User login
Acalabrutinib Combo Promising as Frontline Treatment for CLL
In fit, adult patients without del(17p) or TP53 mutations, the acalabrutinib-venetoclax combination, with or without obinutuzumab, demonstrated a statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in progression-free survival compared with a combination of fludarabine-cyclophosphamide-rituximab or bendamustine-rituximab, reported principal investigator Jennifer R. Brown, MD, PhD,who presented the results at the American Society of Hematology (ASH) 2024 Annual Meeting.
Patients with CLL have several frontline treatment options, which include chemoimmunotherapy for low-risk disease as well as venetoclax plus the first-generation BTK inhibitor ibrutinib.
While fixed-duration venetoclax plus ibrutinib can result in deep, durable responses, cardiac toxicity remains a concern, particularly in older patients, explained Brown, director of the CLL Center of the Division of Hematologic Malignancies, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts, during a press conference.
Acalabrutinib is a highly selective second-generation BTK inhibitor with improved safety and tolerability, compared with ibrutinib. Brown and colleagues wanted to see whether this second-generation BTK inhibitor alongside venetoclax provided a clinical benefit and fewer cardiac toxicities as a frontline option in this patient population.
“AMPLIFY provides the first phase 3 evidence of fixed-duration therapy with a combination of venetoclax and a second-generation BTK inhibitor in patients with treatment-naive CLL,” Brown said. And these results “show the promise of a new all-oral fixed-duration therapy approach, which would allow patients to take breaks from treatment, reducing the risk of long-term adverse events and drug resistance,” Brown, also from Harvard Medical School, Boston, added in a press release.
Study Details
AMPLIFY randomized 867 patients (median age, 61 years) to three treatment arms: Acalabrutinib in combination with venetoclax alone (n = 291), acalabrutinib and venetoclax with obinutuzumab (n = 286), or the investigator’s choice of chemoimmunotherapy — a combination of fludarabine-cyclophosphamide-rituximab or bendamustine-rituximab (n = 290). The median follow-up was 41 months.
Compared with 66.5% in the chemoimmunotherapy arm, 83.1% of patients in the acalabrutinib-venetoclax arm and 76.5% of the acalabrutinib-venetoclax-obinutuzumab arm reached the primary endpoint of 36-month progression-free survival (hazard ratios [HRs] of 0.65 and 0.42, respectively). Median progression-free survival was not reached in the two acalabrutinib arms, compared with 47.6 months in the chemotherapy arm.
More than half of all participants (58.6%) had unmutated immunoglobulin heavy-chain variable region gene (IGHV) status. In a subgroup analysis, patients on either acalabrutinib regimen experienced a significant improvement in progression-free survival compared with those on chemoimmunotherapy, regardless of IGHV status.
It was “particularly noticeable” in the acalabrutinib-venetoclax-obinutuzumab arm (HR, 0.35) that patients with unmutated IGHV were doing as well as those with mutated IGHV, “suggesting that the addition of obinutuzumab may overcome the adverse impact of unmutated IGHV,” Brown said.
Patients also demonstrated a robust response in both investigational arms with an overall response rate of 92.8% for acalabrutinib-venetoclax and 92.7% for acalabrutinib-venetoclax-obinutuzumab, compared with 75.2% for chemoimmunotherapy (P < .0001 for both).
In addition, compared with chemoimmunotherapy, acalabrutinib-venetoclax was associated with a significant improvement in overall survival (HR, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.18-0.56). Acalabrutinib-venetoclax-obinutuzumab was associated with better overall survival (HR, 0.78), but the findings were not statistically significant.
When considering COVID-19 deaths, overall survival findings were significant for both acalabrutinib regimens, Brown reported.
COVID-19 deaths were observed in 10 patients in the acalabrutinib-venetoclax arm, 25 in the acalabrutinib-venetoclax-obinutuzumab arm, and 21 in the chemoimmunotherapy arm.
In terms of safety, both acalabrutinib treatment regimens demonstrated “tolerable safety profiles with a low incidence of cardiac adverse events typically associated with BTK inhibitors, including atrial fibrillation or hypertension,” she reported.
Any serious adverse events were observed in 24.7% of the acalabrutinib-venetoclax patients, 38.4% of those receiving acalabrutinib-venetoclax-obinutuzumab, and 27.4% on chemoimmunotherapy. Serious adverse events leading to death occurred in 3.4%, 6.0%, and 3.5% of patients in the three groups, respectively, and adverse events leading to death occurred in about 8%, 20%, and 10.8%, respectively, of patients.
The most common adverse event was neutropenia, with grade 3 or higher neutropenia occurring in 32.3% of patients in the acalabrutinib-venetoclax arm and 46.1% in the acalabrutinib-venetoclax-obinutuzumab group, compared with 43.2% of patients with chemoimmunotherapy.
As for cardiac events, 9.3% of patients in the acalabrutinib-venetoclax group experienced an event of any grade compared with 12% in the acalabrutinib-venetoclax-obinutuzumab group and 3.5% in the chemoimmunotherapy group.
To Add or Not to Add Obinutuzumab
Asked how clinicians might decide between the two acalabrutinib regimens, Brown said, “if you add the obinutuzumab, it does add more work for the patient,” and it adds more toxicity.
But, she noted, it might optimize progression-free survival.
“I think when physicians are considering whether to use the two- or the three-drug regimen, they have to take account of the patient in front of them,” Brown said. “The acalabrutinib-venetoclax regimen is a very well-tolerated oral regimen, which is really going to be suitable for anyone, and I think, easy to use in the community.”
The fact that there were more COVID-19 deaths in the obinutuzumab arm, compared with the acalabrutinib-venetoclax arm, suggests more immunosuppression in the three-drug regimen, said session moderator Deborah M. Stephens, DO, associate professor of medicine and director of the Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia and Richter’s Program at the University of North Carolina School of Medicine in Chapel Hill.
This finding could “call into question whether acalabrutinib-venetoclax may have a better risk/benefit ratio when compared to acalabrutinib-venetoclax-obinutuzumab,” she wrote in an email.
Overall, “AMPLIFY is an important trial, and these data will likely be submitted to the US FDA and regulatory bodies of other involved countries to gain approval of the acalabrutinib + venetoclax +/− obinutuzumab regimen,” Stephens added.
“Notably, this is another in a string of phase 3 trials showing that survival is prolonged with targeted agents compared to chemoimmunotherapy,” indicating that standard chemoimmunotherapy “should be considered obsolete as a control arm for phase 3 studies in the frontline treatment of CLL,” said Stephens.
Alexey Danilov, MD, PhD, another CLL specialist from City of Hope, Duarte, California, who was also presenting at the press conference, said, “I don’t see a full justification to use the acalabrutinib-venetoclax-obinutuzumab regimen across the board in all patients, even though progression-free is better. I do think that, unfortunately, this benefit is offset by increased frequency of adverse events.”
Although it looks like “the majority of patients will be very good candidates for acalabrutinib-venetoclax, with impressive progression-free survival, I think we will still have to define who these patients are,” he added.
However, overall, he was enthusiastic. “This is anticipated to get approval as the first oral doublet front line therapy of CLL, and I think many patients do — in my clinic at least — prefer the idea of finite duration therapy to continuous BTK inhibitors.”
The study was funded by AstraZeneca. Brown disclosed consulting with Acerta/AstraZeneca, Genentech/Roche, AbbVie, and multiple other companies. Danilov disclosed consulting with AstraZeneca, Genentech, AbbVie, among others. Stephens had no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
In fit, adult patients without del(17p) or TP53 mutations, the acalabrutinib-venetoclax combination, with or without obinutuzumab, demonstrated a statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in progression-free survival compared with a combination of fludarabine-cyclophosphamide-rituximab or bendamustine-rituximab, reported principal investigator Jennifer R. Brown, MD, PhD,who presented the results at the American Society of Hematology (ASH) 2024 Annual Meeting.
Patients with CLL have several frontline treatment options, which include chemoimmunotherapy for low-risk disease as well as venetoclax plus the first-generation BTK inhibitor ibrutinib.
While fixed-duration venetoclax plus ibrutinib can result in deep, durable responses, cardiac toxicity remains a concern, particularly in older patients, explained Brown, director of the CLL Center of the Division of Hematologic Malignancies, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts, during a press conference.
Acalabrutinib is a highly selective second-generation BTK inhibitor with improved safety and tolerability, compared with ibrutinib. Brown and colleagues wanted to see whether this second-generation BTK inhibitor alongside venetoclax provided a clinical benefit and fewer cardiac toxicities as a frontline option in this patient population.
“AMPLIFY provides the first phase 3 evidence of fixed-duration therapy with a combination of venetoclax and a second-generation BTK inhibitor in patients with treatment-naive CLL,” Brown said. And these results “show the promise of a new all-oral fixed-duration therapy approach, which would allow patients to take breaks from treatment, reducing the risk of long-term adverse events and drug resistance,” Brown, also from Harvard Medical School, Boston, added in a press release.
Study Details
AMPLIFY randomized 867 patients (median age, 61 years) to three treatment arms: Acalabrutinib in combination with venetoclax alone (n = 291), acalabrutinib and venetoclax with obinutuzumab (n = 286), or the investigator’s choice of chemoimmunotherapy — a combination of fludarabine-cyclophosphamide-rituximab or bendamustine-rituximab (n = 290). The median follow-up was 41 months.
Compared with 66.5% in the chemoimmunotherapy arm, 83.1% of patients in the acalabrutinib-venetoclax arm and 76.5% of the acalabrutinib-venetoclax-obinutuzumab arm reached the primary endpoint of 36-month progression-free survival (hazard ratios [HRs] of 0.65 and 0.42, respectively). Median progression-free survival was not reached in the two acalabrutinib arms, compared with 47.6 months in the chemotherapy arm.
More than half of all participants (58.6%) had unmutated immunoglobulin heavy-chain variable region gene (IGHV) status. In a subgroup analysis, patients on either acalabrutinib regimen experienced a significant improvement in progression-free survival compared with those on chemoimmunotherapy, regardless of IGHV status.
It was “particularly noticeable” in the acalabrutinib-venetoclax-obinutuzumab arm (HR, 0.35) that patients with unmutated IGHV were doing as well as those with mutated IGHV, “suggesting that the addition of obinutuzumab may overcome the adverse impact of unmutated IGHV,” Brown said.
Patients also demonstrated a robust response in both investigational arms with an overall response rate of 92.8% for acalabrutinib-venetoclax and 92.7% for acalabrutinib-venetoclax-obinutuzumab, compared with 75.2% for chemoimmunotherapy (P < .0001 for both).
In addition, compared with chemoimmunotherapy, acalabrutinib-venetoclax was associated with a significant improvement in overall survival (HR, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.18-0.56). Acalabrutinib-venetoclax-obinutuzumab was associated with better overall survival (HR, 0.78), but the findings were not statistically significant.
When considering COVID-19 deaths, overall survival findings were significant for both acalabrutinib regimens, Brown reported.
COVID-19 deaths were observed in 10 patients in the acalabrutinib-venetoclax arm, 25 in the acalabrutinib-venetoclax-obinutuzumab arm, and 21 in the chemoimmunotherapy arm.
In terms of safety, both acalabrutinib treatment regimens demonstrated “tolerable safety profiles with a low incidence of cardiac adverse events typically associated with BTK inhibitors, including atrial fibrillation or hypertension,” she reported.
Any serious adverse events were observed in 24.7% of the acalabrutinib-venetoclax patients, 38.4% of those receiving acalabrutinib-venetoclax-obinutuzumab, and 27.4% on chemoimmunotherapy. Serious adverse events leading to death occurred in 3.4%, 6.0%, and 3.5% of patients in the three groups, respectively, and adverse events leading to death occurred in about 8%, 20%, and 10.8%, respectively, of patients.
The most common adverse event was neutropenia, with grade 3 or higher neutropenia occurring in 32.3% of patients in the acalabrutinib-venetoclax arm and 46.1% in the acalabrutinib-venetoclax-obinutuzumab group, compared with 43.2% of patients with chemoimmunotherapy.
As for cardiac events, 9.3% of patients in the acalabrutinib-venetoclax group experienced an event of any grade compared with 12% in the acalabrutinib-venetoclax-obinutuzumab group and 3.5% in the chemoimmunotherapy group.
To Add or Not to Add Obinutuzumab
Asked how clinicians might decide between the two acalabrutinib regimens, Brown said, “if you add the obinutuzumab, it does add more work for the patient,” and it adds more toxicity.
But, she noted, it might optimize progression-free survival.
“I think when physicians are considering whether to use the two- or the three-drug regimen, they have to take account of the patient in front of them,” Brown said. “The acalabrutinib-venetoclax regimen is a very well-tolerated oral regimen, which is really going to be suitable for anyone, and I think, easy to use in the community.”
The fact that there were more COVID-19 deaths in the obinutuzumab arm, compared with the acalabrutinib-venetoclax arm, suggests more immunosuppression in the three-drug regimen, said session moderator Deborah M. Stephens, DO, associate professor of medicine and director of the Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia and Richter’s Program at the University of North Carolina School of Medicine in Chapel Hill.
This finding could “call into question whether acalabrutinib-venetoclax may have a better risk/benefit ratio when compared to acalabrutinib-venetoclax-obinutuzumab,” she wrote in an email.
Overall, “AMPLIFY is an important trial, and these data will likely be submitted to the US FDA and regulatory bodies of other involved countries to gain approval of the acalabrutinib + venetoclax +/− obinutuzumab regimen,” Stephens added.
“Notably, this is another in a string of phase 3 trials showing that survival is prolonged with targeted agents compared to chemoimmunotherapy,” indicating that standard chemoimmunotherapy “should be considered obsolete as a control arm for phase 3 studies in the frontline treatment of CLL,” said Stephens.
Alexey Danilov, MD, PhD, another CLL specialist from City of Hope, Duarte, California, who was also presenting at the press conference, said, “I don’t see a full justification to use the acalabrutinib-venetoclax-obinutuzumab regimen across the board in all patients, even though progression-free is better. I do think that, unfortunately, this benefit is offset by increased frequency of adverse events.”
Although it looks like “the majority of patients will be very good candidates for acalabrutinib-venetoclax, with impressive progression-free survival, I think we will still have to define who these patients are,” he added.
However, overall, he was enthusiastic. “This is anticipated to get approval as the first oral doublet front line therapy of CLL, and I think many patients do — in my clinic at least — prefer the idea of finite duration therapy to continuous BTK inhibitors.”
The study was funded by AstraZeneca. Brown disclosed consulting with Acerta/AstraZeneca, Genentech/Roche, AbbVie, and multiple other companies. Danilov disclosed consulting with AstraZeneca, Genentech, AbbVie, among others. Stephens had no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
In fit, adult patients without del(17p) or TP53 mutations, the acalabrutinib-venetoclax combination, with or without obinutuzumab, demonstrated a statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in progression-free survival compared with a combination of fludarabine-cyclophosphamide-rituximab or bendamustine-rituximab, reported principal investigator Jennifer R. Brown, MD, PhD,who presented the results at the American Society of Hematology (ASH) 2024 Annual Meeting.
Patients with CLL have several frontline treatment options, which include chemoimmunotherapy for low-risk disease as well as venetoclax plus the first-generation BTK inhibitor ibrutinib.
While fixed-duration venetoclax plus ibrutinib can result in deep, durable responses, cardiac toxicity remains a concern, particularly in older patients, explained Brown, director of the CLL Center of the Division of Hematologic Malignancies, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts, during a press conference.
Acalabrutinib is a highly selective second-generation BTK inhibitor with improved safety and tolerability, compared with ibrutinib. Brown and colleagues wanted to see whether this second-generation BTK inhibitor alongside venetoclax provided a clinical benefit and fewer cardiac toxicities as a frontline option in this patient population.
“AMPLIFY provides the first phase 3 evidence of fixed-duration therapy with a combination of venetoclax and a second-generation BTK inhibitor in patients with treatment-naive CLL,” Brown said. And these results “show the promise of a new all-oral fixed-duration therapy approach, which would allow patients to take breaks from treatment, reducing the risk of long-term adverse events and drug resistance,” Brown, also from Harvard Medical School, Boston, added in a press release.
Study Details
AMPLIFY randomized 867 patients (median age, 61 years) to three treatment arms: Acalabrutinib in combination with venetoclax alone (n = 291), acalabrutinib and venetoclax with obinutuzumab (n = 286), or the investigator’s choice of chemoimmunotherapy — a combination of fludarabine-cyclophosphamide-rituximab or bendamustine-rituximab (n = 290). The median follow-up was 41 months.
Compared with 66.5% in the chemoimmunotherapy arm, 83.1% of patients in the acalabrutinib-venetoclax arm and 76.5% of the acalabrutinib-venetoclax-obinutuzumab arm reached the primary endpoint of 36-month progression-free survival (hazard ratios [HRs] of 0.65 and 0.42, respectively). Median progression-free survival was not reached in the two acalabrutinib arms, compared with 47.6 months in the chemotherapy arm.
More than half of all participants (58.6%) had unmutated immunoglobulin heavy-chain variable region gene (IGHV) status. In a subgroup analysis, patients on either acalabrutinib regimen experienced a significant improvement in progression-free survival compared with those on chemoimmunotherapy, regardless of IGHV status.
It was “particularly noticeable” in the acalabrutinib-venetoclax-obinutuzumab arm (HR, 0.35) that patients with unmutated IGHV were doing as well as those with mutated IGHV, “suggesting that the addition of obinutuzumab may overcome the adverse impact of unmutated IGHV,” Brown said.
Patients also demonstrated a robust response in both investigational arms with an overall response rate of 92.8% for acalabrutinib-venetoclax and 92.7% for acalabrutinib-venetoclax-obinutuzumab, compared with 75.2% for chemoimmunotherapy (P < .0001 for both).
In addition, compared with chemoimmunotherapy, acalabrutinib-venetoclax was associated with a significant improvement in overall survival (HR, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.18-0.56). Acalabrutinib-venetoclax-obinutuzumab was associated with better overall survival (HR, 0.78), but the findings were not statistically significant.
When considering COVID-19 deaths, overall survival findings were significant for both acalabrutinib regimens, Brown reported.
COVID-19 deaths were observed in 10 patients in the acalabrutinib-venetoclax arm, 25 in the acalabrutinib-venetoclax-obinutuzumab arm, and 21 in the chemoimmunotherapy arm.
In terms of safety, both acalabrutinib treatment regimens demonstrated “tolerable safety profiles with a low incidence of cardiac adverse events typically associated with BTK inhibitors, including atrial fibrillation or hypertension,” she reported.
Any serious adverse events were observed in 24.7% of the acalabrutinib-venetoclax patients, 38.4% of those receiving acalabrutinib-venetoclax-obinutuzumab, and 27.4% on chemoimmunotherapy. Serious adverse events leading to death occurred in 3.4%, 6.0%, and 3.5% of patients in the three groups, respectively, and adverse events leading to death occurred in about 8%, 20%, and 10.8%, respectively, of patients.
The most common adverse event was neutropenia, with grade 3 or higher neutropenia occurring in 32.3% of patients in the acalabrutinib-venetoclax arm and 46.1% in the acalabrutinib-venetoclax-obinutuzumab group, compared with 43.2% of patients with chemoimmunotherapy.
As for cardiac events, 9.3% of patients in the acalabrutinib-venetoclax group experienced an event of any grade compared with 12% in the acalabrutinib-venetoclax-obinutuzumab group and 3.5% in the chemoimmunotherapy group.
To Add or Not to Add Obinutuzumab
Asked how clinicians might decide between the two acalabrutinib regimens, Brown said, “if you add the obinutuzumab, it does add more work for the patient,” and it adds more toxicity.
But, she noted, it might optimize progression-free survival.
“I think when physicians are considering whether to use the two- or the three-drug regimen, they have to take account of the patient in front of them,” Brown said. “The acalabrutinib-venetoclax regimen is a very well-tolerated oral regimen, which is really going to be suitable for anyone, and I think, easy to use in the community.”
The fact that there were more COVID-19 deaths in the obinutuzumab arm, compared with the acalabrutinib-venetoclax arm, suggests more immunosuppression in the three-drug regimen, said session moderator Deborah M. Stephens, DO, associate professor of medicine and director of the Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia and Richter’s Program at the University of North Carolina School of Medicine in Chapel Hill.
This finding could “call into question whether acalabrutinib-venetoclax may have a better risk/benefit ratio when compared to acalabrutinib-venetoclax-obinutuzumab,” she wrote in an email.
