Feature

The photo of the patient’s foot, sent from his campsite, included a cheeky note: “I remember you telling me that getting in trouble doing something was better than getting in trouble doing nothing. This lets me get out there and know that I have feedback.”

The “this” was the patient’s “foot selfie,” an approach that allows patients at a risk for diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs) to snap a picture and send it to their healthcare providers for evaluation.

This particular patient had an extensive history of previous wounds. Some had essentially kept him house-bound in the past, as he was afraid to get another one.

This time, however, he got an all-clear to keep on camping, “and we scheduled him in on the following Tuesday [for follow-up],” said the camper’s physician David G. Armstrong, DPM, MD, PhD, professor of surgery and neurological surgery, USC Keck School of Medicine, Los Angeles.

Dr. Armstrong is one of the researchers evaluating the concept of foot selfies. It’s a welcome advance, he and others said, and has been shown to help heal wounds and reverse pre-ulcer lesions. Research on foot selfies continues, but much more is needed to solve the issue of DFUs, diabetic foot infections (DFIs), and the high rates of reinfection, experts know.

Worldwide, about 18.6 million people have a DFU each year, including 1.6 million in the United States. About 50%-60% of ulcers become infected, with 20% of moderate to severe infections requiring amputation of the limb. The 5-year mortality rate for DFUs is 30%, but it climbs to 70% after amputation. While about 40% of ulcers heal within 12 weeks, 42% recur at the 1-year mark, setting up a vicious and costly cycle. Healthcare costs for patients with diabetes and DFUs are five times as high as costs for patients with diabetes but no DFUs. The per capita cost to treat a DFU in America is $17,500.

While the statistics paint a grim picture, progress is being made on several fronts:

• US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) guidance on the development of drugs for DFUs, under evaluation, is forthcoming.
• New treatments are under study.
• A multidisciplinary team approach is known to improve outcomes.

Anatomy of a DFU

When neuropathy develops in those with diabetes, they no longer have what Dr. Armstrong calls the “gift” of pain perception. “They can wear a hole in their foot like you and I wear a hole in our sock or shoe,” he said. “That hole is called a diabetic foot ulcer.”

A DFU is an open wound on the foot, often occurring when bleeding develops beneath a callus and then the callus wears away. Deeper tissues of the foot are then exposed.

About half of the DFUs get infected, hence the FDA guidance, said Dr. Armstrong, who is also founding president of the American Limb Preservation Society, which aims to eliminate preventable amputations within the next generation. Every 20 seconds, Dr. Armstrong said, someone in the world loses a leg due to diabetes.
 

FDA Guidance on Drug Development for DFIs

In October, the FDA issued draft guidance for industry to articulate the design of clinical trials for developing antibacterial drugs to treat DFIs without concomitant bone and joint involvement. Comments closed on December 18. Among the points in the guidance, which is nonbinding, are to include DFIs of varying depths and extent in phase 3 trials and ideally to include only those patients who have not had prior antibacterial treatment for the current DFI.

According to an FDA spokesperson, “The agency is working to finalize the guidance. However, a timeline for its release has not yet been established.”

The good news about the upcoming FDA guidance, Dr. Armstrong said, is that the agency has realized the importance of treating the infections. Fully one third of direct costs of care for diabetes are spent on the lower extremities, he said. Keeping patients out of the hospital, uninfected, and “keeping legs on bodies” are all important goals, he said.

Pharmaceutical firms need to understand that “you aren’t dealing with a normal ulcer,” said Andrew J.M. Boulton, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Manchester and physician consultant at the Manchester Royal Infirmary, Manchester, England, and a visiting professor at the University of Miami. For research, “the most important thing is to take account of off-loading the ulcers,” he said. “Most ulcers will heal if put in a boot.”

Dr. Boulton, like Dr. Armstrong, a long-time expert in the field, contended that pharma has not understood this concept and has wasted millions over the last three decades doing studies that were poorly designed and controlled.
 

Treatments: Current, Under Study

Currently, DFIs are treated with antimicrobial therapy, without or without debridement, along with a clinical assessment for ischemia. If ischemia is found, care progresses to wound care and off-loading devices, such as healing sandals. Clinicians then assess the likelihood of improved outcomes with revascularization based on operative risks and distribution of lower extremity artery disease and proceed depending on the likelihood. If osteomyelitis testing shows it is present, providers proceed to wound debridement, limb-sparing amputation, and prolonged antimicrobials, as needed.

More options are needed, Dr. Armstrong said.

Among the many approaches under study:

• DFUs can be accurately detected by applying artificial intelligence to the “foot selfie” images taken by patients on smartphones, research by Dr.  and  has found.
• After a phase 3 study of  for DFUs originally intending to enroll 300 subjects was discontinued because of slow patient recruitment, an interim analysis was conducted on 44 participants. It showed a positive trend toward wound closure in the group receiving the injected gene therapy, VM202 (ENGENSIS), in their calf muscles. VM202 is a plasmid DNA-encoding human hepatocyte growth factor. While those in both the intervention and placebo groups showed wound-closing effects at month 6, in 23 patients with neuro-ischemic ulcers, the percentage of those reaching complete closure of the DFU was significantly higher in the treated group at months 3, 4, and 5 (P = .0391, .0391, and .0361, respectively). After excluding two outliers, the difference in months 3-6 became more significant (P = .03).
• An closed more DFUs than standard care after 12 weeks — 70% vs 34% (P = .00032). Of the 100 participants randomized, 50 per group, 42% of the treatment group and 56% of the control group experienced adverse events, with eight withdrawn due to serious adverse events (such as osteomyelitis).
• A closed more refractory DFUs over a 16-week study than standard sharp debridement, with 65% of water-treated ulcers healed but just 42% of the standard care group (P = .021, unadjusted).
• Researchers from UC Davis and VA Northern California Healthcare are evaluating timolol, a beta adrenergic receptor blocker already approved for topical administration for glaucoma, as a way to heal chronic DFUs faster. After demonstrating that the medication worked in animal models, researchers then launched a study to use it off-label for DFUs. While data are still being analyzed, researcher Roslyn (Rivkah) Isseroff, MD, of UC Davis and VA, said that data so far demonstrate that the timolol reduced transepidermal water loss in the healed wounds, and that is linked with a decrease in re-ulceration.

The Power of a Team

Multidisciplinary approaches to treatment are effective in reducing amputation, with one review of 33 studies finding the approach worked to decrease amputation in 94% of them. “The American Limb Preservation Society (ALPS) lists 30 programs,” said Dr. Armstrong, the founding president of the organization. “There may be as many as 100.”

Team compositions vary but usually include at least one medical specialty clinician, such as infectious disease, primary care, or endocrinology, and two or more specialty clinicians, such as vascular, podiatric, orthopedic, or plastic surgery. A shoe specialist is needed to prescribe and manage footwear. Other important team members include nutrition experts and behavioral health professionals to deal with associated depression.

Johns Hopkins’ Multidisciplinary Diabetic Foot and Wound Service launched in 2012 and includes vascular surgeons, surgical podiatrists, endocrinologists, wound care nurses, advanced practice staff, board-certified wound care specialists, orthopedic surgeons, infection disease experts, physical therapists, and certified orthotists.

“This interdisciplinary care model has been repeatedly validated by research as superior for limb salvage and wound healing,” said Nestoras Mathioudakis, MD, codirector of the service. “For instance, endocrinologists and diabetes educators are crucial for managing uncontrolled diabetes — a key factor in infection and delayed wound healing. Similarly, vascular surgeons play a vital role in addressing peripheral arterial disease to improve blood flow to the affected area.”

“Diabetic foot ulcers might require prolonged periods of specialized care, including meticulous wound management and off-loading, overseen by surgical podiatrists and wound care experts,” he said. “In cases where infection is present, particularly with multidrug resistant organisms or when standard antibiotics are contraindicated, the insight of an infectious disease specialist is invaluable.”

While the makeup of teams varies from location to location, he said “the hallmark of effective teams is their ability to comprehensively manage glycemic control, foot wounds, vascular disease, and infections.”

The power of teams, Dr. Armstrong said, is very much evident after his weekly “foot selfie rounds” conducted Mondays at 7 AM, with an “all feet on deck” approach. “Not a week goes by when we don’t stop a hospitalization,” he said of the team evaluating the photos, due to detecting issues early, while still in the manageable state.

Teams can trump technology, Dr. Armstrong said. A team of just a primary care doctor and a podiatrist can make a significant reduction in amputations, he said, just by a “Knock your socks off” approach. He reminds primary care doctors that observing the feet of their patients with diabetes can go a long way to reducing DFUs and the hospitalizations and amputations that can result.

Dr. Mathioudakis and Dr. Isseroff reported no disclosures. Dr. Boulton consults for Urgo Medical, Nevro Corporation, and AOT, Inc. Dr. Armstrong reported receiving consulting fees from Podimetrics; Molnlycke; Cardiovascular Systems, Inc.; Endo Pharmaceuticals; and Averitas Pharma (GRT US).

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

The photo of the patient’s foot, sent from his campsite, included a cheeky note: “I remember you telling me that getting in trouble doing something was better than getting in trouble doing nothing. This lets me get out there and know that I have feedback.”

The “this” was the patient’s “foot selfie,” an approach that allows patients at a risk for diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs) to snap a picture and send it to their healthcare providers for evaluation.

This particular patient had an extensive history of previous wounds. Some had essentially kept him house-bound in the past, as he was afraid to get another one.

This time, however, he got an all-clear to keep on camping, “and we scheduled him in on the following Tuesday [for follow-up],” said the camper’s physician David G. Armstrong, DPM, MD, PhD, professor of surgery and neurological surgery, USC Keck School of Medicine, Los Angeles.

Dr. Armstrong is one of the researchers evaluating the concept of foot selfies. It’s a welcome advance, he and others said, and has been shown to help heal wounds and reverse pre-ulcer lesions. Research on foot selfies continues, but much more is needed to solve the issue of DFUs, diabetic foot infections (DFIs), and the high rates of reinfection, experts know.

Worldwide, about 18.6 million people have a DFU each year, including 1.6 million in the United States. About 50%-60% of ulcers become infected, with 20% of moderate to severe infections requiring amputation of the limb. The 5-year mortality rate for DFUs is 30%, but it climbs to 70% after amputation. While about 40% of ulcers heal within 12 weeks, 42% recur at the 1-year mark, setting up a vicious and costly cycle. Healthcare costs for patients with diabetes and DFUs are five times as high as costs for patients with diabetes but no DFUs. The per capita cost to treat a DFU in America is $17,500.

While the statistics paint a grim picture, progress is being made on several fronts:

• US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) guidance on the development of drugs for DFUs, under evaluation, is forthcoming.
• New treatments are under study.
• A multidisciplinary team approach is known to improve outcomes.

Anatomy of a DFU

When neuropathy develops in those with diabetes, they no longer have what Dr. Armstrong calls the “gift” of pain perception. “They can wear a hole in their foot like you and I wear a hole in our sock or shoe,” he said. “That hole is called a diabetic foot ulcer.”

A DFU is an open wound on the foot, often occurring when bleeding develops beneath a callus and then the callus wears away. Deeper tissues of the foot are then exposed.

About half of the DFUs get infected, hence the FDA guidance, said Dr. Armstrong, who is also founding president of the American Limb Preservation Society, which aims to eliminate preventable amputations within the next generation. Every 20 seconds, Dr. Armstrong said, someone in the world loses a leg due to diabetes.
 

FDA Guidance on Drug Development for DFIs

In October, the FDA issued draft guidance for industry to articulate the design of clinical trials for developing antibacterial drugs to treat DFIs without concomitant bone and joint involvement. Comments closed on December 18. Among the points in the guidance, which is nonbinding, are to include DFIs of varying depths and extent in phase 3 trials and ideally to include only those patients who have not had prior antibacterial treatment for the current DFI.

According to an FDA spokesperson, “The agency is working to finalize the guidance. However, a timeline for its release has not yet been established.”

The good news about the upcoming FDA guidance, Dr. Armstrong said, is that the agency has realized the importance of treating the infections. Fully one third of direct costs of care for diabetes are spent on the lower extremities, he said. Keeping patients out of the hospital, uninfected, and “keeping legs on bodies” are all important goals, he said.

Pharmaceutical firms need to understand that “you aren’t dealing with a normal ulcer,” said Andrew J.M. Boulton, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Manchester and physician consultant at the Manchester Royal Infirmary, Manchester, England, and a visiting professor at the University of Miami. For research, “the most important thing is to take account of off-loading the ulcers,” he said. “Most ulcers will heal if put in a boot.”

Dr. Boulton, like Dr. Armstrong, a long-time expert in the field, contended that pharma has not understood this concept and has wasted millions over the last three decades doing studies that were poorly designed and controlled.
 

Treatments: Current, Under Study

Currently, DFIs are treated with antimicrobial therapy, without or without debridement, along with a clinical assessment for ischemia. If ischemia is found, care progresses to wound care and off-loading devices, such as healing sandals. Clinicians then assess the likelihood of improved outcomes with revascularization based on operative risks and distribution of lower extremity artery disease and proceed depending on the likelihood. If osteomyelitis testing shows it is present, providers proceed to wound debridement, limb-sparing amputation, and prolonged antimicrobials, as needed.

More options are needed, Dr. Armstrong said.

Among the many approaches under study:

• DFUs can be accurately detected by applying artificial intelligence to the “foot selfie” images taken by patients on smartphones, research by Dr.  and  has found.
• After a phase 3 study of  for DFUs originally intending to enroll 300 subjects was discontinued because of slow patient recruitment, an interim analysis was conducted on 44 participants. It showed a positive trend toward wound closure in the group receiving the injected gene therapy, VM202 (ENGENSIS), in their calf muscles. VM202 is a plasmid DNA-encoding human hepatocyte growth factor. While those in both the intervention and placebo groups showed wound-closing effects at month 6, in 23 patients with neuro-ischemic ulcers, the percentage of those reaching complete closure of the DFU was significantly higher in the treated group at months 3, 4, and 5 (P = .0391, .0391, and .0361, respectively). After excluding two outliers, the difference in months 3-6 became more significant (P = .03).
• An closed more DFUs than standard care after 12 weeks — 70% vs 34% (P = .00032). Of the 100 participants randomized, 50 per group, 42% of the treatment group and 56% of the control group experienced adverse events, with eight withdrawn due to serious adverse events (such as osteomyelitis).
• A closed more refractory DFUs over a 16-week study than standard sharp debridement, with 65% of water-treated ulcers healed but just 42% of the standard care group (P = .021, unadjusted).
• Researchers from UC Davis and VA Northern California Healthcare are evaluating timolol, a beta adrenergic receptor blocker already approved for topical administration for glaucoma, as a way to heal chronic DFUs faster. After demonstrating that the medication worked in animal models, researchers then launched a study to use it off-label for DFUs. While data are still being analyzed, researcher Roslyn (Rivkah) Isseroff, MD, of UC Davis and VA, said that data so far demonstrate that the timolol reduced transepidermal water loss in the healed wounds, and that is linked with a decrease in re-ulceration.

The Power of a Team

Multidisciplinary approaches to treatment are effective in reducing amputation, with one review of 33 studies finding the approach worked to decrease amputation in 94% of them. “The American Limb Preservation Society (ALPS) lists 30 programs,” said Dr. Armstrong, the founding president of the organization. “There may be as many as 100.”

Team compositions vary but usually include at least one medical specialty clinician, such as infectious disease, primary care, or endocrinology, and two or more specialty clinicians, such as vascular, podiatric, orthopedic, or plastic surgery. A shoe specialist is needed to prescribe and manage footwear. Other important team members include nutrition experts and behavioral health professionals to deal with associated depression.

Johns Hopkins’ Multidisciplinary Diabetic Foot and Wound Service launched in 2012 and includes vascular surgeons, surgical podiatrists, endocrinologists, wound care nurses, advanced practice staff, board-certified wound care specialists, orthopedic surgeons, infection disease experts, physical therapists, and certified orthotists.

“This interdisciplinary care model has been repeatedly validated by research as superior for limb salvage and wound healing,” said Nestoras Mathioudakis, MD, codirector of the service. “For instance, endocrinologists and diabetes educators are crucial for managing uncontrolled diabetes — a key factor in infection and delayed wound healing. Similarly, vascular surgeons play a vital role in addressing peripheral arterial disease to improve blood flow to the affected area.”

“Diabetic foot ulcers might require prolonged periods of specialized care, including meticulous wound management and off-loading, overseen by surgical podiatrists and wound care experts,” he said. “In cases where infection is present, particularly with multidrug resistant organisms or when standard antibiotics are contraindicated, the insight of an infectious disease specialist is invaluable.”

While the makeup of teams varies from location to location, he said “the hallmark of effective teams is their ability to comprehensively manage glycemic control, foot wounds, vascular disease, and infections.”

The power of teams, Dr. Armstrong said, is very much evident after his weekly “foot selfie rounds” conducted Mondays at 7 AM, with an “all feet on deck” approach. “Not a week goes by when we don’t stop a hospitalization,” he said of the team evaluating the photos, due to detecting issues early, while still in the manageable state.

Teams can trump technology, Dr. Armstrong said. A team of just a primary care doctor and a podiatrist can make a significant reduction in amputations, he said, just by a “Knock your socks off” approach. He reminds primary care doctors that observing the feet of their patients with diabetes can go a long way to reducing DFUs and the hospitalizations and amputations that can result.

Dr. Mathioudakis and Dr. Isseroff reported no disclosures. Dr. Boulton consults for Urgo Medical, Nevro Corporation, and AOT, Inc. Dr. Armstrong reported receiving consulting fees from Podimetrics; Molnlycke; Cardiovascular Systems, Inc.; Endo Pharmaceuticals; and Averitas Pharma (GRT US).

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

The photo of the patient’s foot, sent from his campsite, included a cheeky note: “I remember you telling me that getting in trouble doing something was better than getting in trouble doing nothing. This lets me get out there and know that I have feedback.”

The “this” was the patient’s “foot selfie,” an approach that allows patients at a risk for diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs) to snap a picture and send it to their healthcare providers for evaluation.

This particular patient had an extensive history of previous wounds. Some had essentially kept him house-bound in the past, as he was afraid to get another one.

This time, however, he got an all-clear to keep on camping, “and we scheduled him in on the following Tuesday [for follow-up],” said the camper’s physician David G. Armstrong, DPM, MD, PhD, professor of surgery and neurological surgery, USC Keck School of Medicine, Los Angeles.

Dr. Armstrong is one of the researchers evaluating the concept of foot selfies. It’s a welcome advance, he and others said, and has been shown to help heal wounds and reverse pre-ulcer lesions. Research on foot selfies continues, but much more is needed to solve the issue of DFUs, diabetic foot infections (DFIs), and the high rates of reinfection, experts know.

Worldwide, about 18.6 million people have a DFU each year, including 1.6 million in the United States. About 50%-60% of ulcers become infected, with 20% of moderate to severe infections requiring amputation of the limb. The 5-year mortality rate for DFUs is 30%, but it climbs to 70% after amputation. While about 40% of ulcers heal within 12 weeks, 42% recur at the 1-year mark, setting up a vicious and costly cycle. Healthcare costs for patients with diabetes and DFUs are five times as high as costs for patients with diabetes but no DFUs. The per capita cost to treat a DFU in America is $17,500.

While the statistics paint a grim picture, progress is being made on several fronts:

• US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) guidance on the development of drugs for DFUs, under evaluation, is forthcoming.
• New treatments are under study.
• A multidisciplinary team approach is known to improve outcomes.

Anatomy of a DFU

When neuropathy develops in those with diabetes, they no longer have what Dr. Armstrong calls the “gift” of pain perception. “They can wear a hole in their foot like you and I wear a hole in our sock or shoe,” he said. “That hole is called a diabetic foot ulcer.”

A DFU is an open wound on the foot, often occurring when bleeding develops beneath a callus and then the callus wears away. Deeper tissues of the foot are then exposed.

About half of the DFUs get infected, hence the FDA guidance, said Dr. Armstrong, who is also founding president of the American Limb Preservation Society, which aims to eliminate preventable amputations within the next generation. Every 20 seconds, Dr. Armstrong said, someone in the world loses a leg due to diabetes.
 

FDA Guidance on Drug Development for DFIs

In October, the FDA issued draft guidance for industry to articulate the design of clinical trials for developing antibacterial drugs to treat DFIs without concomitant bone and joint involvement. Comments closed on December 18. Among the points in the guidance, which is nonbinding, are to include DFIs of varying depths and extent in phase 3 trials and ideally to include only those patients who have not had prior antibacterial treatment for the current DFI.

According to an FDA spokesperson, “The agency is working to finalize the guidance. However, a timeline for its release has not yet been established.”

The good news about the upcoming FDA guidance, Dr. Armstrong said, is that the agency has realized the importance of treating the infections. Fully one third of direct costs of care for diabetes are spent on the lower extremities, he said. Keeping patients out of the hospital, uninfected, and “keeping legs on bodies” are all important goals, he said.

Pharmaceutical firms need to understand that “you aren’t dealing with a normal ulcer,” said Andrew J.M. Boulton, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Manchester and physician consultant at the Manchester Royal Infirmary, Manchester, England, and a visiting professor at the University of Miami. For research, “the most important thing is to take account of off-loading the ulcers,” he said. “Most ulcers will heal if put in a boot.”

Dr. Boulton, like Dr. Armstrong, a long-time expert in the field, contended that pharma has not understood this concept and has wasted millions over the last three decades doing studies that were poorly designed and controlled.
 

Treatments: Current, Under Study

Currently, DFIs are treated with antimicrobial therapy, without or without debridement, along with a clinical assessment for ischemia. If ischemia is found, care progresses to wound care and off-loading devices, such as healing sandals. Clinicians then assess the likelihood of improved outcomes with revascularization based on operative risks and distribution of lower extremity artery disease and proceed depending on the likelihood. If osteomyelitis testing shows it is present, providers proceed to wound debridement, limb-sparing amputation, and prolonged antimicrobials, as needed.

More options are needed, Dr. Armstrong said.

Among the many approaches under study:

• DFUs can be accurately detected by applying artificial intelligence to the “foot selfie” images taken by patients on smartphones, research by Dr.  and  has found.
• After a phase 3 study of  for DFUs originally intending to enroll 300 subjects was discontinued because of slow patient recruitment, an interim analysis was conducted on 44 participants. It showed a positive trend toward wound closure in the group receiving the injected gene therapy, VM202 (ENGENSIS), in their calf muscles. VM202 is a plasmid DNA-encoding human hepatocyte growth factor. While those in both the intervention and placebo groups showed wound-closing effects at month 6, in 23 patients with neuro-ischemic ulcers, the percentage of those reaching complete closure of the DFU was significantly higher in the treated group at months 3, 4, and 5 (P = .0391, .0391, and .0361, respectively). After excluding two outliers, the difference in months 3-6 became more significant (P = .03).
• An closed more DFUs than standard care after 12 weeks — 70% vs 34% (P = .00032). Of the 100 participants randomized, 50 per group, 42% of the treatment group and 56% of the control group experienced adverse events, with eight withdrawn due to serious adverse events (such as osteomyelitis).
• A closed more refractory DFUs over a 16-week study than standard sharp debridement, with 65% of water-treated ulcers healed but just 42% of the standard care group (P = .021, unadjusted).
• Researchers from UC Davis and VA Northern California Healthcare are evaluating timolol, a beta adrenergic receptor blocker already approved for topical administration for glaucoma, as a way to heal chronic DFUs faster. After demonstrating that the medication worked in animal models, researchers then launched a study to use it off-label for DFUs. While data are still being analyzed, researcher Roslyn (Rivkah) Isseroff, MD, of UC Davis and VA, said that data so far demonstrate that the timolol reduced transepidermal water loss in the healed wounds, and that is linked with a decrease in re-ulceration.

The Power of a Team

Multidisciplinary approaches to treatment are effective in reducing amputation, with one review of 33 studies finding the approach worked to decrease amputation in 94% of them. “The American Limb Preservation Society (ALPS) lists 30 programs,” said Dr. Armstrong, the founding president of the organization. “There may be as many as 100.”

