology, pathologic T and N stage, perioperative therapy, and the type of resection. There was no difference in the incidence of postoperative complications. While the rate of peritoneal recurrences was lower in the HIPEC cohort, there was no difference in the rate of distant metastasis between the two groups. In terms of survival outcomes, the study demonstrated that disease-free survival and overall survival were improved with prophylactic HIPEC. Although firm conclusions cannot be drawn from this small retrospective study, these results suggest that it may be worth further investigating the role of prophylactic HIPEC in a subset of patients with high-risk early-stage disease.

Additional References

1. Hwang IG, Ji JH, Kang JH, et al. A multi-center, open-label, randomized phase III trial of first-line chemotherapy with capecitabine monotherapy versus capecitabine plus oxaliplatin in elderly patients with advanced gastric cancer. J Geriatr Oncol. 2017;8(3):170-175. Doi: 10.1016/j.jgo.2017.01.002

2. Cunningham D, Starling N, Rao S, et al. Capecitabine and oxaliplatin for advanced esophagogastric cancer. N Engl J Med. 2008;358:36-46. Doi:  10.1056/NEJMoa073149

Tirzepatide, recently approved by the US Food and Drug Administration, is a unique dual gastric inhibitory peptide/glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist that has been formulated as a once-weekly injection. The results from the phase 3 SURPASS program demonstrated its efficacy for type 2 diabetes management. Glycosylated hemoglobin reduction ranged from 1.9%-2.6%; up to 97% of participants achieved an A1c< 7% and up to 62% achieved an A1c < 5.7%, and weight loss ranged from 6 to 13 kg. Tirzepatide was superior to 1 mg semaglutide, insulin degludec, and insulin glargine for A1c lowering and weight loss.

In a subgroup of SURPASS-3, Battelino and colleagues compared tirzepatide to insulin degludec using continuous glucose monitoring. Patients treated with tirzepatide at doses of 5 mg and 10 mg achieved a mean time in tight range (71-140 mg/dL) of 72.4% and 72.6%, respectively, which was significantly better than the 48.0% for patients treated with insulin degludec. Remarkably, time in range (71-180 mg/dL) was 91% for the 10- and 15-mg doses of tirzepatide compared with 75% for insulin degludec. Time spent in hypoglycemia and glycemic variability were lower with tirzepatide vs insulin degludec. This analysis shows the superiority of tirzepatide in achieving clinically meaningful improvements in the percentage of time spent within a tight target range and target range for tirzepatide compared with insulin degludec, further supporting the use of this dual Incretin before starting basal insulin.

Cotadutide is a GLP-1 receptor/glucagon dual agonist currently in phase 2b/3 trials in patients with either nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) or type 2 diabetes with chronic kidney disease. In a recent meta-analysis of early cotadutide trials vs placebo, Ali and colleagues reported a significant 3.3 kg weight loss and a 0.68% reduction in A1c, as well as reductions in glucose area under the plasma concentration curve and fasting plasma glucose. Although we will have to await the results of further studies, these and other early data with cotadutide suggests that this GLP-1 receptor/glucagon co-agonist may offer benefits in patients with type 2 diabetes or NASH.

It has been over 60 years since the first clinical use of metformin, yet we continue to learn about potential uses beyond just glycemic control in type 2 diabetes. In a Chinese prospective cohort study of 7587 patients with type 2 diabetes who were hospitalized with a first stroke, Tu and colleagues found lower rates of in-hospital mortality, 12-month mortality, and disability in those treated with metformin vs those not treated with metformin. The authors speculate that metformin has antioxidant, anti-inflammatory, and neuroprotective effects that may lead to better stroke outcomes. Of course, this study is limited by its observational design, and randomized controlled studies are required to determine whether metformin use may have a protective effect against the poor functional outcome in first-ever stroke patients with type 2 diabetes.

In another study of metformin, Jiang and colleagues reported that among patients with long-standing type 2 diabetes, metformin users were 83% less likely than metformin nonusers to develop early age-related macular degeneration (AMD). This was a small retrospective study from which conclusions cannot be made. Given that AMD is a leading cause of vision loss for older adults, future prospective studies of metformin in the treatment of AMD would be helpful in determining the impact of metformin in this common eye condition.

Tirzepatide, recently approved by the US Food and Drug Administration, is a unique dual gastric inhibitory peptide/glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist that has been formulated as a once-weekly injection. The results from the phase 3 SURPASS program demonstrated its efficacy for type 2 diabetes management. Glycosylated hemoglobin reduction ranged from 1.9%-2.6%; up to 97% of participants achieved an A1c< 7% and up to 62% achieved an A1c < 5.7%, and weight loss ranged from 6 to 13 kg. Tirzepatide was superior to 1 mg semaglutide, insulin degludec, and insulin glargine for A1c lowering and weight loss.

In a subgroup of SURPASS-3, Battelino and colleagues compared tirzepatide to insulin degludec using continuous glucose monitoring. Patients treated with tirzepatide at doses of 5 mg and 10 mg achieved a mean time in tight range (71-140 mg/dL) of 72.4% and 72.6%, respectively, which was significantly better than the 48.0% for patients treated with insulin degludec. Remarkably, time in range (71-180 mg/dL) was 91% for the 10- and 15-mg doses of tirzepatide compared with 75% for insulin degludec. Time spent in hypoglycemia and glycemic variability were lower with tirzepatide vs insulin degludec. This analysis shows the superiority of tirzepatide in achieving clinically meaningful improvements in the percentage of time spent within a tight target range and target range for tirzepatide compared with insulin degludec, further supporting the use of this dual Incretin before starting basal insulin.

Cotadutide is a GLP-1 receptor/glucagon dual agonist currently in phase 2b/3 trials in patients with either nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) or type 2 diabetes with chronic kidney disease. In a recent meta-analysis of early cotadutide trials vs placebo, Ali and colleagues reported a significant 3.3 kg weight loss and a 0.68% reduction in A1c, as well as reductions in glucose area under the plasma concentration curve and fasting plasma glucose. Although we will have to await the results of further studies, these and other early data with cotadutide suggests that this GLP-1 receptor/glucagon co-agonist may offer benefits in patients with type 2 diabetes or NASH.

It has been over 60 years since the first clinical use of metformin, yet we continue to learn about potential uses beyond just glycemic control in type 2 diabetes. In a Chinese prospective cohort study of 7587 patients with type 2 diabetes who were hospitalized with a first stroke, Tu and colleagues found lower rates of in-hospital mortality, 12-month mortality, and disability in those treated with metformin vs those not treated with metformin. The authors speculate that metformin has antioxidant, anti-inflammatory, and neuroprotective effects that may lead to better stroke outcomes. Of course, this study is limited by its observational design, and randomized controlled studies are required to determine whether metformin use may have a protective effect against the poor functional outcome in first-ever stroke patients with type 2 diabetes.

In another study of metformin, Jiang and colleagues reported that among patients with long-standing type 2 diabetes, metformin users were 83% less likely than metformin nonusers to develop early age-related macular degeneration (AMD). This was a small retrospective study from which conclusions cannot be made. Given that AMD is a leading cause of vision loss for older adults, future prospective studies of metformin in the treatment of AMD would be helpful in determining the impact of metformin in this common eye condition.

Tirzepatide, recently approved by the US Food and Drug Administration, is a unique dual gastric inhibitory peptide/glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist that has been formulated as a once-weekly injection. The results from the phase 3 SURPASS program demonstrated its efficacy for type 2 diabetes management. Glycosylated hemoglobin reduction ranged from 1.9%-2.6%; up to 97% of participants achieved an A1c< 7% and up to 62% achieved an A1c < 5.7%, and weight loss ranged from 6 to 13 kg. Tirzepatide was superior to 1 mg semaglutide, insulin degludec, and insulin glargine for A1c lowering and weight loss.

In a subgroup of SURPASS-3, Battelino and colleagues compared tirzepatide to insulin degludec using continuous glucose monitoring. Patients treated with tirzepatide at doses of 5 mg and 10 mg achieved a mean time in tight range (71-140 mg/dL) of 72.4% and 72.6%, respectively, which was significantly better than the 48.0% for patients treated with insulin degludec. Remarkably, time in range (71-180 mg/dL) was 91% for the 10- and 15-mg doses of tirzepatide compared with 75% for insulin degludec. Time spent in hypoglycemia and glycemic variability were lower with tirzepatide vs insulin degludec. This analysis shows the superiority of tirzepatide in achieving clinically meaningful improvements in the percentage of time spent within a tight target range and target range for tirzepatide compared with insulin degludec, further supporting the use of this dual Incretin before starting basal insulin.

Cotadutide is a GLP-1 receptor/glucagon dual agonist currently in phase 2b/3 trials in patients with either nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) or type 2 diabetes with chronic kidney disease. In a recent meta-analysis of early cotadutide trials vs placebo, Ali and colleagues reported a significant 3.3 kg weight loss and a 0.68% reduction in A1c, as well as reductions in glucose area under the plasma concentration curve and fasting plasma glucose. Although we will have to await the results of further studies, these and other early data with cotadutide suggests that this GLP-1 receptor/glucagon co-agonist may offer benefits in patients with type 2 diabetes or NASH.

It has been over 60 years since the first clinical use of metformin, yet we continue to learn about potential uses beyond just glycemic control in type 2 diabetes. In a Chinese prospective cohort study of 7587 patients with type 2 diabetes who were hospitalized with a first stroke, Tu and colleagues found lower rates of in-hospital mortality, 12-month mortality, and disability in those treated with metformin vs those not treated with metformin. The authors speculate that metformin has antioxidant, anti-inflammatory, and neuroprotective effects that may lead to better stroke outcomes. Of course, this study is limited by its observational design, and randomized controlled studies are required to determine whether metformin use may have a protective effect against the poor functional outcome in first-ever stroke patients with type 2 diabetes.

In another study of metformin, Jiang and colleagues reported that among patients with long-standing type 2 diabetes, metformin users were 83% less likely than metformin nonusers to develop early age-related macular degeneration (AMD). This was a small retrospective study from which conclusions cannot be made. Given that AMD is a leading cause of vision loss for older adults, future prospective studies of metformin in the treatment of AMD would be helpful in determining the impact of metformin in this common eye condition.

In another recent prospective study, Cabeza and colleagues noted that ocrelizumab-treated PWMS who received a third SARS-CoV-2 vaccine dose had a boosted T-cell response, but there was no additive effect on the maximal T-cell response. The study included PWMS taking DMT (ocrelizumab, n = 24; fingolimod, n = 12; or no DMT, n = 10) and healthy controls (n = 12), all of whom received three SARS-CoV-2 vaccine doses (BioNTech-Pfizer or Moderna). The SARS-CoV-2–specific T-cell response in patients treated with ocrelizumab was comparable to that in PWMS who were not treated with DMT and to that in healthy controls after the second SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. However, the third SARS-CoV-2 vaccination had no additive effect on T-cell response, but it did induce a booster response (P < .05).

The relationship and interplay of both T-cell and B-cell responses to viral infection is important to understand and appreciate. However, for PWMS who have had, do have, or will experience breakthrough infection, early use of anti-SARS-CoV-2 monoclonal antibodies (mAb) was effective and safe in treating acute COVID-19 in PWMS treated with fingolimod or ocrelizumab. Manzano and colleagues reported on an observational study including 23 PWMS, most of whom had completed the initial COVID-19 vaccine series before infection and were either untreated or treated with fingolimod+ ocrelizumab and then received anti–SARS-CoV2 mAbs (bamlanivimab + etesevimab, casirivimab + imdevimab, sotrovimab, or an undocumented formulation) for treatment of active COVID-19. In this study, 74% of PWMS were able to be managed as outpatients (median duration to mAb receipt, 4 days), and 48% of PWMS recovered from COVID-19 within 7 days after mAb receipt, with no clinical MS relapses documented during or shortly after COVID-19 (median follow-up, 18 days). No adverse events or deaths were reported in this series.

Pivotal trials and package insert information affect DMT choice and dosing, the timing of ongoing treatment, and the awareness of efficacy and potential adverse reactions. Foley and colleagues  demonstrated that switching to once-every-6-weeks (QW6) dosing of natalizumab from a stable dosing of once every 4 weeks (QW4) was safe, without any clinically meaningful loss of efficacy in most patients with relapsing-remitting MS (RRMS). In the phase 3b NOVA trial (N = 499), patients with RRMS receiving stable intravenous natalizumab QW4 dosing were randomly assigned to continue QW4 (n = 248) or switch to QW6 (n = 251) natalizumab dosing. The mean number of new or newly enlarging T2 hyperintense lesions at 72 weeks was 0.20 (95% CI 0.07-0.63) with natalizumab QW6 vs 0.05 (95% CI 0.01-0.22) with natalizumab QW4, with only two of the PWMS developing 25 or more lesions; this contributed to most of the excess lesions in the QW6 dosing regimen. The safety profile was similar for both the regimens.

Both DMT choice and vaccine-related antibody production matter. Various DMT have different and problematic impact on antibody production and response, and unrecognized immune deficiency or poor antibody response are problematic as variant COVID-19 strains continue to evolve. Protection against both MS disease activity and infections from variants remain a complex issue. Establishing and maintaining protection are important. Identifying PWMS who are at high risk for poor or sustained antibody response is important in addition to the ongoing effective treatment of MS. The landscape of available DMT choice, treatment paradigms, and COVID-19 variants and COVID-19 family protection continues to evolve.

In another recent prospective study, Cabeza and colleagues noted that ocrelizumab-treated PWMS who received a third SARS-CoV-2 vaccine dose had a boosted T-cell response, but there was no additive effect on the maximal T-cell response. The study included PWMS taking DMT (ocrelizumab, n = 24; fingolimod, n = 12; or no DMT, n = 10) and healthy controls (n = 12), all of whom received three SARS-CoV-2 vaccine doses (BioNTech-Pfizer or Moderna). The SARS-CoV-2–specific T-cell response in patients treated with ocrelizumab was comparable to that in PWMS who were not treated with DMT and to that in healthy controls after the second SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. However, the third SARS-CoV-2 vaccination had no additive effect on T-cell response, but it did induce a booster response (P < .05).