Overall, “AMPLIFY is an important trial, and these data will likely be submitted to the US FDA and regulatory bodies of other involved countries to gain approval of the acalabrutinib + venetoclax +/− obinutuzumab regimen,” Stephens added.
“Notably, this is another in a string of phase 3 trials showing that survival is prolonged with targeted agents compared to chemoimmunotherapy,” indicating that standard chemoimmunotherapy “should be considered obsolete as a control arm for phase 3 studies in the frontline treatment of CLL,” said Stephens.
Alexey Danilov, MD, PhD, another CLL specialist from City of Hope, Duarte, California, who was also presenting at the press conference, said, “I don’t see a full justification to use the acalabrutinib-venetoclax-obinutuzumab regimen across the board in all patients, even though progression-free is better. I do think that, unfortunately, this benefit is offset by increased frequency of adverse events.”
Although it looks like “the majority of patients will be very good candidates for acalabrutinib-venetoclax, with impressive progression-free survival, I think we will still have to define who these patients are,” he added.
However, overall, he was enthusiastic. “This is anticipated to get approval as the first oral doublet front line therapy of CLL, and I think many patients do — in my clinic at least — prefer the idea of finite duration therapy to continuous BTK inhibitors.”
The study was funded by AstraZeneca. Brown disclosed consulting with Acerta/AstraZeneca, Genentech/Roche, AbbVie, and multiple other companies. Danilov disclosed consulting with AstraZeneca, Genentech, AbbVie, among others. Stephens had no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM ASH 2024
New Cancer Drugs: Do Patients Prefer Faster Access or Clinical Benefit?
When the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) grants cancer drugs accelerated approval, a key aim is to provide patients faster access to therapies that can benefit them.
The downside of a speedier approval timeline, however, is that it’s often not yet clear whether the new drugs will actually allow a patient to live longer or better. Information on overall survival and quality of life typically comes years later, after drugs undergo confirmatory trials, or sometimes not at all, if companies fail to conduct these trials.
During this waiting period, patients may be receiving a cancer drug that provides no real clinical benefit but comes with a host of toxicities.
In fact, the odds are about as good as a coin flip. For cancer drugs that have confirmatory trial data, more than half don’t ultimately provide an overall survival or quality of life benefit.
Inherent to the accelerated approval process is the assumption that patients are willing to accept this uncertainty in exchange for faster access.
But is that really the case?
The researchers asked about 870 adults with experience of cancer challenges — either their own cancer diagnosis or that of family or a close friend — whether they valued faster access or certainty that a drug really works.
In the study, participants imagined they had been diagnosed with cancer and could choose between two cancer drugs under investigation in clinical trials but with uncertain effectiveness, and a current standard treatment. Participants had to make a series of choices based on five scenarios.
The first two scenarios were based on the impact of the current standard treatment: A patient’s life expectancy on the standard treatment (6 months up to 3 years), and a patient’s physical health on the standard treatment (functional status restricted only during strenuous activities up to completely disabled).
The remaining three scenarios dealt with the two new drugs: The effect of the new drugs on a surrogate endpoint, progression-free survival (whether the drugs slowed tumor growth for an extra month or 5 additional months compared with the standard treatment), certainty that slowing tumor growth will improve survival (very low to high), and the wait time to access the drugs (immediately to as long as 2 years).
The researchers assessed the relative importance of survival benefit certainty vs wait time and how that balance shifted depending on the different scenarios.
Overall, the researchers found that, if there was no evidence linking the surrogate endpoint (progression-free survival) to overall survival, patients were willing to wait about 8 months for weak evidence of an overall survival benefit (ie, low certainty the drug will extend survival by 1-5 months), about 16 months for moderate certainty, and almost 22 months for high certainty.
Despite a willingness to wait for greater certainty, participants did value speed as well. Overall, respondents showed a strong preference against a 1-year delay in FDA approval time. People who were aged 55 years or more and were non-White individuals made less than $40,000 year as well as those with the lowest life expectancy on a current standard treatment were most sensitive to wait times while those with better functional status and longer life expectancies on a current treatment were less sensitive to longer wait times.
“Our results indicate that some patients (except those with the poorest prognoses) would find the additional time required to generate evidence on the survival benefit of new cancer drugs an acceptable tradeoff,” the study authors concluded.
Although people do place high value on timely access to new cancer drugs, especially if there are limited treatment options, many are willing to wait for greater certainty that a new drug provides an overall survival benefit, lead author Robin Forrest, MSc, with the Department of Health Policy, London School of Economics in England, said in an interview.
In the study, respondents also did not place significant value on whether the drug substantially slowed cancer growth. “In other words, substantial progression-free survival benefit of a drug did not compensate for lack of certainty about a drug’s benefit on survival in respondents’ drug choices,” the authors explained.
“In an effort to move quickly, we have accepted progression-free survival [as a surrogate endpoint],” Jyoti D. Patel, MD, oncologist with Northwestern Memorial Hospital, Chicago, Illinois, who wasn’t involved in the study. But a growing body of evidence indicates that progression-free survival is often a poor surrogate for overall survival. And what this study suggests is that “patients uniformly care about improvements in overall survival and the quality of that survival,” Patel said.
Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, was not surprised by the findings.
“I always thought this was the real-world scenario, but the problem is the voices of ordinary patients are not heard,” Gyawali, with Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada, who also wasn’t involved in the study, said in an interview.
“What is heard is the loud noise of ‘we need access now, today, yesterday’ — ‘we don’t care if the drug doesn’t improve overall survival, we just need a drug, any drug’ — ‘we don’t care how much it costs, we need access today,’ ” Gyawali said. “Not saying this is wrong, but this is not the representation of all patients.”
However, the voices of patients who are more cautious and want evidence of benefit before accepting toxicities don’t make headlines, he added.
What this survey means from a policy perspective, said Gyawali, is that accelerated approvals that do not mandate survival endpoint in confirmatory trials are ignoring the need of many patients who prioritize certainty of benefit over speed of access.
The study was funded by the London School of Economics and Political Science Phelan United States Centre. Forrest had no relevant disclosures. Gyawali has received consulting fees from Vivio Health. Patel has various relationships with AbbVie, Anheart, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Guardant, Tempus, Sanofi, BluePrint, Takeda, and Gilead.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
When the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) grants cancer drugs accelerated approval, a key aim is to provide patients faster access to therapies that can benefit them.
The downside of a speedier approval timeline, however, is that it’s often not yet clear whether the new drugs will actually allow a patient to live longer or better. Information on overall survival and quality of life typically comes years later, after drugs undergo confirmatory trials, or sometimes not at all, if companies fail to conduct these trials.
During this waiting period, patients may be receiving a cancer drug that provides no real clinical benefit but comes with a host of toxicities.
In fact, the odds are about as good as a coin flip. For cancer drugs that have confirmatory trial data, more than half don’t ultimately provide an overall survival or quality of life benefit.
Inherent to the accelerated approval process is the assumption that patients are willing to accept this uncertainty in exchange for faster access.
But is that really the case?
The researchers asked about 870 adults with experience of cancer challenges — either their own cancer diagnosis or that of family or a close friend — whether they valued faster access or certainty that a drug really works.
In the study, participants imagined they had been diagnosed with cancer and could choose between two cancer drugs under investigation in clinical trials but with uncertain effectiveness, and a current standard treatment. Participants had to make a series of choices based on five scenarios.
The first two scenarios were based on the impact of the current standard treatment: A patient’s life expectancy on the standard treatment (6 months up to 3 years), and a patient’s physical health on the standard treatment (functional status restricted only during strenuous activities up to completely disabled).
The remaining three scenarios dealt with the two new drugs: The effect of the new drugs on a surrogate endpoint, progression-free survival (whether the drugs slowed tumor growth for an extra month or 5 additional months compared with the standard treatment), certainty that slowing tumor growth will improve survival (very low to high), and the wait time to access the drugs (immediately to as long as 2 years).
The researchers assessed the relative importance of survival benefit certainty vs wait time and how that balance shifted depending on the different scenarios.
Overall, the researchers found that, if there was no evidence linking the surrogate endpoint (progression-free survival) to overall survival, patients were willing to wait about 8 months for weak evidence of an overall survival benefit (ie, low certainty the drug will extend survival by 1-5 months), about 16 months for moderate certainty, and almost 22 months for high certainty.
Despite a willingness to wait for greater certainty, participants did value speed as well. Overall, respondents showed a strong preference against a 1-year delay in FDA approval time. People who were aged 55 years or more and were non-White individuals made less than $40,000 year as well as those with the lowest life expectancy on a current standard treatment were most sensitive to wait times while those with better functional status and longer life expectancies on a current treatment were less sensitive to longer wait times.
“Our results indicate that some patients (except those with the poorest prognoses) would find the additional time required to generate evidence on the survival benefit of new cancer drugs an acceptable tradeoff,” the study authors concluded.
Although people do place high value on timely access to new cancer drugs, especially if there are limited treatment options, many are willing to wait for greater certainty that a new drug provides an overall survival benefit, lead author Robin Forrest, MSc, with the Department of Health Policy, London School of Economics in England, said in an interview.
In the study, respondents also did not place significant value on whether the drug substantially slowed cancer growth. “In other words, substantial progression-free survival benefit of a drug did not compensate for lack of certainty about a drug’s benefit on survival in respondents’ drug choices,” the authors explained.
“In an effort to move quickly, we have accepted progression-free survival [as a surrogate endpoint],” Jyoti D. Patel, MD, oncologist with Northwestern Memorial Hospital, Chicago, Illinois, who wasn’t involved in the study. But a growing body of evidence indicates that progression-free survival is often a poor surrogate for overall survival. And what this study suggests is that “patients uniformly care about improvements in overall survival and the quality of that survival,” Patel said.
Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, was not surprised by the findings.
“I always thought this was the real-world scenario, but the problem is the voices of ordinary patients are not heard,” Gyawali, with Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada, who also wasn’t involved in the study, said in an interview.
“What is heard is the loud noise of ‘we need access now, today, yesterday’ — ‘we don’t care if the drug doesn’t improve overall survival, we just need a drug, any drug’ — ‘we don’t care how much it costs, we need access today,’ ” Gyawali said. “Not saying this is wrong, but this is not the representation of all patients.”
However, the voices of patients who are more cautious and want evidence of benefit before accepting toxicities don’t make headlines, he added.
What this survey means from a policy perspective, said Gyawali, is that accelerated approvals that do not mandate survival endpoint in confirmatory trials are ignoring the need of many patients who prioritize certainty of benefit over speed of access.
The study was funded by the London School of Economics and Political Science Phelan United States Centre. Forrest had no relevant disclosures. Gyawali has received consulting fees from Vivio Health. Patel has various relationships with AbbVie, Anheart, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Guardant, Tempus, Sanofi, BluePrint, Takeda, and Gilead.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
When the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) grants cancer drugs accelerated approval, a key aim is to provide patients faster access to therapies that can benefit them.
The downside of a speedier approval timeline, however, is that it’s often not yet clear whether the new drugs will actually allow a patient to live longer or better. Information on overall survival and quality of life typically comes years later, after drugs undergo confirmatory trials, or sometimes not at all, if companies fail to conduct these trials.
During this waiting period, patients may be receiving a cancer drug that provides no real clinical benefit but comes with a host of toxicities.
In fact, the odds are about as good as a coin flip. For cancer drugs that have confirmatory trial data, more than half don’t ultimately provide an overall survival or quality of life benefit.
Inherent to the accelerated approval process is the assumption that patients are willing to accept this uncertainty in exchange for faster access.
But is that really the case?
The researchers asked about 870 adults with experience of cancer challenges — either their own cancer diagnosis or that of family or a close friend — whether they valued faster access or certainty that a drug really works.
In the study, participants imagined they had been diagnosed with cancer and could choose between two cancer drugs under investigation in clinical trials but with uncertain effectiveness, and a current standard treatment. Participants had to make a series of choices based on five scenarios.
The first two scenarios were based on the impact of the current standard treatment: A patient’s life expectancy on the standard treatment (6 months up to 3 years), and a patient’s physical health on the standard treatment (functional status restricted only during strenuous activities up to completely disabled).
The remaining three scenarios dealt with the two new drugs: The effect of the new drugs on a surrogate endpoint, progression-free survival (whether the drugs slowed tumor growth for an extra month or 5 additional months compared with the standard treatment), certainty that slowing tumor growth will improve survival (very low to high), and the wait time to access the drugs (immediately to as long as 2 years).
The researchers assessed the relative importance of survival benefit certainty vs wait time and how that balance shifted depending on the different scenarios.
Overall, the researchers found that, if there was no evidence linking the surrogate endpoint (progression-free survival) to overall survival, patients were willing to wait about 8 months for weak evidence of an overall survival benefit (ie, low certainty the drug will extend survival by 1-5 months), about 16 months for moderate certainty, and almost 22 months for high certainty.
Despite a willingness to wait for greater certainty, participants did value speed as well. Overall, respondents showed a strong preference against a 1-year delay in FDA approval time. People who were aged 55 years or more and were non-White individuals made less than $40,000 year as well as those with the lowest life expectancy on a current standard treatment were most sensitive to wait times while those with better functional status and longer life expectancies on a current treatment were less sensitive to longer wait times.
“Our results indicate that some patients (except those with the poorest prognoses) would find the additional time required to generate evidence on the survival benefit of new cancer drugs an acceptable tradeoff,” the study authors concluded.
Although people do place high value on timely access to new cancer drugs, especially if there are limited treatment options, many are willing to wait for greater certainty that a new drug provides an overall survival benefit, lead author Robin Forrest, MSc, with the Department of Health Policy, London School of Economics in England, said in an interview.
In the study, respondents also did not place significant value on whether the drug substantially slowed cancer growth. “In other words, substantial progression-free survival benefit of a drug did not compensate for lack of certainty about a drug’s benefit on survival in respondents’ drug choices,” the authors explained.
“In an effort to move quickly, we have accepted progression-free survival [as a surrogate endpoint],” Jyoti D. Patel, MD, oncologist with Northwestern Memorial Hospital, Chicago, Illinois, who wasn’t involved in the study. But a growing body of evidence indicates that progression-free survival is often a poor surrogate for overall survival. And what this study suggests is that “patients uniformly care about improvements in overall survival and the quality of that survival,” Patel said.
Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, was not surprised by the findings.
“I always thought this was the real-world scenario, but the problem is the voices of ordinary patients are not heard,” Gyawali, with Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada, who also wasn’t involved in the study, said in an interview.
“What is heard is the loud noise of ‘we need access now, today, yesterday’ — ‘we don’t care if the drug doesn’t improve overall survival, we just need a drug, any drug’ — ‘we don’t care how much it costs, we need access today,’ ” Gyawali said. “Not saying this is wrong, but this is not the representation of all patients.”
However, the voices of patients who are more cautious and want evidence of benefit before accepting toxicities don’t make headlines, he added.
What this survey means from a policy perspective, said Gyawali, is that accelerated approvals that do not mandate survival endpoint in confirmatory trials are ignoring the need of many patients who prioritize certainty of benefit over speed of access.
The study was funded by the London School of Economics and Political Science Phelan United States Centre. Forrest had no relevant disclosures. Gyawali has received consulting fees from Vivio Health. Patel has various relationships with AbbVie, Anheart, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Guardant, Tempus, Sanofi, BluePrint, Takeda, and Gilead.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM THE LANCET ONCOLOGY
High-Fiber Diet Linked to Improved Stem Cell Transplant, GvHD Outcomes
Importantly, the findings suggest standard recommendations for patients of a low-fiber diet following allo-HCT may run counter to the potential benefits.
“Significant decrease of fiber intake during transplantation is detrimental. It’s a lost opportunity to promote a healthy gut microbiome, recover from treatment-related microbiota injury, and protect against GVHD,” first author Jenny Paredes, PhD, a staff scientist at City of Hope National Medical Center in Duarte, California, said in a press statement for the study presented at the American Society of Hematology (ASH) 2024 Annual Meeting.
Although the health benefits of dietary fiber on the gut microbiome are well-documented, the effects have recently been shown to extend to outcomes after allo-HCT in general, with researchers finding increased overall survival when there is higher diversity in the gut microbiome, including a higher abundance of butyrate producers and lower abundance of enterococcus, explained Paredes when presenting the findings.
Acute GvHD, a common and potentially life-threatening complication of allo-HCT, can have symptoms that mimic irritable bowel disease (IBD), including abdominal pain or cramps, nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea. The low-fiber diet recommendations, including avoidance of raw vegetables and fruits before and after the allo-HCT procedure, are designed to counter those effects, as well as reduce exposure to bacteria.
However, with data suggesting the potential benefits of dietary fiber could extend to the prevention of GvHD, Paredes and colleagues further investigated.
For the observational study, they evaluated all dietary data on 173 allo-HCT recipients at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) from 10 days prior to transplantation to 30 days post-transplantation, representing 3837 patient-days in total.
Data collected from the patients also included rRNA sequencing of fecal samples and fecal short-chain fatty acid concentration.
Participants had a median age of 60, and 45% were female. The most common diseases being treated were leukemia (50%), myelodysplastic syndrome (25%), and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (8.7%).
After stratifying patients based on high- or low-fiber intake, those with high-fiber intake were found to have significantly higher rates of microbial α-diversity (P = .009), a higher abundance of butyrate producers (P = .03), and a higher concentration of butyrate (P = .02), a short-chain fatty acid that plays a key role in gut health.
Furthermore, the high-fiber group had significantly higher overall survival in an analysis extending to 24 months relative to day 12 of the study (P = .04).
Focusing on GvHD outcomes, the authors further evaluated data on 101 non-T-cell–depleted patients, and identified 29 patients without GvHD and 24 who developed lower gastrointestinal (GI) GvHD.
Patients with lower GI GvHD had significantly lower fecal concentrations of butyrate (P = .03) and acetate (P = .02).
However, patients among those in the high-fiber intake group had a significantly lower cumulative incidence of developing GvHD at day 100 (P = .034) and a lower incidence of lower GI GvHD (P = .04).
A separate preclinical analysis of a mouse model with GvHD further showed that a fiber-rich diet (12% cellulose) significantly increased the expression of genes associated with reduced GvHD, including IDO1 and CEACAM1, and those associated with enrichment of the bile acid pathway.
The findings suggest an opportunity to improve outcomes with relatively small dietary changes, Paredes said.
“Strategies to increase the fiber concentration in these diets paired with the safety that these patients need is what makes this study exciting,” she said in an interview.
“Increasing the fiber intake by 10 to 20 grams/day could potentially increase the microbiome diversity and abundance of butyrate producers, which have been correlated with higher overall survival rates post allo-HCT,” she continued.
“[For instance], that could be an avocado per day, or it could be a small salad per day, or a small vegetable soup per day,” she added. “I would encourage institutions to re-evaluate their menu planning and see how to include more fiber into the meals in a safe way.”
Ultimately, “I think that a dietary intervention outweighs the risks of a pharmacological intervention,” Paredes added.
The necessary duration of a high-fiber diet to produce the beneficial effects on allo-HCT outcomes would likely be over the course of the pre- and post-transplant periods, Paredes added.
“With the survival analysis extending from 5 days before transplantation to 12 days post, we are looking at an intervention that potentially could be around 20 days,” she said.
“We would love to take advantage of the pretransplantation window, in particular, and we can see that just increasing the fiber intake by about 20 grams during this window was shown to improve overall survival after 24 months,” Paredes added.
Importantly, however, some patients may not be appropriate for high-fiber dietary changes, Paredes cautioned.
“Patients that have developed IBD-like symptoms and severe GvHD patients, for example, or with lower GI-GvHD grades 3 and 4 would be not appropriate candidates for a high-fiber diet,” she said.
High-Fiber Diet Slows MM Disease Progression?
The potential important benefits of a high-fiber diet in blood diseases were further demonstrated in a separate study also by MSKCC researchers presented at the meeting, which showed encouraging signs that a plant-based diet rich in fiber could potentially slow disease progression in multiple myeloma (MM).
NUTRIVENTION included 20 patients with the two precancerous MM conditions, monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance (MGUS) and smoldering multiple myeloma (SMM), which can last for years without progressing to MM and which researchers have speculated could be a potential opportunity to intervene to prevent progression to cancer.
Patients were provided with a 12-week controlled diet plus health coaching for another 3 months; no meals or coaching were provided for the rest of the 1-year study period. Participants had a median age of 62 and, with being overweight/obesity a risk factor for MM, had a body mass index (BMI) of 25 kg/m2 or higher.