Team compositions vary but usually include at least one medical specialty clinician, such as infectious disease, primary care, or endocrinology, and two or more specialty clinicians, such as vascular, podiatric, orthopedic, or plastic surgery. A shoe specialist is needed to prescribe and manage footwear. Other important team members include nutrition experts and behavioral health professionals to deal with associated depression.

Johns Hopkins’ Multidisciplinary Diabetic Foot and Wound Service launched in 2012 and includes vascular surgeons, surgical podiatrists, endocrinologists, wound care nurses, advanced practice staff, board-certified wound care specialists, orthopedic surgeons, infection disease experts, physical therapists, and certified orthotists.

“This interdisciplinary care model has been repeatedly validated by research as superior for limb salvage and wound healing,” said Nestoras Mathioudakis, MD, codirector of the service. “For instance, endocrinologists and diabetes educators are crucial for managing uncontrolled diabetes — a key factor in infection and delayed wound healing. Similarly, vascular surgeons play a vital role in addressing peripheral arterial disease to improve blood flow to the affected area.”

“Diabetic foot ulcers might require prolonged periods of specialized care, including meticulous wound management and off-loading, overseen by surgical podiatrists and wound care experts,” he said. “In cases where infection is present, particularly with multidrug resistant organisms or when standard antibiotics are contraindicated, the insight of an infectious disease specialist is invaluable.”

While the makeup of teams varies from location to location, he said “the hallmark of effective teams is their ability to comprehensively manage glycemic control, foot wounds, vascular disease, and infections.”

The power of teams, Dr. Armstrong said, is very much evident after his weekly “foot selfie rounds” conducted Mondays at 7 AM, with an “all feet on deck” approach. “Not a week goes by when we don’t stop a hospitalization,” he said of the team evaluating the photos, due to detecting issues early, while still in the manageable state.

Teams can trump technology, Dr. Armstrong said. A team of just a primary care doctor and a podiatrist can make a significant reduction in amputations, he said, just by a “Knock your socks off” approach. He reminds primary care doctors that observing the feet of their patients with diabetes can go a long way to reducing DFUs and the hospitalizations and amputations that can result.

Dr. Mathioudakis and Dr. Isseroff reported no disclosures. Dr. Boulton consults for Urgo Medical, Nevro Corporation, and AOT, Inc. Dr. Armstrong reported receiving consulting fees from Podimetrics; Molnlycke; Cardiovascular Systems, Inc.; Endo Pharmaceuticals; and Averitas Pharma (GRT US).

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

Four years ago in the spring of 2020, physicians and patients coined the term “long COVID” to describe a form of the viral infection from which recovery seemed impossible. (And the old nickname “long-haulers” seems so quaint now.)

What started as a pandemic that killed nearly 3 million people globally in 2020 alone would turn into a chronic disease causing a long list of symptoms — from extreme fatigue, to brain fog, tremors, nausea, headaches, rapid heartbeat, and more.

Today, 6.4% of Americans report symptoms of long COVID, and many have never recovered.

Still, we’ve come a long way, although there’s much we don’t understand about the condition. At the very least, physicians have a greater understanding that long COVID exists and can cause serious long-term symptoms.

While physicians may not have a blanket diagnostic tool that works for all patients with long COVID, they have refined existing tests for more accurate results, said Nisha Viswanathan, MD, director of the University of California Los Angeles Long COVID Program at UCLA Health.

Also, a range of new treatments, now undergoing clinical trials, have emerged that have proved effective in managing long COVID symptoms.

Catecholamine testing, for example, is now commonly used to diagnose long COVID, particularly in those who have dysautonomia, a condition caused by dysfunction of the autonomic nervous system and marked by dizziness, low blood pressure, nausea, and brain fog.

Very high levels of the neurotransmitter, for example, were shown to indicate long COVID in a January 2021 study published in the journal Clinical Medicine.

Certain biomarkers have also been shown indicative of the condition, including low serotonin levels. A study published this year in Cell found lower serotonin levels in patients with long COVID driven by low levels of circulating SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes the condition.

Still, said Dr. Viswanathan, long COVID is a disease diagnosed by figuring out what a patient does not have — by ruling out other causes — rather than what they do. “It’s still a moving target,” she said, meaning that the disease is always changing based on the variant of acute COVID.
 

Promising Treatments Have Emerged

Dysautonomia, and especially the associated brain fog, fatigue, and dizziness, are now common conditions. As a result, physicians have gotten better at treating them. The vagus nerve is the main nerve of the parasympathetic nervous system that controls everything from digestion to mental health. A February 2022 pilot study suggested a link between vagus nerve dysfunction and some long COVID symptoms.

Vagus nerve stimulation is one form of treatment which involves using a device to stimulate the vagus nerve with electrical impulses. Dr. Viswanathan has been using the treatment in patients with fatigue, brain fog, anxiety, and depression — results, she contends, have been positive.

“This is something tangible that we can offer to patients,” she said.

Curative treatments for long COVID remain elusive, but doctors have many more tools for symptom management than before, said Ziyad Al-Aly, MD, a global expert on long COVID and chief of research and development at the Veterans Affairs St. Louis Health Care System.

For example, physicians are using beta-blockers to treat postural tachycardia syndrome (POTS), a symptom of long COVID that happens when the heart rate increases rapidly after someone stands up or lies down. Beta-blockers, such as the off-label medication ivabradine, have been used clinically to control heart rate, according to a March 2022 study published in the journal HeartRhythm Case Reports.

“It’s not a cure, but beta-blockers can help patients manage their symptoms,” said Dr. Al-Aly.

Additionally, some patients respond well to low-dose naltrexone for the treatment of extreme fatigue associated with long COVID. A January 2024 article in the journal Clinical Therapeutics found that fatigue symptoms improved in patients taking the medication.

Dr. Al-Aly said doctors treating patients with long COVID are getting better at pinpointing the phenotype or manifestation of the condition and diagnosing a treatment accordingly. Treating long COVID fatigue is not the same as treating POTS or symptoms of headache and joint pain.

It’s still all about the management of symptoms and doctors lack any US Food and Drug Administration–approved medications specifically for the condition.
 

Clinical Trials Exploring New Therapies

Still, a number of large clinical trials currently underway may change that, said David F. Putrino, PhD, who runs the long COVID clinic at Mount Sinai Health System in New York City.

Two clinical trials headed by Dr. Putrino’s lab are looking into repurposing two HIV antivirals to see whether they affect the levels of circulating SARS-CoV-2 virus in the body that may cause long COVID. The hope is that the antivirals Truvada and maraviroc can reduce the «reactivation of latent virus» that, said Dr. Putrino, causes lingering long COVID symptoms.

Ongoing trials are looking into the promise of SARS-CoV-2 monoclonal antibodies, produced from cells made by cloning a unique white blood cell, as a treatment option. The trials are investigating whether these antibodies may similarly target viral reservoirs that are causing persistence of symptoms in some patients.

Other trials are underway through the National Institutes of Health (NIH) RECOVER initiative in which more than 17,000 patients are enrolled, the largest study of its kind, said Grace McComsey, MD.

Dr. McComsey, who leads the study at University Hospitals Health System in Cleveland, said that after following patients for up to 4 years researchers have gathered “a massive repository of information” they hope will help scientists crack the code of this very complex disease.

She and other RECOVER researchers have recently published studies on a variety of findings, reporting in February, for example, that COVID infections may trigger other autoimmune diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis and type 2 diabetes. Another recent finding showed that people with HIV are at a higher risk for complications due to acute COVID-19.
 

Lack of Urgency Holds Back Progress

Still, others like Dr. Al-Aly and Dr. Putrino felt that the initiative isn’t moving fast enough. Dr. Al-Aly said that the NIH needs to “get its act together” and do more for long COVID. In the future, he said that we need to double down on our efforts to expand funding and increase urgency to better understand the mechanism of disease, risk factors, and treatments, as well as societal and economic implications.

“We did trials for COVID-19 vaccines at warp speed, but we’re doing trials for long COVID at a snail’s pace,” he said.

Dr. Al-Aly is concerned about the chronic nature of the disease and how it affects patients down the line. His large-scale study published last month in the journal Science looked specifically at chronic fatigue syndrome triggered by the infection and its long-term impact on patients.

He’s concerned about the practical implications for people who are weighted down with symptoms for multiple years.

“Being fatigued and ill for a few months is one thing, but being at home for 5 years is a totally different ballgame.”

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

Four years ago in the spring of 2020, physicians and patients coined the term “long COVID” to describe a form of the viral infection from which recovery seemed impossible. (And the old nickname “long-haulers” seems so quaint now.)

What started as a pandemic that killed nearly 3 million people globally in 2020 alone would turn into a chronic disease causing a long list of symptoms — from extreme fatigue, to brain fog, tremors, nausea, headaches, rapid heartbeat, and more.

Today, 6.4% of Americans report symptoms of long COVID, and many have never recovered.

Still, we’ve come a long way, although there’s much we don’t understand about the condition. At the very least, physicians have a greater understanding that long COVID exists and can cause serious long-term symptoms.

While physicians may not have a blanket diagnostic tool that works for all patients with long COVID, they have refined existing tests for more accurate results, said Nisha Viswanathan, MD, director of the University of California Los Angeles Long COVID Program at UCLA Health.

Also, a range of new treatments, now undergoing clinical trials, have emerged that have proved effective in managing long COVID symptoms.

Catecholamine testing, for example, is now commonly used to diagnose long COVID, particularly in those who have dysautonomia, a condition caused by dysfunction of the autonomic nervous system and marked by dizziness, low blood pressure, nausea, and brain fog.

Very high levels of the neurotransmitter, for example, were shown to indicate long COVID in a January 2021 study published in the journal Clinical Medicine.

Certain biomarkers have also been shown indicative of the condition, including low serotonin levels. A study published this year in Cell found lower serotonin levels in patients with long COVID driven by low levels of circulating SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes the condition.

Still, said Dr. Viswanathan, long COVID is a disease diagnosed by figuring out what a patient does not have — by ruling out other causes — rather than what they do. “It’s still a moving target,” she said, meaning that the disease is always changing based on the variant of acute COVID.
 

Promising Treatments Have Emerged

Dysautonomia, and especially the associated brain fog, fatigue, and dizziness, are now common conditions. As a result, physicians have gotten better at treating them. The vagus nerve is the main nerve of the parasympathetic nervous system that controls everything from digestion to mental health. A February 2022 pilot study suggested a link between vagus nerve dysfunction and some long COVID symptoms.

Vagus nerve stimulation is one form of treatment which involves using a device to stimulate the vagus nerve with electrical impulses. Dr. Viswanathan has been using the treatment in patients with fatigue, brain fog, anxiety, and depression — results, she contends, have been positive.

“This is something tangible that we can offer to patients,” she said.

Curative treatments for long COVID remain elusive, but doctors have many more tools for symptom management than before, said Ziyad Al-Aly, MD, a global expert on long COVID and chief of research and development at the Veterans Affairs St. Louis Health Care System.

For example, physicians are using beta-blockers to treat postural tachycardia syndrome (POTS), a symptom of long COVID that happens when the heart rate increases rapidly after someone stands up or lies down. Beta-blockers, such as the off-label medication ivabradine, have been used clinically to control heart rate, according to a March 2022 study published in the journal HeartRhythm Case Reports.

“It’s not a cure, but beta-blockers can help patients manage their symptoms,” said Dr. Al-Aly.

Additionally, some patients respond well to low-dose naltrexone for the treatment of extreme fatigue associated with long COVID. A January 2024 article in the journal Clinical Therapeutics found that fatigue symptoms improved in patients taking the medication.

Dr. Al-Aly said doctors treating patients with long COVID are getting better at pinpointing the phenotype or manifestation of the condition and diagnosing a treatment accordingly. Treating long COVID fatigue is not the same as treating POTS or symptoms of headache and joint pain.

It’s still all about the management of symptoms and doctors lack any US Food and Drug Administration–approved medications specifically for the condition.
 

Clinical Trials Exploring New Therapies

Still, a number of large clinical trials currently underway may change that, said David F. Putrino, PhD, who runs the long COVID clinic at Mount Sinai Health System in New York City.

Two clinical trials headed by Dr. Putrino’s lab are looking into repurposing two HIV antivirals to see whether they affect the levels of circulating SARS-CoV-2 virus in the body that may cause long COVID. The hope is that the antivirals Truvada and maraviroc can reduce the «reactivation of latent virus» that, said Dr. Putrino, causes lingering long COVID symptoms.

Ongoing trials are looking into the promise of SARS-CoV-2 monoclonal antibodies, produced from cells made by cloning a unique white blood cell, as a treatment option. The trials are investigating whether these antibodies may similarly target viral reservoirs that are causing persistence of symptoms in some patients.

Other trials are underway through the National Institutes of Health (NIH) RECOVER initiative in which more than 17,000 patients are enrolled, the largest study of its kind, said Grace McComsey, MD.

Dr. McComsey, who leads the study at University Hospitals Health System in Cleveland, said that after following patients for up to 4 years researchers have gathered “a massive repository of information” they hope will help scientists crack the code of this very complex disease.

She and other RECOVER researchers have recently published studies on a variety of findings, reporting in February, for example, that COVID infections may trigger other autoimmune diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis and type 2 diabetes. Another recent finding showed that people with HIV are at a higher risk for complications due to acute COVID-19.
 

Lack of Urgency Holds Back Progress

Still, others like Dr. Al-Aly and Dr. Putrino felt that the initiative isn’t moving fast enough. Dr. Al-Aly said that the NIH needs to “get its act together” and do more for long COVID. In the future, he said that we need to double down on our efforts to expand funding and increase urgency to better understand the mechanism of disease, risk factors, and treatments, as well as societal and economic implications.

“We did trials for COVID-19 vaccines at warp speed, but we’re doing trials for long COVID at a snail’s pace,” he said.

Dr. Al-Aly is concerned about the chronic nature of the disease and how it affects patients down the line. His large-scale study published last month in the journal Science looked specifically at chronic fatigue syndrome triggered by the infection and its long-term impact on patients.

He’s concerned about the practical implications for people who are weighted down with symptoms for multiple years.

“Being fatigued and ill for a few months is one thing, but being at home for 5 years is a totally different ballgame.”

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

Four years ago in the spring of 2020, physicians and patients coined the term “long COVID” to describe a form of the viral infection from which recovery seemed impossible. (And the old nickname “long-haulers” seems so quaint now.)

What started as a pandemic that killed nearly 3 million people globally in 2020 alone would turn into a chronic disease causing a long list of symptoms — from extreme fatigue, to brain fog, tremors, nausea, headaches, rapid heartbeat, and more.

Today, 6.4% of Americans report symptoms of long COVID, and many have never recovered.

Still, we’ve come a long way, although there’s much we don’t understand about the condition. At the very least, physicians have a greater understanding that long COVID exists and can cause serious long-term symptoms.

While physicians may not have a blanket diagnostic tool that works for all patients with long COVID, they have refined existing tests for more accurate results, said Nisha Viswanathan, MD, director of the University of California Los Angeles Long COVID Program at UCLA Health.

Also, a range of new treatments, now undergoing clinical trials, have emerged that have proved effective in managing long COVID symptoms.

Catecholamine testing, for example, is now commonly used to diagnose long COVID, particularly in those who have dysautonomia, a condition caused by dysfunction of the autonomic nervous system and marked by dizziness, low blood pressure, nausea, and brain fog.

Very high levels of the neurotransmitter, for example, were shown to indicate long COVID in a January 2021 study published in the journal Clinical Medicine.

Certain biomarkers have also been shown indicative of the condition, including low serotonin levels. A study published this year in Cell found lower serotonin levels in patients with long COVID driven by low levels of circulating SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes the condition.

Still, said Dr. Viswanathan, long COVID is a disease diagnosed by figuring out what a patient does not have — by ruling out other causes — rather than what they do. “It’s still a moving target,” she said, meaning that the disease is always changing based on the variant of acute COVID.
 

Promising Treatments Have Emerged

Dysautonomia, and especially the associated brain fog, fatigue, and dizziness, are now common conditions. As a result, physicians have gotten better at treating them. The vagus nerve is the main nerve of the parasympathetic nervous system that controls everything from digestion to mental health. A February 2022 pilot study suggested a link between vagus nerve dysfunction and some long COVID symptoms.

Vagus nerve stimulation is one form of treatment which involves using a device to stimulate the vagus nerve with electrical impulses. Dr. Viswanathan has been using the treatment in patients with fatigue, brain fog, anxiety, and depression — results, she contends, have been positive.

“This is something tangible that we can offer to patients,” she said.

Curative treatments for long COVID remain elusive, but doctors have many more tools for symptom management than before, said Ziyad Al-Aly, MD, a global expert on long COVID and chief of research and development at the Veterans Affairs St. Louis Health Care System.

For example, physicians are using beta-blockers to treat postural tachycardia syndrome (POTS), a symptom of long COVID that happens when the heart rate increases rapidly after someone stands up or lies down. Beta-blockers, such as the off-label medication ivabradine, have been used clinically to control heart rate, according to a March 2022 study published in the journal HeartRhythm Case Reports.

“It’s not a cure, but beta-blockers can help patients manage their symptoms,” said Dr. Al-Aly.

Additionally, some patients respond well to low-dose naltrexone for the treatment of extreme fatigue associated with long COVID. A January 2024 article in the journal Clinical Therapeutics found that fatigue symptoms improved in patients taking the medication.

Dr. Al-Aly said doctors treating patients with long COVID are getting better at pinpointing the phenotype or manifestation of the condition and diagnosing a treatment accordingly. Treating long COVID fatigue is not the same as treating POTS or symptoms of headache and joint pain.

It’s still all about the management of symptoms and doctors lack any US Food and Drug Administration–approved medications specifically for the condition.
 

Clinical Trials Exploring New Therapies

Still, a number of large clinical trials currently underway may change that, said David F. Putrino, PhD, who runs the long COVID clinic at Mount Sinai Health System in New York City.

Two clinical trials headed by Dr. Putrino’s lab are looking into repurposing two HIV antivirals to see whether they affect the levels of circulating SARS-CoV-2 virus in the body that may cause long COVID. The hope is that the antivirals Truvada and maraviroc can reduce the «reactivation of latent virus» that, said Dr. Putrino, causes lingering long COVID symptoms.

Ongoing trials are looking into the promise of SARS-CoV-2 monoclonal antibodies, produced from cells made by cloning a unique white blood cell, as a treatment option. The trials are investigating whether these antibodies may similarly target viral reservoirs that are causing persistence of symptoms in some patients.

Other trials are underway through the National Institutes of Health (NIH) RECOVER initiative in which more than 17,000 patients are enrolled, the largest study of its kind, said Grace McComsey, MD.

Dr. McComsey, who leads the study at University Hospitals Health System in Cleveland, said that after following patients for up to 4 years researchers have gathered “a massive repository of information” they hope will help scientists crack the code of this very complex disease.

She and other RECOVER researchers have recently published studies on a variety of findings, reporting in February, for example, that COVID infections may trigger other autoimmune diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis and type 2 diabetes. Another recent finding showed that people with HIV are at a higher risk for complications due to acute COVID-19.
 

Lack of Urgency Holds Back Progress

Still, others like Dr. Al-Aly and Dr. Putrino felt that the initiative isn’t moving fast enough. Dr. Al-Aly said that the NIH needs to “get its act together” and do more for long COVID. In the future, he said that we need to double down on our efforts to expand funding and increase urgency to better understand the mechanism of disease, risk factors, and treatments, as well as societal and economic implications.

“We did trials for COVID-19 vaccines at warp speed, but we’re doing trials for long COVID at a snail’s pace,” he said.

Dr. Al-Aly is concerned about the chronic nature of the disease and how it affects patients down the line. His large-scale study published last month in the journal Science looked specifically at chronic fatigue syndrome triggered by the infection and its long-term impact on patients.

He’s concerned about the practical implications for people who are weighted down with symptoms for multiple years.

“Being fatigued and ill for a few months is one thing, but being at home for 5 years is a totally different ballgame.”

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

SAN DIEGO — A new cell-free DNA (cfDNA)-based blood test shows promising performance in detecting colorectal cancer and advanced precancerous lesions, say the authors of new research.

Rachel B. Issaka, MD, MAS, of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Seattle, presented the clinical data, which was published in The New England Journal of Medicine, at the American Association for Cancer Research annual meeting.

Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center

The authors of the study evaluated the performance of a cfDNA blood-based test in a population eligible for colorectal cancer screening. The researchers found that the test had high sensitivity for the detection of colorectal cancer and high specificity for advanced precancerous lesions.

This novel blood test could improve screening adherence and, ultimately, reduce colorectal cancer-related mortality, Dr. Issaka said during her presentation.

“This test has the potential to help us reach the 80% screening target in colorectal cancer. However, this will depend on many factors, including access, implementation, follow-up colonoscopy, and characteristics of the test,” Dr. Issaka said in an interview.

She added that, when approved for broader use, anyone who wants to use this blood test for colorectal cancer screening should have a frank conversation with their healthcare provider.

“Considering the person’s age, medical history, family history, and any potential symptoms, and how the test performs will dictate if it’s the right test for that person versus another screening strategy,” Dr. Issaka explained.
 

The Blood Test Detects Colorectal Cancer With High Accuracy

The investigators of the observational ECLIPSE trial evaluated the performance of the cfDNA-based blood test in 7861 individuals who were eligible for colorectal cancer screening. The study population included people from more than 200 rural and urban sites across 34 states, including community hospitals, private practices, gastroenterology clinics, and academic centers. “The study enrolled a diverse cohort that is reflective of the demographics of the intended use population in the US,” Dr. Issaka said during her talk.

The co-primary outcomes of the study were the test’s sensitivity for detecting colorectal cancer and its specificity for identifying advanced neoplasia.

In her presentation, Dr. Issaka highlighted that the test had 83.1% (95% confidence interval [CI], 72.2%-90.3%) sensitivity for the detection of colorectal cancer, meaning that it was able to correctly identify most participants with the disease. The test’s sensitivity was even higher (87.5%; 95% CI, 75.3%-94.1%) for stage I, II, or III colorectal cancer. “These are the stages at which early intervention can have the greatest impact on patient prognosis,” Dr. Issaka said.

Moreover, the blood test showed 89.6% (95% CI, 88.8%-90.3%) specificity for advanced neoplasia, including colorectal cancer and advanced precancerous lesions. The specificity of the test for negative colonoscopy results (no colorectal cancer, advanced precancerous lesions, or nonadvanced precancerous lesions) was 89.9% (95% CI, 89.0%-90.7%).

Dr. Issaka highlighted that this cfDNA assay is the first blood-based test with performance comparable to current guideline-recommended noninvasive options for CRC.
 

The Blood Test Shows Limited Ability To Detect Advanced Precancerous Lesions

During her presentation, Dr. Issaka acknowledged that the cfDNA-based blood test had a lower sensitivity (13.2%; 95% CI, 11.3%-15.3%) for the detection of advanced precancerous lesions, suggesting that it may be more effective at identifying established cancers than early-stage precancerous changes. Low sensitivity was also observed for high-grade dysplasia (22.6%; 95% CI, 11.4%-39.8%). However, she emphasized that the test could still play a valuable role in a comprehensive screening approach, potentially serving as a first-line tool to identify individuals who would then undergo follow-up colonoscopy.

“Although blood-based tests perform well at finding cancers, they do not do so well at finding precancerous polyps. This is relevant because colorectal cancer is one of the few cancers that we can prevent by finding and removing precancerous polyps,” Folasade P. May, MD, PhD, MPhil, said in an interview.

“Users must also understand that if the test result is abnormal, a colonoscopy is required to look for cancers and polyps that might have caused the abnormal result,” added Dr. May, associate professor at UCLA. She was not involved in the study.
 

Clinical Implications and Future Steps

According to the study published in the NEJM, colorectal cancer is the third most commonly diagnosed cancer in the United States, and early detection is crucial for effective treatment. However, over a third of eligible individuals are not up to date with recommended screening.