The relationship and interplay of both T-cell and B-cell responses to viral infection is important to understand and appreciate. However, for PWMS who have had, do have, or will experience breakthrough infection, early use of anti-SARS-CoV-2 monoclonal antibodies (mAb) was effective and safe in treating acute COVID-19 in PWMS treated with fingolimod or ocrelizumab. Manzano and colleagues reported on an observational study including 23 PWMS, most of whom had completed the initial COVID-19 vaccine series before infection and were either untreated or treated with fingolimod+ ocrelizumab and then received anti–SARS-CoV2 mAbs (bamlanivimab + etesevimab, casirivimab + imdevimab, sotrovimab, or an undocumented formulation) for treatment of active COVID-19. In this study, 74% of PWMS were able to be managed as outpatients (median duration to mAb receipt, 4 days), and 48% of PWMS recovered from COVID-19 within 7 days after mAb receipt, with no clinical MS relapses documented during or shortly after COVID-19 (median follow-up, 18 days). No adverse events or deaths were reported in this series.

Pivotal trials and package insert information affect DMT choice and dosing, the timing of ongoing treatment, and the awareness of efficacy and potential adverse reactions. Foley and colleagues  demonstrated that switching to once-every-6-weeks (QW6) dosing of natalizumab from a stable dosing of once every 4 weeks (QW4) was safe, without any clinically meaningful loss of efficacy in most patients with relapsing-remitting MS (RRMS). In the phase 3b NOVA trial (N = 499), patients with RRMS receiving stable intravenous natalizumab QW4 dosing were randomly assigned to continue QW4 (n = 248) or switch to QW6 (n = 251) natalizumab dosing. The mean number of new or newly enlarging T2 hyperintense lesions at 72 weeks was 0.20 (95% CI 0.07-0.63) with natalizumab QW6 vs 0.05 (95% CI 0.01-0.22) with natalizumab QW4, with only two of the PWMS developing 25 or more lesions; this contributed to most of the excess lesions in the QW6 dosing regimen. The safety profile was similar for both the regimens.

Both DMT choice and vaccine-related antibody production matter. Various DMT have different and problematic impact on antibody production and response, and unrecognized immune deficiency or poor antibody response are problematic as variant COVID-19 strains continue to evolve. Protection against both MS disease activity and infections from variants remain a complex issue. Establishing and maintaining protection are important. Identifying PWMS who are at high risk for poor or sustained antibody response is important in addition to the ongoing effective treatment of MS. The landscape of available DMT choice, treatment paradigms, and COVID-19 variants and COVID-19 family protection continues to evolve.

In another recent prospective study, Cabeza and colleagues noted that ocrelizumab-treated PWMS who received a third SARS-CoV-2 vaccine dose had a boosted T-cell response, but there was no additive effect on the maximal T-cell response. The study included PWMS taking DMT (ocrelizumab, n = 24; fingolimod, n = 12; or no DMT, n = 10) and healthy controls (n = 12), all of whom received three SARS-CoV-2 vaccine doses (BioNTech-Pfizer or Moderna). The SARS-CoV-2–specific T-cell response in patients treated with ocrelizumab was comparable to that in PWMS who were not treated with DMT and to that in healthy controls after the second SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. However, the third SARS-CoV-2 vaccination had no additive effect on T-cell response, but it did induce a booster response (P < .05).

The relationship and interplay of both T-cell and B-cell responses to viral infection is important to understand and appreciate. However, for PWMS who have had, do have, or will experience breakthrough infection, early use of anti-SARS-CoV-2 monoclonal antibodies (mAb) was effective and safe in treating acute COVID-19 in PWMS treated with fingolimod or ocrelizumab. Manzano and colleagues reported on an observational study including 23 PWMS, most of whom had completed the initial COVID-19 vaccine series before infection and were either untreated or treated with fingolimod+ ocrelizumab and then received anti–SARS-CoV2 mAbs (bamlanivimab + etesevimab, casirivimab + imdevimab, sotrovimab, or an undocumented formulation) for treatment of active COVID-19. In this study, 74% of PWMS were able to be managed as outpatients (median duration to mAb receipt, 4 days), and 48% of PWMS recovered from COVID-19 within 7 days after mAb receipt, with no clinical MS relapses documented during or shortly after COVID-19 (median follow-up, 18 days). No adverse events or deaths were reported in this series.

Pivotal trials and package insert information affect DMT choice and dosing, the timing of ongoing treatment, and the awareness of efficacy and potential adverse reactions. Foley and colleagues  demonstrated that switching to once-every-6-weeks (QW6) dosing of natalizumab from a stable dosing of once every 4 weeks (QW4) was safe, without any clinically meaningful loss of efficacy in most patients with relapsing-remitting MS (RRMS). In the phase 3b NOVA trial (N = 499), patients with RRMS receiving stable intravenous natalizumab QW4 dosing were randomly assigned to continue QW4 (n = 248) or switch to QW6 (n = 251) natalizumab dosing. The mean number of new or newly enlarging T2 hyperintense lesions at 72 weeks was 0.20 (95% CI 0.07-0.63) with natalizumab QW6 vs 0.05 (95% CI 0.01-0.22) with natalizumab QW4, with only two of the PWMS developing 25 or more lesions; this contributed to most of the excess lesions in the QW6 dosing regimen. The safety profile was similar for both the regimens.

Both DMT choice and vaccine-related antibody production matter. Various DMT have different and problematic impact on antibody production and response, and unrecognized immune deficiency or poor antibody response are problematic as variant COVID-19 strains continue to evolve. Protection against both MS disease activity and infections from variants remain a complex issue. Establishing and maintaining protection are important. Identifying PWMS who are at high risk for poor or sustained antibody response is important in addition to the ongoing effective treatment of MS. The landscape of available DMT choice, treatment paradigms, and COVID-19 variants and COVID-19 family protection continues to evolve.

Verset and colleagues reported results from cohort 2 of the phase 2 KEYNOTE-224 trial, which investigated first-line pembrolizumab in patients with unresectable HCC. Fifty-one patients were included in cohort 2. The overall response rate (ORR) was 16% [95% CI 7-29] and was similar across key subgroups. Median duration of response was 16 months (range 3-24+), and disease control rate was 57%. The median progression-free survival (PFS) was 4 months (95% CI 2-8), and median time to progression was 4 months (95% CI 3-9). Median overall survival (OS) was 17 months (95% CI 8-23). Grade ≥ 3 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 16% of patients. The authors concluded that pembrolizumab is an effective treatment for patients with unresectable HCC and should be studied further in this setting.

Immunotherapy combinations are frequently used in the first-line setting for patients with unresectable HCC. In the past, many patients received immunotherapy in the second- or third-line settings. Sharma and coworkers reported patient outcomes following immunotherapy (immune checkpoint inhibitors, ICI). This retrospective, multicenter study examined anticancer treatment received after ICI treatment and assessed the impact of systemic treatment on post-ICI survival. A total of 420 patients with HCC were included. Most patients (n = 371; 88.3%) had received at least one prior treatment for HCC before ICI, including at least one line of systemic therapy (n = 289; 68.8%), with most receiving sorafenib (n = 237; 56.4%). Following immunotherapy, 31 (8.8%) died, 152 (36.2%) received best supportive care, and 163 patients (38.8%) received subsequent anticancer therapy. Tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI; n = 132; 80.9%), mostly sorafenib (n = 49; 30.0%), were the most common post-ICI therapy, followed by external beam radiotherapy (n = 28; 17.2%), further immunotherapy (n = 21; 12.9%), locoregional therapy (n = 23; 14.1%), chemotherapy (n = 9; 5.5%), and surgery (n = 6; 3.6%). Post-ICI therapy was associated with longer median OS compared with best supportive care (12.1 vs 3.3 months; hazard ratio [HR] 0.4; 95% CI 2.7-5.0). No difference in OS was noted if TKI were administered before or after ICI. The authors concluded that post-ICI therapy is associated with OS greater than 12 months, suggesting a role for therapeutic sequencing. OS from TKI therapy was similar to that reported in registration studies, suggesting preserved efficacy following ICI.

Finally, Ahn and colleagues looked at racial disparities in patients with HCC. In this report, 3248 (81.4%) patients received chemotherapy and 742 (18.6%) patients received immunotherapy as a first-line treatment. Immunotherapy was associated with improved OS compared with chemotherapy (adjusted HR 0.76; 95% CI 0.65-0.88). There were racial and ethnic disparities in access to immunotherapy, with Hispanic (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.63; 95% CI 0.46-0.83) and Black (aOR 0.71; 95% CI 0.54-0.89) patients less likely to receive immunotherapy compared with White patients.

Verset and colleagues reported results from cohort 2 of the phase 2 KEYNOTE-224 trial, which investigated first-line pembrolizumab in patients with unresectable HCC. Fifty-one patients were included in cohort 2. The overall response rate (ORR) was 16% [95% CI 7-29] and was similar across key subgroups. Median duration of response was 16 months (range 3-24+), and disease control rate was 57%. The median progression-free survival (PFS) was 4 months (95% CI 2-8), and median time to progression was 4 months (95% CI 3-9). Median overall survival (OS) was 17 months (95% CI 8-23). Grade ≥ 3 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 16% of patients. The authors concluded that pembrolizumab is an effective treatment for patients with unresectable HCC and should be studied further in this setting.

Immunotherapy combinations are frequently used in the first-line setting for patients with unresectable HCC. In the past, many patients received immunotherapy in the second- or third-line settings. Sharma and coworkers reported patient outcomes following immunotherapy (immune checkpoint inhibitors, ICI). This retrospective, multicenter study examined anticancer treatment received after ICI treatment and assessed the impact of systemic treatment on post-ICI survival. A total of 420 patients with HCC were included. Most patients (n = 371; 88.3%) had received at least one prior treatment for HCC before ICI, including at least one line of systemic therapy (n = 289; 68.8%), with most receiving sorafenib (n = 237; 56.4%). Following immunotherapy, 31 (8.8%) died, 152 (36.2%) received best supportive care, and 163 patients (38.8%) received subsequent anticancer therapy. Tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI; n = 132; 80.9%), mostly sorafenib (n = 49; 30.0%), were the most common post-ICI therapy, followed by external beam radiotherapy (n = 28; 17.2%), further immunotherapy (n = 21; 12.9%), locoregional therapy (n = 23; 14.1%), chemotherapy (n = 9; 5.5%), and surgery (n = 6; 3.6%). Post-ICI therapy was associated with longer median OS compared with best supportive care (12.1 vs 3.3 months; hazard ratio [HR] 0.4; 95% CI 2.7-5.0). No difference in OS was noted if TKI were administered before or after ICI. The authors concluded that post-ICI therapy is associated with OS greater than 12 months, suggesting a role for therapeutic sequencing. OS from TKI therapy was similar to that reported in registration studies, suggesting preserved efficacy following ICI.

Finally, Ahn and colleagues looked at racial disparities in patients with HCC. In this report, 3248 (81.4%) patients received chemotherapy and 742 (18.6%) patients received immunotherapy as a first-line treatment. Immunotherapy was associated with improved OS compared with chemotherapy (adjusted HR 0.76; 95% CI 0.65-0.88). There were racial and ethnic disparities in access to immunotherapy, with Hispanic (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.63; 95% CI 0.46-0.83) and Black (aOR 0.71; 95% CI 0.54-0.89) patients less likely to receive immunotherapy compared with White patients.

Verset and colleagues reported results from cohort 2 of the phase 2 KEYNOTE-224 trial, which investigated first-line pembrolizumab in patients with unresectable HCC. Fifty-one patients were included in cohort 2. The overall response rate (ORR) was 16% [95% CI 7-29] and was similar across key subgroups. Median duration of response was 16 months (range 3-24+), and disease control rate was 57%. The median progression-free survival (PFS) was 4 months (95% CI 2-8), and median time to progression was 4 months (95% CI 3-9). Median overall survival (OS) was 17 months (95% CI 8-23). Grade ≥ 3 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 16% of patients. The authors concluded that pembrolizumab is an effective treatment for patients with unresectable HCC and should be studied further in this setting.

Immunotherapy combinations are frequently used in the first-line setting for patients with unresectable HCC. In the past, many patients received immunotherapy in the second- or third-line settings. Sharma and coworkers reported patient outcomes following immunotherapy (immune checkpoint inhibitors, ICI). This retrospective, multicenter study examined anticancer treatment received after ICI treatment and assessed the impact of systemic treatment on post-ICI survival. A total of 420 patients with HCC were included. Most patients (n = 371; 88.3%) had received at least one prior treatment for HCC before ICI, including at least one line of systemic therapy (n = 289; 68.8%), with most receiving sorafenib (n = 237; 56.4%). Following immunotherapy, 31 (8.8%) died, 152 (36.2%) received best supportive care, and 163 patients (38.8%) received subsequent anticancer therapy. Tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI; n = 132; 80.9%), mostly sorafenib (n = 49; 30.0%), were the most common post-ICI therapy, followed by external beam radiotherapy (n = 28; 17.2%), further immunotherapy (n = 21; 12.9%), locoregional therapy (n = 23; 14.1%), chemotherapy (n = 9; 5.5%), and surgery (n = 6; 3.6%). Post-ICI therapy was associated with longer median OS compared with best supportive care (12.1 vs 3.3 months; hazard ratio [HR] 0.4; 95% CI 2.7-5.0). No difference in OS was noted if TKI were administered before or after ICI. The authors concluded that post-ICI therapy is associated with OS greater than 12 months, suggesting a role for therapeutic sequencing. OS from TKI therapy was similar to that reported in registration studies, suggesting preserved efficacy following ICI.

Finally, Ahn and colleagues looked at racial disparities in patients with HCC. In this report, 3248 (81.4%) patients received chemotherapy and 742 (18.6%) patients received immunotherapy as a first-line treatment. Immunotherapy was associated with improved OS compared with chemotherapy (adjusted HR 0.76; 95% CI 0.65-0.88). There were racial and ethnic disparities in access to immunotherapy, with Hispanic (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.63; 95% CI 0.46-0.83) and Black (aOR 0.71; 95% CI 0.54-0.89) patients less likely to receive immunotherapy compared with White patients.

Verset and colleagues reported results from cohort 2 of the phase 2 KEYNOTE-224 trial, which investigated first-line pembrolizumab in patients with unresectable HCC. Fifty-one patients were included in cohort 2. The overall response rate (ORR) was 16% [95% CI 7-29] and was similar across key subgroups. Median duration of response was 16 months (range 3-24+), and disease control rate was 57%. The median progression-free survival (PFS) was 4 months (95% CI 2-8), and median time to progression was 4 months (95% CI 3-9). Median overall survival (OS) was 17 months (95% CI 8-23). Grade ≥ 3 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 16% of patients. The authors concluded that pembrolizumab is an effective treatment for patients with unresectable HCC and should be studied further in this setting.