The trial met its endpoint of feasibility, with 91% adherence in the first 3 months. The rate of consumption of unprocessed plant foods increased from 20% at baseline to 92% on the intervention. Overall adherence was 58%. Insulin and anti-inflammatory markers also improved and, despite no calorie restriction, there was a 7% sustained reduction in BMI.
Notably, two patients in the study had stabilization of disease progression.
“We saw improvements in all spheres, including metabolism, microbiome, and immune system markers, and we also saw that two patients with progressive disease had the progression stabilize and slow down on the intervention,” principal investigator Urvi A. Shah, MD, said in a press statement.
“Even though it’s just two cases, to our knowledge, it has not been shown before in an intervention setting that you can improve diet and lifestyle and actually slow or change the trajectory of the disease,” she noted.
The researchers caution that findings in mice do not necessarily translate to humans but note another experiment in mice with SMM that showed animals fed a normal diet had progression to MM after a median of 12 weeks, compared with a median of 30 weeks among those fed a high-fiber diet.
Notably, all mice in the normal-diet group progressed to MM, whereas 40% of mice in the high-fiber group did not.
“We found that a high-fiber plant-based diet can improve BMI, improve insulin resistance [and] the microbiome through diversity and butyrate producers, and with the production of short-chain fatty acids, can have effects on inflammation, immunity, innate and adaptive antitumor immunity, and tumor cells or plasma cells,” Shah said during her presentation.
The study was supported by funding from the National Cancer Institute and private foundations. Paredes has reported no relevant financial relationships. Shah has reported relationships with Sanofi, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Janssen.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Importantly, the findings suggest standard recommendations for patients of a low-fiber diet following allo-HCT may run counter to the potential benefits.
“Significant decrease of fiber intake during transplantation is detrimental. It’s a lost opportunity to promote a healthy gut microbiome, recover from treatment-related microbiota injury, and protect against GVHD,” first author Jenny Paredes, PhD, a staff scientist at City of Hope National Medical Center in Duarte, California, said in a press statement for the study presented at the American Society of Hematology (ASH) 2024 Annual Meeting.
Although the health benefits of dietary fiber on the gut microbiome are well-documented, the effects have recently been shown to extend to outcomes after allo-HCT in general, with researchers finding increased overall survival when there is higher diversity in the gut microbiome, including a higher abundance of butyrate producers and lower abundance of enterococcus, explained Paredes when presenting the findings.
Acute GvHD, a common and potentially life-threatening complication of allo-HCT, can have symptoms that mimic irritable bowel disease (IBD), including abdominal pain or cramps, nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea. The low-fiber diet recommendations, including avoidance of raw vegetables and fruits before and after the allo-HCT procedure, are designed to counter those effects, as well as reduce exposure to bacteria.
However, with data suggesting the potential benefits of dietary fiber could extend to the prevention of GvHD, Paredes and colleagues further investigated.
For the observational study, they evaluated all dietary data on 173 allo-HCT recipients at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) from 10 days prior to transplantation to 30 days post-transplantation, representing 3837 patient-days in total.
Data collected from the patients also included rRNA sequencing of fecal samples and fecal short-chain fatty acid concentration.
Participants had a median age of 60, and 45% were female. The most common diseases being treated were leukemia (50%), myelodysplastic syndrome (25%), and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (8.7%).
After stratifying patients based on high- or low-fiber intake, those with high-fiber intake were found to have significantly higher rates of microbial α-diversity (P = .009), a higher abundance of butyrate producers (P = .03), and a higher concentration of butyrate (P = .02), a short-chain fatty acid that plays a key role in gut health.
Furthermore, the high-fiber group had significantly higher overall survival in an analysis extending to 24 months relative to day 12 of the study (P = .04).
Focusing on GvHD outcomes, the authors further evaluated data on 101 non-T-cell–depleted patients, and identified 29 patients without GvHD and 24 who developed lower gastrointestinal (GI) GvHD.
Patients with lower GI GvHD had significantly lower fecal concentrations of butyrate (P = .03) and acetate (P = .02).
However, patients among those in the high-fiber intake group had a significantly lower cumulative incidence of developing GvHD at day 100 (P = .034) and a lower incidence of lower GI GvHD (P = .04).
A separate preclinical analysis of a mouse model with GvHD further showed that a fiber-rich diet (12% cellulose) significantly increased the expression of genes associated with reduced GvHD, including IDO1 and CEACAM1, and those associated with enrichment of the bile acid pathway.
The findings suggest an opportunity to improve outcomes with relatively small dietary changes, Paredes said.
“Strategies to increase the fiber concentration in these diets paired with the safety that these patients need is what makes this study exciting,” she said in an interview.
“Increasing the fiber intake by 10 to 20 grams/day could potentially increase the microbiome diversity and abundance of butyrate producers, which have been correlated with higher overall survival rates post allo-HCT,” she continued.
“[For instance], that could be an avocado per day, or it could be a small salad per day, or a small vegetable soup per day,” she added. “I would encourage institutions to re-evaluate their menu planning and see how to include more fiber into the meals in a safe way.”
Ultimately, “I think that a dietary intervention outweighs the risks of a pharmacological intervention,” Paredes added.
The necessary duration of a high-fiber diet to produce the beneficial effects on allo-HCT outcomes would likely be over the course of the pre- and post-transplant periods, Paredes added.
“With the survival analysis extending from 5 days before transplantation to 12 days post, we are looking at an intervention that potentially could be around 20 days,” she said.
“We would love to take advantage of the pretransplantation window, in particular, and we can see that just increasing the fiber intake by about 20 grams during this window was shown to improve overall survival after 24 months,” Paredes added.
Importantly, however, some patients may not be appropriate for high-fiber dietary changes, Paredes cautioned.
“Patients that have developed IBD-like symptoms and severe GvHD patients, for example, or with lower GI-GvHD grades 3 and 4 would be not appropriate candidates for a high-fiber diet,” she said.
High-Fiber Diet Slows MM Disease Progression?
The potential important benefits of a high-fiber diet in blood diseases were further demonstrated in a separate study also by MSKCC researchers presented at the meeting, which showed encouraging signs that a plant-based diet rich in fiber could potentially slow disease progression in multiple myeloma (MM).
NUTRIVENTION included 20 patients with the two precancerous MM conditions, monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance (MGUS) and smoldering multiple myeloma (SMM), which can last for years without progressing to MM and which researchers have speculated could be a potential opportunity to intervene to prevent progression to cancer.
Patients were provided with a 12-week controlled diet plus health coaching for another 3 months; no meals or coaching were provided for the rest of the 1-year study period. Participants had a median age of 62 and, with being overweight/obesity a risk factor for MM, had a body mass index (BMI) of 25 kg/m2 or higher.
The trial met its endpoint of feasibility, with 91% adherence in the first 3 months. The rate of consumption of unprocessed plant foods increased from 20% at baseline to 92% on the intervention. Overall adherence was 58%. Insulin and anti-inflammatory markers also improved and, despite no calorie restriction, there was a 7% sustained reduction in BMI.
Notably, two patients in the study had stabilization of disease progression.
“We saw improvements in all spheres, including metabolism, microbiome, and immune system markers, and we also saw that two patients with progressive disease had the progression stabilize and slow down on the intervention,” principal investigator Urvi A. Shah, MD, said in a press statement.
“Even though it’s just two cases, to our knowledge, it has not been shown before in an intervention setting that you can improve diet and lifestyle and actually slow or change the trajectory of the disease,” she noted.
The researchers caution that findings in mice do not necessarily translate to humans but note another experiment in mice with SMM that showed animals fed a normal diet had progression to MM after a median of 12 weeks, compared with a median of 30 weeks among those fed a high-fiber diet.
Notably, all mice in the normal-diet group progressed to MM, whereas 40% of mice in the high-fiber group did not.
“We found that a high-fiber plant-based diet can improve BMI, improve insulin resistance [and] the microbiome through diversity and butyrate producers, and with the production of short-chain fatty acids, can have effects on inflammation, immunity, innate and adaptive antitumor immunity, and tumor cells or plasma cells,” Shah said during her presentation.
The study was supported by funding from the National Cancer Institute and private foundations. Paredes has reported no relevant financial relationships. Shah has reported relationships with Sanofi, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Janssen.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Importantly, the findings suggest standard recommendations for patients of a low-fiber diet following allo-HCT may run counter to the potential benefits.
“Significant decrease of fiber intake during transplantation is detrimental. It’s a lost opportunity to promote a healthy gut microbiome, recover from treatment-related microbiota injury, and protect against GVHD,” first author Jenny Paredes, PhD, a staff scientist at City of Hope National Medical Center in Duarte, California, said in a press statement for the study presented at the American Society of Hematology (ASH) 2024 Annual Meeting.
Although the health benefits of dietary fiber on the gut microbiome are well-documented, the effects have recently been shown to extend to outcomes after allo-HCT in general, with researchers finding increased overall survival when there is higher diversity in the gut microbiome, including a higher abundance of butyrate producers and lower abundance of enterococcus, explained Paredes when presenting the findings.
Acute GvHD, a common and potentially life-threatening complication of allo-HCT, can have symptoms that mimic irritable bowel disease (IBD), including abdominal pain or cramps, nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea. The low-fiber diet recommendations, including avoidance of raw vegetables and fruits before and after the allo-HCT procedure, are designed to counter those effects, as well as reduce exposure to bacteria.
However, with data suggesting the potential benefits of dietary fiber could extend to the prevention of GvHD, Paredes and colleagues further investigated.
For the observational study, they evaluated all dietary data on 173 allo-HCT recipients at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) from 10 days prior to transplantation to 30 days post-transplantation, representing 3837 patient-days in total.
Data collected from the patients also included rRNA sequencing of fecal samples and fecal short-chain fatty acid concentration.
Participants had a median age of 60, and 45% were female. The most common diseases being treated were leukemia (50%), myelodysplastic syndrome (25%), and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (8.7%).
After stratifying patients based on high- or low-fiber intake, those with high-fiber intake were found to have significantly higher rates of microbial α-diversity (P = .009), a higher abundance of butyrate producers (P = .03), and a higher concentration of butyrate (P = .02), a short-chain fatty acid that plays a key role in gut health.
Furthermore, the high-fiber group had significantly higher overall survival in an analysis extending to 24 months relative to day 12 of the study (P = .04).
Focusing on GvHD outcomes, the authors further evaluated data on 101 non-T-cell–depleted patients, and identified 29 patients without GvHD and 24 who developed lower gastrointestinal (GI) GvHD.
Patients with lower GI GvHD had significantly lower fecal concentrations of butyrate (P = .03) and acetate (P = .02).
However, patients among those in the high-fiber intake group had a significantly lower cumulative incidence of developing GvHD at day 100 (P = .034) and a lower incidence of lower GI GvHD (P = .04).
A separate preclinical analysis of a mouse model with GvHD further showed that a fiber-rich diet (12% cellulose) significantly increased the expression of genes associated with reduced GvHD, including IDO1 and CEACAM1, and those associated with enrichment of the bile acid pathway.
The findings suggest an opportunity to improve outcomes with relatively small dietary changes, Paredes said.
“Strategies to increase the fiber concentration in these diets paired with the safety that these patients need is what makes this study exciting,” she said in an interview.
“Increasing the fiber intake by 10 to 20 grams/day could potentially increase the microbiome diversity and abundance of butyrate producers, which have been correlated with higher overall survival rates post allo-HCT,” she continued.
“[For instance], that could be an avocado per day, or it could be a small salad per day, or a small vegetable soup per day,” she added. “I would encourage institutions to re-evaluate their menu planning and see how to include more fiber into the meals in a safe way.”
Ultimately, “I think that a dietary intervention outweighs the risks of a pharmacological intervention,” Paredes added.
The necessary duration of a high-fiber diet to produce the beneficial effects on allo-HCT outcomes would likely be over the course of the pre- and post-transplant periods, Paredes added.
“With the survival analysis extending from 5 days before transplantation to 12 days post, we are looking at an intervention that potentially could be around 20 days,” she said.
“We would love to take advantage of the pretransplantation window, in particular, and we can see that just increasing the fiber intake by about 20 grams during this window was shown to improve overall survival after 24 months,” Paredes added.
Importantly, however, some patients may not be appropriate for high-fiber dietary changes, Paredes cautioned.
“Patients that have developed IBD-like symptoms and severe GvHD patients, for example, or with lower GI-GvHD grades 3 and 4 would be not appropriate candidates for a high-fiber diet,” she said.
High-Fiber Diet Slows MM Disease Progression?
The potential important benefits of a high-fiber diet in blood diseases were further demonstrated in a separate study also by MSKCC researchers presented at the meeting, which showed encouraging signs that a plant-based diet rich in fiber could potentially slow disease progression in multiple myeloma (MM).
NUTRIVENTION included 20 patients with the two precancerous MM conditions, monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance (MGUS) and smoldering multiple myeloma (SMM), which can last for years without progressing to MM and which researchers have speculated could be a potential opportunity to intervene to prevent progression to cancer.
Patients were provided with a 12-week controlled diet plus health coaching for another 3 months; no meals or coaching were provided for the rest of the 1-year study period. Participants had a median age of 62 and, with being overweight/obesity a risk factor for MM, had a body mass index (BMI) of 25 kg/m2 or higher.
The trial met its endpoint of feasibility, with 91% adherence in the first 3 months. The rate of consumption of unprocessed plant foods increased from 20% at baseline to 92% on the intervention. Overall adherence was 58%. Insulin and anti-inflammatory markers also improved and, despite no calorie restriction, there was a 7% sustained reduction in BMI.
Notably, two patients in the study had stabilization of disease progression.
“We saw improvements in all spheres, including metabolism, microbiome, and immune system markers, and we also saw that two patients with progressive disease had the progression stabilize and slow down on the intervention,” principal investigator Urvi A. Shah, MD, said in a press statement.
“Even though it’s just two cases, to our knowledge, it has not been shown before in an intervention setting that you can improve diet and lifestyle and actually slow or change the trajectory of the disease,” she noted.
The researchers caution that findings in mice do not necessarily translate to humans but note another experiment in mice with SMM that showed animals fed a normal diet had progression to MM after a median of 12 weeks, compared with a median of 30 weeks among those fed a high-fiber diet.
Notably, all mice in the normal-diet group progressed to MM, whereas 40% of mice in the high-fiber group did not.
“We found that a high-fiber plant-based diet can improve BMI, improve insulin resistance [and] the microbiome through diversity and butyrate producers, and with the production of short-chain fatty acids, can have effects on inflammation, immunity, innate and adaptive antitumor immunity, and tumor cells or plasma cells,” Shah said during her presentation.
The study was supported by funding from the National Cancer Institute and private foundations. Paredes has reported no relevant financial relationships. Shah has reported relationships with Sanofi, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Janssen.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM ASH 2024
ASH 2024: New Leukemia Txs, Fewer Blood Clots With GLP-1 Rxs
Children’s Disorders: Major Progress in B-Cell Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia (B-ALL), Immune Thrombocytopenic Purpura (ITP)
While B-ALL is the most common childhood cancer and one of the most treatable, some patients face grim outcomes after they relapse following chemotherapy, said Cynthia E. Dunbar, MD, chief of the Translational Stem Cell Biology Branch at the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.
A new study reports that adding the targeted cancer drug blinatumomab (Blincyto) to chemotherapy boosted disease-free survival in standard-risk pediatric patients. “They definitively demonstrate a benefit with the addition of this immunotherapeutic drug, achieving 97% disease-free survival at 3 years on the blinatumomab plus chemotherapy arm compared to 90% for the control arm with standard therapies alone,” Dunbar said. “This trial will establish the addition of blinatumomab for childhood B-ALL as standard of care.”
A reporter asked Dunbar about the risk for severe immune activation syndrome. “These immune cell engagers can result in cytokine release syndrome and other severe immune activation consequences,” she said. “However, it appears that children seem to be less susceptible to those, at least in terms of severity, than adults. In this study, the complications that occurred didn’t result in mortality and were easily treatable. So that was not a major drawback to the addition of this drug.”
The blinatumomab study is sponsored by Children’s Oncology Group.
In ITP, thrombopoietin (TPO) agonists such as eltrombopag (Promacta) are a mainstay of second- or third-line treatment in children and adults with severe cases, Dunbar said. “However, TPO agonists are generally only given after months to years of failures of corticosteroids, IVIG [intravenous immunoglobulin], or splenectomy.”
In the phase 3, randomized, controlled PINES trial, researchers explored whether the drug could improve outcomes in children with untreated or very recent-onset severe ITP vs standard of care.
“The children treated with eltrombopag had double the response rate with a much lower need for rescue therapies,” Dunbar said. The percentage of patients who received rescue therapy was 19% in the eltrombopag arm (15/78) vs 46% in the control arm (18/39, P = .002).
“Given the potential short- and long-term consequences of corticosteroids and other standard treatments in children, this study is encouraging and will likely result in a change in the standard of care for pediatric ITP,” Dunbar said.
The eltrombopag study is sponsored by the ITP Consortium of North America and funded by Novartis.
Fewer Blood Clots: Another Big Benefit for Weight Loss Drugs?
Mikkael A. Sekeres, MD, MS, of the Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center at the University of Miami in Florida, highlighted an analysis of whether GLP-1 receptor agonists, initially approved as type 2 diabetes treatments, affect the risk for VTE.
Researchers tracked patients with type 2 diabetes — 366,369 who received the drugs and 290,219 who took dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitors. The patients who took GLP-1 agonists “had lower rates of venous thromboembolic events after 1 year,” Sekeres said. “The risk reduction was actually pretty substantial.”
In these patients, the risk for VTE was 18% lower (hazard ratio [HR], 0.82; 95% CI, 0.77-0.88), and there were 22% and 15% reductions in pulmonary embolisms and deep venous thrombosis, respectively (HR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.71-0.86 and HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.79-0.92).
Drug Regimen Improves Outcomes in Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia (CLL)
An interim analysis of an open-label, randomized, phase 3 trial of patients with untreated CLL “demonstrated superior progression-free survival with acalabrutinib and venetoclax versus what we consider more classic chemotherapy of fludarabine, Cytoxan [cyclophosphamide], and rituximab or bendamustine and rituximab,” Sekeres said. “Similar findings were seen with acalabrutinib, venetoclax, and obinutuzumab vs that classic chemotherapy.”
Overall response rates were 93% for both the acalabrutinib/venetoclax regimens vs 75% for bendamustine/rituximab, Sekeres noted, and overall survival was higher for acalabrutinib/venetoclax vs the two classic chemotherapy regimens (HR, 0.33; P < .0001).
However, Sekeres questioned the value of comparing acalabrutinib/venetoclax with classical chemotherapy regimens. “A lot of times we have a lot of new, really good, really effective therapy to offer to patients that isn’t as toxic as previous chemotherapy.”
In contrast, fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab are “your grandmother’s or your grandfather’s chemotherapy. It’s pretty toxic stuff,” he said.
Sekeres said it would have been better to compare acalabrutinib/venetoclax with a Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor–based regimen.
The German CLL Study Group is listed as the trial’s sponsor, and AstraZeneca is a collaborator. Dunbar disclosed research funding from Novartis. Sekeres had no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Children’s Disorders: Major Progress in B-Cell Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia (B-ALL), Immune Thrombocytopenic Purpura (ITP)
While B-ALL is the most common childhood cancer and one of the most treatable, some patients face grim outcomes after they relapse following chemotherapy, said Cynthia E. Dunbar, MD, chief of the Translational Stem Cell Biology Branch at the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.
A new study reports that adding the targeted cancer drug blinatumomab (Blincyto) to chemotherapy boosted disease-free survival in standard-risk pediatric patients. “They definitively demonstrate a benefit with the addition of this immunotherapeutic drug, achieving 97% disease-free survival at 3 years on the blinatumomab plus chemotherapy arm compared to 90% for the control arm with standard therapies alone,” Dunbar said. “This trial will establish the addition of blinatumomab for childhood B-ALL as standard of care.”
A reporter asked Dunbar about the risk for severe immune activation syndrome. “These immune cell engagers can result in cytokine release syndrome and other severe immune activation consequences,” she said. “However, it appears that children seem to be less susceptible to those, at least in terms of severity, than adults. In this study, the complications that occurred didn’t result in mortality and were easily treatable. So that was not a major drawback to the addition of this drug.”
The blinatumomab study is sponsored by Children’s Oncology Group.
In ITP, thrombopoietin (TPO) agonists such as eltrombopag (Promacta) are a mainstay of second- or third-line treatment in children and adults with severe cases, Dunbar said. “However, TPO agonists are generally only given after months to years of failures of corticosteroids, IVIG [intravenous immunoglobulin], or splenectomy.”