During her talk, Dr. Issaka noted that colonoscopy is the most commonly used screening method for colorectal cancer. What contributes to the low adherence to getting a colonoscopy among the eligible population is that some find it inconvenient, and the test is invasive, she added.

According to Dr. May, the key advantage of cfDNA-based screening is that many people will find it easier to complete a blood test than the currently available screening tests.

“This option may allow us to screen individuals that we have previously struggled to convince to get screened for colorectal cancer,” she said.

In an interview, Dr. Issaka acknowledged that the potential public health impact of any noninvasive screening test depends on how many people with abnormal results complete a follow-up colonoscopy. “This is an important quality metric to track,” she said.

In an interview, Dr. Issaka emphasized that comparing this cfDNA blood test with emerging blood tests and other noninvasive screening strategies will empower patients and clinicians to select the right test at the right time for the right patient.

She added that the study was conducted in an average-risk screening population and that further research is needed to evaluate the test’s performance in higher-risk groups and to assess its real-world impact on screening adherence and colorectal cancer-related outcomes.

Commenting on potential challenges with implementing this cfDNA blood test in clinical practice, Dr. May said, “As we consider incorporating blood-based tests into clinical practice, some challenges include cost, equitable access to tests and follow-up, performance in young adults who are newly eligible for screening, and follow-up after abnormal results.”

She added that, if there is uptake of these tests, it will be important to track how that impacts colorectal cancer screening rates, stage at diagnosis, and whether there is stage migration, incidence, and mortality.

“At this time, I feel that these tests are appropriate for individuals who will not or cannot participate in one of the currently recommended screening tests. These include colonoscopy and stool-based tests, like FIT and FIT-DNA,” Dr. May concluded.

Dr. Issaka reported financial relationships with the National Institutes of Health/National Cancer Institute, American College of Gastroenterology, and Guardant Health Inc. Dr. May reported financial relationships with Takeda, Medtronic, Johnson & Johnson, Saint Supply, Exact Sciences, Freenome, Geneoscopy, Guardant Health, InterVenn, Natura, National Institutes of Health/National Cancer Institute, Veterans Affairs HSR&D, Broad Institute, Stand up to Cancer, and NRG Oncology.

SAN DIEGO — A new cell-free DNA (cfDNA)-based blood test shows promising performance in detecting colorectal cancer and advanced precancerous lesions, say the authors of new research.

Rachel B. Issaka, MD, MAS, of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Seattle, presented the clinical data, which was published in The New England Journal of Medicine, at the American Association for Cancer Research annual meeting.

Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center

The authors of the study evaluated the performance of a cfDNA blood-based test in a population eligible for colorectal cancer screening. The researchers found that the test had high sensitivity for the detection of colorectal cancer and high specificity for advanced precancerous lesions.

This novel blood test could improve screening adherence and, ultimately, reduce colorectal cancer-related mortality, Dr. Issaka said during her presentation.

“This test has the potential to help us reach the 80% screening target in colorectal cancer. However, this will depend on many factors, including access, implementation, follow-up colonoscopy, and characteristics of the test,” Dr. Issaka said in an interview.

She added that, when approved for broader use, anyone who wants to use this blood test for colorectal cancer screening should have a frank conversation with their healthcare provider.

“Considering the person’s age, medical history, family history, and any potential symptoms, and how the test performs will dictate if it’s the right test for that person versus another screening strategy,” Dr. Issaka explained.
 

The Blood Test Detects Colorectal Cancer With High Accuracy

The investigators of the observational ECLIPSE trial evaluated the performance of the cfDNA-based blood test in 7861 individuals who were eligible for colorectal cancer screening. The study population included people from more than 200 rural and urban sites across 34 states, including community hospitals, private practices, gastroenterology clinics, and academic centers. “The study enrolled a diverse cohort that is reflective of the demographics of the intended use population in the US,” Dr. Issaka said during her talk.

The co-primary outcomes of the study were the test’s sensitivity for detecting colorectal cancer and its specificity for identifying advanced neoplasia.

In her presentation, Dr. Issaka highlighted that the test had 83.1% (95% confidence interval [CI], 72.2%-90.3%) sensitivity for the detection of colorectal cancer, meaning that it was able to correctly identify most participants with the disease. The test’s sensitivity was even higher (87.5%; 95% CI, 75.3%-94.1%) for stage I, II, or III colorectal cancer. “These are the stages at which early intervention can have the greatest impact on patient prognosis,” Dr. Issaka said.

Moreover, the blood test showed 89.6% (95% CI, 88.8%-90.3%) specificity for advanced neoplasia, including colorectal cancer and advanced precancerous lesions. The specificity of the test for negative colonoscopy results (no colorectal cancer, advanced precancerous lesions, or nonadvanced precancerous lesions) was 89.9% (95% CI, 89.0%-90.7%).

Dr. Issaka highlighted that this cfDNA assay is the first blood-based test with performance comparable to current guideline-recommended noninvasive options for CRC.
 

The Blood Test Shows Limited Ability To Detect Advanced Precancerous Lesions

During her presentation, Dr. Issaka acknowledged that the cfDNA-based blood test had a lower sensitivity (13.2%; 95% CI, 11.3%-15.3%) for the detection of advanced precancerous lesions, suggesting that it may be more effective at identifying established cancers than early-stage precancerous changes. Low sensitivity was also observed for high-grade dysplasia (22.6%; 95% CI, 11.4%-39.8%). However, she emphasized that the test could still play a valuable role in a comprehensive screening approach, potentially serving as a first-line tool to identify individuals who would then undergo follow-up colonoscopy.

“Although blood-based tests perform well at finding cancers, they do not do so well at finding precancerous polyps. This is relevant because colorectal cancer is one of the few cancers that we can prevent by finding and removing precancerous polyps,” Folasade P. May, MD, PhD, MPhil, said in an interview.

“Users must also understand that if the test result is abnormal, a colonoscopy is required to look for cancers and polyps that might have caused the abnormal result,” added Dr. May, associate professor at UCLA. She was not involved in the study.
 

Clinical Implications and Future Steps

According to the study published in the NEJM, colorectal cancer is the third most commonly diagnosed cancer in the United States, and early detection is crucial for effective treatment. However, over a third of eligible individuals are not up to date with recommended screening.

During her talk, Dr. Issaka noted that colonoscopy is the most commonly used screening method for colorectal cancer. What contributes to the low adherence to getting a colonoscopy among the eligible population is that some find it inconvenient, and the test is invasive, she added.

According to Dr. May, the key advantage of cfDNA-based screening is that many people will find it easier to complete a blood test than the currently available screening tests.

“This option may allow us to screen individuals that we have previously struggled to convince to get screened for colorectal cancer,” she said.

In an interview, Dr. Issaka acknowledged that the potential public health impact of any noninvasive screening test depends on how many people with abnormal results complete a follow-up colonoscopy. “This is an important quality metric to track,” she said.

In an interview, Dr. Issaka emphasized that comparing this cfDNA blood test with emerging blood tests and other noninvasive screening strategies will empower patients and clinicians to select the right test at the right time for the right patient.

She added that the study was conducted in an average-risk screening population and that further research is needed to evaluate the test’s performance in higher-risk groups and to assess its real-world impact on screening adherence and colorectal cancer-related outcomes.

Commenting on potential challenges with implementing this cfDNA blood test in clinical practice, Dr. May said, “As we consider incorporating blood-based tests into clinical practice, some challenges include cost, equitable access to tests and follow-up, performance in young adults who are newly eligible for screening, and follow-up after abnormal results.”

She added that, if there is uptake of these tests, it will be important to track how that impacts colorectal cancer screening rates, stage at diagnosis, and whether there is stage migration, incidence, and mortality.

“At this time, I feel that these tests are appropriate for individuals who will not or cannot participate in one of the currently recommended screening tests. These include colonoscopy and stool-based tests, like FIT and FIT-DNA,” Dr. May concluded.

Dr. Issaka reported financial relationships with the National Institutes of Health/National Cancer Institute, American College of Gastroenterology, and Guardant Health Inc. Dr. May reported financial relationships with Takeda, Medtronic, Johnson & Johnson, Saint Supply, Exact Sciences, Freenome, Geneoscopy, Guardant Health, InterVenn, Natura, National Institutes of Health/National Cancer Institute, Veterans Affairs HSR&D, Broad Institute, Stand up to Cancer, and NRG Oncology.

SAN DIEGO — A new cell-free DNA (cfDNA)-based blood test shows promising performance in detecting colorectal cancer and advanced precancerous lesions, say the authors of new research.

Rachel B. Issaka, MD, MAS, of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Seattle, presented the clinical data, which was published in The New England Journal of Medicine, at the American Association for Cancer Research annual meeting.

Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center

The authors of the study evaluated the performance of a cfDNA blood-based test in a population eligible for colorectal cancer screening. The researchers found that the test had high sensitivity for the detection of colorectal cancer and high specificity for advanced precancerous lesions.

This novel blood test could improve screening adherence and, ultimately, reduce colorectal cancer-related mortality, Dr. Issaka said during her presentation.

“This test has the potential to help us reach the 80% screening target in colorectal cancer. However, this will depend on many factors, including access, implementation, follow-up colonoscopy, and characteristics of the test,” Dr. Issaka said in an interview.

She added that, when approved for broader use, anyone who wants to use this blood test for colorectal cancer screening should have a frank conversation with their healthcare provider.

“Considering the person’s age, medical history, family history, and any potential symptoms, and how the test performs will dictate if it’s the right test for that person versus another screening strategy,” Dr. Issaka explained.
 

The Blood Test Detects Colorectal Cancer With High Accuracy

The investigators of the observational ECLIPSE trial evaluated the performance of the cfDNA-based blood test in 7861 individuals who were eligible for colorectal cancer screening. The study population included people from more than 200 rural and urban sites across 34 states, including community hospitals, private practices, gastroenterology clinics, and academic centers. “The study enrolled a diverse cohort that is reflective of the demographics of the intended use population in the US,” Dr. Issaka said during her talk.

The co-primary outcomes of the study were the test’s sensitivity for detecting colorectal cancer and its specificity for identifying advanced neoplasia.

In her presentation, Dr. Issaka highlighted that the test had 83.1% (95% confidence interval [CI], 72.2%-90.3%) sensitivity for the detection of colorectal cancer, meaning that it was able to correctly identify most participants with the disease. The test’s sensitivity was even higher (87.5%; 95% CI, 75.3%-94.1%) for stage I, II, or III colorectal cancer. “These are the stages at which early intervention can have the greatest impact on patient prognosis,” Dr. Issaka said.

Moreover, the blood test showed 89.6% (95% CI, 88.8%-90.3%) specificity for advanced neoplasia, including colorectal cancer and advanced precancerous lesions. The specificity of the test for negative colonoscopy results (no colorectal cancer, advanced precancerous lesions, or nonadvanced precancerous lesions) was 89.9% (95% CI, 89.0%-90.7%).

Dr. Issaka highlighted that this cfDNA assay is the first blood-based test with performance comparable to current guideline-recommended noninvasive options for CRC.
 

The Blood Test Shows Limited Ability To Detect Advanced Precancerous Lesions

During her presentation, Dr. Issaka acknowledged that the cfDNA-based blood test had a lower sensitivity (13.2%; 95% CI, 11.3%-15.3%) for the detection of advanced precancerous lesions, suggesting that it may be more effective at identifying established cancers than early-stage precancerous changes. Low sensitivity was also observed for high-grade dysplasia (22.6%; 95% CI, 11.4%-39.8%). However, she emphasized that the test could still play a valuable role in a comprehensive screening approach, potentially serving as a first-line tool to identify individuals who would then undergo follow-up colonoscopy.

“Although blood-based tests perform well at finding cancers, they do not do so well at finding precancerous polyps. This is relevant because colorectal cancer is one of the few cancers that we can prevent by finding and removing precancerous polyps,” Folasade P. May, MD, PhD, MPhil, said in an interview.

“Users must also understand that if the test result is abnormal, a colonoscopy is required to look for cancers and polyps that might have caused the abnormal result,” added Dr. May, associate professor at UCLA. She was not involved in the study.
 

Clinical Implications and Future Steps

According to the study published in the NEJM, colorectal cancer is the third most commonly diagnosed cancer in the United States, and early detection is crucial for effective treatment. However, over a third of eligible individuals are not up to date with recommended screening.

During her talk, Dr. Issaka noted that colonoscopy is the most commonly used screening method for colorectal cancer. What contributes to the low adherence to getting a colonoscopy among the eligible population is that some find it inconvenient, and the test is invasive, she added.

According to Dr. May, the key advantage of cfDNA-based screening is that many people will find it easier to complete a blood test than the currently available screening tests.

“This option may allow us to screen individuals that we have previously struggled to convince to get screened for colorectal cancer,” she said.

In an interview, Dr. Issaka acknowledged that the potential public health impact of any noninvasive screening test depends on how many people with abnormal results complete a follow-up colonoscopy. “This is an important quality metric to track,” she said.

In an interview, Dr. Issaka emphasized that comparing this cfDNA blood test with emerging blood tests and other noninvasive screening strategies will empower patients and clinicians to select the right test at the right time for the right patient.

She added that the study was conducted in an average-risk screening population and that further research is needed to evaluate the test’s performance in higher-risk groups and to assess its real-world impact on screening adherence and colorectal cancer-related outcomes.

Commenting on potential challenges with implementing this cfDNA blood test in clinical practice, Dr. May said, “As we consider incorporating blood-based tests into clinical practice, some challenges include cost, equitable access to tests and follow-up, performance in young adults who are newly eligible for screening, and follow-up after abnormal results.”

She added that, if there is uptake of these tests, it will be important to track how that impacts colorectal cancer screening rates, stage at diagnosis, and whether there is stage migration, incidence, and mortality.

“At this time, I feel that these tests are appropriate for individuals who will not or cannot participate in one of the currently recommended screening tests. These include colonoscopy and stool-based tests, like FIT and FIT-DNA,” Dr. May concluded.

Dr. Issaka reported financial relationships with the National Institutes of Health/National Cancer Institute, American College of Gastroenterology, and Guardant Health Inc. Dr. May reported financial relationships with Takeda, Medtronic, Johnson & Johnson, Saint Supply, Exact Sciences, Freenome, Geneoscopy, Guardant Health, InterVenn, Natura, National Institutes of Health/National Cancer Institute, Veterans Affairs HSR&D, Broad Institute, Stand up to Cancer, and NRG Oncology.

The advent of new immune checkpoint inhibitor combinations for urothelial carcinoma has yielded dramatic changes in patient care, according to Thomas W. Flaig, MD, vice chancellor for research at the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora.

Combination therapies involving enfortumab and nivolumab are demonstrating success in recent studies and have been incorporated into the latest guidelines, Dr. Flaig said in a presentation at the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) annual conference.
 

What's New in The Updated Guidelines?

Advances in the treatment options for metastatic urothelial carcinoma in the last decade have been dramatic, with ongoing developments and new emerging treatment options, Dr. Flaig told the audience of his session.

This has led to the identification of new and effective immune checkpoint inhibitor combinations. Consequently, immune checkpoint inhibitors are currently included in all preferred/other recommended first-line treatment regimens, he said.

“Enfortumab vedotin plus pembrolizumab is now the sole preferred first-line regimen for locally advanced or metastatic disease.” Based on the recent research, the mindset regarding cisplatin-eligible patient selection may be changing, he added.

“We have used cisplatin eligibility as a key factor in determining first-line therapy for years, and that paradigm is now shifting with the emergence of enfortumab plus pembrolizumab, a new non–cisplatin containing regimen” Dr. Flaig noted.

Although the optimal choice for second- or third-line therapy after immune checkpoint inhibitors is not well-defined, options include platinum regimens, antibody-drug conjugate, and erdafitinib in eligible patients, he said.
 

Other Current Strategies for Localized Bladder Cancer Management

The incidence of bladder cancer has been stable for decades, with minimal therapeutic developments until the approval of immune checkpoint inhibitors in the last decade, Dr. Flaig said.

Bladder cancer is more common in older adults, with an average onset age of 73 years, and most patients (75%) are male, he said. Comorbid disease is common in these patients, and many have a history of smoking, Dr. Flaig added.

The traditional medical approach to treating bladder cancer has been based on combination therapies including cisplatin. This has also reflected the approach used in the treatment of lung cancer, historically, Dr. Flaig said.

Cisplatin, while effective, is a challenging therapy to administer and is not an option for all bladder cancer patients because of potential adverse effects, he noted. Antibody drug conjugates and immune checkpoint inhibitors are new alternatives for some who are not able to receive cisplatin.

What are the New Options for Treating Metastatic Urothelial Bladder Cancer?

The approval of antibody drug conjugates offers new treatment with a “specific target and therapeutic payload,” said Dr. Flaig in his presentation. Two antibody drug conjugates, enfortumab vedotin and sacituzumab govitecan, have been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), he said. Enforumab vedotin was approved by the FDA in 2021 for adults with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer for subsequent line therapy in select patients. In a 2021 study published in The New England Journal of Medicine, the primary outcome of overall response rate was significantly greater in patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma who were treated with enfortumab vedotin than in those treated with standard chemotherapy (overall response rate [ORR] 40.6% vs 17.9%, respectively).

Side effects associated with enfortumab vedotin “are intrinsic to the payload toxicity and the target distribution. Ideally, the target would be present on all of the cancer cells and none of the normal tissue,” said Dr. Flaig. With enfortumab, specific toxicities included neuropathy, skin reactions, and blood glucose elevation/diabetic ketoacidosis, he said.

A second agent, sacituzumab govitecan, was approved by the FDA for metastatic urothelial cancer patients in 2021, based on data from the TROPHY-U-O1 phase 2 open-label study of 113 individuals. In that study, the ORR was 27% at a median follow-up of 9.1 months. Adverse events included neutropenia, leukopenia, and diarrhea.
 

What Do the Latest Studies of Combination Therapy Show?

Immune checkpoint inhibitor combinations are significantly changing the landscape of bladder cancer treatment, Dr. Flaig explained.

A recent phase 3 study published in 2024 in The New England Journal of Medicine comparing enfortumab vedotin plus pembrolizumab to platinum-based combination chemotherapy showed an overall response rate of 67.7% vs 44.4% in favor of enfortumab/pembrolizumab, said Dr. Flaig. In addition, the risk of disease progression or death was approximately 55% lower in the enfortumab vedotin-pembrolizumab group vs the chemotherapy group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.45; P less than .001) and the median progression-free survival was approximately doubled (12.5 months vs 6.3 months).

Dr. Flaig described this study as “very notable”because “the enfortumab plus pembrolizumab arm was clearly more effective than the long-standing chemotherapy arm, now becoming the preferred, first-line treatment in the NCCN guidelines. Based on preliminary results of the study, this combination was approved by the FDA in 2023 for locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer patients regardless of their eligibility for cisplatin.

Another promising combination, nivolumab plus gemcitabine-cisplatin, was associated with significantly longer overall and progression-free survival in patients with previously untreated unresectable or metastatic urothelial carcinoma, Dr. Flaig said. The therapy was approved by the FDA in March 2024 for first-line therapy.

In a study of 608 patients published in The New England Journal of Medicine, median overall survival was 21.7 months for the nivolumab group vs 18.9 months for the gemcitabine-cisplatin alone group. The overall response rates were 57.6% in the nivolumab group vs 43.1% in the gemcitabine-cisplatin–alone group, and complete response rates were 21.7% and 11.8%, respectively. Serious adverse events (grade 3 or higher) were similar between the groups (61.8% and 51.7%, respectively).
 

What About Targeted Therapy?

Erdafitinib, a tyrosine kinase inhibitor of FGFR1–4, was approved by the FDA in January 2024 for adults with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma who had susceptible FGFR3 genetic alterations, said Dr. Flaig, during his presentation. The limitation of this treatment to only those patients with an FGFR3 mutation is a recent update in its use, he noted.

“Up to 20% of patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma have FGFR alterations,” he said. In an open-label phase 2 study of 99 individuals with unresectable or metastatic urothelial carcinoma, past chemotherapy, and FGFR alterations, confirmed response to erdafitinib was 40% with a median overall survival of 13.8 months.

Dr. Flaig disclosed grant/research support from Agensys; Astellas Pharma US; AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP; Bristol Myers Squibb; Genentech, Inc.; Janssen Pharmaceutica Products, LP; Merck & Co.; Sanofi-Aventis U.S.; and SeaGen. He also disclosed equity interest/stock options and intellectual property rights in Aurora Oncology, and serving as a consultant or scientific advisor for Janssen Pharmaceutica Product, LP, and Criterium, Inc.

The advent of new immune checkpoint inhibitor combinations for urothelial carcinoma has yielded dramatic changes in patient care, according to Thomas W. Flaig, MD, vice chancellor for research at the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora.

Combination therapies involving enfortumab and nivolumab are demonstrating success in recent studies and have been incorporated into the latest guidelines, Dr. Flaig said in a presentation at the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) annual conference.
 

What's New in The Updated Guidelines?

Advances in the treatment options for metastatic urothelial carcinoma in the last decade have been dramatic, with ongoing developments and new emerging treatment options, Dr. Flaig told the audience of his session.

This has led to the identification of new and effective immune checkpoint inhibitor combinations. Consequently, immune checkpoint inhibitors are currently included in all preferred/other recommended first-line treatment regimens, he said.

“Enfortumab vedotin plus pembrolizumab is now the sole preferred first-line regimen for locally advanced or metastatic disease.” Based on the recent research, the mindset regarding cisplatin-eligible patient selection may be changing, he added.

“We have used cisplatin eligibility as a key factor in determining first-line therapy for years, and that paradigm is now shifting with the emergence of enfortumab plus pembrolizumab, a new non–cisplatin containing regimen” Dr. Flaig noted.

Although the optimal choice for second- or third-line therapy after immune checkpoint inhibitors is not well-defined, options include platinum regimens, antibody-drug conjugate, and erdafitinib in eligible patients, he said.
 

Other Current Strategies for Localized Bladder Cancer Management

The incidence of bladder cancer has been stable for decades, with minimal therapeutic developments until the approval of immune checkpoint inhibitors in the last decade, Dr. Flaig said.

Bladder cancer is more common in older adults, with an average onset age of 73 years, and most patients (75%) are male, he said. Comorbid disease is common in these patients, and many have a history of smoking, Dr. Flaig added.

The traditional medical approach to treating bladder cancer has been based on combination therapies including cisplatin. This has also reflected the approach used in the treatment of lung cancer, historically, Dr. Flaig said.

Cisplatin, while effective, is a challenging therapy to administer and is not an option for all bladder cancer patients because of potential adverse effects, he noted. Antibody drug conjugates and immune checkpoint inhibitors are new alternatives for some who are not able to receive cisplatin.

What are the New Options for Treating Metastatic Urothelial Bladder Cancer?

The approval of antibody drug conjugates offers new treatment with a “specific target and therapeutic payload,” said Dr. Flaig in his presentation. Two antibody drug conjugates, enfortumab vedotin and sacituzumab govitecan, have been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), he said. Enforumab vedotin was approved by the FDA in 2021 for adults with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer for subsequent line therapy in select patients. In a 2021 study published in The New England Journal of Medicine, the primary outcome of overall response rate was significantly greater in patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma who were treated with enfortumab vedotin than in those treated with standard chemotherapy (overall response rate [ORR] 40.6% vs 17.9%, respectively).

Side effects associated with enfortumab vedotin “are intrinsic to the payload toxicity and the target distribution. Ideally, the target would be present on all of the cancer cells and none of the normal tissue,” said Dr. Flaig. With enfortumab, specific toxicities included neuropathy, skin reactions, and blood glucose elevation/diabetic ketoacidosis, he said.

A second agent, sacituzumab govitecan, was approved by the FDA for metastatic urothelial cancer patients in 2021, based on data from the TROPHY-U-O1 phase 2 open-label study of 113 individuals. In that study, the ORR was 27% at a median follow-up of 9.1 months. Adverse events included neutropenia, leukopenia, and diarrhea.
 

What Do the Latest Studies of Combination Therapy Show?