Immunotherapy combinations are frequently used in the first-line setting for patients with unresectable HCC. In the past, many patients received immunotherapy in the second- or third-line settings. Sharma and coworkers reported patient outcomes following immunotherapy (immune checkpoint inhibitors, ICI). This retrospective, multicenter study examined anticancer treatment received after ICI treatment and assessed the impact of systemic treatment on post-ICI survival. A total of 420 patients with HCC were included. Most patients (n = 371; 88.3%) had received at least one prior treatment for HCC before ICI, including at least one line of systemic therapy (n = 289; 68.8%), with most receiving sorafenib (n = 237; 56.4%). Following immunotherapy, 31 (8.8%) died, 152 (36.2%) received best supportive care, and 163 patients (38.8%) received subsequent anticancer therapy. Tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI; n = 132; 80.9%), mostly sorafenib (n = 49; 30.0%), were the most common post-ICI therapy, followed by external beam radiotherapy (n = 28; 17.2%), further immunotherapy (n = 21; 12.9%), locoregional therapy (n = 23; 14.1%), chemotherapy (n = 9; 5.5%), and surgery (n = 6; 3.6%). Post-ICI therapy was associated with longer median OS compared with best supportive care (12.1 vs 3.3 months; hazard ratio [HR] 0.4; 95% CI 2.7-5.0). No difference in OS was noted if TKI were administered before or after ICI. The authors concluded that post-ICI therapy is associated with OS greater than 12 months, suggesting a role for therapeutic sequencing. OS from TKI therapy was similar to that reported in registration studies, suggesting preserved efficacy following ICI.

Finally, Ahn and colleagues looked at racial disparities in patients with HCC. In this report, 3248 (81.4%) patients received chemotherapy and 742 (18.6%) patients received immunotherapy as a first-line treatment. Immunotherapy was associated with improved OS compared with chemotherapy (adjusted HR 0.76; 95% CI 0.65-0.88). There were racial and ethnic disparities in access to immunotherapy, with Hispanic (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.63; 95% CI 0.46-0.83) and Black (aOR 0.71; 95% CI 0.54-0.89) patients less likely to receive immunotherapy compared with White patients.

Verset and colleagues reported results from cohort 2 of the phase 2 KEYNOTE-224 trial, which investigated first-line pembrolizumab in patients with unresectable HCC. Fifty-one patients were included in cohort 2. The overall response rate (ORR) was 16% [95% CI 7-29] and was similar across key subgroups. Median duration of response was 16 months (range 3-24+), and disease control rate was 57%. The median progression-free survival (PFS) was 4 months (95% CI 2-8), and median time to progression was 4 months (95% CI 3-9). Median overall survival (OS) was 17 months (95% CI 8-23). Grade ≥ 3 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 16% of patients. The authors concluded that pembrolizumab is an effective treatment for patients with unresectable HCC and should be studied further in this setting.

Immunotherapy combinations are frequently used in the first-line setting for patients with unresectable HCC. In the past, many patients received immunotherapy in the second- or third-line settings. Sharma and coworkers reported patient outcomes following immunotherapy (immune checkpoint inhibitors, ICI). This retrospective, multicenter study examined anticancer treatment received after ICI treatment and assessed the impact of systemic treatment on post-ICI survival. A total of 420 patients with HCC were included. Most patients (n = 371; 88.3%) had received at least one prior treatment for HCC before ICI, including at least one line of systemic therapy (n = 289; 68.8%), with most receiving sorafenib (n = 237; 56.4%). Following immunotherapy, 31 (8.8%) died, 152 (36.2%) received best supportive care, and 163 patients (38.8%) received subsequent anticancer therapy. Tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI; n = 132; 80.9%), mostly sorafenib (n = 49; 30.0%), were the most common post-ICI therapy, followed by external beam radiotherapy (n = 28; 17.2%), further immunotherapy (n = 21; 12.9%), locoregional therapy (n = 23; 14.1%), chemotherapy (n = 9; 5.5%), and surgery (n = 6; 3.6%). Post-ICI therapy was associated with longer median OS compared with best supportive care (12.1 vs 3.3 months; hazard ratio [HR] 0.4; 95% CI 2.7-5.0). No difference in OS was noted if TKI were administered before or after ICI. The authors concluded that post-ICI therapy is associated with OS greater than 12 months, suggesting a role for therapeutic sequencing. OS from TKI therapy was similar to that reported in registration studies, suggesting preserved efficacy following ICI.

Finally, Ahn and colleagues looked at racial disparities in patients with HCC. In this report, 3248 (81.4%) patients received chemotherapy and 742 (18.6%) patients received immunotherapy as a first-line treatment. Immunotherapy was associated with improved OS compared with chemotherapy (adjusted HR 0.76; 95% CI 0.65-0.88). There were racial and ethnic disparities in access to immunotherapy, with Hispanic (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.63; 95% CI 0.46-0.83) and Black (aOR 0.71; 95% CI 0.54-0.89) patients less likely to receive immunotherapy compared with White patients.

Verset and colleagues reported results from cohort 2 of the phase 2 KEYNOTE-224 trial, which investigated first-line pembrolizumab in patients with unresectable HCC. Fifty-one patients were included in cohort 2. The overall response rate (ORR) was 16% [95% CI 7-29] and was similar across key subgroups. Median duration of response was 16 months (range 3-24+), and disease control rate was 57%. The median progression-free survival (PFS) was 4 months (95% CI 2-8), and median time to progression was 4 months (95% CI 3-9). Median overall survival (OS) was 17 months (95% CI 8-23). Grade ≥ 3 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 16% of patients. The authors concluded that pembrolizumab is an effective treatment for patients with unresectable HCC and should be studied further in this setting.

Immunotherapy combinations are frequently used in the first-line setting for patients with unresectable HCC. In the past, many patients received immunotherapy in the second- or third-line settings. Sharma and coworkers reported patient outcomes following immunotherapy (immune checkpoint inhibitors, ICI). This retrospective, multicenter study examined anticancer treatment received after ICI treatment and assessed the impact of systemic treatment on post-ICI survival. A total of 420 patients with HCC were included. Most patients (n = 371; 88.3%) had received at least one prior treatment for HCC before ICI, including at least one line of systemic therapy (n = 289; 68.8%), with most receiving sorafenib (n = 237; 56.4%). Following immunotherapy, 31 (8.8%) died, 152 (36.2%) received best supportive care, and 163 patients (38.8%) received subsequent anticancer therapy. Tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI; n = 132; 80.9%), mostly sorafenib (n = 49; 30.0%), were the most common post-ICI therapy, followed by external beam radiotherapy (n = 28; 17.2%), further immunotherapy (n = 21; 12.9%), locoregional therapy (n = 23; 14.1%), chemotherapy (n = 9; 5.5%), and surgery (n = 6; 3.6%). Post-ICI therapy was associated with longer median OS compared with best supportive care (12.1 vs 3.3 months; hazard ratio [HR] 0.4; 95% CI 2.7-5.0). No difference in OS was noted if TKI were administered before or after ICI. The authors concluded that post-ICI therapy is associated with OS greater than 12 months, suggesting a role for therapeutic sequencing. OS from TKI therapy was similar to that reported in registration studies, suggesting preserved efficacy following ICI.

Finally, Ahn and colleagues looked at racial disparities in patients with HCC. In this report, 3248 (81.4%) patients received chemotherapy and 742 (18.6%) patients received immunotherapy as a first-line treatment. Immunotherapy was associated with improved OS compared with chemotherapy (adjusted HR 0.76; 95% CI 0.65-0.88). There were racial and ethnic disparities in access to immunotherapy, with Hispanic (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.63; 95% CI 0.46-0.83) and Black (aOR 0.71; 95% CI 0.54-0.89) patients less likely to receive immunotherapy compared with White patients.

A subset of patients with HR+ metastatic breast cancer (mBC) may have primary resistance to endocrine therapy (ET), and the majority will develop progressive disease and secondary resistance at some point during their treatment course. The phase 3 PEARL trial randomly assigned 601 postmenopausal patients with HR+/HER2- mBC that was resistant to prior aromatase inhibitor therapy to capecitabine or palbociclib + ET (with exemestane or fulvestrant). There was no significant difference in OS between the palbociclib + ET and capecitabine arms in both the wild-type–ESR1 population (median OS 37.2 vs 34.8 months; adjusted HR 1.06; P = .683) and overall population (median OS 32.6 vs 30.9 months, adjusted HR 1.00; P = .995) (Martin et al). The randomized phase 2 Young-PEARL trial demonstrated a progression-free survival (PFS) benefit with palbociclib + exemestane + leuprolide vs capecitabine among 189 premenopausal women with HR+/HER2- mBC and relapse or progression on prior tamoxifen therapy (median PFS 20.1 vs 14.4 months; HR 0.659; P = .0235).² In this study, half of the patients were treatment-naive in the metastatic setting and had no prior aromatase inhibitor exposure. Considering the similar survival outcomes seen in PEARL in postmenopausal patients, the choice of therapy should include consideration of other variables, such as side effects, comorbidities, and OS results, which will be further informative in the premenopausal population.
 

Poorer outcomes associated with breast cancer in younger women (< 45 years of age) are driven by multiple factors, including delayed diagnosis, more aggressive biologic subtypes, and advanced stage at presentation. Survival outcomes for breast cancer diagnosed and treated during pregnancy are similar to nonpregnant patients. Postpartum breast cancer (PPBC) is a distinct entity, defined as breast cancer that is diagnosed within the first 5 years after childbirth, and is more likely to have inferior outcomes. A pooled data set from the Colorado Young Women Breast cohort and the Breast Cancer Health Disparities study (n = 2519 cases) showed that among women diagnosed at < 45 years, those who were nulliparous had better OS vs those with PPBC (HR 0.61), with a more prominent effect among stage I breast cancers (HR 0.30) and in very young women diagnosed at ≤ 35 years (HR 0.44) (Shagisultanova et al). At 15 years of follow-up, among very young women diagnosed at ≤ 35 years, those with PPBC had an OS of 63% compared with 71% for nulliparous women and 67% for women who had given birth more than 5 years ago. There are various factors that likely contribute to poorer outcomes seen with PPBC, including mammary gland involution and a lactation effect. Research efforts focused on aspects, such as the tumor immune microenvironment in the postpartum state, lactation studies, and perhaps identification of a postpartum signature, will enhance our understanding with the goal to optimize outcomes for young women with PPBC.^[3]
 

The treatment of male breast cancer in the advanced or metastatic setting is largely extrapolated from female studies. Registry data have shown differences in clinicopathologic characteristics between metastatic male breast cancer (mMBC) and metastatic female breast cancer (mFBC). For example, there is a higher proportion of simultaneous lung and bone involvement and a lower proportion of HER2+/HR- triple-negative subtypes, and simultaneous bone and liver metastasis in mMBC vs mFBC.⁴ An analysis including 207 male patients with breast cancer with bone metastases in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database demonstrated 3-year OS and cancer-specific survival (CSS) rates of 36.7% and 39.5%, respectively. Inferior OS and CSS were associated with age > 60 years (for OS: HR 1.671; P = .014; for CSS: HR 1.806; P = .009), triple-negative subtype (for OS: HR 3.029, P = .003; for CSS: HR 3.025, P = .004), and lack of surgery (for OS: HR 1.746; P = .012; for CSS: HR 1.734; P = .023), whereas brain metastasis had a worse OS (HR 2.045; P = .028) but not CSS (Zhou et al). These findings highlight the importance of getting a better understanding of mMBC disease biology and the opportunity to tailor treatment approaches for this population of patients.
 

Additional References
 

1. Waks AG, Desai NV, Li T, et al. A prospective trial of treatment de-escalation following neoadjuvant paclitaxel/trastuzumab/pertuzumab in HER2-positive breast cancer. NPJ Breast Cancer. 2022;8:63. Doi: 10.1038/s41523-022-00429-7
2. Park YH, Kim TY, Kim GM, et al; Korean Cancer Study Group (KCSG). Palbociclib plus exemestane with gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist versus capecitabine in premenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer (KCSG-BR15-10): A multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2019;20(12):1750-1759. Doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(19)30565-0
3. Lefrère H, Lenaerts L, Borges VF, et al. Postpartum breast cancer: mechanisms underlying its worse prognosis, treatment implications, and fertility preservation. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2021;31:412-422. Doi: 10.1136/ijgc-2020-002072
4. Xie J, Ying YY, Xu B, Li Y, Zhang X, Li C. Metastasis pattern and prognosis of male breast cancer patients in US: a population-based study from SEER database. Ther Adv Med Oncol. 2019;11:1758835919889003. Doi: 10.1177/1758835919889003

A subset of patients with HR+ metastatic breast cancer (mBC) may have primary resistance to endocrine therapy (ET), and the majority will develop progressive disease and secondary resistance at some point during their treatment course. The phase 3 PEARL trial randomly assigned 601 postmenopausal patients with HR+/HER2- mBC that was resistant to prior aromatase inhibitor therapy to capecitabine or palbociclib + ET (with exemestane or fulvestrant). There was no significant difference in OS between the palbociclib + ET and capecitabine arms in both the wild-type–ESR1 population (median OS 37.2 vs 34.8 months; adjusted HR 1.06; P = .683) and overall population (median OS 32.6 vs 30.9 months, adjusted HR 1.00; P = .995) (Martin et al). The randomized phase 2 Young-PEARL trial demonstrated a progression-free survival (PFS) benefit with palbociclib + exemestane + leuprolide vs capecitabine among 189 premenopausal women with HR+/HER2- mBC and relapse or progression on prior tamoxifen therapy (median PFS 20.1 vs 14.4 months; HR 0.659; P = .0235).² In this study, half of the patients were treatment-naive in the metastatic setting and had no prior aromatase inhibitor exposure. Considering the similar survival outcomes seen in PEARL in postmenopausal patients, the choice of therapy should include consideration of other variables, such as side effects, comorbidities, and OS results, which will be further informative in the premenopausal population.
 