In the phase 3, randomized, controlled PINES trial, researchers explored whether the drug could improve outcomes in children with untreated or very recent-onset severe ITP vs standard of care.
“The children treated with eltrombopag had double the response rate with a much lower need for rescue therapies,” Dunbar said. The percentage of patients who received rescue therapy was 19% in the eltrombopag arm (15/78) vs 46% in the control arm (18/39, P = .002).
“Given the potential short- and long-term consequences of corticosteroids and other standard treatments in children, this study is encouraging and will likely result in a change in the standard of care for pediatric ITP,” Dunbar said.
The eltrombopag study is sponsored by the ITP Consortium of North America and funded by Novartis.
Fewer Blood Clots: Another Big Benefit for Weight Loss Drugs?
Mikkael A. Sekeres, MD, MS, of the Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center at the University of Miami in Florida, highlighted an analysis of whether GLP-1 receptor agonists, initially approved as type 2 diabetes treatments, affect the risk for VTE.
Researchers tracked patients with type 2 diabetes — 366,369 who received the drugs and 290,219 who took dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitors. The patients who took GLP-1 agonists “had lower rates of venous thromboembolic events after 1 year,” Sekeres said. “The risk reduction was actually pretty substantial.”
In these patients, the risk for VTE was 18% lower (hazard ratio [HR], 0.82; 95% CI, 0.77-0.88), and there were 22% and 15% reductions in pulmonary embolisms and deep venous thrombosis, respectively (HR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.71-0.86 and HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.79-0.92).
Drug Regimen Improves Outcomes in Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia (CLL)
An interim analysis of an open-label, randomized, phase 3 trial of patients with untreated CLL “demonstrated superior progression-free survival with acalabrutinib and venetoclax versus what we consider more classic chemotherapy of fludarabine, Cytoxan [cyclophosphamide], and rituximab or bendamustine and rituximab,” Sekeres said. “Similar findings were seen with acalabrutinib, venetoclax, and obinutuzumab vs that classic chemotherapy.”
Overall response rates were 93% for both the acalabrutinib/venetoclax regimens vs 75% for bendamustine/rituximab, Sekeres noted, and overall survival was higher for acalabrutinib/venetoclax vs the two classic chemotherapy regimens (HR, 0.33; P < .0001).
However, Sekeres questioned the value of comparing acalabrutinib/venetoclax with classical chemotherapy regimens. “A lot of times we have a lot of new, really good, really effective therapy to offer to patients that isn’t as toxic as previous chemotherapy.”
In contrast, fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab are “your grandmother’s or your grandfather’s chemotherapy. It’s pretty toxic stuff,” he said.
Sekeres said it would have been better to compare acalabrutinib/venetoclax with a Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor–based regimen.
The German CLL Study Group is listed as the trial’s sponsor, and AstraZeneca is a collaborator. Dunbar disclosed research funding from Novartis. Sekeres had no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Children’s Disorders: Major Progress in B-Cell Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia (B-ALL), Immune Thrombocytopenic Purpura (ITP)
While B-ALL is the most common childhood cancer and one of the most treatable, some patients face grim outcomes after they relapse following chemotherapy, said Cynthia E. Dunbar, MD, chief of the Translational Stem Cell Biology Branch at the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.
A new study reports that adding the targeted cancer drug blinatumomab (Blincyto) to chemotherapy boosted disease-free survival in standard-risk pediatric patients. “They definitively demonstrate a benefit with the addition of this immunotherapeutic drug, achieving 97% disease-free survival at 3 years on the blinatumomab plus chemotherapy arm compared to 90% for the control arm with standard therapies alone,” Dunbar said. “This trial will establish the addition of blinatumomab for childhood B-ALL as standard of care.”
A reporter asked Dunbar about the risk for severe immune activation syndrome. “These immune cell engagers can result in cytokine release syndrome and other severe immune activation consequences,” she said. “However, it appears that children seem to be less susceptible to those, at least in terms of severity, than adults. In this study, the complications that occurred didn’t result in mortality and were easily treatable. So that was not a major drawback to the addition of this drug.”
The blinatumomab study is sponsored by Children’s Oncology Group.
In ITP, thrombopoietin (TPO) agonists such as eltrombopag (Promacta) are a mainstay of second- or third-line treatment in children and adults with severe cases, Dunbar said. “However, TPO agonists are generally only given after months to years of failures of corticosteroids, IVIG [intravenous immunoglobulin], or splenectomy.”
In the phase 3, randomized, controlled PINES trial, researchers explored whether the drug could improve outcomes in children with untreated or very recent-onset severe ITP vs standard of care.
“The children treated with eltrombopag had double the response rate with a much lower need for rescue therapies,” Dunbar said. The percentage of patients who received rescue therapy was 19% in the eltrombopag arm (15/78) vs 46% in the control arm (18/39, P = .002).
“Given the potential short- and long-term consequences of corticosteroids and other standard treatments in children, this study is encouraging and will likely result in a change in the standard of care for pediatric ITP,” Dunbar said.
The eltrombopag study is sponsored by the ITP Consortium of North America and funded by Novartis.
Fewer Blood Clots: Another Big Benefit for Weight Loss Drugs?
Mikkael A. Sekeres, MD, MS, of the Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center at the University of Miami in Florida, highlighted an analysis of whether GLP-1 receptor agonists, initially approved as type 2 diabetes treatments, affect the risk for VTE.
Researchers tracked patients with type 2 diabetes — 366,369 who received the drugs and 290,219 who took dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitors. The patients who took GLP-1 agonists “had lower rates of venous thromboembolic events after 1 year,” Sekeres said. “The risk reduction was actually pretty substantial.”
In these patients, the risk for VTE was 18% lower (hazard ratio [HR], 0.82; 95% CI, 0.77-0.88), and there were 22% and 15% reductions in pulmonary embolisms and deep venous thrombosis, respectively (HR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.71-0.86 and HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.79-0.92).
Drug Regimen Improves Outcomes in Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia (CLL)
An interim analysis of an open-label, randomized, phase 3 trial of patients with untreated CLL “demonstrated superior progression-free survival with acalabrutinib and venetoclax versus what we consider more classic chemotherapy of fludarabine, Cytoxan [cyclophosphamide], and rituximab or bendamustine and rituximab,” Sekeres said. “Similar findings were seen with acalabrutinib, venetoclax, and obinutuzumab vs that classic chemotherapy.”
Overall response rates were 93% for both the acalabrutinib/venetoclax regimens vs 75% for bendamustine/rituximab, Sekeres noted, and overall survival was higher for acalabrutinib/venetoclax vs the two classic chemotherapy regimens (HR, 0.33; P < .0001).
However, Sekeres questioned the value of comparing acalabrutinib/venetoclax with classical chemotherapy regimens. “A lot of times we have a lot of new, really good, really effective therapy to offer to patients that isn’t as toxic as previous chemotherapy.”
In contrast, fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab are “your grandmother’s or your grandfather’s chemotherapy. It’s pretty toxic stuff,” he said.
Sekeres said it would have been better to compare acalabrutinib/venetoclax with a Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor–based regimen.
The German CLL Study Group is listed as the trial’s sponsor, and AstraZeneca is a collaborator. Dunbar disclosed research funding from Novartis. Sekeres had no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM ASH 2024
Inside the Patient-Oncologist Bond: Why It’s Often So Strong
Rose Gerber was 39, mother to a third grader and a kindergartener, when the diagnosis came: Advanced HER2-positive breast cancer.
“On one of my first or second appointments, I took in a little picture of Alexander and Isabella,” Gerber said. Gerber showed her oncologist the picture and told her: “I’ll do anything. I just want to be there for them.”
That was 21 years ago. Today, her current cancer status is “no evidence of disease.”
Over the past 2 decades, Gerber has gotten to be there for her children. Her youngest is now a television producer and her oldest, a CPA.
In that time,
“I’ve seen multiple physicians over my 21 years, but my oncologist has always been the focal point, guiding me in the right direction,” Gerber said in an interview.
Over the years, Jaga guided Gerber through a range of treatment decisions, including a Herceptin clinical trial that the mom of two views as lifesaving. Jaga often took on the role of both doctor and therapist, even providing comfort in the smaller moments when Gerber would fret about her weight gain.
The oncologist-patient “bond is very, very, very special,” said Gerber, who now works as director of patient advocacy and education at the Community Oncology Alliance.
Gerber isn’t alone in calling out the depth of the oncologist-patient bond.
Over years, sometimes decades, patients and oncologists can experience a whole world together: The treatment successes, relapses, uncertainties, and tough calls. As a result, a deep therapeutic alliance often develops. And with each new hurdle or decision, that collaborative, human connection between doctor and patient continues to form new layers.
“It’s like a shared bonding experience over trauma, like strangers trapped on a subway and then we get out, and we’re now on the other side, celebrating together,” said Saad Khan, MD, an associate professor of medicine (oncology) at Stanford University in California.
Connecting Through Stress
Although studies exploring the oncologist-patient bond are limited, some research suggests that a strong therapeutic alliance between patients and oncologists not only provides a foundation for quality care but can also help improve patients’ quality of life, protect against suicidal ideation, and increase treatment adherence.
Because of how stressful and frightening a cancer diagnosis can be, creating “a trusting, uninterrupted, almost sacred environment for them” is paramount for Khan. “I have no doubt that the most important part of their treatment is that they find an oncologist in whom they have total confidence,” Khan wrote in a blog.
The stress that patients with cancer experience is well documented, but oncologists take on a lot themselves and can also experience intense stress (.
“I consider my patient’s battles to be my battles,” Khan wrote.
The stress can start with the daily schedule. Oncologists often have a high volume of patients and tend to spend more time with each individual than most.
According to a 2023 survey, oncologists see about 68 patients a week, on average, but some oncologists, like Khan, have many more. Khan typically sees 20-30 patients a day and continues to care for many over years.
The survey also found that oncologists tend to spend a lot of time with their patients. Compared with other physicians, oncologists are two times more likely to spend at least 25 minutes with each patient.
With this kind of patient volume and time, Khan said, “you’re going to be exhausted.”
What can compound the exhaustion are the occasions oncologists need to deliver bad news — this treatment isn’t working, your cancer has come roaring back and, perhaps the hardest, we have no therapeutic options left. The end-of-life conversations, in particular, can be heartbreaking, especially when a patient is young and not ready to stop trying.
“It can be hard for doctors to discuss the end of life,” Don Dizon, MD, director of the Pelvic Malignancies Program at Lifespan Cancer Institute and director of Medical Oncology at Rhode Island Hospital, Providence, wrote in a column in 2023. Instead, it can be tempting and is often easier to focus on the next treatment, “instilling hope that there’s more that can be done,” even if doing more will only do harm.
In the face of these challenging decisions, growing a personal connection with patients over time can help keep oncologists going.
“We’re not just chemotherapy salesmen,” Khan said in an interview. “We get to know their social support network, who’s going to be driving them [to and from appointments], where they go on vacation, their cat’s name, who their neighbors are.”
A ‘Special Relationship’
Ralph V. Boccia, MD, is often asked what he does.
The next question that often comes — “Why do I do what I do?” — is Boccia’s favorite.
“Someone needs to take these patients through their journey,” Boccia, the founder of The Center for Cancer and Blood Disorders, Bethesda, Maryland, typically responds. He also often notes that “it is a special relationship you develop with the patient and their families.”
Boccia thinks about one long-term patient who captures this bond.
Joan Pinson, 70, was diagnosed with multiple myeloma about 25 years ago, when patients’ average survival was about 4 years.
Over a quarter century, Pinson has pivoted to different treatments, amid multiple relapses and remissions. Throughout most of this cancer journey, Boccia has been her primary oncologist, performing a stem cell transplant in 2000 and steering her to six clinical trials.
Her last relapse was 2 years ago, and since then she has been doing well on oral chemotherapy.
“Every time I relapsed, by the next appointment, he’d say, ‘here is what we are going to do,’ ” Pinson recalled. “I never worried, I never panicked. I knew he would take care of me.”
Over the years, Pinson and Boccia have shared many personal moments, sometimes by accident. One special moment happened early on in Pinson’s cancer journey. During an appointment, Boccia had “one ear to the phone” as his wife was about to deliver their first baby, Pinson recalled.
Later, Pinson met that child as a young man working in Boccia’s lab. She has also met Boccia’s wife, a nurse, when she filled in one day in the chemotherapy room.
Boccia now also treats Pinson’s husband who has prostate cancer, and he ruled out cancer when Pinson’s son, now in his 40s, had some worrisome symptoms.
More than 2 decades ago, Pinson told Boccia her goal was to see her youngest child graduate from high school. Now, six grandsons later, she has lived far beyond that goal.
“He has kept me alive,” said Pinson.
The Dying Patient
Harsha Vyas, MD, FACP, remembers the first encounter his office had with a 29-year-old woman referred with a diagnosis of stage IV breast cancer.
After just 15 minutes in the waiting room, the woman announced she was leaving. Although office staff assured the woman that she was next, the patient walked out.
Several months later, Vyas was called for an inpatient consult. It was the same woman.
Her lungs were full of fluid, and she was struggling to breathe, said Vyas, president and CEO of the Cancer Center of Middle Georgia, Dublin, and assistant professor at Augusta University in Georgia.
The woman, a single mother, told Vyas about her three young kids at home and asked him, “Doc, do something, please help me,” he recalled.
“Absolutely,” Vyas told her. But he had to be brutally honest about her prognosis and firm that she needed to follow his instructions. “You have a breast cancer I cannot cure,” he said. “All I can do is control the disease.”
From that first day, until the day she died, she came to every appointment and followed the treatment plan Vyas laid out.
For about 2 years, she responded well to treatment. And as the time passed and the trust grew, she began to open up to him. She showed him pictures. She talked about her children and being a mother.
“I’ve got to get my kids in a better place. I’m going to be there for them,” he recalled her saying.
Vyas admired her resourcefulness. She held down a part-time job, working retail and at a local restaurant. She figured out childcare so she could get to her chemotherapy appointments every 3 weeks and manage the copays.
Several years later, when she knew she was approaching the end of her life, she asked Vyas a question that hit hard.
“Doc, I don’t want to die and my kids find me dead. What can we do about it?”
Vyas, who has three daughters, imagined how traumatic this would be for a child. She and Vyas made the shared decision to cease treatment and begin home hospice. When the end was approaching, a hospice worker took over, waiting for bodily functions to cease.
When news of a death comes, “I say a little prayer, it’s almost like a send-off for that soul. That helps me absorb the news ... and let it go.”
But when the bond grows strong over time, as with his patient with breast cancer, Vyas said, “a piece of her is still with me.”
Khan had no relevant disclosures. Boccia and Vyas had no disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Rose Gerber was 39, mother to a third grader and a kindergartener, when the diagnosis came: Advanced HER2-positive breast cancer.
“On one of my first or second appointments, I took in a little picture of Alexander and Isabella,” Gerber said. Gerber showed her oncologist the picture and told her: “I’ll do anything. I just want to be there for them.”
That was 21 years ago. Today, her current cancer status is “no evidence of disease.”
Over the past 2 decades, Gerber has gotten to be there for her children. Her youngest is now a television producer and her oldest, a CPA.
In that time,
“I’ve seen multiple physicians over my 21 years, but my oncologist has always been the focal point, guiding me in the right direction,” Gerber said in an interview.
Over the years, Jaga guided Gerber through a range of treatment decisions, including a Herceptin clinical trial that the mom of two views as lifesaving. Jaga often took on the role of both doctor and therapist, even providing comfort in the smaller moments when Gerber would fret about her weight gain.
The oncologist-patient “bond is very, very, very special,” said Gerber, who now works as director of patient advocacy and education at the Community Oncology Alliance.
Gerber isn’t alone in calling out the depth of the oncologist-patient bond.
Over years, sometimes decades, patients and oncologists can experience a whole world together: The treatment successes, relapses, uncertainties, and tough calls. As a result, a deep therapeutic alliance often develops. And with each new hurdle or decision, that collaborative, human connection between doctor and patient continues to form new layers.
“It’s like a shared bonding experience over trauma, like strangers trapped on a subway and then we get out, and we’re now on the other side, celebrating together,” said Saad Khan, MD, an associate professor of medicine (oncology) at Stanford University in California.
Connecting Through Stress
Although studies exploring the oncologist-patient bond are limited, some research suggests that a strong therapeutic alliance between patients and oncologists not only provides a foundation for quality care but can also help improve patients’ quality of life, protect against suicidal ideation, and increase treatment adherence.
Because of how stressful and frightening a cancer diagnosis can be, creating “a trusting, uninterrupted, almost sacred environment for them” is paramount for Khan. “I have no doubt that the most important part of their treatment is that they find an oncologist in whom they have total confidence,” Khan wrote in a blog.
The stress that patients with cancer experience is well documented, but oncologists take on a lot themselves and can also experience intense stress (.
“I consider my patient’s battles to be my battles,” Khan wrote.
The stress can start with the daily schedule. Oncologists often have a high volume of patients and tend to spend more time with each individual than most.
According to a 2023 survey, oncologists see about 68 patients a week, on average, but some oncologists, like Khan, have many more. Khan typically sees 20-30 patients a day and continues to care for many over years.
The survey also found that oncologists tend to spend a lot of time with their patients. Compared with other physicians, oncologists are two times more likely to spend at least 25 minutes with each patient.
With this kind of patient volume and time, Khan said, “you’re going to be exhausted.”
What can compound the exhaustion are the occasions oncologists need to deliver bad news — this treatment isn’t working, your cancer has come roaring back and, perhaps the hardest, we have no therapeutic options left. The end-of-life conversations, in particular, can be heartbreaking, especially when a patient is young and not ready to stop trying.
“It can be hard for doctors to discuss the end of life,” Don Dizon, MD, director of the Pelvic Malignancies Program at Lifespan Cancer Institute and director of Medical Oncology at Rhode Island Hospital, Providence, wrote in a column in 2023. Instead, it can be tempting and is often easier to focus on the next treatment, “instilling hope that there’s more that can be done,” even if doing more will only do harm.
In the face of these challenging decisions, growing a personal connection with patients over time can help keep oncologists going.
“We’re not just chemotherapy salesmen,” Khan said in an interview. “We get to know their social support network, who’s going to be driving them [to and from appointments], where they go on vacation, their cat’s name, who their neighbors are.”
A ‘Special Relationship’
Ralph V. Boccia, MD, is often asked what he does.
The next question that often comes — “Why do I do what I do?” — is Boccia’s favorite.
“Someone needs to take these patients through their journey,” Boccia, the founder of The Center for Cancer and Blood Disorders, Bethesda, Maryland, typically responds. He also often notes that “it is a special relationship you develop with the patient and their families.”
Boccia thinks about one long-term patient who captures this bond.
Joan Pinson, 70, was diagnosed with multiple myeloma about 25 years ago, when patients’ average survival was about 4 years.
Over a quarter century, Pinson has pivoted to different treatments, amid multiple relapses and remissions. Throughout most of this cancer journey, Boccia has been her primary oncologist, performing a stem cell transplant in 2000 and steering her to six clinical trials.
Her last relapse was 2 years ago, and since then she has been doing well on oral chemotherapy.
“Every time I relapsed, by the next appointment, he’d say, ‘here is what we are going to do,’ ” Pinson recalled. “I never worried, I never panicked. I knew he would take care of me.”
Over the years, Pinson and Boccia have shared many personal moments, sometimes by accident. One special moment happened early on in Pinson’s cancer journey. During an appointment, Boccia had “one ear to the phone” as his wife was about to deliver their first baby, Pinson recalled.
Later, Pinson met that child as a young man working in Boccia’s lab. She has also met Boccia’s wife, a nurse, when she filled in one day in the chemotherapy room.
Boccia now also treats Pinson’s husband who has prostate cancer, and he ruled out cancer when Pinson’s son, now in his 40s, had some worrisome symptoms.
More than 2 decades ago, Pinson told Boccia her goal was to see her youngest child graduate from high school. Now, six grandsons later, she has lived far beyond that goal.
“He has kept me alive,” said Pinson.
The Dying Patient
Harsha Vyas, MD, FACP, remembers the first encounter his office had with a 29-year-old woman referred with a diagnosis of stage IV breast cancer.
After just 15 minutes in the waiting room, the woman announced she was leaving. Although office staff assured the woman that she was next, the patient walked out.
Several months later, Vyas was called for an inpatient consult. It was the same woman.
Her lungs were full of fluid, and she was struggling to breathe, said Vyas, president and CEO of the Cancer Center of Middle Georgia, Dublin, and assistant professor at Augusta University in Georgia.