Immune checkpoint inhibitor combinations are significantly changing the landscape of bladder cancer treatment, Dr. Flaig explained.

A recent phase 3 study published in 2024 in The New England Journal of Medicine comparing enfortumab vedotin plus pembrolizumab to platinum-based combination chemotherapy showed an overall response rate of 67.7% vs 44.4% in favor of enfortumab/pembrolizumab, said Dr. Flaig. In addition, the risk of disease progression or death was approximately 55% lower in the enfortumab vedotin-pembrolizumab group vs the chemotherapy group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.45; P less than .001) and the median progression-free survival was approximately doubled (12.5 months vs 6.3 months).

Dr. Flaig described this study as “very notable”because “the enfortumab plus pembrolizumab arm was clearly more effective than the long-standing chemotherapy arm, now becoming the preferred, first-line treatment in the NCCN guidelines. Based on preliminary results of the study, this combination was approved by the FDA in 2023 for locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer patients regardless of their eligibility for cisplatin.

Another promising combination, nivolumab plus gemcitabine-cisplatin, was associated with significantly longer overall and progression-free survival in patients with previously untreated unresectable or metastatic urothelial carcinoma, Dr. Flaig said. The therapy was approved by the FDA in March 2024 for first-line therapy.

In a study of 608 patients published in The New England Journal of Medicine, median overall survival was 21.7 months for the nivolumab group vs 18.9 months for the gemcitabine-cisplatin alone group. The overall response rates were 57.6% in the nivolumab group vs 43.1% in the gemcitabine-cisplatin–alone group, and complete response rates were 21.7% and 11.8%, respectively. Serious adverse events (grade 3 or higher) were similar between the groups (61.8% and 51.7%, respectively).
 

What About Targeted Therapy?

Erdafitinib, a tyrosine kinase inhibitor of FGFR1–4, was approved by the FDA in January 2024 for adults with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma who had susceptible FGFR3 genetic alterations, said Dr. Flaig, during his presentation. The limitation of this treatment to only those patients with an FGFR3 mutation is a recent update in its use, he noted.

“Up to 20% of patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma have FGFR alterations,” he said. In an open-label phase 2 study of 99 individuals with unresectable or metastatic urothelial carcinoma, past chemotherapy, and FGFR alterations, confirmed response to erdafitinib was 40% with a median overall survival of 13.8 months.

Dr. Flaig disclosed grant/research support from Agensys; Astellas Pharma US; AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP; Bristol Myers Squibb; Genentech, Inc.; Janssen Pharmaceutica Products, LP; Merck & Co.; Sanofi-Aventis U.S.; and SeaGen. He also disclosed equity interest/stock options and intellectual property rights in Aurora Oncology, and serving as a consultant or scientific advisor for Janssen Pharmaceutica Product, LP, and Criterium, Inc.

The advent of new immune checkpoint inhibitor combinations for urothelial carcinoma has yielded dramatic changes in patient care, according to Thomas W. Flaig, MD, vice chancellor for research at the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora.

Combination therapies involving enfortumab and nivolumab are demonstrating success in recent studies and have been incorporated into the latest guidelines, Dr. Flaig said in a presentation at the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) annual conference.
 

What's New in The Updated Guidelines?

Advances in the treatment options for metastatic urothelial carcinoma in the last decade have been dramatic, with ongoing developments and new emerging treatment options, Dr. Flaig told the audience of his session.

This has led to the identification of new and effective immune checkpoint inhibitor combinations. Consequently, immune checkpoint inhibitors are currently included in all preferred/other recommended first-line treatment regimens, he said.

“Enfortumab vedotin plus pembrolizumab is now the sole preferred first-line regimen for locally advanced or metastatic disease.” Based on the recent research, the mindset regarding cisplatin-eligible patient selection may be changing, he added.

“We have used cisplatin eligibility as a key factor in determining first-line therapy for years, and that paradigm is now shifting with the emergence of enfortumab plus pembrolizumab, a new non–cisplatin containing regimen” Dr. Flaig noted.

Although the optimal choice for second- or third-line therapy after immune checkpoint inhibitors is not well-defined, options include platinum regimens, antibody-drug conjugate, and erdafitinib in eligible patients, he said.
 

Other Current Strategies for Localized Bladder Cancer Management

The incidence of bladder cancer has been stable for decades, with minimal therapeutic developments until the approval of immune checkpoint inhibitors in the last decade, Dr. Flaig said.

Bladder cancer is more common in older adults, with an average onset age of 73 years, and most patients (75%) are male, he said. Comorbid disease is common in these patients, and many have a history of smoking, Dr. Flaig added.

The traditional medical approach to treating bladder cancer has been based on combination therapies including cisplatin. This has also reflected the approach used in the treatment of lung cancer, historically, Dr. Flaig said.

Cisplatin, while effective, is a challenging therapy to administer and is not an option for all bladder cancer patients because of potential adverse effects, he noted. Antibody drug conjugates and immune checkpoint inhibitors are new alternatives for some who are not able to receive cisplatin.

What are the New Options for Treating Metastatic Urothelial Bladder Cancer?

The approval of antibody drug conjugates offers new treatment with a “specific target and therapeutic payload,” said Dr. Flaig in his presentation. Two antibody drug conjugates, enfortumab vedotin and sacituzumab govitecan, have been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), he said. Enforumab vedotin was approved by the FDA in 2021 for adults with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer for subsequent line therapy in select patients. In a 2021 study published in The New England Journal of Medicine, the primary outcome of overall response rate was significantly greater in patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma who were treated with enfortumab vedotin than in those treated with standard chemotherapy (overall response rate [ORR] 40.6% vs 17.9%, respectively).

Side effects associated with enfortumab vedotin “are intrinsic to the payload toxicity and the target distribution. Ideally, the target would be present on all of the cancer cells and none of the normal tissue,” said Dr. Flaig. With enfortumab, specific toxicities included neuropathy, skin reactions, and blood glucose elevation/diabetic ketoacidosis, he said.

A second agent, sacituzumab govitecan, was approved by the FDA for metastatic urothelial cancer patients in 2021, based on data from the TROPHY-U-O1 phase 2 open-label study of 113 individuals. In that study, the ORR was 27% at a median follow-up of 9.1 months. Adverse events included neutropenia, leukopenia, and diarrhea.
 

What Do the Latest Studies of Combination Therapy Show?

Immune checkpoint inhibitor combinations are significantly changing the landscape of bladder cancer treatment, Dr. Flaig explained.

A recent phase 3 study published in 2024 in The New England Journal of Medicine comparing enfortumab vedotin plus pembrolizumab to platinum-based combination chemotherapy showed an overall response rate of 67.7% vs 44.4% in favor of enfortumab/pembrolizumab, said Dr. Flaig. In addition, the risk of disease progression or death was approximately 55% lower in the enfortumab vedotin-pembrolizumab group vs the chemotherapy group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.45; P less than .001) and the median progression-free survival was approximately doubled (12.5 months vs 6.3 months).

Dr. Flaig described this study as “very notable”because “the enfortumab plus pembrolizumab arm was clearly more effective than the long-standing chemotherapy arm, now becoming the preferred, first-line treatment in the NCCN guidelines. Based on preliminary results of the study, this combination was approved by the FDA in 2023 for locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer patients regardless of their eligibility for cisplatin.

Another promising combination, nivolumab plus gemcitabine-cisplatin, was associated with significantly longer overall and progression-free survival in patients with previously untreated unresectable or metastatic urothelial carcinoma, Dr. Flaig said. The therapy was approved by the FDA in March 2024 for first-line therapy.

In a study of 608 patients published in The New England Journal of Medicine, median overall survival was 21.7 months for the nivolumab group vs 18.9 months for the gemcitabine-cisplatin alone group. The overall response rates were 57.6% in the nivolumab group vs 43.1% in the gemcitabine-cisplatin–alone group, and complete response rates were 21.7% and 11.8%, respectively. Serious adverse events (grade 3 or higher) were similar between the groups (61.8% and 51.7%, respectively).
 

What About Targeted Therapy?

Erdafitinib, a tyrosine kinase inhibitor of FGFR1–4, was approved by the FDA in January 2024 for adults with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma who had susceptible FGFR3 genetic alterations, said Dr. Flaig, during his presentation. The limitation of this treatment to only those patients with an FGFR3 mutation is a recent update in its use, he noted.

“Up to 20% of patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma have FGFR alterations,” he said. In an open-label phase 2 study of 99 individuals with unresectable or metastatic urothelial carcinoma, past chemotherapy, and FGFR alterations, confirmed response to erdafitinib was 40% with a median overall survival of 13.8 months.

Dr. Flaig disclosed grant/research support from Agensys; Astellas Pharma US; AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP; Bristol Myers Squibb; Genentech, Inc.; Janssen Pharmaceutica Products, LP; Merck & Co.; Sanofi-Aventis U.S.; and SeaGen. He also disclosed equity interest/stock options and intellectual property rights in Aurora Oncology, and serving as a consultant or scientific advisor for Janssen Pharmaceutica Product, LP, and Criterium, Inc.

Medicare reimbursement for common breast cancer surgeries decreased significantly over the past two decades, and the resulting shortage of funds could affect quality of care and access to services, especially for vulnerable patient populations.

These were findings of new research presented by Terry P. Gao, MD, at the American Society of Breast Surgeons annual meeting.

Medicare reimbursements often set a benchmark that is followed by private insurers, and the impact of changes on various breast surgeries have not been examined, Dr. Gao, a research resident at Temple University Hospital, Philadelphia, said during a press briefing in advance of the meeting.

“This study is important because it is the first to analyze trends in Medicare reimbursement for breast cancer surgery over a long period,” Dr. Gao said during an interview. The findings highlight a critical issue that could impact access to quality care, especially for vulnerable populations, she said.
 

How Were the Data Analyzed?

Dr. Gao and colleagues reviewed percent changes in reimbursement procedures over a 20-year period and compared them to changes in the consumer price index (CPI) to show the real-life impact of inflation.

The study examined reimbursements based on the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule Look-Up Tool from 2003 to 2023 for 10 procedures. The procedures were core needle biopsy, open incisional breast biopsy, open excisional breast biopsy, lumpectomy, lumpectomy with axillary lymph node dissection (ALND), simple mastectomy, radical mastectomy, modified radical mastectomy, biopsy/removal of lymph nodes, and sentinel lymph node biopsy.
 

What Does the New Study Show?

“Reimbursements did not keep pace with the price of goods and services,” Dr. Gao said during the press briefing.

After the researchers corrected data for inflation, the overall mean Medicare reimbursement for breast cancer surgeries decreased by approximately 21%, based in part on the 69% increase in the CPI over the study period, Dr. Gao said. The greatest change was in core needle biopsy, for which reimbursement decreased by 36%.

After inflation adjustment, reimbursement increases were seen for only two procedures, lumpectomy and simple mastectomy, of 0.37% and 3.58%, respectively, but these do not represent meaningful gains, Dr. Gao said.

The researchers also used a model to estimate the real-life impact of decreased reimbursement on clinicians. They subtracted the actual 2023 compensation from expected 2023 compensation based on inflation for a breast cancer case incidence of 297,790 patients who underwent axillary surgery, breast lumpectomy, or simple mastectomy. The calculated potential real-world compensation loss for that year was $107,604,444.
 

What are the Clinical Implications? 

The current study is the first to put specific numbers on the trend in declining breast cancer payments, and the findings should encourage physicians to advocate for equitable policies, Dr. Gao noted during the briefing.

The substantial decrease in inflation-adjusted reimbursement rates was significant, she said during the interview. Although the decrease reflects similar trends seen in other specialties, the magnitude is a potential cause for concern, she said.

Declining reimbursements could disproportionately hurt safety-net hospitals serving vulnerable populations by limiting their ability to invest in better care and potentially worsening existing racial disparities, Dr. Gao told this publication. “Additionally, surgeons may opt out of Medicare networks due to low rates, leading to access issues and longer wait times. Finally, these trends could discourage future generations from specializing in breast cancer surgery.”

The study findings should be considered in the context of the complex and rapidly changing clinical landscape in which breast cancer care is evolving, Mediget Teshome, MD, chief of breast surgery at UCLA Health, said during an interview.

“Surgery remains a critically important aspect to curative treatment,” Dr. Teshome said.

Surgical decision-making tailored to each patient’s goals involves coordination from a multidisciplinary team as well as skill and attention from surgeons, she added.

“This degree of specialization and nuance is not always captured in reimbursement models for breast surgery,” Dr. Teshome emphasized. The policy implications of any changes in Medicare reimbursement will be important given the American Cancer Society reports breast cancer as the most commonly diagnosed cancer in women in the United States, and as the second leading cause of cancer death in US women, she noted.
 

What Additional Research Is Needed?

Research is needed to understand how declining reimbursements affect patients’ access to care, treatment choices, and long-term outcomes, Dr. Gao said in the interview. Future studies also are needed to examine provider overhead costs, staffing structures, and profit margins to offer a more comprehensive understanding of financial sustainability.

Dr. Gao and Dr. Teshome had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Medicare reimbursement for common breast cancer surgeries decreased significantly over the past two decades, and the resulting shortage of funds could affect quality of care and access to services, especially for vulnerable patient populations.

These were findings of new research presented by Terry P. Gao, MD, at the American Society of Breast Surgeons annual meeting.

Medicare reimbursements often set a benchmark that is followed by private insurers, and the impact of changes on various breast surgeries have not been examined, Dr. Gao, a research resident at Temple University Hospital, Philadelphia, said during a press briefing in advance of the meeting.

“This study is important because it is the first to analyze trends in Medicare reimbursement for breast cancer surgery over a long period,” Dr. Gao said during an interview. The findings highlight a critical issue that could impact access to quality care, especially for vulnerable populations, she said.
 

How Were the Data Analyzed?

Dr. Gao and colleagues reviewed percent changes in reimbursement procedures over a 20-year period and compared them to changes in the consumer price index (CPI) to show the real-life impact of inflation.

The study examined reimbursements based on the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule Look-Up Tool from 2003 to 2023 for 10 procedures. The procedures were core needle biopsy, open incisional breast biopsy, open excisional breast biopsy, lumpectomy, lumpectomy with axillary lymph node dissection (ALND), simple mastectomy, radical mastectomy, modified radical mastectomy, biopsy/removal of lymph nodes, and sentinel lymph node biopsy.
 

What Does the New Study Show?

“Reimbursements did not keep pace with the price of goods and services,” Dr. Gao said during the press briefing.

After the researchers corrected data for inflation, the overall mean Medicare reimbursement for breast cancer surgeries decreased by approximately 21%, based in part on the 69% increase in the CPI over the study period, Dr. Gao said. The greatest change was in core needle biopsy, for which reimbursement decreased by 36%.

After inflation adjustment, reimbursement increases were seen for only two procedures, lumpectomy and simple mastectomy, of 0.37% and 3.58%, respectively, but these do not represent meaningful gains, Dr. Gao said.

The researchers also used a model to estimate the real-life impact of decreased reimbursement on clinicians. They subtracted the actual 2023 compensation from expected 2023 compensation based on inflation for a breast cancer case incidence of 297,790 patients who underwent axillary surgery, breast lumpectomy, or simple mastectomy. The calculated potential real-world compensation loss for that year was $107,604,444.
 

What are the Clinical Implications? 

The current study is the first to put specific numbers on the trend in declining breast cancer payments, and the findings should encourage physicians to advocate for equitable policies, Dr. Gao noted during the briefing.

The substantial decrease in inflation-adjusted reimbursement rates was significant, she said during the interview. Although the decrease reflects similar trends seen in other specialties, the magnitude is a potential cause for concern, she said.

Declining reimbursements could disproportionately hurt safety-net hospitals serving vulnerable populations by limiting their ability to invest in better care and potentially worsening existing racial disparities, Dr. Gao told this publication. “Additionally, surgeons may opt out of Medicare networks due to low rates, leading to access issues and longer wait times. Finally, these trends could discourage future generations from specializing in breast cancer surgery.”

The study findings should be considered in the context of the complex and rapidly changing clinical landscape in which breast cancer care is evolving, Mediget Teshome, MD, chief of breast surgery at UCLA Health, said during an interview.

“Surgery remains a critically important aspect to curative treatment,” Dr. Teshome said.

Surgical decision-making tailored to each patient’s goals involves coordination from a multidisciplinary team as well as skill and attention from surgeons, she added.

“This degree of specialization and nuance is not always captured in reimbursement models for breast surgery,” Dr. Teshome emphasized. The policy implications of any changes in Medicare reimbursement will be important given the American Cancer Society reports breast cancer as the most commonly diagnosed cancer in women in the United States, and as the second leading cause of cancer death in US women, she noted.
 

What Additional Research Is Needed?

Research is needed to understand how declining reimbursements affect patients’ access to care, treatment choices, and long-term outcomes, Dr. Gao said in the interview. Future studies also are needed to examine provider overhead costs, staffing structures, and profit margins to offer a more comprehensive understanding of financial sustainability.

Dr. Gao and Dr. Teshome had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Medicare reimbursement for common breast cancer surgeries decreased significantly over the past two decades, and the resulting shortage of funds could affect quality of care and access to services, especially for vulnerable patient populations.

These were findings of new research presented by Terry P. Gao, MD, at the American Society of Breast Surgeons annual meeting.

Medicare reimbursements often set a benchmark that is followed by private insurers, and the impact of changes on various breast surgeries have not been examined, Dr. Gao, a research resident at Temple University Hospital, Philadelphia, said during a press briefing in advance of the meeting.

“This study is important because it is the first to analyze trends in Medicare reimbursement for breast cancer surgery over a long period,” Dr. Gao said during an interview. The findings highlight a critical issue that could impact access to quality care, especially for vulnerable populations, she said.
 

How Were the Data Analyzed?

Dr. Gao and colleagues reviewed percent changes in reimbursement procedures over a 20-year period and compared them to changes in the consumer price index (CPI) to show the real-life impact of inflation.

The study examined reimbursements based on the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule Look-Up Tool from 2003 to 2023 for 10 procedures. The procedures were core needle biopsy, open incisional breast biopsy, open excisional breast biopsy, lumpectomy, lumpectomy with axillary lymph node dissection (ALND), simple mastectomy, radical mastectomy, modified radical mastectomy, biopsy/removal of lymph nodes, and sentinel lymph node biopsy.
 

What Does the New Study Show?

“Reimbursements did not keep pace with the price of goods and services,” Dr. Gao said during the press briefing.

After the researchers corrected data for inflation, the overall mean Medicare reimbursement for breast cancer surgeries decreased by approximately 21%, based in part on the 69% increase in the CPI over the study period, Dr. Gao said. The greatest change was in core needle biopsy, for which reimbursement decreased by 36%.

After inflation adjustment, reimbursement increases were seen for only two procedures, lumpectomy and simple mastectomy, of 0.37% and 3.58%, respectively, but these do not represent meaningful gains, Dr. Gao said.

The researchers also used a model to estimate the real-life impact of decreased reimbursement on clinicians. They subtracted the actual 2023 compensation from expected 2023 compensation based on inflation for a breast cancer case incidence of 297,790 patients who underwent axillary surgery, breast lumpectomy, or simple mastectomy. The calculated potential real-world compensation loss for that year was $107,604,444.
 

What are the Clinical Implications? 

The current study is the first to put specific numbers on the trend in declining breast cancer payments, and the findings should encourage physicians to advocate for equitable policies, Dr. Gao noted during the briefing.

The substantial decrease in inflation-adjusted reimbursement rates was significant, she said during the interview. Although the decrease reflects similar trends seen in other specialties, the magnitude is a potential cause for concern, she said.

Declining reimbursements could disproportionately hurt safety-net hospitals serving vulnerable populations by limiting their ability to invest in better care and potentially worsening existing racial disparities, Dr. Gao told this publication. “Additionally, surgeons may opt out of Medicare networks due to low rates, leading to access issues and longer wait times. Finally, these trends could discourage future generations from specializing in breast cancer surgery.”

The study findings should be considered in the context of the complex and rapidly changing clinical landscape in which breast cancer care is evolving, Mediget Teshome, MD, chief of breast surgery at UCLA Health, said during an interview.

“Surgery remains a critically important aspect to curative treatment,” Dr. Teshome said.

Surgical decision-making tailored to each patient’s goals involves coordination from a multidisciplinary team as well as skill and attention from surgeons, she added.

“This degree of specialization and nuance is not always captured in reimbursement models for breast surgery,” Dr. Teshome emphasized. The policy implications of any changes in Medicare reimbursement will be important given the American Cancer Society reports breast cancer as the most commonly diagnosed cancer in women in the United States, and as the second leading cause of cancer death in US women, she noted.
 

What Additional Research Is Needed?

Research is needed to understand how declining reimbursements affect patients’ access to care, treatment choices, and long-term outcomes, Dr. Gao said in the interview. Future studies also are needed to examine provider overhead costs, staffing structures, and profit margins to offer a more comprehensive understanding of financial sustainability.

Dr. Gao and Dr. Teshome had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Ultrasound for assessing lymph nodal involvement may be substituted for sentinel lymph node biopsy with no change in outcomes in patients with early breast cancer, a new study finds.

This was the conclusion of research on the agenda at the American Society of Breast Surgeons annual meeting.

Sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) is the standard of care for individuals with early-stage HR+HER2- breast cancer to assess nodal involvement, but SLNB can bring complications including postoperative arm problems and lasting lymphedema, according to Andreas Giannakou, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital and the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, the presenter of this new research.

The SOUND (Sentinel Node vs. Observation After Axillary Ultra-Sound) trial, published in JAMA Oncology in 2023, showed that ultrasound nodal imaging was a safe and effective alternative to SLNB in certain patients with early-stage breast cancers, but real-world validation was needed, Dr. Giannakou said during a press briefing in advance of the meeting.

Why Was the SOUND Trial Important?

The SOUND trial randomized 1,463 individuals with early stage (cT1NO) breast cancer (tumors less than 2 cm) and negative findings on axillary ultrasound to either SLNB or no axillary surgical staging.

The 5-year rate of distant disease-free survival was 97.7% in the SLNB group vs. 98% in the no axillary surgery group, suggesting that omission of staging was noninferior to SLNB in these patients and a safe and effective option.

In current practice, nodal status remains a key factor in decision-making for adjuvant systemic therapy in premenopausal patients and in patients with HER2+ and triple-negative breast cancer, Dr. Giannakou said during the press briefing.

“The SOUND trial is a potentially practice-changing study that can spare a specific patient population from axillary surgical staging,” Dr. Giannakou said in an interview. “Before broadly applying clinical trial results to practice, it is important to ensure that the trial population is representative of the population being treated in real world practice,” he said.

What Did the New Study Show? 

In the new study, the researchers identified 312 patients meeting the SOUND trial eligibility criteria in a large database from a single center, and compared disease characteristics and outcomes with the 708 patients in the SLNB arm of the SOUND trial.

The researchers found a similarly high rate of negative SLNB results and very low recurrence in the study population. Notably, only 11.3% of the patients in the current study and 13.1% of patients in the SOUND trial had 1-3 positive lymph nodes, and less than 1% of patients in both cohorts had 4 or more positive nodes, Dr. Giannakou said.

The population of the current study was similar to that of the SOUND trial population with respect to treatment characteristics and nodal disease burden,” Dr. Giannakou said during the interview. These findings suggest that omission of sentinel lymph node in the new study cohort would have also likely been oncologically safe.

“These results are confirmatory but not surprising,” he said. Previous studies have shown that the sensitivity and accuracy of axillary ultrasound is comparable to the sentinel lymph node biopsy in patients with early breast cancer and only one abnormal lymph node on the ultrasound. 
 

What Are the Clinical Implications?

The current study findings make an important contribution to the effort to de-escalate axillary surgery in early breast cancer, Dr. Giannakou said during the interview. Although SLNB is less morbid than axillary lymph node dissection, the lymphedema risk still exists, and identifying which patients actually benefit from SLNB is critical, he said.