Poorer outcomes associated with breast cancer in younger women (< 45 years of age) are driven by multiple factors, including delayed diagnosis, more aggressive biologic subtypes, and advanced stage at presentation. Survival outcomes for breast cancer diagnosed and treated during pregnancy are similar to nonpregnant patients. Postpartum breast cancer (PPBC) is a distinct entity, defined as breast cancer that is diagnosed within the first 5 years after childbirth, and is more likely to have inferior outcomes. A pooled data set from the Colorado Young Women Breast cohort and the Breast Cancer Health Disparities study (n = 2519 cases) showed that among women diagnosed at < 45 years, those who were nulliparous had better OS vs those with PPBC (HR 0.61), with a more prominent effect among stage I breast cancers (HR 0.30) and in very young women diagnosed at ≤ 35 years (HR 0.44) (Shagisultanova et al). At 15 years of follow-up, among very young women diagnosed at ≤ 35 years, those with PPBC had an OS of 63% compared with 71% for nulliparous women and 67% for women who had given birth more than 5 years ago. There are various factors that likely contribute to poorer outcomes seen with PPBC, including mammary gland involution and a lactation effect. Research efforts focused on aspects, such as the tumor immune microenvironment in the postpartum state, lactation studies, and perhaps identification of a postpartum signature, will enhance our understanding with the goal to optimize outcomes for young women with PPBC.^[3]
 

The treatment of male breast cancer in the advanced or metastatic setting is largely extrapolated from female studies. Registry data have shown differences in clinicopathologic characteristics between metastatic male breast cancer (mMBC) and metastatic female breast cancer (mFBC). For example, there is a higher proportion of simultaneous lung and bone involvement and a lower proportion of HER2+/HR- triple-negative subtypes, and simultaneous bone and liver metastasis in mMBC vs mFBC.⁴ An analysis including 207 male patients with breast cancer with bone metastases in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database demonstrated 3-year OS and cancer-specific survival (CSS) rates of 36.7% and 39.5%, respectively. Inferior OS and CSS were associated with age > 60 years (for OS: HR 1.671; P = .014; for CSS: HR 1.806; P = .009), triple-negative subtype (for OS: HR 3.029, P = .003; for CSS: HR 3.025, P = .004), and lack of surgery (for OS: HR 1.746; P = .012; for CSS: HR 1.734; P = .023), whereas brain metastasis had a worse OS (HR 2.045; P = .028) but not CSS (Zhou et al). These findings highlight the importance of getting a better understanding of mMBC disease biology and the opportunity to tailor treatment approaches for this population of patients.
 

Additional References
 

1. Waks AG, Desai NV, Li T, et al. A prospective trial of treatment de-escalation following neoadjuvant paclitaxel/trastuzumab/pertuzumab in HER2-positive breast cancer. NPJ Breast Cancer. 2022;8:63. Doi: 10.1038/s41523-022-00429-7
2. Park YH, Kim TY, Kim GM, et al; Korean Cancer Study Group (KCSG). Palbociclib plus exemestane with gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist versus capecitabine in premenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer (KCSG-BR15-10): A multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2019;20(12):1750-1759. Doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(19)30565-0
3. Lefrère H, Lenaerts L, Borges VF, et al. Postpartum breast cancer: mechanisms underlying its worse prognosis, treatment implications, and fertility preservation. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2021;31:412-422. Doi: 10.1136/ijgc-2020-002072
4. Xie J, Ying YY, Xu B, Li Y, Zhang X, Li C. Metastasis pattern and prognosis of male breast cancer patients in US: a population-based study from SEER database. Ther Adv Med Oncol. 2019;11:1758835919889003. Doi: 10.1177/1758835919889003

A subset of patients with HR+ metastatic breast cancer (mBC) may have primary resistance to endocrine therapy (ET), and the majority will develop progressive disease and secondary resistance at some point during their treatment course. The phase 3 PEARL trial randomly assigned 601 postmenopausal patients with HR+/HER2- mBC that was resistant to prior aromatase inhibitor therapy to capecitabine or palbociclib + ET (with exemestane or fulvestrant). There was no significant difference in OS between the palbociclib + ET and capecitabine arms in both the wild-type–ESR1 population (median OS 37.2 vs 34.8 months; adjusted HR 1.06; P = .683) and overall population (median OS 32.6 vs 30.9 months, adjusted HR 1.00; P = .995) (Martin et al). The randomized phase 2 Young-PEARL trial demonstrated a progression-free survival (PFS) benefit with palbociclib + exemestane + leuprolide vs capecitabine among 189 premenopausal women with HR+/HER2- mBC and relapse or progression on prior tamoxifen therapy (median PFS 20.1 vs 14.4 months; HR 0.659; P = .0235).² In this study, half of the patients were treatment-naive in the metastatic setting and had no prior aromatase inhibitor exposure. Considering the similar survival outcomes seen in PEARL in postmenopausal patients, the choice of therapy should include consideration of other variables, such as side effects, comorbidities, and OS results, which will be further informative in the premenopausal population.
 

Poorer outcomes associated with breast cancer in younger women (< 45 years of age) are driven by multiple factors, including delayed diagnosis, more aggressive biologic subtypes, and advanced stage at presentation. Survival outcomes for breast cancer diagnosed and treated during pregnancy are similar to nonpregnant patients. Postpartum breast cancer (PPBC) is a distinct entity, defined as breast cancer that is diagnosed within the first 5 years after childbirth, and is more likely to have inferior outcomes. A pooled data set from the Colorado Young Women Breast cohort and the Breast Cancer Health Disparities study (n = 2519 cases) showed that among women diagnosed at < 45 years, those who were nulliparous had better OS vs those with PPBC (HR 0.61), with a more prominent effect among stage I breast cancers (HR 0.30) and in very young women diagnosed at ≤ 35 years (HR 0.44) (Shagisultanova et al). At 15 years of follow-up, among very young women diagnosed at ≤ 35 years, those with PPBC had an OS of 63% compared with 71% for nulliparous women and 67% for women who had given birth more than 5 years ago. There are various factors that likely contribute to poorer outcomes seen with PPBC, including mammary gland involution and a lactation effect. Research efforts focused on aspects, such as the tumor immune microenvironment in the postpartum state, lactation studies, and perhaps identification of a postpartum signature, will enhance our understanding with the goal to optimize outcomes for young women with PPBC.^[3]
 

The treatment of male breast cancer in the advanced or metastatic setting is largely extrapolated from female studies. Registry data have shown differences in clinicopathologic characteristics between metastatic male breast cancer (mMBC) and metastatic female breast cancer (mFBC). For example, there is a higher proportion of simultaneous lung and bone involvement and a lower proportion of HER2+/HR- triple-negative subtypes, and simultaneous bone and liver metastasis in mMBC vs mFBC.⁴ An analysis including 207 male patients with breast cancer with bone metastases in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database demonstrated 3-year OS and cancer-specific survival (CSS) rates of 36.7% and 39.5%, respectively. Inferior OS and CSS were associated with age > 60 years (for OS: HR 1.671; P = .014; for CSS: HR 1.806; P = .009), triple-negative subtype (for OS: HR 3.029, P = .003; for CSS: HR 3.025, P = .004), and lack of surgery (for OS: HR 1.746; P = .012; for CSS: HR 1.734; P = .023), whereas brain metastasis had a worse OS (HR 2.045; P = .028) but not CSS (Zhou et al). These findings highlight the importance of getting a better understanding of mMBC disease biology and the opportunity to tailor treatment approaches for this population of patients.
 

Additional References
 

1. Waks AG, Desai NV, Li T, et al. A prospective trial of treatment de-escalation following neoadjuvant paclitaxel/trastuzumab/pertuzumab in HER2-positive breast cancer. NPJ Breast Cancer. 2022;8:63. Doi: 10.1038/s41523-022-00429-7
2. Park YH, Kim TY, Kim GM, et al; Korean Cancer Study Group (KCSG). Palbociclib plus exemestane with gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist versus capecitabine in premenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer (KCSG-BR15-10): A multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2019;20(12):1750-1759. Doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(19)30565-0
3. Lefrère H, Lenaerts L, Borges VF, et al. Postpartum breast cancer: mechanisms underlying its worse prognosis, treatment implications, and fertility preservation. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2021;31:412-422. Doi: 10.1136/ijgc-2020-002072
4. Xie J, Ying YY, Xu B, Li Y, Zhang X, Li C. Metastasis pattern and prognosis of male breast cancer patients in US: a population-based study from SEER database. Ther Adv Med Oncol. 2019;11:1758835919889003. Doi: 10.1177/1758835919889003

Clinicians everywhere are excited to have more options, but they are also reeling from trying to keep up with the enormous amount of data. We are fortunate to have a lot of information for these therapies published in the past month, which provides important insight into how to best use them.

Let's start with some new data on dupilumab, which has emerged as a first-line systemic therapy for moderate to severe AD in the US. Patients who were enrolled in the phase 1-3 randomized clinical trials for dupilumab were allowed to enroll in a long-term open-label extension study where they received 300 mg dupilumab weekly. Beck and colleagues published the interim analysis of the ongoing international, multicenter, long-term extension study of 2677 adults with up to 4 years of dupilumab exposure. They found no major increases in adverse event rates, with high durable efficacy and high rates of drug persistence over time. It is important to note that this was an open-label study without a control group — that is, patients knew exactly what treatment they were receiving. In addition, the analysis presented efficacy among those patients who remained in the study over time, which may not adequately account for loss of efficacy over time in patients who dropped out of the study. Nevertheless, the results suggest that dupilumab can be a good long-term treatment option for patients with chronic AD, with no new major safety concerns.

There is now a large body of evidence generated by phase 4 studies showing the real-world effectiveness of dupilumab. Stingeni and colleagues published the results of a prospective study of 139 adolescents (aged 12-17 years) with moderate-to-severe AD who received dupilumab for 16 weeks. They found significant improvement in AD signs and quality of life overall and across different clinical phenotypes of AD, with robust endpoints achieved most in the diffuse eczema subtype. Despite the previously demonstrated heterogeneity of AD,^1,2 these results suggest that dupilumab can be effective across a variety of patient subtypes.

The JAK inhibitors are new additions to our therapeutic armamentarium for AD. Given how new they are to dermatology, we are always craving more data to inform clinical decision-making. Several recent studies provide additional insights into how we can use the JAK inhibitors in clinical practice.

One major question is how well they work in patients in whom dupilumab previously failed. Shi and colleagues published the results of an interesting and clinically relevant phase 3 study (JADE EXTEND), which included 203 patients with moderate-to-severe AD who were randomly assigned to receive 200 mg or 100 mg once-daily abrocitinib after previously receiving dupilumab for 14 weeks in the JADE COMPARE study. They found that at week 12, the majority of dupilumab nonresponders had high Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI-75) responses with both doses of abrocitinib. Patients who previously had a good clinical response with dupilumab had even higher treatment responses on abrocitinib than those who were dupilumab nonresponders. These data provide important information to support the use of abrocitinib, and perhaps by extension other JAK inhibitors, in patients who previously had inadequate response to dupilumab.

Another major question is how to differentiate the JAK inhibitors from biologics in AD. One consideration is that patients taking JAK inhibitors may achieve more robust clinical responses compared with those on biologics. Stander and colleagues performed a post hoc analysis of pooled phase 2B/3 studies of abrocitinib (942 patients). They found that, at week 12, a higher proportion of patients receiving 200 mg and 100 mg abrocitinib achieved more robust endpoints, such as EASI-90 and EASI-100 scores, compared with placebo recipients. Of note, these data did not include any comparison data with dupilumab. However, on the basis of cross-study comparison, it would seem that abrocitinib, particularly at the higher 200 mg dose, may lead to more robust clinical responses than dupilumab. However, it is very important to acknowledge that this study focused on 12-week data and maximal efficacy with dupilumab may take longer to achieve.

Additional References

1.         Chovatiya R, Silverberg JI. The heterogeneity of atopic dermatitis. J Drugs Dermatol. 2022;21(2):172-176. Doi:  10.36849/JDD.6408

2.         Yew YW, Thyssen JP, Silverberg JI. A systematic review and meta-analysis of the regional and age-related differences in atopic dermatitis clinical characteristics. J Amer Acad Dermatol. 2019;80(2):390-401. Doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2018.09.035

Clinicians everywhere are excited to have more options, but they are also reeling from trying to keep up with the enormous amount of data. We are fortunate to have a lot of information for these therapies published in the past month, which provides important insight into how to best use them.

Let's start with some new data on dupilumab, which has emerged as a first-line systemic therapy for moderate to severe AD in the US. Patients who were enrolled in the phase 1-3 randomized clinical trials for dupilumab were allowed to enroll in a long-term open-label extension study where they received 300 mg dupilumab weekly. Beck and colleagues published the interim analysis of the ongoing international, multicenter, long-term extension study of 2677 adults with up to 4 years of dupilumab exposure. They found no major increases in adverse event rates, with high durable efficacy and high rates of drug persistence over time. It is important to note that this was an open-label study without a control group — that is, patients knew exactly what treatment they were receiving. In addition, the analysis presented efficacy among those patients who remained in the study over time, which may not adequately account for loss of efficacy over time in patients who dropped out of the study. Nevertheless, the results suggest that dupilumab can be a good long-term treatment option for patients with chronic AD, with no new major safety concerns.

There is now a large body of evidence generated by phase 4 studies showing the real-world effectiveness of dupilumab. Stingeni and colleagues published the results of a prospective study of 139 adolescents (aged 12-17 years) with moderate-to-severe AD who received dupilumab for 16 weeks. They found significant improvement in AD signs and quality of life overall and across different clinical phenotypes of AD, with robust endpoints achieved most in the diffuse eczema subtype. Despite the previously demonstrated heterogeneity of AD,^1,2 these results suggest that dupilumab can be effective across a variety of patient subtypes.

The JAK inhibitors are new additions to our therapeutic armamentarium for AD. Given how new they are to dermatology, we are always craving more data to inform clinical decision-making. Several recent studies provide additional insights into how we can use the JAK inhibitors in clinical practice.

One major question is how well they work in patients in whom dupilumab previously failed. Shi and colleagues published the results of an interesting and clinically relevant phase 3 study (JADE EXTEND), which included 203 patients with moderate-to-severe AD who were randomly assigned to receive 200 mg or 100 mg once-daily abrocitinib after previously receiving dupilumab for 14 weeks in the JADE COMPARE study. They found that at week 12, the majority of dupilumab nonresponders had high Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI-75) responses with both doses of abrocitinib. Patients who previously had a good clinical response with dupilumab had even higher treatment responses on abrocitinib than those who were dupilumab nonresponders. These data provide important information to support the use of abrocitinib, and perhaps by extension other JAK inhibitors, in patients who previously had inadequate response to dupilumab.