The woman, a single mother, told Vyas about her three young kids at home and asked him, “Doc, do something, please help me,” he recalled.
“Absolutely,” Vyas told her. But he had to be brutally honest about her prognosis and firm that she needed to follow his instructions. “You have a breast cancer I cannot cure,” he said. “All I can do is control the disease.”
From that first day, until the day she died, she came to every appointment and followed the treatment plan Vyas laid out.
For about 2 years, she responded well to treatment. And as the time passed and the trust grew, she began to open up to him. She showed him pictures. She talked about her children and being a mother.
“I’ve got to get my kids in a better place. I’m going to be there for them,” he recalled her saying.
Vyas admired her resourcefulness. She held down a part-time job, working retail and at a local restaurant. She figured out childcare so she could get to her chemotherapy appointments every 3 weeks and manage the copays.
Several years later, when she knew she was approaching the end of her life, she asked Vyas a question that hit hard.
“Doc, I don’t want to die and my kids find me dead. What can we do about it?”
Vyas, who has three daughters, imagined how traumatic this would be for a child. She and Vyas made the shared decision to cease treatment and begin home hospice. When the end was approaching, a hospice worker took over, waiting for bodily functions to cease.
When news of a death comes, “I say a little prayer, it’s almost like a send-off for that soul. That helps me absorb the news ... and let it go.”
But when the bond grows strong over time, as with his patient with breast cancer, Vyas said, “a piece of her is still with me.”
Khan had no relevant disclosures. Boccia and Vyas had no disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Rose Gerber was 39, mother to a third grader and a kindergartener, when the diagnosis came: Advanced HER2-positive breast cancer.
“On one of my first or second appointments, I took in a little picture of Alexander and Isabella,” Gerber said. Gerber showed her oncologist the picture and told her: “I’ll do anything. I just want to be there for them.”
That was 21 years ago. Today, her current cancer status is “no evidence of disease.”
Over the past 2 decades, Gerber has gotten to be there for her children. Her youngest is now a television producer and her oldest, a CPA.
In that time,
“I’ve seen multiple physicians over my 21 years, but my oncologist has always been the focal point, guiding me in the right direction,” Gerber said in an interview.
Over the years, Jaga guided Gerber through a range of treatment decisions, including a Herceptin clinical trial that the mom of two views as lifesaving. Jaga often took on the role of both doctor and therapist, even providing comfort in the smaller moments when Gerber would fret about her weight gain.
The oncologist-patient “bond is very, very, very special,” said Gerber, who now works as director of patient advocacy and education at the Community Oncology Alliance.
Gerber isn’t alone in calling out the depth of the oncologist-patient bond.
Over years, sometimes decades, patients and oncologists can experience a whole world together: The treatment successes, relapses, uncertainties, and tough calls. As a result, a deep therapeutic alliance often develops. And with each new hurdle or decision, that collaborative, human connection between doctor and patient continues to form new layers.
“It’s like a shared bonding experience over trauma, like strangers trapped on a subway and then we get out, and we’re now on the other side, celebrating together,” said Saad Khan, MD, an associate professor of medicine (oncology) at Stanford University in California.
Connecting Through Stress
Although studies exploring the oncologist-patient bond are limited, some research suggests that a strong therapeutic alliance between patients and oncologists not only provides a foundation for quality care but can also help improve patients’ quality of life, protect against suicidal ideation, and increase treatment adherence.
Because of how stressful and frightening a cancer diagnosis can be, creating “a trusting, uninterrupted, almost sacred environment for them” is paramount for Khan. “I have no doubt that the most important part of their treatment is that they find an oncologist in whom they have total confidence,” Khan wrote in a blog.
The stress that patients with cancer experience is well documented, but oncologists take on a lot themselves and can also experience intense stress (.
“I consider my patient’s battles to be my battles,” Khan wrote.
The stress can start with the daily schedule. Oncologists often have a high volume of patients and tend to spend more time with each individual than most.
According to a 2023 survey, oncologists see about 68 patients a week, on average, but some oncologists, like Khan, have many more. Khan typically sees 20-30 patients a day and continues to care for many over years.
The survey also found that oncologists tend to spend a lot of time with their patients. Compared with other physicians, oncologists are two times more likely to spend at least 25 minutes with each patient.
With this kind of patient volume and time, Khan said, “you’re going to be exhausted.”
What can compound the exhaustion are the occasions oncologists need to deliver bad news — this treatment isn’t working, your cancer has come roaring back and, perhaps the hardest, we have no therapeutic options left. The end-of-life conversations, in particular, can be heartbreaking, especially when a patient is young and not ready to stop trying.
“It can be hard for doctors to discuss the end of life,” Don Dizon, MD, director of the Pelvic Malignancies Program at Lifespan Cancer Institute and director of Medical Oncology at Rhode Island Hospital, Providence, wrote in a column in 2023. Instead, it can be tempting and is often easier to focus on the next treatment, “instilling hope that there’s more that can be done,” even if doing more will only do harm.
In the face of these challenging decisions, growing a personal connection with patients over time can help keep oncologists going.
“We’re not just chemotherapy salesmen,” Khan said in an interview. “We get to know their social support network, who’s going to be driving them [to and from appointments], where they go on vacation, their cat’s name, who their neighbors are.”
A ‘Special Relationship’
Ralph V. Boccia, MD, is often asked what he does.
The next question that often comes — “Why do I do what I do?” — is Boccia’s favorite.
“Someone needs to take these patients through their journey,” Boccia, the founder of The Center for Cancer and Blood Disorders, Bethesda, Maryland, typically responds. He also often notes that “it is a special relationship you develop with the patient and their families.”
Boccia thinks about one long-term patient who captures this bond.
Joan Pinson, 70, was diagnosed with multiple myeloma about 25 years ago, when patients’ average survival was about 4 years.
Over a quarter century, Pinson has pivoted to different treatments, amid multiple relapses and remissions. Throughout most of this cancer journey, Boccia has been her primary oncologist, performing a stem cell transplant in 2000 and steering her to six clinical trials.
Her last relapse was 2 years ago, and since then she has been doing well on oral chemotherapy.
“Every time I relapsed, by the next appointment, he’d say, ‘here is what we are going to do,’ ” Pinson recalled. “I never worried, I never panicked. I knew he would take care of me.”
Over the years, Pinson and Boccia have shared many personal moments, sometimes by accident. One special moment happened early on in Pinson’s cancer journey. During an appointment, Boccia had “one ear to the phone” as his wife was about to deliver their first baby, Pinson recalled.
Later, Pinson met that child as a young man working in Boccia’s lab. She has also met Boccia’s wife, a nurse, when she filled in one day in the chemotherapy room.
Boccia now also treats Pinson’s husband who has prostate cancer, and he ruled out cancer when Pinson’s son, now in his 40s, had some worrisome symptoms.
More than 2 decades ago, Pinson told Boccia her goal was to see her youngest child graduate from high school. Now, six grandsons later, she has lived far beyond that goal.
“He has kept me alive,” said Pinson.
The Dying Patient
Harsha Vyas, MD, FACP, remembers the first encounter his office had with a 29-year-old woman referred with a diagnosis of stage IV breast cancer.
After just 15 minutes in the waiting room, the woman announced she was leaving. Although office staff assured the woman that she was next, the patient walked out.
Several months later, Vyas was called for an inpatient consult. It was the same woman.
Her lungs were full of fluid, and she was struggling to breathe, said Vyas, president and CEO of the Cancer Center of Middle Georgia, Dublin, and assistant professor at Augusta University in Georgia.
The woman, a single mother, told Vyas about her three young kids at home and asked him, “Doc, do something, please help me,” he recalled.
“Absolutely,” Vyas told her. But he had to be brutally honest about her prognosis and firm that she needed to follow his instructions. “You have a breast cancer I cannot cure,” he said. “All I can do is control the disease.”
From that first day, until the day she died, she came to every appointment and followed the treatment plan Vyas laid out.
For about 2 years, she responded well to treatment. And as the time passed and the trust grew, she began to open up to him. She showed him pictures. She talked about her children and being a mother.
“I’ve got to get my kids in a better place. I’m going to be there for them,” he recalled her saying.
Vyas admired her resourcefulness. She held down a part-time job, working retail and at a local restaurant. She figured out childcare so she could get to her chemotherapy appointments every 3 weeks and manage the copays.
Several years later, when she knew she was approaching the end of her life, she asked Vyas a question that hit hard.
“Doc, I don’t want to die and my kids find me dead. What can we do about it?”
Vyas, who has three daughters, imagined how traumatic this would be for a child. She and Vyas made the shared decision to cease treatment and begin home hospice. When the end was approaching, a hospice worker took over, waiting for bodily functions to cease.
When news of a death comes, “I say a little prayer, it’s almost like a send-off for that soul. That helps me absorb the news ... and let it go.”
But when the bond grows strong over time, as with his patient with breast cancer, Vyas said, “a piece of her is still with me.”
Khan had no relevant disclosures. Boccia and Vyas had no disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Venetoclax-Obinutuzumab: CLL’s New Power Duo?
TOPLINE:
METHODOLOGY:
- A total of 432 patients with previously untreated CLL and coexisting conditions were enrolled in the study.
- Participants were randomized 1:1 to receive either 12 cycles of venetoclax with 6 cycles of obinutuzumab or 12 cycles of chlorambucil with 6 cycles of obinutuzumab.
- The primary endpoint was PFS, with secondary endpoints including TTNT, overall survival (OS), and adverse events.
- Minimal residual disease was assessed in peripheral blood and bone marrow at the end of treatment and at several follow-up points.
- The study was conducted across multiple centers and was registered with clinical trial identifiers NCT02242942 and EudraCT 2014-001810-24.
TAKEAWAY:
- The 6-year PFS rate was significantly higher in the venetoclax-obinutuzumab group (53%) than in the chlorambucil-obinutuzumab group (21.7%) (P < .0001).
- The TTNT rate was 65.2% in the venetoclax-obinutuzumab group vs 37.1% in the chlorambucil-obinutuzumab group (P < .0001).
- The OS rate at 6 years was 78.7% in the venetoclax-obinutuzumab group and 69.2% in the chlorambucil-obinutuzumab group (P = .052).
- Patients in the venetoclax-obinutuzumab group reported better quality of life and less fatigue than those in the chlorambucil-obinutuzumab group.
IN PRACTICE:
“Patients treated with the venetoclax-obinutuzumab combination showed a statistically significant sustained prolongation of PFS, compared with patients treated with chlorambucil-obinutuzumab (76.2 vs 36.4 months). Overall, the PFS rate was 53% in the venetoclax-obinutuzumab group vs 21.7% after chlorambucil-obinutuzumab,” the study’s authors wrote.
In a related article, Silvia Deaglio, University of Turin in Italy, noted: “A second important observation of the study is that in the venetoclax-obinutuzumab arm, patients who relapsed more frequently presented with unmutated IGHV genes, deletion of 17p, or TP53 mutations.”
SOURCE:
This study was led by Othman Al-Sawaf, Sandra Robrecht, and Can Zhang, University of Cologne in Germany. It was published online on October 31 in Blood.
LIMITATIONS:
This study’s limitations included the relatively small sample size and the short duration of follow-up for some endpoints. Additionally, the study population was limited to older adult patients with coexisting conditions, which may limit the generalizability of the findings to a broader CLL population.
DISCLOSURES:
This study was supported by F. Hoffmann-La Roche and AbbVie. Al-Sawaf disclosed receiving grants from BeiGene, AbbVie, Janssen, and Roche. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
METHODOLOGY:
- A total of 432 patients with previously untreated CLL and coexisting conditions were enrolled in the study.
- Participants were randomized 1:1 to receive either 12 cycles of venetoclax with 6 cycles of obinutuzumab or 12 cycles of chlorambucil with 6 cycles of obinutuzumab.
- The primary endpoint was PFS, with secondary endpoints including TTNT, overall survival (OS), and adverse events.
- Minimal residual disease was assessed in peripheral blood and bone marrow at the end of treatment and at several follow-up points.
- The study was conducted across multiple centers and was registered with clinical trial identifiers NCT02242942 and EudraCT 2014-001810-24.
TAKEAWAY:
- The 6-year PFS rate was significantly higher in the venetoclax-obinutuzumab group (53%) than in the chlorambucil-obinutuzumab group (21.7%) (P < .0001).
- The TTNT rate was 65.2% in the venetoclax-obinutuzumab group vs 37.1% in the chlorambucil-obinutuzumab group (P < .0001).
- The OS rate at 6 years was 78.7% in the venetoclax-obinutuzumab group and 69.2% in the chlorambucil-obinutuzumab group (P = .052).
- Patients in the venetoclax-obinutuzumab group reported better quality of life and less fatigue than those in the chlorambucil-obinutuzumab group.
IN PRACTICE:
“Patients treated with the venetoclax-obinutuzumab combination showed a statistically significant sustained prolongation of PFS, compared with patients treated with chlorambucil-obinutuzumab (76.2 vs 36.4 months). Overall, the PFS rate was 53% in the venetoclax-obinutuzumab group vs 21.7% after chlorambucil-obinutuzumab,” the study’s authors wrote.
In a related article, Silvia Deaglio, University of Turin in Italy, noted: “A second important observation of the study is that in the venetoclax-obinutuzumab arm, patients who relapsed more frequently presented with unmutated IGHV genes, deletion of 17p, or TP53 mutations.”
SOURCE:
This study was led by Othman Al-Sawaf, Sandra Robrecht, and Can Zhang, University of Cologne in Germany. It was published online on October 31 in Blood.
LIMITATIONS:
This study’s limitations included the relatively small sample size and the short duration of follow-up for some endpoints. Additionally, the study population was limited to older adult patients with coexisting conditions, which may limit the generalizability of the findings to a broader CLL population.
DISCLOSURES:
This study was supported by F. Hoffmann-La Roche and AbbVie. Al-Sawaf disclosed receiving grants from BeiGene, AbbVie, Janssen, and Roche. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
METHODOLOGY:
- A total of 432 patients with previously untreated CLL and coexisting conditions were enrolled in the study.
- Participants were randomized 1:1 to receive either 12 cycles of venetoclax with 6 cycles of obinutuzumab or 12 cycles of chlorambucil with 6 cycles of obinutuzumab.
- The primary endpoint was PFS, with secondary endpoints including TTNT, overall survival (OS), and adverse events.
- Minimal residual disease was assessed in peripheral blood and bone marrow at the end of treatment and at several follow-up points.
- The study was conducted across multiple centers and was registered with clinical trial identifiers NCT02242942 and EudraCT 2014-001810-24.
TAKEAWAY:
- The 6-year PFS rate was significantly higher in the venetoclax-obinutuzumab group (53%) than in the chlorambucil-obinutuzumab group (21.7%) (P < .0001).
- The TTNT rate was 65.2% in the venetoclax-obinutuzumab group vs 37.1% in the chlorambucil-obinutuzumab group (P < .0001).
- The OS rate at 6 years was 78.7% in the venetoclax-obinutuzumab group and 69.2% in the chlorambucil-obinutuzumab group (P = .052).
- Patients in the venetoclax-obinutuzumab group reported better quality of life and less fatigue than those in the chlorambucil-obinutuzumab group.
IN PRACTICE:
“Patients treated with the venetoclax-obinutuzumab combination showed a statistically significant sustained prolongation of PFS, compared with patients treated with chlorambucil-obinutuzumab (76.2 vs 36.4 months). Overall, the PFS rate was 53% in the venetoclax-obinutuzumab group vs 21.7% after chlorambucil-obinutuzumab,” the study’s authors wrote.
In a related article, Silvia Deaglio, University of Turin in Italy, noted: “A second important observation of the study is that in the venetoclax-obinutuzumab arm, patients who relapsed more frequently presented with unmutated IGHV genes, deletion of 17p, or TP53 mutations.”
SOURCE:
This study was led by Othman Al-Sawaf, Sandra Robrecht, and Can Zhang, University of Cologne in Germany. It was published online on October 31 in Blood.
LIMITATIONS:
This study’s limitations included the relatively small sample size and the short duration of follow-up for some endpoints. Additionally, the study population was limited to older adult patients with coexisting conditions, which may limit the generalizability of the findings to a broader CLL population.
DISCLOSURES:
This study was supported by F. Hoffmann-La Roche and AbbVie. Al-Sawaf disclosed receiving grants from BeiGene, AbbVie, Janssen, and Roche. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Popular Weight Loss Drugs Now for Patients With Cancer?
Demand for new weight loss drugs has surged over the past few years.
Led by the antiobesity drugs semaglutide (Wegovy) and tirzepatide (Zepbound), these popular medications — more commonly known as glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) agonists — have become game changers for shedding excess pounds.
Aside from obesity indications, both drugs have been approved to treat type 2 diabetes under different brand names and have a growing list of other potential benefits, such as reducing inflammation and depression.
While there’s limited data to support the use of GLP-1 agonists for weight loss in cancer, some oncologists have begun carefully integrating the antiobesity agents into care and studying their effects in this patient population.
The reason: Research suggests that obesity can reduce the effectiveness of cancer therapies, especially in patients with breast cancer, and can increase the risk for treatment-related side effects.
The idea is that managing patients’ weight will improve their cancer outcomes, explained Lajos Pusztai, MD, PhD, a breast cancer specialist and professor of medicine at Yale School of Medicine in New Haven, Connecticut.
Although Dr. Pusztai and his oncology peers at Yale don’t yet use GPL-1 agonists, Neil Iyengar, MD, and colleagues have begun doing so to help some patients with breast cancer manage their weight. Dr. Iyengar estimates that a few hundred — almost 40% — of his patients are on the antiobesity drugs.
“For a patient who has really tried to reduce their weight and who is in the obese range, that’s where I think the use of these medications can be considered,” said Dr. Iyengar, a breast cancer oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City.
Why GLP-1s in Cancer?
GLP-1 is a hormone that the small intestine releases after eating. GLP-1 agonists work by mimicking GLP-1 to trigger the release of insulin and reduce the production of glucagon — two processes that help regulate blood sugar.
These agents, such as Wegovy (or Ozempic when prescribed for diabetes), also slow gastric emptying and can make people feel fuller longer.
Zebound (or Mounjaro for type 2 diabetes) is considered a dual GLP-1 and glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide agonist, which may enhance its weight loss benefits.
In practice, however, these drugs can increase nausea and vomiting from chemotherapy, so Dr. Iyengar typically has patients use them afterwards, during maintenance treatment.
Oncologists don’t prescribe the drugs themselves but instead refer patients to endocrinologists or weight management centers that then write the prescriptions. Taking these drugs involves weekly subcutaneous injections patients can administer themselves.
Endocrinologist Emily Gallagher, MD, PhD, of Mount Sinai Hospital in New York City, estimates she has prescribed the antiobesity drugs to a few hundred patients with cancer and, like Dr. Iyengar, uses the drugs during maintenance treatment with hormone therapy for breast cancer. She also has used these agents in patients with prostate and endometrial cancers and has found the drugs can help counter steroid weight gain in multiple myeloma.
But, to date, the evidence for using GPL-1 agonists in cancer remains limited and the practice has not yet become widespread.
Research largely comes down to a few small retrospective studies in patients with breast cancer receiving aromatase inhibitors. Although no safety issues have emerged so far, these initial reports suggest that the drugs lead to significantly less weight loss in patients with cancer compared to the general population.
Dr. Iyengar led one recent study, presented at the 2024 annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, in which he and his team assessed outcomes in 75 women with breast cancer who received a GLP-1 agonist. Almost 80% of patients had diabetes, and 60% received hormone therapy, most commonly an aromatase inhibitor. Patients’ median body mass index (BMI) at baseline was 34 kg/m2 (range, 23-50 kg/m2).
From baseline, patients lost 6.2 kg, on average, or about 5% of their total body weight, 12 months after initiating GLP-1 therapy.
In contrast, phase 3 trials show much higher mean weight loss — about two times — in patients without cancer.
Another recent study also reported modest weight loss results in patients with breast cancer undergoing endocrine therapy. The researchers reported that, at 12 months, Wegovy led to 4.34% reduction in BMI, compared with a 14% change reported in the general population. Zebound, however, was associated with a 2.31% BMI increase overall — though some patients did experience a decrease — compared with a 15% reduction in the general population.
“These findings indicate a substantially reduced weight loss efficacy in breast cancer patients on endocrine therapy compared to the general population,” the authors concluded.
It’s unclear why the drugs appear to not work as well in patients with cancer. It’s possible that hormone therapy or metabolic changes interfere with their effectiveness, given that some cancer therapies lead to weight gain. Steroids and hormone therapies, for instance, often increase appetite, and some treatments can slow patients’ metabolism or lead to fatigue, which can make it harder to exercise.