“In our multidisciplinary team, we are working to define selection criteria for postmenopausal patients with HR+HER2- breast cancer who would have met eligibility criteria for the SOUND trial and for whom omission of SLNB would not change adjuvant treatment considerations,” he said.

“Breast surgeons have been moving towards less aggressive axillary surgery based on evidence showing its safety in specific patient cohorts, particularly those with low-risk factors such as older age (70 years and above) and early-stage hormone receptor-positive breast cancer,” Sarah Blair, MD, professor and vice chair in the department of surgery at UC San Diego Health, said in an interview.

“The Choosing Wisely recommendations, issued by the Society of Surgical Oncology, advise against routine use of sentinel lymph node biopsy in women aged 70 and older with early-stage hormone receptor–positive breast cancer; these recommendations are based on clinical trials demonstrating oncologic safety in this population,” said Dr. Blair, who was not involved in the SOUND trial or the current study.

The data from the new study are encouraging and highlight the generalizability of the SOUND results, Mediget Teshome, MD, chief of breast surgery at UCLA Health, said in an interview. The results help to define a low-risk group of patients for which sentinel node staging may be omitted, after multidisciplinary discussion to ensure that nodal staging will not impact adjuvant systemic therapy or radiation decision-making, said Dr. Teshome, who was not involved in the SOUND trial or the current study.
 

What Are the Limitations of the SOUND trial and the New Study?

The current study limitations included its design having been a retrospective review of a prospective database with selection bias, lack of standard criteria for preoperative axillary ultrasound, and the lack of SLNB for many patients older than 70 years based on the Choosing Wisely criteria, Dr. Giannakou said in the press briefing.

“Despite the evidence supporting axillary surgery de-escalation, it can be challenging for surgeons to change their practice based on a single study,” Dr. Blair said an interview. However, the SOUND trial findings support current evidence, giving surgeons more confidence to discuss multidisciplinary treatment options, she said.
 

What Additional Research is Needed?

“Longer follow-up is needed to make definitive conclusions about the oncologic outcomes of axillary surgery de-escalation in this patient population,” said Dr. Blair. “Given that slow-growing tumors are involved, the time to recurrence may extend beyond the typical follow-up period of three years.

“Ongoing research and collaboration among multidisciplinary teams are essential to ensure optimal treatment decisions and patient outcomes,” she emphasized.

Dr. Giannakou, Dr. Blair, and Dr. Teshome had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Ultrasound for assessing lymph nodal involvement may be substituted for sentinel lymph node biopsy with no change in outcomes in patients with early breast cancer, a new study finds.

This was the conclusion of research on the agenda at the American Society of Breast Surgeons annual meeting.

Sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) is the standard of care for individuals with early-stage HR+HER2- breast cancer to assess nodal involvement, but SLNB can bring complications including postoperative arm problems and lasting lymphedema, according to Andreas Giannakou, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital and the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, the presenter of this new research.

The SOUND (Sentinel Node vs. Observation After Axillary Ultra-Sound) trial, published in JAMA Oncology in 2023, showed that ultrasound nodal imaging was a safe and effective alternative to SLNB in certain patients with early-stage breast cancers, but real-world validation was needed, Dr. Giannakou said during a press briefing in advance of the meeting.

Why Was the SOUND Trial Important?

The SOUND trial randomized 1,463 individuals with early stage (cT1NO) breast cancer (tumors less than 2 cm) and negative findings on axillary ultrasound to either SLNB or no axillary surgical staging.

The 5-year rate of distant disease-free survival was 97.7% in the SLNB group vs. 98% in the no axillary surgery group, suggesting that omission of staging was noninferior to SLNB in these patients and a safe and effective option.

In current practice, nodal status remains a key factor in decision-making for adjuvant systemic therapy in premenopausal patients and in patients with HER2+ and triple-negative breast cancer, Dr. Giannakou said during the press briefing.

“The SOUND trial is a potentially practice-changing study that can spare a specific patient population from axillary surgical staging,” Dr. Giannakou said in an interview. “Before broadly applying clinical trial results to practice, it is important to ensure that the trial population is representative of the population being treated in real world practice,” he said.

What Did the New Study Show? 

In the new study, the researchers identified 312 patients meeting the SOUND trial eligibility criteria in a large database from a single center, and compared disease characteristics and outcomes with the 708 patients in the SLNB arm of the SOUND trial.

The researchers found a similarly high rate of negative SLNB results and very low recurrence in the study population. Notably, only 11.3% of the patients in the current study and 13.1% of patients in the SOUND trial had 1-3 positive lymph nodes, and less than 1% of patients in both cohorts had 4 or more positive nodes, Dr. Giannakou said.

The population of the current study was similar to that of the SOUND trial population with respect to treatment characteristics and nodal disease burden,” Dr. Giannakou said during the interview. These findings suggest that omission of sentinel lymph node in the new study cohort would have also likely been oncologically safe.

“These results are confirmatory but not surprising,” he said. Previous studies have shown that the sensitivity and accuracy of axillary ultrasound is comparable to the sentinel lymph node biopsy in patients with early breast cancer and only one abnormal lymph node on the ultrasound. 
 

What Are the Clinical Implications?

The current study findings make an important contribution to the effort to de-escalate axillary surgery in early breast cancer, Dr. Giannakou said during the interview. Although SLNB is less morbid than axillary lymph node dissection, the lymphedema risk still exists, and identifying which patients actually benefit from SLNB is critical, he said.

“In our multidisciplinary team, we are working to define selection criteria for postmenopausal patients with HR+HER2- breast cancer who would have met eligibility criteria for the SOUND trial and for whom omission of SLNB would not change adjuvant treatment considerations,” he said.

“Breast surgeons have been moving towards less aggressive axillary surgery based on evidence showing its safety in specific patient cohorts, particularly those with low-risk factors such as older age (70 years and above) and early-stage hormone receptor-positive breast cancer,” Sarah Blair, MD, professor and vice chair in the department of surgery at UC San Diego Health, said in an interview.

“The Choosing Wisely recommendations, issued by the Society of Surgical Oncology, advise against routine use of sentinel lymph node biopsy in women aged 70 and older with early-stage hormone receptor–positive breast cancer; these recommendations are based on clinical trials demonstrating oncologic safety in this population,” said Dr. Blair, who was not involved in the SOUND trial or the current study.

The data from the new study are encouraging and highlight the generalizability of the SOUND results, Mediget Teshome, MD, chief of breast surgery at UCLA Health, said in an interview. The results help to define a low-risk group of patients for which sentinel node staging may be omitted, after multidisciplinary discussion to ensure that nodal staging will not impact adjuvant systemic therapy or radiation decision-making, said Dr. Teshome, who was not involved in the SOUND trial or the current study.
 

What Are the Limitations of the SOUND trial and the New Study?

The current study limitations included its design having been a retrospective review of a prospective database with selection bias, lack of standard criteria for preoperative axillary ultrasound, and the lack of SLNB for many patients older than 70 years based on the Choosing Wisely criteria, Dr. Giannakou said in the press briefing.

“Despite the evidence supporting axillary surgery de-escalation, it can be challenging for surgeons to change their practice based on a single study,” Dr. Blair said an interview. However, the SOUND trial findings support current evidence, giving surgeons more confidence to discuss multidisciplinary treatment options, she said.
 

What Additional Research is Needed?

“Longer follow-up is needed to make definitive conclusions about the oncologic outcomes of axillary surgery de-escalation in this patient population,” said Dr. Blair. “Given that slow-growing tumors are involved, the time to recurrence may extend beyond the typical follow-up period of three years.

“Ongoing research and collaboration among multidisciplinary teams are essential to ensure optimal treatment decisions and patient outcomes,” she emphasized.

Dr. Giannakou, Dr. Blair, and Dr. Teshome had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Ultrasound for assessing lymph nodal involvement may be substituted for sentinel lymph node biopsy with no change in outcomes in patients with early breast cancer, a new study finds.

This was the conclusion of research on the agenda at the American Society of Breast Surgeons annual meeting.

Sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) is the standard of care for individuals with early-stage HR+HER2- breast cancer to assess nodal involvement, but SLNB can bring complications including postoperative arm problems and lasting lymphedema, according to Andreas Giannakou, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital and the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, the presenter of this new research.

The SOUND (Sentinel Node vs. Observation After Axillary Ultra-Sound) trial, published in JAMA Oncology in 2023, showed that ultrasound nodal imaging was a safe and effective alternative to SLNB in certain patients with early-stage breast cancers, but real-world validation was needed, Dr. Giannakou said during a press briefing in advance of the meeting.

Why Was the SOUND Trial Important?

The SOUND trial randomized 1,463 individuals with early stage (cT1NO) breast cancer (tumors less than 2 cm) and negative findings on axillary ultrasound to either SLNB or no axillary surgical staging.

The 5-year rate of distant disease-free survival was 97.7% in the SLNB group vs. 98% in the no axillary surgery group, suggesting that omission of staging was noninferior to SLNB in these patients and a safe and effective option.

In current practice, nodal status remains a key factor in decision-making for adjuvant systemic therapy in premenopausal patients and in patients with HER2+ and triple-negative breast cancer, Dr. Giannakou said during the press briefing.

“The SOUND trial is a potentially practice-changing study that can spare a specific patient population from axillary surgical staging,” Dr. Giannakou said in an interview. “Before broadly applying clinical trial results to practice, it is important to ensure that the trial population is representative of the population being treated in real world practice,” he said.

What Did the New Study Show? 

In the new study, the researchers identified 312 patients meeting the SOUND trial eligibility criteria in a large database from a single center, and compared disease characteristics and outcomes with the 708 patients in the SLNB arm of the SOUND trial.

The researchers found a similarly high rate of negative SLNB results and very low recurrence in the study population. Notably, only 11.3% of the patients in the current study and 13.1% of patients in the SOUND trial had 1-3 positive lymph nodes, and less than 1% of patients in both cohorts had 4 or more positive nodes, Dr. Giannakou said.

The population of the current study was similar to that of the SOUND trial population with respect to treatment characteristics and nodal disease burden,” Dr. Giannakou said during the interview. These findings suggest that omission of sentinel lymph node in the new study cohort would have also likely been oncologically safe.

“These results are confirmatory but not surprising,” he said. Previous studies have shown that the sensitivity and accuracy of axillary ultrasound is comparable to the sentinel lymph node biopsy in patients with early breast cancer and only one abnormal lymph node on the ultrasound. 
 

What Are the Clinical Implications?

The current study findings make an important contribution to the effort to de-escalate axillary surgery in early breast cancer, Dr. Giannakou said during the interview. Although SLNB is less morbid than axillary lymph node dissection, the lymphedema risk still exists, and identifying which patients actually benefit from SLNB is critical, he said.

“In our multidisciplinary team, we are working to define selection criteria for postmenopausal patients with HR+HER2- breast cancer who would have met eligibility criteria for the SOUND trial and for whom omission of SLNB would not change adjuvant treatment considerations,” he said.

“Breast surgeons have been moving towards less aggressive axillary surgery based on evidence showing its safety in specific patient cohorts, particularly those with low-risk factors such as older age (70 years and above) and early-stage hormone receptor-positive breast cancer,” Sarah Blair, MD, professor and vice chair in the department of surgery at UC San Diego Health, said in an interview.

“The Choosing Wisely recommendations, issued by the Society of Surgical Oncology, advise against routine use of sentinel lymph node biopsy in women aged 70 and older with early-stage hormone receptor–positive breast cancer; these recommendations are based on clinical trials demonstrating oncologic safety in this population,” said Dr. Blair, who was not involved in the SOUND trial or the current study.

The data from the new study are encouraging and highlight the generalizability of the SOUND results, Mediget Teshome, MD, chief of breast surgery at UCLA Health, said in an interview. The results help to define a low-risk group of patients for which sentinel node staging may be omitted, after multidisciplinary discussion to ensure that nodal staging will not impact adjuvant systemic therapy or radiation decision-making, said Dr. Teshome, who was not involved in the SOUND trial or the current study.
 

What Are the Limitations of the SOUND trial and the New Study?

The current study limitations included its design having been a retrospective review of a prospective database with selection bias, lack of standard criteria for preoperative axillary ultrasound, and the lack of SLNB for many patients older than 70 years based on the Choosing Wisely criteria, Dr. Giannakou said in the press briefing.

“Despite the evidence supporting axillary surgery de-escalation, it can be challenging for surgeons to change their practice based on a single study,” Dr. Blair said an interview. However, the SOUND trial findings support current evidence, giving surgeons more confidence to discuss multidisciplinary treatment options, she said.
 

What Additional Research is Needed?

“Longer follow-up is needed to make definitive conclusions about the oncologic outcomes of axillary surgery de-escalation in this patient population,” said Dr. Blair. “Given that slow-growing tumors are involved, the time to recurrence may extend beyond the typical follow-up period of three years.

“Ongoing research and collaboration among multidisciplinary teams are essential to ensure optimal treatment decisions and patient outcomes,” she emphasized.

Dr. Giannakou, Dr. Blair, and Dr. Teshome had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Multitarget stool-based tests are showing promise for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening in average-risk individuals and could edge out the current standard fecal immunochemical test (FIT).

These new tests aren’t radical departures from the standard FIT. Like the standard test, the multitarget FIT uses antibodies to test for hemoglobin in stool samples. But these multitarget approaches take the standard FIT a step further by testing for additional DNA, RNA, or protein biomarkers associated with CRC to help improve early detection.

Currently, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommends two FIT tests — standard FIT and stool FIT-DNA — as well as a third noninvasive CRC screening test, guaiac fecal occult blood test (gFOBT). gFOBT detects heme, a component of hemoglobin, through a chemical reaction.

But both standard FIT and stool FIT-DNA come with caveats. Compared to the standard test, FIT-DNA tends to be better at detecting traces of blood in the stool, and thus can uncover more instances of CRC or other advanced lesions. The flipside is that the DNA test also often leads to more false-positive findings.

In fact, the American College of Physicians does not recommend stool FIT-DNA for screening, citing issues such as cost — more than $600 per test vs about $30 for standard FIT — and the greater likelihood of false-positives compared with both standard FIT and gFOBT.

Given these trade-offs with current noninvasive screening options, developing a FIT option that can improve early detection of CRC and advanced precancerous lesions without increasing false-positives could make a big difference in outcomes. 

Three new noninvasive multitarget tests under investigation — an updated DNA-based test, Cologuard 2.0 (Exact Sciences; Madison, WI); an RNA-based test, ColoSense (Geneoscopy; St Louis, MO); and a protein-based test from CRCbioscreen (Amsterdam, the Netherlands) — may be able to do just that. 
 

Cologuard 2.0: Multitarget Stool DNA-Based Test

An updated version of the stool FIT-DNA is currently under development. Dubbed Next Generation Cologuard, or Cologuard 2.0, this multitarget test detects three novel methylated DNA markers along with fecal hemoglobin.

In a recent trial comparing Cologuard 2.0 vs standard FIT, 20,176 participants aged 40 years or older were screened with Cologuard 2.0 as well as standard FIT before they all also received a colonoscopy. The researchers compared findings with Cologuard 2.0 and standard FIT, which used a positivity cutoff ≥ 20 mcg hemoglobin/g feces. 

The researchers then assessed Cologuard 2.0’s sensitivity (a gauge of how well it detects disease that is truly present) and specificity (a measure of how well a test indicates the absence of disease when no disease is present) compared with standard FIT and the original Cologuard test.

Overall, Cologuard 2.0 demonstrated better sensitivity for CRC than did standard FIT (93.9% vs 67.3%, respectively) and for advanced precancerous lesions (43.4% vs 23.3%). The next-generation test, for instance, identified 92 of 98 participants with colonoscopy-confirmed CRC diagnoses vs 66 cases using standard FIT.

Compared with the original Cologuard, Cologuard 2.0’s sensitivity improved slightly for CRC, from 92% to 93.9%,; for advanced precancerous lesions, from 42% to 43.4%; and for high-grade dysplasia, from 69% to 75%. Specificity also improved with the latest version, from 87% to 90.6%. 

However, Cologuard 2.0’s specificity for advanced neoplasia was worse than that of standard FIT (90.6% vs 94.8%, respectively), which would increase the likelihood of false-positive findings.

Despite its lower specificity compared with standard FIT, Cologuard 2.0 has several advantages. The test can identify more people with CRC and advanced precancerous lesions than the standard test and can lead to fewer false-positives than the original Cologuard test.

Cologuard maker Exact Sciences has submitted trial data to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for approval.
 

Multitarget Stool RNA-Based Test

ColoSense, an RNA-based stool test, looks for eight RNA biomarkers associated with CRC. 

The company says that RNA-based testing has an advantage over DNA biomarker assays, such as the currently marketed Cologuard test, because it isn›t subject to the age-related changes in DNA methylation that can throw off the results from DNA assays. 

Like Cologuard 2.0, Geneoscopy’s Colosense test is under review by the FDA.

The data Geneoscopy submitted to the FDA came from the CRC-PREVENT trial, which included 8920 participants who were screened with both ColoSense and standard FIT before all had a colonoscopy. The participants ranged in age from 45 to 90 years, with 22% between 45 and 50 years old, a population recently added to the USPSTF screening recommendations. 

ColoSense showed higher sensitivity than standard FIT for the presence of CRC (94% vs 78%, respectively) and advanced adenomas (46% vs 29%). In the group aged 45-50 years, the RNA-based test had a sensitivity of 100% for CRC, correctly identifying all five people with colonoscopy-confirmed CRC, and 45% for advanced adenomas.

However, ColoSense was less specific than standard FIT compared with negative colonoscopy findings (88% vs 96%, respectively) and negative findings for advanced lesions or CRC (85.5% vs 94.9%); thus, it was more likely to lead to false-positive results.

Overall, the investigators said ColoSense is comparable to Cologuard — its chief market rival — in terms of sensitivity for CRC and advanced adenomas but has higher sensitivity for colorectal neoplasia in people aged 50 years or younger.
 

Multitarget Protein-Based Test

The multitarget protein-based FIT uses antibodies to test for two additional proteins: calprotectin, an inflammatory marker associated with CRC, and serpin family F member 2, a protease inhibitor thought to be upregulated in colon cancer. 

A 2021 study of 1284 patients found that the sensitivity of the multitarget protein-based test was 42.9% for advanced neoplasias compared with 37.3% with standard FIT. Its specificity was similar to that of standard FIT, at 96.6% for advanced neoplasias. 

In a more recent report published in The Lancet Oncology, the team modeled three scenarios comparing the two FIT tests. These scenarios used different cutoff values for a test to be positive for CRC or an advanced lesion.

Overall, the analysis included stool samples from 13,187 patients aged 55-75 years who were in the Netherlands’ national CRC screening program. Stool samples were evaluated with both the multitarget test and the standard FIT, using a positivity cutoff ≥ 47 mcg hemoglobin/g feces. Colonoscopy data were available for only 1270 participants. 

In scenario 1, the multitarget test had a lower threshold for a positive test and consequently identified more precancerous lesions than the standard FIT (828 vs 354, respectively). The multitarget FIT identified a few more CRC cases: Of 29 colonoscopy-confirmed CRC cases, the multitarget FIT identified 26 vs 23 with standard FIT. 

But the multitarget FIT also had more than double the number of false-positives than the standard FIT (347 vs 161, respectively).

Perhaps the most telling comparison occurred in scenario 2, with both tests set at the same low positivity threshold to minimize false-positives.

As expected, the two tests had similar positivity rates for advanced lesions, with the multitarget test correctly identifying 22 of 29 people with CRC, one fewer than the standard test. The protein-based test identified slightly more people with advanced lesions (156 vs 136 with the standard test), leading to a higher sensitivity for advanced lesions. 

Most notably, the protein-based test resulted in fewer false-positives than did the standard test (295 vs 311, respectively) , resulting in a slightly higher specificity.

In this scenario, “a single screening round might not have the biggest impact on cancer incidence and mortality,” the authors said, but the higher detection rate would still accumulate over 20 years of testing. The authors estimated that, under this scenario, substituting the multitarget FIT for the standard test in the Netherlands’ CRC screening program could reduce CRC incidence by 5% and CRC mortality by 4%.

Gerrit Meijer, MD, PhD, a pathologist at the Netherlands Cancer Institute, and colleagues recently launched a company called CRCbioscreen to commercialize this multitarget FIT for large-scale programs. The company›s priority is to develop and validate a clinical-grade test to sell to federal governments with national screening programs, such as those throughout Europe, Australia, and Asia, Dr. Meijer told this news organization. Dr. Meijer expects this process will take about 4 years.

The test will be developed for the US market, but with no nationwide screening program in the United States, future availability will depend on interest from providers and institutions, noted Dr. Meijer, who is also chief scientific officer at CRCbioscreen.

Overall, these three new multitarget stool-based CRC screening tests could help catch more cancers and advanced precancerous lesions. And, if the tests have a high enough specificity, a negative test result could also allow people to forgo screening colonoscopy. 

Still, people with a positive FIT finding would require follow-up colonoscopy, but about 10% of patients decline colonoscopy following an abnormal FIT, Mark A. Lewis, MD, director of gastrointestinal oncology at Intermountain Health in Murray, Utah, told this news organization last year. That means that even if precancerous lesions and CRC are being caught earlier, treatment can’t be started unless people follow through with colonoscopy.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Multitarget stool-based tests are showing promise for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening in average-risk individuals and could edge out the current standard fecal immunochemical test (FIT).

These new tests aren’t radical departures from the standard FIT. Like the standard test, the multitarget FIT uses antibodies to test for hemoglobin in stool samples. But these multitarget approaches take the standard FIT a step further by testing for additional DNA, RNA, or protein biomarkers associated with CRC to help improve early detection.

Currently, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommends two FIT tests — standard FIT and stool FIT-DNA — as well as a third noninvasive CRC screening test, guaiac fecal occult blood test (gFOBT). gFOBT detects heme, a component of hemoglobin, through a chemical reaction.

But both standard FIT and stool FIT-DNA come with caveats. Compared to the standard test, FIT-DNA tends to be better at detecting traces of blood in the stool, and thus can uncover more instances of CRC or other advanced lesions. The flipside is that the DNA test also often leads to more false-positive findings.

In fact, the American College of Physicians does not recommend stool FIT-DNA for screening, citing issues such as cost — more than $600 per test vs about $30 for standard FIT — and the greater likelihood of false-positives compared with both standard FIT and gFOBT.

Given these trade-offs with current noninvasive screening options, developing a FIT option that can improve early detection of CRC and advanced precancerous lesions without increasing false-positives could make a big difference in outcomes. 

Three new noninvasive multitarget tests under investigation — an updated DNA-based test, Cologuard 2.0 (Exact Sciences; Madison, WI); an RNA-based test, ColoSense (Geneoscopy; St Louis, MO); and a protein-based test from CRCbioscreen (Amsterdam, the Netherlands) — may be able to do just that. 
 

Cologuard 2.0: Multitarget Stool DNA-Based Test

An updated version of the stool FIT-DNA is currently under development. Dubbed Next Generation Cologuard, or Cologuard 2.0, this multitarget test detects three novel methylated DNA markers along with fecal hemoglobin.

In a recent trial comparing Cologuard 2.0 vs standard FIT, 20,176 participants aged 40 years or older were screened with Cologuard 2.0 as well as standard FIT before they all also received a colonoscopy. The researchers compared findings with Cologuard 2.0 and standard FIT, which used a positivity cutoff ≥ 20 mcg hemoglobin/g feces. 

The researchers then assessed Cologuard 2.0’s sensitivity (a gauge of how well it detects disease that is truly present) and specificity (a measure of how well a test indicates the absence of disease when no disease is present) compared with standard FIT and the original Cologuard test.

Overall, Cologuard 2.0 demonstrated better sensitivity for CRC than did standard FIT (93.9% vs 67.3%, respectively) and for advanced precancerous lesions (43.4% vs 23.3%). The next-generation test, for instance, identified 92 of 98 participants with colonoscopy-confirmed CRC diagnoses vs 66 cases using standard FIT.