Another major question is how to differentiate the JAK inhibitors from biologics in AD. One consideration is that patients taking JAK inhibitors may achieve more robust clinical responses compared with those on biologics. Stander and colleagues performed a post hoc analysis of pooled phase 2B/3 studies of abrocitinib (942 patients). They found that, at week 12, a higher proportion of patients receiving 200 mg and 100 mg abrocitinib achieved more robust endpoints, such as EASI-90 and EASI-100 scores, compared with placebo recipients. Of note, these data did not include any comparison data with dupilumab. However, on the basis of cross-study comparison, it would seem that abrocitinib, particularly at the higher 200 mg dose, may lead to more robust clinical responses than dupilumab. However, it is very important to acknowledge that this study focused on 12-week data and maximal efficacy with dupilumab may take longer to achieve.

Additional References

1.         Chovatiya R, Silverberg JI. The heterogeneity of atopic dermatitis. J Drugs Dermatol. 2022;21(2):172-176. Doi:  10.36849/JDD.6408

2.         Yew YW, Thyssen JP, Silverberg JI. A systematic review and meta-analysis of the regional and age-related differences in atopic dermatitis clinical characteristics. J Amer Acad Dermatol. 2019;80(2):390-401. Doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2018.09.035

Clinicians everywhere are excited to have more options, but they are also reeling from trying to keep up with the enormous amount of data. We are fortunate to have a lot of information for these therapies published in the past month, which provides important insight into how to best use them.

Let's start with some new data on dupilumab, which has emerged as a first-line systemic therapy for moderate to severe AD in the US. Patients who were enrolled in the phase 1-3 randomized clinical trials for dupilumab were allowed to enroll in a long-term open-label extension study where they received 300 mg dupilumab weekly. Beck and colleagues published the interim analysis of the ongoing international, multicenter, long-term extension study of 2677 adults with up to 4 years of dupilumab exposure. They found no major increases in adverse event rates, with high durable efficacy and high rates of drug persistence over time. It is important to note that this was an open-label study without a control group — that is, patients knew exactly what treatment they were receiving. In addition, the analysis presented efficacy among those patients who remained in the study over time, which may not adequately account for loss of efficacy over time in patients who dropped out of the study. Nevertheless, the results suggest that dupilumab can be a good long-term treatment option for patients with chronic AD, with no new major safety concerns.

There is now a large body of evidence generated by phase 4 studies showing the real-world effectiveness of dupilumab. Stingeni and colleagues published the results of a prospective study of 139 adolescents (aged 12-17 years) with moderate-to-severe AD who received dupilumab for 16 weeks. They found significant improvement in AD signs and quality of life overall and across different clinical phenotypes of AD, with robust endpoints achieved most in the diffuse eczema subtype. Despite the previously demonstrated heterogeneity of AD,^1,2 these results suggest that dupilumab can be effective across a variety of patient subtypes.

The JAK inhibitors are new additions to our therapeutic armamentarium for AD. Given how new they are to dermatology, we are always craving more data to inform clinical decision-making. Several recent studies provide additional insights into how we can use the JAK inhibitors in clinical practice.

One major question is how well they work in patients in whom dupilumab previously failed. Shi and colleagues published the results of an interesting and clinically relevant phase 3 study (JADE EXTEND), which included 203 patients with moderate-to-severe AD who were randomly assigned to receive 200 mg or 100 mg once-daily abrocitinib after previously receiving dupilumab for 14 weeks in the JADE COMPARE study. They found that at week 12, the majority of dupilumab nonresponders had high Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI-75) responses with both doses of abrocitinib. Patients who previously had a good clinical response with dupilumab had even higher treatment responses on abrocitinib than those who were dupilumab nonresponders. These data provide important information to support the use of abrocitinib, and perhaps by extension other JAK inhibitors, in patients who previously had inadequate response to dupilumab.

Another major question is how to differentiate the JAK inhibitors from biologics in AD. One consideration is that patients taking JAK inhibitors may achieve more robust clinical responses compared with those on biologics. Stander and colleagues performed a post hoc analysis of pooled phase 2B/3 studies of abrocitinib (942 patients). They found that, at week 12, a higher proportion of patients receiving 200 mg and 100 mg abrocitinib achieved more robust endpoints, such as EASI-90 and EASI-100 scores, compared with placebo recipients. Of note, these data did not include any comparison data with dupilumab. However, on the basis of cross-study comparison, it would seem that abrocitinib, particularly at the higher 200 mg dose, may lead to more robust clinical responses than dupilumab. However, it is very important to acknowledge that this study focused on 12-week data and maximal efficacy with dupilumab may take longer to achieve.

Additional References

1.         Chovatiya R, Silverberg JI. The heterogeneity of atopic dermatitis. J Drugs Dermatol. 2022;21(2):172-176. Doi:  10.36849/JDD.6408

2.         Yew YW, Thyssen JP, Silverberg JI. A systematic review and meta-analysis of the regional and age-related differences in atopic dermatitis clinical characteristics. J Amer Acad Dermatol. 2019;80(2):390-401. Doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2018.09.035

In a European Society for Medical Oncology Virtual Plenary session, Dr Paz-Ares and colleagues presented interim analysis of the PEARLS/KEYNOTE-091 study of adjuvant pembrolizumab. In this triple-blind phase 3 trial, 1177 patients with stage IB (tumor ≥ 4 cm) to IIIA non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) (per American Joint Committee on Cancer [AJCC], version 7) were randomly assigned to receive pembrolizumab vs placebo. The dual primary endpoints were disease-free survival (DFS) in the overall population and in the population with high programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) (tumor proportion score [TPS] ≥ 50%). The study met its primary endpoint where improved DFS was observed in the overall population that included lung cancers, whether they were PD-L1–negative (TPS = 0%) or –positive (TPS  ≥ 1%) (53.6 months in the pembrolizumab group vs 42.0 months in the placebo group [hazard ratio (HR) 0.76; P = .0014]). Overall survival data are not yet clear. Of note, in the interim analysis presented, the subset of patients with high PD-L1 NSCLC (TPS ≥ 50%) did not show a DFS benefit whereas in other adjuvant and neoadjuvant studies, such as IMpower010 and CheckMate 816, the subset of high PD-L1 patients appeared to derive the most benefit. The results from the high PD-L1 subset and other subsets may change with future updated analyses as more events occur. The major co-primary endpoint was clearly met with the overall population clearly showing a positive DFS benefit. The results of the PEARLS trial adds to the current landscape of systemic treatment of early-stage NSCLC where neoadjuvant chemotherapy plus nivolumab is US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)–approved for stage IB (≥ 4 cm) to IIIA resected NSCLC regardless of level of PD-L1 expression, as is adjuvant atezolizumab after consideration of adjuvant chemotherapy in patients that are PD-L1–positive (≥ 1%) on the basis of a DFS benefit observed in this population.^1,2 For the future, it is important to see if the DFS benefit observed in these studies translates into a meaningful overall survival benefit.

Plasma cfDNA Levels as a Prognostic Marker in ALK+ NSCLC in the ALEX Trial

The ALEX trial is a pivotal global phase 3 randomized control trial that demonstrated superior progression-free survival (PFS) with the next-generation ALK inhibitor alectinib compared with the first-generation ALK inhibitor crizotinib as first-line treatment of ALK-positive NSCLC (HR 0.43; 95% CI 0.32-0.58; median PFS 34.8 vs 10.9 months crizotinib).³ In a study recently published in Clinical Cancer Research, Dr Dziadziuszko and colleagues retrospectively assessed the prognostic value of baseline cell-free DNA (cfDNA) levels in patients treated in the ALEX trial. Baseline plasma for cfDNA was quantified by the Foundation ACT next-generation sequencing assay. Clinical outcomes were assessed by quantitative cfDNA level stratified by the median value. In both the alectinib and crizotinib treatment arms, patients with cfDNA levels above the median were more likely to experience disease progression (alectinib adjusted HR 2.04; 95% CI 1.07-3.89; P = .03 and crizotinib adjusted HR 1.83; 95% CI 1.11-3.00, P = .016). Though survival data are incomplete, the study also suggested survival probability was lower when baseline cfDNA was above the median in both the alectinib and crizotinib treatment arms. Regardless of cfDNA levels, PFS was improved with alectinib compared with crizotinib. Previous studies have shown the value of cfDNA analysis at the time of progression to guide further treatment and target resistance mechanisms to ALK tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI), such as G1202R, or bypass tract pathways, such as MET amplification.^4,5 Assessment of the EML4-ALK variant type (V1 vs V3) has been shown to associate with certain types of resistance mechanisms (ie, on target ALK mutations, such as G1202R in V3) and clinical activity of specific ALK TKI (V3 > V1 for PFS with lorlatinib).⁶ This study examining baseline cfDNA levels and clinical outcomes on the ALEX trial shows the potential utility of baseline cfDNA levels as a prognostic factor for ALK TKI.

Lorlatinib in ROS1-Rearranged NSCLC After Progression on Prior ROS1 TKI

ROS1 rearrangements represent about 1.5% of lung adenocarcinoma. In advanced disease, both crizotinib and entrectinib are FDA-approved as agents targeting ROS1 with robust PFS. The third-generation TKI lorlatinib is approved and has substantial activity in ALK-rearranged NSCLC. In a recently published retrospective real-world cohort study by Girard and colleagues (LORLATU), 80 patients with ROS1-rearranged NSCLC were treated with lorlatinib as second-line treatment or beyond and after failure on at least one prior ROS1 TKI. Median PFS was 7.1 months (95% CI 5.0-9.9) and median overall survival was 19.6 months (95% CI 12.3-27.5). The overall response rate was 45% and the disease control rate was 82%. The central nervous system response rate was 72%. There were no new safety signals. This retrospective cohort study demonstrates that lorlatinib is a major targeted therapy treatment option in ROS1-rearranged NSCLC.

Checkmate 816: Neoadjuvant Nivolumab Plus Chemotherapy in Resectable NSCLC

In this open-label, phase 3 trial, 358 patients with stage IB (T ³ 4cm) to IIIA (per AJCC v7) resectable NSCLC were randomized 1:1 to receive nivolumab plus platinum-based chemotherapy or platinum-based chemotherapy alone for three cycles, followed by surgical resection. The primary endpoints were event-free survival (EFS) and pathological complete response (pCR) (0% viable tumor in resected lung and lymph nodes), both evaluated by blinded independent review. The median EFS was significantly increased in the nivolumab plus chemotherapy arm compared to chemotherapy alone: 31.6 months (95% CI 30.2 to not reached) vs 20.8 months (95% CI 14.0 to 26.7) (HR 0.63; 97.38% CI 0.43 to 0.91; P = .005). pCR rate was also increased in the nivolumab plus chemotherapy arm (24.0% vs 2.2%, respectively; odds ratio 13.94; 99% CI 3.49 to 55.75; P < .001). At the first prespecified interim analysis, the hazard ratio for death was 0.57 (99.67% CI 0.30 to 1.07), which currently does not meet the criterion for statistical significance. Of the randomized patients, 83.2% of those in the nivolumab-plus chemotherapy group and 75.4% of those in the chemotherapy-alone group were able to undergo surgery. Grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 33.5% of the patients in the nivolumab-plus-chemotherapy group and in 36.9% of those in the chemotherapy-alone group. In an exploratory analysis, EFS was longer in patients with pCR than patients without a pCR. In a subset analysis, patients with high PD-L1 expression (³50%) stood out in terms of particular benefit (HR 0.24, 95% CI 0.10–0.61). The Checkmate 816 trial is a landmark study. Neoadjuvant nivolumab plus chemotherapy represents a new standard of care in the systemic treatment of resectable NSCLC that is at a stage that warrants systemic treatment. It is FDA approved regardless of PD-L1 expression level including PD-L1 negative (0%) patients.² Adjuvant atezolizumab after adjuvant chemotherapy is also an FDA-approved treatment option for patients that are PD-L1 positive (³1%) based upon the IMpower 010 study.¹ It will be important to assess the overall survival benefit as the trial data matures, which seems to be trending in the right direction. Additional neoadjuvant clinical trials with chemoimmunotherapy have completed accrual and some of these trials also continued PD-(L)1 immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy in the adjuvant setting after surgery. An important question for the future is if combination of PD-(L)1 immune checkpoint blockade with chemotherapy in the neoadjuvant setting along with continuation of immunotherapy in the adjuvant setting post-surgery will further improve clinical outcomes.

References

1. Felip E, Altorki N, Zhou C, et al. Adjuvant atezolizumab after adjuvant chemotherapy in resected stage IB-IIIA non-small-cell lung cancer (IMpower010): a randomised, multicentre, open-label, phase 3 trial. Lancet. 2021;398(10308):1344-57. Doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(21)02098-5  Source

2. Forde PM, Spicer J, Lu S, et al. Neoadjuvant nivolumab plus chemotherapy in resectable lung cancer. N Engl J Med. April 11, 2022. Doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2202170 Source
    
3. Mok T, Camige DR, Gadgeel SM, et al. Updated overall survival and final progression-free survival data for patients with treatment-naive advanced ALK-positive non-small-cell lung cancer in the ALEX study. Ann Oncol. 2020;31:1056-1064. Doi: 10.1016/j.annonc.2020.04.478 Source

4. Shaw AT, Solomon BJ, Chiari R, et al. Lorlatinib in advanced ROS1-positive non-small-cell lung cancer: a multicentre, open-label, single-arm, phase 1-2 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2019;20:1691-1701. Doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(19)30655-2 Source
    
5. Lawrence MN, Tamen RM, Martinez P, et al. SPACEWALK: A remote participation study of ALK resistance leveraging plasma cell-free DNA genotyping. JTO Clin Res Rep. 2021;2:100151. Doi: 10.1016/j.jtocrr.2021.100151 Source
    
6. Lin JJ, Zhu VW, Yoda S, et al. Impact of EML4-ALK variant on resistance mechanisms and clinical outcomes in ALK-positive lung cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2018;36:1199-1206. Doi: 10.1200/JCO.2017.76.2294 Source

In a European Society for Medical Oncology Virtual Plenary session, Dr Paz-Ares and colleagues presented interim analysis of the PEARLS/KEYNOTE-091 study of adjuvant pembrolizumab. In this triple-blind phase 3 trial, 1177 patients with stage IB (tumor ≥ 4 cm) to IIIA non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) (per American Joint Committee on Cancer [AJCC], version 7) were randomly assigned to receive pembrolizumab vs placebo. The dual primary endpoints were disease-free survival (DFS) in the overall population and in the population with high programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) (tumor proportion score [TPS] ≥ 50%). The study met its primary endpoint where improved DFS was observed in the overall population that included lung cancers, whether they were PD-L1–negative (TPS = 0%) or –positive (TPS  ≥ 1%) (53.6 months in the pembrolizumab group vs 42.0 months in the placebo group [hazard ratio (HR) 0.76; P = .0014]). Overall survival data are not yet clear. Of note, in the interim analysis presented, the subset of patients with high PD-L1 NSCLC (TPS ≥ 50%) did not show a DFS benefit whereas in other adjuvant and neoadjuvant studies, such as IMpower010 and CheckMate 816, the subset of high PD-L1 patients appeared to derive the most benefit. The results from the high PD-L1 subset and other subsets may change with future updated analyses as more events occur. The major co-primary endpoint was clearly met with the overall population clearly showing a positive DFS benefit. The results of the PEARLS trial adds to the current landscape of systemic treatment of early-stage NSCLC where neoadjuvant chemotherapy plus nivolumab is US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)–approved for stage IB (≥ 4 cm) to IIIA resected NSCLC regardless of level of PD-L1 expression, as is adjuvant atezolizumab after consideration of adjuvant chemotherapy in patients that are PD-L1–positive (≥ 1%) on the basis of a DFS benefit observed in this population.^1,2 For the future, it is important to see if the DFS benefit observed in these studies translates into a meaningful overall survival benefit.