Patients with cancer may need a higher dose of GLP-1 agonists to achieve similar weight loss to the general population, Dr. Iyengar noted.
However, Dr. Gallagher said, in her own experience, she hasn’t found the drugs to be less effective in patients with cancer, especially the newer agents, like Wegovy and Zepbound.
As for safety, Wegovy and Zepbound both carry a black box warning for thyroid C-cell tumors, including medullary thyroid carcinoma. (Recent research, however, has found that GLP-1 agonists do not increase thyroid cancer risk).
These antiobesity agents are also contraindicated in patients with a personal or family history of medullary thyroid carcinoma and in patients who have multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2, which is associated with medullary thyroid carcinoma.
Dr. Gallagher hasn’t seen any secondary tumors — thyroid or otherwise — in her patients with cancer, but she follows the labeling contraindications. Dr. Iyengar also noted that more recent and larger data sets have shown no impact on this risk, which may not actually exist, he said
Dr. Gallagher remains cautious about using GPL-1 agonists in patients who have had bariatric surgery because these agents can compound the slower gastric emptying and intestinal transit from surgery, potentially leading to gastrointestinal obstructions.
Looking ahead, GPL-1 manufacturers are interested in adding cancer indications to the drug labeling. Both Dr. Iyengar and Dr. Gallagher said their institutions are in talks with companies to participate in large, multicenter, global phase 3 trials.
Dr. Iyengar welcomes the efforts, not only to test the effectiveness of GPL-1 agonists in oncology but also to “nail down” their safety in cancer.
“I don’t think that there’s mechanistically anything that’s particularly worrisome,” and current observations suggest that these drugs are likely to be safe, Dr. Iyengar said. Even so, “GLP-1 agonists do a lot of things that we don’t fully understand yet.”
The bigger challenge, Dr. Iyengar noted, is that companies will have to show a sizable benefit to using these drugs in patients with cancer to get the Food and Drug Administration’s approval. And to move the needle on cancer-specific outcomes, these antiobesity drugs will need to demonstrate significant, durable weight loss in patients with cancer.
But if these drugs can do that, “I think it’s going to be one of the biggest advances in medicine and oncology given the obesity and cancer epidemic,” Dr. Iyengar said.
Dr. Iyengar has adviser and/or researcher ties with companies that make or are developing GPL-1 agonists, including AstraZeneca, Novartis, Gilead, and Pfizer. Dr. Gallagher is a consultant for Novartis, Flare Therapeutics, Reactive Biosciences, and Seagen.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Demand for new weight loss drugs has surged over the past few years.
Led by the antiobesity drugs semaglutide (Wegovy) and tirzepatide (Zepbound), these popular medications — more commonly known as glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) agonists — have become game changers for shedding excess pounds.
Aside from obesity indications, both drugs have been approved to treat type 2 diabetes under different brand names and have a growing list of other potential benefits, such as reducing inflammation and depression.
While there’s limited data to support the use of GLP-1 agonists for weight loss in cancer, some oncologists have begun carefully integrating the antiobesity agents into care and studying their effects in this patient population.
The reason: Research suggests that obesity can reduce the effectiveness of cancer therapies, especially in patients with breast cancer, and can increase the risk for treatment-related side effects.
The idea is that managing patients’ weight will improve their cancer outcomes, explained Lajos Pusztai, MD, PhD, a breast cancer specialist and professor of medicine at Yale School of Medicine in New Haven, Connecticut.
Although Dr. Pusztai and his oncology peers at Yale don’t yet use GPL-1 agonists, Neil Iyengar, MD, and colleagues have begun doing so to help some patients with breast cancer manage their weight. Dr. Iyengar estimates that a few hundred — almost 40% — of his patients are on the antiobesity drugs.
“For a patient who has really tried to reduce their weight and who is in the obese range, that’s where I think the use of these medications can be considered,” said Dr. Iyengar, a breast cancer oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City.
Why GLP-1s in Cancer?
GLP-1 is a hormone that the small intestine releases after eating. GLP-1 agonists work by mimicking GLP-1 to trigger the release of insulin and reduce the production of glucagon — two processes that help regulate blood sugar.
These agents, such as Wegovy (or Ozempic when prescribed for diabetes), also slow gastric emptying and can make people feel fuller longer.
Zebound (or Mounjaro for type 2 diabetes) is considered a dual GLP-1 and glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide agonist, which may enhance its weight loss benefits.
In practice, however, these drugs can increase nausea and vomiting from chemotherapy, so Dr. Iyengar typically has patients use them afterwards, during maintenance treatment.
Oncologists don’t prescribe the drugs themselves but instead refer patients to endocrinologists or weight management centers that then write the prescriptions. Taking these drugs involves weekly subcutaneous injections patients can administer themselves.
Endocrinologist Emily Gallagher, MD, PhD, of Mount Sinai Hospital in New York City, estimates she has prescribed the antiobesity drugs to a few hundred patients with cancer and, like Dr. Iyengar, uses the drugs during maintenance treatment with hormone therapy for breast cancer. She also has used these agents in patients with prostate and endometrial cancers and has found the drugs can help counter steroid weight gain in multiple myeloma.
But, to date, the evidence for using GPL-1 agonists in cancer remains limited and the practice has not yet become widespread.
Research largely comes down to a few small retrospective studies in patients with breast cancer receiving aromatase inhibitors. Although no safety issues have emerged so far, these initial reports suggest that the drugs lead to significantly less weight loss in patients with cancer compared to the general population.
Dr. Iyengar led one recent study, presented at the 2024 annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, in which he and his team assessed outcomes in 75 women with breast cancer who received a GLP-1 agonist. Almost 80% of patients had diabetes, and 60% received hormone therapy, most commonly an aromatase inhibitor. Patients’ median body mass index (BMI) at baseline was 34 kg/m2 (range, 23-50 kg/m2).
From baseline, patients lost 6.2 kg, on average, or about 5% of their total body weight, 12 months after initiating GLP-1 therapy.
In contrast, phase 3 trials show much higher mean weight loss — about two times — in patients without cancer.
Another recent study also reported modest weight loss results in patients with breast cancer undergoing endocrine therapy. The researchers reported that, at 12 months, Wegovy led to 4.34% reduction in BMI, compared with a 14% change reported in the general population. Zebound, however, was associated with a 2.31% BMI increase overall — though some patients did experience a decrease — compared with a 15% reduction in the general population.
“These findings indicate a substantially reduced weight loss efficacy in breast cancer patients on endocrine therapy compared to the general population,” the authors concluded.
It’s unclear why the drugs appear to not work as well in patients with cancer. It’s possible that hormone therapy or metabolic changes interfere with their effectiveness, given that some cancer therapies lead to weight gain. Steroids and hormone therapies, for instance, often increase appetite, and some treatments can slow patients’ metabolism or lead to fatigue, which can make it harder to exercise.
Patients with cancer may need a higher dose of GLP-1 agonists to achieve similar weight loss to the general population, Dr. Iyengar noted.
However, Dr. Gallagher said, in her own experience, she hasn’t found the drugs to be less effective in patients with cancer, especially the newer agents, like Wegovy and Zepbound.
As for safety, Wegovy and Zepbound both carry a black box warning for thyroid C-cell tumors, including medullary thyroid carcinoma. (Recent research, however, has found that GLP-1 agonists do not increase thyroid cancer risk).
These antiobesity agents are also contraindicated in patients with a personal or family history of medullary thyroid carcinoma and in patients who have multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2, which is associated with medullary thyroid carcinoma.
Dr. Gallagher hasn’t seen any secondary tumors — thyroid or otherwise — in her patients with cancer, but she follows the labeling contraindications. Dr. Iyengar also noted that more recent and larger data sets have shown no impact on this risk, which may not actually exist, he said
Dr. Gallagher remains cautious about using GPL-1 agonists in patients who have had bariatric surgery because these agents can compound the slower gastric emptying and intestinal transit from surgery, potentially leading to gastrointestinal obstructions.
Looking ahead, GPL-1 manufacturers are interested in adding cancer indications to the drug labeling. Both Dr. Iyengar and Dr. Gallagher said their institutions are in talks with companies to participate in large, multicenter, global phase 3 trials.
Dr. Iyengar welcomes the efforts, not only to test the effectiveness of GPL-1 agonists in oncology but also to “nail down” their safety in cancer.
“I don’t think that there’s mechanistically anything that’s particularly worrisome,” and current observations suggest that these drugs are likely to be safe, Dr. Iyengar said. Even so, “GLP-1 agonists do a lot of things that we don’t fully understand yet.”
The bigger challenge, Dr. Iyengar noted, is that companies will have to show a sizable benefit to using these drugs in patients with cancer to get the Food and Drug Administration’s approval. And to move the needle on cancer-specific outcomes, these antiobesity drugs will need to demonstrate significant, durable weight loss in patients with cancer.
But if these drugs can do that, “I think it’s going to be one of the biggest advances in medicine and oncology given the obesity and cancer epidemic,” Dr. Iyengar said.
Dr. Iyengar has adviser and/or researcher ties with companies that make or are developing GPL-1 agonists, including AstraZeneca, Novartis, Gilead, and Pfizer. Dr. Gallagher is a consultant for Novartis, Flare Therapeutics, Reactive Biosciences, and Seagen.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Demand for new weight loss drugs has surged over the past few years.
Led by the antiobesity drugs semaglutide (Wegovy) and tirzepatide (Zepbound), these popular medications — more commonly known as glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) agonists — have become game changers for shedding excess pounds.
Aside from obesity indications, both drugs have been approved to treat type 2 diabetes under different brand names and have a growing list of other potential benefits, such as reducing inflammation and depression.
While there’s limited data to support the use of GLP-1 agonists for weight loss in cancer, some oncologists have begun carefully integrating the antiobesity agents into care and studying their effects in this patient population.
The reason: Research suggests that obesity can reduce the effectiveness of cancer therapies, especially in patients with breast cancer, and can increase the risk for treatment-related side effects.
The idea is that managing patients’ weight will improve their cancer outcomes, explained Lajos Pusztai, MD, PhD, a breast cancer specialist and professor of medicine at Yale School of Medicine in New Haven, Connecticut.
Although Dr. Pusztai and his oncology peers at Yale don’t yet use GPL-1 agonists, Neil Iyengar, MD, and colleagues have begun doing so to help some patients with breast cancer manage their weight. Dr. Iyengar estimates that a few hundred — almost 40% — of his patients are on the antiobesity drugs.
“For a patient who has really tried to reduce their weight and who is in the obese range, that’s where I think the use of these medications can be considered,” said Dr. Iyengar, a breast cancer oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City.
Why GLP-1s in Cancer?
GLP-1 is a hormone that the small intestine releases after eating. GLP-1 agonists work by mimicking GLP-1 to trigger the release of insulin and reduce the production of glucagon — two processes that help regulate blood sugar.
These agents, such as Wegovy (or Ozempic when prescribed for diabetes), also slow gastric emptying and can make people feel fuller longer.
Zebound (or Mounjaro for type 2 diabetes) is considered a dual GLP-1 and glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide agonist, which may enhance its weight loss benefits.
In practice, however, these drugs can increase nausea and vomiting from chemotherapy, so Dr. Iyengar typically has patients use them afterwards, during maintenance treatment.
Oncologists don’t prescribe the drugs themselves but instead refer patients to endocrinologists or weight management centers that then write the prescriptions. Taking these drugs involves weekly subcutaneous injections patients can administer themselves.
Endocrinologist Emily Gallagher, MD, PhD, of Mount Sinai Hospital in New York City, estimates she has prescribed the antiobesity drugs to a few hundred patients with cancer and, like Dr. Iyengar, uses the drugs during maintenance treatment with hormone therapy for breast cancer. She also has used these agents in patients with prostate and endometrial cancers and has found the drugs can help counter steroid weight gain in multiple myeloma.
But, to date, the evidence for using GPL-1 agonists in cancer remains limited and the practice has not yet become widespread.
Research largely comes down to a few small retrospective studies in patients with breast cancer receiving aromatase inhibitors. Although no safety issues have emerged so far, these initial reports suggest that the drugs lead to significantly less weight loss in patients with cancer compared to the general population.
Dr. Iyengar led one recent study, presented at the 2024 annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, in which he and his team assessed outcomes in 75 women with breast cancer who received a GLP-1 agonist. Almost 80% of patients had diabetes, and 60% received hormone therapy, most commonly an aromatase inhibitor. Patients’ median body mass index (BMI) at baseline was 34 kg/m2 (range, 23-50 kg/m2).
From baseline, patients lost 6.2 kg, on average, or about 5% of their total body weight, 12 months after initiating GLP-1 therapy.
In contrast, phase 3 trials show much higher mean weight loss — about two times — in patients without cancer.
Another recent study also reported modest weight loss results in patients with breast cancer undergoing endocrine therapy. The researchers reported that, at 12 months, Wegovy led to 4.34% reduction in BMI, compared with a 14% change reported in the general population. Zebound, however, was associated with a 2.31% BMI increase overall — though some patients did experience a decrease — compared with a 15% reduction in the general population.
“These findings indicate a substantially reduced weight loss efficacy in breast cancer patients on endocrine therapy compared to the general population,” the authors concluded.
It’s unclear why the drugs appear to not work as well in patients with cancer. It’s possible that hormone therapy or metabolic changes interfere with their effectiveness, given that some cancer therapies lead to weight gain. Steroids and hormone therapies, for instance, often increase appetite, and some treatments can slow patients’ metabolism or lead to fatigue, which can make it harder to exercise.
Patients with cancer may need a higher dose of GLP-1 agonists to achieve similar weight loss to the general population, Dr. Iyengar noted.
However, Dr. Gallagher said, in her own experience, she hasn’t found the drugs to be less effective in patients with cancer, especially the newer agents, like Wegovy and Zepbound.
As for safety, Wegovy and Zepbound both carry a black box warning for thyroid C-cell tumors, including medullary thyroid carcinoma. (Recent research, however, has found that GLP-1 agonists do not increase thyroid cancer risk).
These antiobesity agents are also contraindicated in patients with a personal or family history of medullary thyroid carcinoma and in patients who have multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2, which is associated with medullary thyroid carcinoma.
Dr. Gallagher hasn’t seen any secondary tumors — thyroid or otherwise — in her patients with cancer, but she follows the labeling contraindications. Dr. Iyengar also noted that more recent and larger data sets have shown no impact on this risk, which may not actually exist, he said
Dr. Gallagher remains cautious about using GPL-1 agonists in patients who have had bariatric surgery because these agents can compound the slower gastric emptying and intestinal transit from surgery, potentially leading to gastrointestinal obstructions.
Looking ahead, GPL-1 manufacturers are interested in adding cancer indications to the drug labeling. Both Dr. Iyengar and Dr. Gallagher said their institutions are in talks with companies to participate in large, multicenter, global phase 3 trials.
Dr. Iyengar welcomes the efforts, not only to test the effectiveness of GPL-1 agonists in oncology but also to “nail down” their safety in cancer.
“I don’t think that there’s mechanistically anything that’s particularly worrisome,” and current observations suggest that these drugs are likely to be safe, Dr. Iyengar said. Even so, “GLP-1 agonists do a lot of things that we don’t fully understand yet.”
The bigger challenge, Dr. Iyengar noted, is that companies will have to show a sizable benefit to using these drugs in patients with cancer to get the Food and Drug Administration’s approval. And to move the needle on cancer-specific outcomes, these antiobesity drugs will need to demonstrate significant, durable weight loss in patients with cancer.
But if these drugs can do that, “I think it’s going to be one of the biggest advances in medicine and oncology given the obesity and cancer epidemic,” Dr. Iyengar said.
Dr. Iyengar has adviser and/or researcher ties with companies that make or are developing GPL-1 agonists, including AstraZeneca, Novartis, Gilead, and Pfizer. Dr. Gallagher is a consultant for Novartis, Flare Therapeutics, Reactive Biosciences, and Seagen.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Dr. Rogers’ Neighborhood: Guinea Pigs and Groundbreaking Cancer Care
Sometimes, however, Dr. Rogers’ guinea pigs pay visits to her workplace. Every Halloween, she dresses them up and shows off their photos to just about everyone. Patients, coworkers, and even random people in the elevator get glimpses of the furry pair, who pose as dinosaurs, bats, aquarium shrimp, sharks, spiders, and bumblebees.
“Being in the hospital is not funny, but guinea pigs dressed up for Halloween is incredibly funny,” Dr. Rogers said. “They make a lot of people smile.”
For physician-scientist Dr. Rogers, a native of suburban Chicago, quality of life for patients is a priority, even when she’s not trying to entertain them and lift their spirits.
The field of hematology “is trying to figure out not only what’s biologically effective for disease, but also what might be best for people living with the condition,” she said. “This is especially true in terms of patient preference for a treatment you complete vs an ongoing or continuous treatment. I really like this idea of having more attention paid to what matters to patients, which the field of medicine sometimes forgets.”
In an interview, Dr. Rogers spoke about the appeal of storytelling in medicine, advances in treatment for CLL and hairy cell leukemia, and the challenges of college football loyalty.
How did you get drawn to medicine?
Ever since I was a kid, I thought, “Oh, I really want to be a doctor. That sounds fun.” At its core, medicine blends things I really like: science, helping people with a problem, and storytelling.
The practice of medicine is a lot about stories — talking to people, figuring out what they’re telling you about what’s going on, then explaining what you know in a way that makes sense to them.
What changes have you seen in leukemia care during your career?
The biggest change is the move from chemotherapies to targeted agents. When I first did a fellowship here at Ohio State, we had studies of ibrutinib, the first-in-class covalent Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitor. We’d see patients who’d been on chemotherapy for the past 10 or 15 years, and then they got in a clinical trial. Ibrutinib worked better than any of the chemotherapy, and they felt better and had fewer side effects.
Now, chemoimmunotherapy is not recommended for CLL, and you can see the impact of targeted agents on the lives of patients. Instead of telling people they need to put aside work and personal plans to take intensive chemotherapy for 6 months, you say: “You’ve got to come to some more appointments to make sure the treatment is going well, and you don’t have too many side effects. But you can expect to continue to work full-time and go to your niece’s wedding out of state or whatever else you want to do.”
What are you most excited about working on?
I’m the principal investigator of a study combining obinutuzumab, ibrutinib, and venetoclax for a fixed duration, a defined treatment course of a little over a year. I just reported the median progression-free survival for phase 2 at the European Hematology Association meeting this spring. It was over 7 years for both patients who had prior treatment and those who hadn’t.
The idea that people could take a year of treatment and get a huge benefit after completing it is quite important. The regimen has gone into phase 3 testing, and we’re now trying to understand the impact in terms of which patients got longer responses or which didn’t.
What are some challenges that remain in CLL?
There are still patients whose CLL becomes resistant to our two most commonly used classes of agents: BTK inhibitors and the BLC2 inhibitor, venetoclax. There are some more BCL2 inhibitors in development, but venetoclax is the only one currently approved.
I am also principal investigator on another study that added venetoclax to ibrutinib when resistance mutations developed that would predict ultimate resistance to ibrutinib. The median progression-free survival in that study was 40.7 months, whereas the expectation with venetoclax alone is 24 months. So, it really improved the amount of time people were in remission. This study is ongoing.
We’ve just started a phase 2 study to have patients take pirtobrutinib, a noncovalent BTK inhibitor, in combination with venetoclax in cases where CLL has become resistant to a covalent BTK inhibitor. Patients will take this combination for about a year and a half.
It’s been really exciting to see the impact of some of these combinations both as first-line CLL treatment and in CLL that’s become resistant. But trying to understand what predicts response is a harder thing. I wish I knew the answers for what causes this synergy between those two classes of drugs.
You also specialize in hairy cell leukemia. Could you talk about what it is?
CLL is the most prevalent adult leukemia in the Western world, whereas hairy cell leukemia is very rare. It’s a slow-growing B-cell cancer that got its name because under the microscope, the cells have hairy projections on them.
It had a survival of only about 2-4 years before the development of purine analogs. After a course of pentostatin or cladribine (2-chlordeoxyadenosine), some people never need treatment again in our natural lifespan.
But some patients don’t benefit from purine analogs, either because they have a devastating infection that makes them unsuitable or for another reason. Or they end up needing treatment every 2-3 years, which isn’t something you want to do for 30 years of someone’s lifespan.
What are some challenges in hairy cell leukemia?