Compared with the original Cologuard, Cologuard 2.0’s sensitivity improved slightly for CRC, from 92% to 93.9%,; for advanced precancerous lesions, from 42% to 43.4%; and for high-grade dysplasia, from 69% to 75%. Specificity also improved with the latest version, from 87% to 90.6%. 

However, Cologuard 2.0’s specificity for advanced neoplasia was worse than that of standard FIT (90.6% vs 94.8%, respectively), which would increase the likelihood of false-positive findings.

Despite its lower specificity compared with standard FIT, Cologuard 2.0 has several advantages. The test can identify more people with CRC and advanced precancerous lesions than the standard test and can lead to fewer false-positives than the original Cologuard test.

Cologuard maker Exact Sciences has submitted trial data to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for approval.
 

Multitarget Stool RNA-Based Test

ColoSense, an RNA-based stool test, looks for eight RNA biomarkers associated with CRC. 

The company says that RNA-based testing has an advantage over DNA biomarker assays, such as the currently marketed Cologuard test, because it isn›t subject to the age-related changes in DNA methylation that can throw off the results from DNA assays. 

Like Cologuard 2.0, Geneoscopy’s Colosense test is under review by the FDA.

The data Geneoscopy submitted to the FDA came from the CRC-PREVENT trial, which included 8920 participants who were screened with both ColoSense and standard FIT before all had a colonoscopy. The participants ranged in age from 45 to 90 years, with 22% between 45 and 50 years old, a population recently added to the USPSTF screening recommendations. 

ColoSense showed higher sensitivity than standard FIT for the presence of CRC (94% vs 78%, respectively) and advanced adenomas (46% vs 29%). In the group aged 45-50 years, the RNA-based test had a sensitivity of 100% for CRC, correctly identifying all five people with colonoscopy-confirmed CRC, and 45% for advanced adenomas.

However, ColoSense was less specific than standard FIT compared with negative colonoscopy findings (88% vs 96%, respectively) and negative findings for advanced lesions or CRC (85.5% vs 94.9%); thus, it was more likely to lead to false-positive results.

Overall, the investigators said ColoSense is comparable to Cologuard — its chief market rival — in terms of sensitivity for CRC and advanced adenomas but has higher sensitivity for colorectal neoplasia in people aged 50 years or younger.
 

Multitarget Protein-Based Test

The multitarget protein-based FIT uses antibodies to test for two additional proteins: calprotectin, an inflammatory marker associated with CRC, and serpin family F member 2, a protease inhibitor thought to be upregulated in colon cancer. 

A 2021 study of 1284 patients found that the sensitivity of the multitarget protein-based test was 42.9% for advanced neoplasias compared with 37.3% with standard FIT. Its specificity was similar to that of standard FIT, at 96.6% for advanced neoplasias. 

In a more recent report published in The Lancet Oncology, the team modeled three scenarios comparing the two FIT tests. These scenarios used different cutoff values for a test to be positive for CRC or an advanced lesion.

Overall, the analysis included stool samples from 13,187 patients aged 55-75 years who were in the Netherlands’ national CRC screening program. Stool samples were evaluated with both the multitarget test and the standard FIT, using a positivity cutoff ≥ 47 mcg hemoglobin/g feces. Colonoscopy data were available for only 1270 participants. 

In scenario 1, the multitarget test had a lower threshold for a positive test and consequently identified more precancerous lesions than the standard FIT (828 vs 354, respectively). The multitarget FIT identified a few more CRC cases: Of 29 colonoscopy-confirmed CRC cases, the multitarget FIT identified 26 vs 23 with standard FIT. 

But the multitarget FIT also had more than double the number of false-positives than the standard FIT (347 vs 161, respectively).

Perhaps the most telling comparison occurred in scenario 2, with both tests set at the same low positivity threshold to minimize false-positives.

As expected, the two tests had similar positivity rates for advanced lesions, with the multitarget test correctly identifying 22 of 29 people with CRC, one fewer than the standard test. The protein-based test identified slightly more people with advanced lesions (156 vs 136 with the standard test), leading to a higher sensitivity for advanced lesions. 

Most notably, the protein-based test resulted in fewer false-positives than did the standard test (295 vs 311, respectively) , resulting in a slightly higher specificity.

In this scenario, “a single screening round might not have the biggest impact on cancer incidence and mortality,” the authors said, but the higher detection rate would still accumulate over 20 years of testing. The authors estimated that, under this scenario, substituting the multitarget FIT for the standard test in the Netherlands’ CRC screening program could reduce CRC incidence by 5% and CRC mortality by 4%.

Gerrit Meijer, MD, PhD, a pathologist at the Netherlands Cancer Institute, and colleagues recently launched a company called CRCbioscreen to commercialize this multitarget FIT for large-scale programs. The company›s priority is to develop and validate a clinical-grade test to sell to federal governments with national screening programs, such as those throughout Europe, Australia, and Asia, Dr. Meijer told this news organization. Dr. Meijer expects this process will take about 4 years.

The test will be developed for the US market, but with no nationwide screening program in the United States, future availability will depend on interest from providers and institutions, noted Dr. Meijer, who is also chief scientific officer at CRCbioscreen.

Overall, these three new multitarget stool-based CRC screening tests could help catch more cancers and advanced precancerous lesions. And, if the tests have a high enough specificity, a negative test result could also allow people to forgo screening colonoscopy. 

Still, people with a positive FIT finding would require follow-up colonoscopy, but about 10% of patients decline colonoscopy following an abnormal FIT, Mark A. Lewis, MD, director of gastrointestinal oncology at Intermountain Health in Murray, Utah, told this news organization last year. That means that even if precancerous lesions and CRC are being caught earlier, treatment can’t be started unless people follow through with colonoscopy.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Multitarget stool-based tests are showing promise for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening in average-risk individuals and could edge out the current standard fecal immunochemical test (FIT).

These new tests aren’t radical departures from the standard FIT. Like the standard test, the multitarget FIT uses antibodies to test for hemoglobin in stool samples. But these multitarget approaches take the standard FIT a step further by testing for additional DNA, RNA, or protein biomarkers associated with CRC to help improve early detection.

Currently, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommends two FIT tests — standard FIT and stool FIT-DNA — as well as a third noninvasive CRC screening test, guaiac fecal occult blood test (gFOBT). gFOBT detects heme, a component of hemoglobin, through a chemical reaction.

But both standard FIT and stool FIT-DNA come with caveats. Compared to the standard test, FIT-DNA tends to be better at detecting traces of blood in the stool, and thus can uncover more instances of CRC or other advanced lesions. The flipside is that the DNA test also often leads to more false-positive findings.

In fact, the American College of Physicians does not recommend stool FIT-DNA for screening, citing issues such as cost — more than $600 per test vs about $30 for standard FIT — and the greater likelihood of false-positives compared with both standard FIT and gFOBT.

Given these trade-offs with current noninvasive screening options, developing a FIT option that can improve early detection of CRC and advanced precancerous lesions without increasing false-positives could make a big difference in outcomes. 

Three new noninvasive multitarget tests under investigation — an updated DNA-based test, Cologuard 2.0 (Exact Sciences; Madison, WI); an RNA-based test, ColoSense (Geneoscopy; St Louis, MO); and a protein-based test from CRCbioscreen (Amsterdam, the Netherlands) — may be able to do just that. 
 

Cologuard 2.0: Multitarget Stool DNA-Based Test

An updated version of the stool FIT-DNA is currently under development. Dubbed Next Generation Cologuard, or Cologuard 2.0, this multitarget test detects three novel methylated DNA markers along with fecal hemoglobin.

In a recent trial comparing Cologuard 2.0 vs standard FIT, 20,176 participants aged 40 years or older were screened with Cologuard 2.0 as well as standard FIT before they all also received a colonoscopy. The researchers compared findings with Cologuard 2.0 and standard FIT, which used a positivity cutoff ≥ 20 mcg hemoglobin/g feces. 

The researchers then assessed Cologuard 2.0’s sensitivity (a gauge of how well it detects disease that is truly present) and specificity (a measure of how well a test indicates the absence of disease when no disease is present) compared with standard FIT and the original Cologuard test.

Overall, Cologuard 2.0 demonstrated better sensitivity for CRC than did standard FIT (93.9% vs 67.3%, respectively) and for advanced precancerous lesions (43.4% vs 23.3%). The next-generation test, for instance, identified 92 of 98 participants with colonoscopy-confirmed CRC diagnoses vs 66 cases using standard FIT.

Compared with the original Cologuard, Cologuard 2.0’s sensitivity improved slightly for CRC, from 92% to 93.9%,; for advanced precancerous lesions, from 42% to 43.4%; and for high-grade dysplasia, from 69% to 75%. Specificity also improved with the latest version, from 87% to 90.6%. 

However, Cologuard 2.0’s specificity for advanced neoplasia was worse than that of standard FIT (90.6% vs 94.8%, respectively), which would increase the likelihood of false-positive findings.

Despite its lower specificity compared with standard FIT, Cologuard 2.0 has several advantages. The test can identify more people with CRC and advanced precancerous lesions than the standard test and can lead to fewer false-positives than the original Cologuard test.

Cologuard maker Exact Sciences has submitted trial data to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for approval.
 

Multitarget Stool RNA-Based Test

ColoSense, an RNA-based stool test, looks for eight RNA biomarkers associated with CRC. 

The company says that RNA-based testing has an advantage over DNA biomarker assays, such as the currently marketed Cologuard test, because it isn›t subject to the age-related changes in DNA methylation that can throw off the results from DNA assays. 

Like Cologuard 2.0, Geneoscopy’s Colosense test is under review by the FDA.

The data Geneoscopy submitted to the FDA came from the CRC-PREVENT trial, which included 8920 participants who were screened with both ColoSense and standard FIT before all had a colonoscopy. The participants ranged in age from 45 to 90 years, with 22% between 45 and 50 years old, a population recently added to the USPSTF screening recommendations. 

ColoSense showed higher sensitivity than standard FIT for the presence of CRC (94% vs 78%, respectively) and advanced adenomas (46% vs 29%). In the group aged 45-50 years, the RNA-based test had a sensitivity of 100% for CRC, correctly identifying all five people with colonoscopy-confirmed CRC, and 45% for advanced adenomas.

However, ColoSense was less specific than standard FIT compared with negative colonoscopy findings (88% vs 96%, respectively) and negative findings for advanced lesions or CRC (85.5% vs 94.9%); thus, it was more likely to lead to false-positive results.

Overall, the investigators said ColoSense is comparable to Cologuard — its chief market rival — in terms of sensitivity for CRC and advanced adenomas but has higher sensitivity for colorectal neoplasia in people aged 50 years or younger.
 

Multitarget Protein-Based Test

The multitarget protein-based FIT uses antibodies to test for two additional proteins: calprotectin, an inflammatory marker associated with CRC, and serpin family F member 2, a protease inhibitor thought to be upregulated in colon cancer. 

A 2021 study of 1284 patients found that the sensitivity of the multitarget protein-based test was 42.9% for advanced neoplasias compared with 37.3% with standard FIT. Its specificity was similar to that of standard FIT, at 96.6% for advanced neoplasias. 

In a more recent report published in The Lancet Oncology, the team modeled three scenarios comparing the two FIT tests. These scenarios used different cutoff values for a test to be positive for CRC or an advanced lesion.

Overall, the analysis included stool samples from 13,187 patients aged 55-75 years who were in the Netherlands’ national CRC screening program. Stool samples were evaluated with both the multitarget test and the standard FIT, using a positivity cutoff ≥ 47 mcg hemoglobin/g feces. Colonoscopy data were available for only 1270 participants. 

In scenario 1, the multitarget test had a lower threshold for a positive test and consequently identified more precancerous lesions than the standard FIT (828 vs 354, respectively). The multitarget FIT identified a few more CRC cases: Of 29 colonoscopy-confirmed CRC cases, the multitarget FIT identified 26 vs 23 with standard FIT. 

But the multitarget FIT also had more than double the number of false-positives than the standard FIT (347 vs 161, respectively).

Perhaps the most telling comparison occurred in scenario 2, with both tests set at the same low positivity threshold to minimize false-positives.

As expected, the two tests had similar positivity rates for advanced lesions, with the multitarget test correctly identifying 22 of 29 people with CRC, one fewer than the standard test. The protein-based test identified slightly more people with advanced lesions (156 vs 136 with the standard test), leading to a higher sensitivity for advanced lesions. 

Most notably, the protein-based test resulted in fewer false-positives than did the standard test (295 vs 311, respectively) , resulting in a slightly higher specificity.

In this scenario, “a single screening round might not have the biggest impact on cancer incidence and mortality,” the authors said, but the higher detection rate would still accumulate over 20 years of testing. The authors estimated that, under this scenario, substituting the multitarget FIT for the standard test in the Netherlands’ CRC screening program could reduce CRC incidence by 5% and CRC mortality by 4%.

Gerrit Meijer, MD, PhD, a pathologist at the Netherlands Cancer Institute, and colleagues recently launched a company called CRCbioscreen to commercialize this multitarget FIT for large-scale programs. The company›s priority is to develop and validate a clinical-grade test to sell to federal governments with national screening programs, such as those throughout Europe, Australia, and Asia, Dr. Meijer told this news organization. Dr. Meijer expects this process will take about 4 years.

The test will be developed for the US market, but with no nationwide screening program in the United States, future availability will depend on interest from providers and institutions, noted Dr. Meijer, who is also chief scientific officer at CRCbioscreen.

Overall, these three new multitarget stool-based CRC screening tests could help catch more cancers and advanced precancerous lesions. And, if the tests have a high enough specificity, a negative test result could also allow people to forgo screening colonoscopy. 

Still, people with a positive FIT finding would require follow-up colonoscopy, but about 10% of patients decline colonoscopy following an abnormal FIT, Mark A. Lewis, MD, director of gastrointestinal oncology at Intermountain Health in Murray, Utah, told this news organization last year. That means that even if precancerous lesions and CRC are being caught earlier, treatment can’t be started unless people follow through with colonoscopy.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO — A novel multicancer early detection (MCED) blood test has demonstrated promising real-world results in detecting new cancers, including several cases of early-stage disease.

This was the conclusion of recent data presented by Ora Karp Gordon, MD, MS, during a session at the American Association for Cancer Research annual meeting.

The MCED test, known as Galleri, was made clinically available in the United States in April 2021. Developed by GRAIL LLC, the test analyzes cell-free DNA in the blood using targeted methylation analysis and machine learning to detect the presence of a cancer signal and determine its organ of origin or cancer signal origin. The initial screening of over 53,000 individuals with the Galleri test detected a cancer signal in 1.1% of participants.

The new real-world analysis examines the outcomes of repeat MCED testing in 5,794 individuals.

The study looked at individuals who initially received a ‘no cancer signal detected’ result and then underwent a second Galleri test. Over 80% of participants received their follow-up test 10-18 months after the first, with a median interval between blood draws of 12.9 months.

“The repeat tests detect those cancer cases that have reached the detection threshold since their last MCED test, which should be less than one year of incidence,” Dr. Gordon, professor at Saint John’s Cancer Institute, Santa Monica, California, said in an interview. “We are just now starting to see results from patients who get their second and even third round of screening.”

“Galleri is recommended to be used annually in addition to USPSTF [US Preventive Services Task Force]–recommended cancer screening tests, like mammography and colonoscopy,” she said.

This recommendation is based on a modeling study suggesting that annual screening would improve stage shift, diagnostic yield, and potentially mortality when compared to biennial screening, although biennial screening was still favorable compared with no screening, she explained.
 

Early Real-World Evidence of Repeat Testing

Among the cohort of 5,794 individuals who received repeat testing, 26 received a positive cancer signal on their second test, yielding a cancer signal detection rate of 0.45% (95% CI: 0.31%-0.66%). The cancer signal detection rate was slightly higher in men. The rate was 0.50% (95% CI: 0.32%-0.81%; 17 of 3367) in men versus 0.37% (95% CI: 0.2%-0.7%; 9 of 2427) in women.

During her presentation, Dr. Gordon highlighted that the repeat testing signal detection rate was lower than the initial 0.95% rate (95% CI: 0.87-1.0; 510 of 53,744) seen in the previous larger cohort of patients who were retested at 1 year.

She acknowledged that the lower cancer signal detection rate of repeat testing may indicate some degree of ‘early adopter’ bias, where those who return for a second test are systematically different from the general screening population. This could suggest that broader population-level screening may yield different results, she continued.
 

Shift Toward Unscreened Cancers

The top cancer types identified in the second round of testing were lymphoid, head and neck, bladder/urothelial, colorectal, and anal cancers. Clinicians were able to confirm clinical outcomes in 12 of 26 cases, in which cancer signals were detected. Of those 12 cases, 8 individuals received a cancer diagnosis and 4 did not have cancer. The remaining 14 of 26 cases in which cancer signals were detected are still under investigation.

“We found a shift away from USPSTF screen-detected cancers, like breast, lung, and prostate, and relative increase in unscreened urinary, head and neck, and lymphoid cancers, with 75% of cancers being those without any screening guidelines,” Dr. Gordon said in an interview.

She added that patients who choose to retest may have different cancer rates for several reasons, including bias toward a population that is health conscious and adhered to all recommended cancer screening.

“So the shift toward unscreened cancers is not unexpected and highlights the value of Galleri,” she said, but also acknowledged that “continued monitoring is needed to see if this translates in a persistent finding over time and tests.”
 

Shift Toward Early-Stage Cancers

Staging information was available for five cases, and Dr. Gordon highlighted in her talk that four of these confirmed cancers were stage I, including cancers of the anus, head and neck, bladder, and lymphoma. The fifth confirmed cancer with staging information was stage IV ovarian cancer.

“It is still early, and the numbers are very small, but the detection of early-stage cancers with second annual testing is very encouraging as these are the cases where MCED testing could have the greatest impact in improving outcomes through earlier treatment,” Dr. Gordon told this publication.

During an interview after the talk, Kenneth L. Kehl, MD, MPH, echoed that data must be confirmed in larger cohorts.

“The shift toward earlier stage cancers that are less detectable by standard screening methods is an interesting result, but we need to be cautious since the numbers were relatively small, and we do not have data on cancers that were diagnosed among patients whose second MCED test was also negative,” said Dr. Kehl, a medical oncologist at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston.
 

MCED Results Could Help Direct Diagnostic Workup

The test’s ability to predict the organ of origin was highly accurate, correctly identifying the cancer type in all eight confirmed cases. Among the eight cases with a confirmed cancer diagnosis, the accuracy of the first prediction was 100%, and diagnoses included invasive cancers across multiple tissues and organs, including anus, colon, head and neck, urothelial tract, ovary, and the lymphatic system.

“The fact that the site of origin for 100% of confirmed cancers was accurately predicted with GRAIL’s CSO by Galleri test confirms the promise that this can guide workup when a cancer signal is detected,” Dr. Gordon noted in the interview.
 

Looking Ahead

Dr. Kehl, who was not involved in the MCED study, noted in an interview that “further data on test characteristics beyond positive predictive value, including the sensitivity, specificity, and negative predictive value, as well as demonstration of clinical benefit — ideally in a randomized trial — will likely be required for MCED testing to become a standard public health recommendation.”

He added that challenges associated with implementing annual screening with MCED tests include the risks of both false positives and false negatives as testing becomes more widely available.

“False positives cause anxiety and lead to additional testing that may carry its own risks, and we need to understand if potentially false negative tests will be associated with less uptake of established screening strategies,” Dr. Kehl said in an interview. However, he noted that serial testing could lead to more frequent diagnoses of early-stage cancers that may be less detectable by standard methods.

Dr. Gordon reported financial relationships with GRAIL LLC and Genetic Technologies Corporation. Dr. Kehl reported no relationships with entities whose primary business is producing, marketing, selling, reselling, or distributing healthcare products used by or on patients.

SAN DIEGO — A novel multicancer early detection (MCED) blood test has demonstrated promising real-world results in detecting new cancers, including several cases of early-stage disease.

This was the conclusion of recent data presented by Ora Karp Gordon, MD, MS, during a session at the American Association for Cancer Research annual meeting.

The MCED test, known as Galleri, was made clinically available in the United States in April 2021. Developed by GRAIL LLC, the test analyzes cell-free DNA in the blood using targeted methylation analysis and machine learning to detect the presence of a cancer signal and determine its organ of origin or cancer signal origin. The initial screening of over 53,000 individuals with the Galleri test detected a cancer signal in 1.1% of participants.

The new real-world analysis examines the outcomes of repeat MCED testing in 5,794 individuals.

The study looked at individuals who initially received a ‘no cancer signal detected’ result and then underwent a second Galleri test. Over 80% of participants received their follow-up test 10-18 months after the first, with a median interval between blood draws of 12.9 months.

“The repeat tests detect those cancer cases that have reached the detection threshold since their last MCED test, which should be less than one year of incidence,” Dr. Gordon, professor at Saint John’s Cancer Institute, Santa Monica, California, said in an interview. “We are just now starting to see results from patients who get their second and even third round of screening.”

“Galleri is recommended to be used annually in addition to USPSTF [US Preventive Services Task Force]–recommended cancer screening tests, like mammography and colonoscopy,” she said.

This recommendation is based on a modeling study suggesting that annual screening would improve stage shift, diagnostic yield, and potentially mortality when compared to biennial screening, although biennial screening was still favorable compared with no screening, she explained.
 

Early Real-World Evidence of Repeat Testing

Among the cohort of 5,794 individuals who received repeat testing, 26 received a positive cancer signal on their second test, yielding a cancer signal detection rate of 0.45% (95% CI: 0.31%-0.66%). The cancer signal detection rate was slightly higher in men. The rate was 0.50% (95% CI: 0.32%-0.81%; 17 of 3367) in men versus 0.37% (95% CI: 0.2%-0.7%; 9 of 2427) in women.

During her presentation, Dr. Gordon highlighted that the repeat testing signal detection rate was lower than the initial 0.95% rate (95% CI: 0.87-1.0; 510 of 53,744) seen in the previous larger cohort of patients who were retested at 1 year.

She acknowledged that the lower cancer signal detection rate of repeat testing may indicate some degree of ‘early adopter’ bias, where those who return for a second test are systematically different from the general screening population. This could suggest that broader population-level screening may yield different results, she continued.
 

Shift Toward Unscreened Cancers

The top cancer types identified in the second round of testing were lymphoid, head and neck, bladder/urothelial, colorectal, and anal cancers. Clinicians were able to confirm clinical outcomes in 12 of 26 cases, in which cancer signals were detected. Of those 12 cases, 8 individuals received a cancer diagnosis and 4 did not have cancer. The remaining 14 of 26 cases in which cancer signals were detected are still under investigation.

“We found a shift away from USPSTF screen-detected cancers, like breast, lung, and prostate, and relative increase in unscreened urinary, head and neck, and lymphoid cancers, with 75% of cancers being those without any screening guidelines,” Dr. Gordon said in an interview.

She added that patients who choose to retest may have different cancer rates for several reasons, including bias toward a population that is health conscious and adhered to all recommended cancer screening.

“So the shift toward unscreened cancers is not unexpected and highlights the value of Galleri,” she said, but also acknowledged that “continued monitoring is needed to see if this translates in a persistent finding over time and tests.”
 

Shift Toward Early-Stage Cancers

Staging information was available for five cases, and Dr. Gordon highlighted in her talk that four of these confirmed cancers were stage I, including cancers of the anus, head and neck, bladder, and lymphoma. The fifth confirmed cancer with staging information was stage IV ovarian cancer.

“It is still early, and the numbers are very small, but the detection of early-stage cancers with second annual testing is very encouraging as these are the cases where MCED testing could have the greatest impact in improving outcomes through earlier treatment,” Dr. Gordon told this publication.

During an interview after the talk, Kenneth L. Kehl, MD, MPH, echoed that data must be confirmed in larger cohorts.

“The shift toward earlier stage cancers that are less detectable by standard screening methods is an interesting result, but we need to be cautious since the numbers were relatively small, and we do not have data on cancers that were diagnosed among patients whose second MCED test was also negative,” said Dr. Kehl, a medical oncologist at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston.
 