Plasma cfDNA Levels as a Prognostic Marker in ALK+ NSCLC in the ALEX Trial

The ALEX trial is a pivotal global phase 3 randomized control trial that demonstrated superior progression-free survival (PFS) with the next-generation ALK inhibitor alectinib compared with the first-generation ALK inhibitor crizotinib as first-line treatment of ALK-positive NSCLC (HR 0.43; 95% CI 0.32-0.58; median PFS 34.8 vs 10.9 months crizotinib).³ In a study recently published in Clinical Cancer Research, Dr Dziadziuszko and colleagues retrospectively assessed the prognostic value of baseline cell-free DNA (cfDNA) levels in patients treated in the ALEX trial. Baseline plasma for cfDNA was quantified by the Foundation ACT next-generation sequencing assay. Clinical outcomes were assessed by quantitative cfDNA level stratified by the median value. In both the alectinib and crizotinib treatment arms, patients with cfDNA levels above the median were more likely to experience disease progression (alectinib adjusted HR 2.04; 95% CI 1.07-3.89; P = .03 and crizotinib adjusted HR 1.83; 95% CI 1.11-3.00, P = .016). Though survival data are incomplete, the study also suggested survival probability was lower when baseline cfDNA was above the median in both the alectinib and crizotinib treatment arms. Regardless of cfDNA levels, PFS was improved with alectinib compared with crizotinib. Previous studies have shown the value of cfDNA analysis at the time of progression to guide further treatment and target resistance mechanisms to ALK tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI), such as G1202R, or bypass tract pathways, such as MET amplification.^4,5 Assessment of the EML4-ALK variant type (V1 vs V3) has been shown to associate with certain types of resistance mechanisms (ie, on target ALK mutations, such as G1202R in V3) and clinical activity of specific ALK TKI (V3 > V1 for PFS with lorlatinib).⁶ This study examining baseline cfDNA levels and clinical outcomes on the ALEX trial shows the potential utility of baseline cfDNA levels as a prognostic factor for ALK TKI.

Lorlatinib in ROS1-Rearranged NSCLC After Progression on Prior ROS1 TKI

ROS1 rearrangements represent about 1.5% of lung adenocarcinoma. In advanced disease, both crizotinib and entrectinib are FDA-approved as agents targeting ROS1 with robust PFS. The third-generation TKI lorlatinib is approved and has substantial activity in ALK-rearranged NSCLC. In a recently published retrospective real-world cohort study by Girard and colleagues (LORLATU), 80 patients with ROS1-rearranged NSCLC were treated with lorlatinib as second-line treatment or beyond and after failure on at least one prior ROS1 TKI. Median PFS was 7.1 months (95% CI 5.0-9.9) and median overall survival was 19.6 months (95% CI 12.3-27.5). The overall response rate was 45% and the disease control rate was 82%. The central nervous system response rate was 72%. There were no new safety signals. This retrospective cohort study demonstrates that lorlatinib is a major targeted therapy treatment option in ROS1-rearranged NSCLC.

Checkmate 816: Neoadjuvant Nivolumab Plus Chemotherapy in Resectable NSCLC

In this open-label, phase 3 trial, 358 patients with stage IB (T ³ 4cm) to IIIA (per AJCC v7) resectable NSCLC were randomized 1:1 to receive nivolumab plus platinum-based chemotherapy or platinum-based chemotherapy alone for three cycles, followed by surgical resection. The primary endpoints were event-free survival (EFS) and pathological complete response (pCR) (0% viable tumor in resected lung and lymph nodes), both evaluated by blinded independent review. The median EFS was significantly increased in the nivolumab plus chemotherapy arm compared to chemotherapy alone: 31.6 months (95% CI 30.2 to not reached) vs 20.8 months (95% CI 14.0 to 26.7) (HR 0.63; 97.38% CI 0.43 to 0.91; P = .005). pCR rate was also increased in the nivolumab plus chemotherapy arm (24.0% vs 2.2%, respectively; odds ratio 13.94; 99% CI 3.49 to 55.75; P < .001). At the first prespecified interim analysis, the hazard ratio for death was 0.57 (99.67% CI 0.30 to 1.07), which currently does not meet the criterion for statistical significance. Of the randomized patients, 83.2% of those in the nivolumab-plus chemotherapy group and 75.4% of those in the chemotherapy-alone group were able to undergo surgery. Grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 33.5% of the patients in the nivolumab-plus-chemotherapy group and in 36.9% of those in the chemotherapy-alone group. In an exploratory analysis, EFS was longer in patients with pCR than patients without a pCR. In a subset analysis, patients with high PD-L1 expression (³50%) stood out in terms of particular benefit (HR 0.24, 95% CI 0.10–0.61). The Checkmate 816 trial is a landmark study. Neoadjuvant nivolumab plus chemotherapy represents a new standard of care in the systemic treatment of resectable NSCLC that is at a stage that warrants systemic treatment. It is FDA approved regardless of PD-L1 expression level including PD-L1 negative (0%) patients.² Adjuvant atezolizumab after adjuvant chemotherapy is also an FDA-approved treatment option for patients that are PD-L1 positive (³1%) based upon the IMpower 010 study.¹ It will be important to assess the overall survival benefit as the trial data matures, which seems to be trending in the right direction. Additional neoadjuvant clinical trials with chemoimmunotherapy have completed accrual and some of these trials also continued PD-(L)1 immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy in the adjuvant setting after surgery. An important question for the future is if combination of PD-(L)1 immune checkpoint blockade with chemotherapy in the neoadjuvant setting along with continuation of immunotherapy in the adjuvant setting post-surgery will further improve clinical outcomes.

References

1. Felip E, Altorki N, Zhou C, et al. Adjuvant atezolizumab after adjuvant chemotherapy in resected stage IB-IIIA non-small-cell lung cancer (IMpower010): a randomised, multicentre, open-label, phase 3 trial. Lancet. 2021;398(10308):1344-57. Doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(21)02098-5  Source

2. Forde PM, Spicer J, Lu S, et al. Neoadjuvant nivolumab plus chemotherapy in resectable lung cancer. N Engl J Med. April 11, 2022. Doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2202170 Source
    
3. Mok T, Camige DR, Gadgeel SM, et al. Updated overall survival and final progression-free survival data for patients with treatment-naive advanced ALK-positive non-small-cell lung cancer in the ALEX study. Ann Oncol. 2020;31:1056-1064. Doi: 10.1016/j.annonc.2020.04.478 Source

4. Shaw AT, Solomon BJ, Chiari R, et al. Lorlatinib in advanced ROS1-positive non-small-cell lung cancer: a multicentre, open-label, single-arm, phase 1-2 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2019;20:1691-1701. Doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(19)30655-2 Source
    
5. Lawrence MN, Tamen RM, Martinez P, et al. SPACEWALK: A remote participation study of ALK resistance leveraging plasma cell-free DNA genotyping. JTO Clin Res Rep. 2021;2:100151. Doi: 10.1016/j.jtocrr.2021.100151 Source
    
6. Lin JJ, Zhu VW, Yoda S, et al. Impact of EML4-ALK variant on resistance mechanisms and clinical outcomes in ALK-positive lung cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2018;36:1199-1206. Doi: 10.1200/JCO.2017.76.2294 Source

In a European Society for Medical Oncology Virtual Plenary session, Dr Paz-Ares and colleagues presented interim analysis of the PEARLS/KEYNOTE-091 study of adjuvant pembrolizumab. In this triple-blind phase 3 trial, 1177 patients with stage IB (tumor ≥ 4 cm) to IIIA non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) (per American Joint Committee on Cancer [AJCC], version 7) were randomly assigned to receive pembrolizumab vs placebo. The dual primary endpoints were disease-free survival (DFS) in the overall population and in the population with high programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) (tumor proportion score [TPS] ≥ 50%). The study met its primary endpoint where improved DFS was observed in the overall population that included lung cancers, whether they were PD-L1–negative (TPS = 0%) or –positive (TPS  ≥ 1%) (53.6 months in the pembrolizumab group vs 42.0 months in the placebo group [hazard ratio (HR) 0.76; P = .0014]). Overall survival data are not yet clear. Of note, in the interim analysis presented, the subset of patients with high PD-L1 NSCLC (TPS ≥ 50%) did not show a DFS benefit whereas in other adjuvant and neoadjuvant studies, such as IMpower010 and CheckMate 816, the subset of high PD-L1 patients appeared to derive the most benefit. The results from the high PD-L1 subset and other subsets may change with future updated analyses as more events occur. The major co-primary endpoint was clearly met with the overall population clearly showing a positive DFS benefit. The results of the PEARLS trial adds to the current landscape of systemic treatment of early-stage NSCLC where neoadjuvant chemotherapy plus nivolumab is US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)–approved for stage IB (≥ 4 cm) to IIIA resected NSCLC regardless of level of PD-L1 expression, as is adjuvant atezolizumab after consideration of adjuvant chemotherapy in patients that are PD-L1–positive (≥ 1%) on the basis of a DFS benefit observed in this population.^1,2 For the future, it is important to see if the DFS benefit observed in these studies translates into a meaningful overall survival benefit.

Plasma cfDNA Levels as a Prognostic Marker in ALK+ NSCLC in the ALEX Trial

The ALEX trial is a pivotal global phase 3 randomized control trial that demonstrated superior progression-free survival (PFS) with the next-generation ALK inhibitor alectinib compared with the first-generation ALK inhibitor crizotinib as first-line treatment of ALK-positive NSCLC (HR 0.43; 95% CI 0.32-0.58; median PFS 34.8 vs 10.9 months crizotinib).³ In a study recently published in Clinical Cancer Research, Dr Dziadziuszko and colleagues retrospectively assessed the prognostic value of baseline cell-free DNA (cfDNA) levels in patients treated in the ALEX trial. Baseline plasma for cfDNA was quantified by the Foundation ACT next-generation sequencing assay. Clinical outcomes were assessed by quantitative cfDNA level stratified by the median value. In both the alectinib and crizotinib treatment arms, patients with cfDNA levels above the median were more likely to experience disease progression (alectinib adjusted HR 2.04; 95% CI 1.07-3.89; P = .03 and crizotinib adjusted HR 1.83; 95% CI 1.11-3.00, P = .016). Though survival data are incomplete, the study also suggested survival probability was lower when baseline cfDNA was above the median in both the alectinib and crizotinib treatment arms. Regardless of cfDNA levels, PFS was improved with alectinib compared with crizotinib. Previous studies have shown the value of cfDNA analysis at the time of progression to guide further treatment and target resistance mechanisms to ALK tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI), such as G1202R, or bypass tract pathways, such as MET amplification.^4,5 Assessment of the EML4-ALK variant type (V1 vs V3) has been shown to associate with certain types of resistance mechanisms (ie, on target ALK mutations, such as G1202R in V3) and clinical activity of specific ALK TKI (V3 > V1 for PFS with lorlatinib).⁶ This study examining baseline cfDNA levels and clinical outcomes on the ALEX trial shows the potential utility of baseline cfDNA levels as a prognostic factor for ALK TKI.

Lorlatinib in ROS1-Rearranged NSCLC After Progression on Prior ROS1 TKI

ROS1 rearrangements represent about 1.5% of lung adenocarcinoma. In advanced disease, both crizotinib and entrectinib are FDA-approved as agents targeting ROS1 with robust PFS. The third-generation TKI lorlatinib is approved and has substantial activity in ALK-rearranged NSCLC. In a recently published retrospective real-world cohort study by Girard and colleagues (LORLATU), 80 patients with ROS1-rearranged NSCLC were treated with lorlatinib as second-line treatment or beyond and after failure on at least one prior ROS1 TKI. Median PFS was 7.1 months (95% CI 5.0-9.9) and median overall survival was 19.6 months (95% CI 12.3-27.5). The overall response rate was 45% and the disease control rate was 82%. The central nervous system response rate was 72%. There were no new safety signals. This retrospective cohort study demonstrates that lorlatinib is a major targeted therapy treatment option in ROS1-rearranged NSCLC.