It’s a rare condition, so it can be hard to do a really large clinical trial. A lot of physicians think that the prognosis is good and miss out on an opportunity for better treatment and to generate new knowledge.
Also, some people perceive that it’s not actually a problem for people living with it. Cladribine and pentostatin are not terrible chemotherapies, and most people tolerate them very well. But we can make treatment for hairy cell more effective and more tolerable for our patients if we put more effort into researching it.
I’ve heard that you’re a big college football fan. How do you balance your history as a University of Michigan medical school alum with your work for archrival Ohio State?
I went to Northwestern for undergrad, as did several people in my family. So, I usually just claim Northwestern is my football affiliation. It doesn’t inspire much vitriol if you cheer for Northwestern!
And I understand that you live with a pair of guinea pigs. Do tell.
I adopted guinea pigs as pets in medical school. They’re cute and friendly, and they make all this noise for you when you come home. 
Once, one of my clinic patients said, “I don’t want to be your guinea pig.” I thought, “you should be so lucky.” They have quite a lifestyle: They’ve trained me to bring them vegetables, they nap most of the time, and they have a play space, a guinea pig playground.
I thought I liked the guinea pigs more than they liked me. But last fall, I was gone for about 10 days. When I got back, I’d never heard them make so much noise. They were extremely happy to see me. Then for the next 48 hours, one would randomly start whistling for me to come over. I thought, “oh, these things do like me a little bit.”
Dr. Rogers disclosed receiving research funding from Genentech, AbbVie, Novartis, and AstraZeneca and consulting/advisory relationships with AstraZeneca, AbbVie, Genentech, Janssen, Pharmacyclics, BeiGene, Loxo@Lilly, and Alpine Immune Sciences.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Sometimes, however, Dr. Rogers’ guinea pigs pay visits to her workplace. Every Halloween, she dresses them up and shows off their photos to just about everyone. Patients, coworkers, and even random people in the elevator get glimpses of the furry pair, who pose as dinosaurs, bats, aquarium shrimp, sharks, spiders, and bumblebees.
“Being in the hospital is not funny, but guinea pigs dressed up for Halloween is incredibly funny,” Dr. Rogers said. “They make a lot of people smile.”
For physician-scientist Dr. Rogers, a native of suburban Chicago, quality of life for patients is a priority, even when she’s not trying to entertain them and lift their spirits.
The field of hematology “is trying to figure out not only what’s biologically effective for disease, but also what might be best for people living with the condition,” she said. “This is especially true in terms of patient preference for a treatment you complete vs an ongoing or continuous treatment. I really like this idea of having more attention paid to what matters to patients, which the field of medicine sometimes forgets.”
In an interview, Dr. Rogers spoke about the appeal of storytelling in medicine, advances in treatment for CLL and hairy cell leukemia, and the challenges of college football loyalty.
How did you get drawn to medicine?
Ever since I was a kid, I thought, “Oh, I really want to be a doctor. That sounds fun.” At its core, medicine blends things I really like: science, helping people with a problem, and storytelling.
The practice of medicine is a lot about stories — talking to people, figuring out what they’re telling you about what’s going on, then explaining what you know in a way that makes sense to them.
What changes have you seen in leukemia care during your career?
The biggest change is the move from chemotherapies to targeted agents. When I first did a fellowship here at Ohio State, we had studies of ibrutinib, the first-in-class covalent Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitor. We’d see patients who’d been on chemotherapy for the past 10 or 15 years, and then they got in a clinical trial. Ibrutinib worked better than any of the chemotherapy, and they felt better and had fewer side effects.
Now, chemoimmunotherapy is not recommended for CLL, and you can see the impact of targeted agents on the lives of patients. Instead of telling people they need to put aside work and personal plans to take intensive chemotherapy for 6 months, you say: “You’ve got to come to some more appointments to make sure the treatment is going well, and you don’t have too many side effects. But you can expect to continue to work full-time and go to your niece’s wedding out of state or whatever else you want to do.”
What are you most excited about working on?
I’m the principal investigator of a study combining obinutuzumab, ibrutinib, and venetoclax for a fixed duration, a defined treatment course of a little over a year. I just reported the median progression-free survival for phase 2 at the European Hematology Association meeting this spring. It was over 7 years for both patients who had prior treatment and those who hadn’t.
The idea that people could take a year of treatment and get a huge benefit after completing it is quite important. The regimen has gone into phase 3 testing, and we’re now trying to understand the impact in terms of which patients got longer responses or which didn’t.
What are some challenges that remain in CLL?
There are still patients whose CLL becomes resistant to our two most commonly used classes of agents: BTK inhibitors and the BLC2 inhibitor, venetoclax. There are some more BCL2 inhibitors in development, but venetoclax is the only one currently approved.
I am also principal investigator on another study that added venetoclax to ibrutinib when resistance mutations developed that would predict ultimate resistance to ibrutinib. The median progression-free survival in that study was 40.7 months, whereas the expectation with venetoclax alone is 24 months. So, it really improved the amount of time people were in remission. This study is ongoing.
We’ve just started a phase 2 study to have patients take pirtobrutinib, a noncovalent BTK inhibitor, in combination with venetoclax in cases where CLL has become resistant to a covalent BTK inhibitor. Patients will take this combination for about a year and a half.
It’s been really exciting to see the impact of some of these combinations both as first-line CLL treatment and in CLL that’s become resistant. But trying to understand what predicts response is a harder thing. I wish I knew the answers for what causes this synergy between those two classes of drugs.
You also specialize in hairy cell leukemia. Could you talk about what it is?
CLL is the most prevalent adult leukemia in the Western world, whereas hairy cell leukemia is very rare. It’s a slow-growing B-cell cancer that got its name because under the microscope, the cells have hairy projections on them.
It had a survival of only about 2-4 years before the development of purine analogs. After a course of pentostatin or cladribine (2-chlordeoxyadenosine), some people never need treatment again in our natural lifespan.
But some patients don’t benefit from purine analogs, either because they have a devastating infection that makes them unsuitable or for another reason. Or they end up needing treatment every 2-3 years, which isn’t something you want to do for 30 years of someone’s lifespan.
What are some challenges in hairy cell leukemia?
It’s a rare condition, so it can be hard to do a really large clinical trial. A lot of physicians think that the prognosis is good and miss out on an opportunity for better treatment and to generate new knowledge.
Also, some people perceive that it’s not actually a problem for people living with it. Cladribine and pentostatin are not terrible chemotherapies, and most people tolerate them very well. But we can make treatment for hairy cell more effective and more tolerable for our patients if we put more effort into researching it.
I’ve heard that you’re a big college football fan. How do you balance your history as a University of Michigan medical school alum with your work for archrival Ohio State?
I went to Northwestern for undergrad, as did several people in my family. So, I usually just claim Northwestern is my football affiliation. It doesn’t inspire much vitriol if you cheer for Northwestern!
And I understand that you live with a pair of guinea pigs. Do tell.
I adopted guinea pigs as pets in medical school. They’re cute and friendly, and they make all this noise for you when you come home.
Once, one of my clinic patients said, “I don’t want to be your guinea pig.” I thought, “you should be so lucky.” They have quite a lifestyle: They’ve trained me to bring them vegetables, they nap most of the time, and they have a play space, a guinea pig playground.
I thought I liked the guinea pigs more than they liked me. But last fall, I was gone for about 10 days. When I got back, I’d never heard them make so much noise. They were extremely happy to see me. Then for the next 48 hours, one would randomly start whistling for me to come over. I thought, “oh, these things do like me a little bit.”
Dr. Rogers disclosed receiving research funding from Genentech, AbbVie, Novartis, and AstraZeneca and consulting/advisory relationships with AstraZeneca, AbbVie, Genentech, Janssen, Pharmacyclics, BeiGene, Loxo@Lilly, and Alpine Immune Sciences.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Sometimes, however, Dr. Rogers’ guinea pigs pay visits to her workplace. Every Halloween, she dresses them up and shows off their photos to just about everyone. Patients, coworkers, and even random people in the elevator get glimpses of the furry pair, who pose as dinosaurs, bats, aquarium shrimp, sharks, spiders, and bumblebees.
“Being in the hospital is not funny, but guinea pigs dressed up for Halloween is incredibly funny,” Dr. Rogers said. “They make a lot of people smile.”
For physician-scientist Dr. Rogers, a native of suburban Chicago, quality of life for patients is a priority, even when she’s not trying to entertain them and lift their spirits.
The field of hematology “is trying to figure out not only what’s biologically effective for disease, but also what might be best for people living with the condition,” she said. “This is especially true in terms of patient preference for a treatment you complete vs an ongoing or continuous treatment. I really like this idea of having more attention paid to what matters to patients, which the field of medicine sometimes forgets.”
In an interview, Dr. Rogers spoke about the appeal of storytelling in medicine, advances in treatment for CLL and hairy cell leukemia, and the challenges of college football loyalty.
How did you get drawn to medicine?
Ever since I was a kid, I thought, “Oh, I really want to be a doctor. That sounds fun.” At its core, medicine blends things I really like: science, helping people with a problem, and storytelling.
The practice of medicine is a lot about stories — talking to people, figuring out what they’re telling you about what’s going on, then explaining what you know in a way that makes sense to them.
What changes have you seen in leukemia care during your career?
The biggest change is the move from chemotherapies to targeted agents. When I first did a fellowship here at Ohio State, we had studies of ibrutinib, the first-in-class covalent Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitor. We’d see patients who’d been on chemotherapy for the past 10 or 15 years, and then they got in a clinical trial. Ibrutinib worked better than any of the chemotherapy, and they felt better and had fewer side effects.
Now, chemoimmunotherapy is not recommended for CLL, and you can see the impact of targeted agents on the lives of patients. Instead of telling people they need to put aside work and personal plans to take intensive chemotherapy for 6 months, you say: “You’ve got to come to some more appointments to make sure the treatment is going well, and you don’t have too many side effects. But you can expect to continue to work full-time and go to your niece’s wedding out of state or whatever else you want to do.”
What are you most excited about working on?
I’m the principal investigator of a study combining obinutuzumab, ibrutinib, and venetoclax for a fixed duration, a defined treatment course of a little over a year. I just reported the median progression-free survival for phase 2 at the European Hematology Association meeting this spring. It was over 7 years for both patients who had prior treatment and those who hadn’t.
The idea that people could take a year of treatment and get a huge benefit after completing it is quite important. The regimen has gone into phase 3 testing, and we’re now trying to understand the impact in terms of which patients got longer responses or which didn’t.
What are some challenges that remain in CLL?
There are still patients whose CLL becomes resistant to our two most commonly used classes of agents: BTK inhibitors and the BLC2 inhibitor, venetoclax. There are some more BCL2 inhibitors in development, but venetoclax is the only one currently approved.
I am also principal investigator on another study that added venetoclax to ibrutinib when resistance mutations developed that would predict ultimate resistance to ibrutinib. The median progression-free survival in that study was 40.7 months, whereas the expectation with venetoclax alone is 24 months. So, it really improved the amount of time people were in remission. This study is ongoing.
We’ve just started a phase 2 study to have patients take pirtobrutinib, a noncovalent BTK inhibitor, in combination with venetoclax in cases where CLL has become resistant to a covalent BTK inhibitor. Patients will take this combination for about a year and a half.
It’s been really exciting to see the impact of some of these combinations both as first-line CLL treatment and in CLL that’s become resistant. But trying to understand what predicts response is a harder thing. I wish I knew the answers for what causes this synergy between those two classes of drugs.
You also specialize in hairy cell leukemia. Could you talk about what it is?
CLL is the most prevalent adult leukemia in the Western world, whereas hairy cell leukemia is very rare. It’s a slow-growing B-cell cancer that got its name because under the microscope, the cells have hairy projections on them.
It had a survival of only about 2-4 years before the development of purine analogs. After a course of pentostatin or cladribine (2-chlordeoxyadenosine), some people never need treatment again in our natural lifespan.
But some patients don’t benefit from purine analogs, either because they have a devastating infection that makes them unsuitable or for another reason. Or they end up needing treatment every 2-3 years, which isn’t something you want to do for 30 years of someone’s lifespan.
What are some challenges in hairy cell leukemia?
It’s a rare condition, so it can be hard to do a really large clinical trial. A lot of physicians think that the prognosis is good and miss out on an opportunity for better treatment and to generate new knowledge.
Also, some people perceive that it’s not actually a problem for people living with it. Cladribine and pentostatin are not terrible chemotherapies, and most people tolerate them very well. But we can make treatment for hairy cell more effective and more tolerable for our patients if we put more effort into researching it.
I’ve heard that you’re a big college football fan. How do you balance your history as a University of Michigan medical school alum with your work for archrival Ohio State?
I went to Northwestern for undergrad, as did several people in my family. So, I usually just claim Northwestern is my football affiliation. It doesn’t inspire much vitriol if you cheer for Northwestern!
And I understand that you live with a pair of guinea pigs. Do tell.
I adopted guinea pigs as pets in medical school. They’re cute and friendly, and they make all this noise for you when you come home.
Once, one of my clinic patients said, “I don’t want to be your guinea pig.” I thought, “you should be so lucky.” They have quite a lifestyle: They’ve trained me to bring them vegetables, they nap most of the time, and they have a play space, a guinea pig playground.
I thought I liked the guinea pigs more than they liked me. But last fall, I was gone for about 10 days. When I got back, I’d never heard them make so much noise. They were extremely happy to see me. Then for the next 48 hours, one would randomly start whistling for me to come over. I thought, “oh, these things do like me a little bit.”
Dr. Rogers disclosed receiving research funding from Genentech, AbbVie, Novartis, and AstraZeneca and consulting/advisory relationships with AstraZeneca, AbbVie, Genentech, Janssen, Pharmacyclics, BeiGene, Loxo@Lilly, and Alpine Immune Sciences.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Does Medicare Advantage Offer Higher-Value Chemotherapy?
TOPLINE:
METHODOLOGY:
- Private Medicare Advantage plans enroll more than half of the Medicare population, but it is unknown if or how the cost restrictions they impose affect chemotherapy, which accounts for a large portion of cancer care costs.
- Researchers conducted a cohort study using national Medicare data from January 2015 to December 2019 to look at Medicare Advantage enrollment and treatment patterns for patients with cancer receiving chemotherapy.
- The study included 96,501 Medicare Advantage enrollees and 206,274 traditional Medicare beneficiaries who initiated chemotherapy between January 2016 and December 2019 (mean age, ~73 years; ~56% women; Hispanic individuals, 15% and 8%; Black individuals, 15% and 8%; and White individuals, 75% and 86%, respectively).
- Resource use and care quality were measured during a 6-month period following chemotherapy initiation, and survival days were measured 18 months after beginning chemotherapy.
- Resource use measures included hospital inpatient services, outpatient care, prescription drugs, hospice services, and chemotherapy services. Quality measures included chemotherapy-related emergency visits and hospital admissions, as well as avoidable emergency visits and preventable hospitalizations.
TAKEAWAY:
- Medicare Advantage plans had lower resource use than traditional Medicare per enrollee with cancer undergoing chemotherapy ($8718 lower; 95% CI, $8343-$9094).
- The lower resource use was largely caused by fewer chemotherapy visits and less expensive chemotherapy per visit in Medicare Advantage plans ($5032 lower; 95% CI, $4772-$5293).
- Medicare Advantage enrollees had 2.5 percentage points fewer chemotherapy-related emergency department visits and 0.7 percentage points fewer chemotherapy-related hospitalizations than traditional Medicare beneficiaries.
- There was no clinically meaningful difference in survival between Medicare Advantage and traditional Medicare beneficiaries during the 18 months following chemotherapy initiation.
IN PRACTICE:
“Our new finding is that MA [Medicare Advantage] plans had lower resource use than TM [traditional Medicare] among enrollees with cancer undergoing chemotherapy — a serious condition managed by specialists and requiring expensive treatments. This suggests that MA’s cost advantages over TM are not limited to conditions for which low-cost primary care management can avoid costly services,” the authors wrote.
SOURCE:
The study was led by Yamini Kalidindi, PhD, McDermott+ Consulting, Washington, DC. It was published online on September 20, 2024, in JAMA Network Open (doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.34707), with a commentary.
LIMITATIONS:
The study’s findings may be affected by unobserved patient characteristics despite the use of inverse-probability weighting. The exclusion of Medicare Advantage enrollees in contracts with incomplete encounter data limits the generalizability of the results. The study does not apply to beneficiaries without Part D drug coverage. Quality measures were limited to those available from claims and encounter data, lacking information on patients’ cancer stage. The 18-month measure of survival might not adequately capture survival differences associated with early-stage cancers. The study did not measure whether patient care followed recommended guidelines.
DISCLOSURES:
Various authors reported grants from the National Institute on Aging, the National Institutes of Health, The Commonwealth Fund, Arnold Ventures, the National Cancer Institute, the Department of Defense, and the National Institute of Health Care Management. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
METHODOLOGY:
- Private Medicare Advantage plans enroll more than half of the Medicare population, but it is unknown if or how the cost restrictions they impose affect chemotherapy, which accounts for a large portion of cancer care costs.
- Researchers conducted a cohort study using national Medicare data from January 2015 to December 2019 to look at Medicare Advantage enrollment and treatment patterns for patients with cancer receiving chemotherapy.
- The study included 96,501 Medicare Advantage enrollees and 206,274 traditional Medicare beneficiaries who initiated chemotherapy between January 2016 and December 2019 (mean age, ~73 years; ~56% women; Hispanic individuals, 15% and 8%; Black individuals, 15% and 8%; and White individuals, 75% and 86%, respectively).
- Resource use and care quality were measured during a 6-month period following chemotherapy initiation, and survival days were measured 18 months after beginning chemotherapy.
- Resource use measures included hospital inpatient services, outpatient care, prescription drugs, hospice services, and chemotherapy services. Quality measures included chemotherapy-related emergency visits and hospital admissions, as well as avoidable emergency visits and preventable hospitalizations.
TAKEAWAY:
- Medicare Advantage plans had lower resource use than traditional Medicare per enrollee with cancer undergoing chemotherapy ($8718 lower; 95% CI, $8343-$9094).
- The lower resource use was largely caused by fewer chemotherapy visits and less expensive chemotherapy per visit in Medicare Advantage plans ($5032 lower; 95% CI, $4772-$5293).
- Medicare Advantage enrollees had 2.5 percentage points fewer chemotherapy-related emergency department visits and 0.7 percentage points fewer chemotherapy-related hospitalizations than traditional Medicare beneficiaries.
- There was no clinically meaningful difference in survival between Medicare Advantage and traditional Medicare beneficiaries during the 18 months following chemotherapy initiation.
IN PRACTICE:
“Our new finding is that MA [Medicare Advantage] plans had lower resource use than TM [traditional Medicare] among enrollees with cancer undergoing chemotherapy — a serious condition managed by specialists and requiring expensive treatments. This suggests that MA’s cost advantages over TM are not limited to conditions for which low-cost primary care management can avoid costly services,” the authors wrote.
SOURCE:
The study was led by Yamini Kalidindi, PhD, McDermott+ Consulting, Washington, DC. It was published online on September 20, 2024, in JAMA Network Open (doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.34707), with a commentary.
LIMITATIONS:
The study’s findings may be affected by unobserved patient characteristics despite the use of inverse-probability weighting. The exclusion of Medicare Advantage enrollees in contracts with incomplete encounter data limits the generalizability of the results. The study does not apply to beneficiaries without Part D drug coverage. Quality measures were limited to those available from claims and encounter data, lacking information on patients’ cancer stage. The 18-month measure of survival might not adequately capture survival differences associated with early-stage cancers. The study did not measure whether patient care followed recommended guidelines.
DISCLOSURES:
Various authors reported grants from the National Institute on Aging, the National Institutes of Health, The Commonwealth Fund, Arnold Ventures, the National Cancer Institute, the Department of Defense, and the National Institute of Health Care Management. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
METHODOLOGY:
- Private Medicare Advantage plans enroll more than half of the Medicare population, but it is unknown if or how the cost restrictions they impose affect chemotherapy, which accounts for a large portion of cancer care costs.
- Researchers conducted a cohort study using national Medicare data from January 2015 to December 2019 to look at Medicare Advantage enrollment and treatment patterns for patients with cancer receiving chemotherapy.
- The study included 96,501 Medicare Advantage enrollees and 206,274 traditional Medicare beneficiaries who initiated chemotherapy between January 2016 and December 2019 (mean age, ~73 years; ~56% women; Hispanic individuals, 15% and 8%; Black individuals, 15% and 8%; and White individuals, 75% and 86%, respectively).