MCED Results Could Help Direct Diagnostic Workup

The test’s ability to predict the organ of origin was highly accurate, correctly identifying the cancer type in all eight confirmed cases. Among the eight cases with a confirmed cancer diagnosis, the accuracy of the first prediction was 100%, and diagnoses included invasive cancers across multiple tissues and organs, including anus, colon, head and neck, urothelial tract, ovary, and the lymphatic system.

“The fact that the site of origin for 100% of confirmed cancers was accurately predicted with GRAIL’s CSO by Galleri test confirms the promise that this can guide workup when a cancer signal is detected,” Dr. Gordon noted in the interview.
 

Looking Ahead

Dr. Kehl, who was not involved in the MCED study, noted in an interview that “further data on test characteristics beyond positive predictive value, including the sensitivity, specificity, and negative predictive value, as well as demonstration of clinical benefit — ideally in a randomized trial — will likely be required for MCED testing to become a standard public health recommendation.”

He added that challenges associated with implementing annual screening with MCED tests include the risks of both false positives and false negatives as testing becomes more widely available.

“False positives cause anxiety and lead to additional testing that may carry its own risks, and we need to understand if potentially false negative tests will be associated with less uptake of established screening strategies,” Dr. Kehl said in an interview. However, he noted that serial testing could lead to more frequent diagnoses of early-stage cancers that may be less detectable by standard methods.

Dr. Gordon reported financial relationships with GRAIL LLC and Genetic Technologies Corporation. Dr. Kehl reported no relationships with entities whose primary business is producing, marketing, selling, reselling, or distributing healthcare products used by or on patients.

SAN DIEGO — A novel multicancer early detection (MCED) blood test has demonstrated promising real-world results in detecting new cancers, including several cases of early-stage disease.

This was the conclusion of recent data presented by Ora Karp Gordon, MD, MS, during a session at the American Association for Cancer Research annual meeting.

The MCED test, known as Galleri, was made clinically available in the United States in April 2021. Developed by GRAIL LLC, the test analyzes cell-free DNA in the blood using targeted methylation analysis and machine learning to detect the presence of a cancer signal and determine its organ of origin or cancer signal origin. The initial screening of over 53,000 individuals with the Galleri test detected a cancer signal in 1.1% of participants.

The new real-world analysis examines the outcomes of repeat MCED testing in 5,794 individuals.

The study looked at individuals who initially received a ‘no cancer signal detected’ result and then underwent a second Galleri test. Over 80% of participants received their follow-up test 10-18 months after the first, with a median interval between blood draws of 12.9 months.

“The repeat tests detect those cancer cases that have reached the detection threshold since their last MCED test, which should be less than one year of incidence,” Dr. Gordon, professor at Saint John’s Cancer Institute, Santa Monica, California, said in an interview. “We are just now starting to see results from patients who get their second and even third round of screening.”

“Galleri is recommended to be used annually in addition to USPSTF [US Preventive Services Task Force]–recommended cancer screening tests, like mammography and colonoscopy,” she said.

This recommendation is based on a modeling study suggesting that annual screening would improve stage shift, diagnostic yield, and potentially mortality when compared to biennial screening, although biennial screening was still favorable compared with no screening, she explained.
 

Early Real-World Evidence of Repeat Testing

Among the cohort of 5,794 individuals who received repeat testing, 26 received a positive cancer signal on their second test, yielding a cancer signal detection rate of 0.45% (95% CI: 0.31%-0.66%). The cancer signal detection rate was slightly higher in men. The rate was 0.50% (95% CI: 0.32%-0.81%; 17 of 3367) in men versus 0.37% (95% CI: 0.2%-0.7%; 9 of 2427) in women.

During her presentation, Dr. Gordon highlighted that the repeat testing signal detection rate was lower than the initial 0.95% rate (95% CI: 0.87-1.0; 510 of 53,744) seen in the previous larger cohort of patients who were retested at 1 year.

She acknowledged that the lower cancer signal detection rate of repeat testing may indicate some degree of ‘early adopter’ bias, where those who return for a second test are systematically different from the general screening population. This could suggest that broader population-level screening may yield different results, she continued.
 

Shift Toward Unscreened Cancers

The top cancer types identified in the second round of testing were lymphoid, head and neck, bladder/urothelial, colorectal, and anal cancers. Clinicians were able to confirm clinical outcomes in 12 of 26 cases, in which cancer signals were detected. Of those 12 cases, 8 individuals received a cancer diagnosis and 4 did not have cancer. The remaining 14 of 26 cases in which cancer signals were detected are still under investigation.

“We found a shift away from USPSTF screen-detected cancers, like breast, lung, and prostate, and relative increase in unscreened urinary, head and neck, and lymphoid cancers, with 75% of cancers being those without any screening guidelines,” Dr. Gordon said in an interview.

She added that patients who choose to retest may have different cancer rates for several reasons, including bias toward a population that is health conscious and adhered to all recommended cancer screening.

“So the shift toward unscreened cancers is not unexpected and highlights the value of Galleri,” she said, but also acknowledged that “continued monitoring is needed to see if this translates in a persistent finding over time and tests.”
 

Shift Toward Early-Stage Cancers

Staging information was available for five cases, and Dr. Gordon highlighted in her talk that four of these confirmed cancers were stage I, including cancers of the anus, head and neck, bladder, and lymphoma. The fifth confirmed cancer with staging information was stage IV ovarian cancer.

“It is still early, and the numbers are very small, but the detection of early-stage cancers with second annual testing is very encouraging as these are the cases where MCED testing could have the greatest impact in improving outcomes through earlier treatment,” Dr. Gordon told this publication.

During an interview after the talk, Kenneth L. Kehl, MD, MPH, echoed that data must be confirmed in larger cohorts.

“The shift toward earlier stage cancers that are less detectable by standard screening methods is an interesting result, but we need to be cautious since the numbers were relatively small, and we do not have data on cancers that were diagnosed among patients whose second MCED test was also negative,” said Dr. Kehl, a medical oncologist at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston.
 

MCED Results Could Help Direct Diagnostic Workup

The test’s ability to predict the organ of origin was highly accurate, correctly identifying the cancer type in all eight confirmed cases. Among the eight cases with a confirmed cancer diagnosis, the accuracy of the first prediction was 100%, and diagnoses included invasive cancers across multiple tissues and organs, including anus, colon, head and neck, urothelial tract, ovary, and the lymphatic system.

“The fact that the site of origin for 100% of confirmed cancers was accurately predicted with GRAIL’s CSO by Galleri test confirms the promise that this can guide workup when a cancer signal is detected,” Dr. Gordon noted in the interview.
 

Looking Ahead

Dr. Kehl, who was not involved in the MCED study, noted in an interview that “further data on test characteristics beyond positive predictive value, including the sensitivity, specificity, and negative predictive value, as well as demonstration of clinical benefit — ideally in a randomized trial — will likely be required for MCED testing to become a standard public health recommendation.”

He added that challenges associated with implementing annual screening with MCED tests include the risks of both false positives and false negatives as testing becomes more widely available.

“False positives cause anxiety and lead to additional testing that may carry its own risks, and we need to understand if potentially false negative tests will be associated with less uptake of established screening strategies,” Dr. Kehl said in an interview. However, he noted that serial testing could lead to more frequent diagnoses of early-stage cancers that may be less detectable by standard methods.

Dr. Gordon reported financial relationships with GRAIL LLC and Genetic Technologies Corporation. Dr. Kehl reported no relationships with entities whose primary business is producing, marketing, selling, reselling, or distributing healthcare products used by or on patients.

It should come as no surprise that when physicians speak out on social and political issues, there is sometimes a backlash. This can range from the typical trolling that occurs online to rarer cases of professional penalties. Two doctors were fired by NYU Langone Health late last year after they posted social media messages about the Israel-Hamas war. Still, many physicians are not only willing to stand up for what they believe in, but they see it as an essential part of their profession. 
"We're now at a place where doctors need to engage in public advocacy as an urgent part of our job," wrote Rob Davidson, MD, an emergency department physician, at the onslaught of the COVID-19 pandemic. In an Op-Ed piece for The Guardian, Dr. Davidson noted how the virus forced many physicians into becoming "activist doctors," calling for adequate personal protective equipment and correcting misinformation. "What we want above all is for the administration to listen to doctors, nurses, and frontline health workers - and stop playing politics," he wrote. 

'It's Not About Being Political' 

The intersection of medicine and politics is hardly new. Doctors frequently testify before Congress, sharing their expertise on issues concerning public health. This, however, isn't the same as "playing politics." 
"I'm not taking political stances," said Megan Ranney, MD, Dean of the Yale School of Public Health. "Rather, I'm using science to inform best practices, and I'm vocal around the area where I have expertise where we could do collectively better." 
Dr. Ranney's work to end firearm injury and death garnered particular attention when she co-authored an open letter to the National Rifle Association (NRA) in 2018. She wrote the letter in response to a tweet by the organization, admonishing physicians to "stay in their lane" when it comes to gun control.  
Dr. Ranney's letter discussed gun violence as a public health crisis and urged the NRA to "be part of the solution" by joining the collective effort to reduce firearm injury and death through research, education, and advocacy. "We are not anti-gun," she stated. "We are anti-bullet hole," adding that "almost half of doctors own guns." 
The NRA disagreed. When Dr. Ranney testified before Congress during a hearing on gun violence in 2023, NRA spokesperson Billy McLaughlin condemned her testimony as an effort to "dismantle the Second Amendment," calling Dr. Ranney "a known gun control extremist." 
"If you actually read what I write, or if you actually listen to what I say, I'm not saying things on behalf of one political party or another," said Dr. Ranney. "It's not about being political. It's about recognizing our role in describing what's happening and making it clear for the world to see. Showing where, based off of data, there may be a better path to improve health and wellbeing." 
In spite of the backlash, Dr. Ranney has no regrets about being an activist. "In the current media landscape, folks love to slap labels on people that may or may not be accurate. To me, what matters isn't where I land with a particular politician or political party, but how the work that I do improves health for populations." 

When the Need to Act Outweighs the Fear 

Laura Andreson, DO, an ob.gyn, took activism a step further when she joined a group of women in Tennessee to file a suit against the state, the attorney general, and the state board of medical examiners. The issue was the Tennessee's abortion ban, which the suit claimed prevented women from getting "necessary and potentially life-saving medical care."  
Dr. Andreson, who says she was "not at all" politically active in the past, began to realize how the abortion ban could drastically affect her profession and her patients. "I don't know what flipped in me, but I just felt like I could do this," she said. 
Like Dr. Ranney, Dr. Andreson has been as visible as she has been vocal, giving press conferences and interviews, but she acknowledges she has some fears about safety. In fact, after filing the lawsuit, the Center for Reproductive Rights recommended that she go to a website, DeleteMe, that removes personal data from the internet, making it more difficult for people to find her information. "But my need to do this and my desire to do this is stronger than my fears," she added. 
Dr. Andreson, who is part of a small practice, did check with both her coworkers and the hospital administration before moving forward with the lawsuit. She was relieved to find that she had the support of her practice and that there wasn't anything in the hospital bylaws to prevent her from filing the lawsuit. "But the people in the bigger institutions who probably have an even better expert base than I do, they are handcuffed," she said. 
It has been, in Dr. Andreson's words, "a little uncomfortable" being on the board of the Tennessee Medical Association when the Tennessee Board of Medical Examiners is part of the lawsuit. "We're all members of the same group," she said. "But I'm not suing them as individuals; I'm suing them as an entity that is under our government." 
Dr. Andreson said most people have been supportive of her activist work, though she admitted to feeling frustrated when she encounters apathy from fellow ob.gyns. She got little response when she circulated information explaining the abortion laws and trying to get others involved. But she still sees education as being a key part of making change happen.  
"I think advocacy, as someone who is considered a responsible, trustworthy person by your community, is important, because you can sway some people just by educating them," she said. 

Fighting Inequities in Medicine and Beyond 

Christina Chen, MD, says she felt very supported by her medical community at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, when she and 16 other Asian American physicians posted a video on Instagram in 2020 highlighting increased violence and harassment of Asian Americans during COVID-19. It soon went viral, and the Mayo Clinic distributed it across their social media channels. The only negative repercussions Mayo faced were a few posts on social media saying that politics should not be brought into the healthcare space. Dr. Chen disagrees. 
"Social issues and political decisions have direct impact on the health of our communities," Dr. Chen said. "We know that we still have a long way to go to solve health inequities, which is a public health problem, and we all play a huge role in voicing our concerns." 
Activism, however, seems to be more complicated when it involves physicians being critical of inequities within the medical field. Nephrologist, Vanessa Grubbs, MD, MPH, founded the nonprofit Black Doc Village in 2022 to raise awareness about the wrongful dismissal of Black residents and expand the Black physician workforce. 
Dr. Grubbs said that the medical community has not been supportive of her activism. "The reason why I'm no longer in academia is in part because they got very upset with me tweeting about how some trainees are biased in their treatment of attendings," she said. "Senior White men attendings are often treated very differently than junior women of color faculty." 
Dr. Grubbs also expressed her views in 2020 essay in the New England Journal of Medicine where she criticized academic medical institutions for ignoring systemic racism, paying lip service to diversity, equity, and inclusion, and staying "deafeningly silent" when issues of racism are raised. 
Today, Black Doc Village is focused on conducting research that can be used to change policy. And Dr. Grubbs now has the full support of her colleagues at West Oakland Health, in Oakland, California, which aspires to advance the Bay Area Black community's health and dignity. "So, no one here has a problem with me speaking out," she added. 
The emphasis on data-driven activism as opposed to "playing politics," is a recurring theme for many physicians who publicly engage with social issues. 
"It's not partisan," Dr. Ranney said. "Rather, it's a commitment to translating science into actionable steps that can be used regardless of what political party you are in. My job is not to be on one side or the other, but to advance human health." These doctors challenge their critics to explain how such a goal is outside their purview. 
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

It should come as no surprise that when physicians speak out on social and political issues, there is sometimes a backlash. This can range from the typical trolling that occurs online to rarer cases of professional penalties. Two doctors were fired by NYU Langone Health late last year after they posted social media messages about the Israel-Hamas war. Still, many physicians are not only willing to stand up for what they believe in, but they see it as an essential part of their profession. 
"We're now at a place where doctors need to engage in public advocacy as an urgent part of our job," wrote Rob Davidson, MD, an emergency department physician, at the onslaught of the COVID-19 pandemic. In an Op-Ed piece for The Guardian, Dr. Davidson noted how the virus forced many physicians into becoming "activist doctors," calling for adequate personal protective equipment and correcting misinformation. "What we want above all is for the administration to listen to doctors, nurses, and frontline health workers - and stop playing politics," he wrote. 

'It's Not About Being Political' 

The intersection of medicine and politics is hardly new. Doctors frequently testify before Congress, sharing their expertise on issues concerning public health. This, however, isn't the same as "playing politics." 
"I'm not taking political stances," said Megan Ranney, MD, Dean of the Yale School of Public Health. "Rather, I'm using science to inform best practices, and I'm vocal around the area where I have expertise where we could do collectively better." 
Dr. Ranney's work to end firearm injury and death garnered particular attention when she co-authored an open letter to the National Rifle Association (NRA) in 2018. She wrote the letter in response to a tweet by the organization, admonishing physicians to "stay in their lane" when it comes to gun control.  
Dr. Ranney's letter discussed gun violence as a public health crisis and urged the NRA to "be part of the solution" by joining the collective effort to reduce firearm injury and death through research, education, and advocacy. "We are not anti-gun," she stated. "We are anti-bullet hole," adding that "almost half of doctors own guns." 
The NRA disagreed. When Dr. Ranney testified before Congress during a hearing on gun violence in 2023, NRA spokesperson Billy McLaughlin condemned her testimony as an effort to "dismantle the Second Amendment," calling Dr. Ranney "a known gun control extremist." 
"If you actually read what I write, or if you actually listen to what I say, I'm not saying things on behalf of one political party or another," said Dr. Ranney. "It's not about being political. It's about recognizing our role in describing what's happening and making it clear for the world to see. Showing where, based off of data, there may be a better path to improve health and wellbeing." 
In spite of the backlash, Dr. Ranney has no regrets about being an activist. "In the current media landscape, folks love to slap labels on people that may or may not be accurate. To me, what matters isn't where I land with a particular politician or political party, but how the work that I do improves health for populations." 

When the Need to Act Outweighs the Fear 

Laura Andreson, DO, an ob.gyn, took activism a step further when she joined a group of women in Tennessee to file a suit against the state, the attorney general, and the state board of medical examiners. The issue was the Tennessee's abortion ban, which the suit claimed prevented women from getting "necessary and potentially life-saving medical care."  
Dr. Andreson, who says she was "not at all" politically active in the past, began to realize how the abortion ban could drastically affect her profession and her patients. "I don't know what flipped in me, but I just felt like I could do this," she said. 
Like Dr. Ranney, Dr. Andreson has been as visible as she has been vocal, giving press conferences and interviews, but she acknowledges she has some fears about safety. In fact, after filing the lawsuit, the Center for Reproductive Rights recommended that she go to a website, DeleteMe, that removes personal data from the internet, making it more difficult for people to find her information. "But my need to do this and my desire to do this is stronger than my fears," she added. 
Dr. Andreson, who is part of a small practice, did check with both her coworkers and the hospital administration before moving forward with the lawsuit. She was relieved to find that she had the support of her practice and that there wasn't anything in the hospital bylaws to prevent her from filing the lawsuit. "But the people in the bigger institutions who probably have an even better expert base than I do, they are handcuffed," she said. 
It has been, in Dr. Andreson's words, "a little uncomfortable" being on the board of the Tennessee Medical Association when the Tennessee Board of Medical Examiners is part of the lawsuit. "We're all members of the same group," she said. "But I'm not suing them as individuals; I'm suing them as an entity that is under our government." 
Dr. Andreson said most people have been supportive of her activist work, though she admitted to feeling frustrated when she encounters apathy from fellow ob.gyns. She got little response when she circulated information explaining the abortion laws and trying to get others involved. But she still sees education as being a key part of making change happen.  
"I think advocacy, as someone who is considered a responsible, trustworthy person by your community, is important, because you can sway some people just by educating them," she said. 

Fighting Inequities in Medicine and Beyond 

Christina Chen, MD, says she felt very supported by her medical community at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, when she and 16 other Asian American physicians posted a video on Instagram in 2020 highlighting increased violence and harassment of Asian Americans during COVID-19. It soon went viral, and the Mayo Clinic distributed it across their social media channels. The only negative repercussions Mayo faced were a few posts on social media saying that politics should not be brought into the healthcare space. Dr. Chen disagrees. 
"Social issues and political decisions have direct impact on the health of our communities," Dr. Chen said. "We know that we still have a long way to go to solve health inequities, which is a public health problem, and we all play a huge role in voicing our concerns." 
Activism, however, seems to be more complicated when it involves physicians being critical of inequities within the medical field. Nephrologist, Vanessa Grubbs, MD, MPH, founded the nonprofit Black Doc Village in 2022 to raise awareness about the wrongful dismissal of Black residents and expand the Black physician workforce. 
Dr. Grubbs said that the medical community has not been supportive of her activism. "The reason why I'm no longer in academia is in part because they got very upset with me tweeting about how some trainees are biased in their treatment of attendings," she said. "Senior White men attendings are often treated very differently than junior women of color faculty." 
Dr. Grubbs also expressed her views in 2020 essay in the New England Journal of Medicine where she criticized academic medical institutions for ignoring systemic racism, paying lip service to diversity, equity, and inclusion, and staying "deafeningly silent" when issues of racism are raised. 
Today, Black Doc Village is focused on conducting research that can be used to change policy. And Dr. Grubbs now has the full support of her colleagues at West Oakland Health, in Oakland, California, which aspires to advance the Bay Area Black community's health and dignity. "So, no one here has a problem with me speaking out," she added. 
The emphasis on data-driven activism as opposed to "playing politics," is a recurring theme for many physicians who publicly engage with social issues. 
"It's not partisan," Dr. Ranney said. "Rather, it's a commitment to translating science into actionable steps that can be used regardless of what political party you are in. My job is not to be on one side or the other, but to advance human health." These doctors challenge their critics to explain how such a goal is outside their purview. 
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

It should come as no surprise that when physicians speak out on social and political issues, there is sometimes a backlash. This can range from the typical trolling that occurs online to rarer cases of professional penalties. Two doctors were fired by NYU Langone Health late last year after they posted social media messages about the Israel-Hamas war. Still, many physicians are not only willing to stand up for what they believe in, but they see it as an essential part of their profession. 
"We're now at a place where doctors need to engage in public advocacy as an urgent part of our job," wrote Rob Davidson, MD, an emergency department physician, at the onslaught of the COVID-19 pandemic. In an Op-Ed piece for The Guardian, Dr. Davidson noted how the virus forced many physicians into becoming "activist doctors," calling for adequate personal protective equipment and correcting misinformation. "What we want above all is for the administration to listen to doctors, nurses, and frontline health workers - and stop playing politics," he wrote. 

'It's Not About Being Political' 

The intersection of medicine and politics is hardly new. Doctors frequently testify before Congress, sharing their expertise on issues concerning public health. This, however, isn't the same as "playing politics." 
"I'm not taking political stances," said Megan Ranney, MD, Dean of the Yale School of Public Health. "Rather, I'm using science to inform best practices, and I'm vocal around the area where I have expertise where we could do collectively better." 
Dr. Ranney's work to end firearm injury and death garnered particular attention when she co-authored an open letter to the National Rifle Association (NRA) in 2018. She wrote the letter in response to a tweet by the organization, admonishing physicians to "stay in their lane" when it comes to gun control.  
Dr. Ranney's letter discussed gun violence as a public health crisis and urged the NRA to "be part of the solution" by joining the collective effort to reduce firearm injury and death through research, education, and advocacy. "We are not anti-gun," she stated. "We are anti-bullet hole," adding that "almost half of doctors own guns." 
The NRA disagreed. When Dr. Ranney testified before Congress during a hearing on gun violence in 2023, NRA spokesperson Billy McLaughlin condemned her testimony as an effort to "dismantle the Second Amendment," calling Dr. Ranney "a known gun control extremist." 
"If you actually read what I write, or if you actually listen to what I say, I'm not saying things on behalf of one political party or another," said Dr. Ranney. "It's not about being political. It's about recognizing our role in describing what's happening and making it clear for the world to see. Showing where, based off of data, there may be a better path to improve health and wellbeing." 
In spite of the backlash, Dr. Ranney has no regrets about being an activist. "In the current media landscape, folks love to slap labels on people that may or may not be accurate. To me, what matters isn't where I land with a particular politician or political party, but how the work that I do improves health for populations." 

When the Need to Act Outweighs the Fear 

Laura Andreson, DO, an ob.gyn, took activism a step further when she joined a group of women in Tennessee to file a suit against the state, the attorney general, and the state board of medical examiners. The issue was the Tennessee's abortion ban, which the suit claimed prevented women from getting "necessary and potentially life-saving medical care."  
Dr. Andreson, who says she was "not at all" politically active in the past, began to realize how the abortion ban could drastically affect her profession and her patients. "I don't know what flipped in me, but I just felt like I could do this," she said. 
Like Dr. Ranney, Dr. Andreson has been as visible as she has been vocal, giving press conferences and interviews, but she acknowledges she has some fears about safety. In fact, after filing the lawsuit, the Center for Reproductive Rights recommended that she go to a website, DeleteMe, that removes personal data from the internet, making it more difficult for people to find her information. "But my need to do this and my desire to do this is stronger than my fears," she added. 
Dr. Andreson, who is part of a small practice, did check with both her coworkers and the hospital administration before moving forward with the lawsuit. She was relieved to find that she had the support of her practice and that there wasn't anything in the hospital bylaws to prevent her from filing the lawsuit. "But the people in the bigger institutions who probably have an even better expert base than I do, they are handcuffed," she said. 
It has been, in Dr. Andreson's words, "a little uncomfortable" being on the board of the Tennessee Medical Association when the Tennessee Board of Medical Examiners is part of the lawsuit. "We're all members of the same group," she said. "But I'm not suing them as individuals; I'm suing them as an entity that is under our government." 
Dr. Andreson said most people have been supportive of her activist work, though she admitted to feeling frustrated when she encounters apathy from fellow ob.gyns. She got little response when she circulated information explaining the abortion laws and trying to get others involved. But she still sees education as being a key part of making change happen.  
"I think advocacy, as someone who is considered a responsible, trustworthy person by your community, is important, because you can sway some people just by educating them," she said. 