Checkmate 816: Neoadjuvant Nivolumab Plus Chemotherapy in Resectable NSCLC

In this open-label, phase 3 trial, 358 patients with stage IB (T ³ 4cm) to IIIA (per AJCC v7) resectable NSCLC were randomized 1:1 to receive nivolumab plus platinum-based chemotherapy or platinum-based chemotherapy alone for three cycles, followed by surgical resection. The primary endpoints were event-free survival (EFS) and pathological complete response (pCR) (0% viable tumor in resected lung and lymph nodes), both evaluated by blinded independent review. The median EFS was significantly increased in the nivolumab plus chemotherapy arm compared to chemotherapy alone: 31.6 months (95% CI 30.2 to not reached) vs 20.8 months (95% CI 14.0 to 26.7) (HR 0.63; 97.38% CI 0.43 to 0.91; P = .005). pCR rate was also increased in the nivolumab plus chemotherapy arm (24.0% vs 2.2%, respectively; odds ratio 13.94; 99% CI 3.49 to 55.75; P < .001). At the first prespecified interim analysis, the hazard ratio for death was 0.57 (99.67% CI 0.30 to 1.07), which currently does not meet the criterion for statistical significance. Of the randomized patients, 83.2% of those in the nivolumab-plus chemotherapy group and 75.4% of those in the chemotherapy-alone group were able to undergo surgery. Grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 33.5% of the patients in the nivolumab-plus-chemotherapy group and in 36.9% of those in the chemotherapy-alone group. In an exploratory analysis, EFS was longer in patients with pCR than patients without a pCR. In a subset analysis, patients with high PD-L1 expression (³50%) stood out in terms of particular benefit (HR 0.24, 95% CI 0.10–0.61). The Checkmate 816 trial is a landmark study. Neoadjuvant nivolumab plus chemotherapy represents a new standard of care in the systemic treatment of resectable NSCLC that is at a stage that warrants systemic treatment. It is FDA approved regardless of PD-L1 expression level including PD-L1 negative (0%) patients.² Adjuvant atezolizumab after adjuvant chemotherapy is also an FDA-approved treatment option for patients that are PD-L1 positive (³1%) based upon the IMpower 010 study.¹ It will be important to assess the overall survival benefit as the trial data matures, which seems to be trending in the right direction. Additional neoadjuvant clinical trials with chemoimmunotherapy have completed accrual and some of these trials also continued PD-(L)1 immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy in the adjuvant setting after surgery. An important question for the future is if combination of PD-(L)1 immune checkpoint blockade with chemotherapy in the neoadjuvant setting along with continuation of immunotherapy in the adjuvant setting post-surgery will further improve clinical outcomes.

References

1. Felip E, Altorki N, Zhou C, et al. Adjuvant atezolizumab after adjuvant chemotherapy in resected stage IB-IIIA non-small-cell lung cancer (IMpower010): a randomised, multicentre, open-label, phase 3 trial. Lancet. 2021;398(10308):1344-57. Doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(21)02098-5  Source

2. Forde PM, Spicer J, Lu S, et al. Neoadjuvant nivolumab plus chemotherapy in resectable lung cancer. N Engl J Med. April 11, 2022. Doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2202170 Source
    
3. Mok T, Camige DR, Gadgeel SM, et al. Updated overall survival and final progression-free survival data for patients with treatment-naive advanced ALK-positive non-small-cell lung cancer in the ALEX study. Ann Oncol. 2020;31:1056-1064. Doi: 10.1016/j.annonc.2020.04.478 Source

4. Shaw AT, Solomon BJ, Chiari R, et al. Lorlatinib in advanced ROS1-positive non-small-cell lung cancer: a multicentre, open-label, single-arm, phase 1-2 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2019;20:1691-1701. Doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(19)30655-2 Source
    
5. Lawrence MN, Tamen RM, Martinez P, et al. SPACEWALK: A remote participation study of ALK resistance leveraging plasma cell-free DNA genotyping. JTO Clin Res Rep. 2021;2:100151. Doi: 10.1016/j.jtocrr.2021.100151 Source
    
6. Lin JJ, Zhu VW, Yoda S, et al. Impact of EML4-ALK variant on resistance mechanisms and clinical outcomes in ALK-positive lung cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2018;36:1199-1206. Doi: 10.1200/JCO.2017.76.2294 Source

• Dupilumab is a subcutaneous injection therapy that inhibits the interleukin 4-receptor alpha subunit. It was approved in the United States for the treatment of adults with moderate to severe AD in 2017 and has since been approved for children and adolescents down to 6 years of age. Ungar and colleagues studied the effects of dupilumab on SARS-CoV-2 antibody responses in patients with moderate to severe AD. They previously found that dupilumab was associated with milder COVID-19 illness. In this study, they similarly found that dupilumab was associated with lower immunoglobulin G (IgG) antibody levels to SARS-CoV-2, consistent with less severe COVID-19 illness. Future studies are needed to confirm these results. However, these results reassure that taking dupilumab does not pose any major harms in regard to COVID-19 outcomes.

• My patients with AD ask me on an almost daily basis about whether they should get vaccinated for SARS-CoV-2. I recommended that my patients get vaccinated, based on data from vaccine studies. However, there has been a dearth of data on the efficacy and safety of SARS-CoV-2 specifically in AD patients. Kridin and colleagues performed a population-based cohort study including 77,682 adults with AD, of which 58,582 patients had completed two doses of the BioNTech-Pfizer SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine. They found that patients with AD who received both vs no vaccine doses had significantly lower risk for COVID-19, hospitalization, and mortality. These are the best data to date in support of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in patients with AD. Of note, there was no significant impact of immunosuppressive drugs on vaccine efficacy against COVID-19. However, previous studies in other immune-mediated disorders suggest that immunosuppressants may lower vaccine immune responses.^1,2 Some authors have advocated for temporarily discontinuing immunosuppressive agents for 1-2 weeks before and after administering SARS-CoV-2 vaccines. Currently, there is insufficient evidence to make strong recommendations.

Numerous in utero and early-life risk factors for AD have been examined over the years. Maternal stress and depression have been considered as potential risk factors for AD in children.

• My research group showed a while back that depression during pregnancy and in the postpartum period was associated with higher likelihood of AD in children.³
• Kawaguchi and colleagues recently analyzed data from the Tohoku Medical Megabank Project Birth and Three-Generation Cohort Study in Japan, including 8377 mother-child dyads where the child had not developed AD by the age of 1 year. They found that mothers with vs without psychological distress in both prenatal and postnatal periods or even only in the postnatal period had significantly increased risk of their children developing AD at 1-2 years of age. It seems prudent that mothers try to minimize stress during pregnancy and postpartum, though, understandably, this is not always feasible. Additionally, children of mothers who experience a lot of stress during pregnancy or postpartum may benefit from closer surveillance for the development of AD and other atopic diseases.

Additional References

1.         Dayam RM, Law JC, Goetbebuer RL, et al. Accelerated waning of immunity to SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccines in patients with immune mediated inflammatory diseases. JCI Insight. 2022 (Apr 26). Doi: 10.1172/jci.insight.159721   Source

2.         Medeiros-Ribeiro AC, Bonfiglioli KR, Domiciano DS, et al. Distinct impact of DMARD combination and monotherapy in immunogenicity of an inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccine in rheumatoid arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis. 2022;81:710-719. Doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2021-221735 Source

3.         McKenzie C, Silverberg JI. Maternal depression and atopic dermatitis in American children and adolescents. Dermatitis. 2020;31:75-80. Doi: 10.1097/DER.0000000000000548 Source

• Dupilumab is a subcutaneous injection therapy that inhibits the interleukin 4-receptor alpha subunit. It was approved in the United States for the treatment of adults with moderate to severe AD in 2017 and has since been approved for children and adolescents down to 6 years of age. Ungar and colleagues studied the effects of dupilumab on SARS-CoV-2 antibody responses in patients with moderate to severe AD. They previously found that dupilumab was associated with milder COVID-19 illness. In this study, they similarly found that dupilumab was associated with lower immunoglobulin G (IgG) antibody levels to SARS-CoV-2, consistent with less severe COVID-19 illness. Future studies are needed to confirm these results. However, these results reassure that taking dupilumab does not pose any major harms in regard to COVID-19 outcomes.

• My patients with AD ask me on an almost daily basis about whether they should get vaccinated for SARS-CoV-2. I recommended that my patients get vaccinated, based on data from vaccine studies. However, there has been a dearth of data on the efficacy and safety of SARS-CoV-2 specifically in AD patients. Kridin and colleagues performed a population-based cohort study including 77,682 adults with AD, of which 58,582 patients had completed two doses of the BioNTech-Pfizer SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine. They found that patients with AD who received both vs no vaccine doses had significantly lower risk for COVID-19, hospitalization, and mortality. These are the best data to date in support of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in patients with AD. Of note, there was no significant impact of immunosuppressive drugs on vaccine efficacy against COVID-19. However, previous studies in other immune-mediated disorders suggest that immunosuppressants may lower vaccine immune responses.^1,2 Some authors have advocated for temporarily discontinuing immunosuppressive agents for 1-2 weeks before and after administering SARS-CoV-2 vaccines. Currently, there is insufficient evidence to make strong recommendations.

Numerous in utero and early-life risk factors for AD have been examined over the years. Maternal stress and depression have been considered as potential risk factors for AD in children.

• My research group showed a while back that depression during pregnancy and in the postpartum period was associated with higher likelihood of AD in children.³
• Kawaguchi and colleagues recently analyzed data from the Tohoku Medical Megabank Project Birth and Three-Generation Cohort Study in Japan, including 8377 mother-child dyads where the child had not developed AD by the age of 1 year. They found that mothers with vs without psychological distress in both prenatal and postnatal periods or even only in the postnatal period had significantly increased risk of their children developing AD at 1-2 years of age. It seems prudent that mothers try to minimize stress during pregnancy and postpartum, though, understandably, this is not always feasible. Additionally, children of mothers who experience a lot of stress during pregnancy or postpartum may benefit from closer surveillance for the development of AD and other atopic diseases.

Additional References

1.         Dayam RM, Law JC, Goetbebuer RL, et al. Accelerated waning of immunity to SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccines in patients with immune mediated inflammatory diseases. JCI Insight. 2022 (Apr 26). Doi: 10.1172/jci.insight.159721   Source

2.         Medeiros-Ribeiro AC, Bonfiglioli KR, Domiciano DS, et al. Distinct impact of DMARD combination and monotherapy in immunogenicity of an inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccine in rheumatoid arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis. 2022;81:710-719. Doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2021-221735 Source

3.         McKenzie C, Silverberg JI. Maternal depression and atopic dermatitis in American children and adolescents. Dermatitis. 2020;31:75-80. Doi: 10.1097/DER.0000000000000548 Source

• Dupilumab is a subcutaneous injection therapy that inhibits the interleukin 4-receptor alpha subunit. It was approved in the United States for the treatment of adults with moderate to severe AD in 2017 and has since been approved for children and adolescents down to 6 years of age. Ungar and colleagues studied the effects of dupilumab on SARS-CoV-2 antibody responses in patients with moderate to severe AD. They previously found that dupilumab was associated with milder COVID-19 illness. In this study, they similarly found that dupilumab was associated with lower immunoglobulin G (IgG) antibody levels to SARS-CoV-2, consistent with less severe COVID-19 illness. Future studies are needed to confirm these results. However, these results reassure that taking dupilumab does not pose any major harms in regard to COVID-19 outcomes.

• My patients with AD ask me on an almost daily basis about whether they should get vaccinated for SARS-CoV-2. I recommended that my patients get vaccinated, based on data from vaccine studies. However, there has been a dearth of data on the efficacy and safety of SARS-CoV-2 specifically in AD patients. Kridin and colleagues performed a population-based cohort study including 77,682 adults with AD, of which 58,582 patients had completed two doses of the BioNTech-Pfizer SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine. They found that patients with AD who received both vs no vaccine doses had significantly lower risk for COVID-19, hospitalization, and mortality. These are the best data to date in support of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in patients with AD. Of note, there was no significant impact of immunosuppressive drugs on vaccine efficacy against COVID-19. However, previous studies in other immune-mediated disorders suggest that immunosuppressants may lower vaccine immune responses.^1,2 Some authors have advocated for temporarily discontinuing immunosuppressive agents for 1-2 weeks before and after administering SARS-CoV-2 vaccines. Currently, there is insufficient evidence to make strong recommendations.

Numerous in utero and early-life risk factors for AD have been examined over the years. Maternal stress and depression have been considered as potential risk factors for AD in children.

• My research group showed a while back that depression during pregnancy and in the postpartum period was associated with higher likelihood of AD in children.³
• Kawaguchi and colleagues recently analyzed data from the Tohoku Medical Megabank Project Birth and Three-Generation Cohort Study in Japan, including 8377 mother-child dyads where the child had not developed AD by the age of 1 year. They found that mothers with vs without psychological distress in both prenatal and postnatal periods or even only in the postnatal period had significantly increased risk of their children developing AD at 1-2 years of age. It seems prudent that mothers try to minimize stress during pregnancy and postpartum, though, understandably, this is not always feasible. Additionally, children of mothers who experience a lot of stress during pregnancy or postpartum may benefit from closer surveillance for the development of AD and other atopic diseases.

Additional References

1.         Dayam RM, Law JC, Goetbebuer RL, et al. Accelerated waning of immunity to SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccines in patients with immune mediated inflammatory diseases. JCI Insight. 2022 (Apr 26). Doi: 10.1172/jci.insight.159721   Source

2.         Medeiros-Ribeiro AC, Bonfiglioli KR, Domiciano DS, et al. Distinct impact of DMARD combination and monotherapy in immunogenicity of an inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccine in rheumatoid arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis. 2022;81:710-719. Doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2021-221735 Source

3.         McKenzie C, Silverberg JI. Maternal depression and atopic dermatitis in American children and adolescents. Dermatitis. 2020;31:75-80. Doi: 10.1097/DER.0000000000000548 Source

In early-stage disease, perioperative chemotherapy plays a critical role. The triple-chemotherapy FLOT regimen is now the standard treatment in patients who are able to tolerate it. However, it is associated with significant toxicities, and modifications frequently are needed. In clinical practice, FOLFOX chemotherapy can be used in patients who are not candidates for FLOT. A phase 2 OGSG 1601 study enrolled 37 patients with clinical stage T3/T4a N1-3 M0 gastric cancer who received perioperative doublet chemotherapy with capecitabine and oxaliplatin. At the 3-year follow-up, this study continues to demonstrate good activity of this doublet chemotherapy, with an overall survival rate of 83.8% at 3 years and relapse-free rate of 73%. These results support the use of this doublet in patients who cannot tolerate a more intense chemotherapy regimen. The interpretation of this study is limited by its small size and nonrandomized design. Given what we know about the activity of this regimen in advanced disease, however, these results add to the body of evidence that supports the use of this doublet in select patients.