- Resource use and care quality were measured during a 6-month period following chemotherapy initiation, and survival days were measured 18 months after beginning chemotherapy.
- Resource use measures included hospital inpatient services, outpatient care, prescription drugs, hospice services, and chemotherapy services. Quality measures included chemotherapy-related emergency visits and hospital admissions, as well as avoidable emergency visits and preventable hospitalizations.
TAKEAWAY:
- Medicare Advantage plans had lower resource use than traditional Medicare per enrollee with cancer undergoing chemotherapy ($8718 lower; 95% CI, $8343-$9094).
- The lower resource use was largely caused by fewer chemotherapy visits and less expensive chemotherapy per visit in Medicare Advantage plans ($5032 lower; 95% CI, $4772-$5293).
- Medicare Advantage enrollees had 2.5 percentage points fewer chemotherapy-related emergency department visits and 0.7 percentage points fewer chemotherapy-related hospitalizations than traditional Medicare beneficiaries.
- There was no clinically meaningful difference in survival between Medicare Advantage and traditional Medicare beneficiaries during the 18 months following chemotherapy initiation.
IN PRACTICE:
“Our new finding is that MA [Medicare Advantage] plans had lower resource use than TM [traditional Medicare] among enrollees with cancer undergoing chemotherapy — a serious condition managed by specialists and requiring expensive treatments. This suggests that MA’s cost advantages over TM are not limited to conditions for which low-cost primary care management can avoid costly services,” the authors wrote.
SOURCE:
The study was led by Yamini Kalidindi, PhD, McDermott+ Consulting, Washington, DC. It was published online on September 20, 2024, in JAMA Network Open (doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.34707), with a commentary.
LIMITATIONS:
The study’s findings may be affected by unobserved patient characteristics despite the use of inverse-probability weighting. The exclusion of Medicare Advantage enrollees in contracts with incomplete encounter data limits the generalizability of the results. The study does not apply to beneficiaries without Part D drug coverage. Quality measures were limited to those available from claims and encounter data, lacking information on patients’ cancer stage. The 18-month measure of survival might not adequately capture survival differences associated with early-stage cancers. The study did not measure whether patient care followed recommended guidelines.
DISCLOSURES:
Various authors reported grants from the National Institute on Aging, the National Institutes of Health, The Commonwealth Fund, Arnold Ventures, the National Cancer Institute, the Department of Defense, and the National Institute of Health Care Management. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
AACR Cancer Progress Report: Big Strides and Big Gaps
The AACR’s 216-page report — an annual endeavor now in its 14th year — focused on the “tremendous” strides made in cancer care, prevention, and early detection and highlighted areas where more research and attention are warranted.
One key area is funding. For the first time since 2016, federal funding for the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and National Cancer Institute (NCI) decreased in the past year. The cuts followed nearly a decade of funding increases that saw the NIH budget expand by nearly $15 billion, and that allowed for a “rapid pace and broad scope” of advances in cancer, AACR’s chief executive officer Margaret Foti, MD, PhD, said during a press briefing.
These recent cuts “threaten to curtail the medical progress seen in recent years and stymie future advancements,” said Dr. Foti, who called on Congress to commit to funding cancer research at significant and consistent levels to “maintain the momentum of progress against cancer.”
Inside the Report: Big Progress
Overall, advances in prevention, early detection, and treatment have helped catch more cancers earlier and save lives.
According to the AACR report, the age-adjusted overall cancer death rate in the United States fell by 33% between 1991 and 2021, meaning about 4.1 million cancer deaths were averted. The overall cancer death rate for children and adolescents has declined by 24% in the past 2 decades. The 5-year relative survival rate for children diagnosed with cancer in the US has improved from 58% for those diagnosed in the mid-1970s to 85% for those diagnosed between 2013 and 2019.
The past fiscal year has seen many new approvals for cancer drugs, diagnostics, and screening tests. From July 1, 2023, to June 30, 2024, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved 15 new anticancer therapeutics, as well as 15 new indications for previously approved agents, one new imaging agent, several artificial intelligence (AI) tools to improve early cancer detection and diagnosis, and two minimally invasive tests for assessing inherited cancer risk or early cancer detection, according to the report.
“Cancer diagnostics are becoming more sophisticated,” AACR president Patricia M. LoRusso, DO, PhD, said during the briefing. “New technologies, such as spatial transcriptomics, are helping us study tumors at a cellular level, and helping to unveil things that we did not initially even begin to understand or think of. AI-based approaches are beginning to transform cancer detection, diagnosis, clinical decision-making, and treatment response monitoring.”
The report also highlights the significant progress in many childhood and adolescent/young adult cancers, Dr. LoRusso noted. These include FDA approvals for two new molecularly targeted therapeutics: tovorafenib for children with certain types of brain tumor and repotrectinib for children with a wide array of cancer types that have a specific genetic alteration known as NTRK gene fusion. It also includes an expanded approval for eflornithine to reduce the risk for relapse in children with high-risk neuroblastoma.
“Decades — decades — of basic research discoveries, have led to these clinical breakthroughs,” she stressed. “These gains against cancer are because of the rapid progress in our ability to decode the cancer genome, which has opened new and innovative avenues for drug development.”
The Gaps
Even with progress in cancer prevention, early detection, and treatment, cancer remains a significant issue.
“In 2024, it is estimated that more than 2 million new cases of cancer will be diagnosed in the United States. More than 611,000 people will die from the disease,” according to the report.
The 2024 report shows that incidence rates for some cancers are increasing in the United States, including vaccine-preventable cancers such as human papillomavirus (HPV)–associated oral cancers and, in young adults, cervical cancers. A recent analysis also found that overall cervical cancer incidence among women aged 30-34 years increased by 2.5% a year between 2012 and 2019.
Furthermore, despite clear evidence demonstrating that the HPV vaccine reduces cervical cancer incidence, uptake has remained poor, with only 38.6% of US children and adolescents aged 9-17 years receiving at least one dose of the vaccine in 2022.
Early-onset cancers are also increasing. Rates of breast, colorectal, and other cancers are on the rise in adults younger than 50 years, the report noted.
The report also pointed to data that 40% of all cancer cases in the United States can be attributed to preventable factors, such as smoking, excess body weight, and alcohol. However, our understanding of these risk factors has improved. Excessive levels of alcohol consumption have, for instance, been shown to increase the risk for six different types of cancer: certain types of head and neck cancer, esophageal squamous cell carcinoma, and breast, colorectal, liver, and stomach cancers.
Financial toxicity remains prevalent as well.
The report explains that financial hardship following a cancer diagnosis is widespread, and the effects can last for years. In fact, more than 40% of patients can spend their entire life savings within the first 2 years of cancer treatment. Among adult survivors of childhood cancers, 20.7% had trouble paying their medical bills, 29.9% said they had been sent to debt collection for unpaid bills, 14.1% had forgone medical care, and 26.8% could not afford nutritious meals.
For young cancer survivors, the lifetime costs associated with a diagnosis of cancer are substantial, reaching an average of $259,324 per person.
On a global level, it is estimated that from 2020 to 2050, the cumulative economic burden of cancer will be $25.2 trillion.
The Path Forward
Despite these challenges, Dr. LoRusso said, “it is unquestionable that we are in a time of unparalleled opportunities in cancer research.
“I am excited about what the future holds for cancer research, and especially for patient care,” she said.
However, funding commitments are needed to avoid impeding this momentum and losing a “talented and creative young workforce” that has brought new ideas and new technologies to the table.
Continued robust funding will help “to markedly improve cancer care, increase cancer survivorship, spur economic growth, and maintain the United States’ position as the global leader in science and medical research,” she added.
The AACR report specifically calls on Congress to:
- Appropriate at least $51.3 billion in fiscal year 2025 for the base budget of the NIH and at least $7.934 billion for the NCI.
- Provide $3.6 billion in dedicated funding for Cancer Moonshot activities through fiscal year 2026 in addition to other funding, consistent with the President’s fiscal year 2025 budget.
- Appropriate at least $472.4 million in fiscal year 2025 for the CDC’s Division of Cancer Prevention to support comprehensive cancer control, central cancer registries, and screening and awareness programs for specific cancers.
- Allocate $55 million in funding for the Oncology Center of Excellence at FDA in fiscal year 2025 to provide regulators with the staff and tools necessary to conduct expedited review of cancer-related medical products.
By working together with Congress and other stakeholders, “we will be able to accelerate the pace of progress and make major strides toward the lifesaving goal of preventing and curing all cancers at the earliest possible time,” Dr. Foti said. “I believe if we do that ... one day we will win this war on cancer.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The AACR’s 216-page report — an annual endeavor now in its 14th year — focused on the “tremendous” strides made in cancer care, prevention, and early detection and highlighted areas where more research and attention are warranted.
One key area is funding. For the first time since 2016, federal funding for the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and National Cancer Institute (NCI) decreased in the past year. The cuts followed nearly a decade of funding increases that saw the NIH budget expand by nearly $15 billion, and that allowed for a “rapid pace and broad scope” of advances in cancer, AACR’s chief executive officer Margaret Foti, MD, PhD, said during a press briefing.
These recent cuts “threaten to curtail the medical progress seen in recent years and stymie future advancements,” said Dr. Foti, who called on Congress to commit to funding cancer research at significant and consistent levels to “maintain the momentum of progress against cancer.”
Inside the Report: Big Progress
Overall, advances in prevention, early detection, and treatment have helped catch more cancers earlier and save lives.
According to the AACR report, the age-adjusted overall cancer death rate in the United States fell by 33% between 1991 and 2021, meaning about 4.1 million cancer deaths were averted. The overall cancer death rate for children and adolescents has declined by 24% in the past 2 decades. The 5-year relative survival rate for children diagnosed with cancer in the US has improved from 58% for those diagnosed in the mid-1970s to 85% for those diagnosed between 2013 and 2019.
The past fiscal year has seen many new approvals for cancer drugs, diagnostics, and screening tests. From July 1, 2023, to June 30, 2024, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved 15 new anticancer therapeutics, as well as 15 new indications for previously approved agents, one new imaging agent, several artificial intelligence (AI) tools to improve early cancer detection and diagnosis, and two minimally invasive tests for assessing inherited cancer risk or early cancer detection, according to the report.
“Cancer diagnostics are becoming more sophisticated,” AACR president Patricia M. LoRusso, DO, PhD, said during the briefing. “New technologies, such as spatial transcriptomics, are helping us study tumors at a cellular level, and helping to unveil things that we did not initially even begin to understand or think of. AI-based approaches are beginning to transform cancer detection, diagnosis, clinical decision-making, and treatment response monitoring.”
The report also highlights the significant progress in many childhood and adolescent/young adult cancers, Dr. LoRusso noted. These include FDA approvals for two new molecularly targeted therapeutics: tovorafenib for children with certain types of brain tumor and repotrectinib for children with a wide array of cancer types that have a specific genetic alteration known as NTRK gene fusion. It also includes an expanded approval for eflornithine to reduce the risk for relapse in children with high-risk neuroblastoma.
“Decades — decades — of basic research discoveries, have led to these clinical breakthroughs,” she stressed. “These gains against cancer are because of the rapid progress in our ability to decode the cancer genome, which has opened new and innovative avenues for drug development.”
The Gaps
Even with progress in cancer prevention, early detection, and treatment, cancer remains a significant issue.
“In 2024, it is estimated that more than 2 million new cases of cancer will be diagnosed in the United States. More than 611,000 people will die from the disease,” according to the report.
The 2024 report shows that incidence rates for some cancers are increasing in the United States, including vaccine-preventable cancers such as human papillomavirus (HPV)–associated oral cancers and, in young adults, cervical cancers. A recent analysis also found that overall cervical cancer incidence among women aged 30-34 years increased by 2.5% a year between 2012 and 2019.
Furthermore, despite clear evidence demonstrating that the HPV vaccine reduces cervical cancer incidence, uptake has remained poor, with only 38.6% of US children and adolescents aged 9-17 years receiving at least one dose of the vaccine in 2022.
Early-onset cancers are also increasing. Rates of breast, colorectal, and other cancers are on the rise in adults younger than 50 years, the report noted.
The report also pointed to data that 40% of all cancer cases in the United States can be attributed to preventable factors, such as smoking, excess body weight, and alcohol. However, our understanding of these risk factors has improved. Excessive levels of alcohol consumption have, for instance, been shown to increase the risk for six different types of cancer: certain types of head and neck cancer, esophageal squamous cell carcinoma, and breast, colorectal, liver, and stomach cancers.
Financial toxicity remains prevalent as well.
The report explains that financial hardship following a cancer diagnosis is widespread, and the effects can last for years. In fact, more than 40% of patients can spend their entire life savings within the first 2 years of cancer treatment. Among adult survivors of childhood cancers, 20.7% had trouble paying their medical bills, 29.9% said they had been sent to debt collection for unpaid bills, 14.1% had forgone medical care, and 26.8% could not afford nutritious meals.
For young cancer survivors, the lifetime costs associated with a diagnosis of cancer are substantial, reaching an average of $259,324 per person.
On a global level, it is estimated that from 2020 to 2050, the cumulative economic burden of cancer will be $25.2 trillion.
The Path Forward
Despite these challenges, Dr. LoRusso said, “it is unquestionable that we are in a time of unparalleled opportunities in cancer research.
“I am excited about what the future holds for cancer research, and especially for patient care,” she said.
However, funding commitments are needed to avoid impeding this momentum and losing a “talented and creative young workforce” that has brought new ideas and new technologies to the table.
Continued robust funding will help “to markedly improve cancer care, increase cancer survivorship, spur economic growth, and maintain the United States’ position as the global leader in science and medical research,” she added.
The AACR report specifically calls on Congress to:
- Appropriate at least $51.3 billion in fiscal year 2025 for the base budget of the NIH and at least $7.934 billion for the NCI.
- Provide $3.6 billion in dedicated funding for Cancer Moonshot activities through fiscal year 2026 in addition to other funding, consistent with the President’s fiscal year 2025 budget.
- Appropriate at least $472.4 million in fiscal year 2025 for the CDC’s Division of Cancer Prevention to support comprehensive cancer control, central cancer registries, and screening and awareness programs for specific cancers.
- Allocate $55 million in funding for the Oncology Center of Excellence at FDA in fiscal year 2025 to provide regulators with the staff and tools necessary to conduct expedited review of cancer-related medical products.
By working together with Congress and other stakeholders, “we will be able to accelerate the pace of progress and make major strides toward the lifesaving goal of preventing and curing all cancers at the earliest possible time,” Dr. Foti said. “I believe if we do that ... one day we will win this war on cancer.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The AACR’s 216-page report — an annual endeavor now in its 14th year — focused on the “tremendous” strides made in cancer care, prevention, and early detection and highlighted areas where more research and attention are warranted.
One key area is funding. For the first time since 2016, federal funding for the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and National Cancer Institute (NCI) decreased in the past year. The cuts followed nearly a decade of funding increases that saw the NIH budget expand by nearly $15 billion, and that allowed for a “rapid pace and broad scope” of advances in cancer, AACR’s chief executive officer Margaret Foti, MD, PhD, said during a press briefing.
These recent cuts “threaten to curtail the medical progress seen in recent years and stymie future advancements,” said Dr. Foti, who called on Congress to commit to funding cancer research at significant and consistent levels to “maintain the momentum of progress against cancer.”
Inside the Report: Big Progress
Overall, advances in prevention, early detection, and treatment have helped catch more cancers earlier and save lives.
According to the AACR report, the age-adjusted overall cancer death rate in the United States fell by 33% between 1991 and 2021, meaning about 4.1 million cancer deaths were averted. The overall cancer death rate for children and adolescents has declined by 24% in the past 2 decades. The 5-year relative survival rate for children diagnosed with cancer in the US has improved from 58% for those diagnosed in the mid-1970s to 85% for those diagnosed between 2013 and 2019.
The past fiscal year has seen many new approvals for cancer drugs, diagnostics, and screening tests. From July 1, 2023, to June 30, 2024, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved 15 new anticancer therapeutics, as well as 15 new indications for previously approved agents, one new imaging agent, several artificial intelligence (AI) tools to improve early cancer detection and diagnosis, and two minimally invasive tests for assessing inherited cancer risk or early cancer detection, according to the report.
“Cancer diagnostics are becoming more sophisticated,” AACR president Patricia M. LoRusso, DO, PhD, said during the briefing. “New technologies, such as spatial transcriptomics, are helping us study tumors at a cellular level, and helping to unveil things that we did not initially even begin to understand or think of. AI-based approaches are beginning to transform cancer detection, diagnosis, clinical decision-making, and treatment response monitoring.”
The report also highlights the significant progress in many childhood and adolescent/young adult cancers, Dr. LoRusso noted. These include FDA approvals for two new molecularly targeted therapeutics: tovorafenib for children with certain types of brain tumor and repotrectinib for children with a wide array of cancer types that have a specific genetic alteration known as NTRK gene fusion. It also includes an expanded approval for eflornithine to reduce the risk for relapse in children with high-risk neuroblastoma.
“Decades — decades — of basic research discoveries, have led to these clinical breakthroughs,” she stressed. “These gains against cancer are because of the rapid progress in our ability to decode the cancer genome, which has opened new and innovative avenues for drug development.”
The Gaps
Even with progress in cancer prevention, early detection, and treatment, cancer remains a significant issue.
“In 2024, it is estimated that more than 2 million new cases of cancer will be diagnosed in the United States. More than 611,000 people will die from the disease,” according to the report.
The 2024 report shows that incidence rates for some cancers are increasing in the United States, including vaccine-preventable cancers such as human papillomavirus (HPV)–associated oral cancers and, in young adults, cervical cancers. A recent analysis also found that overall cervical cancer incidence among women aged 30-34 years increased by 2.5% a year between 2012 and 2019.
Furthermore, despite clear evidence demonstrating that the HPV vaccine reduces cervical cancer incidence, uptake has remained poor, with only 38.6% of US children and adolescents aged 9-17 years receiving at least one dose of the vaccine in 2022.
Early-onset cancers are also increasing. Rates of breast, colorectal, and other cancers are on the rise in adults younger than 50 years, the report noted.
The report also pointed to data that 40% of all cancer cases in the United States can be attributed to preventable factors, such as smoking, excess body weight, and alcohol. However, our understanding of these risk factors has improved. Excessive levels of alcohol consumption have, for instance, been shown to increase the risk for six different types of cancer: certain types of head and neck cancer, esophageal squamous cell carcinoma, and breast, colorectal, liver, and stomach cancers.
Financial toxicity remains prevalent as well.
The report explains that financial hardship following a cancer diagnosis is widespread, and the effects can last for years. In fact, more than 40% of patients can spend their entire life savings within the first 2 years of cancer treatment. Among adult survivors of childhood cancers, 20.7% had trouble paying their medical bills, 29.9% said they had been sent to debt collection for unpaid bills, 14.1% had forgone medical care, and 26.8% could not afford nutritious meals.
For young cancer survivors, the lifetime costs associated with a diagnosis of cancer are substantial, reaching an average of $259,324 per person.
On a global level, it is estimated that from 2020 to 2050, the cumulative economic burden of cancer will be $25.2 trillion.
The Path Forward
Despite these challenges, Dr. LoRusso said, “it is unquestionable that we are in a time of unparalleled opportunities in cancer research.
“I am excited about what the future holds for cancer research, and especially for patient care,” she said.
However, funding commitments are needed to avoid impeding this momentum and losing a “talented and creative young workforce” that has brought new ideas and new technologies to the table.
Continued robust funding will help “to markedly improve cancer care, increase cancer survivorship, spur economic growth, and maintain the United States’ position as the global leader in science and medical research,” she added.
The AACR report specifically calls on Congress to:
- Appropriate at least $51.3 billion in fiscal year 2025 for the base budget of the NIH and at least $7.934 billion for the NCI.
- Provide $3.6 billion in dedicated funding for Cancer Moonshot activities through fiscal year 2026 in addition to other funding, consistent with the President’s fiscal year 2025 budget.
- Appropriate at least $472.4 million in fiscal year 2025 for the CDC’s Division of Cancer Prevention to support comprehensive cancer control, central cancer registries, and screening and awareness programs for specific cancers.
- Allocate $55 million in funding for the Oncology Center of Excellence at FDA in fiscal year 2025 to provide regulators with the staff and tools necessary to conduct expedited review of cancer-related medical products.
By working together with Congress and other stakeholders, “we will be able to accelerate the pace of progress and make major strides toward the lifesaving goal of preventing and curing all cancers at the earliest possible time,” Dr. Foti said. “I believe if we do that ... one day we will win this war on cancer.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.