Fighting Inequities in Medicine and Beyond 

Christina Chen, MD, says she felt very supported by her medical community at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, when she and 16 other Asian American physicians posted a video on Instagram in 2020 highlighting increased violence and harassment of Asian Americans during COVID-19. It soon went viral, and the Mayo Clinic distributed it across their social media channels. The only negative repercussions Mayo faced were a few posts on social media saying that politics should not be brought into the healthcare space. Dr. Chen disagrees. 
"Social issues and political decisions have direct impact on the health of our communities," Dr. Chen said. "We know that we still have a long way to go to solve health inequities, which is a public health problem, and we all play a huge role in voicing our concerns." 
Activism, however, seems to be more complicated when it involves physicians being critical of inequities within the medical field. Nephrologist, Vanessa Grubbs, MD, MPH, founded the nonprofit Black Doc Village in 2022 to raise awareness about the wrongful dismissal of Black residents and expand the Black physician workforce. 
Dr. Grubbs said that the medical community has not been supportive of her activism. "The reason why I'm no longer in academia is in part because they got very upset with me tweeting about how some trainees are biased in their treatment of attendings," she said. "Senior White men attendings are often treated very differently than junior women of color faculty." 
Dr. Grubbs also expressed her views in 2020 essay in the New England Journal of Medicine where she criticized academic medical institutions for ignoring systemic racism, paying lip service to diversity, equity, and inclusion, and staying "deafeningly silent" when issues of racism are raised. 
Today, Black Doc Village is focused on conducting research that can be used to change policy. And Dr. Grubbs now has the full support of her colleagues at West Oakland Health, in Oakland, California, which aspires to advance the Bay Area Black community's health and dignity. "So, no one here has a problem with me speaking out," she added. 
The emphasis on data-driven activism as opposed to "playing politics," is a recurring theme for many physicians who publicly engage with social issues. 
"It's not partisan," Dr. Ranney said. "Rather, it's a commitment to translating science into actionable steps that can be used regardless of what political party you are in. My job is not to be on one side or the other, but to advance human health." These doctors challenge their critics to explain how such a goal is outside their purview. 
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO — Using ImPrint, an immune-related biomarker, clinicians can identify patients with breast cancer who are likely to respond to neoadjuvant immunotherapy, according to data from the ongoing phase 2 I-SPY2 trial.

Patient selection based on ImPrint class can result in high response rates and spare nonresponders the toxicities of immunotherapy, said Denise M. Wolf, PhD, during her presentation of the study results at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR).

“Our results show that patients with ER+/HER2-/ImPrint+ breast cancer have a very high probability of achieving complete response to immunotherapy, whereas those who are ER+/HER2-/ImPrint- have a low probability of responding,” noted Dr. Wolf, PhD, MSc of the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), in an interview.

She added that, although effective, immunotherapy also carries the risk of serious immune-related toxicities, and knowledge of ImPrint class can help patients and physicians determine whether immunotherapy is a good treatment option. “Many patients will be willing to take the risk of immunotherapy toxicities if their odds of responding are very high, as is the case for ImPrint+ patients, but [are] likely less enthused with a low likelihood of response,” Dr. Wolf said during the interview.
 

Need for Predictive Biomarkers for Neoadjuvant Immunotherapy

Although neoadjuvant immunotherapy has become the standard treatment for patients with early-stage triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC), chemotherapy remains the mainstay of treatment for patients with hormone receptor–positive (HR+), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–negative (HER2-) breast cancer. The I-SPY2 clinical trial is the first randomized clinical study to assess the efficacy of immunotherapy in the high-risk population of patients with HR+/HER2-, Dr. Wolf said. Data from this study suggest that a subset of HR+/HER2- patients may also derive substantial benefit from this approach compared with standard chemotherapy.

“We and others have previously observed that a minority of ER+/HER2- breast cancers are enriched for tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes and that high levels of immune-related gene signatures associate with improved survival in this subtype, as well as in TNBC,” noted Dr. Wolf during an interview.

She explained that patients with high-risk ER+/HER2- breast cancer were not responding to any of the experimental agent classes tested in the trial and showed particularly poor outcomes, and that she and her colleagues “wanted to see if immune-oncology agents would impact response in these patients.”
 

ImPrint, an Immune Expression Signature

Preliminary data from the I-SPY2 trial showed that immune-related gene signatures were associated with pathologic complete response (pCR) in patients with HR+/HER2- breast cancer treated with immunotherapy. This observation allowed investigators to develop a clinically applicable immune classifier, termed ImPrint, to predict response to immunotherapy in this population.

This immune classifier is a 53-gene signature developed using data from the first anti–programmed death-1 (PD-1) arm that included patients treated with pembrolizumab, explained Dr. Wolf.
 

Performance of ImPrint in Patients With HR+/HER2- Breast Cancer

Dr. Wolf presented new data on the performance of ImPrint in 204 patients with high-risk HR+/HER2- breast cancer from the following five immunotherapy arms of the I-SPY2 trial, at the meeting. These arms included: anti–PD-1, anti–PDL-1 plus PARP inhibitor, anti–PD-1/TLR9 dual immunotherapy, and anti–PD-1 with or without LAG3 inhibitor. Data from 191 patients treated with the current standard of care (paclitaxel followed by adriamycin and cyclophosphamide cytoxan) were included in the analysis as a control.

The pCR in the entire population across these five immunotherapy arms was 33%. The response rate in the control arm was 13.5%.

“The high pCR in the immunotherapy groups is remarkable given the traditionally poor response of HR+/HER2- tumors to standard neoadjuvant chemotherapy,” said Ritu Aneja, PhD, the associate dean for research and innovation at the University of Alabama at Birmingham and a breast cancer expert, who was not involved in the I-SPY2 trial.

When patients were stratified according to ImPrint status, significant differences were observed among the groups. In this analysis, 28% of HR+/HER2- patients were classified as ImPrint positive (likely sensitive) based on ImPrint expression levels in pretreatment mRNA samples, and these individuals achieved pCR rates as high as 76% with immunotherapy.

In comparison, pCR rates were only 16% in ImPrint-negative (likely resistant) patients. The highest response rate was observed in the anti–PD-1/TLR9 dual immunotherapy arm, with a pCR rate of greater than 90% in ImPrint-positive patients. In the control arm, pCR rates were 33% in ImPrint-positive and 8% in ImPrint-negative patients.

“These results suggest that a subset of [patients with] high-risk HR+/HER2- breast cancers is highly sensitive to immunotherapy,” said Dr. Aneja in an interview. “By using a specific and sensitive selection strategy like ImPrint, we may be able to identify patients who can achieve pCR rates similar to what we see with the best neoadjuvant therapies in triple-negative and HER2-positive disease.”
 

Ability of ImPrint to Predict Long-Term Outcomes

During her talk, Dr. Wolf explained that she and her research team currently do not have sufficient follow-up data to assess the ability of ImPrint to predict long-term outcomes. Therefore, they used the pCR data to predict long-term disease-free survival (DRFS) outcomes. Based on their model, HR+/HER2-/ImPrint+ patients treated with immunotherapy were estimated to have a 91% 5-year DRFS rate, compared with 80% for those receiving standard chemotherapy alone. This represents a 52% reduction in the risk of disease recurrence.

“This suggests not only a higher immediate response rate to therapy but also potential long-term benefits for patients identified as ImPrint+,” Dr. Aneja said, commenting on the significance of the DRFS data, during the interview, She added that the ability to predict longer-term outcomes is a critical advantage in selecting the most effective treatment strategies for patients.
 

Comparison of ImPrint With Other Biomarkers

The investigators compared ImPrint to other potential biomarkers for immunotherapy response, including MammaPrint (ultra) High2 risk (MP2) and tumor grade. During her talk, Dr. Wolf showed data demonstrating that ImPrint is a more precise predictor of pCR, with higher response rates than either of those other markers.

The pCR rates for MP2 and grade III were 56% and 45%, respectively, which are much smaller than the pCR rates observed for ImPrint+ patients (75%).

“This difference underscores ImPrint’s effectiveness in distinguishing patients who could benefit from immunotherapy, offering a pCR prediction accuracy that is significantly higher than seen with other biomarkers that have been proposed as selection markers for neoadjuvant immunotherapy trials in HR+/HER2- breast cancers, such as MP2 and tumor grade,” said Dr. Aneja, during the interview.
 

Looking Ahead — Implementation of Imprint for Patient Selection

Dr. Aneja echoed that the findings from the I-SPY2 trial advocate for the integration of biomarker-driven approaches, particularly the use of the ImPrint classifier, into the treatment planning process for high-risk HR+/HER2- breast cancer.

“This approach can enable clinicians to identify patients who are more likely to benefit from immunotherapy, thus personalizing treatment strategies and potentially enhancing treatment efficacy while minimizing exposure to unnecessary toxicity for those unlikely to respond,” she said.

Dr. Aneja added that while the I-SPY2 trial offers promising data on ImPrint’s efficacy, additional prospective studies are needed to validate these findings across diverse patient populations and settings, as well as the correlation between biomarker positivity and long-term clinical outcomes, including DRFS and overall survival. “This will help to better understand the full spectrum of benefits provided by immunotherapies in biomarker-selected patient groups,” she said.

Dr. Wolf and Dr. Aneja reported no relationships with entities whose primary business is producing, marketing, selling, reselling, or distributing healthcare products used by or on patients.

SAN DIEGO — Using ImPrint, an immune-related biomarker, clinicians can identify patients with breast cancer who are likely to respond to neoadjuvant immunotherapy, according to data from the ongoing phase 2 I-SPY2 trial.

Patient selection based on ImPrint class can result in high response rates and spare nonresponders the toxicities of immunotherapy, said Denise M. Wolf, PhD, during her presentation of the study results at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR).

“Our results show that patients with ER+/HER2-/ImPrint+ breast cancer have a very high probability of achieving complete response to immunotherapy, whereas those who are ER+/HER2-/ImPrint- have a low probability of responding,” noted Dr. Wolf, PhD, MSc of the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), in an interview.

She added that, although effective, immunotherapy also carries the risk of serious immune-related toxicities, and knowledge of ImPrint class can help patients and physicians determine whether immunotherapy is a good treatment option. “Many patients will be willing to take the risk of immunotherapy toxicities if their odds of responding are very high, as is the case for ImPrint+ patients, but [are] likely less enthused with a low likelihood of response,” Dr. Wolf said during the interview.
 

Need for Predictive Biomarkers for Neoadjuvant Immunotherapy

Although neoadjuvant immunotherapy has become the standard treatment for patients with early-stage triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC), chemotherapy remains the mainstay of treatment for patients with hormone receptor–positive (HR+), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–negative (HER2-) breast cancer. The I-SPY2 clinical trial is the first randomized clinical study to assess the efficacy of immunotherapy in the high-risk population of patients with HR+/HER2-, Dr. Wolf said. Data from this study suggest that a subset of HR+/HER2- patients may also derive substantial benefit from this approach compared with standard chemotherapy.

“We and others have previously observed that a minority of ER+/HER2- breast cancers are enriched for tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes and that high levels of immune-related gene signatures associate with improved survival in this subtype, as well as in TNBC,” noted Dr. Wolf during an interview.

She explained that patients with high-risk ER+/HER2- breast cancer were not responding to any of the experimental agent classes tested in the trial and showed particularly poor outcomes, and that she and her colleagues “wanted to see if immune-oncology agents would impact response in these patients.”
 

ImPrint, an Immune Expression Signature

Preliminary data from the I-SPY2 trial showed that immune-related gene signatures were associated with pathologic complete response (pCR) in patients with HR+/HER2- breast cancer treated with immunotherapy. This observation allowed investigators to develop a clinically applicable immune classifier, termed ImPrint, to predict response to immunotherapy in this population.

This immune classifier is a 53-gene signature developed using data from the first anti–programmed death-1 (PD-1) arm that included patients treated with pembrolizumab, explained Dr. Wolf.
 

Performance of ImPrint in Patients With HR+/HER2- Breast Cancer

Dr. Wolf presented new data on the performance of ImPrint in 204 patients with high-risk HR+/HER2- breast cancer from the following five immunotherapy arms of the I-SPY2 trial, at the meeting. These arms included: anti–PD-1, anti–PDL-1 plus PARP inhibitor, anti–PD-1/TLR9 dual immunotherapy, and anti–PD-1 with or without LAG3 inhibitor. Data from 191 patients treated with the current standard of care (paclitaxel followed by adriamycin and cyclophosphamide cytoxan) were included in the analysis as a control.

The pCR in the entire population across these five immunotherapy arms was 33%. The response rate in the control arm was 13.5%.

“The high pCR in the immunotherapy groups is remarkable given the traditionally poor response of HR+/HER2- tumors to standard neoadjuvant chemotherapy,” said Ritu Aneja, PhD, the associate dean for research and innovation at the University of Alabama at Birmingham and a breast cancer expert, who was not involved in the I-SPY2 trial.

When patients were stratified according to ImPrint status, significant differences were observed among the groups. In this analysis, 28% of HR+/HER2- patients were classified as ImPrint positive (likely sensitive) based on ImPrint expression levels in pretreatment mRNA samples, and these individuals achieved pCR rates as high as 76% with immunotherapy.

In comparison, pCR rates were only 16% in ImPrint-negative (likely resistant) patients. The highest response rate was observed in the anti–PD-1/TLR9 dual immunotherapy arm, with a pCR rate of greater than 90% in ImPrint-positive patients. In the control arm, pCR rates were 33% in ImPrint-positive and 8% in ImPrint-negative patients.

“These results suggest that a subset of [patients with] high-risk HR+/HER2- breast cancers is highly sensitive to immunotherapy,” said Dr. Aneja in an interview. “By using a specific and sensitive selection strategy like ImPrint, we may be able to identify patients who can achieve pCR rates similar to what we see with the best neoadjuvant therapies in triple-negative and HER2-positive disease.”
 

Ability of ImPrint to Predict Long-Term Outcomes

During her talk, Dr. Wolf explained that she and her research team currently do not have sufficient follow-up data to assess the ability of ImPrint to predict long-term outcomes. Therefore, they used the pCR data to predict long-term disease-free survival (DRFS) outcomes. Based on their model, HR+/HER2-/ImPrint+ patients treated with immunotherapy were estimated to have a 91% 5-year DRFS rate, compared with 80% for those receiving standard chemotherapy alone. This represents a 52% reduction in the risk of disease recurrence.

“This suggests not only a higher immediate response rate to therapy but also potential long-term benefits for patients identified as ImPrint+,” Dr. Aneja said, commenting on the significance of the DRFS data, during the interview, She added that the ability to predict longer-term outcomes is a critical advantage in selecting the most effective treatment strategies for patients.
 

Comparison of ImPrint With Other Biomarkers

The investigators compared ImPrint to other potential biomarkers for immunotherapy response, including MammaPrint (ultra) High2 risk (MP2) and tumor grade. During her talk, Dr. Wolf showed data demonstrating that ImPrint is a more precise predictor of pCR, with higher response rates than either of those other markers.

The pCR rates for MP2 and grade III were 56% and 45%, respectively, which are much smaller than the pCR rates observed for ImPrint+ patients (75%).

“This difference underscores ImPrint’s effectiveness in distinguishing patients who could benefit from immunotherapy, offering a pCR prediction accuracy that is significantly higher than seen with other biomarkers that have been proposed as selection markers for neoadjuvant immunotherapy trials in HR+/HER2- breast cancers, such as MP2 and tumor grade,” said Dr. Aneja, during the interview.
 

Looking Ahead — Implementation of Imprint for Patient Selection

Dr. Aneja echoed that the findings from the I-SPY2 trial advocate for the integration of biomarker-driven approaches, particularly the use of the ImPrint classifier, into the treatment planning process for high-risk HR+/HER2- breast cancer.

“This approach can enable clinicians to identify patients who are more likely to benefit from immunotherapy, thus personalizing treatment strategies and potentially enhancing treatment efficacy while minimizing exposure to unnecessary toxicity for those unlikely to respond,” she said.

Dr. Aneja added that while the I-SPY2 trial offers promising data on ImPrint’s efficacy, additional prospective studies are needed to validate these findings across diverse patient populations and settings, as well as the correlation between biomarker positivity and long-term clinical outcomes, including DRFS and overall survival. “This will help to better understand the full spectrum of benefits provided by immunotherapies in biomarker-selected patient groups,” she said.

Dr. Wolf and Dr. Aneja reported no relationships with entities whose primary business is producing, marketing, selling, reselling, or distributing healthcare products used by or on patients.

SAN DIEGO — Using ImPrint, an immune-related biomarker, clinicians can identify patients with breast cancer who are likely to respond to neoadjuvant immunotherapy, according to data from the ongoing phase 2 I-SPY2 trial.

Patient selection based on ImPrint class can result in high response rates and spare nonresponders the toxicities of immunotherapy, said Denise M. Wolf, PhD, during her presentation of the study results at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR).

“Our results show that patients with ER+/HER2-/ImPrint+ breast cancer have a very high probability of achieving complete response to immunotherapy, whereas those who are ER+/HER2-/ImPrint- have a low probability of responding,” noted Dr. Wolf, PhD, MSc of the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), in an interview.

She added that, although effective, immunotherapy also carries the risk of serious immune-related toxicities, and knowledge of ImPrint class can help patients and physicians determine whether immunotherapy is a good treatment option. “Many patients will be willing to take the risk of immunotherapy toxicities if their odds of responding are very high, as is the case for ImPrint+ patients, but [are] likely less enthused with a low likelihood of response,” Dr. Wolf said during the interview.
 

Need for Predictive Biomarkers for Neoadjuvant Immunotherapy

Although neoadjuvant immunotherapy has become the standard treatment for patients with early-stage triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC), chemotherapy remains the mainstay of treatment for patients with hormone receptor–positive (HR+), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–negative (HER2-) breast cancer. The I-SPY2 clinical trial is the first randomized clinical study to assess the efficacy of immunotherapy in the high-risk population of patients with HR+/HER2-, Dr. Wolf said. Data from this study suggest that a subset of HR+/HER2- patients may also derive substantial benefit from this approach compared with standard chemotherapy.

“We and others have previously observed that a minority of ER+/HER2- breast cancers are enriched for tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes and that high levels of immune-related gene signatures associate with improved survival in this subtype, as well as in TNBC,” noted Dr. Wolf during an interview.

She explained that patients with high-risk ER+/HER2- breast cancer were not responding to any of the experimental agent classes tested in the trial and showed particularly poor outcomes, and that she and her colleagues “wanted to see if immune-oncology agents would impact response in these patients.”
 

ImPrint, an Immune Expression Signature

Preliminary data from the I-SPY2 trial showed that immune-related gene signatures were associated with pathologic complete response (pCR) in patients with HR+/HER2- breast cancer treated with immunotherapy. This observation allowed investigators to develop a clinically applicable immune classifier, termed ImPrint, to predict response to immunotherapy in this population.

This immune classifier is a 53-gene signature developed using data from the first anti–programmed death-1 (PD-1) arm that included patients treated with pembrolizumab, explained Dr. Wolf.
 

Performance of ImPrint in Patients With HR+/HER2- Breast Cancer

Dr. Wolf presented new data on the performance of ImPrint in 204 patients with high-risk HR+/HER2- breast cancer from the following five immunotherapy arms of the I-SPY2 trial, at the meeting. These arms included: anti–PD-1, anti–PDL-1 plus PARP inhibitor, anti–PD-1/TLR9 dual immunotherapy, and anti–PD-1 with or without LAG3 inhibitor. Data from 191 patients treated with the current standard of care (paclitaxel followed by adriamycin and cyclophosphamide cytoxan) were included in the analysis as a control.

The pCR in the entire population across these five immunotherapy arms was 33%. The response rate in the control arm was 13.5%.

“The high pCR in the immunotherapy groups is remarkable given the traditionally poor response of HR+/HER2- tumors to standard neoadjuvant chemotherapy,” said Ritu Aneja, PhD, the associate dean for research and innovation at the University of Alabama at Birmingham and a breast cancer expert, who was not involved in the I-SPY2 trial.

When patients were stratified according to ImPrint status, significant differences were observed among the groups. In this analysis, 28% of HR+/HER2- patients were classified as ImPrint positive (likely sensitive) based on ImPrint expression levels in pretreatment mRNA samples, and these individuals achieved pCR rates as high as 76% with immunotherapy.

In comparison, pCR rates were only 16% in ImPrint-negative (likely resistant) patients. The highest response rate was observed in the anti–PD-1/TLR9 dual immunotherapy arm, with a pCR rate of greater than 90% in ImPrint-positive patients. In the control arm, pCR rates were 33% in ImPrint-positive and 8% in ImPrint-negative patients.

“These results suggest that a subset of [patients with] high-risk HR+/HER2- breast cancers is highly sensitive to immunotherapy,” said Dr. Aneja in an interview. “By using a specific and sensitive selection strategy like ImPrint, we may be able to identify patients who can achieve pCR rates similar to what we see with the best neoadjuvant therapies in triple-negative and HER2-positive disease.”
 

Ability of ImPrint to Predict Long-Term Outcomes

During her talk, Dr. Wolf explained that she and her research team currently do not have sufficient follow-up data to assess the ability of ImPrint to predict long-term outcomes. Therefore, they used the pCR data to predict long-term disease-free survival (DRFS) outcomes. Based on their model, HR+/HER2-/ImPrint+ patients treated with immunotherapy were estimated to have a 91% 5-year DRFS rate, compared with 80% for those receiving standard chemotherapy alone. This represents a 52% reduction in the risk of disease recurrence.

“This suggests not only a higher immediate response rate to therapy but also potential long-term benefits for patients identified as ImPrint+,” Dr. Aneja said, commenting on the significance of the DRFS data, during the interview, She added that the ability to predict longer-term outcomes is a critical advantage in selecting the most effective treatment strategies for patients.
 

Comparison of ImPrint With Other Biomarkers

The investigators compared ImPrint to other potential biomarkers for immunotherapy response, including MammaPrint (ultra) High2 risk (MP2) and tumor grade. During her talk, Dr. Wolf showed data demonstrating that ImPrint is a more precise predictor of pCR, with higher response rates than either of those other markers.

The pCR rates for MP2 and grade III were 56% and 45%, respectively, which are much smaller than the pCR rates observed for ImPrint+ patients (75%).

“This difference underscores ImPrint’s effectiveness in distinguishing patients who could benefit from immunotherapy, offering a pCR prediction accuracy that is significantly higher than seen with other biomarkers that have been proposed as selection markers for neoadjuvant immunotherapy trials in HR+/HER2- breast cancers, such as MP2 and tumor grade,” said Dr. Aneja, during the interview.
 

Looking Ahead — Implementation of Imprint for Patient Selection

Dr. Aneja echoed that the findings from the I-SPY2 trial advocate for the integration of biomarker-driven approaches, particularly the use of the ImPrint classifier, into the treatment planning process for high-risk HR+/HER2- breast cancer.

“This approach can enable clinicians to identify patients who are more likely to benefit from immunotherapy, thus personalizing treatment strategies and potentially enhancing treatment efficacy while minimizing exposure to unnecessary toxicity for those unlikely to respond,” she said.

Dr. Aneja added that while the I-SPY2 trial offers promising data on ImPrint’s efficacy, additional prospective studies are needed to validate these findings across diverse patient populations and settings, as well as the correlation between biomarker positivity and long-term clinical outcomes, including DRFS and overall survival. “This will help to better understand the full spectrum of benefits provided by immunotherapies in biomarker-selected patient groups,” she said.

Dr. Wolf and Dr. Aneja reported no relationships with entities whose primary business is producing, marketing, selling, reselling, or distributing healthcare products used by or on patients.