There have been efforts to augment the activity of perioperative chemotherapy using antiangiogenic agents. In the advanced setting, studies with antiangiogenic agents have had mixed results. Ramucirumab in combination with paclitaxel is FDA-approved in the second-line setting, but a subsequent study in the first line-setting showed no improvement from the addition of ramucirumab.^4,7 In the preoperative setting, the role of ramucirumab in combination with chemotherapy was evaluated in a phase 2 study. Although a hint of activity was seen, there was increased toxicity, especially in Siewert type I tumors.⁸ The phase 2 study by Tang and colleagues enrolled 32 patients with resectable gastric and gastroesophageal juncture adenocarcinoma who received neoadjuvant oxaliplatin, capecitabine, and apatinib. Apatinib is a small-molecule tyrosine kinase inhibitor with highly selective affinity to vascular endothelial growth factor receptor 2. The treatment had manageable toxicity, with hypertension being the most common adverse event, as expected. Early signs of potential clinical efficacy were seen (pathologic complete response and pathologic response were achieved in 6.3% and 34.4% of the patients, respectively), but the true contribution from the addition of apatinib can be established only in a prospective randomized study. For now, chemotherapy alone remains the standard perioperative treatment, although ongoing studies are evaluating the addition of immune checkpoint inhibitors in this setting (NCT03221426, NCT04592913). These types of agents are probably more likely than antiangiogenic agents to become part of standard treatment in the perioperative setting.

Additional References

1. Janjigian YY, Shitara K, Moehler M, et al. First-line nivolumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone for advanced gastric, gastro-oesophageal junction, and oesophageal adenocarcinoma (CheckMate 649): A randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial. Lancet. 2021;398:27-40. Doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(21)00797-2 Source
2. Van Cutsem E, Moiseyenko VM, Tjulandin S, et al. Phase III study of docetaxel and cisplatin plus fluorouracil compared with cisplatin and fluorouracil as first-line therapy for advanced gastric cancer: A report of the V325 Study Group. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24:4991-4997. Doi:  10.1200/JCO.2006.06.8429 Source
3. Al-Batran S-E, Homann N, Pauligk C, et al. Perioperative chemotherapy with fluorouracil plus leucovorin, oxaliplatin, and docetaxel versus fluorouracil or capecitabine plus cisplatin and epirubicin for locally advanced, resectable gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction adenocarcinoma (FLOT4): A randomised, phase 2/3 trial. Lancet. 2019;393:1948-1957. Doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)32557-1 Source0
4. Wilke H, Van Cutsem E, Cheul Oh S, et al. RAINBOW: A global, phase 3, randomized, double-blind study of ramucirumab plus paclitaxel versus placebo plus paclitaxel in the treatment of metastatic gastric adenocarcinoma following disease progression on first-line platinum- and fluoropyrimidine-containing combination therapy: Results of a multiple Cox regression analysis adjusting for prognostic factors. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32(15, suppl):1076. Doi: 10.1200/jco.2014.32.15_suppl.4076 Source
5. Elimova E, Janjigian YY, Mulcahy M, et al. It is time to stop using epirubicin to treat any patient with gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma. J Clin Oncol. 2017;35:475-477. Doi: 10.1200/JCO.2016.69.7276 Source
6. Park H, Jin RU, Wang-Gillam A, et al. FOLFIRINOX for the treatment of advanced gastroesophageal cancers: A phase 2 nonrandomized clinical trial. JAMA Oncol. 2020;6:1231-1240. Doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2020.2020 Source
7. Fuchs CS, Shitara K, Di Bartolomeo M, et al. RAINFALL: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase III study of cisplatin (Cis) plus capecitabine (Cape) or 5FU with or without ramucirumab (RAM) as first-line therapy in patients with metastatic gastric or gastroesophageal junction (G-GEJ) adenocarcinoma. J Clin Oncol. 2018;36(4, suppl):5. Doi: 10.1200/JCO.2018.36.4_suppl.5 Source
8. Al-Batran S-E, Hofheinz RD, Schmalenberg H, et al. Perioperative ramucirumab in combination with FLOT versus FLOT alone for resectable esophagogastric adenocarcinoma (RAMSES/FLOT7): Results of the phase II-portion—A multicenter, randomized phase II/III trial of the German AIO and Italian GOIM. J Clin Oncol. 2020;38(15, suppl):4501. Doi: 10.1200/JCO.2020.38.15_suppl.4501 Source

In early-stage disease, perioperative chemotherapy plays a critical role. The triple-chemotherapy FLOT regimen is now the standard treatment in patients who are able to tolerate it. However, it is associated with significant toxicities, and modifications frequently are needed. In clinical practice, FOLFOX chemotherapy can be used in patients who are not candidates for FLOT. A phase 2 OGSG 1601 study enrolled 37 patients with clinical stage T3/T4a N1-3 M0 gastric cancer who received perioperative doublet chemotherapy with capecitabine and oxaliplatin. At the 3-year follow-up, this study continues to demonstrate good activity of this doublet chemotherapy, with an overall survival rate of 83.8% at 3 years and relapse-free rate of 73%. These results support the use of this doublet in patients who cannot tolerate a more intense chemotherapy regimen. The interpretation of this study is limited by its small size and nonrandomized design. Given what we know about the activity of this regimen in advanced disease, however, these results add to the body of evidence that supports the use of this doublet in select patients.

There have been efforts to augment the activity of perioperative chemotherapy using antiangiogenic agents. In the advanced setting, studies with antiangiogenic agents have had mixed results. Ramucirumab in combination with paclitaxel is FDA-approved in the second-line setting, but a subsequent study in the first line-setting showed no improvement from the addition of ramucirumab.^4,7 In the preoperative setting, the role of ramucirumab in combination with chemotherapy was evaluated in a phase 2 study. Although a hint of activity was seen, there was increased toxicity, especially in Siewert type I tumors.⁸ The phase 2 study by Tang and colleagues enrolled 32 patients with resectable gastric and gastroesophageal juncture adenocarcinoma who received neoadjuvant oxaliplatin, capecitabine, and apatinib. Apatinib is a small-molecule tyrosine kinase inhibitor with highly selective affinity to vascular endothelial growth factor receptor 2. The treatment had manageable toxicity, with hypertension being the most common adverse event, as expected. Early signs of potential clinical efficacy were seen (pathologic complete response and pathologic response were achieved in 6.3% and 34.4% of the patients, respectively), but the true contribution from the addition of apatinib can be established only in a prospective randomized study. For now, chemotherapy alone remains the standard perioperative treatment, although ongoing studies are evaluating the addition of immune checkpoint inhibitors in this setting (NCT03221426, NCT04592913). These types of agents are probably more likely than antiangiogenic agents to become part of standard treatment in the perioperative setting.

Additional References

1. Janjigian YY, Shitara K, Moehler M, et al. First-line nivolumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone for advanced gastric, gastro-oesophageal junction, and oesophageal adenocarcinoma (CheckMate 649): A randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial. Lancet. 2021;398:27-40. Doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(21)00797-2 Source
2. Van Cutsem E, Moiseyenko VM, Tjulandin S, et al. Phase III study of docetaxel and cisplatin plus fluorouracil compared with cisplatin and fluorouracil as first-line therapy for advanced gastric cancer: A report of the V325 Study Group. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24:4991-4997. Doi:  10.1200/JCO.2006.06.8429 Source
3. Al-Batran S-E, Homann N, Pauligk C, et al. Perioperative chemotherapy with fluorouracil plus leucovorin, oxaliplatin, and docetaxel versus fluorouracil or capecitabine plus cisplatin and epirubicin for locally advanced, resectable gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction adenocarcinoma (FLOT4): A randomised, phase 2/3 trial. Lancet. 2019;393:1948-1957. Doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)32557-1 Source0
4. Wilke H, Van Cutsem E, Cheul Oh S, et al. RAINBOW: A global, phase 3, randomized, double-blind study of ramucirumab plus paclitaxel versus placebo plus paclitaxel in the treatment of metastatic gastric adenocarcinoma following disease progression on first-line platinum- and fluoropyrimidine-containing combination therapy: Results of a multiple Cox regression analysis adjusting for prognostic factors. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32(15, suppl):1076. Doi: 10.1200/jco.2014.32.15_suppl.4076 Source
5. Elimova E, Janjigian YY, Mulcahy M, et al. It is time to stop using epirubicin to treat any patient with gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma. J Clin Oncol. 2017;35:475-477. Doi: 10.1200/JCO.2016.69.7276 Source
6. Park H, Jin RU, Wang-Gillam A, et al. FOLFIRINOX for the treatment of advanced gastroesophageal cancers: A phase 2 nonrandomized clinical trial. JAMA Oncol. 2020;6:1231-1240. Doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2020.2020 Source
7. Fuchs CS, Shitara K, Di Bartolomeo M, et al. RAINFALL: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase III study of cisplatin (Cis) plus capecitabine (Cape) or 5FU with or without ramucirumab (RAM) as first-line therapy in patients with metastatic gastric or gastroesophageal junction (G-GEJ) adenocarcinoma. J Clin Oncol. 2018;36(4, suppl):5. Doi: 10.1200/JCO.2018.36.4_suppl.5 Source
8. Al-Batran S-E, Hofheinz RD, Schmalenberg H, et al. Perioperative ramucirumab in combination with FLOT versus FLOT alone for resectable esophagogastric adenocarcinoma (RAMSES/FLOT7): Results of the phase II-portion—A multicenter, randomized phase II/III trial of the German AIO and Italian GOIM. J Clin Oncol. 2020;38(15, suppl):4501. Doi: 10.1200/JCO.2020.38.15_suppl.4501 Source

In early-stage disease, perioperative chemotherapy plays a critical role. The triple-chemotherapy FLOT regimen is now the standard treatment in patients who are able to tolerate it. However, it is associated with significant toxicities, and modifications frequently are needed. In clinical practice, FOLFOX chemotherapy can be used in patients who are not candidates for FLOT. A phase 2 OGSG 1601 study enrolled 37 patients with clinical stage T3/T4a N1-3 M0 gastric cancer who received perioperative doublet chemotherapy with capecitabine and oxaliplatin. At the 3-year follow-up, this study continues to demonstrate good activity of this doublet chemotherapy, with an overall survival rate of 83.8% at 3 years and relapse-free rate of 73%. These results support the use of this doublet in patients who cannot tolerate a more intense chemotherapy regimen. The interpretation of this study is limited by its small size and nonrandomized design. Given what we know about the activity of this regimen in advanced disease, however, these results add to the body of evidence that supports the use of this doublet in select patients.

There have been efforts to augment the activity of perioperative chemotherapy using antiangiogenic agents. In the advanced setting, studies with antiangiogenic agents have had mixed results. Ramucirumab in combination with paclitaxel is FDA-approved in the second-line setting, but a subsequent study in the first line-setting showed no improvement from the addition of ramucirumab.^4,7 In the preoperative setting, the role of ramucirumab in combination with chemotherapy was evaluated in a phase 2 study. Although a hint of activity was seen, there was increased toxicity, especially in Siewert type I tumors.⁸ The phase 2 study by Tang and colleagues enrolled 32 patients with resectable gastric and gastroesophageal juncture adenocarcinoma who received neoadjuvant oxaliplatin, capecitabine, and apatinib. Apatinib is a small-molecule tyrosine kinase inhibitor with highly selective affinity to vascular endothelial growth factor receptor 2. The treatment had manageable toxicity, with hypertension being the most common adverse event, as expected. Early signs of potential clinical efficacy were seen (pathologic complete response and pathologic response were achieved in 6.3% and 34.4% of the patients, respectively), but the true contribution from the addition of apatinib can be established only in a prospective randomized study. For now, chemotherapy alone remains the standard perioperative treatment, although ongoing studies are evaluating the addition of immune checkpoint inhibitors in this setting (NCT03221426, NCT04592913). These types of agents are probably more likely than antiangiogenic agents to become part of standard treatment in the perioperative setting.

Additional References

1. Janjigian YY, Shitara K, Moehler M, et al. First-line nivolumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone for advanced gastric, gastro-oesophageal junction, and oesophageal adenocarcinoma (CheckMate 649): A randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial. Lancet. 2021;398:27-40. Doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(21)00797-2 Source
2. Van Cutsem E, Moiseyenko VM, Tjulandin S, et al. Phase III study of docetaxel and cisplatin plus fluorouracil compared with cisplatin and fluorouracil as first-line therapy for advanced gastric cancer: A report of the V325 Study Group. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24:4991-4997. Doi:  10.1200/JCO.2006.06.8429 Source
3. Al-Batran S-E, Homann N, Pauligk C, et al. Perioperative chemotherapy with fluorouracil plus leucovorin, oxaliplatin, and docetaxel versus fluorouracil or capecitabine plus cisplatin and epirubicin for locally advanced, resectable gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction adenocarcinoma (FLOT4): A randomised, phase 2/3 trial. Lancet. 2019;393:1948-1957. Doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)32557-1 Source0
4. Wilke H, Van Cutsem E, Cheul Oh S, et al. RAINBOW: A global, phase 3, randomized, double-blind study of ramucirumab plus paclitaxel versus placebo plus paclitaxel in the treatment of metastatic gastric adenocarcinoma following disease progression on first-line platinum- and fluoropyrimidine-containing combination therapy: Results of a multiple Cox regression analysis adjusting for prognostic factors. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32(15, suppl):1076. Doi: 10.1200/jco.2014.32.15_suppl.4076 Source
5. Elimova E, Janjigian YY, Mulcahy M, et al. It is time to stop using epirubicin to treat any patient with gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma. J Clin Oncol. 2017;35:475-477. Doi: 10.1200/JCO.2016.69.7276 Source
6. Park H, Jin RU, Wang-Gillam A, et al. FOLFIRINOX for the treatment of advanced gastroesophageal cancers: A phase 2 nonrandomized clinical trial. JAMA Oncol. 2020;6:1231-1240. Doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2020.2020 Source
7. Fuchs CS, Shitara K, Di Bartolomeo M, et al. RAINFALL: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase III study of cisplatin (Cis) plus capecitabine (Cape) or 5FU with or without ramucirumab (RAM) as first-line therapy in patients with metastatic gastric or gastroesophageal junction (G-GEJ) adenocarcinoma. J Clin Oncol. 2018;36(4, suppl):5. Doi: 10.1200/JCO.2018.36.4_suppl.5 Source
8. Al-Batran S-E, Hofheinz RD, Schmalenberg H, et al. Perioperative ramucirumab in combination with FLOT versus FLOT alone for resectable esophagogastric adenocarcinoma (RAMSES/FLOT7): Results of the phase II-portion—A multicenter, randomized phase II/III trial of the German AIO and Italian GOIM. J Clin Oncol. 2020;38(15, suppl):4501. Doi: 10.1200/JCO.2020.38.15_suppl.4501 Source